Australian Free Presbyterian Vol. 2 1917- 1921
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
VOL. 2 NO 1. The Australian The Australian Free Presbyterian. Free Presbyterian. ══════════════════════════════════════════════════ Vol. 2 – No. 1 JULY, 1917. ––––––––––––––––––––– ══════════════════════════════════════════════════ A MAGAZINE THE TOKEN OF THE COVENANT; OR THE SUBJECTS, THE FOR THE MODE, AND THE NATURE AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. Defence and Advocacy of Scriptural Doctrine, (Continued from Page 344, Vol. 1. No. 14). 16. But whatever objections might have been urged against the Worship, Government and Discipline. circumcision of infants, and whatever efforts may have been made to get rid of ––––––––––––––––– the precedent which it furnishes, and of the practice which it established as BY AUTHORITY OF THE ASSEMBLY OF divine-ly prescribed, it was appointed by God that infants should be THE FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA. circumcised. In instituting circumcision he especially requires, “every man- child among you shall be circumcised; he that is eight days old among you ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– shall be circumcised every man-child in your generation: he that is born in JULY, 1917. house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.” And, ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– as circumcision was the token of the covenant of grace and the rite of NEC TAMEN CONSUMBATUR admission into the visible Church, infants, when circumcised, were admitted to ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– the outward privileges of the former, and to the membership of the latter. Such, as regards this admission was the manner of dealing with infants from the time CONTENTS of Abraham to that of Christ – a period of some two thousand years. Such, as The Token of the Covenant, etc. 1│Obituary 24 The Sword of the Spirit. 9│The Assembly's Letter to our Soldiers 26 regards this admission was the manner of dealing with them during Christ's The Latter Day Saints 13│Free Churchmen Role 27 personal ministry and to the very close of the Mosaic dispensation. Free Presbyterian Intelligence 15│Our Nation Unhumbled 31 17. Suppose, then, that we lived at the close of that dispensation, that Circular Letter to Parents 21│A Gracious Soldier's Letter 31 Commemoration Fund 21│Acknowledgements 32 the last hours of it were passing over us, and that, fully aware of the transition character of the period, we were waiting for the introduction of the new and Our Assembly's Addendum on Religion and Morals 23│ more advanced dispensation that was to succeed it: and suppose that, while –––––––––––––––––––––– while we were in this attitude of intelligent expectation, we heard their com- S. WRATHALL, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, 2 JAMES STREET, GEELONG. mission issued to those who were to conduct the operations of the new dispensation, and the commission observed these words, “go ye therefore and 3 disciple,” for so the word is literally rendered, “all nations, circumcising them;” it; I cannot and will not.” Nothing but a divine enactment could bring a Jew to – should we, knowing that circumcision had all along hitherto been applied to entertain for a moment the idea of such a treatment of infants. infants, and that the application of it to them had always been, and was still, and 19. It might no doubt be argued that the injunction was; “disciple all that most justly, as a privilege, – should we in those circumstances, and in the nations, circumcising them,” and that it was thus implied that none were to be absence of all intimation authorising, not to say requiring, us to do so, circumcised but such as were first discipled, and that infants, therefore, as they understand that the application of it was no longer to be extended to them. could not be discipled, ought not to be circumcised; but this reasoning would Impossible. The facts and influences operative in the case, – the circumcision of have no weight with an intelligent Jew. If he condescended to reply to it, he infants all along hitherto under authoritative requirement of God, their would remind the opponent of infant circumcision; at whose strange misdirected circumcision leaving but little room for the circumcision of adults, the high zeal he would feel no little surprise, that, when Gentiles were admitted to value justly attached to the privilege of enrolling infants by circumcision among Church membership under the Mosaic dispensation, it was necessary first to the members of the visible Church, the character of the new dispensation as “disciple” them, but that, at the same time, when parents were admitted their distinguished not more or less, or in any respect, by a curtailment of privilege, infant children, notwithstanding the alleged incapability of infants to be but uniformly, so far as it would affect privilege at all, by a great enlargement of discipled, were admitted along with them, the males by circumcision, baptism, it, and, in