“The satirist may laugh, the philosopher may preach; but reason herself will respect the prejudices and habits which have been consecrated by the experience of mankind.”  But Dr H., we see, is not content with the dictates of reason; he calls in another aid to maintain this exercise of private judgment.  Has he appealed to Scripture?  Then to Scripture he shall go.  But perhaps it may be said to him, as a popish priest, defending the doctrine of purgatory, said to a protestant, who did not relish it, “He may go farther, and fare worse.  The language of the Bible seems not to concur in the propriety of the Doctor’s philosophic apathy in such occurrences.  The Psalmist, it may be safely affirmed, knew as much of human nature as the Doctor, and was as well acquainted too with what was becoming worship.  He, however, differs egregiously in opinion.  In the 107th psalm, which so beautifully describes the manifold goodness, and yet the varying providences of the Most High, we find a passage which strikingly applies to such a case as we have been contemplating, and which, at the same time, points out the natural and highly proper emotions which result from it.  “They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.  For he commandeth and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof.  They mount up to heaven, they go down again to the depths; their soul is melted because of trouble.  They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and all their wisdom is swallowed up.  Then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their distresses.  He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still.  Then are they glad because they be quiet; so he bringeth them unto their desired haven.  Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!” Almost every word of this gives the lie to the practical consequences of our Doctor’s theory.  It would be invidious to oppress him with any other of the numerous such like instances which this book presents.  He appears to make much of the obvious impropriety of using such terms as happened, in speaking of certain events.  But this is childish; for every one knows that by such terms is expressed merely our ignorance of the series or train of operations by which those events are brought to pass.  They are used in respect of ourselves, not by any means in reference to the Deity.  But there is something vastly worse than childishness, in his insinuation as to what Omnipotence might do in preventing, not remedying evils.  They breathe a spirit of malevolent disaffection, which is indeed but very imperfectly smothered in the decent language of conjectural propositions.  A sounder philosophy than his own would have told Dr H. in the words of Bacon, that “the prerogative of God extendeth as well to the reason, as to the will of man;” and that therefore it became him