If one side promise his part is not a Covenant except both do So that that transaction between God and the people at Sinai was properly a Covenant Exod. 19. 3 4 5 6 7 8. though God had not yet told the People what Laws he would require Obedience to in particular for Moses come's with a message to the people from God and tells them that if they will obey his Voice and keep his Covenant i. e. his Law they should be a peculiar Treasure unto him and a Kingdom of Priests that is He would be their God to bless them if they would be his people to obey him This was Gods Promise in this Covenant the people give this answer unanimously We consent we will obey God in all his Commands be they what they will though they were not told yet what his Commands should be But this though a Covenant was but in order to the great Solemnization of this Covenant which was Exod. 24. 3 4 5 6 7 8. Where having given the Moral-Law the Ten Commandments and some Judicial and Ceremonial Laws Moses comes down from God and relates them to the people And the people answered All that the Lord hath spoken We will do meaning all that he hath or shall speak for the addition of new commands did not make so many New-covenants Well Now God hath promised on his part to be their God if they will obey his Law Moses writeth these Laws that are rehearsed in the 20 21 22 23 chapters and consecrateth some young men to offer Sacrifice for Aaron and his Sons were not separated till the year after He made the people confirm their Covenant by Sacrifices as we do by Sacraments He read the Book of the Covenant that is the Book comprehending the Laws fore-mentioned and he sprinkles the Blood of the Sacrifices on the people and saith Behold the Blood of the Covenant which God hath made with you concerning all these Words that is all these Commands Thus the word is used most properly of such a Transaction God hath engaged himself to bless them if they would serve him and they have engaged themselves to serve him Sometimes the word Covenant is used for the Promise of one of the Parties only as Gods conditional Promises that if we will in sincerity Love Serve and Obey him he will be our God to bless us This is not a Covenant in the strictest sense but a conditional Promise yet is so called frequently in Scripture because it is Gods part of the Covenant yea all God's part of the Covenant of Grace and all that he Seals or Promises and when we do in sincerity promise our part these together make it actually a Covenant He engaged actually to bless us and we to serve him Yea if we promise only hypocritically yet we are engaged so as we are guilty of Covenant-breaking though God is not engaged by his conditional Promise we not being real in performing the condition So our promising engaging to obey may be called our Covenant because it is our part of the Covenant and all required of us is so to engage and be real in it But most frequently in Scripture the Laws of God the Precepts themselves are called the Covenant being the Laws that God hath made Promises to the obedience of and that the people by their engagement are bound to observe Deut. 4. 13. Sometimes the word is used in other senses as for an absolute Promise as that of destroying the World no more with a Flood but these significations before named are all that I shall have occasion to make use of Now to make it appear that the Promises and Precepts of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and the Land of Moab were the same Consider This Book of Deuteronomium signifying the second Law is so called as all agree because it contains a repetition of the Laws formerly promulgated almost all of them were made at Mount Sinai above thirty nine years before this Deuteronomium this Repetition of the Law was Spoken or Written The occasion of which Repetition of the Law which may well be called the Prophet Moses's Fare-wel Sermon was as follows That actual Covenanting that was made at Mount Sinai or Horeb was in the first year yea within two months after they came out of Aegypt Exod. 19. 1. And all the people that were Twenty years old at their numbering which was in the second year after their coming out of Egypt are now dead for their murmuring except Caleb and Joshuah and Moses and so there was great need to cause this new Generation of people to enter actually into Covenant to keep Gods Laws which Joshuah caused them to do again after at less than half that distance of time The appointed time of the end of the forty years drew near for the peoples entering the good Land and Moses must not bring them thither nor enter himself Now Moses well knowing all these things and that his departure was at hand for he died within a Month after his beginning this Repetition of the Law to the people for he began it the first day of the Eleventh Month in the Fortieth year and died in the end of that Month for the people mourned for him Thirty dayes viz. the whole Month after Deut. 1. 