net perish. Search all the records of every era and nation; look through the works of God, so far as they are open to human inspection, and you find nothing, which equally displays the riches of divine mercy. The son of God died to save culprits from merited condemnation. But is this subject contemplated with interest, with joy, with astonishment? It is viewed with the most friged indifference, or heart felt reluctance. The human mind, far from considering this, as a favorite subject, flies from it, when occasionally presented. What inference are we to make from this circumstance? What conclusion is that, to which reason impels us? for we ask no gratuitous concessions. We ask you to entertain no opinions in theology, but such as are supported, and such, as, all things considered, it would be irrational to deny. Ingratitude is universally allowed to imply baseness-moral corruption. Ingratitude towards God cannot, in its nature, be less criminal, than ingratitude to men. Our ingratitude towards our Maker is undeniably clear, and astonishingly great. We are therefore chargeable with a high degree of baseness and ill desert.

12

So far, as moral corruption is evinced by ingratitude, flagrant and long continued, the existence of such corruption in our species has been shown. The conclusion rests on this ground. 1. That ingratitude is a crime; and, 2. That men are ungrateful to the Supreme Being. If neither of these propositions is questionable, the conclusion is not to be resisted. If the want of grateful feelings is highly criminal; if it betrays peculiar baseness of temper; and if, at the same time, great munificence is exercised on the part of Deity, the amount of human demerit is not inconsiderable.

We will now attend to another argument. As in the material world the nature of different substances is known by their affinities; so, by its objects of affection and aversion, we ascertain moral character. Let it be known, with persons of what character a man is most fond of associating, and you find no difficulty in determining his own. Attachment to profligate characters, indicates profligacy. Attachment to the virtuous and upright, indicates purity of mind. Should there be in any town, or village, a person of unusual suavity of temper, benevolence of design, and universal correctness of behaviour; whose knowledge and discernment always selected the most suitable seasons and objects for the exercise of his benevolence, would it not follow, that his

neighbours were extremely deficient in taste and good feelings, if they were not disposed to seek his society, and to consult his judgment? would indifference as to his moral character leave us in any doubt as to theirs? The conclusion would be more obvious still, if the person contemplated were known to be easy of access, conciliatory in his manners, and habituated to express his mind in terms, which, all things considered, were most apppropriate. Now there is, present with every person, a being, whose character is similar to that described, but, in degree, infinitely superior.

There is a being, whose knowledge of every subject is perfect, and whose decisions are infallible: a being, who interests himself in our situation, and is disposed to impart counsel, and communicate relief: whose benevolence is greater, than human language can describe, or human intellects conceive. He has never refused a favor, when goodness and wisdom required its bestowment; and, far from being inaccessible, he has invited mankind to express to him their situation and desires.

Now, if it can be shown, either that mankind have no love for this divine being, or that they love him in a very low degree, it will follow, that they have a perverse, or depraved taste. That He, in whose character are united the most glorious attributes in the highest possible degree, should not be an object of affection and veneration to creatures of correct moral feelings, is a supposition perfectly absurd.

Could it be proved, that our race in general, though not entirely destitute of love to God, possess this quality but in a low degree; a degree altogether disproportionate to their ability of comprehending his perfections; the existence of moral corruption would be no less certain; though its amount would be smaller.

But how, you inquire, does it appear, that there is in mankind generally, this deficiency of love to their Maker? I answer, that this is evident by their not exhibiting those marks of the contrary, which they certainly would exhibit, if such deficiency did not exist.

I. From the situation of man, his imbecility, his dependence, and want of knowledge, it would be obviously the dictate of reason, to maintain constant and devoted intercourse with his Maker. Our condition clearly indicates the propriety of such intercourse; and previously to observation, it would be thought, that the liberty of resorting to the Almighty, would be contemplated with the highest joy, and improved, as the richest privilege. How little such an opinion corresponds with fact, you need not be informed. Though we cannot live insensible of our wants, feebleness, and immortality, there is no prevailing disposition in the human heart to place confidence in God. Men do not love to view themselves, as surrounded by their Creator's presence.. They do not rejoice at the return of seasons devoted to prayer. Nay, it is the general character of men to cast off fear, and to restrain prayer before God. If the fear of temporal or eternal sufferings, occasionally urges them to this exercise, it is evidently not in itself agreeable to their dispositions. It is a service, submitted to,-rather endured, than relished. If this is doubted, let us reflect on what passes in our own hearts; let us observe the general appearance of indevotion among others; and in many, the entire neglect of religious acknowledgement.

II. Did we entertain right feelings towards God, a love, proportionate to our powers of comprehending his moral character; such feelings would be manifested by the frequency and the manner of our conversation on the subject. We are universally fond of conversing concerning those whom we love: nor is there any difficulty in discovering our sentiments, by the interest which we take, when their characters are discussed. Were it inquired, whether an intimate and warm friendship subsisted between a particular person and yourself, any one would justly think himself authorized to answer in the negative, if, after much acquaintance, he had observed, that you were not in the habit of mentioning the name of this person; or if you discovered no interest, whenever such mention was made by others. If there are circum

stances, in which this conclusion would be incorrect, they are such as do not exist in regard to Deity.

Now, of the great variety of subjects, which occur in social intercourse, do the attributes, providence, and requirements of God, hold a conspicuous place? If conversation of this kind is commenced, is it maintained with a general and lively interest; and do the countenances of those present evince their delight in the occurrence of such a theme? The experiment is indeed but sparingly made: but when it is, there is great uniformity in the result. Now on what principle can we account for this fact? Will it be said, that we are afraid of desecrating things sacred? and that the reluc tance to speak of our Maker, really proceeds from the high veneration, in which He is held? How happens it then, that those, who, on all other occasions, manifest most tenderness of conscience, and devout regard for the divine honor, should be less delicate in this particular instance, than others, whose usual deportment is that of indifference, or irreligion? How happens it, that all the reverence for Deity should in this instance, be on the side of those, who evince it in no other? For though it is unquestionably true, that hypocrites, or fanatics, may ostentatiously speak of religion, and equally true that some pious persons may be less able, or disposed, than some others of the same character, to introduce and support religious conversation; it will not be denied, that discourse of this kind is, in general, most acceptable to persons of piety; and least so to those of an opposite character.

In relation to many subjects, it may be said, that they cannot be universally acceptable, on account of the different habits, studies, and capacities of those present. That which is interesting to a student, may not be so to a man in commercial, or military life. But the character and commands of God are of equal concern to all human beings. With these are connected the immortal interests of men.

Now, if indifference to that discourse, of which our Creator is the subject, or even aversion from it, betrays a want of affection from his character; the same indifference, or aver