Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	bind_v	keep_v	sabbath_n	1,535	5	10.7471	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

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

could be no obligation from the matter had it not been revoked and abolished then the Morall Law given by Moses must still oblige though it did not binde in respect of the matter unlesse we can shew where it is repealed For the further clearing of this you may consider that this was the great Question which did so much trouble the Church in her infancy Whether Gentiles converted were bound to keep up the Ceremoniall Law Whether they were bound to circumcise and to use all those legall purifications Now how are these Questions decided but thus That they were but the shadowes and Christ the fulnesse was come and therefore they were to cease And thus for the Judiciall Lawes because they were given to them as a politick bodie that polity ceasing which was the principall the accessory falls with it so that the Ceremoniall Law in the judgement of all had still bound Christians were there not speciall revocations of these commands and were there not reasons for their expiration from the very nature of them Now no such thing can be affirmed by the Morall Law for the matter of that is perpetuall and there are no places of Scripture that doe abrogate it And if you say that the Apostle in some places speaking of the Law seemeth to take in Morall as well as Ceremoniall I answer it thus The question which was first started up and troubled the Church was meerly about Ceremonies as appeareth Act. 15. and their opinion was that by the usage of this Ceremoniall worship they were justified either wholly excluding Christ or joyning him together with the Ceremoniall Law Now it 's true the Apostles in demolishing this errour doe ex abundanti shew that not onely the works of the Ceremoniall Law but neither of the Morall Law doe justifie but that benefit we have by Christ onely Therefore the Apostles when they bring in the Morall Law in the dispute they doe it in respect of justification not obligation for the maine Question was Whether the Ceremoniall Law did still oblige and their additionall errour was that if it did oblige we should still be justified by the performance of those acts so that the Apostles doe not joyne the Morall and Ceremoniall Law in the issue of obligation for though the Jewes would have held they were not justified by them yet they might not have practised them but in regard of justification and this is the first Argument The second Argument is from the Scripture urging the Morall Argum. 2 Law upon Gentiles converted as obliging of them with the ground and reason of it which is that they were our fathers so that the Jewes and Christians beleeving are looked upon as one people Now that the Scripture urgeth the Morall Law upon Heathens converted as a commandement heretofore delivered is plaine When Paul writeth to the Romans chap. 13. 8 9. he telleth them Love is the fulfilling of the Law and thereupon reckons up the commandements which were given by Moses Thus when he writeth to the Ephesians that were not Jewes cap. 6. 2. he urgeth children to honour their father and mother because it 's the first Commandement with Promise Now this was wholly from Moses and could be no other way And this is further evident by James chap. 2. 8 10. in his Epistle which is generall and so to Gentiles converted as well as to the Jewes Now mark those two expressions v. 8. If you fulfill the royall Law according to the Scriptures that is of Moses where the second Table containeth our love to our neighbour and then v. 10. He that said Doe not commit adultery said also Doe not kill where you see he makes the Argument not in the matter but in the Author who was God by Moses to the people of Israel And if you say Why should these Commandements reach to them I answer because as it is to be shewed in answering the objections against this truth the Jewes and we are looked upon as one people Observe that place 1 Cor. 10. The Apostle writing to the Corinthians saith Our fathers were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and the sea c. Now how could this be true of the Corinthians but only because since they beleeved they were looked upon as one The third Argument is from the obligation upon us to keep the Argum. 3 Sabbath day This is a full Argument to me that the Morall Law given by Moses doth binde us Christians for supposing that opinion which is abundantly proved by the Orthodox that the Sabbath day is perpetuall and that by vertue of the fourth Commandement we cannot then but gather that the Commandements as given by Moses doe binde us For here their distinction will not hold of binding ratione materia by reason of the matter and ratione ministerii by reason of the ministry for the seventh day cannot binde from the matter of it there being nothing in nature why the seventh rather then the fifth should oblige but only from the meer Command of God for that day and yet it will not follow that we are bound to keep the Jewish seventh day as the Learned shew in that controversie Now then those that deny the Law as given by Moses must needs conclude that we keep the Sabbath day at the best but from the grounds of the New Testament and not from the fourth Command at all And howsoever it be no argument to build upon yet all Churches have kept the morall Law with the Preface to it and have it in their Catechismes as supposing it to belong unto us And when those prophane opinions and licentious doctrines came up against the Sabbath Day did not all learned and sound men look upon it as taking away one of the Commandements Therefore that distinction of theirs The Morall Law bindes as the Law of Nature but not as the Law of Moses doth no wayes hold for the Sabbath day cannot be from the Law of Nature in regard of the determinate time but hath its morality and perpetuity from the meere positive Commandement of God The fourth Argument from Reason that it is very incongruous Argum. 