ticular providence-is but as a speck, in comparison of the whole universe, and if, as Lord Bolingbroke admits, a general providence is exercised, not merely over the world itself, but also over nations and communities upon its surface,―there cannot surely be any great inconsistency in admitting the doctrine in question. The principle of Providence admitted by the class of infidels alluded to, is what some others of their fraternity speak of as the operation of the laws of nature, &c.-terms, by the way, which partake of the usual vagueness of infidel definitions. Now, will it be denied that an individual is as much under the influence of the laws of nature, as a nation, or a world? If not, where is the difference between the deistical doctrine, and that of a particular providence? The principles upon which a particular providence is rejected, only require to be carried out, in order to lead to the denial of a general providence, and consequently, and finally, to atheism.

Deists are, moreover, not very clear and consistent in their theistical sentiments. Voltaire expresses his belief in "a supreme, eternal, incomprehensible Intelligence." Paine expresses his faith in one God. Hume, Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke, and others, pretend to admit the existence of a God in some form or other. None of them, however, appear willing to credit the existence of such a being as the God of the Bible. Bolingbroke reduces all the divine attributes to two,~wisdom and power. He informs us that God's moral attributes" are only different modifications of his wisdom." It would appear that neither goodness nor justice were considered by him as perfections; since -though he contends that the Deity must be an all-perfect Being-he did not ascribe to him either justice or goodness, or indeed any other moral attribute. His lordship was, however, remarkably contradictory upon this question. "Man," he observes, enjoys numberless benefits by the fitness of his nature, to this constitution, unasked, unmerited, freely bestowed. The wisdom and goodness of God are, therefore, manifest." Again," says he, "the theist acknowledges whatever God has done to be just and good in itself, though it doth not appear such in every instance, conformably to his ideas of justice and goodness. He imputes the difference to the defect of his ideas, and not to any defect of the Divine attributes. He is as far from denying them, as he is from denying the wisdom and power of God." Such are the contradictions of wayward men,-men who prefer their own ignorance to the wisdom of the Supreme, and who, though supplied with a clear light, prefer to walk amid clouds and darkness, enjoying only the faint sparkles of the lamp of

reason.

66

Upon the doctrine of immortality, deists are far from being agreed. One of their own number has divided them into two classes,-"mortal and immortal deists," the former rejecting, and the latter admitting, the doctrine of immortality. Bolingbroke declares that the soul is not distinct from the body, and that they both perish at death,-that the doctrine of a future state has no foundation in reason,-but that when believed by mankind, its operation is salutary. Blount strenuously maintains the immortality of the soul, and a future state of rewards and punishments; and a writer of the same school remarks, that, "to say, man's soul dies with the body, is a desperate conclusion, which saps the foundation of human happiness.' Shaftesbury, on the other hand, turns the doctrine into ridicule. Paine states, that "he hoped for happiness beyond this life." Chubb expresses a similar hope with that of Paine, but takes care to state, that it is doubtful whether the soul be material, or immaterial, and says, that "if the soul be perishable with the body, there can surely be no place for argument with regard to a future state of existence to men, or a future retribution, because when the human frame is once dissolved by death, then man ceases to be, and is no more."

With respect also to the worship of the Divine Being, deists are divided in their opinions. Shaftesbury speaks of man as being "not only born to virtue, friendship, honesty, and faith; but to piety, adoration, and a generous

