{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43328/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43328","id":"gutenberg_43328","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43328","summary":null,"tags":["Bible and science","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"THE LOST FAITH,\n\n  AND\n\n  DIFFICULTIES OF THE BIBLE AS TESTED\n  BY THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE.\n\n  BY\n  T. S. CHILDS, D. D.\n\n\n  PHILADELPHIA:\n\n  PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION\n  AND SABBATH-SCHOOL WORK,\n\n  No. 1334 CHESTNUT STREET\n\n\n\n\n  COPYRIGHT, 1888, BY\n  THE TRUSTEES OF THE\n  PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION\n  AND SABBATH-SCHOOL WORK.\n\n\n  _ALL RIGHTS RESERVED._\n\n\n  WESTCOTT & THOMSON,\n  _Stereotypers and Electrotypers, Philada._\n\n\n\n\nSome of the most pathetic cases of the spiritual unrest and\nskepticism of the day are found among the children of Christian\nparents. They have been brought up to believe the Bible, but under\nthe influences that have met them as they have gone out from the\nold home into the world their early faith has been shaken, and not\nunfrequently destroyed. To such as these, and, beyond these, to all\nwho have come to believe that our age has passed beyond the Bible, it\nis hoped that the incidents and arguments of this little book may be\nof service.\n\nWASHINGTON, D. C., June, 1888.\n\n\n\n\nTHE LOST FAITH.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER I.\n\n\nMY DEAR C----: It is useless for you to write to me on the subject of\nyour last letter. I appreciate your motives, but with me the question\nis settled. I have given up the beliefs of my childhood; they had\nlong been a burden to me, and the writings and lectures of Mr. ----\ndid the rest. Have you heard him? Can he be fairly answered? I am\nnot, indeed, as confident as he is that there is no personal God,\nthough I do not believe it can be _proved_, and I entirely agree with\nhim in abhorring and rejecting the doctrine of future suffering. This\nwas the horrible nightmare of my childhood, and you cannot conceive\nthe relief that the rejection of the doctrine has given me. I am\nfrank to say, from my own experience and that of others, that this is\nthe point that gives Mr. ---- his hold on so many. The doctrine of\nendless suffering for the sins of this life is abhorrent to them, and\nthey welcome his views almost as a first truth of reason. This, at\nleast, is my position. The existence of God cannot be proved, nor can\nany immortality for man except in the influence he may leave behind\nhim. But a truce to this. Come to me soon if you are not afraid of\nmy \"infidelity,\" and let us live over the days of our boyhood. Most\nof the dear old friends are gone; we are nearly alone, and I am not\ninclined to drop the last links of brighter, and perhaps better, days\nthan these now upon us. Yours, truly,\n\n  A----.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMY DEAR A----: Your letter has moved me deeply. Yes, we are\nalmost alone. Of all the dear group that used to gather in the\nold school-house, and play upon the common, and stroll along the\nriver-banks in summer and skate upon its solid surface in winter, you\nand I are nearly all that remain. The Southern sea has poor H----;\nW----, the leader of our sports, fell (under another name, I think)\nwith Custer's band in the wild tragedy of Montana; B---- and S----\nwon their honors, and were buried with them, on the battlefield;\nK---- lives a wreck in mind and body. The rest are scattered. The old\nhomes are all changed; the inmates are gone from them for ever.\n\nAnd you are changed. No recollections of the past that your letter\nhas called up have impressed me more sadly than the change you speak\nof in yourself. You have lost the faith of your childhood. It is true\nyou do not speak of it as a loss: you think you have gained by it.\nYour early beliefs oppressed you, and you have escaped the burden by\nrejecting belief in God and in a future life.\n\nLet me claim the liberty of an old friend--it may be for the last\ntime, for we shall soon both be away--and ask if you are _sure_ of\nyour ground. The questions are too momentous, the interests involved\nare too great and too lasting, to be risked on an uncertainty. You\nare not, indeed, sure that there is no God, but you are sure that no\nman can prove that there is; and you are equally certain that there\ncan be no future state of suffering for any. Your final conclusions\nyou have reached through the influence of Mr. ----, and you admit\nthat his hold on you and on others has come largely through his\npassionate denials of the doctrine of future retribution. I have no\ndoubt this is so. But, after all, is this decisive? Are Mr. ----'s\ndoubts and denials more to be relied on than the positive beliefs\nof as intelligent and good men as the world has ever seen? I do not\npress this as proof one way or the other, but it is something worth\nthinking of before you give up for ever your respect for Christianity\nand the Bible.\n\nYour letter has called up memories that will not down at the bidding.\nYou remember your mother; you remember her life; you remember her\ndeath. The day after her burial we were sitting, you and I, under the\nold willow on the bank of the river--it is all before me now--and you\ntold me how she died with her hand on your head, and how before she\ndied you promised to meet her again. Was it all a delusion? Did she\ngo out in final darkness? And was your promise the folly of childhood?\n\nWill you bear with me if I recall another and a later scene? The\ndays of childhood were behind us. We had drifted apart. You remained\namong the old home-scenes; I was making my way among strangers. Then\none went from you who had become dearer to you than a mother. I\nhave before me a letter that came to me out of the shadows of that\nbitter trial; I know you will not misjudge me if I quote its words\nnow. Thus you wrote: \"I am sure such a life cannot have ended; the\npossibilities of it cannot yet be finished. That soul, with all its\nsweetness and beauty and brightness, cannot have been quenched like\na spark on the ocean.... Her last words were, 'I go with Him who has\nbrought life and immortality to light, and who has opened the kingdom\nof heaven to all believers.'\" I would not recall these early views\nand faiths unkindly. If they were wrong, of course you are right in\nparting with them; but is it certain they were wrong? And in giving\nthem up have you found something better and more sure to take their\nplace?\n\nOne important point I presume you have not overlooked: whatever\ndoubts there may be as to the existence of God, _atheism can never be\nproved_. No man can ever be sure that there is _not_ a God; he may\ndeny that the proof of divine existence satisfies _him_, but that is\nall he can do. Somewhere in the universe, after all, God may be. No\nman has explored all its recesses; none has pierced its limitless\nheights; none has threaded all its dark abysses and found that in it\nall there is no God. A man must himself have the attributes of God to\nknow that there is no God. And suppose I cannot prove that there is a\nGod? If I live as if there were one and it should happen that there\nis not, I am safe; I lose nothing. But if I live as if there were no\nGod and it should come to pass at last that there is, where am I? Of\ntwo untraveled paths, it is wisest to take that which is _known_ to\nbe safe.\n\nBut suppose it to be a question of probabilities. Suppose you have\nto choose between an endless succession of finite causes, as a man,\nan oak, a flower, a dewdrop--not one of which is adequate to its own\nexistence--and one infinite, eternal self-existent, almighty and\nallwise Cause of all things (and some such choice sooner or later you\nmust make), which is the better? Which is the more reasonable? If you\nthink through these questions at all, either you must at last admit a\nGod or you must make something for yourself that will do the work of\nGod; and the God you make _must do what actually is done now_; what\nhe will do hereafter, who can say? Your friend, Mr. ----, tells you\nthat \"all there is is all the God there is\"--that \"the universe is\nall there is or was or will be.\" This is pantheistic atheism; it is a\nmere assertion without a particle of proof; and if true, it can give\nus no relief for the future, as I hope to satisfy you.\n\nBy the side of this utterance of Mr. ---- let me put the words of\nthat king in the realm of science, Professor Joseph Henry. They are\nfound in the last letter that he ever wrote, and may be taken as the\nfinal summing up of all those vast researches that have made his\nname the heritage of the world. They are entitled to some weight\nas against the statements of men who, if they can follow in his\nfootsteps at all, must follow afar off. These are his words: \"After\nall our speculations and an attempt to grapple with the problem of\nthe universe, the simplest conception which explains and connects\nthe phenomena is that of the existence of one spiritual Being\ninfinite in wisdom, in power and all divine perfections.\" That is,\nthe simplest and the best explanation of the facts of the universe\nis found in the existence of God. This is testimony accepted by the\nhighest scientific authority both in this country and in Europe. I\ndo not say that it proves there is a God, but it does prove that\nbelief in God is consistent with the highest intellectual power. To\ndisbelieve is no proof of a great mind.\n\nMr. ---- eulogizes Thomas Paine as one of the greatest and best men\nof his age--a man \"whose writings carry conviction to the dullest.