Finally, after all that has gone before we are not much astonished, but we _are_ considerably shocked, to read as follows:--"The Divine Omnipotence is entirely an inference _from the language of the Bible_, adopted _on the assumption_ of a belief in Revelation. That 'with GOD nothing is impossible' is the very declaration of Scripture; yet on this, the whole belief in Miracles is built[74]." Now, it happens that 'the whole belief in Miracles' is built on nothing of the kind: but the point is immaterial. By no means immaterial, however, is the intimation that the Divine attribute of Omnipotence is a mere inference from the language of Revelation,--the very belief in which is also a mere "assumption." _If belief in Holy Scripture_ is to be treated as _an assumption_,--without at all complaining of the unreasonableness of one who so speaks,--we yet desire that he would say it very plainly; and let us know at least _with whom_ we have to do, and _what_ we are expected to prove. We do not complain, if any one calls upon us to shew that a belief in the Bible cannot be called an assumption; but it makes us very sad: and when the challenge comes from a Minister of the Church, we are unable to forbear the remark that there is something altogether immoral[75] in the entire proceeding. On the other hand, to find ourselves involved in an argument on questions of Divinity with one _who believes nothing_, is in a manner absurd; and provokes a feeling of resentment as well as of pity.... What need to add that life is not long enough for such processes of proof? "He that cometh unto GOD _must believe that He is_!" We cannot be for ever laying the foundation. The building must begin, at last, to grow. And when it _has_ grown up, and is compact as well as beautiful, it _cannot_ be necessary to pull it all down again once or twice in every century in order to ascertain whether the strong foundations be still there! * * * * *