with his gods when it is adverse. Though some individual instances of integrity have occurred in the intercourse of the Chinese with Europeans, yet their general character is that of fraud, lying, and hypocrisy. Polygamy universally prevails, as also the cruel practice of exposing infants to perish, not fewer than nine thousand of whom are computed to be annually destroyed at Pekin, and the same number in the rest of the empire.1

BEEN

Nor is the case materially different with the Mohammedans. Though their religion includes the acknowledgment of one living and true God; yet, rejecting the Messiah, and attaching themselves to a sanguinary and lascivious impostor, it produces no good effect upon their morals, but leaves them under the dominion of barbarity and voluptuousness. These and similar instances of corruption in worship, doctrine, and practice, which have prevailed and still exist in the heathen world, fully prove the utter insufficiency of natural reason to be a guide in religion; and also show into what monstrous opinions and practices whole nations may be led, where that is their guide, without any help from revelation. Nor will it diminish the force of this argument, to say, that these instances of corruption are owing to an undue use of their reason, or that the measure of reason, possessed by the heathen nations, is low and imperfect; since they are sufficiently skilful in whatever concerns their political or personal interests, in the arts of annoying their neighbours, and defending themselves against incursions, in forming alliances for their defence, and conducting the ordinary affairs of life according to the manners and customs of their several countries. Nor are the absurdities in religion, which are found among the modern heathen nations, greater than those which (we have already seen)2 existed among the polished nations of antiquity before the publication of the Gospel: which are a joint proof that no age or country, whether rude or civilized, instructed or uninstructed, infected or uninfected with plenty or luxury, is or can be secured by mere natural reason against falling into the grossest errors and corruptions in religion; and, consequently, that all mankind stand in need of a divine revelation to make known to them the will of God, and the duties and obliga-ditions of that covenant to which these promises and threattions which they owe to their Creator.

V. Notwithstanding these important facts, and regardless of the confessions of the most distinguished ancient philosophers of their need of a revelation, it is OBJECTED by many in our own times, that there is no necessity for one; that the book of nature is the only book to be studied; and that philosophy and right reason are sufficient to instruct and to preserve men in their duty.

ANSWER 1. It is an undeniable fact, that the doctrines of Christianity (without considering at present what evidence and authority they possess) have had a more powerful influence upon men, than all the reasonings of the philosophers and though modern opposers of revelation ascribe the ignorance and corruption of the heathen, not to the insufficiency of the light of reason, but to their non-improvement of that light; yet, if this were true, it would not prove that there is no need of a revelation, because it is certain that the philosophers wanted some higher assistance than that

of reason.

ANSWER 2. With regard to the pretences of modern deists, it is be observed that almost all men, where the Scriptures have been unknown, have in every age been gross idolaters; the few exceptions that have existed, being in general a kind of atheistical philosophers. Deists, properly so called, are chiefly found in Christian countries, in the later ages, since Christianity has extensively prevailed over idolatry, 1 Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. iii. parti. article China. Barrow's Travels in China, pp. 418-487. Milne's Retrospect of the Protestant Mission to China, pp. 29, 30. 2 See pp. 16, 17. supra.

The name of Deists, as applied to those who are no friends to revealed religion, is said to have been first assumed, about the middle of the sixteenth century, by some gentlemen in France and Italy, who were willing to cover their opposition to the Christian revelation by a more honourable name than that of Atheists. The earliest author, who mentions them, is Viret, a divine of great eminence among the first reformers; who, in the epistle dedicatory prefixed to the first tome of his "Instruction Chre tienne" (which was published in 1563), speaks of some persons at that time who called themselves by a new name, that of Deists. These, he tells us, professed to believe a God, but showed no regard to Jesus Christ, and considered the doctrine of the apostles and evangelists as fables and dreams. He adds that they laughed at all religion; notwithstanding they conformed themselves, externally, to the religion of those with whom they were obliged to live, or whom they were desirous of pleasing, or whom they feared. Some of them, he observes, professed to believe the immortality of the soul; others were of the Epicurean opinion in this point, as well as about the providence of God with respect to mankind, as if he did not concern himself in the government of human affairs. He adds, that many among them set up for learning and philosophy, and were

