THE SKEPTIC MET by G. W. A.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 11, 1860

THE SKEPTIC MET.

By G. W. A.

Concluded.

JUDG. XI, 31 JEPHTHAH'S VOW.

"And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."

Skeptics are often very uncharitable in treating of Jephthah's vow. We offer our solution of it. 1. Vows were not commanded of the Lord, but laws were given to regulate them. 2. Some vows are better broken than kept—as the case of the forty Jews who bound themselves under a great curse to kill Paul, and Herod's vow which cost John Baptist his head. 3. When Jephthah vowed that he would offer the first thing that met him on his return, it implied if it was a thing suitable for an offering. Would he offer a dog, or cat, or camel, or horse, or a neighbor's child if either of these had met him? Certainly not. All these were forbidden in the law. The last part of this verse is thus rendered by Dr. Adam Clarke, and generally sanctioned by Hebrew critics: "I will consecrate it to the Lord, OR I will offer it for a burnt offering;" that is, if it is a

thing suitable for a burnt offering, it shall be made one; if fit for the service of God, it shall be consecrated to him." But even if Jephthah had sacrificed his only daughter, Christianity would not be amenable for it—for so rash a deed, resulting from a plain misunderstanding of his own duty.

JUDG. XV, 1-8. SAMSON'S FOXES.

In looking at this singular procedure of this riddle of a man we notice several very important things. 1. Samson was not obliged to catch these 300 foxes alone. In the Scriptures as in common parlance, a man is said to do a thing who employs agents to do it. 2. He was not obliged to catch all these animals in one day—it probably took several. 3. "The Hebrew word shualim," says Prof. Bush, "is now generally agreed to have in its meanings not only foxes, but also jackals, an animal rightly described as something between the wolf and the fox, and hence sometimes termed by naturalists 'the wolf-fox.' These animals, which are very numerous in Palestine, associate together in large herds or flocks, sometimes to the amount of two or three hundred. But as both these animals are included under the word shual, we must let the context decide which is meant." He took fire brands—that is, made a torch or flambeau of some resinous wood which would not go out by being trailed through the fields. If it be questioned why Samson should resort to such an expedient when he could more easily do it with his hands, we reply, that by the meanness and weakness of the instruments employed, he designed to put a more signal contempt upon the enemies with whom he contended, thus mingling ridicule with revenge.

1 SAM. XV, 33. SAMUEL'S HEWING AGAG TO PIECES BEFORE THE LORD.

The position taken here by Voltaire and others that it was for a sacrifice to the Lord, is simply an unreasonable perversion of facts.

What Samuel did here was no doubt in his magisterial capacity. It is not likely that he even did it with his own sword, but by that of an executioner. What kings, magistrates, and generals do in an official way by their subjects, servants or soldiers, they are said to do themselves. But the whole context here shows that Agag had forfeited his life by personal transgressions, and that his death now was only a just retribution of his cruelties. "Cavillers," as Mr. Carpenter observes, "have called this being put to death in cold blood and cruel, but it was just as cruel as the hanging of a murderer in cold blood, and no more so."

2 SAM. XI. DAVID AND URIAH.

We are often told that in this person we have an instance of flagrant crime in the man after God's own heart.

It is admitted. But mark, it does not say in this connection that David was a man after God's own heart, nor was he such then any more than any wicked transgressor is a man after God's own heart. The testimony from Nathan was, "By this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme." No one denies but what David was guilty of murder and a sinner before heaven. When God declared that he was a man after his own heart it was sixty years before this public sin, and truly such he then was. But as the doctrine "once in grace always in grace" is a false one, we see it painfully illustrated in the case of David. He who had conquered in many a hard fought battle is now led captive by his own wicked lust.

But notice, in this chapter we have the most illustrious proof of the divine authenticity of the sacred writings. Who, that intended to deceive by trumping up a religion that he intended to father on the purity of God, would have inserted such a circumstance? If the Bible was the work of men such things would be carefully concealed; they would never come to light. But the inspired writer here tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and this matter is related for caution and not for imitation. Speaking of this transaction Dr. Clarke says: "I pity David; I venerate Uriah; I detest Joab, and think meanly of Bathsheba." If skeptics and scoffers would only imitate David in his unfeigned repentance, their labors would be more signally blessed in pointing out the sins of the righteous.

