Questions on Chapter 19
exclaims: “As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness… My flesh also shall rest in hope… Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me… I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.”
The apostles of Christ were equally exultant in their expressions upon this subject. St. Paul exclaims: “Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory… For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” And St. Peter speaks of “an inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” St. John says: “It doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” Can that revelation be an imposture which furnishes the only solid foundation for these glorious hopes? Surely a system of doctrine so well adapted to the nature, the necessities, and the hopes of man, must have God for its author!
QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 19
QUESTION 1. By what method do we prove the divinity of the Bible from its contents?
2. What three different class of men are those from whom the Bible must have emanated?
3. How is it shown that bad men would not and could not have written it?
4. How is it shown that good, uninspired men could not have written it?
5. By what class, then, must it have been written?
6. What is the argument founded on the character of Christ as portrayed in the New Testament?
7. What argument is drawn from the circumstances connected with the condemnation and death of Jesus?
8. What is the substance of Rousseau’s admission on the subject?
9. What particular marks of genuineness do we find in the apostolic writings?
10. What is the argument from the style of the sacred writers?
11. How may an argument be founded on the doctrines of revelation?
12. To what particular doctrines is reference made?
CHAPTER 20. — EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE,
CONSIDERED IN REFERENCE TO MEN IN GENERAL
AND TO CHRISTIANS IN PARTICULAR.
“BY their fruits ye shall know them,” is one of the maxims of Jesus, which is not entirely dependent upon revelation for its sanction. Its truth and excellence are manifested and confirmed by the every-day transactions of life, and commend themselves to the common sense of every intelligent person. Philosophy teaches us to judge of the cause by the effect, in like manner as it is the dictate of practical common sense to judge of the tree by its fruit. To no subject does this principle apply with more propriety and force than to religion. After all the learned discussion of the evidences of Christianity, and the formidable array of arguments from miracles and prophecy, sustained and illustrated by appeals to history, philosophy, analogy, and reason; after all that may be so forcibly presented of the internal evidence founded on the consistency of the different parts of revelation, the character of the sacred writers, and the excellence of the doctrines revealed, there is still another species of internal evidence more forcible and convincing to the mass of common people than any we have yet named; we mean that evidence which results from experience. I. We will contemplate this subject, first, in reference to the effects of Christianity, in transforming the moral character of individuals. The system of truth is symmetrical and cohering. All its elements hang together, like links in a chain, as consistent parts of an harmonious whole. We assume it as a maxim that one truth can neither be inconsistent with another in its nature nor productive of evil in its tendency. According to this principle, therefore, it will be easy to subject the question, as to the truth or falsehood of Christianity, to an experimental test. The great Founder of Christianity never required the people to believe in him without evidence. He embodied one of his maxims, by which all men might test the truth of his doctrines, in this interrogatory: “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” And God says to rebellious Israel: “Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” Revelation boldly challenges to be tested. If there is aught within the whole range of science which can bear being tried upon the Baconian plan of founding theory upon experiment, it is Christianity. All that she demands is, that her doctrines may be fairly brought to this test. She has nothing to fear from the result. If Christianity be an imposture, a mere fabricated cheat, her tendency cannot but be evil; the stream must partake of the nature of the fountain. On the other hand, if the effect of Christianity is ascertained to be invariably good, then it will follow that it must be a system of truth.
1. Let us inquire then: What is the influence of Christianity upon the moral character of individuals? If we examine the testimony of the apostles themselves, we find them very explicit in regard to the moral change effected by Christianity. According to their teaching, Christianity produces a change in moral character from the love of sin and wickedness to the love of God and holiness. The believer has been “created anew in Christ Jesus.” With him, in an important sense, “old things are passed away, and all things are become new.” A new principle — a principle of life and holiness — is implanted within his soul. He lives, breathes, and moves within a new atmosphere. He sees God now, not as an angry, frowning Judge, but as a loving, a compassionate Father. His heart, which was “enmity against God, not subject to the law of God,” now “cries out for the living God” in holy rapture, exclaiming: “Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.” He has lost his desire to frequent the haunts of sin, and now he delights in the service of the sanctuary — the worship of God and the ways of righteousness and peace. He looks upon the people and the service of God, not with aversion, but with delight. Once he delighted in “the works of the flesh.” “Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelings, and such like” — these were once the tyrants of his soul, but now, in his heart and life, he exhibits “the fruit of the Spirit.” “Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance” — these are the graces that fill his heart and adorn his life.
