to have more. But what I have, is worth every thing There is a glorious reality in experimental religion; and there is nothing else worth any thing.

to me.

RELIGION AND MORALITY.

There are many things which recommend us to one another besides our moral qualities. But God has regard to these alone. His view extends to the inmost man-the heart. If that be not right in his sight, all is wrong. And it cannot be right, except when it supremely loves him in obedience to his first great command. How the children of a family stand affected toward each other, is a secondary concern. How they stand affected towards the father of all, is the inquiry, first in order and first in dignity. Some men despise religion. To be consistent, they ought much more to despise morality. If there be any thing contemptible in the concern and endeavor to understand and discharge the duties which we owe to the great and good Being who made us; much more is the care to feel and act right towards our fellow worms, contemptible. There is a sacredness in the filial obligation, which does not belong to the fraternal. If one cast off the fear of God, let him not glory in his regard for man. The unjust judge, in the parable, was consistent. He neither feared God, nor regarded man.

Morality is

every thing, if there be no God. Religion would be every thing, IF there were no creatures surrounding us.

It is passing strange that man should select as the class of duties to be disregarded by them, "those which have respect to the Being, to whom, according to common belief, and the clear intimations of conscience, they have to give account; that they should be so careless to stand well with Him, before whom they are presently to appear in solitary arraignment, for rigid reckoning and final retribution. And I have set it down under the head-infatuation-madness! They look around on men, with a benevolence of feeling, but when they look up to God, if ever they do, how blank their expression, how unmoved their hearts; and they find relief only in looking away. You despise the substitution of religion for morality, and so you ought; but why do you not despise the substitution of morality for religion? A wrong state of the heart towards other beings, is inconsistent with a right state of heart towards God. He, that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father. If one has not faith towards Christ, he has not love towards God. If a man loves not his brother, whom he hath seen, it is plain he does not love God, whom he hath not seen. And if he love not the image of the Father in his own person, how can he love it when found in the person of the Son?

CREEDS.

Those who subscribe a "form of words," not inspired by the Holy Ghost, have been accused of being always hampered in their interpretations of the Bible. They are supposed to feel all the while they are studying the Scriptures, that there is an authority in matters of faith superior to them, and that their great care must be not to give such an interpretation of them, as shall array them in opposition to this superior authority. But it is not so. We are falsely accused in this matter. We are as free and unembarrassed in our interpretations of the Bible, as those who throw aside all creeds, under the belief of their utter inutility. No man can be more unembarrassed. We do not take our texts from any confession of faith; nor go we for proof of any proposition to that earthly source. Our proofs, equally with our texts, are of and from the holy Scriptures. Nor is it at all our object, in preaching the gospel, to show how exactly the Westminster Assembly have expressed the mind of the Spirit. How then can our assent to the substantial accuracy of a certain creed embarrass us? Because we believe that a certain book or books express, in one set of words, what in another phraseology, the Bible teaches, are we, therefore, not free and unshackled in our own interpretation of the Bible; especially where, if at any time, we discover a disagreement between the human work and the divine, we never hesitate a moment to give the preference to the

latter? Are we, as it is alleged, bound down to a particular creed? If we are, it is the creed of the Scriptures. Are we afraid to think and to investigate, lest we should be led to adopt opinions differing from those which our Confession expresses? I repeat-it is not so. Suppose I were to say of Ridgley's Divinity or Dwight's Theology, that I think it expresses, substantially, the doctrines of the Bible, should I dishonor the Bible by that remark? Should I degrade it from the high place which it ought to occupy in every mind, as the only infallible rule of faith? Is this any thing more than every preacher says by implication of his own sermons? If he did not think they expressed the doctrines of the Bible, would he preach them? How then can it dishonor or degrade the Bible, if I say the same of the Thirty-nine Articles, or of the Westminster Confession?

Much of the outcry against systematic theology and confessions of faith, must be accounted for, on the supposition of special odium against those that now prevail. But be not deceived. One of the most certain indications by which truth is distinguished from falsehood, is derived from the fact, that one is systematic, while the other is not so. Truth has always its connexions and dependances. It is not a single proposition, but a chain of related propositions. Now, if truth be in itself systematic or consistent, our view of truth, if it be correct, must also be systematic. And a creed is but the confession of our views of truth.

INFIDELS.

If infidels and careless persons cannot make it absolutely certain to their minds that the gospel is untrue, (and no one was ever able to do this,) their conduct is unreasonable and inexcusable. The simple possibility of the truth of such a system as the gospel, is quite sufficient to alarm the fears, to excite the hopes, and to awaken the liveliest interest of immortal beings. The unbeliever is acting as if he were absolutely certain that the gospel is a fabrication. Whereas, he has no solid and rational and abiding persuasion that even he, himself, may not yet have to yield to such an overwhelming weight of evidence in favor of its truth, as will satisfy the most reluctant and tardy mind.

It is immoral and ungodly practice that produces erroneous opinions. It is free-living that produces freethinking. There is reciprocal action of each on the other.

In giving us a revelation, God hath accompanied it with evidence sufficient to make faith reasonable and unbelief inexcusable, and further than this he was not bound to go.

How rare it is to meet with, or even read of, a devout deist or religious infidel. There was hardly ever a speculative deist, that was not a thorough-going practical atheist. And truly, if a man gives up Christianity, there is not much in religion worth retaining— nothing, if we confine ourselves to eternity.