The Office and Use of the Moral Law

The Preface.

THE counsel of the Apostle Paul is well worth the hearing, yea, and the following also, for all that are willing to seek and embrace the truth: Try all things, and hold fast that which is good: for, as all is not gold that is gilt over, nor every metal good silver that giveth a good sound; so neither is every plausible opinion true doctrine, nor every colorable conceit a currant truth; no, though it seem to be gilt over with Scripture, as with pure gold, or to sound as shrill as silver, by the voices and testimonies of religious and learned men. This did the Spirit by which he wrote, both see and foresee, that as there were many then, so there would be even in our days not a few, who neither contenting themselves with, nor consenting unto wholesome words, even the words of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, would teach otherwise and other things, even distorted and perverse things, not only besides, but even contrary to the doctrine which was delivered unto them: and therefore not without just cause doth the Apostle John also, speaking by the same Spirit, admonish us of the same thing, to try the spirits whether they be of God or no. And both of them to this end, that bringing the doctrines, and opinions of men to be tried and examined by the Scriptures, as the Gold-smith brings counterfeit coin or suspected metals to his touchstone (for so much the Greek word [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] in both places doth import) we might upon due trial better discern of things that differ, and judge aright betwixt truth and error, and so not only entertain the truth, when we find it, but hold it fast (as it were) with all our strength, and maintain it when once we are in possession of it: Which course and counsel of the Apostles for trial of the truth, and maintaining of it, was not only in their days of great use and good success to establish the Churches and children of God, in the sound profession of the truth, against the damnable errors, which men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth brought in amongst them, as against the gangrene of Hymenaeus, and Philetus in Paul's time, and against the heresy of Ebion and Corinthias in the days of John: but in succeeding Ages also, was wonderfully blest of God, and crowned with many a glorious victory by the disputes and writings of the Lord's Worthies, confuting and confounding the errors and heresies of their times, as Apollo did the Jews, being eloquent men and mighty in the Scriptures, and speaking and writing by such a measure of God's Spirit, as the Adversaries of God's grace and truth were not able to resist. Such the Lord in his gracious providence ever raised up in the distresses of his Church, and distractions of his children, to be as Saviors unto his people, to preserve them from the froward & crooked generation, & to continue them in their steadfastness, lest otherwise they should have been plucked away with the common error of the wicked. Such a one was Justin Mart. against Trypho the Jew, Irenaeus against Valentinus & many other Heretics, Origen against Celsus, Tertullian against Marcion, Cyprian against the Novatians, Athanasius against the Arians, Cyril against Julian, Jerome against the Luciferians & many others; Augustine against the Donatists, who also wrote a whole book against Heretics and heresies, both of former and latter times; as also did Epiphanius. So did Hilary also, Eusebius, Vincentius Lirinensis, and others, as they had anymore special occasion so to do. Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 30. Nicephor. Callist. lib. 14. cap. 48. Theodor. de Haeret. fabulis. Now as there were some of these Heretics that rose up in arms, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , against God and Christ his son (as the Valentinians, the Manichies, the Arians, the Donatists, and many other) so there were some of the same litter, stirred up by Satan, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to bark against Moses, and the Prophets, the Moral Law, and the whole Old Testament (as the Marcionists, and Manichies, Basilidians, Cerdonians, and many others) as Augustine testifieth, who also wrote two special books of purpose, Contra Adversarium legis & Prophetarum. Danaus in August. de Haeresibus. And as the flames which the former sort of Heretics kindled in the Church are not yet so fully quenched, but that here and there some brands taken out of those fires (as out of that of Arius, which as Jerome witnesseth, had almost set the whole world in combustion) do now and then fly abroad to work like mischief: So neither are the Heresies of the latter sort so extinguished, but even at this day some sparks thereof are blown up and cast abroad again, if not to burn up the whole Old Testament, (as Alexander being drunk, set Persepolis on fire) yet to set the whole Law of Moses on a light fire, for the utter abolishing of the same, and therein especially the Moral Law of God, as if that were, now, worthy of no better entertainment amongst Christians, then such as Jehoiakim gave unto Jeremiah's Prophecy, when in a furious passion he cut it in pieces, and cast it into the fire; or as if men had resolved to say unto the Lord, Depart from us, for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. Who is the Almighty that we should serve him, and what profit shall we have, if we pray unto him? Let us break asunder these bands, and cast away these cords from us, we will not have this man to rule over us. Such metal as this, and of the same stamp, coined in the mint of man's reason, and bearing the image, not of Caesar, but of Christ (as though it must needs pass for currant amongst all that profess the Gospel) being of late come abroad, and put into my hands; I held it requisite to make some trial of it, and for that end to bring it to the touchstone of God's word, and to weigh it in the balance of the Sanctuary, that (as far as well we may) we may judge aright both of the worth and weight of it.

Of which both coin and Coyner, matter and Author, I may say as Augustine said of a book of the like subject against the Law and the Prophets, diuulged first by a nameless Author, and afterwards sent unto him by his friends for answer; Prius quaesivi cujusnam esset erroris, non enim soli Manichaei legem Prophetásque condemnant, sed & Marcionistae, & alij nonnulli quorum sectae non ita innotuerunt populis Christianis, nescio cujus sit Haeretici, mihi non apparet cujus sectae sit iste blasphemus: I first inquired what kind of error or heretic this should be, for, not only the Manichies do condemn, and so go about to abolish the Law of Moses, yea the whole law & wholly too; but the Marcionists also & many others, as do the Libertines, Anabaptists, Familists, and Antinomians even of our times also. But seeing I could not find out, either his name or sect by his writings, as neither could Augustine in the like cause and case, I resolved then to frame my answer as he did his book, Contra Adversarium legis & Prephetarum, and upon the same ground, defendenda est adversus ejus linguam Scriptura divina, quam malelicis disputationibus insectatur: I will God willing defend the moral law, the written word of God, against his word and writing, tongue and pen, and that much after the same manner also as Augustine did. Et quoniam quoquo modo Christianum se videri cupit, unde & ex Euangelio & ex Apostolo ponit aliqua testimonia; etiam Scriptures ad Novum testamentum pertinentibus refellendus est: That seeing he would seem to be a kind of Christian, and so sets down diverse testimonies of the New Testament, and of the learned expositors of the same, he shall in like manner be encountered and confuted by them both, yet I say not, to the same end, ut ostendatur in reprehensione veterum inconfideratias quam versutius insanire; but that, being contrary minded, he may be instructed in the spirit of meekness, to see if God peradventure will give him repentance to the forsaking of his error, and acknowledging of that truth which I hope he shall see, is not abolished, but established in and by our Savior Christ Jesus. And so I come to look this Adversary of the moral law of God in the face, and to try both the worth of his treasure whereof he boasteth not a little, and the force of his armor wherein he trusteth too much: Yet not in any confidence of my own either power or policy, but in the name of the Lord, and in the power of his might, whose counsel and strength I crave for this war, and who doth not only furnish his soldiers with spiritual weapons ( mighty through GOD to cast down strong holds ) but teacheth also their hands to fight, and their fingers to war, and their arms to break even a bow of steel. Thus came David furnished and encouraged against Goliath, thus came the poor simple Confessor against the proud and witty Philosopher, and both of them prevailed against their adversaries, David against his for his confusion, the Confessor against his for his conversion.

[Answer.] Sir, how slack you have been in performance of your promise I know not, but it seems you have made some recompense of your slackness by your sureness (as you think) that you might justify and make good the common proverb, Though I be slow, yet am I sure. And I wish you had been as provident to bestow your studies well, as you are confident that your cause is good; or that your confidence be not greater then either your cause, or your handling of it can well afford; for what is there in this your cause, viz.

that can assure you of any warrant for the truth of it? and what is there in your manner of dealing in it, that can bring you any comfort, or breed so great confidence in the so resolute defense of the same? Had you drawn your pen, and sharpened your style either against the Ceremonial Law, that it is wholly vanished (as a shadow) because the Body is exhibited; and abolished (as a type) because the truth is come Christ Jesus; or against the Judicial, that it is abrogated also, so far as it was peculiar to the Mosaical and Jewish policy: you might peradventure have found some sorry Adversary else-where, both of former and of latter times, but the most judicious Divines both ancient and moderne, you should have found your surest friends. Nay further, had you been of opinion, that even the Moral law as it was given by God to Moses, and by Moses to the Church of the Jews, is now in some circumstances of time, place, persons, tables, Testament, manner, measure, terror, rigor, and the like, altered and changed in the Church of Christ since his death: you would not I think have found many (if any at all) much differing and dissenting from you. But seeing you have drawn out your sword (such as it is) against the whole Law of Moses, not against the Ceremonial and Judicial only, but even against the Moral also, and that, not to alter or change it in some circumstance, but to abrogate and abolish the very substance of it, and that not in part, but wholly too; I know not the man that will stand with you, strike one stroke for you, or bid you so much as God speed in this cause, or course. When Aaron and Miriam rose against Moses in great bitterness both of spirit and speech, the Lord took them up sharply with this rebuke, My servant Moses is faithful in all my house, how then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? I make no doubt but even at this day the Lord doth reckon of the Moral Law as of his servant, yea and doth esteem it in his use a faithful servant in his Church also: how then were not you afraid to speak, to write, to fight with all the wit and power you have against the whole body of the Moral Law? and that not only to weaken the credit and power of it, but utterly to abolish the very substance and being of it therewithal? Seemeth it a small matter in your eyes, absolutely to abolish both Ceremonial and Judicial Law, which yet retain a spiritual and moral equity, and as they are part of God's Word shall endure forever, but you must needs deal in like sort with the Moral Law also? You are far I hope from Haman's mind, though in this your courses be not much unlike: he thought scorn to lay hands on Mordecai alone, therefore he sought to destroy the whole people of the Jews in one day: and you think scorn to abolish the Ceremonial and Judicial law alone, and therefore you seek to destroy the whole Moral Law of God also. If Jeremiah held them to be of a cruel disposition, that devised devices against him, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be no more remembered: of what disposition then shall we take you to be, that would cut down this tree of God's Law, together with the fruit thereof, first planted in Paradise in the heart of Adam, some roots whereof do yet remain in the natural man, which being transplanted by grace into the heart of the regenerate and spiritual, and there rooted by faith, watered by the word, and warmed by the spirit, do yield sweet fruits of righteousness and holiness to the praise and glory of God by Christ Jesus. But seeing we cannot stay your hand, let us see if we can take away the dint of your stroke, and abate the edge of your axe, wherewith you strike to destroy the whole Moral Law. Wherein howsoever we may fail, yet are we well assured, that rather shall the head fly from the helue, and both fall into the bottomless pit, and you cry out and confess, as once one of the sons of the Prophets did in such a case, Alas master, it was but borrowed, than ever this tree of the Moral law of God shall be hewn down by your hands.

And first I cannot but admire again your high conceit of yourself, great confidence in your cause, and settled resolution to stand stoutly to the defense of it; for whereas your friend to whom you write might think that by reason of your slackness, you did faint in the cause (as you object for him) you answer for yourself in these words:

Bigge words, messengers of a brave heart. Your cause (concerning the whole abolishing of the whole Moral Law) is now no longer a bare assertion, but a settled persuasion, for you are confirmed in the truth of it, neither came you unto this by any light opinion, but by mature deliberation [for you have more and more considered of it] and this consideration hath brought you with it, a greater measure of illumination, for by the light of this truth you are able to discern many errors which (by reason of their blind ignorance) none else can see, but such as you think good to lend your spectacles unto, to discover them. And from all these ariseth your courage and resolution, that it is so far from you to faint in the cause, that being more and more confirmed in the truth of it, you are now fully resolved to set your best wits, and your friends awork stoutly to maintain and defend it. But what said the King of Israel to the King of Syria, Let not him that girdeth on his harness, boast himself as he that putteth it off. Be not so confident that your building will stand, unless the foundation be sure, and the frame sound and good. If the foundation be • and, and the frame hay and stubble, it will never abide the touch, much less the force either of water or of fire. Many there are that build Castles in the air, and think them to be turrets of truth and forts of defense: But when the Lord shall awaken them out of their dream, and anoint their eyes with the eye-salves of grace and truth, they shall then see that what they built was but upon the sand of fancy, not upon the rock of Faith, and their whole frame more like the Tower of Babel, then the fort of Zion. For as the Rich man's riches are his strong tower, but only in his own imagination; so are the poor man's fancies his fortresses of faith and truth, but alas only in his own vain conceit and opinion.

But to make way unto your matter, you seem to give some reason of this your great confidence and resolution,

And for this you cite Luther on Galat. 3 21. [Answer.] Your ignorance of this difference hath bred this your error touching the utter abolishing of the Moral Law, as Ierenaeus observed of the Marcionists: Omnes qui sunt malae sententiae, Mosis legem diffimilem & contrariam Euangelij doctrina arbitrantes, jam non sunt conversi ut differentiae utrinsque Testamenti inquirerent causas. You shall anon have a particular answer to your own reason. But first of all, seeing you have appealed unto Luther, unto Luther shall you go. That which you allege out of him on Gal. 3.21. we do willingly acknowledge as good, and wholesome doctrine; which how little it will stand you instead, nay how much rather it stands against your opinion, you shall hear by and by, if first we may hear Luther plainly deliver his judgment touching the abolishing or continuing of the moral Law. Writing upon the same Epistle and chapter which you cite, and verse. 24. he hath (as you may read) these words: The true use of the Law is to teach me, that I am brought to the knowledge of my sin and humbled, that so I may come unto Christ and be justified by faith. But faith is neither Law nor work, but an assured confidence which apprehendeth Christ who is the end of the Law, Rom. 10. And how? not that he hath abolished the old Law, and given a New, or that he is a Judge that must be pacified by works, as the Papists have taught, but he is the end of the Law to all those that believe, that is to say, everyone that believeth in him is righteous, and the Law shall never accuse him; The Law then is good, holy and just, so that a man use it as he should do. By which evidence we may justly give sentence both against your opinion (for the whole abolishing of the whole Moral Law) and against your allegation also out of Luther, upon whom you would father the base and bastard fruit of your own brain, to make it either more plausible or more probable by this means: for may we not hence most evidently conclude that Luther's judgment concerning the Moral Law is this: first, that it is not abolished: secondly, that it is of good use: thirdly, that it serveth to bring us to the knowledge and sense of sin: fourthly, that it driveth us out of our selves and our own righteousness which is of the Law, to seek for righteousness by faith in Christ only: fifthly, that Christ hath not abolished the old Law: sixthly, that the Law may be said to be at an end in Christ, because as it cannot justify, so can it not justly accuse or terrify any that are righteous by faith in him: lastly, that the Gospel doth not abolish the nature and right use of the Law, (for according to the Apostle, the Law is holy, just, and good) but only taketh out of the hearts of true believers the accusing and accursing power of it. Which points being so apparently contrary to your position. I have the more fully and distinctly set down for your better satisfaction, that you may either let fall your opinion, seeing you have Luther's both heart and hand against it, or else never run again under his wing to seek for any succor or shelter for the same. I now come unto your reason which you seem to allege for your so great confidence in this cause: namely,

[Answer.] In which words what do you else but establish that which you go about to abolish? For whiles you say you discern many errors to arise out of the ignorance, and much good to come in, by the knowledge of the difference between the Law and the Gospel, do you not see your own error and ignorance herein also, that laying it down in your position for sound and true doctrine [that the whole law of Moses is wholly abolished] you notwithstanding do acknowledge not only that the Law is, but also that it is of good, and great use, pulling down with the one hand that which you have built, or would build with the other: for if the whole Law of Moses be abolished, then the ignorance of it will breed no error, nor the knowledge of it can build no truth: for young Logicians can tell us, that Non entis non est actio nee scientia.

Again, if the whole Law be wholly abolished, it is not possible it should be distinguished by any difference from the Gospel; for as Non entis non est scientia, so Non entis non est differentia. What difference can be designed betwixt that which is not, and that which is, that which is wholly abolished, and that which is established?

for if this were true, you leave the Law neither breath nor being, neither nature nor use, neither substance nor circumstance, neither difference nor Accidence; neither place in the book of God, nor so much as a nights lodging under the roof of the Church of God. Which to affirm because it were both absurd and impious, I hope upon better advice you will see, and acknowledge, that your point was cut out too long and too large, when you thus set it "down. The point is this, That the whole Law of Moses "is wholly abolished: & the rather, because you have now cut it shorter & narrower with your own hands, telling us that it is not abolished [for it is] nor wholly abolished [for it is of good use] it hath essence and difference, and may be known, and not only known in it self, but distinguished from the Gospel, and the distinct knowledge hereof so profitable and needful, that the ignorance hereof is a mother of many errors dangerous and hurtful. If I acknowledge this with you for a truth, then must you acknowledge with me your position for an error, and if you will have your position [That the whole Law is wholly abolished] to be true, then is all this that you have spoken of the profitable and necessary knowledge of the difference of the Law and the Gospel false. You seem to boast that you faint not in the cause, and that you are confirmed in the truth of it, but consider I pray you, whether you fail not in your course, seeing you do not only trip and interfere, but stumble and fall at your first setting forth: Is the truth divided, or doth the truth differ from it self. I see a man may take a fall though he do not faint; and think himself confirmed in the truth, when he is unsettled in uncertainties, and divided from it. Pugnantia te loqui non vides? ubi est acumen tuum? But to recover yourself again you say, Luther agreeth with you in this point: How should Luther agree with him that cannot agree with himself? But how or wherein doth he agree with you? [Answer.] What point? his, or yours? His point is, That the knowledge of the difference of the offices of the Law and Gospel is of good and great use, for preserving of true Christian doctrine, for judging of all kind of life and laws of men, and for trial of spirits: And all this we willingly grant, & assent unto. And how I pray you "doth this point agree with yours; [That the whole Law "of Moses is wholly abolished?] Nay doth it not rather pull yours in pieces, and wholly devour your whole Law, and your wholly too? As Aaron's rod devoured the rods of the Enchanters of Egypt? Luther's rod hath this truth written upon it, The Law of Moses is of great and good use; therefore it devours yours which "bears engraven upon it this error, The whole Law of "Moses is wholly abolished. But take you good leave to make your own Argument yourself, and let us see of what strength and consequence it will be. Therefore you conclude that he agreeth with you in this point; As much agreement there may be betwixt fire and water, light and darkness, truth and error, as betwixt his Antecedent, and your consequent. Will you see what life and light, sinews and joints it hath, by another like unto it. The Ancient Canons of the 4. first general Counsels are of great and good use, for preserving of true doctrine, for judging all kind of life, laws, and opinions of men, and for trial of spirits. Ergo, All the Canons of the first 4. general Counsels are wholly abolished and abrogated. What connection is here betwixt the Antecedent, and the consequent? Would not the clean contrary be more necessarily concluded; Ergo, All the Canons of the 4. first general Councils are yet in force, and neither wholly nor in part abolished, nor abrogated. Non ovum ovo similius quàm Servilius Servilio: One egg is not more like another, then this Argument is like to yours. And what think you of this; Luther himself on Gal. 3. (the same chapter which you allege for you) doth most evidently fight against you. There is (saith he) a double use of the Law, the first use is to bridle the wicked and to restrain sin, as men use to restrain Lions and Bears with bonds and chains, that they tear and diuoure not everything they meet. And this he calleth a civil use of the Law. Another use of the Law is divine and spiritual, which is (as Paul saith) to increase transgression, i. o reveal unto man his sin, his blindness, his misery, his impiety, his ignorance, hatred and contempt of God, death, hell, judgment, and the deserved wrath of God. Of this use the Apostle entreateth notably in the 7. to the Romans. Luther you see doth otherwise judge of colors then you do: certainly either your eyes were not matches, or your spectacles not of the same, nor so true a sight as his were. You say the whole Law is wholly abolished: he saith, and not only faith it, but proveth it by Scripture too, That it is not wholly abolished, but hath yet his double use both civil and spiritual. Q. Varus Hispanus Marcum Scaurum Principem Senatus, socios in arma, ait, concitasse: Marcus Scaurus princeps Senatus negat: vtri vos, Quirites convenit credere? You (I know not who) say, that Luther a Captain of the Lord's host, hath both stirred up others, and taken arms himself for the abolishing of the whole Moral Law; Luther a leader of the Lord's armies doth utterly deny it; whether of you two should now be better credited let the Christian reader judge. But it may be you take hold of this, that Luther mentioneth the abolishing of the Law, saying it is necessary to know and understand well the doctrine of the abolishment of the Law, &c. Gal. 4.27. Men that are in danger of falling or drowning, will catch at anything which may seem to help them, although it be utterly unable to do them any good. So said Jerome of Ruffinus, Tantum me diligit ut raptus turbine & in profundum dimersus, meum potissimum invadat pedem, ut mecum aut liberetur aut pereat. You catch at this word Abolishment of the Law, and yet it will neither stay you, nor stand you in any stead, for Luther speaks only of the abolishing of certain uses of the Law, as, for righteousness, justification, life and salvation, for terrifying, accusing, condemning those that are justified by faith in Christ Jesus; so far he acknowledgeth, and we with him, that the Moral Law for these offices and uses is abolished. The very light and evidence of the opposition, which in the same sentence he maketh betwixt Moses and Christ, works and faith, servitude by the Law, and liberty by the Gospel, justification and condemnation, terrors and conflicts of conscience, and sound and certain consolation of the same, might have manifested and made known thus much unto you, had you been as careful to seek the truth of his doctrine, and to taste his true meaning in it, as you were willing to feed your own fancy only with the bare letters, and leaves of it. Tertullian saith, Verba non sono solo sapiunt, sed & sensu: nec auribus tantùm audienda sunt, sed & mentibus. As Jerome said of the sense of the Scripture, it is not in cortice orationis, sed in radice rationis, so may we say of men's writings, we must seek for the meaning, by the matter as well as by the letter; and lend our ears to listen and observe what they desire to speak, and not make them speak only what we desire to hear; unless we will be like little children who having some fancy running in their heads, imagine the bells to ring and sing as they think and speak. Let me in love advise you, when you allege an Author to give evidence for any point, bring not in testem sine testimonio, a man that hath nothing to say for you, much more take heed you call not in such to speak in your cause, as are opposites and adversaries unto it, and cannot but speak what they have heard and seen, and set both heart and hand against you. Let Luther your first witness second my advice, and if you will suffer him to speak, he will discover your strange dealing, in bringing him to give evidence against his conscience, and to speak to your mind that which he never meant. In the very next page to the words which you allege as his opinion, that the whole Law of Moses is wholly abolished, he thus cleereth himself: We say that the Moral Law, or the law of the ten Commandments hath no power to accuse and terrify the conscience in which Christ Jesus reigneth by his grace, for he hath abolished the power thereof. Mark well his words. What hath Christ abolished? The power of the Moral Law, not the Law it self, nor the whole Law wholly, but the power of it: and what power? not all power, but the power of accusing, terrifying and condemning: and in whom hath it lost this power? not in the wicked, unregenerate, and reprobate, but in that conscience in which Christ reigneth by his grace. And in the page following he hath these words to the same purpose; When our sin is pardoned through Christ who is Lord of the Law, the Law being a servant, hath no more power to accuse and condemn us for sin, and we are now made free, forasmuch as the Son hath delivered us from bondage. And in this sense both he, and we, do acknowledge that the Law is wholly abolished to them that believe in Christ Jesus, notwithstanding, it remaineth still in force for some special offices and uses, both against the wicked, and for the godly, and that not only to drive them unto Christ, upon sight and sense of their misery, to seek for relief in his obedience; but to direct them also how to walk aright in the ways of God, when they are once come unto him. Yea and further also, (because in many things we sin all, and there is no man that sinneth not) the best of God's children, even after their effectual calling and conversion, stand in need of some of the offices of the Law, as 1. to know the nature and quality, manner and measure of their sin by the glass of the law, for as Paul knew that concupiscence (even without consent) was sin, because the Law (that is, the tenth Commandment) saith, Thou shalt not covet: so he that will find out his sin, must discover it by the light, and measure it by the line of God's law, for sin (saith John) is transgression of the Law, 1 John. 3.4. and Paul affirmeth, that where no Law is, there is no transgression, Rom. 4.15.2. It serveth also to convince the conscience, to afflict the heart, to break the spirits & subdue the pride even of godly and gracious men, and all this only to humble them, not to discourage them, to make them to remember and consider whence and whither they are fallen, that they may repent, do their first works, and recover their first love, and that in the sense of their misery (when the Lord shall pour the spirit of Grace and supplications upon them ) they may look upon him whom they have pierced, and mourning over him, may seek and sue for mercy and refreshing from him alone that hath promised to heal the broken hearted, to ease the burdened, and to refresh them that are tired with the labor, or wearied in the ways of sin. Thus did the Prodigal, I will go unto my father. Thus did Adulterous Israel, I will return unto my first husband, for then was it better with me then now, Hos. 2.7. And hereunto Luther giveth further testimony, Gal. 3.19. The Law is as a glass that showeth unto a man himself, that he is a sinner, guilty of death, and worthy of God's everlasting wrath and indignation. To what end serveth this humbling, this bruising and beating down by this hammer, the Law I mean? To this end, that we may have an entrance unto grace. So then the Law is a Minister that prepareth the way to Grace, for God is the God of the humble, the miserable, the afflicted, &c. Can there be anymore plain & pregnant evidence to convince you of error in this your opinion [That the whole Law is wholly abolished] then this which is given in against you, by your own witness, that it is not only yet continued, but also for so necessary uses, offices, and services, forever established? even so long as there shall be any need for a sinner to be humbled, and of a Savior to be sought unto. And yet if all this be too little, hearken to his admonition, and observe his protestation touching this particular, and you shall yet have a more ample and effectual satisfaction and conviction in the same. Luther on Gal. 3.19. Here I admonish (saith he) all such as fear God, and especially such as shall become teachers of others hereafter, that they diligently learn out of Paul, to understand the true and proper use of the Law, which, I fear after our time will be trodden under foot, and utterly abolished by the enemies of the truth. Hearken I pray you to this admonition, and try the truth of your opinion by these four points contained in it. 1. That yet there is a true and proper use of the Law. 2. That Paul the Apostle doth teach what the true and proper use of the Law is. 3. That all that fear God, especially Ministers, ought to learn it, as he doth teach it. 4. That they are enemies of the truth, that go about to tread it under foot and to abolish it. And now observe his protestation: Forasmuch as we teach those things both diligently and faithfully, we do therefore plainly testify, that we reject not the Law and works, as our Adversaries do falsely accuse us, but we do altogether establish the Law, and require the works thereof, and we say that the Law is good and profitable. Put your position in the balance and scale with this protestation, and it will be found lighter then vanity it self: For first whereas you say the law is abrogated, as if it were now of no use at all, Luther saith, it is good and profitable. Secondly, where you say the whole Law is wholly abolished (as if you would place it in the same condition with Rachel's children for which she mourned because they were not) Luther saith, We do altogether establish the Law, and require the works of it. Thirdly, whereas you charge Luther to be one that goeth about to abolish or reject the Law, he takes you for no friend, but for an Adversary in so doing, and reckons no other of your allegation out of him, but as a false accusation laid against him.

