and speedily, to reverence the objects themselves as gods. From believing, that God was peculiarly manifested in these objects, they soon came to fancy, that each of the objects was a god. When they had once attributed to them this character; the poets, in the wanton indulgence of imagination also, added to their origin and character innumerable suggestions, made by an excursive mind, concerning their employments, their stations, their powers, and their connection with men. In this situation they were taken up by the philosophers. There is no solid ground for believing, that the reason of these men at all lessened the number, or materially improved the character, of the Deities, transmitted to them by the fancy of their predecessors. Of the three hundred Jupiters, or supreme gods, of Philosophy, it is originally, and mathematically certain, that all must be false, except one. A glance of the eye proves that one equally false; because fraught with gross and miserable imperfection.

It is scarcely necessary to observe, at the present time, that the debates of Philosophy about the substance of God, his manner of existence, his attributes, and his providence, were endless. Nothing could more clearly prove the difficulties, which, to human beings, attend the subject, than these debates, and the diversity and contrariety of opinion which they unfold. Had the Divine Character been obvious to the Reason of Man; it is impossible, that he should have found the object of his worship in the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars; in the four elements; in the world at large; in living and dead men; in animals of every description, even down to frogs, and flies; in innumerable creatures of imagination; in a multitude of productions, in the vegetable kingdom; and in images, formed of the various metals, of wood, and of stone.

That it is beyond the power of Reason, unassisted by Revela. tion, to prove, that there is but one God, is certain from the fact, that Reason, thus circumstanced, has never furnished this proof. The volumes of heathen antiquity are absolutely vacant of any satisfactory evidence on this subject. Nor is this all. Not an individual Philosopher, in the whole number, appears steadily to have believed the existence of one God only. Socrates, as truly as the rest, speaks, indifferently, of God in the singular, and gods in the

plural: and both he and they encouraged, and practised, the polytheistic worship. On the one hand they recommended the idolatry of their respective countries; and on the other employed their talents to support it.

We, perhaps, may smile at the views, which they formed concerning this subject; and may easily forget, that for all our superior knowledge we are indebted to the Scriptures. Our smiles may be spared. In their circumstances we should have thought, and acted, in the same manner. Many of the men, who thus taught, and practised, were among the ablest of the human race.

The Scriptures furnish many aids to our reason in examining this subject, of which the ancient Philosophers were necessarily destitute. Of these, Infidels are amply possessed. Yet no Infidel has hitherto produced any satisfactory evidence of the Unity of God. That this would have been done, had it been in their power, cannot be doubted: since their inducements to accomplish it have been more than sufficient.

But the Unity of God, as every one who has read the Scriptures perfectly knows, from the stress which they lay upon it, is a doctrine of supreme importance towards our knowledge of the relations, which exist between us and him. If there is but ONE God; our reverence, gratitude, and obedience, are due to him only: if there are two; this tribute is due either equally, or unequally, to both. It has ever been the conclusion of Reason, that all the beings, to whom this title was justly given, had a claim to the religious services of mankind. Accordingly, those among the heathen, who held that there were two Gods, one good and the other evil, worshipped both; and generally rendered, as do the Aborigines of this country, peculiar homage to the evil deity, in order to secure themselves from the sufferings, which they expected him, otherwise, to inflict. What an immeasurable change is thus introduced at once into the religious duty of men, in consequence of their ignorance of the Unity of God, and their admission of a second into their creed. We here see men forsaking JEHOVAH, and rendering their supreme homage to a being, invested with all the attributes of Satan.

Further; if there be two Gods, what are our relations to each? By which of them, if it be allowed that we are creatures, were we

created? By which of them are we preserved? From which of them do we derive the means of supporting life, and rendering it desirable? To which of them must we look for the continuance of our being in the future ages of duration? By which of them is this world governed? Are all these things, and others of a similar nature, to be attributed to them both: and, if so, are they equally or unequally attributable? Who can answer these

questions?

It is perfectly evident, that the relations, which we sustain to a being, whom we style God, must be essentially dependent on these considerations: and, until the latter can be satisfactorily determined, the former, together with all the duties springing from them, must remain unknown.

Voltaire pronounced God to be an imperfect and dependent being. If this is his character; (and that it is the real character of all the gods, acknowledged by both Heathen and Infidel Philosophy, is unquestionable ;) it is of incomprehensible moment to us, that we know, so far as it can be known, what is the kind, and what the measure, of the services, whether mental or external, which he will require. That he will require us to think justly of him must undoubtedly be admitted. In order to do this, it is indispensable, that we know on whom, and in what respects, he is dependent; and in what particulars, and to what degree, he is imperfect. If he himself be just; he cannot demand of us, that we ascribe to him attributes, which he does not possess; nor in degrees, in which he does not possess them. Who is able to make these ascriptions truly.

