is the revelation. Let us put this to the test. Could any evidence establish the miracles of Christ, apart from his divine perfections? Are not these essential to the proof, to the credibility, of miracles? Is it not the heavenly soul that inclines us to the superhuman origin? Do we not begin with the spiritual sympathy and appreciation, and end in unquestioning faith, as to the external manifestations of the divine? Is it not from the centre of Christ's own soul that we become first truly conscious of his connections with God? Or even supposing that the apprehension of the morally divine, and the supernatural frame in which it is exhibited, present themselves simultaneously, is it yet just or accurate to say, that the miraculous is the only proper evidence of a revelation? Miracle may be the condition of the Revelation we have, but it is not its evidence; and it is entirely arbitrary to suppose that God might not have made it evident that Jesus Christ was the Image of Deity, the authoritative Model of Duty, the Revelation of the heavenly peace and life which Immortals own, without any employment of miracles for purposes of proof. The morally and spiritually divine, wherever it appears, must be self-evidencing, and though it may appear under the conditions of the miraculous, it is not proved by them, but gives to them their credibility. Miracles are, but the forms in which the spirit manifests itself; and to us who were not witnesses, nor have the means of examining the witnesses, it is the spirit that authenticates the forms.

Two points seem to us overlooked in Mr. Hincks' able and vigorous defence of the necessary connection of Miracles with a Revelation; first, that as evidence, a miracle witnessed, and a miracle reported in ancient documents, are of a totally different character; and secondly, that the superhuman certainty which the Miracle is supposed to attach to the Revelation, resolves itself ultimately into the very human degree of certainty which we can attach to the genuineness, authenticity, individual character, and faithful preservation of the reporting books. It is not the certainty of the miracle, but the certainty of the literary evidence which attests the miracle on which we have to rely. Of such certainty as this none but the learned can partake,— nor indeed is it a subject that admits of certainty at all. What means have we of judging of the personal characters, of the credibility, of Matthew, or Luke, or Mark, independently of the very books in question? We have to resort to the reports for all that we know of the character of the reporters. It is not surely their reporting Miracles that induces us to trust them, this is rather a difficulty in their way; it must be some

thing of internal or self evidence that induces us to give credence to reporters of miracles, of whom we know nothing but what they themselves tell us. Whatever it be of moral and internal evidence that constrains us to give credence to books reporting miracles, that should be considered as the true and proper evidence of the Revelation. It is evident that external testimony will not avail us here. Suppose the books identified with their authors,-suppose their literary preservation perfect, what do we know of Matthew, Luke, or Mark, that we should believe their miraculous narratives? We know nothing but what these very narratives tell us. What induces us then to believe these narratives and these miracles? It must be something possessing a moral self-evidence, awakening the highest feelings of certainty of which the human soul is capable. To us, miracles, instead of proving, are proved by, this spiritual, moral, internal light. These two propositions then we hold to be undeniable, and though overlooked, not a little important in relation to the present controversy:

First; that the mind which makes the truth of Revelation depend upon the truth of Miracles reported in ancient documents, can have no certainty beyond that which it reposes in its own literary judgment,-a degree of certainty which for the learned cannot amount to more than a moderate probability,—and for the unlearned has no existence whatever. The strength of a chain is the strength of its weakest link. The weakest link in the documentary proof must measure the confidence which such minds can repose in the truth of Christianity; and the great mass of men, if "miracles are the only sufficient proof of a revelation," have nothing to decide their faith,-for the learned men do not agree. Strauss is as learned, as able, as honest, as Lardner. Has the unlearned man no means of judging between them? We think he has,-but not if miracles must be proved first, independently of the support which they themselves derive from the moral character, the self-evidence, of the Revelation.

Secondly; that since we are not in the position of the original eye-witnesses, nor have the means of individualizing and cross-examining, Miracles reported derive their credibility from the circumstances in the midst of which they appear, and are authenticated by, instead of authenticating the Revelation. The moral and spiritual Christianity has now to support its miraculous framework; and it is the highest attestation to the "light of the glory of God, shining in the face of Christ," that it compels us to accept it, as we find it, in connection with Miracles. Miracles reported can prove nothing,-for they are themselves

incapable of being proved by external testimony, independently of the spiritual realities they convey; only a feeling of the superhuman beauty and truth makes credible the superhuman mode of exhibiting it. In the order of time then, to us now, belief in the truth precedes belief in the Miracle, or if they are simultaneous, it is the self-evidence that communicates both together.

"There is no conceivable evidence," says Mr. Hincks, "of supernatural communication to the mind, which ought to satisfy any one, excepting an external sign, indisputably connected with the individual making the pretension, offered to the senses of others as well as himself, under circumstances favourable for examination, and of such a kind as not to admit of rational explanation without the supposition of immediate divine interference." Now this is an evidence we do not possess; we have only the evidence of books,—and it seems clear, that it must be something divine, by self-manifestation, in the Revelation itself, which makes us accept such evidence. The incurred sufferings, and altered circumstances of the witnesses, are evidence of their sincerity, but not of their infallibility; and besides, we must previously judge for ourselves, on moral grounds, how far the facts, if true, are sufficient to produce and justify the alleged changes and exposures to suffering, before we accept them in evidence ;-so that, under any view, it is the character of the Revelation that gives to the alleged facts their weight and value.

