seasonable zeal, those works which most argumentatively prove that the Gospel of Christ is no cunningly devised fable"-the question is peculiarly interesting, What tends most directly, and necessarily, to promote the cause of infidelity?

Here, however, a considerable difference of opinion will assuredly arise. For some persons, and even some authors, in the present day maintain, that religious enthusiasm (as it is called) must of necessity so disgust the mind of the observing infidel, as to confirm and increase his enmity to Christian truth; and this in a degree far beyond that arising from any other source of infidelity. To others it as decidedly appears, that, however the enemies of our faith may avail themselves of the occasional indiscretions of certain religious professors, still there is another and a far more pregnant cause of unbelief; namely, the un-Christian conduct of many who profess to embrace the Christian faith, but who live in a way quite inconsistent with their alleged creed. I shall, therefore, consider as concisely as the subject will allow, the arguments by which each of these opposite conclusions may be supported; and leave it to the candid reader to give his unbiassed verdict.

In reference to the former opinion, that infidelity is most encouraged by the enthusiastic deportment of religionists, it would, of course, be asked, Must not the scorn of the infidel be provoked by the eccentric manners, the peculiarities of tone and feature, and still more by those wild raptures and extravagant expressions with which some persons disfigure the aspect of their devotion? It might also be asked, How can the infidel suppose that a religious system, thus apparently blended with error and intemperance, can have proceeded from" the True" and the "All-Wise God"? And CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 228.

may he not ultimately conclude, that the very volume, to which such wild religionists refer as the standard of their faith, must be at least false and unfounded, if not dangerously delusive?

And here a confident appeal is usually made to history. It is affirmed, that the mummeries of Po pery have, in all ages, been productive of an utter disregard to all religion whatsoever; and we are perhaps reminded, that in the present day, infidelity notoriously prevails among the members and even among the ministers of the Roman Catholic communion. Puritanism, as it existed in the days of the unhappy Charles, is, of course, charged with a like pernicious agency. And living instances may, perhaps, without much difficulty, be found of infidels who think fit to refer their unbelief to the eccentricity of their religious neighbours as its chief and parent source. From such premises as these, the conclusion appears inevitable; that the wild and extravagant professors of the Christian faith are in effect its greatest enemies.

To prove that I am not stating an imaginary case, I would advert, for a moment, to a very recent publication, which (if we may judge by the number and rank of the subscribers to it) circulates to a considerable extent, and in which this sentiment appears stamped with no less authority than that of the late Bishop Douglas. In a "Biographical Memoir," from the pen of the Rev. W. Macdonald, and prefixed to the "Select Works" of the Bishop, edited by the same author, his lordship's sentiments are thus given respecting the religious views of the late " Mr. Romaine and his associates." How far some of his remarks are justified by fact, or bear the venerable impress of that charity which "hopeth all things," let the reader dispassionately decide. The Bishop observes, in "an Apology for the Clergy""-a tract published 5 K

many years before his elevation to the bench, and written, the biographer himself informs us, in immediate reference to Mr. Romaine, and those who thought with him on theological subjects" His discourses will frequently mislead, but never can instruct: they may corrupt the heart, but they can never inform the head; they may puzzle our faith, but can never correct our morals: they must disgust every Christian, who is not captivated by sounds, and is so well acquainted with his religion as to be sorry to see it supported by rotten props: and, lastly, they can never fail to please the enemies of the Gospel, who can desire nothing more than to see its preachers draw such pictures, and exkibit such defences of it, as have a natural tendency to furnish out new matter of exultation to future Humes and future Bolingbrokes." (Biographical Memoirs, p. 27.)

It is only as to the soundness of the above conclusion, when taken in its unqualified and fullest meaning, that any question can be raised. That it contains some portion of truth, no rational or candid judge will be unwilling to concede; for, doubtless, where a professed religionist is wanting in "a sound mind," there the enemies of revelation will be too apt to make Christianity itself responsible or their error. I am not therefore to be considered, in the following remarks, as intending to apologize for any thing really enthusiastic or indiscreet; or as pleading the cause of any individual accused of verging towards such a quarter. I cannot but admit, that exceptionable features of this kind are sometimes observable; and wherever they are so, they are doubtless highly prejudicial to the cause of true religion. But it may be fairly asked, on the other hand, Is there nothing in the character and conduct, even of the indiscreet religionist (provided he be an honest man), which may serve in a considerable mea

sure to counteract the impression which his eccentricity may have unhappily produced?

To determine this question, it is only necessary to ask, May not a religionist have a strong tincture of enthusiasm in his composition, and yet evidence many of the genuine graces of Christianity in his spi rit and conduct? Is not some por tion of eccentricity, and even of injudiciousness, perfectly reconciteable with the idea of practical " righteousness, and godliness" of living? Let the impartial reader decide, or full investigation, whether a man, who is generally considered a fanatie in religion, may not be honest in his dealings, amiable in his domestic character, fervent in spirit, and devoted to what he accounts the service of his God; and, in these important respects, be perhaps altogether different from what he was in some former period of his life?

Here we may call to our recollection some notorious and weighty facts; such as the impression made upon the minds of heathen spectators by the brotherly love which characterized the early Christians ; so that, while the peculiarities of their religion appeared as so many extravagances in the view of their unenlightened enemies, their exemplary conduct extorted from those very enemies the approving exclamation, See how these Christians love one another!"— Mr. Harford states, in his Life of Thomas Paine, that, on being challenged to account for a great moral change in some professed convert to the Christian faith, that champion of infidelity was completely staggered, and could make no reply. Surely, in the foregoing cases, the solid excellences of the religi ouist were at least a counterpoise, in the esteem of the enemies of the cross of Christ, for what they chose to consider errors or eccentricities. And, while neither the heathen nor the infidel seems to have profited by their view of the benefi

cial effects of Christianity upon the human temper, still it cannot be pretended that either was hardened in unbelief by the cause to which I have adverted.

