"the invisible things of him," some would understand, the being and perfections of God, in contradistinction to the heathen deities, the attributes of which were visible. But, without supposing that the Apostle has any reference to the corporeal deities of the heathen, we know, from the current language of revelation, that the living and true God is not, and cannot be, the object of our vision. No man hath seen God at any time; and hence he is styled, "the King eternal, immortal, invisible; the invisible God; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto: whom no man hath seen, nor can see."

66

But his being, perfections, and government, áre not on this account the less evidently reflected from his works. They are from the creation of the world," says the Apostle, " clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." The same doctrine is taught in several other parts of Scripture, more especially by the Psalmist, when he discovers, in the grandeur and magnitude of the planetary worlds, the glorious majesty of the eternal God. "When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" Here the Psalmist tells us that the contemplation of the heavenly bodies suggested this reflection to his mind; and, consequently, that they are calculated and intended to awaken this train of thought in all who behold them. He enlarges, in the nineteenth Psalm, on their design and tendency to proclaim the Creator's glory. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his

handy-work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.". Let us now proceed,

Briefly, to ascertain what may be known of the character and government of God from the works of creation and providence, or, without the light of revelation. In the outset it may be urged, by way of objection to our inquiry, or, rather, to our capability of bringing it to a successful issue, that no man, born and educated in a Christian country, can place himself in the situation of a mere disciple of reason and nature; that he cannot possibly divest himself of notions with which he has been familiar from his earliest years, and stand precisely on the footing of Socrates or Plato ; that he is walking in the light of heaven, even when he disowns its existence, and is vainly ascribing to his own understanding those elementary truths which unaided reason would not discover. I am so far from denying the truth of this position, that I own it to be my opinion, that much of what is termed natural religion, is itself the effect, partly, of that early revelation which existed in the family of mankind before its dispersion over the globe, and, partly, of that clearer revelation which has since poured its light on the human mind.

Yet, surely, as we are so explicitly taught by the sacred volume, as well as by many other considera

tions, that the Godhead, that is, the unity, the being, and perfections, of the living and true God, are clearly seen in his works, we must ascribe the circumstance of their not having been justly and distinctly recognised to the state of mind of the beholder. In as far as nature reveals the character and government of God, the revelation will of course correspond to the manifestation which he makes of himself in his word. As he is the Author of both alike, our diligent study of both, with the view of knowing more of God, and of our relations and duties in regard to him, must be highly advantageous. Revelation presupposes the exercise of reason and of moral feeling, and the investigation, in proportion to our opportunities, of the great and marvellous works of the Almighty. It addresses man as a being endowed with understanding, gifted with the powers of judgment and reflection, which are adequate, in many cases, for his direction, for pointing out to him his duty by the aid of general principles, by a comparison of circumstances, and by an induction from particulars.

Besides, it is a source of satisfaction to discover, that, on some of the most momentous of all truths, the suggestions of reason and the doctrines of revelation entirely agree. When I find that an analysis of the principles and moral feelings that are inherent in my mind leads to the same conclusion as the requirements of scripture, it may be presumed that my conviction of moral obligation, as unalterable and eternal, will be strengthened. By this means our views of duty, if not enlarged, become more definite. We are more capable of following out the general principles of morality contained in revelation, and of applying with

readiness the rule, as well as of specifying the exceptions. It should also be remembered, that the rule of our conduct, both in religion and morality, in so far as it is discoverable by the light of nature, rests on the same divine authority as that laid down in the written word. The same Being of infinite perfection is the Author of both; and therefore, the precepts which he has written with his own finger on the heart, cannot be less binding or important than those which were written with his finger on tables of stone. They are derived from the same source; they are invested with all the authority of conscience; and they are all illustrative of the universality and unchangeableness which are the peculiar characteristics of piety and virtue.

That the being and perfections of God may be clearly seen by the light of nature, is proved, I think, by the universal consent and acknowledgment of mankind; by the circumstance that this fundamental truth is involved necessarily in the exercise of our mental faculties; and by the order and government of nature and providence.

First, that the light of nature clearly shews us the being of God, and that he is entitled to our homage and adoration, is proved by the universal consent and acknowledgment of mankind. If it be allowed that a devotional susceptibility, or a capacity of worshipping God, be co-extensive with human nature, it surely seems reasonable to conclude, that this capacity has not been given without some end, and that the design for which it has been conferred is, to lead us to the devout contemplation of the wisdom and goodness, love and power, of the Being of all perfection. The design of a faculty is discovered from the end

which it serves. The primary use of reason, all acknowledge, is to direct us in our intellectual and moral pursuits; and of affection and feeling to stimulate us to the accomplishment of that which reason approves, and in some cases to supply its lack. But what is the intention of implanting in our nature a religious susceptibility, of connecting indissolubly with the mind of men, in every age and country, a capacity for devotional sentiment, if there exist no Supreme Being, in the contemplation of whose perfections this power may be employed? There is here an original principle, as characteristic of human nature as is reason or understanding, without any obvious utility, without any end to be answered by its exercise.

That it is an original principle, and not the result of peculiar circumstances, as are local prejudices and prepossessions, is evident, from its being common to man in every age of the world, co-extensive with his being in every part of the globe, and felt in all its force by those who have most successfully employed and improved their reason. It is common to man, I have said, in every age and country. If, in support of this position, we appeal to former times, we have the express testimony of the most distinguished philosophers, and through the medium of their writings, the opinion of the remotest ages. In their estimation the universal existence of a devotional susceptibility formed so striking a circumstance, that they deduce from it one of their strongest arguments for the being of God:-an argument which the founder of the Epicureans considered as possessing greater force than any other. The greatest of the Romans, when speaking of the general consent of mankind as to the existence of a Divinity,