Reply. Your first answer is manifestly false : for if the apostle dis- tinguishes of a twofold circumcision, one made with hands, the other
864 A REPLY TO MR. CARy's SOLEMN CALL.
made \vithout hands ; then it is manifest, he means the circumcision in thejlesh^ which is now abohshed, and all its ends and uses answer- ed in gospel baptism. And whereas you say, The circumcision here spoken of, is no other than the circumcision of Christ in his own per- son ; I would gladly know how the Colossians are said to be circum- cised in Christ's personal circumcision only? And whether thebaptisjn here spoken of, wherewith they are said to be buried with him, be not meant of Christ's personal baptism too ; and, consequently, there is no need of the outward ordinance to pass upon them, or us ; but especially, it is 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 Christ's personal circumcision; when we all know, that Christ's personal circumcision was a circumcision made with hands ; and could not possibly be such a circumcision as theirs was, consisting in the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, or mortification of their corruptions. Christ had no sin by propa- gation, to put off or mortify in his own person.
(2.) Your second anszver is no less absurd ; That, if baptism, ac- cording to our argument, succeeds in the place of circumcision, then Jemales must be excluded from baptism. You had as good have said, that the enlargement of the privilege under the gospel, is no good medium to prove we are as complete now under baptism as they were under circumcision. Cannot baptism stand in the place of circum- cision, because it answers all its ends with an advantage ? This, to me, is a very strange answer ; however, it must stand in the place of a better, rather than baptism shall stand in the place of circumcision.
Qbject. But if baptism succeed in the room of circumcision, and there be such an analogy betwixt them, as you pretend ; then it will follow, that you are obliged to baptize your children on the eighth day as they circumcised theirs.
Sol. The objection is frivolous and vain : no man, that I know, doubts, but the Lord's supper succeeds in the room and place of the passover. Christ was the substance of that, as well as this ; and that was abrogated by his institution of this, the very same night : as soon as he and his disciples had celebrated the one, the other was insti- tuted, and immediately succeeded it. And yet Christians are not obliged to the same month, day, or hour, for the celebration of the Lord's supper : the analogy is betwixt the substantial parts of both; amongst which, the spiritual mystery, principal ends, and proper sub- jects, are of principal consideration ; not the minuter circumstances of time and place. In the passover and the LordHs supper, there is a correspondence betwixt the proper subjects of both. No uncir- cumcised person, or stranger to the covenant, might eat of that, Exod. xii. 43, 48. No unbelieving person, uncircumcised in heart, hath a right to this, 1 Cor. xi. 27, 28. So in the other ; the infants of God's covenanted people were the proper subjects of circumcision then, and so they are (say v/e) of baptism now ; for the same pro-
A REPLY TO MR. CARY's SOLEMN CALL. 365
nslse is still to believers and their children, Acts ii. 38, 39. Here lies the analogy, and not in the variable circumstances of time.
Whereas you say, p. 12. Baptism cannot succeed circumcision y because it leaves no character or mark upon the body, as that did. This very objection of yours is borrowed in express words from So- cinus, that enemy of Christ, in disp. de bapt p. 113. and fully an- swered by Maccovms, lor. com, p. 830, 831.
Object. But it will be further said, That according to our opinion, there can be no analogy, or correspondency, betwixt the very sub- jects of both ordinances ; for iiifants, at eight days old, were the proper subjects of circumcisiwi ; but the subjects of baptism were adult believers, from the time of its first institution : and so the analogy fails in the very subjects.
Sol. This objection is grounded upon a great mistake : it is your opinion, not ours, that destroys it ; for with us it lies fairly in these three respects of it. (1.) We find, that at the first institution of cir- cmncision, Abraham, the father, at ninety years old, and all the men of his house, were first circumcised, Gen. xvii. 25, 26, 27. Answer- ably, at the first institution of baptism, parents, masters of families, &c. being adult believers, were first baptized. (2.) After the cir- cumcision of Abraham, and the men of his house, their iiifant-seed were also cii'cumcised, the promise belonging to tliem, as well as their parents. Answerably, under the gospel, the whole families of be- li^vers were baptized ; and the promise runs to their infants under the gospel, as it did before, Acts ii. 39- (3.) As in the days of cir- cumcision, if any stranger that had not been cirrumcised in his in- fancy, should afterward become a proselyte, and join himself to the Lordjiie was to be circumcised, of whatever age he was : so now, if any infidel shall be converted, he is to be baptized, upon his personal profession of faith : and so much for the analogy. As for your cor- respondency of indentity, I cannot understand it.
I meet with little more in your first part, wherein I have any con- cernment ; only there I find four arguments, in mood and figure, against the innovation of symbolical 7ites, by human authority, into the worship of God ; which is certainly the best page in your book : and of them I have nothing to say, but that they are good ware ; and I very well knew the mark and number of that parcel o^ goods y. and to whom they properly belong.
But yet before I dismiss your book, I think myself concerned to vindicate one place of scripture more, viz. Rom. xi. 16, 17. which I alleged in the beginning for the confirmation of our first pro- position, viz. That God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. is the same covenant for substance we Gentile believers are no\f under, ' If the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy : and if the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-
366 A REPLY TO MR. CARY'S SOLEMN CALL*