A39697:266
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.
But then, when we come to the Second Member of your Distinction, I am as much at a loss to find your Sense as before: For there you tell us, The Holiness here spoken of is a Derivative Holiness also, and that from Abraham only, and ⟨p. 122⟩from him not as a natural, but a spiritual Father, resembling Christ herein.
Reply. This word derivative is an equivocal word, and may signify either inherent personal Holiness, or Federal Holiness, for both of them are derived. If you say the former, it looks too black and horrid for me to believe you mean it, though you should say you mean it; for then you make Abraham not only the Figure and Image of Christ (as you speak) but Christ himself, by attributing to Abraham Christs incommunicable Property and Prerogative. Then Abraham may say to all his Children, as Christ doth, John 15. 4, 5. I am the vine, ye are the branches, &c. I am he that sanctifies you: But if you mean the last, (as necessarily you must, if you mean any thing that hath Orthodox Sense in it) then this derivative Holiness you speak of is not personal Holiness, or internal Sanctification, but federal Holiness, derived from Covenanted Ancestors or Parents to their Children; and therein you come over to us, and to the true Sense of the Text. But why must this be squeezed from you with so much difficulty? And why did you hide this federal Holiness under an equivocal term, lest you should ⟨p. 123⟩seem to yield the Controversy with a Word? this is not fair.
Reply. This word derivative is an equivocal word, and may signifie either inherent personal Holiness, or Federal Holiness, for both of them are derived. If you say the former, it looks too black and horrid for me to believe you mean it, though you should say you mean it; for then you make Abraham not only the Figure and Image of Christ (as you speak) but Christ himself, by attributing to Abraham Christs incommunicable Property and Prerogative. Then Abraham may say to all his Children, as Christ doth,