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…

But to reply, if they hold the matter of the Law to be a rule, how can they shelter themselves from their own argument; for if the matter oblige then when a believer walketh not according to his duty, he sinneth, and, to sin the curse is due: so that this evasion will no ways help them, for still an obligation or bond lieth upon them, which, if broken they are made obnoxious unto the Law, of God. Again, to say the matter of the Law bindeth, but yet not as a Law, is a mere contradiction; for what is a Law, but such an object held forth by the command ⟨p. 215⟩and will of a superior? Then I demand whether [love to God] being the object, or matter held forth, have not also Gods will passing upon it that it should bind. According to the Antinomian assertion, it should be true, that love to God should bind us, because the matter it self is good; but nob ecause God willeth us to love him: Nay, they must necessarily deny the will of God obliging us in the Law to love him; for a law is nothing but the will of the Law-giver, that such things should be obeyed, or avoided. And if there were any colour for that distinction between the matter of the Law binding, and not the Law, it would only hold in that matter which is perpetually and necessarily good; as. To love God, to honour parents: but in that matter which is only good by some positive divine institution; as, Keeping of the Lords Day, there we must say, that the Law binds, as a Law, and not merely from the matter of the Law.

But to reply, if they hold the matter of the Law to be a rule, how can they shelter themselves from their own argument; for if the matter oblige then when a beleever walketh not according to his duty, he sinneth, and, to sinne the curse is due: so that this evasion will no wayes helpe them, for still an obligation or bond lyeth upon them, which, if broken they are made obnoxious unto the Law, of God. Again, to say the matter of the Law bindeth, but yet not as a Law, is a meere contradiction; for what is a Law, but such an object held forth by the command ⟨p. 215⟩and will of a superiour? Then I demand whether [love to God] being the object, or matter held forth, have not also Gods will passing upon it that it should binde. According to the Antinomian assertion, it should be true, that love to God should binde us, because the matter it selfe is good; but nob ecause God willeth us to love him: Nay, they must necessarily deny the will of God obliging us in the Law to love him; for a law is nothing but the will of the Law-giver, that such things should be obeyed, or avoided. And if there were any colour for that distinction between the matter of the Law binding, and not the Law, it would only hold in that matter which is perpetually and necessarily good; as. To love God, to honour parents: but in that matter which is only good by some positive divine institution; as, Keeping of the Lords Day, there we must say, that the Law binds, as a Law, and not meerly from the matter of the Law.