Gods Love to Man and Mans Duty Towards God, Part 2 · Section 14

Gods Love to Man and Mans Duty Towards God · Part 2 · Section 14

p. 298Sect. 14. PROP. XIV. The Coventut of Grace is one and the ſame for Subſtance in all Ages. Though it may ſeen to have Varied, yet the Difference is but in Circumſtances, and manner of Adminiſtration.

THe Covenant made with the Jews (of which is the greateſt Doubt, or Queſtion) was … Covenant of Grace, (the ſame for ſubſtance with that we are under) with a Covenant of Peculiarity, or a Political Covenant added to it.

Queſt. When did the Covenant of Grace fir… take Date?

Anſw. Immediately after the Fall. In that threat…ning to the Serpent, Gen. 3.15. was a Promiſ… of Salvation to man. That as we read, Gal. 3.…. the Goſpel was Preached before unto Abraha… (which was enough to the Purpoſe, and Buſineſs the Apoſtle had there in hand.) So it was Preach… before that to Adam. For this cauſe as the Learn… Mede ſuppoſeth, it is called The everlasting Goſp… Rev. 14.6. foreign, not ſo much in reſpect of th… Future Time, as the Time paſt. That which wa… promiſed foreign, a Seculo, or from the Begi… ning of the World, the Antient Goſpel. That pr… miſe, [That the Seed of the Woman, ſhould brea… the Serpents head.] Was the firſt Draught, … Epitome of the Goſpel. Here God promiſed th… p. 299deſtruction of Satans Kingdom, and Salvation of Fallen man, by Jeſus Chriſt, the Seed of the Woman. That all the true Seed of the Woman, the Faithful, (oppoſed to the ſeed of the Serpent,) ſhould overcome through him, who is the Seed of the Woman eminently, and in a more famous ſenſe, and peculiar reſpect. Thus Cain and Abel were directed to offer Sacrifices, agreeable to that Diſpenſation of the Covenant before Chriſts coming. And God ſpeaks to Cain, Gen. 4.7. If thou doſt well, ſhalt thou not be accepted: Which certainly cannot but refer to the Covenant of Grace, q. d. If thou didſt ſerve me with the like ſincerity, as thy Brother doth, ſhouldſt not thou be accepted, as well as he? Now how could ſinners look to find acceptance, whoſe beſt ſervices are imperfect, and therefore deſerve to be rejected, unleſs God reveal himſelf in a gracious promiſe, or Covenant to that purpoſe. By Faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witneſs that he was Righteous, Heb. 11.4. This is evident, that Remiſſion of ſin, Juſtification, and Salvation (the great benefits promiſed in the Covenant of Grace) were granted out to ſome, before the Covenant made with Abraham. So Abel was righteous before God: So Enoch, who walked with God on Earth, and was Tranſlated, and taken up to God, Gen. 5.24. So Noah was Heir of the Righteouſneſs which is by Faith, Heb. 11.7. The Kingdom of Heaven was prepared for the Faithful, from the Foundation of the World, Mat. 25.34. Witneſs Enochs tranſlation thither. By the way take notice, they that were acquainted with the Hiſtory of Enoch, could not be ignorant of an happineſs p. 300to be enjoyed of the Saints after this life: Yea, Eternal Life was promiſed from the beginning of the world, foreign.or before Antient times, as that Text, Tit. 1.2. ſhould be read. Thus God had a Seed to ſerve him, from the beginning of the world, and was a God in Covenant with them, was their God in Chriſt. So ſome underſtand, Rev. 13.8. as referring to the grand Antient promiſe, Gen. 3.15. The Lamb ſlain from the foundation of the world. How ſlain? Not only Figurative, in Type, and Repreſentation (as Dr. Lightfoot) The firſt thing that died in the world was a Sacrifice, or Chriſt in a Figure. Now only Diſpoſitive, in Decree and Intention: Secundum diſpoſitionem totius Trinitatis, as Luther, (ſee 1 Pet. 1.19, 20.) But alſo Virtualiter, the Virtue and Efficacy of his Death extending backward, to Times paſt, as well as forward, (Rom. 3.24, 25. Heb. 9.15. and 10.4. and 13.8.) Or if we ſhould read theſe words [From the Foundation of the World,] Rev. 13.8. as having Relation to the Writing of the Names in the Book of Life, not to the ſlaying of the Lamb; as there is a parallel place in the ſame Book, Rev. 17.8. It makes as well for my preſent purpoſe holding forth the writing of the Names of ſome in the Lambs Book of Life, from the beginning of the world. Or it is a Periphraſis of them that are ſaved. None are ſaved, but ſuch as are written in the Lambs Book of Life, ſuch as are given to him. And if none ever were, or ſhall be ſaved, but ſuch whoſe Names are written in the Lambs book of Life, then none ever were, or ſhall be ſaved but by Chriſt, and according to the Covenant of Grace.

p. 301And Mr. Ball would have the Apoſtle to refer to that antient famous promiſe of Victory to the ſeed of the Woman over Satan, and all ſpiritual Enemies, both in 2 Tim. 1.9. Who hath ſaved us, and called us, with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpoſe and grace, which was given us in Chriſt Jeſus, foreign (not before the world began, as we have it Tranſlated there, and in Tit. 1.2. but) before antient times. And 2 Theſ. 2.13. God hath from the beginning choſen you to ſalvation, through ſanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the Truth. From the beginning foreign, which phraſe, as he ſaith, never imports from Eternity in Scripture.††Of the Covenant, p. 41.42.

And certainly, theſe were ever neceſſary to ſalvation from the beginning [Sanctification, and belief of the Truth.] As we read of Abels Faith, and that his works were Righteous, (a proof of his ſanctification.) We read of Enochs Faith, and of his conſtant care, to walk with God, and to pleaſe God. We read of Noahs Faith, and that he was a juſt man, and upright in his Generations, walking with God. Neither were any of the Fathers ſaved without ſuch a real, practical, living, operative Faith.

Though we have much revealed to us in the Goſpel, which was hid from them, (Epheſ. 3.9. Col. 1.26.) yet they heartily aſſento Gods Truth, and complied with his will; as the Lord was pleaſed then to reveal it. **Though as Camero ſays Si ante certum tempus praeſtitutum a Deo, mysterium ſalutis uoſtrae, ſeu regnum caelorum ſuit obſcurius revelatum, omnino conſequens eſt ut fides adhibita revel… tioni fuerit confuſa. praelect. p. 76. col. 1.That methinks it is plain, they were ſaved the ſame way even as we. Though to whom much is given, p. 302of them more is required; yet they had the ſame ſpirit of Faith. And had they been under the ſame Circumſtances with us Chriſtians, had they lived in Goſpel-times, they would have been Goſpel-believers. As Chriſt ſaith, John 7.17. If any man doth his will, he ſhall know of the Doctrine; whether it be of God, or whether I ſpeak of my ſelf. As ſuch whoſe hearts were right, and ſound, the Goſpel being revealed to them with ſuch clear Evidence, and proof, that it was of God, they could not but embrace it. As that Faith by which Abraham obeyed Gods call to leave his Country, and Kindred, and Fathers Houſe, to go he knew not whither; would have enabled him to leave Father and Mother, Houſe and Land, for Chriſts ſake, and the Goſpels. That ſame Faith, which made him ſo ready to offer up Iſaac at Gods command, would have made him as willing to take up the Croſs and follow Chriſt, as the Apoſtles and Primitive Chriſtians did, had he lived in their dayes. The like may be ſaid of the Fathers before him, who obtained a good report through Faith. Thus it appeareth, that there is no real difference, betwixt the Faith of thoſe VVorthies, who lived in former Ages, to whom God ſpake foreign at divers times, and in divers manners, and the Faith of Chriſtians, to whom God hath ſpoken by his Son.

Now though I have jumbled things together ſomething confuſedly in this Diſcourſe: Yet ye may obſerve theſe two things cleared ſufficiently, that the ſame ſubſtantial Benefits, which the Goſpel promiſeth, were held forth to the Fathers; and the ſame kind of Faith, Holineſs, and Obedience required of them, and therefore they muſt needs have p. 303…een under the ſame Covenant for ſubſtance.

And is not this a Crediting of the Goſpel? And ſhould it not confirm our Faith in the Goſpel? This is the good old Way indeed, many are greatly addicted to Antiquity. You make great account of your old Deeds and Evidences. Let me tell you, you do not conceive aright of the Goſpel, nor of Gods Grace, if you confine it to the Time of the New Teſtament, as if it was under 1700. years old. Even the Covenant of God made with Abraham was 430. years before the Moſaical Law (as the Apoſtle urgeth againſt thoſe, who were ready to adhere to the Law in oppoſition to the Goſpel.) And though that was ſufficient for his purpoſe there, yet the Covenant of Grace was long before Abraham, even from the beginning. This way God had ſet forth ſoon after Man was placed upon the Earth, immediately upon his fall. And it is queſtioned, whether Adam ſtood one day, whether he lodged one night in that Honour, to which he was Created.

O how ſhould we reverence the Goſpel! how ſhould this advance the Grace of God in our thoughts! It is the antient Goſpel, the everlaſting Goſpel, like the everlaſting Hills; even from the beginning, God ſet forth this way of Salvation. The Goſpel delivered by Chriſt, and his Apoſtles, what is it, but that good old Charter, granted to Man upon the Fall, graciouſly renewed? VVhen almoſt the whole Race of Mankind had forfeited, and loſt their Charter, Chriſt comes, and renews, and Confirms it.

But here another Queſtion falleth in.

VVhether the Covenant of Grace was made with all in Adam?

p. 304Anſw. I think we muſt yield to this, Perpetua eſt foederis Dei ratio, quod filii in parentibus comprehen… danter & cenſeanter: That this is the perpetual way and manner of Gods Covenant, to include and reckon the Children with their parents. Thus the Covenant of Grace was made with Adam, and his Seed, ſuch as were to Deſcend from him, till ſuch time as any of them Degenerated into the ſeed of the Serpent, and by their wilful Apoſtacy from God, and his VVayes, they did cut off themſelves, and theirs from the Covenant. As afterwards the Covenant was made with Abraham and his Seed; and as now, under the Goſpel the Covenant is made with the Faithful and their Seed: So was it at firſt with Adam and his Seed. But as now if any that are taken into Covenant upon the account of their Parents, being in Covenant with God, if when they ſhall grow up, they ſhall wilfully reject Grace offered, and manifeſtly renounce their Covenant with God; they ſhould thereby break off themſelves from their former Covenant-relation to God: So this hath been the caſe of the far greater part of Adams Poſterity.

