We have now to interpose with an inevitable question. What is the test by which we may assure ourselves that the imaginings of pious souls are not merely of subjective value, that is, that they are anything more than the expression of discontent with the limitations of human know- ledge and of human life ? What is the test, or is there any test, by which we may ' try the spirits ' (1 Jn 41), by which 'we may convince ourselves or others that a true revelation of the Divine will and purpose has been vouchsafed ? The theology of the 18th cent, did not hesitate in its answer to
522
REVELATION
REVELATION
this question. The answer was found in the word miracle. Miracles were the appropriate credentials of revelation, which could not be guaranteed as objectively valid without them. Paley and Butler and their successors do not delay to prove this ; it seems to them beyond dispute. And forty years ago Dr. Mozley put forward the same view in a well-known passage in his Bampton Lectures {On 3Iiracles, p. 15) : ' The visible supernatural is the appropriate witness to, the outward sign of, the invisible supernatural — that proof which goes straight to the point ; and, a token being wanted of a Divine communication, is that token.' Taking this view of miracles and of revelation, it has been sought to distinguish natural from revealed religion by the circumstance that miraculous signs are not needed to guarantee the truth of the former, which commends itself at once to man's reason, while they are necessary to confirm our belief in the doctrines of the latter, which are not discoverable by our unassisted faculties, and which may be surprising and even unwelcome to faith.
This is a view which presents many difficulties, clear-cut and definite as it seems, (i.) It is impos- sible to distinguish sharply natural from revealed religion, because, in fact, all religions have pre- supposed a revelation, an unveiling of the Un-seen Realities. 'Natural religion,' said Guizot {Medi- tations, ii. 237), 'exists only in books.' In all religion there must be a reciprocal communication between man and God ; there must be not only man's aspiration heavenward, but heaven's benedic- tion earthward. And this latter is in its measure a revelation, (ii.) It is true that a i-evelation of new truths requires to be certified to the intellect as valid, but it is not the anomalousness or the inexplicability of the circumstances in which it is given that supplies such certificate ; it is their significMnce. A ' sign ' need not necessarily be 'miraculous' (see art. 'Sign' in Hastings' DB), although it may have this character (see ' Miracle,' ih. vol. iii. § 5). The context, so to speak, of revelation helps to disclose its meaning and pur- pose, and thus enables us to refer it to its true author ; but the significance of the context may depend upon concurrences and combinations, none of which, taken separately, need be abnormal or even unusual, (iii.) The revelation itself may be conveyed by these ' signs ' which in fact constitute it. The cT7)fj.eia of the Gospels are vehicles, or media, or instruments of revelation quite as much as evidential adjuncts. Their interpretation leads to new thoughts of God and man, undiscoverable, or at any rate undiscovered, without them ; and thus it is that 'signs' such as the resurrection of Christ (which would be classed as miraculous) or the moral beauty of His life (which some would not regard as necessarily a miracle) form the pre- mises of Christian theology (cf . Westcott, The Gospel of Life, p. 80). They unveil the Divine love, and power, and holiness ; and they are accepted as true revelations, in part because of the existing testi- mony to them as historical facts, but in part also because they find a response and a welcome in men's hearts. Such revelations serve to unify the bewildering experiences of life, and provide a means of co-ordinating our thoughts about the highest things. That is to say, in brief, they are accepted as true because they are coherent with our spiritual experience, while at the same time they enlarge its boundaries and illuminate its dark places.
Thus the question. What is the ultimate test of revelation ? is not to be answered merely by point- ing to miracle as its guarantee. It is part of a much larger question. What is the ultimate test of truth? And to this there is only one answer: exx>erience (cf. Wilson, I.e. p. 242), either individual
or general ; that is the one unfailing test of opinion in every department of human life.
(a) First, as to the experience of the individual. That, in the region of the spirit, is not capable of transference from one to another, and — in so far — it can be valid only for him who has had the experience. But for him tlie sense of ' realized fellowship with the unseen' (cf. Westcott, I.e. p. 83) is so vivid and so vital that he cannot call it in ques- tion. He is conscious not only of the strivings of his own soul, but of a response from the spiritual world. And if it be urged that, after all, it would be impossible for him to be sure of this, so subtle and deep-seated are the movements of the soul, his only reply can be that he is sure of it. He is able to distinguish, he will tell you, — for St. Paul's experi- ence here is not singular or even unusual, — between the convictions which he has reasoned out for himself and those which have presented themselves to him with an irresistible authority from without. And he will point, in justification, to what is an admitted fact of mental life, viz., that our powers of discovery are no true measure of our powers of recognition. We can all recognize as true, and as obviously true, many a principle, or law, or fact, when it is once brought before our notice, which we should have been quite incapable of discovering for ourselves.* And it has been the deep-seated belief of the saints that their most cherished and intimate convictions were such as they could never have reached had they not been guaranteed to them by a message from the spiritual world,