The same author adduces the following objections, as lying at the root of miraculous testimony to a revelation: “Surely supernatural evidence of so common and prodigal a nature betrays great want of force and divine originality. How could that be considered as special evidence for a new revelation, which was already so well known to all the world, and which was scattered broadcast over so many centuries, as well as successfully simulated by Satan.” Again: “Instead of a few evidential miracles taking place at one epoch of history, and filling the world with surprise at such novel and exceptional phenomena, we find miracles represented as taking place in all ages and in all countries. The Gospel miracles are set in the midst of a series of similar wonders which commenced many centuries before the dawn of Christianity, and continued without interruption fifteen centuries after it. No divine originality characterized the evidence selected to accredit the divine revelation.” (P. 192.) I reply, First: It behoves those who except against the plan of attesting a divine revelation by miracles, to inform us in what other way it is possible that the truth of a divine commission can be attested. It is doubtless possible for God to make a special revelation of His will to each individual man; yet even this would involve supernatural agency of some kind; and it is very questionable whether to do so would be consistent with the plan of God’s moral government which comes under our actual observation. But the Christian revelation is founded on the idea of making a divine manifestation additional to, and of a different order from, that which is made by the created universe; and not simply of imparting so much additional information to each individual. This manifestation professes to be made by the Incarnation. How, I ask, was such a manifestation to be made except by a supernatural action of some kind? It is clear, therefore, that every manifestation of God differing from that made by the ordinary forces of nature, or by the moral nature of man, must be supernatural. There can be no doubt as to the means which must be employed. The only question which can be raised is one which I have considered elsewhere, namely: whether it is the purpose of God to make such a manifestation of Himself. It will be objected that such a manifestation might have been made self‐ evident to the moral nature of man, and consequently it would have required no additional attestation. To this I reply that, on the supposition that it is God’s purpose to make such an additional manifestation of Himself, He must be allowed to be the only adequate judge of the right mode of accomplishing it.