A39697:122
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 2 › Argument 1: Argument I.
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.
Argument I.
If Circumcision be a part of the Ceremonial Law, and the Ceremonial Law was dedicated by Blood; and whatsoever is so dedicated, is by you confessed to be no part of the Covenant of works; then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of works, even by your own confession. But it is so, Ergo.
That it is a part of the Ceremonial Law, was never doubted or denied by any Man: That it was dedicated by Blood, and therefore no part of the Moral Law, you your self not only acknowledge, but vehemently plead for it, Page 148. where you blame Mr. Sedgwick with some Sharpness, and unbecoming Reflection, for making no distinction betwixt the Ceremonial Covenant which was dedicated by Blood, and the Law written in Tables of Stone; which was not so dedicated, and therefore could not be the same with the Moral Law, which you make the Covenant of works; telling him, that this Dedication by Blood ought to distinguish it from the Moral Law, or Sinai ⟨p. 43⟩Covenant of works, as you say it doth, and ought to do; how then can Circumcision be the same with, and yet quite another thing from the Sinai Covenant? was the Ceremonial Law dedicated by •lood? Yes, the Apostle plainly asserts it from Exod. Heb. 9. 18, 19. •4. 7, 8. Moses took the Book •f the Covenant, and read it in the audience •f the people, and took the blood, and sprinkd it upon the people, and said, behold the lood of the Covenant, which the Lord hath ade with you concerning these things. But hat kind of Covenant then was this Covenant that was sprinkled with Blood? ou tell us, Page 147. it could not possiy be the Law written in Stones (which ou make the Covenant of works) but as indeed another Covenant delivered […] a distinct Season, and in a distinct method. What Covenant then must this e, seeing it could not possibly (as you y) be the Sinai Covenant written in ones? It must either be the Covenant f Grace, or none. No, say you, that […] was not neither; for it was of the same ture with, and is no other than a Covenant of works, Page 151. it was the me, and yet could not possibly be the