But if Luther will not serve your turn, you can make a fresh supply by Tossanus and Gwalther, whom you have set to stand in subsidiis paulo post principium: And what help can you have from them, that speak nothing more in your cause, nay much less (if less can be) then Luther did; for where Tossanus saith, Licet unus sit Deus, & una semper fuerit Ecclesia, idemque substantiâ foedus, varia tamen hujus dispensatio fuit, ut aliter agitur cum homine in infantia, aliter in adolescentia, aliter in matura aetate; and you would hereupon conclude, that the whole law of Moses is therefore wholly abolished; [Answer.] do you not see how feeble and weak this collection and conclusion is? The words themselves besides the light which the Simile addeth thereunto, might have shown you so much at the first view, if you had with any heed and diligence looked upon them: for when he granteth that the Covenant both before and since the coming of Christ for substance is the same, differing only in the manner of dispensation, or administration, doth he not plainly confirm the contrary to your conclusion? viz. "Therefore the whole Law of Moses since the death of "Christ is wholly abolished: For how can that which for substance is the same, be said to be wholly abolished? And how can that be wholly abolished, which only in some circumstance is altered & changed? An utter abolition argues a destruction of the substance. A diverse dispensation intimates only an alteration of that which for substance remaineth the same still. And this the Simile which he annexeth may teach you, unless you will deny that Samuel standing before Eli, is not the same Samuel which his mother Hannah nursed, because he is now of riper age, weareth a linen Ephod, and eateth of the Priests portion, whereas then he was a Babe in a childes coat, and had no other meat but milk which he sucked from his mothers breasts. After this manner saith Tossanus may we judge of the Covenant, Idem Deus, eadem semper Ecclesia, idemque substantiâ foedus. But God our Father dealeth with his Church as with his child. In her infancy he feedeth her with milk, in her riper age with strong meat, or as a father nourtureth his son in his minority, He keeps him under Tutors though he be Lord of all, but when the time appointed of the Father is come, he sets him at liberty, and puts him in possession of the inheritance provided for him. The Jews were as the Lord's child, Israel is my first borne, heirs of the same promises, and having interest in the same Covenant of grace with us, but they were but in their infancy and minority in comparison of the Church under the Gospel, fed with carnal and with earthly things, and under the regiment of Moses Laws, and Ceremonies, as under so many severe Tutors, and sharp Schoolmasters, taught as it were, the principles of Religion by Types and figures kept in bondage under the rudiments of the world, pressed and oppressed with an intolerable burden of Legal and Levitical rites and ordinances, and all this to break the spirits of a stiffnecked people, to convince them of all unrighteousness, to humble them by the rigor of the Law, and the terror of the Curse, and either to lead or drive them to seek for life and liberty, righteousness and happiness in Christ alone, as he was darkly shadowed unto them in their ceremonies and sacrifices, and in the fullness of time should be exhibited in great power and virtue, beauty and glory. To this very purpose doth the same Tossanus allege out of 1 Cor. 2. and 2 Cor. 3. That the Gospel hath his proper and peculiar glory, and that above the Law. Cùm non sit literale solum Ministerium aliquod jubens, sed conjunctam habeat efficaciam & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 spiritus sancti. Which we willingly yield and assent unto, seeing the law contained in the 10. Commandments did exact absolute obedience, but gave neither promise nor power of grace to perform it: But the Gospel in the Covenant of grace, requiring us to repent, and believe the Gospel, promiseth and poureth out upon us the spirit of grace to work this repentance and faith in us, and to cause us to walk in his Statutes, and to keep us that we do not depart from him anymore. And in this sense the Apostle saith of the Romans and all true believers, You are not under the Law, but under grace. As it he had said, neither doth the Lord now urge, nor do you now accept of the Law, upon the former condition (Do this and live) as if we were to seek justification and salvation by the works of it, but the Lord hath left it, and we receive it as A light unto our feet, and a lantern to o • r steps, that being his workmanship in our new birth created unto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them, we might have some good help by the law to prove what is the good and acceptable will of God, and so viewing our faces in this Glass, and in that also of the grace of God which hath appeared unto us, we might learn to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live religiously, soberly and righteously in this present world. Thus may you see that the testimony which Tossanus is brought in to give on your behalf, will not stand you in any stead to procure any credit or to add any strength unto your cause; and as little either comfort or help doth that afford you which you allege out of Gwalther to the same (that is as I conceive) to as little or no purpose; for in the place you cite on Gal. 3.19, 20. speaking of the Law, Quae duravit ad tempus, quamdiu ejus usus fuit; he meaneth the Old Testament or Mosaical government, which consisteth in the substance of the Ceremonial, and in some circumstances of the Moral Law; and this (we grant) was but to endure for a time, viz. until the coming of Christ. Which to be the true sense and meaning of the words, appeareth most evidently by three opposite clauses, which follow in the very words which you allege. 1. At nunc novi Testamenti tempus est ] therefore he speaketh in the former words of the Old Testament. 2. Quando lex & Prophetae Euangelio cedunt ] therefore he speaketh of the Mosaical government; the Ceremonies and Circumstances whereof, were all abolished, and all the Prophecies thereof accomplished at the coming of him that was the truth of those Types, the substance of those shadows, yea the aim and end of the Law and the Prophets, Christ Jesus. 3. Vt tam gentibus, quàm Iudaeorum reliquijs in regnum Dei vim facientibus locum dent, ] therefore he meaneth, not (as you would have him) that the Moral Law is wholly abolished, but only so much of Moses Law, as made any difference betwixt Jews and Gentiles, or might prove any hindrance to their happy entrance into the kingdom of God, so much only is vanished away as a cloud, or mist, at the rising of the Sun of righteousness, in the day of the Gospel. But it may be you reckon of these whom hitherto you have set forth, as if they were but milites levis armaturae, scouts or light horsemen, to try the coast and to make a flourish. Now you begin to plant your great Ordnance, to muster your men, range your Army, and to charge the enemy with a sharp assault for the utter abolishing of the whole Moral Law. For the effecting whereof you are bold to say;

and so you go on with fourth, and fifth, &c. until you have made up a full dozen. The mother of Sisera trusting too much in her sons valor, his chariots, and his men of war, fed her fancy with a conceit, nay with an assurance of a joyous and glorious victory; Why is his chariot so long a coming? Why tarry the wheels of his chariot? Her wise Ladies answered her, yea she returned answer to her self, Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey, to every man a Damsel or two, to Sisera a prey of diverse colors? But yet for all this Sisera being cut short of his life, by Jael the wife of Heber, the mother of Sisera also came short of her hope, and the success of that war was nothing answerable to the confidence and conceit which she had, and held of it. I fear me, the conceit of your great preparation, together with the confidence in your men and munition, hath bred in you not much unlike both spirits and speeches in this conflict, and it may be some of your wise friends (as her wise Ladies) have been ready enough to soothe you up with some answer, answerable to your present humor: Yea (rather then fail) you will return answer to your own words: Great helps breed great hopes. What? Shall we not speed? shall we not divide the prey? shall not this conflict end in a conquest? and shall we not obtain honors and favors, as a prey of diverse colors? If your conceit be such and so high, take heed, both you and it do not take a fall? A hammer and a nail in the hand of a weak woman, if the Lord will give wisdom and strength to handle them aright, may quickly dispatch Sisera, dash his mothers hopes, and turn all his, and her joys into sorrows, and their glory into shame. And is not my word, saith the Lord, as an hammer , and are not the words of the wise (that is, such as speak according to this word) as nails fastened by the Masters of the assemblies? What though there be want of wisdom in the head, and of strength in the hand of him that shall use them, yet he that standeth in God's cause, and fetcheth his weapons out of the Lord's Armory, and cometh in the name of the Lord against his adversary, may rest assured that the Lord will manifest his wisdom in foolishness, and perfect his strength in weakness, and that he will so teach his hands to fight, and his fingers to war, that as the battle is, so shall the victory be the Lord's also. In this confidence alone I have entered this encounter and am come forth into the field against you. The mounting of your great ordnance with so "great words, The whole Epistle to the Galatians, &c.

doth not so much amate me as amaze me. I do not so much fear the danger as wonder at the manner of your dealing. The pieces which you mention, I acknowledge, and reverence as some of the Lord's great ordnance: but all the powder and shot that you have given them, can make them neither speak nor do anything against the truth, but for the truth. You have mounted them too high, and have overcharged them too much, so that whiles you would discharge them against one of the bulwarks of Zion, you over-shoot your mark, and cause them with greater force to recoil upon your little Babel, which you have built to make you a name in the earth, inter filios terrae, among the sons of the earth.

You say,

Or is this the general Argument of the same? [Answer.] What if that Epistle neither in whole nor in part do import so much? What if that which you say of the whole abolishing of the whole law of Moses, be neither the general Argument of the whole Epistle, nor any special or particular Argument of any part or parcel of the same? It is very likely that what you affirm herein, you have rather taken upon trust, than upon trial; for had you but searched into the Epistle it self for the subject and special scope of it, and well considered the estate of that Church, at that time, when the Apostle writ unto it, you might have easily understood, that the purpose of the Apostle, was not to prove that the whole law of Moses was wholly abolished; but that only in the matter of justification by faith in Christ, the law of Moses neither Ceremonial nor Moral, could stand them in any stead. For whereas at that time, certain false teachers had labored to withdraw the mind and hearts of the Galatians, from that sincerity of the Gospel (touching the righteousness of faith in Christ alone) which Paul had taught them, by inducing and persuading them to entertain the Ceremonies of the law of Moses, as necessary to justification and salvation; and so to join the work of the law with faith in Christ: Paul being much troubled at their backsliding, and desiring to recover and recall them to their former standing, directeth this Epistle unto them; wherein as he justifieth both his calling to be an Apostle, and the Doctrine of faith in Christ alone for justification and salvation, to be of God and not of men, so he evidently proveth, that by the works of the law no flesh can be justified, that Circumcision, new Moons, Jewish Sabbaths, and all other ceremonies, types, and figures of Moses law, (leading as a School-master unto Christ) were now abolished, and that if either Jew, or Gentile, did either entertain or maintain them as necessary to salvation, mingling Law and Gospel, faith and works, types and truth, Moses and CHRIST together, for our acceptation and reconciliation with God, they did not only abase themselves in returning unto beggarly rudiments, and putting themselves under their former yoke of bondage, but they did further (as far as lay in them) make void the death of Christ, and fall from Grace; whereupon he exhorteth them to stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free, and so to use their liberty that it be not any advantage to the flesh, but that they may serve one another by love, Galat. Chapters 2. 3. 4. 5.

That this is the scope and drift of the Apostle, and the special Argument and subject of the Epistle to the Galat. if the Text it self, which I have cited, do not make it evident, or the Testimony which I have given thereof, seem to you to be insufficient, I pray you admit of the evidence that two or three more eminent and more ancient witnesses will give in unto this point. Jerome. in Prooem. in Epist. ad Gal. Sciatis eandem esse materiam, & Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas, & quae ad Romanos scripta est. Nullus quidem Apostoli sermo est, vel per epistolam, vel praesentis, in quo non laboret docere antiquae legis onera deposita, & omnia illa quae in typis & imaginibus praecesserunt, i. otium sabbati, circumcisionis injuriam, calendarum, & trium per annum solemnitatum recursus, scrupulositatem ciborum, & per dies singulos lavacra iterum sordidanda, gratiâ Euangelij subrepente cessasse, quam non sanguis victimarum, sed sides animae credentis impleret. Et paulo post scribit Apostolus ad eos qui ex gentibus fidem Euangelij receperant, & rursum retro lapsi quorundam fuerant authoritate deterriti, asserentium, Petrum quoque & Iacobum, & totas Iudaeae Ecclesias Euangelium Christi, cum lege veterimiscuisse: ipsum etiam Paulum aliud in Judea facere, aliud nationibus praedicare, & frustra eos in crucif • rum credere, si id negligendum putarent, quod Apostolorum principes observarent.

By this you may perceive, that Saint Jerome taketh the Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians, to be the same with the Argument of the Epistle to the Romans; wherein the Apostle proveth, that by the works of the law, whether Ceremonial or Moral, no flesh can be justified before God; using the same words in both Rom. 3.20.28. and Gal. 2.16. And this he urgeth as the principal scope of the Epistle to the Galat. That Paul laboreth to reprove them for their declining from the simplicity of the Gospel unto Jewish Ceremonies, teaching them that Circumcision, their new Moons, solemn Feasts, and all other their Legal Seruices and Sacrifices were utterly abolished, and in no sort to be mingled with the Gospel. I say therefore in a word with Saint Jerome, Onera legis Ceremonialis esse deposita, & opera legis Moralis in justification peccatoris esse perpetuo deponenda. And if you shall object as you do,

I answer with Paul, one greater than Jerome, God forbid, yea we establish the Law. And if S. Paul establish the Law, how dare you go about to abolish it?

Chrysostom also gathereth the Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians, out of Gal. 5.2.4. I Paul say unto you, That if ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing; and again, Whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace: Whereupon he inquireth, Quid igitur tandem hoc erat; and immediately answereth, Qui ex Iudaeis crediderant partim occupati persuasione Iudaismi, partim inanis gloriae fiti temulenti, dum sibi doctorum cupiunt parare dignitatem authoritatem{que}, profecti ad Galatas docuerunt, illis opus esse circumcisione, servanda sabbata & novilunta, nec tolerandum esse Paulum, qui harum rerum tolleret observationem: Nam Petrus, Jacobus, ac Johannes, haec (ut aiebant) non prohibebant, &c. And a little after he addeth, Proinde cùm cerneret totum Galatorum gentem inflammatam, ac periculosum incendium adversus illorum Ecclesiam excitatum esse; scribit Epistolam ad universos ad ista respondens, &c. Compare your Assertion with Chrysostom's opinion, and you shall find that the Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians is not (as you would have it) that the whole Law of Moses is wholly abolished, but that the Ceremonial Law is ceased, and may not in any sort be joined with the Gospel; and that the works of the Law, both Ceremonial and Moral, are forever in the matter of justification and salvation disenabled and discarded. Theodoret is of the same mind, with Chrysostom, and setteth down the Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians, in almost the same words. Oecumenius also to the very same purpose saith, Quum been decti ab Apostolo Galatae fuissent, sincere{que} in Christum credidissent, peregre profecto Apostolo, sic à nonnullis surrepti sunt, ut circumciderentur, Apostolus scribit ad eos, redarguit cos quod stulte egerint, & immutati fu •… nt: • isserit de lege, & de ea quae secundū Abraham est, side, argumentatur{que} tum ex lege ipsa, tum exuxoribus ipfius Abrahae allegorice sumptis, quod & umbra & circumcisio ipsa ad tempus usque data fuit, & Christi adventu superva • aea facta. By the judgment of Oecumenius therefore, touching the Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians, your judgment being put in the scale with it, will be found to be too light, there being no dispute (in his opinion) for the whole abolishing of the whole Law of Moses, Moral as well as Ceremonial, (as you would have it) but only for the abrogation of the Ceremonial, now that Christ is come in the flesh (as he doth deliver it) and we willingly assent unto it. Agreeable hereunto is the judgment of Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Beda, Justin Martyr, whose testimonies I have not leisure to set down at large, the places I have quoted, you may search if you desire to see; Only I pray you consider, what Erasmus whom you allege so often and commend so much, hath himself set down concerning the Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians. Agit in hac Epistola quod nusquam non agit, ut à legis Mosaeicae servitute, invitet ad Euangelij gratiam: and afterwards, Demonstrat legem Mosaicam ad tempus modo fuisse datam, & ad unum Christum illum, spectasse omnia: and lest you should mistake his meaning, as if he comprised the Moral Law herein together with the Ceremonial, he showeth evidently by the words following, that he means only the Ceremonial and not the Moral Law: And therefore he addeth: In illa [Mosaica lege] fuisse carnem, in Euangelio spiritum; in illa umbras, in Euangelio lucem; in illa imagines, in Euangelio veritatem; in illa ser vitutem, in Euangelio libertatem. Could you see thus much in Erasmus, and that upon the Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians, so directly crossing that which you affirm, and not rest satisfied therewithal, to the altering of your opinion, touching the Argument of the same Epistle? Or were you so unadvised, that you would not yourself advise with one of your best friends, what his opinion were of this Argument, and yet commend him unto others to seek, and take advice and satisfaction from him in this point? But we will leave you to advise better with Erasmus, if yet you will take pains to look upon him, and come now to consider what counsel or comfort you have from Calvin, Beza, Perkins, Parraeus, whom I guess by your quotations you have consulted withal. These you allege, to prove that the Moral Law is wholly abolished as well as the Ceremonial, as if they had interpreted that place of Gal. 3.19.22.23. to that purpose. Let us examine your witnesses, and see if the evidence they bring in, will serve your turn. You cite Calvin. Instit. lib. 3.19.4. Calvin hath not one word for the whole abolishing of the Moral Law in that place; he only showeth that the faithful are now freed by Christ from the yoke and rigor of the Law, that now they obey the Law not as constrained by force, or compelled by fear, but as of a willing and ready mind, induced thereunto by love, knowing that they come to God as children to a father, that will in Christ accept of their obedience to the Law, albeit they come far short of that perfection which the Law requireth in rigor at their hands: and this he maketh manifest by one precept of the Law: Legis praeceptum est, ut diligamus Deum ex toto cord, ex tota anima, &c. This, saith he, the best cannot do in that perfection that the Law requireth, Volunt, aspirant, conantur, sed nihil eâ quâ decet perfection faciunt: What then? he answereth in the next section, That when poor souls shall perceive that (being freed from the severe exaction and rigor of the Law) paterna leuitate se à Deo appellari; hilares & magna alacritate vocanti respondebunt, & ducentem sequentur. Is there one word or syllable in all this, tending to the utter abolishing of the Moral Law? Nay is there not much to the contrary? For doth he that saith, we are freed from the rigor, yoke, and bondage of the Law, affirm (in so saying) that the Moral Law is wholly abolished, or are we therefore discharged of all obedience to the Law altogether, because by faith in Christ's obedience, we stand not charged with the exact and rigorous observation of the same? Doth not Calvin himself in this very section which you allege, give instance in one precept of the Moral Law as now in force and of great use, for believers to frame their hearts and lives in obedience thereunto? Doth he not say plainly, Legis praeceptum est ut diligamus Deum? He doth not say (as it seems you would have him) Legis praeceptum fuit, as implying the Law was once, but now is not; as, fuit Ilium, & ingens gloria Teucrorum, sed jam seges est ubi Troia fuit; or as Tully also could say: Triste vocabulum [fui] subest enim haec vis, habuit non habet: but he saith [legis praeceptum est] as being yet still in force [ut diligamus Deum] as binding himself and all the faithful, to a filial and cheerful, not to a rigorous and servile obedience in the duties of it. But seeing you have done Calvin so great wrong, as contrary to his mind and meaning, yea to his words and writing, to charge him with that he never wrote, spoke, nor thought, will you do him that favor, as to let him speak for himself, and deliver his own opinion, in his own words, whether he be of your mind or no, touching the utter abolishing of the whole Moral Law? Neque hinc recte quis colligat (saith he, having proved that the Law hath no place nor power in the justification of a sinner before God) legem fidelibus supervacaneam esse, quos non id • o docere & hortari, & stimulare ad bonum definite, tamet si apud Dei tribunal in eorum conscientijs locum non habet: and he addeth a little afterward, In hoc fitum est legis officium, ut eos officij sui admonendo ad sanctitatis & innocentiae studium excitet. Me thinks Calvin seemeth to frame his speech of purpose, as if he meant to answer one in your coat, and to meet with your opinion, though he were never acquainted with your person. For you will have the whole Moral Law to be wholly abolished; he blames the very conceit of such as think it needless or superfluous; indeed he acknowledgeth that it is of no force for our justification, but confesseth withal, that it is of great use for edification and sanctification. You will have it not only ceased, but abrogated, as having neither any office nor use: he saith, it is so far from being abrogated, that yet it doth not cease to teach, to exhort, and to prick the faithful under the Gospel, forward unto that which is good, and testifieth that it is a special office of the Law, by admonishing them of their duty, to stir them up unto holiness of life. You say,

and he to the clean contrary, addeth these to his former words: In hoc cardine totum fere argumentum Epistolae ad Galatas vertitur; giving us thereby to understand, that by the Argument of the Epistle to the Galatians, the Moral Law is not abolished, but in special office and use, even now and forever in the days of the Gospel to be continued. The words I have cited out of Calvin, I have not fetched very far, being so near neighbors to the place whence you took yours. Yours out of the fourth section, where yet you have nothing which makes for you, and mine out of the second & third section, where you may see almost every line is drawn to my hand, clean overthwart and cross unto your opinion. What may a man (that would willingly think well of you) think of your dealing in this allegation? Did you read the fourth, and not the second nor third sections? That had been great negligence, especially, there being so necessary dependence one upon another: Did you read them and not understand them, taking that to be for you, which was altogether against you? That had been too gross ignorance. Did you read and understand, that Calvin in those sections had nothing to confirm, but much to confute your opinion? And would you notwithstanding, bear us in hand that he stood as firm on your side, as you had set him fair in your margent? This were willfully to shut your eyes against the light, and to endanger the comfort of a good conscience. Which of these faults you are fallen into, I leave to your second thoughts to consider, and to amend what you find amiss. Thus we leave Calvin, who doth neither prove, nor approve your opinion, but plainly reproves it rather. Let us now examine Beza your next witness, and see if his testimony will stand you in any stead, for the utter abolishing of the Moral Law. [Answer.] In the place which you allege in Galat. 3.22. he speaketh something of the abrogation of the Ceremonial, but not a word of the abolition of the Moral Law: his words will witness what I say, and convince you of no small fault in this allegation also. Antea docuerat (saith he) legem ceremonialem abrogatam esse, tum quatenus nos arguebat peccati, ac mortis per transgressiones, tum quatenus fuerat ipsius damnationis externum Chirographum: Nunc autem eandem ceremonialem legem considerans (ut promissionum Euangelicarum suo tempore exhibendarum umbram & figuram) docet, illam quoque hoc respectu cessasse, &c. What could be said more distinctly, or more effectually, for expounding that very verse of the abrogation of the Ceremonial, which you say, he expounds of the abolishing of the Moral Law? Beza saith, That the Apostle understands the Ceremonial Law in this 23. verse, and that (being but a shadow and figure of the promises of the Gospel) it ceased when Christ was exhibited: and you say (how truly let others judge) that the same Beza saith, that the same verse is to be understood of the Moral Law, and that he proveth thereby, that the whole Moral Law is wholly abolished. There may be as much agreement betwixt light and darkness, fire and water, truth and error, as betwixt Beza his Assertion and your Allegation in this point. But will you with patience hear his opinion direct and down-right, not for the abolishing, but for the establishing of the Moral Law? Quid igitur, saith he, writing upon 2. Corinth. 3.11. Num lex abolita? sane, quod ad ceremonias attinet, cessavit. At enim dices, num hac in parte abolitum est Mosis ministerium? minime vero, semper enim sunt homines ad Euangelium praedicatione legis praeparandi. You may here see, if you will but turn your eye aside unto this place, that he is so far from thinking the Moral Law to be abolished, that he answereth that objection, and so dasheth out the brains of your opinion with a minime vero, and further affirmeth, that the Law is to be preached as frequently and necessarily as men are to be prepared for the receiving of the Gospel. Consider also what the same Beza saith, writing upon 1. John. 2.7. A New Commandment I write unto you: there he putting a difference betwixt the Moral Law and the Gospel, saith, Lex quid sit faciendum, Euangelium quid sit credendum docet: sciendum est igitur sic esse haec duo distincta, ut tamen unum alteri subserviat. Nec enim Euangelio lex aboletur, quatenus quod rectum est praecipit, sed duntaxat quatenus mortem omnibus ipsam perfect non praestantibus minatur. Lex mortis terrore nos monet ut de vita in Euangelio quaerenda cogitemus, lex jam nobis suavis est seccundùm interiorem hominem magister, sicut copiose docet Apostolus, Rom. 6.7.8. capitibus. Hinc illud toties à Christo iteratum de Deo & proximo diligendo mandatum. I pray you consider these particulars out of this testimony, and tell me then whether Beza be with you, or over-against you. 1. That the Law and Gospel are distinguished, but neither of them both abolished. 2. The Law and the Gospel do mutually serve one another in their several offices and uses. 3. The Law is not abolished by the Gospel, but established by the same. 4. The Law to them that are in Christ, is a sweet Master or Teacher, in whose lessons and instructions they delight in the inner man. 5. That all these offices and uses of the Moral Law, are warranted and confirmed by the authentical Authority of Christ himself, and his Apostle Paul. All these points being set down by Beza so sound and sufficient for establishing the Law, are as so many strong Arguments to convince you of error, that go about to abolish it; and as so many rebukes also of your unadvised and injurious dealing with so worthy a Divine, whom you will needs draw in, to speak to your mind, though never so contrary to his own true meaning. Let us now come to hear your third witness [M ^r . Perkins ] whether he can speak anymore to the matter than Calvin and Beza have already done. You cite him on the Galatians. [Answer.] 3.11.23. And tell me I pray you, what you have found here for the whole abolishing of the Moral Law? Upon these words, verse 11. No man is justified by the Law: he saith, that by the Law is meant, not only the Ceremonial, but also the Judicial, and the Moral Law, and that Paul enlargeth his disputation, from one part to the whole Law. And he giveth a good reason why he would abrogate the use of the Moral Law, as well as of the Ceremonial, in the matter of justification: for they (saith he) which thought Ceremonies necessary to justification, would much more think Moral duties necessary. All this we willingly acknowledge with M ^r . Perkins: What would you conclude hence? Is this your Argument from this place? No man can be justified by the works neither of the Ceremonial nor of the Moral Law, ergo, the whole Moral Law is abrogated wholly as well as the Ceremonial Law. We grant the Antecedent, and deny the Consequence, or Argument. For how doth this follow, The Moral Law doth not justify, ergo, it doth not instruct nor edify? unless it had no other neither office nor use, but that alone. Will you see the fallacy, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by another of the like stamp? Samuel hath ceased to rule, correct, condemn the people as a Judge; ergo, Samuel hath ceased to pray for the people, and to teach and show them the good and right way, as a Prophet: Or to use the Apostles comparison, A Schoolmaster ceaseth to nurture, and keep his scholar under the rod, and in the rudiments of Grammar as a child, ergo, he hath no sufficiency nor ability to teach him greater or better things, being now of riper age.

