A30249:520
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.
for Chrysostom and Austin are very vehement against it in their Sermons. Now let us proceed.
for Chrysostome and Austin are very vehement against it in their Sermons. Now let us proceed.
There are some who from those words of our Saviour spoken ver. 38, 39, 40, 41. do gather, that now under the Gospel it's not lawful, 1. To put any man to death for any fault whatsoever. 2. That it's not lawful to war. 3. Not to go to law in any case, 4. Not to seek to a Magistrate for the defence of our selves; Therefore in these opinions they think they hold forth much of Christian meekness and patience: but before we come to the particulars, let us consider in what sense 1it is said, An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth. This kind of Law was an ancient one among other Nations: Aristotle calls it [Greek or Hebrew]. And we read of a double retaliation, one Pythagoricall, which was wicked and ungodly, holding that if a man did thieve from one, the same might thieve from him again: The other Mosaical, which was good, and had justice in it. Only the Question is, Whether this be literally to be understood, that it was lawful for a man, who had his eye or tooth struck out by another, to desire of the Judge, that he, who did this violence, should also have his eye or tooth beaten out.
There are some who from those words of our Saviour spoken ver. 38, 39, 40, 41. do gather, that now under the Gospel it's not lawfull, 1. To put any man to death for any fault whatsoever. 2. That it's not lawfull to warre. 3. Not to go to law in any case, 4. Not to seek to a Magistrate for the defence of our selves; Therefore in these opinions they thinke they hold forth much of Christian meeknesse and patience: but before we come to the particulars, let us consider in what sense 1it'a said, An eye for an eye, A tooth for a tooth. This kind of Law was an ancient one among other Nations: Aristotle cals it 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. And we read of a double retaliation, one Pythagoricall, which was wicked and ungodly, holding that if a man did thieve from one, the same might thieve from him again: The other Mosaicall, which was good, and had justice in it. Onely the Question is, Whether this be literally to be understood, that it was lawfull for a man, who had his eye or tooth struck out by another, to desire of the Judge, that he, who did this violence, should also have his eye or tooth beaten out.