2 SAM. XXIV, 1. DAVID'S NUMBERING ISRAEL.

The objection here is that David numbers Israel either at the instigation of God or Satan (it says both), and seventy thousand of the people perish.

As this matter is quite a stumbling stone to many we will examine it carefully. The great sin here consisted in unadvisedly taking a census of the people. The matter occurred about twenty years after the death of Uriah the Hittite. David, slackening in his piety and confidence toward God, meditated some extension of his kingdom, and was naturally curious to know whether he had a sufficient number of military men for the purpose. The command was given to number Israel from "Dan to Beersheba;" Joab objected, but the king's word prevailed. Afterwards David's heart "smote him," and he acknowledged that he had "sinned" and "done foolishly." Now in what did this sin consist? Answer. In numbering the people without the consent of the Lord. Moses, at the command of the Lord had twice taken a census of the people and no trouble followed. But David did it in the pride of his heart, which was Hezekiah's sin in showing his treasures to the heathen ambassadors. Perhaps it was a proud conceit in having the command of so numerous a people. It was a vain confidence in his own strength. By publishing among the nations the number of his people he thought to appear more formidable, and doubted not that he should intimidate his enemies with the number of his forces. This was vaunting himself and leaning upon the arm of flesh instead of that of God. So much for numbering the people.

But it says God "moved David" to do it. Answer. It says also in the corresponding account in Chronicles that "Satan provoked" him to do it. How is this? A reasonable explication of this is found in the case of Job. Satan, or the adversary, came before the Lord and preferred charges against the righteous man of Uz. God permits Job to come very much under his power. His flocks are dispersed, he is smitten with disease, he is bereft of his children, and in this calamity he cries out, "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord." Yet Satan must have the credit of this strange work. God permitted Satan to tempt David to number the people, for it reads, "the anger of the Lord was kindled against ISRAEL." This explains why seventy thousand of the people were cut off. Whether their sin consisted in rebellion against the crown and setting up Absalom for king, a thing they had done a little before, we cannot particularly say; but certain it was they were guilty of some national defection which the Most High did not see fit to leave unpunished. Thus wrath came upon the nation, "and when the angel of the Lord stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough;" that is, as the Hebrew signifies and the Douay translates, "the Lord HAD PITY on the affliction."

Believing these remarks are sufficient to satisfy honest skeptics, we conclude on the point.

2 KINGS VIII, 26. THE AGE OF AHAZIAH.

The record says, "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign," but in the corresponding account in 2 Chron. xxii, 2, it reads, "forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign;" and as his father took the throne when he was thirty-two years old and ruled eight years, and so died forty years old, the text in Chronicles would make the son two years older than his father! Dr. Clarke says, "I am satisfied the reading in 2 Chron. xxii, 2 is a mistake, and should read there as here, twenty-two instead of forty-two years." The Syriac and Arabic have "twenty-two," which critics usually regard as the true reading. Clarke remarks, "It is very probable that the Hebrew text read so anciently, for when numbers were expressed by single letters, it was very easy to mistake מ mem, FORTY, for כ caph, TWENTY. And if this book was written in the ancient Hebrew letters, now called the Samaritan, the mistake was still more easy and probable, as the difference between כ caph and מ mem is very small, and can in many instances be discerned only by an accustomed eye." Few books are now printed without some errata, yet the authors do not therefore disown them, nor are the errors of the press imputed to the authors, neither will any wise person do this here.

DAVID'S PRAYERS.

It is alleged that the prayers of David exhibit a spirit of vindictive revenge utterly dissonant to the philanthropic feelings of a benevolent heart.

