died like a philosopher. Well, suppose it were allowed that deaths such as his were not merely the exception, but the rule. What would it prove? Why simply this, that the rule is that as a man lives so he dies. If he lives a hardened unbeliever, he dies so. If his conscience, through his habits of unbelief and sin, has been "seared as with a hot iron," so as to put him past all feeling of concern and fear while he lives, about what shall await him in the world to come, by those same habits of thought and feeling, we may judge he will, according to natural principles, be possessed in sickness and death. But suppose the heart of man may become so hard and callous, the conscience so seared through life habits of sin and unbelief, that he may become as stupid as a beast, and actually "die as the beast dieth," without fear of anything beyond the present, is this really dying like a philosopher? If so, if the tendency of philosophy (infidel philosophy, we may say) is to reduce man, however far above it intellectually and otherwise in life, to the level, condition, and feeling of the beast in death, common sense people will not be soon likely to envy the philosopher his philosophy; for they, at least, will be convinced, that the less they have to do with such philosophy the better, the wiser, and the safer, they will be.

But of all the infidels who have thus "died like a beast" as to the future, I have only read of one who has been specially referred to as such, and who has been held up by brother infidels as an example in death worthy of the philosopher's imitation. Hume died like a philosopher, it

is said. Well, how did he die? as the philosopher, or "as the fool dieth?" Let us see. Dr. Johnson says of him : "Here was a man who had been at no pains to enquire into the truth of religion, and had continually turned his mind

the other way. It was not to be expected that the prospect of death should alter his way of thinking, unless God should send an angel to set him right. He had a vanity in being thought easy." Dr. Smith tells the world that the close of his life was spent in playing at cards and cracking jokes about Charon and his boat. Admit it-although the respectable female that waited on him gives a very different account of his last hours--but for philosophy's sake, admit it. Here, then, is a man who, according to his own philosophy, is about to fall into an "eternal sleep,” a man who, when every tie which mortals usually hold dear was about to be for ever severed, is found stoically engaged, we are given. to understand, with a company of his fellow-scoffers, playing at cards and cracking jokes! And this is philosophy! Insane judgment. Philosophy has its origin in nature, and is confined to the natural. Properly understood and applied, it refines and ennobles the feelings, leads to a healthy development of human nature, and, according to the state and circumstances in which it is found, to a rational manifestation of natural feeling. But such a death-bed scene is most unnatural; it is insane, it is brutal.

Placing his hand upon the Bible, after being converted from infidelity, Lord Lyttelton said, "A wicked life is the only grand objection to this book." And thus may we account for the infidelity of Paine, Emerson, and many others, whose deaths corresponded with their wicked lives. Alternate praying and cursing, under the pressure of agonizing pain, being the outward display of their inward hopelessness and misery.

The depraved morals of such men as Paine and Voltaire come out in their writings, which are stained with obscenity and pollution. But others there are who are more guarded

in the expression of their sentiments, well knowing that coarseness and pollution upon the printed page are becoming more and more unpopular, and are therefore to be prudentially avoided. Nor are there wanting infidel writers who speak favourably of morality; but it is a morality, let it never be forgotten, that is founded solely on utility, and such utility as is confined solely to the purposes, and therefore subject to the ever varying circumstances of the present world, but which takes no cognizance whatever of the inward moral monitor Divinely implanted to regulate the affections of the heart and the conduct of the life; nor of man's being destined to appear before the tribunal of his Creator, to render an account of his conduct, and the use he has made of the talents with which he has been intrusted. Based as it is on the mere expediency of a practical morality, their system has nothing to do with the principles of right and wrong, and we are not, therefore, surprised to find interwoven with it maxims the most revolting and licentious.

The consequence is, that as infidelity spreads, the public morals invariably decline; and this, indeed, must necessarily be, because its principles are so congenial to the depraved nature of man. Sinful self-indulgence in one form or another is a characteristic of human nature, and hence the depraved principles and opinions of the infidel rejectors of our holy religion. A man of this class, in conversation with the writer, a gentleman of independent means, and withal a strong" lover of wine and women," thought it "very wrong, very wrong indeed, to place an embargo on men's appetites and passions." The means of indulgence, and an inclination to sinfully indulge, thus gave colouring to this gentleman's creed, and decided his religious belief. Another apparently confirmed sceptic, in a conversation with the

writer on the subject of sin as connected with Divinely forbidden indulgences, said with more honesty than is usually found to characterise such persons, "If sin it be, then, I do love sin." This, in truth, is the real secret of men's scepticism, whether learned or ignorant, poor or rich-they "do love sin."

The morality of the exceptional infidel is certainly not the result of his infidel principles, but may arise from nature, policy, education, or the influence of Christian society on public opinion. In confirmation of this well-known fact, we may appeal to infidels themselves. Have their principles ever really made them better or happier? Have they induced them to reform their conduct? Did ever an infidel cease from lying, drunkenness, or debauchery, and become a good and respectable member of society in consequence of his having read the works of infidel writers, as has been the case with multitudes through the influence of Bible teaching? Infidels know well that they have not—not even in a single instance; but rather that its tendency has been wholly the reverse of this. But what does this say for their creed? Is it not a telling argument against the adoption of such principles by every one who would be accounted a rational being?

66

Are men universally destined to cast their idols to the winds, and worship the true God; to love virtue, and hate vice; to cultivate the arts of peace, and learn war no more; in short, is our world in a moral aspect, ever again to become as the Paradise of the Lord ?" it is through the benign agency of Christian influence alone that it will be effected. It is not in infidelity to accomplish even one of these results. What have the deistical writers and freethinkers done for the world? Have they been instrumental

in establishing even a single benevolent enterprise? Have they, as the result of their infidelity, done a single thing calculated to promote and increase the blessings of civilization at home, or to extend them "to regions beyond?" Have they not rather by the inculcation and dissemination of their unhallowed principles, exerted an influence whose legitimate tendency is to stultify every God-like aspiration, to check every benevolent enterprise, to discourage and neutralize generous and heaven-born sympathy, as well as to revolutionize the moral sensibilities and religious sentiments of the people? Is there a single virtue to which their principles are really favourable? Is there a single vice that it is not the legitimate tendency of their principles to foster and promote? Not one. They are no less the enemies to the State than they are to the Church—no less the enemies to virtue, social order, and national peace and prosperity, than they are to Christianity. By the abjuring of all religious restraints arising from a belief in man's moral accountability, and a future state of rewards and punishments, they indirectly foster every species of licentiousness and crime, lead to the heartless, unblushing, and remorseless disruption of every sacred tie, and promote a spirit of restless discontent, social and national disorder, anarchy, and every evil work. Substitute infidel for religious principles, and earth would soon become a hell. Infidelity is even many degrees worse than Paganism; for, inculcating, as it does, a belief in the gods, and a future state of retribution, it does impose a degree of moral restraint upon its votaries. But infidelity, or the system of free-thinking (irrational and immoral thinking would be more appropriate) imposes no such restraint. It is a system-system did I say?—a medley of negations and principles, loose, immoral, licentious,