160 
Mr. De La Mare, we have to deal with an endless number of things and ideas, 
and there is at the very outset a difficulty in respect of definition in some 
portions of theology which we are not yet in a position to surmount. Mr. 
De La Mare gives us as a theological definition, such a phrase as “ God is 
a spirit.” Now, that is no definition at all ; it is simply a proposition, and 
nothing more. The only thing that approaches to axiomatic character in 
the instances given us in the paper, is that phrase “ the Lord God omni- 
potent reigneth.” If you assume that there is a Lord God, and that He is 
omnipotent, it is axiomatic to say that He reigneth, because that is involved 
in the one idea of the Lord God omnipotent ; but it is absolutely im- 
possible to represent any of those propositions or phrases as axioms or 
definitions. The a priori treatment of theology is a matter of great diffi- 
culty, and if we deal with it at all, we should want another Bacon to take 
it in hand in a new Novum Organon. The principle of deduction as ap- 
plied to theology, is a sound principle and here, of course, I speak not 
of natural theology, but of revealed theology, taking in the whole extent of 
supernatural Divine revelation, and not the revelation of God in the 
natural universe, a matter which belongs to an entirely different branch 
of the subject, and to entirely different scientific principles. The 
Baconian principle, as rightly applied to Divine revelation, consists in 
a certain number of distinctive facts. One prominent fact lies at the 
basis of all Divine revelation — the great fact of the Incarnation. And 
here I find a difficulty in explaining myself, because our translation 
of the Scriptures is so inaccurate in some places as to make it impossible 
for those who have not studied the original tongues to follow me. I 
allude to the statement of the sacred writer that God has at sundry times 
and in divers ways spoken to us by the prophets, and that, in these 
last days, He has spoken to us by the Son. Now here the translation is 
unquestionably wrong. Those who are acquainted with the original Greek, 
know it sets forth that God has spoken to us not by the prophets, but in the 
prophets — not by the Son, but in the Son. The sacred writer means that 
God has spoken not only by the Son, but in the person of the Son. Now 
that makes all the difference in the world. The first point, then, is to ascer- 
tain distinctly and certainly the meaning of the words of the New Testa- 
ment. We must translate the conceptions in Greek of the sacred writers 
into equally distinct and plain conceptions in the English language, and 
without that any treatment of theology in a scientific manner is altogether 
beside the purpose, and indeed impossible. I was struck yesterday by a point 
which shows how important it is that we should have precise and accurate 
translations of the words and phrases of Scripture. In the New Testament the 
terms which we translate by the word miracle are three in number. They 
are arijtiiov, bvvapig, and repag. Now, each of those has different mean- 
ings, but they are generally translated by the word miracle. Now St. John 
in his gospel has invariably used the word arjyuov, which means a sign. It 
is impossible to suppose that he did not do that with a special intention and 
purpose, and that is altogether lost sight of when we have all these phrases 