2. Any one, by examining the writings of the early Christian apologists, when defending the character of the persecuted Christians, will see that their testimony on this subject accords with that of the apostles. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, and others, are very explicit in their accounts of the holy and self-sacrificing lives of the Christians. These direct testimonies of the Christian apologists were not disputed by their learned pagan opponents, which is sufficient evidence that their truth could not be safely denied. Indeed, some of them, as may be seen from the famous letter of Pliny to Trajan, already quoted, fully admitted the good moral character of Christians.
And we may confidently appeal to the observation of any candid person in Christian lands to testify to the reforming moral influence of Christianity. It is “known and read of all men” that thousands, in nearly all parts of Christendom, have been found by the gospel wicked, profane, profligate, malicious, lewd, drunken, or abandoned sinners, and been suddenly transformed into quiet, peaceable, sober, industrious, upright, and respectable citizens. Now, we ask, is there no argument in these facts? Are we to be told that a base, unprincipled impostor invented a religion more powerful in reforming the hearts and lives of the vicious than all the deep-studied theories, and learned lectures, and volumes of philosophers and sages? Are we to be required to believe that a system more influential in converting mankind from the practice of vice to the practice of virtue than all other schemes ever known to the world is a vile imposture, a record of profanity and lies? This absurd position must be occupied by the infidel, while he persists in rejecting Christianity; and we must allow him to choose his own position, however unreasonable, absurd, or inconsistent it may be in its character or ruinous in its consequences.
II. We next look at the influence of Christianity upon the moral condition of NATIONS AND COMMUNITIES.
It is only necessary for any intelligent eye to glance over the principal nations of the world to see the striking contrast in intelligence, morals, refinement, and all that can ennoble or render a people prosperous and happy between Christian nations and all others, whether pagan or Mohammedan. In Christian countries the light of civilization shines conspicuously, while throughout pagan and Mohammedan States the clouds of ignorance and superstition, to an appalling degree, rest upon the people. Liberty, equality, intelligence, science, good order, industry, refinement, benevolence, and virtue, are peculiar characteristics of Christian lands; but, on the other hand, where the Christian religion is unknown, barbarism, despotism, superstition, vileness, wretchedness, misery, and degradation, generally prevail.
Among numerous other instances that might be cited, look at the wonderful change effected by the gospel, in the course of only a few years, in the condition of the lately benighted inhabitants of Greenland and of the Southern Pacific islands. But we need not dwell upon these facts; they stand publicly authenticated before the world, and appeal to every skeptic to look upon the effects of Christianity, and read in these facts the deep impress of the divinity of its origin.
III. Hitherto we have only spoken of the effects of Christianity, as they are outwardly visible, serving as evidence of the reality and excellence of religion, founded on what we witness in others. But we now call attention to another species of evidence which is internal in two senses of the word — as the schoolmen would say, both objectively and subjectively; that is, both in reference to the source or influence whence the evidence is derived and to the recipient by whom it is recognized. By this we mean that INTERNAL CONVICTION produced in the mind, conscience, or heart of the individual, resulting from the gospel through, the influence of the Holy Spirit.
This evidence is referred to in the Scriptures as existing in two distinct stages or degrees. First, as connected with conviction in the heart or conscience of the sinner. This is implied in these words of St. Paul: “But by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” Here the gospel, as presented by the apostles, is seen to carry to the conscience, even of the sinner, a degree of conviction that it is true.
The second division of this kind of evidence is what is termed the witness of the Spirit, which it is the privilege of every Christian to possess. This is spoken of by St. Paul in these words: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” It is also promised by our Saviour in these words: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” That is, on the condition of obeying the gospel, we are promised the knowledge of its truth.
1. We first notice that division of this species of evidence connected with conviction.
Within the great deep of our internal, spiritual nature, there lives a principle or faculty — call it conscience, the moral sense, God within us, or what we please — by which we can perceive a distinction between right and wrong, and gain an impression of the truth or falsehood of things set before the mind. That God, who made us, and who is the author of all our powers, can shine upon the penetralia of our internal nature, and cause us to apprehend truths addressed to our conscience as easily as he can send us the light of the sun to reveal to us through the eye the truths of nature about us, is a position too obvious to be doubted.
