Such is the force, and such the elegant disposition and address, of the Apostle's reasoning. The conclusion follows irresistibly, That there is a Law written in our hearts, or that, besides a Revealed Law, there is a law of natural reason.

That this conclusion is not injurious to revealed Law, but indeed most friendly and propitious to it; that, in particular, it no way derogates from the honour of the Christian Law, nor can serve in any degree to lessen the value, or supersede the use and necessity of it I shall attempt to shew in another discourse.

SERMON IV.

PREACHED MAY 24, 1767.

GAL. iii. 19.

Wherefore then serveth the Law?

WHEN the Apostle Paul had proved, in his Epistle to the a Romans, that if the uncircumcision kept the righteousness of the Law, his uncircumcision would be accounted for circumcision; that is, if the Gentile observed the moral law, which was his proper rule of life, he would be accepted of God, as well as the Jew, who observed the Mosaic Law ; this generous reasoning gave offence, and he was presently asked, WHAT ADVANTAGE THEN HATH THE JEW b?

་

In like manner, when the same Apostle had been contending, in his Epistle to the Galatians, that the inheritance was not of the Law, but of Promise; that is, that all men, the Gentiles as well as the Jews, were entitled to the blessings of the Christian covenant, in virtue of God's promise to Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed and not the Jews exclusively, in virtue of the Mosaic Law, given to them only; the same spirit discovers itself, as before, and he is again interrogated by his captious disciples, WHEREFORE THEN SERVETH THE LAW? if the Gentiles may be justified through faith in Christ, and so inherit the promise made to Abraham, as well as the Jews, to what purpose was the Jewish Law then given ?

And to these questions, how unreasonable soever, the learned Apostle has himself condescended to give an answer.

Now, the same perverseness, which gave birth to these Jewish prejudices, seems to have operated in some Christians; who, on being told, and even by St. Paul himself, of a Law of Nature, by which the Heathen were required to govern their lives, and by the observance of which, without their knowledge of e Chap. iii.

any revealed Law, they would be finally ac cepted, have been forward in their turn, to ask, WHEREFORE THEN SERVETH THE LAW? Or, if there be a natural Law, according to which the very Heathen will be judged, and may be rewarded, what are the boasted privileges of Revealed Law, and, in particular, the revealed Law of the Gospel?

Now to this question (having, in my last discourse, asserted the proposition, which gives occasion to it) I shall reply, in the best manner I can, by shewing,

I. That the supposition of a natural moral Law is even necessary to the support of REVELATION; And

II. That this supposition no way derogates from the honour of the Gospel,

I. That a natural moral Law is required to support the authority of Revelation, I conclude, not merely, because this supposition is actually made in sacred Scripture, because the sacred writers argue expressly from it, and every-where refer to it, but principally and chiefly, because, without admitting this prior Law of nature, we cannot judge of any pre

tended Revelation, whether it be divine or no. For, if there be no such moral Law, previously given, which our hearts and consciences approve, and to which our common nature assents, we can never see the fitness of any means, as conducive to a moral end; we can entertain no just and clear notions of moral action, properly so called; and, consequently, we can have no ideas of what are called the moral attributes of God. Now, in this state of ignorance and uncertainty, how shall any man go about to prove to us the divinity of any Revelation, or through what medium can its truth or authenticity be established? We have no Rule, no principles, by which to judge of the Law, pretending to come from God: we cannot tell, whether it be worthy of him, or not: we do not so much as know, what worth or goodness is, either in ourselves, or in the Deity. Thus all internal arguments for the excellence of any Religion are at once cut off: and yet till, from such considerations, we find that a Religion may come from God, we cannot reasonably conclude, on any evidence, that it does come from him. The Religion of Mahomet may, for any thing we can tell, if there be no moral Law for us to judge by, be as worthy of God, as that of Jesus. Nor will any external arguments, even the most