A30249:367
Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the…Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the…
Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the errors of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians in XXX lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London / by Anthony Burgess ...Vindiciae legis, or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the errours of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians in XXX lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London / by Anthony Burgess ...
London: printed by James Young for Thomas Underhill, 1647
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
1. Because they were not without danger of falling, and therefore their confirmation was by Christ. But how can this be proved, that their confirmation came from Christ, and not from God, as a plentiful rewarder of their continued obedience? Indeed, if that opinion of Salmeron's were true, which holds it very probable, that the fallen Angels were not immediately condemned, but had a set space and time of repentance given them, this would with more colour have pleaded for Christs mediation; but that opinion cannot be made good out of the Scripture.
1. Because they were not without danger of falling, and therefore their confirmation was by Christ. But how can this be proved, that their confirmation came from Christ, and not from God, as a plentifull rewarder of their continued obedience? Indeed, if that opinion of Salmerons were true, which holds it very probable, that the fallen Angels were not immediately condemned, but had a set space and time of repentance given them, this would with more colour have pleaded for Christs mediation; but that opinion cannot be made good out of the Scripture.
2. The second Reason of Calvin is, that the obedience of the 1Angels was imperfect, or not so perfect, but that it needed pardon; which he groundeth upon Job 4. 18. His Angels he charged with folly. This may be answered thus, That the obedience of the Angels may be said imperfect negatively, or comparative, in respect of God; it is not answerable to his greatness: but yet it is not imperfect privatively, as if it did want any perfection due to it, and so was to be pardoned. Therefore Eliphaz his expression tends only to this, to show the Greatness and Majesty of God, and that even Angels themselves are but darkness to his glory. If you ask then, What shall be thought of the place Colos. 1. 20? I answer, This place compared with