Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	day_n	lord_n	rest_v	3,802	5	9.7803	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

wholsome lawes to govern men by and 2dly By their practice at least of some of them according to those lawes And secondly internally by their consciences in the comfort or feare they had there Observat There is a law of Nature written in mens hearts And if this be not abolished but that a beleever is bound to follow the direction and obligation of it how can the Antinomian thinke that the Morall Law in respect of the mandatory power of it ceaseth Now because I intend a methodicall Tractate of the severall kindes of Gods Law you might expect I should say much about Lawes in generall but because many have written large Volumes especially the School-men and it cannot be denyed but that good rationall matter is delivered by them yet because it would not be so pertinent to my scope I forbeare I will not therefore examine the Etymology of the words that signifie a Law whether Lex in the Latine come of legendo because it was written to be read though that be not alwaies necessary or of ligando because a law binds to obedience or of deligendo because it selects some precepts nor concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek whether it come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is improbable or of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it destributes to every one that which is right neither the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some make to come of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to instruct and teach others of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that signifieth a disposition or compiling of things together as lawes use to be In the next place I will not trouble you with the desinition of a law whether it be an act or habit or the soule it selfe onely this is good to take notice of against a fundamentall errour of the Antinomian about a law in generall for they conceive it impossible but that the damning act of a law must be where the commanding act of a law is and this is frequently urged as I shewed the last time Therefore observe that there are only two things goe to the essence of a law I speak not of externall causes and that is first Direction secondly Obligation 1. Direction therefore a law is a rule hence the Law of God is compared to a light And Prov. 20. 27. there is a notable expression of the law of Nature It 's a candle of the Lord searching the inwards of the belly So it is observed that the Chaldee word for a law is as much as light The second essentiall constitute of a law is Obligation for therein lyeth the essence of a sinne that it breaketh this law which supposeth the obligatory force of it In the next place there are two Consequents of the Law which are ad bene esse that the Law may be the better obeyed and this indeed turneth the law into a covenant which is another notion upon it as afterwards is to be shewen Now as for the sanction of the Law by way of a promise that is a meere free thing God by reason of that dominion which he had over man might have commanded his obedience and yet never have made a promise of eternall life unto him And as for the other consequent act of the law to curse and punish this is but an accidentall act and not necessary to a law for it cometh in upon supposition of transgression and therefore as we may say of a Magistrate He was a just and compleat Magistrate for his time though he put forth no punitive justice if there be no malefactors offending so it is about a law a law is a compleat law obliging though it doe not actually curse as in the confirmed Angels it never had any more then obligatory and mandatory acts upon them for that they were under a law is plaine because otherwise they could not have sinned for where there is no law Rom. 4. 15. there is no transgression If therefore the Antinomian were rectified in this principle which is very true and plaine he would quickly be satisfied but of this more in another place But we come to the particulars of the doctrine the pressing of which will serve much against the Antinomian Therefore for the better understanding of this Law of Nature consider these particulars 1. The nature of it in which it doth consist and that is in those The Law of Nature consists in those common notions which are ingraffed in all mens hearts common notions and maximes which are ingraffed in all mens hearts and these are some of them speculative that there is a God and some practicall that good is to be imbraced and evill to be avoided and therefore Aquinas saith well that what principles of Sciences are in things of demonstration the same are these rules of nature in practicals therefore we cannot give any reasons of them but as the Sun manifests it selfe by its owne light so doe these Hence Chrysostome observeth well that God forbidding murder and other sins giveth no reason of it because its naturall but speaking of the seventh day why that in particular was to be observed he giveth a reason because on the seventh day the Lord rested not but that the seventh day is morall as some have denyed but because it s not morall naturall onely morall positive as the Learned shew 2. The difference of its being in Adam and in us This is necessary Some fragments onely of this Law left in us to observe for it was perfectly implanted in Adams heart but we have onely some fragments and a meere shadow