whose cries will pierce your hearts, and which, by tightening the ties that bind you to the world, will retain your souls on earth, while they long to ascend to heaven. He will terrify you with ideas of divine justice, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries, Heb. x. 27. He will paint dismal colours to you, the procession at your funeral, the torch, the shroud, and the grave.

But he who is in you,' will render you invulnerable to all these attacks. He will represent to you the delightful relations you are going to form; the heavenly societies to which you are going to be united; the blessed angels, waiting to receive your souls. He will show you that in the tomb of Jesus Christ which will sanctify yours. He will

remind you of that death of the Saviour which renders your's precious in the sight of God. He will open the gates of heaven to you, and will enable you to see, without a sigh, the foundations of the earth sinking away from your feet. He will change the groans of your death-beds into songs of triumph; and, amidst all your horrors, he will teach each of you to exult, Blessed be the Lord my strength, who teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight,' Ps. cxliv. 1. Thanks be unto God, who always causeth us to triumph in Christ,' 2 Cor. ii. 14. ‘O death where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 1 Cor. xv. 55. God grant you this blessing. To him be honour and glory. Amen.

INVECTIVE and reproach seldom proceed from the mouth of a man who loves truth and defends it. They are the unusual weapons of them who plead a desparate cause; who feel themselves hurt by a formidable adversary who have not the equity to yield when they ought to yield; and who have no other part to take than that of supplying the want of solid reasons by odious

names.

Yet, whatever charity we may have for erroneous people, it is difficult to see with moderation men obstinately maintaining some errors, guiding their minds by the corruption of their hearts, and choosing rather to advance the most palpable absurdities, than to give the least check to the most irregular passions. Hear how the sacred authors treat people of this character: 'My people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, they have no understanding. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass, his master's crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. Ephraim is like a silly dove without heart. O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?' Jer. iv. 22; Isa. i. 3; Hos. vii. 11; Matt. iii. 7; and Gal. iii. 1.

Not to multiply examples, let it suffice to remark, that if ever there were men who deserved such odious names, they are such

as our prophet describes. Those abominable men, I mean, who, in order to violate the laws of religion without remorse, maintain that religion is a chimera; who break down all the bounds which God has set to the wickedness of mankind, and who determine to be obstinate infidels, that they may be peaceable libertines. The prophet therefore lays aside, in respect to them, that charity which a weak mind would merit, that errs only through the misfortune of a bad education, or the limits of a narrow capacity. O ye most brutish among the people,' says he to them, understand. Ye fools when will ye be wise?'

People of this sort I intend to attack today. Not that I promise myself much suc. cess with them, or entertain hopes of reclaiming them. These are the fools of whom Solomon says, though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him,' Prov. xxvii. 22. But I am endeavouring to prevent the progress of the evil, and to guard our youth against favourable impressions of infidelity and libertinism, which have already decoyed away too many of our young people, and to confirm you all in your attachment to your holy religion. Lot us enter into the

matter.

In the style of the sacred authors, particularly in that of our prophet, to deny the existence of a God, the doctrine of Provi❤

interest, and having attacked his taste and discernment, I attack his policy. An infidel is a disturber of public peace; who, by undertaking to sap the foundations of religion, undermines those of society. Society cannot subsist without religion. If plausible objections may be formed against this proposition, it is because opponents have had the art of disguising it. To explain it, is to preclude the sophisms which are objected against it. Permit us to lay down a few explanatory principles.