But to leave this Argument weak and feeble as it is, shall I be bold to ask you a question? Do you read and allege your Authors for satisfaction or contention, for colouring and countenancing of an error, or for searching and lifting out the truth? I would gladly if I might safely, conceive the best; but it seems strange unto me, that seeing M ^r . Perkins in the very next leaf, upon the 12. that is, the very next verse, hath so plain and evident sentences to confute you, that ever you durst allege anything out of him, as standing with you or for you. His words be these: I say that the law written in our hearts, is still the law of Moses. And again, Since man's fall, the Lord repeats the Law for weighty causes: 1. To teach us that the Law is of a constant and unchangeable nature: 2. To advertise us of our weakness, and show us what we cannot do: 3. To put us in mind that we must still humble our selves under the hand of God, after we have begun by grace to obey the Law, because even then we come far short in doing the things which the Law requireth at our hands. Who would once imagine that a man fearing God, and bearing an honest mind to learn and seek out the truth, would not have sought and seen a little farther into M ^r . Perkins, before he would or durst have produced him for a witness against himself, and against the truth also. If all this be not yet sufficient, will you for your full satisfaction, hear his final determination of the question. He proposeth it thus; How far forth is the Law abrogated? and answereth this. The Moral Law is abrogated in respect of the Church, and them that believe, three ways: First, in regard of justification, and this Paul proves at large in this Epistle: Secondly, in respect of the malediction, or curse, Rom. 8.1. Thirdly, in respect of rigor; for in them which are in Christ, God accepts the endeavor to obey, for obedience it self. Nevertheless, the Law as it is the rule of good life, is unchangeable and admits no abrogation, and Christ by his death did in this regard establish it, Rom. 3.31. What say you now to these words of M ^r . Perkins? Doth he determine the question with you and for you, that the Moral Law is wholly abolished, or doth he not plainly resolve to the contrary, that as it is the rule of good life it is unchangeable, and forever by the death of Christ established.

Your next Testimony is out of Pareus, in Argumentum Epist. ad Galatas, and in other places upon that Epistle. [Answer.] I have not that Book by me, but unless Pareus be much contrary to himself (which I cannot so easily conceive of so judicious a Divine) you shall see I have reason to think that upon the Galatians he speaketh nothing for your opinion, seeing upon the Hebrews, Cap. 8. pag. 400. 401. he purposely and advisedly writeth so much against it. Lex Moralis (saith he) est aeterna justiciae norma; and then he showeth how far the Old Testament is abrogated. 1. Quantum ad doctrinae spiritualis gratiae circumstantiam de futuro. 2. Deinde quantum ad conditionem impossibilem perfectae obedientiae. 3. Quantum ad onus legalium rituum, & sacerdotij Levitici. Denique quantum ad jugum polity Mosaicae, populi Iudaici cervicibus impositum. Whereupon he inferreth thus, Vnde Manichaeonum & fanaticorum refutatur error, qui abrogationem veteris Testamenti non folum ad tria illa, sed ad legem etiam moralem male trahebant; and a little after he addeth, De Lege Morali, & de Mosis atque Prophetarum libris & doctrina, aeternitatem agnoscimus, de ritibus & politia minime. By this you may evidently perceive, that Pareus is of opinion, that howsoever the Ceremonial and Judicial Laws of Moses be abrogated, yet the Moral Law is perpetual and eternal, and that they are men tainted with heresy or frenzy, that would draw the Moral Law into the same estate of abrogation with them. And if you will look back a little to the seventh Chapter and sixteenth verse of the same Epistle, you may see as much as this, and somewhat more. Obiter hic annotemus discrimen legis Moralis & Ceremonialis. Illa perpetua & spiritualis est, ista caeduca & carnalis fuit: And again upon verse 18. Probat nunc legis abrogationem inde pendentem. Et est taecita occupatio: Quicquid sacerdotio fiat, lex Dei est immutabilis. Id inquit, non nego, de lege Morali, nunc vero loquor de praecepto carnali, lege Ceremoniali. And this may sustice to clear Pareus, that what you have taken, you have mistaken from him, as approving your opinion upon the Galatians, which you see he disproueth on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let us now proceed to that which followeth.

If neither the Greek nor any Latin translation have it, [Answer.] then it may (peradventure) be added amiss, but mistranslated (as you say) it cannot be. And why doth not this word Serueth, serve your turn? Because (forsooth) it is in the Present Tense, Serueth, and not in the Preterimperfect Tense, Serued, Wherefore then [served] the Law? And why would you have it [served] and not serveth? Because I guess you would have all men to know, that the Law was of some force and use in times past, but now is of neither for the time present, and so [served] in the time past, serveth your purpose very well for the present business. But be it as you would have it, served; is served either in the Greek or any Latin translation? or doth not the Law now in the days of the Gospel, serve to the revealing, convincing, and condemning of transgressions, as before it served to the same end and use in the days of the Law? or suppose it served more then to that end than now it serveth; serveth it now therefore to no other use at all? But you say, Surely you are the first that ever I heard either make any exception against it, or stand in any danger or fear of it. And Beza whom you allege, may be understood to take it rather in the Present, than in the Preterim-perfect Tense: Quorsum igitur lata lex est, and, Quum lex posita sit hominibus redarguendis: Implying thereby, not only whereunto the Law served when it was first ordained, but that it serveth yet to the same use in some respect, though in diverse things the use be changed. Not unlike unto this, you say, is in Rom. 3.20. Commeth or is, By the Law cometh the knowledge of sin, which being read [came] or [was] of the time past, maketh (you say) the sense good. Not unlike unto that, is this indeed, i. of as little either weight or worth. And why may not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , be thus translated; For by the Law [cometh] the knowledge of sin, but must needs be rendered thus, For by the Law [came or was] the knowledge of sin? You have your reason, I hope, in readiness; for if the former stand in the present time, then your opinion must needs fall presently: for then there is a present use of the Law to discover sin. But if that fall and the latter come in his stead, then you conceive hope that your opinion for the abolishing of the Law, being now in danger of falling, shall hence have a prop to stay it up withal; and what a one I pray you? why surely a sorry one, either this or none; By the Law [came or was] the knowledge of sin, Ergo, the Law is now abolished, and by the Law cometh not now any knowledge of sin. This is indeed (as you said truly) not unlike the other; the Law served for restraining, or condemning transgressions, ergo, now it serveth neither for these nor for any other use at all. But doth not the Apostle prove by the Law whether written in Tables of stone, or in Tables of the heart, that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin; not only that they had been, but that even then at that present they were. And was not this in the time of the Gospel, and doth he not convince them all of sin, by the present use of the Law? Observe what he saith verse 19. Now we know that whatsoever the Law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it speaketh to them that are under the Law. Doth he not use the present time, for the manifesting of the present use of the Law, three times together in this verse, and concludeth in the next, That therefore by the deeds of the Law no flesh shall be justified in his sight, because by the Law cometh, or is, the knowledge of sin. So Beza on this place doth expound it; and Pareus rendereth the words thus: Per legem habetur agniti • peccati; whence he concludeth, ergo, non justitia; and Calvin gives the sense of these words, Per legem agnitio peccati, to be this, Lex convinced nos peccati & damnationis. You see then these learned men take these words otherwise than you do; That by the Law cometh [not came ] or is [not was] the acknowledgement of sin. As for that which you allege out of Galath. 4.1. I must confess, I neither know how it maketh anything at all for your point or purpose, nor can I conceive, what you mean to go about to make so large proof of that which no man doth deny. What here you write, hath neither dependence nor consequence, neither joints nor sinews; much like unto a shadow, which having some proportion of a man's body, hath yet neither life nor substance in it: For what if we yield you all this, that the Apostle by the Heir in his minority, meaneth the Church of the Jews before Christ, and by the same in his riper age, the Church of Christ since his death? What is there here, I say not of any power, but of any color to prove the abolishing of the Moral Law? Is the Moral Law therefore wholly abolished, because the Mosaical regiment in Rites and Ceremonies, in Types and Figures, in Legal burdens, and Levitical services, together with the rigor and terror of the Law, is now ceased and abrogated? You might as well say the Heir when he was a child was kept in, under sharp and severe Tutors and Governors, but being now come to age, he may now live as he list: Or, the Church in her infancy was in bondage to the Ceremonial Law, therefore in her riper age she is not bound to obey either God or man, by the duties of the Moral Law. I could wish, you would advisedly consider what our SAVIOR CHRIST himself saith; I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it; and whosoever he be that shall break one of the least of these Commandments, and shall teach others so to do, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. And remember again what S. Paul hath once told you already: Do we make void the Law by faith? God forbid, nay rather we establish the Law. Christians indeed, are freed from the bondage and burdens of the Law of Moses, but yet must they take upon them Christ his yoke and burden, for his yoke is easy, and his burden light. Yea they are charged to bear one another's burdens, and so to fulfill the Law of Christ; that their faith may work by love, and they by love serve one another, and so show that they delight in the Law of God concerning the inner man, serving the Lord in righteousness and holiness all the days of their lives, that is, according to both the Tables of the Moral Law. Touching your quotation out of Socrat. Eccl. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 21. I have seen what he saith, but can see nothing for the abolishing of the Moral Law. He blameth them that contend so much for Jewish Ceremonies, keeping of Easter, observing Daies and Moneths, as never having well considered, that Quando religio Iudaica erat in Christianam commutata, accurat. is illas Mosaicae legis observationes, & rerum futurarum figuras penitus evannisse; and so urgeth that out of Galath. 4.21. against them. But what will you say, if out of the same Chapter, I bring you some evidence, that Socrates doth not abolish, but establish the Moral Law? Apostolis propositum fuit, non ut leges de festis diebus celebrandis sancirent, sed ut recte vivendi rationis, & pietatis nobis authors essent: The Apostles, saith Socrates, never purposed to make laws for holy days, but to teach us both by words and writing the way of godliness and good living. And did not the Apostles this, especially by urging and applying the duties of the Moral Law in both Tables unto Christians, both for their persons and callings? Read and consider, Rom. 1.2.6.7 12.13. Cap. 1 Tim. 1. 2 Tim. 3. Ephes. 5.6. Chapters. Moreover, Socrates in the same Chapter, complaineth of the Churches of the Gentiles, for the breaking of the Moral Law and violating the Apostles Commandment, Acts 15. Caeterum nonnulli his neglectis omnem scortationem rem quidem indifferentem arbitrantur, sed tamen de di • bus sestis tanquam de vita decertant, Dei praecepta evertunt, ipsis sibi leges sanciunt. In which words, doth he not blame such as professing themselves to be Christians, did yet account fornication (which is a breach of the seventh Commandment in the Moral Law) to be a thing indifferent, and so following their own lust, did overthrow God's Law? You have gained nothing then by your allegation out of Socrates, but lost more than you looked for, at his hands: And as little have you got by that which you take from M ^r . Perkins again, out of Galat. 4.3. who as you say, setteth it out very fully. What is that which he setteth out so fully? The abrogation of the Moral Law? If you mean that, [Answer.] (as that you must mean, if you mean to speak to the purpose) then you offer him too too hard measure again, to charge him with that he never spake, and to gather that he never scattered. Or is it, that the Church under the Law, was but as the Heir in his minority, but the Church under the Gospel, as the Heir come to age? If this be your meaning, we acknowledge he handleth this point of difference betwixt them very fully, and as many other Divines also do, very soundly too. But what of all this? M ^r . Perkins saith, The Fathers of the Old Testament, were children in respect of us, two ways: First, in regard of the Mosaical government, because they were kept in subjection to more Laws than we: Secondly, in regard of revelation, because God hath revealed more to us than to them. And this he saith truly and well. Is there anything here to be found for the utter abolishing of the Moral Law? If there be, why do you not show it? If there be not, why make you such a vain flourish for it?

Have you yet anymore to say out of the Epistle to the Galatians? Yes it seems you yet look for some help from Luther upon Galat. 4.1. where you say,

Me thinks you have no great confidence in this allegation; Luther, I doubt, hath not so fully handled the matter, as to fulfill your mind in it. You know right well, that Luther speaking of the ending of the Law two ways; First, at the coming of Christ in the flesh at the time appointed of his Father, Galat. 4.4. Secondly, at the coming of Christ unto us daily by his Spirit; doth only mean such an end of the Law, As that when Christ is come into our hearts by faith, the Law hath not that dominion over us, to accuse, to terrify, to kill, to condemn us spiritually, and before God, as formerly it had: And all this we acknowledge may well be, and yet the Moral Law be of good and great use still. [Answer.] And I say, that if the Apostles meaning were so plain, as you will have it, (to wit, that the Moral Law is utterly at an end) then might this our labor be plainly at an end also. But because some others (it may be) cannot see this so plainly as you can, we desire it may be made a little more plain unto us: For, the reasons which you render; These reasons I say, [Answer.] do not make it plain, that the Apostles meaning was in, or by the Epistle to the Galatians, to put an absolute end to the Moral Law, for the utter abolishing of the same (as you would have it) but that the works of the Law, whether Moral or Ceremonial, in the matter of our justification before God, and salvation by faith in Christ, are utterly to be excluded, and abandoned, and that by faith in Christ alone, the Galatians and all other true Christians, are freed and set at liberty, as from the burden and bondage of the Ceremonial Law, so from the rigor and terror, dominion and malediction of the Moral also. And this is the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free, and wherein the Apostle exhorteth them to stand fast, and not to be again entangled in the yoke of bondage. That this is the true sense and meaning of the Apostle, it is most manifest and plain, by that his earnest and zealous protestation, which immediately he annexeth: Behold I Paul say unto you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to the whole Law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from grace. For we through the spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith, &c. Thus far we have followed your steps in the Epistle to the Galatians, where we have not left you so much as the breadth of a foot, to ground or settle your opinion upon. Now you fly to the Epistle to the Hebrews, where you look for succor and shelter as in a City of refuge; for you say, But we will pursue you with the sword of the Lord, and of Gideon, i. The word of God, and the writings of the Lord his Worthies, and doubt not but we shall either draw or drive you thence also.

Is the whole Epistle to the Hebrews to the same purpose? viz. For the utter abolishing of the whole Moral Law, for having any being or well being, any office or use in the Church of Christ? It seems indeed you have taken possession of the gates, the middle and the utmost parts thereof, as if all the forts and fences, the turrets and towers, were your own already. But shall we make an assault, and try what right or reason you have so to do? Your first reason of so bold a speech, is this;

And what makes this for your purpose? Is the Moral Law therefore abolished, because Christ is opposed to all that went or were before him? Or is this an opposition of contrariety or of disparity? Doth the speaking of God by Christ argue an abolishing, and not rather an accomplishing of all that was spoken before him? Or can any man with any show or shadow of reason infer, that because in former times God spake 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , by the Prophets in visions and dreams, by ceremonies and sacrifices, by revelations and prophesies, by thunderings and lightnings, and the like, and by all these more darkly and obscurely, not so effectually, spiritually, and comfortably, as in the latter days he hath done by his Son; Can any man, I say, infer hereupon, that the Moral Law is wholly abolished? Nay hath not Christ from his blessed mouth charged us not once to think that he came to destroy the Law? He came not to destroy it, but to fulfill it: And doth not he renew the beauty and vigor of the Law, when he doth clear it, and deliver it from the foolish and false glosses of the Pharisees, and commends the duties thereof to the practice of his own followers and Disciples? Besides all this, seeing Christ in this first verse, is as you allege, opposed to the Prophets, you may by as good reason conclude, that all the sacred Records of the Prophets are now cancelled and cast out of the Church by the coming of Christ, in whom they were accomplished, as that, the Moral Law first written by the finger of God, is now utterly abolished, because by Christ himself it was fulfilled, and if by that which followeth [the heavens and earth must vanish, but he remain] you mean, that the Moral Law must needs utterly perish if Christ remain, remember then I pray, that Christ himself hath said the like of the Moral Law, which the Apostles said of him; Heaven and earth shall pass, but one jot or tittle of the Law shall not pass, till all be fulfilled. Upon which words, Bullinger saith, Per collationem rerum maxim stabilium & immotarum, significavit perpetuam legis constantiam. Calvin, Beza, Musculus, Vitus Theodorus, Perkins, are all of the same mind, writing upon the same place. Of these I will only mention M ^r . Perkins his words. The meaning of this verse, saith he, is, That the Law of God is unchangeable, not only in the whole, but for every part thereof, and the fulfilling thereof shall never have an end. But you go forward, and out of cap. 3. you say, It is true, [Answer.] and so were all the holy men of God that penned the rest of the holy Scriptures too; What then? must it needs follow, that because Christ is come as Lord, in, and over his own house, (which is his Church) that he hath disallowed and disanulled whatsoever Moses or others of his servants have done before him? This were enough to shake the very foundation of the walls of Zion, and to lay level with the ground the stately palaces of Jerusalem. What they have done, either in, or for the building of God's house, touching the substance and essential parts thereof, whether foundation of faith, or rule of life, that Christ himself tells you again, he came not to destroy; though they were but his servants in the house, and he Lord over it, yet think not, saith he, that I am come to destroy, either the Law, which is the rule of life, or the Prophets, which are a part of the foundation of faith. He came not to abolish, but to establish these things. But why did you allege only the former part of the verse, [Moses was a Servant] and not the latter [for a testimony of those things which should be spoken after] to show what service the Apostle speaks of in this place? Why? there was a reason in it, for the latter words speaking of Moses service in the matters of the Ceremonial Law, (as Pareus and other worthy Divines do give the meaning of them) the alleging of these would have quite maid your Market in that, for which you brought in the former, namely, to the overthrow and abolishing of the Moral Law. As for that you add, out of Hebrews Cap. 8. I answer with reverend Beza, That Christ is said to be the Mediator of a better Covenant, having better promises; Nempe quoniam figurabant ritus Levitici, quod ipsi non praestabant, cum credentium animos ad Christum venturum, sive ad novum pactum remitterent. He opposeth the Evangelical Covenant to the Levitical, as the better to the worse, the New unto the Old, entering into the comparison of the Old and transitory Testament, being but for a time (whereof the Levitical Priests were Mediators) with the New, (the everlasting Mediator whereof is Christ) to show that this was not only better than that in all respects, but also that that was abrogated by this. This proveth not then the absolute abrogation of the Moral Law, as you intend it, but only the abolishing of the Levitical Priesthood, with all their Mosaical Sacrifices and Ceremonies, as by the words going before, ver. 4, 5, 6, 7. you may plainly see the Apostle meant it. And because you appeal to the Geneva Note upon Ierem. 31.31. as approving your exposition of that which out of Hebrews 8. you allege for the abrogating of the Moral Law, [Answer.] we are content to turn aside with you thither also, not refusing the censure or sentence which as umpire it shall give in this matter. Upon these words ( I will make a New Covenant, Ier. 31.31.) the Geneva Note is this, Though the Covenant of Redemption made to the Fathers, and this which was given after, seem diverse, yet they are all one, and grounded on Jesus Christ, save that this is called New, because of the manifestation of Christ, and the abundant graces of the Holy Ghost, given unto the Church under the Gospel. May not this Note give you notice of thus much; That the Divines of Geneva, making but one Covenant, both in the days of the Law, and in the days of the Gospel, do only acknowledge an alteration thereof in some circumstances of manner, measure, persons, places, times, and types, means, and ministers, and the like, and that partly in the Moral, but especially in the whole Ceremonial Law; but do not so much as intimate any utter abolition of any part of the substance of it, whether concerning the foundation of faith, or rule of life? And how then do you imagine can the Geneva Note make for your purpose, to prove by this place the abrogation and utter abolition of the Moral Law? To give some weight unto your light opinion and sleight exposition of this place, you have burdened your margent with a multitude of witnesses, as if they had now jointly settled and established you in the same: Not much unlike me thinks herein, unto Philotus Cous mentioned by Athenaus, who was of so light and slender a body, that he had weights of lead tied to his heels, left by some blast or puffed of wind, he should have been whirled and blown away. But wherefore do you bear us in hand, that so great a cloud of witnesses as you have painted your margent withal, do all stand for you, and with you, in the utter abolishing of the Moral Law? And yet you have not drawn one drop from them all, to give us some taste of their uniform consent with you in your opinion: Are they clouds without water? witnesses without testimonies? Titles without evidences? Like Apothecaries boxes, that bear goodly and fair names without, but have not a drugge nor a dram of anything that is good within? The Authors which you name, I acknowledge to be good men, and full of good things, as Vessels of the Sanctuary, trusted with the Lord's treasure, and employed for their Masters use: And I have sought, and searched their storehouses, with what diligence for the time I could; yet can I find none of your leaven in their lump, nor any of their Gold to gild your dross. Shall I deal plainly and fairly with you? I will make you a free and frank offer. Set me down the Testimonies of the Authors which you allege for the utter abolishing of the Moral Law, set them down, I say, [totidem verbis] and if, of the two and twenty which you name in your margent, I do not prove, that one and twenty are utterly against you, I will acknowledge you victor, and yield you the whole cause without more ado. Tully saith, That an Orator as well as a Warrior must do something, ad specimen, non ad vulnus, something for a flourish, not all for fight; and so it seems you do, though not as a glozing Orator, yet as a bragging Soldier, you brave us as with a troupe of horse and foot, and then they be but shadows instead of soldiers; much like those images of men which (as Julius Frontius recordeth) Cyrus the King of Persia besieging the City of Sardis did put upon long Poles and armed them like Persian soldiers, and set them upon one side of the City as an Army of men, to delude and terrify Croesus and the Citizens therewithal. Now surely if any should be so credulous as to believe, or so timorous as to fear, that all these Authors are armed soldiers, which you have set up in the margent, as upon one side of your City to defend your cause, I would have him answered only with the words of Zebul to Gaal, Judge. 9. Thou seest the shadows of the Mountains, as if they were men. But now to leave your shadows, and to deal with the substance of that which you think yet remaineth in the Epistle to the Hebrews, for the utter abolishing of the Moral Law; You urge, [Answer.] And who taught you this Logic, to reason à remotione Accidentis, ad remotionem subjecti? Must it needs follow, that because the Tables of Stone wherein the Law was written be abolished, that therefore the Law it self is utterly abolished together with them? Were the Tables of Stone so essential to the Moral Law, that it had neither birth before them, nor being after them? Nay was it not written in the Tables of the heart, first in the state of Innocence, as in fair and golden Characters, and continued after the fall as the Law of Nature, but as it were in dim and dark letters; and yet more plainly renewed to Abraham and the Patriarchs, before it was ever written in Tables of Stone, for the more manifest direction and conviction of the Jews? And hath not the Lord according to the Covenant of Grace, changed the Tables of Stone into the fleshy Tables of our hearts, the killing letter into the quickening spirit, not putting out, but putting in, his laws into our mind, and writing them by his Spirit upon our hearts, and so causing us to walk in his Statutes? And hath he not done all this, that as Zacharias speaketh, We might serve him according to his Law, without fear, in righteousness and holiness (the sum and substance of both Tables) all the days of our life? How then doth the removing of the Tables of Stone, prove unto us the removal of the Law written in them? Nay, if the removing of the Tables of Stone, would prove the abolishing of the Law written in them, then the Moral Law was abolished not only, as you say, after Christ's death, but many hundred years before Christ's birth. For in the Second Temple, there was not the Ark of the Testimony wherein the Tables were kept, nor the Tables themselves neither: As not only Josephus and the Jewish Rabbins, with others, Phil. Morn. De veritate Rel. Lud. Viv. de verit. Christ. fid. lib. 3. do record, but the sacred Story also beareth witness, seeing all the Vessels of the Temple, and all the precious Instruments thereof that were of gold (as the Ark it self was, wherein the Tables of Stone were kept) were all carried away to Babel, either in the former Captiuities of Iehojachim, and Jeconiah, or the last which was the worst, of Zedekiah when the City was sacked, the Temple spoiled, and both by the Chaldeans burnt with fire. Besides all this, it is most certain that as the Ark of the Covenant, and the parts of it, the Cherubims, and the Propitiatorie Couering, or Mercy Seat, were all Ceremonies, and Types of CHRIST, and shadows of good things to come in the days of the Gospel, so was both the writing of the Law in Tables of Stone, and the putting of those Tables (being the Tables of the Legal Covenant) in the Ark, which was therefore called the Ark of the Covenant; these also I say, were Typicall and Ceremonial, but the Law it self, both before, and then, and now, and forever was, and is, and shall be Moral still. To make this a little more plain. The Ark was a figure of Christ, and a pledge of God's gracious presence, where he promised to speak with his people, and whereunto he called them to speak with him: This did signify, that there could be no intercourse of mercies and duties betwixt God and us, but in and by Christ alone. The Tables of the Covenant were put in this Ark and kept in it, to signify, not only that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge were hid in Christ, but that the Law of God is fulfilled, and the justice of God satisfied, and the wrath of God appeased, in and by Christ alone. These Tables were of Stone, having the Law of God written by the finger of God in them, to signify that in the New Covenant, he would change our hearts of stone, into hearts of flesh, and write his laws by the finger of his spirit in the fleshy Tables of our hearts, and both cause us to walk in his Statutes, and also accept of our obedience in Christ Jesus. The Ark when the Tables of the Law were put in it, had a Propitiatory Couering put upon it, Exodus 25. This did signify another part of the Covenant, That in Christ alone the Lord will cover and be merciful to our sins, and remember our iniquities no more, Hebr. 8.10, 11. Rom. 3.1 John. 2. Upon the Propitiatory or Mercy Seat, were the two Cherubims looking down into the Ark: this did signify, That as the holy Angels were appointed to be ministering Spirits, for the good of them that are Heirs of salvation, so do they desire and delight to look into Christ and his Church, and the mystery of the Gospel revealed in the same. Now these things considered; this I say, That so far as these Tables of the Covenant had anything Ceremonial in them, or anything concerning other circumstances, of persons, time, place, terror, rigor, and the like, being peculiar to the Church of the Jews in that estate of the Mosaical Pedagogie; so far I say, they are removed together with the Ark and Altar, Tabernacle and Temple, and other Levitical Sacrifices and Ceremonies, Judaical types and rites whatsoever. But the Moral Law contained in the Ten Commandments, could not be Ceremonial, no more than a substance can be a shadow, (for then should Moral and Ceremonial have been confounded, whereas even by their writing in Tables of Stone, and that by the finger of God they were distinguished) neither was there then anything for the substance of it, nor is now, (as now it stands upon record in the Book of God) but it doth concern us as well as them, according to that of the Apostle, We know that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully: and therefore, though the Tables of Stone be removed, the Moral Law is yet continued, and hath (exceptis excipiendis) his proper use and force still. That which you draw from Mount Sinai, hath not strength enough to withdraw all use of the Moral Law from Mount Zion. The Apostle enforceth his exhortation unto Christian obedience and patience, under the Metaphors of lifting up their hands that hang down, and their feeble knees (the better to enable them to resist, and hold out in running the race that is set before them) by Arguments drawn from the comfortable and admirable privilege of the Gospel and kingdom of Grace, far above those which the Hebrews themselves had, under the regiment of Moses, in the estate of the Law. This you say truly, and we do acknowledge, But when you say, you are convinced of a gross untruth, by the two last verses of the same Chapter, where the Apostle presseth this exhortation [Let us have grace to serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear] by an Argument drawn from the Law, Deut. 4.24. viz. For our God is a consuming fire. That which the Apostle allegeth out of Aggai, and you urge out of both, concerning things that are shaken, may indeed shake in pieces all the Jewish Ceremonies and Sacrifices (as most Divines do agree.) But the Gospel is so far from shaking the Moral Law in that manner, that it doth rather join, and shake hands with it, as if, that which is spoken in another place, were also verified in them: Mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace do kiss each other. So far therefore as the Lord hath joined them together, let no man be so bold as to seek or sue out a Bill of divorce to put them asunder.