4 to have a temporary obligation upon a perpetuall duty How probable can it be that God delivering the Law by Moses should intend a temporary obligation only when the matter is perpetuall As if it had been thus ordered You shall have no other gods but till Moses his time You shall not murder or commit adultery but till his ministry lasteth and then that obligation must cease and a new obligation come upon you Why should we conceive that when the matter is necessary and perpetuall God would alter and change the obligations None can give a probable reason for any such alteration Indeed that they should circumcise or offer sacrifices till Moses ministry lasted only there is great reason to be given and thus Austin well answered Porphyrius that objected God was worshipped otherwayes in the old Testament then in the New That

absolutely in it selfe as if that were to be done away but the particular administration and dispensation of it that was no more to continue who all grant Now the Antinomian confounds the Law with the administration of it This glory and shining that was upon Moses was as it may seem probable communicated unto him when he beheld the glory of God How long it continued is not certaine that hath no probability of the Rabbins who hold it did continue all his life time The Vulgar Translation makes it horned Cornuta hence the Painters pictured Moses with hornes but the word that signifieth an horne is also for to glitter and shine as also those rayes of light might be cast forth from Moses his face like hornes This was so glorious that he was forced to put a vaile upon his face when he spake to the people Now the Text saith Moses did not know his face shone It 's an excellent thing when God puts a great deale of glory upon a man and he doth not know it Gregory applyeth this of Moses to Ministers that as Moses because the people could not endure the glorious light of his face put a vaile upon it that so the people might converse with him thus the Minister whose parts and scholarship is far above the people should put on a vaile by condescending to the people But the Apostle maketh another mysticall meaning wherein the hard things shall in time God willing be opened 10. The custody and preservation of the Law in the Ark. And 10. The preservation of the Law in the Arke makes much for the glory of it this shall be the last Observation that will tend to the excellency of the Law As this one was written by the immediate hand of God so was it onely commanded to be preserved in the Ark. Now here is a great dispute in matter of history for 1 Kin. 8. 9. it's expresly said that in the Ark there was nothing save the tables of stone but Hebr. 9. 4. there is joyned Aarons rod and the pot of Manna Those that for this respect would reject the Epistle to the Hebrewes as of no authority are too bold and insolent Some think we cannot reconcile them yet the Scripture is true onely our understandings are weak Some think that at first God commanded those two to be laid with the tables of the Covenant but when the Temple was built by Solomon then all were laid aside by themselves and therefore say they that the history of the Kings speaketh of it as a new thing Some as Piscator make in to be as much as coram before or hard by and so they say the pot and rod were by the Ark. But I shall close with that of Junius who observes that the relative is in the feminine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so doth not relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arke the word immediately going before but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tabernacle In which Tabernacle And this is frequent in the Scripture to doe so And this though it may be capable of some objection yet doth excellently reconcile the truth of the history with Paul Now how long these Tables of stone were kept and what became of them at last we have no certainty This proveth the great glory God did put upon the Law above any thing else which I intended in all these historicall observations Vse 1. Of Instruction How willing God was to put markes Seeing God hath put such marks of glory upon the Law let us take heed of disparaging it of glory and perpetuity upon the Law and therefore we are to take heed of disparaging it For how necessary is it to have this Law promulged if it were possible as terribly in our congregations as it was on Mount Sinai This would make the very Antinomians find the power of the Law and be afraid to reject it Certainly as the Physician