The Proposition is evident, (1.) because Baptism (n)cometh in the room of Circumcision•. Either Baptism doth so, or something else is instituted to succeed Circumcision, or else we must say there is no Ordinance at all given to Believers instead thereof, But neither of these latter may be affirmed, therefore is the former true. Besides that Scripture, Col. 2. 11, 12. doth clearly intimate, that Baptism doth succeed Circumcision, the place hath (o)been abundantly vindicated by others notwithstanding the glosses of Antipaedo-Baptists put upon it, therefore we shall not insist here, only thus much shall be said, it is evident that the Apostle in that Context is labouring to deliver the Christian Colossians from those lmpositions and […] which were put upon them, by some false and Jewish Teachers, who had reduced them under legal bondage, and in special to the Observation of Circumcision. The Argument which be useth to undeceive them, is that they had Completeness in Christ; for they had in him circumcision, which is [Greek or Hebrew] made without hands, or inward Circumcision. True might they say. But so had Abraham and the Fathers after him, yet they had an outward Ordinance applied to them also; so have you too saith the Apostle, for you are buried with him in Baptism, wherein [also] you are risen with him. So that in your Baptism you have a greater privilege belonging to you, even an Ordinance that doth hold forth unto you not only mortification (buried with him in Baptism) as Circumcision did, but also vivification, you are risen with him so that in Christ you are Complete partaking of the Substance of Circumcision and more too, and therefore why should you observe Circumcision still? This is the Apostles scope, and his Reasoning is strong and Irrefragable. However no man can deny but that the Apostle dissuading from the practice of Circumcision ⟨p. 14⟩tells them of their Baptism, and why should he do so, if this do not come in the room of that? And doth (p)not the Apostle Peter allude unto Circumcision, when he expresseth the external Baptism, by the putting away of the filth of the flesh, 1 Pet. 3. 21. But the truth of this is farther manifested from the great Analogy and Agreement, which is (without any straining of Notions) to be observed between these two Ordinances, E. G. (1.)
The Proposition is evident, (1.) because Baptisme (n)cometh in the room of Circumcision•. Either Baptisme doth so, or something else is instituted to succeed Circumcision, or else we must say there is no Ordinance at all given to Believers instead thereof, But neither of these latter may be affirmed, therefore is the former true. Besides that Scripture, Col. 2. 11, 12. doth clearly intimate, that Baptisme doth succeed Circumcision, the place hath (o)been abundantly vindicated by others notwithstanding the glosses of Antipaedo-Baptists put upon it, therefore we shall not insist here, only thus much shall be said, it is evident that the Apostle in that Context is labouring to deliver the Christian Colossians from those lmpositions and 〈…〉 which were put upon them, by some false and Jewish Teachers, who had reduced them under legal bondage, and in special to the Observation of Circumcision. The Argument which be useth to undeceive them, is that they had Compleatness in Christ; for they had in him circumcision, which is 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 made without hands, or inward Circumcision. True might they say. But so had Abraham and the Fathers after him, yet they had an outward Ordinance applyed to them also; so have you too saith the Apostle, for you are buried with him in Baptisme, wherein [also] you are risen with him. So that in your Baptisme you have a greater priviledge belonging to you, even an Ordinance that doth hold forth unto you not only mortification (buried with him in Baptisme) as Circumcision did, but also vivification, you are risen with him so that in Christ you are Compleat partaking of the Substance of Circumcision and more too, and therefore why should you observe Circumcision still? This is the Apostles scope, and his Reasoning is strong and Irrefragable. However no man can deny but that the Apostle disswading from the practice of Circumcision ⟨p. 14⟩tells them of their Baptisme, and why should he do so, if this do not come in the room of that? And doth (p)not the Apostle Peter allude unto Circumcision, when he expresseth the external Baptisme, by the putting away of the filth of the flesh, 1 Pet. 3. 21. But the truth of this is farther manifested from the great Analogy and Agreement, which is (without any straining of Notions) to be observed between these two Ordinacces, E. G. (1.)
- (n)v. Calvin Instit, I. 4. ch. 16.
- (o)See Forbes de Justif. p. 125. 126, Dr. Winter of Infant Bapt. p. 120. Dr. Homes p. 27. Mr. sydenham p. 118. Mr. Cobbet p. 196. Mr Oeree p. 30. Mr Cotton p. 127 Mr. Crag p. 264. Mr. Marshal p 27, 28. vossius de paedo Baptismo. Thes. 11. Mr: Vaughams dispute with Mr. Tombs p. 5.See Forbes de Justif. p. 125. 126, Dr. Winter of Infant Bapt. p. 120. Dr. Homes p. 27. Mr. sydenham p. 118. Mr. Cobbet p. 196. Mr Oeree p. 30. Mr Cotton p. 127 Mr. Cragg p. 264. Mr. Marshal p 27, 28. vossius de paedo Baptismo. Thes. 11. Mr: Vaughams dispute with Mr. Tombs p. 5.
- (p)v Blakes birth. privilege. p. 10.v Blakes birth. priviledg. p. 10.
