"last month in Lent Term, and the end of the third week "in Act Term.

"Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity "Lecture Sermons shall be preached upon either of the following subjects-to confirm and establish the Chris"tian faith, and to confute all heretics and schismaticsupon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures—upon "the authority of the writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Churchupon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ -upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost-upon the "Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in the 66 Apostles' and Nicene Creed.

66

66

"Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity "Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two "months after they are preached; and one copy shall be given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy

to the Head of every College, and one copy to the "Mayor of the city of Oxford, and one copy to be put "into the Bodleian Library; and the expense of printing "them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Land or "Estates given for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the Preacher shall not be paid, nor be "entitled to the revenue, before they are printed.

"Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons unless "he hath taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in

one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge; "and that the same person shall never preach the Divinity "Lecture Sermons twice."

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

In answering the demand for a Second Edition of my Bampton Lectures, I have only to express my thanks to my numerous critics for the favourable opinions they have expressed upon them, and my own gratification at the manner in which the great principles which underlie them have been accepted by many competent judges, as embodying the correct mode of stating the Christian argument. Their wide acceptance by very divergent Schools of thought seems to me to prove that they had been long commending themselves to the minds of thoughtful men as constituting in the present aspects of thought the foundation on which the claims of Christianity to be accepted as a divine Revelation must be based, and as the only mode of commending it to the acceptance of unbelievers.

What I have really effected in these Lectures is to give expression to these thoughts, and to arrange them in a systematic form. Nothing has more strongly impressed upon my own mind the necessity-nay, the duty, of placing the moral evidences of Christianity in the front of the argument, and of assigning a subordinate place to those events which are commonly designated "miracles," than the enormous difficulties which that form of the argument which relics almost exclusively on the attesta

tion of miracles places in the way of an inquiring Hindu theist, and the all but illimitable investigation into which it compels him to enter before he can be expected to accept Christianity as a divine revelation.

The alterations introduced into the present edition are exclusively verbal. I am not aware that any one of my chief positions has been called in question by any writer of repute (with one exception, for which the writer is referred to the note at p. 448 of the present Edition), nor have I myself any important point either to retract or to qualify. Some minor points may be open to exception according as men's minds are variously constituted. This must be the case as long as the human mind is what it is-but on the great principle of the argument I am at one with my numerous critics.

To the remarks in the Seventh Lecture, and in its Second Supplement, in which I discuss certain positions taken by Dr. Carpenter in his "Mental Physiology," and in his article in the Contemporary Review for January, 1876, I must ask the reader's brief attention. Some points in them have led to a correspondence between us, and I have been requested by him to state in this Preface that the Resurrection of Our Lord was not intended by him to be referred to in the article in question. In obedience to this request, I cannot do better than quote his own words in one of his letters to me on the subject:-"I shall be glad if you will state in your new preface that I regard the historical evidence of that event as standing on a far wider basis than the historical evidence of any single miracle of the New Testament." Again :-" I regard the historical evidence of the Resurrection of Our Lord as of quite a different character from that of (e. g.) the raising of Lazarus or of the widow's son at Nain. Looking simply at the narratives in the Gospels, and comparing them with the narratives of similar miracles

in the writings of the early Fathers, I see no more ground for trusting the former as historically true, than I do for accepting the latter. But, on the other hand, looking at the unquestionable fact―for such it appears to me that the Resurrection of Our Lord was the foundation of the preaching of Paul and (so far as we know) of the other Apostles, and was universally accepted by the early Church as the cardinal doctrine of Christianity ("if Christ be not risen, then is our faith vain") the Gospel narratives derive from that fact a support that is given to none other of the miracles either of Christ or His followers." And again :

I regard the Life and Teachings of Christ as the highest moral Revelation of the Divine Mind that we possess,Nature being the highest Intellectual Revelation."

I feel great pleasure in inserting these extracts as defining Dr. Carpenter's views with respect to Christianity; especially as they seem to afford a very strong vindication of the first great position maintained in these Lectures, viz., that the moral evidences must be placed in the front of the Christian argument; as well as of my second position, viz., the importance of the Pauline Epistles as forming the very sheet-anchor of our historical evidence. I by no means wish to affirm that the proof of the fact of Our Lord's Resurrection necessarily establishes the truth of any other of the miracles recorded in the Gospels; but it certainly removes all the à priori difficulties with which they are attended; and taken in conjunction with the moral evidence adduced in the second, third, and fourth Lectures, renders it far more probable that such a person as Jesus Christ performed miracles than that he did not; and enables us to accept those recorded in the Gospels on evidence similar to that on which we accept the facts of ordinary history.

In discussing the position with regard to miracles taken by Dr. Carpenter in the Contemporary Review, I distinctly

stated that I was ignorant as to what were his private views about the Resurrection of Our Lord. There is nothing in his article which implies that he did not regard it as included among "the miracles of the New Testament." I was simply concerned with the effect which the reasonings of so eminent a man of science were likely to produce on the public mind, when published in a popular periodical; and I hold strongly to the opinion that ninety nine out of every hundred of those who read it would conclude that the Resurrection of Our Lord was included by him among those miracles. It affords me therefore the greatest pleasure to be able to affirm on his own authority that such was not his intention. If in my endeavour to point out the inaccuracy of his reasoning I have ranked him among the unbelievers in the truth of the Resurrection, it was solely owing to the fact that I had to deal with his arguments as representative of those used by many who disbelieve in Christianity as a Divine Revelation; and I had no means before me of ascertaining what were his private opinions on the subject. In fact I had only to do with his published writings. The brevity of space to which I was limited rendered it necessary that I should deal exclusively with facts and arguments, and with persons only as representing them.

The same remark is true with regard to the discussion of the subjects of "Prepossession," "Fixed Idea,” and "Expectancy" in the Seventh Lecture, where I had likewise not the smallest intention of implying that Dr. Carpenter intended the principles which he has laid down on these subjects to be applied in a manner adverse to Christianity. On the contrary, I have expressed approbation of the use which he has frequently made of them in his work on "Mental Physiology" for the purpose of exposing a number of delusions, among which is modern spiritualism.