its use will be in vain ! ' I am aware that this must be first clearly and distinctly stated. I was con- strained, in my former discourse, to pass over this point ; and to assume, that the Apostle was speaking of the moral law. But now, as I then gave you reason to expect, I will address myself to that con- sideration ; and will shew,
First, what is that law which the Apostle spake of: and, secondly, what bearing this part of my subject has upon the question before us.
First, what is that law which the Apostle spake of, and respecting which he instituted his inquiry ?
The word " Law," in the New Testament, is used in several different senses. But as in this place it can mean only the law as given to Moses, it must, of necessity, mean the moral, or the ceremonial, or the judicial law ; or a compound of them all together. But of the judicial law the Apostle makes no question. He is speaking of a law which appeared to stand in competition with the promise which had been made to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before. But between the promise and the judicial law, which I may call the common law of the land, there could be no such competition : for the promise made to Abraham will be equally in force in every country under heaven, whatever be its code of laws, or the outward form of its administration. Of the cere- monial law he does speak ; and that frequently : because it was to that that the Jews adhered with such inveterate pertinacity. But still, if we admit that to be included in the passage, it is only included as being that outward form which the Jews supposed to be inseparable from the moral law ; and the per- formance of which they regarded as an obedience to the moral law. It is of the moral law chiefly, if not exclusively, that the Apostle speaks. The line of his argument is this : God promised to Abraham and his seed, life, by faith in the Messiah, who should spring from his loins. Four hundred and thirty years afterwards he gave to Moses a law of works, which