Whilst he apprehends fully

All

duce him to do so. and distinctly the pleasures connected with his own habits, he has a very vague idea of the evils resulting from them, or of the advantages of an opposite course. If the latter apprehension were as vivid as the former, the man's character would change. And there are arguments, and those of a mere worldly nature, which have often produced this effect. that is necessary to accomplish it, is a candid attention on his part to the whole truth of the case. There is in his mind, indeed, a natural opposition to the argument; but there is also in the argument a natural destructiveness of his faults; and if it be vividly apprehended and retained, it will gain the victory and cast out its enemy. The argument, then, must in the first place, be a sufficient one in itself; that is to say, it must show, that, in reason, the advantage gained by complying with it exceeds the advantage of rejecting it. And, in the second place, this sufficient argument must be distinctly and fully apprehended. The best argument in the world is of no use, unless it be properly understood, and the motives which it holds forth be vividly apprehended. To a mind that does not distinctly comprehend the subject, a good argument will appear bad, and a bad one may appear good. We account, in this way, for the different success which the same argument meets with when it is addressed to a number of individuals. Some are moved by it-others are not; that is to say, some fully apprehend it-others do not. And this

may arise either from their misunderstanding the terms of the argument, or from their unwillingness to admit a principle which interferes with their own inclinations.

Thus it fares often with human arguments; nor do the arguments of God escape a similar fate. We have already seen how the spirituality of the Christian requirements naturally excites an unwillingness to admit its principles. This unwillingness can only be overcome by a full view of its glorious inducements. But, unfortunately, this view is often intercepted and obscured by various causes, and by none more than the usual way in which religion is studied. Most people in this country, and probably even the majority of the population in Europe, think that they understand Christianity; and yet a very small proportion of them have read the Bible with that degree of ordinary attention which they bestow on the common concerns of life. Their ideas on this subject are derived almost entirely from creeds and catechisms and church articles, or human compositions of some kind. The evil consequences arising from this are most grievous. To convince ourselves that they are indeed so to a high degree, we have only to compare the two methods.

In the Bible, we uniformly find the doctrines -even those that are generally considered most abstruse-pressed upon us as demonstrations or evidences of some important moral feature of the Divine mind, and as motives tending to produce in us some corresponding

disposition in relation to God or man. This is perfectly reasonable. Our characters cannot but be in some degree affected by what we believe to be the conduct and the will of the Almighty towards ourselves and the rest of our species. The history of this conduct and this will constitutes what are called the Christian doctrines. If, then, the disposition or character which we are urged to acquire, recommend itself to our reasons and consciences as right and agreeable to the will of God, we cannot but approve that precept as morally true; and if the doctrine by which it is enforced carries in it a distinct and natural tendency to produce this disposition or character, then we.feel ourselves compelled to admit that there is at least a moral truth in this doctrine. And if we find that the doctrine has not only this purely moral tendency, but that it is also most singularly adapted to assert and acquire a powerful influence over those principles in our nature to which it directs its appeal, then we must also pronounce that there is a natural truth in the doctrine,-or, in other words, that however contradictory it may be to human practice, it has however a natural consistency with the regulating principles of the human mind. And farther, if the doctrine be not only true in morals and in its natural adaptation to the mind of man, but if the fact which it records coincides also and harmonizes with that general idea of the Divine character which reason forms from the suggestions of conscience, and from an observation of the works and ways

of God in the external world, then we are bound to acknowledge that this doctrine appears to be true in its relation to God. In the Bible, the Christian doctrines are always stated in this connexion: They stand as indications of the character of God, and as the exciting motives of a corresponding character in man. Forming thus the connecting link between the character of the Creator and the creature, they possess a majesty which it is impossible to despise, and exhibit a form of consistency and truth which it is difficult to disbelieve. Such is Christianity in the Bible; but in creeds and church articles it is far otherwise. These tests and summaries originated from the introduction of doctrinal errors and metaphysical speculations into religion; and, in consequence of this, they are not so much intended to be the depositories of truth, as barriers against the encroachment of erroneous opinions. The doctrines contained in them therefore are not stated with any reference to their great object in the Bible, the regeneration of the human heart, by the knowledge of the Divine character. They appear as detached propositions, indicating no moral cause, and pointing to no moral effect. They do not look to God, on the one hand, as their source; nor to man, on the other, as the object of their moral urgency. They appear like links severed from the chain to which they belonged; and thus they lose. all that evidence which arises from their consistency, and all that dignity which is connected with their high design. I do not talk of the

propriety or impropriety of having church articles, but of the evils which spring from receiving impressions of religion exclusively or chiefly from this source.

I may instance the ordinary statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, as an illustration of what I mean. It seems difficult to conceive that any man should read through the New Testament candidly and attentively, without being convinced that this doctrine is essential to and implied in every part of the system : But it is not so difficult to conceive, that although his mind is perfectly satisfied on this point, he may yet, if his religious knowledge is exclusively derived from the Bible, feel a little surprised and staggered, when he for the first time reads the terms in which it is announced in the articles and confessions of all Protestant churches. In these summaries, the doctrine in question is stated by itself, divested of all its Scriptural accompaniment; and is made to bear simply on the nature of the Divine essence, and the mysterious fact of the existence, of Three in One. It is evident that this fact, taken by itself, cannot in the smallest degree tend to develop the Divine character, and therefore cannot make any moral impression on our minds.

In the Bible, it assumes quite a different shape; it is there subservient to the manifestation of the moral character of God. The doctrine of God's combined justice and mercy in the redemption of sinners, and of his continued spiritual watchfulness over the progress

of