His life, teaching, death, and resurrection, is not an ideal creation, but a body of historic facts.

In determining the extent of the position which must be occupied by the defender of Christianity, it is of the highest importance that we should keep clearly in view the distinction which exists between Revelation on the one hand, and inspiration and theology on the other. On this point great confusion of thought has prevailed; and the result has been that the line of our defence has become dangerously extended. The wide extent of the position, to the defence of which the Christian advocate is supposed to be committed, forms one of the strongholds of popular unbelief. It is also undeniable that theology has in former ages claimed, as its legitimate domains, whole provinces of thought from which it has had to beat a retreat before the steady advance of scientific knowledge. It will probably have to retire further still before it occupies its rightful position. Such retreats have been attended with disastrous results; and with the experience of the past before us, I must claim the right-it is in fact our duty-to separate the defence of Christianity from every question which is not vitally connected with the Christian position, and to confine it to the historic facts which form the foundation on which the Church has been erected, and the inner life of Christianity, as a great moral and spiritual power, is based. The consideration of the inferences deducible from these facts is the proper function, not of the Christian advocate, but of the scientific theologian. The relation in which the popular theories of inspiration stand to science, and their bearing on Christianity as a divine revelation, I shall consider in the concluding Lecture of this course; at present it will be only necessary for me to offer a few brief remarks on the distinction between Revelation and Inspiration.

I have already shown that the innermost temple of Christianity, around which the whole might of our defence must be concentrated, is the objective fact of the Incarnation, and the historical truth of the divine life, as

recorded in the pages of the Evangelists. But in addition to this great fundamental revelation some of the writers of the New Testament claim to have been the subjects of special revelations, by which the meaning of the great facts which constitute the essence of Christianity was imparted to their minds. These revelations, however, differ widely from that of which I have been speaking; and it is very difficult to lay down a clear distinction between them and the gift which we commonly call inspiration. Thus St. Paul affirms that he received his knowledge of the great principles of Christianity by revelation, and that he did not derive them from any human source.* In other cases we can discover clear traces of the presence of a human element. Thus the slow and gradual influence of the Spirit unfolded to the leaders of the Church what constituted the essential principles of Christianity, as distinct from the Judaism in which they had been born and educated. This we know from the history to have been brought about, not so much by a direct infusion of light and knowledge into their minds as by the leading of the events of Providence. Of this we have a remarkable illustration in the account which is given us of the mode in which the enlightenment of Peter was effected, which led to the reception of Cornelius into the Church. In it Peter's reason co-operated with the divine enlightenment. A vision was the immediate agent, of which several events of Providence suggested the interpretation. Of a

Thus he writes, "But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man; for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. i. 11, 12). Again, "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the Mystery of Christ" (Eph. iii. 3, 4). This latter passage implies that the two former chapters may be received as the record of this revelation. Both passages, however, definitely affirm that its subject matter was strictly limited to the communication of Christian truth, and involved no enlightenment beyond its limits.

similar character was the revelation made to St. Paul, which led to the first preaching of Christianity in Europe. This forms a remarkable illustration of the relation in which such revelations stood to the ordinary action of the faculties of those who received them. The command to pass into Europe was not one which was given in direct terms. The historian tells us that St. Paul proposed to open a mission in two other places; but that he was hindered by the Spirit. On arriving at Troas he saw a vision of a man of Macedonia standing by him, and saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us. From these circumstances the historian tells us that they assuredly gathered that the Lord had called them to preach the Gospel to them; or in other words, that it was not a direct revelation of the Spirit, but an inference from the vision, united with the fact that they had been forbidden to preach in two other places. In this case, as in St. Peter's vision, the divine and the human elements are quite separable from one another, the duty of passing into Macedonia being a rational inference from the vision. How far this was the case in the other revelations spoken of by St. Paul, we have no means of judging.

Both these modes of communicating truth may be designated revelations.

Theoretically therefore, the New Testament may be said to contain the record of two species of revelations-one, the record of those objective facts which form God's great moral and spiritual revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ-and the other, the commentary made by its authors on those facts, as far as their meaning was revealed to them by the Divine Spirit. This latter, however, is so mixed up with the question of inspiration that for all practical purposes it is inseparable from it; and must therefore be dealt with on the same principles as a branch of scientific theology.

It will now be necessary for the purpose of defining clearly the limits of our evidential position to consider the relation in which theology stands to Revelation.

If I have correctly laid down the two preceding propositions, that Revelation consists of the objective facts on which Christianity is based, and in a secondary sense, or the disclosures made to Apostolic men respecting their nature and meaning, it follows that the position of theology in relation to Christianity must consist in the elaboration of a body of systematic truth out of the facts and data furnished by Revelation. For evidential purposes it is of the utmost importance to keep this distinction clearly in view, and thereby to guard against that widely-spread confusion of thought which identifies Christianity as a revelation with Christianity as a theology, and has led to the almost indefinite extension of the position which it is supposed to be the duty of the Christian advocate to defend. As a clear perception of the nature of this distinction is of the highest importance in relation to my argument, it is necessary that I should define the position which I take with the utmost clearness.

I observe therefore, that theology as a science must stand in the same relation to the facts of Revelation as the physical sciences do to the facts of the Universe. The function of these latter is to investigate the facts, to formulate them, and to evolve out of them the truths which they contain. Precisely similar is the function of theology with regard to the facts of Revelation. These form its data. The duty of the theologian is to perform for them an office similar to that which the scientific investigator does for the facts of nature. This being so, the same methods of investigation must be applicable to each, as far as is consistent with their different subject-matter.

Both must involve rational processes; both will be liable. to the intrusion of human error; and their successful study will be dependent on the employment of a proper method of investigation.

The distinction therefore, between Christianity as a revelation and Christianity as a theology, becomes clear. Christianity as a revelation consists of those objective

facts through which God has manifested to man his moral. and spiritual character. Christianity as a theology consists of a body of formulated truths elaborated by reason out of those facts as its data.

It will be objected that, in running this parallel, I overlook the necessity of the influence of the Divine Spirit for the purpose of illuminating the heart and the understanding in the study of theology. I by no means do so. The Baconian method teaches us that physical truth can only be successfully studied by first dissipating those dark mists, and the various idola, which naturally brood over the human understanding; and its founder has elaborately described their nature and character. Precisely the same is it with the successful study of the data furnished by Revelation. Here even darker mists enshroud our understandings, which must be dissipated before our mental powers can be successfully applied to the study of Christian truth. One of these pre-conditions is a willingness to do the will of God.* We all know how the progress of scientific knowledge has been impeded in the past by the prepossessions of those who have devoted themselves to its study. Witness the failure of the acutest intellects of the ancient world to penetrate the arcana of the Universe. Similar prepossessions are equally fatal to the appreciation of Christian evidences and of Christian truth. The attention of many of the students of the physical sciences may not unfitly be directed to the closeness of the analogy; and they may well be asked to consider whether some of their methods of dealing with Revelation are not due to prepossessions and idola which darken their mental vision, in the same manner

* Such a precondition for the effectual appreciation of Revelation is distinctly laid down by Our Lord, "If any man will (0λy, i.e. wills, is earnestly desirous of doing) do God's will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (John vii. 17). This, though pre-eminently true of religious truth, is applicable to every kind of truth, except perhaps the evidence of mathematical demonstration. The ethical readiness to accept it is a precondition of its perception.