\"\nNow, Paine, though a bitter enough infidel, as we all know, never so\nparted from his reason or his reverence as to deny the existence of\nGod. He says with a force that, according to Mr. ----, must \"carry\nconviction to the dullest:\" \"I know I did not make myself, and yet\nI have existence; and by searching into the nature of other things\nI find no other thing could make itself, and yet millions of other\nthings exist; therefore it is that I know by positive conclusions\nresulting from this search that there is a power superior to all\nthese things, and that power is God.\" Paine believed in God; he\nbelieved in a future life; he believed in the person of Christ, of\nwhom Mr. ---- so far takes leave of all historic judgment, and even\nof all respectable infidel judgments, as to say we do not know that\nhe ever existed!\n\nThis suggests a word in regard to your questions whether I have heard\nMr. ---- and whether he can be fairly answered. I have never heard\nhim on the subjects of which you speak, but I have read enough, I\nthink, to judge him fairly. I recognize his brilliant gifts, his\nwit, his rhetorical power, but I am surprised that one of your\nnatural clearness of mind should not see that he deals most unfairly\nwith the questions of religion. His representation of Christianity\nis a caricature, and it takes great charity not to believe it is\nan _intentional_ caricature. His treatment of the Scriptures is\ninexcusably unfair. If a Christian were to deal with an infidel book\nas Mr. ---- deals with the Bible, there would be no bound to the\ncharges of outrageous misrepresentation and perversion. His abuse\nof Christians and Christianity is often more like the raving of a\nmadman than like the calm judgment of a fair-minded reasoner. What\nare we to think of a man who can sit down and deliberately write\nand send out to the world such words as these?--\"Hundreds, and\nthousands, and millions, have lost their reason in contemplating the\nmonstrous falsehoods of Christianity;\" \"Nine-tenths of the people in\nthe penitentiaries are believers;\" \"The orthodox Christian says that\nif he can only save his little soul, if he can barely squeeze into\nheaven, ... it matters not to him what becomes of brother or sister,\nfather or mother, wife or child. He is willing that they should burn\nif he can sing.\" This is enough. But what shall be said of such\nravings? Suppose Mr. ---- finds imperfections in the Church; suppose\nhe finds a multitude of professed Christians that are not what they\nshould be, just as Christ has given us reason to expect,--does that\nsettle the real nature of Christianity? Suppose \"nine-tenths of the\npeople in the penitentiaries\" were American citizens,--does that\nprove that American citizenship is a bad thing or make it worth while\nfor a man to spend his life in denouncing our Constitution? Mr. ----\nknows there is a very different kind of citizen, and he knows that\nthese men are in the penitentiary, not because they have kept the\nlaws of their country, but because they have broken them. So, even if\nthe monstrous assertion were true that nine-tenths of the occupants\nof the penitentiaries are Christian professors, they are there, not\non account of Christianity, but in spite of it. True Christianity\nnever sent them there, and every honest man knows that. Christianity\nis founded on Christ, and the required fruit of it is holiness,\nrectitude with man and purity before God. This is a fact that any man\nwho _wants_ to know the truth can understand by an hour's study of\nthe teachings of Christ and his apostles.\n\nTo your question whether Mr. ---- can be answered, I say deliberately\nhe has been answered a hundred times. I do not think that in all\nhis assaults on the Bible he has advanced a respectable argument or\nobjection that has not been urged and answered again and again long\nbefore he was born. The Christian Church has not the least fear for\nherself from his attacks; indeed, she understands them so well, and\nhas repelled them so often, that she is perhaps too indifferent to\nanything he may say. The danger is not to the Church, but to those\n_who want to be convinced that the Bible is not true, and who want\nto be assured that, however they may live in this life, they have\nnothing to fear in a life to come_.\n\nIndulge me in another letter, and believe me\n\n  Yours, truly,\n  C----.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER II.\n\n\nMY DEAR A----: The two questions that press upon every mind, and\nthat Mr. ---- has shown again and again, with wonderful pathos, by\ndying beds and at open graves, are pressing upon his, are these:\nIs there a God? Is there a future state of existence? To these\nquestions the best answer Mr. ---- has to give is, \"We do not know.\"\nHe seems confident that there is no personal God, and \"we cannot\nsay whether death is a wall or a door, the beginning or the end of\na day, the spreading of pinions to soar or the folding for ever of\nwings, the rise or the set of a sun.\" With all this uncertainty, he\nis absolutely sure that there is no future state of suffering for\nevil-doers. He does not know whether there is any future at all, but\nhe does know that there is no future of sorrow. He is profoundly\nignorant as to the _fact_ of a future, but has decisive knowledge as\nto the _nature_ of the future, if there is one. \"Rather than that\nthis doctrine of endless punishment should be true,\" he says, \"I\nwould gladly see the fabric of our civilization, crumbling, fall to\nunmeaning chaos and to formless dust, where oblivion broods and even\nmemory forgets.\"\n\nNow, it may be quite true that Mr. ---- has this preference, yet\nthis does not settle the case. We can fully understand how any man\nshould shrink from the terrible possibility of future suffering.\nOrthodoxy has no more delight in it than has infidelity. But it is\nnot a question of preference: it is a question of fact; and the\npoint I submit for your reflection is this--whether Mr. ----, on his\nown ground, is authorized to affirm that there is no future state\nof suffering for any. He says we do not know whether there _is_ any\nfuture state. Very well. Then, certainly, we do not know what _kind_\nof a future state there may be, if there is one. If Mr. ---- is not\nable to assure us that there is no future for us at all, he surely\nhas not the ground to assure us of any kind of a future, good or bad.\nThere may be a future of joy, there may be a future of suffering;\nthere may be both. Mr. ---- is too good a lawyer to undertake to\nprove anything by mere negative evidence. He \"leaves the dead with\nNature, the mother of all,\" and \"Nature,\" as to any sure utterance\nupon the future, is as silent as are the lips of the dead themselves.\n\nMr. ---- does not believe in a personal God. _You_ are not sure\nwhether there is one or not. There may be; there may be none. If\nthere is, we cannot know it. Let us see what we gain on either\nsupposition.\n\nSuppose there is a God, though I cannot know it or I cannot know him.\nThen, clearly, I cannot know what he is; I cannot know what he may\ndo. It is quite possible that this unknown God may be a God who hates\nwhat we call sin, and who will punish it, and who will punish it just\nas long as it stands an offence in the moral universe, whether it\nbe in this world or in the world to come. No agnosticism can deny\nthis conclusion. The darkest as well as the most radiant scenes that\nChristian faith brings within our view _may_ be eternally true. I may\nbe immortal, and it may be an immortality of joy or of sighing for\nme as I use this life and the truth that God has made known to me in\nthis life.\n\nLet us take the other hypothesis. Suppose there is no God; suppose\nMr. ---- has satisfied me that there is no supernatural revelation,\nand no personal God to make one. Has he made it well for me\nhereafter? Has he delivered me from all fear for the future? Has\nhe saved me beyond question from \"the serpent of eternal pain\"? If\nthere is no God, does that make it certain that there will be no\nfuture suffering for any man? Let us see. We are here in a world of\nsuffering. How came we here? and how did suffering come here? If we\ncame without a God, who will prove that without a God we may not go\nelsewhere, and that suffering may not go with us? Here we are--by\nnatural law, by evolution, by chance--as part and particle of the\none eternal unity; however it may be, we are here, and we suffer.\nWe know what pain of body and pain of mind are. We have felt the\nsting of death, and no law of nature, no power of evolution, has\never lighted up for us the darkness of the grave. Now, the question\nwe want answered is this: If \"Nature\" has brought us into this state\nwhere there is so much of what we call sin, and so much bound with\nit that we call suffering, how do we know that the same \"Nature\" may\nnot continue the same facts hereafter? Nay, what assurance can Mr.\n---- give us that \"Nature\" is not a power that may in some future\nfrenzy cast us into a state _far worse_ than the present? Is he so\nfar possessed of all the secrets of \"Nature\" that he _knows_ the time\nwill never come when she may strike us with a force more terrible\nthan any retributive judgment of God? If \"Nature\" works now in storm\nand fire, in earthquake and pestilence, in disease and torture and\ndeath, in the sorrows of memory, the horrors of remorse and dread\nforebodings of coming woe, _how do you know that she may not manifest\nherself thus hereafter and through the ages to come_?