the church, have testified that their faith in Christianity rested on their personal experience of its power, rather than on the traditional history of its miracles? We are compelled to number with this class many of the most gifted thinkers, and eloquent teachers, who have devoted their lives to the study and defence of the Gospel. According to the theory which makes the evidence of miracles the only foundation of faith, we must cease to think of them as Christians, and regard them either as dreamers or impostors, men who were deceived themselves, or who wished to deceive others. We flatter ourselves, that there is too much freedom and tolerance among a portion, at least, of the Christian Church, to suffer this. Yet, if we would preserve our consistency, we must adopt this procedure or abandon the theory.

Its fallacy, we are persuaded, would be still more clearly shown by an appeal to the experience of Christians, at the present day. Let the consciousness of individuals be examined. Let the processes of faith and piety be revealed. Let us watch the growth of religious feeling from its morning dawn in the slumbering soul to the evening serenity of its departing sun. Should we find that the warmest faith was quickened into life by the narration of any past changes in the physical world? Was it the fact, that miracles were wrought in Palestine, centuries ago, or that a revelation was made to our better nature, of perpetual duration and validity, which inspired faith in Christ? Can it be proved, that among the swelling throngs who bear the name, and profess the religion of Jesus, there is not one who was first led to him by a personal conviction of the divinity of his teachings, from its correspondence with all that is divine within his nature, rather than from the dim perception of historical events, which receive their significance from faith, instead of serving it for a foundation? But this is essential to the support of the hypothesis, that the evidence of miracles, and the belief of Christianity, are related to each other as cause and effect. If a single individual can be found who acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the Saviour of his soul, because he knows him as the way, the truth, and the life, without connecting his faith with historical events that are uncertain in their meaning, and difficult of proof, the experience of that individual is sufficient to vitiate the hypothesis.

But we would go still further than this. We deem it an

error, under any circumstances, to rest a system of spiritual truth addressed to the soul, upon the evidence of miracles addressed to the senses. It is a matter of great surprise to us, that the foundation of religion has been placed upon this ground, for so long a time, without a suspicion, that it was in violation of the teachings of the Bible. It has been assumed, almost without asking a question in explanation, that the primary design of the miracles, recorded in the Scriptures, was to produce conviction of religious truth. It is said again and again, without so much as a whisper to indicate the mistake, that the revelations of truth, in the old Dispensation and the new, are established upon the foundation of miracles. Now we take leave to deny the fact altogether. We know what we are saying, and we assert that the design of the miracles, in the Old and New Testament, was not to confirm a revelation of spiritual truth, but to accomplish quite a different purpose. We would here point out a distinction, which has been strangely overlooked, but which is essential to a correct view of the miracles of the Bible. These miracles, we maintain, are proved by the historical accounts which relate them, not to have been intended for the demonstration of religious truth, but to authenticate the claims, or to accomplish the purposes of messengers of God, in a capacity other than that of religious teachers. The most remarkable series of miracles, on many accounts, are those ascribed to Moses at the court of Pharaoh. But he went there with no revelation of spiritual truth. It did not enter within the compass of his plan to convince the Egyptian monarch of the validity of any speculative doctrines. He was not sent as the herald of new ideas, which unveil the mysteries of the unseen world, but as the agent for accomplishing a practical effect. It was his mission to redeem the captive Israelites from bondage; to convince their oppressor that he had the authority of God for this design; and he, accordingly, exhibited before him the signs of preternatural power, the proofs which were best adapted to assure a sensual king that the credentials under which he acted bore the signature of the Almighty. The object which he had in view was action and not instruction; and he, therefore, addressed prodigies to the senses, instead of truth to the soul.

We have indicated the principle, but we have no space to follow it out. It will serve us well in explaining the miracu lous events recorded in the early history of the Jews. We

shall find, on examination, that whatever difficulties may exist as to their character, there is none as to their purpose. They were performed as incentives to action, and not as evidences of truth. They were intended to substantiate the claims of the heroes of the old covenant to special divine favor, rather than to shed any fresh light on the character of God or the destiny of man. When the prophets appeared, those glorious minstrels who breathed forth the soul of harmony on a jangled age, we find that miracles became less frequent, and instruction more constant. They anticipated, in many respects, the rising of Christianity over their misty mountain tops, and like the Redeemer, whom they predicted, trusted more to the essential power of truth, than to the collateral force of miracles.

