A39697:148
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 4: Argument IV.
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.
If this be not enough to evince, that the Covenant of Circumcision is a Covenant of Grace, I promise you many more Arguments to prove it, as soon as I shall find these refuted, and your contrary Assertion well discharged from the gross Absurdities with which it is clogged and loaded. You see how genuine, natural and congruous to Scripture the notion of it as a Covenant of Grace is, and all the World may see how harsh, alien, and repugnant to Scripture your Notion of Circumcision, as a Covenant of Works, is. You see into what Bogs you are again driven in defence of your Opinion. Exemp. gra.
If this be not enough to evince, that the Covenant of Circumcision is a Covenant of Grace, I promise you many more Arguments to prove it, as soon as I shall find these refuted, and your contrary Assertion well discharged from the gross Absurdities with which it is clog'd and loaded. You see how genuine, natural and congruous to Scripture the notion of it as a Covenant of Grace is, and all the World may see how harsh, alien, and repugnant to Scripture your Notion of Circumcision, as a Covenant of Works, is. You see into what Boggs you are again driven in defence of your Opinion. Exemp. gra.
That Circumcision is a part of the Ceremonial Law, which was dedicated with Blood, and therefore could be no •art of the Moral Law or Ten Commandments, which was (say you) the Covenant of Works; and yet that it is of •he same nature; and that it's clear […] is no other than a Covenant of ⟨p. 58⟩Works. Don't you there distinguish and confound all again? blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without Cause, and commit a greater Absurdity presently than you charged him with? Don't you question whether that Covenant that was typically sealed by Blood, was sealed by Christs Blood? Pray, Sir, consider where-ever God commands typical Blood to be applied, it relates to Christs Blood Spiritually applied, or to nothing.
That Circumcision is a part of the Ceremonial Law, which was dedicated with Blood, and therefore could be no art of the Moral Law or Ten Commandments, which was (say you) the Coenant of Works; and yet that it is of he same nature; and that it's clear is no other than a Covenant of