and in the countries where gross pagan idolatry could no
longer be practised with credit and security. In these cir-
cumstances, deists acquire, as it were at second-hand, their
glimmering light from the book to which they oppose it;
and it is a fact that almost all the things, which have been
said wisely and truly by them, ARE MANIFESTLY BORROWED
FROM THAT REVELATION WHICH THEY REFUSE TO EMBRACE,
AND WITHOUT WHICH THEY NEVER COULD HAVE
ABLE TO HAVE DELIVERED SUCH TRUTHS. Now, indeed, that
our whole duty is clearly revealed, we not only see its agree-
ment with reason, but are also enabled to deduce its obliga-
tion from reason: but, if we had been destitute of all re-
vealed religion, it would have been a work of extreme dif-
ficulty to have discovered our duty in all points. What
ground indeed have the modern contemners of revelation to
imagine, that, if they had lived without the light of the gos-
pel, they would have been wiser than Socrates, Plato, and
Cicero? How are they certain that they would have made
such a right use of their reason, as to have discovered
truth? If their lot had been among the vulgar, are they
sure that they would not have been idolaters? If they had
joined themselves to the philosophers, what sect would they
have followed? Or, if they had set up for themselves, how
are they certain that they would have been skilful enough to
have deduced the several branches of their duty, or to have
applied them to the several cases of life, by argumentation
and force of reason? It is one thing to perceive that the
rules of life, which are laid before us, are agreeable to rea-
son, and another thing to find out those rules by the mere
light of reason. We see that many, who profess to govern
themselves by the written rules of revealed religion, are
nevertheless ignorant of their duty; and how can any man
be sure that he should have made such a good use of his
reason, as to have perfectly understood his duty without
help? We see that many of those,-who profess firmly to
believe in that great and everlasting happiness which Christ
has promised to obedience, and that great and eternal misery
which he has threatened against disobedience, are yet hur-
ried away by their lusts and passions to transgress the con-
enings are annexed; and how can any man be sure, that he
should be able to overcome these temptations, if these mo-
tives were less known, or less powerfully enforced? But,
suppose that he could by strength of reason demonstrate all
these things to himself with the utmost possible clearness
and distinctness, yet all men are not equally capable of be-
ing philosophers, though all men are obliged to be equally
religious. At least, thus much is certain, that the rewards
and punishments of another world cannot be so powerfully
enforced, in order to influence the lives of men, by a de-
monstration of their reality from abstract reasoning, as by
one who assures them, by sufficient credentials, that he has
actually been in that other state.

ANSWER 3. Besides, the contradictory and discordant speculations of the modern opposers of revelation, who boast that reason is their God (even if they had not long since been fully answered), are so great and so glaring, and the precepts delivered by them for a rule of life are so utterly subversive of every principle of morality, as to demonstrate the absolute necessity of a divine revelation now (supposing one had never been given), in order to lead men to the worship and knowledge of the true God, and also to impart to them the knowledge of their duties to him, and towards one another. A brief statement of the recorded opinions of the principal opposers of revelation in modern times, will prove and justify this remark.

tions of mankind respecting a future state:
1. Concerning religion, the worship of God, and the expecta-

LORD HERBERT, of Cherbury (who wrote in the former part of the seventeenth century, and was the first, as he was the greatest and best of the modern deistical philosophers), has laid down the following positions, viz. that Christianity is the best religion; that his own universal religion of na

considered as persons of an acute and subtile genius; and that, not con tent to perish alone in their error, they took pains to spread the poison, and to infect and corrupt others by their impious discourses, and their bad examples. Bayle's Dictionary, article Viret, cited in Dr. Leland's View of the Deistical Writers, vol. i. p. 2.