66

surrender of his mind to whatever happens from the Supreme cause, or order of things, which he acknowledges entirely just and perfect." Bolingbroke speaks of man as "a religious and social creature, made to know and adore his Creator," &c. Chubb speaks much about the absurdity of prayer. Hume says, While the Deity is represented as infinitely superior to mankind, this belief, though altogether just, is apt, when joined with superstitious terrors, to sink the human mind into the lowest submission and abasement, and to represent the monkish virtues of mortification, penance, humility, and passive suffering, as the only qualities which are acceptable to him. But where the Gods are conceived to be only a little superior to mankind, and many of them to have been advanced from that inferior rank, men are more at ease in their addresses to them, and may, even without profaneness, aspire sometimes to a rivalship and emulation of them. Hence, activity, spirit, courage, magnanimity, love of liberty, and all the virtues which aggrandise a people.' It is not difficult to perceive the species of impiety which dictated this paragraph, and the nature of the worship which its author would inculcate. Lord Herbert, of Cherbury, may be regarded as the first English deist. He published a work to develope the principles of natural religion, which he thought sufficient for mankind, without any kind of revelation. His principles were perhaps purer than those of any of his successors. They are the following:-"That there is one supreme God; that he chiefly is to be worshipped; that piety and virtue are the principal parts 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 bad men, in a future state." Leland quotes a "remarkable incident" concerning this nobleman, in his "View of the Principal Deistical Writers," which is the following: "his lordship appears to have doubted the propriety of publishing his work, 'de Veritate,' for some time, of which he writes as follows: Being thus doubtful, in my chamber, one fair day in the summer, my casement being open towards the south, the sun shining clear, and no wind stirring, I took my book de Veritate in my hands, and, kneeling on my knees, devoutly said these words: O thou eternal God, author of this light which now shines upon me, and giver of all inward illuminations, I do beseech thee of thine infinite goodness, to pardon a greater request than a sinner ought to make: I am not satisfied enough whether I shall publish this book: if it be for thy glory, I beseech thee, give me some sign from heaven; if not, I shall suppress it. I had no sooner spoken these words, but a loud, though yet gentle noise, came forth from the heavens (for it was like nothing on earth), which did so cheer and comfort me, that I took my petition as granted, and that I had the sign I demanded: whereupon also I resolved to print my book. This, how strange soever it may seem, I protest before the eternal God, is true: neither am I any way superstitiously deceived herein; since I did not only clearly hear the noise, but, in the serenest sky that I ever saw, being without all clouds, did, to my thinking, see the place from whence it came.' Had any such account as this been given to the world, by an individual writing on the opposite side of the question, it would, ere this, have been proclaimed to the end of the earth, as an evidence of stupid fanaticism, or of the idiocy of superstition.

999

This, my friends, is a very transient glance at the species of infidelity denominated deism. But we have said nothing about the principles of morals which have been given to the world by the followers of this system. We must refer that subject to another occasion. From what has been said, you will see that there is nothing like a harmony of deism. Whatever might be Lord Herbert's system, it is clear that it cannot be regarded as the system of modern deists. Every man, by virtue of his character as a "free-thinker," has his own scheme, and holds no farther connection with others of the species, than that which belongs to the fellowship of infidelity. Irresponsible for their peculiar shades of positive sentiment, provided they maintain the negative one of determined disbelief in, and opposition to, the religion of the Bible, all deists are

faithful and accredited members of the infidel family. An individual may believe in the doctrine of providence, or not, as he pleases; he may hold it right to worship the Supreme Being, an idol, or nothing, as he thinks proper; he may affirm that the soul is either matter or spirit, or deny its existence altogether, just as it suits him; he may believe in the doctrine of a future state, or that the grave terminates his existence, or that he will hereafter assume the vegetable or animal form, exactly as it may meet his taste: or, if more congenial to his feelings, he may turn Mussulman, and embrace every dogma of the Koran,-almost any thing in the wide world, if he will only look upon the Bible as a fiction, and his forefathers, who believed its doctrines, as fanatics, he will make an excellent deist. Surely here is liberty enough, and absurdity enough too. A society of persons more liberal (alias licentious,) it would be difficult to organize. A principle more extensive could hardly be discovered, than the one here concerned. One would think that deism is by far the most effectual mode of compounding materials destitute of moral affinity. In the chimera before us, by some astonishing species of attraction, extremes meet, and opposites are sweetly locked in each other's embrace. And yet deists are the individuals who vaunt so loudly about the reason and fitness of things,the invariable laws of nature,-the sufficiency of the light of nature, and so forth! Now, while we have the sacred scriptures, we possess a guide clear and bright," our enemies themselves being judges." But who can give us to understand this proposed substitute? Who, indeed, among its train of admirers, dares undertake to exhibit his idol ? Like the oracles of old, she must abide in concealment, and invest her answers in whatever equivocal garb she pleases. But listen to the testimony of Bolingbroke, in reference to the religion of the New Testament. He says that this religion is "a most amiable and useful institution,"-that its natural tendency is to promote the peace and happiness of mankind,-that its " system of religion is a complete system," for all "the purposes of religion, natural and revealed," and would have been so to the "unspeakable advantage of mankind, if it had been propagated with the same simplicity with which it was taught by Christ himself." Lord Herbert calls it "the best religion." Other similar testimonies might be added; but let these suffice. Who will prefer "the light of reason,' a guide, to the volume of revelation? We have already seen what an unsafe guide she is and we appeal to the principles and morals of professed infidels, for illustrations of the fact. Only let reason, the principle so much maligned by her pretended votaries, be your guide in the decisions to which you may come, and we have no fears as to the issue of the strictest investigations.

