A39697:240
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.
But the Antecedent is plain from the Scope and Argument of the Apostle in this Text and Context.
Ergo, So is the Consequent.
The Sum of your Answer is, (1.) That Circumcision in the Flesh is neither expressed, nor meant here, but that of Christ in his own Person. (2.) That if Baptism had been intended to have come in the place of Circumcision, then it would follow that Females must be excluded from Baptism.
The Sum of your Answer is, (1.) That Circumcision in the Flesh is neither express'd, nor meant here, but that of Christ in his own Person. (2.) That if Baptism had been intended to have come in the place of Circumcision, then it would follow that Females must be excluded from Baptism.
Reply. Your first Answer is manifestly false; for if the Apostle distinguishes of a two-fold Circumcision, one made with Hands, the other made without Hands, then 'tis manifest he means Circumcision in the Flesh, which is now abolished, and all its ends and uses answered in Gospel-Baptism. And whereas you say, the Circumcision here spoken ⟨p. 103⟩