the original. Thus, Matt. xii, 25, Πάσα πολις η οικία μερισθεισα καθ' ÉαUTNS, 8 sadnostα- Every city or house divided against itself, shall not stand :'-speaking more correctly, according to the idiom of our language, we ought to say, 'No city or house divided against itself shall stand. And in 1 John ii, 19, Αλλ' ίνα φανερωθωσιν ότι εκ εισι Tavτes & μwv-They went out, that they might be made manifest, that they were not all of us;' we should rather say in the last clause, that none of them were of us.' So also, in Hebrews vii, 7, Xwgis Taons avriλoylas-without all contradiction,'-should rather be, without any contradiction.'

'Where moth and rust doth corrupt,' Matt. vi, 19-should be, • where moth and rust corrupt.'

In examining a translation executed two hundred and twenty years ago, according to the strict rules of modern English grammar, the wonder is, not that any inaccuracies should be detected, but that those actually detected should be so few. And though these errors render our version less correct and less elegant than it otherwise would be, they rarely, if ever, affect the sense of any passage.

W. P. B.

PROPHECIES AND MIRACLES OF THE SACRED
SCRIPTURES.

Ir is asserted by skeptics, that, having no other account of the prophecies and of the miracles except what is found in the sacred Scriptures themselves, this account cannot be fairly considered as substantial proof of the truth and Divine authority of those Scriptures. In considering this question, as it is successfully contended by Christian writers that there are prophecies contained in the sacred volume which were fulfilled after the close of the canonical Scriptures, and are even now fulfilling, we will leave out of our inquiry the prophecies, and confine ourselves wholly to the miracles, which they assert to have been wrought by the finger of God.

That the objection may appear in its entire weight, we will endeavor to state it fairly, that we may look it fully in the face, and see if we can furnish it with a satisfactory answer.

In the first place, it must be observed, that the objection takes for granted that the only account we have of the flood, of the confusion of tongues, the deliverance of Israel from bondage, the passage of the Red Sea, &c, as recorded in the Old Testament; the birth of Jesus Christ, the miracles which He wrought in confirmation of His doctrine, His crucifixion and death, of His resurrection and ascension, of the effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the day of pentecost; and also of the various miracles recorded in the Acts of the Apostles; that the truth of all these things rests solely on the authority of the Scriptures themselves; and that therefore, before we receive them as true, we take for granted the truth of the Scripture narratives; and that hence

it follows, that those reputed miracles cannot be justly adduced as proofs that the Scriptures are true. This seems to be the weight and burden of the objection. And we are compelled to allow, from the respect we have for the majesty of truth, that, granting the truth of the proposition, in all its length and breadth, we cannot gainsay it; that is, allowing that we have no other account nor evidence of these miracles than what is found in the Holy Scriptures, and no other evidence of their truth, we cannot infer the truth of the miracles themselves without first inferring the truth of the Scriptures. And hence it follows most undeniably, that the miracles cannot be adduced as a proof of the Divine authority of the Scriptures until the sacred Scriptures themselves are allowed to be true; and when this is done, the reality of the miracles follows as a necessary corollary, though their existence is not necessary to substantiate a truth already established. From all this, it follows, that the truth of sacred Scripture must be proved before we can rationally believe that such miracles were wrought as are recorded in them. All this must, we think, be fully granted namely, that the reputed miracles of the Scriptures cannot be adduced a priori in favor of the Divine authority of these sacred records.

To illustrate this point. A man affirms that Robinson Crusoe lived so many years upon a desolate island-that he subsisted at first upon roots and herbs-obtained fire by rubbing two sticks together-constructed him a habitation in a cave, which he fortified-and that he was finally delivered by means of the crew of a shipwrecked vessel. We ask him how he came to the knowledge of all these facts and circumstances? He answers, by reading the history of Crusoe's adventures. Do you believe the facts you have related? Yes, verily. Why do you believe them? Because, says he, the book itself is proved to be true, from the marvellous events therein related. Does this prove the genuineness and authenticity of the book? By no means. The truth of the narrative is assumed before the incidents of Crusoe's life and adventures are believed. This every one must at once perceive.

Well; apply this to the case in hand. We take up the New Testament; and read that, at such a time, Jesus was born-that, in the course of his short life, he wrought various miracles, by healing the sick, raising the dead, &c,-that he finally died on the cross, rose again, and ascended to heaven. How do we know the things therein related to be true? Do we infer the truth of the narrative, because of the marvellous nature of the events therein recorded? This sort of evidence would convert the most marvellous adventures into truth, merely because the narrator saw fit to embellish his story with marvellous tales; and the more unheard-of and naturally incredible the

events which are related, the stronger the evidence of their truth! This mode of reasoning would destroy all distinction between things credible and incredible; and would oblige us to swallow all the marvellous stories, which have been related by designing impostors, however false and absurd! Before, therefore, we can rationally believe in the miracles recorded in the Bible to be true, we must first prove that the Bible is itself true, independently of all the miracles therein recorded. But, when we have thus established the truth of the Bible, we have fully ascertained the truth of all it contains, and of course the genuineness of its miracles: and hence also the Divine Hand is fully and unequivocally recognized in the production of all these mighty events; for surely nothing short of omnipotence could effect such miracles as are recorded in the Bible, allowing them to have been effected as therein related.

1

Now, the question is, Are the sacred Scriptures susceptible of any such proof as is required in the present case? We think they are. And the first sort of proof is what has been very properly called internal; and the second collateral, or that which arises from analogous testimony of other authors, who flourished and wrote about the same time respecting the same events and transactions which are recorded by the sacred historians.

