law, to love him with all their heart, and serve him with all their power.

But let us suppose that man, unassisted by the doctrines of the gospel, has some knowledge of the "sovereign good," and the means by which it may be obtained; yet how superficial is this knowledge! We might here produce a gloomy catalogue of these capital errors, into which the ancient philosophers have fallen, with regard to these important points. It must indeed be allowed, that modern professors have corrected many of those errors; but it must be lamented at the same time, that they have unhappily adopted others not a whit less glaring or fatal. Passing over in silence the horrible systems of atheistical writers, let us listen to philosophers of greater estimation, among whom Rousseau and Voltaire may rank as the most conspicuous characters. The former of these acquired considerable reputation by his observations upon the education of youth, and the latter, by the courage with which he contended for toleration.

"Let it be laid down," says Rousseau, as an incontestible maxim, that the first movements of nature are always right; and that there is no such thing as original sin in the human heart." How large a stride is here toward the sentiments of la Matrie; all whose morality was wrapt up in this single sentence, Satisfy thy desires; they are the voice of God and of nature." To enlarge this little quotation from J. J Rousseau, would be a superfluous task. It must appear evident to every unprejudiced reader, from the above assertion, that the maxims of this admired philosopher have a greater tendency to advance "self gratification," than to promote "universal benevolence" in the world.

66

Turn we now to the toleration of M. de Voltaire. In his epistle to Boileau, we find him writing thus: I have consecrated my voice to sing the praises of virtue; overcoming those prejudices which are idolized by the ignorant, I dare to preach toleration to persecutors." Now when any man comes forth, in this public manner, to plead the cause of candour and liberality, we are naturally led to admire the generosity of his conduct. And it would be well if M. de Voltaire was really deserving of all that credit, which a stranger feels disposed to give him, when he assumes so questionable an appearance. But notwith

standing the praises which this celebrated writer has bestowed upon his own humanity, and in spite of all the beautiful things he has said upon toleration, many ungenerous sentiments may be discovered in his works, which tend to renew the most bloody persecutions. Take an instance or two.

1. "It is never necessary to rise up against the religion of the prince." Upon this principle Jesus Christ and St. Paul were highly worthy of blame, notwithstanding the hypocrisy and idolatry which composed the religion of Caiaphas and Tiberias.

2." What is called a Jansenist is really a madman, a bad citizen, and a rebel. He is a bad citizen because he troubles the order of the state: he is a rebel because he disobeys. The Molinists are madmen of a more harmless kind." These two lovely maxims of toleration are to be found in a little piece of M. de Voltaire's, entitled "The voice of a philosopher, and of the people."

Had the king of France attended to this voice, he would have regarded every Jansenist, and, for the same reason, every Protestant, as a bad citizen or a rebel; every spark of religious moderation would have been extinguished in his royal bosom, and an effectual door thrown open to the terrible exertions of tyrannical power. These pretended rebels might then have perished unpitied and unheard; while the bigoted prince, convinced that "a man must cease to be a fanatic before he merits toleration," might have gloried in the rectitude of his public conduct. Such a prince might have commanded his blood thirsty troops to advance under the banners of modern philosophy, leaving M. de Voltaire to animate them against the innocent with, what he calls, "The voice of a philosopher."

It appears then, according to M. de Voltaire, that every subject should profess the religion of his prince. Nor is this opinion less earnestly contended for by J. J. Rousseau, who tells us in his Emilius, that every daughter should be of her mother's religion, and that every woman should profess the religion of her husband. So that if a man should turn from the true and embrace a false religion, his wife and children are bound to apostatize with him and, in case of a refusal on their part, J. J. Rousseau, while he affects to plead the cause of liberty, propounces upon them a sentence of condemnation. Upon

:

these principles of toleration, the father of the family is authorized to persecute his non-conforming wife and children, and a prince may lawfully take up arms against such of his subjects as are fanatics. If the benevolence and morality of these candid philosophers were to be substituted in the place of that liberality and love, which the gospel requires, to what a deluge of misery would it give rise, both in families and in commonwealths! Kings would tyrannize over the conscience of their subjects, husbands over that of their wives, and parents over that of their children: nor would the least religious liberty be experienced by any class of men, except by the princes of the earth. Such is the imperfect charity, and such the limited freedom, for which modern philosophers have contend. ed with equal earnestness and approbation.

