and reason, before we can sufficiently expand our conception to embrace a tolerably consistent notion of the attributes of God. It is truly said, 'we cannot find out God unto perfection.' The very terms, Infinite, Eternal, Deity, and all the phraseology we use to designate our imperfect conceptions of the Almighty, if we try to define the ideas attached to them, we perceive to be mere words expressive of that abyss of vastness and uncertainty as to the nature and mode of the divine existence, which a finite mind can never stretch itself to comprehend. But there is a point from which to commence inquiry, that will not fail to conduct us to truth. We can take the foundation of God's goodness. We agree in thinking that nothing must contradict this first great truth."

"Certainly," replied George, "it is, because I must maintain that point, that I cannot tolerate the Christian's creed."

"We can sometimes perceive a truth," said Mrs Henderson, "when it comes to us by analogy, that we can see in no other way; because we thus rid ourselves of the associated notions which interfere and prevent us from viewing the subject correctly. Let us then suppose a case, and see if your mind will not view the subject dif ferently when thus presented. It is not essential that the analogy should be close, or hold in all its parts. It wili be sufficient for our purpose, if we compare things we can understand with those we cannot, so as to throw light on one point, as our Saviour did, when he compared God to an earthly father. We will suppose a man of great wealth to procure a tract of land in a new country, and employ agents to clear and cultivate it. He lays out the grounds in beautiful order, and erects a commodious dwelling and offices. The various gardens, pleasure grounds, and

wood lands, the fields for grain, and the orchards-all, are arranged and enclosed, in the most perfect manner. The mansion house is conveniently and elegantly furnished; the farm stocked; and every thing provided for the comfort, convenience, and enjoyment of the owner and his family. Suppose yourself to be travelling, and come to this spot. You would naturally be struck with the beauty and order, as contrasted with the wilderness around, and would be inclined to examine the estate.You walk through the fields. They are waving with ripened grain. The trees are loaded with fruit. The flowers are blooming around. The whole is inviting, and bespeaks the object, as well as the wealth, and taste of the owner. You inspect the place still farther. Flocks of sheep on the hill pastures, herds of cattle in the meadows, domestic fowls and small animals, and all that could be thought necessary or desirable have been collected, and arrangements made for their comfort. You enter the house, and there also, every thing seems to show that the master must be on the spot. The table is spread. The library displays its inviting riches. The chambers ask you to repose.-But where is the owner of this estate? Where is he, who directs and superintends the whole? Who concerns himself, to protect the flocks and the herds? to secure the harvest, and see the fruits gathered and preserved? What would you think if in answer to these inquiries you should be told, that having done so much, the proprietor then abandoned his work; that after having thus arranged every thing, he had taken no farther concern about it, had never either made a visit or sent a messenger to it, or in any other way exercised the least particular superintendence over it? What should you think if you were told as a reason for this

Would it not be

make this grand

why stock the

neglect, that he thought it beneath his dignity to visit the estate or to take any care of it? natural for you to ask, why then did he establishment? why build the house? farm? Should you not say, that if he condescended to clear the wilderness, and lay out and plant the grounds, and erect the buildings, it would not be unworthy of him to see them well taken care of? that it was a proof of folly, to do so much, and then abandon it; and still worse, that it was cruel to collect flocks and herds, and animals that could not secure their own comfort and happiness, and then leave them without a keeper? that whatever it was worth his while to place there it was proper to watch over and preserve, and that it was so inconsistent with the character manifested in the whole arrangement to suppose he would thus abandon his own work, that you could not believe any one who should intimate such a thing. Yes, you would say, every thing speaks of his concern for his estate; and the ability, taste and skill displayed, are not qualities consistent with the fickleness and cruelty of such a desertion. You would not therefore credit the story of his indifference to it, but would seek the proofs of the proprietor's interposition throughout the estate; assured, that where every thing showed a system complete in its several parts, it would betray an essential defect, if the contriver were not employed in conducting and maintaining the whole, for the happiness of those he had collected there."

George remained silent a few minutes after his mother ceased to speak; and seemed to be considering the statement she had made. At length he said, "I should certainly come to the conclusion you suggest in the case supposed; and if I could trace a perfect analogy between

this and the subject of my inquiry, I should have nothing farther to urge against the doctrine of a revelation from God to mankind, abstractly considered. There would still, indeed, be a great deal to object to in that, which is by Christians pretended to be from God. But, I confess, it seems reasonable to suppose that a Being, such as God, would not be less likely to consult the good of the world he has made, in any suitable manner, than the proprietor you have imagined, to consult the safety and improvement of his estate. Nevertheless, is it not true. that your analogy is incomplete? God, you know, has other worlds than this. They are doubtless innumerable, and what is the one we live in, compared with the universe? How does your analogy show, that it may not be unworthy of him to interfere in a special manner in the affairs of so minute a portion of his works? Had you provided your wealthy landholder with a multitude of estates, each of which was equal or superior in beauty and value to the one you described, you would have lessened the apparent absurdity of his supposed conduct in abandoning that one, and thus made a better argument from analogy."

"Not at all," replied his mother; "for the question still remains, why make all this provision for convenience and enjoyment in any estate, however small, and then abandon it?-why, if it was not to be visited, and watched over, and improved, should it ever have been procured and fitted up at so great an expense? Now let a like question be put respecting the Deity, as he stands related to this world. Infinite as his power and glory are acknowledged to be, his wisdom and goodness are certainly equal to them. And if the attribute of power renders the superintendence of the world of no

moment to him, how could the attributes of wisdom and goodness ever have permitted its creation? The world. which his power enabled him to create, his wisdom would induce him to superintend, and his love incline him to bless. By supposing God not to be interested in what is taking place in our world, as in the transactions of all other worlds, to believe that an individual is unregarded by our heavenly Father, is to detract from his glorious attributes of omnipresence and omniscience. God is infinite. in the minutia, which are inscrutable to man, as he is infinite in the comprehension of exalted and extensive things. We stand on a point. Infinity is above, beyond, beneath, and around us; and that which requires microscopic, equally with that which requires magnifying powers, to give us a perception of its existence, is and must be comprehended in the survey of almighty vision; and in every moment of its being be wholly within his knowledge and under his care. And if we perceive this must be the case in the natural world-because it exists and could no otherwise exist-how much more easily can we conceive it to be true in the spiritual and moral world, since we must believe that God is a spiritual being, and these things must therefore be more nearly allied to him. If you suppose God to have abandoned the world and its countless multitudes of animate and inanimate beings which he has created, you also subtract either from his attribute of omnipotence, or from that of benevolence; for if he can, but v. ill not, superintend and bless them, he is not a good being, and if he would, but cannot, his power is impeached. Believing then, as we must believe, that he possesses the attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness-and that omnipresence results from them, we are compelled to believe that he constantly