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…

3. Howsoever Rivet seemeth to make no great matter in this Question, if so be that we hold the Law obligeth in regard of the matter, though we deny it binding in regard of the promulgation of it by Moses: howsoever (I say) he thinks it a Logomachy and of no great consequence; yet certainly it is: For, although they profess themselves against the Antinomists, and do say, The Law still obligeth, because of Christs confirmation of it; yet the Antinomians do profess they do not differ here from them, but they say, the Law bindeth in regard of the matter, and as it is in the hand of Jesus Christ. It is true, this expression of theirs is contradicted by them, and necessarily it must be so: for Islebius, and the old Antinomians, with the latter also, do not only speak against the Law as binding by Moses; but the bona opera, the good works, which are the matter of the Law, as appeareth in their dangerous positions about good works, which heretofore. I have examined: but, truly, take the Antinomian in their former expressions, and I do not yet understand how those Orthodox Divines differ from them. And therefore if it can be made good without any forcing or constraining the Scripture, that God when he gave the ten Commandments (for I speak of the Moral Law only) by Moses, did intend an obligation perpetual of the Jews, and all others converted to him, then will the Antinomian error fall more clearly to the ground; only when I bring my Arguments for the affirmative, you must still remember in what sense the Question is stated, and that I speak ⟨p. 168⟩not of the whole latitude of the Ministry of Moses.

3. Howsoever Rivet seemeth to make no great matter in this Question, if so be that we hold the Law obligeth in regard of the matter, though we deny it binding in regard of the promulgation of it by Moses: howsoever (I say) he thinkes it a Logomachy and of no great consequence; yet certainly it is: For, although they professe themselves against the Antinomists, and do say, The Law still obligeth, because of Christs confirmation of it; yet the Antinomians do professe they do not differ here from them, but they say, the Law bindeth in regard of the matter, and as it is in the hand of Jesus Christ. It is true, this expression of theirs is contradicted by them, and necessarily it must be so: for Islebius, and the old Antinomians, with the latter also, do not only speake against the Law as binding by Moses; but the bona opera, the good works, which are the matter of the Law, as appeareth in their dangerous positions about good works, which heretofore. I have examined: but, truly, take the Antinomian in their former expressions, and I do not yet understand how those Orthodox Divines differ from them. And therefore if it can be made good without any forcing or constraining the Scripture, that God when he gave the ten Commandements (for I speak of the Morall Law only) by Moses, did intend an obligation perpetuall of the Jewes, and all others converted to him, then will the Antinomian errour fall more clearly to the ground; only when I bring my Arguments for the affirmative, you must still remember in what sense the Question is stated, and that I speak