p. 51Mr. Shrewd Observer (Re-called)
Cross-examined by Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: Mr. Observer, you supplied the Court yesterday with some interesting information concerning the defendants, particularly with regard to Messrs. Muchlabour, Faithson, Workfellow, Hold-fast-the-hope, Helpful and Hospitable. As I understand, you have nothing to say against their characters?—I have said so.
You say you discriminate between a man and his opinions?—Quite so.
You have come to the conclusion that the opinions of these men are baseless opinions?—Yes, sir.
Suppose their opinions were to turn out true opinions, would it not somewhat alter your estimate of the course of conduct arising out of them?—No doubt it would make a difference.
If Christ is a living power in the universe, with whom the futurity of the earth is bound up, and if he has offered to men a participation in that futurity—permanent futurity—a glorious futurity—on condition of obeying his commandments, you would not think it a reprehensible or a strange thing that the defendants should try to comply with that condition?—There is, of course, but one answer to that question. I should consider such an endeavour entirely reasonable and commendable. I do not, however, see that the claims of morality, such as I assume to be involved in Christ’s commandments, require p. 52 men to isolate themselves from the world as the defendants do.
That is a separate matter: assume for the purpose of my question that the course pursued by the defendants is the very course required by the commandments of Christ; would not their conduct in that case, on the hypothesis of Christ’s existence, be the only conduct that could be expected of them?—Doubtless.
Then it is a question of the ground of their action rather than the action itself?—I cannot dissent from that proposition.
If Christ rose from the dead, you have no objections to urge against the defendants?—Ah! “if”: there is much in an “if.”
Quite so: but I am putting it in the abstract: if Christ rose——?—Well, it would make all the difference of course.
You do not think Christ rose from the dead?—I wish I could say I did.
You would join the defendants in the box?—Very likely.
How do you account for the conviction of the defendants on the point?—I do not know that I can quite account for it.
You have no doubt of the sincerity of their convictions?—None whatever. It is impossible I could doubt it in view of what I know of their characters, and in view of the manifest conflict there is between their convictions and their interests.
A man does not give up an income and accept the drawbacks of poor society, and a reduced mode of life, for something he is doubtful about?—I should think not.
Still less for something he knows to be unfounded?—Quite so.
A man does not moderate his ambitions in life and decline the occupation of pleasure, and the society of cultivated men and women for something he does not believe?—It would be very unlikely.
Would it be possible?—I could scarcely conceive it possible.
p. 53 Did you ever know a case?—I never did.
You have informed us, in answer to my friend, that the defendants, some of them at all events, have done all these things?—Yes.
You accept the fact as proof of the sincerity of their convictions?—Oh, unquestionably. I have always said they are sincere men—men whom I respect highly for their fidelity to conviction. Of course I think they are mistaken in their convictions.
Have you ever considered the reasons which induce them to entertain those convictions?—Not very particularly.
Have you given any attention to the subject at all?—Not in a critical way. Of course I have read a little on the subject.
Have you read both sides?—Yes, I think I may say I have.
But probably you have read more against, than for, the faith of Jesus Christ?—Perhaps so—though I don’t know—I have read a good deal in its favour.
Do you not think the argument in its favour is a strong one?—There is a good deal, of course, that is very pithy; but I cannot get over the unbridgable contradiction there is between our common experience and what we are asked to believe about Christ, especially the contradiction between the Bible and science.
Let us take one thing at a time: let us take what you call the unbridgable contradiction between common experience and Christ; What is the contradiction?—Well, there is so much of miracle—so much that is out of the ordinary way—walking on the water; feeding thousands with a few loaves of bread; raising dead men and such like. I cannot in my own mind reconcile such things with my own experience, and the experience of all men I have ever met. Besides, I don’t see what they have to do with religion. I believe in the moral precepts of Christ as much as any Christian, but I don’t see that they depend upon miracles at all.
Wait a moment: let us understand you. Do you say you do not believe in the miracles of Christ because you p. 54 have never seen one?—Well, that is not it exactly: they are so out of the way of ordinary experience that I cannot conceive them possible.
If they were in the way of ordinary experience, you would receive them?—I could not help receiving them, of course, in that case; but you see they are not so.
Well, but suppose they were in the ordinary experience of other men, if this could be shown, you would not urge your lack of experience against the possibility of their occurrence?—Ah! “if” again.
It is useful sometimes to deal in “ifs.” Men deal largely in “ifs” before they do business?—If you could only take the matter beyond the region of “ifs——”
I shall do so before this trial is over. Meanwhile, I put it to you in this way: Would you urge your lack of experience of miracles against the possession of the experience of miracles on the part of other men?—Of course I am bound to say I should be a fool to do such a thing.
Some men, you are aware, do this?—Yes, I am aware of it.
You admit their position is untenable?—Well, of course it is absurd for a man to insist upon seeing a thing for himself before he will believe in it. I never saw Napoleon I. but I believe there was such a man. I have never seen certain comets and stars that only appear once in centuries, but I believe in their existence.
You believe because of reliable testimony to their existence?—Quite so.
Although you have never “experienced” them?—Quite so.
Very well, it comes to this: did other men have experience of miracles?—Ay, that is the question. You will find it hard to settle.
Perhaps not so hard as you think.—I cannot help feeling that they are in a different position from the stars and comets I have spoken of. Stars and comets that I have not seen are not inconsistent with my experience, but miracles are.
How do you mean?—Well I have seen stars and comets, but I have never seen miracles.
p. 55 Do you really mean that you believe in nothing but what you have seen a specimen of?—I don’t exactly put it in that way.
Put it in any way you like: I want to see your position.—What I say is that it is in accordance with my experience that stars and comets are to be seen, and sometimes that have never been seen before. Therefore, I can easily believe the testimony of those who may have seen stars that I have not seen; but when a man tells of a miracle, he tells me of a thing that is not only not within my experience, but contrary to my experience.
In what way?—Well, it is contrary to my experience that a few loaves of bread can be divided so as to feed a multitude, or that the dead can be restored to life again, or that a man can walk on the water. If I try to walk on water, I sink, and so does every one else.
But does that go to show that what is impossible in your experience is impossible in the experience of every one else?—It establishes a strong presumption.
Does it amount to proof?—Almost.
Would you like to say altogether?—Nearly.
If so, what do you say to the electric telegraph?—I do not quite understand you.
Well, you are aware that a message can, by the electric telegraph, be sent three thousand miles along the bottom of the ocean in five minutes or so?—Yes, I am happy to be acquainted with that wonderful scientific triumph.
