ture indifferent, and are only to be termed good, because they were commanded by a positive, Divine law; such are the ceremonial washings, purifications, sacrifices, &c. A third sort is of a mixed nature, the objects of which are, for the most part, things in their own nature good or evil; but yet the circumstances annexed unto them, are merely arbitrary and alterable; as namely, those things, which are commanded or forbidden by that which is commonly called the judicial law for example, the law of fourfold restitution of things stolen. Theft of its own nature is evil, and deserves punishment; but that the punishment thereof should be such a kind of restitution, is not in itself necessary, but may be changed either into a corporal punishment, or it may be, into a civil death, according as those, who have the government of kingdoms and states, shall think fit and convenient for the dispositions of the times wherein they live, as we see by experience in the practice of our own kingdoms. For the due execution of which laws, and punishment of transgressors, God appointed judges and rulers; and where they failed through want of care, or partiality, himself many times would immediately and personally inflict the punishment.

8. Now the general sanction of this whole law is expressed (Deut. xxvii. 26.) in these words: "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the words of this law to do them;" which curse, as we find it afterwards at large interpreted, imported a sudden, violent, untimely death, together with all kind of misfortune, that could make this life miserable. So that he was liable to this curse, that swerved, in any one point or circum

stance, from what was contained in that law. Notwithstanding, in some cases, God was pleased to remit the rigour of this curse, and to accept of certain gifts and offerings, and the expiatory sacrifices of beasts, as it were in exchange for the lives of the delinquents. I should but fruitlessly trifle away the time in insisting any longer upon the nature and quality of the Mosaical law. I will now, as I am required by my text, shew you the extreme difference, and incomparable excellency of the covenant of grace, or the gospel, beyond this, in several respects.

9. As, first, the moral duties of the two tables, as they are part of the Mosaical, Jewish law, required only an external obedience and conformity to the affirmative precepts thereof, and an abstaining from an outward practice of the negative. They did not reach unto the conscience, no more than the national laws of other kingdoms do: so that, for example, where the law of Moses forbids adultery upon pain of death, he that should in his heart lust after any woman, could not be accounted a transgressor of Moses' law, neither was he liable to the punishment therein specified; whereas the gospel requires not only an outward, and, as I may say, corporal obedience to God's commandments, but also an inward sanctification of the soul and conscience, upon the same penalty of everlasting damnation with the former. And what is now said of the moral precepts (as they are part of Moses' law) by the same proportion likewise is to be understood of the judicial.

10. Notwithstanding what hath now been said, yet we must know, that these very Jews, to whom this law was given, being the children of

Abraham, were heirs likewise of the promises, which were made unto him and his seed; and the way or means whereby they were to attain unto these promises, were the very same, by which himself obtained them, namely, faith; so that this Mosaical law (whatsoever glorious opinion the Jews had of it) was not that covenant, whereby they were to seek for justification in the sight of God. Till Christ's coming there was no law given, which could have given life, that is, which could promise everlasting life unto man; not the law of works, by reason of man's imperfection and weakness; not the law of Moses, by reason of its own weakness, as St. Paul clearly demonstrates, especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

11. For what end then was the law of Moses given? St. Paul shall answer the question. (Gal. iii. 19.) "It was added (saith he) because of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promises were made." It was added: As if he should say, After the promises made unto Abraham and his seed, this law was moreover annexed, not as any new condition, whereby they were to attain unto the promises, but that, in the mean time, till the promises were fulfilled, they should be restrained, as it were, and kept under a strict, outward discipline, from running into any excess of disobedience; for those, whom perhaps the goodness and mercy of God, in affording them those promises, would not by the hope of them be able to bridle, they notwithstanding, when they saw punishment even unto death without mercy inflicted upon the transgressors, would be more careful of their ways. It follows, “till the seed should come, to whom the promises were

made;" or, as himself, in Heb. ix. 10. alters the phrase, "till the time of reformation;" that is, when Christ, who was that blessed seed promised to Abraham, should come, he would so clearly and convincingly shew unto the world the way of salvation, that they should no longer need to be kept under their old schoolmaster, the law; and therefore, at his coming, the date of the whole Mosaical law should expire. And that may be one reason, why St. Paul is in this chapter so violent against those that would urge the observation of the Mosaical law; forasmuch as by enforcing it now, when the seed was already come, to whom the promises were made, they did seem to evacuate the coming and gospel of Christ.

12. Now that the Mosaical law was not given to the Jews for this end, that by the fulfilling thereof they should promise themselves the reward of righteousness, everlasting life, is evidently demonstrated, both by our Saviour in the fifth of St. Matthew, and by St. Paul through all his Epistles, but especially in that to the Hebrews. The force and virtue of whose arguments may in general be reduced to that issue, which before I mentioned, viz. That the law, by the performance whereof we may expect life, requires not only an external conformity to the outward works, but an inward, spiritual sanctification also of the soul and heart.

13. But what saith the law of Moses? *"It was said, (saith our Saviour) by them of old," ie. in the law of Moses, "thou shalt not kill;" not, Thou shalt not be angry, thou shalt not bear malice in

Matt. v. 21.

thy heart so that if thou abstainest from murder, thou fulfillest Moses' law; "And if thou dost kill, thou shalt be in danger of judgment," i. e. the only punishment which the law of Moses inflicted upon the transgressors thereof, was the danger to be condemned to death by the judgment, or bench of judges, appointed for the execution of this law. "But I say unto you;" I, who clearly shew unto you that way wherein you must walk, before you can promise to yourselves any hope of eternal life; I say unto you, not only, "Whosoever" shall kill his neighbour, but whosoever, out of malice or rancour, * "shall say unto his brother, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire.” So, likewise, not only he who commits adultery † in the outward act, is culpable by my gospel before God, but also he who looks upon a woman to lust after her in his heart. And so, instead of forswearing, and breaking of oaths and vows, which Moses' law forbad, Christ condemns fruitless and unnecessary, though true, oaths. Instead of the § law of retaliation of injuries, Christ commands rather to suffer a second injury, than to revenge the first.

14. But, in the last place, the last example which our Saviour gives, may seem to destroy this collection which hath been drawn out of this chapter: for, saith he, verse 43. "You have heard, that it hath been said of old, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy." What! did Moses' law then permit a man to bear hatred and malice unto another? Did I say, permit them? Nay, it commanded them so perfectly to hate