of it left in us The whole Law of Nature as it was perfectly instructing us the will of God was then communicated to him and howsoever God for good reasons hereafter to be mentioned did give besides that law of Nature a positive law to try his obedience yet the other cannot be denied to be in him seeing he was made after Gods image in righteousnesse and holinesse and otherwise Adam had been destitute of the light of reason and without a conscience Therefore it 's a most impudent thing in Socinus to deny that Adam had any such law or precept and that hee could not lye or commit any other sin though hee would for it may not be doubted but that if Adam had told a lye or murdered Eve it had been a sin as well as to eate of the forbidden fruit 3. The naturall impression of it in us We have it by nature it 's Those common notions in which this law consists are in us by nature not a superadded work of God to put this into us This assertion is much opposed by Flaccus Illyricus who out of his vehement desire to aggravate originall sin in us and to shew how destitute we are of the image of God doth labour to shew that those common notions and dictates of conscience are infused de novo into us and that we have none of these by nature in

the glorious image of God put into us for of the later as it is informed by Scripture it is no question Now this is absolutely necessary two waies 1. As a passive qualification of the subject for faith for there cannot be faith in a stone or in a beast no more then there can be sin in them Therefore Reason or the light of Nature makes man in a passive capacity fit for grace although hee hath no active ability for it And when he is compared to a stone it is not in the former sense but the later And secondly it 's necessary by way of an instrument for we cannot beleeve unlesse we understand whether knowledge be an act ingredient into the essence of faith or whether it be prerequisite all hold there must be an act of the understanding one way or other going to beleeve Hence knowledge is put for faith and Hebr. 11. By saith we understand Thus it is necessary as an instrument 3. There is nothing true in Divinity that doth crosse the truth of Though some divine truths may transcend the reach of Nature none doe crosse the truth thereof as it is the remnant of Gods image Nature as it 's the remnant of Gods image This indeed is hard to cleere in many points of Divinity as in the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of Christs Incarnation which seemeth paradoxall to Reason of whom Tertullian lib. 5. de carne Christi cap. 5. thus Natus est Dei Filius non pudet quia pudendum est Mortuus est Dei Filius prorsus credibile est quia ineptum Sepultus resurrexit certum est quia impossibile Yet seeing the Apostle calls the naturall knowledge of a man Truth and all truth is from God which waies soever it come there can therefore be no contradiction between it And hereupon our Divines doe when they have confuted the Poposh doctrine of Transubstantiation by Scripture shew also that for a body to be in two places is against the principles of Nature They indeed call for faith in this point and Lapide upon these words Hoc est corpus meum saith If Christ should aske me at the day of judgment Why did you beleeve the bread to be the body of Christ I will answer This text if I be deceived These words have deceived me But we must compare place with place and Scripture with Scripture As for the doctrine of the Trinity though it be above Reason and we cannot look into that mysterie no more then an Owle can into the Sun Faith and the light of Nature go to the knowledge of the same thing different waies beames yet it is not against it 4. The same object may be knowne by the light of Nature and by the light of Faith This may easily be understood I may know there is a God by the light of Nature and I may beleeve it because the Scripture faith so so Hebr. 11. I may by faith understand the Word was made and by arguments know it was made and this is called faith by James The divels beleeve that is they have an evident intuitive knowledge of God and feel it by experience not that they have faith for that is a supernaturall gift wrought by God and hath accompanying it pia affectio to him that speaketh as the first truth Faith therefore and the light of Nature goe to the knowledge of the same thing different waies faith doth because of the testimony and divine revelation of God the light of Nature doth because of arguments in the thing it selfe by discourse And faith is not a dianoeticall or discursive act of the understanding but its simple and apprehensive 5. Though Reason and the light of Nature be necessary yet it is not The light of Nature a necessary instrument but no Judge in matters of Faith a Judge in matters of faith The Lutheran seemeth to depresse Reason too much and the Socinian exalteth it too high They make it not onely an instrument but a Judge and thereupon they reject the greatest mysteries of Religion I know some have endeavoured to shew that Religio est summa ratio and there are excellent men that have proved the truth of the Christian Religion by Reason and certainly if we can by Reason prove there is any Religion at all we may by the same Reason prove that the Christian Religion is the true one But who doth not see how uncertaine Reason is in comparison of Faith I doe not therefore like that assertion of one who affects to be a great Rationalist it is Chillingworth that