memorials. In the earliest ages the dove was regarded,

As an interpreter of the will of the gods;

As a bird of presage; and As auspicious to mariners; who used to let loose a dove, and from her flight to augur the good or ill success of their voyages.

The heliacal rising of the seven stars was considered as the most favorable time for sailing. Hence they were called Peleiades; or the doves.

The Argonauts are said by Apollonius Rhodiensis to have made the same experiment with the dove, which was made by

in order to save himself from being drowned, embarked in a ship, formed like an Ark, with his wife, his children, and many different animals, and several seeds of fruits. As the water abated, he sent out the bird, which bears the name of Aura; which remained, eating dead bodies. He then sent out other birds, which did not return; except that little bird, called the Flower-sucker; which brought a small branch with it. From the family of Pezhi the Michuacans all believed that they derived their origin.

Homer calls Iris, or the rainbow, "a sign to men having various languages;" and again says, "Jupiter ordained, that the rainbow should be a sign from heaven to mortals."

The Egyptians called the rainbow Thamuz; or Wonder.

Hesiod says, that Iris (the rainbow,) was the great oath of the gods; and styles it the daughter of Thaumas; or Wonder.

Such are the testimonies, which I have been able to collect concerning this singular event in the providence of God. Concerning them I make the following remarks.

1. They reach back to the remotest antiquity, to which we are conducted either by history or tradition.

2. They are found in almost every country, in which history, or tradition, is found: particularly, among almost all ancient nations, of which we have any knowledge.

3. The subjects of them have almost, or quite, always been held in high, and even in religious, veneration; and have in very many instances been intimately connected with religious

2

worship. This fact furnishes us with the reason, why they have been preserved with so much care and accuracy.

4. They are so numerous, that it is impossible for them to have been derived from chance. Against such a fact the chances are millions of millions to one. The supposition of casualty in such a situation cannot be made even with decency.

5. They exist in countries, and nations, so remote, and so necessarily destitute of any intercourse with each other, that they could never have been derived from any common source, of a later date than Noah and his family. From this source, therefore, they were derived, with a probability, approaching very near to absolute certainty.

6. There is no falsehood more unlikely to have been invented, than the story of the deluge, if it is a falsehood. Such a story must contradict all the other knowledge, and experience, of man; and, to make it believed, would require the strongest evidence, of which facts admit. But on this supposition it would be necessarily destitute of all evidence; and, therefore, would be believed by none. We are prone to imagine, that those, who lived before us, were more credulous, and more easily imposed upon, than ourselves. But this opinion is chiefly the result of self-flattery. So far as it respects improvements in arts, and in science, and the truths which they teach, and the wonders which they enable us to perform, this opinion is in some degree just; but, so far as it respects facts, it is without foundation.

All men have the senses of man: and the great body of

every nation, in every age, have been endued with the averge share of common sense. These are the sole means of judging concerning facts, and the evidence with which they are attended. Newton had no other means of judging concerning these subjects. Of these subjects, therefore, in every age, and in every country, men have been competent judges.

The truth is; not credulity, but incredulity, is the predominant characteristic of uncivilized man with regard to every thing of a religious nature. The Israelites, who followed Moses from Egypt into the wilderness, were certainly very imperfectly civilized. Yet they were remarkably distinguished for their unbelief. The present inhabitants of New England are more enlightened than those of most other countries; and, as a body, admit the Christian Religion to have been unquestionably derived from God. The savages, who preceded them, scarcely admitted it at all. Bacon, Boyle, and Newton, were Christians. Not a single inhabitant of Otaheite has been induced to embrace Christianity by the laborious exertions of Missionaries, extended through a long period.

7. We have been able to trace this story to those, who are every where asserted to have been preserved from the deluge. The story then, if invented, must have been invented by them. But how could they make those, to whom they told it, beiieve them, unless it was true? The prominent fact in the tale is, that all mankind, except one family, were destroyed. But who would believe this declaration, when

he saw hundreds and thousands of other families around him; and among them many individuals, who were of the same age with the oldest member of this family, and must therefore have shown in their own persons, that it was impossible for the tale to be true? Who would believe it, when he saw the same impossibility proved by the existence of such numbers around him, as could not have descended from this family? Who in these circumstances can be supposed to have told, or even invented the story?

8. If we suppose the deluge to have taken place; the fact it self, and those which are inseparably connected with it, were so extraordinary, so absolutely singular, and so deeply interesting to the human heart, that both itself, and its principal appendages could not fail of being preserved for a long period in the memory of succeeding generations. Parts of the story might be disguised, varied, or forgotten, through the inattention, the mistakes, or the imbecility, of the mind. Such has been the actual state of the case. It has been really remembered by the great body of mankind: and the imperfections, found in the accounts of this great event, so far as they have reached us, are even fewer, than could have been rationally expected.

OBSERVATIONS UPON THE IM

PERFECTIONS OF SAINTS.

As perfection and imperfection are relative terms, we can form correct conceptions of them only in reference to that standard,

or rule, to which they relate. In this discussion, they will be considered only in relation to moral subjects, and to the character of saints. Of all moral rectitude the law of God is the only rule or standard. This law expresses the moral sentiments and affections, with their proper effects, which intelligent beings should possess and exercise, precisely corresponding with their existence, or capacity, and the rela tion they sustain one to another. These sentiments and affections, are comprised in the two great commandments; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself-These imply the relation of the constituent parts or subjects of the intellectual and mor al system, and the affection which one should exercise toward the

other. If we now contemplate the objects of this affection, and the intellectual capacity of moral agents, and compare the gra cious exercises of saints with them, we may form correct conceptions of the essence and degree of their imperfection.-As a minute consideration would protract the subject too long, only a summary view of it will be given.

