Examination of Marshalls Sermon About Infant Baptism, Appendix
Colossians 2.11, 12. Proves not Infant-Baptisme.
An Appendix to these Treatises, in an Answer to a Paper, framing an Argument for Infant-Baptisme, from Coloss. 2.11, 12.
SIR,
YOUR Paper exhibites an Argument for Infant-Baptisme in this form: That may be said to be written, without which, that which is written cannot be true. This I grant. But that which is said, Colos. 2.11, 12. of the compleatnesse, with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament, could not be true, unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children, as Circumcision was of old; because it cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation; for that the Jews had in Christ in the old Testament; but yet they had a token of the Covenant to their children; Ergo, so they must now, or else that cannot be true.
Answ. This Argument supposeth sundry things, whereof somewhat is true, somewhat false.
1. It is true, That the believing Jews were compleat in Christ for salvation. For so was David, Abraham, &c. who were justified by faith, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Heb. 11.
2. It supposeth, that the Apostle, Colos. 2.11, 12. mentions Baptisme, to shew that we are as compleat as the Jews in respect of outward Ordinances, whereas the Apostle speaks not, vers. 10. of compleatnesse by reason of outward ordinances, but sayes, we are compleat in Christ without outward ordinances, and that is his very Argument to disswade them from embracing the Jewish ordinances, vers. 8. yea, it is plain, that the Apostle makes the Jews incompleat by reason of their outward ordinances; and that it is our compleatnesse that we have all in Christ, without outward ordinances, vers. 17. Nor doth the Apostle mention Baptisme, to shew that we are equall to the Jews in outward ordinances, (for the Apostles assertion is, that we are compleat in Christ, exhibited without outward ordinances, and so the better for want of them) but to shew how we put on Christ, and so are compleat in him, and therefore he mentions Faith as well as Baptisme; as in like manner he doth. Gal. 3.26, 27. Rom. 6.3, &c. Besides, if that by being baptized we are compleat in outward ordinances, then we need no other ordinance, and consequently the Lords Supper should be needlesse.
3. It is supposed, that Circumcision was a token of the Covenant to their children. But this is ambiguous, in some sense it is true, in some sense it is not true. It was a token of the Covenant made to Abraham, to wit, First, that God made such a Covenant with Abraham. Secondly, that God required them to keep the conditions of it. But it is not true in these senses. First, that every person circumcised, or to be circumcised, of right had a title to the promises of the Covenant. Secondly, that this title to the promises of the Covenant was the reason why they were circumcised.
4. It is supposed, that if our children have not a token of the Covenant now, as the Jews had, that it cannot be true that we are compleat as the Jews. But there is not a shadow of proof for it in the Text. And it is grounded on these false assertions: First, that the Jews children were in the Covenant of Grace, because they were Abrahams naturall seed. Secondly, that a Believers children now are in the Covenant of Grace, because they are a Believers children; which things are expresly contrary to Rom. 9.6, 7, 8.
5. It is supposed, that the Jews having salvation by Christ, had also a compleatnesse by outward ordinances. It is true, that compared with the Gentiles that served dumb Idols, they were compleat by reason of outward ordinanc…s: For, their outward ordinances did shadow Christ to come, and so did not the Rites of the Gentiles. But compared with Christians since Christ manifested in the flesh, so they were incompleat in respect of outward ordinances; and so the Apostle determines, Gal. 4.1, 2, 3.
6. It is supposed, that without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision, we are not compleat in Christ, or, at least, not so compleat as the Jews. But this I account to be false, and very dangerous.
1. False, because it is contrary to that which the Apostle asserts, that we are compleat in Christ alone, because in him is the fulnesse of all that was shadowed in the ordinances of the Jews.
2. It is very dangerous, because the same reason that will conclude, that we are not compleat without a succession of some ordinance in stead of Circumcision, will conclude, we are not compleat without a succession of something in stead of sacrifices, Temple, Priest, Altar, &c. and so after the Popish manner, all Jewish Rites may be reduced under new names, which would overthrow Christianitie.
As for our compleatnesse in Christ without outward ordinances, like to the Jewes, I distinguish of a twofold compleatnesse.
First, in all the will of God, Colos. 4.12. And thus we are compleat without such ordinances: we may do all the will of God believing in Christ, without observing any of those ordinances.
Secondly, of means, in ordine ad finem, in order to the end, that is, to the knowledge of God, and obtaining salvation: And so we are more compleat then the Jews without those outward ordinances or any answerable to them.
First, because they had Christ only promised and assured, we have …hrist exhibited, and fulfilling all things. And surely they that have a promise accomplished, are compleater then they that have it only assured, let it be assured never so firmly.
Secondly, because they had Christ under shadows, we the body, Colos. 2.17. he is the true Shecinah, or Divine Majesty, in whom the fulnesse of the glory of God dwelt, Col. 2.9. he was circumcision, sacrifices, all. And the woman is more compleat that enjoyes her husband in person, then in a picture, messenger, &c. that represent him. The Jews were compleat in Christ as we, quoad rem, in respect of the thing, but not quoad modum, & mensuram rei, in respect of the manner and measure thereof. So that in the Argument, these Propositions are to be denied:
1. That Colos. 2.11, 12. speaks of compleatnesse, with respect to Ordinances in the new Testament.
2. That it could not be true, unlesse Baptisme were to Believers children, as Circumcision was of old.
3. That Colos. 2.11, 12. cannot be understood of the compleatnesse that Believers have in Christ for salvation.
4. In some sense it is to be denied that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children.
5. In what sense it is to be granted that the Jews had a token of the Covenant to their children, in that sense the consequence is to be denied, that we must have a token of the Covenant of Grace for our children now.
FINIS.