Are you aware that two hundred years ago such a thing was unknown?—Yes, I suppose it was unknown. Of course it was unknown.
Two hundred years ago such a thing was contrary to everyone’s experience?—It was not within experience.
But wasn’t it contrary to experience?—In what way.
Well, didn’t men send messages in those days?—I suppose so.
Could they have sent a message along the bottom of the ocean if they had tried?—If they had tried the right way.
Granted: but not knowing the right way was it not entirely contrary to their experience that such a thing could be done?—It was not according to their experience.
p. 56 Wasn’t is contrary; wasn’t it opposed to what they found to be the best and quickest way of sending a message across the ocean?—I suppose I must allow it was.
Would a man have been believed who had predicted the transmission of invisible messages through the bottom of the ocean as quick as lightning?—I suppose not.
In that case people would have disbelieved a true prophecy merely because they couldn’t see how the thing prophesied could be. Now suppose we put the matter historically, so as to be parallel with the present case. In our day, we have the telegraph, the telephone, the electric light, and other equally inscrutable marvels. Suppose that by one of those cosmic cataclysms which some scientific men tell us have happened in the past, the dry land were to be suddenly sunk in the ocean, and all vessels wrecked in the accompanying tempest, and the human race, with all their experience and all their records, were to disappear in the bottom of the sea: and suppose, at some later age, through evolution or spontaneous generation, or any other of the wonderful ways scientific men have of accounting for the existence of the human race, that the human race were to come into existence again; and suppose, while they were as ignorant of electric messages, etc., as we were two hundred years ago, some one were to exhume from the rocks documentary evidence—say a petrified pile of newspapers belonging to the old age, and which he should by diligence learn to decipher—that in that bygone age, messages were sent like a flash of lightning through the ocean from one continent to the other; my question is, would not the people of that new time be justified, on your principle, in refusing to believe in what you at this moment know to be true, because contrary to their experience?—The case is altogether so purely hypothetical that you can scarcely expect me to give an opinion upon it.
The case ought not to be inconceivable to you on scientific grounds?—It is of course not inconceivable, though entirely out of the range of probability.
Being not inconceivable, try and imagine it for a moment, and tell me if you do not think it likely that the p. 57 people of the new age would disbelieve in the wonders of the telegraph of our age merely because so entirely out of the range of their experience?—I think it is probable.
And yet the disbelief and the experience would be on the wrong side?—Unquestionably.
And the incredible history would be the truth?—It would be so.
Very well, may it not be so with miracles—that although they are not among our current experiences, they may be true, notwithstanding?—But there is no parallel. Electrical phenomena are operations of the powers of Nature: but miracles are——
Are what?—Well, as I understand, violations of Nature. What do you understand by violations of Nature?—Well, things done in opposition to the laws of Nature, outside and in defiance of the laws of Nature.
To whom are you indebted for that conception of miracle?—Well, I don’t know that I can give you chapter and verse: but I presume most people are agreed on that subject.
Do not assume such an agreement. We may find another view of miracle—that miracle is only a higher operation of the power that is incorporate in Nature?—That will be something new to me.
The electric light is new in this age of the world, but true?—True.
Well, let me see; give me a case of miracle that you think a violation of Nature?—Well, take the walking on the water; that I should think is a violation of the laws of Nature. Those laws would make a man sink in the water, and not walk.
Let us be quite sure on that point. You have, of course, heard of Captain Boyton, who makes himself as much at home on the water as on the land, walking and sitting and lying down, and taking his meals; do you consider his not sinking a violation of the laws of Nature?—By no means; it is in harmony with the laws of Nature.
How so? I thought you said the laws of nature would make a man sink in the water?—Yes, if no other law of p. 58 Nature is brought to bear. Captain Boyton wears an air-filled dress.
Very well, because Captain Boyton wears an air-filled dress, you would not describe his not sinking as a violation of the laws of Nature?—Clearly not.
But suppose you had seen Captain Boyton on the water without knowing anything about an air-filled dress, you would have thought it very strange, would you not?—Very likely I should; I should be for asking the explanation.
Quite so; very well, do you think an air-filled dress is the only thing that will enable a man to walk on the water?—I should not like to say that.
There may be some other staying power besides air confined in clothes?—There may be.
Cork for example?—Yes, cork.
And India-rubber?—Yes, India-rubber.
And other things?—Very possibly: but I do not understand you to suggest that Christ availed himself of any means of that sort.
No: but I am leading you up to a recognition of this fact that it is possible to counteract the law that makes a man in ordinary circumstances sink in the water, without violating or setting aside that law?—But in the cases you suppose, it is one law acting in place of another.
Yes: and when Christ walked on the water, it was one law acting in place of another?—I do not understand it so.
How do you understand it?—Nay, I do not profess to understand it. I cannot understand it. I know of no law which would enable a man to walk on the water without artificial appliances of the sort you have referred to.
Would you say that you know all the laws there are in the Universe?—Nay, I would not be such a fool as that.
Would you say you know all the laws that govern the sea, and the atmosphere of our earth?—You would not, of course, expect me to say such a thing.
Very well, if it be credibly testified, as I shall show it is in a great variety of ways, that Jesus walked on the water, why should you make your ignorance of the way p. 59 it was done a reason for not believing?—There is some force in your question.
Suppose there is a law by which the action of gravitation on the molecules of the human body could be regulated, so that gravitation should have a light hold or a heavy hold, according to the application of the law under the will of the operator, would it not be conceivable in that case that a person having control of such a law could as easily walk on the water, or ascend in the air, as we walk on the ground or climb a mountain?—Anything is conceivable in that way of putting it; but still, even then, it does not appear to me that the difficulty would be removed. Such a person would only be a natural operator after all—on a higher plane of knowledge it might be, than ordinary men, but still a natural operator, whereas as I understand the claim put forward on behalf of Christ, he is above Nature and outside Nature.
That is a distinction of words merely, and embodies the loose conception of those who have learnt Christ from the schools, and not from the Scriptures. What is claimed for Christ is that as the power of God incarnate, he has control of Nature. This control does not mean that he is outside Nature or above Nature, but rather that he is in Nature in the sense of being related to the inner force by which Nature subsists, and can, therefore, manipulate that force for the accomplishment of specific results. It is we who are outside Nature in so far as we are shut up within ourselves, and cannot, except by mechanical contrivance, control Nature in the least. Nature is in God, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, “In Him we live, and move, and have our being”; and again, “Of Him. and through Him, and to Him are all things.” Consequently, a man who could say as Christ said, “The Father is in me,” was a man who could counterwork gravitation without arresting it, by a counteragent more potent than air-bags, cork, India-rubber, or any created substance, viz., the primordial force of all Nature—the Spirit of God which God gave to Jesus without measure (John iii. 34).