3. and Chap. 34. 8. compared I say Moses foreknowing this and earnestly desiring to tye the people that he was about to leave fast to God and his Laws he begins in the hearing of the people in the Land of Moab a Month before he died Deut. 1. 3. 5. to take an effectual course to inform them in the knowledg of God's Laws and to engage them to Obedience by reciting and Summing up the Transactions of God towards them in the Wilderness and all the Laws Moral Judicial and Ceremonial yet leaving out for the most part those Judicial and Ceremonial commands that concerned the Priests Office or were not of ordinary Practice and adds some commands especially concerning things to be done by them when they come into the Promised Land And affectionately exhorts them to obey these commands with all their Heart and Soul ever and anon intermixing discourses of the Blessings would come on them by their obedience and Miseries by disobedience This is the Sum of his Discourse to this Chap. 29. He that shall think that all the Promises and Threats in this Book hitherto do only mundum sonare are only Temporal sure a vail is upon his Eyes and Heart in reading the Old Testament And then in this Chap. 29. Having thus far prepared them to do what they do knowingly and affectionately He engages them in a Covenant even with an Oath which was more than was done in Sinai to keep all these Laws He begins his Prologue to this actual Engagement as at Sinai with these words You have seen v. 2. v. 9. keep therefore the words of this Covenant that is the commands that I have repeated unto you that you may prosper in
the pardon is only as to the first Law and Breach of it for there is no pardon as to this second Law and Breach of it for if he do not read which is the condition of the second Law there is no pardon for his failing therein So that if the first Law never threatned Eternal death there can be no pardon as to Eternal death And which maketh it still apparent is this Pardon must be by some Law else it may be Forbearance or Reprieve but no Pardon and no Law can possibly in any case whatsoever afford pardon of Offences against it self it is a contradiction to say it may For to answer an objection that may be in your mind suppose a Law made threatning the Offenders only conditionally as threatning death except a man abjure the Realm or pay a sum of Money in this case if the person either abjure or pay the Money here is no pardoning any thing the Law threatned for the Law never threatned his death absolutely So that you see there cannot possibly be pardon of a transgression from the Law it self but only from another Law a Remedying Law or Act of Oblivion Therefore the Gospel which is an Act of Pardon or Oblivion for those that are guilty of the breach of another Law cannot possibly pardon an offence against it self which is failing in the performing the condition of it by dying in Unbelief For any that will affirm pardon in the failing in the condition of this Act of Oblivion he must affirm some new Law made for a Remedying Law to one cast by the Gospel to this effect That if men die impenitent they shall be saved provided they or others for them perform the condition while they are in an other world which the Papists affirm something a kin to Now if the Gospel afford no pardon to them that perform not its condition as it is impossible it should and no Law else threatens Eternal death there cannot possibly be any pardon of sin as to Eternal death So that you see whatsoever this Author saith to the contrary we must hold a Law threatning Eternal death or Wrath to come which Christ hath undergone a punishment for the satisfaction of distinct from the Gospel or the Law of Grace that was founded upon the account of this satisfaction and that all are condemned by this Law and that as to Future and Eternal concernments and that none are Justified by it Which if the Author had considered he would surely have told us better than he hath done what the Apostle meant by the Law and works of the Law which he denies Justification by Yea and you must hold that this Law threatning wrath to come to every Offender is yet in force and not Abrogated by the Gospel yea and that it threatens men that do perform the Gospel-condition as really as others I shall not deny that such a Law seiseth upon mens being sinners as to the Promissary part as a promise made to a man if he shall work all such a week doth cease after he hath failed the first day but it is actually in Force still with its penalty requiring perfect Obedience and not only sincere which I thus prove First Else we must say that no man sins or transgresseth this Law so he do but perform the Gospel condition so he be but in the main a sincere Christian and consequently that no sincere Christian needs Christs satisfaction or pardon for such sins as are consistent with Gospel sincerity which is an Opinion which I almost dread to mention though the Author seems very confident in it for he maintains pag. 108. 