Modern infidelity, though it may assume the title of Deism, is in fact little better than disguised atheism. A man seldom retains for any length of time his first deistical opinions; his errors gradually multiply, till he sinks to the last gradation of impiety. The testimony of an infidel writer substantiates this point. "Deism," says he, "is but the first step of reason out of superstition. No person remains a Deist, but through want of reflection, timidity, passion, or obstinacy."-Brittan's Modern Infidelity Portrayed, p. 9.

ture agrees wholly with Christianity, and contributes to its establishment; that all revealed religion (meaning Christianity) is absolutely uncertain, and of little or no use; that there is one supreme God, who is chiefly to be worshipped; that piety and virtue are the principal part of his worship; that we must repent of our sins, and if we do so, God will pardon them; that there are rewards for good men, and punishments for wicked men in a future state; that these principles of his universal religion are clearly known to all men, and that they were principally unknown to the Gentiles (who comprised almost all men). Yet, notwithstanding his declaration in favour of Christianity, he accuses all pretences to revelation of folly and unreasonableness, and contemptuously rejects its capital doctrines.

MR. HOBBES, who was partly contemporary with Lord Herbert, affirms that the Scriptures are the voice of God, and yet that they have no authority but what they derive from the prince or the civil power; he acknowledges, that inspiration is a supernatural gift, and the immediate hand of God, and yet the pretence to it is a sign of madness; that a subject may hold firmly the faith of Christ in his heart, and yet may lawfully deny him before the magistrate, and that in such a case it is not he that denies Christ before men, but his governor and the laws of his country; that God exists, and yet that that which is not matter is nothing; that honour, worship, prayer, and praise are due to God, and yet that all religion is ridiculous.

MR. BLOUNT, who lived during the latter part of the seventeenth century, maintained that there is an infinite and eternal God, the creator of all things, and yet he insinuates that the world was eternal; that the worship we owe to God consists in prayer to Him, and in praise of Him, and yet he objects to prayer as a duty; that we are to expect rewards and punishments hereafter, according to our actions in this life, which includes the immortality of the soul, and yet that the soul of man is probably material (and of course mortal).

natural tendency to take away a just sense of right and
wrong.
MR. COLLINS also wrote in the early part of the eighteenth
century, and published a variety of objections against revela-
tion. He affirms that man is a mere machine;-that the
soul is material and mortal;-that Christ and his apostles
built on the predictions of fortune-tellers and divines;-that
the prophets were mere fortune-tellers, and discoverers of
lost goods;-that Christianity stands wholly on a false foun-
dation; yet he speaks respectfully of Christianity; and also
of the Epicureans, whom he at the same time considers as
atheists.
Contemporary with Collins was MR. WOOLSTON; who, in
his Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour, under the pre-
tence of vindicating the allegorical sense of Scripture, en-
deavours absolutely to destroy the truth of the facts recorded
in the Gospels. This writer asserts, that he is the farthest
of any man from being engaged in the cause of infidelity;-
that infidelity has no place in his heart;-that he writes for
the honour of Jesus and in defence of Christianity-and
that his design in writing is to advance the Messiahship and
truth of the holy Jesus; to whom," he says, "be glory for
ever, Amen;" and yet, that the Gospels are full of incredi-
bilities, impossibilities, and absurdities;-that they resemble
Gulliverian tales of persons and things, which out of romance
never had a being;-that the miracles, recorded in the Gos-
pels, taken literally, will not abide the test of reason and
common sense, but must be rejected, and the authority of
Jesus along with them; and at the same time, he casts the
most scurrilous reflections on Christ.

