A39697:237
Vindiciæ legis & fœderis
Vindiciæ legis & fœderis: or, A reply to Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn call Wherein he pretends to answer all the arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sydenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the right of believers infants to baptism, by proving the law at Sinai, and the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, were the very same with Adam's covenant of works, and that because the gospel-covenant is absolute. By John Flavel minister of the gospel in Dartmouth
London: printed for M. Wolton, 1690
A REPLY TO Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn Call. › Section 3 › Argument 5: Argument V.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
(3.) To evince this he instanceth in the very case then under Debate, viz. Circumcision, vers. 11, 12. And first distinguishing of a two-fold Circumcision, one made with, and the other without Hands, which he calls the Circumcision of Christ: He tells them, as to both of these, namely, Inward Circumcision of the Heart, and the external Sign thereof too, both are fully answered in Baptism, in whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in Baptism, ver. 11, 12. that is, look as before inward Circumcision of the Heart was signified by outward Circumcision of the Flesh, as the proper, direct and appointed Sign of it: So now, the same inward Circumcision or Regeneration of the Soul, is as really and fully signified to you by the new Gospel Sign of it, which is Baptism: And therefore you are as complete, in respect both of outward and inward Privileges now, as ever Abraham and ⟨p. 101⟩his Seed were. Do but convert the Proposition, and suppose the Apostle's Design had been to take them off from Baptism, and bring them back to Circumcision, and in order to it had said, In whom ye are also baptized with the Baptism of Christ, being circumcised with him: Would not the Substitution of Circumcision in the place of Baptism have been clear? And why is not this as clear as that would have been?
(3.) To evince this he instanceth in the very case then under Debate, viz. Circumcision, vers. 11, 12. And first distinguishing of a two-fold Circumcision, one made with, and the other without Hands, which he calls the Circumcision of Christ: He tells them, as to both of these, namely, Inward Circumcision of the Heart, and the external Sign thereof too, both are fully answered in Baptism, in whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in Baptism, ver. 11, 12. that is, look as before inward Circumcision of the Heart was signified by outward Circumcision of the Flesh, as the proper, direct and appointed Sign of it: So now, the same inward Circumcision or Regeneration of the Soul, is as really and fully signif•ed to you by the new Gospel Sign of it, which is Baptism: And therefore you are as compleat, in respect both of outward and inward Priviledges now, as ever Abraham and