harp in solemn style, it must be admitted it that is prophecy also.

"5. Another objection is brought against Scripture Prophecy, on the assumption of 'greater and lesser prophets.' They might as well tell us,' says the objector, of the greater and lesser God, for there cannot be degrees in prophesying consistently with its modern sense.' But why may we not call Isaiah and Jeremiah 'greater,' and Jonah and Obadiah 'lesser prophets'? Are there not greater and lesser poets? and are not Homer, and Virgil, and Milton, and Shakspeare among the former, and Watts and Cowper, and some others, among the latter? Mr. Paine himself was a great reasoner when he wrote his Common Sense;' but when he wrote his Age of Reason,' both reason and common sense forsook him; and, compared with Franklin, to whom he submitted his writings against the Scriptures, he appears as the moon in her last quarter, in comparison with the sun in his glory. That greater reasoner foresaw and told him what would be the result of printing his Age of Reason, so called: the consequence of printing this piece will be,' says Franklin, 'a great deal of odium upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others.'

"The manner in which Mr. Paine winds up his futile objections against the prophecies of Scripture, is in perfect keeping with other parts of his book— weak, inconclusive, and absurd. 'It is altogether unnecessary,' says he, after this to offer any observations upon what those men, styled prophets, have written. The axe goes at the root at once, by showing that the original meaning of the word has

been mistaken, and consequently all the inferences that have been drawn from those books, the devotional respect that has been paid to them, and the labored commentaries that have been written upon them, under that mistaken meaning, are not worth disputing about.' This is a singular mode of argument. And has it come to this, that the single assertion of a Mr. Paine, unsupported by any evidence whatever, is to be taken in place of all the learning in the Christian world, and the argument closed forever? Is it not worth disputing about,' whether the writings of Moses, David, Isaiah, and others of like character, are prophecy, or poetry, or both, or neither? He that predicts a future event, after the manner of the Jewish seers, whether he compose in poetry or in prose, is a prophet; and that the prophets did predict future events, is a truth which cannot now be overturned." (See 2 Peter, 3d chap., and C. B. Vol. II. p. 263.)

The unbeliever rejects the volume of Divine Inspiration because of the mysteriousness of some of its doctrines; as, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity. But why does he object to a Trinity in Unity, when his very senses convince him that in the sun, for instance, there is substance, light, heat, and color, according to common appearances, at least, by which the common people judge? Philosophers may deny that light is a substance, but they cannot deny that there are seven prismatic colors in the solar rays, and that these seven are one. Let the reader take a prism, and examine; let him look at the rainbow, and decide.

The unbeliever rejects the sacred volume, as un

worthy of God, because it represents the eating of an apple, or some such fruit, as the cause of all the evil that is in the world; while he must admit that no better test of man's obedience could be given, considering the circumstances in which he was placed. Where was he? In a garden! What was he forbidden to do? To eat of the fruit of a certain tree! Had his Maker said, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," when he had not a single neighbor in the world, it would have appeared perfectly ridiculous, but as the matter stands in the Bible, all is reasonable and plain.

The unbeliever rejects what we call the word of the Lord, because of the " horrid doctrine of a vicarious sacrifice," as he is pleased to style it, and forgets that it may be quite as consonant to the character of an all perfect Being to adopt this method of "reconciling the world unto himself," and to restore order and happiness in the universe, as for him to suffer disorder and misery to exist. That these evils exist, no infidel will deny; but why they should be suffered to exist, under the government of an all perfect Being, he cannot show. Will it be said that "it is the height of injustice to cause the innocent to suffer for the guilty!" What then will the objector say to the death of innumerable millions of innocent children ?-is not that unjust too? Let infidels point to a better remedy than that which is prescribed in the Bible, and we will hear them. They may boast of superior intellectual strength. They may affect to show that strength in demolishing the Christian fabric, and in destroying the Christian's hope. Would to God they would discover

something like wisdom and goodness in substituting something better in their place! But to rob the poor and afflicted of their only consolation and hope, and to leave them nothing in their place, is cruel and unjust to the very last degree.

The unbeliever objects to the Bible on account of the miracles of which it speaks, alleging that a miracle is an impossibility, and thus denies the power of the great Creator to change the laws of nature. He denies that at the command of Joshua the sun stood still, and thus would have us to believe that He who first gave to the planets their diurnal and annual motion, has not power to stop them in their course. He objects to miracles as to something "contrary to experience." He never saw the dead raised to life, and therefore disbelieves. Did he ever see a battle, like that at Waterloo?-an earthquake ?--a hurricane? Did he ever see a tornado, such as visited the city of New Brunswick, the present season, (1835,) when "children were carried 100 feet into the air, and one was carried nearly a quarter of a mile without sustaining any other injury than the spraining of his wrist ?" All these things are contrary to my experience, therefore I deny the truth of the accounts. What folly! I might as well "I do not believe that the earth revolves on its axis in twenty-four hours, because that is contrary to my experience;' for I see the sun rise, and set, and neither see, nor hear, nor feel any thing to the contrary. Must I then believe what my senses contradict?" Yes, or be guilty of the greatest folly! The fact is, the moment we deny the possi- bility of a miracle, we limit the power of God, and

say,

might as well turn atheists at once; for what kind of God must that be who is so governed by the laws of irresistible fate that he cannot regulate his own works, or change their laws at pleasure? Surely He who made the world can govern it, and the power that formed man from the dust of the earth can raise him from the dust again!

The unbeliever objects to the Divine authenticity of the holy Scriptures, because they do not harmonize with his views of modern astronomy. He first assumes that "Christianity is a religion which professes to be designed for the single benefit of our world; and thence infers that God cannot be the author of this religion, for He would not lavish on so insignificant a field such peculiar and such distinguishing attentions as are ascribed to Him in the Old and New Testaments." "This," says Dr. Chalmers, "is a popular argument against Christianity, not much dwelt upon in books, but often insinuated in conversation. But how do infidels know that Christianity is set up for the single benefit of this earth and its inhabitants? How are they able to tell us, that if you go to other planets, the person and the religion of Jesus are unknown there? For any thing they can tell, sin may have found its way into these other worlds-their people may have banished themselves from communion with God; and many a visit may have been made to each of them on the subject of our common Christianity, by commissioned messengers from the throne of the Eternal! But suppose that only one, among the countless myriads of worlds, should be visited by a moral pestilence, which spread through all its peo