He quotes Archbishop Trench, who, in defining the function of a miracle, says,--"A miracle does not prove the truth of a doctrine or the divine mission of him that brings it to pass;" and Dr. Arnold, who says,--"It has always seemed to me that its substance is a most essential part of its evidence, and that miracles wrought in favour of what was foolish or wicked would only prove Manicheism:" which passages of fallible commentators fail to express the distinction between real miracles and spurious ones. But I ask, Why does he appeal to what Dr. Trench and Dr. Arnold, or any other commentator says, when he has before him our Saviour's own words? In arguing against miracles, it is not competent for him to put his own construction upon them in violation of the highest authority as to their purpose and design. I understand his conclusions to be against Christianity--not against what he is pleased to put in its place. It is in the Fourth Gospel we find Christ's words, but that book is too important a part of Divine revelation for any apologist to remain in the field of discussion and continue the argument if his opponent,--whether he be Mr. Mill or our author,--insists on assuming that on the Christian side the question is an open one whether the Fourth Gospel is to be accepted. The whole of the four Gospels as we have them were read in all the Christian Churches on the three continents in the middle of the second century, as our author well knows. He acknowledges that Irenæus, who wrote about A.D. 180, compared the four Gospels to the "four columns of the Church over the whole world;" and that in writings of his which we have, and the genuineness of which no one questions, there are hundreds of references to the Gospels, the fourth included. There is no question as to this being the fact at that date. It is the earlier date that the argument bears upon. The four Gospels are held together by an inseparable bond in the archives of the Church, and believers in them assert they will all four stand or fall together. I can only suppose that it was because Mr. Mill ignored the Fourth Gospel that he ignored the verses I have quoted. If an advocate has a weak case in hand, to damage the character of the witnesses is a well-known mode of proceeding; so our author asks who are the men who, it is asserted, saw these amazing performances? What were the intellectual conditions of the age when they occurred? "Did the Jews at the time of Jesus possess such calmness of judgment and sobriety of imagination as to inspire us with any confidence in accounts of marvellous occurrences unwitnessed except by them, and limited to their time, which contradict all knowledge and all experience? Were their minds sufficiently enlightened and free from superstition to warrant our attaching weight to their report of events of such an astounding nature?" (Vol. i. p. 98.)