The first part of the Christian instruction, and general so[m]me of the doctrine, contained…The firste parte of the Christian instruction, and generall so[m]me of the doctrine, conteyned…

¶ Of the difference that men do commonly put between the law of rigour, and the law of grace, and of the abuse that therein is.

¶ Of the difference that men do commonly put betvvene the lavve of rigor, and the lavve of grace, and of the abuse that therein is.

T. How do these things agree then with the difference that we see men put commonly between the old and the new Testament and between the law of Moses which was given to the Jews, and the law of Jesus Christ given to the Christians? For men do commonly call y• of Moses and the old Testament, the law of rigour: and that of Jesus Christ and the new Testament, the law of grace. D. Do these men which make that distinction think that God is changed since the time that he gave his law by Moses, & that he doth not as much hate iniquity now, as he did then? Do they think that he can better endure the outrage that is done to his own Son, then he could do that which was done to his servant? Do they think that Jesus Christ came into the world to increase & allow sin, and not rather to make it more & more hateful and to put it away? T. It is like so: for if a man do allege that adultery must be punished, and will show how much it displeaseth God, for so ¹much as he commanded in the law of Moses, that adulteries should be punished by death: they have forthwith their recourse to this distinction of the law of rigour & of grace, saying ⟨p. 181⟩that we are under the law of grace, and not under the law of rigour. And although they do the like in divers other such crimes, yet is there none to whom they would make this law of grace more beneficial then to whores & whoremasters. D. Wherefore do they not then cause that law of grace to be as favourable to thieves, whom they condemn to death, which the law of Moses doth not, as it doth the adulterers? But what is the cause that murderers & thieves, ²and all other evil doers are punished? why have they no part of this law of grace? T. They think that they have greater reason concerning the punishment of adulteries, because that Jesus Christ would not condemn the woman ³which was taken in adultery and brought unto him by the Jews. D. Will they by that mean conclude that Jesus Christ did more favour adulteries, than he did other offences and crimes? They are therein greatly deceived. For Jesus Christ did not that which he did in that matter, to give men to understand that whores and whoremasters should remain unpunished: but for y• that his office tended not thereunto:

T. HOw doe these thinges agree then with the difference that we sée men put commonly betwene the olde and the new Testament and betwene the law of Moyses which was geuen to the Iewes, and the lawe of Iesus Christ geuen to the Christians? For men do commonly cal y• of Moyses and the olde Testament, the lawe of rigour: and that of Iesus Christ and the newe Testament, the lawe of grace. D. Do these men which make that distinction thinke yt God is chaunged since the time yt he gaue his lawe by Moyses, & that he doth not as much hate iniquitie now, as he did then? Do they thinke that he can better endure the outrage that is done to his own Sonne, then he could do that which was done to his seruaunt? Doe they thinke yt Iesus Christ came into the world to encrease & allowe sinne, and not rather to make it more & more hatefull and to put it away? T. It is like so: for if a man do alledge that adulterie must be punyshed, and will shewe howe much it displeaseth God, for so ¹much as he cōmaunded in the law of Moyses, yt adulteries should be punished by death: they haue forthwith their recourse to this distinction of ye law of rigour & of grace, saying ⟨p. 181⟩that we are vnder the lawe of grace, and not vnder the law of rigor. And although they do the like in diuers other such crymes, yet is there none to whom they woulde make this law of grace more beneficiall then to whores & whoremaisters. D. Wherfore do they not then cause that law of grace to be as fauourable to theues, whom they condemne to death, which the lawe of Moyses doth not, as it doth the adulterers? But what is ye cause that murtherers & theues, ²and all other euill doers are punished? why haue they no part of this lawe of grace? T. They thinke that they haue greater reason concerning the punishment of adulteryes, because that Iesus Christ would not condemne the womā ³which was taken in adulterie and brought vnto him by the Iewes. D. Will they by that meane conclude that Iesus Christ did more fauour adulteries, thē he did other offences and crimes? They are therin greatly deceaued. For Iesus Christ did not that which he did in that matter, to geue men to vnderstand that whores and whoremaisters shoulde remayne vnpunished: but for y• that his office tended not therunto:

