I now proceed to the most disagreeable part of the subject, viz.:  The consideration of the other maxims mentioned, which, it must be allowed, do belong to Jesus, or at least to the New Testament, since they are the peculiar moral principles of Christianity, and the honour of them can be challenged by, I believe, no other religion.

These precepts are so extremely hyperbolical, that they are not, and cannot be perfectly observed by any Christian, who does not detach himself completely from the business of society; and these maxims, (which, as I said before, are the only parts of the morality of the New Testament, which are not borrowed,) never have been obeyed by any but the primitive Christians; and by the Monks, and Anchorets; for even the Quakers and Shakers, eminent as they are in Christian morality, have never been able to come quite up to the self denial required by the New Testament.

Indeed, the moral maxims peculiar to Christianity are impracticable, except by one who confines his wealth to the possession of a suit of clothes, sad wooden platter, and who lives in a cave, or a monastery.  They bear the stamp of enthusiasm upon their very front, and we have always seen, and ever shall see, that they are not fit for man:  that they lift him out of the sphere in which God designed him to move; that they are useless to society, and frequently produce the most dangerous consequences to it.  In a word, in these maxims we find commands, the fulfillment of which, is impossible by any man who is a husband, a father, or a citizen.

It is an outrage to human nature, and to common sense, to order a virtuous man, in order to reach perfection, to strip himself of his property; to offer the other cheek to receive a new outrage; not to resist the most unjust violence, injury, and insult; not to defend himself, or his property, when “sued at the law;” to quit his house and goods, and to hate his parents, and brethren, and wife, and children, for the sake of Jesus; to refuse and reject innocent pleasures; to deny himself lawful enjoyments, appointed by the Creator to make the existence of man a blessing to himself and others.

Who does not see in these commands the language of enthusiasm of hyperbole?  These maxims! are they not directly fitted to discourage, and debase a man? to degrade him in his own eyes, and those of others? to plunge him into despair?  And would not the literal fulfillment of them prove destructive to society?  What shall we say of that morality which orders the heart to detach itself from objects, which God, and reason, and nature order it to love?  To refuse to enjoy innocent and lawful happiness,—­what is it but to despise the benefits of God?  What real good can result for society from these melancholy virtues, which Christianity regards as perfections?  Will a man become more useful to society when his mind is perpetually inquieted by imaginary terrors, by mournful thoughts, which prevent him from fulfilling the duties he owes to his family, his country and those with whom he is connected?