as the promised Messiah, or required of him some sign to confirm their faith. Vide Matthew, ch. xi. vers. 2-4: "When John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John those things which ye do hear and see." John, ch. x. vers. 37 and 38, Jesus says to those Jews who accused him of blasphemy, "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works." In reply to the request of Philip, who, being discontented with the doctrines Jesus inculcated, said, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us;" Jesus answered and said, "Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me, or else believe me for the very works' sake." (John, ch. xiv. ver. 11,) Jesus even speaks in terms of reproach of those that seek for miracles for their conviction as to his divinę mission. Matthew, ch. xii. ver. 39: "But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign." Moreover he blesses them, who, without having recourse to the proofs of miracles, profess their belief on him. John, ch. xx. ver. 29: "Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Under these circumstances, and from the experience that nothing but the sublimity of the Precepts of Jesus had at first drawn the attention of the Compiler himself towards Christianity, and excited his veneration for the author of this religion, without aid from miraculous relations, he omitted in his compilation the mention of the miracles performed by Jesus, without meaning to express doubts of their authenticity, or intending to slight them by such an omission. I regret therefore, that the Editor should have suffered any part of his valuable time to be spent in advancing several arguments, in the concluding part of his Review, to establish the truth of the miraculous statements of the New Testament. But as this discussion applies to the evidence of miracles generally, it may be worth considering. Arguments adduced by the Editor amount to this: "If all social, political, mercantile, and judicial transactions be allowed to rest upon testimony; why should not the validity of Christian miracles be concluded from the testimony of the Apostles and of others, and be relied upon by all the nations of the world?" The Editor must be well aware, that the enemies to revelation draw a line of distinction on the subject of proofs by testimony, between the current events of nature familiar to the senses of mankind, and within the scope of human exertions; and extraordinary facts beyond the limits of common experience, and ascribed to a direct interposition of Divine power suspending the usual course of nature. If all assertions were to be indiscriminately admitted as facts, merely because they are testified by numbers, how can we dispute the truth of those miracles which are said to have been performed by persons esteemed holy amongst natives of this country? The Compiler has never placed the miracles related in the New Testament on a footing with the extravagant tales of his countrymen, but distinctly expressed his persuasion that they (Christian miracles) would be apt at best to carry little weight with those whose imaginations had been accustomed to dwell on narrations much more wonderful, and supported by testimony which they have been taught to regard with a reverence that they cannot be expected all at once to bestow on the Apostles. See Introduction to the Precepts, and Appeal, p. 17.* The very same line of argument indeed pursued by the Editor would equally avail the Hindoos. Have they not accounts and records handed down to them relating to the wonderful miracles stated to have been performed by their saints, such as Ugustyu, Vushistu, and Gotum; and their gods incarnate, such as Ram, Krishnu, and Nursingh; in presence of their contemporary friends and enemies, the wise and the ignorant, the select and the multitude?—Could not the Hindoos quote in support of their narrated miracles, authorities from the histories of their most inveterate enemies the Jeins, who join the Hindoos entirely in acknowledging the truth and credibility of their miraculous * [Present edition, page 115.] accounts? The only difference which subsists between these two parties on this subject is, that the Hindoos consider the power of performing miracles given to their gods and saints by the Supreme Deity, and the Jeins declare that they performed all those astonishing works by Asooree Shukti, or by demoniac power. Moossulmans on the other hand can produce records written and testified by contemporaries of Mohummud, both friends and enemies, who are represented as eye-witnesses of the miracles ascribed to him; such as his dividing the moon into two parts, and walking in sunshine without casting a shadow. They can assert too, that several of those witnesses suffered the greatest calamities, and some even death, in defence of that religion; some before the attempts of Mohummud at conquest, others after his commencing such attempts, and others after his death. On mature consideration of all those circumstances, the Compiler hopes he may be allowed to remain still of opinion, that the miraculous relations found in the divine writings would be apt at best to carry little weight with them, when imparted to the Hindoos at large in the present state of their minds: but as no other religion can produce any thing that may stand in competition with the Precepts of Jesus, much less that can be pretended to be superior to them, the Compiler deemed it incumbent upon him to introduce these among his countrymen as a Guide to Peace and Happiness. CHAPTER VI. On the Impersonality of the Holy Spirit. I WILL now inquire into the justness of the conclusion drawn by the Editor in his attempt to prove the Deity of the Holy Ghost, from the circumstance of his name being associated with that of the Father in the rite of Baptism. This subject is incidentally brought forward in the course of the arguments he has adduced respecting the nature of Jesus, where he observes, "It is needless to add that this testimony of Jesus, (the associating of his own name and that of the Holy Ghost with the name of the Father,) is equally decisive respecting the deity of the Holy Ghost." I have hitherto omitted to notice this question among other matters in review, reserving it for the express purpose of a distinct and separate examination. It seems to me in the first place rather singular, that the Reverend Editor, after having filled up many pages with numerous arguments in his endeavour to establish the Godhead of Jesus, should have noticed in so short and abrupt a manner, the question of the Deity of the Holy Ghost, although the Editor equally esteems them both as distinct persons of the Deity. I wonder, in the next place, |