me, shall sit upon twelve thrones,' &c. This arrangement is adopted in some of the modern versions of the New Testament, as the French, the Italian, and the Portuguese.

A few slight grammatical inaccuracies may be noticed in our version of the Bible; although, for general accuracy and elegance of language, it holds a very high rank, and stands unrivalled among the publications of the age which produced it.

'And so was also James and John, the sons of Zebedee,' Luke v, 10-should be, And so were also James and John,' &c.

'On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty,' &c, Acts xxii, 30-should be, ‘On the morrow, because he would know the certainty.'

They might have had opportunity to have returned,' Hebrews xi, 15-more correctly, They might have had opportunity to return.' 'And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three,' 1 Cor. xiii, 13more correctly,' And now abide faith, hope, love, these three.'

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother,' &c, 1 John iv, 20-should be, If a man say, I love God, and hate his brother.' And if we know that he hear us,' &c, 1 John v, 15-should be, And if we know that he heareth us.'

If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest,' &c, Matt. v, 23-should be, If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remember,' &c.

say,

'Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?' Matt. vii, 9, 10. To convey the sense in correct English, we should 'What man is there of you, who, if his son ask for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he ask for a fish, will give him a serpent?' Or thus, If there be any man of you from whom his son shall ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?'

·

6

The expression, a far country,' wherever it occurs, ought to be ‘a distant country.'

Thine often infirmities,' 1 Tim. v, 23, ought to be thy frequent infirmities.'

The terms wot, wotteth, wist, being at present obsolete, we should substitute for them, know, knoweth, knew.

'We do you to wit of the grace of God,' &c, 2 Cor. viii, 1, should be, We make known unto you the grace of God.'.

6

The fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,'-' every winged fowl after his kind,'-' If the salt have lost his savour.' In these, and all similar cases, his should be altered into its.

'If men strive together, and one smite another with a stone or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed,' Exodus xxi, 18-should be, and he die not, but keep his bed.'

'Doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?' Matt. xviii, 12-should be, Doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and go into the mountains, and seek that which is gone astray?'

The Greeks frequently express a universal negative by means of the adjective was and the adverb 8 or 8x; but such sentences, literally translated into English, do not precisely or fully convey the sense of

the original. Thus, Matt. xii, 25, Пada modis noxia pepotica xat' ÉαUTNS, 8 sadnoera- 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' ἵνα φανερωθωσιν ότι εκ εισι Tavres εğ Яμwv—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 avriλoyias- 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.

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 thought— a 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

with events too vast for mere human conception, and the precepts which they delivered were too pure in their character to proceed from any hearts that were tinctured with hypocrisy, or from lips that were accustomed to utter deceit. The strict adherence, also, of the authors of these truths, amidst privations of the most painful character, and sacrifices of the most costly kind, is no slender proof that they fully believed what they spoke and wrote; and therefore, that if they labored under a delusion, it was a delusion perfectly compatible with the purest sincerity and the most inflexible integrity. Nor are the effects which Christianity did produce, and even now produces, on the tempers and lives of its professed believers and followers, to be considered as slender evidences of the truth and friendly bearing of the system, wherever it gains an entrance into the understandings, and becomes a regulator of the consciences and conduct of men.

Whether these topics of evidence will satisfy the speculative mind or not, they appear to us to carry a weight with them which cannot be easily resisted; and to amount, in their united influence, to a moral demonstration in support of the Divine authority of the sacred Scriptures. We say, none but God could have enabled men to utter such predictions, because none else could have conceived them possible,— that none but God could have inspired such truths-could have delivered such precepts of morality-and have revealed such doctrines, so holy and sublime,—and that none but a God of love would have devised and executed an entire system of religion so admirably adapted to promote the present and future well being of the human family. Let those who doubt these conclusions candidly examine the system in all its length and breadth, and make up their minds according to the lights of truth and a good conscience. But, as before said, we cannot dwell upon this branch of our subject, but must content ourselves with only some brief hints in reference to it. And let those who doubt of its weight and applicability, recollect that this or some other sort of testimony, independently of prophecies and miracles, must be brought to bear on this subject before the miraculous interferences recorded in the Holy Scriptures can be rationally received as unquestionably true. To argue the truth of the Scriptures from the reality of the miracles, and then to infer the reality of the miracles from the truth of Scripture, is but an imitation of the sophistry of the Roman Catholic writers, who undertake to prove the infallibility of the canons of their Church, because popes, cardinals, or councils have decreed them; and then to infer the infallibility of popes, cardinals, or councils from the infallibility of the said canons. This is what has been very properly called arguing in a circle; you proceed in a perpetual round of argumentation without ever coming to the end by a sound

conclusion.