doth not purge the bodies till he hath made them fluid and prepared so may not the Ministers of Christ apply grace and the promises thereof to men of Epicurean or Pharisaicall spirits till they be humbled by the discovery of sin which is made by the Law And I doubt it may fall out with an Antinomian who accounts sin nothing in the beleever because of justification as with one Dionysius a Stoick as I take it who held that paine was nothing but being once sick and tortured with the stone in the kidnies cried out that all which he had writ about Paine was false for now he found it was something So it may fall out that a man who hath writ and preached that God seeth no sinne in a beleever may sometime or other be so awed and troubled by God that he shall cry out All that he preached about this he now findes to be false Therefore let those that have disparaged or despised it see their sinne and give it its due dignity They report of Stesichorus that when in some words he had disparaged Helena's beauty he was struck blind but afterwards when he praised her again he obtain'd the use of seeing It may be because thou hast not set forth the due excellency of the Law God hath taken away thy eye-sight not to see the beauty of it but begin with David to set forth the excellent benefits of it and then thou mayest see more glory in it then ever LECTURE XVII EXOD. 20. 1. And God spake all these words saying c. WE have already considered those historicall Observations which are in the delivery of the Law and improved them to the dignity and excellency thereof I now come to the handling of those Questions which make much to the clearing of the truths about it that are now doubted of And first of all it may be demanded To what purpose is this discourse about the Law given by Moses Are we Jewes Doth that belong to us Hath not Christ abolished the Law Is not Moses with his Ministery now at an end It is therefore worth the inquiry Whether the ten Commandements as given by Moses doe belong to us Christians or no And in the answering of this Question I will lay down some Propositions by way of Preface and then bring arguments for the affirmative The doctrine of the Antinomians heterodoxe though the Law as given by Moses did not binde Christians First therefore Though it should be granted that the Morall Law as given by Moses doth not belong to us Christians yet the doctrine of the Antinomians would not hold for there are some learned and solid Divines as Zanchy and Rivet and many Papists as Suarez and Medina which hold the Law as delivered by Moses not to belong to us and yet are expresly against Antinomists for they say that howsoever the Law doth not binde under that notion as Mosaicall yet it binds because it is confirmed by Christ so that although the first obligation ceaseth and we have nothing to doe with Moses now yet the second

obligation which cometh by Christ is still upon us And this is enough to overthrow the Antinomian who pleadeth for the totall abrogation of the Law Thus you see that if this should be granted yet the Law should be kept up in its full vigour and force as much as if it were continued by Moses But I conceive that this position goeth upon a false ground as if our Saviour Matth. 5. did there take away the obligation by Moses and put a new sanction upon it by his own authority as if he should have said The Law shall no longer binde you as it is Moses his Law but as it is mine Now this seemeth to overthrow the whole scope of our Saviour which is to shew that he did not come to destroy the Law And therefore he doth not take upon him to be a new Law-giver but an Interpreter of the old Law by Moses This I intend to handle God willing in that Question Whether Christ hath appointed any new duties that were not in the Law before Only this seemeth to be very cleare that our Saviour there doth but interpret the old Law and vindicate it from corrupt glosses and not either make a new Law or intend a new confirmation of the old Law Secondly Consider in what sense we say that the Law doth binde us in regard of Moses And First this may be understood reduplicatively as if it did The Law given by Moses doth not bind us in regard of Moses bind because of Moses so that whatsoever is of Moses his ministery doth belong to us and this is very false and contrary to the whole current of Scripture for then the Ceremoniall Law would also binde us because à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia The Law given by Moses as written for the Church of God and intended for good to Christians in the N. Testament is binding so that you must not understand it in this sense Secondly you may understand it thus that Moses as a Pen-man of the Scripture writing this down for the Church of God did by this intend good to Christians in the New Testament and this cannot be well denyed by any that do hold the Old Testament doth belong to Christians for why should not the books of Moses belong to us as well as the books of the Prophets Though indeed this be denyed by all those that are for the negative Thirdly therefore we may understand it thus that God Though the people of Israel were the present subject to whom the Morall Law was given yet the observation therof was intended for the Church of God perpetually when he gave