A39697:229
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.
Reply. Your Distinction is vain and groundless, for it opposeth Promises that contain external Privileges, to Gospel Promises, contrary to 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness hath promise of the Life that now is, and of that which is to come. Secondly, ⟨p. 96⟩Circumcision then, and Baptism now, which have both their Foundation in that Promise, contain Privileges in them of both sorts. This no Man can deny, but he that thinks it no Privilege to be admitted into the Visible Church by the external initiating Sign, and to be thereby distinguished from the Pagan World. You have no Warrant therefore to divide those things which God hath united.
Reply. Your Distinction is vain and groundless, for it opposeth Promises that contain external Priviledges, to Gospel Promises, contrary to 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness hath promise of the Life that now is, and of that which is to come. Secondly, ⟨p. 96⟩Circumcision then, and Baptism now, which have both their Foundation in that Promise, contain Priviledges in them of both sorts. This no Man can deny, but he that thinks it no Priviledg to be admitted into the Visible Church by the external initiating Sign, and to be thereby distinguished from the Pagan World. You have no Warrant therefore to divide those things which God hath united.
(2.) You say the Promise was not to them as Believers Seed, nor to any uncalled by the Lord.
Reply. Your meaning is, that these Words [as many as the Lord shall call] are a Limitation of the Promise to them only, whether Parents or Children, that are actually called; let this your Interpretation be compared with, and examined by the Scope of the Text, which you confessed before to be a Motive to persuade them and theirs to Repentance and Baptism, and see if it can stand before it, as ours doth: For if this be the meaning, then the Apostle's Argument must run thus: I exhort you, convinced Jews, to Repentance and Christian Baptism; for