death, and there would be neither vanity nor luxury in such

a state."*

Blount, Tindal, Morgan, Toland, Bolingbroke, and indeed almost all infidels, have more or less strongly, borne testimony to the excellence of Christianity. I must not except even Thomas Paine: one concession at least, he has made in favour of what he generally treats with the most vulgar and impious abuse. It is so far remarkable, that I think it only fair to quote it. He says that "Jesus Christ was a virtuous man; that the morality which he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind; that though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philoso phers many years before, and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any." It might no doubt be dangerous to hesitate to receive the testimony of so learned a person as Mr. Paine, respecting the doctrines of Confucius; but who are the Greek philosophers, and who the many good men in all ages? Are Messrs. Voltaire and Rousseau and that race, the amiable illuminators of their times; or are the men of the revolution and Mr. Paine, the good men of a later age, whose personal virtue and pure moral doctrine, place them on so interesting a level with Jesus Christ? Is Saul also among the prophets? One would really suppose, from the flippancy with which infidels talk on these subjects, that the world in every age had been stuffed with consistent teachers of the most exalted morality, and that a vicious man was a sort of monster, who only stalked abroad once in a century, to startle and disgust the moral sense of an immaculate race.

B.

In order more fully to understand what man is without the influence of Christianity, let any one read the ancient mythology, and let him conceive from the character of the deities, what would be that of their worshippers. Not to enter into the impure narrations of the poets on this subject, it is sufficient to refer to the modes of religious homage and festivity,

ROUSSEAU du Contrat Social. l. iv. c. 8.

which obtained among classical heathens, and which indeed were sufficiently characteristic of the divinities to whose honour they were observed. Many of them were grossly obscene, such for instance, as the worship of Cybele, of Bacchus, of Pan Lycæus, the garden god, the Syrian and Cyprian Venus, and the Roman Flora. Even the Eleusinian mysteries, which are represented by some, as affording the purest lessons of philosophical morality, were connected with the most filthy and abominable symbols, and it was probably on this account that Socrates refused to be initiated into them.*

Many other parts of the religion of ancient heathens, were sanguinary and cruel. Innumerable human victims, were destroyed in the worship of Bellona, Dea Syria, Diana Taurica and Diana Orthia, of Moloch; and of Saturn, in ancient Rome, Crete and Carthage; in that of Jupiter Ithemius by the Messenians, of Jupiter Lycæus by the Arcadians, of Jupiter Latialis by the Romans, and of Mars by the Lacedemonians. Diodorus relates that human sacrifices were offered by the Gauls, which Cæsar confirms. The scholiast on Aristophanes asserts the same of the Athenians; and adds that the victims were called naaquara, that is purificatory sacrifices.+ Suetonius affirms the like of the Germans, and Tacitus of the Britons. From these particulars, which yet give a very partial view of the subject, it will not be difficult to conjecture what heathenism generally must have been. The reflection made by Lucretius, after the history of the slaughter of Iphigenia at Aulis, is but too applicable to the whole of the religion of the ancients :"Tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum !"

To so great a height of wickedness was their religion capable of exciting them!—

Yet notwithstanding these impurities and atrocities, Mr. Hume, who delighted to startle the common sense of mankind,

* See TERTULLIAN, adversus Valent. c. i. THEODORET, Therap. 1. 7. CLEMENT, in Protrept. quoted by Dr. More, Works, p. 55.

+ This, at least, was probably the original meaning of the word; but it was at length used to describe the entire class of society from which the victims were usually selected. Hence it is currently employed by Greek writers, to signify worthless persons, as well as persons devoted to piacular purposes:—a circumstance, trifling indeed in itself, but which nevertheless unequivocally intimates the fearful waste of human life in the rites of ancient idolatry.

does not scruple to affirm, that “the whole mythological system is so natural, that in the vast variety of planets and worlds contained in this universe, it seems more than probable, that some where or other, it is really carried into execution!"

Our limits do not allow us to enter into the examination of the ethics of ancient philosophers, nor of their practical results, although they furnish abundant evidence of the insufficiency of man when left to himself. These opinions at least were not chosen in preference to Christianity, and any comparison between it and them, would therefore scarcely be consonant with the practical character of the present argument. There are some particulars, it is only just to remark however, in which the Greek and Roman philosophers and moralists, were superior to modern infidels. Some of them were men of virtuous reputation, although surrounded by licentiousness. They usually treated religious discussions with singular reverence and gravity; and above all, they sought for arguments to prove, what our more maturely sceptical writers have laboured to render incredible,—the moral government and providence of God, the immortality of the human soul, and a future state of retribution.

C.

In the Quarterly Review, (VOL. xvi. p. 279.) a curious anecdote of the prince of modern sceptics, David Hume, is given on the authority of his nephew, who no doubt designed it for the honour of his distinguished relative. Perhaps the reader may have a different opinion of its tendency.

Mr. Hume was in great distress for the loss of his mother, and one of his friends took occasion to remind him, of how much consolation he was in these circumstances deprived, by his rejection of Christianity. His reply was, "Though I throw out my speculations to entertain and employ the learned and metaphysical world, yet in other things, I do not think so differently from the rest of mankind as you imagine." Now if this remark has any sort of connexion with the preceding conversation, it means that he had imposed on the world

certain opinions on the subject of Christianity, which he really did not believe. This indeed, is extremely probable, and has been suspected by many who knew nothing of this confession. But alas, what is very pleasant trifling with the learned and metaphysical world, may prove productive of miserable consequences on the minds of the multitude. Accordingly Mr. Hume is to this day supposed to have been a rea! infidel, and his topics of metaphysical occupation are mistaken for bonâ fide arguments against the scriptures. It will not avail the admirers of Mr. Hume the infidel, to be told that the reasonings which have made them sceptics, were only suggestions thrown out by Mr. Hume the metaphysician for the excitement of logical play among learned wits. Nor can any mere argumentation however forcible, ever bring such persons back to the point at which they were found, and from which they were deluded, by these unfortunate speculations. If Mr. H. did not mean to promote infidelity, never was there a person to whom the similitude of an ancient writer was more emphatically applicable:-"as a madman who casteth fire-brands, arrows, and death, so is the man that deceiveth his neighbour and saith, am not I in sport?"* But Mr. Hume's commendation of adultery, surely is not a speculation designed to employ and entertain the learned and metaphysical world. No; here at least we have no reason to doubt his sincerity; and this fact is of itself sufficiently indicative of the deep turpitude of scepticism.

* Proverbs, xxvi. 18, 19.

CHAPTER III.

INFIDEL OPINIONS OF SCRIPTURE MIRACLES.

The nature and importance of scripture miracles.—The objection that miracles do not prove the truth of Christianity.—Mr. Hume's argument on miracles.-Miracles admitted by modern Infidels not to have been wrought by magic.-The opinion that scripture miracles were jugglers' tricks.—Miracles not natural events..—The history of scripture miracles pronounced fabulous. -The passage of the Red Sea considered—and the resurrection of Christ.-Conclusion.-NOTE, on the several versions of the

Pentateuch.

HAVING, in the preceding chapter, considered the practical absurdity of infidelity, we now proceed to examine the methods employed by the unbeliever, to invalidate the external evidences of the truth of Christianity.—The Bible teaches us, that the divine mission of certain individuals, and the divine authority of certain doctrines, were authenticated by miracles-that is, by works beyond the power of nature, or contrary to its known laws. The interest of these events, is represented as having been intended to be permanent; and hence, at the time of the occurrence of several, commemorative festivals were appointed, some of