Though whether the Law of Grace may not extend further, even to ſuch as are not in Covenant, in the fulleſt ſenſe, as it implieth a mutual conſent; that is another Queſtion.

But ſo much of the Covenant, or Law of Grace, as it was given to Adam.

That God might reveal more concerning it to the Fathers even before the Flood, I know no ground t… deny. VVe read of Enochs Prophecy, Jude 5.14, 15. That God was manifeſting himſelf to ſome o… his Servants in thoſe times extraordinarily.

p. 305But the next Edition of the Covenant, that we find extant, was that made to Abraham. And this latter Edition of the Covenant of Grace was larger, and clearer than the former. That Channel of Free-grace, which firſt brake forth in Paradiſe immediately upon Mans Fall, ran down to Abraham in a broader ſtream. Here Chriſt is ſpoken of, as the ſeed of Abraham, who was ſpoken of more generally before, as the Seed of the Woman. And bleſſedneſs is promiſed in and by him, Gen. 22.18. In thy Seed ſhall all the Nations of the Earth be bleſſed. Which bleſſedneſs before was more obſcurely hinted in that phraſe of breaking the Serpents head.

And here is expreſs mention of Gods Covenanting with Abraham, Gen. 17.2, 4, 7, 9, 10. Whereas Gods Covenanting with Adam, and others of the Faithful before, is not plainly laid down, but only to be gathered, and deduced from Scripture by way of Inference. Though methinks, it is plain enough to all, that are not minded to Cavil, that there was a Covenant betwixt God and Adam, &c. they being mutually engaged. God engaged to Adam by promiſe, and Adam engaged to believe God, and worſhip God, according as he did rereal himſelf. But whereas the Covenant was more tacitly and darkly held forth, betwixt God and Adam, it is moſt expreſly delared betwixt God and Abraham, ſo that there is no room for any Cavil.

Now that the Covenant made with Abraham was the Covenant of Grace, the ſame for Subſtance with that we are under, is evident.

1. The Goſpel was preached to Abraham in that Covenant, which is proved by the Apoſtles expreſs Teſtimony, Gal. 3.8.

p. 3062. The Covenant with Abraham was confirmed in Chriſt, Gal. 3.17. Therefore a Covenant of Grace.

3. The Covenant with Abraham has not yet been diſanulled, as the Apoſtle there ſhews; and thence proveth, the bleſſing of Abraham is come upon the Gentiles according to the tenor of that Covenant.

4. Abraham was juſtified by Faith in that promiſe, confirmed or renewed in the Covenant, … 17.4. That he ſhould be a Father of many Nations, ſee Gen. 15.5, 6. Now hence it will follow either that the Promiſe, and Covenant made … Abraham was a Covenant of Grace, or that Abraham was not juſtified by a Covenant of Grace, b… ſome other way. Either the Promiſe, and Cov… nant made to him, was the ſame for ſubſtance wi… that we are under, or he was juſtified and ſaved … a quite different way from us.

5. And then why ſhould he be called the Fathe… of the Faithful, Rom. 14.11, 16, 17. Or w… ſhould Goſpel Believers be called the Children … Abraham, Gal. 3.7. He is not the Father of ſuch in reſpect of Natural Generation, or Spiritual Regeneration, does not beget or produce Faith … them; but only by ſimilitude and proportion, as famous Pattern and eminent Example; as lo… what way Abraham found acceptance with Go… and was juſtified before God, and we may exp… the Favour of God, and free Juſtification in … ſame way. But certainly you take away the Fo… dation of the agreement, and Relation betw… Abraham, and the Faithful. Now, if you de… that to be the Covenant of Grace, which was m… with Abraham: Can they be of the ſame Fai… p. 307who are not under the ſame Covenant?

6. Do we not read, Gal. 3.14. That the bleſ…ing, which is come upon the Gentiles through Je…us Chriſt, was firſt the bleſſing of Abraham. It …as firſt the bleſſing of Abraham, and from him, …nd through him, (as a prime ſubject, though not … a cauſe) it deſcends upon us. The Goſpel, or the glad Tidings of Chriſt, and bleſſedneſs in him …as firſt preached to Abraham, [In thy Seed ſhall all the Nations of the Earth be bleſſed.] And thus by …aith in the Promiſe he ſaw the day of Chriſt, the bleſſias coming, though it was at a great diſtance; …et he believed it would come, and be a happy day …deed, the fore-thoughts whereof made him glad …t heart, John 8.56.

Object. 1. But ſome tell us the Covenant made …ith Abraham, was not the Covenant of Grace; …t that is one and the ſame to all the Faithful: But … this Covenant with Abraham are ſpecial promiſes, …greeing only to him and his Family, or Natural Off-ſpring, as that the Meſſiah ſhould come of his …eed, Even He, in whom all Nations ſhould be bleſ…ed; and that God would give the Land of Canaan … his Seed.

Anſw. We muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt the Eſſen…ls of the Covenant of Grace, and the acciden…s. As the Covenant of Grace holds forth the …ay of Salvation for Fallen Mankind of Gods Free…ace in Chriſt; ſo it is the ſame Covenant, that …braham was under, and the Faithful now are un…r. And as to the now-mentioned Differences, …ey were but Circumſtantial, and accidental. This …ſtinction muſt be granted, or elſe we muſt hold … Tribe of Judah, and Houſe of David were intereſted p. 308in one Covenant, and the other-Tribes, with all the Jewiſh Proſelytes in another Covenant; whereas the Scripture Involves and Comprehends them is one and the ſame Covenant.

Object. 2. Others ſay, God made a two-fold Covenant with Abraham, in Gen. 17. Scil. A Covenant of Grace, in the beginning of the Chapt… and a Covenant of Circumciſion, ver. 9, 10. &c. which they make a Covenant of Works.

Anſw. But this is a miſtake ſure, for ſo it wo… follow, 1. That whereas Abraham is acknowledge to be taken into a Covenant of Grace before, he … the priviledge after this, to be taken into the Covenant of Works; which is no priviledge. 2. T… muſt ſay, that Abraham was at the ſame time … under a Covenant of Grace, and a Covenant … Works. But theſe ſame perſons at other times … ny, that one can be under both Covenants together 3. The Apoſtle is expreſs, Rom. 4.11. That A… ham received the ſign of Circumciſion, a ſeal of … Righteouſneſs of Faith. So that if the Coven… to which Circumciſion did belong, was a Covenant of Works (as Mr. P. would have it:) the Righteouſneſs of Faith ſhould belong to the Covenant Works. 4. Gen. 17; Doth not ſpeak of a … fold Covenant made with Abraham, but ſets … both parts of the Covenant, ſcil. What the … promiſed to Abraham, and what he required of Abraham. He promiſed to be a God unto him, … to his Seed after him, ver. 7. And required Abraham to walk before him in Integrity, ver. 1. A… ful mit to the Ordinance of Circumciſion, … VVhichWhich at that time he appointed to be the … the Covenant: He calleth it [My Covenant.] … p. 309methinks it is ſtrange, that any Proteſtant ſhould ſtumble at the Expreſſion. It is a Sacramental phraſe, …ike that 1 Cor. 10.4. That Rock was Chriſt. And … Cor. 11.24. This is my Body.

Again, look at the Spiritual meaning of Circum…iſion, as it was a bloody Sacrament, intimating the purging away of ſin by the Blood of the Covenant, and pointing at the inward Circumciſion of the heart; what can be more plain, than that it muſt refer to the Covenant of Grace? But I may have occaſion to ſpeak more of this by and by.

Laſtly, That there was but one Covenant eſtaliſhed with Abraham, this appears (as Mr. Whi…on noteth p. 36.) From the conſtant phraſe of Scripture, always (where ſpeaking of the Covenant made with Abraham) ſpeaking in the ſingular number, the Covenant, and not in the plu…al, Covenants.

Now I might go on to ſhew how God repeated …is Covenant with Abraham, as it were Commenting upon it, in which reſpect it may be called the Promiſes, Gal. 3.16. ſo Gen. 12.1, 2, 3. and 15. …. 5. and 17. and 22.17, 18. And I have heard … Learned man obſerve from Gods commanding …raham to offer up his ſon Iſaac, that on Gods …art it was a further Exhibition of the Meſſiah to …raham. Iſaac muſt be the bleſſed Seed, or the …rogenitor of it, becauſe of that Promiſe, Gen. 11.12. In Iſaac ſhall thy Seed be called. Now Iſaac's uſage (being appointed to be offered up a Sacrifice) holds forth to Abraham, that the Meſſias …ould be offered up a Sacrifice for ſin. Dr. W.(So that here was more of Goodneſs in God to …braham, than of Obedience in Abraham to God.) p. 310Again, there was a determinate place where Iſaac, ſhould be offered, Mount Moriah, on which place afterwards the Temple, the place of ſacrifices, was built. Again, Iſaac was laid on the wood, and Abrahams hand ſtretched out, to ſlay him: Yet Abrahams hand was ſtayed, Iſaac was not Sacrificed, but God provided a Ram for a Sacrifice; this teacheth Abraham that the time of Meſſiahs coming was not yet: But in the mean time God would be content with Sacrifices, as Pledges of the Meſſiah, which ſhould Supponere locum Meſſiae, ſhould be Typical, Significative, and Repreſentative of him. Here I have given you anothers thoughts of that Myſterious paſſage, of Gods commanding Abraham … offer his ſon Iſaac. But whether indeed Abraham had a diſtinct apprehenſion of theſe things, as we may have, ſince they have been cleared, and illuſtrated in the Antitype, I do not determine; but leave to others Judgments.

I come next to ſpeak of the Covenant made wi… the Children of Iſrael. Here ſome diſtinguiſh … the Covenant made with them under Moſes, … their return from the Babyloniſh Captivity, and th… Covenant made with them after the Captivity. B… that I may not run out too far, I ſhall only ſpeak … the Moſaick Covenant: as indeed of that Covenant is all the Queſtion, whether it was a Covenant of Grace, the ſame for ſubſtance with that, whi… Chriſtians are under. Now I ſhall endeavour … clear this, That the Covenant of God made … Moſes with the people of the Jews, was a Covenant of Grace, the ſame for ſubſtance with the Goſpe… Covenant: The way of Life and Salvation he… forth in it.

p. 311It is granted, or if any ſhould deny or queſtion it, we have ſeen it proved before, that the Covenant made with Abraham, was a Covenant of grace; But the Covenant made with Abraham, took in the Jews, as his ſeed, Gen. 17.7. And the Covenant made with the Jews, was a carrying on and eſtabliſhing of the ſame Covenant; (though with a new …dus, ſome things peculiar to the Jewiſh Church and Common-wealth, being added to it,) Deut. 8.18. Thou ſhalt remember the Lord thy God, that he may eſtabliſh his Covenant, which he ſware unto thy Fathers. And Deut. 7.12. If ye hearken to theſe Judgments, and keep and do them, the Lord thy God ſhall keep unto thee the Covenant and Mercy, which he ſware unto thy Fathers.

