A30249:762
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 first, he makes no real difference either in Scripture, or use of words, between the Law reigning and ruling; so that if the Law rule a man, it reigneth over him, Now then, they deny that the Law doth reign over a believer (and so do the Orthodox also) therefore they must needs hold, that it cannot be a rule unto him. And then, pag. 5. whereas Doctor Taylor had said, The Apostle doth not loose a Christian from the obedience to the Law, or rule thereof (he adds,) He dare not trust a believer without his keeper, as if he judged no otherwise of him, then of a malefactor of Newgate, who would rob and kill, if his Gaoler be not with him. Again, this is most clear by what he saith, pag. 31. he refuteth that distinction of being under the mandatory power of the Law, but not the damnatory: he makes these things inseparable, and as impossible for the Law to be a Law, and have not both these as to take the brains and heart from a man, and yet leave him a man still. Now then, seeing he denieth (and so do all Protestant Writers) that a believer is under the damnatory power of the Law, he must also deny, he is under the mandatory, because (saith he) this is inseparable.
For first, he makes no reall difference either in Scripture, or use of words, between the Law reigning and ruling; so that if the Law rule a man, it reigneth over him, Now then, they deny that the Law doth reign over a beleever (and so do the Orthodox also) therefore they must needs hold, that it cannot be a rule unto him. And then, pag. 5. whereas Doctor Taylor had said, The Apostle doth not loose a Christian from the obedience to the Law, or rule thereof (he adds,) He dare not trust a beleever without his keeper, as if he judged no otherwise of him, then of a malefactor of Newgate, who wouldrob and kill, if his Gaoler be not with him. Again, this is most clear by what he saith, pag. 31. he refuteth that distinction of being under the mandatory power of the Law, but not the damnatory: he makes these things inseparable, and as impossible for the Law to be a Law, and have not both these as to take the brains and heart from a man, and yet leave him a man still. Now then, seeing he denieth (and so do all Protestant Writers) that a beleever is under the damnatory power of the Law, he must also deny, he is under the mandatory, because (saith he) this is inseperable.