It was used by the Jews, until the time of our Saviour, to distinguish the whole revelation made to the Patriarchs and Prophets, from the tradition and commandments of the rabbies or doctors of the law. Thus the Jews called the Psalms of David, law-John xii. 34. Referring to the 10th Psalm, they say, "We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever.' And again, our Saviour calls the Psalms of David, law-John x. 34. Referring to Psalm 1xxxii. 6, he says, "Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods." Thus when we hear David extolling God's law, we are to understand him as referring to all divine revelation extant in his time. But when the Old Testament scriptures were finished, and divided according to their contents for the use of synagogues, the Jews styled them, the law, the prophets, and the psalins. Luke xxiv. 44, Christ says, "All things written in the law of Moses, in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me, must be fulfilled."

The addition of the definite article in this instance as well as all others, alters the signification, or, at least, determines it. During the life of Moses, the words "the law," without some explicative addition, were never used. Joshua, Moses' successor, denominates the writings of Moses, "the book of the law;" but never uses the phrase by itself. Nor indeed have we any authentic account of this phrase being used, without some restrictive definition, until the reign of Abijah, 2nd Chron. xiv. 4, at which time it is used to denote the whole legal dispensation by Moses. In this way it is used about thirty times in the Old Testament, and as often with such epithets as show that the whole law of Moses is intended.

When the doctrines of the reign of Heaven began to be preached, and to be contrasted in the New Testament with the Mosaic economy, the phrase "the law," became very common, and when used without any distinguishing epithet, or restrictive definition, invariably denoted the whole legal or Mosaic dispensation. In this acceptation it occurs about one hundred and fifty times in the New Testament. To make myself more intelligible, I would observe that when the terms "the law," have such distinguishing properties or restrictive definitions as "the royal law," "the law of faith,"" the law of liberty," "the law of Christ," "the law of the spirit of life," &c., it is most obvious the whole Mosaic law or dispensation is not intended. But when we find the phrase "the law," without any such limitations or epithets, as "the law was given by Moses," "the law and the prophets were until John," "if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law," "ye are not under the law but under grace," &c., we must perceive the whole law of Moses, or legal dispensation, is intended.

I say the whole law, or dispensation by Moses; for in modern times the law of Moses is divided and classified under three heads, denominated, the moral, ceremonial, and judicial law. This division of the law being unknown in the apostolic age, and of course never used by the Apostles, can serve no valuable purpose, in obtaining a correct knowledge of the doctrine delivered by the Apostles respecting the law. You might as well inquire of the Apostles, or consult their writings, to know who the Supralapsarians or Sublapsarians are, as to inquire of them, what is the moral, ceremonial, and judicial law. But

like many
distinctions handed down to us from Mystical Babylon,
they bear the mark on their forehead that certifies to us, their origin is
not divine. If this distinction were harmless, if it did not perplex,
bias, and confound, rather than assist the judgment, in determining
the sense of the apostolic writings, we should let it pass unnoticed;
but justice to the truth requires us to make a remark or two on this
division of the law.

The phrase, the moral law, includes that part of the law of Moses, "written and engraved on two tables of stone," called the ten commandments. Now the word moral, according to the most approved lexicographers, is defined "relating to the practice of men towards each other, as it may be virtuous or criminal, good or bad." The French, from whom we have the term moral, immediately, and the Romans, from whom we originally received it, used it agreeably to the above definition. Of course, then, a moral law, is a law which regulates the conduct of men towards each other. But will the ten commandments answer this definition? No. For doctors in divinity tell us, the first table of the decalogue respects our duty to God; the second our duty to man. Why then call the ten commandments "the moral law," seeing but six of them are moral, that is, relating to our conduct towards men? In modern times, we sometimes distinguish between religion and morality; but while we affirm that religion is one thing, and morality another; and then affirm that the ten commandments are the moral law,-do we not, in so saying, contradict ourselves? Assuredly the legs of the lame are not equal!