2. That Covenant which was Sealed with the ſon of Circumciſion, and had a promiſe of Heart-Circumciſion, was a Covenant of Grace. But the Covenant made with the Jews, was ſealed with the … of Circumciſion; and further, had a promiſe … Heart-circumciſion.

What did the outward ſign of Circumciſion ſignifit? That we learn, Deut. 10.16. Circumciſe …erefore the Fore-skin of your heart, which hath … accompliſhment in Chriſt: Veteres Hebraei in … fuerunt ſententiâ, quod tempore Meſſiae Circum… Spiritualiter, non Carnaliter amplius fieri de…. Fag. apud M. Pool. in Synopſ. Col. 2.11, …. In whom ye are Circumciſed with the Circum…on made without hands, in putting off the body … the ſins of the fleſh, by the Circumciſion of Chriſt, buried with him in Baptiſm. Where me…inks the Apoſtle intimates thus much, that Mo…'s Circumciſion, the outward circumciſion made p. 312with hands, did point to Chriſts Circumciſion, the inward Circumciſion not made with hands, [The Circumciſion of Chriſt.] i. e. That which he effected by his Spirit. And this further we may take notice of, that he ſeemeth to compare Circumciſion, and Baptiſm, as ſignifying the ſame thing, [Buried with him in Baptiſm.]

Here let me Recite a Paſſage out of a Late Writer. Diſc. of the … Covenants. p. 37.[It is not unlikely (ſays he) but that as Heart-circumciſion under the Figure of Literal-circumciſion, was, together with Faith, made the condition of the Covenant then: (Gen. 17.10. with Deut. 10.16.) So Spiritual Baptiſm, which is a death unto ſin, and a living unto God, is under the Figure of Water-baptiſm, joyned with believing; as the condition of the promiſe of Salvation now. Mar. 16.16. He that believeth and is Baptized, ſhall be ſaved. According to which, the Apoſtle Peter having ſpoken of Noahs Ark, ſaith, The like Figure whereunto Baptiſm now ſaveth us; not the putting away of the filth of the Fleſh, but the anſwer of a good Conſcience towards God, 1 Pet, 3.21.] But this is one thing conſiderable, if Circumciſion ſignified the ſame thing that Baptiſm doth, ſcil. The Mortification of ſin, and laid … Engagement on them to put away Filthineſs of the Fleſh and Spirit both; it muſt be the ſame Covenant for ſubſtance, to which both thoſe Sacraments referred.

Hereunto add, That the Jews had a promiſe o… Heart-circumciſion, Deut. 30.6. The Lord thy God will circumciſe thine heart, and the heart of th… ſeed, to love the Lord thy God. This is an evident p. 313promiſe of Grace, where the Lord undertakes to work, what elſe-where he requires, as Deut. 10.16. Jer. 4.4. Object. But then why is the Houſe of Iſrael ſaid to have been Ʋncircumciſed in heart? Anſw. They were ſo generally, This Promiſe (like thoſe Jer. 31.33. Ezek. 36.26, 27.) was fulfilled only in ſome of them, not in all, (its true) and yet laid down in ſo general Terms as might have encouraged any of them to apply themſelves to God, for the beſtowing of that Grace upon them.

But there is an Objection againſt this Argument from Circumciſion, from Gal. 5.3. Every man that is circumciſed, is a Debtor to do the whole Law. And conſequently, circumciſion ſhould rather have reference to a Covenant of Works.

Anſw. It is a miſtake, to confound the Law (of which the Apoſtle there ſpeaketh) with the Covenant of Works, or covenant made with man in Innocency. The Law to which Circumciſion bound men, was the written Law of Moſes, which though it is ſometimes called the Law of Works, yet is really diſtinct from the Law of Innocency, or Covenant of works made with man at firſt. Indeed the Moſaical Jewiſh Law, taken in the Political ſence, as it was the Inſtrument, or Rule of Government of the Jews Common-wealth (as one notes) promiſing Temporal benefits to the ſtrict obſervation thereof, Diſcourſe of the two Covenants. p. 75.and threatning Temporal penalties to the Tranſgreſſion and Violation of the ſame: So far it was a Law of Works. A Law of Works foreign. As the Apoſtle ſaith, Gal. 3.12. The Law is not of Faith: But the man that Doth them, ſhall live in them, (as Lev. 18.5.) Which as it had reference p. 314to the Law in the Political ſence, is to be underſtood of a long and proſperous life upon Earth.

Further, as the falſe Apoſtles and carnal Jews expected Juſtification, and Salvation, upon the External Obſervation of the Law, as if Circumciſion, and other works of the Law were highly Meritorious (Rom. 9, 32. and 10.3.) Thus it was to them a ſuppoſed Law, or Covenant of Works. Not that God did ſo intend it, but they did ſo miſapprehend it. Not that Circumciſion did indeed bind men to the ſtrict Terms of the proper Covenant of Works.

But the Apoſtle there ſpeaks of Circumciſion, in the ſence of the falſe Apoſtles, and as they abuſed it. They urged it as neceſſary to Juſtification, as a work of the Law, ſetting Moſes againſt Chriſt: And would have it ſtill practiſed, when by Chriſt it was aboliſhed. Againſt theſe, the Apoſtle argues, if you will keep up circumciſion ſtill, by the ſame reaſon, you muſt keep up all Iewiſh Ceremonies, and obſerve the whole Moſaical Law, to which Circumciſion did oblige them.

But obſerve it, the uſe of Circumciſion as inſtituted by God, was not to bind them to Legally perfect, and ſinleſs Obedience; nor did Abraham, or any faithful Jew ſo underſtand it. So indeed it would have been no priviledge at all; Rom. 3.1.Rom 3:1ſo it would have been no happineſs or advantage, but a miſery; and terror for them to have been taken into Covenant with God by Circumciſion. But though compared with the more eaſie Inſtitutions of the Goſpel, circumciſion was a Yoke, binding them to that more burdenſome way of Service, which God at that time had appointed; yet comparing their eſtate then, with that of the p. 315Heathen, circumciſion was an Honourable Badge of them, whom God owned as his peculiar people. And though as Circumciſion had relation to their political Law, it bound them to the ſtrict Obſervation of thoſe Statutes, Judgments and Ordinances, which God had given them in ſpecial: Yet as it had relation to the covenant made with Abraham, and his Seed, which was ſtill on foot, it only bound them to ſerve and obey God in ſincerity and truth, in what he then revealed to be his Will; and ſo much is (no doubt) required of every one in the Covenant of Grace. Again,

3. That covenant which holds forth Salvation to Fallen man, cannot be the covenant of works, but the covenant of Grace. But the covenant made with the Jews, held forth Salvation to them, John 4.22. Salvation is of the Jews: So it was while they were in covenant. And upon this account the land of Judah might be called Emphatically, The Land of the Living. Theirs was the Land of the Living, and the Valley of Viſion: Whereas other People fat in Darkneſs, and in the Region and ſha…ow of Death, Pſal. 132.16. I will clothe her Prieſts with Salvation: Miniſterium eorum reddam ſalutare populo meo: Id quod eis erit honorificum, non ſecus ac elegans Veſtis. Piſcat.By their Miniſtration (ſtanding in his councel) they might both ſave themſelves, and others, Jer. 23.22. And they that were aliens from the Common-wealth of Iſrael, and ſtrangers from the Covenant of Promiſe, are ſet forth as having no hope, and without God in the world, Ep. 2.12. Implying, 1. That the Gentiles had no grounded hope of future Happineſs. 2. The Jews …ad or might have had ſuch hope. 3. What grounded p. 316hope they had of future Happineſs, it depended, or was built and bottomed on the Covenant, then on foot. Called Covenants, being divers times renewed, though otherwiſe for ſubſtance, it was but one. So again, Rom. 9.4. Ʋna fuit promiſſio, ſi rem ipſam ſpectes, Beza.ſed ſaepius ſancita. It was at ſeveral times renewed, and though the Matter and ſubſtance of it was the ſame, yet it was delivered in ſundry forms in various Expreſſions. Or if by [Covenants] we underſtand, Et foedus gratiae communis, & faedus peculiaritatis: Both the general covenant which God maketh with all his People, chiefly about their Eternal Happineſs; and that ſpecial covenant made with the People of the Jews, about their proſperity in Canaan, the Land of Promiſe; the latter was but an Appendix, not a thing oppoſite to the former.

Now if Salvation was of the Jews (as is already proved) it undeniably follows, that the Covenant of Grace was made with the Jews, as well as with us Chriſtians. Surely, none that conſider what they ſay, will dare to affirm that they might have Salvation, though under a Covenant of Works, and not of Grace. And as the way of Salvation was alwayes one and the ſame, to wit, through a Mediatour; ſo the covenant of Grace in all Ages for ſubſtance, was one and the ſame. Jeſus Chriſt, the ſame yeſterday and to day, and for ever, Heb. 13.8.

Here (by the way) obſerve, how groſly they are miſtaken, that hold, the Jews had only Temporal promiſes. A bold-fac'd Aſsertion, contrary to plain Scripture. If the Jews had no promiſes, but only of Temporal things, what ſhall we make of that Text, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, (where p. 317certainly our Saviour ſpeaketh of the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament, the Scriptures of the New Teſtament (not being then Extant) Search the Scriptures (ſayes he) for in them ye think ye have Eternal Life; and they are they that teſtifie of me. And what would they make of that Promiſe, [I will be their God!] The Pſalmiſt ſpeaketh of it as a far greater Matter to have the Lord for our God, than to have and enjoy the world, Pſal. 144.15. And the Apoſtle ſeemeth to ſay, that God would have been aſhamed, to be called, Their God in ſo low a ſence; as including meerly ſome outward Temporal priviledges, and Enjoyments, and no more, Heb. 11.16. This would have been little for his Honour: This would not have been to promiſe, or give like himſelf, like a God. Thoſe words ſpoken to Moſes [I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Iſaac, and the God of Jacob,] prove them not only in being ſtill, but in a ſtate of happineſs. And ſo the Import of the Phraſe, Rev. 21.7. He that overcometh ſhall Inherit all things, and I will be his God. And certainly, the bleſſings of an earthly Canaan were not all, that God promiſed under the Old Teſtament; but Canaan it ſelf was to them a Type of a better Countrey, that is an Heavenly. And if the Doctrine of future Happineſs after this Life, was not ſufficiently Revealed unto, and commonly apprehended, and known among the Jews, one would wonder how ſuch an one, as that Thief on the Croſs, ſhould be acquainted with it, who prayed, Lord, remember me, when thou comeſt into thy Kingdom.