Let any one discourse to us of the laws and operations of mind, or of the internal emotions by which we have been often influenced, and we may frequently feel as firm a conviction of the truth of the things thus communicated as it is possible for us to have of any fact we ever witnessed. And this conviction may not be the result of any process of ratiocination performed by the mind at the time, but may rise as spontaneously as the emotion of pleasure when we unexpectedly meet a much-loved friend. We may not be able fully to explain, or even to comprehend, the philosophy of this phenomenon, but of the truth of the fact we can have no doubt. We know that within the arcana of our inner nature there exists a something that receives, appropriates, approves, and confirms certain truths the moment they enter the mind. There is a light within us which often possesses such affinity for the light received from without, that no sooner do the rays of the two lights come to a focus on the same object than their perfect accordance is seen by the mind; and the testimony of the one is confirmed by that of the other. The voice from without is echoed in unison by the voice from within; in other words, the truth of revelation, entering the penetralia within us, finds its attestation in the bosom of the recipient. Thus it is that the divine word, sounding in the ear of the sinner, becomes a “discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,” and so probes the conscience, and lays bare the hitherto hidden anatomy of the soul, that the sinner is made to feel and to know that he has been listening to the voice of truth from on high. As the tribute-paying Jew, when he saw upon the coin the image and superscription of Cesar, knew to whom he owed political allegiance, even so the sinner, when he reads or hears the word of revelation, often perceives upon that word the signature of God so intelligibly impressed that he cannot doubt the divine source from whence it came.
This evidence of the truth of Christianity, connected with conviction for sin, is what every sinner throughout Christian lands, to a greater or less extent, has received. He may deny the fact of this conviction, and spurn the word, and resist the Spirit that produced it; but yet it is true that he has heard the voice of God speaking to his inner nature, and the voice of conscience echoed the words back to his soul, assuring him that the voice which had spoken came from heaven. Here, then, is an evidence of the truth of Christianity, resulting from the experience of every man who has ever heard the gospel, and been convinced by the testimony of his own conscience, that the message was from God. But this kind of evidence is only of force with him who receives it. He cannot impart it to others so as to render it intelligible and efficacious in regard to them. At the moment when this evidence is manifested to his heart, it is vivid and impressive, often causing the sinner to tremble; but if he trifles with the voice that addresses him, saying, “Go thy way for this time,” the insulted Spirit may leave him to harden and perish in his sins; and the traces of this evidence may become so dim as almost entirely to fade from his memory. We now inquire: Can that gospel be a human invention which finds a confirming witness of its truth in every soul of man? Can that voice be a deceptive illusion which finds an echo in the conscience of every sinner? Has the God of nature placed in the bosom of all his accountable creatures a fallacious witness only to deceive and mislead them? Can that system which is a profane and wicked imposture “commend itself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God”? There is in the Bible a tone of divine authority, an awful solemnity, a sacred and heavenly unction, which to every conscience, not entirely obdurated by sin, attests the divinity of its origin. Yet infidelity may laugh it to scorn. The incorrigible sinner may so inure himself to the impious crime of deriding this word, which his own conscience once bore him witness was the word of God, that he shall never again be impressed with its sacredness or truth till before the judgment-seat of Christ its unfolded pages shall flash conviction upon his soul. Nevertheless it is true, that as reason bears witness to all who impartially peruse the pages of nature, that all material things were created by the infinitely wise and beneficent God, even so does the conscience within the breast of all who, in a docile spirit and with a candid mind, read or hear the gospel of Christ bear witness that it is in truth the voice of God speaking to us from heaven by his Son.
But this voice of God, speaking, whether to saint or sinner, by his Son through the influence of the Spirit, is not to be understood as revealing any new truths not embraced in the Bible. The Spirit shines upon the sinner’s heart, and “opens his understanding,” but it is “that he may understand the Scriptures.” The Spirit rends the vail and opens his eyes, but it is that he may “behold wondrous things out of the divine law.”
2. There is one more division of the experimental evidence to which we now call attention: the indwelling witness of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the Christian.