the ten Commandements by Moses to the people of Israel though they were the present subject to whom he spake yet he did intend an obligation by these Lawes not only upon the Jewes but also all other Nations that should be converted and come to imbrace their Religion And this is indeed the very proper state of the Question not Whether Moses was a Minister or a Mediator to the Christians as well as the Jewes for that is clearly false but Whether when he delivered the ten Commandements he intended only the Jewes and not all that should be converted hereafter It is true the people of Israel were the people to whom this Law was immediately promulged but yet the Question is Whether others as they came under the promulgation of it were not bound to receive it as well as Jewes So that we must conceive of Moses as receiving the Morall Law for the Church of God perpetually but the other Lawes in a peculiar and more appropriated way to the Jewes For the Church of the Jewes may be considered in their proper peculiar way as wherein most of their ordinances were typicall and so Moses a typicall Mediator or Secondly as an Academy or Schoole or Library wherein the true doctrine about God and his will was preserved as also the interpretations of this given by the Prophets then living and in this latter sense what they did they did for us as well as for the Jewes And that this may be the more cleared to you you may consider the Morall Law to binde two wayes The Morall Law is binding 1. In regard of the matter and so whatsoever in it is the Law of Nature doth oblige all and thus as the Law of Nature it 1. In regard of the matter of it did binde the Jewes before the promulgation of it upon Mount Sinai 2. Or you may consider it secondly to binde in regard of the 2. In regard of the preceptive authority put upon it preceptive authority and command which is put upon it for when a Law is promulged by a Messenger then there cometh a new obligation upon it and therefore Moses a Minister and Servant of God delivering this Law to them did bring an obligation upon the people Now the Question is Whether this obligation was temporary or The obligation of the Morall Law perpetuall proved by severall Arguments perpetuall I incline to that opinion which Pareus also doth that it is perpetuall and so doth Bellarmine and Vasquez 3. Howsoever Rivet seemeth to make no great matter in this Question if so be that we hold the Law obligeth in regard of the matter though we deny it binding in regard of the promulgation of it by Moses howsoever I say he thinkes it a Logomachy and of no great consequence yet certainly it is For although they professe themselves against the Antinomists and doe say The Law still obligeth because of Christs confirmation of it yet the Antinomians doe professe they doe not differ here from them but they say the Law bindeth in regard of the matter and as it is in the hand of Jesus Christ It is true this expression of theirs is contradicted by them and necessarily it must be so for Islebius and the old Antinomians with the latter also doe not only speake against the Law as binding by Moses but the bona opera the good works which are the matter of the Law as appeareth in their dangerous positions about good works which heretofore I have examined but truly take the Antinomian in their former expressions and I do not yet understand how those Orthodox Divines differ from them And therefore if it can be made good without any forcing or constraining the Scripture that God when he gave the ten Commandements for I speak of the Morall Law only by Moses did intend an obligation perpetuall of the Jewes and all others converted to him then will the Antinomian errour fall more clearly to the ground only when I bring my Arguments for the affirmative you must still remember in what sense the Question is stated and that I speake not of the whole latitude of the Ministry of Moses And in the first place I bring this Argument which much Argum. 1 prevaileth with me If so be the Ceremoniall Law as given by Moses had still obliged Christians though there

is no matter saith Austin if that which be worshipped be the true object though it be worshipped divers wayes when appointed by him no more then when the same thing is pronounced in divers Languages The fifth Argument If the Law by Moses doe not binde us then Argum. 5 the explication of it by the other Prophets doth not also belong unto us For this you must know that Moses in other places doth explain this Law and Davids Psalmes and Solomons Proverbs as also the Prophesies of the Prophets so farre as they are Morall are nothing but explications of the Morall Law Now what a wide doore will here be open to overthrow the Old Testament if I bring that place Deut. 32. 