With the two preceding writers DRS. TINDAL and MORGAN were contemporary. The former declares that Christianity, stripped of the additions which mistake, policy, and circumstances have made to it, is a most holy religion; and yet, that the Scriptures are obscure, and fit only to perplex men, and that the two great parts of them are contradictory;that all the doctrines of Christianity plainly speak themselves to be the will of an infinitely wise and holy God: and yet, that the precepts of Christianity are loose, undetermined, incapable of being understood by mankind at large, give wrong and unworthy apprehensions of God, and are generally false and pernicious;-that natural religion is so plain to all, even the most ignorant men, that God could not make it plainer, even if he were to convey, miraculously, the very same ideas to all men; and yet, that almost all mankind have had very unworthy notions of God, and very wrong apprehensions of natural religion;—that the principles of natural religion are so clear, that men cannot possibly mistake them; and yet, that almost all men have grossly mistaken them, and imbibed a superstition worse than atheism. Dr. MORGAN asserts that God may communicate his will by immediate inspiration, and yet that it can never be proved that he has thus communicated his will, and that we are not to receive any thing on the authority of reve

The EARL OF SHAFTESBURY lived during the close of the seventeenth and the early part of the eighteenth century. He affirms that nothing can be more fatal to virtue than the weak and uncertain belief of future rewards and punishments; and that this belief takes away all motives to virtue; that the hope of rewards and the fear of punishments make virtue mercenary; that it is disingenuous and servile to be influenced by rewards; and that the hope of rewards cannot consist with virtue; and yet that the hope of rewards is so far from being derogatory to virtue, that it is a proof we love virtue; that however mercenary the hope of rewards and the fear of punishments may be accounted, it is in many instances a great advantage, security, and support of virtue; that all obligation to be virtuous arises from the advantages (that is, the rewards) of virtue, and from the disadvantages (that is, the punishments) of vice; that those are to be censured who represent the Gospel as a fraud; that he hopes the Select Sermons of Dr. Whichcot (to which Lord Shaftes-lation. bury had written an elegant preface) will induce the enemies Nearly at the same time were published numerous tracts of Christianity to like it better, and make Christians prize it by MR. CHUBB, in some of which he assumed the garb of the more; and that he hopes Christians will be secured Christianity, though it is not difficult to perceive that his against the temper of the irreconcileable enemies of the true intention was to betray it. He declares that he hopes faith of the Gospel; and yet he represents salvation as a to share with his friends in the favour of God, in that peaceridiculous thing; and insinuates that Christ was influenced ful and happy state which God has prepared for the virtuous and directed by deep designs of ambition, and cherished a and faithful, in some other future world; and yet, that God savage zeal and persecuting spirit; and that the Scriptures does not interpose in the affairs of this world at all, and has were a mere artful invention, to secure a profitable monopoly nothing to do with the good or evil done by men here;-that (that is, of sinister advantages to the inventors); that man is prayer may be useful, as a positive institution, by introducborn to religion, piety, and adoration, as well as to honouring proper thoughts, affections, and actions; and yet he intiand friendship; that virtue is not complete without piety; mates that it must be displeasing to God, and directly improyet he labours to make virtue wholly independent of piety; per; that a state of rewards and punishments hereafter is that all the warrant for the authority of religious symbols one of the truths which are of the highest concern to men; (that is, the institution of Christianity) is the authority of and yet, that the arguments for the immortality of the soul the magistrate; that the magistrate is the sole judge of re- are wholly unsatisfactory; and that the soul is probably matligious truth, and of revelation; that miracles are ridiculous; ter;-that men are accountable to God for all their conduct, and that, if true, they would be no proof of the truth of reve- and will certainly be judged and dealt with according to the lation; that ridicule is the test of truth; and yet, that ridicule truth and reality of their respective cases; and yet, that men itself must be brought to the test of reason; that the Chris- will not be judged for their impiety or ingratitude to God, tian religion ought to be received when established by the nor for their injustice and unkindness to each other; but only magistrate; yet he grossly ridicules it where it was thus for voluntary injuries to the public; and that even this is unestablished; that religion and virtue appear to be so nearly necessary and useless;-that God may kindly reveal to the connected, that they are presumed to be inseparable com- world, when greatly vitiated by error and ignorance, truths panions; and yet that atheists often conduct themselves so necessary to be known, and precepts necessary to be obeywell, as to seem to force us to confess them virtuous; that ed; and yet, that such a revelation would be, of course, unhe, who denies a God, sets up an opinion against the very certain and useless;-that Christ's mission is, at least in his well-being of society; and yet that atheism has no direct view, probably divine; and yet, that Christ, in his opinion,

