To criticism, then, must be the final appeal thy evidence to give the rejection of the Gospel a rational basis; and in this confidence is so great that it is frequently thought that the believer dare not honestly face the results of the critic's work.
The Sing to Unbelief of the Divine Message
The confidence which leads the believer to turn to the Scriptures for the supply to his every need as a believer, finds no more disappointment in their difficult passages than in any others. In fact, the Scriptures are so far from yielding to the claims of rationalism, that the believer is perhaps himself surprised to find that one of the chief witnesses rationalists call, in order to impugn the credibility of the Scriptures, is made to witness for their divine authorship, and by it, light and order are given to the whole subject. This at least would show that the critic's case is not as easily proved as he would have it.
He who declared Himself to be the Son of God, has given the sign of His mission, and we may learn from this, what the credentials of the divine message are:—" An evil and 'adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign. be given onto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," Matt. 12:39-4039But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Matthew 12:39‑40).
Jonah, it need hardly be said, has always been a very favorite subject of ridicule in the hands of the skeptic. But it being declared here that an event analogous Jonah's to experience is to be the one and only sign given to the unbelieving generation, the “honest doubter " may be expected to give that event his most careful consideration. It is given us the evidence which the unbelieving must recognize, as a proof that God has had to say to man.
The sign, then, that confirms God's message to man, may be considered in three aspects: First, facts as evidence possessing their own power; secondly, the purpose and testimony of divine acts; thirdly, the character of the divine word.
The Sing Facts Sign
The Scriptures themselves declare that the unbeliever will receive no other sign of the truth of the message of God's grace to man in his need, than that which the facts, by virtue of what they have been, will afford. The fact of the resurrection was to be its own credential, and would become a sign of such distinctness that any 'would-be rational refutation would prove its own irrationalism. And so it has been. Infidels have made the attempt to set aside the fact, and there are books extant where their arguments and statements meet with complete refutation.' Historical statements have been gathered and sifted, and the recorded incidents proved to be possible only on condition of the reality of the facts of the Gospel; while the contents of the Scriptures themselves have afforded such innumerable undesigned coincidences, "as to render -their historical truth impregnable." Let it be remembered that many a work on Christian Evidences, having served its generation, is comparatively little known now, but this does not imply that its arguments have ever been answered or refuted. Some still' survive as “evidences." Paley's Evidences have been known for over a century; had they been refuted they would be known as Paley's errors.
There is no moral weight in affecting to despise that which cannot be answered in argument.
Paley's Evidences
The resurrection, as a fact, is the sign to unbelief. The writer remembers the way in which the arguments of Paley were met by undergraduates who in their First Term had his Evidences as, a compulsory subject in their “Little-Go." “The indignity of Making a book published in 1794 compulsory, was disgraceful. The arguments were wholly out of date," and the like. But the up-to-date wiseacres seemed to be incapable of answering any one specific argument. And it is to Paley that the writer gladly owns his indebtedness for being brought to consider the facts of the Gospel in their power, at a time when he felt a decision for the gospel as it is given, or for hopeless infidelity, must be honestly made.
The testimony of the Apostles and time original witnesses of of the facts of the Gospel, allows of only one of two explanations Either it was false, and those who rendered it did so knowing it to be false,—or it was true.
Enthusiasts who deceived themselves as to what they stated as facts, they could not have been. What they testified to was “what they had seen and heard," and if their statements were not true they were in the worst sense false.
The Facts of the Gospel
It is by an infidel, that two distinct grounds upon which every inquiry must be conducted, have been most sharply defined. “All objects of human reason or inquiry," says Hume, "may be naturally divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas and Hatters of Fact.”
The testimony, extant in part in writing's, and proved, by concurrent history, given by the original witnesses to the incidents of the Gospel, was undeniably to matters of fact, and was either true or willfully false. But seeing that evidences of the 'historical basis of the Gospel, narrative, as well as the narrative itself, are within the reach of all, it will suffice to say, that the historical character of the story of divine grace is in a more unassailable position in the present day than it has ever been. Its strength in historical facts has been brought to light by criticism, and these facts stand like the rocks in dangerous waters supporting the lighthouse which guides into safety those who profit by its gracious light, remaining sure and firm throughout the storm, while those who despise its warning dash their vessel to pieces „upon them.
That their evidence develops under honest criticism may be judged from the following extract:
An Instance of the Power of These Facts
It is stated by Rev. T. T. Biddolph that Lord Lyttleton and his friend Gilbert West, Esq., both men of acknowledged talents, had imbibed the principles of infidelity from a superficial view of the Scriptures. Fully persuaded that the Bible was an imposture, they determined to expose the cheat. Lord Lyttleton chose the conversion of Paul, and Mr. West, the resurrection of Christ, for the subject of hostile criticism. Both sat down to their respective tasks full of prejudice; but the result of their separate attempts was that they were both converted by their effort to overthrow the truth of Christianity, They came together not as they expected, to exult over an imposture exposed to ridicule, but to 'lament over their own folly, and to felicitate each other on their joint conviction that the Bible was the word of God. "Their able inquiries have furnished two of the most valuable treatises in favor of revelation, one entitled ' Observations on the Conversion of St. Paul,' and the other Observations on the Resurrection of Christ.'"
