A39674:685
Planelogia, a succinct and seasonable discourse of the occasions, causes, nature, rise, growth, and…
Planelogia, a succinct and seasonable discourse of the occasions, causes, nature, rise, growth, and remedies of mental errors written some months since, and now made public, both for the healing and prevention of the sins and calamities which have broken in this way upon the churches of Christ, to the great scandal of religion, hardening of the wicked, and obstruction of Reformation : whereunto are subjoined by way of appendix : I. Vindiciarum vindex, being a succinct, but full answer to Mr. Philip Cary's weak and impertinent exceptions to my Vindiciæ legis & fæderis, II. a synopsis of ancient and modern Antinomian errors, with scriptural arguments and reasons against them, III. a sermon composed for the preventing and healing of rents and divisions in the churches of Christ / by John Flavell ... ; with an epistle by several divines, relating to Dr. Crisp's works.Planelogia, a succinct and seasonable discourse of the occasions, causes, nature, rise, growth, and remedies of mental errors written some months since, and now made publick, both for the healing and prevention of the sins and calamities which have broken in this way upon the churches of Christ, to the great scandal of religion, hardening of the wicked, and obstruction of Reformation : whereunto are subjoined by way of appendix : I. Vindiciarum vindex, being a succinct, but full answer to Mr. Philip Cary's weak and impertinent exceptions to my Vindiciæ legis & fæderis, II. a synopsis of ancient and modern Antinomian errors, with scriptural arguments and reasons against them, III. a sermon composed for the preventing and healing of rents and divisions in the churches of Christ / by John Flavell ... ; with an epistle by several divines, relating to Dr. Crisp's works.
London: printed by R. Roberts for Tho. Cockerill, 1691
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.
Now I would soberly ask, (1.) What Vouchers you have amongst Expositors for this your rash and daring Assertion? I find not a man that hath trod this path before you, and I hope none will be hardy enough to follow. You certainly stand alone, and 'tis pity but you should. (2.) Where do you find the just parts of the New Covenant in the 2d and 4th verse? Is it not altogether promissory on God's part, without any restipulation on Abraham's? for you have excluded v. 1, 9, 10. from that which you call God's Covenant of Grace with him. And then for your Covenant of Works, vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. you make this to be the Promissory part of that Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy Seed after thee; and again vers. 8. I will be their God. Was ever such a Promise as this, found in a Covenant of Works? Tell me what-ever God said more in the New Covenant, than he saith here? Oh blessed Covenant of Works, if this be such! (3.) Tell me whether you can satisfy your own Conscience with the Answers you have given to my first Argument against your paradoxical, ⟨p. 229⟩yea heterodoxical Exposition? I told you, That if vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. contain another Covenant, viz. of Works, entered by God with Abraham and his Seed, it must needs make void the former Covenant, vers. 2, 4. for where-ever the Covenant of Works takes place, the Co-Covenant of Grace gives place; they cannot consist, as I have abundantly proved before. Do you verily think those words of the Apostle, Gal. 3. 17. which you bring as a foundation to support your singular and sinful Exposition, viz. And this I say, That the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect; do you think (I say) that in that, or any other Text, the Apostle opposes the two Covenants made (as you fancy) with Abraham, Gen. 17? or doth he not there speak of God's Covenant with Abraham, as distinguished from the Law made 430. years afterward? (4.) Have you satisfied your own Judgment and Conscience in the Reply you make to that unanswerable Objection from Paul's circumcising of Timothy, Acts 16. 2, 3. where you have the plain matter of fact before you, that he was ⟨p. 230⟩