words might be recorded exactly as they were delivered_. The words which
God is said to have spoken on Mount Sinai, and to have written
afterwards, on two tables of stone, may serve as an exemplification of
our meaning. In this case God is described as writing them with His own
hand: but they might have been written, with equal truthfulness, by any
of those who had heard them. If future generations had convincing
evidence that they possessed a faithful record of what God said, and the
meaning of the words had not changed during the lapse of time, the
revelation would be as perfect to them as it was to the original
recipients. So, too, if God, instead of speaking the words of the ten
commandments, had, in some way which should authenticate the reality of
the revelation, called up in the mind of Moses the ideas corresponding to
the words, and he had faithfully written them down; those words would
convey as full a revelation to those who read them, as that which Moses
himself had experienced. Both these would be verbal revelations in the
strict sense of the word. They would be, in fact, the very words of God
Himself. If any book, professing to be a revelation from God, could be
proved to be entirely of this description, there would be little or no
room for discussion about it. The only things which could give rise to
dispute would be such as attach to the interpretation of all records.
Questions might be asked as to the exact meaning of the words, and
inquiries might be raised as to whether they retained the same meaning
which they had when they were originally written down: but any dispute
which might arise on these points would be confined within very narrow
limits, and would moreover be of such a character, as could not be
avoided, unless God were to make a revelation afresh in every age, and we
may add, perhaps, to every individual,--a supposition which would be
contrary to analogy, and in the highest degree improbable. Thus far
there is no practical difficulty.
Is it, however, necessary to the idea of a recorded revelation that the
exact words, neither _more nor less_, as spoken by God, or as expressing
ideas which He has called up in the mind of the person to whom He has
revealed Himself, should be written down? A recorded revelation, we must
remember, is designed chiefly for the benefit of future generations, and
it may therefore very properly leave out much which was only of passing
interest. God might have revealed many things to Abraham, which were
highly important for him to know, but in which we may have no interest.
We can easily see then that, in any record which God might authorize,
such things would very probably be omitted. Thus far again there is no
practical difficulty.
To proceed a step further. Is there any reason to expect that, in a
record of a revelation, the original words, either as spoken by God, or
as expressive of the ideas which He had called up in the mind of the
recipient, might be in any decree _altered_?--and, would every alteration
necessarily make the record less a revelation from God than it was
before? These are questions which we shall endeavour to answer.
It may be observed, in the first place, that the same train of thought
which applies to an original revelation from God, applies also, in its
main points, to the record of it. Both in the one case, and the other,
it appears reasonable to expect that God would not, to a greater extent
than was absolutely necessary, transcend or interfere with those natural
powers in man which He had Himself implanted. As the giving of a
revelation would, as already shewn, be conformed in a great degree to the
usual conditions under which knowledge is imparted, so also, it seems
reasonable to expect that the record of a revelation would as far as
possible be conformed to the usual conditions under which knowledge is
recorded.
In looking at the conditions under which a revelation must be recorded,
it is obvious that the difference of languages, which prevails in this
world, presents an insuperable obstacle to an exact record of words being
continued. It may indeed be alleged that God could cause a revelation to
be recorded, in its exact words, in each distinct language. We hardly
think however that such a view as this will be seriously entertained by
any one. Not to mention how completely contrary this would be to what
analogy would lead us to expect, we may observe that, as languages are
continually undergoing changes, such a method of recording must be
continually renewed; and, moreover, as language does not convey precisely
the same ideas to any two individuals, it would be almost needful that a
separate record, or rather a separate revelation, should be made for each
person. Such views as these require only to be stated to shew that they
are untenable; but, if they are untenable, it is plain that the
_continuance_ of an exact record of words cannot be expected.