A second objection to denominating the ten precepts, "the moral law," presents itself to the reflecting mind, from the consideration that all morality is not contained in them. When it is said that the ten commandments are "the moral law," does not this definite phrase imply, that all morality is contained in them; or, what is the same in effect, that all immorality is prohibited in them? But, is this the fact? Are the immoralities called drunkenness, fornication, polygamy, divorces on trifling accounts, retaliation, &c., prohibited in the ten precepts? This question must be answered in the negative. If it had been asked, is all immorality prohibited in this saying, "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself?"-we would readily answer, Yes;-but it is the, so called, moral law, we are speaking of. We affirm, then, that the above immoralities are not prohibited in the decalogue, according to the most obvious construction of the words. We are aware that large volumes have been written to show how much is comprehended in the ten precepts. But, methinks, the voluminous works of some learned men on this subject, too much resemble the writings of Peter D'Alva, who wrote forty-eight huge folio volumes to explain the mysteries of the conception of the Messiah in the womb of the Virgin Mary! And what shall we think of the genius, who discovered that singing hymns and spiritual songs was prohibited, and the office of the ruling elder pointed out, in the second commandment ? that dancing and stage plays were prohibited in the seventh? and supporting the clergy enjoined in the eighth? According to this latitude of interpretation, a genius may arise and show us, that law and gospel are contained in the first commandment, and of course all the

others are superfluous. But this way of enlarging on the decalogue defeats the division of the law of Moses, which these doctors have made. For instance, they tell us that witchcraft is prohibited in the first commandment-incest and sodomy in the seventh. Now they afterwards place these vices, with the laws respecting them, in their judicial law if then their moral law includes their judicial law, they make a distinction without a difference.

There remains another objection to this division of the law. It sets itself in opposition to the skill of an Apostle, and ultimately deters us from speaking of the ten precepts as he did. Paul, according to the wisdom given unto him, denominated the ten precepts the "ministration of condemnation and of death." 2 Cor. iii. 7, 14. This, we call the moral law. Whether he or we, are to be esteemed the most able ministers of Christ, it remains for you, my friends, to say. Paul having called the ten precepts the ministration of death, next affirms, that it was to be done away-and that it was done away. Now the calling the ten precepts "the moral law," is not only a violation of the use of words; it is not only inconsistent in itself and contradictory to truth; but greatly obscures the doctrine taught by the Apostle in the third chapter of the second of Corinthians, and in similar passages, so as to render it almost, if not altogether, unintelligible to us. To use the same language of the moral law as he used in respect to the ministration of condemnation and death, is shocking to many devout ears. When we say the moral law is done away, the religious world is alarıned; but when we declare the ministration or condemnation is done away, they hear us patiently, not knowing what we mean! To give new names to ancient things, and speak of them according to their ancient names, is perplexing indeed. Suppose, for example, I would call the English law which governed these states when colonies, the constitution of the United States, and then affirm that the constitution of the United States is done away, or abolished, who would believe me? But if the people were informed that what I called the constitution of these states, was the obsolete British law, they would assent to my statement. Who would not discover that the giving of a wrong name was the sole cause of such a misunderstanding? Hence it is, that modern teachers, by their innovations concerning law, have perplexed the student of the Bible, and caused many a fruitless controversy, as unnecessary as that relating to the mark set on Cain. It does not militate with this statement to grant that some of the precepts of the decalogue have been re-promulged by Jesus Christ, any more than the re-promulgation of some of the British laws does not prevent us from affirming that the laws under which the colonies existed are done away to the citizens of the United States. But of this, more afterwards.

To what has been said, it may be added, that the modern division of the law tends very much to perplex any person who wishes to understand the Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews; insomuch, that while the hearer keeps this distinction in mind, he is continually at a loss to know whether the moral, ceremonial, or judicial law, is intended.

