A39697:32
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.
I Position, viz.
That the Sinai-Law is the same with A•am's Covenant of Works, made in Paradise.
That the Sinai-Law is the same with A•am's Covenant of Works, made in Para•ice.
The difference betwixt us here is not […].) Whether both these be called Covenants in Scripture? nor (2.) Whether ⟨image 10⟩⟨image 10⟩[…] ⟨image 11⟩[…] ⟨image 11⟩⟨image 12⟩there were no Grace at all in both, or either of them: For we are agreed, it is Grace in God to enter into Covenant with Man, whatever that Covenant be; nor (3.) Whether the Sinai-law be not a Covenant of Works to some Men, by their own fault and occasion? nor (4.) Whether the Scriptures do not many times speak of it in that very sense and notion wherein Carnal Justiciaries apprehend and take it? and by rejecting Christ make it so to themselves? nor (5.) Whether the very matter of the Law of Nature be not revived and represented in the Sinai Law? These are not the Points we contend about: But the Question is, Whether the Sinai Law do in its own nature, and according to Gods purpose and design in the promulgation of it, revive the Law of Nature, to the same ends and uses it served to in Adam's Covenant; and so be properly and truly a Covenant of Works? Or whether God had not gracious and evangelical ends and purposes, viz. by such a dreadful representation of the severe and impracticable terms of the first Covenant, instead of obliging them to the personal and punctual observance of them fo