First. When we say, Society cannot subsist without religion, we do not comprehend in our proposition all the religions in the world. The proposition includes only those religions which retain the fundamental principles that constitute the base of virtue; as the immortality of the soul, a future judgment, a particular Providence. We readily grant there may be in the world a religion worse than atheism; for example, any religion that should command its votaries to kill, to assassinate, to betray. And as we readily grant this truth to those who take the pains to maintain it, so whatever they oppose to us, taken from the religions of pagans, which were hurtful to society, is only vain declamations, that prove nothing against

Secondly. When we affirm, Society cannot subsist without religion, we do not pretend, that religion, which retains articles safe to society, may not so mix those articles with other principles pernicious to it, that they may seem at first sight worse than atheism. We affirm only, that to take the whole of such a religion, it is more advantageous to society to have it than to be destitute of it. All, therefore, that is objected against our proposition concerning those wars, crusades, and persecutions, which were caused by superstition, all this is only vain sophistry, which does not affect our thesis in the least. Thirdly. When we say, Society cannot subsist without religion, we do not say, that religion, even the purest religion, may not cause some disorders in society; but we affirm only, that these disorders, however numerous, cannot counterbalance the benefits which religion procures to it. So that all objections, taken from the troubles which zeal for truth may have produced in some circumstances, are only vain objections, that cannot weaken our proposition.

Fourthly. When we affirm, Society cannot subsist without religion, we do not affirm that all the virtues which are displayed in society proceed from religious principles; so that all just magistrates are just for their love of equity; that all grave ecclesiastics are serious because they respect their character; that all chaste women are chaste from a principle of love to virtue: human motives, we freely grant, often prevail instead of better. We affirm only, that religious principles are infinitely more proper to regulate society than human motives. Many persons, we maintain, do actually govern their conduct by religious principles, and society would be incomparably more irregular, were there no religion in it. That list of virtues, therefore, which only education and consti

tution produce, does not at all affect the principle which we are endeavouring to establish; and he, who takes his objections from it, does but beat the air.

Lastly. When we affirm, Society cannot subsist without religion, we do not say, that all atheists and deists ought therefore to abandon themselves to all sorts of vices; nor that they who have embraced atheism, if indeed there have been any such, were always the most wicked of mankind. Many people of these characters, we own, lived in a regular manner. We affirm only, that irreligion, of itself, opens a door to all sorts of vices; and that men are so formed, that their disorders would increase were they to disbelieve the doctrines of the existence of a God, of judgment, and of providence. All the examples, therefore, that are alleged against us, of a Diagoras, of a Theodorus, of a Pliny, of a Vanini, of some societies, real or chimerical, who, it is pretended, lived regular lives without the aid of religion; all these examples, I say, make nothing against our hypothesis.

These explanations being granted, we maintain, that no politician can succeed in a design of uniting men in one social body without supposing the truth and reality of religion. For, if there be no religion, each member of society may do what he pleases; and then each would give a loose to his passions; each would employ his power in crushing the weak; his cunning in deceiving the simple, his eloquence in seducing the credulous, his credit in ruining commerce, his authority in distressing the whole with horror and terror, and carnage and blood. Frightful disorders in their nature; but necessary on principles of infidelity! For, if you suppose these disorders may be prevented, their prevention must be attributed either to private interest, to worldly honour, or to human laws.

But private interest cannot supply the place of religion. True, were all men to agree to obey the precepts of religion, each would find his own account in his own obedience. But it does not depend on an individual to oppose a popular torrent, to reform the public, and to make a new world: and, while the world continues in its present state, he will find a thousand circumstances in which virtue is incompatible with private interest.

Nor can worldly honour supply the place of religion. For what is worldly honour? It is a superficial virtue; an art, that one man possesses, of disguising himself from another; of deceiving politely; of appearing virtuous rather than of being actually so. If you extend the limits of worldly honour farther, if you make it consist in that purity of conscience, and in that rectitude of intention, which are in effect firm and solid foundations of virtue, you will find, either that this is only a fine idea of what almost nobody is capable of, or, if I may be allowed to say so, that the virtues which compose your complex idea of worldly honour are really branches of religion.

Finally, Human laws cannot supply the place of religion. To whatever degree of perfection they may be improved, they will

always savour in three things of the imperfection of the legislators.

