An Appendix. 477. ons ( as ?unite would have it ) be a Teftament onely, and no Co- venant ; why is the word fo abufed with the word fcede,paútnm in Latine Covenant in Englifh ? By which all men underftand that which we call a Covenant, no man underftands a Tel-lament; why do we fay Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace, if the former onely were a Covenant properly, and the other a Tefla- ment ? as though we fhould call an Eagle and a Lion both by the common name of a bird, perfwading that a Lion were a bird as well as anEagle ?How comes it to paffe that Scripture holds out fo frequently that fimilit±:de of a marriage, lfti.54..5.Hof2.r9 2 Car, I To 2. eph.5. z z. to let out This tranfadion ? A marriage contra& is not a mans Teftament :,hash a wife barely a Legacie, and doth the enter no Covenant with her Husband ? How comes it to paffe thatturningafide from God, as after other lo- vers,is called in Scripture by the name of whoredomes,adulteries, which is the breach of a marriage-Covenant ?& how is fin againft God called a dealing falfely with God? we cannot deal falsely in the Covenant,if it be not a Covenant but a Teftament; men may carry themlelves unthankfully, but falfehood argues an engage- ment. How is it that we finde in Old and New Teftament-Scri- ptures mutual! engagements between God and his people, of God to them, of them to him; as God willing fhall be (hewn, in cafe God bath vouchfafed then, a lgacie by Teftament in the death of his fon, and lefrthem out of Covenant? And how is that without Covenant, without Chrift, without God, without hope,with the Ap'oflle are one and the fame, when all people that have hope in Chríít are out of Covenant ? And it feems that Matter T ombes bath little other thoughts of the tranfa&ions between God and man, in that he (ayes, The holy Writers do il- !n ftrate the NeW Covenant, rather by the Metaphor of a Teftament, then a. Covenant . Every one knows that a Metaphor is a figure, whereby a word is carried out of its proper Ggnification into fome other that carries refemblance with ir. In cafe there be a Metaphor in that expreffion, then it is not proper bat borrow- ed. But as I beleeve that Abraham fpake not by a Metaphor to God, when he faid, gen.: 8.25. Shall not the.7edge of all the world do right ? God :bfolving and condemning the funs of men, gi- ving rewards and infli&ing penalties , he is a Judge properly fo called ; fo I do not think that God fpake in any Metaphor to P P P 3 Abraham,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=