Tyrus, said ISAIAH, should be forgotten as a Nation for 70 years; which time, reckoned from the first year of the Siege by Nebuchadnezzar, 585 B.C., brings the period to 515 B.C., the year in which the Second Temple was _dedicated_; and at which the Tyrians assisting, they obtained again their National position: therefore, that Prophecy, and that concerning Judæa, were strictly fulfilled. Now atheistical writers endeavour to maintain that MOSES, ISAIAH, DANIEL, JEREMIAH, EZEKIEL, and the long line of Prophets never existed, and that the entire Volume of the Bible was originally written by EZRA! the chief Priest and Lawgiver of the Jewish Nation, at the return from the captivity in Babylon, 536 B.C.; and that, as he wrote from 536 to 456 B.C., therefore in composing the Bible, _after the dates of the events specified_, he could, and did, so arrange the Prophecies, as _if_ spoken by men who lived before the fulfilments, but, who in fact (they argue) never did exist; and that he wrote nothing for Prophecy, the accomplishment of which was to take place after his (Ezra's) own time, _and that no fulfilment of any Prophecy_ AFTER HIS TIME _can be_ HISTORICALLY _established,--the foretelling of which is anywhere found in the Old Testament_! That is the data upon which atheists and deists found their arguments against the Bible,--against the vital principle of its truth,--viz., the Prophecies. We, therefore, propose to meet those arguments, and refute the reckless denials, upon their own chosen ground,--giving them, even the advantage of the latest date claimed by them,--viz., 456 B. C., the latest period in which Ezra wrote. Before we refute their pseudo-reasoning upon the Prophecies, we will shew that Scriptural authority is _not_ rejected by them; that it is distinctly allowed by them, although unconsciously. It must be apparent that they admit the authority of the Bible, and the existence of the Jews as a Nation (which they deny), for they accredit Ezra and his companions as writers and compilers of The Volume, "after their return as Captives from Babylon." Here then is a direct admission (though unwittingly) that the Jews were a Nation, and of sufficient importance to have been made captive by so powerful a Monarch as the King of Babylon; and that they returned at all, is only obtainable from the Bible, and they admit "their return;" therefore they admit the _record_ of the Scripture! Again:--they say with apparent triumph, in regard to the Bible being in the letters of Babylon, and not in the Jewish characters (and thence they deduce that the Jews were not a Nation),--viz., "As all these men (Ezra and his followers) had been captives in Babylon, and could no where else be taught to write, how could these Books (_i. e._ of the Bible) be COMPOSED in any other than the Chaldæan characters?" _i. e._ letters.