These obloquies prayers are mainly found in psalms 69, 109, and 137 which are pre-eminently called "the cursing psalms." If the truth is known, the great objection to these psalms and the Bible, is the sin-hating God presented in its pages. The God who drowned the world—destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by fire—extirpated the bloody Canaanites—and thunders his curses against sinners of every land and age is not the God whom skeptics and Universalists love. A mild, easy, good-natured being who would allow them to live and die in sin without any punishment would suit far better. But what about David's prayers? We reply, those psalms that contain these exceptionable sentiments are typical of tribulation on the enemies of the church. They are predictive. We notice a few expressions. "Let his prayer become sin," no doubt referring to the traitor Judas. What of this? Judiciously paraphrased it would stand thus: Let him be accused, convicted, and condemned; and let the defense which he brings for his justification only serve to deepen his guilt and hasten his condemnation. Again, "Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." This is spoken of ancient Babylon, and was fulfilled by Cyrus and Darius, who took the city and slaughtered its inhabitants, in an indiscriminate manner. Babylon sacked Jerusalem, fired the temple, led Israel captive, and they were haughty and cruel to all under their domination. "Happy shall he be that dasheth thy little ones," &c. That is—So oppressive hast thou been to all under thy authority as to become universally hated and detested; so that even the heathen who shall have a hand in thy destruction and total extermination shall be reputed happy—shall be celebrated and extolled by mankind for ridding the world of so grievous a curse! This prophetic declaration contains no incitement to commit acts of cruelty, but is simply declarative of the retributive providence and justice of God, and the general opinion which should in consequence be expressed on the subject.

THE PROPHET ISAIAH. CHAP. XX.

The Lord directs the prophet to remove his sackcloth and shoes, and walk uncovered and barefoot for a sign to the people.

We understand by this that the prophet laid aside his outside robe and appeared among the people in an unusual garb. The outside covering of the orientals consists of a fold of cloth some six yards long and five or six feet wide. This is worn when they go abroad, and often serves among the poorer classes for a covering by night; but as it is rather cumbersome, when great exertions are to be made in running or laboring, it is often laid aside, when, as in the case of Peter, the person is said to be naked (Jno. xxi, 7). Virgil also speaks of the farmer "plowing and sowing naked;" that is, with this outside garment, which the Greeks call the hyke, laid aside. In 1 Sam. xix, 24, when king Saul stripped off his upper garment or royal robe and prophesied before Samuel he is said to have been naked; but none except the absolutely profane believe he prophesied in a state of nudity before the Lord! Also in military language troops are said to be naked who have no weapons. But the point is sufficiently clear.

JONAH AND THE WHALE. CHAP. I, 17.

The objection here is first, that whales are never found in the Mediterranean sea, and second, that a whale could not swallow a substance much larger than a man's arm.

We answer, it might have been a whale, for it says expressly, the Lord prepared it, and whales sometimes got into the Mediterranean by accident. But the Hebrew does not say it was a whale, but (dag gadol) "a great fish." It was probably a shark, as they can swallow a man with very little trouble. Gillius relates that they have been captured near Marseilles weighing 4000 pounds, in whose stomachs whole men were found enveloped in a coat of mail! In Matt. xii, 40, where our English translation says it was a whale, the Greek is ketos, which Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon defines, "any sea-monster, a huge fish, a shark," &c. If it be asked how Jonah could live in the fish's stomach, we reply it was a miracle from beginning to end, and there we leave it.

MATT. III, 5. ALL JUDEA BAPTIZED.

"There went out to him (John Baptist) Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan confessing their sins."

How is this to be interpreted? Answer. That there was a great excitement among the people respecting the strange teacher, and that John Baptist administered baptism to persons from Jerusalem, from all parts of Judea, and from the district around Jordan. Not that he baptized everybody in the country, but persons from all parts of that country. A good illustration of this hyperbolic mode of speaking is found in John iv, 29. Said the Samaritan woman, "Come see a man which told me all things that ever I did." But no one with a sane mind would interpret this as literally so.

MATT. XXVII, 9. THE QUOTATION FROM JEREMIAH.

The passage reads, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet," &c., but no such passage is found in Jeremiah, but Zechariah.