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: My friend is delivering a lecture. He is not examining the witness.
p. 60 Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: I am elucidating the idea which I am placing before the witness.
The Witness: The idea is quite new to me.
Does it not dispose of the difficulty you alleged to be in the way of receiving the testimony concerning Christ?—It places the matter in a new light I must say.
If miracles are merely a higher form of the work we see performed every day before our eyes in Nature, would not the recognition of the fact reduce the difficulty which you experience in receiving the testimony of them?—It would doubtless have some effect in that way. But I do not see how you can apply that principle to the feeding of the multitude with a few loaves, and the raising of the dead.
Nothing easier: Jesus produced bread sufficient for the feeding of the multitude. The only difference between the bread so produced and ordinary bread was in the way it was made. When made, the one was the same as the other. Both were equal marvels when looked at rightly. The bread naturally produced was slowly manufactured from invisible elements in the light, rain, soil, etc. Because slowly conducted, the process does not strike us: but it is in itself as wonderful as any miracle. In the bread that Jesus produced, the elements were gathered and combined instantaneously, that was all the difference—a great difference truly, and one beyond the power of man, but still a difference more of mode than of essence. The mode is divine and wonderful in both cases, but in the one it is slow, and in the other quick. The quickness was necessary to show undoubtedly the presence and operation of divine power. This you will find to be the case in all miracles. By the way, you said you did not see what miracles had to do with religion?—I believe I said something of that sort.
In what way do you disconnect them?—I do not disconnect them. They are already disconnected as I apprehend. I say they do not seem to be connected. I regard them as two separate things.
Let me understand you: what do you say religion is?—According to my understanding of the matter, religion is that which has to do with the moral nature of man.
p. 61 Do you admit the Bible as the source from whence a true conception of religion is to be derived?—I believe the Bible is one of many books yielding conceptions of the subject.
But there is a great difference between the Bible and other books. If Christ rose from the dead, you would be disposed to admit the divinity of the Scriptures in the sense of his endorsement of them?—It might alter my view of the subject somewhat.
You are aware that the Bible makes an exclusive claim among all books to be divine?—I am aware of it.
And the resurrection of Christ you would regard as a proof of that claim?—It would, of course, go a long distance in that direction.
Very well, assume for a moment that Christ has risen, and that the Bible is consequently a divine book; let me now discuss with you your idea of religion. My object will be to show you that so far from religion having nothing to do with miracles, you cannot have religion without it?—If you can show that, you will show me something quite foreign to my usual thought. My usual thought is that religion is that which concerns our obligations in matters of duty, benevolence, conscience, and such like, with which I cannot see that miracle can have any connection.
Suppose we start with your definition: how are we to know our obligations in matters of duty, etc.?—I assume we ascertain these in the way we ascertain everything else: by investigation and study.
Where shall we investigate to ascertain our duty. Would you recommend the study of the stars?—Not exactly.
The rocks?—No.
Plants and animals?—You cannot be serious.
I want to know your point of view?—A man must study his own nature before he can discover his duty.
Can he discover it in that way?—I should think so.
Do you know whether, as a matter of fact, it has ever been discovered in that way?—I apprehend so.
Would you be definite, and mention illustrations?—Well, the moral philosophers of every age I should take to be illustrations.
p. 62 And every country?—Yes, and every country.
Are you aware that moral philosophers of every age and country differ one from another as to the nature and foundation of duty?—There is doubtless a little want of absolute uniformity.
Take typical men: Socrates or Aristole, among the Greeks; Confucius, of the Chinese; Zoroaster, of the Persians; Gœthe, Schiller and Paul Jean Richter, among the German mystics; Hamilton, of Scotland; Comte, the Positivist; Thomas Carlyle and Professor Tyndall. Would you say their teachings are identical?—Not exactly.
Are they anything like the same?—I must allow there is considerable differences among them.
How do you account for the differences, if duty is discoverable by subjective investigation?—They were different men of course.
Do you say duty is a different thing for different men?—I should not like to say that.
Then if duty common to all is discoverable by investigation and study, how do you account for the widely differing results of that investigation and study by different men of capacity?—I don’t know that I can quite account for it.
Now, do you include Jesus Christ and his apostles among moral philosophers?—They were either that, or, if your contention be correct, they were something much higher.
Let us take them at the lower estimate first: are you aware that they had a poor opinion of the so-called moral philosophers of the world?—I suppose so.
Perhaps you are not aware how complete their repudiation of them was?—I am not very thoroughly acquainted with the Christian writings.
Are you aware that Paul calls the wisdom of this world, “foolishness with God”?—I have some recollection of that sort.
And that any man passing current for a man of wisdom according to the world’s standard had to become a fool in order that he might be truly wise?—Yes.
Do you know that Jesus Christ thanked God that he p. 63 had “hid these things from the wise and prudent, and had revealed them unto babes”?—I do not specifically remember those words but I have no doubt he said something of that sort.
Do you know that he said that the world had not known God (John xvii. 25)—I suppose he did.
Do you know that Paul declared that “Christ was the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. i. 24); and that, “in him were hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. ii. 3)?—I have no recollection of the words.
Do you know that he spoke desparagingly of philosophy as a vain and mistaken thing, and said that God had made foolish the wisdom of this world (Col. ii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 21)?—I will admit generally that Bible writers had a great contempt for the learning of other nations.
Well, here is the point: if duty is discoverable “by investigation and study,” and all the investigators are at loggerheads one with another, does it not show that many of them must be mistaken?—That would seem a fair inference.
And that the Jewish investigators, as you regard them, have just as much chance to be right as the rest?—As much chance—Yes—perhaps.
Are you aware that the Jewish investigators, as you consider them, have repudiated the authorship of the views they have put forth?—I do not understand you.
Are you aware that they claim revelation for what they advanced?—I do not know that they do so particularly.
They do so particularly.—Oh! I should like to be informed.
Paul says (1 Cor. ii. 8, 11), speaking of the wisdom of God, “which none of the princes of this world knew. . . As it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But GOD HATH REVEALED THEM UNTO US BY HIS SPIRIT. . . The things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God.”—That looks a little like what you say.
Still more specifically in Gal. i. 11, “I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not p. 64 after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but BY THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST.”—Yes, that is pretty strong.
And again, “If any man among you think himself to be spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD” (1 Cor. xiv. 3, 7).—Yes.
