age, is a striking characteristic of Revelation, and a most interesting subject of study.

We have judged it unnecessary to dwell much on the agreement of Scripture doctrine with the purest moral teaching to be had elsewhere, or the congruity of it with our preconceptions of the character of God. Doubtless that agreement is real, so far as our former notions were correct. But the truth is that the God of the Bible far surpasses, in majesty and in power over the conscience and affections, the notion of the philosopher. Besides, many a man learns by the Bible for the first time that he has a conscience at all. If the principles of what is termed Natural Theology logically underlie those which are peculiar to Christianity, yet Revelation includes both. It not only makes disclosures of its own, but it sends us back to nature, whose lessons it adopts and confirms. When Bishop Butler says, at the beginning of the Second Part of the " Analogy,' that "though natural religion is the foundation and principal part of Christianity, it is not in any sense the whole of it," he adds, "Christianity is a republication of natural religion." This is very far from making Natural Theology, as actually spelt out from nature alone, the basis of the theology of Revelation.

وو

The power which the Bible acquires over the candid reader will be the most sensibly felt in those parts of it which deal the most closely with the central Person of Revelation in the Gospel history,

the record of the Word Incarnate. Here the understanding is impressed with the originality and absolute singularity of Christ's character in connexion. with the marvel already treated of, that it was foreseen and foresketched by the Hebrew seers. That it should have been invented by the Evangelists, have been the reflection of their own ideas, the embodiment of their yearnings, appears a manifest falsehood, a simple impossibility. Such yearnings they had not, but others widely different. They knew not their own prophets, and were unable, until all was over, to identify Jesus as the Messiah of the Old Testament. The notion that these Jews should conceive and pourtray an idea surpassing the noblest conceptions of philosophers, is not only speculatively inadmissible, but contradicts their own narratives, which bring faithfully out their own constant mistakes and misgivings, their Master's upbraidings for their dulness and slowness in apprehending Him, their repeated disappointments as the actual Christ diverged more and more from their low conceptions, and their ultimate satisfaction when, in His own way, He transcended their loftiest imaginings, exceeded their best hopes, and pointed out that all was a mere fulfilment of prophecy.

As the practised eye easily discerns a photogram from a fancy piece, so the intelligent reader perceives the faithfulness of the Evangelists. They are describing what they have seen, reporting what they have heard, or what they in one or two in

stances have received from eye and ear witnesses. For the first and last time absolute perfection is realised on earth; truth exceeds poetry, and fact outruns fancy and desire.

Of the Gospel history the records of Miracle form an organic and inseparable part. What has been said concerning the impossibility that the character of Jesus should have been invented by the Evangelists, applies with all its force to the Miracles, since it is in these actions chiefly that the character appears. Take them away, and the rest is, for the most part, made meagre, unintelligible, impossible.

As the disciples themselves, when all was over, and the grand panorama was fully unrolled, received into their submissive bosoms a power and a light which raised them unspeakably above their former selves, which transformed Peter, for instance, from a self-seeking worldling, a weakling, shrinking before a girl's ridicule, to a lion-like apostle, intrepid before the National Council, so the teachable modern reader of the history, submitting himself to the influence of the Person, who, if the Record is true, must be Divine, is in like manner changed, illumined, softened, made peaceful and strong. Thus the Bible becomes to him the vehicle of a real Revelation. In like manner, to the faithful heart, the ordinances of Divine service, and especially the Sacraments, are made, not only remembrancers, but signs and continuators of the ancient Revelation. The more we live by the entire Revelation the clearer

it becomes, and the more satisfactory the witness within.

If there is a promise on record that God will help those who ask Him to subdue the evil that is in them, and to overcome evil habits, and if I, after repeated failure in other ways, try the virtue of this promise, and find it successful, is not this a proof of His presence? It does not reveal to me any truth not already written in the Bible, but it becomes a sign to me that the Bible is to be trusted, a connexion between my present position and the original Revelation. If this be so, is the age of Miracles past?

CHAPTER VII.

CONCLUSION.

WE now pause for a moment to notice a remarkable fact, having a not unimportant bearing on the subject. It is the difference between ancient and modern unbelief. The modern sceptic doubts not the Infinite Majesty of God; but that very greatness seems to prevent his taking in the notion that God has, or even could, reveal Himself under the forms of human nature, and speak to men as men speak to each other. It seems to him that such a being as God is conceived to be, from nature or from the mind itself, must necessarily, in regard at least to all personal Revelation, remain remote from

us.

This difficulty seems never to have been felt by the Israelites or the other nations who heard the prophets, nor by the Jews in the time of Christ. They never doubted the possibility or the reality of Miracle or of Divine Speech. Their fault lay in not conceiving worthily of the Being, who, as they