Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	blood_n	people_n	sprinkle_v	2,219	5	12.3819	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77854	Vindiciæ legis: or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the errours of papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians. In XXIX. lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London. / By Anthony Burgess, preacher of Gods Word.	Burgess, Anthony, d. 1664.	1646 (1646)	Wing B5666; Thomason E357_3; ESTC R201144	253,466	294

of Israel Yea if wee would speake exactly and strictly the bookes of Moses and the Prophets cannot be so well called the Old Covenant or Testament as this doctrine that was then delivered on Mount Sinai with all the administrations thereof as appeareth Heb. 7. chap. 8. Even as when the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 3. 6. God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament hee doth not meane the writings or bookes but the Gospel or Covenant of grace Take but one place more where the Law is called a Covenant and that is Jer. 11. 2 3 4. 2. In the next place you may see the reall properties of a Covenant 2. In that it hath the reall properties of a Covenant which are a mutuall consent consent and stipulation on both sides See a full relation of this Exod. 3. 24. from the 3 d. ver to the 9 th The Apostle relateth this history Heb. 9. wherein learned Interpreters observe many difficulties but I shall not medle with them In the words quoted out of Exodus you see these things which belong to a Covenant First there is God himselfe expressing his consent and willingnesse to be their God if they will keep such Commandements there and then delivered to them ver 3. Secondly you have the peoples full consent and ready willingnesse to obey them ver 3. ver 7. Thirdly because Covenants used to be written down for a memoriall unto posterity therefore wee see Moses writing the precepts down in a book Fourthly because Covenants used to be confirmed by some outward visible signes especially by killing of beasts and offering them in sacrifice therefore wee have this also done and halfe of the blood was sprinckled on the Altar to denote Gods entring into Covenant and the people also were sprinckled with blood to shew their voluntary covenanting Thus we have reall covenanting when the Law is given So also you may see this in effect Deut. 29. 10 11 12 13. where it's expresly said that they stood to enter into Covenant with God that hee may establish them to be a people unto himselfe and that hee may be a God unto them Againe you have this clearly in Deut. 26. 17 18. where it is said Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walke in his waies And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people So that it 's very plaine the Law was given as a Covenant yea the Apostle calls it a Testament for howsoever some have disliked that distinction of the Old and New Testament especially as applied to the bookes and writings of the holy Pen-men of Scripture thinking as Austin they may be better called the Old and New Instruments because they are authenticall and confirmed by sufficient witnesses As Tertullian calls the Bible Nostra digesta from the Lawyers and others called it Our Pandects from them also yet 1 Cor. 3. doth warrant such a distinction Onely the question is how this Covenant can be called properly a Testament because Christ died not twice and there cannot be a Testament without the death of a Testator But the answer is that there was a typicall death of Christ in the sacrifices and that was ground enough to make the Covenant to be called a Testament Having proved it is a Covenant all the difficulty remaineth The judgements of the Learned different in declaring what Covenant is here meant in declaring what Covenant it is for here is much difference of judgements even with the Learned and Orthodoxe and this doth arise from the different places of Scripture which although they be not contrary one to another yet the weaknesse of our understandings is many times overmastered by some places Some as you have heard make it a Covenant of workes others a mixt Covenant some a subservient Covenant but I am perswaded to goe with those who hold it to be a Covenant of grace and indeed it is very easie to bring strong arguments for the affirmative but then there will be some difficulty to answer such places as are brought for the negative and if the affirmative prove true the dignity and excellency of the Law will appeare the more Now before I come to the arguments which induce me hereunto consider in what sense it In what sense it may be a Covenant of grace explained may be explained that it is a Covenant of grace Some explaine it thus That it was indeed a Covenant of grace but the Jewes by their corrupt understanding made it a Covenant of workes and so opposed it unto Christ and therefore say they the Apostle argueth against the Law as making it to oppose the promises and grace not that it did so but only in regard of the Jewes corrupt minds who made an opposition where there was none This hath some truth in it but it is not full Some make the Law to be a Covenant of grace but very obscurely and therefore they hold the Gospel and the Law to be the same differing onely as the acorne while it is in the huske and the oke when it 's branched out into a tall tree Now if this should be understood in a popish sense as if the righteousnesse of the Law and the Gospel were all one in which sense the Papists speak of the old Law and the new it would be very dangerous and directly thwarting the Scripture Some explain it thus God say they had a primary or antecedent will in giving of the Law or a secundary and consequent His primary will was to hold out perfect and exact righteousnesse against which the Apostle argueth and proveth no man can be justified thereby but then God knowing mans impotency and inability did secondarily command repentance and promiseth a gracious acceptance through Christ and this may be very well received if it be not vexed with ill interpretations But lastly this way I shall go The Law as to this purpose may be considered more largely as that whole doctrine delivered on Mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned and all things that may be reduced to it or more strictly as it is an abstracted rule of righteousnesse holding forth life upon no termes but perfect obedience Now take it in the former sense it was a Covenant of grace take it in the later sense as abstracted from Moses his administration of it and so it was not of grace but workes This distinction will overthrow all the Objections against the negative Nor may it be any wonder that the Apostle should consider the Law so differently seeing there is nothing more ordinary with Paul in his Epistles and that in these very controversies then to doe so as for example take this instance Rom. 10. ver 5 6. where Paul describeth the righteousness of the Law from those words Doe this and live which is said to have reference to Levit. 18. 5. but wee find this in effect Deut. 30. v. 16. yet from this very Chapter the