as

To the deist we would address a word of serious admonition, before quitting this part of our subject. Consider, my fellow-mortal, the position you now occupy, and the process by which you arrived at it. Permit me to ask you, whether, in your conscience, you can approve of every step in that process, as reasonable and candid? Were you not under the influence of some ungodly bias? Did you not embrace deism, rather as a subterfuge for immortality, than from a deep and rational conviction of its propriety ?-as an apology for vice, rather than from a love to virtue? In taking that sad step, was it not cowardice, rather than magnanimity, by which you were impelled? Was it not rather an attempt to escape from the lashings of a guilty conscience, than a pursuit after truth ? Did you ever read the Bible with the candour with which you would peruse a history of your native land,-with a sincere desire to arrive at truth? How came you to reject the religion of your forefathers, and to treat them as well-meaning enthusiasts, or arrant fools? But could you ever assure yourselves that the Bible is false? If, indeed, you have gained that pitch of assurance, is it the result of patient and calm investigation, or of ignorance, or bravado,- -or what? Do you find fewer difficulties attending the repudiation of the New Testament, than its cordial reception? Can you bring your mind to believe that the Bible is a forgery? If so, upon what do you ground your belief? Can you inform us how, when, or by whom, it was

forged, and palmed upon the world? Can you account for the regular current of evidence by which its authenticity is substantiated? Dare you resolutely affirm that Jesus Christ and the apostles never had an existence, and charge the concurrent testimony to the contrary of both friends and foes, for the space of 1800 years, as the evidence of liars and rogues? And, if your temerity is not of such an audacious character, are you able to believe that Jesus was an impostor ?-that the apostles were deceived enthusiasts ?—or that they risked their reputation, prospects, and lives, in attempting to deceive others?-and, that they rejoiced in suffering persecution,-nay, death itself, in the most cruel forms, for the sake of propagating a most unpopular lie? Are you able to believe that the morality of the Gospel-if you have ever read the New Testament-is the production of men so vile and wicked? that the sublime doctrines of the Bible, and its philosophical discoveries, whichthough written at least, as you must confess, if you know any thing of the matter, some centuries ago-in no case can be shown to contradict the discoveries of modern science-are the ravings of unphilosophical madmen? We might go on to add to this list of interrogatories; but if, as a deist, to preserve your consistency, you are prepared to swallow such a multitude of absurdities; it is beyond the wit of man to invent figments sufficiently huge and monstrous to defy the astonishing capacity of your credulous appetite. And you are the person who pretends to ridicule the Christian for his credulity! Credulity indeed! You are the most credulous individual in the world; and when you direct your sarcasms at the Christian, you remind us strongly of a passage of that book towards which you have not much affection,-"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.'

And you tell us that you believe in God! Now what do you believe about God? Can you explain any thing of his character? Is he wise, and just, and good? Will he pardon sin ?-and if so, upon what condition? Are you acquainted with his will?-and if not, how can you expect to please him? Do you know anything of his designs in your creation, and conservation? Are you able to assure yourself that you shall live beyond the grave ?-or will your existence terminate at the period of death? If there be a future state, may not the Divine Being there punish the incorrigible, and reward the virtuous? You cannot doubt that these are interesting and awfully important questions; and yet, what information do you derive respecting them, from the light of nature? If you give utterance to the convictions of your mind, must you not confess that all the light you have upon these subjects, if you have any at all, is borrowed from revelation, commonly so called? These are subjects which are not taught by the varied forms of matter and motion in the universe. A deeper wisdom is required for their explication. Now, we ask you again, what do you believe or know of God? If you know nothing of his will-his design in your creation and preservation,-your present and future state,-what do you know? The fact is evident, by rejecting the word of the Lord, there is no wisdom in you.

