Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	day_n	moral_a	sabbath_n	1,332	5	10.0060	5	false

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could be no obligation from the matter had it not been revoked and abolished then the Morall Law given by Moses must still oblige though it did not binde in respect of the matter unlesse we can shew where it is repealed For the further clearing of this you may consider that this was the great Question which did so much trouble the Church in her infancy Whether Gentiles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

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

is said to fill the Law in respect of the Pharisees who by their corrupt glosses had evacuated it And one of his reasons which hee brings to prove his assertion makes most against him viz. Except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of the Scribes and Pharisees c. This maketh against him because our Saviour doth not say Except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of the Law and the Prophets which hee must have said if his opinion were true but of the Scribes and Pharisees who had corrupted the text with their false glosses I will not consider his other reasons for they are so weak that he seemeth to be afraid of them And certainly it would be strange Divinity to say that a Jew might have lusted after a woman in his heart and not have sinned but now it would be sin in a Christian The second particular difference is in respect of the measure of grace The measure of grace ordinarily greater in the Gospel then under the Law Hence the Scripture speakes as if they had under the Old Testament none at all meerly because there was not such a plentifull effusion of his Spirit upon them not but that if wee consider some particular persons they might have such degrees of grace that few under the Gospel can be compared unto them as Abraham and David but this was not according to the ordinary dispensation of his graces then So that as one starre differeth from another in glory thus did the Church of the Jewes from that of Christians They had drops but we have the fountaine they had glimmerings but wee have the sun it selfe Now as these are priviledges so they are also great engagements for more eminent knowledge and holinesse then was in those dayes But all that the Prophets reproved in their people ignorance self-confidence resting upon externall duties c. the same may we in our hearers 3. Their condition was more servile All things did presse The Jews under the Law were in a more servile condition then Christians under the Gospel more to fear and bondage then now among us Hence the Apostle Gal. 4. 30. compareth their condition to the sons of the bond-woman Hence Austine makes Timor and Amor the difference of the two Testaments God met man sinning in the Law as he did Adam with terrour charging sin upon him but under the Gospel as the father did the prodigall son coming home to him See Hebr. 12. this difference considered by Paul Yee are not come to Mount Sinai c. Onely you must rightly understand this The Jewes had a two-fold consideration one as being servile and another of them as sonnes but under age so that they were not wholly excluded from the spirit of Adoption yea the Apostle saith That the Promises and Adoption did belong unto them and David doth appropriate God unto himselfe as his God in his prayer which argued hee had the Spirit of Adoption inabling him to call Abba Father Now as they were more obnoxious to an inward bondage so they were under an outward bondage also opposite unto which is that Christian liberty Paul speakes of whereby the yoke of all those ceremonious burdens is taken off them and Paul doth vehemently and fervidly dispute against those that would introduce them In the asserting of this difference one scruple is to be removed which is this How could the Jewes be said to be in more servitude then the Christians meerly because of those ceremonies and sacrifices for seeing they were commanded by God and had spirituall significations they did thereby become helpes unto their faith and were exercises of their piety As under the Gospel none can say that the Sacraments are a burden and tend to bondage because they are visible signes But rather God doth hereby condescend in his great love unto us for as Chrysostome observeth if wee had been incorporeall God would not then have appointed visible Sacraments no more then hee doth to Angels but now consisting of soul and body he doth institute some things in an accommodated way to help us and to promote our faith But this may be answered that although they were spirituall in signification yet they being many and requiring much bodily labour they could not be observed without much difficulty and therefore no Priest or Levite that was spiritually minded in those dayes but would rather choose to exercise the ministery under the Gospel then to busie himself in the killing of beasts and fleaing of them which was their duty to doe Therefore well did Austine observe the love of God in appointing for us Sacraments fewer in number easier in observation and more cleare in signification Againe those bodily exercises did rather fit those that were children and were more convenient to that low condition then unto the full age of the Church and Sacraments though they be an help yet they suppose some imbecillity in the subject therefore in heaven there shall be none at all Onely take notice that Popery having introduced so many ceremonious observations and such a multitude of Church-precepts hath made the times of the Gospel to be the times of noneage againe This also discovereth that such are not spirituall that delight in ceremoniall waies and the more men fixe their heart upon sensible observations the lesse they partake of spirituall I will instance but in a fourth because these differences are The continuation of the Law was last but till the coming of Christ given by most that treate on this subject and that shall be the continuance and abode of it The Law in that Mosaicall administration was to indure but till Christ the fulnesse came and then as the scaffolds are pulled downe when the house is built so were all those externall ordinances to be abolished when Christ himselfe came A candle is superfluous when the sun appeareth A School-master is not necessary to those that have obtained perfect knowledge Milke is not comely for those who live on solide meat The chaffe preserves the corne but when the corne is gathered the chaffe is thrown away And when the fruit cometh the flower falleth to the ground And in this sense the Apostle Heb. 7. doth argue against it saying it could bring nothing to perfection Neither could any of those purifications work any good and spiritual effect It behoved therefore that a Christ should be exhibited which would work all those spirituall mercies for us Hence had there been no farther proceeding but wee must alwaies have stayed in such offerings and sacrifices it had been impossible for ever that God should have been pleased with us It is therefore in this respect that it was to be antiquated and a better covenant to come in the roome of it The Apostle calleth those things Heb. 10. a shadow Now a shadow that doth shew a man but yet the shadow that doth not live or eate or speake so those sacrifices they shadowed out Christ but yet they could not exhibite the