\n\nIf Nature is, as Mr. ---- says, the mother of us all, there are times\nwhen she manifests her motherhood appallingly. And when are these\nmanifestations to end and how are they to end? If under her regal\nsway we find that, as a fact, sin and suffering are connected here,\ncan any man prove that it may not be a law of \"Nature\" herself that\nsin and suffering shall be connected eternally? If in the imperial\nreign of \"the mother of us all\" there are chains and scourges,\nprisons and scaffolds, thunderbolts and flames, cyclones and famines\nand ocean-graves, will any man prove that somewhere in the darkness\nand mystery of the future there may not be, in the long outworking of\nthis reign, something worse than a hell, worse than an undying worm,\nworse than a quenchless fire?\n\nIt is, I admit, a fearful thing to fall unprepared into the hands of\nthe living God; but if I must choose, give me that, a thousand times,\nrather than the terrific possibilities that overhang us all if we are\nto be eternally at the disposal of a blind, inexorable, soulless,\nmerciless \"Nature.\" The Judge of all the earth will do right; at the\nworst we shall receive no more at his hands than we deserve; but no\ncreated being can tell us what we shall receive at the hands of an\nirresponsible, pitiless \"Nature\" though she be \"the mother of us\nall.\" There is nothing so dark and terrible in all the woes of the\nBible as the possibilities that Mr. ---- offers us in his gospel; and\nthere is this difference: the Bible opens wide a door of hope for all\nwho care to enter it; Mr. ---- leads us out into the outer darkness\nand leaves us there. Is it worth while for any man to spend his life\nin persuading us to make this exchange of despair? And is it worth\nour while--yours or mine--to make it?\n\n  Truly yours,\n  C----.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER III.\n\n\nMY DEAR A----: In the note in which you kindly acknowledge my former\ncommunications you say that, whatever Christianity may be to me, you\ncannot see it as I do; its excellences, as they appear to my mind,\ndo not impress you at all, and as long as they do not you cannot be\nexpected to accept it. I admit the conclusion: you cannot receive as\ngood and true what does not seem to be so. But does it follow that a\nthing is not good and true because you do not see it? The question\nstill comes, Is the cause in the thing or in you?\n\nYou remember the Beethoven concert we once attended together in\nB----? To you it was an occasion of exquisite enjoyment; to me it\nwas nothing. The difference was not in the music: it was in us. You\nhave a musical taste; I have not. I tried--not very sincerely,\nperhaps--to persuade you that there was nothing beautiful in it; you\nsmiled, but attempted no argument. You were wise. You knew the music\nwas beautiful, for you had experienced it; you had felt its power.\nIf I chose to deny it because I had not felt it, so it must be; you\ncould only pity me.\n\nNow, is it not possible that there may be something like this in\nreligion? May it not be a reality--a supreme reality--though you do\nnot see it or feel it? May I not know it to be real because I have\nfelt its power? And if there are thousands and tens of thousands as\nintelligent men and women as the world has ever seen who are as ready\nto testify that they have felt the power and experienced the reality\nof the Christian religion as you are to testify that you have felt\nthe power and know the sweetness of music, are you wise to dismiss\nits claims because _you_ have not felt the force of them? You must\nsee this. I leave it to your candor. Christianity may be true though\nyou have not felt its truth. A cloud of witnesses stand ready to\ntestify to you its truth from personal experience. They may not argue\nwith you: multitudes of them could not argue with you; but, after\nall, they have a proof of the reality of their religion, of the\npower of Christ to satisfy and bless men, which no arguments in the\nworld can shake. If all this were a new thing, or if the witnesses\nwere only ignorant and superstitious men, you might well enough\nhesitate to receive the testimony; but when you reflect that it is\nthe accumulated testimony of nearly nineteen centuries, that it comes\nfrom all countries and all classes, from the prince on the throne and\nthe beggar at his gate, from the philosopher in his study and the\nsailor in the forecastle, from the statesman in the cabinet and the\nploughman in the furrow, I submit it cannot with wisdom or reason be\nset aside. It is no answer to say that many great men and learned men\nand ploughmen can be brought who have had no such experience and give\nno such testimony. This is true, but it is one of the first laws of\nevidence that no amount of merely negative testimony can overthrow\nthe explicit evidence of honest, intelligent, trustworthy witnesses.\nFifty men who did not see a murder could not set aside the clear\ntestimony of two who did see it. Few of the race have ever seen the\nmoons of Mars, or even of Jupiter; this does not disturb the witness\nof the few who have: the satellites are there.\n\nI have just been reading--not for the first time--Peter Harvey's\naccount of his visit, with Daniel Webster, to John Colby. You will\nfind it in Harvey's _Reminiscences of Webster_; and if you have not\nread it, it is worth your reading. Colby had married Webster's oldest\nsister when Webster was a mere boy. It was in some respects a strange\nmarriage. She was a godly, Christian woman, while Colby was a wild,\nreckless, ungodly man--\"the wickedest man in the neighborhood,\"\nWebster believed, \"as far as swearing and impiety went.\" He seems to\nhave been the terror of Webster's boyhood. Singularly enough for New\nEngland, though a man of strong natural powers, he never learned to\nread till he was over eighty years of age. His wife died early, and\nthe families drifted apart. Webster had not seen Colby for over forty\nyears, but he heard that a great change had taken place with him, and\nhe visited him to judge for himself. I should mar the story of the\ninterview if I undertook to condense it. Let me give the essential\nparts of it in Mr. Harvey's own words. Long as it is, I think you\nwould be sorry to have it shorter.\n\nWebster and Harvey had driven to Andover, and were directed to Mr.\nColby's house. \"The door was open.... Sitting in the middle of the\nroom was a striking figure who proved to be John Colby. He sat facing\nthe door, in a very comfortably furnished farmhouse room, with a\nlittle table--or what perhaps would be called a light-stand--before\nhim. Upon it was a large, old-fashioned Scott's Family Bible in very\nlarge print, and, of course, a heavy volume. It lay open, and he\nhad evidently been reading it attentively. As we entered he took off\nhis spectacles and laid them upon the page of the book, and looked\nup at us as we approached, Mr. Webster in front. He was a man, I\nshould think, over six feet in height, and he retained in a wonderful\ndegree his erect and manly form, although he was eighty-five or six\nyears old. His frame was that of a once powerful, athletic man. His\nhead was covered with very heavy, thick, bushy hair, and it was as\nwhite as wool, which added very much to the picturesqueness of his\nappearance. As I looked in at the door I thought I never saw a more\nstriking figure. He straightened himself up, but said nothing till\njust as we appeared at the door, when he greeted us with--\n\n\"'Walk in, gentlemen.'\n\n\"Mr. Webster's first salutation was--\n\n\"'This is Mr. Colby--Mr. John Colby--is it not?'\n\n\"'That is my name, sir,' was the reply.\n\n\"'I suppose you don't know me?' said Mr. Webster.\n\n\"'No, sir, I don't know you; and I should like to know how you know\nme.'\n\n\"'I have seen you before, Mr. Colby,' replied Mr. Webster.\n\n\"'Seen me before!' said he; 'pray, when and where?'\n\n\"'Have you no recollection of me?' asked Mr. Webster.\n\n\"'No, sir, not the slightest;' and he looked by Mr. Webster toward\nme, as if trying to remember if he had seen me.\n\n\"Mr. Webster remarked,\n\n\"'I think you never saw this gentleman before, but you have seen me.'\n\n\"Colby put the question again,\n\n\"'When and where?'\n\n\"'You married my oldest sister,' replied Mr. Webster, calling her by\nname.\n\n\"'I married your oldest sister!' exclaimed Colby. 'Who are you?'\n\n\"'I am \"little Dan,\"' was the reply.\n\n\"It certainly would be impossible to describe the expression of\nwonder, astonishment and half incredulity that came over Colby's face.\n\n\"'_You_ Daniel Webster!' said he; and he started to rise from his\nchair. As he did so he stammered out some words of surprise. 'Is it\npossible that this is the little black lad that used to ride the\nhorse to water? Well, I cannot realize it!'\n\n\"Mr. Webster approached him. They embraced each other, and both wept.\n\n\"'Is it possible,' said Mr. Colby, when the embarrassment of the\nfirst shock of recognition was past, 'that you have come up here\nto see me? Is this Daniel? Why! why!' said he, 'I cannot believe\nmy senses. Now, sit down. I am glad--oh, I am so glad to see you,\nDaniel. I never expected to see you again. I don't know what to\nsay. I am so glad that my life has been spared that I might see\nyou. Why, Daniel, I read about you and hear about you in all ways.\nSometimes some members of the family come and tell us about you, and\nthe newspapers tell us a great deal about you, too. Your name seems\nto be constantly in the newspapers. They say that you are a great\nman--that you are a famous man--and you can't tell how delighted I\nam when I hear such things. But, Daniel, the time is short; you will\nnot stay here long: I want to ask you one important question. You\nmay be a _great_ man: are you a _good_ man? Are you a Christian man?