book; it will be doing the cause of religion service to notice a few of them in this place. ན་ It is well known to scholars, that many of these objectionable passages do not necessarily convey the meaning given to the English reader, by the ancient translators of the Bible: and when, of two renderings of a passage, the one is contrary to nature or probabililty, and the other is natural and rational, every man is bound, of necessity,' to reject the former and prefer the latter.ne -Perhaps no passage has been more ridiculed by the unbeliever, than that relating to Lot's wife. -1. But Lot's wife looked back from behind him," and she became a pillar of salt. Gen. xix. 26, Mr. Bellamy, in his translation of the Bible, remarks upon the passage, that there is no ground either in scripture or reason, for believing that the wife of Lot was turned into a pillar of salt. That had this been the case, it would have required a perpetual miracle to have preserved this monument; for salt of whatsoever kind, is soluble by water, and therefore it could not long have remained in the form of a pillar, to convince posterity, as many weak people have supposed, that she was thus punished for her disobedience.' And after a long and interesting criticism, in'' which he well supports his view of the passage, he concludes, That it was recorded as a memorial 7 that the wife of Lot chose to abide with the unbelievers, of the posterity of Lot, among the idolators, rather than quit the devoted city to reside with the worshipers of God,' 106 OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF 9. Samson and the Foxes. And Samson went taom adt medt no enteilgi tud, diseb Upon the whole, I conclude, that, as Thevenot has mentioned two great multitudes destroyed by this burning wind, so has holy scripture recorded the destruction of two much greater multitudes by a similar cause: and therefore, that we may translate the words in question thus: but the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; and a burning wind fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left.'-Remarks on select Passages of the Old Testament. These are a few, out of many, passages, usually quoted by the unbeliever, for the purpose of bringing contempt and ridicule upon the scriptures. I notice them in order to remind both him, and the persons whom he may have endeavoured to turn from the faith, that there are good grounds for supposing, that, in the present advanced state of biblical criticism, and of a more intimate knowledge of the languages in which the scriptures are written, most, if not all, the objectionable passages, may be rendered perfectly consistent and credible. It is the duty of the impugners of the scriptures to take advantage of the aids which the researches of such men as Kennicott, and Simpson, and Lowth, and Bellamy, have placed within their reach, before they cite as absurd and untrue, that which may prove to be only the injudicious rendering of the translators of earlier times.* *The Rev. C. Wellbeloved, Theological Tutor of Manchester College, York, is rendering an essential service to the cause of religion by a new translation of the ancient scriptures, several parts of which have been published. From the evidence of the authenticity of the scripture narratives, which is derived from their agreement with natural and civil history, I pass on, Thirdly, to another powerful species of testimony, namely, the fulfilment of the scripture prophecies. The agreement, indeed, between the prediction and its accomplishment, has, in many cases, been so complete and remarkable, that the unbeliever has had no other means of evading the manifest inference to be deduced therefrom, than that of asserting that the alleged prophecy was written after the event which it pretends to foretel had taken place. This is a favourite mode of attack with the impugners of the scriptures. There is a boldness and a recklessness in such assertions, by which they often secure a victory at the expence of truth; and they are the more encouraged to persist in the practice, inasmuch as it is easy: to cast suspicion upon the genuineness of ancient writings, but difficult to disprove their alleged spuriousness; while the defender of revealed truth is too apt to forget that the burden of proof ought to rest upon those who make such assertions, which, indeed, it is impossible that they can substantiate, by either historical or any other evidence of whatsoever kind. While Babylon, was in the height of its glory, the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah foretold its destruction. Isaiah prophecies in these words: 'Babylon, the glory of kingdoins, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellence, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Comorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from L |