Indeed, so long as even an enthusiast acts in a Christian spirit, the infidel beholds in him a strong proof of the power of Christianity itself. If he see that such a religionist habitually denies himself, is clothed with humility, overcomes evil with good, and sets his affections on things unseen and eternal; and that consequently, under the most adverse circumstances, he can be "as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing;" may not the unbeliever stop for a moment to reflect, "These are the very virtues insisted on by Jesus Christ; this is the very spirit in which an heir of immortality may he supposed to act." And if, in that solemn hour which subverts from its base all such happiness as rests only on temporal possessions or enjoy ments, the supposed enthusiast should display some portion of divine peace, and joyfully exclaim with the Apostle, "O death, where is thy sting ?.O grave, where is thy victory?" would not even an infidel be ready to exclaim, "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his."

On the whole, then, it appears, on a reference to plain fact, that though the errors of a sincere professor of the Christian faith may excite in some degree the scorn of the unbeliever, still the consistency of his life has a strong tendency to neutralize such a lamentable effect.

It remains to be considered, how far the irreligious practice of professed Christians promotes the cause of infidelity.

It is nearly superfluous to prove, that the open profligacy, the furious and malignant passions, of nominal believers in Christianity, have the strongest possible tendency to confirm the delusions of the infidel. Can he behold such characters

without exclaiming, with new and augmented triumph, "What truth is there in the Gospel?" Indeed, the fact is, (as Jenkins has strongly remarked, in the preface to his wellknown work on the Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion,") that infidels do, however presumptuously, infer from the wicked lives of those who name the name of Christ, that the New Testament only deceives us when it says, "The grace of God, that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world." (Titus ii. 11, 12.)

If we direct our attention to the East, we shall but too painfully witness the support lent to infidelity by the unchristian lives of many who profess the Christian faith. What is the language of the natives of that immense, and, in a great measure, unenlightened country, on being admonished to renounce idolatry, and to turn from Brama to Christ? Do they not notoriously say to us, "What good has your religion done you? In what respect do you excel us? What, then, should we gain, in point of virtue or happiness, by becoming converts to your faith?" never heard of similar objections being founded on the enthusiasm, or eccentricity (for such they would naturally call the peculiarities of the Christian faith) of those devoted followers of Christ who have from time to time visited the idolatrous regions of the East.

But I

To return to the point-It may, I conceive, be easily demonstrated, that, to say nothing of gross vice, even the worldly lives of those who "have been admitted into the fellowship of Christ's religion" are highly calculated to encourage the profane boldness of the infidel. For he might naturally demand, when exhorted to believe in the Son of God, what is the character of that religion which is recommend

ed for my adoption? It teaches men to deny themselves-to set their affection on things above-to be meek and lowly of heart-to be kindly affectioned one towards another to forgive and love their enemies? "But what (he might say) is the practice of many, even of the more moral professors of Christianity? I see them systematically study the art of self-indul gence in their table, their amusements, their eager pursuit of temporal riches and distinctions: I behold in them, not meekness and lowliness, but impatience, auger, pride. I see, instead of brotherly love, envy, jealousy, malice and resentment. They treat their enemies, not with forbearance, but with unkindness, bitterness, or a cold and distant reserve."—I am not conscious of having over-colour ed the argument which an intelligent infidel might derive against our common and most holy faith, from the inconsistent character of many who are called Christians. Religion, though heavenly, both in its origin and effects, can but very imperfectly attract its enemies, so long as a heavenly temper is, unhappily, wanting in its professors. What a triumph to an infidel, to have heard, "Demas bath forsaken us, having loved this present world!" In order to confirm the arguments which I have already adduced, I would venture, with all becoming reverence for the sacred order, and the highest regard for its conscientious members, to ask, what can so directly and necessarily strengthen the conclusions of the infidel as the ungodliness, the dissipation, or even the lukewarmness of one who minis ters at the altar of his God? We may suppose (for cases have occured to justify such a supposition) that one, to whom "Christ crucified" is still foolishness, meets with a minister of God who is unfaithful to his sacred obligations. Is he openly abandoned in his life? The infidel too naturally says,

"Can that religion be divine, whose very ministers tread it under foot?" Is he indolent, or given up to the pursuit of pleasure, wealth, or honour? Here the infidel may ask, not without an air of scorn, "If the preachers of a self-denying religion, which requires its disciples to crucify the flesh, with its affections and lusts, can thus live to themselves, what becomes of its authority? Again: does the minister of Christ allow himself to be present at public entertainments and amuseinents, where he has no security that he shall not witness,even if he does not fall into, profaneness or intemperate indulgence? The infidel might here demand, "Can I be expected to believe in a religion whose ministers can seek their pleasure in scenes where the name of their God is too often sported with; and where a studious regard is paid to those pomps and vanities which their religion enjoins them to renounce?" Aud, even in the case of an ecclesiastical person who is wholly absorbed in secular studies, the unbeliever might too probably argue, "Am I to believe in this professed revelation, when its very guardians utterly desert it for mere ordinary literature ?" It is almost superfluous to add, bow immediately the enemies of our faith would strengthen their rejection of the doctrine of a future state, upon witnessing indifference, supineness, or the want of conscientious energy in one who professedly believes, and calls on others to believe, that eternity is at stake, and that the Omniscient Judge of all things is at hand.

Again, if the unbeliever were present at the death-bed of a nominal Christian, or an unfaithful minister of Christ; would not such a scene add tenfold force to his persuasion, that the Gospel is but a human invention? For on perceiving either great depression, or total unconcern, or the entire absence of that joy which the hope of everlasting life might be expect