"vide for the wants of my future being? Man certainly "knoweth not the price thereof, for its value is beyond all "price; neither is it found in the land of the living, for such "a discovery would have filled the world with astonishment "and rapture, and the tidings must have vibrated through "every nation, and every succeeding age of man."

I have already stated several difficulties which have prevented mankind from discovering a religion capable of rendering them acceptable to God. It is now my design to consider this subject with respect to several other things which may be considered as fundamental, and which, if I mistake not, will, when fairly examined, prove the doctrine beyond all reasonable doubt.

In this examination I shall pursue the scheme adopted in a former discourse, and shall consider that which man can do concerning this all-important subject, as being what man has already done. It would be idle here to enter into abstract speculations concerning the possible extent of the powers of man. After all the laborious efforts which have been made, and made with every advantage, it is perfect trifling to inquire whether there may not be hereafter some superior mind, or a mind possessed of some superior advantages, by which this mighty discovery may be more successfully made. Cicero's remark is here plainly conclusive, "That it makes no difference whether no man is wise, or whether no man can be "wise."

66

Still I propose, for the purpose of producing a greater satisfaction in the minds of my audience, to inquire into the nature of the case; and in the course of this inquiry shall attempt to show, that reason cannot possibly make this discovery, and to exhibit the real grounds of this impossibility.

Towards the accomplishment of this purpose I observe generally,

That our duty cannot be performed, unless it is known; That it cannot be known, unless our relations to the beings, to whom our duties are owed, be known; and

That these relations cannot be known, unless the nature, character, and circumstances of these beings, out of which all

these relations rise, and on which they all depend, be also

known.

These propositions, it is presumed, will be admitted, since they cannot be denied without violence to reason.

It will be the particular design of this discourse to show, that the several things which I have specified, are unknown. Should this be evinced, it will follow that our duty, so far, must be unknown; and that whatever might be acquired from the performance of our duty, must be unattainable, unless we can desire the knowledge of it from some other source than the exercise of our reason.

In support of this scheme, I observe,

I. That reason, left to itself, cannot understand the nature of God.

Simonides, having been asked by Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, What God was? requested a day's time to consider the subject. At the end of this period, instead of returning an answer he requested two more; at the end of these four, and at the end of all, answered, that he was unable to tell. Every man, who looks into his own bosom, will distinctly perceive, that as face answereth to face in the water, so does his mind to that of the philosopher. No words will be necessary to convince him of his own ignorance of this great and mysterious Being. If he makes serious efforts to analyze His character, he will find his difficulties substantially the same with those which met the eye of Simonides; and will feel that he needs, not a few days, not a few years, not a single life, but many lives, and many centuries, to acquire satisfactory views concerning this unfathomable subject. After all his labours, after all his anxieties, he will find himself compelled to address to his own soul the language of Zophar to Job, " Canst thou by "searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty "unto perfection? It is high as heaven, what canst thou do? "deeper than hell, what canst thou know? The measure "thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea." What is thus irresistibly proved by every man in his own serious attempts to investigate the subject, is, in the most de

cisive manner, also evident from facts. Reason has never been able to determine whether there has been one God, or two, or many. The conduct of men in this respect has been very remarkable. Imagination has formed the gods of reason or philosophy. The process appears to have been this:-The common people, amid the various displays of the divine presence and agency in the natural world, which made strong impressions on their imaginations, fastened upon one and another as peculiar objects of veneration, connecting with them various traditional doctrines and stories in an association, which became ultimately permanent. From reverencing God in these objects, they came ultimately 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 imperfections.

It is scarcely necessary to observe at the present time, that the debates of philosophy about the substance of God, his manner of existence, the 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 various metals, of wood, and of stone.

That it is beyond the power of reason, unassisted by revelation, 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 very 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