of the Mosaic Law that he is bound to obey them, but because they are moral. Indeed, there are numerous precepts in the laws, for instance, of Solon and Mahomet, from a conformity to which no Christian can pretend to exemption; yet, though we are bound to practise almsgiving and several other duties there enjoined, and to abstain from murder, for instance, and false-witness, which these lawgivers forbid, no one would say that a part of the Koran is binding on Christians; since their conduct is determined not by the authority of the Koran, but by the nature of the case.

§ 3. The remarks, however, which have been offered, may perhaps be admitted as just, by some who will yet be disposed to doubt their importance: "the proposed statement," they may say, "of the character of a Christian's moral obligations, differs from the one opposed to it, merely as a statement; there is substantially no difference, as long as it is fully admitted that the Christian is not exempt from the rules of morality." But it should be remembered that the difference between an accurate and an

inaccurate statement of any doctrine, and of the grounds on which it rests, is of no slight importance, if not to those who embrace the doctrine, at least in reference to such as are disposed to reject or to doubt it. It is giving a manifest advantage to the advocates of error, to maintain a true conclusion in such a form, and on such grounds, as leave it open to unanswerable objections. And this has been particularly the case in the present instance; for the only shadow of probability which has ever appeared to exist on the Antinomian side, has arisen from the question having been made to turn on this point, whether the Mosaic Law be entirely abolished, or not: one who denies that it is, cannot but find a difficulty, at least, in reconciling his position with many passages of Scripture; whereas, if we admit the premiss which the Antinomians contend for, but show how utterly unconnected it is with their extravagant conclusion;-if we show that though the Mosaic Law does not bind us, our moral obligations exist quite independent of that Law, the monstrous position that the moral conduct of Christians has nothing to do with

their final doom is at once exposed as totally untenable and absurd.

§ 4. It may be thought, however, that real decided speculative Antinomians are so rare, and, moreover, are so far beyond the reach of sober reasoning, that it is scarcely worth while to devise arguments for their refutation. And it must be admitted that the doctrines in question are not by any means prevalent; a circumstance which is very remarkable, and strongly indicates their intrinsic improbability. For a system so evidently favourable to the natural indolence and sinfulness of Man, as that which makes our eternal destiny entirely independent of our moral conduct, could not have failed to become highly popular, among a large class at least, were it not utterly repugnant to Reason. A frightfully large portion of the world are, undeniably, practical Antinomians; i. e. they live as if they did not expect to be hereafter accountable for their conduct; and yet it will be found, that in theory, very few of these adopt the Antinomian hypothesis, which would be the most effectual in quieting the conscience

of the sinner: a circumstance which furnishes most powerful testimony against the truth of that hypothesis.

But however small may be the danger of the Antinomian heresy gaining ground, the right interpretation of Scripture relative to this point, is not, therefore, the less important. The opinion that the Gospel exempts men from moral obligation is not the error which I have had principally in view, but another, much more prevalent-that of suspecting that Paul lends some support to such an opinion; and consequently, of depreciating the authority, or discouraging the study, of his writings. It is on this account chiefly that I have endeavoured to show, in this and two former Essays, how far this Apostle is from affording any countenance to certain doctrines, the advocates of which usually appeal to his authority.

But another, and perhaps still more important use, may be made of the view which has been now taken. The Apostle, we find, while he earnestly contends for the entire abolition of the Mosaic Law, still recognizes the authority of that moral law which is written on man's heart.

This consideration not only deprives Antinomians of all shadow of support for their system, and removes the prejudice which might exist against the Apostle, but it also leads us to reflect on his method of inculcating moral duties, and on his reasons for adopting it.

If men are taught to regard the Mosaic Law (with the exception of the civil and ceremonial ordinances) as their appointed rule of life, they will be disposed to lower the standard of Christian morality, by contenting themselves with a literal adherence to the express commands of that Law; or, at least, merely to enlarge that code, by the addition of such precise moral precepts as they find distinctly enacted in the New Testament. Now this was very far from being the Apostle's view of the Christian life. Not only does the Gospel require a morality in many respects higher and more perfect in itself than the Law, but it places morality, universally, on higher grounds. Instead of precise rules, it furnishes sublime principles of conduct; leaving the Christian to apply these, according to his own discretion, in each case that may arise; and thus to be "a law unto himself." Gratitude