as in former ages the same causes have rendered theologians insensible to the realities of physical truth.

But the dissipation of these being presupposed in both cases, it follows that in the same manner as physical science is the result of the application of our rational powers to the investigation of the phenomena of the Universe, and mental science results from their application to the facts of mind, and moral science to those of our moral nature and conscience; so theological science is the result of the application of our reason to the data furnished us by Revelation.* In each case our reason is fallible, and we are liable to draw erroneous conclusions, from which fallibility neither theologians nor scientists can claim exemption. In by-gone ages the latter have propounded erroneous systems in abundance. Can it be said that theologians have not fallen into similar errors? Or have we at the present day any right to claim an infallibility for our various theological systems, and after the manner of the sects stake the life of Christianity on their truth? Our only safeguard is so to profit by the errors of the past as to lead us to employ better methods of investi gation in the future. But let it be observed that like as the errors of philosophers and scientists are unable to obscure the great truth that the Universe is a manifestation of the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator,-a truth which will ever be recognized by the unsophisticated heart of man, despite all the theories of atheism and pantheism,

*Nothing is more dangerous to the Christian cause than the outcry which various schools of popular theology are in the habit of raising against the use of reason in religious investigations, and the mode in which it is constantly spoken of as opposed to faith. Such persons would do well to meditate on the following passage of Bishop Butler:"I express myself with caution lest I should be misunderstood to vilify reason, which is indeed the only faculty we have wherewith to judge concerning anything, even Revelation itself, or be misunderstood to assert that a supposed revelation cannot be proved false from internal characters."—(Analogy, Part II. chap. iii.) Reason is not a perfect light, nor an infallible guide; but as it is the only light and guide which we possess, we shall not improve our condition by extinguishing it.

so the errors of theologians are unable to hide from us the still greater truth, that the moral perfections of God clearly shine forth in the person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord.

In making these observations, I by no means wish to deny that the Apostolic epistles contain a theology in a rudimentary form. But viewed in relation to the present subject, the important point to observe is that they are a commentary on the facts of Revelation in a very unsystematic form, just as it was called forth by the exigencies of particular Churches, and that they also form our sole record of the subordinate revelations through which the meaning of the great facts of Christianity was communicated to the primitive believers.

I am aware that there is also another theory, which affirms that these revelations and their meaning have been handed down by the traditions of the Church, and secured from errors by the permanently abiding presence in it of the divine Spirit. But to discuss this question would be to enter into a controversy which has neither limits nor bounds. Its indefinite character alone must exclude it from forming a portion of Christian evidences. Christianity must on other grounds be accepted as a divine revelation before it is possible to accept the theory in question.

My position therefore, stated generally, is, Revelation is throughout essentially divine; systematized theology is a human science.

This being so, the ground which must be occupied and defended by the Christian advocate becomes clear and definite. It is not the wide range of Christian theology, nor any particular theory as to the mode in which Revelation has been communicated, or as to the degree of inspiration which has been afforded to those by whom its record has been committed to writing; but the proof of the actual presence of a divine element in Christianity. My duty is to show not only that the facts are true, but that the divine is manifested in them. All other considerations stand extraneous to the subject-matter of these Lectures.

If this position be correctly taken, the points of controversy between those who affirm and those who deny Christianity to be a divine revelation, are brought within definite limits. We are saved from the necessity of wandering over an indefinite range of subject-matter. Numerous controversies now raging have only an indirect bearing on the real point at issue. This, I repeat, is, Have we evidence that there is a manifestation of the divine in Christianity? If this be so, it must be a divine revelation, and a matter of unspeakable importance to mankind. Under the influence of increasing light, whether derived from the study of the Universe, or as Butler has pointed out, of the facts of Revelation itself, we may have to change many of our theological positions, as inadequate exponents of its great realities; but the great fact that God has spoken, and is still speaking to man in Jesus Christ will remain

untouched.

