delivered. For instance, there cannot be any duties more clearly of universal obligation, than that of the worship of the one true God alone, and that of honouring parents; yet the precepts for both of these are so delivered as to address them to the children of Israel exclusively: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; thou shalt have none other Gods but me." again, "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

And

The simplest and clearest way then of stating the case with respect to the present question, is, to lay down, on the one hand, that the Mosaic Law was limited both to the nation of the Israelites, and to the period before the Gospel; but, on the other hand, that the natural principles of morality, which, among other things, it inculcates, are, from their own character, of universal obligation;-that, as on the one hand, "no Christian man (as our article expresses it) is free from the observance of those commandments which are called moral," so, on the other hand, it is not because they are commandments

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.