46. Set your hearts upon these words which I testifie to you this day because it is your life c. to urge Christians to keep the Commandements of the Lord It may be replyed What is that to us We have nothing to do with Moses The matter indeed doth belong to us as it is in the New Testament but as it is there written so we have nothing to doe with it And by this meanes all our Texts and proofes which are brought in our Sermons may be rejected And therefore Dominicus à Soto who is among the Papists for the negative expresly saith lib. 2. de Just jure quaest 5. Art 4. that no place can be brought out of the books of the Old Testament unto Christians as in respect of the obliging force of it This is plainly to overthrow the Old Testament Now let us consider what are the chiefest Arguments which Arguments of the Antinomians whereby they would prove that the Law as given by Moses does not bind Christians examined and answered they bring for the support of this opinion that the Law as given by Moses doth not binde Christians And first they urge the Preface I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of Egypt This doth not belong to us because we nor our fathers ever were in Egypt and say they further The temporall Promise to keep the Law doth not belong to us therefore Ephes chap. 6. 2. when Paul urgeth that Commandement with Promise he Argum. 1 doth not keep to the Promise particularly that thy life may be long in the land the Lord thy God shall give thee but speakes generally first by adding something that it may be well with thee which was not in the first Promise and then secondly by detracting saying only that thou mayest live long upon the earth in generall Now to the Preface some answer thus That we may be said Answer 1 literally to be in Egypt and they goe upon this ground that we are made one with the people of the Jewes and they bring the eleventh of the Romanes to prove this where the Gentiles are said to be graffed in so that they become of the same stock And it is plain that the Beleevers are Abrahams seed and then by this interpretation whatsoever mercy was vouchsafed unto them we are to account it as ours This cannot well be rejected but yet I shall not pitch upon this Others therefore they say That this bondage was typicall of our spirituall bondage and Answ 2 the deliverance out of it was typicall of our deliverance from Hell But this is not so literall an interpretation as I desire though I thinke it true Therefore in the third place I shall answer That there may be peculiar arguments that doe belong to the Jewes why they should keep the Commandements Answ 3 and there are generall ones that belong to all The generall arguments are I am the Lord thy God this belongs to us and then that peculiar argument may belong to them And this is no new thing to have a perpetuall duty pressed upon a people by some occasionall or peculiar motive Hence Jerem. 16. 14. 15. God saith there by the Prophet that they shall no more say The Lord that brought up out of the land of Egypt but that brought up out of the land of the North. Where you see a speciall new argument may be brought for the generall duty And as for the particular temporall Promise I grant that did only belong to them but I deny the consequence that therefore the precept doth not for the Scripture useth divers arguments to the obedience of the same Command Davids Psalmes for the most part and some of Paul's Epistles as Philemon c. were written upon particular occasions yet the matter of them doth still belong to us The second Argument is that If the Law did oblige us as Argum. 2 given by Moses then it did the Gentiles and Heathens also and so the Heathens were bound to those Commandements as well as the Jewes but that is not so therefore Paul Rom. 2. speaketh of the Gentiles without this Law and as those that shall be judged without it Now this may be answered It doth not follow that the Answ Law by Moses must presently bind the Gentiles but when promulged and made known to them as at this time Infidels and Pagans are not bound to beleeve in Jesus Christ but if the doctrine of Christ were promulged to them they were then bound And I make no question but other Nations were then bound in the time of Moses his ministery to inquire after the true God and to worship him in the Jewish way so far as they could Thus we reade of the Eunuch coming up to Jerusalem to worship And certainly if a whole Nation had then been converted either they must have worshipped God according to their owne institution or God would have revealed unto them some different way of worshipping him from the Jewes or else they were bound so far as they could for the Ceremoniall worship bound them no otherwaies to worship God in the Jewish way then appointed by him The Law then given by Moses did bind Gentiles as it was made known to them Thus the stranger in the gates was to keep the Sabbath though that be meant of a stranger that had received their religion yea Nehem. 13. 19. Nehemiah would not suffer the Tyrians that were strangers who did not submit to the Jewish Law to pollute the Sabbath Now to all this that hath been said you must take this limitation Though the Law given by Moses doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the administration of it yet in the obliging power of it it does That the Law given by Moses doth not belong to us in all the particulars of the administration of it The giving of the Law in that terrible manner might be a peculiar thing belonging to the Jewes as becoming the despensation of the Old Testament but yet the giving of the Law it selfe in the obliging power of it doth belong to us We all acknowledge that the Old Testament had a peculiar administration from the New it was fuller of terrour and so did gender more to bondage then the New Hence some