To attack doctrines that have ftood the test of so many ages-that have been illuftrated by the greatest writers with the most luminous evidence, and established on the moft folid foundations-that have counted among their fubmiffive difciples men of the moft illuftrious characters, and the most profound learning who have efteemed their obedience to the faith their chief glorydoctrines that have commanded the homage of the wifeft as well as the most powerful of mankind, would require uncommon genius and erudition, deep reflection, and extenfive research. Is this the character of those forward and conceited youth who preach infidelity in the circles of their libertine companions-who declaim with pertnefs on the credulity of the vulgar, and the craft of the priesthood-who are ever ready to jeft on the subject of religion, and aim, by an impious effrontery, at a reputation for wit which nothing but the ignorance of their hearers can afcribe to them? they are men of superficial talents, too much devoted to their pleasures to think. It would be doing them too much honor to ftile them Theifts, or Atheists, or, indeed, to call them by any name that implies a

No,

fyftem of principles. Their limited knowledge is fufficient only to embarrass their minds with difficulties on the fubject of religion, not to furnifh their folution-to create doubts not to afford certainty.

Their doubts are accompanied with a dishonesty of mind that does not wish to have them refolved. They form a convenient protection for their vices, which every approach to the truth ferves to difquiet and fill with apprehenfions. They hate the light; neither come they to the light, left their deeds fhould be reproved. Far from feeking for real and folid information, which, if they were fincere, they could not fail to obtain on a fubject enlightened by the labours of fo many pious and excellent writers, their only ftudy is to fhun conviction.

One knows not, at fome times, whether most to pity, or be amused at men of this defcription when they affect to represent religion as a pious prejudice, and to reproach the credulity of the believing multitude. Is there no credulity, are there no prejudices attached to impiety? Alas! can any prejudices be fo flrong as those

il

formed by the paffions against the truth? as those with which vice combats religion? Can any credulity be more abfurd and weak than that which is often difplayed by the enemies of religion when their aim is to depreciate the character of a good man, or when they think they have found a tale that will militate against the facred hiftory? Nor is this confined alone to those pert, literate fools who excite your contempt, while they provoke your honeft indignation -this difgraceful blot ftains the reputation of writers of the greatest name who have enlifted themselves among the champions of impiety. The fables of nurses and of children are not more ridiculous than the narrations that have been gravely made, and the fictions that have been affumed by philofophers to contradict the Mofaic fyftem of the world, and of the origin of man.†

*

* Ifaac Voffius, the famous grammarian, was fo remarkable for his credulity and his infidelity, that king Charles once wittily faid of him, "There is nothing you cannot make that man believe except his Bible."

In lord Kaims' Sketches of Man, and lord Monboddo on The origin of Languages, may be feen fome very extraor dinary relations of ignorant travellers, and fome most abfurd fictions adopted in order to difcredit the Mofaic account of the primitive state of human nature, and the unity of the human race. Becaufe Mofes has informed us that the world, at

And the moft celebrated wit of modern times, if he can, by ranging through antiquity, find one fable more improbable than another, its certain recommendation, and title to belief, is its inconfiflency with the hiftory of the bible.

first, was a chaotic mass covered with water, Monfieur Bailly, that he may recede from him as far as poffible, has fuppofed, in his letters to Voltaire, that it was originally a ball of fire ftruck off from the fun by the impulfe of a comet, and that it has, in an almoft infinite fucceffion of ages, been gradually cooling, and becoming a fit habitation for man, and that the first habitable fpots were at the poies. If this had been a tenet of religion, how would fuch a philofopher as Monfieur Bailly have received it ?

* Mr. Voltaire, you find in him every where the most incongruous relations, and the most palpable contradictions on the fubject of religion. See letters addreffed to him by certain Jews for many examples of this kind. To the lift of credulous or fanciful writers Mr. Volney may very fairly be added, if indeed he believed his own fictions, and did not rather value himself on making the moft extravagant fuppofi tions, only that he might make a great difplay of learning in fupporting them. This author, eftimable as an hiftorian, immediately becomes vifionary as an anti-religionist. This charge will be fully eftablished in the mind of every candid and judicious reader who fhall examine his attempt to prove the chriftian religion to be nothing more than a corrupted worship of the fun-and that the hiftory of the innocence and fall of man, of the woman, the temptation, the ferpent, and the curfe, is only an aftronomical hieroglyphic of the Egyptian priests to fignify fpring, fummer, autumn, and winter, and the conftellations that prefide over thefe feafons. See his Ruins of Palmyra-If christianity were obliged to have recourfe to fuch incredible fuppofitions to fupport the hiftory of the fcriptures, what a triumph would it afford to unbelievers!

Per

Chriftians are reproached for receiving their religion by inheritance, and embracing their faith on the ground only of authority. How juftly may the charge of fhameful dependence on authority be retorted on the crowd of unbelievers who never examine for themselves the foundations of religion, but, withing only to find it falfe, and not able to rely on their own judgment, agree to pay homage to the wit and underftanding of a few enemies to the cross of Christ whose talents they admire, and make them alone the oracles of their faith. haps, without talents, they have nothing to recommend them but a sprightly libertinism, and a confident manner. Perhaps they do not really believe the principles which vauntingly they profefs-Poffibly, their own hearts milgive them while they utter their blafphemies; but, covered with an impofing air, they deceive and feduce the ignorant who look for example only to justify their unbelief, and, like the timid and the feeble, draw all their courage from the confidence of others. Such are the apoftles and prophets of impiety! and fuch their weak and implicit difciples!