Selected quad for the lemma: state_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
state_n	faith_n	grace_n	justification_n	1,459	5	9.0615	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

the flesh yee shall die So Except yee repent yee shall all likewise perish Such places are so frequent that its a wonder an Antinomian can passe them all over and alwaies speake of those places which declare Gods grace to us but not our duty to him Without holinesse no man can see God now by the Antinomians argument as a man may be justified while he is wicked and doth abide so so also he may be glorified and saved for this is their principle that Christ hath purchased justification glory and salvation for us even though sinners and enemies 6. They are in their owne nature a defence against sinne and corruption 6. Because they are a defence against sin If we doe but consider the nature of these graces though imperfect yet that will pleade for the necessity of them Ephes 6. 14 16. There you have some graces a shield and some a breast-plate now every souldier knoweth the necessity of these in time of war It s true the Apostle speaks of the might of the Lord and prayer must be joyned to these but yet the principall doth not oppose the instrumentall Hence Rom. 13. they are called the weapons of the light It s Luthers observation He doth not call the works of darknesse the weapons of darknesse but good workes he doth call weapons quia bonis operibus debemus uti tanquam armis to resist Satan and hee calls them the weapons of light because they are from God the fountaine of light and because they are according to Scripture the true light although Drusius thinketh light is here used for victory as Jud. 5. 31. Psal 132. 17 18. and so the word is used of Homer and Marcellinus speakes of an ancient custome when at supper time the children brought in the candles they cryed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7. They are necessary by a naturall connexion with faith and the 7. Because necessary by a naturall connexion with faith and the Spirit of God Spirit of God Hence it 's called faith which worketh by love The Papist Lorinus thinketh we speak a contradiction because sometimes wee say faith only justifieth sometimes that unlesse our faith be working it cannot justifie us but here is no contradiction for it 's onely thus Faith which is a living faith doth justifie though not as it doth live for faith hath two notable acts 1. To apprehend and lay hold upon Christ and thus it justifieth 2. To purifie and cleanse the heart and to stirre up other graces and thus it doth not And thus Paul and James may be reconciled for James brings that very passage to prove Abraham was not justified by faith alone which Paul brings to prove he was because one intends to shew that his faith was a working faith and the other that that alone did concurre to justifie and thus in this sense some learned men say Good workes are necessary to preserve a man in the state of justification although they doe not immediatly concurre to that act as in a man although his shoulders and breast doe not concurre immediatly to the act of seing yet if a mans eye and head were not knit to those parts hee could not see and so though the fire doe not burne as it is light yet it could not burne unlesse it were so for it supposeth then the subject would be destroyed It s a saying of John Husse Vbi bona opera non apparent ad extra ibi fides non est ad intra Therefore as Christ while he remained the second Person was invisible but when hee was incarnated then he became visible so must thy faith be incarnated into works and it must become flesh as it were 8. They are necessary by debt and obligation So that God by his 8 By debt and obligation soveraignty might have commanded all obedience from man though he should give him no reward of eternall life Therefore David did well argue that we cannot merit at Gods hand because the more good we are enabled to doe we are the more beholding to God Hence it is that we are his servants Servus non est persona sed res and we are more servants to God then the meerest slave can be to man for we have our being and power to work from him And this obligation is so perpetuall and necessary that no covenant of grace can abolish it for gratia non destruit naturam 9. By command of God This is the will of God your sanctification 9. By command of God 1 Thes 43. Rom. 12. 2. So that you may prove what is that good and acceptable will of God And thus the Law of God still remaineth as a rule and directory And thus Paul professed hee delighted in the Law of God in his inward man and that place Rom. 12. presseth our renovation comparing us to a sacrifice implying we are consecrated and set apart to him a dog or a swine might not be offered to God And the word Offer doth imply our readinesse and alacrity He also addeth many epithets to the will of God that so we may be moved to rejoyce in it There is therefore no disputing or arguing against the will of God If our Saviour Mat. 5. saith He shall be least in the Kingdome of heaven that breaketh the least commandement how much more inexcusable is the Antinomian who teacheth the abolition of all of them 10. They are necessary by way of comfort to our selves And this 10. By way of comfort to our selves opposeth many Antinomian passages who forbid us to take any peace by our holinesse Now it 's true to take them so as to put confidence in them to take comfort from them as a cause that cannot be for who can look upon any thing he doth with that boldnesse It was a desperate speech of Panigarola a Papist as Rivet relates who called it folly to put confidence onely in Christs bloud We know no godly man satisfieth his owne heart in any thing he doth much lesse can he the will of God We cannot at the same time say Lord forgive me and Pay me what thou owest yet these good workes though imperfect may be a great comfort unto us as the testimony of Gods eternall love to us Thus did Hezekiah 2 Kings 20. 