moral character has been found praiseworthy. Since the introduction of Christianity all private and public economy and all institutions have been changed, and mankind have made great progress; but in every advanced condition of the world, Christianity unfolds nobler views and keeps in advance of every improved stage of society. Whoever applies Christian morality in his daily transactions is conscious of its adaptation to his noblest faculties. In short this moral code seems to me the most pure, the most noble, and the most salutary, of all which are mentioned in history. Its laws alone are universal and invariable. It alone appeals to reasoning and to the consequences of its knowledge as the best proofs of its excellency; alone it is forbearing; alone it invites examination, and asks the inquirer to hold by that which is true; it alone is founded on the faculties proper to man, alone places general happiness above partial love and personal interest, and alone agrees with the natural law of morality. I do not hesitate to say that, in my opinion, true Christianity is little understood. Many, many changes must take place before it can be reestablished in its primitive. purity. I say with Benjamin Franklin,* I do not desire faith diminished, nor would I endeavor to lessen it in any man. But I wish it were more productive of good works than I have generally seen it; I mean real good works, works of kindness, charity, mercy, and public spirit; not holyday-keeping, sermon-reading, or hearing; performing church ceremonies or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments, despised even by wise men and much less being capable of pleasing the Deity. The worship of God is a duty; the reading and hearing of sermons may be useful, but if men rest in hearing and praying, as too many do, it is as if a tree should value itself on being watered and putting forth leaves, though it never produced any fruit. The great Master, thought much less of these outward appearances and professions than many of his modern disciples. He preferred the doers of the word, not the mere hearers; the son that seemingly refused to obey his father, and yet performed his commands, to him that pro

*Dr. Franklin's Memoirs and private correspondence, vol. iii.

fessed his readiness but neglected the work; the heretical but charitable Samaritan to the uncharitable though orthodox priest, and sanctified Levite; and those who gave food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, raiment to the naked, entertainment to the stranger, and relief to the sick; though they never heard of his name, he declares shall in the last day be accepted, when those who cry Lord! Lord! who value themselves upon their faith, though great enough to perform miracles, but have neglected good works, shall be rejected. He professed that he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; which implies his modest opinion, that there was some in his time who thought themselves so good that they need not hear even him for improvement; but nowadays we have scarce a little parson that does not think it the duty of every man within his reach to sit under his petty ministrations, and that whoever omits them offends God.'

Materialism and Spiritualism.

I lament with all philanthropists, that man is so much inclined to run into extremes. Idealogists have commonly too much confidence in their reasoning powers; they neglect observation, consider religion and morality as mere means of leading mankind, and assume their own manner of thinking and of feeling as a type of the human race; while moralists demand blind and unbounded confidence in their assertions as emanating from a superior authority, and discountenance or interdict reasoning. In this way, idealogists and moralists wage continual warfare, mutually disparage their subjects, and retard the knowledge of the nature of man: they are more attached to the love of dominion than to the love of truth. Abuses and prejudices are kept up for the sake of selfish views, and dialectic subtleties are called reasoning. If they love truth, let

both parties examine, without prejudice. Philosophers will find that man is naturally inclined to religious considerations; and the interpreters of the will of God, if they do not act from selfish motives, will not reject the light of reason; they will soon be con

vinced that the feelings are blind, and must be guided by reflection, which can alone establish harmony among the fundamental powers and their functions.

It is certain that there is a much more exact correspondence between the natural and moral world than we are apt to take notice of;'* and that truth and the knowledge of nature are neither dangerous nor in opposition to morality and true religion. It is proved by incontestable facts, that the affective and intellectual faculties are inherent in the nature of man, that their manifestations depend on the cerebral organization, and that the physical world is subservient to the moral; but ignorance, hypocrisy, and envy, have taken part in the discussion. The basis of Phrenology was first attacked, viz. its reality was denied. To others it seemed more convenient to blame its consequences, and without knowing why or explaining how, to cry out that it is dangerous. This, in all ages, has been the reception of every discovery. The disciples of the various philosophical schools of Greece inveighed against each other, and made reciprocal accusations of impiety and perjury. The people, in their turn, detested the philosophers, and accused those who investigated the causes of things of presumptuously invading the rights of the Divinity. Pythagoras and Anaxagoras were driven from their native countries, on account of their novel opinions; Democritus was treated as insane by the Abderites, for his attempts to find out the cause of madness by dissections; and Socrates, for having demonstrated the unity of God, was forced to drink the juice of hemlock. Several of those who excelled in physics in the fourteenth century were punished with death as sorcerers or magicians. Galileo, when seventy years of age, was cast into prison for having proved the motion of the earth. Vesalius, Varolius, and Harvey, were persecuted on account of their discoveries. Those who first maintained the influence of climate upon the intellectual faculties of man were suspected of materialism. The pious philosophers Bonnet, Linnæus, Buffon, the virtuous Lavater, and many others, have been treated as materialists and fatalists.