It would be entirely aside from our purpose here, and irrelevant to our present argument, to enter upon the mooted question as to the manner in which the influence of the Spirit is imparted. All with which we are at present concerned is the fact that the Spirit is promised to the Christian, not only to certify his adoption as a child of God, but also to assure him of the truth of the Christian doctrine. Both these points are abundantly established in the Scriptures we have quoted. Other texts to the same effect might be adduced, but we deem it unnecessary to delay farther to prove a position which we think will not be disputed.
The argument here proposed is this: Christ has promised that all who do his will shall know of the truth of his doctrine, and the apostle teaches that the Spirit testifies to every Christian the fact of his adoption; hence it follows, as Christ cannot fail in his promise, and as the apostle has taught the truth, that every Christian has the most indubitable evidence that Christianity is true. This evidence has the advantage over both the external evidence and every other species of the internal evidence. Like the best wine kept for the last of the feast, this is the last, the crowning evidence which God imparts of the truth of his religion. Other evidence is abundant and satisfactory, sufficient to remove all reasonable doubt, but this is absolutely infallible, Other evidence is dependent on the capacity, integrity, and depositions, of fallible men, and the deductions of our fallible reason; but here is evidence, passing through no fallible channel, having no fallible prop for its support, dependent on no fallible reasoning for its validity. Indeed, so direct, all-conclusive, and infallibly certain, is this evidence, that it can suffer no diminution of its strength and efficacy from the ignorance, the weakness, the blunders, or the fallibility, of him to whom it is given. It depends entirely upon an infallible source, not only as a guarantee that it shall be properly set forth in all its appropriate and convincing efficacy, but that it shall be correctly understood, duly apprehended, and fully relied upon, by all to whom it is given. All this is pledged by Him who is infallible, and whose every promise, his attributes assure us, he certainly will fulfill. Furthermore, this evidence, unlike every other species of evidence, is alike conclusive and satisfactory to all to whom it is given, to whatever class they may belong. To the rich and the poor, to the high and the low, to the ignorant and the learned, to the patrician and the plebeian, to the sage and the savage, to all, it is alike intelligible and satisfactory. It removes from all the last vestige of doubt, and settles and confirms them in the full assurance that their faith rests not “in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
This evidence, it is true, is not vouchsafed to all men indiscriminately. It is the property of the Christian alone; and, in the nature of things, none else can possess it. It results from an experience which none can realize without becoming a Christian. To impart such evidence as this to the sinner might infringe upon his free agency, and make him a Christian without consulting his will, contrary to the gospel-plan. But while this evidence is restricted to the Christian alone, and cannot be so imparted by him to others as to enable them to realize its convincing power, it is yet, to his own mind, more convincing and satisfactory than all other evidence taken together. And to vast numbers of the masses of the common, uneducated people, the experimental evidence, in its two branches, as pertaining to the sinner and the Christian, is all that they possess, or are capable of comprehending. That the Christian religion is thus adapted to the circumstances of all classes of the human family, is another evidence that it originated in the infinite wisdom and goodness of God. He who made us, and who perfectly understands all our imbecilities, as he delights to do his needy creatures good, could not bestow upon us a religion that all might not be capable of receiving and enjoying. And as the larger portion of the human family are uneducated, and quite incapable of examining the historical and philosophical arguments founded on miracles and prophecy, how destitute would be their condition if they were left without any evidence of the truth of religion which their capacity and circumstances could reach! Without the experimental evidence, the Christian religion would lack one essential element of being adapted to “the poor;” and our Saviour specifies, as one proof of his Messiah-ship, the fact that “the poor have the gospel preached unto them.” Bearing along with it the sanction of its own divinity, the gospel can visit the hovels of the poor and indigent, the unlettered outcasts from society, and even the untaught savages of the wilderness, and all it asks is the means of access to their inner nature, an interpreter who can convey its truths to their understanding, and can speak to them in a voice that will convince them that its credentials are from God. Thus, it can become unto all, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether Greeks or barbarians, “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” Again, this experimental evidence most decidedly deprives the skeptic of every rational ground of objection to religion. It calls upon him to settle his every doubt by experimental demonstration. “Prove me, … saith the Lord of hosts, … and I will pour you out a blessing.” “If any man will do his will,” saith Jesus, “he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”
It was unreasonable in the Syrian captain to hesitate about washing in the waters of Jordan to be healed of his leprosy; and had the blind man, whom our Saviour directed to “wash in the pool of Siloam,” refused to comply with this command, he would have deserved to grope in darkness all his days, What, then, shall be thought of the proud and haughty skeptic who persists in urging his senseless cavils and oft-refuted arguments against Christianity, but will not consent to test the question by our Saviour’s experimental criterion? “Do my will,” saith Jesus, “and you shall know of the doctrine.” That is, submit to the requirements of the gospel, obey my commandments, and you shall have evidence to convince you, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that my religion is divine. The yoke of Christ is easy, and his burden is light; and it is no hard condition for the sinner to be required to do the will of Christ that he may test the truth of his doctrines. Let infidelity cease to deride that Saviour whom she has never attempted to follow or obey, let her no longer scoff at that religion she has never proved, but let her meet the issue fairly, upon the arena of the experimental test, as Christianity proposes, or let her cease her ridicule and vituperation forever.