And Peter says (2 Pet. i. 21) that what the prophets wrote “came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”—I suppose I must admit that divine inspiration is claimed for the Scriptures.
Very well, now, suppose they were right (and you have admitted they have as much chance of being right as Aristole, Zoroaster, Comte and Co.) does it not follow that revelation, and not investigation and study, furnishes the standard of right, duty, etc.?—Ah, if they were right.
I am putting it in that way.—To put it in that way is one thing: to prove it is another.
I will prove it if I prove the resurrection of Christ.—Another “if” you see.
The “ifs” are useful. They are the rounds of the ladder by which we shall climb to the top of the rock.—I shall be glad to see you perform the feat.
We have got so far, viz., that if the Jewish moral philosophers, as you call them, were right (which they are if Christ rose from the dead), then it is to revelation, and not to investigation that we are to look for information on questions of duty.—Very well, suppose I grant it.
Then my question is, how can you have religion (according even to your definition of religion) without miracle? Is not revelation a miracle?—Oh, I see where you are.
Well, what have you to say?—There are so many “ifs” is your questions that I don’t exactly know what to say. Of course, if religion is a matter of miracle, then you can not have it without miracle, that is clear enough. All I can say is, it is contrary to all the ordinary established notions on the subject.
Never mind that: you admit the logic of my train of p. 65 reasoning?—It is logical enough; but logic is worth little without demonstrated premises.
We shall demonstrate them by and bye. One step at a time. And now let me take you one step further. I have hitherto argued on your own hypothesis as to the nature of religion. Let me now invite your attention to the fact that it is not a true hypothesis?—You surprise me by the novelty of your suggestions.
They may appear novel: they are not at all so, in fact, as you will presently begin to perceive.—They are new to me.
Perhaps so, but they may be true?—Perhaps.
You defined religion to be that which concerned the moral nature of man, or something of that sort. Do you not think the term “religion” of itself goes deeper than that?—In what way?
I mean the etymology of the word: does it not suggest a deeper meaning?—I do not at present catch your idea.
Well, you probably know that the word religion comes from a Latin root signifying to bind?—Yes, ligare, to bind: hence ligature, a sinew or binding.
Quite so: well, if in ligion we have a binding, what have we in re-ligion? You know the force of “re”?—Yes: “again.”
Would not religion mean a binding again?—Evidently.
That being so, does not the word suggest a binding or healing over of that which has been ruptured?—That is the etymological significance of the word.
I have now to ask in what way your conception of religion would answer to that derivation?—There you place me in a dilemma. I never thought of that bearing of the matter.
The moral philosophers of the world do not recognize that God and man have ever been sundered?—I believe not.
They assume that man has progressed from a low to a higher state?—Quite so.
They hold and teach the universal “Fatherhood of God”?—Most of them, a doctrine I must say which has a great charm for me.
p. 66 But a doctrine that cannot yield the idea of re-ligion, as a binding together again?—I don’t know: perhaps a return to right ways would contain the idea.
But there are multitudes of persons that never have been in right ways, and therefore, cannot return though they may come to them?—It would not apply individually in those cases, though we might take it generally.
You are aware that the Scriptures supply the elements of a perfect conception on the point?—I suppose they do.
They teach that in the start, our race was in friendship with God; but that, through the disobedience of Adam, separation and alienation and death ensued?—Yes, I believe that is the idea, an idea which I have been unable to receive.
And that religion is the institution which God has appointed for a restoration to friendship in the cases of those submitting to it, and, therefore, a binding together of God and man?—Yes, that fits in very well.
Very well now, supposing the Bible conception is the true conception for the various reasons I have already hinted at, tell me how you can maintain that religion has nothing to do with miracle?—Oh! I see you come back to that point again.
I do. If religion is a divine institution for the reconciliation of man with God, is it not apparent that the very first step towards the establishment of such an institution must be communication or revelation from God defining and declaring it?—In the way you put it, it must be so of course.
Would not such revelation be miracle?—Doubtless.
Does it not, therefore, follow that miracle is involved in the very idea of religion?—I appreciate your argument so far: but I do not see what walking on the sea, and feeding of multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, and other such like things, have to do with communicating a system of religion or reconciliation.
That is easy to be seen if you admit that proof would be necessary to show that the system introduced to notice was in reality God’s own system?—I should say the introducing would be proof of itself
p. 67 How so? Take the preaching of the apostles; how were men to know that what they preached was divine? The apostles might know: but how were the multitudes to know?—I see the point.
The New Testament account is that the miracles were wrought as God’s attestation of the word preached: God’s confirmation of the divine character claimed for it (Mark xvi. 20; Heb. ii. 4). If this were their character, were they not an essential part of the process of the establishment of religion?—I cannot deny the cogency of your questions. If I grant your premises, I am bound to admit that my idea of religion and miracle being unconnected, was somewhat superficial.
You will find the case on this point grow stronger as it is investigated. I will just throw out a hint which you can follow out or not as you please. The religion of Christ comes before us in the preaching of the gospel. Men are asked to honour God in the belief of the gospel. The gospel consists of the declaration of God’s beneficent intentions towards the human race. It is called gospel because the disclosure of those intentions, is good news, which is the meaning of the term gospel. Now, if this be so—if true religion consists of the gospel, and the gospel is the revelation of God’s good purposes—how can there be such a thing as religion without revelation?—I again say that if your premises are granted, your case is strong.
I shall establish the premises before I have done. We will now take another point. You spoke of the incompatibility between science and the Bible as a reason for your want of faith in the platform of the defendants?—Yes.
Are you quite sure of this incompatibility?—I think so.
Where does it lie?—Well, I need nothing more than the Bible history of the creation of the world. It teaches that the world began 6,000 years ago, whereas science has brought to light undoubted evidence that the earth has been in existence for an incalculable period.
Are you sure the Bible teaches that the world began 6,000 years ago?—I think so: “In six days God created p. 68 heaven and earth;” so Moses says. I presume that statement applies to 6,000 years or so.
Doubtless the statement applies to about 6.000 years ago; but the question is, what does the statement mean?—There does not appear to be much doubt about its meaning.
What do you understand it to mean?—Why, that previous to 6,000 years ago, the earth had no existence.
If that be the Bible meaning, of course the Bible generally would agree with that meaning?—I apprehend it does.
Let us see: before the work of what is called creation began, we are told (Gen. i. 2) “The earth was without form (or order) and void (or empty of life), and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Does not this show the earth in existence?—I do not exactly know what to say to that.
