i

;

>

condemned to death for the breach of it; and though, as to the purpose of entitling us to eternal life, it is become weak through the flesh. Instead of giving life to a Sinner, it reveals the wrath and righteous difpleasure of God against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of Men. But this is no fault of the Law, to bear witness against the fault of the Creature. As it never demanded more for God than his due, so it never threatened the Sinner with any thing worse than his defert. Of the temporary Institutions of the Mofaic Dispensation, confidered as now abrogated by the death of Chrift, and especially as abused by the Judaizing Teachers, who set them up in opposition to the Gospel of Chrift; not confidering that Economy, as preparatory to Chriftianity, or designed to shew them their need of the promised Mesfiah, and lead them by Types and Shadows to Faith in him: of these ceremonies, I say, thus abused, he speaks in this Epistle in very diminutive terms. He calls them weak and beggarly Elements, whereunto they desired again to be in bondage. iv. 9.But how differently does he speak of the moral Law, in Rom. vii. 12, 22. The Law is holy: and the Commandment holy, just, and good. The Law is Spiritual. I confent unto the Law that it is good. I delight in the Law of God after the inward Man. And well he might, for his bleffed Lord and Saviour did fo. Pf. xl. 8. And so do all his Saints. Ifai. li. 7.-So again, though he exhorts the Galatians (v. i.) to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Chrift hath made us free, and not be entangled again with the yoke of ceremonial bondage. Yet, in the same Chapter (14) He recommends the second and lovest branch of the moral Larv, as fulfilled in one word, in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. And, in Ch. vi. 2. he enjoins them to bear one another's burdens, and fo fulfil the Law of Christ. Now, furely, if e Chrift Christ has confirmed our obligations to fulfil the second great branch of the Law, he has not released us from our obligations to be conformed to the first and greatest Command. Hardly can I forbear adding, he must be more like a Devil than a Christian, who could reckon it a privilege to be released from fo blessed an obligation.

II. But it is time to proceed to the second Thing proposed, The Confideration of the Apostle's ANSWER to this Query; and more immediately attend to the Evidence, that the Law is not inconfiftent with the Gospel, or against the promises of God. I would only premise, that I shall confider both the Question and Anfwer in the text, in the most extensive sense, as including both the Law of Creation, and the Law of Moses. I suppose, indeed, that the latter is more generally intended by the word Law, as used in this Epistle and in that to the Hebrews; but here I think both are included. Especially for these two Reafons. (1.) The Mofaic Dispensation was attended with a promulgation of the moral Law, in the ten Commandments; which, though employed under that Difpenfation for a particular purpose, as conftituting a part of the national Covenant, yet did not thereby lose any part of it's original authority. I conceive that God did not require spiritual obedience of the Ifraelites by the national Covenant as fuch. But by entering into a new and peculiar Relation to them, as their political Head, he did not give up his prior Relation as the God and Governor of the Universe, and in that Character he as much required the Heart of them as of any other People upon earth. (2.) The Apostle seems particularly to design being as universal as possible in his answer, and therefore, in the original, drops the article, and obferves, that if there had been Law (i. e. any Law)

D

Law) that could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by Law. And as Dr. Guyse observes, according to Mr. Locke's rule of interpretation, νομος and εκ νόμου being here used without the article, they relate to Law in general, and confequently exclude from our luttification, the works not only of the cere. monial and moral law both, but also equally oppose the unfcriptural. idea of our being justified by our own Obedience to any supposed new, remedial Law.

These things being premised, we would attend to the proof, that the law is in no sense contrary to the gofpel, or against the promises of God. In the first place we fee the Aposlle, with a tone of abhorrence, flatly denies the supposition. God forbid! Let it by no means be! Nor does this fuffice; he not only denies, but difproves. If, says he, there had been a law which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law, &c. Intimating that the Gospel was designed for a purpose, to which the law was wholly infufficient, and which it really never proposed to answer, viz. to give Life to a Sinner. Though yet that end is fo answered by the Gospel, as not to offer the least injury to the Law, or cast any reflection upon it, for not doing what it never undertook to perform.And then, lastly, he points out the real subserviency of the Law to the Gospel in ver. 22. As concluding all under fin, that falvation might appear to be wholly of grace.

The Apostle utterly rejects the Idea of any real opposition between Law and Gospel. And well he might. For that Idea, once admitted, must reflect dishonour upon God himself, in one Character or another. Either his Law must have been too strict, or his Gospel too lax. He at first demanded more than his due, or he now has given up his just rights. But shall we dare to conceive of God as acting the part of a cruel Tyrant,

or

or as finking into the likeness of a weak and too indulgent Parent, who sacrifices his authority to the humours and vices of his Children? Shall we suppose the Almighty at first laid an inconfiftent plan of Government, which he has been obliged to correct and amend, as confcious it was too rigid and fevere? Or shall we imagine, that his Love to his People has induced him to save them at the Expence of Law and Justice, and to the dishonour of his own Crown and Dignity? God forbid, says the Apostle, and let every loyal Subject, let every filial heart say Amen.

We have confidered the term Law, as here including both the moral and ceremonial Law. Whether these are confidered conjointly or feparately, we shall find them in perfect harmony with the gospel.

Let us first view them conjointly, and here we will notice the grand argument of the apostle in the text, from the confideration of the insufficiency of the Law to give Life. The Gospel discovers a glorious method to accomplish a gracious design, which design could not have been obtained by the law, whether ceremonial or moral. Could the fuftification of a Sinner have been effected by the law, it might then have taken just offence at the Gospel, as intruding into it's concerns, and invading it's peculiar province. Could the Law have alledged against the introduction of the Gospel, that the finner might have attained a title to eternal life by precepts as well as by promises, and that, therefore, the bestowment of the latter was unnecessary, we might on that supposition admit a variance between them. But this never was the cafe. The Law is weak through the flesh, and cannot justify an individual of the fallen race. It can therefore make no just objection to the work being done by another hand. If any objection were made, the gospel has at once this for an. fwer.

D2

:

fwer. If there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law. But the fcripture hath concluded all under fın. If, therefore, men had not been justified by the Gospel, they could not have been justified at all. But the Law in itself has no such objections to make. It was only it's indiscreet advocates, or rather it's pretended friends, that entertained any fuch fufpicions. The Law itself in no form is against the Promises. On the contrary, it cheerfully gives place to the Redeemer, and finds itself fulfilled in him and magnified by him.

If it had been possible for the moral Law to have accepted a Sinner, upon the footing of personal but imperfect obedience; or if the additional observance of the ceremonial Institutions enjoined by Mofes, could have made amends for moral defects; could it have been proved consistent with the divine Purity and Immutability, to have altered and lowered the original demands of the Law of Creation; or could it have been agreeable to the divine rectitude and dignity to have fet the old Law afide, and to have substituted another, whereby it would have been possible for a finner to have been reconciled unto God, either upon easier or harder terms, than the perfect obedience which he at first required: if, I fay, either of these had been possible; then, verily, righteousness should have been thus attained. God would have spared his only begotten Son. He would not have shed his blood without occafion. For furely if the Death of Christ was not absolutely necessary to secure the honour of the divine Government in the Pardon of Sin, it will be for ever impossible to fee either Justice, Wisdom or Love in that awful event. Had it been possible for the Blood of Bulls or Goats to have taken away fin as well as the Blood of God's own Son, undoubtedly so great a Sacrifice would never have been appointed.

But