impression would be the effect; and a very different measure of exertion from that which obtains at present, would become the standard of sincere and consistent attachment to the Christian cause. But this is not possible. The Christian world can know the abominations of the heathen only by report; and all description must fall far short of the impression which seeing or hearing would produce. I am willing to account in this way for the comparatively little inte. rest taken in the cause of Missions by many individuals whose personal Christianity and zeal to do good in their own sphere, cannot be questioned. All that they have read or heard has failed to touch and melt their hearts. But an actual visit to the scenes of idolatry could not fail to do this. I cannot conceive of one who has himself witnessed the state of the heathen with a Christian eye, but as continually haunted, wherever he goes, with the impression of their deplorable condition; and under the influence of that feeling, habitually laying himself out to promote the interests of Christ's kingdom. I apprehend, too, that if Christians would take some pains to realize to themselves the scenes of heathen countries,-characterised by all that is filthy, and blasphemous, and wretched,-they might acquire a more adequate sense of their duty with regard to these their brethren.'

That the real complexion and native character of Idolatry, as itself an enormous crime, as well as the source of every other crime, are very inadequately appreciated, might be shewn from the very language which is held respecting the heathen, by many who admit, and even by some who advocate the duty of Missionary exertions. At one time, we heard much of the innocent, virtuous, and amiable worshippers of Shiva and Vishnoo, and other Arcadian idolaters, who, we were told, stood in no need of Christianity to better their morals or condition. The day for such absurdities is past; and a man would now be deterred by regard for his own character from attempting to abuse the public credulity by representations similar to those which, not twenty years ago, obtained a ready The heathen are no longer held up as innocent and currency. exemplary they are now spoken of as unfortunate, unenlightened, and somewhat degraded; but, as to their guilt, and the awful relation in which that guilt places them to the Moral Governor of the Universe, how extremely far is the prevailing sentiment from corresponding to the language of the inspired Author of the Epistle to the Romans, in that fearful delineation which he has given us of the old classic idolatry! How little is idolatry realized in its true character, as an infinite dishonour to the Creator, a degradation of the Divine Being, so far as this is possible, and the true cause of the consequent extinction of every virtuous principle of action or restraint!

Various causes contribute to weaken in the minds of per

sons in general, a sense of the abominable and odious nature of Idolatry. Among these may be enumerated, the influence of what is generally termed a classical education, and, as closely connected with this, the love of the fine arts; the habit of viewing idolatry as a mere poetic or philosophical mythology; and a false charity which is the antagonist of true benevolence." There can be no doubt that a classical education has a great influence in reconciling the mind to the contemplation of idolatry in the abstract, by investing it with the attractions of classic and poetic association so that the gods and heroes of antiquity become the joint objects of a sort of intellectual homage, and a fondness is contracted for the imagery and language of a superstition not less hideous and baleful, in a moral aspect, than the worship of Shiva or Hanooman. Its character as a false religion, absurd, impious, and demoralizing, is wholly lost in that of a beautiful mythology, which, being viewed only as a philosophical fable, serves to screen the gross system of demonology actually taught and believed in. A delusion too is created by the venerable antiquity of these ⚫ mythological vanities;' as if, in that distant age, heathenism was an allowable, at least a pardonable creed,-a costume of faith, if we may be allowed the expression, proper to the times and country. It is forgotten, that the worship of Jupiter, and Bacchus, and Priapus, was, in part, contemporaneous with the manifestation of God in the flesh and the preaching of the apostles, and that in reference to these very gods, St. Paul declares, that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God." Now if any system or mode of idolatry can be regarded as harmless or even venerable, it is obvious, that a prejudice is created in its favour, which tends to lessen our abhorrence of it under other circumstances. The pleas of antiquity, mythological beauty, and alleged harmlessness, will be admitted in extenuation of systems less graceful, less in accordance with European notions, than that of the Grecian pantheon. Or, if the enormities of Hindoo demonolatry awaken any indignation or disgust, it will be directed against the mode and accidents of the idolatry, and will not proceed from a just estimate of its essential criminality in any form by which the truth of God is " changed "into a lie."

In proof of the influence which the splendid monuments of pagan worship exert, considered as objects of art, in reconciling the mind to the contemplation of Idolatry, we need only advert to the language of complacent enthusiasm in which our travellers uniformly speak of the scenes and symbols of the most revolting rites, and the unmingled regret with which

they deplore the destruction of the idol temples. Denon thus speaks of his impressions on beholding the temple at Dendera in Upper Egypt. I wish I could transfuse into the soul of my readers the sensation which I experienced. I was too ⚫ much lost in astonishment to be capable of cool judgement. This monument seemed to me to have the primitive character of a temple in the highest perfection. Covered with ruins as it was, the sensation of silent respect, which it excited in my mind, appeared to me a proof of its impressive aspect....... These monuments, which imprinted on the mind the respect due to the sanctuary of the Divinity, were the open volumes in which science was unfolded, morality dictated, and the useful arts promulgated: every thing spoke, every_object was animated with the same mind.'* The people of Tentyra are represented by Juvenal as worshipping an ape (cercopithecus); and they bore an inveterate hatred to the Ombites, who adored the crocodile. The indignant satirist describes a recent contest between the people of these two rival cities, in which the Tentyrites had fallen upon their enemies while celebrating a festival, and having carried off a prisoner, devoured him upon the spot. Such was the divinity, or one at least of the divinities, to whom this sanctuary was dedicated, and such the morality dictated by the worship! It would be easy to adduce passages from the writings of Protestant travellers, scarcely less exceptionable than that which we have cited from the florid pages of the French baron. Can we wonder then at the strong spell by which the pompous rites, and splendid architecture, and speaking sculpture of the ancient temples enthralled the imaginations of the half-civilized heathen, when the sight of these beautiful but melancholy monuments of human infatuation can now beguile the spectator into a forgetfulness of all the abominations which were practised in them? Surely, that these idols should once have been viewed with awe and reverence, is not so striking a proof of the strong magic of the senses, as that they should now be regarded, by Christians, with complacency.