4. That Covenant, which had the Spirit and Grace of God attending the Adminiſtration of it, p. 318was undoubtedly a Covenant of Grace. But the covenant made with the Jews, had the Spirit and Grace of God ſo attending it. The Spirit was promiſed, and Exhibited then, though not in ſo large a meaſure, as under the Goſpel, Hag. 2.5. According to the word that I covenanted with you, when ye came out of Egypt, ſo my Spirit remaineth among you, Mich. 2.7. Is the Spirit of the Lord ſtreightned? Are theſe his doings? Do not my words do good to him that walketh uprightly? Thoſe high Encomia given to the Law, Pſal. 19.7, 8, 9. The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the ſoul: The Statutes of the Lord are right, rejoycing the heart: The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightning the eyes, agree to it only, as the Spirit doth accompany it.

There was the ſame Spirit of Faith given out under the Old Teſtament, though not the ſame meaſure of Faith. And it was a Prayer, which a Saint under the Old Teſtament put up, Pſal. 143.10. Teach me to do thy will, for thou art my God, thy Spirit is good: Lead me (i. e. by thy Spirit) into the Land of Ʋprightneſs. And there was the ſame Love to God, to his Word and Worſhip, to his Saints and Servants in the faithful of Old, as is in Believers, under the Goſpel. And they obeyed from the ſame gracious Principle, as is evident from Heb. 11.

5. The Jewiſh Sacraments did repreſent and ſignifie the ſame thing, as Goſpel-Sacraments do; from whence it would ſeem to follow, that the Covenant made with them is for ſubſtance, the ſame with that which Chriſtians are under. Methinks it is plain, that the Apoſtle makes Circumciſion and Baptiſm, the ſame in ſignification, Col. 2.11, 12. and 1 Cor. 10.3, 4. They did all eat the ſame ſpiritual p. 319Meat, and they did all drink the ſame ſpiritual Drink: For they drank of that ſpiritual Rock, that followed them, and that Rock was Chriſt. Would any one imagine, that Chriſt ſhould be held forth Repreſented, or Typified, in Sacraments relating to the Covenant of Works? That their Sacraments did Typifie Chriſt to come, and ours do ſet him forth as already come; will not prove two Covenants Eſſentially different, but only two different Adminiſtrations of the Covenant. As it will not prove two Chriſts, one that was then to come, and another that is ſince come. Surely, there is but one Chriſt, though thus variouſly ſet forth and diſcovered.

6. That Covenant which was capable of being renewed, after it was broken, muſt needs be a Covenant of Grace, and not of Works. But the covenant made with the Iſraelites, was capable of renewing. The covenant of Works being once broken, is irreparably broken, becauſe it requireth abſolute, perfect Obedience. But the People of Iſrael were oft called to renew their covenant with God, which ſheweth it was a Covenant of Grace. Moſes, Nehemiah, &c. who truly feared God, and full well knew their own and others weakneſs, and utter inability to perform ſinleſs Obedience, would never have been ſo forward to engage themſelves, and others in a covenant of Works; which was impoſſible for them to keep, whereby they could expect nothing but a curſe.

The covenant of Works admitteth not of Repentance, promiſeth not Remiſſion thereupon: But there was place for Repentance, and a promiſe of Pardon and Forgiveneſs in that covenant made with p. 320the Iſraelites, Lev. 26.40, 42. Deut. 4.30, 31.

There was a way appointed under the Old Teſtament for the Expiation of ſin. The Sacrifices under the Law were Types of Chriſt, and to ſignifie our obtaining Remiſſion by his Blood. Doth the covenant of works admit of Sacrifices for ſin? What a veil is over their eyes, in reading the Old Teſtament, that make it a covenant of works, when the great thing pointed at by its Types and Ceremonies, is Chriſt, and Redemption by him! VVill any ſay, the covenant of works, was Typical of the covenant of Grace?

7. That Covenant which had the ſame condition with the Goſpel-covenant, viz. Sincere Obedience to Gods Commands; is for ſubſtance the ſame covenant, that is, a Covenant of Grace. But the covenant made with the Jews. had this ſame condition. The covenant of works would not take up with Sincere Obedience, but ſtrictly requireth, and exacteth Perfect Obedience.

But as God in his Covenant with Abraham, required his walking uprightly. So this was the thing required of Iſrael, Deut. 10.12. And now Iſrael, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy ſoul? VVhere the phraſe [To ſerve him with all the heart, and with all the ſoul] is to be underſtood, by comparing it with other Texts, where the like phraſe is uſed. As Deut. 30.6. VVhere God promiſeth to circumciſe their heart, to love him with all their heart, and with all their ſoul. And 1 Kings 14.8. VVhere it is ſaid of David, that he followed the Lord with all his heart And the like of Joſiah, 2 Kings 23.25. Not tha… p. 321they did all that God in his Law required of them: But God in the Covenant made with them, did accept of their ſincere and hearty Service, and Obedience, though it was Imperfect; which the Covenant of Works would not admit of.

Phraſis illa [ex toto Corde] in multis locis Scripturae apponitur hypocriſi, Chemnit. Loc. Com. de Lege Deî. p. 9. Col. 2.Col 2& externi ſimulationi, manifeſtum eſt [toto corde] ſeu perfecto corde, opponi duplici cordi. This of loving God with all the heart, and ſoul, and ſtrength, Truman againſt ſome prevailing Opinions. p. 92.93, 94.muſt be conſidered either ſtrictly,— and ſo it requires the utmoſt of a mans Natural ability; ſo that if he fails in the leaſt degree of this, he fails ſo much of love due to God by the Law, and is under its Curſe. In this ſtrict ſence, no meer man in this Life, not Joſiah himſelf, ever loved God with his whole heart, ſo highly as he ought. 2. Theſe words may be conſidered as the condition of the Remedying Law, as taken with Goſpel-lenity, as if they love God with the prevailing bent of their ſouls, or above all things, &c.

So that when you read, Lev. 18.5. Ye ſhall keep my Statutes, and my Judgments, which if a man do, be ſhall live in them. (As in Neh. 9.29. and Ezek. 20.11.) You are not therefore to conclude, that this was a covenant of Works. Though it run in ſuch a form, and though it is true; the carnal Jews with their Phariſaical Teachers, turned it into a covenant of Works. [Do this and live,] if you underſtand it, ſpeaking of a Legal exactneſs, a perfect fulfilling of the Law; if you take it as a …romiſe of Life, only upon condition of perfect p. 322unſinning Obedience. So (its true) it is the plain Voice of the Covenant of Works. But as the Lord ſpake thus to the People of Iſrael, whom of his meer Grace, and Favour he had taken into Covenant with him; the words are rather to be taken in a Goſpel-ſence, as requiring ſincere Obedience, and promiſing Life thereupon. And ſo the Faithful underſtood them, Pſal. 51.6. Behold, thou deſireſt truth in the inward parts, ver. 16, 17. Thou deſireſt not Sacrifice, the Sacrifices of God are a broken ſpirit. Pſal. 40.8. I delight to do thy will, O my God: Yea, thy Law is within my heart. Pſal. 44.17, 18. We have not dealt falſely in thy Covenant, our heart is not turned back, &c. Yea, it is moſt plain, that ſuch a keeping of Gods Commands was meant, as had a promiſe of Gods Keeping-mercy unto them, Deut. 7.12. and of his Shewing-mercy, Exod. 20.6. Where there is need of Shewing-mercy, that plainly ſhews, the Obedience performed not to be exactly Legal, every way perfect. Shewing-mercy here, ſeemeth to intend, at leaſt it concludeth, Pardoning-mercy. As it ſtandeth in oppoſition to Gods viſiting Iniquity, ver. 5. But ſuppoſing Obedience every way perfect, there is no room for, no need of ſuch Mercy. Sincere Obedience was no leſs accepted under the Old Teſtament, than under the New, (Mal. 3.17.) As it is no leſs required under the New Teſtament, than under the Old, Mat. 7.21. Not every one that ſaith unto me, Lord, Lord, ſhall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father whit… is in Heaven. Rom. 2.7. To them who by patient continuance in well-doing, ſeek for Glory, Honour and Immortality, Eternal life, ver. 13. For no… p. 323the Hearers of the Law are juſt before God, but the Doers of the Law ſhall be juſtified, and James, 1.25.

And ſo the Harmony betwixt the Old Teſtament, and the New; betwixt Moſes, the Prophet, and the Apoſtle Paul, Deut. 30.11, 12, 13, 14. with Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. The Obedience of Faith required by both, (vid. Truman againſt ſome prevailing Opinions, pag. 35, 36.) As Mr. Ball, Of the Covenant. p. 114.What word was that which Moſes ſaith was near, even in their hearts, But the Law which the Lord gave upon Mount Sanai, and promiſed to write in the hearts of his People under the Covenant of Grace. It ſhould be under the New Covenant of Grace.

And though ſome may be ready to Object that of the Apoſtles, Rom. 10.5. For Moſes deſcribes the Righteouſneſs which is of the Law, that the man which doth thoſe things, ſhall live by them; which would ſeem to make Lev. 18.5. and other the like Texts, a Covenant of works, of a contrary Te…our to the Goſpel-covenant. Yet the difficulty is ſolved, if we attend to what another hath obſerved. Truman againſt ſome prevailing Opinion. p. 36.It is apparent (ſays he) that the Law of Moſes, though it was given deſignedly (as to the end of the Revelation of it) as a Covenant of Grace, and Pardon, even for the Salvation of ſinners; yet it was given (ſubſerviently ſtill to the ſame end of Salvation) alſo to Reveal the Law, in its utmoſt exacting Rigour.

And elſe-where Paraphraſing upon the place, [for Moſes deſcribeth the Righteouſneſs of the Law.] Append. to great Propitiation. p. 59.That is, theſe p. 324words of Moſes taken in the ſtrict Law-ſence, as a Law, and in the ſence you underſtand them, ſet forth the way you ſtick too for Juſtification. For it is apparent, that thoſe very words (Lev. 18.5.) and the whole body of the Moſaical Law, were a Covenant of Grace, as they were given from God by Moſes, and underſtood (or intended by God) and ought to have been underſtood by the People: The meaning was, if you indeavour to do all theſe ſincerely, and lament your falling ſhort, you ſhall live and be bleſſed. Though he would not deny, but freely grant, that the ſame Moſaical Law, that is, Materially the ſame, was alſo given to Rule them, as a Common-wealth; according to the Obſervance, or Tranſgreſſion whereof, they might look to proſper, or to be puniſhed in this World.

