and absurdities. The rules they propose contain nothing definite or certain, nothing upon which we can place the smallest reliance. They talk about justice without telling us what it means, and duty and obligation, without explaining what these point at. They talk of the supremacy of certain sentiments, while they leave out of view the highest objects to which these sentiments may be directed. They are at variance upon some of the plainest cases, and with reference to the simplest and most important concerns of life. Even the institution of marriage, which forms the very root from which all the other relations of society are derived, is not placed by them on any firm foundation, and all that they say respecting it is of the most loose and unsatisfactory description. The same may be said of the relations between parent and child, master and servant, and all the other important relations of life. They give absolutely no rules, they furnish us with no principles which are to guide our conduct in regard to such relations. They do not seem to be aware of this deficiency themselves, for the relations I here speak of are so firmly established in society, as now constituted, that they seem to have taken them for granted, without ever looking for a foundation for them in their new system. But when we come to cases of a more complicated kind,

to questions regarding property, and other rights, civil or political,—we -we see they are completely bewildered, and that they are embarked in a sea without a shore, and that they are without a chart, without a compass, and without a rudder.

What, then, becomes of the boast, that the natural laws are universal, invariable, and unbending? Perhaps this might be the case if we could ascertain what they are; but we have the acknowledgment of the supporters of the system themselves, that this is not the case, and

that we have the laws still to seek.

With regard to the

physical and organic laws, and the relative laws of human conduct to be derived from these, it is admitted, that we are so much in the dark, that they may not be discovered for an innumerable series of years. And as to the moral law, our condition is even worse, as our teachers are not even agreed by what means its dictates are to be discovered. We are, then, shut up to the conviction, that a revelation was necessary. The moral law, originally written in distinct and legible characters upon man's heart and conscience, having become defaced. by the corruption of his nature, a republication of it by a revelation was necessary. And such a revelation and republication have been granted, not once only, but on two memorable occasions: first, at the original delivery of the law to the Israelites by Moses, amidst the thunders of Sinai; and secondly, by this having received the fullest confirmation and sanction from the Son of God himself, by whom it has been explained and illustrated in a more perfect manner, and its authority extended over the whole human race. This moral law, thus doubly revealed and republished, with every sanction of supreme authority, does, in fact, possess all the characters which have been arrogated to belong to the "natural laws,”—namely, it is UNIVERSAL, INVARiable, HARMONIOUS in itself, conformable to the most perfect moral feeling, and to the most perfect reason, and in the strictest sense DIVINE.

IV.- Perfection and Invariableness of the Revealed Law.

IT has been the fashion, among writers who do not admit the doctrinal part of Christianity, to speak highly in praise of the pure and simple, yet sublime morality, of the New Testament. Dr Spurzheim, in several

Dr

passages, bears testimony to its excellence; and he states, that pure Christianity (meaning thereby Christian morality) surpasses all other revealed religions in every kind of perfection, and that it stands the scrutiny of reason.* It is, however, generally held by him, that the morality of the New Testament is infinitely superior to that of the Old.+ If this were true, it would argue an imperfection in the original revelation, and prove, that the revealed law is neither universal nor invariable. Spurzheim asks, “Do the religious and moral precepts of the New Testament surpass those of the Old in perfection and excellence ?" And he answers, "Whoever will compare the qualities attributed to the Supreme Being, regard the spirit of the laws contained, and observe the means proposed for teaching these, in each, must inevitably recognize the infinite superiority of the doctrines of Christianity." Now, whether we are to judge by one or another, or all of these criteria, it may be proved, in the clearest manner, that this is a mistake. What are the qualities attributed to God in the Old Testament? Is he not described as the "Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin." In another place he is described as "visiting the iniquities of the. fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate him; but shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love him, and keep his commandments."§ "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy. Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." And again, "The Lord is gracious and full of compassion; slow to anger and of great mercy. The + Ibid. p. 213. Exodus, xxxiv. 6,7. || Psalm ciii. 8-13.

* Nat. Laws, p. 196. § Exodus, xx. 5.

Lord is good to all,and his tender mercies are over all his works."* Are there any qualities attributed to God in the New Testament different from the above? Can there be any superior, or any that can more thoroughly impress us with love and reverence for his name?

Again, if we regard the spirit of the laws contained in the Old Testament, we shall find not merely that they are no way inferior to the precepts in the New, but that they are identically the same. For what do we find declared to be the two great commandments, on which our Saviour has told us "hang all the law and the prophets ?" They are the following," Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." And what else do the precepts of the New Testament inculcate, but love to God, and love to man? The great and comprehensive precept of our Lord, “to do to others as we would have them to do to us," is just a different mode of expressing the Old Testament commandment to "love our neighbour as ourselves." The two precepts are identical; but the way in which the rule is put by our Saviour is more easily understood, and more readily applied, so as to have an influence on the heart and the practice of believers. Many practical rules of conduct may be quoted from the Old Testament, corresponding exactly with the precepts of the New, such as the well known one in Micah, "He hath shewn thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"†

The real superiority in the New Testament does not lie in the laws themselves, but in the more full explanation and application of those laws, which had already † Micah, vi. 8.

* Psalm cxlv. 7, 8.

been distinctly promulgated by Moses and the Prophets, and in the more clear revelation of those sanctions by which obedience to them is inculcated and enforced. Thus, in reference to the law "to love our neighbour as ourself," the Jews understood this only to refer to their dealings with those of their own nation. But Christ at once undeceived them in this respect. When asked by the lawyer, "But who is my neighbour?" he replied by relating the parable of the good Samaritan, an individual of a nation with whom the Jews had no dealings, whom they utterly despised and hated, thus unequivocally intimating, that all men, of every country, are in this sense, and in reference to this command, our neighbours, and that the precept is of universal application. And again, in reference to the special commandments of the second table of the law, he shews, that it is not merely the outward act that is commanded or forbidden, but that the commandments are intended to reach to the thoughts and intentions of the heart. This is in fact neither any addition to, or extension of, the original law, as contained in the Old Testament: for unless a thick veil had been on their hearts, the Jews might have seen, that all this was included in the precept, to love our neighbour as ourselves. And the very same thing is contained in the tenth commandment, which is expressly directed against all irregular and inordinate desires of the heart and the affections.

One great point in which the precepts and the morality of the Old Testament are supposed to differ from those in the New, is the greater stress which is generally imagined to be laid in the latter on the virtues of meekness, patience, and forgiveness of injuries. But even here there is really no difference in the sentiments inculcated, but only—what might be expected—their being more fully explained and emphatically enforced