Thus have you seen and felt too, if you be not darkened in your mind by prejudice and self-conceit, and so strangely hardened (which God forbid) against all touch of truth, what sorry success you have had, in discharging your many Arguments out of the whole Epistle to the Galatians, and out of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews, notwithstanding all the powder and shot which you have borrowed from so many men, or rather by fraud and force have taken from them. We come now unto your third great Argument, namely, the practice of the Apostles in all their Epistles; which you seem to me to have both mounted higher and charged deeper, as a principal piece of Ordnance, for this special service of battery and beating down to the ground, not only the walls and windows, but the stateliest and strongest towers and bulwarks of the Moral Law. You say,

This English I understand not, but I conceive you would say, [Answer.] That, It is the practice of the Apostles in all their Epistles, to use brotherly exhortations, still calling them to whom they write, Brethren. And what of that I pray you? Is the practice of the Apostles therefore against the Moral Law, because in their Epistles they use brotherly exhortations, and call them to whom they write, Brethren? Why then, belike Moses himself both spake and wrote against the Moral Law, when endeavoring to keep men in obedience to the sixth Commandment, he used brotherly exhortations, and called them brethren; Sirs you are brethren, why do you wrong one to another? Act. 7.26. And tells us, not only that they two were brethren, but hath left it upon record, that they were also his brethren, Exod. 2. And Lot also (like enough) practiced somewhat against the Moral Law, when laboring to prevent the villainy of the Sodomites in the breach of the seventh Commandment, he used brotherly exhortations, calling them brethren, saying, I pray you Brethren, do not so wickedly. I had thought, that neither the name of Brethren, nor brotherly exhortations, had been so peculiarly appropriate to the Gospel, but that both might be used for the furtherance of the duties, and restraint of the breaches of the Moral Law. Neither are rebukes, or threats, (in my opinion) so proper to the Law, that they may not have their place and use in the Gospel also. Ahab was never a whit the better, because he could say, (in foolish pity) of King Benhadad; Is he yet alive? he is my Brother. For there is crudelitas parcens. Nor was Paul ever the worse, because he wrote so sharply to the Corinthians, and dealt so severely with the incestuous person, as to deliver him up to Satan; for there is misericordia puniens. The Apostles in their Epistles have not only oil to supple, but wine to search; imitating that good Samaritan that used both, in the cure of the wounded man: Neither do they always apply mild lenities, but sometimes sharp corrasiues, to their ill affected, or afflicted patients. Could you observe, that the Apostle calleth the Galatians ten times Brethren in that Epistle, and could you take no notice of the sharp and bitter rebukes and reproofs, which he useth against them? O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you? Are ye so foolish? I am afraid of you. I stand in doubt of you. How turn you again to beggarly rudiments? Behold I Paul say unto you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Christ is become of none effect unto you whosoever of you are justified by the Law; you are fallen from grace. I would they were even cut off which trouble you; yea if he were an Angel from heaven let him be accursed. Have not these ten rebukes, almost ten times as much acrimony and tartness, as the naming of them ten times brethren hath lenity and mildness? Paul a Preacher of the Gospel, knew there was use of both, and at this present saw, that even the Galatians (his brethren and his little children) had need of both, although a people that had received and did profess the Gospel. If then your reason be good; then the practice of the Apostles stands against the Gospel also, because in the same Epistles, they oftentimes rebuke them as wicked, and threaten them sometimes as accursed creatures. But you say, Now certainly, [Answer.] this is one of the strangest and boldest speeches that ever I heard, from any man bearing the name of a true Christian, and making some show of reading and learning as you do. Are you such a stranger in the Epistles of the Apostles, that you could yet never find any of their exhortations, grounded on the Commandments and terrors of the Law? And dare you be so bold as to say, Have you read, Rom. 12.1. I beseech you Brethren by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, &c. And have you not read in the same Apostle, 2 Tim. 4.1. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing, preach the Word, &c. He that bids us, behold the goodness of the Lord, bids us behold his severity also; unto the Jews that fell severity, but towards us goodness, if we continue in his goodness, otherwise we are threatened to be cut off also: And, Some (as Jude speaketh) we must deal withal in compassion, and by the looking for of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life; and others we must save by fear, plucking them as brands half burnt, out of the fire. He that exhorteth us to Forebear and forgive one another (if any have a quarrel against any) and that upon this ground of God's mercy in Christ [even as Christ for gave us,] Col. 3.13. doth likewise exhort us, Not to avenge our selves, but rather to give place unto wrath, upon another ground of God's justice, and that taken out of the Law, Deut. 32.35. [for it is written, vengeance is mine, and I will repay it saith the Lord.] He that saith of the Ministers of the Gospel, as of Ambassadors of peace, We beseech you in Christ's stead, to be reconciled unto God, saith also (being himself one of the same) as an Herald of Arms: We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, to give an account of whatsoever we have done in our bodies, be it good or evil: knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men, 2 Cor. 5. All their persuasions and exhortations then, you may see, are not in all their Epistles grounded (as you say) upon mercy, but some upon justice; not all upon love, but some upon fear; not all upon the promises of the Gospel, but some upon the threatenings of the Law, against all disobedience both to Law and Gospel: According to that of the Apostle Jude: Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his Saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them, of all their ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches, which ungodly sinners have spoke against him: And that also of the Apostle Paul; We have in readiness to take vengeance of all disobedience, 2 Cor. 10.5. which the Lord Jesus shall accomplish, when he shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty Angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punis • ed with everlasting destruction from the presence of th • • ord, and from the glory of his power, 2 Thess. 1.7, 8 •… Had you advisedly considered these and other such like passages in the Epistles of the Apostles, you would either never have thought what you have said before, or never for very shame have written that which followeth after, viz. So tempered with mildness, [Answer.] and without penalty? Now surely, I wonder in what temper you were when these things ran in your head, or fell from your hand! Had you forgotten, that the Apostle did as well sharply threaten the Corinthians with a rod, as mildly offer to come unto them in love, and in the spirit of meekness? Or did you not consider, that the same Apostle doth not always as it were stroke their heads, and commend them in terms of love, but (as occasion requireth) sometimes strikes their naked consciences, with some sharp rebukes, and threats, some bitter taunts, and terrors, as with the twigs and ierks of his rod also? He that saith, 1 Cor. 11. Now I praise you Brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you; taketh them up more sharply for the abuse of the Sacrament even in the same Chapter, verse 22. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say unto you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. And he that in another place saith, I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I admonish you, 1 Cor. 4. doth he not afterwards upon just occasion, more sharply rebuke them? I speak to your shame; Is it so that there is not a wise man amongst you? no not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? And again, Some have not the knowledge of God, I speak this to your shame, 1 Cor. 15.34. Are not these words as sharp and tart, as the former are mild and gentle? Is there not a burning fire of zeal in the latter, as well as a warming fire of love in the former? Fire I acknowledge in both, and holy fire too, but yet of a different degree and temper; the one milder, and the other sharper, and both of special use in their time and place. In distilling of flowers and herbs, a soft fire will serve the turn, which in melting of mettles will do no good at all. And although according to the common Proverb, A soft fire will make sweet Malt, yet must it be a hot fire to make good bread, or good brick. This wisdom God hath given the Husbandman, to beat out Fitches with a staff, and Cumin with a rod, but to thresh with a threshing Instrument, and to turn the Cart wheel over the stronger grain, that the bread Corn may be bruised and fitted for present use. And this wisdom God hath given his Apostles as his chief Husbandmen, that in dealing with his people which are God's husbandry, they should use both mildness and sharpness, lenity and severity, a staff, or a threshing instrument, as the nature or quality of the seed, soil, or season, shall require. But who would not think (to hear and take your words) that all the Epistles were so full of mild speeches and sweet exhortations, that there were not any sharp rebukes, much less any ironicall taunts, and least of all any terrible threats at all, to be found in all, or any one of them? For you will have, And all this you urge, to this end, to prove, [Answer.] When the people would teach the Prophets to speak, and forbid the Seers to see; saying, Prophecy not unto us right things, but speak unto us smooth things, prophecy deceits: The Prophet Isaiah was charged, to write it in a Table, and to note it in a Book, that it might be for the time to come, even forever and ever: That this is a rebellious people, lying children that will not hear the Law of the Lord. If you go about to teach the Apostles to speak, and forbid these Seers to see, saying, They neither command severely, nor rebuke sharply, nor threaten terribly: i. They Prophecy no right things unto us, but speak all smooth things unto us; all mildness, no sharpness; all mercy, no judgment; all promises, no penalties; all words of commanding, but no form of Commandments; all love and favor, but no rigor nor terror; take heed, lest your sin be not written as with a pen of a Diamond before the Lord, and the censure thereof also, (for you, your leaders, and followers,) made as remarkable for the time to come, as ever it was upon the Jews, and even in the same words: This is a rebellious people, lying children, (and that even for the same reason) Because you stand so much against the Law of the Lord. But to proceed yet a little further, for your better conviction and satisfaction in this point. If I shall show you out of the Epistles of the Apostles, not only sharp rebukes, (as you have heard some already) but some bitter and ironicall taunts, many serious and severe Commandments, for avoiding of the sins and performing of the duties of the Moral Law, many terrible threatenings of dreadful judgments and curses, and that not only by way of allusion, but by plain allegation of the Moral Law: If (I say) I shall show you all these out of the Epistles, will you then honestly and ingenuously confess your error, (having so boldly affirmed the contrary) and so rest satisfied with the truth in this particular? Upon this subject a man might gather enough to fill a Volume, and might spend more days then I can spare hours for this business. A touch of some, and a taste of others, shall serve the turn. When the Apostle Paul saw the Corinthians swollen and puffed up with a vain and insolent conceit of their own excellency, as now boasting of their gifts; and, that being now full by their elegant and eloquent Teachers, they began as it were, to loath the honey comb of the Word in Paul's preaching: he wisely labors to let out this wind of vanity, with an ironicall and bitter rebuke, as sharp and piercing as the point of a spear or sword. Now (saith he) ye are full, now ye are rich, now ye have reigned as Kings without us: we are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honorable, but we are despised. Some learned men do hold, that this and such like ironicall derisions, are the sharpest and seuerest reprehensions: Like unto that of our Savior Christ, Mar. 7. where sharply reproving the ceremonious and superstitious Pharisees, for preferring their human Ordinances before God's Commandments; Full well, saith he, do ye reject the Commandments of God, that ye may keep your own Traditions. For Moses said, Honor thy Father and Mother, and ye say, It is Corban, &c. Or like unto that bitter mock of Elijah, against the worshippers of Baal, 1 King. 18.27. Cry aloud, for he is a God, either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked. The same Apostle Paul also, warning the Philippians of false Teachers, of wicked livers, and of them of the Circumcision that were amongst them, doth he not rate such persons as Dogs, and scoffingly term their Circumcision Concision? saying, Beware of Dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the Concision; and doth not the same Apostle give direction unto Titus, to muzzell and stop the mouths of such Dogs, and branding the Cretans with reproachful names, by a Verse alleged out of Epimenides, one of their own Poets: He alloweth of this testimony as true, and thereupon chargeth Titus, to rebuke them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , cuttingly, or sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. As if he would have Titus, to use these sharp reproofs and reproaches, as Surgeons sometimes do their keen rasors, to cut away all brutish and base sins, (as either dead or proud flesh) that so they might be cured of their errors, and made sound in the knowledge and profession of the Gospel of Christ Jesus. By all which bitter taunts, sharp reproaches, and cutting rebukes, any that hath either sight or sense, may plainly see, and perceive, that all Paul's Epistles are not tempered with such mildness, as you have ignorantly and rashly affirmed, (as if there were not so much, as any taste of tartness or sharpness in them at all) But that Paul retaining his Apostolical liberty (sometimes to smite with his rod of rebuke and censure, as well as to speak in the spirit of meekness) did not only himself (inflamed with holy and heavenly zeal) rebuke sharply, reproach bitterly, and reprove grievously; but did also charge others of God's Ministers severely (as occasion should require) so to do. And all this he did with a wise heart, and merciful hand, to humble the people of God, not to discourage them, for edification, not unto destruction, to make them sound in judgment, and holy in affection and conversation.

Now, whereas you say further,

I say no more, [Answer.] but let us search the records, and the very sight of the Evidence will I hope convince your conscience of too much blindness and boldness in these also. Turn me therefore I pray you, unto 1 Tim 6. I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this Commandment without spot, unrebukable until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. And unto 2 Tim. 4.1. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom: Preach the word, be instant in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering, and Doctrine. See also 2 Tim. 2.14. Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord, that they strive not about words to no purpose, but to the subuerting of the hearers. Consider now these places, and tell me I pray you, if the Apostle do not in these words as severely and seriously charge Timothy to keep the Commandment which he had given him, for the duties of his person and calling, as ever did Moses the people of Israel for observing of the Commandment of the Law, when he said, This Commandment which I command thee this day, is not hidden from thee, &c. Behold I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. For whereas Moses calleth heaven and earth only to record against Israel, Paul conuents Timothy, as it were before the Lord of heaven and earth, and doth not only command him with all authority, but charge him with all severity, That as ever he would have any benefit by Christ as his Redeemer [witnessing a good confession before Pontius Pilate] or would ever render up his account unto him [ as a Judge ] with joy at his appearing, he should be careful and faithful in keeping his Commandments. Look also upon 1 Cor. 7.10. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: And upon Ephes. 4.17. This I say therefore and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk, not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind. And 2 Thessalon. 3.6.10.12. Now we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every Brother that walketh disorderly. And that also, 1 Tim. 6. I charge thee before God, and before the Lord Jesus Christ, and before the elect Angels, that thou observe these things. Consider, I pray you, these places advisedly, and tell me whether you have not erred too too grossly, in saying so confidently, seeing you have here many and worthy Commandments, both for matter and form in full measure. But you say, [Answer.] For answer unto that, Tell me I beseech you, whether you do not reckon the threatenings of Death, Damnation, the Wrath of God, the Vengeance of God, Destruction, Condemnation, Perdition, flaming fire, Eternal fire, and such like, (against ignorant, disobedient, ungodly, and unbelieving persons, such as know not God, and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ) to be penalties, and not only penalties, but dreadful judgments, yea the very terrors of God that fight against such sins and sinners. If you say, they be, (as you must needs, if you will say the truth) then were you deluded with a lying vanity, and (which is worse) would delude others also therewithal, when you said and set it down; Sacrae Scripturae non temerarios & superbos accusators, sed & pios & diligentes lectores desiderant, August. I marvel, whether ever you read that terrible sentence, 1 Cor. 16. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema maranatha. If you did, do but tell me by what Argument the Apostle doth here urge and enforce the love of Christ Jesus, whether by promise of mercy, or threatening of penalty? Or whether here be not as dreadful a curse threatened against those that do not love the Lord Jesus Christ, as there is [ Ephes. 6.24.] a gracious promise made to all that do; viz. Grace be with all them that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. It were absurd and impious to deny, that here is a promise of a blessing to them that love him, and as impious and absurd it is to say, that the other denounceth no terrible penalty to them that love him not: For the very words themselves, Anathema maranatha, do import an execrable curse, such as the Lord when he cometh in judgment shall inflict upon all wicked reprobates, being separated from Christ's presence, and cast into utter darkness. So Paul useth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 9.3. Gal. 1.8. as Accursed, and 1 Cor. 12.3. for Execrable: And the other Maranatha, consists of two Syriac words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which properly signifieth, Dominus noster, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 venit, The Lord cometh. Which words, being the beginning of Enochs Prophecy, cited by Jude, as containing the dreadful judgment of God at the last day, against all the wicked and ungodly, were usually taken up by the Jews, as they are here by Paul, to express the great Curse (which is hopeless, helpless, and endless) as their portion and just recompense, which do not love the Lord Jesus.

In the next place, you proceed from evil to worse, when you say,

When Peter, liking well of the ease and peace, beauty and glory of Mount Tabor, made a motion for building of Tabernacles, that they that were there might dwell there, saying, Master it is good for us to be here: The Holy Ghost hath observed, That he was heavy with sleep, and wist not what he said. Surely me thinks, in such a like mind and mood were you, when falling into a dream of Mount Zion, and liking well of the fancies that ran in your head; of grace, and peace, mercy, and mildness, promises, and gentle exhortations, all tending to life and glory, you have labored to build this your Tabernacle for a place of rest, and said in your heart, It is good to be here, unwilling altogether to hear any mention of Mount Sinai, or of any allusion to the Moral Law: But we will bear with your weakness, and plead your excuse; The spirit of (sleep, or) slumber was upon you, and you wist not what you either did, or said: For had you been well awakened, and your eyes well opened, you might have seen in the most, if not in all the Epistles, not only some allusions, but many allegations out of the Ten Commandments, or Moral Law. Doth not the Apostle, in the Epistle to the Romans, make often mention of the Moral Law? By the Law cometh the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3. Do we then abrogate the Law by faith? God forbid, nay rather we establish the Law, Rom. 4.31. I had not known sin but by the Law, for I had not known lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet: wherefore the Law is holy, and the Commandment, i. the tenth Commandment, is holy, just, and good. I delight in the Law of God after the inner man. So then in my mind I serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin, Rom. 7.7, 12, 22, 25. Are not these plain allegations of the Law, more than bare allusions? And do not these pregnant Testimonies graciously establish the nature and use of the Moral Law, which you most wickedly go about to abolish? Will you yet see more evident, for better satisfaction and assurance? Owe nothing to any man, saith the Apostle, but to love one another. Love is a Christian duty, you will not deny, 1 Cor. 13. By what argument or reason doth he press them hereunto? Even by a sound Argument drawn from God's Law; For he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law, (he meaneth partibus non gradibus ) and what Law he showeth, by reckoning up the several Commandments of the second Table: For this saith he, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other Commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law. May you not now blush at your bold ignorance, to say, and that with such confidence, And what will you say to that exhortation of the Apostle to the Ephesians? Children obey your Parents in the Lord, for this is right: And how doth he enforce this duty, and prove the equity of the same? Doth he not plainly allege the first Commandment of the second Table, and the promise annexed thereto, for this end and purpose? saying, Honor thy father and mother, (which is the first Commandment with promise) that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth? The evidence of this one place is such and so sufficient to convince you of gross blindness in this particular, that I will not seek any further for more lights, but only leave this in your hand, and pray that the scales may fall from your eyes, that you may see the truth by it.

I come now to the reason which you render of all this:

To this I answer, [Answer.] That the goodness of God indeed doth lead us to repentance, according to that which you allege out of Rom. 2.4. But, where you absolutely exclude the thundering of the Law, as of no use nor force in this business, tell me I pray you, what you think of the very next verse; But thou after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds. Whether are these any thunderings of the Law or no? Every word hath his weight. Wrath of God, day of wrath, righteous judgment of God, just recompense, according to the work so shall the wages be. If the goodness of God lead unto repentance, do not these threatenings drive unto it? If the mercies of God move us to obedience, do not the terrors of God remove us and withdraw us from impenitency and profaneness? Nay, doth not the Apostle in the same place, for this very end, join them both together; Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile? As for that which you allege also out of 2 Pet. 3.9. The long suffering of the Lord to us ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all shall come to repentance: I acknowledge it as a point of the mercy and truth of God. [Answer.] But whereas you would have this long suffering, to be the only means without all threatenings or terrors to bring us to this repentance; look back I pray you, to the 5, 6, 7. verses of the same Chapter, and be not willingly ignorant of the judgments of God there mentioned, by the overflowing of waters, whereby the Old world perished, and by the burning and flaming fire, whereunto this world is reserved against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men: And look forwards also to the very next words following, viz. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burnt up. And tell me whether these threatenings of the Day of the Lord, be not as terrible as the lightnings and thunderings at the giving of the Law; the seeing and hearing whereof made Moses to say, I exceedingly fear and tremble. And if you think these be not urged to lead us or draw us to repentance, then consider I beseech you, what use and application the Apostle makes hereof, even unto all the faithful, in the words following: Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness. Now for conclusion of this point; Let us hear how the Author to the Hebrews doth urge us, To provoke one another to love and to good works. This he doth, not only by the boldness or liberty which we have to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, but also by the looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. And this he enforceth further, not only by an allusion, but by a manifest allegation of Moses Law. He that despised Moses Law, died without mercy, under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, &c. For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord: and again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

And this shall suffice for answer to your third general Argument, drawn from the practice of the Apostles in all their Epistles.