consequence of all this our own associations derived from the past, and sacrifice, and the females by baptism and sacrifice. And, following his and, our anticipations with respect to the future, would all conspire to preserve antagonist to the language of the injunction, he might ask him, “are not infants a us and could not fail to preserve us effectually, from understanding, or rather part, and a very large part, of the whole which we call a nation, and, therefore, misunderstanding the injunction, “Go and disciple all nations, circumcising how can this whole be discipled, if a large part of it, that which infants compose, them,” as requiring the withholding of circumcision from infants, and would is left, and inevitably left, undiscipled? But, when a nation is discipled, it is infallibly shut us in to understand it as requiring that it should be applied to discipled – not a part of it, but the whole, infants and all otherwise the nation them, nay, would so mould and determine our ideas and views that to would not be discipled, for the adults of a nation are not the nation, but only a understand otherwise would not so much as occur, to us. If you fully, in part of it; but it is the whole, and not a part, that we call the nation. Therefore, imagination, place yourselves in the position we have supposed, the position of when a discipled nation is circumcised, its infants as well as its adults, none are believing Jews, who, knowing that a new dispensation was immediately to be circumcised but those who were first discipled; for the nation was discipled, and introduced, and understanding and appreciating its distinctive character, and if the infants are comprehended in the nation no less than its adults.” And, he for the time you make their views, and associations, and impressions, and might add, addressing his Gentile opponent, for none could oppose infant anticipations your own, you cannot but feel this. circumcision but a Gentile, “You have much reason, friend, to suspect that your 18. And, then, there was nothing, as we have already remarked, in the ideas of discipling, according to which infants cannot be discipled, must be injunction itself which we have supposed, that in any way announced or even erroneous; for, if infants cannot be discipled, neither can a nation, for infants intimated that infants were now to be deprived of the divinely conferred and form a component part of a nation, and yet the injunction is, Disciple all nations. long enjoyed privilege of admission to the membership of the visible Church: According to your views, what is thus enjoined is impracticable, for, according and, clearly, it would require a very distinct intimation of the will of the to them, nations cannot be discipled. Would it not be wise to reconsider them. Church's lawgiver to induce those who had been always accustomed to such For is it not more likely you have fallen into error in adopting them, than that the admission of infants, and who valued it, to withhold from them the rite of commission which they exhibit as impracticable is really impracticable?” Thus admission. A Roman poet said tauntingly, with respect to something that he the argument against infant circumcision that it might be attempted to derive regarded as incredible, “let a circumcised Jew believe it;” but a believing Jew from the words of the supposed injunction, “Disciple all nations, circumcising might well say, with respect to the withholding of the initiatory rite from infants, them,” would be wholly worthless. Treating it as worthless, if it should be used, without a distinct intimation of the divine will to that effect, “The circumcised an intelligent believing Jew would, as we have seen, as a matter of course and Gentile may believe inevitably, understand that injunction as prescribing the circumcision of infants no less than adults. and it thus conveyed to them an express command to baptise infants well as 4 adults. 20. Let us now substitute for the case which we have supposed the case 5 that actually occurred. To believing Jews, who were aware that a new 22. Their commission changed one clause, so to speak, of the law dispensation, of which the introduction would be attended not with any diminution respecting the initiatory rite – the clause which determined the form of the rite. or curtailment, but with a great extension and enlargement of privilege, was on the This clause it changed by substituting baptism for circumcision, leaving the law eve of being introduced, and who understood that baptism was to take the place of otherwise as it was. Accordingly, the only deviation from the existing practice circumcision, – for, doubtless, they were put in a position to execute their which it prescribed or authorised was this substitution; and, therefore, in acting commission intelligently, – to such Jews our Lord said, “Go ye, therefore, and under it, they were to adhere to the existing practice, except only that they were to disciple all nations, baptising them.” Now, what difference would it make as to the baptise instead of circumcising.