A39697:223
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.
(4.) We say, that except it had had relation to the Covenant with Abraham, there had been no occasion or reason at all here to have mentioned Children, as well as Parents; The promise is to you, and to your Children: It had been enough, if he had only intended the believing Parents, exclusive of their Infant Seed, to have said, The Promise is made to as many as the Lord our God shall call. What reason or occasion was there to bring in their Children at all?
(5.) We find here the Children both of believing Jews and Gentiles mentioned in the Promise, accompanying the Precept of Baptism, and the Precept to them built upon the Promise, as that which gave them their Title to Baptism, [Greek or Hebrew], for the Promise is to you and to your Children. In the same Line that he mentions Baptism, he also mentions the Promise, upon which their Right is founded; and in the same ⟨p. 95⟩Breath with which he mentions their Children, he also mentions the Promise; which he would never have done, had his design been to have excluded their Children from both, or either of them; especially seeing their Children had been so long in the possession of both. These things are obvious, natural, and every way agreeable both to the Grammar and Scope of the Text; whence we argue
(5.) We find here the Children both of believing Jews and Gentiles mentioned in the Promise, accompanying the Precept of Baptism, and the Precept to them built upon the Promise, as that which gave them their Title to Baptism, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, for the Promise is to you and to your Children. In the same Line that he mentions Baptism, he also mentions the Promise, upon which their Right is founded; and in the same ⟨p. 95⟩Breath with which he mentions their Children, he also mentions the Promise; which he would never have done, had his design been to have excluded their Children from both, or either of them; especially seeing their Children had been so long in the possession of both. These things are obvious, natural, and every way agreeable both to the Grammar and Scope of the Text; whence we argue