1. 1Levit. x Deut. 22Leuit. x Deut. 22
2. 2Exod. 22 Prou. •
3. 3John. viii.Iohn. viii.

and that he would confound the hypocrisy of those which had brought her unto him, and therefore he would have done no less touching any other offence. Therefore we may not in this sort abuse the grace which is brought unto us by Jesus Christ. T. Yet notwithstanding y• matter passeth so at this day.

and that he woulde confound the hypocrisie of those which had brought her vnto him, and therefore he woulde haue done no lesse touching any other offence. Therfore we may not in this sort abuse the grace which is brought vnto vs by Iesus Christ. T. Yet notwithstanding y• matter passeth so at this daye.

¶ Of the difference and diversity of the laws of Moses, and of their nature.

¶ Of the difference and diuersitie of the lavves of Moyses, and of their nature.

D. IT is very true, as it hath been already declared else where, that we ought to consider in sundry wise of y• law of Moses, and that there is great difference between the law whereof Moses was minister, and the Gospel, which appertaineth properly to the ministry of Jesus Christ. Men have accustomed to deuyde the law of Moses into three kinds, of the which the first was commonly ⟨p. 182⟩called moral, the other ceremonial, & the other civil. Thou hast already heard a part of mine opinion and judgement touching that matter, I have already declared how that the law of God which we do call moral, the which containeth the declaration of the everlasting will of God, did nothing differ, or at the least very smally from that law that we call natural, which God hath engraven in the harts of men: and y• that law written was given but only to make us to understand, and to restore unto us that goodness which sin hath taken from us, and to declare unto us how far a way it hath carried from us the innocency, holiness and perfection, which ought to be in us: and should in deed have been in us, if sin had not entered into the world, and that we had continued still in that estate in the which the first man was created. For seeing that he was created according to the image of God, there is no doubt but that the will of God, and that which he requireth of us, was printed in that image, which should always have governed and ruled the will of man, and should always have maintained it agreeable with the will of God, and should have been unto us a law for ever. And afterward I have also declared how that the law ceremonial and civil, were nothing else but as dependencies of that law, commonly called morale and decalogue, (becau•e that it containeth ten commandments, which are called in the Scripture, y• ten words) to serve to lead men in the keeping of that law, as well concerning those things which directly belong to God and to his divine service, to the which the ceremonial law hath regard: as unto those things which touch our neighbour, to the which the civil laws have their chief respect: whereupon it hath been declared in what sort both the one and the other of these two kind of laws might be abolished & put away, and what liberty we have concerning the same through our Lord Jesus Christ.

¶ Of the abolishing of the law of Moses, and of the old Testament, and of the things which ought to be considered therein.

¶ Of the abolishing of the lavve of Moyses, and of the olde Testament, and of the things vvhich ought to be considered therin.

T. I Have well understood all this, but I do think, that I have also heard say that the whole law of Moses was abolished. And in like sort I have heard say that we have now no more to do neither with Moses his law, nor any part of the old Testament, but with Jesus Christ & his gospel. Wherefore I would gladly know of thee if this law of decalogue be also abolished or no, or whether we be yet subject unto it, or ells that we be clearly free from it, and how we ought to think of it. And then I do think that it shall be more easy for me afterward to understand, if the distinction of the law of rigour and of grace (of the which we have lately spoken) be any thing meet in such a matter, and how we ought to use both the one and the other. D. Beside those things whereof we have already spoken, we must note if we will well understand this matter, that this abolishing must be considered in two sorts. The one concerning the transgression, the other the fulfilling of the law. The transgression ¹bringeth with it the wrath and curse of God upon yt transgressor, and maketh every man subject to that curse and wrath. The mean to be delivered, is by faith, by the which we embrace Jesus Christ with all the good gifts that are in him, now it is written that he would become subject to the law, to deliver from subjection of the law those that be subject thereunto: and that he being hanged upon a tree, was made accursed for us, bearing upon himself the curse ²which was due for our transgression to abolish the same, and to make us partakers of the blessing of God, which was promised to Abraham and to other holy Patriarchs and Prophets through him. For it is he that is the true seed of ³Abraham, in & through whom that promised blessing was sprinkled upon all people and nations.

