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…

And thus for the Judicial Laws, because they were given to them as a politic body, that polity ceasing, which was the principal, the accessory falls with it; so that the Ceremonial Law, in the judgement of all, had still bound Christians, were there not special revocations of these commands, and were there not reasons for their expiration from the very nature of them. Now no such thing can be affirmed by the Moral Law; for the matter of that is perpetual, and there are no places of Scripture that do abrogate it. And, if you say, that the Apostle in some places, speaking of the Law, seemeth to take in Moral, as well as Ceremonial, I answer it thus: The question which was first started up and troubled the Church, was merely about Ceremonies, as appeareth Act 15. and their opinion was, that by the usage of this Ceremonial worship they were justified; either wholly excluding Christ, or joining him together with the Ceremonial Law. Now it's true, the Apostles, in demolishing this errour, do ex abundanti show, that not only the works of the Ceremonial Law, but neither of the Moral Law do justify; but that benefit we have by Christ only: Therefore the Apostles, when they bring in the Moral Law in the dispute, they do it in respect of justification, not obligation; for the main Question was, Whether the Ceremonial Law did still oblige: and their additional error was, that if it did oblige, we ⟨p. 169⟩should still be justified by the performance of those acts; so that the Apostles do not join the Moral and Ceremonial Law in the issue of obligation (for, though the Jews would have held, they were not justified by them, yet they might not have practised them) but in regard of justification: and this is the first Argument.

And thus for the Judiciall Laws, because they were given to them as a politick body, that polity ceasing, which was the principall, the accessory falls with it; so that the Ceremoniall Law, in the judgement of all, had still bound Christians, were there not speciall revocations of these commands, and were there not reasons for their expiration from the very nature of them. Now no such thing can be affirmed by the Morall Law; for the matter of that is perpetuall, and there are no places of Scripture that do abrogate it. And, if you say, that the Apostle in some places, speaking of the Law, seemeth to take in Morall, as well as Ceremoniall, I answer it thus: The question which was first started up and troubled the Church, was meerly about Ceremonies, as appeareth Act 15. and their opinion was, that by the usage of this Ceremoniall worship they were justified; either wholly excluding Christ, or joyning him together with the Ceremoniall Law. Now it's true, the Apostles, in demolishing this errour, do ex abundanti shew, that not onely the works of the Ceremoniall Law, but neither of the Morall Law do justifie; but that benefit we have by Christ onely: Therefore the Apostles, when they bring in the Morall Law in the dispute, they do it in respect of justification, not obligation; for the maine Question was, Whether the Ceremoniall Law did still oblige: and their additionall errour was, that if it did oblige, we