Without at present entering on any detailed discussion of the subject of miracles (see article MIRACLE in vol. iii.) and inspiration, the denial of the supernatural operation of God in revelation must be dealt with. The denial may be due to either a supposed scientific interest or an assumed philosophical necessity ; the wniformity of nature or the continuity of thought may be alleged as objections to the supernatural. So long as life, mind, and will cannot be explained by the simple application of the principle of causality, that is, so long as more complex forms of existence call for more adequate categories of thought, the uniformity of nature cannot be asserted so as to exclude the possibility of the supernatural, which is the high- est conceivable category. The idea of evolution, with its recognition of a progress in which each successive stage transcends each preceding, is not a hindrance but a help to the belief in the super- natural; as it presents nature to us, not as a rigidly fixed system but as an ever-developing organism, full of surprises in its fresh manifestations, with a possible future inexplicable by its actual past. That personality in this progress appears as the highest stage, forbids the limitation of our conception of the whole process by the application of any of the lower categories, which are inadequate for the interpretation of this highest stage. And person- ality, which in its religious function reaches out beyond the natural to the supernatural, and re- cognizes not only its dependence on the order of nature beneath it, but also its affinity with the Maker of nature above it, itself holds the promise of unexhausted possibilities of existence. The categories of science do not explain all forms of being, and therefore cannot determine what may or may not be beyond the range of their applica- tion.
Without venturing on the unwarranted course of denying the possibility of the supernatural in the name of science, some writers try to get rid of it by denying the sufficiency of the evidence. But, in the estimate of the value of evidence, mental prejudice, if unconsciously, often affects the decision. Often when the trustworthiness of the witnesses is denied, they have been prejudged false witnesses on the assumption that miracles do not happen. How is it that many are prepared to accept as trustworthy the report of the sayings of Christ in the Gospels, and yet refuse to receive their record of His works? Is there not as much and as good evidence for the fact of the Resurrec- tion as for any of the ordinary events of ancient history about which no doubt is felt? In this so- called’ scientific examination of the witnesses a philosophical presupposition is involved. Nature is conceived as a self-enclosed and self-sufficient system; but so to think of it is to allow the consciousness of the world to exclude the con-
330 REVELATION
REVELATION
sciousness of God. When the attention is fixed on the world solely, then order, system, law become the guiding categories of thought. But when attention is turned to God also, then it is recognized that reason, character, will ought to be the predominant conceptions. In accordance with these the consciousness of the world must be transformed. The consciousness of the world suggests necessity, the consciousness of God free- dom in the relation of God to the world; the former makes nature appear as a complete unity, the latter leads us to think of it as part of a larger whole; the former constrains us to look at nature as a sphere in which unvarying physical law main- tains itself, the latter warrants us in regarding it as a scene in which a moral and spiritual purpose is being realized, to the accomplishment of which the yhysical order must be regarded as subordinate. Ihe question of the probability of the supernatural is really identical with the question, whether the religious consciousness of God shall transform the scientific consciousness of the world, or the latter be allowed to determine the former. If we follow our religious consciousness, we shall be able to deal without prejudice with all the evidence for the supernatural submitted to us ; if the scientific con- sciousness is allowed to rule over us, however much we protest our impartiality, the improbability of the supernatural will be an influential factor in our treatment of the evidence. The consciousness of God will also afford us the regulative principle in dealing with the narratives. We shall recognize that there is an assertion of the supernatural, due to ignorance of the laws which regulate unusual natural phenomena ; that expectation of the super- natural has sometimes led to an assumption of it ; that only such evidence to the supernatural can be accepted as valid as justifies it in relation to our consciousness of God, that is, in the supernatural there must be manifested Divine reason, righteous- ness, or grace. It is only if we view the world teleologically as the expression of Divine purpose that we can admit the supernatural, when it can be shown to be necessary to, and explicable by, the fulfilment of this end. In other words, we must be able to show an intelligible and credible reason why the supernatural order has been manifested in the natural.
A few words will suffice to meet the objection that the supernatural breaks the continuity of thought. If the world is viewed as the manifesta- tion of the Idea or Reason, it is argued by some that no new factor can be admitted, but that each stage of the development must be explicable by that which precedes. But it may with reason be asked whether the limitation of the evolution of the Idea to the natural order is justified ; whether we should not rather conceive that the rational system of the universe has the supernatural as the complement of the natural; whether man’s thought has warrant to set limits to possible reality. This objection seems to be due to an exaggeration of the achievement and authority of man’s self-conscious- ness. Let us recognize that there may be factors in the historic progress of revelation, inexplicable by our consciousness of ourselves or of the world, but of which the consciousness of God may afford the explanation. The world is something more than the evolution of categories, and its rationality vaster than any logical system. Reason is often set in opposition to revelation, but reason can give no adequate or satisfying interpretation of the world or of self without the regulative conception of God; and reason cannot develop for itself the full content of this conception without religion, or conscious relation to God, which, as has already been shown, presupposes revelation, or God’s con- scious relation toman. Man’s reason is his capacity