3. Hezekiah is not there a proud Pharisee but a thankfull acknowledger of what is in him and some consider that this temptation might fall upon Hezekiah that when he had laboured to demolish all those superstitions and now became dangerously sick that he had not done well therefore he comforts himselfe in his heart that he did those things with not that he meant an absolute perfect heart but sincere and comparatively perfect Hence it 's observed the word I have walked is in Hiphil I have made my selfe to walke implying the dulnesse and sluggishnesse and aversnesse he found in his heart to that duty so that prayer being as one calls it well Speculum animi the soules glasse

Apostle describeth the righteousnesse which is by faith And Beza doth acknowledge that that which Moses speakes of the law Paul doth apply to the Gospel Now how can this be reconciled unlesse wee distinguish between the generall doctrine of Moses which was delivered unto the people in all the circumstantiall administrations of it and the particular doctrine about the Law taken in a limited and abstracted consideration Onely this take notice of that although the Law were a Covenant of grace yet the righteousnesse of works and faith differ as much as heaven and earth But the Papists they make this difference The righteousnesse of the Law saith Stapleton Antid in hunc locum is that which wee of our owne power have and doc by the knowledge and understanding of the Law but the righteousnesse of faith they make the righteousnesse of the Law to which wee are enabled by grace through Christ So that they compare not these two together as two contraries in which sense Paul doth but as an imperfect righteousnesse with a perfect But we know that the Apostle excludeth the workes of David and Abraham that they did in obedience to the Law to which they were enabled by grace so necessary is it in matter of justification and pardon to exclude all workes any thing that is ours Tolle te à te impedis te said Austine well Nor doth it availe us that this grace in us is from God because the Apostle makes the opposition wholly between any thing that is ours howsoever we come by it and that of faith in Christ Having thus explained the state of the Question I come to the arguments to prove the affirmative And thus I shall order them The first shall be taken from the relation of the Covenanters Arguments proving the Law a Covenant of grace God on one part and the Israelites on the other God did not deale at this time as absolutely considered but as their God and Father Hence God saith hee is their God and when Christ quoteth the commanders Argum. 1 hee brings the preface Heare O Israel the Lord thy God is one And Rom. 9. 4. To the Israelites belong adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the promises Now unlesse this were a Covenant of grace how could God be their God who were sinners Thus also if you consider the people of Israel into what relation they are taken this will much confirme the point Exod. 19. 5 6. If yee will obey my voice you shall be a peculiar treasure unto mee and yee shall be unto me a kingdome of Priests and an holy Nation which is applied by Peter to the people of God under the Gospel If therefore the Law had been a Covenant of workes how could such an agreement come between them 2. If wee consider the good things annexed unto this Covenant it must needes be a Covenant of grace for there wee have remission Argum. 2 and pardon of sinne whereas in the Covenant of workes there is no way for repentance or pardon In the second Commandement God is described to be one showing mercy unto thousands and by shewing mercy is meant pardon as appeareth by the contrary visiting iniquity Now doth the Law strictly taken receive any humbling and debasing of themselves no but curseth every one that doth not continue in all the things commanded and that with a full and perfect obedience Hence Exod. 34. ver 6 7. God proclaimeth himselfe in manifold attributes of being gracious and long-suffering keeping mercy for thousands and forgiving iniquity and this hee doth upon the renewing of the two Tables whereas if the people of Israel had been strictly held up to the Law as it required universall perfect obedience without any failing they must also necessarily have despaired and perished without any hope at all 3. If we consider the duties commanded in the Law so generally taken Argum. 3 it must needs be a Covenant of grace for what is the meaning of the first Commandement but to have one God in Christ our God by faith For if faith had not been on such termes commanded it had been impossible for them to love God or to pray unto God Must not the meaning then be to love and delight in God and to trust in him But how can this be without faith through Christ Hence some urge that the end of the commandement is love from faith unfeigned but because Scultetus doth very probably by commandement understand there The Apostles preaching and exhortation it being in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Apostle using the word in that Epistle in the same sense I leave it It 's true there is no mention made of Christ or faith in the first Commandement but that is nothing for love also is not mentioned yet our Saviour discovers it there and so must faith and Christ be supposed there by necessary consequence And can we think that the people of Israel though indeed they were too confident in themselves yet when they took upon themselves to keep and observe the Law that the meaning was they would doe it without any spot or blemish by sinne or without the grace of God for pardon if they should at any time breake the Law 4. From the Ceremoniall Law All Divines say that this is reduced Argum. 