saith We therefore receive the Scriptures to be the Word of God because we have the greatest Reason that this is the Word of God But we must not confound the instrument and the Judge holy truthes they are Scripture truthes though hammered out by Reason As the Smith that takes golden plate and beates it into what shape he pleaseth his hammer doth not make it gold but onely gold of such a shape And thus also Reason doth not make a truth divine onely holds it forth and declareth it in such a way 6. It s altogether insufficient to prescribe or set downe any worship of Nature insufficient to prescribe divine Worship God Hence God doth so often forbid us to walk after our owne imaginations and to doe that which we shall choose The Apostle calleth it Will-worship when a mans Will is the meere cause of it Now its true men are more apt to admire this as we see in the Pharisees and Papists they dote upon their Traditions more then Gods Institutions Hence Raymundus a Papist speaking of the Masse It is saith he as full of mysteries as the sea is full of drops of water as the heaven hath Angels as the firmament hath starres and the earth little crummes of sand But what saith our Saviour Luk. 18. that which is highly esteemed before men is abomination before God That word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is applied to idols and false-worship It s true indeed even in worship light of Nature and prudence is instrumentally required to order the Institutions of God but as Reason may not make a new Article of Faith so neither a new part of worship Now Natures in sufficiency is described in these three reasonings 1. To have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eye It 1. Because it would have all the worship of God sensible and pleasing to the eie was well called by Parisiensis a madness in some who doubted not to say The Church was better ruled by the inventions of men then by the Scriptures The people of Israel would have sensible gods that they might see them and certainly men doe as much delight in sensible pompous worship as children doe in gay babies therefore the Prophet speaketh of their goodly images But all this ariseth because they are ignorant of spirituall worship and cannot tell how to make spirituall advantage from God

be manifested to be obedience For as Austin speaking of himselfe in confessing his wickednesse that though he had no need or temptation to sin yet to be a sinner he delighted in that Nulla alia causa malitiae nisi malitia so on the contrary it 's an excellent aggravation of obedience when there is nulla alia causa obedientiae nisi obedientia so that the forbearing to eate was not from any sin in the action but from the will of the law-giver And Austin doth well explaine this If a man saith he forbid another to touch such an herb because it 's poyson this herb is contrary to a mans health whether it be forbidden or no Or if a man forbid a thing because it will be an hinderance to him that forbiddeth as to take away a mans mony or goods here it 's forbidden because it would be losse to him that forbiddeth but if a man forbids that which is neither of these waies hurtfull therefore it 's forbidden because bonum obedientiae per se malum inobedientiae per se monstraretur And this is also further to be observed that though the obedience unto this positive law be far inferiour unto that of the morall law because the object of one is inwardly good and the object of the other rather a profession of obedience then obedience yet the disobedience unto the positive law is no lesse hainous then that to the morall law because hereby man doth professedly acknowledge he will not submit to God Even as a vassall that is to pay such homage a yeare if he wilfully refuse it doth yearly acknowledge his refractorinesse Hence the Apostle doth expresly call Adams sin disobedience Rom. 5. not in a generall sense as every sin is disobedience but specifically it was strictly taken the sin of disobedience he did by that act cast off the dominion and power that God had over him as much as in him lay and though pride and unbeliefe were in this sin yet this was properly his sin 3. Why God would make this law seeing he fore-knew his fall and The proper essentiall end of the positive law was to exercise Adams obedience abuse of it For such is the profane boldnesse of many men that would have a reason of all Gods actions whereas this is as * Altitudinem consilii ejus penetrare non possum longè supra vires meas esse confiteor August if the Owle would look into the Sun or the Pigmee measure the Pyramides Although this may be answered without that of Pauls Who art thou O man c. for God did not give him this law to make him fall Adam had power to stand Therefore the proper essentiall end of this commandement was to exercise Adams obedience Hence there was no iniquity or unrighteousnesse in God Bellarmine doth confesse that God may doe that which if man should doe he sinned as for instance Man is bound to hinder him from sin that he knoweth would doe it if it lay in his power but God is not so tyed both because he hath the chiefe providence it 's fit he should let causes work according to their nature and therefore Adam being created free he might sin as well as not sin as also because God can work evill things out of good and lastly because God if he should hinder all evill things there would many good things be wanting to the world for there is nothing which some doe not abuse The