The Supernatural in the New Testament, Possible, Credible, and Historical / Or, An Examination of the Validity of Some Recent Objections Against Christianity as a Divine Revelation

by C. A. Row

Still the examination of the antecedent question is in this case particularly important, because modern unbelief boldly affirms that a revelation and its attestation of miracles are both impossible and incredible. If this can be demonstrated, the discussion of the evidence that can be adduced for them as facts is a useless expenditure of our reasoning powers; for no evidence can prove the occurrence of that which is impossible. It [pg 096] may be assumed, however, that those who make this affirmation are not quite satisfied as to the cogency of their reasonings; because, after having demonstrated, as they allege, that miracles are impossible, they proceed to attack the evidence of those narrated in the Gospels, and pronounce it worthless. As, therefore, the opponents of Christianity boldly affirm that both a supernatural revelation and miracles are impossible, it is necessary that the defender of Christianity should examine the validity of the assertion.

Our opponents constantly charge us with reasoning in a circle, or assuming the fact which ought to be proved. To avoid even the appearance of this, I lay down the following positions:—

If direct atheism is a just conclusion from the phenomena of the Universe, it follows that a divine revelation is impossible. Nor are miracles in any proper sense of the word less so, because they are not merely facts occurring in external nature, but facts in the production of which we recognize intelligence and will. With the principles of atheism the occurrence of an extraordinary event is quite compatible, because as it cannot rise to any higher knowledge than that of phenomena, the knowledge of the invariability of past phenomena is incapable of giving the fact that all future phenomena will resemble the past. Still the occurrence of a fact, however extraordinary, would not constitute a miracle, and would prove only the existence of an unknown force in the universe, or the predominance of chance.

The same remark is equally applicable to that form of modern atheism which does not affirm that no God exists, but contents itself with the denial that there is any evidence that there is one.

Nor is the case altogether different with regard to [pg 097] pantheism. According to this system, God is only another name for nature, which works out every form of fleeting existence for itself in an unceasing round of unconscious self-evolution. The essence of its affirmation is, that God has no conscious personal existence, but that He is only another name for the blind unconscious forces of the universe. Such a being (if it is possible to conceive of it as a being at all, or as a unity) is everlastingly making a revelation of itself by a ceaseless evolution of phenomena, the result of the blind action of its inherent forces. But to whom? Obviously only to beings capable of reason and consciousness, whom it (I dare not say, He) has evolved out of its own bosom, and will again resolve into unconsciousness. Prior to their evolution this mighty τὸ πᾶν must have been everlastingly making manifestations of itself, without a single being in existence capable of recognizing them. Whatever be the result of such theories in a logical point of view, it is evident that if pantheism be a rational account of the order of the universe, a revelation and miracles, in any sense in which such terms can bear meaning, are impossible.

No less applicable is the same remark to that form of pantheism held by Mr. Herbert Spencer, which, while it affirms the existence of a cause of all things, as alike required by the demands of philosophy, science, and religion, yet affirms that He is unknown and unknowable, and that every thing which is knowable, although a manifestation of that great unknown cause, yet conveys no idea of Him that the intellect can apprehend. In one word, the unknown cause of all things is inconceivable, and incapable of becoming the subject of rational thought. The intellect cannot help assuming the existence of this cause of all things; but all that it can affirm of him is, that He is unknown and unknowable; [pg 098] and that everything within the bounds of our knowledge, though it may represent some mode of his existence, cannot be he, or like him. With respect to this theory, while it cleverly evades some of the harsher difficulties of pantheism and atheism, it is not too much to say that it is a civil way of bowing God out of the universe, of which He is alleged to be the cause. He can neither be a person, nor have wisdom, nor be benevolent, nor be capable of conscious self-manifestation; because all these conceptions are limited and finite. All that we can know of Him is, that such a cause exists beyond present phenomena; and that we are condemned respecting Him, to a profound and perpetual ignorance. It is possible to designate such a being by the name of God, but it would be to use the term in a sense peculiar to those who thus employ it. Such a God is a bare abstract conception of the intellect, void of all moral value. It is sufficient for my present purpose to observe that it is impossible for the unknown and the unknowable to make a revelation of himself. Consequently St. Paul's affirmation with respect to the unknown God at Athens, “Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you” (Acts xvii. 23), is untrue. To such a God a revelation of Himself, and miracles to confirm it, are alike impossible.

It is evident, therefore, that if either of these principles can be demonstrated to be a true account of the nature of things, all further discussion as to the truth of a revelation or of miracles is useless. Let us take the most favourable hypothesis, that of Mr. Spencer. It concedes that the necessities of reason compel us to assume the existence of an unknown cause of all things, which may be called God. But He is unknowable; He is inscrutable. No conception of [pg 099] Him can be realized in thought; it follows, therefore, that no revelation of such a being can be made to the finite intellect of man, for if a revelation of Him could be made, He cannot be unknowable. This being so, the person who attempts to reason out the truth of Christianity is placed under a difficulty. Christianity assumes the existence of a personal God, possessed of moral attributes. This is the very truth, the evidence of which these systems assert to be wanting. The Christian advocate, therefore, has only two courses before him: First, To assume, in conformity with the all but universal belief of mankind, that a personal God exists; and then to argue for the truth of Christianity, and to answer the objections urged against it. When we do this, objectors affirm that we beg the question. Or, Secondly, To prove the existence of a personal God; and then to argue for the truth of revelation. If he adopts the latter course, he is compelled to adduce the proof on which the belief in theism rests, and to answer the objections to it—or, in other words, to compose a bulky volume, before he can get at the immediate subject of inquiry.

Now I affirm that the defender of Christianity is no more open to the charge of begging the question when he assumes the existence of a personal God as the foundation of his reasonings, than the author of a treatise on trigonometry is, who takes for granted the truth of Euclid's propositions.

The author of the work to which I have already referred does his utmost to fasten on the modern defenders of Christianity the charge that they begin and end in assumptions. I will not deny that much ambiguous language has been used on this subject, but I trust I shall show that the charge is utterly unfounded. I must briefly notice a few of his reasonings.

At page 68 he writes as follows: “Dr. Mozley is well aware that the assumption of a ‘personal’ God is not susceptible of proof; indeed, this is admitted in the statement that the definition is an assumption.”