Your fourth Argument is this: [Argument. 4]

This is utterly untrue; [Answer.] for where the Holy Ghost handleth the abrogation of the Law, it is either first, in the matter of Salvation, as Acts 15.1, 10. and there in the same Chapter, the Moral Law is excepted, because abstaining from Idolatries and Fornication (being breaches of the first and second Table of the Moral Law) is there inioined as from things of necessity to be refrained, Acts 15.28. Or secondly, in the matter of justification, as Rom. 3.28. We conclude, saith the Apostle, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law: and yet there also unto that objection [Do we then make void the Law through faith] he answereth as it were with detestation, God forbid, yea we establish the Law, Rom. 3.31. So in the like Argument, in the Epistle to the Galatians, where he doth utterly abolish the Law for righteousness, in the act of justification, he doth yet establish the use of the Moral Law, for leading a godly and Christian life, when he telleth us, that Faith worketh by love, and by love we are bound to serve one another, and the rule of love is the Moral Law, which he there urgeth, as a bond even now in full force and virtue, binding all Christians to obedience, when he addeth this reason: For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, Levite. 19.18. Matt. 22.39. And is not this an evident exception of the Moral Law made by the Holy Ghost, and that even in the same Epistle, nay in the same Chapter, where he handleth the abrogation of the Law also? Or thirdly, the Holy Ghost handleth the abrogation of the Law, as it was a wall of partition betwixt Jews and Gentiles, as Ephes. 2.13, 14, 15. and yet in the same Epistle he requireth and urgeth the duties of the Moral Law; as, Cast off lying and speak the truth: Be angry and sin not: Labor with your hands and steal not: Walk in love and hate not: fly fornication and all uncleanness and name it not: And all this to be done upon promise and penalty, as ever they will have any inheritance in the kingdom of God, or avoid the danger of the wrath of God. Nay further, to cut off all occasion of cavil, as if one should object, That these duties are not urged for obedience to the Moral Law, but to the Gospel, the Apostle by a special direction of the Holy Ghost, doth in express words (exhorting children to obey their Parents) make mention of the first Commandment with promise, and setteth down both precept and promise out of the Moral Law, as yet of special force to draw them thereunto: And yet we do not say, that these duties are either so urged upon us, or performed by us, as duties of the Law for righteousness, to live by them, Rom. 10.5. but as fruits of the righteousness of faith in the Gospel, discerned and measured by the Law, yet not by the rigor, but by the tenor of it, offered also and accepted only in the obedience of Christ Jesus, who according to his Covenant, hath put his Laws in our minds, and written them by the finger of his Spirit, not in Tables of stone, but in the fleshy Tables of our hearts, That (as the Apostle speaketh) the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit: Or fourthly, the abrogation of the Law is handled, as touching Jewish and superstitious observations, Col. 2.16, 17. and typical signification shadowing forth good things to come, as Hebr. 10.1. And yet in both these Epistles, where the law of carnal Commandments, i. the Ceremonial Law, is cancelled and abolished, the Commandments of the Law which is spiritual (namely the Moral Law) are confirmed and established, as evidently appeareth by the plentiful and powerful exhortations and injunctions, for the performance of both general and special duties of the Moral Law. As for example, Col. 3.14. Above all things put on love, which is the bond of perfectness. Heb. 10.24. Let us consider one another to provoke unto lsue and good works: And love (you have already heard) is the fulfilling of the Law; and when faith worketh by love, faith worketh by the rule of the Law; and he that walketh in love, walketh by the line of the Law: Which may yet be further seen, by those special duties of Superiors and inferiors appertaining to the fifth Commandment; as of husbands and wives, parents and children, governors and servants, Col. 3. & 4. and Heb. 13. mentioned and urged out of the Moral Law, in both places.

By this time you may perceive, that even in the same places, where the Holy Ghost handleth the abrogation of the Law, there is (contrary to your assertion) some exception of the Moral Law. Nay I say more, that wheresoever the Holy Ghost handleth the full and final abrogation of the Law, for all exercise in God's worship or use in the Church of Christ, there he ever giveth instance in the Ceremonial Law, and never either mentioneth or meaneth the Moral Law. And again, where he handleth the abrogation of the Law, only in some circumstances, or for some particular ends or uses, he sometimes joineth the Moral and the Ceremonial both together, as Rom. 3. and Gal. 2. & 3. By the works of the Law (whether Moral or Ceremonial) no flesh shall be justified. The Law was given because of transgressions. The Law was our Schoolmaster unto Christ. Take then whether of these you like best. If in handling the full and final abrogation of the Law, you say, there is no exception of the Moral, and thereupon infer, that the whole Moral Law is wholly abrogated; why may not I as well conclude the clean contrary, In handling the full and final abrogation of the Law, there is no mention made of the Moral, therefore the whole Moral Law is not wholly abrogated, but rather established and confirmed. And if you say, that in handling the abrogation of the Law, touching some circumstances only, or some particular ends or uses, there is no exception of Moral, and therefore the whole Moral Law is wholly abolished; then I say, that your Antecedent is too weak to infer this Consequent, and fitter a great deal to serve my turn against you (if it be of any force at all) in this conclusion; ergo, The Moral Law in some circumstances, and for some ends and uses only, is abrogated: and so you fail of your proof and purpose, laboring thereby to prove, that the whole Moral Law is wholly abolished.

[Argument. 5] Let us now see if your fifth Argument be of any better proof or power, for the utter abolishing of the Moral Law.

[Answer.] I answer, first, If by Moses Law, you mean the whole body and bulk of the Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral Law, and also, that both for circumstance and substance, term and time, end and use, persons and things, it was thus given to the Jews only: then is this your Antecedent false; for howsoever these were first and principally charged and imposed upon the Jews, as his peculiar people; the Ceremonials for God's worship, the Judicials for civil government, and the Moral Law for some special circumstances and uses, more binding that people unto God in the form of a Covenant, than any other people in the world besides: Yet were not all other people or persons so excluded or debarred, but that if they did renounce their Idolatry, and would become Proselytes, entertaining the Jewish Religion, they were received into the fellowship of the Covenant, and that by God's special Commandment, and made partakers of the Seals and benefits thereof, together with the Jews accordingly. So were the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt with the Israelites, the servant bought with money, and the stranger and sojourner, were admitted to the Passover (if they would first be circumcised) and then they were accepted into the Church, as if they had been borne in the land. One Law shall be to him that is home borne and to the stranger that sojourneth amongst you, and that not only for the Ceremonial, but even for the Moral also, as is expressly set down in the fourth Commandment, where both Magistrate in Assembly and Master of a family stand charged, to look that the stranger within the gates do keep holy the Sabbath day.

Secondly, If by the Law of Moses you mean the Doctrine of Moses, which as a holy Prophet he hath written and set down upon record in his five Books, and which Christ himself alledgeth by the name of the Law of Moses, as testifying of himself and his sufferings, Luke 24.44. I say, the Law of Moses in this sense, was given as well unto us of the Gentiles, as to them of the Jews, seeing Whatsoever is written, is written for our instruction and edification: And Paul himself made this use of the Law, when being at Rome, unto such as came unto his lodging, He expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the Law of Moses, and out of the Prophets; and this he did not only to the Jews, but to the Gentiles also, Acts 28.30, 31.

Thirdly, If by the Law of Moses, you mean the Ceremonial observations which Moses by Commandment from the Lord, prescribed to the Jews, as the manner and form of his solemn Worship, and as Figures and Types of good things to come in Christ (as the Evangelists and Apostles do usually, when they speak of the Law of Moses ) then I say, The Law of Moses in this sense, was given unto the Jews only, not only as a partition wall betwixt them and the Gentiles, but as a yoke to restrain them, a hand-writing to convince and condemn them, and as a sharp and severe Schoolmaster, to drive them to seek for help and healing under his wings, who was and is, the truth of those types, and substance of those shadows, Christ Jesus. But the Law of Moses in this sense, will do you but little service, to the drawing in of your conclusion, for the utter abolishing of the Moral Law.

Fourthly, If by the Law of Moses, you understand the Moral Law or Ten Commandments (as needs you must, if you will dispute ad idem, or speak to any purpose) then why might you not as well have set it so down, and dealt plainly, as wrap up your meaning in such ambiguity and obscurity, and that not only in this Argument, but in five or six of those also which follow after? We will then take your Argument, as we think you intend it, to be this: The Moral Law was given only to the Jews; ergo, The Moral Law in the Church of Christ, since the death of Christ, is wholly abolished. If the Antecedent were sound, [Answer.] the consequent would do well enough to serve your turn. But how do you prove that the Moral Law was given only to the Jews? I must guess at your proofs by your places which you quote (as I conceive) for this purpose; for you put me to fish for your meaning, out of

All which places I have searched, and seen, and will now tell you what I have found by fishing in them. That of Exod. 19.2, 3, &c. you seem to urge on this manner; That the Moral Law for the manner of delivery, promulgation, and diverse circumstances, of persons, times, places, and form of Legal Covenant, was peculiar to the Jewish Nation, we do now again (as often before) most willingly acknowledge. Moses was to the Jews a Prophet to teach them, a Lawgiuer to govern them, a messenger and Mediator to deal betwixt God and them, a rigorous exactor of absolute obedience, a severe avenger of all disobedience, yea he was a minister of condemnation to all them that could not see through the veil that was upon his face, into the end of the Law Christ Jesus; and thus the Jews even until this day (the veil remaining yet upon their hearts in the reading of the Old Testament) will needs be Moses disciples still. But as thus the Law was given unto them by Moses, so was grace and truth, with the true end and use of the Law, brought unto us by Christ Jesus, who being our Prophet, Lawgiuer, Prince, and Priest, Messenger, and Mediator of a better Covenant, our surety, and Savior from all our sins, hath redeemed us from this Jewish Paedagogie and bondage of the Law, and yet hath according to his Covenant, put his laws into our minds, and written them in our hearts, by the finger of his spirit, and reckoneth and accounteth us (as much as ever he did the Jews) to be now his peculiar people, a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, or a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, his sons and daughters, children of Abraham according to the faith, though not according to the flesh, the house of Jacob, the house of Judah, and the Israel of God. By which titles, dignities, and privileges, the Apostles Peter and Paul and others, do call us of the Gentiles, to obey the Commandments of the Moral Law, even now in the days of the Gospel, as Moses did the Jews in the place which you allege ( Exod. 19.2, 3, 4, 5.) by the same means at the giving of the Law. For example, because we are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, &c. therefore we must be of honest conversation, 1 Pet. 2.9, 12. because we are his peculiar people, therefore we must be zealous of good works, Tit. 2.14. because we are the Israel of God, we must therefore walk according to this rule; because he hath put his laws and his spirit in our hearts, therefore we must so speak and so do, as they that shall be judged by the Law of liberty. Of all these we may say, as S. John saith of the Commandment of love, (which is the sum of the Law) Brethren, we write no new Commandment unto you, but the old Commandments which ye had from the beginning. These are no new Commandments of the Gospel, but the old Commandments of the Moral Law renewed in the Gospel: In which respect, we may say again with S. John, A new Commandment, or, these are new Commandments, which we write unto you: And as Christ himself said in the same sense, A new Commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another: which yet was an old Commandment, enjoined by Moses in the Moral Law, and now only renewed and reenforced by Christ in the Gospel, who came not (as you imagine) to destroy the Moral Law, but to fulfill it, to repair the breaches and renew the beauty of it: These things thus considered, we say plainly, That whatsoever appertained unto Moses his literal, carnal, legal, personal, and terrible ministration, or promulgation of the Moral Law, that, together with all the circumstances thereof, was peculiar to the Jews only, and we now make no claim to any part or parcel of it: But whatsoever was then in the Decalogue or Ten words of God, substantial, moral, spiritual, just, and good, teaching and prescribing all duties of love to God and man; that, we say (for ought yet we see) is perpetual, and remaineth still in force and use for us, as the Moral Law of God, recorded by Moses as a pen-man of the Holy Ghost, expounded by the Prophets, fulfilled, renewed, and established by Christ himself; preached and pressed by the holy Apostles, upon all that bear the name of Christ and profess the Gospel, and so further to be published and urged by the Ministers of the Gospel, as occasion shall require, even unto the end of the world. Neither do we now receive the Moral Law as Moses disciples, to the same end, and upon the same terms as did the Jews; but as the disciples of Christ, who is our Lawgiuer, who hath taken away the veil from Moses his face, and hath so revealed by his spirit, both the image of God, and the good and acceptable will of God in the Moral Law, through the light of the Gospel; that now we all as with open face beholding (as in a glass) the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory; and being enabled by his spirit, which he hath (according to his Covenant) put within us, to walk in his statutes, and to do his will; we delight in the Law of God after the inward man. Rom. 7.22. and show our love to God in keeping his Commandments, which now are not grievous, as they were in the letter to the Jews, but easy and light, as Christ hath made them by his spirit unto us; they being driven and enforced to obedience by the spirit of bondage and fear, we drawn and allured thereunto by the spirit of liberty and love; they under the Moral Law as a Law of cruel tyranny, and we under it only as under a royal Law of liberty: So that as the Samaritans, which formerly had believed the report of the woman, concerning Christ the Savior of the world, when once they heard him themselves, said unto her; Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we have heard him our selves, and know that this indeed is the Christ the Savior of the world: So may we say concerning our obedience to the Moral Law; Now we obey, not because Moses did in that manner and measure charge and command the Jews to keep the Moral Law; but, because we have heard the Law-giver himself, whose voice then shook the earth, and hath yet once more shaken not only the earth but the heaven (in removing those things that may be shaken) confirming the Moral Law unto us, clearing it from the false glosses of the Pharisees, opening the true meaning of it to his disciples, requiring a willing and upright, not an absolute and perfect obedience unto it, and giving ability to do what he requires, unto all that believe, and obey the Gospel; and yet further, both threatening a judgment unto all whosoever they be, that shall willfully break one of the least of the Commandments, and shall teach others so; and promising a blessing unto all that shall willingly do them, and teach the same to other men accordingly.

But it may be, you think the Moral Law was given to the Jews only, because there be some reasons (urged to enforce obedience thereunto) which may seem to belong only unto that people and no other, to which purpose (as I conceive) you allege Exod. 20.2, 12. where mention is made of their deliverance out of Egypt, and their inheritance in the land of Canaan. To this I answer, That we do not deny, but, [Answer.] as the Moral Law was delivered both by word and writing to the Jews as then they stood, there were in it some things, touching the personal estate and condition of that people, which were temporal and peculiar to that people only. Such was the late blessing of God in their wonderful deliverance our of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage, (being but three months before the giving of the Law) which being yet so fresh in their memories, and the remembrance thereof so sweet unto them, was held in the wisdom of God (considering their dullness unto holy duties) to be as a spurr, or a goad, to quicken them and provoke them to yield obedience unto the Moral Law, both in general, (as in the Preface to the Law, in this and other places which you allege) and in special to the fourth Commandment, in keeping of the Sabbath day, Deut. 5.14, 15. And yet we know for certain, that this reason taken from their deliverance out of Egypt, was temporal only, and not perpetual; both because the Lord doth charge the children of Israel, upon their deliverance out of the Babylonian captivity, to say no more, The Lord liveth which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, but, The Lord liveth which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of the North: and also because the deliverance out of Egypt, being literally and personally taken in these places, could bind no more of the children of Israel to hear and obey the Law, but only them, that in their own persons ware so delivered, and with their own ears heard the voice of God, speaking all the words of the Law unto them; and so, not only the force of this reason (taken from their deliverance out of Egypt ) but the Law it self also for which it is urged, should both have fallen together with the carcases of those that fell in the wilderness, seeing not one of all those that in their own persons were delivered out of Egypt, and heard the voice of the Lord in the giving of the Law (except Caleb and Joshua ) did ever enter into the holy Land. You see then, that the particular conueniency of this reason, taken from their deliverance out of Egypt, will not bind the Moral Law in absolute propriety to the Jews, neither only, nor always: And also, that, not so much the special quality of the benefit, as the general equity of the same, is to be weighed and considered in this reason: for if corporal deliverances were, or else might have been of some force to draw carnal Israel to hear and obey the Moral Law; why are not, or ought not spiritual deliverances be of like effect and power, to prevail with all Believes, the true Israel of God, to the same purpose? And who doubteth, but a Minister of the Gospel, to draw the people of God to perform the duties of piety and charity in the first and second Table, might by analogy and like equity, preach and proclaim; Thus faith the Lord, hear ô Israel, I am the Lord thy God, which have delivered thee from the power of darkness, and translated thee into the kingdom of the Son of my love: Thou shalt have no other God's before me, &c. Especially, seeing there was never any mercy matchable with this mercy; never any love like unto this love, the Lord being more gracious and glorious in this deliverance, than in any other since the beginning of the world whatsoever. And yet in so doing, (for ought I see) he should not offer any violence to the Moral Law, not any wrong to the Lawgiuer, no more than if he had said, Hear ô Christians, The grace of God that bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared, and teacheth us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, and righteously, and godly, in this present world, which is the sum and substance of the whole Moral Law.

As for that promise of long life and prosperity, annexed to the fifth Commandment, Exod. 20.12. which you urge, as if it were appropriated only to the Land of Canaan, that you might bind fast the Moral Law unto the Jews only; The Apostle Paul, [Answer.] Ephes. 6.2. shall give you (upon the same ground of general equity) an effectual and full answer thereunto. For, pressing and persuading there, diverse duties of the Moral Law, he requireth and allureth children to honor and obey their Parents, both by precept and by promise of the first Commandment of the second Table: Children, saith he, obey your Parents in the Lord, for this is right: Honor thy father and mother, which is the first Commandment with promise, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. The precept he setteth down in the same words, as it is written in the Law, Exod. 20.12. The promise he a little changeth, not in the substance and quality of it, but in the circumstance of persons and place, and that according to the rule of general equity and conueniency, for the better understanding and enjoying of the same. The substance and quality of the promise, to such children as honor and obey their Parents, is one and the same, be they Jews or Gentiles, viz. long life and a prosperous estate in this world, and this is perpetual as the precept it self is. The circumstances of persons and place, are different in both places. For in the giving of the Law, Exod. 20.12. the promise was at that time directed to the people of the Jews, to be made good in the Land of Canaan; running in this tenor, That thy days may be long in the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. But in the renewing and applying of the Law, in and since the days of Christ, the promise is directed to all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, as the Apostle doth here deliver it to the Ephesians in these terms, That it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long (not only in Canaan or in Ephesus ) but on the earth, i. whatsoever thy estate, or wheresoever thy abiding be. How opposite and contrary to the Apostles judgment and dealing, is your position and opinion? You will needs wholly abolish the whole Moral Law, the Apostle doth establish it; you will needs have it to be given to the Jews only, the Apostle saith it belongeth to the Gentiles also; you will needs abolish the precept, because of some circumstance wanting now in the promise, the Apostle passing by or letting fall the circumstance, (as temporal) preserveth and maintaineth the substance and equity of them both as perpetual; you will needs restrain and confine the blessing of long and happy days unto Canaan, the Apostle doth extend and enlarge it to every City and Country, to every corner and quarter of the earth, even over the universal world.

Let this suffice for answer to the scriptures which you have brought out of the 19. and 20. Chapters of Exodus; as for the rest which you heap up out of Deuteronomy and the Psalms, to the number of a dozen more (being all one in substance with the former) and diverse of them the very same in the same words: Me thinks you deal as wisely herein, [Answer.] as if having offered to pay a shilling in two sixpences, you should (to show your store of silver) draw out twelve single pence also, to discharge the sum, as reckoning the payment to be better in many pieces than in few; because the show and flourish is not so great in few, as in many. But seeing it is so ordinary with you to deliver in your Scriptures, and Testimonies, by number, rather than by measure, and so to carry out or cover an error, with some color and show of truth, I will follow you no further in this maze, but either put you over for answer unto that which I have answered to the former of like nature, or else give you over to run round in your own circle, until you wax giddy with your own conceit, and course, as many others of like temper have done before you. Those which you allege out of the New Testament, some of them are flat against you, and not one of them will prove your point,

That of Matthew 10.6. I send, and 15.24. I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, would serve with greater show of probability, to prove that the Gospel was not sent unto the Gentiles, than that the Law was given only to the Jews: Howbeit, the meaning of Christ is not to bind himself or the Gospel only to the Jews, and to exclude the Gentiles, but that for his personal ministration he was first, and so they principally to offer the bread of life to the Jews being God's children, and so to seek the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And albeit he commanded his Apostles for a season, that they should not go into the way of the Gentiles, but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, yet after his resurrection, when he renewed their commission, he gave them in charge, to go and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Apostles were first indeed to offer the food of the Gospel unto the Jews, but when they as wanton or wicked children turned away their food from them, they waxed bold, and said, Loe, we turn unto the Gentiles; that the Prophecy of Isaiah might so be fulfilled in all this; Out of Zion shall go forth a Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, Isaiah 2.3.

As for that of Acts 14.16. How doth this follow? The Lord in times past suffered all Nations to walk in their own ways, Ergo, the Moral Law was given to the Jews only, for the time past, and not unto us of the Gentiles for the time present. [Answer.] For although the Gentiles had not the Law written in Tables of stone, to teach them to walk in the ways of God, so evidently as the Jews had; yet had they the effect of the Law written in their hearts in times past; but now since the days of the Gospel, the believers of the Gentiles have the same Moral Law written in the fleshy Tables of their heart, by the finger of God's Spirit, with much clearer light of knowledge in their minds, and much greater power of grace in their hearts and lives, than ever the Jews that first had it written in Tables of stone had. For proof whereof, if other Scriptures were silent, yet those which you produce for yourself, will speak enough to serve my turn, Rom. 7.14. and 3.19. and 9.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Hebr. 1.2, 2. For, if the Moral Law be spiritual, if it convince the whole world as guilty before God, if it belong unto the true Israel, the children of Abraham, Rom. 9.6, 7. compared with Hebr. 8.10. and if God hath in these last days spoken more plainly, and opened his will more effectually by his Son, (as the Scriptures you allege bear witness with me) then have we that are believers of the Gentiles, the Moral Law of God, both in a clearer light of knowledge in our minds, and in a greater power of grace in our hearts and lives, than ever the body of the people of the Jews had, which if it be true, then have you spun a fair thread, who drawing out a line, and twisting a cord, to bind the Moral Law upon the Jews only, have (before you were aware) made them both of that length, and strength, that they reach unto, and bind it upon the Gentiles also.

I come now unto the Testimonies of learned men, whose names and writings you pretend for your cause, and pervert, to your own purpose, as being of the same mind, and wrapped in the same error with you,

But take heed whilst you bear men in hand, that you have witness from them, lest upon due search, you yourself be found to bear false witness against them. Let us make trial of your dealing with some of the most judicious and religious of them. And first, for Calvin, I have read the Epistle, That Christ is the end of the Law; but as you cite no sentence, so can I find no syllable to prove that the Moral Law was given to the Jews only; he that must find out what you set him to seek, especially in so large a field, had need to plow with your heifer, and to have some more particular marks of your meaning, to lead him thereunto. But although I found not what I sought, yet in seeking, I found what I there sought not, viz. That Calvin speaking of the Ceremonies and Sacrifices of the Law, hath these words: Lex nihil adduxit ad perfectionem, tantum instar paedagogi, dirigebat & deducebat ad Christum, qui legis ipsius finis est & complementum, vt tradit Apostolus. Now it may be, that you finding these words in Calvin, (that Christ is the end of the Law) did imagine that Christ had made an utter end of the Moral as well as of the Ceremonial Law, either not knowing or not observing that there is an end of accomplishment, as well as an end of abolishment. Christ hath both accomplished and abolished the Ceremonial Law; the Moral Law he hath accomplished but not abolished. That which was imperfect in both, touching the Legal Covenant for righteousness by the works of both, is abolished in both, and only perfected in him, who for righteousness is the end of both, CHRIST JESUS, to all that believe in his name, Rom. 10.4. Upon which place, Pareus hath these words: Consens •… legis & Christi hinc apparet, & errant qui putant legem repugnare Christo, Christum abol •… legem: Hence appeareth, saith he, the consent of the Law and Christ; and they are deceived that think the Law is contrary unto Christ, or that Christ doth abolish the Law.

Your next quotation of Calvin Rom. 3.19. telleth us,

[Answer.] Now, as there the Jews were blamed for restraining the Law unto the Gentiles, so are you here to be rebuked, for restraining the Law unto the Jews only, especially out of this place, where the Law is said to stop every mouth, i. to convince both Jews and Gentiles of sin, in such a manner as that they can have nothing to plead for their clearing or just defense, and not only so, but to hold fast the whole world as liable to God's curse for the breach of it. If you have advisedly read the other places and Chapters of Calvin, Instit. lib. 2. cap. 1. & lib. 2. nay if you have but read the very contents of the Chapters, and 13.14.16. and 17. sections, you cannot but sin against knowledge and conscience too, in citing these places as making for you, which stand in open force and fight against you. For albeit Calvin doth acknowledge, that both the Moral and Ceremonial Law were given unto the Jews, which no man doth deny; yet doth he not say, that the Moral Law was given unto the Jews only, which is that which you affirm. And although he grant, as we do, that the Ceremonial Law is now by Christ abolished, yet doth he manifestly prove, that the Moral Law doth yet continue and retain some special force and use still, which is that which you deny. I refer you to the same Book of his Institutions which you allege, and section 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. of the seventh Chapter.

Augustine in Galat. 3. hath nothing that I can find, to prove that the Moral Law was given to the Jews only: something he hath to the clean contrary. For distinguishing the works of the Law, into Ceremonial and Moral, he demandeth, whether the Apostle could as little care, whether a Christian were a murderer, an adulterer; whether he were chaste, and innocent, as he careth not, whether he be circumcised, or uncircumcised in the flesh? By which his demand it may evidently appear, that howsoever he thought the works of the Ceremonial Law were now ceased, yet he thought also, that the works of the Moral Law were now to be practiced, and so the Moral Law it self not to be given to the Jews only, but still to be continued amongst Christians also. See Aug. contr. Advers. leg. & proph. lib. 2. cap. 7.

