Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	aaron_n	priest_n	priesthood_n	72	3	9.8878	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B10040	The perfection of justification maintained against the Pharise the purity of sanctification against the stainers of it: the unquestionablenesse of a future glorification aganst the Sadduce: in severall sermons. Together with an apologeticall answer to the ministers of the new province of London in vindication of the author against their aspersions. / by John Simpson, an unworthy publisher of gospel-truths in London.	Simpson, John, 17th cent.	1648 (1648)	Wing S3817A; ESTC R184177	253,105	558

away from grace and thus some have been too bold with me in this particular And when I have proved the law to be uselesse unto us in many particulars they have concluded that I did totally deny the use of the Law which hath been the ground of this groundlesse aspersion unto which I think it needlesse to give any larger answer Concerning the 3. other branches in this Article to wit that it is no rule for a Christian to walk by nor to examine his life by and that Christians are freee from the mandatory power of it I can either affirm or deny them all I doe acknowledge that in a sence we may be said to be under the rule and power of the Law and in a sence it is true that we are not under the rule and power of it which if it be well weighed by the ballance of right reason whether these who have charged me with this not stateing the question as I did when I delivered my judgment and suppressing my meaning in their Article may be justified in this action I leave it to any man truly rationall and unprejudiced concerning me yea to themselves when God shall awaken their consciences to judge Wherefore that the truth of God and my meaning may be more evident I shall present to the view of the Reader the distinctions which I made use of in the handling of this controversie The first distinction is this that the Law may be considered as delivered in Sinai Sion Gal. 4.24 As the covenant of Sinai or as a part of the covenant of Sion Isa 2.3 For out of Zion shall goe forth the Law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem 2ly As 1. delivered by the hand of Moses 2. by the hand of Christ And though this distinction hath beene branded by some of the learned Teachers of our times in their Pulpits and Presses with the infamous mark of Antinomianisme yet I doe not doubt but that I shall easily prove it to be a Scripture distinction This is the meaning of that speech of John Joh. 1.17 The law was given by Moses but grace truth came by Jesus Christ By Moses that is by the hand of Moses As it is plain by Lev. 26.46 These are the laws which the Lord made between him and the Children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses So grace and truth is given by the hand of Jesus Christ Christ is stiled the Mediator of the better Covenant Heb. 8.6 And as he is the Mediator of this better Covenant he doth give the law to the Saints by his hand in this Covenant This distinction is frequently used by Zanchius 4. Tom. operum delege Translata est lex a Mose ad Christum e manu Mosis in manum Christi veri mediatoris sicut et sacerdotium ab Aarone ad Christum verum aeternumque Pontificem translatum est Translato autem sacerdotio necesse est inquit Apostolus ut et legis translatio fiat The law saith hee is translated from Moses to Christ out of the hand of Moses into the hand of Christ the true Mediator as the Priest-hood is translated from Aaron to Christ the true and eternall high Priest For the Priest-hood being changed it is needfull saith the Apostle that there be a change of the Law And in the same booke he hath afterward these words Dicimus legem quatenus fuit in manu Mosis abrogatam jam esse per Christum fidelibus sed quatenus jam est in manu Christi confirmatam esse constabilitam We say that the Law as it was in the hand of Moses is now abrogated to believers by Christ but as it is in the hand of Christ it is confirmed and established Brethren give mee an answer in the spirit of love and meekenesse to this question why should you censure me to be an Antinomian for makeing use of this distinction seeing ye account Zanchius to be a sound and orthodox writer who maintaineth the same thing Having premised these distinctions I shall answer plainly to these severall branches and not be affraid to owne what I have delivered because I am still confident that it is the truth of Christ 1. The law as delivered by Moses is not the rule by which a believing Christian doth walk but as it is delivered unto him in the covenant of grace by the hand of the Lord Jesus I shall prove this by this argument A covenant of works is not the rule by which a believing Christian doth walk The law as delivered in Sinai by the hand of Moses is a Covenant of works Therefore the law as delivered in Sinai by the hand of Moses is not a rule by which a believing Christian doth walk I doe suppose that you will not deny the major proposition You will not say that a covenant of workes is the rule of a Christian for then a Christian should worke that hee might live whereas a true Christian doth work because he doth live and hath life without works If ye shall deny the minor or second proposition I shall prove it by these reasons which are drawn from Scripture Reas 1. The Apostle doth frequently oppose the righteousnesse of the law and the law to the righteousnesse of grace the covenant of grace which hee could not doe if the law were a covenant of grace 1. Hee opposeth the righteousnesse of the Law and Gospel Rom. 10.5.6 Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law that the man which doth those things shall live by them But the Gospel-righteousnesse is the righteousnesse of faith vers 6. Observe the Apostles words well he doth not say that the Law requireth doing and working for justification according to the false glosses and interpretations of the Pharisees as some Writers of late with the Papists of old have asserted But Moses describeth the righteousnesse of the law so 2 ly He opposeth the law and the Covenant of grace Rom. 6.14 Sin shall not have dominion over you because ye are not under the law but under grace What sence can you make of these words if ye shall assert the law to be a covenant of grace for then this will be the meaning of the words Sinne shall not have dominion over you because ye are not under the law or covenant of grace but under grace Reas 2. The Apostle doth affirme that no flesh shall be justified by the law because by the law is the knowledge of sinne Rom. 3.20 But if the law were a covenant of grace a man might be justified by it And therefore I conclude that it is not a covenant of grace Reas 3. The Apostle affirmeth that if righteousnessE come by the law then Christ is dead in vaine And shall wee say that that is the covenant of grace by which righteousnesse cannot come unto us Reas 4. The Apostle plainly saith that the law is not of faith but the man that doth them shall live in them Gal. 3.12