4 to the Morall Law so that Sacrifices were commanded by vertue of the second Commandement Now wee all know that the Sacrifices were evangelicall and did hold forth remission of sinnes through the blood of Christ If therefore these were commanded by the Morall Law there must necessarily be grace included although indeed it was very obscure and darke And it is to be observed that the Apostle doth as much argue against circumcision and even all the Ceremoniall Law as the Morall yea the first rise of the cōtroversie was from that Now all must confesse that circumcision and the sacrifices did not oppose Christ or grace but rather included them And this hath been alwaies a very strong argument to perswade me for the affirmative It is true the Jewes they rested upon these and did not look to Christ but so doe our Christians in these times upon the Sacraments and other duties 5. This will appeare from the visible seale to ratifie this Covenant Argum. 5 which you heard was by sacrifices and sprinkling the people with bloud And this did signifie Christ for Christ he also was the Mediatour of this Covenant seeing that reconciliation cannot possibly be made with a sinner through the Mediation of any mortall man When therefore Moses is called the Mediatour it is to be understood typically even as the sacrifices did wash away sinne typically And indeed if it had been a Covenant of works there needed no Mediatour either typicall or reall some think Christ likewise was the Angel spoke of Act. 7. with whom Moses was in the wildernesse

and it is probable Now if Christ was the Mediatour of the Law as a Covenant the Antinomian distinction must fall to the ground that makes the Law as in the hand of Moses and not in the hand of Christ whereas on Mount Sinai the Law was in the hand of Christ 6. If the Law were the same Covenant with that oath which Argum. 6 God made to Isaac then it must needs be a Covenant of grace But we shall finde that God when he gave this Law to them makes it an argument of his love and grace to them and therefore remembers what he had promised to Abraham Deut. 7. 12. Wherefore it shall come to passe if ye hearken to these judgements and doe them that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the Covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers And certainly if the Law had been a Covenant of workes God had fully abrogated and broken his Covenant and Promise of grace which he made with Abraham and his seed Therefore when the Apostle Gal. 3. 18. opposeth the Law and the Promise together making the inheritance by one and not the other it is to be understood according to the distinction before mentioned of the Law taken in a most strict and limited sense for it is plain that Moses in the administration of this Law had regard to the Covenant and Promise yea made it the same with it Now to all this there are strong Objections made from those Objections impugning the former Arguments answered places of Scripture where the Law and faith or the Promise are so directly opposed as Rom. 10. before quoted so Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 4. 14. so likewise from those places where the Law is said to be the ministery of death and to work wrath Now to these places I answer these things First that if they should be rigidly and universally true then that doctrine of the Socinians would plainly prevaile who from these places of Scripture doe urge that there was no grace or faith nor nothing of Christ vouchsafed unto the Jewes whereas we reade they had the Adoption though the state was a state of bondage In the second place consider that as it is said of the Law it worketh death so the Gospel is said to be the savour of death and men are said to have no sinne if Christ had not come yea they are said to partake of more grievous judgements who despised Christ then those that despised the Law of Moses so that this effect of the Law was meerly accidentall through our corruption only here is the difference God doth not vouchsafe any such grace as whereby we can have justification in a strict legall way but he doth whereby we may obtain it in an Evangelicall way Thirdly consider that the Apostle speaketh these derogatory passages as they may seeme to be as well of the Ceremoniall Law yet all doe acknowledge here was Christ and grace held forth Fourthly much of these places is true in a respective sense according to the interpretation of the Jew who taking these without Christ make it a killing letter even as if we should the doctrine of the Gospel without the grace of Christ And certainly if any Jew had stood up and said to Moses Why doe you say you give us the doctrine of life it 's nothing but a killing letter and the ministry of death would he not have been judged a blasphemer against the Law of Moses The Apostle therefore must understand it as separated yea and opposed to Christ and his grace And lastly we are still to retain that distinction of the Law in a more large sense as delivered by Moses and a more strict sense as it consisteth in precepts threatnings and promises upon a condition impossible to us which is the fulfilling