own himself to judge very much amiss, if he does not conclude that a virtuous life, with the certain expectation of everlasting bliss, which may come, is to be preferred to a vicious one, with the fear of that dreadful state of misery, which, it is very possible, may overtake the guilty, or at least, the terrible, uncertain hope of annihilation. This is so evidently so, that though the virtuous life here had nothing but pain, and the vicious continued pleasure, which yet, for the most part, is quite otherwise, and wicked men have not much the odds to boast of, even in their present possession; nay, all things rightly considered, have, I think, even the worst part here; but, when infinite happiness is put in one scale, against infinite misery in the other; if the worst, that comes to the pious man, if he mistakes, be the best, which the wicked man cannot attain to, if he be right, who can, without madness, run the venture? who, in his wits, would choose to come within the possibility of infinite misery? which, if he miss, there is still nothing to be got by the hazard. Whereas, on the other side, the sober man ventures nothing against infinite happiness to be got, if his expectation comes to pass."

Thus, does this profound reasoner show the extreme irrationality of neglecting religion, even though there were but a bare possibility of its truth. The case will be incomparably stronger, if we consider, that what is here supposed only possible, is generally believed in Christian countries; I mean, that future rewards and punishments are interminable. All the infringements of moral rectitude, all the neglect of moral obligation, which occur in Christian countries, take place in contempt of endless sufferings, and of endless pleasures. These are the restraints, against which crimes are perpetrated. Besides, it is a fact, perfectly beyond contradiction, that most persons, under the circumstances supposed, in full belief of eternal retributions, have either never felt sufficient anxiety to institute an investigation of their own moral characters, or else maintain an irreligious life, without even doubting their exposure to endless punishment.

Here, I would ask again, whether religion, which is only agreement with the dictates of sound reason, must not be an object of our fixed aversion, if, under such circumstances, in opposition to such motives, we perseveringly reject it? How is it possible to account for facts undeniable and without number, unless we suppose a very strong propensity to evil?

It will be replied, perhaps, that though the motives to a religious life, are indeed extremely forcible, they do not come into contact with the mind. Considerations of a religious nature are forgotten among innumerable objects of sense.

I answer, that the superiority of weight in religious motives, infinitely overbalances any advantage, which other motives may have merely on the score of proximity. Besides, how distant is that change in our existence, which brings us to the commencement of a retribution? In truth, the ground is perpetually opening for some new deposit. Mortality is common; and the transition of not a few, is instantaneous. By these providences, by the most urgent solicitations of inspired eloquence, and by the commanding remonstrances of Deity himself, the motives of religion are brought into contact with the mind; and it can scarcely be conceived, that they should be presented under circumstances, more favorable to their influence.

LECTURE XXX.

HUMAN DEPRAVITY.

It will probably not be denied, that the arguments already used, prove no inconsiderable degree of depravity in those to whom they apply. But whatever moral disorder exists among ourselves, or among those who are best known to us, we are not hence to conclude, that all men are equally criminal. The present state of our country does not indicate the present moral character of other nations; much less does it indicate their morality in past ages.

To these remarks I offer no objection. On the other hand, those who make them will not deny, that if the moral character of other countries and other ages be found as bad, or worse than our own, whatever legitimate conclusions have already been drawn, may be fairly extended to the species in general.

A very high degree of moral corruption has been proved by our flagrant ingratitude to the Most High; by our indisposition to hold communion with him in exercises of devotion; by our reluctance to contemplate his perfections and relation to us; by the infrequency of religious conversation; by the little interest and pleasure which it excites; by the universal, and almost exclusive attention, bestowed on present existence; and by the maintenance of a vicious life in opposition to motives of eternal

consequence.

Do not all these facts exist in those nations, whose moral ad

vantages resemble our own? Is not the course of life among them essentially the same as among ourselves? Is there not the same inconsistency between those principles, to which their intellects assent, and those which their hearts embrace?

This will probably not be denied. But as there are few nations whose moral advantages equal ours, there are few whose external conduct and appearance, though not better, would prove the same degree of demerit, or moral baseness. Therefore, our conclusion, as it respects ourselves, and the few nations. equally enlightened, would be too severe in regard to others. In answer to this it is not to be said, that those countries in which Christianity has been mutilated and deformed, exhibit, not only all the stupidity and vices of our own, but much in addition. We surely should not resort, either to the Greek or Romish communion, to obtain proof of human uprightness. Would such proof be obtained by searching among those nations which have not received Christianity? Will an examination of the moral state of Mohammedans, Hindoos, or nations more barbarous, lead us to entertain an opinion less unfavorable to the human character, than that to which we should be led, by taking into view our own country alone? If not, it remains only, that we inquire whether, by some untoward circumstance, the present generation does not exhibit a degree of depravity, unknown in the general history of man. For if it can be shown that the world in all previous ages, has been in a state approximating to moral purity, we could, by no means, be justified in predicating deep corruption of our species in general.

But, in fact, one of the first ideas presented to the mind in reading history, is the identity of the human character. In climate, forms of government, degrees of light, and modes of living, there is great diversity; but the grand outlines of character remain unaltered. Whether we judge of an Egyptian, a Persian, a Greek, or Italian, it is not necessary to adopt new principles. They have all the same propensities, and the same general object, Amidst similar temptations, there is similarity

of conduct. Pride, ambition, lust, revenge, and selfishness, are their most obvious and prominent qualities.

Let us now be more particular.

1. The human character has appeared to equal disadvantage, among barbarous and civilized nations.

It is easy to praise the simplicity and innocence of uncultivated clans and communities. "If we were to judge of the Scythians," says a modern historian, "by the pictures drawn by Horace and Juvenal, their virtues and morals are worthy to be held forth, as examples to mankind. But if, as Herodotus says, their daughters could not be married until they had killed a man with their own hands; if they took pleasure in drinking out of the skulls of those whose blood they had shed; without mentioning the human victims which they offered up to the gods, they were certainly more worthy of detestation than esteem." This conclusion would perhaps have been more striking, had it been drawn from what Herodotus further says as to the habits of these barbarians. "Their military customs are these: every Scythian drinks the blood of the first person he slays. They suspend the skins of their enemies from the bridles of their horses ; when they both use them as a napkin, and are proud of them as a trophy. This savage use of the sculls of enemies, regards not only those exclusively, who are of different clans or nations. They do the same with respect to their nearest connexions, if any dissensions have arisen, and they overcome them in combat before the king." Herod. 4. 64. et seq.

From the following extract it will appear, that those tribes which were settled in the north of Europe, retained the ferocity of their Scythian origin. "The Normans sacrificed human victims to a deity, whose rewards were believed to be reserved for those who slew the greatest number in battle; the happiness to which they aspired, was to intoxicate themselves in his hall. The sculls of their slain enemies were the precious cups, which were to be used in their eternal carousals." Millot. Vol. 3. 154. The resemblance between the ancient Scythians and the