cate obedience; that you regard them as under the highest conceivable obligation to obey the divine law in all its length and breadth, and as meriting the displeasure of God for failing to do this. In a word, show them that you heartily join with God, and approve of his high and spiritual commands as addressed to sinners, and of the sentence of condemnation which he pronounces against every one who disobeys.

As to the proper manner of exhibiting and inculcating moral obligation, we are to derive our lessons primarily and chiefly from the Holy Scriptures. We are to look much more than we have commonly done to the inspired teachers, as our models. They certainly had true practical wisdom, and their method of teaching was founded on just views of the human mind and character, and perfectly adapted to promote the highest good of the world. We are accustomed to celebrate the sacred writers, as affording the best examples of a just and impressive eloquence, an eloquence suited to awaken conscience, and move all the springs of human action. Now we should act very inconsistently with ourselves, if after all our admiration of the Bible as a perfect model of what is eloquent and just and useful in the manner of teaching, we should not be careful to copy it. I earnestly hope that the extraordinary attention which is now given to the Scriptures by theological students, and by ministers of the gospel, will produce happy results, and that the common mode of preaching will become much more Scriptural than it has been. And I hope, too, that the growing attention to the Bible in our Christian community, and especially among the young, will contribute effectually to form. such a taste, that no preacher can be acceptable to the public, unless he faithfully conforms to the infallible standard. Let us then seriously and patiently inquire, in what manner the momentous subject of our moral obligation is treated in the Holy Scrip

tures.

The first thing which occurs is, that the inspired writers do not formally assert, nor attempt by a process of reasoning to prove, our obligation to obey the divine commands, but assume it as a well known and acknowledged fact. In this they are fully justi

fied; and in this we ought, certainly in all ordinary cases, to imitate them; because the feeling of obligation originally arises not from the force of arguments, but from the very constitution of our nature, and always exists in full strength when the mind is in a right state, and has the proper objects in view. It is as evidently proper, that a religious teacher should take it for granted that men are in fact moral and accountable beings, and under obligation to obey the divine law, as it is for a teacher of optics to take it for granted that his pupils have the sense of seeing; or for a teacher of geometry, that his pupils have the faculty of understanding. And in ordinary cases, why should it be thought any more necessary in moral and religious discourse, either to prove or to assert the fact, that we are accountable beings and under obligation to obey God, than in philosophical discourse to assert and prove that we are endued with various bodily senses and intellectual faculties, which render us capable of observing the physical world, and understanding philosophical truth? The teacher of natural philosophy says nothing, except incidentally, of these senses and faculties. He does not undertake directly to treat of them, and has no need to do it. Indeed he does not consider this to be within his province. He takes it for granted that we are what we are, and proceeds immediately to teach the principles of his science. The same with the mathematician. Euclid does not begin his system of geometry by affirming and attempting to prove, that we have eyes to see his diagrams, and a mind to understand his maxims and propositions. Should he affirm this and labor ever so long to prove it, he would make it no more evident to us than it was before. He has therefore nothing to do with this, but proceeds at once to give his maxims, and to lay down and demonstrate his propositions.

The inspired teachers generally act on the same principle. It is always manifestly implied in their instructions, that we possess the faculties of intelligent and accountable agents. But where do they directly affirm this? Where do they produce any proof of it? Nowhere. They take it for granted.

In order to get an exact idea of the manner in which the

inspired teachers proceed in regard to man's moral obligation, let us examine some of the great occasions on which truth is taught and duty enjoined in the Scriptures.