T. I Haue well vnderstoode all this, but I do thinke, that I haue also heard say yt the whole law of Moses was abolished. And in like sort I haue heard say yt we haue now no more to do neither with Moyses his law, nor any part of the old Testament, but wt Iesus Christ & his gospel. Wherfore I woulde gladly know of thee if this law of decalogue be also abolished or no, or whether we be yet subiect vnto it, or ells that we be clerely free from it, and how we ought to thinke of it. And then I do thinke yt it shal be more easye for me afterward to vnderstand, if the distinction of the law of rigour and of grace (of the which we haue lately spoken) be any thing meete in such a matter, and how we ought to vse both the one and the other. D. Beside those things wherof we haue alreadye spoken, we muste note if we will well vnderstand thys matter, that thys abolyshing must be considered in two sortes. The one concerning the transgression, the other the fulfillyng of the lawe. The transgression

¶ Of the difference that is between the faithful and the unfaithful, concerning the blessing and the curse of the law, through Jesus Christ.

¶ Of the difference that is betvvene the faythfull and the vnfaythful, concerning the blessing and the curse of the lavv, through Iesus Christ.

T. WE may then well take that which thou sayest for to be the mean whereby the elect and the reprobate, the faithful and the unfaithful are divided and sundered the one from the other. D. In so doing thou takest it not amiss. For as S. Paul witnesseth, we are all borne the ¹children of wrath. But as it is written in S. John: he that believeth in the son of God, hath eternal life. It followeth then that he is delivered from that curse, which bringeth everlasting death. And so he is delivered from the law, as touching the condemnation and curse wherewith she threateneth all transgressors. Therefore S. Paul saith that there is no condemnation for those that are in Jesus Christ ²which live after the spirit, and not after the flesh. For Jesus Christ taking upon him the curse which they had deserved, hath also satisfied the justice of God for them, & paid the debt which the law required. And the obedience which Jesus Christ did yield to God his father, and the innocency and the justice that is in him, is accounted for theirs, as though it were their own properly. Therefore he esteemeth ³them for just. And in consideration of this great benefit, Jesus Christ is called by S. Paul, our conversation, and our justice, and contrarily according to the testimony of S. John, he that believeth not in the son of God, dwelleth under the wrath of God, in the which he is borne, through ⁴which burden he shall be thrown down in to everlasting death, and into the very hell, because he hath no part of this benefit of Jesus Christ, with whom we can have no part taking at all, but only through true and lively faith. T. I know that very well.

T. VVE may then wel take that which thou sayest for to be the meane whereby the elect and the reprobate, the faythful and the vnfaythfull are deuided and sundred the one from the other. D. In so doing thou takest it not amisse. For as S. Paule witnesseth, we are al borne the ¹children of wrath. But as it is written in S. Iohn: he that beleueth in the sonne of God, hath eternal lyfe. It foloweth then that he is deliuered from that cursse, whych bryngeth euerlastinge death. And so he is deliuered from the lawe, as touching the condemnacion and cursse wherewith she threatneth all transgressors. Therfore S. Paule saith that ther is no condemnacion for those that are in Iesus Christ

¶ Of the benefit of Jesus Christ, and of the good things that we receive by him, and what freedom of the law he bringeth to the faithful.

¶ Of the benefit of Iesus Christ, and of the good thinges that vve receiue by him, and vvhat freedome of the lavve he bringeth to the faythfull.

