THE VALUE OF POSITIVE UTTERANCE.
THERE is great power of producing conviction in mere positiveness of utterance. Most people think very little for themselves, and are glad to have their thinking done for them. If the results of this second-hand thinking are presented to them with a positiveness of utterance, this very positiveness will ensure reception. They are not accustomed to weighing the pros and cons, but they believe that here is a man who has weighed them duly, and they accept his conclusions, merely because he himself seems so sure of them. Nobody is better aware of the value of positive utterance than the opponent of orthodox Christianity. Take the history of infidel thought from Celsus to Ingersoll, and you shall find this to be a chief element of power in anti-Christian polemics. Many of those who have written and spoken against the religion of Christ have been learned, subtle, witty, eloquent; but they have all been positive in utterance—all of them, we mean, who have had any influence in molding the thoughts of their own and of other generations. If there had been any doubt in their tone they would never have gained any following. As it takes a Luther to lead a Reformation, so it takes a Voltaire to lead the hosts of infidelity. Half-hearted convictions and half-hearted speech never forwarded any cause. Precisely because they are so well aware of the efficacy of this positiveness of utterance, the opponents of Christianity have always attempted to deprive Christians of the use of this weapon. Unable to meet their foes in fair fight, they have509attempted a flank movement. Positive utterance is ridiculed, it is called hard names, it is denounced as “dogmatism” and “bigotry,” and what not. To such an extent have these tactics prevailed, that very many good Christian people have become afraid to speak out their convictions manfully, lest they be accused of dogmatism, of wishing to set up as popes, and so on. Among a wide circle of Christian people it is “the thing” to speak with studied moderation, with ample qualification, with an implication that after all one may be mistaken, and that while he rather thinks this is true, it may possibly be that just the contrary is true. This is to be moderate, to be philosophical, to be cultivated, to be liberal. But to speak with an accent that implies, “This is truth, and I believe all else to be error”—horrible! For that is to be narrow-minded, to be intolerant, to be dogmatic. Napoleon once declared that the essence of good generalship was to find out what the enemy least desires you to do, and then do just that. That is good tactics in the Christian warfare also. There is nothing that the unbeliever in Christianity so much dislikes as what he calls “dogmatism.” Very well; let us be “dogmatic” then. To his I say so and so, let us oppose the Thus saith the Lord. Let us declare the whole truth revealed in the Scriptures, as we are best able to understand it with honest and prayerful study, and we cannot fail to overcome. He would be a poor general, who permitted his enemy to dictate the plan of his campaign; and he is a poor soldier of Christ, who permits his opponents to dissuade him by ridicule from the use of his most effective weapon The skeptic is positive, dogmatic; the Christian must speak with no less positiveness, unless he would have the world question the genuineness of his belief. If mere positiveness of utterance can often gain acceptance of error, what can it not do for the truth?—Examiner and Chronicle.