of the Law in a perfect manner LECTURE XXV ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of works Nay but by the law of faith THe Apostle delivered in the words before most compendiously The words opened and fully the whole doctrine of justification in the severall causes of it from whence in this verse he inferreth a conclusion against all boasting in a mans self which he manageth by short interrogations that so he might the more subdue that self confidence in us Where is boasting saith he This is to be applied universally both to Jew and Gentile but especially to the Jew who gloried most herein And Chrysostome makes this the reason why Christ deferred so long and put off his coming in the flesh viz. that our humane pride might be debased for if at first he had come unto us men would not have found such an absolute necessity of a Saviour The second Question is by what Law boasting is excluded and this is answered first negatively not by the Law of works Secondly positively by the law of faith The Apostle by the law of workes meaneth the doctrine of works prescribing them as the condition of our justification and salvation and he saith works in the plurall number because one or two good works though perfectly done if that were possible would not satisfie the Law for our acceptation unlesse there were a continuall and universall practise of them both for parts and degrees And he cals the doctrine of faith the law of faith either because as Chrysostome saith he would sweeten and indeare the Gospel to the Jewes by giving it a name which they loved or as Beza he speakes here mimetically according to the sense of the Jewes as when John 6. he calleth Faith a work because the Jewes asked What should they doe Now we have in the Scripture two lively comments upon both these parts of the Text. The Pharisee mentioning what he did reckoning up his works and never naming the grace of God is a boaster by the Law of workes but the Publican that looketh upon himself only as a sinner and so judgeth himselfe he excludeth all boasting by the law of faith The Papists they meane by workes here in the Text those The Papists corruptly glosse upon this Text. which goe before faith and they quote a good rule out of Gregory though to a foule errour Non per opera venitur ad fidem sed per fidem ad opera We doe not come by works to faith but by faith to works But this glosse of theirs corrupts the text because the Apostle in this controversie instanceth in Abraham shewing how he had not wherewith to glory in himself and therefore by beleeving gave glory to God If you aske why works do imply boasting though we be enabled thereunto by the grace of God The answer is ready because we attribute justification to that work of grace within us which yet is defective that is wholly to be given unto Christ The doctrine I shall pursue out of these words is That al Doctr. though the Law given by God to the Israelites was a Covenant of grace yet in some

posterity in him although it may truly be thought that Adam did know this precept to be to him and his posterity for hereby his sin is made the more hainous in undoing himselfe and all his as also by the knowledge of this he would be the more thankfull unto God that should propagate such great mercies to him and his and also be made more vigilant against falling 3. In the next place let us consider how God can be said to covenant God enters into Covenant with man by way of condescension makes promises unto him to confirme him in his hope and confidence in him or enter into a promise with man for it may be thought an imperfection and hereby God may seem to lose his right that he cannot doe what he will But this may be easily answered for if God can give good things to man he may also promise to give them and therefore both to give and to promise to give are acts of liberality and dominion and so not repugning to the majesty of God Nor doth God by promising to give lose his dominion no more then he doth by giving It is true a promise doth induce an obligation and so in man it is with some imperfection but in God it is not because he doth not hereby become obliged to us but to his owne selfe so that we have not a right of justice to the thing because God hath promised it to us but onely God cannot deny himself nor his word and therefore we are confident And so Aquinas well Deus non est debitor quia ad alia non ordinatur sed omnia ad ipsum God by covenanting and promising doth not become a debtor because he is not to be ordered for other things but all things for him Hence is that saying of God Reddit debita nulli debens donat debita nihil pendens And so againe Justus est non quia reddit debitum sed quia facit quod decet summè bonum So that when God entreth into a covenant or promise you must conceive of this sutably to his great majesty you must not apprehend of it as when two men agree that are equall and therefore a debt of justice ariseth between them and one may implead the other but as a mercifull condescension on Gods part to promise such things to us that so we might be the more confirmed in our hope in him Hence Durand and Ariminensis labour to prove that Gods promises doe not induce an obligation but denote the disposition of God to give although their arguments exclude onely a debt of justice from God 4. Consider why God will deale with man in a covenant way rather then in a meere absolute supreme way There may be these Reasons 1. That God might hereby sweeten and indeare himselfe to us For God deales with man by way of covenant not of power whereas he might require all obedience from us and annihilate us at