Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	abraham_n	keep_v	lord_n	1,701	5	4.8536	4	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

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

against the children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self What can be clearer then this to subdue those waves and tempests that doe rise in our hearts So Prov. 24. 29. Say not I will doe to him as he hath done to me I will render to the man according to his work here also revengefull expressions and resolutions are forbidden yea the reason why we are forbidden to avenge our selves given by Paul Rom. 12. 19. because vengeance belongs unto God is that which was drawn from the Old Testament In stead therefore of disputing let us seriously set upon the practise of the duty and the rather because it 's sweeter then honey it self to our corrupt hearts and at this time this sinne doth much rage every where Lastly Our Saviour doth not here forbid a lawfull publique revenge Private revenge unlawfull and forbidden by our Saviour but a private one This distinction of publique and private revenge being unknowne to the Fathers in the Primitive times made them runne into very hard and incommodious expressions some giving occasion hereby of that distinction of counsels and precepts others as Austin making the revenge allowed in the Old Testament to be peculiar to the dispensation of those times Hence when one Volusianus objected to him that the Doctrine of Christ did not agree to the manners of a Common-wealth he answereth by comparing the Precept of Christ with that of Caesars That he used to forget nothing but injuries Now this doth not indeed speake according to the scope of our Saviour here who is giving rules to private Christians not to publique Magistrates Now that there is such a distinction as this appeareth plain thus Paul Rom. 12. 18. exhorteth Christians not to avenge themselves because vengeance belongs to God yet Chap. 13. speaking of the Magistrate ver 4. he saith He is the avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil so then there is revenge and a revenger which is not God nor yet our selves but the Magistrate yet the revenge that the Magistrate inflicteth may well be called the vengeance of God because it 's Gods appointment he should doe it Thus Numb 31. 3. Arme your selves and avenge the Lord on the Midianites so 2 Chron. 19. You execute the judgements of the Lord and not of men yet for all this you must know that Magistrates may have revengefull affections in them even when they execute justice and so people when they implore the Magistrates aid it may not be out of zeale to justice and love to the publique good but because of private affections and carnall dispositions And oh the blessednesse that would accrew to the Common-wealth if all were carried in their severall places upon this publique ground Having therefore dispatched briefely these controversies I come to another wherein the Antinomian doth directly derogate from the profitable effect and benefit of the Law This therefore is an assertion which an Antinomian Authour maintaineth that the Law is not an instrument of true sanctification and that The preaching of the Law not onely preparatively but being blessed by God instrumentally workes the conversion of men the promise or the Gospel is the seed and doctrine of our ●ew birth and for this he bringeth many arguments and the judgements of diverse learned men Assertion of grace pag 163. And it may not be denyed but that many speeches might fall from some men which might seem to comply with that opinion I shall now labour to maintaine the positive part viz. that the Law of God preached may be blessed by him instrumentally to worke the conversion of men and it is necessary to make this good for were the contrary true it would be a Ministers duty in great part to lay aside the preaching of the Morall Law as not instrumentall or subservient to that maine end of the Ministery which is the conversion of soules Nor can I yeeld to that that the preaching of the Law workes onely preparatorily or some terrours about sinne and can goe no further but I suppose that Jesus Christ hath obtained of God by his death that such efficacy and vertue should goe forth in the Ministery that whether it be by Law or Gospel he preacheth the soules of men may be healed and converted thereupon Onely two things must be premised First that the Law could never work to regeneration were it The Law with out Christ cannot worke to regeneration not for the Gospel-promise Had not God graciously promised to give a new heart through Christ there had been no way to make any thing effectuall that we preach out of the Law so that for instance while a Minister preaching of any Commandement doth thereby mould and new frame the heart all this benefit comes by Christ who therefore died and ascended into Heaven that so the things wee preach may be advantagious to our soules so that there never was in the Church of God meere pure Law or meere pure Gospel But they have been subservient to each other in the great work of Conversion I know it 's of great consequence to give an exact difference between the Law and the Gospel It is well said of Luther Qui scit inter Legem Evangelium discernere gratias aga● Deo sciat se esse Theologum but I shall not medle with that now This is that which I assert That as to the point of a mans conversion God may make the opening of the Morall Law instrumentully to concurre thereunto onely this cometh by Christ. The second thing which I premise is this that howsoever the The Law may be bless'd to conversion yet the matter of it can neither be ground of justification or consolation to us Law preached may be blest to conversion yet the matter of it cannot be the ground of our justification adoption or consolation so that when a man doth repent and turne unto God from his sins he cannot have hope or consolation in any thing he doth but it must be in the promise of the Gospel so that the difference of the Law and Gospel lyeth not in this as some doe assigne that one is the instrument of grace and the other not for God useth both as I shall shew but in this that the holinesse wrought in us by preaching of the Word of God whether it be Law or Gospel doth not justifie us but this favour is in an evangelicall manner by forgiving whatsoever is irregular in us and communicating Christ his righteousnesse to us Therefore let us not confound the Law or Gospel nor yet make them so contrary in their natures and effects that where one is the other cannot be To these two there is also a third thing to be premised and that is how the Word of God in generall is a medium or instrumentall The Scripture in generall is a medium working by Christ to our conversion to our conversion For the clearing of this well must needs discover that