Every attempt to discredit the testimony to the Resurrection, has to be based on subjective a priori ground. And in accepting the Resurrection as a &et, the simplest believer is only accepting what criticism has to substantiate as history unless criticism denies its own principles.
Conjoined Testimony
But the Scriptures force another issue. The fact of the resurrection and the truth of the story of Jonah are linked together. The Lord has-not only given His express word for this, but declared it to be the sign given to an unbelieving generation. Both then, must either be received or both rejected.
To receive the incident as a fact, the Son of God must be trusted,—to reject it, His word must be disbelieved, amt'' he who disbelieves that word is proved an unbeliever.
And thus, while criticism is so frequently introduced as the reason for having the Gospel claims in abeyance, and thereby excusing or rather deceiving oneself in neglecting “the great salvation," the Scriptures take up one of the chief subjects of criticism and with it force the issue upon the critic himself.
The Word of God is still "living and operative, and sharper than any two-edged sword, Piercing even to the dividing of soul' and spirit and of the joints and marrow, and is a discoverer of thoughts and intents of the heart."
The Harmony in Divine Testimony
The critic finds the signs given have still more to say to him on his own principles. The act that preserved Jonah was undeniably divine; as was the resurrection. And the history of Jonah, thereby, presents such a striking harmony with the history of the Gospel, that a child can see the analogy. The resurrection being established as a fact, the divine ways and power displayed in the history of Jonah have a definite purpose and a divine one.
The inquiry into the veracity of the Scriptures leaves the question indefinitely open, because of the constant accumulation and discovery of evidence with which the investigation, is conducted. The divine evidence does not change, for the Scriptures are complete in themselves. This, the critic is responsible. to understand; for when writings make an explicit claim to speak from God, the critical consideration of the claim would ask if the evidence proves them divine in character,—not merely true to fact, which would be possible with any human history, but true to their divine claim. To this query an answer is given him.
A manifest harmony is found between the history recorded in the Old Testament and that recorded in the New; and this harmony is the result of what is divine and superhuman in each. Either, then, the critic must condemn his rationalism and accept the facts which are divine, or deny the history wholly and profess agnosticism, and accept himself the criticism such a position exposes him to.
Evidence of Veracity Compared With That of Divine Truth
Just when the critic has apparently triumphed in proving the narrative inconsistent with reason and experience, the Scriptures by what they contain turn the narrative into a witness to a mysterious power that places the critic in a quandary, and sets the very incident in question as a sign of irrational unbelief.
Again thus the scripture places the simple believer, in position of rational as well as divine faith, and the critic, if he takes reason as his standard, in one of irrational infidelity. The critic would raise the question of the veracity of the Scriptures, which assuredly has its plea; but the Scriptures force first the question of their divine evidence, and upon this all depends. If the evidences of their divine power and character are manifest, undeniably their veracity is a necessary consequence, and a simple believer is rational in assuming it as such. For after all, he is dependent upon others for almost the whole evidence in which the veracity of the scriptures is involved, and if he has learned the scriptures to be the Word of God to hint, he is certainly justified in believing God rather than man. 'With one who is without the opportunity or ability of judging of evidence rationally, it is but one or the other.
This is no concession of course on the point of the veracity of the Scriptures. Far from it. The evidence that what is stated in Scripture is true, is of necessity distinct from the question as to whether it is divine. The critic would like to accept only that which he considers his criticism sanctions, paying thereby a tribute to the capacity of scholarship. But the Scriptures do not allow this, and handling him with his own principles bring him first to the issue whether his criticism is to be based on accrediting what is rational, or on receiving what is divine. And what guarantee can he give at the Start that he possesses the necessary honesty and capacity of mind to consider the abstract question of the Scriptures' veracity?
The Veracity of the Scriptures
But still there are few indeed who are not aware of, and who do not frequently have to face, the most confident statements that the Scriptures contain that which is not true. “Facts” have proved it untrue, and consequently to consider it divine is folly. It behooves a 'believer, then, seeing that facts and truth are appealed to, at least to consider what is meant. The question arises, of course, what facts and what truth are ascertained that bear upon what is stated in the Scriptures? And what evidence do they give?
Here the evidence appealed to is certainly that which the vast majority are incapable of verifying, but receive it second hand. And this is as true of him who accepts the latest theory that is put forth, as of him who questions it. The fields of research and study from which “facts" and “truth” are dug, few have either ability or opportunity to enter.
Assertion can easily be made, and alleged &as can be adduced in support, which make the attack irrefutable to any who have no information on the subject, although the absurdity of it might with ease be shown by any who possessed independent 'equal or superior knowledge of the facts. Learning in the branches of study from which the veracity of the Scripture is judged, is the property of specialists. With this weapon the scholar arms himself, whether for attack or defense, in discussing the veracity of the Scriptures. Into the arena of criticism the present writer does not pretend to go. Like every other witness, criticism has its fixed and already defined hounds. When it assays to go beyond them, it is no longer evidence but assumption.