Of course it shows the earth in existence; for how could the earth be empty if there was no earth to be empty: and how could there be darkness on the face of the deep if there was no deep?—I admit the force of that. I had not thought of it.
In Job, there is a recognition of this pre-Adamic state, where God asks Job where he was “when I made the cloud the garment of the sea, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it?” (Job xxxviii. 9). Now, if the earth existed chaotically at the epoch of the Mosaic creation, where is the contradiction between the Bible and science?—It does not appear to me you can get over it so lightly as that. There is the word “create”—that heaven and earth were “created” six thousand years ago.
How does that bear on the point?—Well. create, as I take it, means to make out of nothing.
That is the conventional meaning, but if you will look into it, you will find it is not the Bible meaning?—All I know is, what you call the conventional meaning.
But in the trial of an immense issue like this, it is unsafe to trust to a conventional meaning?—What other meaning is there?
Well, it comes out in the statement that “God made p. 69 man of the dust of the ground”: here the word made is the same in the Hebrew as the word create—BARA. If BARA means to make out of nothing, it is a contradiction to say Adam was BARA-ed out of the dust?—There is some force in that.
There are several instances of the same thing in the course of the Scriptures. The radical significance of the word is to arrange or put in order. With such a meaning in view, there is nothing in the Mosaic narrative inconsistent with the scientific view. The earth may have been re-arranged six thousand years ago for aught that science can show to the contrary?—But that is not the whole difficulty.
What is there besides?—Well, there are the fossil remains of extinct animals that must, from their position in the strata, have existed ages before 6,000 years ago.
How does that constitute a difficulty?—According to the Bible the animals were made 6,000 years ago.
Doubtless the animals that were made 6,000 years ago were made 6,000 years ago, but in what way is that inconsistent with the fact of there having been animals on the earth previously to that?—The Mosaic account says the earth was void at that time, or empty as you have expressed it. If it was empty, I presume it would be empty of animals as well as everything else.
True, at that time, it would be; but my question relates to time previous to that?—What time?
Any time—say ten thousand years if you like. May there not have been animals on the earth ten thousand years prior to the Adamic era, although the moment before the arrival of that era there were none?—I am afraid that is a speculation to suit the facts.
It cannot be a speculation in view of the fossil proof to which you have referred, of the existence of such animals. The animals found in the fossil state do not exist now. Consequently there must have been a break. If there has been a break, there must have been something to be broken—that is, a line of previous animal existence.—Yes, but you see you are indebted to science for a knowledge of that previous existence.
p. 70 That may be: but why am I to refuse the knowledge the Bible does give me because of what it does not give me?—I do not quite understand you there.
Well, you are objecting to the Bible account of the start made 6,000 years ago, because it does not give us an account of what was before that start was made?—I apprehend it does not in any way recognize what science has shown existed before then.
It leaves room for it. It shows us the earth submerged in water and enveloped in darkness at the crisis of the Adamic “BARA”-ing, or re-ordering, commonly called creation. It does not tell us how long it had been in that state. That it must have been, at one time, in that state, every stone and stratum and fossil shows. Consequently, instead of contradiction between the Bible and science on this point, there is agreement. The Bible taught it before science had discovered it.—I am afraid that is a piece of special pleading.
Do you consider the endeavour to reconcile two demonstrated truths special pleading?—I do not see the two demonstrated truths in the case. Scientific truth is demonstrated.
I grant that, to a certain extent: but this trial will show the resurrection of Christ, and, therefore, the truth of the Bible, is demonstrated truth also. You are standing up for one demonstrated truth against another; is it not wiser to accept both?—A plausible proposal certainly.
You have no objections to it?—I am prepared, of course, to accept all demonstrated truth.
Very well, why do you bring forward the pre-Adamic fossils to discredit the Mosaic narrative which does not exclude them?—It does not mention them?
It does not contradict them?—It would have been more satisfactory if it had taught them.
What should you say to a man objecting to a school book on English history because it does not go back to the Egyptian dynasties?—That is not my position in this case.
I am afraid it is pretty much like it. The Bible professes only to give us an account of things from the Adamic beginning: and you are objecting to this account p. 71 because it does not go back further and portray the cosmic revolutions, and the natural history of the earth in the prior ages?—It never occurred to me to think of it in that light.
Perhaps you will think it over, and join the defendants after all?—I am afraid not. You have only skimmed the difficulty. It is not only the animals: it is man himself. The Bible teaches man’s appearance upon the scene 6,000 years ago, whereas, according to the latest researches of Science, man must have been upon the globe for 50,000 years at least.
We are ready for that difficulty also?—You have a wonderful facility for getting over the difficulties. I prefer accepting them, and not getting over them.
Nay, nay, Mr. Observer, do not say so. You are not unacquainted with the practice of getting over difficulties in science. There are some strange chasms and contradictions in science, you know?—I think not, sir.
Are you aware that the ascertained velocity of sound is 174 feet per second greater than it ought to be according to the calculation of Sir Isaac Newton, accepted by all scientists?—I suppose that is the case: but it is susceptible of explanation.
Still you must admit it is a difficulty and a contradiction, that the acertained rate at which sound travels should be 174 feet per second quicker than it ought to be according to the theory of the transmission of sound by air-vibration, entertained by most scientific men?—It was a difficulty until its explanation was found out.
Has its explanation been found out?—I think so.
Are you not aware that what has taken place has been simply this, that a theory has been invented to account for it?—It is a theory that agrees with the facts.
Is it a demonstrate theory?—It is not capable of demonstration.
The theory is that heat is generated by the transmission of sound, and so accelerates its speed?—I believe the explanation is something to that effect.
Isn’t it a mere getting over of a difficulty?—I apprehend it is more than that.
p. 72 Are you not aware that a scientific man in America has exploded the usually received scientific theory of sound altogether?—He has tried to do so.
Hasn’t he succeeded?—I think not.
Have you answered him?—I am not capable.
Has anybody else answered him?—He will no doubt be answered in due time.
I advise you to read his book, and you may think differently on that point. It is an affair of experiment and calculation—facts and figures—by which he exposes the utter absurdity of the theory of the generation of heat by the transmission of sound. However, I am digressing. I introduced this merely to show you that scientific men are not unaccustomed to the process of getting over difficulties, of which you seem to think so little in the case of the Scriptures. I might cite other instances, but this must suffice for the present. I go back now to the human-race-fifty-thousand-years-upon-the-earth difficulty. I said we were prepared for that?—So you did, to my surprise.
