us now just as much as ever. If I acknowledge His presence in many of the songs of the Psalter, I see it also in many of the poems of Cowper and Keble. If I recognise the Word of God in some of the writings of Isaiah, and Daniel, and St. Paul, I recognise it also by the same indelible signs in some of the writings of Besson, Lacordaire, Robertson and Parker. The distinction which theologians endeavour to establish between what they call the ordinary and extraordinary gifts of the spirit, is purely arbitrary, and springs out of the embarrassments occasioned by the incurable weakness of their logical position. If that which God gives to us in answer to our prayers is not the spirit of truth, what is it? And if it is, why are we to say that the Word of God is to be met with nowhere but in the Bible, or that it is not to be recognized by the same signs as enable us to discern its presence in the Bible? No, Conway; continue to assert, if you can do so without a twinge of conscience, that the Books of Joshua, Judges, Chronicles, Esther, &c. &c. were written throughout under the most direct Divine inspiration, but do not let the exigencies of any dogmatic theory tempt you to deny what in your conscience you believe, viz. that the traces of the direct influence of God's spirit are far more manifestly apparent in many uncanonical books than in some of those which Protestants regard as forming an essential part of the only infallible thing on earth. LEONARD There, Conway. You have your answer; so let us break up for the present, with the understanding that when we next set to work, the unexampled patience of Basil shall have its reward. 205 DIALOGUE V. LEONARD Now then, Basil, at length your time is come. The cause of dogma is in your hands ;-and if you will propose the subjects of discussion in the order which may in your judgment best serve the interests of your client, we will not only loyally follow your lead, but steadily resist every temptation to cross your path with any problems of our own. BASIL A most liberal offer; and I accept it all the more thankfully, because I have for some time been anxious to challenge your attention, Max, to what I cannot but think is a signal omission in your memorandum. You seem to have altogether ignored the whole argument derivable from Scripture miracles. Though dogmas may, in some cases, be proved independently of miracles, the proof of miracles seems to me necessarily to involve the dogmatic character of religion. Even if you should be disposed, like Mr. Baden Powell, to deny the possibility of miracles, you can only support your denial by an appeal to the intellect, rather than to the conscience; and if, in such an intellectual conflict, you should be worsted, you would of course be obliged to accept all the logical consequences of your defeat. You will not, however, I suspect, take this line; and yet for you to admit the possibility of miracles is like jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire. Such an admission imports that there is an amount of evidence which would satisfy you of the truth of a miracle; and if, in the case of any alleged miracle, the required amount of evidence were produced, the truth of the doctrines, whether dogmas or not, which the miracle was intended to attest, may, as a general rule, be logically inferred. Let, then, the intellect be once satisfied of the truth of any of the Gospel miracles, and the necessary connexion between dogma and religion becomes at once apparent. I should like to hear what you have to say upon this point before we proceed to examine the evidence for particular miracles. MAX And I, before I reply to your challenge, should like to hear what Conway and Leonard have to say about it. CONWAY I knew that we should sooner or later come to this issue; and I can only regret that upon the first point raised by Basil, my sympathies should lead me to side with the heretics. Of course I do not mean to question the possibility of miracles, nor the truth of the Scripture miracles; but on a full consideration of the Gospel narratives, I doubt whether our Lord was anxious to make us accept His miraculous powers as trustworthy evidence, either of the truth of His doctrine, or of the divinity of His commission. BASIL Why, Conway, I could overwhelm you with a multitude of passages from all the Gospels. You must have forgotten the terms in which the disciples of St. John the Baptist are referred by our Lord to His miraculous powers, as proofs of His Messiahship. Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see. The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the Gospel preached unto them.' Consider well, moreover, the words of our Lord's prayer, at the grave of Lazarus, recalling very strongly the words of Elijah on Mount Carmel :-Father, I knew that thou hearest me always, but because of the people that stand by, I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me;' and then speedily follow the words 'Lazarus, come forth.' But perhaps my appeal to the fourth Gospel may be objected to. CONWAY The objection, at all events, will not be taken by me. It might, indeed, be said in passing, with reference to the celebrated interview between our Lord and the |