112. That so men do but chiefly mind the best things do but observe the main Precepts of the Law no Law whatsoever requires any more of them and also holds that men after * I cannot tell whether he mean after Conversion or after the meer Preaching of the Gospel to â—hem but however I will â—onstrue it to the best sense Conversion or receiving the Gospel for any disability on them to the contrary may and for any evidence we have in the Scripture to the contrary do live such lives as not to sin any sin that deserves or is by any Law threatned so much as conditionally with Eternal death and so it follows consequently as any one sees that they need no pardon or the Blood of Christ for such sins as to Eternal punishment though yet he grants but yet any one may see with some reluctancy That pag. 117. All do sometime or other of their lives commit some either sin or sins that deserves Eternal punishment and consequently needs pardon and the Blood of Christ Now if it be true that he saith that No Law of God requires any more than that men keep the main substantials of it and make Religion their business then he may safely affirm that they do not need pardon by the Blood of Christ for any so much as temporal punishment as to those failings that are consistent with true Christianity I grant the Gospel requires no more for our Justification and Salvation than such sincere imperfect indeavours as he mentions but I cannot enough express my dislike of saying No Law doth require any more Secondly If the Law was abrogated by Christs satisfaction and the Gospel as to its requiring perfect Obedience under a threatning of the penalty of Eternal death of those that continue performing the Gospel-condition Then we must not say that Christ died to obtain the pardon of those sins that are consistent with Gospel-sincerity but died to prevent them from being Sins and Transgressions of the Law that would otherwise have been sins or to prevent such sins from legally desâ—â—ving or being threatned with Eternal wrath and so to prevent them from being pardoned by his Blood as to Eternal wrath Secondly Another great Mistake that causeth his other Errors as any one may perceive that reads his Book is this That he doth not understand or doth not consider the difference between an Original Law with a Remedying Law or conditional Act of Oblivion distinct from the Original Law and a Law that threatens a transgressour of it only conditionally I shall make my meaning appear by an Instance which he brings of an Original Law and a Remedying Law though I confess he brings it not under that notion but speaks somthing not right concerning it and especially he is widely mistaken in making that the chief yea the only Law of Moses that the Apostle speaks against Justification by in those places where he speaks against Justification by the works of the Law though yet I do think that the Apostle had in some places a main respect to this Law of Sacrifices now to be mentioned as Acts 13. 38 39. Heb. 7. 11. 19. Chap. 9. v. 8. 18. Chap. 10. v. 1. c. The Instance is this Page 121 122. where he rightly tells us That God did make a Law that concerned the Jews as a
1. and of Heavenly things Heb. 9. 28. of the same in another sense Law 's promises of future Heavenly happiness to perfect Obedience and was much suited to put them in mind of the great Concernments of the same Law as pertaining to Conscience and the future Life 2. Still keeping to Temporal Concerns This amazingly-strict Law as to Temporal punishment may be considered as given with or comprehending in it a Remedying-Law as to these Temporal severities viz. As affording pardon upon Sacrifice as to these threatned Destructions for the most Transgressions not for all as one may be apt to wish for Type-sake for the community must not be sundamentally prejudiced to make a Type more full by pardoning all offences as to Temporal punishment upon sacrifice And so this Political Temporal-Law was I will not say the Gospel it self for it was not but if I may speak a little Gospel in reality a Law of Pardon as to the Temporal punishment threatned and a Shadow or * I doubt not but the Book of the Law in the Temporal sense I am now upon being sprinkled with blood was a pattern of the Laws in the Eternal sense I shall after speak of being sprinkled with a better sacrifice and that the Law in this last sense was one of those healy things spoken of Heb. 9. 19. 