Mr. Hincks says, "that the goodness and wisdom of what is taught is no proof of a divine communication, because we cannot precisely tell what in any given circumstances unaided reason may do; we cannot therefore draw a line between what is human and divine; besides, if we were in a condition particularly to need reformation, we should be incapable of estimating the goodness, though we could very well feel the authority of what was delivered to us." Did those who were incapable of estimating Christ's goodness feel his authority? Were not the Belief and Philosophy of the age in which he appeared, such as absolutely to prevent any surrender to his authority, from those who did not feel his goodness? Was it not to the "works of his Father," works manifesting the Goodness of God, that he appealed to prove "whence he came ?" Besides, can we not draw the line between the human and the divine as certainly in moral as in physical facts? That in a certain condition of civilization which had no natural affinities with such a being," the Image of God in Man" should appear,-is not that fact as certainly distinguishable from what is ordinary in the experience of men, as

any alleged Miracle? Surely the laws of the moral world are as fixed as those of the material,-and Moral Power is more capable of impressing us with a sense of the Divine, than Physical Power. We hold the view, that we cannot morally distinguish between the human and the divine, to be subversive of all faith, not only in Christianity but in Religion itself. It is a distinction which every good man daily makes in the depths of his own soul, when he feels God to be present with him. The divine Word within us all is not our own. And if that Word should become Flesh, should we not have the power of recognizing the divine realization, God manifest in Man? The moral Christ is the great Miracle, and the universal Miracle, the only one in respect to which we are placed in the same circumstances as the original witnesses.

We think that Mr. Hincks has been betrayed by his fervid sense of the importance of the question at issue into one or two statements not entirely just to his own mind, for we believe that a more pure and faithful lover of Truth, a more courageous Champion of the Rights of Opinion, one who would more readily do battle for Jew or Gentile, nowhere exists. We shall only think it necessary therefore to enter our protest against the following averments:-First; "That it is concluded amongst us, that whenever a minister, supported or not by others, adopts opinions at variance with the views upon which the society was founded, he will in consequence withdraw." This is an opinion that would speedily decide the Hewley case. This is the view of the Independents, and of "certain Lawyers." This would effectually stop all progress, or else oblige every Minister and Congregation advancing in the knowledge of the truth, to migrate yearly to a new chapel. The only principle on which any society should be founded is the principle of Free Inquiry, with which no after result of opinion can be at variance. Mr. Hincks, we are satisfied, only means that a Minister should not hold his place in opposition to the views and wishes of his congregation. He is not the man to mean that a Minister should not lead them with him to what he thinks Truth, if they are willing to go. "The views upon which the society was founded," may make it legally necessary to part with a building, or an endowment, but that is no reason for parting with a Congregation, unless they wish it, or with the principle of Progress. To Mr. Wood, however, Mr. Hincks' observation, in no sense of it, applies. His Society was founded on the principle of Free Inquiry; yet he retires, contrary to the wishes of a majority. Secondly;-"That the doctrine expressed in Mr. Wood's

The italics are our own.

Lecture differs at least as widely from the characteristic opinions of our body of Christians (Unitarians) as any of those which we think ourselves most called upon to oppose." We can have no sympathy with this sentiment,-nor can we compare things so totally dissimilar as Orthodoxy, and any form, however erroneous, of rational Christianity. The one is a product, though perhaps a mistaken one, of a principle we admit, the other is founded in principles which we hold to be fundamentally and absolutely false and injurious. We are satisfied Mr. Hincks would admit that the pure Deism of a religious mind was not so far from rational Christianity as Orthodoxy is. Orthodoxy is not in the direction of free inquiry; and any honest and pious fruit of that spirit is better, more healthy, more nourishing, more like Christianity, than an implicit and damnatory faith. We may be wrong about the Miraculous, for it is a question of Criticism and History and Philosophy, but as to the essential part of Orthodoxy, all the Laws of our Nature must be changed before we could connect it with the Father of our souls,-it contradicts the primary Revelation, and cannot be true.

Thirdly;-"That if he held Mr. Wood's opinions he would not retain the Christian name for one hour." Mr. Hincks falls here into the common error of transferring the feelings that belong to one set of views to a totally different set of views. He supposes himself to be placed in Mr. Wood's point of view, and insists that he would retain all the feelings that belong to his own point of view. If his views of Christianity were what Mr. Wood's are, he would do as Mr. Wood has done. If Mr. Wood assented to Mr. Hincks' view of the essentials of Christianity, he would, no doubt, make no pretension to the name. It is not for us to undertake the task of proving to those who believe Christ's Mission to be divine, that they have no grounds for such belief. That belief is a blessed influence. It enshrines the Image of God in the Conscience, and makes human life the conditions given by Providence under which we are to manifest" the Life of God in the Soul of Man," the heavenly spirit under the forms of earthly discipline. Shall we disturb that "divine Belief," that "authoritative Religion," in any mind, for the sake of some possible error in the logical processes, the avenues of evidence? Rather let us spend our energies, and exercise our souls, in understanding and revealing the divine Christ, and that stupendous Moral Miracle will carry the mind up to the immediate Fountain of heavenly Beauty, of Grace and Truth,-or nothing will.

We must say in conclusion that we entirely dissent from Mr. Hincks' limitation of the internal evidence of Christianity to the