\nDo you love the Lord Jesus Christ? That is the only question that is\nworth asking or answering? Are you a Christian? You know, Daniel,\nwhat I have been: I have been one of the wickedest of men. Your poor\nsister, who is now in heaven, knows that. But the Spirit of Christ\nand of almighty God has come down and plucked me as a brand from the\neverlasting burning. I am here now, a monument to his grace. Oh,\nDaniel, I would not give what is contained within the covers of\nthis book for all the honors that have been conferred upon men from\nthe creation of the world until now. For what good would it do? It\nis all nothing, and less than nothing, if you are not a Christian,\nif you are not repentant. If you do not love the Lord Jesus Christ\nin sincerity and truth, all your worldly honors will sink to utter\nnothingness. Are you a Christian? Do you love Christ? You have not\nanswered me.'\n\n\"All this was said in the most earnest and even vehement manner.\n\n\"'John Colby,' replied Mr. Webster, 'you have asked me a very\nimportant question, and one which should not be answered lightly. I\nintend to give you an answer, and one that is truthful, or I will\nnot give you any. I hope that I am a Christian. I profess to be a\nChristian. But, while I say that, I wish to add--and I say it with\nshame and confusion of face--that I am not such a Christian as I wish\nI were. I have lived in the world, surrounded by its honors and its\ntemptations, and I am afraid, John Colby, that I am not so good a\nChristian as I ought to be. I am afraid I have not your faith and\nyour hopes; but still I hope and trust that I am a Christian, and\nthat the same grace which has converted you and made you an heir of\nsalvation will do the same for me. I trust it, and I also trust, John\nColby--and it will not be long before our summons will come--that we\nshall meet in a better world, and meet those who have gone before us\nwhom we knew, and who trusted in that same divine free grace. It will\nnot be long. You cannot tell, John Colby, how much delight it gave me\nto hear of your conversion. The hearing of that is what has led me\nhere to-day. I came here to see with my own eyes and hear with my own\nears the story from a man that I know and remember so well. What a\nwicked man you used to be!'\n\n\"'Oh, Daniel,' exclaimed John Colby, 'you don't remember how wicked I\nwas, how ungrateful I was, how unthankful I was. I never thought of\nGod; I never cared for God; I was worse than a heathen. Living in a\nChristian land with the light shining all around me and the blessings\nof Sabbath teachings everywhere about me, I was worse than a heathen\nuntil I was arrested by the grace of Christ and made to see my\nsinfulness and to hear the voice of my Saviour. Now I am only waiting\nto go home to him, and to meet your sainted sister, my poor wife. And\nI wish, Daniel, that you might be a prayerful Christian; and I trust\nyou are. Daniel,' he added, with deep earnestness of voice, 'Will you\npray with me?'\n\n\"We knelt down, and Mr. Webster offered a most touching prayer. As\nsoon as he had pronounced the 'Amen,' Mr. Colby followed in a most\npathetic, stirring appeal to God. He prayed for the family, for me\nand for everybody. Then we rose, and he seemed to feel a serene\nhappiness in having thus joined his spirit with that of Mr. Webster\nin prayer....\n\n\"The brothers-in-law took an affectionate leave of each other, and\nwe left. Mr. Webster could hardly restrain his tears. When we got\ninto the wagon, he began to moralize:\n\n\"'I should like,' said he, 'to know what the enemies of religion\nwould say to John Colby's conversion. There was a man as unlikely,\nhumanly speaking, to become a Christian as any man I ever saw. He was\nreckless, heedless, impious--never attended church, never experienced\nthe good influence of associating with religious people--and here he\nhas been living on in that reckless way until he has got to be an old\nman, until a period of life when you naturally would not expect his\nhabits to change, and yet he has been brought into the condition in\nwhich we have seen him to-day, a penitent, trusting, humble believer.\nWhatever people may say,' added Mr. Webster, 'nothing can convince\nme that anything short of the grace of almighty God could make such\na change as I with my own eyes have witnessed in the life of John\nColby.'\"\n\nMr. Colby was eighty-four years old at the time of his conversion.\nAt that age he learned to read for the single purpose of reading the\nBible, and it was the only book he ever did read. He lived for three\nyears after this, and to the end gave the clearest evidences of a\nchange that to Mr. Webster's judicial mind could be explained only by\nthe supposition of a divine interposition; it was a divine reality.\nThe last intelligible words of the once terrible blasphemer were,\n\"Jesus! glory!\"\n\nChanging the details, the experience of John Colby has been the\nexperience of thousands upon thousands. And--I put it to you in all\ncandor--is it all a lie? Was Webster--one of the grandest intellects\nof this or of any age--was he a fanatic or a fool to believe in the\nreality of the religion that John Colby had experienced? Was he a\nweakling to put his faith where John Colby had put his, and to trust\nthat when the summons of both should come--as it soon did come--they\nmight meet each other and those who had gone before them trusting in\nthe same divine, free grace?\n\nYou may criticise the Bible, you may criticise Christians, but, after\nall, there is something in Christianity that cannot be explained\naway as a superstition or a delusion; there is something that cannot\nbe dismissed by a scoff or with indifference. Somewhere and at some\ntime it will have the final word, and it will be heard. I commend\nit to your honest and earnest judgment now. Try it; I ask no more.\nSettle the great questions that press on every heart as the Bible\nopens the way of settlement to you, and wait the issue. You can lose\nnothing; you may gain everything. The fact is as remarkable as it\nis familiar that no man in the last hour here--the hour, often, of\nsupernal light--ever wanted to take back or to change his faith in\nthe Man of Nazareth as the Son of God and the Saviour of men. When\nthe shadows are melting in the great realities, and the mysteries of\nlife are about to be finished and the verities of the future are to\nbe proved, no man has yet been found to mourn that in the face of all\ndifficulty and doubt and denial here he was a Christian. Can that, or\nanything approaching it, be said of any form of atheism or infidelity\nor unbelief?\n\n  As ever, yours,\n  C----.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER IV.\n\n\nMY DEAR A----: I had supposed my last letter would end our\ncorrespondence. Your kind reply has gratified me more than I can\nexpress. Without further words, let me take up at once the question\nthat you put, I am sure, sincerely. You ask, \"What _is_ 'the way of\nsettlement that the Bible opens to the great questions that press\nus?'\"\n\nThe questions of supreme interest are few and simple. Is there a\nGod? Is there a future existence for us? How can that existence be\nmade a safe and satisfying one? If you are willing to allow any\nauthority to the Bible at all, there can be no doubt as to the first\ntwo questions. There is a God by whom we were created and to whom we\nare responsible; there is a future existence. Those two questions are\nsettled, if the Bible can settle anything. And they are settled,\nlet me add, in harmony with the profoundest instincts and the most\nimperative demands of our nature. Whatever a few souls in their\nstruggling dissatisfaction and sad unrest may persuade themselves,\nthe great yearning heart of humanity will quiet itself on nothing\nless than God and immortality. Even your former guide, Mr. ---- (let\nme hope I may speak of him now as only your _former_ guide), cries\nout in the presence of the dead and before the awful silence of the\ngrave, \"_Immortality_ is a word that hope through all the ages has\nbeen whispering to love. All wish for happiness beyond this life; all\nhope to meet again the loved and lost.\" Yes, there are hours when\nthe most hopeless are glad to turn to the hope that the Bible alone\ngives, when the bitterest rejecters of God and his word long for the\nconsolation that only the rejected word affords.\n\nLet us turn to the other question. If, when we are through with this\nlife--as we soon shall be through with it--we are not through with\nexistence--if there is a life beyond the present not measured by\nyears or ages,--how can it be made worth having? Is there any way\nin which our immortality can be assured to us as an immortal good?\nAfter all the doubts and darkness, the mystery and suffering, the\nbitterness and disappointment, of this life, may it in any way be\nfound a great and a good thing, after all, that we have lived? To\nanswer these questions we must come back to the old truth--the truth\nof your childhood. The \"advanced thought\" of our day has discovered\nnothing to change the fact that men are out of the way, they are not\nwhat they should be. Every man knows this. The Bible expresses it\nin a very plain way by saying _they are sinners_. As such it deals\nwith them; to such alone it opens its door of hope. The Bible is of\nno use to you unless you are a sinner. If you call this cant, I am\nsorry for it, but I cannot help it; I cannot change it. The only men\nfor whom God is dealing here for good, for whom he is making possible\nan immortality of honor and happiness, are the sinful. And is not\nthis well for us? Does it not at once bring hope to you--a hope as\ngreat as it is mysterious? You know that life has not been to you\nan unstained thing any more than it has been to any of us. To know\nthis is to know sin, the one appalling fact of the universe, the one\nunspeakable woe of our being.