uthful inquirer the
necessity of thus looking at _revelation as a whole_. Strong as are the
evidences for the truth of the gospel narratives considered separately,
they gain new strength, on the one side, from the mighty revelations
that preceded them and prepared the way for the advent of the Son of
God; and on the other, from the mighty events that followed his advent
in the apostolic age, and have been following ever since in the history
of the Christian church. The divine origin of the Mosaic institutions
can be shown on solid grounds, independently of the New Testament; but
on how much broader and deeper a foundation are they seen to rest, when
we find (as will be shown hereafter, chap. 8) that they were preparatory
to the incarnation of Jesus Christ. As in a burning mass, the heat and
flame of each separate piece of fuel are increased by the surrounding
fire, so in the plan of redemption, each separate revelation receives
new light and glory from the revelations which precede and follow it. It
is only when we view the revelations of the Bible as thus progressing
"from glory to glory," that we can estimate aright the proofs of their
divine origin. If it were even possible to impose upon men as miraculous
a particular event, as, for example, the giving of the Mosaic law on
Sinai, or the stones of the day of Pentecost, the idea that there could
have been imposed on the world a series of such events, extending
through many ages, and yet so connected together as to constitute a
harmonious and consistent whole, is a simple absurdity. There is no
explanation of the unity that pervades the supernatural facts of
revelation, but that of their divine origin.

V. In strong contrast with this rational way of viewing the facts of
revelation as a grand whole, is the fragmentary method of objectors. A
doubt here, a cavil there, an insinuation yonder; a difficulty with this
statement, an objection to that, a discrepancy here--this is their
favorite way of assailing the gospel. If one chooses to treat the Bible
in this narrow and uncandid way, he will soon plunge himself into the
mire of unbelief. Difficulties and objections should be candidly
considered, and allowed their due weight; but they must not be suffered
to override irrefragable proof, else we shall soon land in universal
skepticism: for difficulties, and some of them too insoluble, can be
urged against the great facts of nature and natural religion, as well as
of revelat