With regard to our Saviour himself, we think it will appear, that his miracles of majesty and love were the free expressions. of his character, rather than the formal supports of his mission. He exercised the divine power with which God had endowed him, not in the way of demonstration, but of philanthropy. He did not say, "Look at these miracles and believe what I declare;" on the contrary, he left his works to produce their own blessed effects on the body, while he put forth his truth to operate, in a similar manner, upon the soul. In some instances, it may be thought that he appealed to his miracles as an evidence that he was the messenger of God, and, therefore, entitled to be heard; but even this was not in confirination of the truth of his doctrine, but of the authority with which he announced it. In the final appeal, he rested the claim of his truth on its intrinsic divinity and power.

Indeed, we do not see how our Lord could have adopted a different method, under the circumstances in which he was placed. The apparent performance of miracles was not peculiar to him. It was not sufficient to authenticate his mission as divine, without reference to other sources of conviction. The very records which describe the miracles of Christ, inform us that similar works were performed by others, who did not acknowledge his authority, but acted in their own name. It was an age in which portents and prodigies were not uncommon. How, then, was a true miracle to be distinguished from a false one? The Pharisees accused our Saviour of casting out devils through the Prince of the devils; how could this accusation be set aside, but by establishing the divinity of his mission on inde

pendent evidence. If it had previously been made clear that God was with him, there would be no difficulty in admitting that his miracles were wrought by the finger of God. The evidence of the miracles, alone, will not sustain the test of a searchng examination; for in themselves considered, they afford us no criterion to decide between the miracles of Christ, and the miracles of a pretender. We must view them from a higher point of vision, before they are made to stand out in contrast with all others, in their own peculiar beauty and grandeur.

In like manner, we know of no unerring test, by which to distinguish a miracle of religion from a new manifestation of natural powers, without a previous faith in the divinity of the performer. The phenomena of electricity and magnetism exhibit wonders surpassing the ordinary agencies of nature. Upon their first discovery, they presented all the characteristics by which we designate miracles, except their application to religious purposes. If a miracle is said to have been wrought by one whom we already know to be in possession of supernatural gifts, there is a strong presumption that it may be true; but if the evidence of supernatural endowments is made to depend on the miracle, we ask how we are to know that what appears to be a miracle is, in fact, supernatural, and not a new developement of nature.

If, then, a firm faith in Christianity may be cherished independently of miracles; if the purpose of miracles be to operate within the sphere of action rather than of thought; and if there be great difficulties in the proof of miracles, without a previous conviction of the divine authority of him who is said to exhibit them, we hold it to be an unsound method to make a belief in them the essential foundation of Christian faith, or the ultimate test of Christian character.

It will be perceived, that in the foregoing remarks, we have not been inclined to controvert the truth of the Christian miracles. They are subjects of historical inquiry, and are to be settled by historical considerations, including that of the character and position of their author. We wish only to maintain what we deem a better mode of examining the evidences of Christianity than that which is usually pursued in the study of theology. The adoption of this mode, we are persuaded, would remove some of the strongest objections of infidels, and convert the timid and wavering faith of multitudes into strong and masculine conviction. Let the study of theology com

mence with the study of human consciousness. Let us ascertain what is meant by the expression, often used, but little pondered, the Image of God in the Soul of Man. Let us determine whether our nature has any revelation of the Deity within itself; and, if so, analyze and describe it. If we there discover, as we firmly believe we shall, a criterion of truth, by which we can pass judgment on the Spiritual and Infinite, we shall then be prepared to examine the claims of a Divine Revelation in history. If our inward eye is unsealed, we shall discern the glory of God in the Person of his Son. Our faith will embrace him, with a vital sympathy and certainty, as the bearer of the highest inspiration of Heaven. We shall experience in our own souls, the miracles of redemption and grace which he daily works therein, and with this conscious perception of his divine power, it will be easy to believe that he who has quelled our earthly passions, and raised us from the death of sin to a life in God, had authority to still the elements and restore Lazarus from the grave.

G. R.

ART. VII. On the Proper Character of Poetry and Music for Public Worship.

POETRY for public worship is musical poetry. To lay down the principles on which it should be constructed we have first to determine the connexion between music and devotion. A musical, religious service should preserve the essential characteristics of music, however modified by the particular subject or occasion. Music and Poetry, as well as the sister arts, Painting and Sculpture, have distinctive attributes, while they have a character in common, seeing that they all express the sentiment of the beautiful and perfect. Each of these noble arts supplies a want in our nature. In the world of sights and sounds, words are the "express images" (so to speak) of the world of thoughts, and feelings, and sentiments. in certain relations and combinations, they address our practical and intellectual powers; seen in others, grouped together in those forms in which we recognise beauty, grace, harmony, they address our feelings and sentiments. What observation

Seen