This writer reasons also with singular laxity and inaccuracy. After quoting the dictum that "on a certain amount of testimony we might believe any statement, however improbable," (pp. 140-1,) he scornfully adds;--"So that if a number of respectable witnesses were to concur in asseverating that on a certain occasion they had seen two and two make five, we should be bound to believe them!" (p. 141.) Does he fail to perceive, (1) that mathematical truths do not come within the province of probable reasoning, and (2) are not dependent on testimony?... Again, "The case of the _antecedent_ argument of Miracles is very clear, however little some are inclined to perceive it. In Nature and from Nature, by Science and by Reason, _we neither have nor can possibly have any evidence of a Deity working by Miracles_;--for that, we must go out of Nature, and beyond Science." (pp. 141-2.) Very true. We must go _to Scripture_. We must have recourse to testimony. This is precisely what we are maintaining.... But,--"Testimony, after all, is but a second-hand assurance; it is but a blind guide; testimony can avail nothing against Reason." (p. 141.) True. But this, if it is intended as an argument against the reasonableness of admitting the truth of Miracles, is a mere _petitio principii_.... Again. "It is not the _mere fact_ but the _cause_ or _explanation_ of it, which is the point at issue." (p. 141.) Admitting then, as the learned author here does, that when CHRIST said "Lazarus, come forth," "he that was dead," (though he had been buried four days,) "came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes[73];"--admitting these "facts," I say,--what other "cause," or "explanation" does the reverend gentleman propose to assign but the supernatural power of the Divine Speaker? Far graver exception, however, must be taken against certain parts of Professor Powell's labours, which betray an animus fatally indicative of the tendency of such Essays and Reviews as these. Witness his assertion that "it is now acknowledged that 'Creation' is only another name for our ignorance of the mode of production;" (p. 139;) and that a recent work on the Origin of Species "substantiates on undeniable grounds the very principle so long denounced by the first naturalists,--_the origination of new species by natural causes_;" (p. 139;) and that the said work "must soon bring about an entire revolution of opinion in favour of the grand principle of the _self-evolving powers of Nature_." (p. 139.)