D. Moreover, the benefit that we have in Jesus Christ doth not serve us only for the remission of our sins, §25and the absolution of the same which we have committed against the law, by the which the curse thereof is turned in to blessing o: but doth also serve to prepare us for the time to come, and to bring us to the true obedience that the requireth of us, to the end that we fall no more again into the filth and danger out of the which we have ben delivered. Therefore Jesus Christ is called not only our justification, ¹but also our sanctification. The benefit then that we receive of him is double: for first he blotteth out and wipeth away all the sin that he findeth in us. After that he doth regenerate us by his holy spirit, and doth reform and make ready our understandings and our wills for to know truly the will of God, and to agree unto the same, and to yield to God that obedience which is due unto him. Therefore, how much the more so ever this regeneration and reformation is perfect in us, and the more we draw nigh to that estate of innocency, in the which the first man was created and set, so much the more are we free from the law. For as S. Paul witnesseth: the law is not ordained for the just, but for the ²unjust.

D. MOreouer, the benefyt that we haue in Iesus Christe doth not serue vs onely for the remission of our sins, §25and the absolucion of the same which we haue committed against the law, by the which the cursse therof is turned in to blessing o: but doth also serue to prepare vs for the tyme to come, and to bring vs to the true obedience that the requireth of vs, to the end that we fal no more again into the fylth and daunger out of the which we haue ben deliuered. Therfore Iesus Christ is called not onely our iustificatiō, ¹but also our sanctificatiō. The benefit then that we receiue of him is double: for first he blotteth out and wipeth away al the sinne that he findeth in vs. After that he doth regenerate vs by hys holy spirit, and doth reforme and make ready our vnderstandinges and our wyls for to know trulye the wil of God, and to agree vnto the same, and to yeld to God that obedience which is due vnto him. Therfore, how much the more so euer this regeneracion and reformation is perfect in vs, and the more we drawe nye to that estate of innocency, in the which the first man was created and set, so much the more ar we free from the law. For as S. Paul witnesseth: the law is not ordayned for the iust, but for the

¶ In what sort we ought to understand that the law is not ordained for the just and the faithful, but for the unjust and faithless.

¶ In what sorte we ought to vnderstande that the lawe is not ordayned for the iust and the faythful, but for the vniust and faythles.

T. How doest thou understand this passage or text? D. Tell me, to what end was the law given? was it not to restrain men from evil, and to set forward well doing? T. That is out of all doubt. D. Then, where there is no fear of iniquity and of transgression, there is also no need of law. For the just man being joined unto God, and being made partaker of his justice and nature, he is a law unto himself. For that that he hath the law of God printed in his hart by the mean of that image of God, unto the which ⟨p. 186⟩he is made like. Wherefore, he keepeth him self from every thing that he knoweth to be contrary to the will of God, and employeth him to every thing that he knoweth to be pleasant and agreeable unto him, not with such a heart & mind as doth a hireling, which doth nothing but in hope of his hire: or as a man of an evil mind which refraineth not from the evil that he would willingly do, but only for that that the punishment which he feareth, holdeth him from it. For such men do nothing neither for the honour of God, nor yet for his justice, who of his nature is worthy to be loved and honoured, although there were no reward for those that honour him, nor punishment for them that offend him, and transgress against his holy ordinances. T. Why do they then do it? D. They do it only for the love of them selves. But the just man doth it to honour God, and for the love that he beareth to his justice, in such sort, as he cannot otherwise do, although there were no punishment at all ordained for the transgressors, nor yet reward for the obedient, as we see many examples thereof among men. For an honest man doth not keep him self from being a thief and a murderer, for fear of the punishment that is appointed for such offences, but for that he loveth virtue, and hateth vice. Therefore, although that such vices should not be punished at all, yet would he never the sooner do them. And therefore the law ordained for thieves and murderers, is not ordained for him, nor maketh him subject at all unto it, as is the thief and murderer: for so much as without it he doth of him self that which the law requireth. And therefore in this manner is the faithful delivered from the subjection of the law, and in this sort the law is abolished unto him.

T. HOw doest thou vnderstand this passage or text? D. Tel me, to what end was the law geuen? was it not to restraine men from euil, and to set forward wel doyng? T. That is out of al doubt. D. Then, where ther is no fear of iniquitye and of transgression, there is also no neede of law. For the iust man being ioyned vnto God, and beyng made partaker of his iustice and nature, he is a lawe vnto himselfe. For that that he hath the lawe of God prynted in his hart by the meane of that image of God, vnto the which