Before dismissing this part of the subject, we would observe, that

there are two principles, commandments, or laws, that are never included in our observations respecting the law of Moses, nor are they ever in holy writ called the law of Moses. These are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength; and thy neighbour as thyself." These, our great Prophet teaches us, are the basis of the law of Moses, and of the Prophets: "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Indeed, the Sinai law, and all Jewish law, is but a modification of them. These are of universal and immutable obligation. Angels and men, good and bad, are for ever under them. God, as our Creator, cannot require less; nor can we, as creatures and fellow creatures, propose or expect less, as the standard of duty and perfection. These are coeval with angels and men. They are engraven with more or less clearnesson every human heart. These are the ground work or basis of the law, written in the heart of heathens, which constitute their conscience, or knowledge of right and wrong. By these their thoughts mutually accuse or else excuse one another. By these they shall be judged, or at least all who have never seen or heard a written law, or revelation. But for these principles there had never been either law or gospel. Let it then be remembered, that in the Scriptures, these precepts are considered the basis of all law and prophecy; consequently when we speak of the law of Moses, we do not include these commandments, but that whole modification of them sometimes called the legal dispensation. It must also be observed, that the Apostles sometimes speak of the law, when it is obvious that a certain part only is intended. But this, so far from clashing with the preceding observations, fully corroborates them. For if the Apostle refers to any particular part of the law, under the general terms, the law, and speaks of the whole dispensation in the same terms, without any additional definition; then, doubtless, the phrase, the law, denotes the whole legal dispensation; and not any particular law, or new distinction, to which we may affix the words, the law.

II. We shall now attempt to point out those things which the law could not accomplish.

In the first place, it could not give righteousness and life. Righteousness and eternal life are inseparably connected. Where the former is not, the latter cannot be enjoyed. Whatever means put us in the possession of the one, puts us in the possession of the other. But this the law could not do. "For if there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily, righteousness should have been by the law." (Gal. iii. 21.)—" If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." These testimonies of the Apostle, with the whole scope of divine truth, teach us that no man is justified by the law, that righteousness and eternal life cannot be received through it.

Here we must regret that our translators, by an injudicious supplement, should have made the Apostle apparently contradict himself. I allude to the supplement in the tenth verse of the seventh chapter of Romans. From the seventh verse of this chapter, the Apostle narrates his experience as a Jew, under the law, and then his experience, as a Christian, under the gospel, freed from the law. The scope of the tenth verse, and its context, is to show what the Apostle once thought

of the law, and how his mistakes were corrected. If any supplement be necessary in this verse, we apprehend it should be similar to what follows:- And the commandment (which I thought would give me) life, I found (to lead) to death." This doubtless corresponds with the scope of the context, and does not, like the present supplement, clash with Gal. iii. 21. Indeed the law, so far from being "ordained to give life," was merely "added to the promise of life, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made"-" Moreover the law entered that the offence might abound "-" For by the law was the knowledge of sin." For these reasons we conclude that justification, righteousness, and eternal life, cannot by any means be obtained by the law.

One

In the second place, the law could not exhibit the malignity or demerit of sin. It taught those that were under it, that certain actions were sinful. To these sinful actions it gave descriptive names. is called theft, a second murder, a third adultery. It showed that these actions were offensive to God, hurtful to men, and deserved death. But how extensive their malignity, and vast their demerit, the law could not exhibit. This remained for later times and other means to develop.

In the third place, the law could not be a suitable rule of life to mankind in this imperfect state. It could not to all mankind, as it was given to, and designed only for a part. It was given to the Jewish nation, and to none else. As the inscription on a letter, identifies to whom it belongs; as the preamble to a proclamation, distinguishes who is addressed; so the preface to the law, points out and determines to whom it was given. It points out a people brought from the land of Egypt, and released from the house of bondage, as the subjects of it. To extend it farther than its own preface, is to violate the rules of criticism and propriety. How unjust and improper would it be, to convey the contents of a letter to a person to whom it was not directed-how inconsistent to enjoin the items of a proclamation made by the President of these United States, on the subjects of the French government. As inconsistent would it be to extend the law of Moses beyond the limits of the Jewish nation. Do we not know with Paul, that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law ? But even to the Jews it was not the most suitable rule of life. 'Tis universally agreed, that example, as a rule of life, is more influential than precept. Now the whole Mosaic law wanted a model or example of living perfection. The most exemplary characters under the law, had their notable imperfections. And as long as polygamy, divorces, slavery, revenge, &c., were winked at under the law, so long must the lives of its best subjects be stained with glaring imperfections. But when we illustrate how God has remedied the defects of the law, the ideas presented in this particular shall be more fully confirmed.

III. But we hasten to the third thing proposed in our method, which is, to demonstrate the reason why the law could not accomplish these objects.

The Apostle in our text briefly informs us, that it was owing to human weakness that the law failed to accomplish these things" In