But may it not be expected that, at least, _one_ exact record would be
made of any revelation which God might think fit to give, and that this
would afford the best guarantee which could be had for future
truthfulness? In answering this question it is very important to draw a
distinction. _The words of the record may be exactly such words as God
approves of_, _although they may not be the precise words in which the
original revelation was made_. In some particular instances God might
determine that the precise words of the revelation should be used, while
in others He might think fit that it should be otherwise. In either case
the record would be a true one, and each method of recording might have
its own peculiar advantages. Under some circumstances it might be
desirable that not the slightest deviation from the precise mode of
expression which God had communicated should be made; while under others,
the human view--by which we here mean the view of the particular person
to whom the revelation is made--might be recorded, and add to it a force
which could hardly be had in any other way. So long as the record is
such as God approves of, every requisite to a true record is complied
with. If a minister of state were commissioned to make a communication
to a foreign court, he might write down the whole or a part of it in his
own words, and, if his own court approved of the words, contained in the
writing, the object in view would be answered. We can even understand
that, in some respects, the communication might gain force by this mode
of proceeding. The [Greek text] of the writer would be manifested, and
carry with it a certain degree of weight. There would be the weight
which attached to the document as emanating from the government, and
there might be an additional weight from the character of the person who
had been entrusted to write, and, perhaps, carry out, in some degree, the
requirements of, the dispatch. In the case of a recorded revelation, it
appears then probable that God would permit those feelings and powers
which He has implanted in man, and which exert such a strong influence on
others, to do their work, subject, however, to His own control and
guidance. In this way there would be a Divine and a human aspect of the
record; a Divine and a human power in it. All of it would be the truth
of God, and it would be presented to us in a manner peculiarly adapted to
our condition, and likely to ensure our acceptance of it. At the very
least such a method of recording would be exactly consistent with
truthfulness.
We may go a step further, and say that it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to conceive any circumstances under which the record should
not bear a human aspect. If the views propounded in the former part of
these "Thoughts," with regard to the conditions under which a revelation
must be made, and especially with respect to anthropomorphic views of
God, be correct, a revelation _must_ assume, in some measure, a human
aspect. But if the human aspect must exist in the presentation, it must
also in the record. The only question which is really open to discussion
is, whether there should be the _same_ human aspect in the record, as in
the original revelation; in other words, whether it may be expected that
God would always present that particular human aspect in the original
revelation which He considered best adapted for the record. For the
reasons already assigned it does not seem probable that this would be the
case.
It must be remembered, moreover, that in the case of a revelation, made
at different times, and to different persons, either the character of
each individual writer must be manifested in the record, or some other
character, alien perhaps to that of the writer, and certainly not equally
adapted to that of all the readers, must be adopted. Which method of
record appears the most probable, and the most calculated to promote the
object of a revelation--namely, to instruct and influence mankind--it
does not appear very difficult to determine. It seems, then, that a
variety of style may be expected in the records written by different
persons of the revelations which they have received. As has been before
observed, all that is essential to the truthfulness of the record is that
God should approve of it.
A question may possibly arise here as to the precise _manner_ in which
the words may be so recorded, as to convey a true account of God's
revelation. In endeavouring to supply an answer, it should be
remembered, in the first place, that in the ordinary affairs of life no
great difficulty occurs with regard to the transmission of a message. If
the person who has been selected to convey it, has sufficient
intelligence to understand it, and is, moreover, desirous to deliver it
faithfully, he is, in most cases, able either to speak, or write it, in
his own words, in such a manner as to convey the right meaning to others.
So, too, with regard to a revelation; if the person to whom it has been
made rightly apprehends it, and endeavours to record it honestly, the
probability is great that the record which he makes will be a true one.
If, too, we are prepared, in accordance with the common belief in all
ages, to admit that God can, and at times does, exercise a control over
the minds of men, it is reasonable to believe that He would do this, when
the object was to furnish a correct record for the benefit of future
ages. This control might be exercised either consciously, or
unconsciously to the writer. All that would be needful for the
truthfulness of the record is, that it should be exercised in some way.
* * * * *
4. We will now proceed to offer some remarks as to the conditions under
which _a revelation may be expected to be transmitted_. Much of what has
been said, with regard to the recording of a revelation, by the person to
whom it was originally made, applies to the transmission of such a record
to future generations, and its translation into other languages. If a
belief (in what way originated we do not now stop to enquire) in the
reality of the recorded revelation existed, the greatest care would
naturally be taken in making copies from it, and also in translating it.
Well-known examples of this are to be found in the care which the Jews of
old used in making new copies of their sacred books, and also in the fact
that, in our own country, no printers, but those appointed by the Queen,
are permitted to publish the authorized version of the Bible. It can
hardly be considered possible that those who believed in the reality of a
recorded revelation, and valued it, would not take care to hand it down
in a correct form to others; and, although incorrect, mutilated, and
interpolated copies, might, in some instances, be made by other persons,
it does not seem likely that these would prevail to such an extent, as to
prevent the true record from maintaining its ground. Such dishonest
copies would hardly be made at all, till considerable interest had been
manifested in the revelation; and _then_ any variations from the correct
copies would scarcely pass without challenge, and correction.