Further. In what manner shall we obtain the knowledge of his will; the degree of love, reverence, and confidence, which he requires; the kind of worship, which he expects; or the practical obedience, with which he will be satisfied? Or are all these things to be left to conjecture and accident?

In the Scriptures JEHOVAH is exhibited as possessing unlimited and absolute perfection. How different must be the homage and the obedience due to such a being, from those, which can be claimed by one who is dependent and imperfect.

The true God either is, or is not, the Creator, the Preserver, the Benefactor, the Ruler, and the Rewarder, of all beings. The seve

ral relations, here expressed, are plainly of incomprehensible importance to us. If he is not our Creator; then we are not his property, and in this respect owe him nothing. If he is not our Benefactor; he can claim from us no gratitude for any of the blessings, which we enjoy. If he is not our Ruler; we owe him nothing as subjects; are not bound by his laws; and cannot be required to yield him any obedience. If he is not our Rewarder; we have nothing to expect from his hands; and can entertain no hope of his favour, nor fear of his displeasure. But who does not know, that concerning all these subjects the Reason of man has been lost in perplexity and error? Who does not see, that a denial of these attributes to God will entirely change all those relations, which subsist between him and us; and will essentially change, or absolutely annihilate, all the duties which we owe to him?

Many of the Philosophers, and among others Aristotle, the ablest of them all, thought, that the World was not created by God. If he did not create it; it is not his property; nor the things, which it contains. Of course, he cannot have given it to us. Whence then do we derive, on what foundation do we claim, any property, or any right, in the things, which we possess? Now, in this case, are we indebted to him for our sustenance and comfort?

Is God the Sanctifier of man? The ancient Philosophers denied this, almost with a single voice; and the common people at large were of the same opinion. "It is the judgment of all mankind," says Cotta, in Cicero's treatise concerning the nature of the Gods, "that the gifts of fortune are to be asked of God; but a man is to expect wisdom, only from himself." "Who," says he, "ever gives thanks to the gods for being a good man?" This also has been the general, and probably the universal, opinion of Infidels. Nay, it has been, and is to this day, the opinion of multitudes. who style themselves Christians. Virtue is unquestionably the highest good, which mankind either do or can enjoy. If it is not given to us by God; then we are plainly not indebted to him for that blessing, which is of more value than all others. For the chief part of our blessings then, according to this opinion, we owe him no gratitude. How obvious is it, that the admission, or

rejection, of this doctrine introduces into the moral system a wonderful variation both of our relations and our duties. If virtue is not given by God; we certainly cannot ask for it. Of course, this subject must be excluded from our prayers. If we do not receive it from his hands; it must be equally excluded from our praises. At the same time, how distant from the humility enjoined in the Gospel, must be the self-complacency experienced by the man, who is satisfied that he provides for himself greater blessings than are given to him by God.

Many of the ancient philosophers denied that there was any such thing as a Providence. Tacitus declares it to be uncertain, in his view, whether the affairs of mankind were governed by chance, or fate. Pliny ridicules the doctrine of providence, as being unworthy of God. Plato taught, that there is a providence, which extends to individuals, and their concerns; but supposes, that the management of things, in this world, is vested in the stars; whom he directs, therefore, to be worshipped. Generally, the philosophers, who admitted a providence, held either that it was general, and respected only vast and important affairs; or, if it extended to individuals and their interests, that it was administered only by subordinate deities; stars, demons, and other such gods. A great number of them, at the same time, attributed the control of all things to fate: while many others considered them as being left to the direction of chance. Accordingly the elder Pliny observes, that" the goddess Fortune, blind. variable, and inconstant, is invoked in all places, at all times, and by all persons."

Infidels, in modern times, have adopted opinions, similar to some of these, and exactly the same with others. Mr. Chubb says, "God does not interpose in the affairs of this world at all;" and Lord Bolingbroke," That God does not determine the exist ence of particular men, and that there is no foundation for the belief of any particular providence; that God concerns not himself with the affairs of men at all; or, if he does, that he regards only collective bodies of men, and not individuals."

If these things are true; it is undeniably evident, not that our relations to him, and his to us, are changed, but that all relations between him and us, which are of any importance, are annihilated. If he did not determine our existence; if he does not