English Divines in the Synod of Dort held that God had a serious will of saving all men but not an efficacious will of saving all Thus differing from the Arminians on one side and from some Protestant Authours on the other side and their great instance of the possibility of a serious will and not efficacious is this of Gods to Adam seriously willing him to stand and withall giving him ability to stand yet it was not such an efficacious will as de facto did make him stand for no question God could have confirmed the will of Adam in good as well as that of the Angels and the glorified Saints in heaven But concerning the truth of this their assertion we are to enquire in its time For that errour much spreads and the Antinomian cannot by his principles avoid that Christ intentionally died and so offereth his grace to all But for the matter in hand if by a serious will be meant a will of approbation and complacency yea and efficiency in some sense no question but God did seriously will his standing when he gave that commandement And howsoever Adam did fall because he had not such help that would in the event make him stand yet God did not withdraw or deny any help unto him whereby he was inabled to obey God To deny Adam that help which should indeed make him stand was no necessary requisite at all on Gods part But secondly that of Austins is good God would not have suffered sin to be if he could not have wrought greater good then sin was evill not that God needed sin to shew his glory for he needed no glory from the creature but it pleased him to permit sin that so thereby the riches of his grace and goodnesse might be manifested unto the children of his love And if Arminians will not be satisfied with these Scripture considerations we will say as Austin to the Hereticks Illi garriant nos credamus Let them prate while we beleeve 5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity And certainly The positive law did lay an obligation upon Adam posterity we must conclude that this positive command was universall and that Adam is here taken collectively for although that Adam was the person to whom this command was given yet it was not personall but to Adam as an head or common person Hence Rom. 5. all are said to sin in him for whether it be in him or in as much as all have sinned it cometh to the same purpose for how could all be said to have sinned but because they were in him And this is also further to be proved by the commination In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye now all the posterity of Adam dyeth hereby Besides the same reasons which prove a conveniency for a positive law besides the naturall for Adam doe also inferre for Adams posterity It is true some Divines that doe hold a positive law would have been yet seem to be afraid to affirme fully that the posterity of Adam would have been tryed with the very same commandement of eating the forbidden fruit but I see no cause of questioning it Now all this will be further cleared when we come to shew that this is not meerly a law but a covenant and so by that meanes there is a communicating of Adams sin unto his posterity And indeed if God had not dealt in a covenant way in this thing there could be no more reason why Adams sin should be made ours

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

grosse sinnes for which there was no particular sacrifice appointed 3. Again under the New Testament is there not the sinne 3. The sinne against the holy Ghost under the Gospel not cleansed by Christs bloud against the holy Ghost for which no pardon is promised Not indeed but that Christs bloud is sufficient to take away the guilt of it and Gods mercy is able to pardon it and to give repentance to those that have committed it but he hath declared he will not But saith the Author under the Gospel it is said The bloud of Christ cleanseth us from all sinne Now if the Jewes would have brought all their estates to have been admitted to bring a sacrifice for such or such a sinne they could not have done it I reply What if they could bring no sacrifice could they not therefore have pardon Why then doth God proclaime himselfe to them a God gracious forgiving iniquity transgression and sinne Why doth he Isai 1. call upon Jerusalem to repent of her whoredomes murders saying If their sinnes were as scarlet they should be made as white as snow This errour is such a dead fly that it is enough to spoile the Authors whole boxe of ointment Besides was not that true ever since Adams fall as well as under the Gospel Christs bloud cleansing from all sinne I cannot see how any but a Socinian will deny it 4. Another difference that the Author makes about remission 4. That under the old Covenant God gave not remission of sins to any but upon antecedent conditions not so under the Gospel of sinnes to them and us under the Gospel is as strange and false as the former It is this God did not give the grace of remission of sinnes to any under the old Covenant but upon antecedent conditions they were to be at cost for sacrifices How doth this agree with his former reason if he meane it universally They were to confesse their sinnes to the Priests yea in some cases to fast but now under the Gospel there is no antecedent doing of any thing to the participation of the Covenant But in this difference also there is much absurd falshood and contradiction to himself Contradiction I say for he bringeth Ezek. 16. where God speakes to the Church that while she was in her bloud he said to her Live therefore there was no antecedent condition But what man of reason doth not see that God speakes there of the Church of the Jewes as appeareth through the whole Chapter Therefore it makes strongly against the Author that she had no preparations so that other place Isai 65. 