Erasmus in his Paraph. in Gal. 3.14. speaketh of the Ceremonial Law, which he faith, was given unto the Jews, as a Schoolmaster to a rude people; Vt paulatim proficientes ad Christum perducerentur, à quo solo veram expectarent justitiam, pristinis diffisi ceremonijs. And how will this prove, that the Moral Law was given unto the Jews only? But doth he not say in his Paraphrase on Romans 2. that the Gentiles were à lege Mosaica alienae? Yes he doth, and he tells you what he meaneth, when he addeth; Nullo Mosaicae legis praescripto monebantur, but only had rem legis, non tabulis sed mentibus inscriptam:

And what of all this? [Answer.] Is this a good Argument, The Gentiles that were strangers from the life of God, were strangers from the written Law of God; Ergo, The Moral Law was given unto the Jews only, and not unto us Christians of the Gentiles, no more than unto those that were without God and without Christ before us? When you prove this Argument to be good, I will acknowledge your skill to be greater, and your cause to be better, than it doth yet prove to be. The like answer and offer I make to the quotations out of Erasmus in Rom. 5.13. and 7.1.

That which you bring out of Zanch. de fide cap. 13. sect. 7. is spoken of Moses Law, opposed to the Gospel, as may appear by the differences which there he setteth down betwixt them, and so he saith it was given to the Jews only. [Answer.] But you do him wrong, to cite him for a witness to your bill put up against the Moral Law, as belonging to the Jews only, whereas in the very next section (which it seems you took not pains to read) he testifieth to all the world; That, in as much as the Doctrine of the Gospel requireth repentance and holiness of life, and that we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; Eatenus etiam non tollit legem de moribus, so far forth it doth not take away the Moral Law: and he giveth a good reason hereof, Tota enim consentanea est cum doctrina Euangelij de vitijs vitandis & virtutibus persequendis: For the Moral Law is wholly agreeable to the Doctrine of the Gospel, concerning the eschewing of vices, and ensuing of virtues.

Bucanus 22. loc. 18. q. saith, That the old Covenant did properly belong unto Abraham, and his posterity the Israelites, but the New unto all Nations. And what will you infer hereupon? That the Moral Law was given only to the Jews, and doth not now at all belong unto us? If this be your Argument, I say, [Answer.] as you have not changed your Bowe, so you have chosen an arrow of the same flight and feather, with those which you have shot before; as much able to hurt the sides of the Moral Law, as a rush is able to pierce a rock. A strange man you are, and as strange a course you hold: there are few Divines, that do so fully and distinctly set down the differences betwixt the Law and the Gospel, and the several uses of the Moral Law, even now amongst Christians, as Bucanus doth, and yet dare you be so bold, as to piddle and pick out something out of his writings, (and those the very same, which testify against you) as though he had given you his hand, or lent you his sword, to strike one stroke at least in your behalf. Read over Bucan. loc. 22. again, and loc. 19. and 20. and 21. and tell me at your leisure, whether then you think him to be a man of your mind, for the utter abolishing of the whole Moral Law: In the mean time, take I pray you, one note out of the same Bucan. loc. 19. for your admonition. It is the error of the Antinomians and Libertines (saith he) to think that Christians have now no use of the Moral Law of God, nor that the Decalogue is to be preached in the Christian Church, because the faithful are regenerate by the spirit. I know not whether you be of this number, but I fear me you are much of their temper. Manichaeus & Marcion destruebant Legem, quam & sanctam, & spiritualem, juxta Apostolum novimus, saith Jerome.

Pareus in Rom. 3.19. you have mistaken; there is nothing in that place to serve your turn: and Perkins in Gal. 3.23. hath been cleared before. I only add, that if you will be pleased to read and receive that which M ^r . Perkins hath written upon that Chapter, nay upon that verse, touching the nature and use of the Moral Law, I am of opinion, you will never look hereafter, that M ^r . Perkins will ever be brought to open his mouth in this business anymore.

[Answer.] And I say for answer, That if by Moses Law you mean the Moral Law (as in the former Argument I have shown that you must and ought) then is your Antecedent false; if by Moses Law, you understand the whole body of the Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral Law, as it was given to the Jews in that their estate of minority, and legal seruility, then I grant your Antecedent, and deny your Consequent. The Scripture which you allege out of Luk. 16.16. (The Law and the Prophets were until John) may as well prove that the Prophets are now of no force, as that the Moral Law is now of no use. The meaning thereof is this; That whereas the Law and the Prophets did testify, promise, signify, and prophecy of Christ to come, and all this but more darkly and obscurely, few taking any great notice thereof until the days of John: yet now (Christ being come in John's days) John beareth better witness of his coming, not only seeing him with his own eyes, but showing him, and pointing him out as it were with the finger unto others, yea preaching him to be the true Messiah, promised before, now exhibited; figured in Ceremonies before more darkly, now manifested in his own person more clearly; seen and sought after but of a few before, but now so followed and flocked unto, that since the time of John's preaching of the kingdom of God, The kingdom of God suffereth violence, and every man presseth into it. This Scripture then may prove, that upon John's preaching of Christ (Behold the lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world) all Ceremonies and Prophecies, concerning Christ to come, were now accomplished, and the Moral Law by him, and in him alone, to be fulfilled, which we willingly grant, but not, that which is that which you willingly would, but yet cannot prove.

For evidence and assurance of this which I say, I need seek no further than your own witnesses, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Perkins, Pareus, who all in the very places you allege (speaking of the continuance of Moses Law only • ntill Christ's death) do plainly avouch this, only of the Jewish Paedagogy, the Ceremonial Law in types and shadows, the letter of the Law, the rigor and terror of the Law, the burden and seruility of the Law, &c. but not one of all speaks one word of the utter abolishing of the Moral Law together therewithal.

Luther saith, Christ is the end of the Law, Rom. 10. And how? not that he hath abolished the old Law, and given a new, but he is the end of the Law to all that believe, that is to say, everyone that believeth in him is righteous, and the Law shall never accuse him, Luth. in Gal. 3.24. And albeit he speak of the abolishing of the Law by Christ's death, pag. 6. yet let his own words clear his own meaning in the page following. As touching the conscience we are fully delivered from the Law; and therefore that Schoolmaster must not rule in it, that is, he must not afflict it with his terrors, threatenings, and captivity, for Christ hath removed all these offices of the Law out of the conscience, putting out the hand-writing that was against us, Col. 2.

Erasmus in Rom. 7.1. speaketh only of the Ceremonial Law. At Mosis lex quoniam typis & C •… remonijs Christum adumbrabat, ad tempus aliquod tantùm data est, donec exoriente luce cederent umbrae, [Answer.] & apparentibus veris facesserent simulachra verorum. To the like purpose he hath the like words in Gal. 3.19, 25. & 4.1. but neither word nor syllable for the absolute abrogation of the Moral Law, either at, or after Christ's death.

Calvin writing upon Gal. 3.23. saith, The Apostle compares the Law to a prison, when he saith, before faith came we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed: and a little after, he showeth what is meant by faith, and what Law that is whereof the Apostle speaketh, saying, Fides, hic, proprie significat plenam revelationem eorum quae tunc latebant sub obscuritate umbrarum legis: Faith in this place, doth signify a full revelation of those things which then did lie hid, under the darkness of the shadows of the Law. And writing upon verse 25. he directly proposeth and answereth the question in hand. Quaeritur an lex ita sit abrogata, vt nihil ad nos pertineat. Respondeo: Legem quatenus regula est been vivendi, & fraenum quo in timore Domini retinemur, & stimulus ad corrigendam pigritiam carnis nostra, denique quatenus utilis est ad docendum, corrigendum, &c. hodie non minùs valere, quam olim, manere{que} intactam. Now surely, I do wonder how you could ever with any honesty produce M ^r . Calvin, and cite this very verse, for abolishing the Moral Law at Christ's death, (as his opinion) seeing he doth so directly resolve and determine, for the establishing of the right use of the same Moral Law, (even before your own eyes) and that unto the worlds end? What should I say? either your blindness is palpable, or your boldness most intolerable, in this strange dealing.

After the same manner do you deal with M ^r . Perkins, who writing upon Gal. 3.19. moveth this question: Whether the Law serve to reveal sin, after the coming of Christ, for Paul saith, it was added for transgressions, till Christ; and answereth, The Law serveth to reveal sin, even to the end of the world; yet in respect of the Legal or Mosaical manner of revealing sin, it is added but till Christ. M ^r . Perkins doth acknowledge there is use of the Moral Law, even unto the end of the world, and you will needs have him to be on your side, and to say as you say,

Lastly, Pareus finds no more favor, nor receives any better measure at your hands, as he that hath list and leisure may see, in Rom. 10. pag. 1043. 1002. in Rom. 5.20.

Thus are you well and worthily beaten with your own rod, though not in that severity which your injurious dealing with so worthy men doth deserve: for I hold it much better to convince and instruct, in the spirit of meekness, than to reprove and rebuke, with too much acrimony and sharpness, unless a man be forced ad urendum & secandum, when no other milder means will serve the turn; as sometimes even the best and gentlest Surgeons are constrained to do.

Your seventh Argument followeth, [Argument. 7] feeble and faint as it is: Quia velut carne spoliatos artus ostendit, as Quintilian saith of such an Argument, Instit. Orat. lib. 5.

Is there any sinews or joints, nay is there any life or soul in this Argument? What if the Law were given as a Schoolmaster to the Jews? is therefore the Moral Law of no force nor use to us Christians of the Gentiles? But I demand, what Law is it which you say was instituted as a Schoolmaster unto the Jews? If you say the Ceremonial, we grant that it was a Schoolmaster, not only teaching obscurely, by signs and sacrifices, types and figures, that rude people of the Jews, in their non-age to look unto Christ to come, but also convincing and condemning them severely of all manner of sin, and keeping them continually under the rod and whip, in the bondage of servants, (as an heir in his minority is under sharp tutors and governors though he be lord of all) that so they might be driven to look and long for the time of release and liberty in Christ, appointed by the Father. If you mean the Moral Law, we do not deny, but for the manner of delivery, measure of obedience, form of Legal Covenant, rigor in exacting, terror in threatening, and severity in accusing and condemning, (as it was in Moses hand the ministry of condemnation, and a killing letter) it was then to the Jews a sharp and severe Schoolmaster to drive them unto Christ Jesus, not directly, as teaching, pointing out, or promising Christ unto them, but indirectly, and as it were occasionally, forcing them by sorrow, and fear, and despair of their own righteousness, (for obtaining life by the Law) to cast about, and seek for some remedy and relief elsewhere (as sick men inquire for a Physician, and such as are wounded seek for a Surgeon) which because it could nowhere be found under heaven, but only in Christ Jesus, they were occasioned by the Law, to fly unto the Gospel, and enforced as it were, to appeal from Moses unto CHRIST, resting and relying upon him alone (who hath healing under his wings) for binding up all their wounds, and curing all spiritual maladies and miseries whatsoever. And thus also for the substance, though not for every circumstance according to the Jewish Paedagogie, the Moral Law (as we have often said before) hath yet in the Church of Christ some special use, and office still, and that not only for the wicked to humble them, but even for the godly to convince them, to rebuke them, to stir them, and spurr them up to all holy duties, and to teach and instruct them what to do, and what to leave undone, even after they are called to believe, and live in Christ Jesus. To this purpose, Luther speaketh most excellently upon Gal. 3.24. [The Law was our Schoolmaster unto Christ] The Law doth not only terrify and torment (as the foolish Schoolmaster beateth his scholars, and teacheth them nothing) but with his rods he driveth us unto Christ, like as a good Schoolmaster instructeth and exerciseth his scholars in reading and writing, to the end they may come to the knowledge of good letters, and other profitable things, that afterwards they may have delight in doing of that, which before being constrained unto, they did against their wills: and a little after he addeth; The true use of the Law, is to teach me, that I a •… •… rought to the knowledge of my sin, and humbled, that so I may come unto Christ, and be justified by faith, &c.

That which you allege out of August. de Doct. Christ. cap. 6. helpeth you nothing in this business, for he speaketh only of the Jewish Paedagogie, in their Sacrifices and Ceremonies, which their estate, he calleth servitutem, & custodiam tanquam sub paedagogo puerorum, and termeth their Ceremonies, signa, saying they were signa quae temporaliter erant imposita servientibus. And what is this to the abrogation of the Moral Law?

Beza you do abuse again: he mentioneth the Ceremonial Law only in both places, Gal. 3.23. and Gal. 4.1.3. Nunc eandem Ceremonialem Legem confiderans ut Euangelicarum promissionum umbram & figuram, docet illam quoque hoc respectu cessasse, quam comparat cum paedagogo, & postea cum tutore, Gal. 4.1. And will you infer upon this; Beza saith, The Ceremeniall Law which to the Jews was a Schoolmaster and Tutor, unto Christ, is now ceased; Ergo, The Moral Law is utterly abolished since the death of Christ?

The place of M ^r . Perkins, Galath. 3.23. hath been cleared before; let me now stop your mouth once for all, forever mentioning M ^r . Perkins name, as being of your opinion, for the utter abolishing of the Moral Law; and I will not go far to fetch a stoppell, but even to the other side of the leaf which you have quoted. Seeing faith is now come (saith he) it may be demanded, what is the guard whereby we are kept now? Answ. The precepts of the Moral Law. The sayings of the wise are as nails and stakes, fastened to range men in the compass of their duties, Eccles. 12.11. If this stoppell will not serve, your mouth is huge wide, & till you send me the measure of it, I shall not fit it right to serve your turn.

Unto your eighth, ninth, and tenth, short Arguments, I will make no long answer: [Argument. 8, 9, 10.] they being all of one nature, may receive one manner of satisfaction and resolution. The Law of Moses as it was given unto the Jews in the letter, for the outward form of Legal Covenant in Mount Sinai, [Answer.] is resembled to Hagar, that bringeth forth children unto bondage (as she did Ishmael ) and being given in such horror and terror, bestoweth nothing but the spirit of fear upon her children. And in this regard, we say, It is the old, and no part of the new Covenant, that is, of the Gospel, which on the contrary, bringeth forth children unto spiritual liberty, (as Sarah did Izaacke ) and bestoweth upon them the spirit of Adoption, making them heirs of promise, and fellow-heirs annexed with Christ Jesus. But what is all this to the utter abolishing of the Moral Law? Such things as were but accidental or accessory to the Covenant made with Abraham, or to the promulgation or administration of the Legal Covenant amongst the Jews, are all abolished. But the Moral Law, which for substance was ever the same rule of righteousness, before the fall, before the Law given by Moses, and before the publishing of the Gospel by Christ Jesus, was then, and is yet still of good and great use in the Church of God. For as the Covenant of Grace, made betwixt God and man in Christ Jesus, was ever since the fall, one and the same, in the days of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and of Christ and his Apostles, though the administration thereof was diverse, according to the different ages and estates of God, Church and children: so the Moral Law of God, was ever the rule of obedience, in all those times, for all duties of love to God and man, and shall so continue together with the Gospel, even unto the end of the world, although it was not always either delivered unto, or urged (after the same manner) upon God's people. Abraham before the Law written, having a portion of this Covenant, was charged to walk before God, and to be upright. I demand, by what rule must Abraham thus walk? Doubtless by the rule of the Moral Law written in his heart, and by the word and will of God, revealed by his Spirit. Moses, David, Samuel, Daniel, and all other holy Prophets and holy men, in the days of the Law, were in the same Covenant of Grace by faith in Christ Jesus; and yet, as (during the time of the Jewish Paedagogy) they conformed themselves in the outward worship of God, to the Ceremonial Law, looking by faith unto Christ, the substance of those shadows; so did they frame their affections and actions, for a sober, righteous, and holy life, according to the Moral Law, which yet they did not follow for righteousness, to be justified and saved by the works of it (as the greatest number of the Jews did) but because they knew that the Law of God was a light unto their feet, and a lamp unto their paths, and God did call them to the Law and to the Testimony, and charged the Prophet, to bind up the Testimony and to seal up the Law amongst his disciples, Isa. 8.16.20. So likewise hath our Savior Christ and his Apostles, (the night of dark Ceremonies being dispelled by the bright day of the Gospel) continued and established the Moral Law of God being now a part of his written word and revealed will, to be forever unto all Christians the rule of life, and the line of love, by which we must measure out all our duties and services of piety towards God, and charity towards men, before him, and his, forever. In which regard, love which is the sum of the Law, is said by the Apostle John, and by Christ himself, to be both an Old Commandment, and a New; an Old Commandment, because the duties of love were ever enjoined and required from the beginning; and a New, because the same Law of love, was upon new grounds of love, both renewed and reenforced by Christ himself the Lawgiuer.

[Argument. 10] Now whereas in your tenth Argument, you seem to conclude,

Might you not as well and wisely, i. indeed, as absurdly, conclude also, that because the Day of the Promulgation of the Gospel, is called by the Prophet Joel, and by Peter, The great and terrible day of the Lord, a day wherein the Lord will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; when the Sun shall be turned into darkness, and the Moon into blood, therefore the Gospel (sure) being given, and the Holy Ghost being sent with such manifest tokens of God's wrath (as also by a rushing and mighty wind, and fiery tongues, which did make many amazed, and (as it were) at their wits end) do both belong unto them that were then present, whether Jews or Proselytes; but neither of them unto us Christians, to whom no such fiery fears and bloody terrors do belong at all. For, shall not the like causes in the like case, produce and bring forth the like effects? Or shall fires and fears, prove the abolishing of the Law, when the like means are used (by the wisdom of God) for the publishing and establishing of the Gospel?

[Argument. 11] But let us now hear your eleventh Argument, if it can speak anything more directly to the point and purpose, than his fellows have done.

[Answer.] And what then I pray you? will you needs infer hereupon, that the Moral Law is utterly now abolished? What true Christian doth now seek for salvation, by the keeping of the Law? Or who is he that maintaineth the use of the Moral Law for this purpose? How often have we told you, That we look for salvation, and justification, by the righteousness of faith in Christ Jesus, and not by the keeping or fulfilling of the Moral Law? If the Moral Law indeed, had no other use but this you speak of, then had your Argument spoken something to the purpose; but seeing it is urged and used by us, as a crystal glass of God's will, to discover unto us the spiritual blemishes and beauties of our hearts and lives, and as a guide to teach us to walk in his ways, telling us what to do and what to leave undone; and seeing it hath many other special offices, (as formerly you have heard) both for God's glory and our good, we can never yield this unto you for a sound Argument, That therefore the Moral Law is now wholly abolished, because you cannot find that salvation was ever promised to the keeping of it. But tell me in good earnest, could you never find, that ever salvation was promised to the keeping of the Law? Have you not read what is written in the Law? You shall keep my Statutes and my judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them. Or do you think, (as some Heretics have done) that this and the like promises made unto the Jews, concern only the comforts of this temporal, and not the blessing of eternal life? Think you what you list, it greatly skills not, so long as we know that the most judicious and religious Divines, even such as are pillars in the house of God do think otherwise, the Scripture bearing witness to their opinion herein, when it tells us, That in the keeping of the Law, there is a great reward, a reward of greater weight and worth, than any or all earthly things (being but vanity and vexation of spirit) can afford; this being the best end of all, and the whole man, both for his duty and felicity, to fear God and to keep his Commandments. For, Blessed are they that are undefiled in the way, who walk in the Law of the Lord: and blessed are they that keep his Testimonies, and seek him with their whole heart. Came this blessedness then (may you say) upon any, or could ever any attain unto it by the works of the Law? I answer, Never any either did or could attain unto this blessedness of eternal life, by their keeping of the Law, by reason of their wants, and weaknesses, defective, and imperfect obedience unto the same; but all that ever were, are, or shall be so blessed, must attain thereunto only by the righteousness of faith, in the absolute and perfect obedience of Christ Jesus. And yet notwithstanding, that which you say you could never find, we have now not only found out for you, but brought it to your hand, viz. (that salvation hath been promised to him which should keep the Law) whosoever he were that could fulfill it in all things accordingly. A further proof whereof, you may yet take if you please, from the answer of our Savior to the Scribe, or Lawyer, demanding of him what he should do to inherit eternal life? What is written in the Law, saith he, how readest thou? And when the Lawyer had answered, out of the Law, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbor as thyself: Christ replied unto him, Thou hast answered right, this do and thou shalt live. In which words, our Savior Christ doth both expound the promise made in the Law, to the keeping of the Law, viz. [do this and live] not of this temporal, but of eternal life; and also maketh himself, a promise of Salvation to him that would keep the Law, if so be he could do it accordingly: Certainly it is strange to me, that you could never find out thus much before, seeing both Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, have laid it down so plainly before your face, that had your eyes been in your head (as a wise man's are) nay had they been but in your heels, you might have run and read, seen and found, the promise of salvation made unto him that should keep the Law, both in the old and New Testament. The blind man in the Gospel, that had but a little glimmering light and sight, saw men walking as trees; and you that would be loath to be reckoned amongst the blind or purblind, cannot see wood for trees, but like Agar cry out, you can find no water, and yet the well lieth open before your eyes. But it may be, though the well were open, yet your eyes were shut, (as hers also were) that she could not see till the Lord had opened them, which I pray, the Lord may do for you also, and then shall you see more plainly, both this and other points of God's truth, which though you have sought, yet have you not seen, and though you have groped after them, yet have you not found them, because the Lord hath hid them from your eyes.

I come now unto your last Argument, which makes up the full dozen.

Rom. 2.4. 2 Pet. 3.9. It is, And what do you collect or conclude hence? Ergo, the Moral Law is utterly abolished. Of what force this your Argument is, you may see by the like. The Prodigals returning to his Father, was a part of his reconciliation with him; Ergo, his humiliation upon the sense and sight of his sin, was of no use at all for that purpose. Remission of sin from God, is a part of justification; Ergo, confession of sin to God, is now of no use at all. The promises of grace are a part of the Gospel; Ergo, the precepts of the Law of God are no rules of obedience in the days of the Gospel. If these Arguments be firm and sound, then such is this of yours also; but if they be so feeble and weak, that they have no strength either to bear or bring forth a good conclusion, then must I take yours in this cause for the like, until you can show me some difference or dislike betwixt them: for what though repentance, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (being taken for our effectual renovation, regeneration, conversion, newness of life, turning from our sins to embrace and obey the Gospel) be indeed a part of the Gospel, (because none can come unto this, but they that have the spirit of grace poured upon them, and the word of grace engraffed in them, and the gift of grace to believe and obey the Gospel bestowed upon them) yet nevertheless, this maketh nothing against the special offices and uses of the Moral Law, either for the conviction of sinners, or direction of Saints, to prepare them for repentance, by pricking of their hearts, or to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, for the well ordering of their lives. The Law hath his use, to work 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , poenitentiam: The Gospel his force, to work 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , resipiscentiam; and both are needful for Christians, even at this present, as formerly they have ever been.

Calvin speaking of the last clause of Peters Sermon, wherein he chargeth the Jews, that they had crucified Christ Jesus, saith, he did this, Vt majori conscientiae dolore tacti, ad remedium aspirarent, and so layeth open the heinousness of that sin in these words: Cujus caedes, non crudelitatis modo & sceleris plena erat, sed etiam immanis adversus Deum perfidiae, sacrilegij, îngratitudinis, denique apostasiae testimonium: and then he gives in the next words, this reason of this course; Verum ita vulnerari oportuit ne ad quaerendam medicinam tardi essent. Here I do demand, whence had the Jews this sight and sense of so many sins in that one, of crucifying the Lord Jesus; as of cruelty, wickedness, perfidiousness, sacrilege, ingratitude against God, and apostasy from God? Whence had they that prick in their hearts, and wound in their conscience for these sins? Had they no light by the Law to convince them, no stroke by the Law to wound them? If sin be a transgression of the Law, and by the Law comes the knowledge of sin, and if sin be not imputed nor pressed but by the Law, how can it be, but the Law had some hand in wounding and afflicting their hearts for these sins? and in opening their eyes to see and discern the same? I deny not, for I doubt not, but the Spirit as the finger of God, had his especial and principal work in their humiliation and conversion; that is not the question. The Spirit may work by the Law, to make us sensible of sin, and to cast us down under the weight of God's wrath for it, as well as it may work by the Gospel, to make us look up unto Christ, and to raise us up to some hope and assurance of the mercy of God, for pardon and forgiveness of the same. It is sufficient for me, both against your position and allegation, if in the work of their repentance, containing both their Auersion from sin, and their Conversion unto God, the Moral Law had any, either force or use, which I am well assured any judicious and indifferent Reader by this which hath been said, will judge, that it had.

When Dionysius (as Apollodorus reporteth) had cast Lycurgus into a fury or frenzy, he in that distemper taking a hatchet in his hand, whiles he thought he had smitten down the branch of a Vine, with the same hand and hatchet slew his own son. What Dionysius he was, that cast you first into this fit or frenzy, error or heresy, I know not; but it seems, whiles you have lift up your hand and your hatchet, your skill and pen, to cut down the Moral Law, a branch of God's Vine, the dint and danger of the stroke, hath light unawares upon your own soul, as his did upon his own son, though not absolutely to kill it, yet to wound it unto death, unless the Lord recover it by giving you repentance, and effectually cure it by pouring in the balm of his mercy and truth (which I pray he may do) in the offerings and sufferings of Christ Jesus.

