of revelation, or from confounding it with any subjective products of its own, that, on the contrary, the longer it is exercised in this field, the more clearly does reason recognise the divine and transcendent character of revealed truth, as something supernaturally communicated to our human intelligence, and not self-produced; as something to be gradually appropriated, and not as an original possession. Belief, therefore, in the divine character of revelation is not a standpoint which reason has gradually to overcome, but one which, on the contrary, every increase of spiritual and moral insight has a constant tendency to illumine and corroborate.

These remarks apply equally to the intellectual apprehension of the original recipients of extraordinary revelations, and to our present knowledge of revealed truth as derived from Holy Scripture. With the preliminary question, whether the Bible really contains the records of a divine revelation, or is a mere product of human intelligence, we are not at prosent concerned. The only question we have to deal with here is, whether what we call the witness of the Spirit in our hearts— i.e. an inward consciousness of grace, of peace, and divine communion-may not after all be merely subjective, and have no producing cause beyond the operations of our own minds? "Whence canst thou know"-is the question now put to the Christian man" that thine inward experiences and enlightenment are, in fact, the operations of the Divine Spirit, and so far supernatural revelations, and not merely derived from thine. own mind? Is not thy whole faith, after all, nothing but

self-deception ?"

In answer to all this we reply, that Christian Revelation is ultimately based on external matters of fact and an objective history, and not on mere doctrinal truths. Christ Himself, as a historical personality, is the great fact and substance of His own revelation. But Facts, with which I become acquainted by testimony from without, as by hearing and reading, are quite different sources of knowledge from the workings of my own mind; and I can readily distinguish between the impression made by the former on my heart, and the effect of self-inspired ideas. My own reflection is sufficient to teach me that I need and long for something which shall make me inwardly free and happy. But the sense of this longing, and a conscious

ness of its satisfaction, are two very different things: in the one case, I have an idea; in the other, a fact of experience. If, now, I feel my longings satisfied by the facts of the Christian Religion, whereas hitherto my heart has been kept in restless suspense, in spite of, nay, by reason of, all my meditation on the inherent ideas of the Good and the True, and if I suddenly receive from certain spiritual experiences a pledge of freedom and inward peace which no rational investigation could give me, then surely I must conclude that this new condition has been brought about by a Power from above, and is no mere creation of my own fancy. I have, consequently, a right to make a distinction between an objective divine revelation and the subjective action of my own mind.

If any one has once become conscious of revelation as a divine matter of fact in his own heart, he can but smile at the efforts of reason to deprive him of that fact. Any naturalist who, with hundreds of others, had long observed some phenomenon, would certainly laugh at the notion of any one proving to him dialectically that he had really seen nothing. We Christians claim to avail ourselves of the same right; for quite as groundless are the objections raised against the facts of our religious consciousness.

Nor shall we be disturbed in our position by the wellknown objection raised by Lessing, primarily against the "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1 Cor. ii. 4), but in fact against the possibility of proof in the case of any special revelation whatsoever, arguing that "if no historical truth can be (absolutely) demonstrated, nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truth," and as a corollary, that "incidental historical truths can never serve as a proof of necessary truths of reason." We do not desire to hold any long argument as to the doubtful sense and ambiguous wording of this often cited dictum, nor will we inquire what may be the nature of these necessary truths of abstract reason, limitations of reason in the concrete. We would only point out that at the present day far more importance is attached to historical proof than was the case in Lessing's age of abstract philosophy. Everything must now be first demonstrated as historical reality, before it can put in a claim to be accepted 1 Refer to the copious refutation of this in Krauss, ut supr. pp. 95-100.

as necessary truth. This is an axiom of all modern science, natural science especially establishing all its general principles by means of particular empirical facts. Why should not the same be permitted in the sphere of religion? Carefully examined, Lessing's utterance comes simply to this, that the Incidental cannot be alleged in proof of the Eternal. We submit that this argument, however incontestable, does not in the least affect the point here at issue, viz. the proof from history and inward experiences. For where will you find a Christian who considers God's revelations in history and the facts of his own spiritual experience as merely incidental, and not rather as the carrying out of eternal purposes? "Are not all His works known to God from the beginning of the world?" If, however, as is usually the case, the sense attributed to Lessing's words is, that no particular historical events can, in preference to any others, be regarded as the revelation of eternal truths; that God equally reveals Himself in all that happens according to eternal and immutable laws, which render any special interference a thing unimaginable, and that, consequently, single events are only of incidental importance, we reply that this is simply the rationalistic view, the untenableness of which we shall presently exhibit in detail.

