A39697:272
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.
(2.) That it is no other, than a change of a Divine Institution, and making void the Commandment of Christ, the horrid Sin charged by Christ upon those Hypocrites, the Scribes and Pharisees, Math. 15. 6. With no better than these doth he rank and associate the many thousands of Gods choice and dear People, who differ in this circumstantial Point from him.
(2.) That it is no other, than a change of a Divine Institution, and making void the Commandment of Christ, the horrid Sin charged by Christ upon those Hypocrites, the Scribes and Pharisees, Math. 15. 6. With no better than these doth he rank and assiociate the many thousands of Gods choice and dear People, who differ in this circumstantial Point from him.
(3.) He compares it with the Sin of Nadab and Abihu. And with that of Israel, with respect to the Ark, 1 Chron. 15. 13. a Sin which provoked the Lord to execute Judgment by an immediate Stroke in Fire from Heaven upon them. Thus Mr. Cary is ready to call for Fire from Heaven upon his Brethren, Alas! ⟨p. 126⟩Poor Man, he knows not what Spirit he is of, as Christ told the Disciples in a like case. 'Tis well we are not in his hands to execute the Wrath, as well as charge the guilt upon us. But I hope all this is but Rashness in him.
(4.) He affirms it to be no less than a transgressing of the Law, a changing of the Ordinances; And a breaking of the everlasting Covenant. If it be a transgressing of the Law, he should have shown us in what Scripture that Law that forbids it is, or where God hath repealed his former Grant to the Children of his Covenant People: And for the changing of the Ordinances, I am of Opinion 'tis he that is guilty of that Sin and not we; for we have proved God settled this privilege upon the Infant Seed of his People, that the Promise under the Gospel continues still to them, and if he exclude them from Baptism, he changes the Ordinance of God. And for breaking the everlasting Covenant, for which he cites