If we contemplate the infinite existence, majesty, and glory of God, will it not recommend itself to every man's conscience, that the most profound and cordial reverence for Him, which rational creatures can exercise, is but a reasonable duty? and that a sense of his universal and holy presence should inspire their souls with sacred awe, exclude every unworthy thought and feeling from their hearts, and regulate their whole de.

portment? Should not complacence in his character, delight in his law, and confidence in his government, enliven their spirits and fill them with joy unspeakable? As they are his creatures, dependent upon him and supported by him; and he has a demand upon them for their whole service, is it not perfectly reasonable and proper, that they should seek and serve him with all their hearts and souls; that it should be as their meat to glorify him in their bodies and spirits; and that their whole lives should be a uniform expression of obedience and submission to his will, and gratitude and praise for his mercies. Now let any saint compare his reverence and love of God, obedience to his will, and gratitude for mercies, in his most spiritual and elevated frames, either with the dictates of reason and propriety, or with the solemn obligation of this sacred precept, and will he not be confounded at the comparison, and his soul recoil at the contrast? Will he not be conscious of a most criminal deficiency in every instance, and of an aversion of heart to God, and in tractability to his will, impatience under corrections, and ingratitude for mercies, which will fill him with confusion and shame, and extort from him the penitent confession, Behold I am vile!*

If the import and requisition of the second great commandment, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, be considered, will not the saint be as deficient in his duty towards his neighbor, as towards his God? Most obviously, this sacred precept requires the uniform and uninterrupted exercise of that benevolent affection which expresses itself in acts of beneficence, lenity, kindness, sympathy, and forgiveness, to the entire exclusion of all selfish private motives, injustice and extortion, envy, malice, and resentment? If a saint compares his heart and habitual practice with this precept, will he not be sensible ot a very great and criminal deficiency in his conformity to it? and of the emotions of that selfishness, deceit, and unrighteousness, of that malice and resentment, which render him infinitely criminal in the view of the divine law, and odious in the sight of God and men.

Will the saint be less defective and guilty if his gracious exercises be compared with that exposition of the two great commandments which God has given in the moral law? Thou shalt have no other. God before, or beside, me. But how many objects rival the blessed Jehovah in the Christian's heart, and alienate and diminish the fervor of his affection to the Lord his Maker? How deficient has he ever been in his respect for the holy name, attributes, and character of God? How imperfectly has he sanctified the Sabbath, attended the institutions and performed the duties of that holy day, in public and in secret? In a single instance has he no occasion to com

plain of mental vanity, of the formality and insincerity of his devotion? According to his capac ity and circumstances, has he worshipped his God and Savior with the purity and ardor of a glorified saint? This perfection is required of him by the precept; but rather than this, alas, alas, do not stupidity and hypocrisy, his criminal deficiences in holy duties, compass him about, and humble his soul within hin?

How has the saint respected the duties of the second table? At any time, has his heart been perfectly free from disrespect for the constituted authorities? from all malice, impurity, slander, and avarice? Has he rendered honor to whom honor was due to the extent of the precept, and, in his connexions and transactions with his fellow men, been directed by motives perfectly innocent and disinterested, pure and equitable, exciting him to not seek his own, but the things also of others; and to owe no man any thing but love? or, rather, is he not conscious that contracted, sordid motives intwine themselves with all his views in his pursuits, render him infinitely vile, and constrain him to exclaim, Woe is me! for I am undone, for I am a man of unclean lips?

Will the saint be more pure in his own eyes, if he compares his gracious exercises with the genius of the Gospel, and the religion and example of his blessed Lord and Master? Has he ever had the most extensive view of which his mind is capable, with regard to his depravity, impotence, and wretchedness which are presupposed, and implied in

the Gospel? And have his repentance, godly sorrow, and abasement, been proportioned to the exceeding sinfulness of his sin, his accumulated guilt, and awful danger? Have they not, rather, been so defective and disproportioned to the guilt of his character and the misery of his condition, that he has abundant reason to repent even of his repentance itself? Has a conviction of his inexcusableness compelled him to desist from extenuating his wickedness, or is not his heart incessantly apologizing for his omissions and transgres sions, and diminishing his guilt? Has a sense of his total depravation and spiritual impotence compelled him to abandon all dependence upon his own goodness, and confide alone in unmerited sovereign grace, or is not his heart continually flattering him in his own eyes, persuading him to establish his own righteousness, and not submit to the righteousness of God?

Have the apprehensions of the saint corresponded with the infinite perfection,dignity, and glory of Christ Jesus, and the wisdom,fulness, and safety of the way of salvation? With all joy has he laid hold on the blessed hope of the Gospel, rejoicing in an opportunity to sell all for Christ, to embrace him as the chiefest among ten thousand, to take up his cross and follow him through trials, tears, and temptations, to eternal felicity and rest? dent desires to promote his blessed cause, stimulate the Christian to incessant and persevering exertions? Does a hopeful prospect of seeing Christ as he is,and being made like him, residing in his presence, and singing his

Do ar