A39697:217
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.
On this Text you know we lay very great stress, for the Proof of Infants Baptism; and it deserves a remark, that you wholly Suppress our Arguments drawn from that Text, but however return an Answer to them all, such as it is. You first tell us, The Promise here spoken of, is not a promise of any external privileges, but the promise of the Gospel, or the Grace of God in Christ Jesus.
On this Text you know we lay very great stress, for the Proof of Infants Baptism; and it deserves a remarque, that you wholly Suppress our Arguments drawn from that Text, but however return an Answer to them all, such as it is. You first tell us, The Promise here spoken of, is not a promise of any external priviledges, but the promise of the Gospel, or the Grace of God in Christ Jesus.
Secondly, That the Promise was not to their Children as Believers Seed, nor to them, or any other uncalled by the Lord, but only a promise of remission of Sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost, upon their actual Repentance, which Infants cannot perform, and therefore cannot here be intended. This is the true and whole Sense of your Answer.
Secondly, That the Promise was not to their Children as Believers Seed, nor to them, or any other uncall'd by the Lord, but only a promise of remission of Sins, and receiving the Holy Ghost, upon their actual Repentance, which Infants cannot perform, and therefore cannot here be intended. This is the true and whole Sense of your Answer.
Reply. Now because you have wholly omitted our Argument from this Text, (for which doubtless there was some reason) I think my self obliged to let the World know how we expound it, and what we duly infer from that Exposition of it: And then let the Reader judge, whether by the forementioned Rules of a just Interpretation, you or we are in the right.