A30249:610
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.
4. From the difference of the Moral Law, and the other laws, in respect of the causes of abrogation. There can be very good reasons 1given, why the Ceremonial Law should be abrogated, which can no ways agree to the Moral: as,
4. From the difference of the Morall Law, and the other lawes, in respect of the causes of abrogation. There can be very good reasons 1given, why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated, which can no wayes agree to the Morall: as,
- 14. Because it differs from other laws in respect of causes of abrogation. Three reasons why the Ceremonial Law should be abrogated.4. Because it differs from other lawes in respect of causes of abrogation. Three reasons why the Ceremoniall Law should be abrogated.
First, The Ceremonial Law had not for it's object that which is perpetual, and in it self holiness: To circumcise, and to offer sacrifice, these things were not in themselves holy and good, nor is the leaving of them a sin; whereas the matter of the Moral Law is perpetually good, and the not doing of it, is necessarily a sin. I speak of that matter, which Divines call Moral natural. Can we think that to the Apostle it was all one, whether a man was a murderer, adulterer, or chaste and innocent; as it was whether a man was circumcised, or not circumcised? Tertullian said well, Lib. de Pud. Cap. 6. Operum juga rejecta sunt, non disciplinarum, libertas in christo non fecit innocentiae injuriam, manet lex tota pietatis, sanctitatis &c. The burdens of the Ceremonial Law are removed, not the commands of holiness; liberty in Christ is not injurious to innocency.
First, The Ceremoniall Law had not for it's object that which is perpetuall, and in it self holinesse: To circumcise, and to offer sacrifice, these things were not in themselves holy and good, nor is the leaving of them a sin; whereas the matter of the Morall Law is perpetually good, and the not doing of it, is necessarily a sin. I speak of that matter, which Divines call Morall naturall. Can we thinke that to the Apostle it was all one, whether a man was a murderer, adulterer, or chast and innocent; as it was whether a man was circumcised, or not circumcised? Tertullian said well, Lib. de Pud. Cap. 6. Operum juga rejecta sunt, non disciplinarum, libertas in christo non fecit innocentiae injuriam, manet lex tota pietatis, sanctitatis &c. The burthens of the Ceremoniall Law are removed, not the commands of holinesse; liberty in Christ is not injurious to innocency.