170 
logy, either simply revived or modernized, is most calculated to commend 
itself to the current methods or spirit of scientific men. Dr. Irons tells us 
that the science of theology from the seventh century downwards has been 
thoroughly inductive and truly Baconian ; and some of the claims, not all, 
which he advances for the laboured efforts of the great men whom he cites I 
do not combat. He knows, however, doubtless better than myself, that this 
system has not always passed unchallenged, nor had it satisfied all minds, 
even before the Beformation ; e.g., Lord Herbert tells us, in his life of Henry 
VIII., that what especially wrought on that monarch to write against Luther 
was the contempt he manifested for Aquinas, the “ Angelic Doctor.’’ On the 
general question, therefore, I think I may safely pair off Mr. Bow with Dr. 
Irons : the one sees in the present state of theological science nothing satis- 
factory ; the other, a perfect theology since the seventh century. Grant 
either position, and it in no way invalidates the independent course taken in 
my paper, a method not without precedent — meum ante me. (See Cumber- 
land, De Legibus Natures.) 
But to come to particulars. Mr. Bow demurs to my definitions and 
axioms : e.g., “ God is a spirit”; and, “God is,” that is, exists. Now, with all 
due deference to Mr. Bow, taking the truth, “ God is,” or, “ God exists,” not 
perhaps as the exact equivalent for, but as the New Testament phrase cor- 
responding to, the Old Testament “ I am,” I contend that this is a definition, 
and that it expresses not merely the truth of God’s existence, but the mode, 
— that He is self-existent. Similarly of “ God is a spirit.” Mr. Bow says 
this is simply a proposition. A proposition in logic it may be ; but a 
proposition in mathematics needs demonstration. Will Mr. Bow supply 
the proof here ? Mr. Bow further' demurs to the statement as to the 
portraiture of the Messiah supplied by the Old Scriptures, and says that 
it gives to the rationalist a vantage-ground. He passes by, of course un- 
intentionally, the hypothetical form of expression used, and ignores the 
important word “almost,” though he quotes both. But, these regarded, 
I am wholly at a loss to perceive the least advantage that is conceded 
to the rationalist. Let him seize upon and appropriate it, and what 
follows but that he must concede the truth of prophecy ? — the last position, 
I conceive, which our rationalists would be content to take up or even 
tolerate. The lucidity of the Old Scriptures on this point rests, however, 
on the very highest authority. But for such clearness of statement in the 
Old Testament, what force had the exclamation of John Baptist possessed, 
“ Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world ” ? But for 
this clearness, why did the Lord Himself chide those who understood not, or 
who misunderstood, Moses and the prophets, as to the things concerning Him- 
self? Mr. Bow’s closing objection to the analogical portion of my paper 
(and I cannot compliment him upon his own selected instance, out of “ no 
end of such speculations,” with which he enforces it,) will be best met by my 
reply to the more detailed and tangible criticisms of Mr. Warington. 
Mr. Warington does not tell us whether his objections are more or less 
numerous than the twenty-six of Mr. Bow — a full alphabet of charges — but 
