A77854:665
Vindiciæ legis
Vindiciæ legis: or, A vindication of the moral law and the covenants, from the errors of papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians. In XXIX. lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London. / By Anthony Burgess, preacher of Gods Word.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.
London: printed by James Young for Thomas Underhill, 1646
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.
A third difference made as to remission of sins, is this: Their 1remission of sins was gradatim, successively, drops by drops. If a man had sinned, and offered sacrifice, then that sin was pardoned; but this did not extend to future ignorance, that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice. Therefore the Apostle saith, there was a remembrance of sin; but Christ by one sacrifice once offered, hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. To this I answer, 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition, as if the sacrifice offered did by its own virtue take away sin. For, if we suppose (as we must) that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice, and all the virtue and benefit to come from Christs blood, and not the blood of the sacrifices, then could that take away all sins as well as some sins: unless the Author were a Socinian, denying the efficacy of Christs blood at all under the Old Testament, he can never expedite himself from this.
A third difference made as to remission of sinnes, is this: Their 1remission of sinnes was gradatim, successively, drops by drops. If a man had sinned, and offered sacrifice, then that sinne was pardoned; but this did not extend to future ignorance, that was not pardoned till a new sacrifice. Therefore the Apostle saith, there was a remembrance of sinne; but Christ by one sacrifice once offered, hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. To this I answer, 1. That this difference grew upon this supposition, as if the sacrifice offered did by its own vertue take away sinne. For, if we suppose (as we must) that Christ the true sacrifice was represented in every sacrifice, and all the vertue and benefit to come from Christs bloud, and not the bloud of the sacrifices, then could that take away all sinnes as well as some sinnes: unlesse the Author were a Socinian, denying the efficacy of Christs bloud at all under the Old Testament, he can never expedite himself from this.
- 15. That remission of sins under the Law was successively and imperfect, under the Gospel at once and perfect.5. That remission of sinnes under the Law was successively and imperfect, under the Gospel at once and perfect.