come. What satisfaction can the soul that is panting after immortality derive from the idea of a sensual paradise? All our ideas of wretchedness, and misery, and moral debasement, are connected with sensual indulgence. What, then, has the soul to expect from Mohammed's paradise?

5. There is no provision in this system for the renovation of the human character. It admits that man is sinful, and yet makes no provision for regeneration. No change of character was required by its author, in those who embraced it, but only a change of profession; and from the character of its heaven, no change of character would need to be required of those who enter there. They may go there with the same passions, the same desires, and the same dispositions which they have here; and hence the idea of perfect happiness and freedom from pain and suffering, must be an illusion of the fancy; for these are inseparable from the indulgence of the dispositions and propensities of fallen humanity.

6. Finally, Mohammedism is deficient in giving to man a pure code of morals. Its good works consist of formal prayers, alms, fasting, and pilgrimages; while it encourages a sanguinary, revengeful spirit, and permits polygamy and slaveholding among the faithful. Its practical effects are opposed to all advancement in human society; and the whole system is unfriendly to human liberty. Wherever it has prevailed, it has desolated the fairest portions of the earth, and brought the people under the iron hand of despotism. It interposes an effectual barrier against all improvement. A striking illustration of this is found in the conduct

of the successor of Mohammed in the conquest of Egypt. Coming to the great library of Alexandria, where all the learning of antiquity was deposited, it became a question what should be done with it. The caliph settled the matter with this summary reason: "If the books are contrary to the Koran, they ought to be destroyed; or if not, they are unnecessary, for the Koran is sufficient-let them be burnt." And, to give some idea of the sacrifice that was made to this barbarous spirit, it is sufficient to say that the manuscripts served for fuel to heat the public baths for six months. Such has ever been the spirit of this religion. And where it prevails, the ruins of civilized and cultivated society, which existed before them, remain ; but the people are at the same point of elevation, or, rather, below the point where they were a thousand years ago.

III. We now come to the system which is set up in enlightened, civilized lands, in opposition to Christianity. This is denominated Deism, or Natural Religion. Its leading doctrine, from which its name is derived, is a belief in a Supreme Intelligence. But, among those who properly come under this denomination, there are various shades of belief. They may be classed as follows: 1. Those who admit the exist ence of a Supreme Being, but deny that he concerns himself with the affairs of men; 2. Those who admit not only the being, but the Providence of God; but allow no difference between moral good and evil, and deny that God takes any notice of our moral conduct; 3. Such as believe in the natural attributes of God, and his all-governing Providence; yet deny the immortality of the soul, or any future state; 4. Such

as admit the existence of God, his Providence, and the obligations of natural religion; but so far only as these are discoverable by the light of nature, without any divine revelation; and 5. To these may be added all, who, though they admit that there is some truth in the Bible, yet deny that it is inspired in such a sense that its declarations can be relied upon as divine authority; and hence, deny also those doctrines which are essential to the system of religion taught therein; as the doctrine of human depravity, the Deity and atonement of Christ, the deity and office of the Holy Spirit, regeneration, and kindred doctrines. Though some who belong to this class may claim the Christian name, yet they have no title to it, and no right to appropriate it to themselves, inasmuch as they deny all that is peculiar to Christianity. If any one supposes that I do them injustice by classing them with Deists, I will quote froin a sermon preached at the ordination of one of their ministers, an explanation of what the preacher considers the Christian creed. Speaking of Christianity, he says, "The only creed it lays down, is the great truth that springs up spontaneously in the holy heart-THERE IS A GOD."* If this be not a Deistical creed, I know not what can be called such. The very name of Deist is derived from this main article of their creed, that "there is a God." This is, indeed, a true creed; but it does not, by any means, teach all that is necessary for man to know. It does not teach even the very first principles of Christianity.

"A Discourse on the Transient and Permanent in Christianity, &c., by Theodore Parker, Minister of the Second Church, Roxbury."

DEFECTS OF DEISM.

1. The grand defect of Deism is, that it makes no provision for the pardon of sin. It has no Saviour— no expiation for sin-no atonement. Indeed, it is not settled among its advocates, whether man is a sinner or not; or whether he is accountable to any higher power. Some Deists admit that man is a sinner, and Inaintain that sin may be pardoned on repentance. But how did they make this discovery? Without a revelation, I see not how it is possible for us to know whether God will pardon sin on any terms. Who is authorized to speak for him? Which of his works teaches us that he will pardon sin? Do we learn it from any of the natural laws of the universe, which he has established? Which of these laws have we known to be suspended for the convenience of man? If the stone begins to roll down the precipice, will it stop or turn aside because a man is below? Does God hold up his rain because one man's harvest is exposed? Will he call back his thunderbolt because a man is in its way? The most natural conclusion to be drawn from what we can see of God's works, and of his providential government, is, that he will not pardon sin; and this agrees with all our ideas of justice. Our sense of justice is injured when we see a notorious criminal escape the punishment of the law, and left at large to prey upon society; and what knowledge can we derive from nature to show that retributive justice is not also essential to the divine government? I think it is clear, then, that the fact that God will pardon sin, and the way in which he

will pardon it, are what we can know in no other way, than by a revelation from God himself. It appears, then, that Deism, in all its forms, is deficient in the grand point which of all others it is most necessary for man to know.

2. Deism is not only deficient in not making provision for the pardon of sin, but also, in not making provision for the reformation of sinners. It has no motives to present for repentance beyond those which should have operated to restrain and prevent sin. It makes no provision for regeneration, nor for divine aid in reformation.

3. There is nothing in the system to take hold of the religious principle in man, and inspire devotion. It views God at a distance, as not taking interest enough in man to reveal himself, and make known his will to him. It does not present him as a near object of affection; and furnishes no proof that he is pleased with our acts of homage and devotion. The most natural conclusion to the mind of a sinner would be, that God views him with abhorrence, and that his devotions will only provoke the divine indignation. Deism proves nothing to the contrary; nor can the placability of God, and his delight in the homage of his fallen creatures be known, except by a revelation from himself. After the experiment with Atheism had failed in France, another experiment was tried with pure Deism. A society was formed, called Theophilanthropists, or lovers of God and man, for the worship of God upon the pure principles of natural religion. It was patronized by distinguished men, and enjoyed the favor of government; and permission was