this sense of right and wrong? Has man no Maker; the injured no avenger? Is this universal frame without a thinking head and beating heart?-Surely, there is a Godthe Creator and moral Governour of the world."

But our imagination, wafted by the breath of revealed truth, has carried us away from the decisions of natural reason. So easy is the process by which we attain to the demonstration of an Almighty Ruler, it is difficult to conceive that Moses, so endowed by nature and education, and so long embosomed in the depths of reflective solitude, could have resisted the high conclusion, or failed to discover the true God.

In arguing, however, concerning the natural capacity of the human understanding, it would be as unfair to decide from the attainments of the mind assisted by revelation, as to assume the present state of mechanical improvement as a criterion of the degree of civilization to which the ancients had attained. Nor is any à priori reasoning admissible. To ascertain what Moses was capable of achieving by his own unaided powers, there is but one legitimate course; and that is, to institute an enquiry respecting the theistical sentiments of the most civilized nations, at a period when human reason was confessedly unassisted, but most intent on metaphysical speculation.

It cannot be maintained, that the attention of Moses was more particularly directed to this subject. The existence and attributes of a Creator were the especial and all-absorbing themes among the Grecian sages. It cannot be supposed, that Moses enjoyed greater advantages than they for the prosecution of this subject. Aside from the fact that the latter had visited Egypt with a view to directing or enlarging their minds, they constantly enjoyed that stimulus to intellectual exertion which arises from philosophic associations and conflicting opinions. Much less may it be presumed, that however energetic the intellect with which the former was endowed, it was superiour to that of the latter. The native elements of the human mind, never shone forth with more dazzling radiance, than from the recesses of the academic grove; or assumed such forms of beauty and sublimity as immortalized the schools. Giants in intellect, their works remain as monuments of the might of human achievements. The greatest of modern minds have been their most enthusiastic scholars. The very despisers of Moses have

bowed in adoration at the shrine of their acknowledged, perhaps unapproachable greatness. Yet must it not be conceded by every candid mind, that all their writings are but melancholy records of the incapacity of human reason to discover God. Is not the result of their every speculation confirmation strong of the apostolic position, that "the world by wisdom knew not God." The vagueness and confusion of the speculative opinions, which brooded over the Gentile world, before it was visited by the "day spring from on high," can be likened to nothing short of that chaotic darkness, in which the earth existed before God said, "Let there be light."

If Moses had originated his views respecting the Deity,it must have been through one of two mediums,-either from perceiving the necessity of a First Cause, or from nature's marks of manifest adaption to specific ends. Now both of these modes of reasoning were so familiar to the heathen philosophers, that neither Clarke nor Paley may justly be considered in any other light, than as the Aristotle and Socrates of modern times.

But to what purpose was their mastery of these arguments? Did they attain to any clear, consistent, or correct views of the uncreated mind? All their mighty speculations tended to little else, than a perception and esoteric acknowledgement of the absurdity of the reigning superstitions.

The Monad of Pythagoras was the universe itself; the Deity of Zeno was an active ethereal fire which pervaded and informed the passive material mass; of Aristotle, an external, physical power; of Plato, an independent mind having no creative power. But it is unnecessary to particularize. Having no definite views of the spirituality, personality, and unity of the godhead, in general, the god of the schools was an infinitely extended soul, not a simple, indivisible essence. He was a mere philosopical agent, invented by reason in attempted explanation of existing phenomena; not an object of praise and prayer. He was controlled by a fatal destiny,-not omnipotent. He was wrapped in the shades of inpenetrable darkness; existing in indolent quietude, and at an unapproachable distance,--not the father of mankind, ever active in his universal, beneficent agency. If they may not properly be denominated Atheists, still less may they justly be regarded as Theists. If universally they were not Vol. II. 71

absolute Pantheists, it cannot be proved that in more than one instance they had any idea of the divine unity.

As he was pronounced by the oracle to be the wisest of men, so is Socrates the only one whose unassisted ken almost pierced the veil which shrouded the true God from mortal knowledge. But let it be distinctly considered, that his recognition of the divine unity* and personality, (if indeed, it may not be traced to a report of the belief which separated the Israelites from all the surrounding nations,) was scarcely more than a mere suggestion, which never assumed in his mind the shape of logical conviction, nor in his teachings the form and consistence of system; that he used the terms god and inter gods changeably; and that his constant practice in sacrificing both in private and public to the popular deities, his frequent recourse to divination, to say the least, were not very consistent with so sublime a belief. Blinded, indeed, by the most unworthy prejudice, must be the mind, which can degrade the theistical views of Moses, by a comparison with Socrates, much more with the speculations of other pagan philosophers.

