s
spent. This consciousness has been felt in varying degree in every
generation, and the progress of humanity can never be explained unless
it be taken into account. Sometimes, in the inevitable {43} reaction
after the psychic stress of such experiences, men have resented,
doubted, or denied the validity of their own consciousness; sometimes
they have regarded it as possessing a value exceeding all else in life.
Usually those who have it attract the hostility of their
contemporaries, scarcely tempered by the allegiance of a few followers,
and their names are forgotten in a few years, but sometimes the verdict
of contemporary hatred is reversed by posterity, which endeavours to
compensate by legendary honours for the contempt and contumely of life.
The problem presented by this experience is really twofold. It calls
for a judgement as to its origin and for a judgement as to its value,
and on neither point has there as yet been sufficiently clear
discussion.
Does the experience of controlling force which the prophet feels really
come from some external influence, or is it merely his consciousness of
ordinarily unknown depths in his own nature? It is obvious that a
theory of prophecy could be made on lines rendered familiar by
psychologists, by suggesting that what happens in a prophetic
experience is the sudden "coming up" of what is ordinarily
"subliminal." It is, however, important to remember that this is
merely a modern hypothesis, just as the Jewish view of inspiration was
an ancient one. But it is impossible in a rational theology to combine
fragments of two wholly different explanations of life and of the
universe. "The Spirit" was an admirably intelligible phrase in the
Jewish or early {44} Christian view of the universe; it does not fit in
well with the modern view of the universe. Similarly the theory of
subliminal action fits very well into the modern view, but not into
that of traditional Christian theology. Preachers seem to make a
serious mistake when they try to combine the language of two rival
hypotheses to explain the same human experience.
The judgement of value which ought to be passed on the prophets is no
clearer than the judgement of origin. The early Church knew perfectly
well that there were true prophets and false prophets,[2] and so did
the Jews, but in the end the only way of distinguishing them was to say
that a true prophet was a prophet who was right, and a false prophet
was
|