Such being the case, it will be desirable that I should enumerate a few of the questions which lie outside the position which the defender of Christianity is called upon to occupy. It is necessary to do so, because the identification of a large number of questions now eagerly debated between Christians and unbelievers with the truth of Christianity itself, not only in the popular mind, but by many earnest inquirers, is one of the chief causes by which the faith of multitudes has been shaken in the present day. This is the reason why I have been careful to lay down the distinction between Christianity as a revelation, and Christianity as a theology. If the view above taken is correct, the whole range of formulated theology, except as far as it is a matter of direct and positive revelation, is extraneous to the question whether Christianity is or is not a divine revelation. The determination whether its statements are legitimate deductions from the facts of Christianity, belongs to scientific theology, and will not affect the divine character of the facts themselves. In a similar manner, various questions connected with the origin of the books of the Old Testa

ment, and their correct interpretation, however profoundly interesting in a theological point of view, form no portion of our evidential position. The defender of Christianity is by no means called upon to prove that they are free from philosophical, scientific, or historical errors, or even from moral imperfections. To use an illustration borrowed from Paley, it is most unwise to stake the truth of Christianity on our ability to prove that every miraculous narrative recorded in its pages must, beyond all controversy, be accepted as an historical fact. To do this, would involve the defender of Christianity in the necessity of maintaining the truth of some special theory of inspiration, against which it is impossible at the present time too earnestly to protest; for its identification with certain theories extensively popular forms one of the strongholds of unbelief. So likewise I accept Paley's general positions, that the Christian advocate is only concerned with the Old Testament so far as portions of it have received the direct sanction of Our Lord. I by no means overlook the importance of these questions as far as they bear on the elaboration of a true Christian theology; but they must not be allowed to be mixed up with the allimportant question, whether Christianity contains a manifestation of the divine, or whether it has been the mere evolution of those moral and spiritual forces which energize in man. To do so is to weaken our position by indefinitely extending it; a movement which can only be profitable to our opponents.

For the same reasons a number of very interesting questions respecting the New Testament, which have been made the subjects of most eager controversy, form no portion of the position necessary to be maintained by the defender of Christianity as vital to its truth. It is a matter of comparative unimportance in reference to the real issue whether Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene in the year when John the Baptist commenced his ministry; whether Cyrenius was twice governor of Syria; whether our Lord cured one or two demoniacs at Gadara, or one or two blind men at Jericho;

or the precise mode in which Judas died. The successful solution of these and a number of similar questions would doubtless afford an additional confirmation of the historical accuracy of some of the writers of the New Testament. But such points are often discussed as if the life of Christianity was involved in them, whereas the only point which they really involve is the truth of a particular theory of inspiration. Nor is the question whether each. Gospel was written by the person whose name it bears, nor the actual date when its contents were first committed to writing, material to the present issue. Nor is it necessary to prove that the quotations from the Old Testament in the New are accurate renderings of the meaning of the original, or that the logic of the Epistles is always accurate, when estimated according to our scientific forms of reasoning.* These, and a number of other questions, are profoundly interesting in a theological point of view; but they have no direct bearing on the all-important questions, whether there is evidence that a superhuman power has manifested itself in Christianity; whether the great facts on which Christianity is based were historical realities; whether the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fact, or the belief in it originated

* I have selected several of these questions, because they are those by means of which modern unbelief directs some of its sharpest attacks on Christianity as a divine revelation. This indefinite extension of our position is simply to play into the hands of our opponents. They naturally prefer to raise side issues, instead of dealing with the centre of the Christian position. Thus nothing is more common than to raise questions about miracles generally, and the imperfection of the attestation of this or that particular miracle, instead of dealing with the one great evidential miracle of Christianity, the Resurrection, on the reality of which its truth rests. If they could prove that this was a fiction, they would force the entire Christian position. If it is a fact, Christianity will remain intact, notwithstanding all their attacks on the other miraculous narratives in the Bible. It must be confessed, however, that the defenders of Revelation have greatly encouraged them in this practice, by not insisting on confining the issue to the discussion of this one great question.