is profitable for instruction, and may serve to aid our judgment in some doubtful cases that may occur; provided we are careful to bear in mind all the circumstances under which each precept was delivered. For there is a presumption that what was commanded or prohibited by Moses, is right or wrong in itself, unless some reason can be assigned, which makes our case at present different from that of the Israelites ;--some circumstance of distinction, which either leaves us more at large than they, or (as is oftener the case) calls for a higher and purer moral practice from us. But to consult a code of moral precepts for instruction, is very different from referring to that as a standard, and rule of conduct.

If the notion then that such as are not under the Mosaic law, are, on that account, exempt from all moral obligations, be rejected as utterly groundless, and if, consequently, no practical danger or absurdity be involved in the supposition of that law being fully abrogated, the conclusion that it is so abrogated will hardly be any longer open to doubt; being evidently the most agreeable to St. Paul's expressions in their obvious,

natural, and unstrained sense. And, indeed, the very law itself indicates, on the face of it, that the whole of its precepts were intended for the Israelites exclusively, (on which supposition they cannot, of course, be binding on Christians,) not only from the intermixture of civil and ceremonial precepts with moral, but from the very terms in which even these are 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." And again, "Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

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 shew

how utterly unconnected it is with their extravagant conclusion;---if we shew 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