A39697:150
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.
Are not you forced in defence of your erroneous Thesis, to say with Bellarmine, That Circumcision was extraordinary in its Institution, and applied as a Seal to none but Abraham himself? it excluded even Isaac the Type of Christ, and Jacob a Prince with God. O what will not Men venture upon in defence of their darling Opinions!
Are not you forced in defence of your erroneous Thesis, to say with Bellarmine, That Circumcision was extraordinary in its Institution, and applyed as a Seal to none but Abraham himself? it excluded even Isaac the Type of Christ, and Jacob a Prince with God. O what will not Men venture upon in defence of their darling Opinions!
Are you not forced for your Security from the danger of the Third Argument to cut one and the same Covenant made with Abraham just in two, and of the pure promissory part to make a Covenant of Grace; and of the other part, which you your self call a Restipulation, to make another quite opposite Covenant? Don't you magnify the Bounty ⟨p. 59⟩and Grace of God to Abraham in the first four Verses, and then destroy it all, by putting him at once under a contrary Covenant, and so cut off all capacity to enjoy one of those mercies?
Are you not forced for your Security from the danger of the Third Argument to cut one and the same Covenant made with Abraham just in two, and of the pure promissory part to make a Covenant of Grace; and of the other part, which you your self call a Restipulation, to make another quite opposite Covenant? Don't you magnifie the Bounty ⟨p. 59⟩and Grace of God to Abraham in the first four Verses, and then destroy it all, by putting him at once under a contrary Covenant, and so cut off all capacity to enjoy one of those mercies?