Would any intelligent lawyer quote from a volume of laws which had been publicly repealed? It is evident therefore, that when the Apostle said, Eph. vi. 2. "Honor thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise) it was not known that this law was repealed. It does not appear indeed that any, who believed the scriptures, doubted the sanction of the Moral Law.

As the blessing of God was to be upon their basket and their store in their observation of those laws, it is evident that every successive generation were, profited by that law, if they kept it, and no law is accountable for the inconveniences which accrue from its violation.. Indeed the more, there are, the stronger its authority.. If this law was good for one generation, it would. be good for all generations, so long as mankind. continue the same, and in so far as circumstances, are similar. The influence of example is great. upon society, when that is good it must be very beneficial. The example, which the observance of this law would exhibit, would, from generation to generation, be salutary and beneficent.

In the re-exhibition of the law given in the book of Deuteronomy, which signifies the second law, or second edition of the law, the same principle of gracious attention to children is still ob, served. This second promulgation of the law took place about forty years after the first; for although the distance is but about 200 miles from Horeb to Kadesh they spent abont 40 years in

travelling it. Their lust, their' unbelieving fears caused this long delay in the wilderness. When they were rightly in their senses, they acknowledged that the system of rule given to them from Moses, was, wholesome and good. Deut. 1, 14. "And he answered and said, the thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do." They had anticipated great danger, but contrary to their unbelieving fears, their children were introduced safe under the auspicies of their heavenly Father, gracious Protector and divine Redeemer: V. 39. Moreover your little ones which ye said should be a prey, and your children which in' that day had no knowledge between geod and evil, they shall go in hither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it."

The history of the renovation of this covenant is given in the xxix chap. "These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. v. 10. Ye stand all of you before the Lord your God, your captains of your tribes, your elders and your officers. v. 11. Your little ones?" Not only those who were there' born, but also those who were not born were considered by representation present. v. "That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day; that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God as he said unto

thee, and as he hath swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; 'but with him that standeth with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here this day. v. 29. Those things which are revealed, belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the works of this law."

From all these facts respecting the utility of the law in its nature and tendency, and from its durability in its very form, it must be evident, that, if these moral and salutary precepts be abrogated, their abrogation must be very explicit, and must be done by competent authority.

It sometimes happens that people through prejudice, pride, and superstition, are attached to systems which they had better renounce; but it is also true, that a great deal depends upon the attachment of a people to a system, whether it shall be salutary to them or not. To this we may, with safety add, that it is very improbable, to say the least of it, that a people would be too much attached to the laws of their God. Were the children of Israel ever blamed for this? No. They are blamed for the very contrary. They made void the law of God through their traditrons. Whatever therefore Christ and his Apostles say against the Pharisees, Scribes, and Lawgivers of that period, must be understood against their traditionary expositions, and superstitious observances of human appendages; not against he law itself. It is true they might put too much

dependance on the literal cbservance of the law. The law is only good when lawfully used, and Doctors of law have still an adage, “Summum jus est summa injuria," The height of the law is the height of injustice. They abused the law very much, by taking those precepts which were designed to regulate the decisions of the judge upon the bench, in times when greatest rigour was necessary, these they took to be common maxims, of ordinary life. By this means they justified their relentless cruelty and revengeful disposition. The law was not to blame for this; nor is Christ to be considered as speaking against the law of retaliation in every case when he reproves this its abuse. Neither will the reproof which he administers to profane swearers be considered, by any but ignorant enthusiasts or designing knaves, to be a repeal of the law respecting testimony upon oath. "An oath for confrmation is still an ordinance of God to put an end to strife."

Judicious and tender Christians may, and stik dö, testify against cruelties perpetrated by individuals and communities under the pretext of laws even divine. They may, and still do, testify against the profane forms, and profane frequency of oaths. They, notwithstanding, constantly plead that individuals, Churches and nations should avouch God to be their God-that they should walk in his statutes, keep his ordinances, and in case of sufficient importance and difficulty swear by his great and dreadful name.

If this be considered digression, we are not to blame, but our opponents, who have dragged it into the controversy. If they are forced to take refuge in an antinomian plea, it cannot be against the law or cause of this controversy to plead for the permanent sanction of the Moral Law. I know some of the baptist brethren will say, We do not affirm that Christ came to destroy the law. We do say with the Apostle-"The law is holy and just and good. We wish they would all say

.10.

When they do, we shall in our negociations with them, desist from long discussions of a controversial nature on this point. It is extremely difficult at present for their want of union among themselves to know, in what manner to meet them on their views of the law. They have encompassed the camp of truth; not in regular battalions -marching in rank and file, but in skulking parties, like companies of Indians, hordes of Vandals, or legions of Gog and Magog. Some say there are ten commandments; some say there are eleven ; some say there are six; some four; some two ; Some say there are ten, but like the Papists who, erasing the second, because it does not well comport with their hosts and images, make two of the tenth. So some of the modern Reformers take away the fourth and supply the law of love in its room. Love, to be sure is of great moment, both in morals and religion, but it is also very evident that it is rather a compound or summary of the whole law than a distinct precept of itself. Love is the fulfilling of

some one; some none.