A Christian, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII. That famous place, Coloſſ. 2.11, 12. opened; the correſpondence between Circumciſion and Baptiſm further cleared.
THe ſcope of the Apoſtle in the former verſes is to diſſwade the Chriſtians from Jewiſh ceremonies, eſpecially from Circumciſion; and he doth it eſpecially from the diſcovery of Chriſts fulneſs, and our being compleat in him; that is, you need nothing out of Chriſt now; but they object we want Circumciſion; he tells them they are circumciſed in him, 11. v. where the Apoſtle diſtinguiſheth of a twofold Circumciſion, one foreign, made with hands, the other foreign, made without hands, which he calls the Circumciſion of Chriſt, but it is wrought by him, and is by union with him; and you being circumciſed in Chriſt, and have the grace ſignified by outward Circumciſion, you need no more; but there be two things they might object;
Firſt, that this is nothing to the queſtion; you would take us off from outward Circumciſion, by telling us we are inwardly circumciſed, whereas the ſign and the thing ſignified ſhould alwaies go together; Abraham had this Circumciſion and others, and yet were outwardly circumciſed.
Secondly, they might object we are not ſo compleat in Chriſt as Abraham and his ſeed; for, beſides the inward grace, they had an outward ſign and Seal to confirm it to them.
The Apoſtle in the 12 verſe anſwers both at once, they were not onelyonly circumciſed inwardly, with Chriſts Circumciſion, but there was an outward ſign in the New Teſtament to be applied to them, of the ſame conſideration; Buried with him in Baptiſm, &c. This is the ſumme of the words, let us now conſider what may be fairly deducted from them.
Many, and the moſt of our Divines, do conclude from hence the ſucceſſion of Baptiſm in the place or room of Circumciſion, that this Ordinance is appointed in the New Teſtament in lieu of the former, and for the ſame ends and purpoſes; which doubtleſs is true from this place, if men would truly weigh the import of the words, and not fight with their own ſhadows.
Firſt, this compleatneſs in Chriſt is as well to enjoyment of Ordinances, and outward priviledges, as inward graces; elſe he would never have mentioned Baptiſm outwardly, when in the former verſe he ſpeaks of inward Circumciſion; he would have kept ſtill in that ſtrain.
Secondly, obſerve how he joins them together, and makes them one, the inward circumciſion confirmed by the outward baptiſm, circumciſed with the Circumciſion of Chriſt, buried with him in baptiſm; now this could not be proper, not of any poſſible connexion, but by putting the outward ſign of baptiſm inſtead of the outward ſign of Circumciſion; that is, you are circumciſed becauſe baptized; you change but the outward element, or inſtrument; but the ſame inward grace is confirmed by both; thus the words are legible, and to be underſtood, without difficultie; but any other interpretation will be found moſt rugged, and unſuitable: For,
Thirdly, as the Apoſtle could not ſay in the former v. that they were circumciſed in Chriſt, but from the analogie between the outward ſign, and the inward grace; that is, if the outward ſign of Circumciſion had not ſignified ſuch an inward work; ſo neither could he have found they were circumciſed in Chriſt, being buried with him in baptiſm, if that Ordinance of baptiſm did not as an outward ſign anſwer to that inward Circumciſion, and were in ſtead of that ſign which did directly repreſent it formerly.
Fourthly, the nature of the Apoſtles deſign holds out this; for he would take them off the practiſe of Circumciſion; and this he doth by diſcovering of another Ordinance, more ſuitable to the Goſpel, which ſhould ſignifie the ſame thing unto them, in a more large and emphaticall manner, ſignifying not onelyonly Chriſts death, but his reſurrection; ſo that in the very import of the phraſe he cals baptiſm a Goſpel circumciſion; and this argument he uſeth as moſt effectual to take them off Circumciſion, by ſhewing them they were compleat in Chriſt in the New Teſtament, as to inward graces, and outward Ordinances, for though they were not circumciſed, they had baptiſm to ſupplie the want of it with advantage, ſo that they ſhould not loſe an Ordinance, but exchange. In whom you are circumciſed, &c. buried with him in baptiſm; if baptiſm did not ſeal and confirm the inward Circumciſion, it could not be ſaid circumciſed in Chriſt, being buried with him in baptiſm, and baptiſm could not ſeal inward Circumciſion, but as it was of the ſame uſe with outward Circumciſion, which did moſt directly ſignifie the circumciſion of the heart; and baptiſm held the ſame analogie, and was inſtituted to the ſame end; therefore it's called the waſhing of regeneration. Suppoſe the Ordinance ſhould again be changed, and the inverſion ſhould be thus, That baptiſm ſhould be aboliſhed, and circumciſion ſet up again, and the Apoſtle ſhould expreſs himſelf after the ſame manner; intending to take them off the uſe of baptiſm, and to be circumciſed; and ſay ye are compleat in Chriſt, in whom ye are alſo baptized with the baptiſm of Chriſt, being circumciſed with him; would not the deduction be clear, that circumciſion was ordained inſtead of baptiſm, and to ſupply the defect of that Ordinance? the ſame concluſion muſt be according to the words as from circumciſion to baptiſm.
The ſumme of all is, That as inward circumciſion was ſignified by the outward circumciſion; the circumciſion made without hands, by the circumciſion with hands, as the proper and direct ſign of it; ſo is that inward circumciſion, as really and fully ſignified, and confirmed by baptiſm; and that Ordinance is appointed to repreſent and ſeal that, as the outward act of circumciſion was formerly: ſo that circumciſion and baptiſm, as to the thing ſignified, and the inward intent of their uſe, are made all one: elſe it will be very hard to make ſenſe of this place of Scripture.
The Pleas againſt this interpretation are of little worth, if weighed; ſome ſay it's onelyonly meant of the inward circumciſion, and inward baptiſm, which interpretation will ſerve us better then themſelves; for if inward graces, and of the ſame ſubſtantial work be done on us, as circumciſed and baptized in Chriſt, it ſhews the oneneſs of the outward ſigns in the ſame ſignification.
Mr. Tombes ſaith in his Examen p. 93. That there is an analogie between circumciſion and baptiſm: yet ſaith it is rather between circumciſion and Chriſts burial, then between circumciſion and baptiſm, as Chryſoſtome, and after him Theophylact on the place.
All which will ſtill make out the truth of our interpretation; For,
Firſt, if there be an analogie between them, as is, and muſt be granted, then there is ſome proportion and agreement between theſe two Ordinances; now it's not in the outward adminiſtration, nor the externall ſign, in that there is no proportion between a knife and water; and therefore it muſt be in their proper ſignification and reall uſe, which is the Apoſtles ſcope in this place: and therefore he expreſſeth the inward grace properly ſignified by the one Ordinance, and yet confirmed by the other; Circumciſed in him, being buried with him in Baptiſm.
2. If the analogy be between Circumciſion and Chriſts burial, not between it and Baptiſm, yet it will come all to one, yea be our advantage: For,
1. That ſhews that Circumciſion did hold forth as much as Baptiſm, viz. Chriſts death and burial.
2. That when we are ſaid to be buried with Chriſt in Baptiſm, and that is the outward ſign to repreſent our burial with Chriſt, we are as if we were circumciſed; Circumciſion holds analogy with Chriſts burial, and ſo doth Baptiſm with both: And thus take it in what ſenſe you will, the Text will clear it ſelf.