writers of repute, such as Dr. Scholten—­were applied to ordinary history or to the affairs of every-day life, much that is known actually to have happened could be shown on a priori grounds to be impossible.  It is time that the extreme negative school should justify more completely their canons of criticism.  As it is, the laxity of these repels many a thoughtful mind quite as firmly convinced as they can be of the necessity of free enquiry and quite as anxious to reconcile the different sides of knowledge.  The question is not one merely of freedom or tradition, but of reason and logic; and until there is more agreement as to what is reasonable and what the laws of logic demand, the arguments are apt to run in parallel lines that never meet [Endnote 348:1].

But, it is said, ‘Miracles require exceptional evidence.’  True:  exceptional evidence they both require and possess; but that evidence is not external.  Incomparably the strongest attestation to the Gospel narratives is that which they bear to themselves.  Miracles have exceptional evidence because the non-miraculous portions of the narrative with which they are bound up are exceptional.  These carry their truth stamped upon their face, and that truth is reflected back upon the miracles.  It is on the internal investigation of the Gospels that the real issue lies.  And this is one main reason why the belief of mankind so little depends upon formal apologetics.  We can all feel the self- evidential force of the Gospel story; but who shall present it adequately in words?  We are reminded of the fate of him who thought the ark of God was falling and put out his hand to steady it—­and, for his profanity, died.  It can hardly be said that good intentions would be a sufficient justification, because that a man should think himself fit for the task would be in itself almost a sufficient sign that he was mistaken.  It is not indeed quite incredible that the qualifications should one day be found.  We seem almost to see that, with a slight alteration of circumstances, a little different training in early life, such an one has almost been among us.  There are passages that make us think that the author of ‘Parochial and Plain Sermons’ might have touched even the Gospels with cogency that yet was not profane.  But the combination of qualities required is such as would hardly be found for centuries together.  The most fine and sensitive tact of piety would be essential.  With it must go absolute sincerity and singleness of purpose.  Any dash of mere conventionalism or self-seeking would spoil the whole.  There must be that clear illuminated insight that is only given to those who are in a more than ordinary sense ‘pure in heart.’  And on the other hand, along with these unique spiritual qualities must go a sound and exact scientific training, a just perception of logical force and method, and a wide range of knowledge.  One of the great dangers and drawbacks to the exercise of the critical faculty