last or at least not vouchsafe heaven and everlasting happinesse to shew how good and loving he is he will reward that most bountifully which is otherwise due to him for God did 1. To indeare himselfe unto him not make man because he needed him but that there might be objects to whom he would communicate his love Thou needest not my goodnesse or that extendeth not to thee saith David It 's Austins expression The earth doth farre otherwise dry up or swallow the water thirsting for it then the Sun beames which also consume the water the one doth it indigentiâ out of want the other potentiâ out of power and strength so that Adam could not but have thankfull and loving thoughts of God that would thus condescend 2. Another Reason might be to incite and incourage Adam the 2. To incite man to more obedience more to obedience For howsoever there was no sin in Adam or remisnesse yet this might serve as a meanes to preserve him in his obedience to God And here you may see that to do a duty because of a reward promised is not a slavish and unlawfull thing for did not God deale thus with Adam If he would obey he should live but if not then he must dye Will you say with the Antinomian That this was an unlawfull thing and this was to make Adam legall and one that was not affected with the goodnesse of God to him It is true if a man obey God out of love to any thing more then God or equally with God this is unlawfull according to that Minus te amat qui tecum Domine aliquid amat 3. That hereby Adams obedience might be the more willing and 3. To make this obedience more willing and free free An absolute law might seem to extort obedience but a covenant and agreement makes it to appeare more free and willing as if Adam would have obeyed though there could have been no obligation upon him to doe it 5. Consider that the nature of this Covenant was of workes and not The Covenant God made with Adam was of works not of faith of faith It was not said to Adam Beleeve and have life eternall but Obey even perfect and entire obedience It is true indeed there was faith of adherence and dependance upon God in his promise and word and this faith doth not imply any imperfection of the state of the subject as sinfull which justifying faith doth for it was in Christ who in his temptations and tryalls did trust in God And what the Old Testament calls trusting the New calls beleeving yea some say that this kind of faith shall be in heaven viz. a dependance upon God for the continuance of that happinesse which they doe enjoy This faith therefore Adam had but in that Covenant it was considered as a gracious act and work of the soule not as it is now an organ or instrument to receive and apply Christ With us indeed there is justifying faith and repentance which keeps up a Christians life as the Naturalists say the calor innatus and humidum radicale doe the naturall life Faith is like the calor innatus and Repentance is like the humidum radicale and as the Philosopher saith if the innate heat devoure too much the radicall moisture or the radicall moisture too much the heat there breed presently diseases so it is with us if beleeving make a man repent lesse or repenting make a man beleeve the lesse this turneth to a distemper Yet though it were a Covenant of workes it cannot be said to be of merit Adam though in innocency could not merit that happinesse which God would bestow upon him first because the enjoying of God in which Adams happinesse did consist was such a good as did farre exceed the power and ability of man It 's an infinite good and all that is done by us is finite And then in the next place Because even then Adam was not able to obey any command of God without the help of God

grace of God in Christ therefore whom he loves he will alwaies love The next Question is Whether we may be now by Christ said to The imputation of Christs righteousnesse doth not inferre that therefore wee are more righteous then Adam be more righteous then Adam For so an Antinomian in his Treatise of Justification pag. 320. 321. quoteth places out of some Authours as affirming this that now by Christ we have a more perfect righteousnesse then that of Angels or was lost in Adam and by this meanes labours to prove that we are so holy that God can see no sin in us Now to answer this I deny not but the orthodox sometimes have used such expressions and upon this ground because the righteousnesse of Christ as it was his was of infinite value and consequence and so as we are in a Mediatour we are in a better and surer condition then the Angels or Adam was but they never used such expressions to the Antinomian sense as if hereby we were made not onely perfectly righteous but also holy and without sin This opinion is at large to be refuted in the Treatise about Justification only thus much take for an answer That the doctrine which holdeth the imputation of Christs righteousnesse doth not necessarily inferre that therefore we have righteousnesse more excellent then Angels or Adam for it is onely imputed to us for that righteousnesse which we ought to have it is not made ours in that largenesse or latitude as it was Christs but as we needed it Now God never required of us such an holinesse as the Angels have or a greater righteousnesse then Adam had and therefore it 's a senslesse thing to imagine that that should be made ours which we never needed or ever were bound to have so that those expressions of the orthodox must be understood in a sound sense 7. Whether that which God requireth of us be greater then that he What God requireth of us is not greater then what hee demanded of Adam in innocency