exist; whether the soul is mortal and survives the body; and whether virtue is preferable to vice, or více to virtue. The most profound, as well as the most ingenious of this sect yielded to the notion, that amid the endless varieties of human opinion, nothing could be decided. This evil was so deeply felt by Socrates, that he deemed it necessary that an instructor should be sent from heaven with special authority to reveal and enforce the duty of man. The Stoics held that man was bound to act according to his nature; that nature impels him to pursue whatever appears to be a good; that the great object of pursuit is not pleasure, but conformity to nature, and that this is the origin of all moral obligation. The oriental philosophy regarded matter as eternal, and as the source and origin of all evil and vice; and that the material creation in its present form, and the race of man, derive their origin not from the supreme God, but from some inferior being. The Persians asserted the existence of two eternal principles, the one presiding over light, the other over matter; the one good, and the other evil.* The professed character of the god's of paganism was distinguished for crime, while the religion of those who worshipped them required them to be immoral.

I hold it to be a truth capable of clear demon

*Murdock's Mosheim, Warberton's Divine Legation, and Cud. worth's Intellectual System.

stration, that no man is better than his principles. To be virtuous, he must possess virtuous principles. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." As his principles are, so is the man. There is an indissoluble connection between the nature of his moral conduct, and the principles from which they flow. Any thing may be called by any name, and any thing may appear under any shape; but never can it happen that of " thorns men gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes." Men are governed in their outward deportment by their inward views and motives. It is so in politics, in literature, in science and the arts; and it is so in morals and religion. And yet, how often do we hear it asserted, that it is of little consequence what a man believes, if his heart is right; that you must look at his character and not at his doctrine; that good men are to be found in pagan, Mohammedan, and Christian lands, and of all creeds and professions; that moral conduct is not the result of any set of opinions; and that it is of no consequence what a man's faith is, if he is only sincere! But this is a delusive and destructive morality. If there be any truth in such a theory, moral principles are of no account whatever. One system of morals is as good as another, and those persons are just as likely to be virtuous who believe what is false, as those who believe what is true. But common sense instinctively revolts from such a doctrine, while all observation and experience evince its absurdity. Good conduct never grows out of

corrupt principles, nor is evil conduct the natural result of principles that are good. Is it so that a man may be one thing in his principles, and another in his morality; one thing in his belief, and another in his character? By what sort of philosophy is it that he is thus divided against himself; that he is thus torn asunder, and while one part of him is pronounced good, another is pronounced bad? A man's principles are himself. His morality is himself. Suppose for a moment, that the hypothesis on which we are animadverting should be realized. Here is a man who is one thing in his principles and another thing in his practice. He believes for example that the earth is a sphere, and yet he navigates it as though it were a plain. He believes that food is necessary to animal life, and yet he abstains from food. He believes that the hand of the diligent maketh rich, and yet he is a sluggard. He believes that fire will burn, and yet he plunges deliberately into the flames. He believes that Jehovah is the true God and yet he worships the devil. You call him a madman; and well you may. But not more certainly than the man who believes there is no difference between what is right and what is wrong, and yet forms all his plans and conduct with a view to that difference. Not more certainly than the man who believes there is no God and no hereafter, and yet fears God and shapes his deportment with a view to an hereafter. His morality must take its rise from his principles. Moral principles constitute

the seed, the germ of which moral character is but the developement.

Men are every where the subjects of moral law, and capable of moral actions. Their conduct as moral beings is good or evil, as it rests upon a true or false foundation, as it is determined by a true or false standard, as it flows from right, or wrong motives. And hence it is, that pagan morality is so defective. Detached from the Bible, it has no other guide than the passions of men, and those few principles which may be suggested by the lights of reason and nature. It is no caricature of pagan morality to say, that it had no settled standard of right and wrong, and that we look in vain throughout all their philosophy for any well established principles of duty, or motives and aims that commend themselves to an enlightened conscience. What is the nature and foundation of virtue; what is the rule of moral conduct; what is the ultimate object toward which it should be directed; in what does the duty and happiness of man consist? are inquiries which never have been satisfactorily answered by the unassisted powers of the human mind. What the practical results of these uncertain speculations were, the annals of all pagan history show. Nor are they any where more comprehensively exhibited than in the following declarations of the great apostle, concerning the whole pagan world. "They became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. They were filled with all unrighte

ousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, deceit, malignity. They were backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, inventers of evil things, disobedient to parents, without natural affection, implacable and unmerciful." Their manners and customs, where not dictated by the love of wickedness, seem to have been dictated by mere caprice and whim. What was virtue in one country, was vice in another; and what was unpardonable rudeness in one, was refinement in another. Egypt was distinguished for great corruption of morals, as early as the time of Abraham and Joseph. Their public festivals were celebrated by practises so shameful, that they disgrace the page of the historian. If from Egypt you pass to Asia Minor, you see the prominent traits of moral character still the same,-unrighteousness, malignity, luxury, effieminacy and sensuality. If you look to Greece, in the early part of their history, you see brutal savageness in its most shameless forms; while, in the age of greater refinement, iniquity only "put on an embroidered garb, and of more delicate texture." The Olympic, Pythian, and Isthmian games, while they imparted that strength of body and courage in battle, which were formerly the most enviable qualities which this nation knew, degraded and polluted their minds and morals to the lowest degree of debasement. Wherever indeed you read of the "heroic ages" of ancient times, you may be assured they are fruitful in crime and horror,