1. I am found of them that sought not for me grant that it be a prophesie of the Gentiles yet was it not also true of the Jewes before God called them Did the Jewes first seek God or God them How often doth God tell them that the good he did to them was for his own names sake and not any thing in them Again if these things were required as antecedent qualifications in them for the remission of sinnes then all those arguments will hold true upon them which they would fasten as injuries to Christ and grace upon us If say they we must repent and humble our selves and so have pardon this is to cast off Christ this is to make an idoll of our own righteousnesse c. It seemeth the Jewes under the Old Testament might doe all these things without blame A Jew might say My services my sacrifices my prayers will doe something to the remission of my sinnes but a Christian may not The Author urgeth also that place While we are enemies we were reconciled to God but doth not this hold true of the Jewes Did they first make themselves friends with God What is this but to hold the doctrine of free-will and works in the time of the Law and the doctrine of grace under the new only As for faith whether that be a condition or not I shall not here medle only this is plain it was required of them under the old Covenant in the same maner as it is of us now A third difference made as to remission of sinnes is this Their 5. That remission of sinnes under the Law was successively and imperfect under the Gospel at once and perfect remission of sinnes was gradatim successively drops by drops If a man had sinned and offered sacrifice then that sinne was pardoned but this did not extend to future ignorance that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice Therefore the Apostle saith there was a remembrance of sinne but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified To this I answer 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition as if the sacrifice offered did by its own vertue take away sinne For if we suppose as we must that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice and all the vertue and benefit to come from Christs bloud and not the bloud of the sacrifices then could that take away all sinnes as well as some sinnes unlesse the Author were a Socinian denying the efficacy of Christs bloud at all under the Old Testament he can never expedite himself from this Again this contradicts themselves for the reason why they say faith doth not justifie but evidence and declare it onely is because Gods love and free grace to justifie is from all eternity and therefore no sins past or future can hinder this Now I aske whether God did not justifie David and the godly in those dayes from all eternity as they speake and if hee did why should not all their sinnes be remitted fully once as well as the sins of beleevers under the Gospel Certainly the Apostle brings David for an instance of justification and remission of sins as well under the New Testament which doth suppose that we are justified and have our sinnes pardoned in the like manner In the meane while let me set one Antinomian to overthrow another for one of that way brings many arguments to prove that we are justified and so have all our sinnes done away before we beleeve Now if all sins are done away then there is no successive remission Well then you shall observe most of the arguments hold for the beleevers under the Old Testament as well as New for they are elected as well as wee God laid their sins upon Christ as well as ours If God love us to day and hate us to morrow let Arminians heare and wonder why they should be blamed that say Wee may love God to day and hate him to morrow Now all these reasons will fall foule upon this Antinomian whose errour I confute and hee must necessarily hold that the godly had but halfe pardons yea that they were loved one day and hated the next Again consider that the place of the Apostle urged by him for his errour viz. Christ offering himselfe once for all to perfect those that are sanctified is of a

2. 27. Shall not uncircumcision 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it fullfill the Law So James 2. 8. If you fullfill the royall Law In this sense Aristotle called the soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that which did perfect And the sacrifices before marriage which was the consummation of that neere bond or because of the cost then bestowed were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erasmus takes it in this sense here and doth translate it perfection for which Beza doth reprove him saying he doth not remember that the word is so used any where But that place 1 Tim. 7. 