The dangerous principle of these two oracles, upon the subject of toleration, will suffice to show with how just reason the former of them could say, "I hate false maxims, but I detest evil actions yet more." Alas! the horrible actions of a murdering inquisitor terminate with his life; but the intolerant doctrines of these reputed sages, may continue to scatter misery and death through the world, long after their neglected tombs are mouldered into dust.

CHAPTER III.

The great influence of doctrines upon morality.

To ascertain the importance of doctrines in general, let us consider the influence they have upon our conduct. Our duties in life depend upon the different relations wè sustain in it; and these relations affect us only as they are understood. Thus it is necessary that a child should know his father before he can truly love him in that character. This knowledge is the effect of certain instructions or maxims, which influence our manners in proportion as they are assented to. I love the man from whom I have received my birth and education with a particular affection; but such love is founded first upon this general doctrine, "Every child, honourably born,

should reverence and love his father;" and, secondly, upon this particular truth, "That man is thy father.' If I am made to doubt of this general doctrine, or of this particular truth, the moral springs of that respect, love, gratitude, and obedience, which are due to my father, will necessarily be weakened; and if either the one or the other should lose all its influence over my heart, my father would then become to me equally indifferent as any other stranger.

The knowledge, therefore, of the affinities which subsist between one being and another, is essential to morality. Why is it that no traces of morality can be discovered among the beasts of the field? it is because they are incapable of understanding either the relation in which creatures stand to the Creator, or the affinities which subsist among the creatures themselves. As it becomes the soldier to have a distinct knowledge of his officers, that he may render to every one according to his rank the honour and obedience to which they are severally entitled, so preparatory to the practice of morality, it behooves us to have a clear perception of our various duties, together with the proper subjects of those duties. If some desperate malady has deprived us of this knowledge, we then rank with idiots, and are in no condition to violate the rules of morality. Hence, the lunatic who butchers his father is not punishable among us as a parricide, because he has no acquaintance with these general maxims, "No man should murder another; every son shall honour his father;" nor has he any conception of this particular truth, "The man whom thou art about to destroy is thy father."

Take away all doctrines, and you annihilate all the relations which subsist among rational creatures, you destroy all morality, and reduce man to the condition of a brute beast, allowing him to be influenced by passion and caprice, as the lowest animals are actuated by appetite and instinct. Admit only some few doctrines, and you admit only a part of your duties as well as your privileges. An example may serve to set this truth in a clear light. Suppose you have a rich father, who is at present entirely unknown to you, and whom the world has ever looked upon as your parent; if you never receive any certain intelligence concerning him, it is plain that you

can neither render him filial obedience, nor yet succeed to his estates.

Many philosophers who cannot reasonably be suspected of fanaticism or even of partiality to evangelical principles, have yet strenuously insisted upon the importance of doctrine, as calculated to influence the conduct of mankind. A polished writer of this class seems to have entertained an idea, that if all men were possessed of an enlightened understanding, crimes of every kind would be unknown in the world. Observe, at least, in what terms he speaks of war, which is an evil of that complex nature that it may justly be looked upon as an assemblage of every possible vice: "What is the cause of that destructive rage which in every period, like a contagious malady, has infected the human race? Ignorance is undoubtedly the source of our calamities; ignorance with respect to the relations, rights, and duties of our species. Thus, the most ignorant and unpolished people have ever been the most warlike; and those ages of the world which have been peculiarly distinguished by darkness and barbarism have been invariably the most fruitful in murderous wars. Ignorance prepares the way for devastation, and devastation in its turn re-produces ignorance. With a clear knowledge of their rights and their reciprocal duties, which form the true and only interest of nations, is a contradiction to suppose that those nations would voluntarily precipitate themselves into an abyss of inevitable evils." This author, if he be supposed to speak of our relations and duties with respect to God, as well as those which regard our neighbour, had reason on his side; and especially, if his views were directed to the knowledge of every powerful motive which should constrain us to fill up those duties.

Upon these principles, of what fatal neglect are those persons guilty, who, being charged with the religious instruction of princes and people, leave both immersed in a deplorable ignorance, which draws after it the horrors of war, with all the various calamities that overspread the face of Christendom.