It appears then, that, as the ordinary mode of recording, copying, and
translating important communications are usually found sufficiently
adequate for their several purposes, such methods might be employed with
success in regard to a revelation: and it also seems probable that God
would not interfere with such methods more than was absolutely necessary
for the purpose He had in view. If we suppose that God exercised,
throughout the whole process of transmission, that controlling power to
which reference has been made; then there would be a correct record in
each age. That God should exercise that power to such an extent as to
prevent every possibility of error, in the transmission of the record, or
of mistake as to its meaning in the minds of those who read it, would be
contrary to the analogy of His dealings with us in other things. We
possess faculties, by the due exercise of which we are enabled to arrive
at a sufficiently accurate knowledge of those things which are essential
to our wellbeing, but we are not, by infallible guidance, preserved from
error. If we were, our responsibility would to a great extent cease.
All that can be reasonably expected, in the case under consideration, is
that the record should be transmitted with such exactness, as that an
honest inquirer should be able to ascertain its authenticity, and
understand its meaning, so far as God designed that he should know it.
We say--so far as God designed that he should know it,--because it is
quite conceivable that there might be mysteries in a revelation, the
meaning of which would not be made clear till the time determined
beforehand by God should arrive.
* * * * *
5. To enter into a full examination, as to what would constitute
sufficient grounds for _accepting_ a professed revelation, would open too
wide a field of enquiry for our present purpose, and would necessitate a
discussion of that very difficult branch of metaphysics which relates to
the laws which regulate our belief. Without, however, attempting to
discuss the subject fully, a few points may be indicated for
consideration.
It is clear that the evidence, with regard to the record of a professed
revelation, _will vary in its character at different times_. The
evidence will be more direct, and, in this respect, more clear, at an
earlier period of the record, than at a later: while, on the other hand,
a record which has been translated into different languages, and has
exercised a widely spread influence, will possess a peculiar force of its
own. On the supposition that God made a revelation to Moses, it is not
difficult to suppose that convincing evidence, as to the truthfulness of
what he might say, or write about it, might readily be afforded to those
who lived in his times. If such miracles, as those recorded in the
Pentateuch really occurred--and certainly if God so far transcended the
usual course of nature as to give a revelation, it does not seem hard to
believe that He might also so far transcend it, as to authenticate it in
some special manner--the evidence would be of a very strong kind. To
say, however, that no reasonable conviction of the reality of a
revelation could be afforded, without the aid of miracles, is an
assertion which we are not prepared to hazard; though we certainly think
that, as calculated to excite attention, and implying a power superior to
that of man, they would serve as excellent credentials. To human view,
in fact, a miracle does not necessarily imply the agency of the one God.
It might, for anything that can be proved to the contrary, be the work of
some power, inferior to that God whom we are bound to obey, and yet
superior to man. The various circumstances therefore, connected with the
miracle, would be properly taken into account by the person who was
investigating a professed revelation. He would not only examine with
care the evidence as to the reality of the miracle itself, but also the
circumstances under which it was worked, and its aspect. The character
of the person who professed to have received the revelation would very
fairly come under consideration. Inquiries would be made as to whether
he was one whose word could be safely trusted, and whether he possessed
sufficient intelligence, to render it probable that he would arrive at a
right conclusion. A man of known truthfulness and intelligence would
justly meet with more ready credence, than a person of an opposite
character.