[Answer.] Your many other Arguments which for brevity sake (as you say) or rather for levity sake (as I conceive) you omit, for vanity sake I see you must needs call upon and that by name, as if you had in readiness a fresh supply of armed men (in case of danger) to renew the fight and win the field. Simalio, Dorax, Syrisce, sequimini. C •… do alios; ubi centurio est Sanga? & manipulus furum? Eccum adest. Vbi alij? Thus do you well resemble bragging Thraso, behaving himself proudly, and brauing his adversary vainly, both with that he hath, and also with that he hath not: For having brought out your best appointed forces into the field, you call on still, Vbi alij? as though there were yet so many, and so many, and many more behind; whereas poor man, you have not a man more, neither tag nor rag to follow you, seeing solus Sanio seruat domum. Take so much of this to yourself and your former Arguments, as may best fit you; and reserve the rest for the other, which yet sit at home with Sanio to keep the house.

Your reference to Musculus Common-places, gives no better satisfaction, now we have taken the pains to view all the quarters and corners of those special places which you have been pleased to send us unto for that purpose. For if either you will stand unto Musculus, or Musculus will not stand against himself, you may and shall, even there, and thence, receive resolution to satisfy you, that there we find no such satisfaction, as you have dreamed may be found in those places.

He that seriously readeth, and advisedly considereth, what Musculus hath written in the place, De abrogatione Legis Mosaicae, may easily perceive both by the title and the text, that he principally aimeth at the abrogation of the Ceremonial, and Judicial, and the Moral Law, only so far, as it was Lex litera, Magisterium Mosis, Ministerium Mosis, virtus peccati, litera occîdens, iram, maledictionem & mortem operans. And all this neither hurteth us nor helpeth you, for the utter abrogating of the whole Moral Law. For albeit, for these offices it may be said to be abolished to them that are true believers in Christ Jesus, in which respect they are said, not to be under the Law but under grace; yet for other uses and offices, the Moral Law is in force still, as to be a rule of obedience, to discover corruptions and transgressions, to be a bridle of restraint unto sin and sinners, as Musculus in the same place and elsewhere doth acknowledge, alleging that out of the Romans, Shall we sin, because we are not under the Law but under Grace? God forbid, and giving us thereby to understand, that such as are in the state of grace, even the sons of God, are servants unto the Law for obedience unto righteousness, though they be freed from the law of sin and death. They are not indeed under the Law, as a rigorous exactor, and terrible avenger, but they are under it, as a righteous commander, and holy conducter, to lead them in the ways of righteousness and holiness. Agreeable hereunto, is that which Musculus inferreth hereupon, Qui Christianus est (saith he) etiamsi non sit sub Magisterio Mosis, propterea tamen non est liber ad faciendum ea quae sunt impia & injusta, adeoque & factu illicita. Now I would gladly know, seeing nothing can be impious and unjust, but that which is illicitum, unlawful; and nothing is sin or unlawful, but that which is known and acknowledged to be so, by the light and line of the Moral Law: how shall a Christian once imagine, that the Moral Law is to him wholly abolished, seeing he continually stands in need of it, as of a lantern unto his feet, and a light unto his paths, and must have daily recourse unto it, to see what is right and what is wrong, what he ought to do, and what he ought to leave undone? And if here you reply, that the Gospel teacheth us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live godly, righteously, and soberly, in this present world: I answer, It is most true, that such as have their eyes enlightened with the light of the Gospel, and their hearts seasoned with the grace of it, looking into the glass of the Moral Law, do see more clearly into the beauty and glory of it, judge more wisely of things that differ in it, work more effectually by love in all the duties of it, renounce and resist more powerfully all the affections and actions of sin that rise against it, and make all the Commandments thereof more easy, and the burden more light, than otherwise it could be unto them. All this the Gospel teacheth and worketh in us, and for us, but it teacheth all this, by the lines and lessons, precepts and prohibitions, of the Moral Law, and worketh all this upon the Moral grounds of love in the Law, and walketh in obedience by the spirit of adoption and liberty, not in the spirit of fear and slavery. And therefore by all this, it may easily appear, that so long as the Gospel is established, the Moral Law can never be wholly abolished. This conclusion receiveth further strength from another, made by Musculus himself in the same place, to the same end. Quare, Christianus faciens contra ea quae praecepta sunt in Decalogo enormius peccat, quàm si sub lege constitutus faceret, tam abest ut liber sit ab ijs quae illic praecipiuntur; etenim tamet si liber est à Mose, hand tamen liber est ab obedientia Christi, ac vera justitiae. In which sentence we may observe these several propositions, all serving to maintain the use of the Moral Law amongst Christians. First, that the Decalogue, i. the Moral Law or Ten Commandments, being a part of the written word, and revealed will of God, doth yet for the substance of it continue, and concern all Christians. Secondly, that the precepts and prohibitions of the Decalogue, do bind all Christians to allegiance and obedience. Thirdly, that a Christian doing anything against the Decalogue or Moral Law, sinneth more grievously under the Gospel, than any Jew committing the same sins under the Law. Fourthly, that Christians do not entertain, nor maintain the Moral Law as Moses disciples, receiving it and obeying it upon the same conditions, and to the same ends, as Moses did deliver it, and impose it upon the Jews; but as the disciples of Christ Jesus, who is the Lord of his house, and the only Lawgiuer for the well ordering of it. Now forasmuch as Christ testifieth of himself, that he came not to destroy but to fulfill the Law, clearing the beauty and renewing the spiritual vigor and virtue of it, taking away the terror and abating the burden and rigor, but not changing the nature, nor abolishing one jot of the substance of it: yea further, not only commending and commanding it to all his disciples, and in them to all true Christians, but putting it into our minds, and writing it by the finger of his spirit in our hearts, and making it unto us a royal Law of liberty, not a yoke of bondage and fear; therefore do we now willingly receive and obey the Commandments thereof, and do not now account them grievous, but in Christ gracious, holy, just, and good; the duties whereof we desire and endeavor to perform with delight, knowing that our infirmities are covered, our wants supplied, our sins pardoned, and our services accepted, in the absolute and perfect obedience of him that did absolutely fulfill the Law for us, that is, of Christ Jesus. According unto these grounds, we may say with Musculus; That although a Christian be free from Moses, yet is he not free from the obedience of Christ, nor of true righteousness; and if he be not free from the obedience of Christ [that is, such as both by precept and pattern, he taught and required, according to the precepts of the Moral Law] then is a Christian bound in the days of the Gospel, to the obedience of the Moral Law: And if a Christian be not freed from the obedience of true righteousness [and the rule of true righteousness be the Moral Law] (as all Divines do agree, and as Christ and his Apostles have taught the Churches) then is a Christian bound in the days of the Gospel, to yield obedience unto the Moral Law. Now if you be pleased to lay all these together, the reckoning will arise to another and a greater sum, than you imagined or expected, at this time and place; and that, not to feed your fancy and serve your humor, for the utter abrogation of the whole Moral Law, but to confirm the contrary truth, for ratifying and establishing thereof amongst Christians, in the days of the Gospel. Shall I trouble you yet with one other conclusion out of Musculus, for your further satisfaction, that he is not (for certain) of your mind, for the utter abrogation of the Moral Law. Quare tam abest (saith he) ut damnemus usum Decalogi, ut admodum etiam laudemus eorum studium & diligentiam, qui primi illum ad catechizandum neophytos vsurpandum esse judicarunt: We are so far from condemning the use of the Decalogue, or Moral Law, that we do much commend their care and diligence, which first did judge it fit to be used for catechizing novices or the ruder sort in religion. By this you may see, how far Musculus is gone from you, though you labor never so much to draw him to stand by your side, and to speak in your behalf. He is far from condemning the use of the Moral Law; you are eager and hot in pursuing of it even unto death and utter destruction: He will allow and commend the use of it, and them that use it too, for catechizing children or novices in religion; there is neither man woman nor child, younger nor elder, that can entreat you, to give them leave or liberty, to have anything at all to do with it. And here by the way I pray you be advertised, that howsoever this allegation be sufficient to confute your opinion, yet do not I so allege it, as altogether to approve it, nor can I so either think or speak of the Decalogue or Moral Law, as here your Musculus doth write of it: for whereas he will not allow it any other place in the Church but in the Catechism, nor the explication thereof to be needful for any but for novices and children; I am of opinion, that the ministry and industry of the most judicious, religious, and best experienced Divines, may well and worthily, profitably and comfortably be employed, in seeking and searching out the infinite and admirable wisdom, together with other the deep things of God, which are hid in the Moral Law, and that not only for their own private instruction, but for the edification of the ripest and chiefest of God's children. And whosoever he be, that thinks so little and so light knowledge of the Moral Law will serve the turn, that it is to be held only as milk for babes, and not as strong meat for men of riper age, I am afraid that as he doth depress and abase the Law of God more than is meet, so doth he advance himself too high above his pitch, being rashly puffed up in his fleshly mind, and knowing little or nothing in this particular as he ought to know. For howsoever it be true, that in the Moral Law there be some general things so easy and shallow, that even a little lamb may wade in them; yet considering the infinite variety of matter contained in the specials and particulars of the same, there are many things to be found of greater depth and difficulty, wherein a huge Elephant may swim also. Otherwise I can hardly think, that ever the holy Prophets being all interpreters of the Moral Law, and Christ himself the Lawgiuer, best worthy and best able to expound and explain the true meaning of it, and Christ's Apostles who were taught by his spirit the true sense thereof, would ever either all or any of them, have taken all or half that pains, in opening and applying, extending and enlarging, clearing and explaining, urging and enforcing, of the Moral Law, and that both by word and writing, preaching and exhorting, as we know by their public records they have all done, and that amongst the Priests and Prophets, Doctors and Expounders of the Law, Scribes, and Pharisees, and Rabbin's, such as professed the greatest skill and understanding of the Law, if either all or any of them had been of his mind, That it is sufficient for such as are more ripe in faith, to know this sum of the Law, Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself, but for the ruder sort and novices, it is meet that they be instructed in the Decalogue, being a more plain form of living, and fit for such persons only.

The other places of Musculus which you point your finger at, [Answer.] namely of the Covenant, of the difference of the Old and New Testament, of the abrogation of the Legal Sabbath, I have read and perused, and find nothing in all, or any of them (being rightly understood) which I do not willingly assent unto. If you, upon a more settled and serious review of those places, shall yet imagine there is anything in them which may seem to savor of your opinion, and bear any either color or countenance, for the utter abolishing of the whole Moral Law; when you shall be pleased to note out, and send unto me the express words which you conceive do make for your purpose, you shall God willing have a return of a more particular and express answer unto the same: Meanewhile, I pray you now for your further satisfaction, to admit of this my reference also to Musculus his Common-places, for establishing of the Moral Law, and the right use thereof, seeing your reference for the utter abolishing thereof, doth neither serve your turn, nor satisfy me at all. In that place de Legibus, and those sections, de usu Legis Mosaicae, & de vi & efficacia Legis, he hath sufficiently expressed himself, that (howsoever his writing in other places might be taken or mistaken by others) yet he is of opinion, That the Moral Law is now in the days of the Gospel of special use and efficacy, even for himself and others, for the godly and for the wicked, as men stand in the estate of nature, or in the state of grace. Now if it so fall out, that Musculus may seem unto you in those places which you have mentioned and the like to cross himself, and to be of another mind, concerning the continuance, office, and use of the Moral Law amongst Christians, in the days of the Gospel; what answer can be fitter both for him and you in this case, than the very same which he himself gives unto Augustine, when he found him inconstant and differing from himself, in the division of the Decalogue: Quaso quomodo aequum esse poterit, ut unius, idque sibi ipsi non constantis authoritas omnibus alijs praeferetur? Deinde si placuit authoritas Augustini, quare non placuit in eo quod unà cum reliquis antiquioribus concorditer, magis quàm in eo quod & ab alijs, & à seipso diversum scripsit? How is it meet, I pray you, that the authority of one [ Musculus alone] and he not agreeing with himself, should be preferred before all other men? Again, if Musculus his authority like you so well, why doth it not please you in that which he hath written agreeably and jointly with others more ancient, for the establishing of the Moral Law, rather than in that wherein he differs from others, and from himself also, for the utter abolishing of the same?

Now, where you put us over also unto Zanchius, upon Ephes. 2. v. 14, 15. de Legis Mosaicae abrogatione,

[Answer.] We must needs say, that Zanchius is little beholding unto you for your allegation, wherein you commend and discommend, approve and reprove, what he hath written, with one breath; Vno spiritu efflas calidum & frigidum: Like the Husbandman, that returning from his work in a cold winters day to his dinner, did with one and the same breath, both warm his hands which he felt were too cold, and cool his pottage which he feared were too hot; which when the poor Satyr saw, he feared to dwell with him, and fled from him. Seneca calleth such a benefit, panem lapidosum, and somewhere else I have read the like fact reproved in words not much unlike. Manus altera panem, altera fert lapidem: and in another Language, yet to the same purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . as if a man should claw a man's head with one hand, and smite him on the cheek with the other. And do not you deal with Zanchius after the same manner? you seem to claw his head with this approbation and presently you smite him on the cheek with this rebuke You say, but tell me, doth he determine the point for you? Doth he wholly abrogate the whole Moral Law, as you would have us to think of him? Or doth he only abrogate it in regard of some circumstances, preserving the substance thereof entire still? Nay doth he not first distinguish the whole Law of Moses, and divide the Commandments thereof into mandata principalia, and mandata accessoria? The principal comprised in the Moral Law, the accessory in the Ceremonial and Judicial; the principal continued, the accessory abolished; and then determine, That because in the Moral Law (as it was given by Moses to the Israelites) there were some things of circumstance, and some of substance, some essential, some accidental, some temporal, some eternal: All such things as were matters of circumstance, accidental, and temporal, in the Moral Law, as it was given by Moses, are utterly abolished; but all such as were matters of substance, essential, and eternal, are so far from being abolished, that they are forever (being confirmed by Christ himself, Matth. 5. and Matth. 22. and by his Apostles, Tit. 2.11.) to be continued: Such are all and everyone of the Ten Commandments of the Moral Law, containing the express form of God's eternal will, and the sum and substance of all duties of piety to God in the first Table, and of charity towards men in the second: All which, saith Zanchius, God required, from the beginning of the world before Moses; in the time of the Law by Moses; after Moses by the Prophets: Et nunc tandem in finem usque mundi, per Christum per{que} ejus Apostolos requisivit, & requirit à nobis: And now at length even unto the end of the world, by Christ and his Apostles, he hath required, and doth require of us. And so a little after, he setteth down his conclusion in flat opposition unto your opinion; Constat hoc sensu legem simpliciter non esse abrogatam. It is evident, saith he, that in this sense the Moral Law is not simply, or wholly abrogated. But why do you censure him for not expounding the places of Matth. 5. and Rom. 3. plainly? The plain truth is, [Answer.] because his exposition is a buckler of defense against your weapons of opposition, which you have taken up against the Moral Law; you would thrust it thorough with your spear or sword, utterly to destroy it; and he opposeth a breastplate, and a shield of faith, taken out of the Lord's armory, to save the life of it. And is this the matter for which you blame him? Is this the fault whereof you accuse him? So I have heard and read, that one C. Fimbria an audacious fellow, having at the funeral of C. Marius, caused Qu. Scaevola, a noble citizen of Rome, to be wounded, and finding afterwards that the wound was not so mortal but that he might happily recover of it, did presently call Scaevola into question by course of Law; and when it was demanded of him, what he had against, or whereof he could accuse such a man, whom no man else could sufficiently commend; he answered in a furious passion, Quod non totum telum corpore recepisset; That receiving a wound in his body, he had not received the whole weapon also even up unto the hists.

But to amend what Zanchius hath done amiss, you say, you

Why tell me, [Answer.] I pray you, what you understand by the form of Moses Law? Do you mean, the inward or outward, the essential or accidental, the temporary or eternal, form of the Moral Law? I hope you mean not the inward, essential, and eternal form of it, which can never be severed from the matter of it, and the matter you say is perpetual. If you mean then the outward form, in the manner of delivery by Moses to the Israelites, together with all the circumstances of persons, time, place, and other accessories of the same, (as what else you should mean I cannot imagine) then let me taste your meaning I pray you a little better, by one or two demands touching this point and place. First, did not Christ come to destroy this outward form of the Moral Law? Secondly, did Zanchius ever say otherwise, viz. that Christ came not to destroy the outward form, i. the circumstances, and accessories of the Moral Law? Thirdly, doth not Zanchius avouch evidently the clean contrary? Fourthly, why then do you blame his exposition, as establishing the form as well as the matter of the Moral Law? Fifthly, how do you that have so long stood out against the Moral Law, for the absolute abrogating of it, even the whole Law, and wholly too, now so come in unto Zanchius, and others that have stood for it, that you yield them and us the whole substance and matter of the Moral Law to be in force still, and content yourself only to carry away the shadows, accessories, and circumstances of the same, to feed your fancy with an idle and adle conceit of a glorious victory. Egregiam vero laudem & spolia ampla tulisti. It is recorded of Paulus Vergerius, (a man very gracious with Pope Paul the third) that when he attempted to write against Luther, he was so overcome with the force of Luther's Arguments, that he changed his opinion and became a convert of Luther's religion. I wish it were so well and no otherwise with you, that the Lord would give you such a teachable and tractable heart and spirit, that whereas you have read Zanchius, Luther, Calvin, and other Orthodoxall Writers, with a mind and purpose to draw them to your error, and so to call them in, both as witnesses and counsellors against the Moral Law, you may so be convinced yourself, by the evidence of the truth which they deliver, and the force of the reasons which they render, for the continuance and maintenance of the Moral Law, that if hitherto you have not, yet henceforth you may, renounce your error, and embrace the truth with them.

But I see you have made yourself a bolting hole, that by way of distinction you might have an evasion.

And I say, if the mist of Philosophy had not blinded the eyes of your Theology, you might have seen as much as this comes unto, and more too. For I demand, First, may it not now be denied, that the whole Moral Law is wholly abrogated, as you affirm, seeing it cannot be denied but the matter of the Moral Law is yet of force, as you now confess? Secondly, if the matter of the Moral Law be of force at this present, as the Law of Nature commanding; is not the form also in force by our conformity thereunto in obeying? And thirdly, if both matter and form (the essential parts of the Moral Law) be yet continued, [as it is the Law of Nature] that is, a natural rule of righteousness and holiness to such as are in the state of nature; is it therefore so deprived of all spiritual force and use, that it cannot be also a spiritual rule of righteousness and holiness, to such as are called to the estate of grace? Fourthly, shall Plato and Aristotle confine us for teaching or learning of Natural or Moral duties, to their Physicks, or Ethics, their Natural or Moral Philosophy? Or would you restrain Christians from hearkening to Moses and the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, for their better instruction and direction in the same? Surely, if true believers have now no other benefit, nor use of the Moral Law, but as it is the Law of Nature and Philosophically understood; then is the Law (written so distinctly by Moses, a penman of the Holy Ghost) not written, as other Scriptures are, for our learning. Then was Abraham's direction for reformation to no purpose; They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them. Then may infidels and heathens, see as far into the nature and danger of sin as true Christians can. Then may natural reason be a light unto our steps, and a lantern unto our feet, without the Law written. And when all this proves true, then shall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 prove 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and your Natural and Moral Philosophy, true Divinity. Calvin writing de usu Legis, saith, Merito vocatur been & juste vivendi regula, atque hic finis Legis omnibus fere notus est. Naturaliter quidem insculpta est boni & mali notitia hominibus, quo reddantur inexcusabiles. This last he speaketh of the Law of Nature, as common to all men, and serving only to leave them without excuse; and presently after he speaketh of the Moral Law, written by Moses, and given by God by a singular privilege to the Israelites and so to us, as the Doctrine of good-living; which albeit (as Paul saith) it be in it self holy, and the Commandment just and good, yet Asperum est (saith he) quod alibi dicit, legem iram operari, & propter transgressiones esse positam. And mark I pray you, to whom this is asperum, so sharp and bitter, nempe hominibus profanis qui tantum Philosophice judicant. Consider and observe by this, that in Calvin's judgment, they that will judge of the Moral Law Philosophically, they are such as are offended with it grievously, and live profanely. Consider also, that seeing the Doctrine of the Moral Law, delivered expressly and distinctly in writing to the Israelites, was for that time a singular privilege and pledge of their adoption, above and before all other people, (if you will absolutely cancel this writing, and deprive us of all lawful use of this Law, being so holy and heavenly a Doctrine and rule of good-living) consider I say, lest you make us Christians in worse estate than the Jews, and in as bad as the Gentiles, our privilege less than the Israelites according to the flesh, and our portion no better than theirs who are strangers from the life of God, according to the faith. [Answer.] If you wanted light only, some help might be had, but if you want sight too, we have no faculty nor faith of miracles, to make a blind man see; only we will lay the matter so plainly in open view, that he that can and will see, shall and may see, that which you say you cannot see. To this end it is very requisite that we sift out your meaning, what it is to understand the Moral Law Theologically. By the opposition which you make of understanding it Philosophically, and Theologically, it should seem, that as they understand it Philosophically, which understand it naturally by the light of natural reason only, without the written Word, or revealed will of God, without any ordinary means of illumination, or instruction, and so beholding the matter of the Moral Law, but very darkly and confusedly, and feeling the work in their hearts by their conscience witnessing, and their thoughts accusing or excusing one another, and their wills grudging and rebelling against the tenor of it: So do they understand the Moral Law Theologically, which besides the natural light and sight of the Law, written by nature in their hearts, do consider it and receive it as the written Word of God, as an express form of a principal part of the revealed will of God, a right rule of direction for religion, and religious conversation, a portion of the Covenant of Grace, as it is written in our hearts by the finger of God's Spirit, a part of God's image which in the new man is created after God in righteousness and true holiness; the knowledge whereof they attain unto by the word of Grace, and the sense and feeling of the work thereof by the spirit of Grace, so beholding the beauty thereof more clearly and distinctly, and feeling the power thereof more effectually, and obeying the precepts thereof more willingly, and looking for the acceptance of their imperfect obedience, in and by the only perfect and absolute obedience of Christ Jesus only. They that thus, I say, do understand the Moral Law to be in force in the days of the Gospel, (as for ought I know the best Divines and best Christians do) do understand it Theologically, which as yet, you say, you cannot see that you can do. Junius that great Scholar and worthy Divine, in his Book de Theologia, will help you to light your candle, if that will do you any good in this your darkness. He gives this definition of Theology; Theologia est rerum divinarum sapientia: and this division; Theologia est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nimirum Dei ipsius sapientia, aut est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 à Deo informata. And leaving the former rather to be adored than curiously inquired into, he afterwards subdiuides the latter to be Theologia visions, or Revelationis: and then he tells us, that this Theologia revelationis, is either naturalis, or supernaturalis; and in handling these two, he worthily setteth forth the weak sight and light of human understanding and reason, according to the principles and conclusions of the Law of Nature, and noteth the error, obscurity, and insufficiency of this natural wisdom therewithal: And then a little after, he defines the absolute supernatural Theology (which doth especially concern the present business) after this manner: Theologia absolute dicta est sapientia rerum divinarum secundum veritatem divinam à Deo inspirata, & per enuntiativum sermonem in Christo commissa servis ejus, atque in Testamento Vetere & Novo per Prophetas, Apostolos, & Euangelistas consignata, quantum ejus hic nobis expedit revelari ad gloriam ipsius, & Electorum bonum. According to the tenor of this definition of Theology, I will now prove unto you if I can, that the Moral Law of God is now in force, being understood Theologically.

Whatsoever in it self is now divine, the knowledge whereof is divine wisdom, inspired of God according to divine truth, and by word in Christ committed to his servants, and in the Old and New Testament ratified by the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, as much of it as here is meet to be revealed unto us, to God's glory and our good; That same is, and may be [according to the definition of Theology.] Theologically understood, and is now in force so understood. But the Moral Law of God is divine, and the knowledge thereof is divine wisdom, inspired of God according to divine truth, and by the Enunciatiue word in Christ committed to his servants, and in the Old and New Testament ratified by the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists, as much of it as here is meet to be revealed unto us to God's glory and our good. Ergo, The Moral Law is and may be (according to the definition of Theology) Theologically understood, and is now in force so understood. The Major of this Syllogism is evident by the definition of Theology; The Minor is made good by the Scriptures, and by the practice of Christ and his Apostles, and the judgment of the most judicious and Orthodox Divines, as in every branch thereof may be proved by the Scriptures alleged, and by the testimonies before and after mentioned and produced. The Moral Law is divine] because it is holy, spiritual, just, and good, Rom. 7.22, 24. The knowledge thereof is divine wisdom] because it maketh the simple wise, illighteneth the eyes, and maketh David wiser than his teachers, because it teaches the fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom, yea the end of all and whole man, fear God and keep his Commandments, Psalm. 111.10. Psal. 112.1. Eccles. 12.13. It is inspired of God according to divine truth] because God hath put it in our minds, and written it in our hearts, by the finger of his spirit, Heb. 8.10. 2 Cor. 3.3, 17, 18. Nehe. 9.13, 14. And the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God, which searcheth and revealeth the deep things of God, 1 Cor. 2.10, 11. And by the Enunciatiue word in Christ committed to his servants] because it was given by audible voice, by word and writing unto Moses, and by him to the Israelites, and so by and in Christ, a Prophet like unto him, given also by word and writing unto us, Act. 7.38. Hebr. 11. Matth. 5.17, 18, &c. And in the Old and New Testament, ratified by the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists,] by David, Psalm. 19.7, 8, 9. Psalm. 119. throughout, by Isaiah, Isa. 8.16.20. Seal up the Law among my disciples, to the Law and to the Testimony: by Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter, James, and John, Matt. 22.37, 38, 39, 40. Mark. 12.29, 30, 31. Luk. 10.26, 27. Act. 28.23. Rom. Chapters 2.3.4.7.13. 2 Pet. 2.15.21. I am. 2.10, 11. 1 John. 2.7, 8. & 3.23. and infinite other texts of Scripture which might be heaped up to this purpose. And is not the end of the Law [for God's glory and our good] justified out of the Scripture also? seeing by the light of the Law, shining in the works of the Law, God is glorified here, Matth. 5. Phil. 1.11. Luk. 1.75. and we when our faith worketh by love, gather and get assurance that we shall be glorified hereafter, Gal. 5.6. 2 Pet. 1 10, 11. Psal. 119.1. I am. 1.25. And thus may you see, if you can see anything at all, that the Major of this Syllogism being granted, and every branch of the Minor now proved, the conclusion against you must needs follow as necessarily inferred: That the Moral Law according to the definition of Theology, is and may be Theologically understood, and is now in force so understood. If yet you desire to hear what our Divines speak also for this point, albeit I think you can find none to speak a word against it, yet to do you a pleasure, I will call in one or two sufficient witnesses to give testimony thereunto.