\n\nIn the simplest way, then, my dear A----, let me say that the first\nstep in your coming right with God, and so right with the future, is\nto know and to feel that you are wrong. The Bible closes the door of\nhope for ever on the man who comes claiming the brightness and the\ngood of a life beyond the grave because he is worthy of it. These\nwords were once familiar to you: \"By the deeds of the law there shall\nno flesh be justified.\" Rom. iii. 20.\n\nCan he who is wrong make himself right? Can he be all he ought to be?\nCan he do all he ought to do? Can you set right all the wrong and all\nthe failure of the past? Can you make the future without error? To\nask these questions is to answer them to every honest conscience.\n\nFor one who is wrong there must be the consequences of wrong,\nand these must be as fearful and as far-reaching as sin itself.\n\"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap,\" and evermore\nand everywhere the harvest is greater than the seed. The coming\ntribulation and anguish of the unsaved souls that do evil is a law\nof nature as well as of revelation. The wages of sin is death. You\nknow this. You have felt it in its measure. You have seen it in the\nunhappiness, the misery, the woe, the despair and death with which\nsin reigns everywhere around us. Take the brightest view of life\nthat you can, and the darkness in which it ends is terrible. To\ngo out of it without God is to go out without hope. Am I wrong in\nbelieving that you need no argument here, that no conviction is more\nsorrowfully intense with you than this?\n\nWill you go now a step farther? Standing in your wrong and your\nweakness and your unrest, with the heavy shadows of the future\nfalling upon you, are you willing to draw near to the open portal of\na better life? Are you willing to look up and read over it--\"God so\nloved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever\nbelieveth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life\"? John\niii. 16. Are you willing to submit your faith to the mystery--beyond\nall depth except the love of God--that the Son of God in our nature\nhas borne our sins in his own body on the tree--that he has died\nfor us, the Just for the unjust? In other words, are you willing to\nreceive the kingdom of heaven as a little child--to be saved, if\nsaved you may be, in God's own way?\n\nIn a former letter I spoke of the testimony of Webster to the reality\nof the Christian religion; and, though it is true that Christianity\ndoes not depend upon the patronage of any man, it is well to know\nthat greater intellects than those that would persuade you to reject\nit have bowed before it and found their supreme hope in it. Let me\ngive you, then, another testimony from this greatest of American\nstatesmen and jurists. It was his last night on earth; that life of\nextraordinary influence and honor was closing. As his family and\nfriends stood around his bed his physician repeated the immortal hymn\nof Cowper:\n\n    \"There is a fountain filled with blood\n      Drawn from Immanuel's veins,\n    And sinners, plunged beneath that flood,\n      Lose all their guilty stains.\"\n\nAs upon the night-air died away the final stanza--\n\n    \"Then in a nobler, sweeter song\n      I'll sing thy power to save\n    When this poor, lisping, stammering tongue\n      Lies silent in the grave,\"\n\nthe majestic voice that had thrilled courts and senates, was heard\nin a clear thrice-repeated \"Amen! Amen! Amen!\" And so he passed, let\nus hope, to have part in that final song. Pity, infinite pity, that\nhe had not made more of that magnificent intellect for the Giver of\nit! But at least he was too great a man to deny the Love and the\nSacrifice by which alone the life of the greatest as well as the\nfeeblest can be saved from being an eternal tragedy.\n\nI know, my dear A----, the derision with which all this may be\nreceived, but my hope is that you have passed beyond that point of\nintellectual self-conceit and moral self-murder. At all events, this\nis the only ground of a safe immortality that the Bible holds out,\nand beyond the Bible there is no ground. If you ever settle safely\nthe solemn questions of the future, you will settle them here. If you\never find the rest for which I know you are weary, you will find it\nat the cross and in the presence of Him who hung upon it, and whose\nwords are to-day, as of old, \"Come unto me, and I will give you rest.\"\n\nIn all this I know there is nothing new to you. I had nothing new to\nsay; I wished simply to make a plea for the faith of your earlier\nyears. It is easy to put it aside, but, after all, it is a faith\nthat will stand. The evidence of nineteen centuries from millions\nof honest and intelligent witnesses, of all ranks and conditions,\nliving and dying, to the power of this faith to sustain in the most\nsolemn crises of life, when flesh and heart are failing, and when\nthe darkness and anguish and mystery of death are rocking the soul\nto its foundations, cannot wisely be dismissed as a delusion: there\nmust be a reality behind it. The lights that have gone out from your\nown home and heart you were right in believing have \"not gone out in\ndarkness,\" but you will not forget that as they went into purer light\nthey went with Him who has brought life and immortality to light, who\nis the Resurrection and the Life, in whom believing, though we were\ndead, yet shall we live.\n\nHere I must rest. I can only commend you to God and to the word of\nhis grace--to the written word and to the incarnate Word, to the\nBible and to Christ. I am as certain as I am of my own existence\nthat if you will give yourself up to the guidance of these you\nwill be satisfied and you will be saved. If you will only take the\nBible _and follow it_, you will find an assurance of its truth that\ncannot be shaken; you will find rest, for you will find Christ. And\nsurely it is not too much to ask that in a matter of such infinite\nimportance you make a fair, honest and thorough trial of that which\nno man ever yet made trial of to be disappointed.\n\nYet let me not fail to impress as a final thought that this result of\ngood and of peace will come _only by the power of the Holy Spirit_.\nIt is his to take of the things of Christ and show them to us; unless\nhe does this, we cannot see them. My last word of entreaty, then,\nis--and I would make it as earnestly as conviction and feeling and\nlanguage can make it--yield to the Spirit of God. The end you want\nis too great for your own strength. You have proved this. You have\nstruggled on long enough in your own plans and your own way, seeking\nrest, and you are as far from rest as ever. Try now another way. Take\nhold of a higher strength. \"Ask, and ye shall receive; seek, and ye\nshall find.\" I plead with you by all the memories of the past and by\nall the hopes of the future. You have sinned, and I would not heal\nthe hurt slightly. No one knows better than you that if the Bible is\ntrue you have a long and dark account against you--if not of open and\nflagrant sin, yet to the Mind that makes no mistakes of that which\nis perhaps far worse, of calm, deliberate, persistent rejection of\nChrist and of his Spirit. It would be faithlessness and cruelty to\nhide the fact that by all the verities of God you are in peril--in\nfearful peril. To stand in darkness where no light is is sad enough;\nbut when Light is come into the world and men stand in darkness,\nthere is sin that seals its own doom. As the case is now, the very\nunrest of your soul--its dark gropings, its unsatisfied yearnings,\nits sighs of despair--all this is the living witness of your danger,\nthe prophecy of a deeper gloom and woe to come.\n\nBut as yet it is also the voice of God's mercy; it is the plea of\nhis Spirit calling you to the only rest that the universe has for\nthe erring and the sinful. The Spirit of God is very pitiful. Every\nthought of good is from him; every desire for a better life is his\ninspiration; every penitent sigh is his breath. I believe he is not\nfar from you; I believe, therefore, you are not far from the kingdom\nof heaven. Quench not the Spirit. Do not go down in darkness in sight\nof the City of Light.\n\nYou remember the circumstances of our return from Europe in the fall\nof 18--. We were young then, but the events are still vivid in my\nmemory, as they are no doubt in yours. For two days we were delayed\nin Liverpool by a fearful storm. In that storm the Royal Charter was\ncoming in, having made successfully the voyage of the world. She\nhad been signaled, and was already in the Channel; her arrival was\nlooked for every hour. Dear friends of those we were leaving were on\nboard. The fires were lighted on the hearth, and the table was spread\nfor the long-absent ones, and glad hearts were waiting impatiently to\ngive them joyful welcome. But they never came; in sight of the harbor\nand of the lights of home they went down--the four hundred of that\ndoomed ship. The next day we passed the silent wreck as we came out,\nand I am sure you thought, as I did, how unutterably sad and pathetic\nis such an end, to perish in sight of home.\n\nOur voyage, dear A----, is almost over. The harbor is near; the\nlights of the eternal home are in sight; the table is spread,\nand dear ones--yours and mine--are waiting there to give us glad\nand everlasting welcome. Do not make wreck of life and hope and\nimmortality in the very sight of home.\n\n  Yours, in the bonds of early years,\n  C----.\n\nSince these letters were written, he to whom they were addressed\nhas gone where human arguments and pleadings cannot reach him. In a\nmoment, in the twinkling of an eye, he passed from the scenes of a\nbusy, honored and prosperous life into the solemn mysteries that lie\nbeyond our horizon. On his desk was found the following unfinished\nletter, written the night before his death:\n\n  MY DEAR C----:\n\nI have not misapprehended the spirit and motive of your letters.