

Transcribed from the 1862 Wertheim, Macintosh and Hunt edition by David
Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org





                                 THOUGHTS
                                    ON
                              A REVELATION.


                                    BY
                           S. J. JERRAM, M.A.,
                        VICAR OF CHOBHAM, SURREY.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
                      WERTHEIM, MACINTOSH AND HUNT,
                           24, PATERNOSTER ROW,
                 AND 23, HOLLES STREET, CAVENDISH SQUARE.

                                  1862.




ABSTRACT OF CONTENTS.

                                                                 PAGE.

Introductory: proposed mode of treating the subject                1-4
1.--Knowledge of God needful                                         4
  ,,,,,, cannot be obtained by direct perception of               5
      God
  ,,,,,, cannot be obtained, to a sufficient extent,              6
      by exercise of natural faculties
  ,,,,,, cannot be obtained by any implanted idea                 6
  ,,,,,, therefore must be revealed                               8
   Objection arising from non-universality of a                      8
      Revelation answered
2.--Conditions under which a Revelation may be expected              9
      to be _given_
   Revelation must have a distinctive character                      9
  ,,,,,, must be authenticated to original recipients            10
  ,,,,,, cannot convey a perfect knowledge of God                12
  ,,,,,, must be limited by the object designed                  12
  ,,,,,, must be limited also by the state of                    14
      knowledge existing at the time when made
  ,,,,,, must be, in some degree, phenomenal                     15
   Such a Revelation appears to be the only one in                  16
      accordance with man's position, and also adequate
   Words as a medium of Revelation must be limited by               18
      ideas already existing, which ideas are also limited by
      experience
   Anthropomorphic notions of God; the Infinite and                 19
      Absolute
   Ideas as a medium of Revelation; ideas and perceptions           20
      distinguished, etc.
   Perception as a medium of Revelation; not in itself              22
      adequate
3.--Conditions under which a Revelation may be expected             26
      to be _recorded_, etc.
   Exact verbal record considered; difference of                    26
      languages, etc.
   Distinction drawn as to meaning of "exact verbal                 29
      record"
   Divine and human elements in a Revelation; variety of            29
      style, etc.
   Considerations as to the precise manner of recording a           31
      Revelation
4.--Conditions under which a Revelation may be expected             32
      to be _transmitted_
5.--Some considerations as to the conditions under which            34
      a professed Revelation may be properly _accepted_
   Evidence to contemporaries: miracles, doctrines, etc.            34
   Evidence to others                                               37
   Observations as to believing: aid derived from others,           37
      rapidity of mental processes, intuitions
6.--Some considerations as to the Bible, as a professed             41
      Revelation
   Its pure morality, hold on public opinion, etc., mark            43
      it out as _different_ from other books
   Why a candid spirit is _especially_ needful for the              43
      study of it
   Its offer of supernatural aid considered                         45
   Its offer of supernatural aid is in accordance with              46
      the general beliefs as to Providence, and prayer


THOUGHTS ON A REVELATION.


Few persons can have observed attentively the various phases of public
opinion on religious subjects during the last twenty years or more,
without noticing a growing tendency to the accumulation of difficulties
on the subject of Revelation.  Geology, ethnology, mythical
interpretation, critical investigation, and inquiries of other kinds,
have raised their several difficulties; and, in consequence, infidels
have rejoiced, candid inquirers have been perplexed, and even those who
have held with firmness decided views on the distinctive character of the
inspiration of the Bible, have sometimes found it difficult to satisfy
their minds entirely, and to see clearly the grounds of their
conclusions.

The writer of these pages does not propose to attempt a detailed reply to
the various difficulties which have been raised.  Answers to objections
arising from the pursuit of particular sciences are most effectually
given by those, who have made those sciences their study; nor can there
be any doubt that, if the book of nature and the Bible spring from the
same source, an increasing acquaintance with both will tend to show their
harmony with each other, and to dispel the perplexities which have arisen
from an imperfect acquaintance with either of them.  It may be observed,
too, that, as it requires special knowledge on the part of a writer to
cope with special difficulties; so also does it demand acquirements, but
rarely found, on the part of the reader, to appreciate the real value,
both of the objections and answers which may be made on geological,
critical, or other special grounds.

