To show that the moral law was preparatory to the Gospel, he alleges the fact that Jesus taught its precepts as the way of life to the young lawyer who came to inquire of him; not supposing that these were sufficient in themselves, but that they were steps to the knowledge of Christ(288). He, however, thought that our Lord wished that the whole ceremonial law should be observed as long as Jerusalem stood(289). But although he appears to think that the law, as a whole and in the letter, is no longer binding to Christians, he does not think that this leaves us at liberty to do as we like. If we are not tied down to the letter, like slaves, that is because it was intended that the law of liberty should be of wider range, and our obedience extend itself beyond the letter, and that our subjection to our Heavenly King should be more hearty and thoroughgoing than ever; and therefore, if we wish to remain in the way of salvation through Christ, we must voluntarily adopt the precepts of the decalogue, and, giving them a completer meaning, endeavour to realize in our conduct all the fulness of their enlarged application(290). It is almost unnecessary to point out the exact agreement of these sentiments with the seventh and fourteenth articles of the Church of England, and how impossible it must be for a person holding them to think that we can do any thing whatever beyond what Christ has a right to expect from us. It is manifest that he would not have thought that any degrees of Christian holiness are really at our option, whether we shall seek them or not; but that every person who, having any degree of perfection, or any means of advancement placed before him, knowingly neglects it, becomes thereby unworthy of him who has given him liberty(291), and hazards his salvation: in short, that “to whom much is given, of him will much be required.” CHAPTER VIII. ON THE CANON, GENUINENESS, VERSIONS, USE, AND VALUE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. Unnatural as it may appear, it is notwithstanding true that we find much less clear ideas in regard to the _canon_ of Holy Scripture in the earlier ages than in the later. The word scripture was used, as we shall see, in a latitude with which no church or party in later times has used it. Irenæus quotes all the books which we of the Church of England esteem canonical, except Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, and Haggai. But the mere circumstance of his not citing them cannot, of course, imply any doubt as to their inspiration or canonicity. He had no occasion to do so for the purposes of his argument. It is only wonderful that he thought himself obliged to quote so largely upon such a subject.