If Christianity, then, be either true, or even credible, it is the height of presumptuous rashness, to treat it lightly; and there can be no more paramount obligation upon us, than that of seriously inquiring into its evidences, and embracing it when proved to be true.

It may be proper here to explain the distinction between what is positive, and what is moral, in religion.

Moral precepts are those of which we see the reason; and which arise out of the nature of the case, prior to any command. Positive precepts, are those of which we do not see the reason; which do not arise out of the nature of the case; and only derive their validity from the external command of God. The mere mode, however, in which a duty is made known to us, is immaterial; whether it be by revelation or from reason, it is equally obligatory. Baptism in the name of the Father, as well as in that of the Son, are equally positive duties, arising from revealed command. But, gratitude to Christ, from his being our Redeemer, is as binding a moral duty, as love to God, from His being the author of all good; though the first is made known by revelation, the second, by reason.

Hence we may see, why moral precepts are preferred in Scripture, before positive ones, whenever they clash or are incompatible with each other. In such cases, it is obligatory to obey the moral, rather

than the positive precept; inasmuch as we reason of the one and not of the other.

see the The whole

moral law, indeed, is as much a matter of revealed command, as positive institutions are, for Scripture enjoins every moral duty, and thus they are both on a level. But the moral law, being as it were written upon our hearts, is a super-added intimation from the Author of our nature, as to which is to be preferred.

Moreover, we have express injunctions on this point from Scripture. Mankind are prone to rest their religion upon any thing, rather than the practice of virtue; and to adopt forms and rites, as a substitute for morality. Hence the Saviour, on a question arising as to the observance of the Sabbath, authoritatively pronounced which should have the preference, when they interfere: "I will have mercy and not sacrifice." By adopting a proverbial mode of expression, he has not limited the application merely to that particular question, but has generalized it; and thereby taught us, that the spirit of religion consists in piety and virtue, as distinguished from forms and obser

vances.

Our obligations, however, to obey all God's commands are absolute; and every positive institution from Him, imposes upon us (because it is from Him) a moral obligation to obey it; and the careless slighting thereof is sinfully presumptuous.

Hence arises a strong obligation also "to search the Scriptures," in order to ascertain what revelation really is; instead of determining beforehand, from our own reason, what the scheme thereof ought to be for though the Scripture may not be interpreted to mean contrary to natural religion, yet it may contain new doctrines and precepts, which the light and the law of nature could neither discover, nor render obligatory.

F

CHAPTER II.

ON THE SUPPOSED PRESUMPTION AGAINST REVELATION, CONSIDERED AS MIRACULOUS.

ARGUMENT.-Presumptions against Christianity,—as being undiscoverable by reason, and unlike the known course of Nature,--answered by considerations of our own ignorance, and limited knowledge of Nature's vast operations. A Revelation not strictly miraculous, if made contemporary with the Creation. No presumption from analogy, against its being made afterwards. Miracles rather comparable with extraordinary phœnomena of Nature, than with her ordinary course.

THE Importance of the Christian revelation being shown, and the obligation seriously to attend to it ;—

the next thing is, to consider the objections that are raised against it. These seem to be either against Revelation in general; or Christianity in particular.

The objections against Revelation in general seem mainly to apply against it, as being miraculous; as if stronger evidence were required to prove the truth of miracles, than of any other fact.

I. Now if the Analogy of Nature raises any presumption against the Christian Revelation, it must be either, 1st, because it is not discoverable by reason or experience; or, 2ndly, because it is contrary to the known course of Nature.

But there is no validity in the first objection; because both the scheme of Nature and the dispensations of Providence are so immeasurably vast, and infinitely extensive, that even the most enlarged mind, and most powerful capacity, can comprehend but a very minute portion thereof,—a mere point or speck in the whole; and must at once admit, that there are innumerable things therein, of which it is wholly ignorant, and which could not be discovered at all, but by Revelation. The things, therefore, incomprehensible in Nature, prepare us to admit things incomprehensible in Religion.

Neither is there any validity in the second objection. Because Analogy affords no presumption, that the whole course of Nature, unknown to us, is, in every