A77854:619
Vindiciæ legis
Vindiciæ legis: or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the errors of papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians. In XXIX. lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London. / By Anthony Burgess, preacher of Gods Word.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.
London: printed by James Young for Thomas Underhill, 1646
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
So also you may see this in effect, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12, 13. where it's expressly said, that they stood to enter into Covenant with God; that he may establish them to be a people unto himself, and that he may be a God unto them. Again, 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 walk in his ways—And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people. So, that it's very plain, 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 books 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 authentical, 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. Only 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 typical death of Christ in the sacrifices, and ⟨p. 222⟩that was ground enough to make the Covenant to be called a Testament.
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