\nI have read them--more than once--with care and, I believe,\nwith candor. When a man stands in the shadow of a great and\nawful change--and my physician warns me that my lifework may end\nsuddenly--he is a fool who deals any other way than seriously and\nhonestly with the questions you discuss. If I cannot say that your\nreasoning removes all my doubts, I can most sincerely say this, even\nthough it may be, in your judgment, at the cost of my consistency: _I\nwould give the world to have your faith and hope_. While I have\nbeen glad to have the arguments of Mr. ---- to support my own faith\nor want of faith, I will be candid and say that I have not been at\nrest. Life has been terribly empty and hopeless since I felt, with\nProfessor Clifford, that \"the Great Companion is dead.\" I have had\nsuccess, as the world goes, but what of it? What does it amount to?\nWhat is to be the end of it all? No God! No immortality! Nothing\nbeyond this little circle whose utmost limit I seem to be even now\ntouching! Is it so?\n\nI am writing at midnight--an hour when these questions often come\nto me with the pressure of despair. Oh to be a child again with a\nchild's faith, a child's peace! My mother--\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nHere the letter ended. Did the thought of his mother open the door\nof his aching heart to his mother's God and his mother's Christ? So\nlet us hope. There is a mercy that is from everlasting to everlasting\nupon them that fear God, and a righteousness that is unto children's\nchildren to such as keep his covenant.\n\nLying upon the letter was the following slip, cut from a newspaper.\nIt was stained apparently with tears, and was probably the last thing\nthat my friend read. It could hardly be the expression of any heart\nto whom the \"hand of mercy\" was not already \"opening the wicket-gate:\"\n\n    \"'Mid the fast-falling shadows,\n      Weary and worn and late,\n    A timid, doubting pilgrim,\n      I reach the wicket-gate.\n    Where crowds have stood before me\n      I stand alone to-night,\n    And in the deepening darkness\n      Pray for one gleam of light.\n\n    \"From the foul sloughs and marshes\n      I've gathered many a stain;\n    I've heard old voices calling\n      From far across the plain.\n    Now, in my wretched weakness,\n      Fearful and sad I wait,\n    And every refuge fails me,\n      Here at the wicket-gate.\n\n    \"And will the portals open\n      To me who roamed so long\n    Filthy and vile and burdened\n      With this great weight of wrong?\n    Hark! a glad voice of welcome\n      Bids my wild fears abate.\n    Look! for a hand of mercy\n      Opens the wicket-gate.\n\n    \"On, to the palace Beautiful\n      And the bright room called Peace!\n    Down, to the silent river,\n      Where thou shalt find release!\n    Up, to the radiant city,\n      Where shining ones await!\n    On! for the way of glory\n      Lies through the wicket-gate.\"\n\n\n\n\nDIFFICULTIES OF THE BIBLE.\n\n\n\n\nDIFFICULTIES OF THE BIBLE AS TESTED BY THE LAWS OF EVIDENCE.[1]\n\n[1] The substance of this essay was given as an address before the\nBible Conference in Philadelphia in November, 1887. It has, however,\nbeen revised and considerably changed with reference to its present\nuse.--T. S. C.\n\n\nOne has to breathe but little of the atmosphere of popular thought\nto-day to find how full it is of religious doubt. Parental faiths\ncount for little. The beliefs of childhood, the teachings of the\nsainted dead, the hopes that once brightened the darkness and\nmysteries and griefs of life with the light of a cloudless future,\nare to multitudes no more. \"The eclipse of faith\" has come, and souls\nare drifting out upon the starless, shoreless sea of unbelief. They\nsee \"the spring sun shining out of an empty heaven to light up a\nsoulless earth.\" They take up the wail of despair: \"We are all to\nbe swept away in the final ruin of the earth.\" This is the deep,\npathetic undertone of the sighing of a thousand hearts to-day.\n\nHas life anything real? Is it worth living? When the little play is\nover, and the hour's music is ended, and the lights are out, and\nwe go forth into the darkness of the final night--what then? Is it\ndarkness for ever? or is there the light of an eternal day? Who\nknows? Is anything certain? Must nations and men and the evening-moth\nalike go down and perish for ever under the crush of an inexorable\nfate? Is there no rift in this cloud? Have we no anchor that will\nhold as the storm drives us on through the blinding mists and gloom\nto the eternal shore? Have we no sure word of promise to which we can\ncling when everything else around us and under our feet is giving\nway?\n\n_Is the Bible true?_ That is the simple but momentous question; it\nsettles all other questions of most concern to men. To it, therefore,\nwe find the most intense thought of thoughtful men converging. That\nfrom this there should emerge questions not easily solved is not to\nbe wondered at: they emerge in every inquiry of human thought. The\nonly thing to be asked is that these questions be dealt with candidly\nand fairly.\n\nTo many minds the Bible is still on trial; it is only just that in\nits trial those rules and principles shall be observed which men\neverywhere expect and demand shall be observed for themselves when\nthey or their interests are to be tried.\n\nThis is the point of this essay. It is not, indeed, a discussion from\nthe highest ground of inspiration; it does not claim to be. It simply\ndeals with a certain class--a very large class, however--of alleged\ndifficulties of the Bible, and it appeals to the candid reader to\ndeal with them as fairly and by the same rules as he would have his\nfellow-men deal with him in a matter of life or death, or of any\nworldly interest.\n\nFor this object only a few of the common rules of evidence have\nbeen taken. It is believed, however, that their application will\ncover a very large portion of the popular objections to the alleged\ninconsistencies and contradictions of the Bible.\n\nUndoubtedly, there are difficulties in the Bible; the question is\nwhether these prove that it is not the work and word of God. On the\nother hand, it may be suggested whether they do not confirm it as the\nwork of God, for they at once put it in harmony with all his other\nworks. If the Bible were without difficulties, it would, for us,\nbe out of the line with everything else that God has made or done.\nNature and Providence are full of difficulties. There is nothing in\nthe Bible harder of explanation and reconciliation than are the facts\nthat meet us everywhere in God's creative and providential realms. If\nthese difficulties do not prove that Nature and Providence are not,\nfrom beginning to end, the works of God, they do not on the face of\nthem prove that the Bible is not such.\n\nIn dealing with the difficulties of the Scriptures, therefore, we\nhave not the least idea that they will all be removed: difficulties\nwill remain. The Lord of hosts himself is a stone of stumbling and a\nrock of offence upon which many stumble and fall and are broken. Isa.\nviii. 14, 15. If a man is determined to commit suicide, he can do\nit by the very means that God has created to preserve life--by fire\nor by water. Spiritual self-destruction is quite possible through\nthe word of life itself. At the same time, no man has a right to put\nneedless difficulties in the Bible or to make difficulties where\nnone exist. More than this, every man is bound to deal as fairly at\nleast with the Bible as he deals with his fellow-men in the ordinary\nrelations of life. That which would give him no trouble as a judge\nupon the bench or a juror in the box ought not to be urged as a fatal\nobjection to the Scriptures.\n\nIn testing at this time some of the difficulties of the Bible by the\naccepted rules of evidence, hardly more can be done than to present a\nfew of these rules as applicable to these difficulties. But the rules\nare of the widest application; the solution of one difficulty by them\nis the solution of a hundred.\n\nLooking upon the Bible as a whole, we may refer for a moment to the\nfamiliar precept that every man is to be presumed innocent until he\nis proved guilty. This is emphatically true of a man of good general\nreputation. The rule would seem as applicable to a book as to a\nman. Now, the Bible is not a new book; it has been before the world\nfor ages. It has a character. That it is on the whole a good book\nthe bitterest opposers of its plenary inspiration not only admit,\nbut assert. It is conceded that it is entitled to its name--the\n_Bible_, _the_ Book. It claims to be a truthful book; by every fair\nprinciple this claim must be allowed until it is shown to be false.\nBancroft's _History of the United States_ claims to be a reliable\nwork; the claim is generally admitted. If a man now comes forward\nand asserts that it is false in whole or in details, by universal\njudgment he must prove his assertion, and obviously his proofs must\nbe stronger than the evidences of the truth of the history. If this\nis so in reference to a book that has not stood the test of half a\ncentury, emphatically is it true of a book whose character has been\nestablished through the searching scrutiny of friends and foes for\nfifteen centuries--ay, for twice fifteen centuries. If a man now\naffirms the Bible to be false, wholly or in part, it rests upon\nhim in all fairness to prove his position, and his evidence must\nbe stronger than that which supports the book. For three thousand\nyears a growing mass of testimony to the truth of the Bible has been\nrolling up in the face of every objection that ingenuity, learning\nand the bitterest hostility could present. Account for it as we may,\nthat is the fact. There is, therefore, a reasonable presumption in\nits favor, and in favor of any specific statement that it makes.