That many sublime conceptions of the Divinity may occasionally irradiate our search into the antique regions of metaphysical speculation will readily be conceded; but like

Warburton, has endeavoured to show, that the secret of the Mysteries was the doctrine of divine unity; and adduces in evidence the Palinodia of Orpheus, but it cannot be proved that the Hierophant taught this doctrine to the initiated. It is alike uncertain whether the Palinodia were written by Orpheus, whether its date be antecedent to Christianity, and whether it were recited in the ceremonies of initiation. Eusebius (Praepar. Evang. Lib. 13. chap. 12.) has cited the Palinodia from a Jew who lived 200 years before Christ, but in connection there is an incidental allusion to Moses and Abraham which has induced a belief in the minds of some critics that these verses were fabricated or interpolated by Aristobulus, or some other Jew. St. Justin's (Exhort. ad Graec. p. 18.) quotation differs from Eusebius, but all that can be deduced from his reading, is, that the author, whoever he might be, or at whatever period he might have lived, has not expressed himself respecting the Supreme Being in a more definite and consistent manner than Cleanthes, or Aratus from whom St. Paul quoted. The early Christians were so anxious to recommend the Scriptures by referring the heathen to points of similar belief in their own authors, that the most obvious interpolations have been detected in their version of Pagan hymns. In the hymns, as preserved by Pagan writers, of each of the poets to which we have alluded, the idea of a Supreme Governour is confounded with that of the stories which identified the Deity and the world. Were they conclusive, however, as to the belief of the divine unity, no evidence can be gathered from ancient authors to prove that it constituted a profession of faith at Elusis. Socrates refused to be initiated, and on this account was thought to be destitute of religion; but if the unity of God were the secret, how happens it that he alone should have discovered it? See in connexion, the remarks of Faber, Hor. Mos. 1. Vol. Sec. II. Chap. VII.

those brilliant coruscations, which light up for an instant the midnight sky, involving the traveller in tenfold darkness, these glittering thoughts serve only to render more sensible to the surrounding obscurity. It need not be shown, that the imposing splendour of these infrequent conceptions, fades away and dies, when compared with declarations so overpoweringly effulgent, as those which the Mosaical writings contain. Pause, for a moment, in reflection on this single sentence, (and it is among the most sublime which have been preserved to us,)-"I am whatever has been and is and shall be; and my veil no mortal has ever drawn aside"and say, whether it does not, of itself, more than intimate the existing and hopeless darkness, in which the ancients. felt themselves involved; whether the temple at Sais, on the architrave of which this sentence was written, might not most appropriately have contained an altar, bearing a corresponding inscription-"To the unknown God."

Let the utmost weight, however, be attached to the golden sentences of the ancient philosophers; let it be granted, that they caught some glimpses of the Infinite Majesty. Which of the schools arrived at a definite conclusion; what philosopher ever inculcated Mosaical sentiments of God, or taught one simple principle of theistical belief? Would not the whole array of philosophic minds have been smitten with amazement, had one of their number exclaimed, "There is one only living and true God?" Think of the obscurity and perplexity which characterize their speculations. It need not now be essayed, whether the whole range of their philosophy could furnish us with even a plausible system of eclectic theism. In this we have been anticipated, not only by some of the ablest of the Christian writers, as Justin Martyr and Augustin, who according to their own confessions, vainly searched and agonized for truth, until their minds were brought in contact with the Hebrew Scriptures; but even by Cicero, whose treatise de Natura Deorum amounts to nothing more, than a triumphant exposure of the uncertainty and vanity of all the existent systems of philosophical theism. Nor is it a result which should excite our surprise, when Plato, whose mind was still more profound than that of his immortal master, himself declared, "that, to discover the Artificer and Father of the universe, is indeed difficult, and that when found, it is impossible to reveal him, through the medium of discourse, to mankind at large,"

If the later Platonists shall be found to be more consistent and satisfactory in their views, it will be recollected, that their date is posterior to the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language,—a circumstance which was not without its immediate influence on all philosophical speculations.

A dispassionate enquiry precludes all doubt, that amid the irradiations of their schools, the wisdom of their senates, and the magnificence of their architecture, they were " without God in the world." That altar erected in the centre of enlightened Athens, too truly tells us all that the Gentile world knew of God, after an elaborate enquiry of four thousand years. Mark well that inscription;-To THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Oh! how should all deistical pretensions be abashed, and the pride of reason be humbled in the dust! Look back to an earlier age, thou boasting sceptic! Pry into the desert of Midian-thou shalt find that a greater than Socrates is there! He is engaged in recording theistical instruction for all coming ages. Are his enquiries embarrassed by difficulties? Does he combat no doubts, or shield his views from the possibility of scepticism? Is he irrational, inconsistent, or unsystematic in his positions ?-Where else can be found such sentiments of God? Uncreated, He has existed from eternity. Purely spiritual, strictly individual, essentially immaculate, He is as infinitely removed from all contact with matter, as distinct from all other existences, as his nature is free from imperfection and sin. Guided not by destiny, but by the unerring law which emanates from his infinite wisdom and goodness, He exists in absolute independence. Omnipotent to execute his sovereign pleasure, the world is not an emanation from his nature, but a creation of his will: Invisibly omnipresent, He does not, with Epicurean indolence, disregard the affairs of his creatures, or attend only to the things which are great in human estimation; but fastening his vision on each revolving world, with each revolving thought of man, He knows all that can happen, either in time or space; provides for every want, both of man and beast; directs and orders all that takes place; holds in his hands the destinies of every rational being, as amenable to his moral government; and subserves the universe of mind and matter to the undivided, unrivalled glory of his incommunicable name.