long series of such immediate answers to a set of definite petitions is of itself a miracle of the most unequivocal description. But it must be remembered that the person who believes himself to have been favoured by this kind of attestation for a long period of years, makes no claims to a divine commission of any kind, only to be the founder of a useful institution; nor does he lay claim to any divine illumination as directing him in its superintendence. The divine attestation which has been given by this long series of answers to prayer, is tendered to the institution, and nothing else. If the facts as narrated by Mr. Müller are assigned by him to their true causes, the value of the testimony of miracles to a divine commission is greatly weakened by them, as in that case it is clear that a series of events which it is impossible to distinguish from miracles, has been brought about, not for the purpose of attesting a divine commission, or anything resembling it, but for the benefit of an institution which does not differ in point of goodness from a vast number of others. This difficulty is further increased when it is remembered that the principle laid down is, that all other institutions for good might live and prosper by the use of similar means. If so, this would make a set of special interferences with the order of nature not the exception, but the rule of the divine government, thereby depriving a miracle of all evidential value as an attestation to a divine commission.

But I have not to deal with anything theoretical as to what might happen if other institutions were to adopt similar means of supporting themselves, but with what has actually happened with respect to the Orphan Asylum. I fully concede that it is a very remarkable institution; but I believe that its growth and success can be accounted for by ordinary human causes, without having recourse to the theory of special divine interventions.

I observe therefore that although its founder adopts none of the usual methods by which other societies obtain their income, it is clear that he employs means which, although

highly efficacious, are nevertheless purely human. It is the single institution of its kind, and appeals to a sentiment which is particularly attractive to a large number of minds, namely, the profession of living by faith: or in other words, of deriving its support from a set of supernatural interventions. All such persons (and their class is a numerous one), take a deep interest in the success of such an institution. Now, although its founder disclaims the use of means, such as are employed by other societies, yet he uses others equally efficacious, among which is the annual publication of a book containing an account of these special interventions during the past year, which is sent to all subscribers. This certainly constitutes an appeal of a very effective character, and one pre-eminently fitted to stimulate the particular class of minds to which it is addressed, to large and frequent contributions.

But it may be objected, that however efficacious these means may be now, this will not account for the original setting up of the institution. I think that any one who will carefully investigate the account which Mr. Müller has given of its origin, will be able to assign it to a number of ordinary human causes, without invoking the aid of any special divine interventions in its favour; but to enter on a minute criticism of them would not be desirable in this place.

Many of the events narrated by him which involve special interferences with the order of nature, may be readily accounted for on the principle of coincidences, such as have occurred to each of us during our past lives; and are often of a very remarkable character, but which by no means justify the assumption that they have been brought about by special interferences with the forces of nature in our favour. It is not my purpose, however, in this place to discuss the abstract question, but only to consider how far such interferences as those alleged to have taken place in connection with the Orphan Asylum affect the question of miracles as evidential to a divine revelation. It seems to me impossible to distinguish such occurrences as those above

alluded to, if they are brought about in answer to definite petitions, from evidential miracles. They would be simply marks of divine favour to particular persons and institutions; and would consequently be devoid of evidential value as proofs of the reality of a divine commission.

We know from the history of St. Paul that he habitually trusted in God's ordinary providence for the supply of his wants, rather than to special interventions.* Viewed in connection with the question of the evidential value of miracles, the whole subject of special answers to prayer requires very serious consideration, as it is evident that the analogy between them and miracles is of the closest character. When we offer special requests for special interferences with the ordinary mode of the divine acting, it is only in consonance with Christian humility to add to our prayers that God will be pleased to reject them, if we in our ignorance have asked Him to do what is not in accordance with the divine will. Surely a firm trust in His ordinary providence, and an habitual recognition that the forces of the universe in their daily operation are regulated by His wisdom, and subserving the purposes of His goodness, is quite as religious and reverential a state of mind, as that which is constantly asking Him to make special interventions on our behalf. Many of the prevailing ideas on this subject even among religious men owe their origin to their failing to recognize the teaching of the Bible, that all the forces of the universe are manifestations of the activity of God.

SUPPLEMENT II.

It will be seen that the view which I have taken in this and the preceding Lecture respecting the evidential value of miracles, and the relation in which they stand to the

* See the account of the dangers he encountered in his Missionary travels, 2 Cor. xi. St. Luke's narrative of his voyage to Rome, his shipwreck, and escape, is a striking illustration of the same habitual trust.

Christian revelation, differs very materially from that which has been propounded by Professor Mozley in his first Bampton Lecture. So important is this difference that it will be necessary to offer a few additional observations on the subject, for which it was impossible to find room in the Lecture itself.

The view propounded in the Lecture, briefly stated, is as follows:-The essence of the Christian Revelation consists in Our Lord's Divine person and work, which constitute Him the visible manifestation of the invisible God, and not in a number of dogmatic statements or moral precepts. His entire character is in fact a manifestation of the divine in union with the human, constituting an harmonious whole, of which the miracles form an important portion of the delineation. In one word, they are viewed as the natural outcome of the divine which dwelt within Him, and which manifested itself as much in His actions and teaching, in the spotless perfection of His character, and above all, in the divine self-sacrifice of His life and death, as in those actions which are usually designated His miracles. Further, while many of the miracles recorded in the New Testament were not wrought for directly evidential purposes (those which are directly affirmed to have been wrought for this purpose being few in number); yet all miracles, like all other manifestations of the divine, must have an indirectly evidential value, as indicating the presence and energy of a superhuman power. Also, while there are recorded in the New Testament a considerable number of doctrinal statements and moral precepts, it is a fact that however startling a statement may have been uttered by Our Lord, or whatever degree of opposition it called forth on the part of His opponents, or of incredulity in His disciples, He nevers condescends to perform a miracle in order to prove the truth of His assertions, but rests it solely on His own absolute knowledge and veracity.* Nor

There are but two apparent exceptions to this rule, viz., that of the cure of the paralytic in proof of His " power on earth to forgive sins," and the raising of Lazarus, "that the people who stood by might believe that His Father had sent Him."

was such a thing once done by His apostles. In the same manner, whilst He repeatedly appealed to His miracles as evidence of His divine character, He referred to them as portions of His moral working, and only appealed to them separately when the higher form of evidence failed to command assent.

This view of the subject seems to me to be rendered necessary by the most direct assertions of the sacred writers. Besides the evidence adduced in the Lecture, a large number of the passages quoted in the Supplement to the first Lecture for the purpose of proving that the essence of the Christian revelation consists in the person and work of Christ, tend equally to prove that the highest attestation to His divine Mission was His self-evidential character. So strong are the assertions on this point in those portions of the 1st Epistle and the Gospel of St. John, to which I have already referred, that any other view appears to me inconsistent with assigning to them canonical authority. The writer affirms that the life of the Logos was manifested. It was the light of men. This light was manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. It shone in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. He He was the true light, which enlightens every man that cometh into the world. If these statements are the veritable utterances of the Apostle, they are conclusive on the subject. They make it certain that Jesus Christ must be a manifestation of the Divine on the sphere of the human, the Sun of the moral and spiritual worlds, which energizes in them mightily. If this be so, it follows that the character of our evidential position must be such as I have described-First, Jesus Christ and His entire divine working, in which He bears witness to Himself: Secondly, His miracles, viewed as wonders, signs, and mighty deeds.

The entire argument of Professor Mozley rests on a different basis. He considers the essence of Christianity to consist in a number of statements of dogmatic truth, the discovery of which lies beyond the powers of human reason.