the foundations are bi'oken up. All distinction between truth and falsehood, between right and wrong, would disappear. All our ideas of God and virtue would be confounded, and we should be- come the victims of every adroit deceiver, or minister of Satan, who, by lying wonders, should call upon us to believe a lie. We are to try the spirits. But how can we tiy them without a stand-, ard ? and what other standard can there be, except the laws of our nature and the authenticated revelations of God.
C. Reason must judge of the Evidences of a Revelation. In the third place, reason must judge of the evidence by which a revelation is supported.
On this point it may be remarked, —
1. That as faith involves assent, and assent is conviction pro- duced by evidence, it follows that faith without evidence is either irrational or impossible.
2. This evidence must be appi'opriate to the nature of the truth believed. Historical truth requires historical evidence ; empirical truths the testimony of experience ; mathematical truth, mathe- matical evidence ; moral truth, moral evidence ; and " the things of the Spirit," the demonstration of the Spirit. In many cases different kinds of evidence concur in the support of the same truth. That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, for example, is sustained by evidence, historical, moral, and spiritual, so abun- dant that our Lord says of those who reject it, that the wrath of God abideth on them.
3. Evidence must be not only appropriate, but adequate. That is, such as to command assent in every well-constituted mind to which it is presented.
As we cannot believe without evidence, and as that evidence must be appropriate and adequate, it is clearly a prerogative of reason to judge of these several points. This is plain.
1. From the nature of faith, which is not a blind, irrational as- sent, but an intelligent reception of the truth on adequate grounds.
2. The Scriptures never demand faith except on the ground of adequate evidence. " If I had not done among them," says our Lord, " the works which none other man did, they had not had sin " (John xv. 24) ; clearly recognizing the principle that faith cannot be required without evidence. The Apostle Paul proves that the heathen are justly liable to condemnation for their idalatry and immorality, because such a revelation of the true God and of the moral law had been made to them, as to leave them without
54 INTRODUCTION. [Ch. HI. — Rationalism.
3. Tlie Bible regards unbelief as a sin, and the great sin for which men will be condemned at the bar of God. This presumes that unbelief cannot arise from the want of appropriate and ade- quate evidence, but is to be referred to the wicked rejection of the truth notwithstanding the proof by which it is attended. The pop- ular misconception that men are not responsible for their faith, arises from a confusion of ideas. It is true that men are not blame- worthy for not believing in speculative truths, when the cause of their unbelief is ignorance of the fact or of its evidence. It is no sin not to believe that the earth moves round the sun, if one be ig- norant of the fact or of the evidence of its truth. But wherever unbelief arises from an evil heart, then it involves all the guilt which belongs to the cause whence it springs. If the wicked hate the good and believe them to be as wicked as themselves, this is only a proof of their wickedness. If a man does not believe in the moral law ; if he holds that might is right, that the strong may rob, murder, or oppress the weak, as some philosophers teach, or if he disbelieve in the existence of God, then it is evi- dent to men and angels that he has been given up to a reprobate mind. There is an evidence of beauty to which nothing but want of taste can render one insensible ; there is evidence of moral ex- cellence to which nothing but an evil heart can render us blind. Why did the Jews reject Christ, notwithstanding all the evidence presented in his character, in his words, and in his works, that he was the Son of God ? " He that believeth on him is not con- demned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the onl}'- begotten Son of God." (John iii. 18.) The fact, however, that unbelief is a great sin, and the special ground of the condemnation of men, of necessity supposes that it is inexcusable, that it does not arise from ignorance or want of evidence. " How shall they believe," asks the Apos- tle, " in him of whom they have not heard." (Rom. x. 14.) And our Lord says, " This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." (John iii. 19.)
4. Another evidence that the Scriptures recognize the necessity of evidence in order to faith, and the right of those to whom a rev- elation is addressed to judge of that evidence, is found in the jfre- quent command to consider, to examine, to try the spirits, i. e., those who claim to be the organs of the Spirit of God. The duty of judging is enjoined, and the standard of judgment is given. And then men are held responsible for their decision.