We begin with the giving of the law. The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai amid terrible thunders and lightnings; and Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet with God, and to hear his words. Now what did God say to them? In what manner did he inculcate their duty upon them? Did he begin by telling them that they had all the powers and faculties necessary to moral agency; that they were free, and accountable, and under obligation to obey? Nothing of this. "He spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God who have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.Honor thy father and thy mother," etc. He simply gave his law; simply announced his commands to the people. Their being under obligation to render obedience was asserted in no other way, than by merely giving the commands. No proof was given, as it was a well known and acknowledged fact. And how was it with Moses, who afterwards labored so particularly, and with an eloquence so powerful and moving, to enforce obedience upon the children of Israel? We have, in Deuteronomy, an account of his faithful and impressive address to the people, containing doctrines, precepts, warnings, threats, exhortations, and a recital of God's favors, and of their sins, in a great variety of forms. But where is the passage in the whole book, in which he asserted the fact of their moral agency, or gave them a description of those powers and faculties which constituted them moral agents, and made it just and proper that they should keep God's law, and be accountable to him for their actions? Let us peruse and reperuse this remarkable book, till we are imbued with its contents. In this way we may do much towards learning the art of plain, pungent, affectionate, powerful, and profitable preaching. And it may be of some use to make the supposition, that Moses himself

were now here, laboring among us as a religious teacher, and retaining the same views of man's obligation and man's sinfulness, and the same manner of setting them forth, which he had when he addressed the children of Israel after they had spent forty years in the wilderness. Might not his example correct some common faults in our manner of preaching, and give us a taste for greater seriousness, simplicity, and faithfulness? And if any of us, with our present habits, should stand forth and preach in his presence; what would he think of us? Would it not be a matter of wonder to him, that with all the advantages of the new dispensation, as well as the old, we had attained to no higher excellence? Let us more carefully study the Book of Deuteronomy, and more faithfully copy the model of sacred eloquence which it contains.

But we must consider other occasions on which truth was taught and duty inculcated.

Look then at the instances in which the prophets, from age to age, gave instruction, warning, reproof, and exhortation. Dwell upon those passages in their writings, where they undertook, with the greatest particularity, to teach men their duty and their guilt, and to urge them to repentance. Is there a single sentence which shows, that they ever stopped to assert and prove the doctrine of moral agency, or to inquire into the grounds of moral obligation, as ministers often do at the present day? Did they not always assume it as a thing too evident to need any proof, that man is a moral agent, and in duty bound to obey the commands of God?

Take a higher example still, that of Jesus Christ. Look at the manner of his teaching in his sermon on the mount. Read the beginning, and the middle, and the end of it. Read his parables; his conversations with his disciples; his addresses to unbelievers, to objectors, to cavillers. Never man spake as he spake. He is a perfect model. Who has studied this model as much as he ought?

Read also the addresses of Peter, of Stephen, and of Paul, in the Acts. Read the epistles, especially the Epistle to the

Romans, in a part of which the Apostle undertook to reason with those who made some of the doctrines of the gospel an occasion to excuse and justify themselves in sin. Where do any of these infallible teachers undertake to prove by metaphysical reasonings, where do they even assert, that those, to whom they gave instruction, were endued with the powers of moral agency, and that it was just and reasonable they should be under law? What reason have we to suppose, from what appears in holy writ, that they ever deemed it necessary or proper to assert and prove this? That man is in fact an intelligent and moral being, and a proper subject of law, is a truth perfectly plain and certain; and no affirmation or argument can make it more so. If a man has lost his natural consciousness of being a moral and accountable agent, there is little prospect of convincing him by philosophical reasoning. The degradation of his mind is of such a nature, that reasoning cannot remove it. To one who is free from this mental degradation, an inquiry into the grounds of moral obligation cannot be at all necessary. To pursue such an inquiry in any case is not the province of the preacher, but of the metaphysician. Yet while it is evident that the inspired writers do not make it their practice to prove or even to assert the fact, that we are moral agents, any more than they assert and prove that we have souls; it is also evident, that they have much to do with this fact. Whenever they address men, they address them as moral and accountable beings, and as under immutable obligations to obey the divine commands. And it is an object at which they constantly aim, to awaken in the minds of men a proper sense of this obligation. But by what means do they attempt to do this? Not, I repeat it, by asserting our moral agency; or by exhibiting the grounds of our obligation; (a business appropriate to the science of metaphysics, or mental philosophy;) but by holding up plain, obvious, certain truth; and this they do in a great variety of ways, giving to every one his portion. A few instances will show something of the Scriptural manner of awakening men to a sense of moral obligation.

Take then the case of David, when visited by the Prophet