1. They will be imperfect in their substance. They may prohibit, indeed, enormous crimes; but they cannot reach refined irregularities, which are not the less capable of troubling society for appearing less atrocious. They may forbid murder, theft, and adultery; but they can neither forbid avarice, anger, nor concupiscence. They will avail in the preserving and disposing of property, they may command the payment of taxes to the crown, and of debts to the merchant, the cultivation of sciences, and liberal arts; but they cannot ordain patience, meekness and love; and you will grant, a society, in which there is neither patience, meekness, nor love, must needs be an unhappy society.

2. Human laws will be weak in their motives. The rewards which they offer may be forborne, for men may do without them; the punishments which they inflict may be suffered; and there are some particular cases in which they, who derogate from their authority, may advance their own interest more than if they constantly and scrupulously submit to it.

3. Human laws will be restrained in their extent. Kings, tyrants, masters of the world, know the art of freeing themselves from them. The laws avenge us on an insignificant thief, whom the pain of hunger and the fear of death tempted to break open our houses, to rob us of a trifling sum; but who will avenge us of magnificent thieves? For, my brethren, some men, in court cabinets, in dedicatory opistles, in the sermons of flatterers, and in the prologues of poets, are called conquerors, heroes, demi-gods; but, in this pulpit, in this church, in the presence of the God who fills this house, and who regards not the appearances of men, you conquerors, you heroes, you demi-gods, are often nothing but thieves and incendiaries. Who shall avenge us of those men who, at the head of a hundred thousans slaves, ravage the whole world, pillage on the right hand and on the left, violate the most sacred rights, and overwhelm society with injustice and oppression? Who does not perceive the insufficiency of human laws on this article, and the absolute necessity of religion?

III. The infidel carries his indocility to the utmost degree of extravagance, by undertaking alone to oppose all mankind, and by audaciously preferring his own judgment above that of the whole world, who, excepting a small number, have unanimously embraced the truths which he rejects.

This argument, taken from unanimous consent, furnishes in favour of religion, either a bare presumption, or a real demonstration, according to the different faces under which it is presented.

It furnishes a proof perhaps more than presumptive when it is opposed to the objections which an unbelieving philosopher alleges against religion. For, although the faith of a rational man ought not to be founded on a plurality of suffrages, yet unanimity of opinion is respectable, when it has three characters. 1. When an opinion prevails in all places. Pre

judices vary with climates, and whatever depends on human caprice differs in France, and in Spain, in Europe and Asia, according as the inhabitants of each country have their blood hot or cold; their imagination strong or weak. 2. When an opinion prerails at all times. Prejudices change with the times; years instruct; and experience corrects errors, which ages have rendered venerable. 3. When an opinion is contrary to the passions of men. A prejudice that controls human passions cannot be of any long duration. The interest that a man has in discovering his mistake will put him on using all his endeavours to develope a delusion. These three characters agree to truth only.

I am aware that some pretend to enervate this argument, by the testimonies of some ancient historians, and by the relations of some modern travellers, who tell us of some individuals, and of some whole societies, who are destitute of the knowledge of God and of religion.

But, in order to a solid reply, we arrange these atheists and deists, who are opposed to us, in three different classes. The first consists of philosophers, the next of the senseless populace, and the last of profligate persons. Philosophers, if you attend closely to the matter, will appear, at least the greatest part of them will appear, to have been accused of having no religion, only because they had a purer religion than the rest of their fellowcitizens. They would not admit a plurality of gods, they were therefore accused of believing in no God. The infidelity of the senseless populace is favourable to our argument. We affirm, wherever there is a spark of reason, there is also a spark of religion. Is it astonishing that they who have renounced the former, should renounce the latter also As to the profligate, who extinguish their own little light, we say of them, with a modern writer, It is glorious to religion to hare enemies of this character.

But let us see whether this unanimous consent, which has afforded us a presumption in favour of religion, will furnish us with a demonstration against those who oppose it.

Νο