5. The end of the commandement is charity may seeme to confirme this sense for certainly that phrase is no more then that in another place Love is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fullfilling of the Law Therefore I think this is a great part of the meaning here Christ is the end that is the perfection the fullnesse of the Law Yet I shall take in also the end of intention or a scope unto which the Law-giver aimed when hee gave the Law and this will be shewed in the particulars The doctrine is That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every beleever For the opening of this consider 1. That an end may be taken either for that of consumption and abolition or for that of perfection and confirming Finis interficiens and finis perficiens as Austine called it Now in the former sense Christ was the end of the Ceremoniall Law the end abolishing although that was also an end of perfection to them and so some understand it of the Ceremoniall Law and the Prophesies They all shadowed out Christ and ended in him And this indeed is a truth but it is not pertinent to the scope of the Apostle who speaketh of such a Law that the Jewes expected righteousnesse by in the performing of it which must be the Morall Law only Now when we speak of the Morall Law having Christ for the end of it then in the second place that may be considered two waies 1. Either rigidly and in an abstracted consideration from the administration The Law as it is considered rigidly and in the abstract so Christ is not the end thereof unless it be by accident of it as it doth require perfect obedience and condemning those that have it not now in this sense Christ cannot be the scope or end of the Law but it is meerly by accident and occasionall that a soule abased and condemned by the Law doth seek out for a Christ onely you must know that the Law even so taken doth not exclude a Christ It requireth indeed a perfect righteousnesse of our owne yet if we bring the righteousnesse of a surety though this be not commanded by the Law yet it is not against the Law or excluded by it otherwise it would have been unjustice in God to have accepted of Christ our surety for us 2. Or else the Law may be taken in a more large way for the administration As the Law is taken largely for the administration of it by Moses so Christ was intended directly of it by Moses in all the particulars of it and thus Christ was intended directly and not by accident that is God when hee gave the Law to the people of Israel did intend that the sense of their impossibility to keep it and infinite danger accrewing thereby to them should make them desire and seek out for Christ which the Jewes generally not understanding or neglecting did thereby like Adam goe to make fig-leaves for their covering of their nakednesse their empty externall obedience According to this purpose Aquinas hath a good distinction about an end That an End is two-fold Either such to which a thing doth naturally incline of it selfe Or secondly That which becometh an end by the meere appointment and ordination of some Agent Now the end of the Law to which naturally it inclineth is eternall life to be obtained by a perfect righteousnesse in us but the instituted and appointed end which God the Law-giver made in the promulgation of it was the Lord Christ So that whatsoever the Law commanded promised or threatned it was to stirre up the Israelites unto Christ They were not to rest in those precepts or duties but to go on to Christ so that a beleever was not to take joy with any thing in the Law till he came to Christ and when he had found him he was to seek no further but to abide there Now this indeed was a very difficult duty because every man naturally would be his own Christ and Saviour And what is the reason that under the Gospel beleevers are still so hardly perswaded to rest only on Christ for righteousnesse but because of that secret selfe dependance within them Having premised these things I come to shew how Christ is Christ is the end of intention in the dispensation of the Law the end of the Law taken largely in the ministry of Moses And in the first place Christ was the scope and end of intentention God by giving so holy a Law requiring such perfect obedience would thereby humble and debase the Israelites so that thereby they should the more earnestly flye unto Christ even as the Israelite stung by a serpent would presently cast his eyes upon the brasen Serpent It is true Christ was more obscurely and darkly held forth there yet not so but that it was a duty to search out for Christ in all those administrations And this you have fully set forth in that Allegory which Paul maketh 2 Corinth 3. 7. I shall explaine that place because it may be wrested 2 Cer. 3. 7. opened by the Antinomian as if because that kind of ministery which was by Moses was to be done away and evacuated therefore the preaching of the Law were also to be abrogated but that is The ministery of the Gospel more excellent then that of the Law in three respects far from the Apostles scope for the Apostle his intent there is to shew the excellency of the ministery of the Gospel above that of the Law and that in three respects 1. In regard one is the ministery of death and condemnation the 1. Because it is the ministery of life and righteousness the Law of death and condemnation other of life and righteousnesse Therefore the one is called Letter and the other Spirit Now this you must understand warily taking the Law nakedly and in it selfe without the Spirit of God and the Gospel with the Spirit for as Beza well observeth if you take the Gospel without Gods Spirit that also is the ministration of death because it is as impossible for us to beleeve as it is to obey the Law by our owne power only life and spirit is attributed to the Gospel and not to the Law because Christ who is the authour of the Gospel is the fountaine of life and when any good is wrought by