3. Once more, we ask the attention to the argument for the truth of Christianity founded upon the testimony of Christians concerning their experience. As a man born blind, though he cannot realize from experience the distinction of colors, may, nevertheless, be satisfied on the testimony of others that such distinction exists; even so, though the Christian can never convey to the understanding of the sinner an adequate conception of the experimental evidence as realized in his own soul, yet he may exhibit such testimony concerning it as ought to “convince the gainsayers” that he “has not followed a cunningly-devised fable.” St. Paul, when permitted to speak for himself, related the history of his conversion; and the publication of that remarkable occurrence has doubtless been the means of convincing thousands of the truth of Christianity. The language of St. John is: “That which we have seen and heard, declare we unto you.” It cannot be questioned that the sincerity and earnestness which has been exhibited by Christians in every age, in testifying “how great things the Lord has done for them,” have wielded a powerful influence in the conversion of unbelievers to the faith. What a wonderful array of evidence of this description has the Church, in every age, set before the world! Multiplied thousands, under the most trying circumstances, have sealed the truth of their profession With their blood. A “noble army of martyrs” have shouted the praise of God amid the flames. Now, we demand: Is the testimony of all these Christians, as to the power and consolations of that religion which they experienced, of no avail?
Let infidelity cease her cavils and quibbles, let her pause in her career of ridicule and abuse, and come at once and prove, if she can, the falsehood of Christianity by the test of experience! Multitudes have realized by experience its saving power, and, were it possible for all other arguments on the subject to be forgotten, thousands would cling to Christian experience as the richest heritage of fallen humanity, imparting the greatest consolation in this life, and inspiring the brightest hopes in reference to the next.
Although. this experimental evidence is unquestionably the most overwhelmingly convincing of any that can be obtained in this life, yet it has ever been repulsive to the feelings of the unrenewed soul. In unsanctified human nature there is a principle of instinctive rebellion against the spirituality of religion. Perhaps the ground of this is to be found mainly in the fact that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” To an unlettered peasant, who had never heard any thing of the science of astronomy, the fact that an eclipse of the sun can be calculated for centuries before it occurs, and the precise time of the phenomenon predicted, would perhaps be as mysterious and as repugnant to his faith as are the spiritual things of religion to the unbelieving heart. But let that peasant be regularly instructed in the principles of mathematical and astronomical science, leading him, step by step, from the foundation-axioms up to the abstruse calculations of astronomy, and the mystery will be dispelled, and he will see that it all must be true, and cannot be otherwise. Even so in religion there is a commencement, a progression, and a maturity. We can see no good reason why those who are strangers to the experimental evidence of Christianity should reject that evidence upon the testimony of Christians, while they rely confidently on the testimony of philosophers and astronomers, in reference to experiments and calculations as mysterious and incomprehensible to them as can be the things of religion. If all good astronomers agree in testifying that eclipses can be calculated with accuracy, even so all good Christians agree in affirming that “he that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself.” If it be said that we have much collateral testimony to satisfy us that the statements of philosophers and astronomers, in reference to their experiments and calculations, are true; even so, we demand, is there not abundant evidence, beside the mere affirmation of Christians, confirming the truth of their testimony in relation to their Christian experience? Is there not all the evidence of this kind that the nature of the subject admits? Would not similar testimony, derived from the same witnesses, convince any rational mind of the truth of any facts in reference to the things of this world? And if so, why should we adopt a new mode of reasoning whenever we pass from questions of philosophy or experimental facts pertaining to temporal affairs, to the religious experience of the same persons? Is skepticism so pressed and crippled in her crusade against experimental religion that, whenever that subject is brought upon the arena, she is driven, in order to keep her principles in countenance, to ignore all her ordinary rules of logic, and resort to a new method of argumentation, and one never admitted or thought of except when the object is to discredit the claims of experimental religion? Were not this the case, there is not a rational mind beneath the sun that could for a moment resist the sweeping tide of testimony by which the reality of experimental Christianity has been confirmed.