The writer thinks that there is another method of reply--a method which
consists in giving as clear a view as can be had of the real character of
the subject against which the objections are made; and this is the kind
of answer which he proposes to attempt.  The man who has a distinct and
well defined knowledge of chemical, mathematical, or any other science,
will not be greatly perplexed with difficulties which may be brought from
other sciences, touching upon that with which he is acquainted.  The
knowledge which he possesses of his own particular science will enable
him, in some instances, to perceive at once the weakness of the
objections which are alleged; and, even when this is not the case, he
will see such an harmonious proportion subsisting between the various
parts of that branch of knowledge which he has been pursuing, and be so
strongly convinced of the certainty of it, that he will be justly
disposed to attribute to his own ignorance his inability to give
satisfactory replies to those difficulties which he cannot dispose of.
_Real_ knowledge cannot of course be overthrown; and, although it is
often difficult to decide what knowledge is of this description, the task
of arriving at a tolerably correct conclusion with regard to such
subjects as fall within the range of our faculties, must not be regarded
as an hopeless one.

When clear definitions have been given, disputants have often found that
there is no further room for discussion; and, even when this is not the
case, the force of objections can, under such circumstances, be more
accurately weighed, and the real points of attack and defence more
clearly perceived.  If a man were to say, in a mixed company, that there
was no taste in an apple, many sensible men, unacquainted with his exact
meaning, might be inclined to dispute the assertion, and to say that the
statement was contrary to common experience; but, if he explained his
meaning to be, that taste is a quality of a sentient being, and that
there is nothing in the apple of this kind, or corresponding to it,
everybody then would see the truth of his assertion, and all ground of
dispute would be removed.  We will take another case.  Those who hold
strong Protestant views frequently say, that the "religion of the Bible
is the religion of Protestants." This, for most purposes, expresses their
meaning forcibly and well, and the mind, in practice, usually supplies
the necessary limitations.  It does not, however, always happen that
these limitations are consciously present to the mind, or that the person
who practically receives the right impression might not be greatly
puzzled by the subtle reasonings of objectors.  The _dictum_, quoted
above, does not mean, as might at first sight appear, that we are to make
use of no other means than the Bible in the investigation of Divine
truth, and that the wisdom of the present and past ages is to go for
nothing.  No one _could_ thus isolate himself from other influences; and,
if he could, it would not be _desirable_.  What is really meant is, that
all truth necessary for salvation is contained in the Bible, "so that
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be
required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith,"
etc.; in other words, that the Bible is the ultimate and sole standard of
appeal.  This of course may be, and is disputed; but, when the statement
is put in a clear and well defined shape, many apparent objections vanish
at once, and the real points of attack and defence are made evident.  If,
then, we can obtain ideas, on the subject of revelation, which shall be,
upon the whole, distinct, and worthy of being received as true, much will
be done to remove objections, and to satisfy a reasonable mind.

The proposed investigation will necessarily be, in some degree, of an _a
priori_ character; not, however, as we trust, so much so as to render it
vague and without practical value.  It will be _a priori_, inasmuch as it
will not assume the existence of a revelation, and then proceed to
examine its character.  This would be to beg the question at issue.  It
will not be _a priori_, so far as it consists in instituting an inquiry
into the faculties of the human mind, and their capacity to receive a
revelation; and into this it will be found that the investigation will
mainly resolve itself.

