powers of the Evangelists to have been exalted and guided by inspiration in making this record. But whether they were inspired or uninspired, the actual phenomena of their writings can never be accounted for without conceding the truth of what they say, and the working of many miracles by Christ.

Further The miracles which the gospels describe were connected with the teaching of Jesus. They enter many times into the substance as well as the form of his discourses. Rend them away from their place in the record and many a precious message must go with them, for the latter could never have fallen from his lips of truth without the former. But this is not all. His miracles, according to the evangelical record, were closely connected with the words and conduct of his foes. Indeed, they enter into the very warp and woof of our Saviour's history. Remove them from the gospels and the pieces which remain can be brought together and made one by no mortal skill. One after another will be found worthless, until it becomes evident that by rejecting the miracles of Christ the whole gospel is condemned. No middle post is tenable; whoever is not for the evangelical record, miracles included, is against it; whoever does not welcome Christianity as a supernatural religion in origin and character, does not welcome it at all. The birth, the insight, the wisdom, the moral purity, and the matchless teaching of Christ, were all miraculous, no less so than his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven.

Still further: The aim of Christ's miracles was godlike. They were revelations of goodness and incentives to faith. They opened a door for the entrance of spiritual life or strengthened the confidence of weak disciples. They were outgoings of that spirit which pervades and characterizes the New Covenant, and some of them were emblematical of redemptive working in the kingdom of grace. The opening of the eyes of the blind symbolized, we cannot doubt, the higher act of imparting spiritual discernment; the cleansing of lepers was an emblem of purifying the hearts of men from sin; raising the dead was typical of a better resurrection

hereafter; and casting out demons foreshadowed the ultimate overthrow of Satan's kingdom. These are but specimens. Besides, no miracle was wrought to gratify a vain curiosity. No mighty work was performed for the sake of display, or to win human applause. His power was never exercised at the beck of captious men, nor his hand stretched forth to save himself from toil or reproach. His moral aim, both in miracles and teachings, was one; and so godlike as to be on a plane with the greatest miracle, making the latter seem to be in perfect keeping with his whole life. "It is remarkable," says Prof. Harris, "that, however incredible the Scripture miracles would seem in any other book, we are never conscious of surprise, never regard them as incredible, incongruous or unexpected, when we read of them in the Bible. The central thought that this is the record of God's feelings and acts in saving men, is so vast, the truths opened to us are so stupendous, the scenes disclosed so sublime, every step in the progressing story is so manifestly the step of the Almighty, that these great miracles harmonize with the grandeur of the whole revelation; they seem to us no more surprising or incredible than the rainbow with which God adorns the retiring storm, or the stars with which he nightly gems the sky."

In view of these characteristics of our Saviour's miracles, as attested by the Evangelists, the mythical hypothesis is incredible. "The narratives bear every appearance of reality on their surface, and no skill or ingenuity can discover anything of a different character underneath the surface. The actors are real, the actions are real, the conversations, the discussions which accompany or rise out of the actions, and the proceedings which result from them, are real." When we reflect upon the references to natural scenery in the gospels, to particular mountains, hills, valleys, lakes, rivers and pools; to natural productions, as olives, vines, fig-trees, wheat, tares, mustard, lilies and the like; to the works of man, as houses, synagogues, boats, jars, baskets, beds, boxes, etc.; to the habits of the people, religious, social or domestic, at home or abroad, as hosts or as guests, at weddings and funerals, on the Sabbath or at the feasts, as teachers, shepherds or fishers; to

the civil divisions and relations of the country at that time, so numerous, complicated and fluctuating; to rulers mentioned by name, whether kings, tetrarchs, governors, procurators, centurions, publicans and soldiers, or high-priests, priests, members of the Sanhedrim and rulers of the synagogues; to diseases prevalent in the land, as fever, leprosy, blindness, palsy; and to the passions, prejudices, hopes and fears, of rulers and people;-if we reflect upon all these references and many more, remembering that in no single instance, however trifling, have the gospels been proved incorrect, while in hundreds and hundreds of the nicest details they are allowed to be most exact, it will be absolutely impossible for us to believe that these records were forged in the second century, and that their accounts of miracles wrought by Christ are legendary. Scepticism enforces a credulity which is truly monstrous to the sober reason of Christians; a credulity which is capable of but one explanation, namely, a resolve to dethrone reason sooner than accept Christ.

