p. 167You have not quite made out the case on the second point of the factory illustration.—Let me see: that was as regards the visible participation of the builder?
Yes. You have shewn that the marks of intelligence in the construction of the universe carry a powerful inference of the existence of a constructor; but you have not shewn anything parallel to the visible participation of a factory builder.—I think I referred to something of this kind in a former case. The “visible participation” is really the strongest point in the argument. The evidence is that God has visibly participated in the management of the world to which we belong.
I should like to see that evidence.—It is the full, effectual, and final settlement of the most important controversy that can engage a man’s thoughts. By other lines of argument, we merely approximate to an answer; by this we stand in its presence. We may reason plausibly from the organization of Nature, but there is no absolute conclusiveness to our p. 168 reasoning; we can never reach absolutely firm ground. We see the evidence of wisdom, but never can find out the source of it. With the evidence of revelation, we get to the very kernel of the subject.
Oh, it is revelation you refer to?—Certainly; what else could it be? God’s visible participation in the affairs of man must take the form of revelation.
Oh, but there is a slight fog there. Revelation, as I take it, is not the same thing as visible participation. Revelation may be a perfectly invisible thing, as in the case of a message to a prophet by inspiration. Visible participation would not be invisible.—There is a distinction there, no doubt. But still the sense in which I use the phrase “visible participation” would cover all. A man would visibly participate in your affairs, who wrote to you a letter from Australia, although you might never see him. My proposition is that the evidence proves that God has revealed His existence by actually participating in human affairs, both by invisible message and visible action—and that we have just the same ground for believing in Him as we have for believing in the existence of a factory builder who sometimes appears at the factory and gives orders to the workmen, and sometimes sends them instructions through the post.
That would be a very satisfactory state of things.—It is the actual state of things.
Would you briefly indicate the evidence of it?—Well, take the opening statement of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “God, who at sundry times and divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by a Son.” This single statement, I submit, when worked out in all its elements, will afford a body of evidence that is complete and conclusive.
p. 169 I cannot see how you make that out. To me, the statement is simply so many words strung together.
My friend, it is much more than that if you consider. It is a very old stringing of words together. It is a stringing of words together that has a history. It is a stringing of words together performed by some one. There is not a letter, book or document under the sun but consists of so many words strung together: yet each letter, book or document is by itself much more than that. The words strung together convey a meaning, and they were strung together by particular men for particular reasons. You would not deny that, would you?—Well no, of course.
Would you call the works of Shakespeare in modern times, or the poetry of Homer in the Greek age, “simply so many words strung together”?—They are literary productions, of course.
They are words strung together, but they are much more. They are an arrangement with a history, and their very arrangement affords evidence of facts outside themselves.—I don’t know that I understand you there.
Do you not think that the “words strung together” by the Latin and Greek authors afford evidence of the existence of those authors, though the plays and poems and histories they wrote in many cases do not mention them?—That, of course, is never questioned.
Very well; here is the past existence of certain men proved by the present existence of what you call “simply so many words strung together.” And not only the existence of men: have you any doubt of the existence of Sparta 2,500 years ago and her sister republics in the heroic age of Greece?—Of course not.
p. 170 Have you any doubt of the extraordinary ascendancy of Roman military prowess for centuries in all parts of the civilized world?—Of course not.
How come you to know of these but by what you call “simply so many words strung together”?—Oh, you are pressing that point too strongly.
I wish you to see that “words strung together” in the form of ancient works may carry with them powerful evidence of many things outside themselves.—That, of course, I grant; but I fail to see how you apply it to the words you have quoted from Hebrews.
Well, these words, which are 1,800 years old, affirm a thing which, if true, amount to evidence that God has revealed Himself.—Ah, “if true!” That is the whole pith of the question.
I grant it, and I assert that an investigation of the matter will lead to the conclusion, on the strictest logical lines, that it is and can be nothing else than true.—You are so very positive.
It is a merit to be positive when the matter is important and the facts warrant it.—The matter is certainly important; but I do not see why you are so positive.
Well, it is something to bring into clear relief this simple idea, that you must prove the statement of Hebrews i. 1 to be false before you can get rid of the evidence that God has revealed Himself.—I think the onus of the proof lies with you.
Perhaps so, according to the technical rules of evidence; but so far as moral weight goes, it is something for the unbeliever or the doubter to ponder, that this 1,800-year old statement, so full of majesty and light, remains calmly in existence with all the possibility and probability that it is a statement of p. 171 truth, and with all the certainty that he cannot, by any candid and thorough mode of treatment, disprove it in the least.—But I am not an unbeliever, nor can I say that in the proper sense I am a doubter. I am merely putting your position to the proof. I say you are bound to prove the truth of the statement in Hebrews before you can produce it as evidence.
Well, I think that is easily done. Do you admit that the epistle, of which it is the opening statement, was written in the first century?—I am bound to admit that much.
Do you admit it was written by the Apostle Paul?—I am not so clear as to that. There is a strong opinion it was written by Barnabas.
Yes; well that does not go for much. The existence of such an opinion is due to the anonymous character of the epistle. When a work is anonymous, there is always room for question as to the authorship. There were early guesses on the subject: and these guesses have come down to our age, and are favoured by that class of mind that delight in unhingements and uncertainties. But the broader stream of tradition and reputation attributes the letter to Paul, and this reputation is confirmed by the style and construction of the epistle. There is no real doubt that it was written by him.—There is real doubt on the part of some.
Well, it matters little, because the authorship of Barnabas would have an equal value in view of the companionship of Barnabas with Paul in Paul’s work and knowledge; and in view of the inspiration common to all the apostles and their fellow labourers. Admitting the first-century authorship of Hebrews, whether by Paul or Barnabas, I shall hope at our next interview to make it clear to you that we possess in it p. 172 evidence of the stupendous fact that the Eternal Being, Whose footprints are everywhere visible in the universe, has manifested Himself to mortal man, and spoken to him in communications of unutterable value both for his present well-being and his future life.