when that famous controversy respecting circumcision was brought before the whole College of Apostles at Jerusalem : he reproved those who insisted on the observance of that rite, for " putting a yoke upon the Christians, which not even the most eminent among the Jews had been able to bearg." Of course, if circumcision had not bound them to the observance of the whole law of Moses, there could have been no foundation for this objection. St. Paul yet more strongly confirms this statement: for he says to those who were in danger of being misled by the Judaising Christians, " Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: for I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole lawh." Here then the point is clear; that though circumcision was given primarily as a seal of the covenant of grace, it was eventually (though not expressly called so) a seal of the covenant of works also. From the time that it was first instituted, it continued to be a sign and a seal; but the privileges of which they were a seal, and the obligations of which they were a sign, varied according to the nature of the covenant to which the rite itself was annexed : to Abraham, it sealed the covenant of grace ; to Moses and the Jews, the covenant of works."]
This view of the rite will throw light upon,
II. The reasons of our Lord's submitting to it —
These were chiefly two ;
1 . That he might appear to be the Promised Seed —
[The Person in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, was marked out by God as one particular individual, who should in due time arise, and in whom " the covenant made with Abraham should be confirmed." St. Paul infers this from the very term used on that occasion being in the singular number : and though we should not have conceded to him that inference, as a critic, we doubt not but that the truth he affirms, was intended, by the Holy Ghost, to be marked in that very expression on which he founds his re- mark'. At all events, the Messiah was to be of the posterity of Abraham ; all of whom were circumcised : therefore, if Jesus were not circumcised, he could have no claim, no allowable claim, to this distinction : whatever he might be, he could not be acknowledged to be a child of Abraham. It is true, this mark could not distinguish him as the Messiah, because it was common to all the Jews : but the want of it would have been an infallible proof that he was not the Messiah; and therefore he submitted to receive it.]
e Acts. xv. 1, 10. h Gal. v. 2, 3. l Gal. iii. 16.