4. The writers of the K. T. bear testhnooy to tfae view here presented. St. Psnl usee the very imprsB- ive words " buried with hun" (Christ) " in baptism"-' (Twra^vrf C aifrtp iv nf fiairrifffum (CoL ii, 12), ai synonymous with and explanatoiy of 17 ircpcrD/4 ^ XpioTov, " the drcnmoision of Christ '* Whaterar »>
CIRCUMCISION
353
CISTERCIANS
tensi^ thers Ib in the words ^'buried with hfan,** it -wna only the effort of the apostle to show bow *^ hap- tiBia into Christ*' was like drcnmcision ; it " pat off the body of the sins of the flesh." Had sach not been the scriptural meaning of drcnrndsionf Paol would Dever haye dins reasoned. What better testimonj could be desired to prove the relation of the two rites, and that the one had sacceeded the other ? Objections firom a want of external agreement or circomstances of administration can be of no force. The Greek irtpt- rofcif, the Latin drcumcishf are etymological parities, but thej are neither of them analogical forma, with the Heb. b^73, employed as a techrde in Gen. xviL Yet the idea of the rite is, perhaps, as perfect under the She- mitic aa under the European form.
5. The early ecclesiastical writers universally held the views here given. Their doctrine, made- depend- ent on John iii, 5, that pdirrurfia t% ^daroQ Kai irvtV' fwroc, ftop^n of water and the Spirit ^ was equivalent to dtmyivvfimQ i^ ^aroQ Kai nvtvfiarogf regeneration by water and the Spirit, caused them to speak of bap- tism aa 17 mpiro/tj) wtvfmrucri^ tfiritwU eircurndtumy because the Spirit was always joined with the water in the baptism of an in&nt, or a converted, believing adult.
6. In Justin Martyr baptism is very ftequentiy al- luded to as the " true circumcision," of which the an- cient rite was a type (ApoL i, 61 ; Dial. c. TTy;pho. 41). " God commands you to be wished teith this purtficaiiony and to be circumcised with the true dratmdsion'^ (Xov- aaaOtu vfuv tovto t6 \ouTp6v KiXtmi & Oedc, kcu nt- pirtfivfoOiu ri^v i\ri$ivi^v irfpirofuiv) (DiaL c. Trypho. § 18). He says that Christians '' had not received the fleshly circumcision, but the spbritual one, which Enoch and those like him made use of; and we re- ceived it — Sid Tov fiairritTfiaroc — through bcq)tismj*^ etc. (»6. § 48; comp. § 19). In § 29 of thU dialogue he speaks of circumcision under the law as baptism. He says, ^'What need have I for circumcision who have the testimony of God in my fkvor ?" (Ti'c Ikii- vov TOV pavriofiaroi XP^ia dyitft Trvivnan fitfiairrur- /utftff'^ *'What need have I of baptism" (circumci- sion) '* who have been baptized with the Holy Ghost ?" This must be esteemed as a remarkable identification of the two rites, for we should not forget that, as the ordinance of baptism was to Justin *' the water of life" (Dial, c Trypho. § 14), so to receive it was to be bap- tized with the Holy Ghost. From the same point of view Basil asks certain ones who delayed baptism, " Do yon put off the drcumeision made without hcrnds^-axn- poirodirriv ircpiro/i^i^— in putting off the flesh, which is performed m baptism?" (iv r<p Pavrhfian nXitov- /liyifv), Orat, exhorL ad Bapt, t. ii, ed. Ben. (Par. 1721). Cyprian and his council, £p. Ixiv, ad Fid., held in the baptism of infants tiiat the analogy then followed of ancient circumcision should not be binding (Nee spir- italem circumdsionem impediri camali drcumcisione debere) : ** Nor ought the spiritual circumcision" (bap- tism) **to be hindered by the carnal circumdsion." On the principle that Christ was the real baptism in the Christian rite, TertuUian calls Christ Noom drcum- dsioms Pmyator, ** the Purifibr of the new chrcum- ctaion" (ado, Jud, 8, 4; comp. Ambrose, lib. ii, De Ahrahamo Patr. c. 11 ; Irensus, ffesr, lib. iv, 80).
7. It remains to be observed, briefly, that the objec- tion to drcnmcision (Acts xv; Gal. v, 2) was not to the rite itself; which was a seal of the covenant ot promise, not of law, and must stand till abrogated by the perfection of the seed in Christ, and a new symbol be adopted in its stead. As the objects of the cove- nant were to be attained not by seminal propagation, but by moral ^d spiritual means, among all nations, it was fitting that the seal should correspond to these m its import. The '* hostility," therefore, was not to drcnmcision, but to the claim of salvation through the keeping of the law which it enjoined. In this, Christ
• II.— Z
would be set aside. Circumcision, in its proper sphere, was not ** worthless," or it never had been ** the seal of the righteousness of fidth." The ancient symbol was gradually to melt away in the affections of the Jew, and by a wise moderation the apostles saw it ac- complished. See, on this subject, Waidlaw, Diss, on the Scr^ Auihoritg oflirfant Baptism, p. 29-87; Hibbard, Christian Baptism, p. tfl-68 ; Pond, On Baptism, p. 82- 86 ; Rice, On BapUrnn of Infants, ch. iii ; Fairbaim's Typotogg of Scripture, i, 274-277; Dwight, Theology, Serm.cxlviU; Watson, /fw<thtfe«, ii, 616-626 ; Wesley, Works, N. T..ed. vi. ; Buchanan, On Justification, £d- faib.1867, p. 68-78.
CIRCUMCISION, Festival of the, a festival celebrated in the Roman and English churches on the 1st of January, in commemoration of the circumcision ot Christ. After the introduction of the festival of Christmas, the 1st of January was distinguished as oetaoa nataUs Domini, the octave of the nativity, as Christ was circumcised on the eighth day. **At first it was observed rather as a day of humilUition than of feasting ; and this was designed to mark the difference between the manners of Christians and those of the heathen, who celebrated the kalends of January, as the chief day of their saturnalia, with great licentious- ness" (Farrar, s. v.). The festival originated, proba- bly, in the 7th century. — Siegel, Hawibuch d, larck- lich-christUehen AUerthUmer, i, 207, and references there.