p. 251Titus Workfellow (called and affirmed)
Examined by Mr. Discerner of Facts: You are one of the defendants in this action?—Yes.
You have heard the evidence and arguments of the plaintiffs?—Yes.
They propose to restrain you from propagating your convictions on the subject of Christ’s resurrection?—That, I understand, is their object.
What do you think about that?—They propose an impossible thing.
In what sense impossible?—I mean to say that whatever the decision of the Court might be, it could not in any way affect the obligations which impel the defendants to testify of Christ’s resurrection.
They consider themselves bound to speak of that resurrection at all hazards?—Nothing but death or imprisonment could silence their tongues on the subject.
On what grounds do they conceive this obligation so strongly?—First, on the ground of conviction that it is true; and secondly, because Christ has required such a testimony at the hands of everyone believing in him.
Of the grounds of your conviction that it is true, you are satisfied?—Perfectly. I have not the least doubt. If I doubted at one time, it was merely for want of acquaintance with all the facts.
You refer to the facts that have been placed before the Court?—Yes, the argument so ably outlined in Mr. Alltruth’s speech, and so skilfully elicited by yourself in the p. 252 cross-examination of Mr. Bad Laugh and Professor Bioplasm. With these facts and arguments I was but imperfectly acquainted at the beginning, and consequently, though persuaded in a traditional way of Christ’s resurrection, I did not feel that certainty and strength of conviction which I later acquired.
How do you find the lapse of time affect your convictions? Do they become weaker at all, as time goes on?—On the contrary, they increase in strength with the progress of years. Many evidences unseen at the beginning become visible as time goes on. It is like a ship approaching port. At first the outline of the coast tells the voyager that he is near the end of his voyage, This outline of coast might turn out to be a trail of cloud on the horizon, and no land at all: but as he gets nearer, he sees the details of the shore, and at last, the form of buildings and so has no doubt.
You find it so in your acquaintance with this subject?—I do. There are details that the mind cannot become acquainted with all at once, but which, with increasing attention to the subject, become so palpable and unmistakable as to leave no more doubt on the mind than the passengers in a steamer entering in a harbour have of the fact of their arrival.
The plaintiffs have much to say about injury arising from the entertaining of such convictions: does this answer at all to your experience?—It depends upon what is meant by injury. I have, of course, experienced a kind of injury—the injury that arises from the loss of estimation and friendship—and of what are considered more solid advantages; but I cannot admit that this kind of injury has any place at all in the argument as to whether or not the resurrection of Christ should be preached. Paul said he had suffered the loss of all things for Christ, and counted all things as the vilest rubbish in comparison to the excellency of attaining to Christ’s recognition and friendship. This, I apprehend, represents the sentiment of reason in the case. I share it fully. It is a question of whether Christ rose, and not of whether one suffers from believing it.
p. 253 Have you suffered injury in any other sense?—On the contrary, I have reaped great advantage.
In what way?—Well, I consider the tranquility of mind that comes with the conviction of so glorious a fact as Christ’s present existence, and all that springs out of that, a great advantage. I fully endorse what the apostle Paul says, that the truth of Christ “hath promise of the life that now is, as well as of that which is to come.” Life without a hope and without a purpose is to me a vanity and a failure—worse, a curse and a burden intolerable. Such I have found it to be in time past; such I perceive it to be in many of my former acquaintance. Science gives no hope and no purpose. A few years of activity—aching activity—feverish and fretful activity in many cases, and all must end in the darkness of night—in the grave that surely waits every man. Such a moral environment is depressing and demoralizing. It gives no rule of action—no purpose of life, and leaves us a prey to our uncertain feelings. With the entrance of the faith of Christ, all this completely changes. The future, which, in a state of nature, is the darkest, becomes the brightest direction of life. It is no exaggeration to say that the forward horizon becomes lit up with glory. Mortal life is short: in the grave there is no interval to consciousness, though there may be much to chronology. Consequently, it is but a few steps forward, so to speak, to reach the goal of blessedness presented in Christ. It is in this form the matter stands to individual hope; and hope is one of the most powerful levers in the human constitution. This one feature of hope alone I consider outweighs all the disadvantages it is possible to endure on account of the faith of Christ.
Is it the only advantage?—By no means. The acceptance of the faith of Christ gives a man a simple rule of action and a simple boldly-drawn purpose in life, which are entirely lacking in merely secular systems of education.
How would you define this rule of action?—The rule of action is simply the will of Christ, as expressed in his written commandments apostolically transmitted to us.
p. 254 The acceptance of this rule brings great peace, and relieves the mind of a world of perplexity if at all of philosophic bent.
And the purpose?—Well, the purpose may be expressed as the determination to secure the approbation of Christ, and a place in his everlasting and glorious inheritance at his coming.
Is the securing of such results placed within the volition of those desiring them?—To a certain extent. It is Christ’s message to them that he will esteem them his friends if they do his commandments (John xv. 14), and that he will give to every man according as his work shall be (Matt. xvi. 27; Rev. xxii. 12). Consequently, a man believing in Christ has a very simple purpose in hand, and a very simple rule in the working of it out. His purpose is to use the present life in conformity with Christ’s expressed desire, with a view to an inheritance in the kingdom of God. And such a purpose, and such a rule, yield great advantage, even in this present time.
Have you exhausted the definition of the advantage?—Not altogether. Those who accept of Christ become objects of the Father’s special regard, and the subjects of His providential dealings. Consequently, they are not exposed to the uncertainties of chance as other men, but have their affairs divinely directed for their benefit.
Do you mean that good is secured to them now in this present time?—I do not mean that exactly. Evil may be allowed to befall them, and, what is more, may be divinely contrived for them; but their consolation is, that all things are made to work together for their real good—for the promotion of their spiritual education—for their preparation for the exalted destiny to which the gospel invites them; and that even the worst circumstances may be made to serve this purpose. Their confidence is, that evil will be regulated with a view to results, and not be permitted to encroach to their destruction. Peace of mind naturally results from such a state of facts; and peace of mind is a great advantage. The loss of friends and temporalities is not to be mentioned with this.
My learned friend on the other side spoke of injury p. 255 to the world?—That must be a mere theory. I am not aware of any injury to the world from the attitude of believers in Christ. We do not associate with the world, it is true; but they would not thank us if we did. They could not find in us the society they wish.
Why do you not associate with the world?—Because Christ has forbidden it. It is not a matter of choice, though it is not altogether against our choice; for it seems to me morally impossible that any earnest friend of Christ could identify himself with the world, even if Christ and his apostles had not forbidden it.
But even if your non-association with the world injured the world and brought injury on yourself as well, you should not consider that a sufficient reason for altering your course in view of Christ’s resurrection?—Quite so: if Christ rose, Christ is coming again: and when he comes again, the present order of things will be as entirely superseded as Paganism was by State Christianity when Constantine became supreme. It would, therefore, be manifestly the highest form of unwisdom to make any present consequences a reason for acting in opposition to the will of Christ, who predicates our future acceptance with him in our performance of that will during his absence.
Cross-examined by Mr. Dontwantobelieve Anyhow: Mr. Workfellow, I will not follow you in the matters of sentiment you have introduced. I presume you do not find everybody take life so gloomily as you do?—I do not think I take life gloomily.
I rather think you do?—I take it as I find it. If it was other than I find it, I should rejoice.
That is what I say, you find it gloomy. Don’t you know that many others find it cheery and gay?—There is plenty of gaiety no doubt.
And if some men don’t join the gaiety, it is not the fault of life, is it?—I think so.
It is the fault of their livers, isn’t it?—I think not. Doesn’t a man with a sound stomach and liver take p. 256 cheery views of life?—To a certain extent, it is so; but there is much to put the stomach and liver out of order.
Excesses, you mean, or bad bacon?—No I don’t mean that.
What do you mean?—Bad state of things among men everywhere.
Bad trade?—No, not bad trade; the badness I refer to prevails even when trade is very good.
Sentimental badness?—I am afraid you do not understand it.
It will be your fault if you do not make yourself understood?—I mean to say that the general position of the human race, considered in the light of what ought to be—the aversion to wisdom, the indifference to God, the unconcern about Christ, the unmercifulness of man to man, the poverty of the million, their intellectual destitution, their moral degradation, their lowness of taste and inclination, the general barbarism that prevails in association with the sublimest complacence and self-conceit,—I say, the whole spectacle engenders a sadness that will afflict a reflecting mind, quite independently of the state of the stomach.
I am afraid there are not many men so afflicted?—I am afraid not.
You consider yourself a sort of Lot in Sodom?—I do not care to put the matter personally.
If the majority—the overwhelming majority—are in a cheery mood, is it not probable that your sourness may be due to some special cause, personal to yourself?—I wish I could think so.
Try to think so, Mr. Workfellow, and cheer up a bit?—We cannot alter facts. It is the facts that are wrong. A man on the brink of ruin cannot get rid of the fact by logic and force himself to be cheery. The world is in a bad way. Paul calls it “the present evil world.” John says, “it lieth in wickedness.” Jesus said he did not belong to it, and that he prayed not for it. Its condition has not changed since these things were written.
I am afraid it is a jaundiced view altogether?—I would rather be jaundiced with Christ than in sound health with those who condemn him.
p. 257 It is strange that nobody discovers this dreadful state of things?—A man requires to be educated before he can detect ignorance.
You think we are rather far behind, then?—Not in the way you take it. I mean that a man must know the divine mind before he can rightly estimate the state of things in the world. And where the great mass—the overwhelming majority, as you rightly called them—are in total ignorance of the divine mind, and under the sway of the merely natural mind—which is a barbaric mind at the bottom—I say in that case it is not wonderful that they do not know their state, and are now perfectly well pleased with one another. The lower animals, you know (pigs, for example) do not know their state, and cannot discover it.
The lower animals are very good in their way. However, we are rather straying from the line of things before us. As I said, I do not concern myself with the sentimental matters in which you have been dealing. I wish to ask you a question or two on matters of fact. I think you said you felt great confidence in the resurrection of Christ?—I did.
You consider that confidence well grounded?—I do.
Does it not rest on mere documents whose originals—whoever wrote them—are not now extant?—It does not rest wholly on these, though largely, I allow.
It rests largely on the New Testament?—Largely.
Do you consider that a good foundation?—I do.
In view of the prevalence of the forgery and literary fiction that prevailed in the ages that witnessed the production of the New Testament?—The prevalence of literary forgeries in those ages in no way lessens my confidence in the New Testament, but rather strengthens it.
A strange effect certainly from such a cause?—Not when all things are taken into account. Forgeries presuppose genuine and influential documents to be imitated; and if the New Testament be not those genuine and influential documents, where are they?
It is not for me to say?—But the mind will demand an answer, in the serious consideration of the matter: and the facts admit of only one answer.
p. 258 There might be a difference of opinion as to the facts?—There may be different ways of viewing the facts, but I cannot conceive of any difference of opinion as to the facts themselves.
To what facts do you refer?—The facts that properly come within the range of literary criticism as applied to any document.
You mean the number of original copies and such like?—I mean all the facts that decide whether a document is genuine or no. Sometimes these are independent of any great number of copies. For example, you may be aware that in the case of Quintillian’s Institutions of Oratory, an ancient Roman work, the copies current before the 15th century were all set aside on the strength of a single perfect copy discovered in a monastry at Constance, lying beneath long-neglected lumber.
I have not much acquaintance with the matter?—That is the fact. The MS. was subject to the examination of critics, collated with existing copies, compared with the references of ancient authors, and ascertained to be genuine and uncorrupted. Previously known copies were thus discovered to have been much corrupted and mutilated by the ignorance or presumption of copyists.
There cannot be many cases of that sort?—There is the Abridged History of Rome by Paterclus, which has been preserved only in a single MS.; and it happens that this history is quoted by only one ancient author—Prescian, a grammarian of the sixth century. Yet, with all this scantiness of evidence, the genuineness of the work is fully admitted by scholars.
But you do not class the New Testament with such writings?—The New Testament stands amenable to the same rules of judgment as regards literary genuineness: and I say that if only a single MS. containing the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of Paul, had been preserved, even if no quotations from these writings were to be found, competent and unprejudiced scholars (judging apart from the special issues involved) could never doubt that these writings are in fact what they professed to be. There are minute and indescribable tokens of genuineness p. 259 discernible to the instructed eye in every sentence, and the internal accordances of the history and the letters would be conclusive, even in the absence of all external proof.
Well, you wrap it up very nicely, and to your own satisfaction, I doubt not?—It is a question of judgment on facts. What I maintain is that the grounds of authenticity on which you receive the classic authors exists with ten-fold more force in the case of the New Testament. Herodotus, for example; only about fifteen manuscripts of his history are known to critics, and of these, several are of no higher antiquity than the 15th century; whereas, in the case of the New Testament, to mention any fixed number of existing ancient MSS. would be impossible. It is enough to say that on the revival of learning, copies of the Scriptures were found wherever any books had been preserved. The number hitherto examined by editors cannot be much under 800.
But how do you know they have not been corrupted as in the case of Quintillian’s Institutions?—We have a guarantee against any supposition of that sort in the great number of the MSS.; in the great antiquity of some of them; in the extent of the earth’s surface over which they were diffused at an early date; and in the bitter schisms that arose early in the Christian church, establishing a jealous watch of rival sections one upon another, as to any interference with the sacred text upon which they all relied in controversy.
It sounds all very well as a matter of argument, but you know people cannot live on arguments. They cannot live on the New Testament?—Perhaps you may find some day they can.
I should not advise you to try the experiment?—I am afraid your advice will have little weight. The words of Christ in the New Testament will give life to myriads yet, when his rejectors will be rotting in their graves.
It would be all very well if we could be sure they are the words of Christ?—There is every ground of surety to those who have capacity to discern it.
You make it a question of capacity?—Well, we cannot expect cows and horses to understand.
p. 260 Do you think we have capacity?—I cannot be sure, but the acumen with which you conduct this examination would seem to indicate capacity enough to perceive the evidence of the genuineness of the apostolic writers.
Have you given us all the evidence?—Not all. It would not be possible to give you all in a brief extract like this.
Is there anything else you would like to mention?—I have referred to the divisions of the Christian church as affording security for the uncorrupted transmission of its apostolic standard. But there are collateral evidences that are positively unanswerable. There are the visible effects of the Scriptures, from age to age. They have left their marks in all public history. The public history of no period since the first publication of these writings is at all intelligible, without the supposition of their existence and diffusion. These Scriptures have been unlike classical literature in the part they have played, the influence they have exercised, the sphere they have occupied. The Greek and Latin authors were known only in schools and halls of learning. The world in general knew nothing of them for many centuries; while, as regards the Scriptures, they marked their way not in the regions of learning and politics only, but in the entire condition of the western nations. They influenced the common people, as well as the great. Persons of all ranks occupied themselves in the assiduous re-production of copies—a work which, in times of persecution, was the source of consolation. Take the Jewish nation itself; it is a living monument of the Hebrew Scriptures through a well-known and uncontested period of 2,500 years. Their history during the time is unintelligible on the supposition that the Scriptures did not exist among them.
Many eminent men differ on these topics?—Any one having experience of mankind will expect differences on everything; but truth exists for all that.
But how to find it?—That is the question with which earnest men will concern themselves. The truth on this matter is certainly easy to find when men set themselves earnestly to search. No other proof is necessary to establish p. 261 the antiquity, genuineness, and integrity of the Scriptures than the existence of a variety of ancient versions—translations in several unconnected languages, and in languages which have long ceased to be vernacular. The Old Testament exists, independently of the original text, in the Chaldee paraphrases or Targums, in the Septuagint, or Greek version, in the translations of Aquila, of Symachus, and of Theodosian; in the Syriac and the Latin or Vulgate versions, in the Arabic, and in the Ethiopic, not to mention others of somewhat later date. The New Testament has been conveyed to modern times, in whole or in part, in the Pexhito or Syriac translations, in the Coptic, the Sahidic in several Arabic versions, in the Ethiopic, the Armenian, the Persian, the Gothic, and in the Latin versions. I say that, in the presence of this proof, every other kind of evidence may be pronounced superfluous. If a crowning evidence were needed, it would be found in the fact that the languages, or idioms, in which the Scriptures were originally written, have been extinct for ages. The pure Hebrew, such as it existed before the Babylonish captivity, has never been spoken since the removal of the Jews to Babylon. The commentaries of the Rabbis, since that time, are all written in the dialects vernacular in their times. This is proof demonstrative of the antiquity of the Old Testament. Then, as regards the new, it is written in a style of Greek, which differs both from the classic authors and the Septuagint, and the later Christian writers. The idiom of the New Testament, in the original Greek, is altogether peculiar to itself. It embodies phrases and forms borrowed from almost all surrounding languages. It resulted from the peculiar education and circumstances of the writers, which made their dialect unlike any other, in many particulars This dialect was limited to the apostolic age, and very soon became extinct. This is demonstration of the origin of the New Testament in that age, and other things taken into account, it proves its authenticity, from which its credibility follows. There are subterfuges and evasions enough, by means of which we may obscure from our minds, the plain inference which follows p. 262 from an admission of the antiquity and genuineness of the Christian Scriptures. But contradiction may boldly be challenged when it is affirmed that, with a competent knowledge of human nature, of ancient history, and of ancient literature, no one can admit, and in all its particulars realize the fact, that the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, of Peter, of John, and of ancient literature, no one can admit, and in all and were immediately diffused throughout Palestine, Asia Minor, Africa, Greece and Italy, and then reconcile himself to any supposition except that the facts affirmed were true.
Mr. Workfellow, you have it all off very “pat”: are you not merely repeating what you have read?—Not “merely repeating.”
Well, giving us a resume—a re-hash of the substance?—Whatever I state is true, from whatever source derived.
It strikes me as very like what you may read in Taylor’s History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times?—Taylor has treated on such topics, and in a very masterly way: and, perhaps, there may be some reflex of his arguments in what I have said.
But you are here to give your own evidence?—I have endeavoured to do so, I do not see that I am precluded from setting forth facts that others have used before me.
If I want Taylor, I can send for him to the library; if I ask you a question, it is your evidence I want?—And I give you my evidence. It is not with me an important question where I get truth: the important point is to get it. It is literary pedantry that stickles for original references.
Do not lecture me, please; when a witness is called, we expect him to give original evidence.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: Have you any other question to the witness?
Mr. Dontwanto Believeanyhow: No.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: Very well: we call Mr. Timothy Faithson.
Mr. Dontwanto Believeanyhow: Don’t you re-examine Mr. Workfellow?
p. 263 Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: No: your cross-examination has not hurt us much.
Timothy Faithson (called and affirmed)
Examined by Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: Mr. Faithson, you are one of the defendants?—Yes.
I believe you have taken a prominent part in the work of promulgating the convictions which have given rise to these proceedings?—I take pleasure in the work.
You are not ashamed of your connection with the defendants?—I have no cause to be ashamed, but otherwise.
You consider the work in which they are engaged, a good work?—I consider it the only work of lasting consequence in which men can be engaged.
On what ground do you entertain that view?—It would not be easy, in one sentence, to answer that question. The answer has been well indicated in the evidence of Mr. Workfellow. There is no other work upon earth that has such immense promise. There is no advantage that men can desire, or conceive, but what will be realized in connection with it.
Would you illustrate your meaning in detail?—I should have to give a long answer were I to do so.
It will be necessary to do so to some extent. For example, tell the Court whether the advantages you refer to are realized in the present prosecution of the enterprise?—In the strict sense, I should say, No. There are advantages now in connection with the faith of Christ’s resurrection—the advantage a man reaps in the peace of mind it brings, and the simple and purifying rule of life it affords him. These have been amply defined by Mr. Workfellow. But it is not to these I particularly allude. I allude to advantages not to be realized in connection with the present phase of the matter.
Advantages future?—Advantages future.
Future definite or indefinite?—Very definite as regards order of events, though indefinite in the chronological sense.
p. 264 How would you define the definite?—Christ has promised to return to the earth again at an epoch prospectively defined as “the times of the restitution of all things”—times identified as those spoken of by the prophets of Israel (Acts iii. 21). The definite future in the case I would define as the time marked by the fulfilment of the promise. When Christ returns to the earth again, the time will have arrived for the attainment of those advantages to which my answer had reference. When I speak of this future as indefinite, I mean that the date of its arrival has not been definitely revealed.
Do you think any drawback attaches to the chronological indefiniteness of the matter?—I think not: because, when a man dies, the point of advantage is reached so far as he is concerned, for this simple reason, “that the dead know not anything” (Ecc. ix. 5); they, therefore, know not the interval that lies between death and resurrection, which will pass to them as quickly as the ages before their birth. A man will have to be out of his grave at the resurrection before he is aware he has died. As the day of death is a day of uncertainty with us all, it follows that the uncertainty of the time of Christ’s arrival is of no practical disadvantage. Standing practically as near as death, it stands near enough to be a constant practical calculation.
And what is the advantage that comes with the coming of Christ?—I might ask in reply, what is the advantage that does not come?
I am not under examination: it is for you to explain the matter?—Well, to begin with, Christ has promised to change our present nature from its present constitution of weakness and corruptibility, and inefficiency, and mortality: and to make it like his own—strong, incorruptible in substance, glorious and effectual of faculty, and absolutely immortal: a nature that cannot die, ensuring a life that shall never end. In such a nature, enjoyment of being will reach its highest pitch, and be subject to no deterioration from the lapse of time: and enjoyment of being in its highest form, faculty and relations. This of itself—the possibility of attaining this,—I should consider p. 265 of itself sufficient reason for preferring the faith of Christ to everything else upon earth. There is no such possibility within the range of human effort in any other direction; and there is not a man anywhere who would not give all he possessed to attain to such a condition of life, even if it were restricted to his own individual case, and involving no change in his ordinary surroundings or in the affairs of mankind.
But I understand you to say the advantage is not limited to the change of nature you describe?—No it is not limited to that, though that would be a great attainment. It extends to other circumstances of a most desirable character. In the first place, it involves the simultaneous exaltation of myriads of the excellent of the earth to the same great dignity. The change to the incorruptible state would be an unspeakable happiness if it had to be enjoyed in solitude: but how greatly will the glory of it be enhanced by the fact that multitudes (embracing the accepted of all ages and generations) are to be admitted together to such a glorious climax of tried worth. There will be a joyous bustle on that great occasion, such as the world have never known—not in its highest feasts.
That does not exhaust the excellence of the thing?—No. The multitude of the immortalized, at the return of Christ, could have great peace and joy among themselves, apart from mankind, like some brotherhoods and close corporations of human experiments; but one of the glories of the occasion lies here, that the multitude then developed and glorified (mystically styled the body of Christ) have a mission affecting the whole earth. Their mission is to govern the earth in conjunction with Christ, their head, who is “King of kings and Lord of lords.” To accomplish this mission, they must remove the governments that now exist among mankind, which it is revealed they will do by power put forth in war. The war so arising will be the means of teaching the world righteousness by judgment. The war will end in the complete overthrow of human power everywhere, and the substitution of an universal empire, having its seat in the Land of Promise, already honoured in time past by the p. 266 presence of the Son of God, but to be more honoured when he reigns where he was crucified. In this universal empire, his friends will “reign with him.” They will be distributed throughout the earth as the divinely-appointed heads and governors of mankind, whom death cannot remove, and whom no weakness will characterize in their administration of the authority of Christ. They will be a blessing everywhere, loved and honoured of the people, whom they will lead into ways of righteousness and wisdom, plenty and peace, and thankful joy, which everyone will render back to the God of their rulers in unfeigned and hearty praise. God they will honour in blessings showered upon the heads of the immortal members of the body of Christ, to whom the glory, and honour, and wealth, of the whole world will belong.
What do you contemplate as the aim and upshot of such an arrangement?—The object will be to lead all mankind into enlightened submission to God. The object will be accomplished, for the machinery of the Kingdom of God will be powerful. When accomplished, the inhabitants of the earth in general will be admitted to the immortal state enjoyed by their rulers; and the mission of Christ will have been accomplished in the extirpation of sin and death from the earth.
When you say all mankind, do you mean every individual of the race?—No. It is revealed that as always, so then, there will be numbers of mankind who will not discern their privileges, but, through use and custom, will claim them as rights in an unthankful spirit, and refuse submission to the commandments of God, promulgated by Christ and his co-ruling people. It is the destiny of such to be finally rooted out of the earth, leaving only the reasonable, the loving, and the obedient as the immortal occupants of the globe.
In how long a time will this result be reached?—A thousand years of divine government will be sufficient to develop an adequately tried population of the right and tried disposition. It is revealed that this is the period appointed, at the end of which death will be destroyed.
The population so developed will be sufficient to people p. 267 the earth?—Doubtless, to the extent divine wisdom sees to be best.
But will it not be an increasing population?—No: propagation is a provisional arrangement adapted to the necessities of this preliminary state. Jesus says, “In the resurrection (state) they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
In what way do you make a connection between these things and the present action of the defendants?—In this way: when Christ sent out the apostles to proclaim his resurrection, and all the things connected with it, it was with a view to developing a people for himself, or, as Peter expresses it, “to take out a people for his name.” Now, this people are developed by the belief and obedience of the gospel. Men are invited to believe the testimony given concerning Christ (which embraces things accomplished and things to be done), and to put on his name in baptism. Those who comply, become his servants. As his servants, they have certain duties to perform, of which he has left ample specification in the apostolic writings, and concerning which, in the general, he says, “Occupy till I come.” Consequently, it is no matter of choice with those who accept the apostolic invitation, as to whether they will do the things commanded or not. They must. If they refuse, they sow for themselves a harvest of disgrace and anger in the day of Christ’s return. If they comply in an excellent manner (as to which Christ will be the judge), they will be comprehended in the gladdening words which Christ says he will address to his accepted servants in that day: “Well done good and faithful servants: ye have been faithful in a few things: I will make you rulers over many things.” You will, therefore, perceive the connection which you have asked me to define. The acceptance of the defendants with Christ depends upon their faithful and patient continuance in the course objected to by the plaintiffs.
Of the truth of all these things, you have satisfied yourself?—I have. I have no doubt of them. The grounds of my confidence have been amply indicated in the speech of Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth. It is not a matter of p. 268 speculative opinion. It is a matter of hard fact. Peter himself had occasion to say before his death (2 Pet. i. 16), “We have not followed cunningly devised fables”: and I cannot help strongly feeling that such must be the verdict of everyone who looks calmly, broadly, and competently at all the facts.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lover-of-the-present-World: Mr. Faithson, where did you take your degrees?—I have no degrees.
Where did you matriculate?—I have not matriculated.
Where were you educated?—My schools and schoolmasters have mostly been of the sort that Hugh Miller writes about.
Do you mean to say you have not graduated at any of the Universities?—I am obliged in truth to confess to that.
Nor passed through any of the schools?—Nor passed through any of the schools. I have been at work since early boyhood.
You mean to say you only know what you have picked up?—I make no pretence to erudition. I have had a desire for knowledge; but I have not had all the opportunities I should have liked. I envy those who have enjoyed an university education.
And how dare you, in such a state of intellectual destitution, to set up your judgment against the trained and ripe intellects of the country?—Perhaps I may not suffer from intellectual destitution, though lacking in some scholastic furnishings.
Well, I will say scholastic destitution: how dare you, lacking the scholastic qualifications necessary for the investigation of such matters, put yourself forward in opposition to men of the first standing in the world of education and culture?—First, because much scholastic qualification is not necessary to enable a man to judge of such a world-wide matter as the apostolic testimony to the resurrection of Christ. It is a matter “known and read of all men,” and only requires the application of a little common-sense to come to a just conclusion.
p. 269 Was not that testimony, as you call it, delivered in Greek?—Probably it was, as regards most of it.
And how can you presume to judge of it without a thorough mastery of the Greek tongue?—Because it has been translated out of the Greek tongue into English by those who have attained the thorough mastery in question, and because with so many facilities as now exist, it is not difficult for men to obtain an acquaintance with the Greek tongue without an university education.
But are you not aware that those who possess that education are all agreed in doubting the resurrection of Christ?—I am not at all aware of any such thing. In fact, I am aware of the very reverse—that only a small proportion of the class you describe are unbelieving as to the resurrection of Christ. Hundreds and hundreds who have passed through the universities accept the apostolic testimony to Christ’s resurrection. Besides, you seem to forget that some of the defendants are among that class, if I am not. Luke, Physicus, Titus Workfellow, and others, are quite as qualified, in an educational sense, as any you may quote on the other side.
Never mind: I am not dealing with them?—I do not use it as an argument, except in so far as it is an answer to yours. As a matter of fact, I believe much of the learning (so-called) of the present day to be wrong on divine questions. I hold this conviction on good grounds. I am strengthened in my conviction when I notice that, according to Christ and Paul, it was so in the apostolic age. Christ said, “These things”—the things appertaining to God—had been “hid from the wise and prudent, but revealed unto babes,” and he added, “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight.” Paul said, “The world by wisdom knew not God.” He further said: “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God,” and that any man wishing to be really wise, must be willing to become a fool in popular estimation. So it is now.
Do not give us a lecture?—My remarks are pertinent, I believe.
Your duty is to answer the questions?—Yes; but matters p. 270 my arise out of the questions calling for remark.
Let the remarks alone just now; I want to ask if you have considered the bearing of Egyptian chronology upon the credibility of the Bible?—I have given it some thought.
Are you not aware that the chronological records of the Egyptian kings discovered in recent years in tombs, on papyrus rolls, etc., in various parts of Egypt, carry the history of Egypt thousands of years further back than the Bible does?—That I suppose is the case.
And how do you reconcile faith in the Scriptures with that fact?—It is a conflict of authority. We have to make our choice between Hebrew and Egyptian. In all the surrounding circumstances, I prefer the Hebrew.
Oh, that is how you get out of it, is it?—It seems to me the only way out of the difficulties that belong to the Egyptian side of the subject; in fact, an inevitable decision. Both authorities cannot be true. It, therefore, comes to a choice; and I choose that which is, in many ways, guaranteed as reliable, in preference to that which is not only not guaranteed, but is self-manifestly unreliable.
What do you mean?—I mean that the Egyptian records are self-condemned by their contents. The latest and the oldest papyrus discovered was a servile and sycophantic exaggeration of the virtues and exploits of the monarch whose reign it described. Its character in this respect challenged the unfavourable criticism of even the secular press at the time it was reported. There is no such sycophancy manifest in the Hebrew records; and, therefore, on such a limited consideration as this, I feel justified in according a readier faith to the representations of the Hebrew than the Egyptian records. We are quite sure God was not in the manipulation of the Egyptian records; but, in the case of the Hebrew records, we are face to face with a claim that they were divinely superintended. This claim is supported in so many ways, that I cannot disregard it in deciding the Egypt-chronological question.
That is all very nice; but Egyptian chronology is not to be so easily disposed of as that?—I do not think a wise man would take his stand on Egyptian chronology as p. 271 against the Bible. As a whole, it is a confused and self-stultificatory record.
That is not the view entertained by those who have special knowledge on the subject?—I think you will find it is. For example, in the latest work on the subject (History of Ancient Egypt, by the Rev. Professor Rawlinson), the author, who is a well-known authority on the subject, says: “It is a patent fact, and one that is beginning to obtain general recognition, that the chronological element in the early Egyptian history is in a state of almost hopeless obscurity. . . Bockh gives for the year of the accession of Menes (M’na), the first supposed Egyptian king, the year B.C. 5702; Unger, the year B.C. 5613; Mariette Bayand Lenormant, B.C. 5004; Bougsch Bey, B.C. 4455; Lanth, B.C. 4157; Lepsius, B.C. 3152; Bunsen, B.C. 3623 or 3059; Stuart Poole, B.C. 2717; and Sir Gardiner Wilkinson, B.C. 2691. . . . When the difficulties of Egyptian chronology are stated in this broad way, it may seem at first sight that the entire matter is hopeless, and that historians of ancient Egypt had best drop out the ancient chronological element from their narratives altogether, and try the experiment of writing a history without chronology. But it is not necessary to adopt quite so violent a remedy. . . We propose, therefore, in the remainder of this chapter, to mark the limits of the uncertainty with respect to each of the three periods, into which it has been customary, from the time of Manetho, to divide the history of ancient Egypt. The chronological riddle is insoluble. The historian of early Egypt must set it aside. But he needs not, therefore, to set aside that immense mass of material, possessing the highest interest, which the toils of travellers and explorers, and the patient labour of philologists, have accumulated during the last century.”
You need not occupy the time in reading extracts?—I cannot better answer your remarks as to the satisfactory state of Egyptology. It is in far from a satisfactory state, and will never weigh in a serious estimation of the claims of the Bible.
That is part of your dogmatism. It has had great p. 272 weight with the most cultivated minds of the age?—I prefer looking at the facts themselves, and leaving the cultivated minds out of account. It is easy to make a mistake in estimating the cultivation of a mind. The question is, How stand the facts?
That is the question: and it is to that I am calling your attention. And now for another fact: Is it not a fact that a bishop of the Church of England has completely taken the bottom out of the Mosaic account of the exodus?—You allude to Colenso?
I do?—He has written a book against the Pentateuch.
And is it not an unanswerable book?—I think not: it has been answered.
By whom?—Well, by several, but notably by Dr. McAusland—a fellow-bishop.
Are you not aware that thousands of the best educated men in England consider Bishop Colenso’s arguments unanswerable?—That may be; I do not see that we need consider that.
What! Is the suffrage of intellect to go for nothing?—In the way you put it, I think it is well left out of account. There is a predisposition in the minds of most men to disbelieve in the Scriptures, whether educated or uneducated. Consequently, there is a ready response to any hostile attack that may be made. If the attack is clever and specious, and especially if it is under respectable auspices, it is readily accepted as conclusive by many who have no acquaintance with the subject itself, and who have neither the ability, nor the inclination, to detect the fallacies that may exist in the argument. The concurrence of such minds has no weight whatever in true logic.
It may not have weight with you, but it will certainly have weight with the bulk of reasonable men?—With the bulk of men, it doubtless goes for something.
But not with your superior self?—I choose to ignore it, and to go a safer way. I don’t ask what another man’s opinion is: I ask what are the facts.
And, of course, you think nobody else looks after the facts?—That is a matter not material to the question. It only cumbers the subject to entertain any concern about p. 273 the operation of other men’s minds. It is not a question of anybody’s mind; it is a question of the facts themselves. And I say, looking at the facts themselves, when all are taken into account, it is impossible to agree with Dr. Colenso. He leaves out of account the principal fact.
What is that?—The co-operation of divine guidance in all the events of the exodus.
Why, my dear sir, that is the point in question. That is the matter in debate! You are an amazing logician! You would have us admit, in the course of our argument, the very fact which our book is written to contradict and confute?—Don’t go quite so fast, Mr. Lover-of-the-present-World. There is more logic in my demur than you may just perceive.
Oh, of course, all the logic is with you. You are so modest, so charitable?—I say that if you are to correctly judge of the pretensions of any matter, you must take all the pretensions into account, and not leave one of them out, and that the most material of the whole.
You are very lucid, I must allow?—You will understand me directly, perhaps. Suppose, for example, the things done by electricity, in our own day, were to come into debate in some age or country where they were unknown as a matter of experience; in judging of their credibility, these people would make somewhat of a mistake if they were to discuss them without reference to the power of electricity that produced them.
I should rather think so! They would be queer people that could make such a mistake?—It would not be so impossible a mistake as you seem to imagine. The people in question would naturally judge by their own knowledge of what was possible, and supposing them ignorant of electrical powers, hearing of a message going a thousand miles in a minute, or of blinding light being drawn out of charcoal points without fire, and of one man speaking audibly to another at 50 miles distance,—they would be liable to conclude that such statements were mythical. With all the facts in their hands, they would measure and discuss them in the light of their own knowledge of things, and think they were coming to a very sapient conclusion p. 274 in dismissing the whole story as an invention; while, in fact, they were acting the part of presumptuous blunderheads, in discussing facts apart from the governing element in the whole case—the presence and activity of the wonderful, invisible, and inscrutable power which men have named electricity.
Very well, what has that to do with the subject?—That is the mistake that Colenso makes.
I beg your pardon?—I think you will find it is so. He discusses the Mosaic transactions in the light of what would be modern experience in a similar situation. Now, there can be no parallel; modern experience is an experience without God in it, for God is neither working nor speaking in the present age, as He spoke and wrought in the Mosaic and prophetic ages.
A suspicious admission?—By no means.
Why isn’t God speaking and working now as of old? Is there not as much need?—God is the Judge of the need, and as to the “why,” it is sufficient that, as a matter of fact, it is foretold in the prophets that, during these times, which are in Scripture styled “the times of the Gentiles,” God would not speak or work as in days of old (Micah iii. 6, 7: Amos viii. 11, 12; Deut. xxxii. 20) What I contend is, that you cannot reasonably judge of the events of the Israelitish exodus without assuming, for the sake of argument, the presence of a divine co-operation. The presence of this divine co-operation was the most conspicuous feature of the whole transaction as recorded, and as referred to over and over again throughout the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testaments.
I don’t see what you want to make out by that?—Well, for example, the Colenso argument assumes that there must, in an assembly of “600,000 men, besides women and children,” have been a percentage of infirm and sick people, amounting, in the aggregate, to a large number; and he raises the difficulty about the disposal of such a helpless band on the night when the children of Israel marched out of Egypt. Now, allowing the presence of the divine co-operation, that is no such difficulty. On the hypothesis of the narrative, the exodus was a divine performance, p. 275 for which there must have been a divine provision in matters of detail, and for which, in this very particular, we are expressly informed, there was divine provision. “He made them stronger than their enemies. . . . There was not one feeble person among their tribes” (Psa. cv. 24, 37). “Their clothes waxed not old and their feet swelled not” (Neh. ix. 21). Now am I to believe that the Israelites came out of Egypt at all, and not to believe that they were strengthened against all the difficulties that would be naturally incident to such an enterprise?
I don’t know?—I say that reason demands that I should take the whole narrative in judging of it, and not a part only. It is part of the narrative, and the most material part of it, that God was the mighty Performer of the events connected with the exodus. If you have God in view, there can be no difficulties, because divine power is equal to anything. And if you keep God out of view in judging of the narrative, then I say you are like the people who would dismiss the prodigies of electrical science as impossible, because judging of them without reference to that which explained them. This is the great flaw in Colenso’s argument throughout.
Perhaps you will write to him about it?—If God preserved the district occupied by the Israelites in Egypt from the plagues which devastated and destroyed all other parts of the dominions of Pharaoh, why should it be supposed a difficulty with Him to cope with the minor difficulties of the enterprise?
That is what I should call a Sunday-school-way of getting out of the difficulty?—There is logic in it, whatever you may call it. And, perhaps, I may remind you that it is a declaration of Christ’s, that these things have been “hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes.”
I am afraid it is a baby affair altogether?—In the spiritual sense, I do not object to that. Christ says a man must become as a little child in order to inherit the kingdom of God.
I don’t ask your information on these topics. Confine p. 276 yourself to the answering of my questions?—On the whole, I am doing so.
I had thought of putting some further questions, but I don’t see that it is of any use. You twist round and slip out of things?—I could not slip out if the knot was tight.
I don’t know: eels can get out of tight places?—I hope I rank a little higher in your estimation than an eel?
I am not so sure. A slippery fish would fairly describe you?—Well, I must allow you any satisfaction you may get out of that. I suppose you would not have called me a slippery fish if you had caught me and got me in your basket.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: My Lord, we had thought of calling other of the defendants, but, probably, their case is sufficiently represented in what has been elicited in the examination of Mr. Workfellow and Mr. Faithson.
His Lordship: You have finished the case for the defence?
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: Yes, my Lord.
His Lordship: Mr. Unbelief, have you anything to add by way of reply before the summing-up?
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: If it will suit your Lordship’s convenience, I shall have a few words to address to the Court to-morrow morning; and, probably, my colleagues may wish to follow me.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: It is an unusual course for several counsel to address the Court.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: There has been so much that is unusual in the course of this case, that I do not see that we need be afraid of a finishing innovation. It would be a convenience to me if the Counsel who assist me were allowed to address the Court on the several phases of the case to which they have severally given special attention.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: I have no particular objections, if my friend will consent to the assisting Counsel on the other side following one by one.
p. 277 Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: You mean one on each side alternately?
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: I do.
His Lordship: A kind of sandwich arrangement?
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: Yes, my Lord.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Very well; provided you allow me the last word I have no objections.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: His Lordship must have the last word.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Of course; I mean last before his Lordship.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: I believe the last word belongs of right to you.
His Lordship: You are agreed, gentlemen?
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: Yes, my Lord.
His Lordship: We meet again to-morrow.
The Court adjourned.