23. Though the Heavenlâ— things mentioned do most immediatelâ— denote the more clear Dispensation of the Gospel then in being when those words were written pattern or Representation of its own materially considered Gospel favour in admitting Transgressors of it to favour as to its Obligation to Future and Eternal punishment by pardon upon the account of a great Satisfaction to come which such sacrifices Typified Now it is apparent that the Law and Covenant or Testament of Moses is often taken in the New Testament in this sense viz. For the Law under this consideration so far as it threatned only what might be remitted by Sacrifice or threatned what was denied by it to be remitted upon Sacrifice Yea no man can possibly give any rational account of the meaning of the Author to the Hebrews in the places where he speaks of the Law but by affirming he takes it in this sense as Chap. 7. 8 9 10. For the Law only in this sense was Typical and not at all Typical but the reallity in the sense I shall after speak of it in He shews the Law made nothing perfect as to Conscience or future Concernments and that Sacrifices did not Expiate any further than as to the purifying of the Flesh that they might come into the Congregation and to the taking off of Temporal guilt and Punishment but not as to Eternal or Future-life punishment or coming to the Congregation in Heaven and also shews that they were a commemoration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Sins as to Conscience and the Future punishment but not an Expiation Heb. 10. 3 4. And that they did so far viz. as to Temporal punishment and being excluded the Congregation really Expiate being offered in the offender's stead And else indeed they could not have been Typical of the great Expiation if they were not Expiations as to some things themselves no more than the Brazen-Serpent could have been a Type of Christ's Healing or Saving if it had never healed any So the Law of Moses is taken also Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses That is from all such great Crimes as Idolatry Murder c. for which there was no pardon in the Law of Moses taken in this sense but such were to die without mercy no Sacrifice being appointed or accepted in their stead Though yet there was pardon for such by the Law of Moses taken in the sense I shall speak of it in viz. In the sense wherein it was the Gospel made in the Blood of Christ and in the sense wherein David was yea and all others were Justified and Saved by it For it is apparent that a man might go to Heaven upon true Repentance by that Law taken in the consideration I shall ere long speak of it in that Temporal death without mercy Heb. 10. 28. was due to by that Law no Expiation being allowed for his sin he sinning contemptuously or presumptuously or with a high hand in the sense of those words Numb 15. 30. which are Heb. 10. 28. interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that contemptuously sinned against or set-at-nought Moses Law i. e. in some stubborn and vain-glorious way or he committing Idolatry Adultery or Murder or some other particular Crime excluded as Blasphemy Witchcraft Cursing or Smiting his Father or Mother defiling the Sabbath or being a stubborn and rebellious Son As for Instance David was pardoned and went to Heaven and he never offered Sacrifice for those his Crimes for there was none appointed or admitted in such case for he was by that Law in the sense in hand to Die without mercy and should have been put to Death had there been any Superiour Authority on Earth to do it except some Prophet had come from God who being chief Rector could dispense with his own Laws to tell such Authothority that God had pardoned him as to Temporal punishment or God had some way notified he would not have the Law executed on him And it is also apparent that a man might be guilty of no Fault threatned by the Law in this sense but what was fully Expiated by his Sacrifices as to Temporal violent Death and Exclusion from Society and yet go to Hell being no true Penitent or sincere Servant of God Because all the Crimes that a man might possibly be only guilty of might be Expiable and newly Expiated by Sacrifice so far as their Sacrifices could expiate though he never truly repented It was only in some few cases of Injustice that there was Confession to the party and Restitution to the party wronged required else this Sacrifice was not accepted to Remission as to Temporal guilt Lev. 5. 5. Chap. 6. 2 3 4 5. I would have spoken more largely and particularly of the Law under this Consideration and have given an accouâ—â— here why the Apostles sometimes take it only in this sense which I suppose I shall do some-where upon occasion before I have done but I am sensible I am something out of my way in speaking so largely here as I have done And now I have thus spoken I can make little more than this use of it should I keep strictly to speaking of the places of the Apostle in dispute than to lay it quite or almost aside and to make it appear that the Author had done well unless he had spoken more exactly of it to have done so and to wish every one would do so viz. would lay it aside for interrupting them when speaking or thinking of the Apostle Pauls meaning in most of the places in dispute viz.