A39697:95
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.
'Tis plain to me, that in the Publication of the Law on Sinai, God did not in the least intend to give them so much […] a Direction how to obtain Justification •y their most punctual Obedience to its Precepts, that being to Fallen Man utterly impossible; and beside, had he promulged the Law to that end and purpose, he had not added it, but directly opposed it to the Promise; which its manifest he did not, Gal. 3. 21. Is the law then against the promise of God? God forbid. And ver. 18. makes it appear, that had it been set up to that end and purpose, it had utterly disannulled the Promise; for if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more by promise. What then ⟨p. 27⟩can be clearer, than that the Law at Sinai was published with gracious Gospel-ends and purposes, to lead Men to Christ; which Adam's Covenant had no respect nor reference to? and therefore it can never be a pure Adam's Covenant, as you falsely call it; neither is it capable of becoming a pure Covenant of Works to any Man, but by his own Fault, in rejecting the Righteousness of Christ, and seeking Justification by the works of the Law, as the mistaken carnal Jews did, Rom. 10. 3. and other legal Justiciaries now do. And upon this account only it is, that Paul, who so highly praises the Law in its subserviency to Christ, thunders so dreadfully against it, as it is thus set by ignorant mistaken Souls in direct Opposition to Christ.
'Tis plain to me, that in the Publication of the Law on Sinai, God did not in the least intend to give them so much 〈…〉 a Direction how to obtain Justification •y their most punctual Obedience to its Precepts, that being to Fallen Man utterly impossible; and beside, had he promulged the Law to that end and purpose, he had not added it, but directly opposed it to the Promise; which its manifest he did not, Gal. 3. 21. Is the law then against the promise of God? God forbid. And ver. 18. makes it appear, that had it been set up to that end and purpose, it had utterly disannulled the Promise; for if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more by promise. What then