whole. My aim has been to supply a connected view of the As a rule, I have only given references to writers, whose The line of inquiry here carried out was first undertaken for In preparing the essay for the press I have entirely re- SOUTH STREET, ST. ANDREWS, August, 1876. RELIGIOUS IDEAS AND METAPHYSICAL CONCEPTIONS, WITH RE- REASON AND REVELATION. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. "We have for the most part only believers in the Bible, and not believers in revelation; for even those who call themselves believers in revelation understand by revelation nothing else but the Bible." SCRIPTURE Revelation suggests two lines of inquiry; that of Revelation in general, and that of Scripture Revelation in particular. The one is a mode of the other, and in determining the nature of Revelation in itself we shall at the same time touch the fundamental characteristic of Scripture Revelation. What is true of Revelation in itself may, perhaps, be more clearly ascertained in the first place, as much as possible, independently of the Scripture records. No discussion of the subject, however, can be thorough which does not include these documents. As data in the present investigation, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments must not be regarded as Revelation in itself, but rather as a form or record of a Revelation, and as such illustrative of the wider question. Such a method has, at all events, the merit of greater fairness as compared with the method formerly current, and to some extent still prevalent. It simplifies a subject which is already sufficiently complicated. The popular idea of Revelation (partly the cause and partly the effect of the earlier method), as a communication of a set of doctrines contained in a particular book, has given rise to much confusion of thought, not only on this fundamental point in theology, but on every subject connected with biblical science. This popular view, starting at first from a limited conception of Revelation, as presented in the Old and New Testaments and reflected in the theological systems drawn from them, although traceable to very early times, was only fully developed and perfected into a theory about the Reformation era. The necessities of the time compelled the leaders B of that movement to repel authority by authority, and to assert a principle which, while correct in its most general conception, was made the occasion of constructing a dogma of Revelation differing only in appearance from the opposing Catholic doctrine. The general result of the teaching of the Reformation on the subject is sufficient evidence of the correctness of these remarks. We are only now beginning to free ourselves from the narrow and formal principles of that ecclesiastical era, and to breathe in airier regions. It is quite true that our bonds were first broken by the Protestant party, but not by the Protestant reform mode of thought. We owe our freedom to what some may think foreign aid. We are indebted to the philosophical and historical schools for our manumission, and not, directly at least, to our theological antecedents. Indirectly, no doubt, the revolt of the sixteenth century rendered similar revolts possible by presenting to all time a spirit of freedom. Critical investigation has thrown new light upon the Scripture records, and in doing so has shown elements in them which conservative theology is slow to allow. The historical spirit, so keenly susceptible to the reality that lies beneath past forms of thought and extinct nationalities, has opened our eyes to the Jewish nationality and literature. It has also made manifest the possibility of a distinction between Revelation and Scripture, and given us, instead of the one Divine element in both, the two essential elements of vital and intelligible spiritual sympathy, God and man. The notion that man was not co-operative in the act of Revelation is contradicted both by the nature of the act itself and the record of Revelation which we possess. It seems necessary that in any communication to intelligent man intelligent action should be presupposed. By the laws of our constitution we are prevented from conceiving that process of inpouring or inbreathing, once a favourite mode of representing the act of Revelation. If Revelation be, as its name implies, an unveiling, there must be not only the mind that performs the act but the mind that perceives the facts or things unveiled. Were man passive in such a process, it is difficult to see how the Revelation could affect him. Whatever we know in our ordinary sense experience, we are conscious of through some modification of our nature. In all perceptions the personal function is a necessary factor in the operation; and in the highest perceptions of all, and those ultimately regulative of our higher life, we cannot but think this self modification operative. If we deny self determination in the reception of spiritual truths, we seem to be reduced to mere |