demanded of Adam in the state of innocency For thus the Arminians hold that greater abilities are now required of a man to beleeve the Gospel then were of Adam to fulfill the Law partly because the mysterie of the Gospel doth consist in meere revelation which the Law doth not as also because all the actions required by the Gospel doe suppose a resurrection from that first fall Now say they more is required to rise from a fall then to prevent a fall And all this they urge to prove the necessity of universall grace given to all Now to answer this First I conclude as before hath been proved that the nature of justifying faith was in Adam though there was not such a particular object about which it may be exercised for a thing may be for the nature of it and yet not have such a name which it hath from a certaine respect to some object that now is not or from some effects which it cannot now produce So Mercy and Grace was in God for the nature of it alwaies but as it hath respect to a miserable and wretched creature that was not till the creature was made so And so in Adam there was the nature of love and pity but yet in regard of some effects which could not be exercised in that estate his love could have no such name as mercy or pity Thus Adam for his faith that faith which he did put forth in Gods promise about eternall life upon his obedience was a justifying faith for the nature of it but had not the denomination or respect of justifying because such an object was impossible in that condition Hence that faith of dependency which Adam had was the same in nature which justifying faith is Therefore to the arguments proposed we deny that greater strength is required to rise then to keep from falling for the same things which would have preserved Adam from falling as saith in the first place the same also are required for a man to rise And as Adam would have stood as long as his faith in God stood the Divell labouring to shake that by his temptation so Christ praying for Peter a man fallen by Adam doth especially pray that his faith may not fail because by that he was supported and strengthned Lastly Whether Adams immortality in that estate be not different Adams immortality in the state of innocency different from short of that which shall be in heaven from that which shall be in heaven Yes it is very plaine it is so for he was so immortall as that there was a possibility of mortality but it is not so with those that are glorified Againe he was so immortall as that he had a naturall body which did need nourishment but it is not so with those that are made happy It is true we have heretofore concluded that Adam in his first estate was naturally immortall for if death had been naturall God had been the authour of death and man would not have abhorred it Neither did Christ dye simply because he was a man but because he was a man made for us who ought to dye because of our sin Indeed because Adam did eate and drink and his body was a naturall body therefore there was mortality in him in a remote power but actuall mortality was hindered by reason of that glorious condition he was placed in and therefore not actually to dye but to be in a mortall state was threatned as a punishment to him of all apostacy from God Vse 1. Of Instruction What comfort may be to the godly from Christ though by nature all is lost Who can heare without trembling of this great losse Righteousnesse and immortality lost God and his image lost If thou lookest upon thy proud earthly sinfull heart thou mayest say It was not thus from the beginning if upon thy sick weak and mortall body It was not thus from the beginning Now here is no way to keep up the heart but by looking to Christ Though thou hast lost the image of God yet he is the expresse image of his Father Though thou hast not perfect righteousnesse he hath Whatsoever thy losse and evill be by the first Adam thy gaine and good may be by the last Adam Admire herein the mysteries of Gods grace and love What may wee not expect for temporalls if needfull when he is thus gracious in spiritualls Are riches subsistence equall to Christ Use 2. Of Exhortation not to rest in any estate but that of restauration againe The word as you heard Ephes 1. 10. to gather doth imply that all mankind is like an house fallen down lying in its rubbish and ruines Let us not therefore stay in this condition It 's a condition of sin of wrath Oh much better never to have been borne then to be thus How happy are all the irrationall creatures in their estate above us if not repaired by Christ And know that to be

perpetuall truth ever since Adams fall and it was as efficacious to those before his death as after therefore hee is called a Lamb slaine from the beginning of the world although the Socinians would pervert and wrest that place Lastly I dony that even under the Gospel that all sinnes are forgiven to the justified person at once He is indeed put into a state of justification whereby no condemnation will fall upon him yet his sinnes are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of And for this purpose wee pray for the daily pardon of them which is not to be understood of the meere declaration or assurance of the pardon but for the pardon it self But this shall be on purpose spoken to in the matter of Justification The forenamed Authour hath some other differences but they are confuted already for the substance of them LECTURE XXVI ROM 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what law of workes Nay but by the law of faith WEe have confuted the false differences and now come to lay downe the true between the Law and