may surely be excused from forms and ceremo nies," says the self-complacent moral philosopher, "while I take care to possess and practise the es sentials of virtue, while I pay my debts, do no harm to any body, and add my mite, when I think proper, to the contributions raised in support of public and approved charities. I am a Christian; for I was baptized in my infancy, and my parents were such before me; but, with respect to mysterious doctrines or ordinances, I shall not trouble myself with what I do not understand, but be content with acting a just, beneficent, and honourable part in the society in which I was placed by Fortune. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper I number among positive and formal duties, if it is to be numbered among duties at all, and consider it as inferior in value to the virtues which I daily practise in the common intercourse of life. I leave it therefore to zealots, to enthusiasts, and to formalists, and maintain that I may be a good Christian without it."

On this soliloquy I have only to observe, that whoever utters it may be a scholar of Socrates or Epictetus, but not of Jesus Christ. For, whatever moral virtues we may possess, He expressly declares, "Except we eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, we have no life in us," that is, unless we partake the benefits of the grand sacrifice on the cross, by partaking of the feast upon it, instiI

futed by Christ himself, we have no spiritual life, no assistance of the Holy Ghost, no exemption from death eternal. What will this boasted morality do to supply that without which, our Saviour says, we can have no spiritual life? Is the self-pleasing moralist sure that his virtues are sound and sincere ? The heart is deceitful, and may flatter him, as it has many, with a complacency not founded on merit but on pride:

I would say to him, "Add divinity to pure morality, and you will animate a beautiful body with the warmth and vigour of life; divest it of divinity, separate it from all connection with the will of God, and you leave it a specious form, indeed, but comparatively lifeless and insubstantial. Divinity, like the sun in the world of nature, cherishes a vital principle of the soul, promotes its growth, and raises it to full maturity."

The gospel teaches morality; all the discourses o those who preach the Gospel inculcate morality; every doctrine of our religion is connected with morality; but it is a morality strengthened and sublimed by divinity.

Morality, independent of divinity, considers man as related only to man ; but man is related to God, as a stream to its fountain; and his most important duties originate from that relation.

Morality, independent of divinity, seems to view man as an inhabitant of this world only; but the Sa

craments, as Dr. Waterland observes, "raise the mind higher, even to God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to angels and archangels, and the whole host of heaven, tending to produce dispositions proper for living in conjunction or union with that blessed society. So that, with respect at least to the life to come, the Sacraments have the advantage over other duties called moral, forming the mind to higher views and being more perfective of man's nature. In secular, or worldly duties, secularity or worldly-mindedness is apt to creep in too much, and it is not very easy always in performing them, to keep the heart and mind intent upon God, or to perform them upon a purely religious principle. But in the devout observance of the Sacraments, the mind is lifted up from earthly things, and is more abstracted from the world; on which account these duties are preferable, as forming in us dispositions proper for a heavenly state."

Lukewarm and disputatious men still argue against the value and importance of positive duties; that is, duties, of divine appointment; duties instituted by revelation only, and such as would not have been suggested to the human mind by reason undirected.

Such are Baptism and the Eucharist. These are rites, and peculiar to Christianity. All modes of religion had their ceremonies. Human nature required them as memorials, and as excitements of

devotion. Our Saviour, knowing human nature by his divine intuition, and likewise by his assumption of it, complied with its feelings, expectations, and prepossessions. But in the place of the numerous ceremonies of Heathenism, burdensome in themselves, and apt to turn the attention from the business of devotion, rather than promote it, he es tablished but two, both strongly significant; Baptism, of cleansing from pollution by water, and the Eucharist, of expiation by a sacrificed victim. The minds of men, in every part of the world, were prepared for the reception of such rites by previous notions, habits, and forms of worship.

When thus instituted, who without presumption can say, that they are not of universal obligation; or, that they are inferior in value and importance to moral duties?

t

The Christian who depreciates the Sacraments, because they are positive, or instituted rites, depre ciates obedience to the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe. Let him beware lest, instead of serving the cause of morality, which he professes to honour, he should weaken the ties of all moral obligation; for he who treats obedience to an express command of God, as a duty which may be slighted in any instance, will, I should think, be very apt to disregard his duty to man, when the neglect is consistent with worldly interest, and with temporal impunity.

Positive duties have a tendency to bind all other duties upon us more closely; because they recognize a living Supreme Governor, while the moral duties, according to some among the modern philosophers, originate from reason and nature, without the immediate interference of the Deity. Morality becomes a flexible rule to many, when it is left unfixed by a divine sanction. That sanction is acknowledged by all who acknowledge the obligation of instituted rites in revealed religion.

Both positive and moral duties must be held in high esteem by every sincere and consistent Christian. Both must be observed with a conscientious punctuality. The observation of the moral will not excuse the neglect of the positive. If a preference must be given (which is certainly not required in practice, though it may be admitted in argument,) it is certainly due to positive duties, because they are expressly commanded, and not merely connected by reasoning on the fitness of things, as it is called, or propriety. Let us suppose a superior, possessing power and right, issuing a positive command to an inferior; will that inferior be justly excused, if, exercising his own judgment, he does something which he thinks more useful, or laudable, and neglects the performance of the duty cammanded: suppose a subject, a son, a soldier thus acting towards his king, his parent, his commander; would he be judged excusable for his disobedience,