with what the eye-witnesses could tell him; and if he could mistake a sunstroke, a trance, or a state of ecstatic dreaming for a Divine revelation, his character, judged of by his own writings, is verily incomprehensible. There is no such other enigma in all history. In his equally unquestioned letter to the Corinthians he tells them that he received from the Lord the particulars of the institution of the Lord's Supper. Of this memorable event Paul had ample opportunities of comparing what was revealed to him with what the disciples who were present could tell him; and he was in such intercourse with them, that the circumstances were highly favourable for an educated man, such as he was, arriving at the exact and absolute truth of the matter. [17] 1 Gal. i. 20. Our author's view of the question is narrowed by his refusing to acknowledge that mankind is morally depraved by sin. How a man, with the wickedness of such a city as London daily forced on his notice, and a knowledge of the history of the race in his memory, could have penned such a sentence as the following, it is difficult to conceive. "The whole theory of this abortive design of creation, with such important efforts to amend it, is emphatically contradicted by the _glorious perfection and invariability_ of the order of nature." Can he not see that the degradation and wickedness of humanity are in striking _contrast_ to the "glorious perfection and invariability of the order of nature"? He is bound to give some reason for this anomaly if he will not accept what revelation makes known to us as the cause. The abstract question as to the credibility of miracles Paul discussed in the year 58 at Cæsarea, in the presence of Festus and Agrippa, when he said, "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?" and it has been dealt with so exhaustively by Newton, Locke, Butler, Paley, Whateley, Olinthus Gregory, Wardlaw, Alexander, and a host of other writers, that there is really little more to be said. The "Fortnightly Review" remarks that the arguments on both sides are so familiar, that it is not necessary to reproduce the present author's mode of dealing with this part of the subject. Matthew Arnold describes it as an attempt to refute Dr. Mozley's Bampton Lecture on Miracles--"a solid reply to a solid treatise;" but that to engage in an _à priori_ argument to prove that miracles are impossible, against an adversary who argues, _à priori_, that they are possible, is the vainest labour in the world. Now, as Mr. Arnold is as much a disbeliever in miracles as our author, the worth of his abstract argument may be taken at Mr. Arnold's estimate, and he says: "The author of 'Supernatural Religion' asserts again and again that miracles are contrary to complete induction, but no such law of nature has been, or can be, established against the Christian miracles, therefore _a complete induction there is not_."