Calvin having rebuked them that judge Philosophice of the Moral Law, addeth these words, to show there is now a Theological use of it: Ille vero legis usus Theologicus est quia nihil aliud potest quàm detegendo nostram injustitiam, mortem duntaxat afferre. And as he showeth, this is one Theological use of the Law by discovering unrighteousness, to bring us in danger of death, so doth he afterwards in the same place, find out another Theological use of it: Vbi autem intus cordibus legem suam insculpsit, simul prodest exterior doctrina legis: sic enim filios suos gubernat spiritu regenerationis, ut simul tamen velit ad vocem quoque suam esse attentos & dociles: That so soon as the Lord hath written his Law in our hearts, then doth the doctrine of the Law do us good, making his children by his spirit more teachable and tractable to hear and obey his will.

Junius also in his learned Book de vera Theologia, brings in the Moral Law, jus Morale, as opposite to the Law of Nature, which he calleth, jus Naturae, and there very plainly auerreth, that the Moral Law is a principal or special part of the subject of true and sacred Theology. His words be these: Hoc vero jus morum quo homines ad Deum oportet accedere, & sacrae voluntati ejus quàm maxim fieri potest conformari, sacra Theologia exponit perfectissime. Now if sacred Theology do most perfectly expound the Moral Law, then is the Moral Law [Theologically understood] yet in force, which you have not yet the eyes to see; and not in force only [as it is the Law of Nature] as you have had the face and forehead to affirm. Now because you say,

Did Saint Paul when he said, I had not known concupiscence to be sin, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet: Did he understand the Moral Law Philosophice or Theologice? You cannot say Philosophice, for then he might have known so much by the Law of Nature before his conversion, having as he had a double help, the light of natural reason, and the benefit of Gamaliel's Doctrine, and yet he acknowledgeth that without the Law, sin was dead, i. until he had a spiritual insight into the tenth Commandment, he had no manner of sense and feeling of concupiscence to be sin against it. Besides, neither Plato nor Aristotle, nor the wisest Moralists that ever wrote, could ever search into this depth, and find out this truth of God, hid from the eye of Nature in the tenth Commandment, that inclinations to sin, or motions and imaginations of sin without consent or delight, were to be accounted a breach of the Law, and worthy of death. If he then did not understand the Law (when he so said) Philosophice, I conclude, he must needs understand it Theologice, and so without question he did, speaking of it so divinely, graciously, and religiously, and disputing of the nature, and use, fruits, and effects thereof, both in the estate of nature and in the estate of grace, so spiritually, so feelingly, and effectually.

For the other place, Rom. 3.31. which you except against, as not plainly expounded by Zanchius,

Do you not offer Zanchius some hard measure, in charging him to expound it of the Moral Law only, which he doth not, and the Apostle also, saying, whereas the words which the Apostle useth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are both of the time present? And do you not see, how in yielding this place to be meant of the Moral Law, though not of it only, you do convince yourself of an error, in going about to abolish the Moral Law, which by confessing the truth with the Apostle you do now establish?

As for Erasmus, we have seen enough of his mind already, and returned you more by way of recompense and satisfaction from his writings, than you will be willing to receive either from his or our hands. [Answer.] And here you fall into a great commendation of Erasmus, an impertinent and needless piece of service, and worthy no other answer than was once given in a like case; Quis quaso vituperat? But you say with some indignation,

That I fear me is a scornful flout. If you aim at the Defense of the Apology of the Church of England, now commanded to be had in the Churches, consider I pray you there is room enough for both, and though the Apology be admitted, yet the Paraphrase is not excluded. Can you not think well and speak well of Erasmus his gold, but you must cast out some words of disgrace against our Jewel? Let the Ring and the Diamond have either of them their due place and praise. If herein I miss of your meaning, bear with my mistaking, and hereafter either speak more plainly, or not so dangerously.

As for that which followeth, you bring me such confused stuff, such shreds and pieces, gathered here and there out of Luther on Galath. Bez. 2 Cor. 3.11. August. de spirit. & lit. as is wonderful! One Simile runs after your fifth section gone many a mile before, another looks hard after the general point, and then you conclude with an exhortation, and then (having made an end before you had done) you come in with a word or two to illustrate your second section. I cannot but conceive that now your head grew mazy, [Answer.] or else having cut your garment too short, or put forth your arm further than your sleeve would reach, you run and seek about for pieces and patches, shreds and snips, to see if you can make up that which you have marred, never regarding how they suit with your stuff for matter, or color, so they may patch up your coat and serve your turn in your own imagination.

Luther on the Galatians, hath not so much by much as you say, for the abolishment of all Laws by Christ. For in the first place, pag. 176. a. b. he speaketh of the abolishing of the Jewish Ceremonies, where once one hath put on Christ Jesus: Where Christ is put on (saith he) there is neither Jew nor Circumcision, nor Ceremony of the Law anymore. For Christ hath abolished all the Laws of Moses that ever were: he meaneth all such as might accuse or terrify a believing conscience, and stand in opposition unto CHRIST, as the words following do manifestly declare.

And in the next place, pag. 177. he speaketh of the abolishment of all Laws indeed, but only in the matter of justification before God, deserving of grace and eternal life. Will you hear him deliver his mind in his own words? God hath indeed (saith he) many Ordinances, Laws, Decrees, and kinds of life, but all these help nothing to deserve grace, and to obtain eternal life. So many as are justified therefore, are justified not by the observation of man's Law, nor God's Law, but by Christ alone, who hath abolished all Laws. These be Luther's own words. Now if you will needs conclude hereupon, that Luther is of opinion that the whole Moral Law is wholly abolished, should you not deal injuriously with him, and deceitfully with us? You have been already told of the fallacy, A dicto secundùm quid, ad dictum simpliciter: you have here occasion to remember it again.

Your last place of Luther, pag. 223. hath been answered before, and so hath that of Beza, in 2 Cor. 3.11. and that also which you repeat again of the perpetuity of the Decalogue in Nature, and the perpetuity of it in Divinity, unto all which I say now no more, but if I cannot stay you, but you will needs Cramben bis coctam ponere, you shall not draw me to taste anymore thereof, nec Actum agere.

One thing there is in the last clause, touching the perpetuity of the Decalogue in Nature, where you have interlaced as an exception against the perpetuity of the fourth Commandment;

[Answer.] And why I pray you is not the fourth Commandment perpetual in nature as well as the rest, if it be Moral as well as the rest? why is it only mortal and the rest perpetual? If it be Ceremonial absolutely, then how comes it to pass that it was delivered by the voice of God, and written by the finger of God in Tables of Stone, being one amongst the rest of the Ten Commandments of the Moral Law, which are all perpetual in nature? seeing nothing absolutely Ceremonial amongst all the Ordinances of Moses, was ever so delivered, or so written? Again, how can that be a Ceremony which was given of God unto man in the estate of innocence, when yet there was no sin, and so no need of a Savior, and therefore no use for any Ceremony, to signify or set forth either one or other. That there was something Ceremonial in the fourth Commandment, as it was specially given by Moses to the Jews in their Legal worship; as that Seuenth day which they did celebrate, their strict rest from all bodily labor, their Sabbath days journey, their kindling of fire, &c. we do not deny; but that therefore the fourth Commandment is not moral, nor perpetual in Nature, this doth not nor you cannot prove. As for that which you allege out of Augustine, de spirit. & lit. cap. 14. [In decem praceptis, excepta Sabbati observatione, dicatur mihi, quid non, sit observandum à Christiano:] I cannot but wonder and wonder again, that you going about to batter down the fourth Commandment, and borrowing an Engin out of Augustine for that purpose, have in your simplicity brought with you such a one, as doth not demolish, but underprop and establish all the rest of the Commandments of the Moral Law, to be now of force and use, amongst all Christians. For I may say out of Augustine also as you do: Dicatur mihi in decem praeceptis quid non sit à Christiano observandum? Let any man show me what there is in the Ten Commandments of the Moral Law, which is not now to be observed of all Christians? As for the Sabbath which Augustine seemeth to except, he meaneth the Jewish and Legal Sabbath, taking it in the letter for corporal rest, and that figuratively, as signifying both a rest from sin (which he takes to be that servile opus, from which the Jews must rest) and the heavenly rest also, of which he thinks the Sabbath was a type. And unto this I say, Whatsoever Augustine can prove by the evidence of the Scripture, to be Ceremonial and Jewish in the fourth Commandment, we will not challenge that to be moral nor perpetual: But if he only say, the fourth Commandment is figuratively to be understood, and that no corporal rest from labor, but a spiritual rest from sin is there signified and commanded, and that corporale ocium Sabbati, is not to be observed of a Christian, because that figure is fulfilled in Christ, and yet do not prove what he says out of the Word of God; we will take that good leave and liberty which elsewhere he hath given, not to believe it, because he hath said it, but because he hath brought some probable reason or evidence of the Scripture to persuade us of the truth of it, and until then to stand persuaded as we do, that even the fourth Commandment as well as the rest of the Moral Law (excepting some Jewish Ceremonies annexed thereunto) is yet in force, not only as the Law of Nature, and Philosophically considered, but Theologically and in true Divinity, truly understood. And here, we pray you, not to mistake us in this point concerning Augustine's judgment: he doth not absolutely abolish the fourth Commandment, in abrogating the Legal and Jewish Sabbath, but that he teacheth and maintaineth that though the day be changed, which was the seventh observed from, and for the Creation, yet the first day of the week succeeded it, in regard of Christ's resurrection, called dies Dominicus by S. John, celebrated in holy duties by the Apostles; and that as Junius saith, non humana tradition, sed Christi ipsius observatione atque instituto, and so commended to the Churches and received by them, as Augustine himself confesseth and declareth more at large elsewhere.

Now whereas you say,

I answer hereunto, That if you have as great felicity, as I see you have facility to contradict yourself, and to mar with one hand what you have made with the other, you are worthy more pity than blame, and have more need at this present of a Physician to purge you, than of a Divine to answer you: Notwithstanding we will yet make trial, whether you can be sensible of your error, and see what you have said or done amiss herein, by asking a question or two, and craving your direct answer to the same. I demand then, Is not the Epistle to the Galatians a part of the New Testament? Yes it is. And did not the Apostle Paul pen that Epistle by the instinct of the Holy Ghost? No doubt he did. And did not the Holy Ghost by Paul, require and exact of the Galatians, the duty of love? Yes he did, for he commands them verse. 13. To serve one another by love. And is not this love both a fruit of faith, and a duty of the Moral Law? Yes indeed it is both, for in this very Chapter, the Holy Ghost testifieth that a true faith worketh by love, verse 6. and in the 14. verse (erewhile alleged) telleth us also, that this work or duty of love must be measured by the Moral Law, For (saith he) the whole Law is fulfilled in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Why now you have dealt honestly, you have answered directly and truly. Gather up your several answers now, and bind them up in one proposition and you will find that as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , your second thoughts are often wiser than the first, so your latter position is better and truer than your former opposition. Your former opposition was, and now your latter and truer position is this; That the Holy Ghost in the New Testament, even in the Epistle to the Galatians, doth require love, not as a natural, but as a spiritual and moral duty, being both a fruit of faith, and the sum and substance of the whole Moral Law, Gal. 5.6. and 13.14. Certainly if your left hand be not better able to defend yourself than your right hand hath been to offend your adversary, you will feel the smart of your own weapon thus beaten down upon your own head more sensibly hereafter in a better mood, than yet you can do for the present, in your hot blood.

As for that piece which you patch, and add to the same sentence,

What? [Answer.] None of the works of the spirit commanded in the Decalogue properly? This is a proper lie with a witness. Tell me I pray you, are not the works of the spirit there commanded, where the works of the flesh are forbidden? Are not adultery, fornication, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, heresies, murder, drunkenness, and the rest mentioned Gal. 5.19, 20, 21. Are not all these forbidden in the Law, and the contrary virtues or duties, as chastity, purity, piety, charity, &c. commanded in the same also? Take the Law as Paul takes it, not as it stands in opposition to the Gospel, but as it stands in communion and conjunction with it, and the same spirit of truth speaketh in both, and requires spiritual duties in both, as the fruits of righteousness and holiness, to the praise and glory of God by Christ Jesus. Besides such as the Law it self is, namely spiritual, holy, just and good, such must also the works of the Law needs be. Lastly, S. James bears witness hereunto very plainly and effectually, saying, If you fulfill the royal Law according to the Scripture [Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself] ye do well. This the spirit speaketh unto the Churches by James upon the same ground of the Moral Law, and that not only in that general sum of the second Table [Love thy neighbor as thyself] but in mentioning some of the special Commandments, as, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill; proving also that the Christians to whom he writes among the twelve Tribes now dispersed, stand now bound to obey the whole Moral Law. First, because if they fail in one point, they are guilty of all; as if they commit no adultery, yet if they kill, they are become transgressors of the Law. Secondly, because they are charged not only to shun that which is evil, but to follow that which is good, and that according to this rule of the Moral Law, as in the very next verse the spirit speaketh and commandeth: So speak ye and so do, as they that shall be judged by the Law of liberty. I would you would take the pains to read Augustine's Epistle unto Jerome, touching the exposition of this place of Saint James; you shall there I doubt not, find him of another mind than yourself, for the continuing of the office and use of the Moral Law, in binding all Christians to all duties of love, even in the days of the Gospel, required in the same. The like you may also see in his first Book, de doctrina Christiana, in his Books de litera & spiritu, & contra adversarium Legis & Prophetarum.

And now having delivered yourself of your main business, and rid your hands of that confused stuff which stuck in your fingers, you are at leisure to bring us in a Simile to illustrate, as you say, the conclusion of your fifth section, and another to illustrate the general point. If your section and your point have no greater light than your Similies bring them, [Answer.] they may both stumble and fall in the dark, for all the help that they shall have by their means. I have heard, that nullum Simile currit quatuor pedibus; no Simile runs upon four feet; but how shall that run, or go, or stand, which being maimed and stark lame, hath never a sound neither leg nor foot at all?

If Venice and England, in your supposition, were under one and the same King and Governor, under the same Law and Lawgiuer, yet with some difference of circumstance, considering the diversity of place, people, and condition, for a season, until the Kings son and heir take the government more eminently and conspicuously upon him, at which time he shall renew the former Laws, removing all difference of circumstance, and establishing the same Laws in substance, by writing them in fairer Tables, and confirming them by better both seals and witnesses, unto them both as to one people: I would then know of you out of the depth of your English or Venetian policy, whether now the Venetian Laws being brought and read, either to condemn or acquit a man accused, or to give direction for order and government here with us, we in England might not hold our selves bound by virtue of those Laws to yield obedience thereunto accordingly, and yet not as unto the Venetian Laws (as formerly they were in diverse circumstances imposed and exacted) but now as unto the royal Law of one and the same King, who by one and the same Law, will rule and govern both Venice and England, as one and the same people. If you be pleased to take the light of this comparison in your hand, it will show you (if your sight be anything like) both the vanity and weakness of your conclusion in your fifth section, and the darkness and obscurity of your sorry Simile, which you have brought to set a fairer gloss upon the same.

Your other Simile which you bring to illustrate the general point, hath I acknowledge much more light in it, if by the general point you mean the Law given by Moses, as it stands in opposition against the Gospel, according to that of John, The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth by Christ Jesus. For whether you understand the Ceremonial or Moral Law, or the Prophets, either as interpreters of the same, or foretellers of the good things to come imported by any of them, it is most true (as you allege out of 2 Pet. 1.19.) That the Doctrine of the Gospel doth as far exceed for beauty, brightness, and glory, the Doctrine of Moses, and the Prophets, as the Sun-light doth Star-light, and as the body doth the shadow, and the face of Christ the veil of Moses. In which respect Christ himself said of himself, That he was the true light that was come into the world, and that his disciples were happy and blessed that saw those things which they saw, and heard the things which they did hear, whereas many Kings and Prophets had not seen them, though they had desired to see them. And in regard hereof, he is termed by the Prophet Malachi, The Sun of righteousness. So then we say, They that sat in darkness have seen a great light, and unto them that sat in the shadow of death, hath the light shined. Whatsoever was darkness in Ceremony it is dispelled, whatsoever was a far off in Prophecy it is fulfilled, and whatsoever was a handwriting against us in the Law of Moses, it is cancelled. But what light doth this your Simile give to the utter abolishing of the whole Moral Law, which by the coming of Christ is not obscured, but more beautified, and not abolished, but more established and confirmed?

In the next, but not in the last place (as me thinks in good manners according to due order it should have done) comes in your conclusion, by way of exhortation and Doctor-like direction

[Answer.] As if none but yourself alone, were either so industrious or judicious, so studious or religious, as to have taken any pains, or to have gotten any knowledge like yourself in all or any of these things. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth, and if any man thinketh he knoweth anything, he knows nothing as he ought to know: and again, If any man think himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. It had in my opinion savored of more humility and modesty, if you had, after you had set down your judgment and reasons for the utter abolishing of the Moral Law, in meekness of wisdom submitted yourself and your writings, to the judgment of the religious and judicious both Ministers and people in our Churches, (for even the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets) and not to have cast such odious aspersions of ignorance and negligence, as you do upon them. For suppose some amongst many deserve so sharp a censure and rebuke, yet I doubt not but even they (seeing your gross ignorance, great negligence, and I fear me, some things even against knowledge and conscience too in these your own writings) will quit you with this or the like answer: Et si nos quidem digni sumus hac contumelia, tu omnium indignus qui faceres tamen: Although we have deserved such a contumely or reproof as this, yet you of all others might worst do it. For, Quis tulerit Graccos de seditione loquentes? Who can endure the turbulent and seditious Gracchi to speak against sedition? Or traitorous Athaliah to cry out, treason, treason? Or a man that for want of light, or diligent looking to his ways, doth himself stumble and tumble, and fall dangerously oftentimes, to reproach others (and some it may be, more vigilant and diligent than himself) with such If these be not swelling words of vanity, [Answer.] I mistake both your spirit and speech; if they be, I desire you may see what is amiss and amend it, and learn to conceive more humbly of yourself, and more charitably of your brethren. As for the special points which you commend unto our study and industry, viz. I suppose there is not one of all those, but hath in handling of this business been already touched, and so hath given some light, both to discover your error, or heresy, (if you hold it willfully) in going about to abolish the whole Law of Moses, and that wholly too; and to clear this truth also, that the Moral Law of God given by Moses to the Jews, is not since the death of Christ, in the Churches of Christ, wholly abolished and abrogated, but is yet in force still, for many holy offices and spiritual uses, confirmed by Christ, and continued by his Apostles, for the good of Christ's Church, even unto the worlds end. Now if you think that all that hath been said and done, be not, nor cannot be of any such force with you, as to convince you of error, or to confirm this truth; it may be herein, the fault will prove rather yours than mine: For as Non est Oratoris persuadere; sed dicere quae ad persuadendum sunt idonea: It is not required of an Orator to persuade, but to deliver such things as in themselves may be fit and available for persuading. So neither can it be required of an Answerer, to satisfy a wrangling Disputer, but to give what may serve for a sufficient satisfaction to his insufficient objection. Ezeckiel is commanded to speak, even though Israel will not hear: And Paul doth charge Titus, to endeavor by some doctrine and exhortation, to be able to convince the gainsayers, and to stop the mouths of such as are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , unruly vain-talkers, and deceivers, subuerting whole houses, and teaching things they ought not, for filthy lucre sake. Upon like occasion, and in a matter not much unlike, I held myself charged after the same manner, to endeavor according to my ability, to convince you of this your error, and to stop your mouth, if it may be, (which you have opened so wide against the truth) with the witnesses and with the word of Truth. And this was I (after a sort) enforced to attempt, because I knew you had labored by speaking and writing (if not for filthy lucre, yet for foolish humor sake) things which you ought not, not only to corrupt the minds of the simple by words of deceit, but to subvert the hearts and houses of some of my nearest and dearest friends, with a great and pompous show of reading and learning, which (had they not formerly been better instructed and established in the true knowledge of God's Word, both Law and Gospel) might easily have bred some distraction in their minds, and trouble in their hearts Pudet haec opprobria nobis & dici potuisse, & non potuisse refell •… . I may truly say, I held it both sin and shame, that so opprobrious things should be objected against the holy Law of God, and put into the bosoms of good and gracious people, as a parcel of God's truth and a pledge of your love; and not to be resisted by some encounter, and refuted by some answer to the same. Respondi sicut existimo quaestionibus tuis, saith S. Augustine to Boniface, quantum attinet ad minus capaces, & ad contentiosos non satis; quantum autem ad pacatos & intelligentes plus forte quàm sat est. Let me speak unto you in almost the same words, I have answered as I think, your positions and oppositions against the Moral Law of God; for such as are less capable and such as are contentious, not sufficiently enough neither for length nor strength, but for such as are tractable and teachable, peradventure more than enough for both. And here, if the length of my answer procure me any blame, either with you or other of my friends, seeing your Pamphlet was but short, which drew the same from me; I must plead my just defense as Augustine did his to the same Boniface, requiring a brief answer to some hard questions proposed unto him: His literis (saith he) lectis & relectis & recordatus sum Nebridium amicum meum, qui valde oderat, de quaestione magna responsionem brevem. In like manner having read over and over again your short Pamphlet, and seeing the question was great, and quotations many and large, though your paper was not much nor long; I could not abide to frame a short answer, nay I must needs frame a long, to so large and great a question, and that for the same reason which moved Nebridius so to desire an answer at length in such a case: Because in matters obscure, ad pietatis doctrinam maxim pertinentibus, especially appertaining to the Doctrine of piety (as this of the Moral Law especially doth) he that would diligently search and see into them, had need to enlarge himself and hold that course.

Concerning your last Will and Testament, and the light that it bringeth to your second section, I refer you to Zanchius in Hoseam, where you shall find the like Simile, and withal a pair of snuffers to top your light that it may burn more clearly: And if that will not serve, you may have Torchlight from Calvin, which I will now put into your hands before I leave you, (you may see how loath I am to leave you in the dark) whereby you may once more be admonished of your error, and the danger of it, and have light enough to lead you unto the truth, and provoke you also to the entertaining and embracing of it. Speaking of the sweetness and lightsomeness of the Moral Law, unto all that can do as David did, i. find and apprehend Christ the Mediator in the same: He addeth these words; Quod discernere dum imperiti quidam nesciunt, totum Mosen animose explodunt, duasque legis tabulas valere jubent: quia scilicet Christianis alienum esse arbitrantur adhaerere doctrinae quae mortis administrationem continet: Which different office and use of the Law, saith Calvin, whiles some ignorant persons know not how to discern, they do boldly and courageously hiss out all Moses Law, and bid farewell to the two Tables of the Moral Law; because forsooth, they think it strange for Christians to cleave unto that Doctrine which containeth the administration of death or damnation in it. Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. You may view your face in this glass, and take every word home with you to your own house; and withal, take I pray along with you, what he addeth in detestation of this your opinion. Facessat longe ex animis nostris profana istac opinio: Let this profane opinion be far removed from our minds: And consider seriously I beseech you, of that which he speaketh so resolutely, for the establishing of the Moral Law, as well as in the commendation of the use of it. Quod si absolutum (saith he) in ea justitiae exemplar eminere nemo inficietur, aut nullam esse nobis recte justeque vivendi regulam oportet, aut ab ea nefas est discedere: But if (saith Calvin) no man can deny, but that in the Moral Law there is manifestly to be seen a most absolute pattern of righteousness; either we must have no rule at all of right and just living, or it is great wickedness to depart from the Moral Law. Certainly me thinks, to a reasonable and ingenuous man this might be sufficient satisfaction, for embracing the truth and relinquishing of so unsound and unsavory an opinion. I could compass you about with a cloud of witnesses to this purpose: But it must be even this Law of God, written in your heart by the finger of God's Spirit, which through the power and grace of Christ shall help to illighten your eyes to see the beauty, and convert your soul to feel the virtue, even of this Moral Law of God, which you now so oppose and oppugn, which I doubt not but in due time the Lord will do, if (as I hope you do) you belong unto him. Meanewhile we will pray for you, and wait in patience, to see if peradventure the Lord may give you repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; that when you shall have recovered yourself out of this snare of Satan, and we shall hear or see that he which persecuted the Law in times past, doth now publish and profess obedience thereunto, we with other of God's children that wish you well in Christ, may be provoked by your light which may shine in the works of love the sum of the Law, to rejoice in your recovery, and to glorify God in youre behalf.