A disposition to tolerate idolatry where it still maintains its hold, naturally results from this indulgent estimate of its moral character. We are not speaking of political toleration. Idolatry may not be cognizable as a political crime, although its rites are often, assuredly, such as justify and demand the interference of the Civil power. But does toleration require that the worship of Juggernaut and his co-demons, should be sanctioned and patronized by a Christian State? that the idea

of its lawfulness, authority, and permanence should be strengthened in the minds of its votaries and victims, by the more than connivance, the co-partnership and co-operation of a Christian government? Is it not clear, that all reference to the will and retributive providence of the only True God as the Moral Governor of nations, is atheistically excluded from the councils which dictate such a system of policy towards the abominable thing which He hates?

pre

But we now speak of the sentimental toleration of idolatry, with which too many persons are chargeable, under the influence of the mischievous prejudices and false reasonings which mislead the judgement on this point. The length to which this tolerance has been carried by our countrymen in India, who, in some cases, have not scrupled to countenance by their sence idolatrous festivals, is truly awful. The prevailing feeling is thus described by an elegant writer well acquainted with the state of things in that country. There is danger, say ⚫ others, in striving to enlighten the ignorance and shake the prejudice of the Hindoo; give him no new notions; he is a very useful creature as he is; he eats our salt, and fights our battles; and let him live and die as his fathers have done be'fore him; he has as good a chance of going to heaven as you or I.* Many persons who would not go so far as this, or speak out their sentiments in such plain language, seem to regard the attempt to wean the Hindoo from his idol gods as a Quixotical experiment, of very doubtful expediency, and the issue of which, if successful, would be of small advantage or importance. A good Hindoo, it is thought, is better than a bad Christian; and there may be some truth in this; but it is not true, as is meant to be implied, that Hindooism is itself better than the no-Christianity of the bad Christian. The Gospel is an infinite benefit, viewed merely in its influence on the social condition of man, notwithstanding that numbers may, through their unbelief, fail of being saved by it. Take the average character of the pagan who believes in a false religion, and the individual who, though born in a Christian land, is, properly speaking, without religion; and in point of goodness, that is, social virtue, the latter will be found to rank far above the former; the reflex influence of Christianity producing a higher tone of conventional morality in cases in which its direct influence is not felt. But the comparison is grossly unfair, as regards the question between the true and the false religion. To judge of their fruits, the test to which the New Testament directs us to submit its own pretensions, the sincere

"Scenes and Impressions in Egypt," &c. p. 121.

pagan must be brought into comparison with the sincere Christian, the Hindoo saint or Mohammedan hajji, with the devout believer in Christ. The Hindoo, the Moslem, is what his religion makes him, because he constantly lives under its influence. The nominal Christian is what his no-religion makes. him, or suffers him to become under other influences than that of a creed which lies dormant and ineffective in his mind. Yet, an apology for Idolatry has been set up, on the ground that the heathen do not, in some respects, fall far behind the irreligious Christian; and the inefficiency of Christianity when not believed and practically obeyed, has been set against the immoralities inculcated and sanctified by a religion of impurity, fraud, and cruelty!

The same inadequate sense of the essential guilt and depravity involved in idolatry, is betrayed in the tone of those unprofitable speculations which are sometimes indulged in with regard to the salvability and final state of the heathen. To this subject, to which we had occasion recently to advert, we find our attention again challenged by a work now on our table, and which manifests throughout, the strong influence of the false reasonings to which we are alluding.

But even among the friends of Christian Missions, there prevails, we suspect, an estimate of idolatry, which is very far from corresponding to the Scriptural representation of its true character; and the feelings of curiosity, amusement, or contempt, which the sight of the imported idols appears often to excite, are but little in unison with an adequate impression of the fact to which they bear witness. Nay, such representations serve to give a false impression of what idolatry is, by making it appear purely absurd and contemptible. It is not so. To judge aright of the real character and power of the monster which we have to grapple with, we must not go to Missionary shew-rooms, and look at the misshapen gods of savage islanders, but study it in the forms of witchery and imposing grandeur which it assumes in Grecian or Egyptian temples, or in Indian caves. Idolatry is in fact a disease of the heart, to which there is, in all of us, a predisposition more or less latent. Its universality might admonish us, that its source lies deeply seated in our nature. It is, as to its origin, an intellectual revolt from the Truth concerning God, and a deification of the objects of sense in the roon of the One Object of faith. St. Paul has with philosophical accuracy analysed the principle, when he says; " And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind." Idolatry is the religion of the senses, in substitution for the principle of faith. It