RELIGION AND REVELATION VINDICATED, AGAINST SKEPTICISM AND INFIDELITY.

I. On the existence of God.-That revelation and religion depend on the question, whether there is a God, will not be denied. Although it is commonly supposed that there are few or no atheists in the world; and nothing is more unpopular than atheism; yet we are inclined to think that unbelievers in revealed religion are generally atheists. There are many strange things to be sure in revealed religion; but what else could be expected from a special revelation ? If its truths were not extraordinary and strange to us-if they were nothing more than what was manifest in nature, then no special revelation would be necessary to make them known to us. While, therefore,, we say, that no divine revelation can contradict itself, we say that the strange and to us incredible things declared in Scripture is no argument againsts its being indeed a divine revelation, but rather an argument in favour of such fact. If we begin with atheism, and say there is no God, then supernatural events would, upon this hypothesis, be impossible, and so would any special revelation be impossible. Nay, organization, intellect, and every thing would be impossible. But begin with Theism-admit there is a God, and all things are equally possible, except they involve a contradiction.

We know that we exist, and are satisfied that the world around us exists. Therefore one of these things must be true: 1. Either the world with all its species and varieties of being has existed from eternity; or 2, that it produced itself; or 3, that it was produced by chance; or 4, that an uncreated almighty and intelligent Being created it. of these positions must be true.

One

1. Is it true, that the universe has existed from eternity?

If so, every part of it must have existed so long; for if any species or variety of being has been created and did not eternally exist, then the whole might have been created as easy. Therefore, human beings must have always existed. Of course there must have been an infinite number of human beings before this time, and all that shall exist hereafter will be so many more than an infinite number. Nay, one thousand years ago, there must have been then an infinite number of human beings, and all that have existed since are so many added to infinity! Nay, from all eternity there must always have been a preceding infinite number, which infinite number must have been constantly increasing from all eternity! Again, each human being has two eyes, consequently there must have been twice as many infinite numbers of eyes as beings! The same might be said of all other things. There is almost an infinite number of infinities added to each other, which amounts to the same number of absurdities and impossibilities. So that the theory of the eternal existence of the world, stands upon nothing better than an infinite number of impossibilities!

2. Has the world produced itself? If so it must have acted before it existed, which is absolutely impossible, therefore it did not produce itself.

3. Did chance produce the world? No; for chance does not exist itself; or we use the term to denote the occurrence of an event, which had no visible connexion with its cause; but yet we all understand that such things as are said to happen by chance, have all a sufficient cause as much as any thing else. All apparent chance is direction. Therefore chance never produced any thing, and of course never produced the universe.

4. Hence it follows, that an uncreated, unchanging, self-existent, eternal Being, of sufficient power and wisdom created the world.

2. Men of all ages and nations believe in a God, and worship him in some form or other. Most of their modes of

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¶rrefragibly 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!

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. But what are the laws of nature but the will of God? We know 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