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 thousand 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 doth not perceive the insufficiency of human laws on this article, and the absolute necessity of religion?

III. The infidel carrieth 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, furnisheth in favor of religion, either a bare presumption, or a real demonstration, according to the different faces, under which it is presented.

It furnisheth a proof, perhaps more than presumptive, when it is opposed to the objections, which an unbelieving philosopher allegeth 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 hath three characters. 1. When an opinion prevails in all places. Prejudice varies with climates, and whatever depends on human caprice differs in France, and in Spain, in Europe, and in Asia, according as the inhabitants of each country have their blood hot or cold; their imagination strong or weak. 2. When an opinion prevails 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 hath in discovering his mistake, will put him on using all his endeavors 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 fellow-citizens. They would not admit a plurality of gods, they were, therefore accused of believing no God. The infidelity of the senseless populace, is favorable 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 have enemies of this character.

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

Authority ought never to prevail over our minds against a judgment, grounded on solid reasons, and received on a cool examination. But authority,

especially an authority founded on unanimity of sertiments, ought always to sway our minds in regard to a judgment formed without solid reasons, without examination, and without discussion. No men deserve to be called the most foolish and the most brutish among the people, so much as those men, who being, as the greatest number of infidels are, without study, and without knowledge; who, without deigning to weigh, and even without condescending to hear the reasons, on which all the men in the world, except a few, found the doctrine of the existence of God, and of Providence, give themselves an air of infidelity, and insolently say; Mercury, Trismegistus, Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Seneca; moreover, Moses, Solomon, Paul, and the apostles, taught such and such doctrines: but, for my part I am not of their opinion. And on what ground, pray, do you reject the doctrines, which have been defended by such illustrious men? Do you know, that, of all characters, there is not one so difficult to sustain, as that which you affect? For as you deny the most common notions, the clearest truths, sentiments, which are the most generally received, if you would maintain an appearance of propriety of character, you must be a superior genius. You must make profound researches, digest immense volumes, and diseuss many an abstract question. You must learn the art of evading demonstrations, of palliating sophisms, of parring ten thousand thrusts, that from all parts will be taken at you. But you, contemptible genius! you idiot! you, who hardly know how

* Mr. Saurin follows the reading of the French version, les plus brutaux, most brutish. This is perfectly agreeable to the original, for the Hebrew forms the superlative degree by prefixing the letter beth to a noun-substantive, which follows an adjective, as here, Cant. 1. 8. Prov. xxx. 30. hominum brutissimi; hominum stipudissimi ; totius hujus populi stupidissimi; say commentators.

to arrange two words without offending against the rules of grammar, or to associate two ideas without shocking common sense, how do you expect to sustain a character, which the greatest geniusses are incapable of supporting?

IV. Yet, as no man is so unreasonable as not to profess to reason; and, as no man takes up a notion so eagerly as not to pique himself on having taken it up after a mature deliberation; we must talk to the infidel as to a philosopher, who always follows the dictates of reason, and argues by principles and consequences. Well then! Let us examine his logic, or, as I said before, his way of reasoning; his way of reasoning, you will see, is his brutality, and his logic constitutes his extrava

gance.

In order to comprehend this, weigh in the most exact and equitable balance, the argument of our prophet. He, that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He, that formed the eye, shall he not see? He, that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? He, that teache!h man knowledge, shall not he know? These are, in brief, three sources of evidences, which supply the whole of religion with proof. The first are taken from the works of nature; He, who planted the ear; He, who formed the eye. The second are taken from the economy of Providence; He, that chastiseth the heathen. The third are taken from the history of the church; He, that teacheth man knowledge.

The first are taken from the wonderful works of nature. The prophet allegeth only two examples; the one is that of the ear, the other that of the eye. None can communicate what he hath not, is the most incontestible of all principles. He, who communicateth faculties to beings, whom he

createth, must needs possess whatever is most noble in such faculties. He, who empowered creatures to hear, must himself hear. He, who imparted the faculty of discerning objects, must needs himself discern them. Consequently, there is great extravagance in saying, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.

The same argument, which the structure of our ears, and that of our eyes, affords us, we derive also from all the wonderful works of the Creator. The Creator possesseth all those great and noble excellencies, in a supremne degree, the faint shadows of which he hath communicated to creatures. On this principle, what an idea ought we to form of the Creator? From what a profound abyss of power must those boundless spaces have proceeded, that immeasurable extent, in which imagination is lost, those vast bodies, that surround us, those luminous globes, those flaming spheres, which revolve in the heavens, along with all the other works that compose this universe? From what an abyss of wisdom must the successions of seasons, of day, and of night, have proceeded, those glittering stars, so exact in their courses, and so punctual in their duration; along with all the different secret springs in the universe, which with the utmost accuracy answer their design? From what an abyss of intelligence must rational creatures come, beings, who constitute the glory of the intelligent world; profound politicians, who pry into the most intricate folds of the human heart; generals, who diffuse themselves through a whole army, animating with their eyes, and with their voices, the various regiments, which compose their forces; admirable genuisses, who develope the mysteries of nature, rising into the heavens by dioptrics, descending into the deepest subterranean abysses; quitting continental con