was of no higher character than the founder of the Christian | taught it in the Gospel; and yet a great part of his works, sect (that is, another Sadoc, Cerinthus, or Herbert);-that particularly of his philosophical works, was written for no the New Testament, particularly the writings of the apos- other end but to destroy Christianity. He also declares, tles, contain excellent cautions and instructions for our right that there is no conscience in man, except artificially ;-that conduct; and that the New Testament yields much clearer it is more natural to believe many gods than to believe one. light than any other traditionary revelation; and yet that the During the latter part of the eighteenth century flourished New Testament has contributed to the perplexity and confu- DAVID HUME, whose acuteness of observation, and elegant sion of mankind, and exhibits doctrines heretical, dishonour- style, have secured for his writings an extensive circulation. able to God, and injurious to men; and that the apostles were He asserts that there is no perceptible connection between impostors; and that the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles cause and effect;-that the belief of such connection is merely resemble Jewish fables and popish legends rather than ac- a matter of custom;-that experience can show us no such counts of facts;-that as, on the Christian scheme, Christ connection;-that we cannot with any reason conclude that, will be the judge of the quick and the dead, he has not on because an effect has taken place once, it will take place this account (that is, admitting this to be true) any disagree- again;—that it is uncertain and useless to argue from the able apprehension on account of what he has written; and course of nature, and infer an intelligent cause;—that we yet he ridicules the birth and resurrection of Christ, repre- cannot, from any analogy of nature, argue the existence of sents his instructions as inferior to those of the heathen phi- an intelligent cause of all things;-that there is no reason to losophers and lawgivers, asserts his doctrines to be disho- believe that the universe proceeded from a cause; that nourable to God and injurious to mankind, and allows him there are no solid arguments to prove the existence of a God; not to be sinless, but merely not a gross sinner. He further -that experience can furnish no argument concerning matdeclares, that the resurrection of Christ, if true, proves not ters of fact, is in this case useless, and can give rise to no the immortality of the soul;-that the belief of a future state inference or conclusion; and yet, that experience is our only is of no advantage to society;—that all religions are alike; guide in matters of fact, and the existence of objects;-that that it is of no consequence what religion a man embraces; it is universally allowed, that nothing exists without a cause; and he allows not any room for dependence on God's provi--that every effect is so precisely determined, that no other dence, trust in him, and resignation to his will, as parts of effect could, in such circumstances, have possibly resulted duty or religion. from the operation of its cause;-that the relation of cause LORD BOLINGBROKE declares that power and wisdom are is absolutely necessary to the propagation of our species, and the only attributes of God, which can be discovered by man- the regulation of our conduct; that voluntary actions are kind; and yet that he is as far from denying the justice as necessary, and determined by a fixed connection between the power of God; that his goodness is manifest; at the same cause and effect;—that motives are causes operating necestime he ascribes every other perfection to God, as well as sarily on the will;-that man is a mere machine (that is, an wisdom and power, and says, this is rational;—that the wis- object operated on necessarily by external causes);—that dom of God is merely a natural attribute, and in no sense there is no contingency (that is, nothing happening without moral; and yet, that the wisdom of God operates in choosing a settled cause) in the universe; and that matter and motion what is fittest to be done (of course, it is a moral attribute, may be regarded as the cause of thought (that is, the soul is involving perfect moral rectitude, as well as perfect know- a material cause, and thought its effect);-that God disledge); that God is gracious and beneficent;-that what- covers to us only faint traces of his character; and that it ever God has done is just and good ;-that such moral per- would be flattery or presumption to ascribe to him any perfections are in God as Christians ascribe to him; yet he fection which is not discovered to the full in his works (and censures divines for ascribing these perfections to God;- of course, that it would be flattery or presumption to ascribe that we learn from our own power and wisdom, the power any perfection to God);-that it is unreasonable to believe and wisdom of God; and yet, that it is profane to ascribe the God to be wise and good;-that what we believe to be a perexcellencies of our nature to God, although without limit or fection in God may be a defect (that is holiness, justice, wisimperfection. He undertakes to defend the righteousness of dom, goodness, mercy, and truth may be defects in God); God against divines; and yet asserts that holiness and right--consequently injustice, folly, malice, and falsehood may eousness in God are like nothing in men; that they cannot be excellencies in his character;-that no reward or punishbe conceived of by men, nor argued about with any certainty; ment can be rationally expected beyond what is already and that to talk of imitating God in his moral attributes is known by experience and observation, blasphemy; that God made all things; and yet, that he did not determine the existence of particular men (of course he did not determine the existence of any man, all men being particular men);-that he will not presume to deny, that there have been particular providences; and yet, that there is no foundation for the belief of any such providences, and that it is absurd and profane to assert or believe them; that God is just, and that justice requires that rewards or punishments be measured to particular cases, according to their circumstances, in proportion to the merit or demerit of every individual, and yet, that God does not so measure out rewards or punishments; and that, if he did, he would subvert human affairs; that he concerns not himself with the affairs of men at all; or, if he does, that he regards only collective bodies of men, not individuals; that he punishes none, except through the magistrate; and that there will be no state of future rewards or punishments;-that divines are deserving of censure for saying that God made man to be happy; and yet he asserts that God made man to be happy here, and that the end of the human state is happiness; that the religion of nature is clear and obvious to all mankind; and yet that it has been unknown to the greatest part of mankind;-that we know material substance, and are assured of it; and yet, that we know nothing of either matter or spirit; that there is, undeniably, something in our constitution, beyond the known properties of matter; and yet, that the soul is material and mortal; and that to say the soul is immaterial, is the same thing as to say that two and two are five;-that self-love is the great law of our nature; and yet, that universal benevolence is the great law of our nature; that Christianity is a republication of the religion of nature, and a benevolent system; that its morals are pure; and that he is determined to seek for genuine Christianity with the simplicity of spirit with which Christ himself

