The Incarnation has frequently been designated a miracle. To do so seems to me to incur the danger of involving the whole controversy in confusion of thought. In a loose way of speaking, the creative acts of God may be called miracles: that is, they involve a deviation from the previous order of existing things, and the introduction of a new one; all such results are unquestionable manifestations of supernatural agency, but they differ wholly in conception from what we usually designate by the term miracle. The Incarnation, therefore, ought not to be placed on the same footing as miracles, which are supernatural occurrences, having a definite evidential value, but with God’s creative acts, being the highest manifestation of himself which he has made to man. It is perfectly true, as I have already observed, that the miracles of Jesus Christ stand in a double aspect, as part of his supernatural manifestation, and as possessing an evidential value. It is clear, therefore, that a supernatural event such as the Incarnation, if evidential, can only be self‐evidential. It was not wrought for the purpose of proving anything. But, as we have seen, the sacred writers and our Lord himself assert that in a certain sense it was self‐evidential. “For the life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us.” A recent writer affirms that Christianity professes to be a revelation of supernatural truths utterly inconceivable to reason, and that such truths can only be proved by miracles. I can understand what is meant by a truth derived from a supernatural source of information, or one respecting a supernatural being or occurrence: but what a supernatural truth can be contradistinguished from other kinds of truth is far from evident. Revelation may disclose truths which reason alone would have been unable to discover; but this does not make the truths themselves, when they are discovered, either supernatural or incomprehensible. I will now proceed to consider whether there is any real ground for affirming that occurrences which we designate as miracles are the only proofs of a divine revelation.