worship and religious views have been extravagant and pernicious, when ignorant and unenlightened; but still the universal propensity of mankind to acknowledge a God-its prevalence in every age, in every nation-under all the diversities of education, habit, and custom, through all the intermediate steps from savage to civilized life, is an argument that a God exists. If there is no God but nature, as atheism teaches, she has been recreant to her own honour, in inspiring her children with a universal propensity to look above her, and honour an eternal Divinity as her creator. Whence comes this universal feeling-this grateful offering of nature? It comes from God; suppress the conviction as we will, it is the indellible impress of the Deity upon nature. Again, it is natural for man to prescribe for himself a rule of action which he supposes to be right. When he violates this rule he feels condemned; although no human eye sees it, he feels conscious of the presence of the invisible judge. So that man's conscience will either accuse or excuse him. It is then natural for man to believe in a Deity nay, it is natural for him to fear the retributions of his justice. Why do we say that any thing is true? Why say that ten is more than one, or that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time? minds are so constituted as to ural. And it is also as natural for men to believe in a Deity, and just as certain that God exists, as that any thing exists. We may try to shake of the belief, for the sake of having a chance to do some things unseen, yet it is as much impossible to bring mankind generally to be atheists and to continue so from age to age, as it would be to bring them to disregard their senses. Philosophers indeed there have been, who attempted to prove that we had no evidence of the divine existence. By the same reasons they have proved, that as there was no God to make a world, there is no world—that we ourselves do not exist in reality! That all our notions about existence, about the world, and about The reason is, because our make such judgements nat God, (if we had any such notions) would be only phantoms of imagination! (if we had any imagination!) 3. But when the universe is once in being, waving the manner in which it came into being, it constantly assumes new modifications and changes, which plainly and irrefragibly prove the combination of power and intelligence in their production. If design proves a designer, and contrivance proves a contriver, then we have proof enough in every thing we see around us. Look once at the production of an individual man. He is formed of parts, each part has an office, and is designed for a specifick purpose, and is so contrived that it will answer that end or purpose. His legs, for instance, are evidently designed for standing and walking. They are constructed and shaped throughout, with all the requisite joints, tendons, muscles, &c. for such a use. Now since they are formed a long time previous to use, is it not evident that there was thought and intelligence that looked forward to their subsequent use, and contrived and designed each part, so that it should be adapted to the end in view? Was not the tongue (which is sometimes made an unruly member) designed and contrived and adapted to its various uses? Was not the ear designed and contrived for hearing? And did unthinking nature which could not hear contrive it? The eye is the most astonishing and unfathomable deep of wonders. It would require a volume to explain it but partially. It is formed according to certain known principles of science, requiring in its construction a profound knowledge of the most abstruse and intricate sciences, besides a skill, that must for ever baffle all human imitation. Was there not design and contrivance in its construction; and was there not intelligence in its contrivance? Could blind nature, which cannot see, combine together so many abstract principles of philosophy, and arrange such an astonishing piece of machanism for the purpose of seeing, and all that too without any thought or even design that seeing should be the result? Have we a single reader that is so blind as to think it? Probably in the human body there is more than ten thousand different things designed and contrived for as many different purposes. But the phenomena of the human body and the adaptation of its parts, are not so wonderful as the more subtle powers, susceptibilities, and aptitudes of the mind. Yet the atheist supposes that no mind was exerted in the production of all this! But what We know Could we search the vast depths of philosophick truth, and range through creation with learned lore, we should see every where a wise adaptation of means to ends; every where extended the broad, palpable, and boundless evidences of divine thought, wisdom and design. It will be said every thing may be traced to the laws of nature. are the laws of nature but the will of God? nothing of the laws of nature, except what we infer from experience. That nature's operations are connected and bound together in chains of causes and effects we have no doubt, but the strength and power of these chains, we know no more of than we do of Deity. Could we take a stand upon some astronomical height; and look abroad upon the works of God, upon the earth, the moon, the sun, and stars; could we still gaze on to other firmaments rising one above another, like arches reared on arches and stretching on in a vast and inconceivable expanse-millions and millions of suns, spheres, and worlds, moving, wheeling, rolling, and shining, in unbounded magnificence and grandeur and harmony-could we do this, we should feel our littleness, as we should be overwhelmed with the conviction of the universal presence of a creating and supporting power, an omnicient and omnipotent Jehovah. We should feel the truth of the remark, that, "The undevout astronomer is mad." The principal objection that is made to the idea of a God, is, that we do not know there is such a Being, for we cannot comprehend him. But the fact that we cannot comprehend him is no argument at all against the position that he exists; for we could not comprehend him were his existence ever so well known. Our inability to comprehend him is only proof of our own weakness, and not of the non-existence of our creator. II. A belief in God essential to morality.In a former number, we considered some of the outlines of proof that a supreme intelligent Being exists, and presides over all the varieties of created nature. That such is the fact, there Vain philosophy, it is true, in cannot be a rational doubt. its daring attempt to unfold the arcana of things beyond its. ken, has denied the existence of a God, as well as the existence of the human soul, or body, or mind. Because she could not fully comprehend the Almighty, she rashly denied his being; because she could not comprehend mind, she also denied its being; and for the same reason she has doubted the existence of matter and of every thing! But men, unaffected with literary mania, will universally believe that we exist, and that the visible universe is a reality. And if we admit this we must admit a Deity. If the first is true, the last must be so. And we conceive this to be, not only the grandest and most stupendous of all truths, but by far the most important to mankind of any ever conceived or uttered. If men believe not in a Deity, it is undeniably true, that they will acknowledge no divine law, and fear no punishment from God. It is also true, that so far as such men choose to do right they will do so; and when they choose to do wrong, they will do so, if they can escape human laws. If an atheist were of so good a dispositionof so good a heart, that he was entirely above temptationthat he never wished to do wrong, his atheism would not injure any one but himself. But when his disposition happeas to be bad-what then? Will it be pretended there is any thing then in human laws to restrain him? Will it be said that moral principle will hold him back against the rush of temptation and habit and passion? We answer, this is a supposition where a man has not the moral prin ciple, but really possesses a corrupt and bad disposition. It will not be pretended that all men are so good at heart that they choose to do good in preference to evil; for a moment's survey of the practice of mankind, the robberies. frauds, murders, and all the aggravated scenes of crime around us, would convince the most skeptical that human nature is weak and frail, and will yield to strong temptation unless restrained by some opposite motive still stronger. What is there then to restrain the atheist when he is desirous to cheat, to steal, to murder, or to do any other crimes. Homan law must be the only answer! But what is the strength and security of human law? Why, if the atheist could contrive to commit his crime, without the presence of witnesses, he might do it with perfect safety. The dark curtains of night might conceal the darker deeds of atheism from detection. Under its ample folds he might sally forth to works of black revenge, plunder, and assassination. He thinks no God sees him-no human eye can pierce the darkness that shrouds his villainy-and he betrays not himself with the tremblings of guilt and fears of awakening judgement. What then is the strength of the law? Suppose he happens to be arrested, in a community of atheists, how would the truth and nothing but the truth be brought before the court? Why, atheists might tell the truth or not tell the truth as they pleased! Nothing but the fear of human laws could induce them to tell the truth, (when they chose not to do it,) and all those human laws might be evaded by perjury! Of what use then would human laws be in a community of atheists? Of the same precisely that rules of relative action are in a band of robbers or banditti, which each would respect and abide by so long as he conceived it for his interest to do so and no longer. Hence it will be seen that all human law derives its whole strength and salutary influence from the belief of a God. Nay, the best law might become an engine of injustice and cruelty by that system of perjury which atheism |