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[21]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[22]?
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[23]; 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 any revealed Law, they would be finally accepted, 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.