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

An assumption, I ask, in what sense? Is it a simple assumption without evidence, taken for granted for the bare purposes of argument; or is it one which, though taken for granted in the present case, rests on a substantial basis of evidence previously established, and which bears the same relation to the question of miracles which the truths of Euclid do to those of trigonometry? The latter is the fact though the mode in which the writer puts it implies the former. Without referring to the authority of any particular author, is he not fully aware that theists maintain that their belief in a Personal God rests on a basis of proof which commends itself to their reason? Have not numbers of men, endowed with the highest powers of intellect, accepted it as satisfactory? Yet he seeks to imply that, after all, it is an assumption. It is true that in the argument for miracles we take it for granted; but we do so, because the proof has commended itself to our highest reason.

I admit that Dr. Mozley has used, in speaking of this subject, language which I cannot but think is wanting in precision. Still it does not bear the meaning that this author seeks to fasten on it. “It is then to be admitted,” says he, “that historically, and looking to the general actual reception of it, this conception of God was derived from revelation. Not from the first dawn of history to the spread of Christianity in the world do we see in mankind at large any belief in such a Being.” The learned author then states, at considerable length, the philosophic and vulgar views entertained of God, and shows their inadequacy and [pg 101] imperfection, and concludes as follows: “But although this conception of the Deity has been received through the channel of the Bible, what communicates a truth is one thing, what proves it is another.” He then proceeds to summarize the general proof.

I cannot think this statement altogether free from ambiguity. Whatever may have been the precise forms in which the ideas of the vulgar or the philosopher were embodied, there is strong proof that a higher and better conception of God, though indefinite and indistinct, underlay them all. The most degraded polytheist has indistinct conceptions of a Supreme God above all the degraded objects of his worship. It seems to me impossible that such a conception of God can have been attained from revelation. It may, in a certain sense, be said, looking at the precise form in which it is embodied, that it has been derived by us historically from the Jewish race. But it must have had a prior origin. St. Paul considered that the material universe manifested His eternal power and Godhead. The primitive form of all the great oriental religions contained in them the idea of God. It is simply absurd to affirm that they derived it from the Bible. It is true that the existence of a primitive revelation anterior to the Bible has often been assumed to account for this knowledge, but this is a bare assumption of which we have no proof, and whose only basis is conjecture. Judaism and Christianity have been instrumental in widely spreading correct conceptions of the Deity and dissipating false ones. Yet if the conception had not existed in the mind at least implicitly, no formal revelation could have put it there, for every such revelation must be conveyed in language, and all language is meaningless, unless the mind can realize its conceptions. The assertion, [pg 102] therefore, that the conception of God has been first communicated through the channel of the Bible, and is afterwards proved by reason, seems to me to be one not devoid of danger. On the contrary, our belief that God exists is the very pre-condition of our being able to believe that He has revealed Himself. This conception revelation may modify, invest with a higher moral character, and import into it definiteness and precision, but it cannot create it. It is on such grounds that the author in question seeks to involve his reasoning and that of all other defenders of Christianity in a vicious circle. I fully admit that the conception of God has been elevated and purified by the influence of Christianity, and that the teaching of Christianity on this subject is in conformity with our highest reason. But it is absurd to affirm that this is reasoning in a circle, and that the Christian argument involves reasoning from Theism to Christianity and from Christianity back to Theism.

The following passage, cited by Professor Mozley from Baden Powell, is referred to by this author as a proof that all our reasonings on this subject are a simple argument from reason to revelation, and from revelation to reason. The passage itself is a clear statement of the grounds of the charge, and requires our careful consideration. “Everybody may collect from the order and harmony of the physical universe the existence of a God; but in acknowledging a God, we do not thereby acknowledge this peculiar or doctrinal conception of a God. We see in the structure of nature a mind, a universal mind, but still a mind which only operates and expresses itself by law. Nature only does and can inform us of mind in nature; but in no other sense does nature witness to the existence of an omnipotent Supreme Being. Of a [pg 103] universal mind out of nature, nature says nothing; and of an omnipotence which does not possess an inherent limit in nature, she says nothing either. And therefore that conception of a supreme Being which represents Him as a spirit independent of the physical universe, and able from a standing-point external to nature, to interrupt its order, is a conception of God for which we must go elsewhere. That conception is attained from revelation, which is asserted to be proved by miracles. But that being the case, this doctrine of theism rests itself upon miracles, and therefore miracles cannot rest on this doctrine of theism.”

