more furnish for themselves this principle of harmonious coalescence in composing the Book, admitting it to be a fiction, than a vast flock of birds of passage could devise and create the wondrous instinct, by which they are impelled to assemble from many different quarters, at a certain time and place, to take their associated flight across the ocean.

It deserves remark, that the various kinds of evidence employed to prove the truth of Christianity are, in general, quite consistent with each other. The historical and the internal evidence, that from prophecy and from miracles, with the different modifica tions of each, which have been so ably prosecuted by the advocates of the cause, are not conflicting, but coalescing, schemes. They communicate and receive a joint support among themselves, in many important instances, on which we cannot here allow ourselves to expatiate. For example: A supernatural interference, by prophecy and miracle, demanded a corresponding majesty and importance in the subject, and the internal evidence most obviously fulfils the demand. Similar observations might be made on all the other combinations which might be formed of the several kinds of proof here adverted to. Nothing more than a brief hint is here intended, respecting this particular species of harmony. The reader may speculate, for his own satisfaction, on any number of the combinations, as his genius and wishes may direct. For this purpose he may extend the inquiry, by carefully consulting some general view of the Evidences, such as may be found in the volumes of Hartley, Horne, Macardy, and the excellent compendium contained in the first volume of the Rev. Richard Watson's "Theological Institutes."

The evidence adduced in the rejection of the Bible is of a very different character. Nothing can be more discordant and versatile. On one point, however, there is a perfect agreement,— the design to resist revelation. Its opposite bendings, to accomplish this one purpose, are clearly demonstrative of strong prejudice. For instance, as observed by a good writer: When it combats the necessity of revelation, reason can do every thing, even for the bulk of mankind; but when the evidence of revelation is to be distinguished from imposture, reason can do nothing. But this design assumes the most heterogeneous grounds;-sometimes atheism, and sometimes deism. Infidelity has no system, either true or fictitious. One party affirms that Jesus Christ was an impostor, and worked his miracles by

magic; another, that he was a deceived, superstitious, wellmeaning man; and a third declares positively, that no such person ever existed,-that the term "Christ" is only a corruption. of "Creeshna," the name of an Indian Deity.

We may observe, by the way, the singular ingenuity of this last conjecture. Great linguists tell us, that "Christ" means "anointed," and "Creeshna" "black;" but now, forsooth, we may boldly ask, What signifies the recondite sense? The sound has always been considered a most obvious rule of derivation! Who does not see that " oyster" comes from " austere," an adjective; which marks the rigour with which those little creatures close their shells to prevent their being opened? And what doubt can be advanced against so clear a truth as this,—that the verb "to hang" is derived from "Hungus," the twentieth Pictish king? This is demonstrated by an historical fact, which triumphantly confirms the theory;—that prince, failing in some important treaty with Malcolm, king of Scotland, did actually hang himself!

The strange notions here referred to, with many others, equally wild, from the same romantic author, are very ably confuted in a valuable work, lately published, entitled, "Remarks on Volney's Ruins of Empires, by W. A. Hails," of Newcastleupon-Tyne.

Thus, whether we contemplate the structure of the Scriptures as a writing, greatly varied in its materials and styles; styles, original, simple, yet never mean and creeping, and each uniformly preserved to the last ;-or that of the grand and multiforms ystem of religion which it exhibits, with its different but consistent and co-operating evidences; or the harmony of all these with the universe, so far as we can comprehend it; a most beautiful coincidence, we perceive, is every where discovered, a mutual fitness of parts, that strikes the more forcibly, the more minutely and narrowly the subject is investigated.

No other book, well known to be a work of fiction, or of forgery, could bear the touch of such a test. And it ought to be observed, that no other book, composed from fancy, consists of so large a collection of distinct pieces, on so many, and so difficult, and so different subjects, written by different men, at different times; a circumstance which makes this whole train of reasoning an argument a fortiori in favour of the Bible.

VII. OBJECTIONS.

THE expertness of infidelity, in offering repeatedly the same stale objections, is well known. The talents and success with which they have all been minutely and fully answered, are equally undeniable. And there is a third thing, which the whole history of the contest proves with no less certainty,—the total omission to rejoin in closely grappling with these answers, or, indeed, to rejoin at all. Still, the friends of revelation must go on in their dispassionate but firm defence of so great a cause; anticipating such objections as an hostile and perverted ingenuity may yet advance, to perplex, if not to conquer. Besides, there is an exalted satisfaction, and no small confirmation of our faith, in simply surveying the works constructed to secure us from the enemy. "Walk about Zion, and go round about her; tell the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following. For this God is our God, for ever and ever.”

