Most of the apologies for the Christian religion have been written by laymen. Were Aristides, St. Justin, Minu cius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius, priests? It is pro bable that St. Prosper never embraced the ecclesiastical profession, and yet he defended the faith againt the errors of the semi-pelagians; the church daily quotes his works in support of her doctrines. When Nestorius circulated his heresy, he was combated by Eusebius, afterwards bishop of Dorylæum, but who was at the time an advocate. Origen had not yet taken orders when he expounded the Scriptures in Palestine, at the solicitation of the prelates of that province themselves. Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, who was jealous of Origen, complained of these discourses as an innovation. Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, and Theocritus of Cesarea, replied," that it was an ancient and general custom in the church, for bishops to make use indiscriminately of persons possessing piety and some talent for speaking." All ages have afforded similar examples. When Pascal undertook his sublime apology for Christianity; when La Bruyère wrote with such eloquence against Free-thinkers; when Leibnitz defended the principal tenets of the faith; when Newton wrote the explanation of one of the sacred books; when Montesquieu composed those exquisite chapters of his Spirit of the Laws, defending the religion of the Gospel, did any one ever think of asking whether they were priests? Even poets have raised their voices in conjunction with these powerful apologists, and the son of Racine has, in harmonious verses, defended that religion which inspired the author of Athaliah.

But if it ever behoved laymen to take in hand this sacred cause, it must be by that species of apology which the author of the Beauties of Christianity has adopted-a kind of defence, which the mode of attack imperiously required, and which, considering the spirit of the age, was

perhaps the only one that could be expected to be attended with any success. Such an apology could not in fact be undertaken by any but a layman. An ecclesiastic could not, without a manifest violation of propriety, have considered religion in its merely human relations, and have read so many calumnious satires, impious libels and obscure novels, for the purpose of refuting them.

In truth, the critics who have advanced this objection, are fully aware how frivolous it is, but they hoped in their circuitous way to prevent the good effects that might result from the book. They wished to raise doubts respecting the competency of the author, in order to divide the public opinion, and to alarm those simple minds which suffer themselves to be imposed upon by the apparent honesty of criticism. Let these timid consciences take courage; or rather, let them fairly examine before they yield to alarm, whether the scrupulous critics, who accuse the author of laying violent hands on the censor, who evince such extraordidary tenderness, such anxious solicitude for religion, be not men notorious for their contempt or their neglect of it.

The second objection alleged against the Spirit of Christianity, has the same purpose as the preceding, but it is more dangerous, inasmuch as it tends to bewilder the ideas, to involve what is perfectly clear in obscurity, and in particular to mislead the reader with regard to the real object of the book.

The same critics, with their wonted zeal for the interests of religion, observe--" It is highly improper to treat of religion under merely human relations, or to consider its literary and poetic beauties. This is inflicting a wound on religion herself; it is a debasement of her dig nity, a removal of the veil of the sanctuary, a profanation of the sacred ark, &c. Why did not the author confine himself to theological arguments? why has he not em

ployed that rigid logic, which introduces none but sound ideas into the heads of children, which confirms the Christian in the faith, edifies the priest, and satisfies the teacher."

This objection may be said to be the only one adduced by the critics; it forms the ground-work of all their censures, whether they treat of the subject, the plan or the details of the work. They never will enter into the spirit of the author, so that he might justly say-"You would suppose that the critic had sworn not to comprehend the state of the question, or to understand any one of the passages which he attacks."*

The whole force of the argument, as to the latter part of the objection, resolves itself to this" The author has undertaken to consider Christianity in its relations to poetry, the fine arts, eloquence and literature, he has moreover attempted to shew all the obligations which mankind owe to religion, in a moral, civil, and political point-of view. Such being his plan, he has not produced a theological work; he has not defended what he never designed to defend; he has not addressed readers to whom he never intended to address himself; he is therefore guilty of having done precisely what he meant to do."

But, supposing that the author has accomplished his object, ought he to have sought that object?

This brings us back to the first part of the objection, so often repeated, that religion must not be considered with relation to merely human, moral and political beauties; that is lessening its dignity, &c. &c.

The author will endeavour to elucidate this principal point of the question in the succeeding paragraphs.

I. In the first place, he has not attacked, but defended; he has not challenged, but accepted a challenge. This changes at once the state of the question and invalidates the

* Montesquieu's Defence of the Spirit of the Laws.

censure.

The author has not officiously taken

upon him. self to extol a religion, hated, despised, and overwhelmed with ridicule by sophists. The Beauties of Christianity would certainly have been a very unseasonable work in the age of Louis XIV; and the critic, who observes that Massillon would not have published such an apology, has pronounced an incontestible truth. Never would the author have thought of writing his book, had there not existed poems, novels, works of every kind, in which christianity is held up to the derision of the readers. But since these poems, these novels, these works exist, it is necessary to vindicate religion against the sarcasms of impiety; since it has been so generally said and written, that christianity is barbarous, ridiculous, and an enemy to the arts and genius, it is of essential importance to demonstrate that it is none of these; and that what is represented as little, mean, destitute of taste, beauty and feeling, by the pen of scandal, may appear grand, noble, simple, dramatic, and divine, under the pen of a religious writer.

II. If it be not permitted to defend religion with reference to its human beauty; if we ought not to use our endeavours to prevent ridicule being attached to its sublime institutions; will not one side of this religion always remain unprotected. Against this side will all attacks be directed; here you will be surprised without defence and ultimately perish. Had not this already nearly happened? Was it not by means of ridicule and burlesque, that M. de Voltaire was enabled to shake the very foundations of the faith? Would you answer licentious stories and absurdities with theological arguments and syllogisms? Will formal argumentation prevent a frivolous age from being seduced by pointed verses, or kept back from the altars by the fear of ridicule? Do you not know that with the French nation a bon mot, an impious witticism, felix culpa, have more influence than volumes

you

of sound reasoning and metaphysics? Persuade youth that an honest man may be a christian without being a fool; erase from their minds the idea that none but capuchins and simpletons can believe in religion, and your cause will soon be gained. It will then be the time, in order to secure your victory, to resort to theological reasonings; but begin with making them read what write. What you first stand in need of is a religious work that shall be what is termed popular. Would you conduct your patient in one single excursion to the top of a steep mountain, when he is scarcely able to crawl, shew him at every step varied and pleasing objects; allow him to stop and gather the flowers that present themselves by the way, till proceeding from one resting-place to another, he will at last reach the summit.

III. The author has not written his apology exclusively for scholars, for christians, for priests, for doctors*; he has written more particularly for persons of literary pur suits and for the world. This has already been observed above, and may be inferred from the two preceding paragraphs. You do not set out from this point, if you constantly pretend to mistake the class of readers to whom the spirit of christianity is especially addressed, and it is evident that you do not rightly comprehend the work. It was composed to be read by the most incredulous of literary men, by the gayest of the youthful votaries of fashion, with the same facility as the first turns over the leaves of an impious book, and the second, those of a dangerous novel. "Would you then," exclaimed these well-intended zealots in behalf of religion, "would you then make religion a fashionable thing?" Would to

* And yet it is not genuine Christians, nor the Doctors of the Sorbonne, but the philosophers, as we have already observed, that are so scrupulous in regard to the work. This ought not to be forgotten.