p. 173I am curious to see how you are going to extract from the epistle to the Hebrews, evidence of God having manifested Himself.—There is nothing simpler. The writer alleges that God, who had spoken in ages previous to that in which he was writing, had again spoken in those very days—days which he speaks of as “these last days”—the last days of the Mosaic system of things.
Well, that is an assertion: assertion is no proof.—It depends upon the nature of the assertion and who makes it. The assertion of a man who knows is accepted in our courts every day as proof. Suppose it is a question as to the signature of a certain document: the man who signed it knows that he signed it, and his assertion would be taken as proof against the testimony of many witnesses who might declare it their opinion that it was not his signature.
But the case of God having spoken is not a case of that sort.—Not exactly; but it comes much nearer p. 174 than you might imagine. It is a case of personal knowledge in those who testify in the case.
I can scarcely see that. A man signing a document is an act that can be seen and spoken to in a manner clear from all doubt; but the speaking of God, with all reverence, must necessarily be a complex and even nebulous operation, to which a man cannot speak in the clear and simple way in which he speaks to the signing of a document.—It depends upon which form of operation you may be referring to. The statement before us is that the speaking took place “at sundry times and in divers manners.” When the various manners are taken into account I think you will find that there is no ground for your reservation. Let us take the case that was within the writer’s knowledge: “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son.” Here it is the case of Christ that was before the writer’s mind. Would you call the life of Christ a complex and nebulous operation?—Nothing could be more simpler, definite, or tangible.
Are you quite sure about that?—Can there be any doubt about it?
It has been the subject of a great diversity of opinion.—Yes, the meaning of the operation may be the subject of great diversity of opinion; but the reality of the operation is not called into question.
I am not sure you can go so far as that.—What! Is there any doubt as to the fact of his having been crucified, to commence with?
Some have even doubted that.—Oh, my friend, some doubt their own existence, or, at least the existence of all outside of themselves. You would not bring such metaphysical vagaries to bear on the settlement of a disputed account or the terms of a business agreement. “Some” are to be found on the p. 175 side of every craze and every possible hallucination; but you do not allow this to prevent you from perceiving and acting upon manifest truth?
Well, I mean to say that some have even doubted whether Christ was an historic character at all.
Do you doubt it?—I do not say that I do. Of course, I cannot.
Very well, why trouble about the others? If there is one thing that all the world is agreed about, whatever their creed or complexion—Jew or Gentile, atheist or believer, Protestant or Papist—it is that Jesus was crucified in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar by Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea. Now, if Christ was crucified, Christ was a real man, and there was some real reason connected with his career as a man that led his enemies to seize and crucify him—a reason, I mean, that influenced those enemies. Men are never taken into custody and executed without their doing or saying something that makes a deep impression.—That must be granted of course.
Very well. What was it in Christ that excited the animosity of those who brought about his death? Was it not what he said and what he did?—Well!
Do you know what he said and what he did?—Of course, if we take what is written in the gospels, we know all about it.
Do you refuse to take what is written in the gospels?—Well, no, I cannot say that I refuse.
Do you accept what is written in the gospels?—There you press me too closely.
You must either accept or reject?—Not necessarily. A man might be unable to do either. He might not be sure how the case stands.
Is that your case?—I don’t know that I know what my case is.
p. 176 Do you think the state of the evidence is of that uncertain character as to render it impossible for a man to come to a decision.—Sometimes I think so, and sometimes I think it is quite clear.
On which side?—I mean clear on the side of the truth.
Then your hesitancy is between “yes” and “not sure”?—That is about it.
You have not found yourself hesitating between “no” and “not sure”?—Well, no. I think it impossible to take the negative attitude. I must say the nature of the case excludes the idea of deception or imposture. I frankly admit that the New Testament cannot be a work of fiction. The tone of the book excludes the possibility of its being such. Any one of Paul’s letters is conclusive on that head. It is evident to any man of discernment that the writers were men of intense moral earnestness, and wrote what they believed to be true.
Very well; why should there be any hesitation about the matter? Men who could write the New Testament must have been able to know whether the things they testified were true or not; and if, as you admit, they were convinced of the truth of what they wrote about, why hesitate to accept their conviction as evidence of the truth of it?—Ah, well, you see, there is always the possibility of men being honestly persuaded of a thing that is not exactly correct in the way they take it.
Now, my friend, that is altogether too vague. I must bring you to the point. Do you really find in your everyday dealings with men that they are liable to be persuaded of the reality of thing that do not exist.—Well, yes; there are Catholics, and Spiritualists, and the Swedenborgians: they are all p. 177 very earnest in their opinions about the things that I believe you regard as delusions.
Ah, but that has reference to matters of opinion. I am not speaking about matters of opinion. Men are liable to differ in their opinions of things they have no personal knowledge of. But they do not differ as to matters of sight and experience?
Some think they see things and persons in visions and seances and what not.—I am not speaking of things out of the way, but of ordinary sight and experience. For example: We have a railway station and trains that come and go at certain hours. There is no difference of opinion among the townspeople as to where the station is, or as to what hours the trains run. Whatever their capacity or temperament or calling or bias, they are all agreed as to these matters. You never find any one taking it into his head that New Street Station is at Selly Oak, or Snow Hill Station at Smethwick. And then among the thousands of people that swarm the streets among cabs, drays, carts, buses, trams, etc., you find absolute unity of impression and discernment as to the facts of the moment. If a horse falls, all who see it are aware of it and take it correctly; no one supposes it is a house that has fallen; or that it has fallen up to the sky. And if no horse falls, no one imagines the incident occurring. If nothing happens, everybody in the street is of one mind—that nothing has happened. And so in getting out of the way of vehicles at street crossings, everybody gets out of the way at the right moment. You don’t find people imagining there is a cab going past when it isn’t; and when the cab is there, you don’t find anyone supposing it is not there. And so with a thousand things that might be mentioned.
p. 178 You are needlessly minute, are you not?
I am seeking to emphasize the idea that in matters of sense, it is the commonest thing in the world for people to see correctly, and a most uncommon thing for people to imagine something to be happening that is not happening. The application lies here: the New Testament records a great many open-air everyday occurrences in connection with Christ—things that people in ordinary do not make mistakes about. The record was written by men who saw these things, and who, you admit, were men of earnest purpose and honest mind. I cannot, therefore, admit that you are reasonable in not frankly “taking what is written in the gospels.” If the writers were honest men, they wrote truthfully; and if they say they saw Christ walk on the water, you cannot hesitate to accept their testimony, unless you say you have evidence that they were deranged. Are you prepared to say the apostles were mad?—No.
Do you say they were bad?—No.
Then you are bound to receive their testimony as to those things that excited the animosity of the authorities against Christ, and led to his crucifixion. I shall ask you another time to look at those things, and to see in them that undoubted manifestation and interposition of the Divine intelligence and power of which you desire to be convinced.