ing, though ever fo attentively, to the prophets, if these had no better news to tell them, than that in the reign of Auguftus Cafar, a man was to come and fet up a new law? Why refer these poor finners to the writings of Mofes and the prophets, if there yet remained fome new rule of faith and obedience, not to be met with in their writings ?-Indeed, if this was the cafe, it was but to little purpose for CHRIST to command the Jews to Search the fcriptures (John v. 39.): they might, indeed, as he fays, think they had eternal life in them, but they were fadly mistaken, if a new law was to be the condition of it, and the way to it, which was not revealed and contained in thofe fcriptures. In vain alfo were they referred to the Hebrew fcriptures, as teftifying of him; for not a word is there to be found of his appearance upon earth as a repealer and abrogater of the moral law of Mofes, and as the enacter and establifher of a new rule of life in its place. When our BLESSED SAVIOUR faid (Matt. v. 18.) Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle fhall in no wife pass from the law, &c. He fpake in the most emphatical manner, introducing what He faid with an Amen-verily and though the expreffions He uses have been called proverbial, yet no doubt but He is to be understood literally. The He brew brew jod (for doubtless he expreffed himfelf in Hebrew) is the fmalleft letter in the Hebrew alphabet, yet the omiffion of it in fome words might wholly alter the fenfe of them.-So with regard to the nɛpaia, which we render tittle, it comes from nɛpas, an born (Heb. 1p) and denotes thofe little projections which in Hebrew diftinguish one fimilar letter from another-as a from a —or a 7 from a. Many texts might be produced, where taking away one of thefe, would make a confiderable alteration in the fenfe. Now can CHRIST be fuppofed to have been fo watchful over the book of the law, and all things contained therein, as to declare that not a fingle letter, or the smallest part of a letter, could fuffer the least diminution, and yet himself vacate, alter, change, abrogate, and repeal whole and entire ftatutes? And this to promulgate to mankind a new rule of life, more excellent than that under which they had formerly lived, hereby ftamping a want of excellence, purity, and holiness, as well as of wif dom and perfection, on the Divine Law? The Apostle fays, Gal. iii. 21. If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness (or that by which men could have been juftified) fhould have been by the law, but the fcripture hath concluded (GUVERNErde, hath shut up together as in a prison) all under fin. Again, He gives A a 4 us us to understand, that the juftification of man is impoffible by the law-What the law could not do-rò ádivatov To veus-impoffi bile legis-THE IMPOSSIBLE THING of the law--Why so ?-Because the law itself was imperfect?-No-but because it was weak through the flesh. Not from any defect in the law itself, but through the impediment arifing from the corruption of the human nature, which has brought us under guilt, and rendered us incapable fubjects of its abfolving and juftifying fentence. As it argues a perfection and purity of holiness in GOD himself, that He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity (Hab. i. 13.) fo it argues a perfection and purity in the divine law, that it cannot justify a finner: and if (according to the new-law fcheme) CHRIST has abrogated this law, and introduced one that can, it can only be from a want of perfection and purity in the new law, which is not to be found in the old law. - This must be attended with many certain and dreadful confequences ;-amongst which, one is making CHRIST the minister of fin. Gal. ii. 17.- Another, reprefenting Him as defeating the purpose of his own death; for it is a maxim felf-evidently true, that if righteousness (or juftification) come by the law-by any law whatfoever, no mat ter ter what-CHRIST is dead in vain. Gal. ii. 21. Thou The moral law, or rule of life, delivered from God by Mofes, is founded in the very nature of that relation which every reasonable creature must bear to its Creator. It is all reducible to two heads, which OUR SAVIOUR holds forth as the two great commandments of the law. fhalt love the LORD thy GOD with all thine heart, with all thy mind, with all thy foul, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbour as thy felf-is too perfect a system of morals to admit of the leaft addition or improvement it is a rule of life to angels as well as to men; and a conftant conformity to this holy law, conftitutes, the happiness of the angels, principalities, and powers (Col. i. 16.) of heaven. Could one of these cease from loving GOD with all its faculties; could it feel a fingle wrong temper, either with refpect to GOD, or to its fellow fpirits, it would fin-it would leave its firft eftate, and, with the other apoftate fpirits, be caft down to hell, and be referved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Jude 6. It can therefore be no more true, that CHRIST came upon earth to give a new law to mortals, than that He afcended into heaven to give a new law to angels. He could could not do either, without materially affecting the very nature of that relation which the intelligent and reafonable parts of the creation bear to God and each other. As far as the moral law of GOD relates to mortals, we must confider the commerce of the fexes, with all its various relations, confequences, and dependencies, as a most material object of it: fo material, as to form a very confiderable part of the facred code. It naturally ranges itself under the duties of the fecond table. So the Apostle, Rom. xiii. 9. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, &c. and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this faying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyfelf. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour. Now if CHRIST forbad that which was before allowed, He extended the obligation of the divine law beyond what the Old Testament had done; therefore must be said to add fomething to the fecond table of the law. This confequence cannot be avoided, if we fuppofe Him giving a fense to the word adultery-which it never had before. He certainly hereby extended the feventh commandment as to its curfe and punishment. On the other hand, if He had allowed what the law had forbidden under the Old Teftament, He had diminished from its curfe and punishment, by narrowing its obligation. In |