Several solutions of this difficulty might be offered. 1. A transposition of names arising from MSS. abbreviations: for example, some copyist mistaking Zou, Zechariah, for Iou, Jeremiah. 2. That Matthew simply quoted from the prophet without mentioning the name of the prophet. This he often does (see chaps. i, 22; ii, 5, 15; xiii, 35; xxi, 4). And it is a fact that the name is wanting in the ancient Syriac, Persic, and some of the Latin and Greek MSS., and is also omitted in several modern translations. Many critics are of the opinion that the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of Zechariah were copied from the book of Jeremiah, and it is a curious fact that the Jews had a saying that the spirit of Jeremiah was in ZECHARIAH. Dr. Lightfoot remarks that it was an ancient custom of the Jews to divide the Old Testament into three parts: the first, beginning with Genesis was called THE LAW; the second, commencing with the Psalms was called THE PSALMS; the third beginning with the prophet in question was called JEREMIAH. Thus the book of Zechariah, and all the prophets in that section, would go by the name of Jeremiah. This would solve the difficulty at once, and as we have said enough to show the point is easily explained, we leave it.

GENEALOGIES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE. CHAPS. I, & III.

It is objected by skeptics that the Bible must be a human production for here is a plain contradiction.

We reply, that this point, like all the rest, may be consistently explained. It says in Matthew that Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus was the son of Jacob, and in Luke that he was the son of Heli. Now how will this be reconciled and the veracity of both books not be impeached? Answer. By understanding that one writer gives the pedigree of Joseph, and the other that of Mary. Dr. Bloomfield in his Greek Testament says this difficulty is explained "by supposing that Matthew gives the genealogy of JOSEPH, and Luke that of MARY. And therefore the former who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree from Abraham to David, and so through Solomon's line to Joseph, the LEGAL father of Jesus. And it must be remembered that among the Jews legal descent is always reckoned in the male line. While Luke who wrote for the Gentiles, traces the pedigree upwards from Heli the father of Mary, to David and Abraham, and thence to Adam, the common father of all mankind." But, it may be asked, if the lineage in Luke is that of Mary why is her name not given? Answer. Among the Jews, as Bishop Pearce and others inform us, women were never permitted to enter into

their genealogical tables; and whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband as the son of him who was in reality but his father-in-law. Thus we have a rational solution of this skeptical difficulty. But if the books of Matthew and Luke were forgeries, either one or both of them, and contained errors in their genealogies, how quick those envious Jews, the priests, the doctors, the rabbis, would have seized upon their perversions and exposed them before the people! This single fact is enough to remove forever all doubt connected with the question.

TURNING WATER INTO WINE. JNO. II, 6.

Exceptions are sometimes taken to this miracle on the grounds that the copious supply of liquor would militate against the cause of temperance.

In meeting this objection we remark that the point will turn somewhat on the word metretes, rendered firkins or measures. If the Greek measure is meant it would actually make over two hogsheads! but if the Syriac, as bishop Cumberland supposes, the six pots would have contained about fourteen gallons and a quart. But as Dr. Clarke says, "The measures of the ancients are so very uncertain, that in this and numberless other cases it is best to attempt to determine nothing." Another very important point is whether the whole contents of the pots were converted into wine, or only what they drew out into the cup for use; and also whether the drink was intoxicating, or like all unfermented wine, sweet and harmless. Till skeptics are positive here; till they can certainly inform us whether the amount was fourteen gallons or a hundred and thirty; whether the company present was great or small; whether the amount of surplus wine would have been profaned to intemperate uses or sold and given to the poor—it would be wisdom to not impute iniquity to the character of our Lord.

THE RESURRECTION.

It is objected here that a discrepancy exists in the relation of events,—how then can it be true?

