I answer, I readily admit that Abraham was justified before circumcision ; yet this does by no means prove, that therefore baptism being in lieu thereof, cannot be the means of regeneration. Baptism, though in lieu of circumcision, yet it must be far more valuable, otherwise it never would have come in the room of circumcision. If baptism could effect no more than circumcision, what then could have been God's design in abolishing circumcision and substituting baptism ? Is not Christ as a high-priest in the room of the Jewish high-priests under the law, and his sacrifice in the room of their sacrifices ? But what man of common sense would conclude, that therefore Christ can be no greater than they, and his sacrifice not more valuable than their sacrifices ? Is not the whole new testament dispensation in the room of the old ? Is it therefore not more valuable ? It certainly is more valuable, otherwise the old would have continued, and not waxed old. ' For if the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second,' Heb. 8, 7. Again, ' In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.' v. 13. Now circumcision was a right under the old testament, but baptism under the new ; hence as far as the new testament excels the old, so far baptism excels circumcision ; for every institution must be agreeable to the testament of which it is an institution. Circumcision sealed the promise of a Messiah that was yet to come ; but by baptism we put on Christ, that is already come. Circumcision was principally confined to the Jewish nation, and only to the male sex ; but the apostle saith, ' For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.' Gal. 3, 27 28. Thus baptism includes all ; hence superior to circumcision. Further, it is to be observed that Abraham lived a long time, before God commanded him to be circumcised ; hence it could not have been as essentially necessary to him, as it became afterwards to those who lived after it was instituted. It is obvious that no rite can become obligatory nor beneficial before it is instituted. No law becomes obligatory nor beneficial before it is enacted. Now that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, since he lived before its institution, does not prove that it was useless to those that lived afterwards.

Back: Here is the proper place to answer a few...

Next: Although Abraham being justified without...