Literature on the various subjects of attack is open to all, and any who have the intelligence to understand one side, have also the opportunity of reading the other. It is the interest, not the opportunity, that is lacking, and for this fact the responsibility must be accepted.
As evidence, the results of learned criticism must be considered under two heads:
(1). Reasoning from these results,—that is, theory.
(2).Facts.
Facts, of course, all are bound to receive, but conclusions drawn from them, by no means.
Reason and Logic As Guides
First then, what confidence can he placed in reasoning, as a trustworthy witness? Reasoning is far from being as safe and certain as it is often supposed to be. Rationalists are often accredited by the simple with being incapable of believing because they think too much. But it is the quality, not the quantity of thought that is essential. Inductive reasoning is quick in suggestion, but being abstract is indifferent to realities or even sense. Thus we find the logician led quite unconsciously by Ilk inductive reasoning from sense to nonsense. Phenomena in this world, it is owned by him, make it not very rational to speak of phenomena which have not been caused; but he challenges any to say that uncaused phenomena may not be found in far away stellar regions! The infidel logician thus conclusively proves that, for grounds of disbelief, neither reason nor fact are necessary. Talk about phenomena coming into existence when there is absolutely no cause for their doing so, is simply meaningless to reason. It is mere phraseology, possessing no intelligible sense at all. The assumption argued for simply amounts to this, that it is folly to affirm confidently that the phenomena of stellar regions present the necessity of a cause; and yet, as to the phenomena of the world where Mr. Mill finds himself as a fact, it is virtually admitted that they teach him or any other infidel his need of Him to whom they bear witness.
Animadverting on the meaningless phraseology which reasoning can produce, another has cited “such. . . . childish puzzles [as], Can God make a stone so heavy that He cannot move it? Can God make two hills without a Valley between.? Can God add two and two together so that the sum shall be five?"
Along with these may be placed theories such as Lord Kelvin's suggestion that life was brought to the world by some straying meteorite; while Huxley's faith tells us, that somewhere ins infinite time and amid the infinite changes through which matter has been called to pass, life did somehow originate.
Rational induction, then, affords no safeguard against taking from facts their proper weight. On the contrary, to its nature-belongs the dangerous quality of forgetting facts altogether.
Faultless Reason Ing Untrustworthy
Again we find that theories which are each equally unimpeachable on its own basis can, by the contradiction they give to each other,, become a witness to the folly of placing absolute confidence in reasoning even if wholly unassailable in its conclusions. " Dr. Croll as the propounder and defender of an astronomical theory of the Glacial period which made great demands upon geological time, encountered the startling calculations made by Lord Kelvin,. Prof. Tait, George Darwin, and others, going to show that the solar system is running down so fast that geological history must be compressed into what seems to some an incredibly short space of time. Whereas geologists had been in the habit of assuming that many hundred million years were at their command, these physicists came in with their demonstrations that if all things continued from the first as they now are, the solar system would part with its heat by radiation in less them one hundred million years, having only a fraction of that brief time fit for the development of plant and animal life." (Scientific Aspects of Christian Evidences, p. 8.)
Contradictory Evidence in Geology
The same contradictory phenomena present themselves in geological evidence. For instance," It is alleged that for certain sandstones-some twenty thousand years must have passed to have a bed of such thickness deposited; but at Cringleith, near Edinburgh, a tree some 60 feet long lies slanting at an angle of 40 degrees across the strata in its whole length. Now that a tree remained twenty thousand years slanting thus while the sea deposited these strata, is not to be believed. Again they tell us that the formation of certain beds of coal, would require twenty thousand years to make a bed of coal a foot thick, and some one hundred and twenty thousand years for the coal measures of England. Nor is this all; at South Joggins cliff in Nova Scotia, and somewhere near Manchester, sigillaria grow through the coal, the roots being in and below it, and the stems rising up in their original position through the superincumbent sand-stone and shale.. So, in the Isle of Purbeck, dicotyledonous wood in limestone."
Is more evidence needed as to the danger of theories? An account of the many times that able and learned men have been betrayed by their very power of reasoning, would fill many volume. We find the same contradiction in facts in the evidence as to the dates of Egyptian history; the long ages so popularly believed in have met with a that denial based on facts, " Not only does Manetho speak of contemporary princes, but the stelæ and tablet monuments give unequivocal proofs of the coexistence of kings of different dynasties, sometimes subordinate one to another. The names are brought together of two and even of several dynasties on the same monument, so that the chronology founded on their being in succession one to another is a delusion from beginning to end."
Reasoning From Figures
Chronology also passes into the mythical.
Pit" The figures of Babylonish chronology are manifestly made to serve the ends of the chronicler. The reasoning will be denied by none. The ease with which theorists can manipulate figures has also had somewhat recent illustration in the calculation concerning the age of a bone found in the delta of the Mississippi. In the first edition “It was 100,000 years; in the second, reduced by half to 50,000. Then, according to Professor Hitchcock, 14,200; or 4,400. according to Humphreys and Abbot, 'United States engineers, the latest authorities on the subject."