We answer, the main difficulty is in the time of the resurrection, but we think it can be satisfactorily explained. It says in Mark, Luke and John that the disciples visited the grave early in the morning of the first day of the week, and in Matthew that it was the Sabbath. The phrase in Matthew, "in the end of the Sabbath," in Greek is opse de sabbaton; and by modern critics is rendered "after the Sabbath," "Sabbath being over," "after the end of the week," &c. Our authorities are Dr. Adam Clarke, Bloomfield's Gr. Test., The Emphatic Diaglott, and the English translations of Campbell, Conquest, Dickinson, Sawyer, Wesley, Wakefield and others. This kind of rendering of OPSE is quite common among the classics where we find the phrases, "the day was ended," "after the times of the king," "after the Trojan war," &c. (See authorities in Clarke and Rosenmuller). But there are other points to be noticed, and we only ask that those who have courage to raise objections will have patience to weigh the solution.

First, it says in two of the evangelists that it was Mary Magdalene and others who visited the sepulchre, and in John mention is only made of Mary Magdalene. Second, it says in Mark they came to the grave at sunrise, and in John that it was yet dark. Third, it speaks in Matthew and Mark of one angel, and in Luke and John of two.

Now for a reconciliation. We will state what we conceive to be the natural order of these events.

1. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary with the object of visiting the sepulchre, set out early in the morning at dark or day-break, and on their way either call upon or meet Salome, and they arrive at the grave about the rising of the sun. This reconciles the first two statements, and the language of Mary Magdalene in John, "they have taken away the Lord and we know not where they have laid him," shows she was not alone.

2. On arriving near the grave they begin to enquire how they shall remove the stone from the door, and as they draw nearer, they see it is rolled away. Alarmed at so extraordinary a circumstance, Mary Magdalene concludes that the stone could not be taken away without the design to remove the Lord's body, and suspecting from the appearance of things that this was the actual case, she ran to acquaint Peter and John, leaving Mary and Salome to tell Joanna and the other women, if they should come, where she had gone. While on this errand, Mary and Salome go on and enter into the sepulchre, and see an angel in long white garments, and they flee from the tomb in great affright. Mark xvi, 8.

3. After their retreat, Peter and John having been informed by Mary Magdalene what had been done, come to the sepulchre and go in, and seeing the grave clothes lying there and the body gone, they go away to their houses (John xx, 10). But Mary Magdalene lingers weeping, and as she stoops down and looks into the tomb she sees two angels, and they ask her why she weeps? She tells them the reason, and as she turns back she sees a person whom she first supposes to be the gardener, but who proves to be Jesus. This is the first time he showed himself alive after his resurrection. Matt. xvi, 9.

4. After Christ had revealed himself to Mary Magdalene, Mary and Salome, who fled from the grave in such affright that they said nothing to any one, were met by Jesus on the way, who said, "All hail!" and they knew him and held him by the feet and worshiped him. Then said Jesus, Be not afraid, but go tell my brethren to go into Galilee and they shall see me. Matt. xxviii, 8.

5. After the several women and the apostles were gone from the sepulchre, Joanna with the other Galilean women came (Luke xxiv, 10) "bringing the spices which they had prepared for the embalming of the body of Jesus," and they entered in and were much perplexed at not finding the body. But two men appeared to them in shining garments, and they were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground. But the angels said, "Why are ye afraid? Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is risen." And they left the tomb and told all these words to the eleven and to all the rest, but they believed it not, and their words seemed as idle tales. Then Peter on hearing from Joanna that she had seen a vision of angels, went again to the sepulchre (Luke xxiv, 12) but did not go in as before but stooped down so far as to see the "linen clothes, and departed wondering in himself at that which was come to pass."

Thus this glorious circumstance is relieved from all confusion and inconsistencies, and instead of being shrouded in mystery is clear as the noon-day sun.

EVEN THE WORLD COULD NOT CONTAIN THE BOOKS WHICH SHOULD BE WRITTEN. JOHN XXI, 29.

We regard this as one of those strong expressions not to be taken in its most literal sense. If the labors and teachings of Jesus were all recorded, they would fill an incredible number of volumes. It would be such a large and overgrown history as the world never saw. If all his sermons, meetings, miracles, prayers, labors and sufferings were written, it would constitute an endless thing. This figurative way of speaking is very common in the East, and abounds in the Scriptures. We read in Deut. i, 28 of cities "walled up to heaven," which every one knows means only cities with very high walls. And David in celebrating the praises of Saul and Jonathan, says, "They were swifter than eagles; they were stronger than lions." And again, "Rivers of water run down mine eyes because they keep not thy law." But those figures of speech mislead no one, nor need the one here in John.