the Gospel taken in a larger sense And first you must know that the difference is not essentiall or The difference between the Law and the Gospel is not essentiall but accidentall onely substantiall but accidentall so that the division of the Testament or Covenant into the Old and New is not a division of the Genus into its opposite Species but of the subject according to its severall accidentall administrations both on Gods part and on mans It is true the Lutheran Divines they doe expresly oppose the Calvinists herein maintaining the Covenant given by Moses to be a Covenant of workes and so directly contrary to the Covenant of grace Indeed they acknowledge that the Fathers were justified by Christ and had the same way of salvation with us onely they make that Covenant of Moses to be a superadded thing to the Promise holding forth a condition of perfect righteousnesse unto the Jewes that they might be convinced of their owne folly in their self-righteousnesse But I think it is already cleared that Moses his Covenant was a Covenant of grace and the right unfolding the word Law and Gospel doth easily take away that difference which seemeth to be among the Learned in this point for certainly the godly Jewes did not rest in the Sacrifices or Sacraments but by faith did really enjoy Christ in them as well as wee in ours Christ was figured by the Mercy-seat Now as both the Cherubims looked to that so both the people of the Jewes and Gentiles did eye and looke to Christ For although Christ had not assumed our flesh then yet the fruit and benefit of his incarnation was then communicated because of the decree and promise of God 1 Pet. 1. 20. 2. This difference is more particularly seen in respect of the degrees Heavenly objects more clearly revealed in the N. Testament then in the Old of perspicuity and clearnesse in the revelation of heavenly objects Hence 2 Pet. 1. 19. the light in the Old Testament is compared to the light in the night-time and that in the New to the light of the sun in the day The summe of all heavenly doctrine is reduced to these three heads credenda speranda facienda Now if you consider the objects of faith or things to be beleeved 1. It is so for the credenda they were more obscurely delivered to them The doctrine of the Trinity the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection these things were but in a dark manner delivered yet according to the measure of that light then held forth they were bound to beleeve those things so that as Moses had a veile upon him thus also his doctrine had and as the knowledge we have here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in heaven so that in the Old Testament may be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in respect of that in the New As it is thus for the credenda things to be beleeved so it is also 2. For the speranda for the speranda things hoped for The opinion of the Socinians and others is very wicked which makes them before Christ onely to hope in temporall good things and the notion of the Papists observing that the Church under the New Testament is called ecclesia but never synagoge and the meeting of the Jewes called alwaies synagoge but never ecclesia doth suppose that the Jewes were gathered together as so many beasts rather then called together as men But this notion is judged false and they instance Heb. 10. and James 2. where the Church of the Christians is called synagoge although Cameron Praelect de eccles pag. 66. doth industriously labour to prove that the Apostles did purposely abstaine from the word synagoge in reference to Christians but his reason is not that the Papists urge for howsoever the good things promised were for the most part temporall and carnall yet these figured spirituall and heavenly It 's Austins obseruation shewing that the Jewes should first be allured by temporall mercies and afterwards the Christians by spirituall As saith he first that which is animall and then that which is spirituall The first man was of the earth earthly the second man was of heaven heavenly Thus wee may say of the Jew and the Christian That which was animall was first and then that which is spirituall Hence Heb. 11. 16. Abraham and others are said to seek an heavenly country so that although it be true which Austine as I remember said though you look over the whole book of the Old Testament yet you shall never find the kingdome of heaven mentioned there yet wee see David making God his portion and professing that hee hath nothing in heaven but him which argueth that they looked farther then meere outward mercies These good things promised to the Jewes were figurative so that as a man consisteth of a soule and body thus also doth the promises there is the kernell and the shell but the Jewes for the most part looked onely to the outward Hence Christ when hee opened those things to his Disciples did like a kind father that breaketh the shell and giveth the kernell to his children In the third place there are facienda things to be done Now 3. For the facienda although it be true as I have proved that Christ hath added no new command to the Law of Moses and whatsoever is a sin now in morall things was also then yet the doctrine of these things was not so full penetrating and cleare as now under the Gospel There is a dangerous book called The Practicall Catechisme that venteth much Socinian poyson and in this particular among other things that Christ added to the Law and perfected it filled up some vacuities in it Certainly the Law of God being perfect and to which nothing must be added cannot be said to have vacuities in it and Christ