It will be necessary carefully to point out the inaccurate reasoning of this passage.

First: The author speaks of nature as another expression for the forces, laws, and phenomena of the physical universe, and for these alone. To this I have no objection, for it would greatly conduce to clearness if it was always confined to this meaning. But while he uses it thus, he nowhere tells us in what relation man, including his faculties, intellectual and moral, and above all, his will, stands to nature. Are they included in, or excluded from it? Do they, or do they not, form a part of it? If they are included in nature, then there are other facts in nature bearing on the being of a God, beyond those on which the author reasons. If they are excluded, then the reasoning is inadequate to sustain his conclusion. Our reasonings respecting God are founded not only on the forces and laws of physical nature, but on man, his reason, his conscience, and his will. What makes this fallacy the more plausible is that the term nature is very frequently used to include man, as well as the forces and laws of the material universe.

As far as the physical universe is concerned, the mind infers the existence of a God from its order and its harmonies; that is to say, having observed that order and harmony have been produced by intelligence within the sphere of our own observation, and being deeply convinced on other grounds of reasoning that they are incapable of resulting from any other source, we infer that the results we behold in nature are due to a similar principle which we experience in ourselves. Such an inference is not due to simple observation of the order of the universe only, but unites with it an act of reasoning founded on our own self-conscious being. But the intelligence which produces order, as far as we are cognisant of it, is invariably united with will. We therefore infer from the order and harmonies of nature, not simply the conception of a God, such as the God of pantheism; but, if they are valid to prove anything at all, of a God who is possessed of intelligence adequate to arrange the order, and of purpose adequate for its production. If the inference of the existence of a God from the works of nature is valid, it must be of a God possessed of the attributes in question, for all our inferences on such a subject derive their validity from applying to them the analogies of our reason.

It is quite true that in the structure of the material universe we see only the indications of a mind operating and expressing itself by law; that is to say, we observe in the physical universe no instances of its violation. But WE, that is the reasoning, rational beings, whether existing in nature or outside it, have inferred from the structure of the universe the existence of mind, and we know of no mind which is not possessed of conscious intelligence and will. If our reasoning from the order of the material universe is [pg 105] valid to prove the presence of mind, which is a conception entirely derived from our consciousness of ourselves, it must be equally so to prove the existence of purpose and volition, for we know nothing of mind which is devoid of these attributes. The material universe proves that its order and harmony is the result of the action of mind; but it cannot prove that the mind which produced this order and harmony is unable to introduce a different one. But if our minds form part of nature, then they are a proof that the author of nature has produced something else in nature besides the order and harmonies of the physical universe. If they are outside nature, then we have direct evidence of the existence of beings outside and above nature, i.e. above the physical forces of the universe. It follows that if finite beings possessed of intelligence and will, exist within nature or without it, a God who possesses similar powers may exist also.

In a narrow and restricted sense it may be quite true that nature, i.e. matter and its phenomena, only informs us of the presence of mind in nature, the partner and correlative of organized matter. But let us here guard against a latent fallacy in this mode of statement. We learn the presence of mind, not from material nature, but by the application of our own reason to the investigation of what its phenomena denote. This is overlooked in the above argument. It is perfectly true that as a mere matter of phenomenal appearance, we do not actually behold in natural phenomena manifestations of mind acting outside nature. In fact we do not see mind at all, but simply infer its presence from the phenomena before us through the agency of our own reason; and this inference carries along with it all the other attributes of mind.

The writer before me is one of those who affirm that [pg 106] the utmost our minds can infer from the contemplation of nature, in which he includes every species of vital organism, is the presence of order and harmony; and that any inference that its phenomena testify to the presence of adaptation, contrivance and design is invalid. I reply that this affirmation is only valid on the assumption of a principle which altogether denies that from natural phenomena we can infer the existence of mind. But we also observe in natural phenomena, and above all in animal and vegetable structures, that the results effected are produced, not by simple forces, but by the careful adjustment of many, or by one counteracting and qualifying the action of another, and by forces intersecting one another at precisely the right time and place. Had any of these occurred otherwise, the result would have been different. Throughout nature we observe innumerable instances in which various forces have thus combined to produce a definite result. This we usually designate by the word “adaptation.” Adaptation implies intelligence and purpose. We are quite as much justified in ascribing this purpose to the power manifested in nature, as any other quality whatever, even the possession of mind.