8. That Covenant whereby the People of Iſrael came to have a ſpecial Intereſt in God, and ſpecial Priviledges above other People, could not be a Covenant of works, but of Grace. They could have had no Special priviledge by a Covenant of works, wherein naturally all are equally concern'd, and which lays ſinners under the Curſe, under an Intollerable burden. It's impoſſible that ſinners ſhould come to have an Intereſt in God by the Covenant o… works. Yet this was the Jews priviledge: The Lord was their God, Gen. 17.8. and Pſal. 144.15. and 33.12. To them pertain the Adoption, Rom. 9.4. And they have God nigh to them, Deut. 4.7, 8. And had the advantage clear of all others, that wer… ſtrangers to the Covenant, Rom. 3.1, 2. Had i… been a Covenant of works, they ſhould only hav… had God against them, not with them, or for them p. 325what is ſpoken to them, Exod. 19.5, 6. is applied to Believers under the New Teſtament, 1 Pet. 2.9.

What I have added here, foreign to ſhew, that the Covenant made with the Jews, was not a Covenant of works, is to ſhew ſome, how groſſely Mr. Patient is miſtaken; whoſe looſe Diſcourſe deſerves not a large Refutation. Yet as weak as it is, it hath taken with ſome Friends of mine, whom I cannot but pity. But, Lay all theſe things together, and I wonder if you can have any doubt, whether the Covenant made with them, was a Covenant of Grace, the ſame for ſubſtance with the Goſpel-covenant.

Yet becauſe this is the foreign of the Anabaptiſts, the grand Miſtake, which they lie under, and which leadeth them further out of the way; for the further clearing of the Truth, I ſhall anſwer all that I can think of, which may be Objected.

Object. 1. That the Covenant made with the Jews, was but a Subſervient-Covenant. Not the Covenant of Grace, but ſubſervient to it.

Anſw. 1. It could not be Subſervient to the firſt bringing in of the Covenant of Grace, which was in the world before this. The Covenant of Grace was made with Adam, immediately upon the Fall, and renewed with Abraham. And how could the Covenant made with the Jews, be ſubſervient to the being of that, which was long before it? 2. Granting it was ſubſervient to the Goſpel-diſpenſation of the Covenant of Grace, and preparatory to it, (as it is Gods uſual Method in the works both of Nature, and Grace, to proceed from that which is leſs perfect, to that which is more perfect) yet p. 326this will not prove it no Covenant of Grace, but only that it was not ſo clear a Diſpenſation of the Covenant of Grace, as the Goſpel-covenant. 3. It certainly tended to the ſame end, which the Goſpel aimeth at; to wit, the Salvation of ſouls, and had the ſame effect, attained this end in the Faithful among the Jews, and therefore certainly was a Covenant of Grace, the ſame for ſubſtance with the Goſpel covenant, and not meerly ſubſervient to it.

Object. 2. It was a mixt Covenant.

Anſw. Though one hath raiſed a great duſt, about the Covenant made with Abraham, and his Seed, calling it a Mixt-covenant: Of what Principles was it mixt? Was it a Mixture of the Covenant of works, and the Covenant of Grace? A compound of both theſe? But at other times, they will ſay theſe two are Incompaſſibilia, things that will not mix, and conſiſt together; you may as ſoon mingle Heaven and Earth together. If Juſtification and Salvation be of works, then of Debt, and conſequently not of Grace: So one of theſe plainly excludes, and overthrows the other. That either they muſt bring it to a Covenant of works, and not of Grace, or vice verſâ, to a Covenant of Grace and not of VVorks. Or was it a mixt Covenant becauſe it contained Temporal promiſes, as well as Spiritual; yet obſerve, this could not hinder its being a Covenant of Grace. For, 1. Thoſe Temporal good things promiſed were Typical of higher, and better, even of Spiritual things. An earthly Canaan was a Type of Heaven. And long Life promiſed to the Obedient, was promiſed as an earneſt to Eternal Life, And whatever ſome ſay and think, p. 327this conſideration would commend, and ſet off thoſe outward Temporal bleſſings promiſed to the Faithful; that they were Types and Pledges of Spiritual and Heavenly things. That they might ſay, as David, 2 Sam. 7.19. And this was yet a ſmall thing in thy ſight, O Lord God, but thou haſt alſo ſpoken of thy ſervants for a great while to come; haſt ſpoken what thou wilt do for us hereafter, in another world. How great is thy Goodneſs which thou haſt laid up for them, that fear thee, beſides all that Goodneſs of thine laid out upon them here.

2. The Goſpel it ſelf contains promiſes of Outward, Temporal-bleſſings, as well as Spiritual. Chriſt hath promiſed, Mat. 6, 33. All theſe things ſhall be added, to them that ſeek the Kingdom of Heaven firſt. And ſtill that holds good to the Faithful, [I will never leave thee, nor forſake thee, Heb, 13.5, 6. Godlineſs not only heretofore had, but ſtill hath the promiſe of the Life that now is, as well as of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4.8. Now ſhall we therefore ſay, The Goſpel is a mixt Covenant, and not a Covenant of Grace.

If it be replied, that in the Covenant made with Abraham, and his Seed, the Land of Canaan was …omiſed, which is no where promiſed to Believers … the Goſpel.

Anſw. If upon this account it muſt be held, a …ixt Covenant, in Oppoſition to its being a Coveunt of Grace; then that which made it a mixt Co…enant, muſt be either that this was a Temporal …romiſe, or that it was a promiſe peculiarly belong…ng to Abraham and his ſeed; but neither of theſe …ould make it ſuch a mixt Covenant. Not the former p. 328For by this Reaſon, the Goſpel, which promiſeth, that the meek ſhall Inherit the Earth, Mat. 5. ſhould be a mixt Covenant. That the promiſe of an Earthly Canaan ſhould make ſuch a mixt Covenant, and no other promiſe of the Earth, or Earthly bleſſings do it; is ſuch a groundleſs Fancy, as will never be proved while the Earth ſtands.

Nor the latter. For ſo the Goſpel ſhould be a mixt Covenant too. As the Land of Canaan was promiſed in ſpecial to Abraham, and his ſeed; and as it was promiſed, that the Meſſiah ſhould come of his ſeed: So in the beginning of the Goſpel, there was a ſpecial promiſe of Miracles, to credit, and encourage the Faith of thoſe, who firſt believed in Chriſt, Mark 16.17, 18. Theſe ſigns ſhall follow them that believe. In my Name they ſhall caſt out Devils, they ſhall ſpeak with new Tongues, they ſhall take up Serpents, &c. Which promiſe belongeth not to us, as thoſe ſigns are not to be expected now: Muſt we therefore ſay, that was a mixt Covenant made with thoſe Primitive believers, different from the Covenant of Grace we are under? Surely it is called the Covenant of Grace, from the main eſsential promiſes of Grace, and Salvation: I ſay, it hath its Denomination from thoſe Grand promiſes, which God made to his Church and People in all Ages; and which make it the ſame Covenant for ſubſtance, notwithſtanding a difference, and change in certain acceſſions and circumſtantials.

So if it alledged, that the Old Teſtament doth more abound with Temporal promiſes.

The Anſwer is ready, Magis & Minus non variant Speciem. More and Leſs ſhew different Degrees, p. 329not different Kinds. Though the Jews had more of the Earth promiſed, and Chriſtians more of the Spirit, this will only prove Chriſtians under a better diſpenſation of the Covenant; it will not diſprove the Jews being under a Covenant of Grace, ſince beſides their temporal, they had alſo ſpiritual Promiſes.

Obj. 3. Had the Covenant made with the Jews been a covenant of Grace, the ſame for ſubſtance with the Goſpel covenant, then Chriſt ſhould have been the Mediator of it; but Moſes was the Mediator of that Covenant.

Anſ. 1. Inaſmuch as that Covenant made with the Jews, did admit of a Mediator, this ſheweth it was not a covenant of works. The covenant of works hath no Mediator.

2. Moſes as he was Mediator was a type of Chriſt, therefore Chriſt was the true Mediator, even then as well as now, Heb. 13.8. Jeſus Chriſt the ſame yeſter day, and to day, and for ever. Indeed Chriſt is called the Mediator of a better Covenant, Heb. 8.6. Not wholly to exclude him from having to do … the former covenant, but becauſe as the Law came by Moſes, and he was made uſe of to report it from God to the Iſraelites, Acts 7.38. (in which reſpect he is called a Mediator, Gal. 3.19.) So the better covenant was delivered, the better diſpenſation of the covenant was ſet forth by Chriſt himſelf, (as Heb. 1.2.) as it was fit he ſhould have the Honour of it. But as Remiſſion of ſin, and Recon…liation unto God was attainable under the firſt covenant, ſo Chriſt was the Mediator then, and not Moſes. Indeed, in all Ages Chriſt was both Prophet, Prieſt, and King to his Church; though he p. 330was not ſo clearly revealed in theſe his Offices before, as he is to his People under the Goſpel.

Obj. 4. The Old Teſtament was dedicated with the blood of Beaſts, not of Chriſt, Heb. 9.18, 19.

Anſw. The virtue of Chriſts blood did certainly extend to the times of the Old Teſtament. And was not that Blood, wherewith the firſt Teſtament was Dedicated, Typical of the blood of Chriſt? Now how abſurd is it to talk of a Covenant of works typical of a Covenant of Grace, (as Mr. Patient, holds it is, who makes this Objection.) How ſtrange were it, if a Covenant of works ſhould be ſo Dedicated, as to repreſent Chriſt and his Benefits; which is the ſoul and ſubſtance of the Covenant of Grace. Indeed, as a Modern writer notes: Mr. Truman indeavours to Rectifie ſome prevailing Opinions. p. 151.In the ſence wherein it did Typifie things to come, it was neither the strict Law of work, nor the Law of Grace, or Goſpel promiſing pardon as to Conſcience and future Happineſs upon Repentance, and ſincere Obedience, but the Jewiſh Political Law.

But the Book of the Law in the Temporal ſence, Ib. p. 27. Margin. And the like again, in the Margin, p. 83.(as it was the Inſtrument of the Jewiſh policy,) being ſprinkled with blood, was a pattern of the Law in the Eternal ſence, ſprinkled with a better Sacrifice.

Object. But the Covenant which God made with the Jews, and the Covenant made with Believers under the Goſpel, are ſpoken of as two Covenants; one called the Firſt, and the old Covenant; the other p. 331the New; and the ſecond Covenant one ſaid to have been faulty, the other called a better Covenant, Heb. 8.6, 7.