While Hume and Bolingbroke were propagating these sentiments in England, Voltaire, Diderot, D'Alembert, Frederick II. King of Prussia, and other distinguished writers had confederated for the avowed purpose of annihilating the Christian religion. The printed works of the three firstnamed writers are too voluminous to admit of extracts: but it may be stated generally, that their private correspondence, which has been published, exhibits a total disregard of truth and honour, together with such a disgusting compound of falsehood, envy, malignity, hatred, contempt of one another and of all the world, as cannot but convey a horrible impression of the spirit and tendency of infidelity. It is however principally in the posthumous works of the King of Prussia that we see a faithful delineation of the real tenets and opinions of the most celebrated philosophers of the Continent, of the founders and legislators of the great empire of infidelity, with the philosophic monarch himself at their head. Every secret of their hearts is there laid open in their familiar and confidential correspondence with each other; and there we see that they were pretended deists, but real atheists; that, although the name of a Supreme Being was sometimes mentioned, yet it was seldom mentioned but with ridicule and contempt; and that they never conceived him to be any thing more than the intelligent principle that animates all nature, the source of life and motion, the sensorium of the universe; but in other respects totally unconnected with the earth and its inhabitants. "In consequence of this doctrine these philosophers rejected all idea of a providence and a moral governor of the world. They ascribed every effect to fate or fortune, to necessity or chance; they denied the existence of a soul distinct from the body; they conceived man to be nothing more than an organized lump of matter, a mere machine, an ingenious piece of clock-work, which, when the wheels refuse to act, stands still, and loses all power and motion for

ever. They acknowledged nothing beyond the grave, no
resurrection, no future existence, no future retribution; they
considered death as an eternal sleep, as the total extinction
of our being; and they stigmatized all opinions different from
these with the names of superstition, bigotry, priestcraft,
fanaticism, and idolatry.”1