In the first place, are you prepared to maintain that the theory of human remains so ancient is established beyond a doubt?—I take it so. Of course, I am not a scientist myself. I am merely a general reader.
In your general reading you may have come across the discovery that some of the facts upon which the theory of the antiquity of the human species is founded, have turned out to have another meaning?—I cannot summon memory on the point.
You may have heard of bricks being found at a great depth in the delta of the Nile?—Yes.
And, of course, you have seen the argument that these bricks must be 50,000 years old, because it is supposed it would take that time for such a thickness of the river deposit to be formed over them?—Yes; the argument strikes me as a forcible one.
Have you heard that is has now been found that there was an excavation once, at the spot where the bricks were found, I think in the reign of one of the Ptolemies, who tried to connect the Nile with the Red Sea, by a canal or something of the sort, and that the bricks found their p. 73 way to the bottom of the excavation only 2,200 years ago, and the excavation being abandoned, was of course soon covered up?—Now that you mention it, I think I have heard of something of the sort. It had escaped my memory.
Is not that a case justifying my remark about facts turning out to have a different meaning?—It justifies it in that case, but I apprehend there are many facts which cannot so be disposed of.
Perhaps not yet: but if one fact has melted away, may not others by-and-bye? And does it not show that it is unwise to rely on the fallible deductions of human reason as against a book proved divine in so many ways?—There are some deductions about which there can be no mistake.
Granted: but if your application of them brings you into collision with truth in some other direction, does it not suggest caution and even suspicion in the reception of them? Does it not suggest the wisdom of waiting for another explanation?—If there is a real collision with truth.
That is my point: if the Bible is shown to be true (as we shall show it is), there must be some mistake in the applications of science that would reduce it to a lie?—We don’t say it is a lie exactly.
You would not use that word perhaps, but that is what it comes to?—Undoubtedly, the reliability of the Bible cannot be maintained, if some of the scientific views of the present day are correct.
Are you aware that scientific views, on almost all subjects, are constantly changing hue, so much so that a man who drops scientific reading for ten years, is out of the running?—Doubtless, there is much progress.
Ah, but I don’t mean progress: I mean change—a going from one theory to another, and sometimes going back to an old theory?—I must, of course, allow that there is little fixity in scientific theory—not so much as stable men would prefer; but that is inevitable from the recent origin of true science. Nature is so vast and subtle, and human faculty so superficial, that change is inseparable from the progress of scientific knowledge.
p. 74 Very well, my question is: ought not that fact to make a wise man pause much and long before he throws the Bible overboard at the bidding of a scientific theory that may turn out to be wrong?—There is some force in that: at the same time, we cannot shut our eyes to facts. Facts make their own impression, whether we will or no. It seems to me there are facts that cannot be explained, except by a much greater antiquity to the human race than the Bible teaches.
Very well, we will take the matter in that way. I was coming to that. We will admit, for the sake of argument, that a great antiquity must be conceded to the remains (apparently human) found at various depths on the earth’s surface. I am now going to call your attention to the fact, that even in that case, scientific truth, if it be truth, is not inconsistent with the Bible account?—I shall be surprised if you can show that.
In the first place, let me ask in what way, according to your conception of the matter, does science conflict with the Bible on this point?—The Bible teaches that the human species were placed upon earth about 6,000 years ago, and science says 50,000 years at least. That strikes me as a considerable conflict.
It looks like it; but suppose we admit both the 50,000 years’ and the 6,000 years’ appearance of man, where would the conflict be then?—But you cannot do that.
Let us see. First, with regard to the race of Adam, there can be no doubt that the Bible teaches that it appeared upon the earth about 6,000 years ago; and I think you will be compelled to allow that that is in harmony with mathematical science, at all events?—In what way?
Have you ever realized the simple fact that the population of the earth is on the increase?—I should think it requires no great profundity to recognize that rather notorious fact. The newspapers make us aware of that from day to day.
Quite so. Very well, if there is a process of increase, it is simply a matter of calculation to ascertain how long ago it is since the process began?—Oh, I see your idea.
Invert the ratio of the increase in the earth’s population, p. 75 and will it not follow that we shall get back more or less approximately to the starting point?—It would be rather a difficult calculation.
Granted. It could not be carried out accurately; but you must allow we should get at rough results more or less reliable?—They would be rather rough.
With regard to England and some other countries, they would not be so rough. We have accurate census returns to go by?—Ay, but they don’t go far back.
They go far enough back to give us an average rule to work by. For example, the population of Great Britain has doubled in less than a hundred years?—Yes, but you cannot make Great Britain a rule for all the world. There have been special circumstances favourable to increase in Britain. The increase is not all what would be called natural increase.
True, but allowing for that, do you know how far back, on mathematical principles, you could carry the population of Great Britain?—I have never thought of working out such a problem.
Should you be surprised to be informed that you could not carry it back much further than the commencement of the Christian era?—Yes, I should be rather surprised.
Should you be prepared to controvert the fact?—No, not without looking into it.
Should you be inclined to go into it?—Not particularly. You may take it as the fact that at the rate of increase now going on before our eyes in the population of the British Isles, calculating the process backwards, you could not carry it back more than 2,000 years, after allowing for the ravages of disease and war?—It would be rather an abstruse calculation.
Not so abstruse as it looks. Take it thus. If the population has doubled in a hundred years, and the population in 1881 be 40,000,000, putting it roughly, then in 1781 it would be 20,000,000, in 1681, 10,000,000, and so on?—But then the rate of increase was not so rapid in ancient times.
I am allowing for that. If we didn’t allow for that we should find there would be no population at all in the p. 76 early centuries of the Christian era?—It is rather curious. I never thought about it.
I have spoken about Great Britain for the sake of example, but the same thing holds good as to other countries, with this exception, that other countries have been more exposed to destruction of life by war, and tempest, and pestilence, and consequently the population of the present hour cannot be taken as representing the full increase. Making allowance for this, it is a matter of simple calculation to find out how long ago the present process of increase began; and I say that on that simple principle, you cannot carry back the human race to an antiquity of even 6,000 years?—Then, the calculation must be wrong, even according to the Bible, for the Bible requires it to have begun 6,000 years.
That is a mistake—Is it?
The Bible tells us of the flood which swept away the human race between 1,000 and 2,000 years after Adam’s day?—Oh yes: I had forgot.
That would make a new start in the work of increase?—Yes, I see.
The point is this, that taking the population of the earth at 1,400,000,000 (which is the accepted estimate at the present hour), and noting the rate of increase going on, and working the process backward, after making allowances for all decimations of the species by war, pestilence, and disaster, you cannot carry the existence of the human species further back than the Bible puts it?—I never saw the matter put in that way.