                                * * * * *

1.  We may commence our inquiry into the subject by noticing, _that a
knowledge of God_, _to be obtained in some way or other_, _seems almost
essential to the well-being of man_.  If it be granted, that there is
such a Being--and few, it is presumed, would go so far as to deny
this--it must be of great importance for us to know the relationship in
which that Being stands to us, and we to Him.  We can hardly suppose it
possible that an Infinite Being, in some sense, as we suppose will be
generally allowed, the Governor of the world, should not have an
important relation to _all_ other existences; much less, that the
relation which He bears to _man_, the most noble existence of which we
have any actual experience, should be of an insignificant character.
Looking, too, upon man as a free and moral agent, accountable, as
conscience declares, for his actions to his fellow-men, it seems almost
certain that he must be also responsible for his acts in relation to the
Deity.  The general belief of mankind, in all ages and in all places,
tends to the same conclusion; and, if it be admitted that there is an
eternal world into which the consequences of our actions follow us, a
knowledge of the relationship in which we stand to God becomes of still
greater importance.  But if this knowledge probably may be, and, should
the general belief of the world have a foundation in fact, certainly is,
of great importance, it can hardly be supposed that a God of love would
allow us to remain in ignorance of it; and the question arises, _how it
is to be obtained_.

It may be observed, first of all, that _the Deity does not_, _like other
objects_, _come within the direct cognizance of our perceptive
faculties_.  We have an organization, by means of which we are enabled to
perceive various objects around us; and, by travelling to other lands, we
can obtain a knowledge of many things of which we had before been
ignorant.  We perceive also what is going on within us.  The telescope
and the microscope reveal to us wonders which, without their
intervention, we could never have discovered.  But we cannot through the
instrumentality of any of our faculties perceive God.  Travel where we
will we cannot find Him out.  No appliance of art has availed to disclose
Him to us.  If any philosophers conceive that they can intuitively gaze
upon God, other philosophers declare their ignorance of any intuition of
this kind, and assuredly the common people, who most stand in need of
clear notions on the subject, and who would hardly be neglected by a
beneficent God, are altogether unconscious of it.  The knowledge of Him,
therefore, if obtained at all, must be had in some other way.

But may not an adequate knowledge of God be obtained _by the exercise of
the faculties of the human mind upon external nature_, _or in some other
way_?  The Apostle St. Paul says something which rather favours this
view, when he declares that "the invisible things of Him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are
without excuse" (Rom. i. 20): and we believe that a considerable insight
into the nature of God, and the probable character of His dealings with
us may be obtained in the manner to which we have referred.  Still we
have only to look at the ever varying and degrading notions which have,
at all times, prevailed in many parts of the world respecting the Divine
Being, to perceive that a more clear method of obtaining knowledge about
Him would, to say the least of it, be a most valuable boon.  The method
under consideration has not practically issued as we might have hoped
that it would; and therefore there is reason to expect, that God might
make use of some more direct way of communicating to us a knowledge of
Himself.

Another possible mode of communicating a knowledge of God would be, _by
implanting in the mind of man_, _an idea corresponding_, _so far as might
be needful_, _to the nature of God_.  But a belief in the existence of
anything of this kind is open to several objections.  If such an idea
existed, it must, to answer the required end, be sufficiently clear and
well defined to give at least a tolerably accurate notion of the Deity,
and must also bring with it a well-grounded conviction of its
correspondence to the reality.  But the variety of opinions which have
been entertained on the subject forbid us to believe that any such idea
as this exists.  Search as far as we can into our own minds, we are
unable to discover anything approaching to such a notion of the Divinity.
It appears too, that, notwithstanding some speculations as to time and
space, which, in the opinion of some, bear a slightly exceptional
character, there is no good reason to believe that we acquire other kinds
of knowledge in the manner under consideration; and, if this be so, there
is a strong presumption against a knowledge of the Deity being obtained
in this way.

As however some confusion of mind not uncommonly prevails on this
subject, we will endeavour to explain our meaning more fully.  We
possess, as it appears to us, certain capacities for obtaining knowledge,
and for retaining, and disposing our knowledge, when obtained, in
different ways; but we are not born with the actual possession of
knowledge; nor, so far as we can see, is knowledge, at any subsequent
time, obtained by us, except by means of the capabilities to which we
have referred.  We have by nature powers of knowing objects, both
external to our organization, and internal; but the objects themselves,
and not the representations of them, are presented to us before we know
them.  We are conscious of seeing, and smelling, and tasting, and
feeling, etc.; but they are the things themselves which we see, and
smell, and taste, and feel, in the first instance, although afterwards we
are