Such are the various, contradictory, and impious tenets
promulgated by the most eminent champions of what is call-
ed deism2 (and which have been repeated in different ways
by the opposers of revelation in our age), concerning reli-
gion, the worship of God, and the expectations of mankind
respecting a future state. We shall only add, that though
the infidels of the present day profess to be the disciples of
nature, and to receive her unerring instructions, yet they dif-
fer from each other with an almost endless variety. Having
gradually receded from true Christianity to false, some are
unbelievers in the nature, some in the providence, and others
even in the existence of a God; but all of them are unani-
mous in rejecting the divine testimony, and in renouncing
the God of the Bible. Let us now take a brief view,

2. Of their precepts concerning morals.

LORD HERBERT declared, that men are not hastily, or on small grounds, to be condemned, who are led to sin by bodily constitution; that the indulgence of lust and of anger is no more to be blamed than the thirst occasioned by the dropsy, or the drowsiness produced by lethargy.

MR. HOBBES asserted that the civil or municipal law is the only foundation of right and wrong; that where there is no civil law, every man's judgment is the only standard of right and wrong; that the sovereign is not bound by any obligation of truth or justice, and can do no wrong to his subjects; that every man has a right to all things, and may lawfully get them if he can!

LORD BOLINGBROKE resolved all morality into self-love as its principle, and taught that ambition, the lust of power, sensuality, and avarice may be lawfully gratified, if they can be safely gratified; that the sole foundation of modesty is vanity, or a wish to show ourselves superior to mere animals; than man lives only in the present world, and is only a superior animal; that the chief end of man is to gratify the appetites and inclinations of the flesh; that modesty is inspired by mere prejudice; and that polygamy is a part of the law or religion of nature. He also intimates that adultery is no violation of the law of nature; and that there is no wrong, except in the highest lewdness.

vices are virtues.1 ROUSSEAU, a thief, a liar, and a de-
bauched profligate, according to his own printed "Confes
sions;" also had recourse to feelings as his standard of mo
rality. "I have only to consult myself," said he, " concern
ing what I do. All that I feel to be right, is right. What-
ever I feel to be wrong, is wrong. All the morality of our
actions lies in the judgment we ourselves form of them."5
And just before the French revolution broke out, it is a known
fact that the idea of moral obligation was exploded among
the infidel clubs that existed in every part of France.
Such is the morality taught by some of those who in the
last century claimed to be received as the masters of reason.
It were no difficult task to add to their precepts many simi-
lar ones from the opponents of revelation in our own times;
but as they only re-assert the atheistical and immoral tenets
of their predecessors with increased malignity and grossness,
we shall spare the reader the pain of perusing passages that
cannot but shock the mind of every one who cherishes the
least regard for decency or social order. Let us advert, how-
ever, for a moment, to the effects produced by these princi-
ples on an entire people, and also on individuals.

