A39697:59
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
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 what's the condition upon which this dreadful Sentence depends? why, it is our attendance, or non-attendance to the primitive purity of the Gospel Doctrine.
Sir, I hope we do attend it, and in some respects better than some greater Pretenders to primitive Purity; who have cast off, not only the initiating Sign ⟨p. 4⟩of Gods Covenant, (this did not Abraham) but also that most comfortable and ancient Ordinance of singing Psalms; and what other primitive Ordinance of God may be cashiered next, who can tell?
Sir, I hope we do attend it, and in some respects better than some greater Pretenders to primitive Purity; who have cast off, not only the initiating Sign ⟨p. 4⟩of Gods Covenant, (this did not Abraham) but also that most comfortable and ancient Ordinance of singing Psalms; and what other primitive Ordinance of God may be cashier'd next, who can tell?
We have a Witness in your Bosom, that the Defence of Christs pure Worship and Institutions hath cost us something; and as for me, were I convinced by all that you have here said, or any of your Friends, that in baptizing the Infants of Believers we did really depart from the Primitive purity, I would renounce it, and turn Anabaptist the same day.