A39697:274
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.) 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be a transgressing of the Law, he should have shown us in what Scripture that Law that forbids it is, or where God hath repealed his former Grant to the Children of his Covenant People: And for the changing of the Ordinances, I am of Opinion 'tis he that is guilty of that Sin and not we;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 Isa. 24. 5, 6. the Lord make him sensible of the Danger he hath put himself under from that very Text he produces against us; for it's manifest that the Covenant there spoken of, is Gods Covenant ⟨p. 127⟩with Abraham, renewed with the Israelites at Sinai, which in that Text is truly called an everlasting Covenant; when mean time Mr. Cary hath pronounced it to be an Adam's Covenant, and now utterly abolished. Who is it Sir, that Fights against and changes this everlasting Covenant, you or we that are for its continuance to us and our Children?
(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be a transgressing of the Law, he should have shewn us in what Scripture that Law that forbids it is, or where God hath repealed his former Grant to the Children of his Covenant People: And for the changing of the Ordinances, I am of Opinion 'tis he that is guilty of that Sin and not we;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 setled this priviledge 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 Isa. 24. 5, 6. the Lord make him sensible of the Danger he hath put himself under from that very Text he produces against us; for it's manifest that the Covenant there spoken of, is Gods Covenant ⟨p. 127⟩