As in the experience of individuals, so in the entire history of the race, Revelation is most clearly known by its fruits. The final and surest proof of the actuality and divine origin of revelation, is its manifestation in individuals and nations, as a healing, sin-constraining power, diffusing everywhere light and life. This is in truth the case, and so evidently do the representatives of revealed religion excel all their contemporaries in moral and religious force and insight, as to furnish a weighty and indisputable argument against the rejecters of revelation. Let them explain to us how, without revelation, amidst the general obscuration of religious life, an Abraham could arise and shed abroad his light of faith; or the people of Israel, in the midst of heathen degradation, and surrounded by lascivious and cruel idolatries, discover and preserve such pure ideas of God, and so holy a moral law. Let them show further, how, in a period of universal corruption among both Jews and Gentiles, and without any supernatural interposi tion, Christ could arise as the Light of the world and give its

whole development a new direction, even down to the present day, in the path of light and life! All, even the most painstaking recent attempts to prove a natural and human origin of these phenomena, have, as we shall see further on, turned out completely inadequate. The wondrous uniqueness of the facts themselves, and the blessings which have issued from them, will ever constitute an irrefragable proof of the divine origin of revelation.

Bearing this in mind, what shall we say to the bold assertion of Kant and his successors, that any revealed divine legislation, in addition to the law already recognised by reason and conscience, would be not merely unnecessary and, psychologically speaking, unverifiable, but even positively injurious; that free men, whose whole life should be guided by reason and conscience, would be reduced to moral slavery if "burdened" with a new law in addition to that already received? That this assertion contains nearly as many errors as words, is evident, we trust, from what has been already said as to the insufficiency of Natural Theology and the true character and need of Revelation. Only those who do not acknowledge the power of sin can thus speak. But how grievously, likewise, is the inner nature of Revelation here misunderstood? Why, it belongs to the very nature of Revelation not to appear as a compulsory law, but ever to appeal to human freedom! And is not its effect, when inwardly experienced, a liberation from bondage rather than the imposition of a fresh yoke? Revelation aids, purifies, and supplements Natural Theology, does not, as an alien element, hinder and oppose it, but rather links itself on to the whole circle of our other ideas. As it is, the Moral Law taken alone is found insufficient by Kant himself, who is fain to call in the aid of conceptions concerning God and His government of the world in order to its maintenance. How can he regard the influence of the divine Will on man as a burdening of the conscience, whilst elsewhere he makes it appear as a help? He confounds-a mistake that cannot be too strongly deprecated-certain ecclesiastical forms of Christianity with its living spirit and essence. The former may frequently be a burden, but not so the Spirit of the Lord, which is indeed a Spirit of liberty (2 Cor. iii. 17). He forgets that this Lord communicates and reveals Himself, not

mechanically, or as a Lawgiver of the letter, but through the Spirit, which operates in our souls, liberating, purifying, enlightening, and stimulating all that is good in us, especially in the faculties of reason and conscience, but burdening and restricting only what is evil.

And thus, also, is refuted the objection made by Strauss, that Revelation, as "a direct action of God upon the human spirit, would leave the latter in a position of absolute passivity, God being, by His own nature, absolutely active; but the essence of the hun:an spirit consisting in activity, it is not capable of becoming absolutely passive, and that, consequently, the very idea of revelation is impossible." This conclusion, too, is based on entirely false premises. In the first place, the above-named definition by no means exhaustively describes the essence of revelation. And where do we find taught in the Scriptures that there is any such direct influence of the divine activity on the recipient of revelation as would thus put a stop to his own, and merge it in absolute passivity? According to Scripture (as we have seen), God is not wont to work directly on man, but through some kind of medium. The recipients of revelation are of course receptive, but not absolutely passive. On the contrary, the very reception of divine communications, requiring a certain amount of activity, stimulates all their mental and moral energies to the highest degree. God, in drawing nigh to any individual man, has no desire to crush, but rather to awaken and carry onward him, and through him, others. Even divine commissions are not to be accepted and executed in a spirit of absolute passivity; and in the recipients of revelation (cf. Jer. i. 6 and Jonah i. 2, 3) their human freedom remains unfettered. How many opponents of revelation are still fighting against an idea which is not that of the Scriptures themselves!

The groundlessness of the various objections to Revelation having been thus shown, it remains for us now to take in review