207 grown subtly into th e m inds th a t wel comed th e slight beginnings of intellec tu a l wandering. The rejection of the word of th e Lord Jesu s was a t first camouflaged by various ingenious de vices. But th e th ing th a t is a t first feared becomes later, fam iliar, and fi nally, welcome. So th e words th a t boldly contradict and set a t nought thé Lord Jesus are now openly proclaimed from th e housetops, and th e intelligence of children is set higher th a n our glo rious Lord and Saviour, th e Way, the T ru th , and th e Life. The flippant treatm en t of the inspired record of th e m iraclè th a t prefigured th e death and resurrection of Christ is a scandal. “ I suppose I am no t accept able,” said one m inister, “because I do not believe th e story of Jonah and the whale.” This is supposed to be a “reduc- tio ad absurdum .” I t is— fo r th e m an who u tte rs it. If th a t m inister had cared to understand th e Holy Scripture, he would have known th a t one unbelief links itself w ith a thousand others, and th a t th e man who contradicts th e word of th e Son of God is heading straigh t for th e d ark abysses of unbelief. It is by th a t word he will be judged at the la st day. But darkness is on th e minds of men, and “ only th e wise shall under stand .” GET THE BIBLE FIRST Dr. W illiam Lyon Phelps, of Yale University, says: “ I believe a knowledge of th e Bible w ithout a college course is more valuable th an a college course w ithout a^ knowledge of th e Bible.” Com ing, as it does, from an em inent college professor and educator, th is testimony is all the more sig nificant and convincing.
T H E K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S rose bodily from th e grave,’’ or even, th a t “ five loaves and two small fishes fed thousands of people.” Thèse sim ple sceptics are so very simple as to re ject a “m iracle” by an enum eration of n atu ra l difficulties, and they do not seem aware th a t such a procedure has no “intelligence” in it of any kind soever. The m iracles of th e Bible simply transcend n atu ra l law. Of course, if it is “ unintelligent” to believe in a m iracle-working God, then th e faith of the loyal believer is unintelligent. But intelligences far g rea ter th an th a t' of any modern professor have believed in the m iracles of God. To claim sp ecial intelligence for the rationalising of un belief is an old infidel trick , w,hich sits ill on the shoulders of any Christian teacher. But th e g reatest featu re of all is, th a t in th is flippant arrogance of unbelief in th e m iracles of Holy Scripture, Jesus, our Divine Lord, is “ se t a t nought.” It apparently did not occur to the Rev. speaker th a t in respecting th e intelli gence of the children he was openly in sulting th e intelligence of our glorious Lord. The appalling syllogism is ob vious: “ It is unintelligent to believe the story of Jon ah and the whale. Our Lord believed it. Therefore our Lord was unintelligent.” According to the processes of th e modern professorial mind, our Lord was not only ignorant on m atters th a t are vital to the healthy religious faith of men, b u t He was also “ unintelligent.” He believed things about the ways of God th a t would be an -“ in su lt to the intelligence” of the very children of today. If this kind of rationalistic unbelief is not in th e region of "blasphemy against the Son of Man,” all my reli gious intuitions, train ing , and in telli gence are completely baffled. This flip p an t setting a t nough t of the authority and intelligence of the Lord of Glory could not spring up in a night. It has
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker