A39697:242
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.
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⟩of, is no other but the Circumcision of Christ in his own Person; I would gladly know how the Colossians are said to be circumcised in Christs personal Circumcision only? And whether the Baptism here spoken of, wherewith they are said to be buried with him, be not meant of Christs personal Baptism too? and consequently there is no need of the outward Ordinance to pass upon them or us; but especially 'tis worth while for you to explain the Reason why he calls the Colossians Circumcision a Circumcision of Christ made without hands, if he only intends Christs personal Circumcision; when we all know that Christs personal Circumcision was a Circumcision made with Hands; and could not possibly be such a Circumcision as theirs was, consisting in the putting off of the Body of the Sins of the Flesh, or Mortification of their Corruptions. Christ had no Sin by Propagation to put off or mortify in his own Person.
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 answer'd in Gospel-Baptism. And whereas you say, the Circumcision here spoken