A39697:197
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 3 › Argument 5: Argument V.
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.
All that I am further concerned about, is to examine so many of those Scriptures as you have spoken to, which are by us produced in defence of those four Grounds or Principles mentioned in the beginning of this Discourse, whereon we establish the Right of Infants Baptism; and to vindicate those Scriptures from your strained and injurious Interpretations of them. Which being done, they will each of them stand in those eminent places of Service, where they have been so long useful to the Cause we defend.
As for your pretended Solutions of the incomparable Mr. Baxter's, and the learned and acute Dr. Burthogg's Arguments; I admire at your Confidence therein; and let me tell you, without breach of Charity, 'tis an high piece of Confidence in you, to throw the Gantlet and bid Defiance to two such Worthies yet alive, and easily able to detect your Folly in the Weakness and Impertinency of your Answers. Alas! my Friend, you little know what it is to have such weak and inartificial Discourses as yours, brought under the strict Examen of such acute and judicious Eyes. But⟨p. 82⟩ ——Sic Dama leonem Insequitur, audetque viro concurrere Virgo.
Nor will I presume to anticipate either of their Answers to your Discourse, (if they shall think it worthy of an Answer) but rather briefly reflect upon what you return to the Arguments of those eminent Divines that are gone to Glory, in the Faith of that Truth you oppose; and are not capable of defending their solid and regular Interpretations of Scriptures, against the Notions you force upon them, contrary both to the Grammar and Scope of several of them.