But, my fellow-man, suffer me to desire you to review the way by which you have come to be a deist. Let a fervent love to truth be your guide. By no means abandon your present condition, if, after a fair examination, you find it defensible and safe. All we ask from you, is examination, conducted upon honest and rational principles. We cheerfully approach the tribunal of your insulted goddess-"reason," and there we plead our cause. "Come and let

us reason together!" Bring forward your strong arguments, that ye may prevail! See to your principles, and be sure that you lay a good foundation, lest your trembling building fall upon you, and entomb your hopes for ever!

(To be continued.)

127

CHRISTIANITY THE OPPONENT OF CRUELTY.

IN the ancient world, previous to the diffusion of Christianity, the most abhorred barbarities, inflicted on men and animals, prevailed at those periods of its civilisation, when the human intellect had reached its highest attainments, and society had received all the polish that the fine arts, and letters, and philosophy could confer upon it.

The spirit and principles of Christianity, with its laws and institutions, can alone complete the organization of society, and eradicate the miseries and crimes with which it is afflicted and disgraced; especially as regards the renovation of the moral sympathies, and bringing them into actual and energetic operation as the antagonists of cruelty. We are led to this conclusion, when we reflect, that although the amelioration of civil society must be a secondary and subordinate object of Christianity, that it is the end of its promises, and that its tendency has always been towards their accomplishment. In these promises the whole world lies pictured in quiet happiness under the lights and shadows of moral loveliness, where one universal polity is acknowledged and obeyed; where none tyrannize, and none are oppressed; where the individual derives from the community unmingled benefit, and the community again receives from the individual the whole amount of intellectual, moral and benevolent, contribution which his nature is capable of bestowing, without any deduction on the score of ignorance, selfishness, and crime; and where what are now the discordant elements of the creation, become so many chords of harmony, blending, augmenting, and diffusing the rolling symphony of joy. The social tendencies of the Gospel may be read in every page of the New Testament. Against every one of the forms of cruelty we have enumerated, it offers a precept or propounds a principle. But its tendency has been revealed in its progress. It breathes every where the spirit of a Divine humanity. Modern Europe is indebted to Christianity for its superiority to the ancient world.

In the latter, it is well known, the humane, simple, unostentatious virtues so conducive to the happiness of social life, were utterly disregarded. Weakness had no asylum, poverty no friend, ignorance no guide. What are called the charities of life were unknown. The most beautiful, interesting, and important part of the community were the most degraded; man was not only the lord, but the tyrant of creation. Every private house was a little despotic kingdom, life was insecure, stern severity was the character of government, of law, of every civil and domestic institution, and injustice and cruelty extending to every dependent creature, were in complete and constant operation. The amusements of the people discovered the most barbarous ferocity. Bishop Porteus has shown in his Treatise, entitled "The Beneficial Effects of Christianity," that with the ancient superstition, which was vanquished by the moral power of the Gospel, gradually departed legalized injustice, domestic tyranny, slavery, and those atrocious crimes which are not so much as named among Christians. It is undeniable, that depraved as Christian Europe confessedly is, it is, in point of humanity, morals, and liberty, immeasurably superior to Pagan Europe; and it must be obvious to every understanding, that those countries are the most civilised where Christianity operates with the greatest power.

It is of importance to remark, that the abolition of the unjust laws and inhuman customs which were the greatest barriers to the full civilisation of the ancient world, was effected by Christian princes, and Christian legislators. With respect to paternal power, the first Christian emperor, in order to prevent the destruction of grown children by their fathers (a practice at that time too frequent,) very wisely and humanely ordained, that the public should maintain the children of those who were unable to provide for them. In the year