Anſw. 1. The terms Old, and New, Firſt, and Second, will not prove them eſſentially Different, or different Kinds of Covenants; (nor were they, unleſs we reſtrain the Covenant made with the Jews, to that part of it, which was meerly political) but only various Diſpenſations of one and the ſame Covenant. In Deut. 29.1. We read of a Covenant made with the Iſraelites, beſides the Covenant made with them in Horeb; not that theſe were two Covenants ſpecifically different (as ſome have very groundleſly ſuppoſed) but the ſame Covenant renewed.

The Goſpel-covenant is called a new Covenant; not but that the Covenant made with the Jews of old, was the ſame for ſubſtance, as otherwiſe Salvation had not been of the Jews: But becauſe though theſe were the ſame for ſubſtance, yet they were diverſe in reſpect of Adminiſtration. **Faedus novum non ſubſtantiâ, ſed formâ.So a man is ſaid to take a new leaſe, or to enter into a new Bond, when the Former and the Latter are the ſame for ſubſtance. The ſame Law of Love is called both an Old and a New Commandment. That which is called the new Covenant, Spark. Myſt. of Godlineſs. p. 64.is not (as one ſays) a Covenant upon new conditions, but a New condition of the old Covenant. Or as another, Statham Reviler rebuked. p. 91.that which the Scripture expreſly calls the Old Teſtament, or Covenant, Heb. 8.20. was but the old Adminiſtration of the Covenant of Grace, p. 332the old Copy of Chriſts will: That which it calls the new Covenant, is the old for ſubſtance, though new for the Adminiſtration, the new Copy of Chriſts will.

2. When the firſt Covenant is ſuppoſed by the enſuing Alteration, not to have been faultleſs; the plain meaning ſeems to be, that it was a leſs perfect Diſpenſation, than that in Goſpel-times, not ſo clear, not ſo powerful, &c. The Old Teſtament-diſpenſation was but as a firſt draught. We have the lively Repreſentation of thoſe things in the Goſpel, which were more darkly ſhadowed out before, Heb. 10.1. The Old Teſtament was as a preface, or Introduction to the New.

Or elſe the Apoſtle calleth that the firſt Covenant, which the Jews then took to be the Covenant; to wit, the meer External part of it under the former Diſpenſation, which was but as the Shell or Husk; which yet the carnal Jews were moſt taken with, rejecting the Kernel.

3. The Goſpel-covenant is called a better Covenant, eſtabliſhed upon better promiſes; becauſe a better Diſpenſation of the Covenant, where there are clearer promiſes of Spiritual bleſſings, and which is fuller of ſuch promiſes. Spiritual promiſes were more ſparingly ſet down in the old Covenant. As was hinted before, it was moſt congruous, that Chriſt the Mediator of the Covenant, ſhould have the honour of bringing in the beſt diſpenſation of it. That the beſt Diſpenſation of the Covenant was deferred, till the Mediators coming in Perſon.

Or elſe the Goſpel-covenant is called a better Covenant, comparing it with the covenant made with the Jews, onelyonly ſo far as it was political, and a peculiar p. 333diſpenſation given to them, which the far greater part of them ſinfully ſevered and divided from the Covenant of Grace, and ſtuck to, in oppoſition to the Goſpel; which was an higher, and a better Diſpenſation of the Covenant of Grace.

Object. 6. One whom I mentioned a little before, Objecteth, Ezek. 16.59, 60, 61, 62. where God oppoſeth, Their Covenant to His Covenant. Thy Covenant, ver. 61. and My Covenant, ver. 62. Who would hence draw this wide and wild concluſion, that the Covenant made with the Jews, which God there calleth thy Covenant, was a Covenant of Works, quite oppoſite to that which He calleth [My Covenant] that is, the Covenant of Grace.

Anſw. But may we not think, that they are put to their ſhifts, that are forced to ſuch Allegations, as have nothing like a Proof, or Argument. And take Notice of ver. 60. there you may ſee, how well this place agrees to their purpoſe, Nevertheleſs, I will remember my Covenant (made) with thee in the days of thy youth, &c.] The Covenant made with the Jews, God calleth, My Covenant, (as Jer. 31.32.) And promiſeth to remember it. ††Dixerat Paulò antè, [memor ero foederis mei,] jam dicit, [Non ex foedere tuo.] Conciliat igitur quae contraria videbantur, oſtendit faedus illud irritum & abolitum eſſe ex parte populi, firmum autem ex parte Dei, qui eorum ſuperavit malitiam, & faedus ſuum erga ipſos iterum erexit. Calo. in pol. Synopſ.And was it a Covenant of works, that he would remember? Surely, ſuch a Covenant would have made nothing for them, but againſt them.

Rather as Oecolompadius notes, Habes hic locum memorabilem de duplici faedere, p. 334&c. Here you have a memorable place concerning a two-fold Covenant; one with Iſrael alone, the other with all Nations. And there is this difference betwixt the New and Old Teſtament; that one was more obſcure, and communicated but to a few, the other is more clear, and ſpread abroad, Propagated in the whole world. So he, or elſe, as Dr. Lightfoot ſomewhere, Fall of Jeruſalem (in Har. on the New Teſt.) p. 154. the 12.God made a two-fold Covenant with their Fathers, viz. The Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Peculiarity. And the latter (N. B.) was but a manner of the Adminiſtration of the former. The covenant of Grace was made with Adam, and belongs to all the Seed of Chriſt, before the Law, under it, and after it, Jews and Gentiles. Now the Oeconomy of Moſes was ſuch an Adminiſtration of this covenant of Grace. as made Iſrael a peculiar People.

And may not this teach us how to underſtand ver. 61. [I will give them unto thee for Daughters, but not by thy Covenant.] That [thy Covenant] here, ſhould rather be explained by this covenant of Peculiarity, a certain Mode of the covenant of Grace, as at that t…me diſpenſed; than by the covenant of VVorks.

Object. 7. It is further Objected from Jer. 31.31, 32, 33, 34. If that new Covenant which God there promiſeth to make with them, be a covenant of Grace, then the former Covenant was not. And ſo they muſt needs differ in Kind and Subſtance.

Anſw. Blake vind. Foed. p. 216.As a Learned man obſerves, that Text hath been very much vexed, and wreſted, ſeveral Parties would writh p. 375it to their ſeveral Opinions, and preſs it to ſerve ſeveral purpoſes. As the Antinomian would hence prove the covenant of Grace, to be abſolute without condition, God promiſing to put his Law in their hearts. The Familiſts hence cry down the Miniſtry, and Goſpel-Ordinances; becauſe it is ſaid, they ſhall Teach no more, every man his Neighbour, and every man his Brother. (But theſe plainly contradict themſelves; and while they inſiſt on the bare Letter of the Text, which if it be againſt Teaching by Man, it is more againſt Brother teaching Brother, and Neighbour teaching Neighbour; (which is a thing they allow & practiſe) than againſt the Teaching of men in Office; of which the Text ſaith nothing.) Others again urge this Text to prove, that only the regenerate are in covenant, and have a right to Church-priviledges, and Ordinances. To all which I may add one ſort more: The Anabaptiſts, that hence conclude, the Covenant made with the Jews, was not a covenant of Grace, and of Salvation; but a Covenant of Outward and Temporal Priviledges, or as the more Ignorant ſort of them, a covenant of Works. And ſo Mr. Patient will have it. But, 1. If that Covenant made formerly with the Jews was a covenant of VVorks, not of Grace, then God was Married unto them by a covenant of Works: As ver. 32. he ſaith, He was an Husband unto them. But it is not to be imagined, that God ſhould be Married unto ſinners, by a covenant of VVorks. 2. That which is here called a New covenant, meaneth only a New diſpenſation of the Covenant, which ſhould be at the Meſſiahs coming in Goſpel-times. Called New, for the great change there ſhould be p. 336for the better in manner of Adminiſtration, in which reſpect it might ſeem to be a New covenant indeed. 3. The truth of this ſecond particular will appear, if we conſider what this New covenant is: [I will put my Law in their inward parts: &c.] which is ſpoken comparate, non abſolute. Not as if God had not done this for them before in ſome meaſure; but that he would do it in a further meaſure: [I will put my Law in their inwards parts.] This God had done for ſome of them before, as he had promiſed this before, Deut. 30.6. There was ſome among them that could ſay as the Pſalmiſt, Pſal. 40.8. I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy Law is within my heart. But that Grace which was more rare under the Old Teſtament, is promiſed to be extended to more, more plentifully, diffuſed under the New. And this is the meaning of [I will make a New covenant— not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers.]

Object. 8. That Covenant made with the Iſraelites, they are ſaid to have broken, Jer. 31.32. Ezek. 16.59. But it is impoſſible, that the New covenant lying wholly on Gods part, ſhould be broken.

Anſw. This ſuppoſeth what is not to be ſuppoſed, that the Covenant of Grace lieth wholly on Gods part, and nothing is required of man therein. But I have undeniably proved before, that the Covenant of Grace hath Conditions, conditions not required of God, but of men: As 'tis not required of God, but of man to Believe, Repent, Obey, ſincerely. And if any of us do not come up to theſe Terms, and Duties, whereunto we ſtand p. 337bound, we are guilty of breach of covenant. If God and Man be not mutually engaged; if all lieth wholly on Gods part, and Man is to do nothing, then it is an abſolute Promiſe, not a Covenant.

Dr. Of Attrib. 2… part. p. 87.Preſton indeed ſpeaks of a double Covenant, which cannot be broken, where God engageth to work the condition in ſome, but that is reſtrained to the Elect. Others reduce it to that which is called the Covenant of Redemption, betwixt God and Chriſt. But the Covenant properly with Man, that covenant, according to the terms and tenor whereof, we are to look for Remiſſion and Salvation, is conditional; and in the tenders of it, common both to Elect and Reprobate. And as for all thoſe that profeſs to own, and embrace the covenant, and yet come not up to the terms of it, they are guilty of breach of Covenant with God; and continuing ſuch, ſhall be judged and condemned as covenant-breakers. VVhere the condition of the covenant ought to be performed, and is not, there (it is manifeſt) the covenant is broken.

Yea, I do not queſtion but Believers themſelves are generally to be humbled for this ſin, that they have broken covenant with God. They may have been guilty of breaking covenant with him for a time, who yet do not finally break covenant with him.

