by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead," does not this imply that man is capable of discovering the eternity and unity of his Creator by the contemplation of his works? Hence, wherever he has failed to offer to him that worship which reason itself dictates, he is justly pronounced to be without excuse, because knowing him, instead of acknowledging him by a rational service, he yielded to his own vain imaginations, and with affected wisdom indulged the most insensate and brutish folly. The passage last quoted from the Epistle to the Romans acknowledges, in the most explicit terms, the religion of nature.

That modern systems of natural theology have been much indebted to revelation, for the justness and accuracy of their principles and reasonings, is not denied. These, however, relate not to the being of God, but to the conceptions of his attributes, to the worship which these prescribe, and to the human duties which that worship infers. The sacred scriptures never attempt to prove the existence of God, but presuppose it as the foundation of every informa

tion which they contain.

Notwithstanding these observations, which I conceive to be well founded, it has, as already hinted, been maintained by some, that human reason has never been able to discover any substantial proofs of Deity, and of his attributes; that

natural religion is a nonentity, and that every stream of divine knowledge that has strayed through the world, has been derived from the source of revelation, and been transmitted through the channel of obscure tradition. But this is a merely gratuitous assumption, supported by no adequate evidence. Nay, it is not only unsupported, but, if it were true, would invalidate all the proofs of the divine existence so profusely furnished by the contemplation of nature, and tend to justify the atheist who should assert that, never having been favoured with a revelation of this kind, he must reject every principle of religion till he receives it. So that those who . are actuated by an over-fervent religious zeal, to maintain that the human mind is of itself incapable of discovering any species and degree of religious truth, seem not to be aware of the vast injury which they are doing to religion by thus setting aside the very foundation on which it must ultimately rest.

But, the abettors of the opinion which I am now controverting, are, as I have stated above, misled no less by their misconception of what is properly signified by the term revelation, than by their erroneous notions of what is rightly to be understood by natural religion. This last I have just been endeavouring to explain. In regard to the just idea of revelation, as distinguished from the mere dictates of human reason

with respect to religious subjects, this term is · not to be applied to every strong impression made on the mind, and referred by the person who receives it to a heavenly source. Some evidence must be produced of its divine origin, sufficient to convince both himself and others. This must be both internal and external, as we find these marks to exist in the Jewish and Christian revelations. The intrinsic excellence and salutary tendency of the doctrine delivered, and its incomparable superiority to every religi ous system, merely of human invention, constitute the first class of evidence. And here let it be observed, that if human reason is entirely excluded from religion, how is this mark of divine origin to be tried and ascertained? The second class of evidence comprehends those external proofs of divine interposition which miracles, prophecy, and supernatural success address to the senses of mankind in the first instance, and which are in the second established by testimony. Here again the use of reason is indispensable, in order to scrutinize, weigh, and decide on the evidences produced, to admit them if valid, and to reject them if insufficient, If the faculties of man, therefore, must be constantly and vigorously employed in examining and determining the claims of revelation itself, is it not absurd to assert that these faculties are totally inadequate to acquire any just religious

notions whatever, even to the limited extent which natural religion supplies?

But, after all, are not these faculties, bestowed by God himself, and, to him, is not man indebted for the successful exercise of them? The honour of the Deity is not, therefore, in the smallest degree, impaired by that knowledge of him and his attributes, and of the duties of man to his Creator, which is derived from natural religion, since even this, no less than revelation, must be ultimately referred to a divine source. So that the whole of this controversy, in as far as it relates to the honour and dignity of religion, amounts to a mere logomachy, or dispute about words. In fine, to contend that man possesses no natural faculties for the apprehension of divine truth, is, as I have before stated, to subvert the very foundation on which revelation itself must stand: for, this is addressed to intellectual and moral beings, and is adapted to their capacities and circumstances. If no natural capacity for divine knowledge has ever existed among mankind, or has been completely obliterated by any thing that has befallen them, St. Anthony's preaching to fishes is no great absurdity.

All religion, then, being founded on the divine and human natures, and on the relation which this last bears to the former, it follows that natural religion must furnish the foundation

on which all revealed or supernaturally instituted religion is placed. The first point of the religion of nature is the acknowledgment of a Deity, on the evidence of his works, who is the supreme author and governor of the universe. The next point is the immutable differences of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong, of justice and iniquity, of benignity and cruelty, of what is really honourable and what is base, of what is worthy of the rational and moral nature, and of what is unbecoming of it; in a word, those general moral categories which have prevailed in all the ages of the human race, how much soever men may have differed in their application of them to particular cases that come under their observation, or whatever may have been the errors or corruptions into which they have been led by the misapplication of the judicative faculty in that application. Lastly, as natural religion dictates a moral government of the rational creation, it must also lead to the acknowledgment of moral retribution, which is partly evident in the present state of things; and thence it must infer the strong probability of a future state of rewards and punishments, according to the immutable principles of divine justice.

On these foundations rests the original religion of man, dictated by his moral and intellectual nature, and by the relation in which he stands to