\nIf, then, we find in it a positive statement in regard to any fact,\nand that statement is now confronted by another and a contradictory\none, the two do not stand on the same level. The new claimant must\nprove his position, and to prove it he must disprove the truth of\nthe Scripture record. It is not enough to show that his proposition\nmight be true if we had no other information on the subject: he must\nshow that the Scripture, with its mass of supporting and cumulative\nevidence, is false; and he must support his new proposition by a body\nof evidence stronger than this manifold evidence of ages by which the\nScriptures are sustained.\n\nThe application of this principle is obvious, yet nothing is more\ncommon than its violation. An hypothesis with certain analogies\nperhaps in its favor, but admittedly without a solitary positive\nproof to sustain it, is put forward as an established truth without\nregard to the fact that the Bible, with its general character of\nveracity behind it, gives another and an entirely different account\nof the matter. We will not say this is irreverent: it is unfair and\nunreasonable.\n\nThe character of the Bible may justly claim to sustain its record\ntill it is proved false. Deal with it as fairly as you deal with the\nred-handed anarchist: let the book be innocent till proved guilty;\nand if innocent, the written word, like the incarnate Word, stands a\ntrue witness in all things for ever. Condemned, crucified, buried, it\nwill rise again. It is a perilous thing to condemn the guiltless.\n\nLet us pass to another rule of law; it is this: \"The testimony of\na single witness, where there is no ground for suspecting either\nhis ability or integrity, is a sufficient legal ground for belief\"\n(_Starkie on Ev._, i. 550). The mere silence of one witness or of\nmany witnesses cannot set aside the clear, positive testimony of a\nsingle trustworthy witness. That Josephus does not mention events\nwhich Moses records does not affect the truth of the Mosaic record,\nand his silence as to the Bethlehem massacre--even if no reason could\nbe suggested for it, as there can be--cannot, under this rule of\nlaw, affect the positive testimony of Matthew that there was such a\nmassacre.\n\nThe courts go farther than this. They say, \"If a witness swear\npositively that he saw or heard a fact, and another _who was present_\nthat he did not see or hear it, and the witnesses are equally\nfaithworthy, the affirmative witness is to be believed\" (_Decisions\nof the Supreme Court of Errors of the State of Connecticut_, vol.\nvi. p. 188). In the case referred to in that decision the court\nset aside a verdict that had been rendered by the lower court on\nthe negative testimony of eleven witnesses against the positive\ntestimony of three. The principle recognized by that decision, and\nwhich is universally accepted as law, is that the negative testimony\nof witnesses present at any given transaction cannot set aside the\npositive testimony of a far less number of witnesses, or even of a\nsingle reliable witness.\n\nThe silence of any of the evangelists in reference to an incident\nor event at which they may have been present, but which possibly\nthey may not have noticed or which they do not record, does not\ncontradict in the least the testimony of _one_ who says such an\nincident occurred. The fact of the marriage in Cana is not at all\ndisturbed because John is the only witness who testifies to it. So\nif one writer states a part of an incident or of a discourse which\nanother writer omits, while the latter gives a part which the first\nomits, there is no contradiction. Matthew (xx. 20) says the mother of\nZebedee's children made a certain request which Mark (x. 35) says the\nchildren themselves made. But this is not inconsistent: the children\nunited with the mother in the request. Matthew calls attention to one\nparty; Mark, to another. Nothing can be more unreasonable than the\ncavil that stumbles at such difficulties.\n\nThe rule before us applies to that extraordinary doubt of modern\ncriticism--whether the Israelites were ever in Egypt, because, as\naffirmed, the monuments do not record their presence nor their flight\nnor the destruction of the Egyptian host at the Red Sea. Now, leaving\nout of the argument the strong probability that the monuments do\nrefer to their presence in Egypt, and the further probability that\nthe Egyptians would not be likely to preserve on their monuments\nthe record of their own ignominy and overthrow, the objection could\nnot stand for a moment in any court of justice in the presence of\nthe positive testimony of the record to the history in Egypt--all\nthe more as this testimony is sustained by an extraordinary weight\nof incidental corroborative evidence, and is involved in the whole\nsubsequent history of the nation.\n\nGrant, if you will, that there are improbabilities in parts of\nthe history; still, the courts rule that \"mere improbability can\nrarely supply a sufficient ground for disbelieving direct and\nunexceptionable witnesses of the fact where there was no room for\nmistake\" (_Starkie_, i. 558; see also _Greenleaf on Ev._, i. 1,\n14, 15). That canon, fairly applied, sweeps away no inconsiderable\nportion of the objections to the Scripture histories. Take the great\ndecisive fact of the resurrection of Christ--a fact that carries with\nit the whole Christian system and the verity of the whole Christian\nrevelation. It is a fact of testimony--of the testimony of many\nwitnesses, under a great variety of circumstances, at many times\nand places, and extending through so long a period as to preclude\nall reasonable or admissible supposition of \"mistake.\" No fact of\nancient history can be proved by testimony if the resurrection of\nChrist cannot be. The proof stands by itself, positive, direct,\nunexceptionable as to the character and capacity of the witnesses.\nIt is proof that the law declares cannot be set aside by \"mere\nimprobability;\" and if this fact is established, everything essential\nto Christianity is established. The seal of the risen Christ is\non the Old Testament; his blood is on the New Testament. It is,\nthroughout, the living book of the slain and living Lord.\n\nAnother very important rule of law is this: \"In cases of conflicting\nevidence, the first step in the process of inquiry must naturally\nand obviously be to ascertain whether the apparent inconsistencies\nand incongruities which it presents may not without violence be\nreconciled\" (_Starkie_, i. 578). \"Where there is an apparent\ninconsistency or contradiction in the testimony of witnesses, such\nconstruction shall be put upon it as to make it agree if possible,\nfor perjury is not to be presumed\" (_6 Conn._ 189). Nothing is more\nremarkable than the constant violation of this rule by many of the\ncritics of the Bible; their effort is to see, not if the testimony\ncan be made to agree, but if by any possibility it can be forced to\nappear contradictory. It is hardly putting it too strongly to say\nthat many of these efforts would not be considered respectable, and\nwould not be tolerated by the critics themselves, if they concerned\nany other book than the Bible and any other subject than Christianity.\n\nThe courts take even stronger ground on the obligation of harmonizing\napparently conflicting evidence. If the elements of reconciliation\nare not found in the evidence itself, they insist on the admission of\nany reasonable supposition that will explain the difficulty.\n\n\"Where doubt arises,\" says Starkie (_Ev._ i. 586), \"from\ncircumstances of an apparently opposite and conflicting tendency, the\nfirst step in the natural order of inquiry is to ascertain whether\nthey be not in reality reconcilable, especially when circumstances\ncannot be rejected without imputing perjury to a witness; for perjury\nis not to be presumed, and in the absence of all suspicion that\nhypothesis is to be adopted which consists with and reconciles all\nthe circumstances which the case supplies.\" (See also _Starkie_, i.\n578, 582.)\n\nTake the familiar case of the taxing when Cyrenius was governor of\nSyria. Luke ii. 2. Everybody knows how confidently it was asserted\nthat Luke was in error because Cyrenius' government of Syria was\nseveral years later than Luke makes it; equally, every one knows\nhow that difficulty was met by the supposition, made almost a\ncertainty, that Cyrenius was twice governor of Syria--once at the\ntime in question, and once later. Even if the supposition were\nnot as probable as it is, if there were no other way of solving\nthe difficulty, we should be justified by the principle of law in\nassuming it rather than to assume that a witness as intelligent as\nLuke, and with his opportunities of knowledge and with no motive\nfor misstatement, should either wilfully or carelessly have made so\ngross an error. Here the rule fits perfectly: \"In the absence of all\nsuspicion, _that hypothesis is to be adopted which consists with and\nreconciles all the circumstances which the case supplies_.\"\n\nIn regard to certain objections to the Mosaic record--for\nexample, the improbability of the desert sustaining the host of\nthe Israelites: we select this as an example of a mass of like\nobjections--Dean Stanley, while holding in general to the historic\nfact, says the recorded miracles do not meet the difficulty and we\nhave no right to add to them; for \"if we have no warrant to take\naway, we have no warrant to add.