A39697:91
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.
(3.) You say, Page 134. That through Christ's satisfaction there is no repugnancy or hostile contrariety betwixt the Law and Promise, but an Agreement betwixt them, and that they differ only in respect of Strength and Weakness, the Gospel is able to go through stitch with it, which the Law cannot do.
Reply. Well then, the Law considered as a Covenant of Works, whose Terms or Condition is, do this and live, and the Promise or Gospel, whose Condition is, Believe and thou shalt be saved, are not specifically different, but only gradually in point of Strength and Weakness; and the Reason you give, is as strange, that ⟨p. 22⟩this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir, enlighten us in this rare Notion. Did Christ die to purchase a Reconciliation betwixt the Covenant of Works as such, and the Covenant of Grace; as if both were now by the Death of Christ agreed; and to be justified by Works and by Faith, should after Christ's Death make no Odds or Difference between them? If it be so, why have you kept such a coil to prove Moses's and Adam's Covenant, yea, Abraham's too, being Covenant of Works can never consist or mingle with the Gospel-Covenant? And then I say, you contradict the Apostle, who so directly opposes the Covenant of Works as such, to the Covenant of Grace, 1and tells us, they are utterly inconsistent and exclusive of each other; and this he spake after Christ's Death and actual satisfaction: But
Reply. Well then, the Law considered as a Covenant of Works, whose Terms or Condition is, do this and live, and the Promise or Gospel, whose Condition is, Believe and thou shalt be saved, are not specifically different, but only gradually in point of Strength and Weakness; and the Reason you give, is as strange, that ⟨p. 22⟩this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir, enlighten us in this rare Notion. Did Christ die to purchase a Reconciliation betwixt the Covenant of Works as such, and the Covenant of Grace; as if both were now by the Death of Christ agreed; and to be justified by Works and by Faith, should after Christ's Death make no Odds or Disserence between them? If it be so, why have you kept such a coil to prove Moses's and Adam's Covenant, yea, Abraham's too, being Covenant of Works can never consist or mingle with the Gospel-Covenant? And then I say, you contradict the Apostle, who so directly opposes the Covenant of Works as such, to the Covenant of Grace,