The only instance in which the avowed rejectors of revelation have possessed the supreme power and government of a country, and have attempted to dispose of human happiness according to their own doctrines and wishes, is that of France during the greater part of the revolution, which, it is now well known, was effected by the abettors of infidelity. The great majority of the nation had become infidels. The name and profession of Christianity was renounced by the legislature; and the abolition of the Christian æra was proclaimed. Death was declared by an act of the republican government to be an eternal sleep. The existence of the Deity, and the immortality of the soul, were formally disavowed by the National Convention; and the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead was declared to have been only preached by superstition for the torment of the living. All the religions in the world were proclaimed to be the daughters of ignorance and pride; and it was decreed to be the duty of the convention to assume the honourable office of disseminating atheism (which was blasphemously affirmed to be truth) over all the world. As a part of this duty, the convention further decreed, that its express renunciation of all religious worship should, like its invitations to rebellion, be translated into all foreign languages; and it was asserted and received in the convention, that the adversaries of religion had deserved well of their country! Correspondent with these professions and declarations were the effects actually produced. Public worship was utterly abolished. The churches were converted into "temples of reason," in which atheistical and licentious homilies were substituted for the proscribed service; and an absurd and ludicrous imitation of the pagan mythology was exhibited under the title of the "religion of reason." In the principal church of every town a tutelary goddess was installed with a ceremony equally pedantic, frivolous, and profane; and the females, selected to personify this new divinity, were mostly prostitutes, who received the adorations of the attendant municipal officers, and of the multitudes, whom fear, or force, or motive of gain, had collected together on the occasion. Contempt for religion or decency became the test of attachment to the government; and the gross infraction of any moral or social duty was deemed a proof of civism, and a victory over prejudice. All distinctions of right and wrong were confounded. The grossest debauchery triumphed. The reign of atheism and of reason was the reign of terror. "Then proscription followed upon proscription; tragedy followed after tragedy, in almost breathless succession, on the theatre of France. Almost the whole nation was converted into a horde of assassins. Democracy and atheism, hand in hand, desolated the country, and converted it into one vast field of rapine and of blood." In one part of France, the Both VOLTAIRE and HELVETIUS advocated the unlimited course of a river (the Loire) was impeded by the drowned gratification of the sensual appetites, and the latter held that bodies of the ministers of religion, several hundreds of whom It is not agreeable to policy to regard gallantry (that is, un- were destroyed in its waters; children were sentenced to lawful intercourse with married women) as a vice in a moral death for the faith and loyalty of their parents; and they, sense; and that, if men will call it a vice, it must be acknow-whose infancy had sheltered them from the fire of the soldiery, ledged that there are vices which are useful in certain ages and countries! In other words, that in those countries such

MR. HUME (the immorality of whose principles is displayed in his Private Correspondence recently published) maintained, that self-denial, self-mortification, and humility are not virtues, but are useless and mischievous; that they stupify the understanding, sour the temper, and harden the heart; that pride, self valuation, ingenuity, eloquence, quickness of thought, easiness of expression, delicacy of taste, strength of body, and cleanliness, are virtues; and, consequently, that to want honesty, to want understanding, and to want strength of body, are equally the subjects of moral disapprobation; that adultery must be practised, if men would obtain all the advantages of life; that, if generally practised, it would in time cease to be scandalous; and that if practised secretly and frequently, it would by degrees come to be thought no crime at all!!!

MR. GIBBON, one of the most decent of modern infidels, has given a biographical account of himself, and what is the result of the moral portrait there exhibited? Amid all the polish and splendour of literary culture, not a single line of moral beauty is perceptible. There is "no fear of God, no reverence for sacred things, no regard for the welfare of the human race; but the most heartless and sordid selfishness, vain glory, a desire of admiration, adulation of the great and wealthy, contempt of the poor, and supreme devotedness to his own gratification."

1 Bp. Porteus's Charge in 1794. (Tracts, pp. 266, 267.)
2 Dr. Dwight's Nature, &c. of Infidel Philosophy, pp. 20-42. Most of the
preceding statements of the opposers of revelation, as well as of those
which follow concerning morals, are selected from Dr. Leland's View of

the Deistical Writers, where their identical expressions are given, and their
fallacies are exposed with great depth of argument and learning.

> "Correspondence of David Hume with several distinguished Per-
sons." London, 1820. 4to.

D

were bayoneted as they clung about the knees of their destroyers. The moral and social ties were unloosed, or rather torn asunder. For a man to accuse his own father was declared to be an act of civism, worthy of a true republican; and to neglect it, was pronounced a crime that should be punished with death. Accordingly, women denounced their

Helvetius, De l'Esprit, tom. i. disc. 2. ch. 15. p. 176, et seq

• Emilius, tom. i. pp. 166-168.