\" If by this he meant we have no\nright to add to the inspired word _as a part of it_ what is not in\nit, he is quite correct; but if he meant, as he evidently did, that\nwe have no right to make a reasonable supposition to explain an\napparent difficulty of the word, no utterance can be more groundless.\nHe might as well object that Moses could not possibly have led the\nIsraelites through the desert forty years because no man could do\nthat without sleeping, and the record does not say that Moses slept\nduring all that time, and \"we have no warrant to add\" to the record.\n\nThe same difficulty is urged by others from the present barrenness\nof the desert, which it is contended is substantially as it was in\nthe time of the Exodus. This is to be met not so much by hypothesis\nas by the facts--(1) that the condition of the desert was very\ndifferent then from its condition now. Because the country around\nPhiladelphia cannot now support a tribe of Indians by hunting and\nfishing, it does not follow that it could not do this two hundred\nyears ago. (2) God had undertaken to bring the nation out. If every\nmiracle necessary to accomplish this end is not recorded, it does not\nprove that it was not wrought. As in the life of our Lord, so in the\ndeliverance of Israel, many miracles may have been wrought of which\nno account has come down to us.\n\nThis suggests an obvious and a very important consideration: _facts\nmay now be missing_ which were perfectly well known at the time of\nthe event, but the record of which has not been preserved. Hence, if\na difficulty can be removed by a reasonable supposition, or even by\nany admissible supposition, of a missing fact, we are entitled to\nmake that supposition.\n\nWebster (_Works_, vol. vi. p. 64) in his address to the jury on the\ncelebrated trial of the Knapps for the murder of Captain White of\nSalem, Massachusetts, says: \"In explaining circumstances of evidence\nwhich are apparently irreconcilable or unaccountable, if a fact be\nsuggested which at once accounts for all and reconciles all, by\nwhomsoever it may be stated, it is still difficult not to believe\nthat such fact is the true fact belonging to the case.\" The missing\nfact that was wanted in this case to show a motive for the murder\nwas the stealing of a will, or the purpose to steal a will, and this\nproved the true hypothesis.\n\nTo illustrate by a familiar incident of the Old Testament history.\nThe prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel foretell the fate of the last king\nof Judah, Zedekiah. Jer. xxxii.; Ezek. xii. They declare that he\nshall be taken captive by the king of Babylon, that he shall go to\nBabylon and that he shall die in Babylon; yet Ezekiel expressly says\nthat he shall not see Babylon. Now, here is apparently as gross a\ncontradiction as there can be; and if our information stopped here,\nit would be impossible to reconcile it. Fortunately, however, the\nexplanation is given in the history. From 2 Kings xxv. we learn that\nthe king of Babylon, when Zedekiah was brought into his presence at\nRiblah, ordered his eyes to be put out and sent him blind to Babylon;\nso that he saw the king of Babylon, he went to Babylon, he died in\nBabylon, and yet he never saw Babylon. But--and this is the point of\nthis familiar case--if this unexpected and extraordinary fact had not\nbeen stated, how absolutely impossible it would have been to give any\nsatisfactory solution of the difficulty! It may be doubted whether\nany supposition as violent as this needs to be made to reconcile\nevery alleged contradiction of the Bible.\n\nA remarkable illustration of the power of a missing fact occurs\nin the history of the overthrow of Babylon itself. The Scripture\naccount (Dan. v.) says that Belshazzar was king of Babylon, that he\nwas in the city, engaged in a feast, at the time of its capture,\nand that he was slain. Reliable secular historians give the name of\nthe king as Nabonnedus or Labynetus, and state that he was not in\nthe city when it was captured, that he was not killed, but taken\nprisoner, kindly treated and allowed to retire to private life. These\ndifferent accounts were not only eagerly seized upon by skeptics as\nproofs of the error of the Scriptures, but even biblical scholars\nadmitted them to be incapable of reconciliation. No longer ago\nthan when the writer was in the theological seminary that prince\nof biblical students, Addison Alexander, said that no solution of\nthe difficulty was known; he was too wise a man to say that no\nsolution was possible. Kitto, in his _Cyclopedia_, declared that no\nhypothesis _could_ harmonize the accounts. Yet the reconciliation\nwas perfectly simple. A cylinder of historic records discovered by\nSir Henry Rawlinson in the ruins of Lower Babylon showed that there\nwere at this time two kings of Babylon, a father and a son. One was\noccupying a stronghold near the city, the other was defending the\ncity itself; the latter was taken and slain, the former was spared.\nThus, by the providential bringing to light of a fact buried for\ncenturies, that which had seemed to be, and which had repeatedly and\ntriumphantly been proclaimed to be, and which had been given up _as_\nbeing, an irreconcilable contradiction, was shown to be perfectly\nharmonious. Yet if the hypothesis of two kings had been suggested as\nan explanation before the discovery of the fact, it would have been\nhissed out of court by the whole skeptical school.\n\nThe two accounts of the death of Judas have not passed out of the\nfield of popular objection. Matthew (xxvii. 5) says he committed\nsuicide; Luke (Acts i. 18) says he fell headlong and burst asunder.\nHe does not say where he fell from or what were the circumstances of\nthe fall, and it is certainly not impossible, or even improbable,\nthat both accounts are true. The traitor hung himself, possibly,\non the verge of a precipice--the supposed spot furnishes all the\nconditions for this--and afterward (how long is not said) the rope\nor the limb of the tree gave way, and he fell, striking first on the\nrocks at the foot of the tree and then plunging over the precipice\nwith the result described by Luke.\n\nThe case is not without a parallel. A few weeks since the papers\nnoticed the death of a gentleman in one of our Western States.\nAccording to one account, he perished in a railroad disaster;\naccording to another, he committed suicide--a contradiction almost\nexactly like that in the case of Judas. Yet there was no real\ndiscrepancy. With his wife and child he was on the fatal train that\nmet its doom at Chatsworth. His child was killed; he and his wife\nwere taken from the ruins terribly injured. The wife soon died; in\ndespair, and with no hope of his own life, he drew his pistol and\nsent the ball through his own head. He perished in the Chatsworth\ndisaster, and he committed suicide.\n\nThe application of these principles of law--the admission of\nany reasonable hypothesis, or of an hypothesis that may seem\n_improbable_, if it removes the difficulty, the supposition of\nmissing facts known at the time, but now lost--principles of\nconstant application in our courts of justice,--releases at once the\npressure from a large part of the objections to the inspired record.\nThe accounts of the healing of the blind men at Jericho and the\nresurrection of Christ--two of the most difficult of full explanation\nin the New Testament--require no more than this. It is not hard to\npresent reasonable hypotheses to meet the cases as they stand; and\nif all the facts were known to us we believe the harmony would be\nas complete and as simple as that of the histories of the siege and\ncapture of Babylon.\n\nWe draw the discussion to a close with the words of the eminent\nAmerican jurist and legal authority, Professor Greenleaf: \"All that\nChristianity [or the Bible] asks of men on this subject is that\nthey would be consistent with themselves, that they would treat its\nevidence as they treat the evidence of other things, and that they\nwould try and judge its actors and witnesses as they deal with their\nfellow-men when testifying to human affairs and actions in human\ntribunals.\"\n\nThis, as we have said, is not the highest claim that we can make\nfor the Bible; but if men will go as far as this, and deal with the\nalleged contradictions of the book honestly by the common rules of\nevidence, the vast majority of all the difficulties to which these\nrules apply will disappear. In the mean time, if there are those\nthat do not yield to present knowledge, we can afford to wait. Many\nobjections once supposed to be unanswerable have been answered, and\nthe process is going on. God is very patient, but we may be assured\nthat He who just as the occasion has demanded has summoned up the\nsilent witnesses to his word from the valley of the Nile, from the\nstormy cliffs of Sinai, from the plains of Mesopotamia and from the\nsullen shores of the Dead Sea, will not fail in the future to give\nall the confirmation of his truth that the faith of his Church may\nneed.\n\n  WASHINGTON, D. C., 1888.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nText enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\nSmall capital text has been replaced with all capitals.\n\nVariations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been\nretained except in obvious cases of typographical error.\n\nMissing page numbers are page numbers that were not shown in\nthe original text.\n\nThe cover for the eBook version of this book was created by the\ntranscriber and is placed in the public domain.","title":"The Lost Faith, and Difficulties of the Bible, as Tested by the Laws of Evidence","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":14039}