A39697:84
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 1: I Position.
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.
(2ly.) This Hypothesis pinches you with another Dilemma, viz. Either there was pardon on Repentance in Moses his Covenant, and the Sinai Dispensation of the Law, or there was none; if you say •one, you directly contradict Lev. 26. 40, 46. If there were, then it cannot be Adam's Covenant of Works.
You answer, pag. 179. That God promiseth pardon for the Breach of Moses his Covenant and of Adam's Covenant too, but neither Adam's Covenant, nor the Jewish legal Covenant promised any pardon upon repentance, but rather threatens and inflicts the contrary.
Reply. Either this is a direct Answer to my Argument, to prove the Law at Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's Covenant, because it had a promise of pardon annexed to it, Lev. 26. 40. but Adam's Covenant had none. If your Answer be direct, then 'tis a plain contradiction, in saying it had, and it had not a promise of pardon belonging to it; or else it is a mere Evasion, and an eluding of ⟨p. 16⟩the Argument; and your only meaning is, That the Relief I speak of, is not to be found in any promise belonging to the Sinai Dispensation, but in some other Gospel-Covenant or Promise. But, Sir, this will not serve your turn; you see I cite the very promise of Grace made to the Israelites on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses; wherein God promiseth, upon their humiliation, to remember his Covenant for their good. Now, Sir, you had as good have stood to your first Answer, which is self-contradictory, as to this which is no less so, as will evidently appear by a nearer and more particular view of the place, and gathering up your own Concessions about it; that this Text,