Passing by the millions of sincere Christians who, in every age of the gospel dispensation, in the humble walks of life, have professed to have experienced the power of this religion in their hearts, and have exultantly proclaimed the reality of its consolations and hopes — this experimental religion has numbered among its advocates many of the brightest luminaries in the galaxy of learning and science. Men of the loftiest genius and talent, and of the most inestimable probity and moral worth; for example, Lord Chief-Justice Hale, Pascal, Newton, Boyle, Locke, Addison, Boerhaave, Lord Littleton, Baron Haller, Sir William Jones, and James Beattie — all men of giant intellect and of world-renowned literary fame; these have all professed with their lips this experimental Christianity, and exhibited its fruits in their lives. In reference to any statement of historic fact which they had witnessed, or any scientific experiment they had tried, their testimony would be undoubted before any court of law or college of philosophy on earth. Why, then, should their statements as to their experience of Christianity, and the inspoken witness of God to their hearts that the doctrine of Christ is of God, be not only discredited but stigmatized and ridiculed as a fanatical delusion?
Can infidelity boast of such a host of worthies among her adherents to palliate, if possible, her inconsistency in rejecting such testimony? What has been the moral standing of her most illustrious apostles? As observed by Watson: “They show in their own characters the effect of their unbelief, and probably the chief cause of it. Blount committed suicide, because he was prevented from an incestuous marriage; Tyndal was notoriously infamous; Hobbes changed his principles with his interests; Morgan continued to profess Christianity while he wrote against it; the moral character of Voltaire was mean and detestable; Bolingbroke was a rake and a flagitious politician; Collins and Shaftesbury qualified themselves for civil offices by receiving the sacrament, whilst they were endeavoring to prove the religion of which it is a solemn expression of belief, a mere imposture; Hume was revengeful, disgustingly vain, and an advocate of adultery and self-murder; Paine was the slave of low and degrading habits; Rousseau an abandoned sensualist, and guilty of the basest actions, which he scruples not to state and palliate.” Are we to be called upon to enroll ourselves as disciples of these men, who have added to the sophistry and inconsistency of their reasoning, as a comment on the tendency of their principles, the flagitiousness of their lives? No, we will cling to the Bible as our light and our salvation, as our only solid ground of comfort and hope in a world of sorrow and affliction. We will enroll our names with the extended list of saints and martyrs who, “in all time of their affliction,” have derived solace and comfort from the inspired pages of the word of life. Let infidelity oppose and deride, ridicule and scoff — let all the ingenuity and malice of skeptics and demons combine to condemn or stigmatize, to disprove or destroy — the revelation of God to man, their counsel shall be frustrated, their efforts shall prove fruitless, and their labor shall perish; but the Bible, more indestructible than monuments of marble, more enduring than the hills, shall still remain! It is the word of God, “which liveth and abideth forever.” “Blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book!”
“Were all the sea one chrysolite,
And all this earth one golden ball,
And diamonds all the stars of night,
This precious book were worth them all.”
QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 20.
QUESTION 1. What species of evidence is the most convincing to the mass of common people?
2. In what three divisions has the argument from experience been presented?
3. What is the argument founded upon the transforming influence of Christianity upon the moral character of individuals?
4. What is the influence of Christianity upon the moral condition of nations and communities, and how is its divinity thereby shown?
5. What evidence is that referred to which is internal in two senses?
6. In what two stages is this evidence spoken of in Scripture?
7. What is the nature of this evidence as connected with conviction?
8. What is the last division of experimental evidence referred to?
9. For what double purpose is the Spirit promised to the Christian?
10. Wherein consists the superiority of this to every other class of testimony?
11. What class of persons can realize the force of this evidence?
12. How may it be shown that this experimental evidence deprives the skeptic of every rational ground of objection to religion?
13. How can we account for the general prejudice of unbelievers against the experimental evidence of religion?