That is what I mean by the Bible account being in harmony with mathematical science on the subject of human antiquity?—I see the point.
And now have you ever considered what the population of the world must have been at the present moment, if the speculation of the scientists be true, that man has been upon the earth for, say even 50,000 years?—I confess I never thought about that.
It could be worked out?—I suppose it could.
Would you like to do it?—It would scarcely be in my line.
p. 77 Would you like to have it done for you?—I should be curious to know the result.
I have gone through it?—I have no doubt you have got a big figure.
What do you think?—I have no idea.
If we have got 1,400,000,000 in 4,500 years, more or less, how many ought we to have in 50,000 years?—But I don’t think that is putting it fairly.
Why not?—Because it is not to be supposed the human race would increase so steadily or so rapidly in its earliest stages (supposing, that is, it has been on the earth all that time), as it does in our own time.
What rate of increase would you claim for the early epochs of human generation?—Oh, I don’t know.
If the human race doubles itself in a hundred years (and, mind you, that is lower than the actual present rate), should you say 200 years would be too much to reckon for doubling in the early times?—Really, I cannot tell.
Think! 200 years would be plenty of time to give to two persons to become four?—Well, yes, it would seem so.
If they did not increase at that rate, they must soon have ceased to exist, must they not, if they only lived an average of 70, like ourselves?—Well, I suppose you must be right. They must, of course, have doubled themselves in 200 years.
Very well, now, in my working out, I anticipated this very objection, about the early rate of increase not being so great as the present rate, and I gave modern ideas of antiquity the fairest of fair play. I allowed it a far wider margin than it could claim on any possibly reasonable hypothesis. I allowed 500 years for the race doubling itself at any time during the last 50,000 years?—You allowed them a wide berth certainly.
And now, working it out in that way—supposing the human race has only doubled itself once every 500 years, and that it has been on the earth for 50,000 years, what ought the present population to be?—I cannot guess.
2,535,301,200,456,458,802,993,406,410,752?—You amaze me. I cannot follow these figures.
I have a difficulty in naming them myself. They represent p. 78 Two QUINTILLIONS, five hundred and thirty-five thousand, three hundred and one QUADRILLIONS, two hundred thousand, four hundred and fifty-six TRILLIONS, four hundred and fifty-eight thousand, eight hundred and two BILLIONS, nine hundred and ninety-three thousand, four hundred and six MILLIONS, four hundred and ten thousand, seven hundred and fifty-two. That is the arithmetical result of an increase of the population of the earth at the rate of twice in every 500 years for 50,000 years. Instead of fourteen hundred millions—the present estimated population of the earth—it is countless myriads of billions!—I should think there must be some mistake. It does not seem to me possible that doubling the population once in 500 years could come to such an amazing total.
There is no mistake about it. It is the simplest calculation in the world. You start with 2, of course. In 500 years they become 4; in another 500 years these become 8; and in another 500 these become 16; and so on, doubling your total every 500 of the 50,000. When you get to the end of the process, you find the regiment of figures I have given you?—I must say I am astonished.
Now upon that I have to ask whether the state of facts upon earth is not more in harmony with the Bible account of the beginning of man 6,000 years ago, than with the scientific speculation—(for it is a mere guess as yet) that man was on the earth at least 50,000 years ago?—I see your drift. I must, of course, admit that there is considerable force in that presentation of the matter. I have never thought of it in that way before. But I understood you to say that the 50,000 years’ way of it was right as well as the 6,000 years’ version? You puzzled me there, I confess.
I did not exactly say the 50,000 idea was right; what I said, or intended to say, was, that supposing it could be shown that man was upon the earth 50,000 years ago. it would not interfere with the truthfulness of the Bible account, which is in harmony with the amount of population upon the face of the earth at the present time?—But if man was upon the face of the earth 50.000 years ago, what about the astounding total you have worked out?
p. 79 Well, it would come to this, as there is no such astounding total upon the earth at the present time, but the merest infinitesimal fragment of it; if man was upon the earth 50,000 years ago, there must have occurred some break in the process of generation—some destruction of the species—some catastrophe like the flood without an ark and a Noah in it with his family—some prolonged suspension of human existence upon earth—some wide, dark interval of chaos?—How could you make that agree with the Bible?
Most easily; the Bible requires, yea, necessitates, some such idea. We have already seen that Genesis teaches the pre-Adamic existence of the earth for indefinite ages. You may find also that there are hints of a pre-Adamic race?—That is news to me.
Perhaps so, but it may be true, for all that?—Of course. I do not say I know all truth.
You have not been a student of the Bible, I think you said?—Not exactly.
You will be the less diffident, therefore as to the question of what it does, or does not, teach?—I have a general knowledge of what it teaches.
Have you observed what was said to Noah after the earth had been cleared of its pre-Noahic population by the flood: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen. ix. 1)?—Yes, I have observed it.
What do you think was meant by telling Noah to “replenish” the earth?—To fill the earth, I suppose.
Wouldn’t it mean, fill again?—As a matter of fact, that would be the meaning in Noah’s case.
Have you noticed that the same command was addressed to Adam: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Gen. i. 28)?—I am aware of these words; I had not thought of them particularly.
If “replenish” meant “fill again” in the case of Noah, what objection to its meaning the same in the case of Adam?—I see your suggestion.
Does it not point to there having been a previous occupancy of the earth, terminated in some way not made known?—But the Hebrew word mullaoo does not mean “fill again”; it simply means “fill.”
p. 80 Its Hebraic use determines its meaning as a Hebrew term. It may not etymologically contain the idea of repetition, but its use in the case of Noah shows it may be used conventionally to express that idea?—Your argument is rather weak for once, Mr. Alltruth.
It is at all events favoured by the translators in their using re-plenish to express the idea of the Hebrew verb?—There is something in that, though I don’t know: even replenish, I am told, in the days of King James, did not have the idea of “fill again,” but simply “to fill.”
I do not rest my argument wholly on the verb translated “replenish.” I am but paving the way for other allusions in the Scriptures, which somewhat more specifically favour the idea of a pre-Adamic habitation of the earth?—I should like to see them.
They are not numerous, and they are not very explicit, but they bear sufficiently in that direction to show that anything that true science might demonstrate on the point, has a possible place in the Bible?—“A possible place:” you don’t put it strongly.
I am putting it just as strongly as the facts admit?—Well, that is all an honest man could wish.
