fore, the very height of obstinacy, to deny a fact because it is rare, if supported by credible and unsuspicious testimony. If such facts as we call miraculous were stated to be performed by the power of man, we might reasonably doubt them: but if they are referred to God as the agent, we cannot reject them, although we do not know the means by which he has brought them to pass. If we do doubt them, we can advance no other reason, than that they are so rare, that they cannot be believed; and because they are rare, the witnesses, however honest and sincere, and competent to ascertain the reality of the fact, must have deceived themselves, and cannot be credited. The power of God to effect miracles cannot be doubted; nor is it any argument against the suspension or violation of that order of nature which depends on himself, and is called a miracle, that it has been done seldom. If a thing has been done seldom, is it therefore impossible? Is the presumption arising from things usual that no unusual thing will happen, a proof clear, certain, and positive, that such unusual things will not happen? and is this presumption to be made a ground for our rejecting the positive evidence of thousands, who have given every evidence of their sincerity, that such unusual things did happen, and that they were witnesses of them? I know not to what principle such a disbelief can be attributed, but to the obstinacy of the will; for certainly it wants a reason. The Apostles saw our Saviour after he had been crucified and laid in the grave, and evinced their belief in this truth in every situation and circumstance, to the last moment of their lives: the unbeliever has no direct contrary testimony to oppose to this, and he rejects positive testimony, solely because he never saw such a similar event, and such events are not recorded in other histories. The whole is reduced to this: he does not believe the testimony of others, precisely because he did not see the fact; and he can assign no other cause of suspicion against the witnesses, but that the event was unusual-impossible, he dare not call it. Miracles, therefore, can be performed by the Creator through the instrumentality of such agents as he thinks proper to select; and the fact of their having been performed can be proved by the honest and uncorrupted testimony of men. Nor will this power, nor the fact, be denied by any sober man; though thousands should still disbelieve, not because they know them not to have been performed, but because such events did not fall under their personal knowledge. I admit that caution is necessary in receiving evidence for any thing that is unusual, but the mind must be wilfully hardened to all truth and knowledge, that will refuse to admit testimony to a fact, -to which he is naturally cautious and reluctant to assent, merely on the ground of its being proper to be cautious and reluctant. Miracles are not the only evidence for the truth of the Scriptures, though they constitute a chief and important point; and when we know from other sources, and by other evidence, the unerring certainty of the testimony of those that relate them, the sober-minded man gives his assent without qualification or reserve; and indeed, it would be absurd and irrational to do otherwise, since, from other evidence he has the conviction, that those who related these miracles cannot lie, as they are recorded by the Holy Spirit (against whose testimony there ought to be no appeal), and testified by thousands and thousands, both of those who believed and those who did not believe, in the agent, and in the object of such miracles. The Jews and Christians are an example of different people, of different faiths, believing in the miracles of the Old Testament. No similar example can be adduced respecting any miracle that is doubtful or pretended; and this alone affords at least a presumption, that there is such evidence in the nature of the miracles themselves, the testimony that attests them (or arising from other causes), as tends to produce similar conviction in the minds of people who differ in almost every thing else. This fact also shows, that a belief in the existence of miracles is not inconsistent with the human mind, founding this belief on testimony. Were the same testimony and evidence, occurring in every age, and gathering strength as time rolls on, brought forward in support of any other doctrine, except for that of the Christian religion, of doctrines, in fact, which require only the assent of the understanding to the evidence, and not a change of life and conduct, I am persuaded that the miracles in the Scriptures would have been received without objection or scruple, universally. Let the Deist, therefore, commune with his own conscience; let him dispassionately inquire into the cause of his rejection of the evidence in support of the Christian miracles: does it arise from the clearness of his reason, that detects and rejects falsehood,-or is it indeed produced by his enmity and repugnance to the doctrines and precepts which the Scriptures command him to receive? Referred to in page 70. CYRUS PREDICTED BY NAME. Not only was the name of Cyrus plainly expressed in this prediction, but it describes the most minute circumstances of an event that did not transpire for more than two centuries after its delivery, and long before any of the events out of which it arose existed. It contained a direct intimation that he would not be a believer in the God of Israel, -all this was fulfilled in every point. One hundred and twenty years elapsed ere the temple and city of Jerusalem were destroyed; during that time the prediction was preserved by the very people, whose humiliation it implied, and who persisting as they did, to the last, in the disbelief of every intimation of their captivity, would gladly have suppressed all that related to it, if possible. In part of the prediction, Cyrus is surnamed 'the Shepherd of God,' and this name is applied to him in the writings of Xenophon. And to complete the evidence in proof of the precision that attended the fulfilment of this prediction, we are informed' by the same historian, that pagan sacrifices to the heathen deities were offered by his request in his presence at the time of his death. He thus invokes them : « O paternal Jove, Sun, and all ye gods, receive these as completions of many and noble actions and tokens of thanks; because in sacrifices, in heavenly signs, in auguries, and in predicting voices, you have shown me things which it was fit, and which it was not fit, for me to do. Thus Cyropædia, lib. viii., cap. 45. we are reminded that, while it is said, "I have surnamed thee,» Referred to in page 71. THE kingdom of Egypt ceased with the destruction of the Ptole- Referred to in page 75. DANIEL, ix, 25. This commandment is the beginning of the 70 Let the 20th of Artaxerxes be the date of the 70 weeks, which is the 445th year before A. D., and reckon 69 weeks of Chaldean years, 70 Chaldean years being equal to 69 Julian; and so 478 Julian years making 483 Chaldean, and they end in the 33d year after Christ, or the passover following. Answer to the Grounds and Reasons, etc., p. 139. It will not perhaps be esteemed tedious, if, in illustration of this point, I refer to Dr Gill, whose learning and industry were equal. « The Syriac version, though not a literal one, gives the true sense of the passage, rendering it, 'Unto the coming of the King Messiah,' unto which there were to be 7 and 62 weeks, or 69 weeks, which make 483 years; and these being understood of eastern years, used by the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Persians, consisting of 360 days, reckoning 30 days to a month, and 12 months to a year, there were just 483 of these from the 20th year of Artaxerxes, to the 33d year of the vulgar era of Christ, and the 19th of Tiberius Cæsar, in which he suffered.» -From DR GILL, in loc. Referred to in page 89. DR KENNEDY had gone extensively through the external evidences, which contain much interesting information, but which might, nevertheless, be esteemed prolix by the general reader, especially with such books of reference as « Haldane's Evidences,» «Horne's Introduction, and Erskine's excellent work. As Dr Kennedy lived not to touch on the internal evidence-on which he placed the greatest weight-the Editor has considered that it would not be unjust to Dr K. to omit his reasonings on the first part, with the reservation only of the following abstract : « If the Jewish books had merely contained an account that, two thousand years ago, their founder, Abraham, was a shepherd; that his descendants increased, and by their bravery liberated themselves from the Egyptian bondage;-that, after leaving Egypt, they wandered in quest of new settlements-and, allured by the fertility of Canaan, conquered, by their own valour, the inhabitants; extirpating some, expelling others, and reducing the remainder to subjection;-that, tired of elective |