selfishness, fury, caprice, rage, gross sensualitycasting about firebrands and death-professing no rule of morals but his feelings, abusing the finest powers to the dissemination, not merely of objections against Christianity, but of the most licentious and profligate principles; Doddridge, all purity, mildness, meekness and love, ardent in his goodwill to man, the friend and counsellor of the sorrowful; regular, calm, consistent; dispensing peace and truth by his labours and writings, living not for himself, but for the common good, to which he sacrifices his health and even life.

Or contrast such a man as Volney with Swartz. They both visit distant lands, they are active and indefatigable in their pursuits, they acquire celebrity; and communicate respectively a certain impulse to their widened circles. But the one, jaundiced by infidelity, the sport of passion and caprice, lost to all argument and right feeling, comes home to diffuse the poison of unbelief, to be a misery to himself, the plague and disturber of his country, the dark calumniator of the Christian faith. The other remains far from his native land to preach the peaceful doctrine of the gospel on the shores of India: he becomes the friend and brother of those whom he had never seen and only heard of as fellow-creatures; he diffuses blessings for half a century; he ensures the admiration of the heathen prince near whom he resides; he becomes the mediator between contending tribes and nations; he establishes a reputation for purity, integrity, disinterestedness, meekness, which compel all around to respect and love him; he forms churches, he instructs children, he disperses the seeds of charity and truth; he is the model of all the virtues he enjoins.12 I do not stop to ask which is the benevolent

12 See Reports of East India Mission, published by Society for promoting Christian Knowledge-and Memoirs of Swartz. -Rousseau's and Volney's lives are as notorious as their

names.

individual. I do not stop to ask what is the result of this third step in our contrast. I see infidelity selfish, proud, resentful, the enemy of the domestic affections, the contemner of female innocence, without motives or effort for real, laborious, effective beneficence-I see Christians overflowing with love, ready for every deed of mercy, with a heart full of benevolence, and a hand full of blessings. I see its eye beam with charity; and I read in its whole spirit, the distinctive impress of the religion which comes from heaven.

specu

The argument advances. The futility of the lative objections of infidelity, in themselves, is still more clearly demonstrated by contrasting the men who frame them, with sincere Christians, in the principles from which the respective opinions spring, the moral and religious conduct with which they are associated, and the measure of genuine benevolence which they produce.

But we pass to the contrast between the two classes,

II. AS TO THEIR MORE PUBLIC LABOURS AND THE WRITINGS THEY HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE EYE OF MANKIND.

For this is something more than the consideration of their conduct generally. Few points can better show whether men are likely to have truth on their side, as to such a subject as Christianity, than their more considerable undertakings, and especially their elaborate writings submitted to the public eye. Here you discover what they are deliberately aiming at.

Now, what characterises the chief labours of the infidel body? What is there of public spirit, love of their country, disinterested patriotism, generous selfdevotion? Religion in connexion with Christianity, and all that bears upon it, they follow with deeprooted contempt; but what do they undertake for promoting the more abstract and universal obligations

of religion, as distinguished from the express commands and the peculiar revelations of the gospel ? Where are the proofs of labour and diligence to inculcate moral and religious principles as the foundation of personal and social happiness? Where are the efforts to emancipate men, by prudent and self-denying labours, from ignorance, injustice, oppression, slavery? Where are the patient endeavours, resting on the calm conviction of a righteous cause, and nourished by zeal in a good project, which bear them over obstacles, and carry them on to a distant but well-earned success?

There are schemes, indeed, formed by infidelitybut schemes for demoralizing their fellow-creatures; there are attempts-but attempts at revolution, anarchy, the subversion of all constituted authority; there are projects-but projects to sow the seeds of discontent, division, domestic and social misery; there are leaders-but leaders in immorality, stubbornness, vice, rebellion; there are examples but examples of hypocrisy, flattery, chicane, the desertion of undertakings when they involve expense and trouble, a fawning on the great, views of private ambition and aggran

disement.

But as to virtuous effort for the good of mankind, there is a total blank, generally speaking. No doubt, many individuals may have promoted incidentally the welfare of mankind; but as to systematic, self-devoted labours, undertaken with firmness and pursued from principle, for the glory of God and the good of men, infidelity does not even pretend to them.

And then, as to their writings, we yield them all they demand on the score of wit, talent, diligence, elegance of style-but we ask, what are the moral characteristics of their works? What the object in view? What the probability that their objections to Christianity were the dictates of candid inquiry and honest search after truth? What the indications of

moral and religious feeling, knowledge of the subject of Christianity, freedom from disqualifying prejudice? Take the infidel writings in our own country at the close of the seventeenth century, or those of the last age on the continent. Examine the works of Chubb or Tindal, of Hobbs or Woolston, of Bolingbroke or Collins. See what Voltaire, in his voluminous productions, was aiming at. Mark the bearings of the works of Diderôt, D'Alembert, Rousseau, and the other French infidels. Come down to present times -what are the writings of Hume, Gibbon, Byron, Shelley, Paine, and Carlile, in our own country?

EGOTISM is the first characteristic of their writings as a body. They have evidently the highest opinion of their own consequence-self stands forwards in the most disgusting prominence.

VANITY and the pursuit of personal fame and popularity next show themselves; principles which totally corrupt any search after truth, and destroy the just perception of any object which chances to be displeasing.

Then comes a MALIGNITY AGAINST Christianity, as we observed in our last Lecture as well as the present, entirely contrary to a calm conviction of mind and a legitimate attempt to overthrow and oppose

error.

A disregard to TRUTH AND THE SANCTITY OF AN OATH must next be noticed. Voltaire practised the grossest and most daring falsehood and perjury, without scruple; disavowing his irreligious works with the solemnity of an oath; and arguing, from imperfect lines in his poetical productions, that he could not be their author.

A spirit of BLASPHEMY and contempt of God and his will, is also most apparent; not merely a neglect of Christianity, but a scorn of all religion, a dishonour studiously put on the majesty and dominion of the great God of heaven and earth.

VOL. II.

T

A diligent aim at CONFOUNDING VIRTUE AND VICE, levelling the demarcations of morality, laughing at the usual reserves and decencies of life, is also most manifest. The more incongruous the union, in their feigned personages, of extraordinary tenderness of heart, of generosity and self-devotion to the good of others, with the basest vices and the most daring outrages upon decency and virtue, the better they are pleased.is

In writings composed of such materials, who would be surprised to see, what is the real fact, objections against Christianity, or rather a profligate persecution of every person and thing connected with it?

But there are three distinct charges which may be made out against the books of infidels, whether in our own country or on the continent. We charge them with DISTORTING KNOWN FACTS, and misquoting and altering the meaning of the authors whom they cite. Neither Hume, nor Gibbon, nor Voltaire, is trustworthy, on any matter touching upon Christianity. Habitually sceptical and hard of belief in the examination of things purely human, they cease to be so, the moment the Christian cause lies open to misrepresentation. The corruption of the texts of books, the mis-statement of matters of fact, the grossest unfairness in citations are accounted lawful by them in their contest with religion.

We We charge them further with INSIDIOUSLY CORRUPTING THE LITERATURE of their day, and infusing

13 What is the aim of Lord Byron's poems-till we come to his flagitious and infidel effusions, just before his fearful end -but this? What are talents, wit, imagination, conversational powers, exertions to promote civil liberty, poetical fame-when all have been thus desecrated to the dishonour of God and of the Saviour of mankind; and ended in ruin to the possessor, and incalculable mischief to his fellow-creatures? What must be the effect of publishing his poisonous, blasphemous, and polluting correspondence?