A39697:246
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.
Sol. The Objection is frivolous and vain; no Man that I know doubts but the Lords Supper succeeds in the room and place of the Passover. Christ was the substance of that as well as this, and that was abrogated by his Institution of this, the very same Night, as soon as he and his Disciples had celebrated the one, the other was instituted, and immediately succeeded it; and yet Christians are not obliged to the same Month, Day, or Hour for the Celebration of the ⟨p. 105⟩Lords Supper: the Analogy is betwixt the substantial parts of both, amongst which the Spiritual Mystery, Principal Ends, and proper Subjects are of principal Consideration; not the minuter Circumstances of time and place. In the Passover and the Lords Supper there is a Correspondence betwixt the proper Subjects of both: No uncircumcised Person, or Stranger to the Covenant might eat of that, Exod. 12. 43, 48. No unbelieving Person, uncircumcised in Heart, hath a right to this, 1 Cor. 11. 27, 28. So in the other, The Infants of God's Covenanted People were the proper Subjects of Circumcision then, and so they are (say we) of Baptism now; for the same Promise is still to Believers and their Children, Acts 2. 38, 39. Here lies the Analogy, and not in the variable circumstances of time.
Sol. The Objection is frivolous and vain; no Man that I know doubts but the Lords Supper succeeds in the room and place of the Passover. Christ was the substance of that as well as this, and that was abrogated by his Institution of this, the very same Night, as soon as he and his Disciples had celebrated the one, the other was instituted, and immediately succeeded it; and yet Christians are not oblig'd to the same Month, Day, or Hour for the Celebration of the ⟨p. 105⟩Lords Supper: the Analogy is betwixt the substantial parts of both, amongst which the Spiritual Mystery, Principal Ends, and proper Subjects are of principal Consideration; not the minuter Circumstances of time and place. In the Passover and the Lords Supper there is a Correspondence betwixt the proper Subjects of both: No uncircumcised Person, or Stranger to the Covenant might eat of that,