Finally: It is obvious that the evidential value of miracles is still very great. That it was so in the time of Christ and of the apostles is certain from their own declarations. In passages too numerous for citation, Jesus appealed to his mighty works as proof of his Messiahship. His disciples did the same. So also did Nicodemus and the man who was born blind. And even the bitter foes of Jesus could not agree in holding that a sinner, in league with Satan, could do all the mighty works ascribed to him. Jesus and his cotemporaries were right. Genuine miracles do ratify the claims of him at whose word they are wrought; for unless Divine he cannot work them himself, unless truthful God cannot be supposed to work them in his behalf. Miracles are the appropriate credentials of a messenger from God, and when properly attested they are decisive. Such were those of Jesus, and whatever value they may have had as revelations of other truth, they taught and established this beyond a question, that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. For us they do the same, inasmuch as the evidence of their reality is incontestible.

ARTICLE III.-THE LIFE OF EDWARD IRVING.

[BY REV. HEMAN LINCOLN, PROVIDENCE, R. 1.]

The Life of Edward Irving, Minister of the National Scotch Church. By MRS. OLIPHANT. Harper & Brothers, New York.

THE union of England and Scotland under the British crown has conferred great benefits on the smaller kingdom. It has opened new and large fields of enterprise for her energetic sons; has increased her national wealth and resources, and made her a lawful heir to the rich treasures of literature and science accumulated by her larger and more favored neighbor. It has, in short, lifted her social and national life to a higher plane of intelligence and prosperity. But if she has thus been a debtor in many ways to England, she has repaid every obligation received, ten-fold. Her stalwart sons have maintained the honor of the British flag on every hard-fought field from Blenheim and Waterloo to Sevastopol, and Lucknow, and Delhi. Her philosophers, in the persons of Stewart, and Reid, and Hamilton, have given law to English thought during the last century, and in the persons of Adam Smith and McCulloch, have laid a new foundation for the science of political economy. She has furnished her full share of wise statesmen to the cabinet and to Parliament, and far more than her share of brilliant stars in the literary firmament. The race of English giants had died out before Scotch intellect began to develop its best fruits. Shakspeare, and Bacon, and Milton, and Newton flourished before the mind of Scotland was fully quickened by the new life of the Reformation; they have had no successors since in England. But in the last one hundred and fifty years, England has produced no abler historians than Hume and Macaulay, no poet of finer genius than

Burns, no novelist equal to Sir Walter Scott, and no essayists or reviewers worthy to be named with Jeffrey and Wilson, and Macaulay and Carlyle.

Dr. Johnson, with characteristic energy and bitterness, said that the pleasantest of all prospects for a Scotchman was the last hill which separated him from England on his journey to London. But it may be fairly claimed, in return, that if England has proved a good home to the migrating sons of the north, so that London has a larger Scotch population than Edinburgh, they have added greatly to the industry, and thrift, and intelligence of the great metropolis. And foremost among her sons who have made to themselves a name, and exerted an influence in the commercial capital of the world, is Edward Irving, the subject of our present paper.

Mrs. Oliphant has performed her work with an admiration of her hero which too often biases her sober judgment. We cannot agree with the critics generally in bestowing high praise upon her memoir. It is, no doubt, the most complete and satisfactory that has yet appeared. It gives the whole outward history of his life with great fidelity, and compels a more favorable judgment of his character than has been common among sober-minded Christians. It is well written, too, giving evidence of the practised skill acquired by successful efforts in the lighter departments of literature. But it fails to give the reader any satisfactory idea of the man, or of the processes of his mental and spiritual growth. He fails to learn what books he read, what cultivated associates he had, what intellectual forces operated on him, aside from his professional duties. He was for several years a brilliant phenomenon in London, the particular star of the world of fashion; but we can find no proof in this volume that he ever entered fashionable circles as a guest, or was brought in contact with even literary men. He was intimate with Basil Montagu and Coleridge, and with his countrymen, Wilkie and Allan Cunningham, and occasionally crossed the path of Thomas Carlyle, but beyond this we have no knowledge. His diary, kept very minutely for his wife during five weeks of her absence from London, when at the height of his popularity, and occasional