The revelation itself, too, would be closely scrutinized. In some cases
it is conceivable that the revelation would go far to prove itself. It
might make known things which, though not perhaps discoverable by man's
reason, were nevertheless so agreeable to it, as to carry with them an
almost irresistible conviction. As, too, a revelation would be given for
the practical guidance of man, it would probably be attended with
threatenings and promises, or other predictions; and when the things
which had been foretold actually took place, the reality of the
revelation would be, to a great extent, established. If, for instance,
the remarkable occurrences which Moses, on various occasions, foretold,
as about to take place in the land of Egypt, really occurred, it would,
we think, be very difficult to avoid the conclusion that he had received
a revelation from God, and that what he said, or wrote, was to be
depended upon. A candid inquirer would also examine, in a reverent
spirit, whether the professed revelation was likely to promote a pure
morality, and to further the best interests of mankind. He would not,
indeed, enter upon such an examination, with the feeling that he was
competent to decide, in _every_ respect, as to the justice and excellence
of the statements which professed to be revealed; for his reason, if
consulted, would tell him that many circumstances might be hidden from
him, without which a correct judgment could not be formed, and that,
possibly, his capacity might not be able to grasp them in all their
relations, even if they were put before him. Still, such an examination
as that which we have just referred to, would properly form an element in
leading to a conclusion, and, when combined with others, would give as
reasonable grounds for arriving at a decision with respect to a professed
revelation, as we should be willing to act on in the usual business of
life, and would, therefore, be suited to the conditions of our being.
The decision arrived at would commonly be the result, not of a single
proof, but of many concurrent circumstances.
What has been said in reference to an examination, instituted by persons
living at the time when a professed revelation was made, is obviously
applicable, in many respects, to those who should live in later times,
and also to the original recipients themselves. With regard to evidence
in later times, it may be added that the original believers in the
record, and their followers in each succeeding age, would naturally be
subjected to an examination, as to their truthfulness and intelligence,
and thus a chain of evidence would be continually kept up. The larger,
too, the number, and the more intelligent the character of those who
believed in it, the greater would be the presumption in its favour. If
the record were received generally by any nation, the _onus probandi_
would in that case lie with those who impugned it. The record itself
also would, from time to time, be submitted to such fair rules of
criticism as apply to other documents, the fact however being remembered,
that it professed to be the word of God, and, therefore, that evidence of
its authenticity, rather than of its exact coincidence with human reason,
was to be mainly looked for.
We have now indicated, although very briefly and imperfectly, a few
points for consideration, as to the transmission of a recorded
revelation, and what might constitute sufficient grounds for accepting it
as true; and we trust that what has been said will suffice to show that
there would be no great difficulty in so handing it down, as that it
should convey to the candid inquirer, in each succeeding age, reasonable
evidence of its reality.
It may, however, be argued, that, although such evidence, as has been
indicated, might well convince those who had time and ability to
institute a searching examination, the case is different with regard to
others; and that, as a revelation may be presumed to have a most
important bearing upon the interests of all, there should be some more
easy method by which it may be tested. Now, we are quite prepared to
admit that every one should have sufficient grounds afforded him for
arriving at a decision; but, at the same time, we do not conceive that a
thorough examination of the evidence, made by each person for himself, is
the only, or even principal, method by which a safe conclusion may be
reached. Each individual has commonly some peculiar talent, in the
exercise of which he reaches an excellence, which others, whose abilities
and pursuits are of a different character, do not attain to. The
astronomer works out conclusions, which, those, whose attention has been
directed to other subjects, could never have reached, but which they may
nevertheless, with propriety, accept as true. It is not every one who
has time or ability to sift evidence on theological subjects, or to
criticise manuscripts; but the labours of those who have given their
attention to such things may, it is evident, justly be available for the
benefit of others. Even the wisest person accepts as true much on the
testimony of others, and that often on subjects with which he is
conversant. When his judgment is most independent he will find, if he
analyzes it, that much is borrowed. There is nothing contrary to sound
reason in all this. Without it, little progress could be made in
anything. Without it, each succeeding age, instead of standing on the
platform which had been raised by that which preceded it, would have the
weary task of commencing afresh, and could thus make few accessions to
knowledge. Trustfulness is as much a part of man's constitution, as
reasoning or any other intellectual process. Should it be said that men
often trust wrongly; it may be replied with equal force that they as
frequently reason wrongly. Probably there is less difficulty in
ascertaining where we may safely trust, than in weighing evidence
properly, or carrying out correctly a train of reasoning. Certainly
people have little difficulty, if they use their faculties aright, in
selecting a fit adviser in law or medicine. Why should there be a
greater difficulty with regard to religion? We do not mean that anyone
would be justified in so placing himself under the guidance of another,
as to _give up_ the exercise of his own judgment altogether; but, that he
may properly make use of the counsel of others, and that often to such an
extent as to overrule his own views in _forming_ his judgment.