CONTRADICTION IN ACTS.

In the ninth and twenty-second chapters there are two statements concerning Paul's conversion, which, as they rather oppose each other, are used as a weapon against Christianity. The verse in Acts ix, 7 reads, "And the men which journeyed with him (Paul) stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." The word rendered "voice" here is phone, and is also translated "sound," "noise," "report;" and here means they heard the sound but not the words; they heard a report, but not an articulate voice.

In chap. xxii, 9 it states, "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." That is, as the word heard also signifies, they "understood not" the voice; they distinguished not the words; to them it was only a confused noise, not intelligent to their minds. That this is correct is proved by the use of this word in 1 Cor. xiv, 2: "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man UNDERSTANDETH him." These two statements are by different writers, Luke and Paul and they probably had different ideas to convey. Thus Luke might wish to relate that they heard a sound or voice, but saw no man, without contradicting the statement of Paul that although they heard a sound, a noise, they understood not the voice of the Lord who spoke to him.

We shall now notice but one more objection, and that is that we cannot prove outside of the Bible that such a person as Jesus Christ ever lived.

ANSWER.

None but the hasty and misinformed would ever make such a statement as this. And although the testimony of profane writers is not necessary to establish the credibility of the Scriptures, God has not left his people without a witness from this source.

Our first authority is JOSEPHUS. He writes: "Now there was about this time, JESUS, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the CHRIST; and when Pilate at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him are not extinct at this day."—Antiquities Bk. xviii, chap. 3, sec. 3.

TACITUS. "Nero, in order to stifle the rumor (that he had set Rome on fire) ascribed it to those people who were hated for their wicked practices, and called by the vulgar, Christians; these he punished exquisitely. The author of this name was CHRIST, who in the reign of Tiberius was brought to punishment by Pontius Pilate the procurator." Tacit. Annal., lib. xv, cap. 44.

CELSUS. This bitter antagonist of Christianity who wrote in the latter part of the second century, speaks of the Founder of the Christian religion, and mentions the principal facts of the gospel history. He takes notice of Christ's incarnation; his being worshiped by wise men; his flight into Egypt, and the slaughter of the infants. He speaks of his baptism by John, of the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and of the voice from heaven declaring him to be the Son of God. He allows that Christ was considered a divine person by his disciples, acknowledges the miracles wrought by him, and notices many of the circumstances attending the crucifixion. See Horne's Introduction, Vol. I.

But as we have not room to multiply testimony on a point already sustained, we close by citing the

ACTS OF PILATE. The Romans were in the habit of preserving among their records striking events and strange occurrences. Their governors used to send to the emperors a written account of noted and remarkable transactions, which were preserved under the names of these several governors, such as The Acts of the principal men who ruled. Pilate sent an account to the emperor Tiberius of the Saviour's life, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. The writings were called Acta Pilati, the acts of Pilate. Justin Martyr who was a boy when St. John died, grew up in the heathen and Greek philosophy, was converted to Christianity about the forty-fourth year of his age, and wrote to Rome asking from Antonius imperial favor for the Christians. Having written to the emperor and his senate of the life and death of our Lord, of the dead that were raised, of the diseases that were healed, &c., he adds, "And that these things were done by him you may know from the Acts made in the time of Pontius Pilate." Mention is also made of the life and character of our Saviour by the heathen writers Suetonius, Pliny, Lampridius and in the Talmuds of the Jews.

CONCLUSION.

We have now passed over the proposed list of sceptical difficulties, and we leave it to the candid reader whether these points have been fairly and fully met. We do not assume to have noticed every question which might be raised against the Bible,

but we have examined a class of the most common objections in the creed of the skeptic. And by attacking and refuting error in its strongest holds, much is done towards overturning the whole foundation.

May Heaven's blessing rest upon those in error, and awaken inquiry in the minds of some for whom this is written, is the prayer of one who loves the Bible. G. W. A.