made good, before he can be happy, the most rational deists grant. But the means of ac complishing these in a way honorable to God, and safe to men; in a way that furnishes pow erful encouragement, and lays a firm foundation for lively hope, they have left out; because they have left out a mediator. Will not distracting uncertainties, and perplexing doubts and fears be the certain consequence, with every serious man of that persuasion?

Whence had the Apostles their knowledge? They have given us a full view of human na ture; and have exposed in the clearest light the depravity, guilt, and misery of man. They have, at the same time, pointed out a method of deliverance from all these evils. Their system is wonderfully ingenious: it is original: it is adapted to the condition of human nature : it is a remedy perfect and complete. They say they had all their knowledge of religion from Jesus Christ. But whence did Jesus Christ derive it? Those who deny his divine mission, will find it difficult to account for his knowledge. There is something in his scheme unspeakably superior to every other. It takes in the rights of God, as well as the necessities of man; and renders God glorious in all his perfections, as well as man completely happy. Who besides, in ancient or modern times, ever conceived so vast an idea! But Jesus had no literary education. Perhaps the Old Testa

ment was the only book he ever read. He never associated with the philosophers: his companions were not the chief priests, and elders, and scribes.-Let the deist sit down and assign a satisfactory reason for the vast superiority of the gospel, The christian is free from difficulty; for he reads in the sacred page, and he believes that "Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son, "who was in the bosom of the Father, and "hath declared him unto us." John i. 18.

SECTION V.

The moral Precepts of the Gospel.

By those who have been accustomed from their childhood to the reading of the New Testament, so that every part of it is familiar to their minds, it is scarcely possible to form an idea of the difficulty of ascertaining the various relations among mankind with such precision, as to delineate exactly what is due to each. The writings of the evangelists and apostles have shed so clear a light on the subject, that some are apt to consider the knowledge of relative duties, (which all the inhabitants of christendom have through various channels derived from them) as originating in the reflections of their own minds, and as the spon

taneous growth of the human heart, without labour and without cultivation. But read the institutes of MENU, or peruse the books of the ancient sages of pagan antiquity in the west; and the fallacy will soon be detected. That some things there, are good and well said, must be obvious to all. But how defective are they in many points, and how unjust in others, how superstitious in more! Some duties are mis-stated; some are mutilated; some are entirely omitted; and many things are strenuously enjoined as duties, which are not.

Their

code of morals, even in what is due from man to man, wants many leaves. As to the most important part of the system, namely, man's obligation to God, and the duties resulting thence, there is a still more dreadful deficiency. Instead of moral duties, we find little else but a hideous mass of superstitious rites, and unmeaning ceremonies.

In the New Testament there is a perfect system of moral precepts. What is due from man to himself, is delineated without defect, and without redundancy. What he owes to his fellow creatures in all their different relations, is clearly defined, and authoritatively enjoined. None can say, "It is unjust to re"quire me to act thus to my father, to my << master, to my servant, to my child." Man's duty to God, (a subject still more difficult, and where heathen's failed the most), is laid down

with equal' clearness, and equal fulness. Nothing can be conceived to be a duty, which is not here enjoined; nor any thing enjoined as a duty, which we can say is unreasonable and ought not to be performed. The world may be challenged to mention one duty to God, or man, which the New Testament does not enjoin; or to prove any one thing it enjoins as a duty, to be destitute of reason, and void of obligation. The simplicity, the conciseness, the perspicuity, and the authority with which they are delivered, give force to truth, and scope to reason in the application of general duties to particular circumstances.

. The morality of the writers of the New Testament is their own. They borrowed it from none. It begins at the source, and gives laws to the thoughts. Its precepts reach to the first workings of the heart: it enjoins purity of soul, and brings" into captivity every thought to "the obedience of Christ," 2 Cor. x. 5. Not a vain imagination can be indulged, not an unhallowed desire rise up, without polluting the soul, and contracting guilt..

How different is this system from what was written and taught by the sages of Greece and Rome. Regard for a person's own fame and reputation, how exalted a place does it occupy among Pagan moralists! and an equal anxiety is discovered for the good opinion of others,

and the approbation of the public. The following line of one of their poets expresses both :

"Est pulchrum digito monstrari, et dicier, Hic est."

While they thought it a fine thing to be pointed at with the finger, and have it said, That is he, the Pharisees were practising similar morals. Their desire was to "be seen of men, and "they loved the praise of man more than the "praise of God." These the Gospel utterly excludes: it authoritatively inculcates self-denial on all its votaries. It enjoins a supreme regard to what God approves; but to man, no farther than their approbation accords with God's, and is founded upon it. The disciples of Jesus are commanded to make their light shine before men but the aim must be, not that they may be admired and praised; but that those who see their good works, may "glorify their "Father who is in Heaven."

The morality of the gospel is uncontaminated with the impure mixtures which have defiled every human system, published before or since. It admits no licentiousness; it enjoins no austerities; it contains no superstition; it will be satisfied with no partial regard. In the religion of Heathens and Mahometans, how many licentious practices are tolerated and approved! not one will the gospel allow, even in thought. What a multitude of superstitious observances