One objection to our argument the deist will think very plain; -a direct and manifest opposition, in many important instances, and not an agreement, between nature and revelation. It will be said, the latter demands for duties,-self-denial, love of enemies, and a spiritual abstraction from the world; while nature urges just the contrary.

But we have shown, that revelation is adapted to nature, not as an indulgence, but as a remedy. Nature may be viewed in two respects, as perfect or imperfect, sound or corrupted. If in the latter, then whatever means may be employed as corrective, must work its effect by a principle of resistance, and by victory. Ought a physician to order luxuries where abstinence, and medicine, and regimen are wanting? The question is, whether what is censured by the Scriptures is really evil, and whether its destruction would not essentially promote our happiness? Besides, in this respect, reason, and the general regulations of society,—nay, deism itself, as well as Christianity, -arc liable to the same charge, if charge it must be called, of frequently prohibiting the gratification of the sense and of the mind. The fitness in question owes its peculiar excellence to the very property which the objector condemns, a property communicated in the planning wisdom of God, with the express design to answer a valuable purpose.

Again: It may be asked, "If such be the adaptations of the Christian scheme to the nature of man, why have not the metaphysicians, those judges of the mind, discovered this accordance ?"

We reply, that there are instances of moral blindness, and of rejection of the truth, in this, class of persons, as well as in other professions ;-instances which go to prove the moral weakness and depravity of the brightest minds, as asserted in the Scriptures, and thus point out the very fitness of which we speak,-a fitness to enlighten the understanding in regard to its own corruption. Some philosophers will not take the pains to investigate the subject, and contemn the system which they have never studied, when they ought merely to reproach their own voluntary ignorance. Hume himself, a man of uncommon literature, confessed, as we before observed, that he had never read the whole of the New Testament. A repeated and careful contemplation of the parts he had perused is, therefore, not very probable. Such men are also frequently deceived by appearances of moral excellence in human nature. They are attracted by the beauty of its fragments, and forget that it is a ruin. Finding a fluted pillar here, and a flourished capital there, they dream the fabric is complete, and are lost in the praises of its ideal, as if it were actual, perfection. Sometimes, however, the existing deformity forces itself upon their notice; and Fontaine observes, "I fear nature has given to man a principle of malignity." Persons of this description are not likely to receive the plain and humiliating truths of the Bible.

But may we not ask, Why have not all philosophers perceived the fitness and excellence of deism? Or, is there really no weight of names, in the world of letters, against infidelity? How happens it, that the perfect adaptation of this grand, this matchless system, does not uniformly strike all men of true discernment with a sense of its superior claims ?

After all, there are metaphysicians of the highest rank, who acknowledge the perfect suitableness of revelation to the state and structure of the human mind. We need hardly select, from the numerous list, the names of Bacon, and Milton, and Locke. But, perhaps, with the deist, these will only pass for weak men and fools. Whatever may, indeed, be said of the inefficiency of the Gospel to prevail with this or any other class of men, no argument will thence arise against the character

of the system, since reason, and conscience, and law, and natural affection,-and, again we will add, even deism, that unequalled scheme of truth, and power, and goodness,-have all failed to produce a perfect renovation in the state of the world.

Another objection relates to the manner in which the alleged forgery of the Bible may be supposed to have occurred. The infidel must allow, that there is at least, true or false, some general line of correspondence, and contrast, and opposition, between the system of nature and that of revelation. The first presents us with crime, the second offers pardon. The former abounds with misery and death; the latter speaks of the resurrection of the body, and of an eternal state of happiThe other numerous instances must be present to the mind of the reader.

ness.

Now, the question is, How could all these have entered the imagination of an impostor? The deist will, perhaps, observe, that the real side of this line of contrasts might suggest the fictitious. Thus he admits, to some extent, the adaptations which we have all along attempted to prove. Yet even this seems too great a stretch for the genius of obscure men. But how shall we account for many portions of the Scripture-scheme, for which there is no apparent counterpart in nature, such as the doctrine of the Trinity? Besides, we have shown, that even as to the real side, there are characters and circumstances which could only have been learned from what we have called "the supposed fictitious side of the line;" instance, in the case of human depravity; the origin, and full extent, and bearing of which could never have been known without revelation. And this additional knowledge we find to be correct by looking back on nature, as observed before; and perceiving, in the undeniable facts and characters of nature, the truth of the information. How, then, could nature suggest such parts of the alleged imposture ?

There are possibly some infidels who will say,-and the assertion would not be more absurd than many others on record by the party, that all these correspondencies are merely the effect of accident. Accident! Did accident ever furnish out even the smallest organized part of a windmill ? Could the half of any complex machine-say a watch-be supplied by accident? The supposed impostors sit down to write a falsc book, and having given full scope to their reveries, it is found