As infidelity is natural to the mind of man, fallen as he is, the question of evidences meets with this propensity in the heart as much as the truth itself.
Evidences suppose either reluctance to receive or difficulties inherent in man as to the reception of truth. If man's mind met the truth as such at once, there would be no need of evidences. But men do reason to prove the truth; that is, it is not instinctively known or necessarily received.
Christianity declares the truth to be revealed in and by Christ and those sent by Him; and as to ordinary man, Christ has declared, “Because I tell you the truth, ye believe Me not.” Again, “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came to His own, and His own received Him not.” “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.” That truth was found by man is false. It was not. Man arrived at “What is truth?” Christ came to bear witness to it.
Now assuming that there is such a thing as truth (and there must be, or there is nothing; for if there is something, a true statement or knowledge of what it is, is truth), either man is omniscient, or he wants the truth to be made known to him. If he does, he wants evidences, unless he be so absolutely proper for its reception, that to state it is sufficient for reception (that is, unless the truth be self-evident). If he be not so receptive of the truth (and we are sure he is not), he needs evidences of it, because he has reluctance or difficulties.
But I go farther. Truth cannot be self-evident to a creature; because, let men be as proud as they will, in a creature the moral condition depends on the object he is occupied with. Is it gold? He is covetous. Power? He is ambitious. And so on. Hence the moral condition is the fruit of the object. There may be lasts and tendencies dormant; but actual character is determined by an object. Now to know goodness as a creature without a revelation of it, I must be perfectly good. But I am not far from it. When therefore it comes, it finds me not perfectly good, that is, so far averse to what is good. I do not know whether anyone pretends to being perfect goodness: if not, he is something as a morally active being; he is selfish. Is it not true?
A revelation of perfect goodness meets selfishness, which is incapable of receiving it. Besides, in fact there is corruption, prejudice, superstition, into which selfishness has formed itself. And God, Who is light, as well as love, makes havoc with this. “No man, having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new; for he saith, The old is better.” If your infidel says, Man is innocent, and education has given him prejudices, and connected his will with his lusts, so as to make passions, I say, Be it so. I do not believe it; but be it so. But man is educated; he is a Jew, a heathen, a Romanist, a Protestant. Pure truth comes; it meets his prejudices, and evidences are needed. If these are sent, it is the activity of grace. They are not simply to prove the truth (to a mind that sees the truth as truth, it needs no truth); but to prove it to men, because man is prejudiced, and deeply prejudiced.
But man has a conscience, and the truth does reach it, even when will is opposed; he has a heart, year selfishness, and is miserable; he can feel goodness, though opposed to the claim of God over his will as light and love. For if God reveals Himself, He must claim subjection, and, to bless, must make man give up his own will, that will which is alienation from God and mixes in his lusts. Attraction is felt, the claim is felt in conscience, the claim of goodness, the beauty of what is holy felt in conscience, what God is is felt. But these are deep obscurities through prejudice and lusts, and reluctance through feeling how much it will cost; ignorance of what God ought to be, prejudice against what He is. “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”
What is to be done? Man ought to receive grace and truth, light and love. Yet he would not want it revealed if he were not morally in contradiction with it. God gives adequate evidences to overtop prejudices, to force on the mind that what is presented to it must be a revelation of God. Men have inquired as to receiving truths because of miracles, or miracles because of truths. Both or neither. Men ought to receive truth because it is truth—abstractedly, they ought. For unfallen he does not need a revelation; fallen puts the case that he is indisposed. But abstractedly a nature suited to truth would receive the truth. “If I tell you the truth, why do ye not believe Me?”
But this is not so. Man does not like to come to the light because his deeds are evil. God therefore in grace gives evidences, miracles if you please, when the revelation of the truth is there; not when, to speak historically, it has been admitted as truth. But this is great grace. “Believe Me,” says Christ, “that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me; or else believe Me for the very works' sake.” There is the place of truth and of miracles. Salvation “at first began to be spoken by the Lord and was confirmed to us by them that heard it, God bearing witness by signs and wonders,” &c.— “confirming the word by signs following.” When faith was founded only on miracles, the Lord did not own it (John 2): there was nothing moral in it. But He did give miracles to help men to believe the holy truth of love.
But men say, all is to be reduced to general laws. And if anything cannot, it is not to be believed. God would not disturb general laws. The most general law is that God is love; and miracles used as they were show this more than a physical law. Compared with miracles, general laws are nothing as a revelation of God to fallen man. There are general laws, admittedly; and an increasing number of phenomena may be reduced to them; and perhaps, had we all the secrets of nature, all of them. Supposing that, however irregular phenomena may appear, all can be reduced to general laws, do I know hereby a personal God? I do not know Him morally.