Further, I would ask one that is of Mr. P's perſwaſion here (whether Anabaptiſt, or other) whether all in their ſocieties be not perſons entred into Covenant? And next, whether there be no Hypocrites in their ſocieties? And then, whether any Hypocrite, while an hypocrite, keepeth Covenant.

p. 338Certainly the Covenant that Chriſtian Churches are taken into, which is ſealed in Baptiſm, may be broken, and is broken by ſome, if there are any Hypocrites within the viſible Church, that is, if the viſible and inviſible Church be not all one. It is as little to be doubted, that there are perſons in covenant, who yet break it, and ſhall be judged as Violators of it; as that there are branches in Chriſt that bear not Fruit, and therefore ſhall be cut off, and taken away, Joh. 15.2.

Therefore they muſt ſearch out ſome other meaning of theſe words, Jer. 31.32. VVhichWhich my Covenant they brake. And not make this a Note of Difference betwixt the Covenant made with the Jews, and the Goſpel-Covenant, that the former might be broken, not the latter. As to the Elect it is true, they do not totally and finally break Covenant; and that Grace enabling to keep the Covenant, is given out to a far greater Number than before; but we cannot ſay ſimply and abſolutely, that the Goſpelcovenant is never broken.

Obj. 9. The Covenant of Grace never ceaſeth, it is the everlaſting Covenant, but the Covenant made with the Jews is vaniſhed, Heb. 8.13. Now what is vaniſhed away, cannot be the ſame with that which is to remain.

Anſ. 1. As Tena, Novum Teſtamentum non tam abolitio, quàm impletio prioris. The New Teſtament is not ſo much an aboliſhing, as a fulfilling of the Old. 2. Where the Apoſtle ſpeaks of the Old Covenant, as that which was to vaniſh away, we are to underſtand it of that part of the covenant which was peculiar and proper to that Diſpenſation. The Ceremonial-Law given to the Jews, is vaniſhed p. 339Circumciſion is vaniſhed, yet the Covenant of Grace, made with Abraham, (to which Circumciſion then did appertain,) remaineth ſtill the ſame for ſubſtance, which Believers are taken into. The Judicial Law which was given to the Jews, is vaniſhed, ſo far as it did peculiarly reſpect their Common-wealth: but not the Moral Law, I hope, which the Lord hath promiſed to write in the hearts of his People. Do we make voyd the Law through Faith? God forbid (ſayes the Apoſtle) yea, we eſtabliſh the Law, Rom. 6.31. Neither are all Old Teſtament Promiſes vaniſhed, 2 Cor. 7.1. Having therefore theſe Promiſes, (dearly beloved) let's cleanſe our ſelves— Theſe Promiſes: what Promiſes? why, thoſe before mentioned, chap. 6.16. which you will find, Lev. 26.12. I will walk among you, and I will be your God, and ye ſhall be my people.

Obj. 10. If the covenant made with the Iſraelites, and the Goſpel covenant, be one and the ſame for ſubſtance, how comes it to paſs, that the Apoſtle ſo oft oppoſeth theſe two Covenants, as Gal. 4.24. &c. why does he make the Law and Goſpel, and works of the Law and Faith Oppoſites?

Anſ. That late writer, whom I had occaſion to make uſe of before, (in the Anſwer to the fourth Objection) diſtinguiſheth of the Law given by Moſes, thus (though not in theſe very words, yet to this ſence) to wit, Mr. T. Endeavour to rectifie, &c. p. 23. to 37.That it is to be conſidered, either as reſpecting the Jewiſh Common-wealth, or as reſpecting Conſcience; either in a Political or in a Spiritual ſence. 1. As reſpecting the Jews common-wealth, ſo this was the Law of the Land, by which they were all to be p. 340governed, as a Common-wealth. And this Law was two-fold, to wit, 1. The ſtrict Original Law, exacting Obedience to all Gods commands, whether Moral, Judicial, or Ceremonial, upon pain of death; ſo a violent temporal Death was due to every one that failed in obſerving any external Precept of the Law. 2. The Remedying Law anſwering to it, which appointed a Sacrifice to be offered in moſt caſes, upon which the Offendor and Tranſgreſſor was diſcharged from the aforeſaid temporal Death threatned.

2. The ſame Law (that is, materially the ſame) is alſo to be conſidered, as reſpecting conſcience. And here we are to take notice likewiſe, 1. The Original Law here was ſo wonderfully ſtrict, and dreadfully ſevere, that it threatned an eternal curſe, everlaſting death, to any the leaſt tranſgreſſion whatſoever. As it had to do with Conſcience, it threatned Death Eternal to every Sin, even to inward ſecret ſins, in heart or thought; ſuch things as it did not take notice of, or threaten with a violent temporal Death, as it was their Common-wealth Law. 2. The Remedying Law anſwering to it, and given with it, which was to this purpoſe, that notwithſtanding they were, all of them, many wayes guilty of the breach of Gods moſt holy Law, and ſo obnoxious to the curſe; yet ſuch was his Grace, that upon their ſincere Repentance, and real and hearty Endeavours to obey God in all things, their ſins ſhould be pardoned, and their Souls ſaved.

Now taking the Law in this laſt ſence, as it held forth pardon and ſalvation to ſinners upon their hearty return to God, and ſincere Obedience, ſo there is no Oppoſition betwixt this Remedying Law, and the Goſpel. The Apoſtle ſpeaking of it, calleth it th… p. 341word of Faith, the ſame which we preach, Rom. 10.8. So it was the Salvation of the Jews, Joh. 4.22. the means of ſalvation to thoſe that were ſaved.

As it was their common-wealth Law, it typified higher things. Firſt, in that it threatned every tranſgreſſion with Death, it ſhewed the wonderfull ſtrictneſs of Gods Law, as in an higher ſence, threatning eternal Death to every ſin. Again, as there was a Remedying Law, given with it, appointing in moſt caſes, a Beaſt to be ſlain, to prevent the Death of the Offender, it was a typical Goſpel, ſhadowing out the Reconciliation of ſinners by a more excellent Sacrifice.

Again, there is another diſtinction I would have you take notice of, to wit, that we muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt the Law, as it was given by God, and as it was miſtaken and perverted by many of the Jews.

Now as the Law was given by God, we may be ſure, as Mr. Allen hath well noted, It was not to croſs, or confront the Promiſe, Diſcourſe of the two Covenants, p. 55.or Gods deſign in it, but to be ſubſervient to it. Gal. 3.21. Is the Law then againſt the Promiſes? God forbid. For it is not to be thought that God would prevaricate in his Deſign. So that when he had once made a new Law of Grace, for the ſaving of Fallen man, he would yet afterwards give any Law, but what ſhould one way or other ſubſerve to the ſame end, if men do not deprive themſelves of the intended Benefit, by perverting it. And therefore to be ſure, God did not intend to revive the Old covenant of works made with Adam in Paradiſe.

p. 342Now to apply theſe things to our preſent purpoſe, when the Apoſtle makes an oppoſition betwixt the Old Teſtament and the New; the Law and the Goſpel; the works of the Law, and Faith; we are either to underſtand him, as ſpeaking of the Law, ſo far as it was political, concerning the Jews Common-wealth: Thus indeed it made nothing perfect, it was but a ſhadow, and was to give place and vaniſh, the Subſtance being come: Or elſe he ſpeaks of the Law in a ſtrict ſence, abſtracted from thoſe gracious Promiſes that were given with it to the Jews. And thus it was a copy of the Law of works, requiring abſolute perfect Obedience.

Thus it was oppoſite to the Goſpel, as the Jews ſevered it from, and ſet it up againſt the Doctrine of Gods Grace; and ſo it gendred to bondage, Gal. 4.24. and was the Miniſtration of Death and condemnation, 2 Cor. 3.6, 7, 9. So there was no being juſtified by the Law; or if men could have been juſtified by it, they had not been juſtified by Grace, there had been nothing of Pardon in it.

But otherwiſe the Apoſtle makes the Doctrine of the Old Teſtament all one with the Doctrine he preached, as we heard before.

And if at any other time he uſeth any derogating expreſſions, when he is ſpeaking of it, we muſt underſtand them as ſpoken comparatively, that is, comparing that darker and more burdenſome adminiſtration, with this clearer and more comfortable diſpenſation of the Covenant of Grace under the Goſpel.

Queſt. If you ask, how could the Law given to the Jews be conſidered both as a Law of works, requiring perfect Obedience, and alſo as a Remedying p. 343Law, taking up with ſincere Obedience?

Anſ. Had the ſtrict Original Law been given to them intentionally to bind them up to it, to expect Life and Happineſs, onelyonly upon thoſe high terms of doing all things therein contained, and obeying perfectly; then had it been plainly excluſive of a remedying Law: But it was not given thus, but the very intention of publiſhing the ſtrictneſs and ſeverity of the Law of works (which all men naturally are under) was to commend and ſet forth the Graciouſneſs of the Remedying Law, to make it more welcome and acceptable. How gladly and thankfully ought they to have ſubmitted to that Law of Grace, which held forth pardon and acceptation with God, upon their believing in him, and obeying ſincerely, of whom God might (in Juſtice) have required nothing leſs than perfect, ſinleſs Obedience.

And therefore it was a moſt horrible perverting of the Law, when the Phariſees, and other ſelfjuſticiaries, expected Righteouſneſs, and Life from the Law, in their ſence, and in oppoſition to the Goſpel, For, 1. As it was the Law of the Land, as it reſpected their Common-wealth, ſo (it is true) it was poſſible for them to keep the Law, Phil. 3.6. They might not be guilty of any ſuch external breach of the Law, as legally deſerved a violent temporal death, and ſuch as could not be expiated by Sacrifice, but all this could not juſtifie them before God. As it was their Common-wealth Law, it was never given for that end; but to keep them in order, and to ſhadow out greater and higher things.

2. As it held forth the ſtrict Law of works, requiring p. 344perfect ſinleſs Obedience, ſo they could not poſſibly keep it, to be juſtified by it; but were all tranſgreſſors of the Law, and ſo condemned by it; which ſhould have moved them to embrace, and ſubmit to it in a Goſpel-ſence. And in keeping the Law ſincerely, heartily bewailing the ſinfull defects in their Obedience, and having recourſe to the free grace and mercy of God for pardon, they might have found acceptance, and an exceeding great reward.

Obj. 11. If the old Covenant was a Covenant of Grace, then why are the Jews ſaid to have been in bondage under it? why is the Spirit of Adoption reſtrained to the time of the New Teſtament, if the former was the ſame Covenant of Grace, (for ſubſtance) with the latter.

Anſ. 1. One way how the former Covenant gendred unto bondage, was hinted before; to wit, carnal Jews, (men of baſe, ſervile Spirits) did miſinterpret, and miſapply it. 2. The faithfull under that diſpenſation might in another reſpect be ſaid to be in bondage, Gal. 4.1, 2, 3. As they were under a more burdenſome way of Worſhip, than Believers under the Goſpel. As they had not ſo much liberty, nor ſo much of a Spirit of Adoption, as the faithfull have under the Goſpel. As ſome, The Church at that time was as an Heir in its minority. Ball of the Covenant, p. 27.As an heir it was free, Statham, Reviler rebuked. p. 93. Ball, p. 35.but as an Infant, or in its minority, it was but as a Servant, under Tutors, and Governours. As Heirs, the faithfull then had the Spirit of Adoption and Liberty,, but mixed and tempered with this Spirit p. 345of Servitude, as they were Infants, or children under the yoke.

Obj. 12. You will not deny but the Covenant made with the Iſraelites, may be conſidered as Political, and why might it not be only or meerly political?

Anſ. The higheſt, moſt noble, and primary end of the Law given to Iſrael, and the Covenant made with them, ſeems to be to direct, and engage them in the way to Life and Happineſs. That it was but a ſecondary, and leſs principal uſe, or end of it, to govern them, as a Theocracy, or holy Commonwealth.

1. As the Covenants, and giving of the Law are ſet down among the Jews Priviledges, Rom. 9.4. Pſal. 147.19, 20. yet the giving of the Law was tothing near ſo great a Priviledge, taken in the temporal ſence, (reſpecting their Common-wealth; as it was in that higher Notion, and conſideration,) as it was to convert the Soul, and to direct in the way to true and eternal Happineſs.

2. I ſhould think, that the Iſraelites covenanting with God, did oblige them to keep his Law, not only as it was the Common-wealth Law, and for fear of temporal puniſhment, and in hope of a preſent temporal Reward, but from a filial fear, and love of God, in ſincerity and truth, the thing required in the Covenant of Grace, ſc. Deut. 5.29. and 10, 12, 13. Heart-obedience was required in that Covenant made with the Jews.

3. That Covenant made with the Iſraelites contained Spiritual, as well as Temporal Promiſes. Compare Exod. 19, 5, 6. with 1 Pet. 2.9. and Lev. 26.3, 11, 12. with 2 Cor. 6.16. So alſo Deut. 29.12, p. 34613. Jer. 11.4. But this was proved before, that the Covenant made with the Iſraelites was a Covenant of Grace, the ſame for ſubſtance with the Goſpel-covenant; therefore not meerly political.

Now this point having been ſufficiently cleared, That the Covenant of Grace is one and the ſame for ſubſtance, under the Old and New Teſtament; it may be of good uſe.

Ʋſe 1. This ſhews us how the Church is One. There is one catholick Church, conſiſting of divers parts, Cant. 6.9. My Dove, my Ʋndefiled is but one. There is one Body, as one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſme, Eph. 4.4, 5. One Church-catholick, conſtituted by one Grand Charter, or Covenant of Grace, (though it's true, the Church of the Jews had a ſpecial clauſe in their Grant and Charter concerning them as a Common-wealth, which is not in the Chriſtians charter.) So the Ordinances and Priviledges of the Church are given and granted by this Charter, to the whole Church primarily, and to particular Churches conſequently and ſecondarily, as parts of it.

And methinks it is very rational, what ſome have offered, that it is occaſional, and accidental to the Univerſal Church, Dr. Stillingfleet. Mr. Hudſon.that there are particular diſtinct Congregations, in regard of the multitude and diſtance of Church-members; for could we conceive, that all the Members of the whole Church could meet together, to partake of the ſame Numerical Ordinances orderly and to Edification, then the reaſon for their meeting in ſeveral places ſhould p. 347ceaſe. David would praiſe God in the great Congregation, among much People. And the more publick the Aſſembly is (Caeteris paribus) other things being alike, the more ſolemn the Worſhip is, the more for Gods Glory, and his Peoples benefits, quickning, and comfort. (Though it is true, ſometimes Gods People have not had the Liberty to meet openly, when the Church was to be ſought: Non in tectis, & exteriori pompâ, ſed potius in carceribus, Hillary.& ſpeluncis.

Some good men I know will not admit there is ſuch a thing, as an Ʋniverſal viſible Church, for fear of bringing in the Pope, or an Ʋniverſal viſible Head of the Church, though this no way follows upon the other. But however Good men may diſſent in ſuch Points here; yet when they meet at laſt in that General Aſſembly, ſpoken of, Heb. 12.23. There ſhall be no Diſſenters then among them. In the mean time I would ask, What Church that was to which ſo many Souls were added, even Three Thouſand in one day? Acts 2.41, 47. See alſo Chap. 4.4. and 5. and 14. Could it be a particular Congregation?

And what Church that was, wherein God ſet Apoſtles, Prophets, &c. 1 Cor. 12.28. Were the Apoſtles ſet in particular Churches? Or were they …ot general Officers unto, and over the whole Church?

And what Church does Baptiſm declare, and ſignifie ones admiſſion into? Is it only a ſign of Admiſſion into a particular Church? Suppoſe a Miniſter caſt among a company of Heathen, and one, or more converted by him, ſhould not ſuch be Baptized p. 348upon the Profeſſion of the Faith of Chriſt, though there was no particular Church conſtituted there, into whoſe Fellowſhip they might be taken?

2. This may ſerve as an Antidote, againſt the Error of the Anabaptiſts, who to out the children of profeſſing Parents of their Intereſt in the Covenant, would fain perſwade men, that the Covenant made with the Jews (wherein children were comprehended with their Parents) was not the ſame for ſubſtance; but quite of another kind. Now ſince we have proved the Old and New Covenant, the ſame Covenant of Grace for ſubſtance; their Foundation is ſhaken, and ſo what they would build upon it, not like to ſtand. If children were capable of being in covenant with God, with their Parents heretofore, why not now? Either they muſt ſay, our children are more incapable of a covenant Intereſt in God, than the children of the Jews; or that God is leſs Merciful, bears leſs reſpect to the children of his People now, than he did to the children of the Jews: Both which are loaded with abſurdity. But more of this afterwards.

3. This may help to keep up in us a reverent, and high eſteem of the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament; Wiſe men would not throw away their old Evidences. What you have heard, may let you ſee an Harmony betwixt the Old and New Teſtament: Yea, Chriſtians though they are not to keep up Jewiſh ceremonies; yet they may make better uſe of the Ceremonial Law, than the Jews ordinarily did, who reſted in the Letter of the Law, and were taken up with the outward ſhadows, not looking to the end of that which is Aboliſhed. We may ſee the End, and Scope of the Ceremonial Law p. 349more clearly, than the Jews themſelves did, having ſo fair and plain a Comment upon it in the Goſpel: As Prophecies are beſt Interpreted by their accompliſhment; ſo Types by the coming of the Antitype, and comparing them together.

There are ſome that ſlight, and reject the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament. This they never learnt of Chriſt, or his Apoſtles. We find Chriſt Expounding Moſes and the Prophets to his Diſciples even after his Reſurrection, Luke 24.27. And are thoſe Scriptures unworthy of a Chriſtians peruſal, which Chriſt thought not unworthy of his Expoſitions? The Apoſtle Paul tells us, Whatſoever things …ere written aforetime, were written for our Learning, Rom. 15.4. And all Scripture given by Inſpi…tion of God, is profitable, 2 Tim. 3.16. He Vindicates his Doctrine, and confirms it from the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament, Acts 26.22, 23. And we find the Bereans commended for their ſearching thoſe Scriptures, and trying Doctrines by them, Acts 17.11. The Doctrine of the Apoſtles and Prophets, (as we learn, Epheſ. 2.20.) are one Foundation of Faith. Chriſtians are there ſaid to be built upon the Foundation (not Foundations) of the Apoſtles and Prophets. That to take away the Scriptures of the Old Teſtament, is to take away part of the Foundation. We have a more ſure word of Prophecy, (ſays the Apoſtle Peter) whereunto ye do well, that ye take heed, 2 Pet. 1.19.

4. This may further confirm us in the belief of the Goſpel. That it is no new Doctrine, but the Subſtance of it was held forth of old by Moſes, and the Prophets; upon which account there is leſs Occaſion to ſuſpect the truth of it. The main Doctrine p. 350of the Goſpel is non other, than what God hath Owned, and Delivered to his Church of old, Acts 26.22. Antiquity is a thing which many would pretend to follow. Well, this is the antient Goſſpel: And it is proved to be of God; as by the Miracles wrought to confirm it, with other Arguments; ſo by the writings of Moſes and the Prophets, John 5.46. Acts 3.24. It hath double confirmation. We have old Evidences to ſhew for it, to make it good. As God ſpake by the Mouth of his holy Prophets, which have been ſince the world began, Luke 1.70.

5. Hence we may ſee cauſe to admire Gods gracious dealing with us, under the Goſpel-Diſpenſation of the Covenant. The Jews were highly Favoured, in being taken into that Covenant God made with them; though it was a darker Diſpenſation of the Covenant of Grace. Now God hath done more for us, than he did for that his antiently-beloved People, taking us into the ſame Covenant for ſubſtance, (it is true, but) in a clearer, a better Diſpenſation of it. Many Kings and Prophets, and Righteous men among them, deſired to ſee the things which we ſee, yet did not ſee them. The Jews heretofore were priviledged above any Nation in the world; yet we are priviledged above them: we that live in Goſpel-times, we have the Covenant of Grace, in the laſt and beſt Edition of it.

6. This ſhews what ground Chriſtians have to apply Old Teſtament Promiſes, ſuch as are of a common concern: as the Apoſtle Peter tells them, they ſhould be no looſers by ſubmitting to the Goſpel, Acts 2.38, 39. Repent and be Baptized.— For the Promiſe is to you, and to your children; and p. 351(not only to you Jews, by Birth or Profeſſion, but) to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God ſhall call. VVhat ever promiſes are included in that [I will be their God;] and belong unto it, to make it good, the Covenant being the ſame for ſubſtance in both Teſtaments; ſuch promiſes, though found in the Old Teſtament do alſo belong to the Faithful under the New. See an Inſtance, Heb. 13.5. Be content with ſuch as you have: For he hath ſaid, I will never leave thee, nor forſake thee. VVhere hath he ſaid this? See Joſh. 1.5. of Deut. 31.8. So the like Inſtance you have, Heb. 13.6. So that we may boldly ſay, The Lord is my Helper, and I will not fear what man ſhall do unto me, Ʋpon what ground may we ſay thus? VVhy …n as much as the Pſalmiſt could ſay thus, Pſal. 118.6. VVe who have an Intereſt in God, as well …s he, may ſay the like.