A39697:181
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 4: Argument IV.
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.
Argument IV.
If all the Promises of the New Covenant be absolute and unconditional, having no respect nor relation to any Grace wrought in us, nor Duty done by us; then the Trial of our Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs of Grace is not our Duty, nor can we take comfort in Sanctification, as an Evidence of Justification.
But it is a Christians Duty to try his Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs, and he may take comfort in Sanctification, as an evidence of Justification. Ergo.
The Sequel of the Major is undeniably clear, for that can never be a Sign or Evidence of an Interest in Christ, which that Interest may be without; yea, and as Dr. Crispe asserts, according to his Antinomian Principles, Christ is ours (saith he) before we 1have gracious Qualifications. Every true Mark and Sign must be inseparable from that it signifies. Now, if the works of the Spirit in us be not so, but an Interest in Christ may be where these are not; then they are no proper Marks or Signs; and if they are not, it cannot be our Duty to make use of them as such; and consequently if we should, they can yield us no Comfort.