In respect to the first sort of testimony, it arises out of the nature of the subject on which the inspired writers treat-the manner in which they wrote and spoke-the agreement of their testimony-and the harmony of their sentiments. There is, in the language of truth, an honesty of expression—an independence and dignity of thoughta purity of sentiment, and a boldness of manner-which inspire confidence almost irresistibly; and which it is extremely difficult for imposture to counterfeit. That these marks of truth apply to the Holy Scriptures throughout, seems to be generally admitted. Nor is it easy to find a justifiable motive for either falsehood or deceit in any of the writers or transactions of the sacred Scriptures. They often suffered for their testimony; and their lives declared the sincerity and integrity of their hearts in what they professed with their lips.

We cannot enter into a full examination of those several branches of testimony on the present occasion; but merely allude to them, to show what is meant by that sort of internal testimony by which the sacred writers commend themselves to the belief and approbation of mankind. We are of the opinion, however, that a thorough examination of this subject will lead to the conclusion, that this sort of testimony is the strongest which can be adduced in favor of the truth of Christianity. The authors of this system of religion were too honest to lie-too good to deceive-and too wise to be imposed upon; and the predictions which they uttered were pregnant

Abraham and others, or by the voice of His prophets and evangelists; and, as He now does, through the medium of the sacred volume. But still it is God proclaiming Himself. He shines by His own light. He exhibits His own character in His own way. And in this light of Himself He makes Himself manifest, according to the plain declaration of the inspired writer, In thy light we see light.'

Is it to be supposed, that when God was making His Book for the instruction and edification of His offspring, that He could not accompany its pages and announcement with such a sort of testimony respecting its origin, as to convince all its readers from whence it came, independently of all extraneous testimony? Allowing that He could do this, does it not follow, that, whenever this Book is taken up and read with candor and attention, this evidence of its truth is perceived and felt? And does it not also follow, that this evidence is anterior to all other testimony; and, therefore, of the strongest and most indubitable character?

We cannot, however, pursue this branch of the subject farther at this time. Let us therefore inquire, whether there be any collateral testimony, which may be relied upon as corroborating the sort of evidence to which we have alluded. To illustrate our meaning upon this point, we will allude to the history of Robinson Crusoe again. Suppose that other authors had described the same island, stating the same facts respecting its local situation, its soil, and productions, the cave in which the unfortunate adventurer resided, &c; and should add, that they had examined the grotto, and other places which he had described; and affirm that they had been accurately described by the author of Crusoe; and moreover that they had seen fragments of bones of lamas, which had been killed, cooked, and eaten, and other marks that the island had been visited by some civilized man or men about the time Crusoe is said to have resided there; would not all this be a strong corroboration of the truth of the history of his adventures?

Now, let us apply this to the case in hand. Moses relates, that, in the days of Noah, about 1656 years after the creation, a flood came upon the earth, at the command of God, and destroyed all its inhabitants except Noah and his family. Is there any thing in the writings of other authors which seems to refer to this event, and thereby to corroborate its truth? We think there is. It has been contended by some, that antiquity abounds with testimonies relating to this most extraordinary event; that even the whole heathen mythology sprang from traditional accounts, often indeed obscured by fabled embellishments, of the general deluge; that Prometheus, Deucalion, Atlas, Theuth, Zuth, Xuthus, Inachus, Osiris, Dagon, and others, are all only different names by which Noah was intended. It is certain, that traditions concerning the destruction of the old world, either partially

or entirely by water, are found among the fragments of the most ancient heathen writers. Eusebius has preserved a passage from Abydenus's history of Assyria, to the following effect:

'After these reigned many others, and then Seisisthrus, to whom Saturn foretold that there shall be a prodigious flood of rain, on the 15th day of the month Desius; and commanded him to deposit all his writings in Heliopolis, a city of the Sipparians. Having obeyed this injunction, Seisisthrus, without delay, sailed into Armenia, and found the prediction of the god realized. On the third day, after the waters were abated, he sent out birds, that he might ascertain whether the earth had yet appeared through the flood. But these, finding only a boundless sea, and having no resting place, returned to Seisisthrus. In the same manner did others. And again he sent the third time; for they had returned to him having their wings polluted with mud. Then the gods translated him from among men his ship came into Armenia, the wood of which is used for a charm.' He refers also to the dove of Noah. Speaking of the natural sagacity of animals, he says, Deucalion's dove, sent from the ark, upon her return, brought a sure indication that the tempest had yielded to tranquillity.' The striking resemblance between this account of the flood and that of Moses, must be perceived by every reader; and we cannot but consider it a strong corroboration of its truth. For even allowing that for which some contend, that the heathen borrowed his account of this matter from Moses, it by no means weakens the force of the testimony. Whether he derived his information from the sacred records, or from a more uncertain tradition, the manner in which he records it shows that he fully believed it, and that it was currently believed among his nation.

Berosus is said to have flourished about 270 years before the Christian era. He signalized himself by his astronomical productions, and particularly by writing a history of Chaldea, some fragments of which are preserved by Josephus in his book against Appian. In his first book, he makes the following statement: This Berosus, treading in the steps of the most eminent writers, has recorded the same facts as Moses, in relation to the deluge-the destruction of mankind by itthe ark in which Noah, the father of our race, was preserved—and its resting upon the tops of the Armenian mountains.' After this relation, Berosus adds :-" It is reported that part of the ship now remains in Armenia, on the Gordyean mountains; and that some bring thence pitch, which they use as a charm.'

Lucian, who was born near the close of the first century of the Christian era, and rose to great eminence as a scholar, and was certainly no friend to Christianity, speaks of a very remote history of the ark, laid up in Heliopolis of Syria; and, according to him, the account