The instances of Aristotle and Descartes may be quoted, to show the good and bad fortune of new doctrines. The ancient antagonists of Aristotle caused his books to be burned; but in the time of Francis I. the writings of Ramus against Aristotle were similarly treated. Whoever opposed Aristotle was declared heretic; and under pain of being sent to the galleys, philosophers were prohibited from combating Aristotle. At the present day, the philosophy of Aristotle is no longer taught except at the university of Oxford in England. Descartes was persecuted for teaching the doctrine of innate ideas; he was accused of atheism, though he had written on the existence of God; and his books were burnt by order of the university of Paris. Shortly afterwards, however, the same learned body adopted the doctrine of innate ideas, and when Locke and Condillac attacked it, the cry of materialism and fatalism was turned against them.

Thus the same opinions have been considered at one time as dangerous because they were new, and at another as useful because they were ancient. What is to be inferred from this, but that man deserves to be pitied; that the opinions of contemporaries on the truth or falsehood, the good or bad consequences of a new doctrine are always to be suspected; and that the only object of an author ought to be to point out the truth. Ancillon is therefore right in saying with Bonnet: Reason does not know any useless or dangerous truth. That which is, is. This is the proper answer for those who, valuing things only by the advantage they themselves may reap, are incessantly asking, Cui bono-what is this good for? and for those also who anxiously ask, To what does this lead? Jesus, the son of Sirach, long ago said, 'We ought not to demand what is this good for; the usefulness of every thing will be known in its due time.'

Gall and I never doubted that ignorance and knavery would attack our doctrine with abuse; what does not man abuse? Tell him that he ought to expiate his sins, and in his superstition he will immolate his children. Have not Lucretius and his disciples bent all their powers to prove, that belief in the immortality of the soul in

spires fear of death, and poisons every enjoyment of life? while Christians consider it as the basis of order, of happiness, of morality, and the chief and best solace amid all the calamities that assail them. Establishments for vaccination, and conductors for lightning upon buildings, are, in the opinion of some, laudable and beneficial to humanity; but, in the eyes of others, they are offences against Divine Providence. In one word, man finds some cause of complaint in all; but we may say with St. Bernard, 'We ought to judge differently the complaints of the ignorant and those of the hypocritical. The former complain from ignorance, the latter from malice; the first because they do not know the truth, the second because they hate it.'

Malebranche has very well painted the enemies of new truths. 'Persons of solid and true piety,' says he, 'never condemn what they do not understand; but the ignorant, the superstitious, and the hypocritical do. The superstitious by a slavish fear are enraged when they see an ingenious and penetrating man. If he assign the natural causes of thunder and its effects, they deem him an atheist. Hypocrites, on the contrary, though led by particular motives, make use of notions generally venerated, and combat new truths under the mask of some other truth; sometimes they secretly deride what every one respects, and produce in the minds of others a reputation which is the more to be feared, in proportion as the things which they abuse are more sacred.'

It is a pity that religious people and those who contend for knowledge, instead of uniting their exertions in order to establish truth, constantly endeavor to restrain each others' pursuits; the former particularly maintain, that knowledge is to be limited by religion, whilst the latter admit with Lord Bacon that a little natural philosophy inclines the mind to atheism; but a farther proceeding brings the mind back to religion,' adding at the same time with the same extraordinary man that there are, besides the authority of scriptures, two reasons of exceeding great weight and force why religion should dearly protect all increase of natural knowledge: the one because it leads to the greater exaltation of the glory of God; for as