The first allusion is by Peter, who, in enumerating illustrations of judgment on rebels, before mentioning the flood, says, “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (tartaroo, the bowels of the earth), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” (2 Peter i. 4). There is a similar allusion by Jude (verse 6), who states the nature of the sin of the angels: “They kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.” Paul also alludes to the same matter, in asking concerning the future dignity of the saints: “Know ye not that we shall judge angels?” (1 Cor. vi. 3).—But that refers to “angels.” I understood you to speak of “man.” The geologic remains are human remains.
Quite so; but men are only “a little lower than the angels” (Heb. ii. 7) and made in their image; and, therefore, supposing the pre-Adamite inhabitants of the earth were “the angels” spoken of by Peter, Jude and Paul, their remains, if found, would be human remains to all appearance?—Extraordinary suggestion, I must say,
p. 81 It may appear so to you; but it is at least in harmony with the evidence in the case. And it is not so extraordinary as the idea that man should have been on the earth for 50,000 years without even multiplying at even so low a rate of twice in every 500 years, and without being able to carry his history back more than 4,000 years?—There are difficulties, of course, on both sides.
I do not admit the difficulties on the Scriptural side. The Scriptural side exactly suits the scientific supposition that there was a human habitation of the earth ages ago; and it accounts for the interruption of that habitation, which science does not. It shows us a divine interference with the inhabitants, after the manner of the flood, and a new start 6,000 years ago, which harmonizes with the state of history and the extent of the earth’s population. Science is obliged to assume a continuous habitation for 50,000 years, at the least, and is, therefore, face to face with the inexplicable fact that while an increase for that period at the paltry rate of twice in 500 years would give a population of billions of billions—which the earth would not hold,—the actual population is only fourteen hundred millions. I say the difficulties are all on the side of science?—You put it strongly.
Not more strongly than the facts warrant?—I do not suppose you think so.
Of course, when I speak of all the difficulties being on the side of science, I mean false scientific theories—science falsely so-called. True science will never conflict with truth in any department. Science of the other sort creates difficulties. The notion of human generation commencing 50,000 years ago, and never stopping, and having now only produced a population of fourteen hundred millions, is an illustration?—You seem disposed to make the most of that.
I make a good deal of it. It is a downright confutation of the most pretentious and widely received scientific speculation of the day. It cannot be answered in any way. It is astonishing how glibly men will launch an impossible notion, and how easily it is taken up and sent round with the most sublime assurance, when a moment p. 82 or two’s arithmetical reflection is all that is necessary to expose the astonishing imposture. It reminds me of an objection to resurrection which used to pass round unchallenged, till a pinch of mathematics acted like dynamite and blew the preposterous notion into the air?—What was it?
It used to be said, even on the Bible hypothesis, resurrection was an impossibility, because the dead were so numerous that, if raised, there would not be standing room for them in the entire globe—that they would have to stand upon one another’s heads in several tiers?—I have heard the objection. How has it been disposed of?
Disposed of? Why, it has been shown to be an impertinent imposture of the highest dimensions?—Strong language.
Not a bit stronger than the case calls for. It has been shown that all the men that have ever lived since the days of Adam to the present day could find standing room in Ireland alone?—Ireland?
Yes, Ireland!—I should have thought is impossible. It is a very simple calculation. In the first place, ascertain the number of square miles there are in Ireland. Then find how many men will stand in a line a mile long. Multiply this number by itself, and you get the number of men that will stand on a square mile. Multiply this total by the number of square miles there are in Ireland, and you have the number of men Ireland will hold standing together. Now, find the number of people that have lived since the days of Adam. Work it out in the most liberal manner; give to every generation since Adam the number now living, 1,400,000,000, more or less; reckon four generations to a century, and sixty centuries as the time since Adam, and you will find your figures come pretty close to Ireland’s standing capacity?—You are quite expert in the manipulation of figures.
There is no great expertness needed for these simple calculations. They effectually dispose of the no-room-for-the-dead objection. But the objection is further and most seriously reduced by the doctrine taught in the Bible that only a small proportion of the human race, viz., the responsible part of them, will rise from the dead.
p. 83 Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: My lord, I rise to order. We are getting into theological disquisitions, and all sorts of irregularities. We have had enough of this sort of thing; my friend has been wandering entirely beyond Counsel’s licence for quite a considerable time back. I have not stopped him, hoping we should soon get to the end of it, but, really, I must now protest. We are listening to a series of lectures on all kinds of imaginable topics. If my friend will confine himself to the cross-examination of the witness, I can have nothing to say, however dreary the performance may be: but if we are to be treated to lectures on fanciful mathematics, and theological dogma in general, I must appeal to your Lordship. My friend’s duty is to keep himself within the purview of the examination-in-chief, instead of which he has introduced no end of new matter, which, if we are to follow up, will extend this trial beyond the duration of our lifetimes. The question is, are the doctrines of the defendants hurtful to society? The witness has deposed to a variety of unmistakable illustrations on this point. So long as my friend endeavoured to shake the witness’s evidence by eliciting admissions personally favourable to the defendants, he was in order, but when he treats us to a farago of irrelevant calculations and scientific mystifications, prying into the witness’s private opinions, and all that sort of thing, I submit we are entitled to the protection of the Court.
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: If my friend had only been patient for a minute or two, he might have spared us this uncalled-for interruption. However, I will relieve him from further endurance. I had a question or two more to put to Mr. Observer, but I will waive them. I can get answers from the other witnesses. I cannot admit, however, my Lord, that my questions have either been irrelevant or mystifying.
His Lordship: They have certainly been lucid enough.
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: And I humbly submit, my Lord, they have been to the point.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: They have been to a point, but not to the point. The point is, are the defendants p. 84 hurting themselves and society, or not, by their doctrines? What has the arithmetical labyrinth our friend has dragged the witness through to do with that question?
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: It has to do with the question whether the defendants are justified in their course or not. His Lordship distinctly indicated at the opening of the case that the question of justification was within the purview of the enquiry now before the Court, and my friend undertook to address himself to that part of the case.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: His lordship hinted that I might call witnesses to rebut the idea of Christ’s resurrection: but what has geology or population or impossible theories of impossible miracles to do with that?
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: I am afraid my friend’s logical penetration is somewhat at fault, or he would see that the matters he sneers at have a most material bearing on the question. I apprehend that he feels this himself, and is growing impatient at the process by which his own witness’s evidence is being sifted away.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I protest against my friend’s insulting observations. I am not objecting to any legitimate process of cross-examination, but for Counsel to trail a witness all over the world, and up and down the ages of antiquity in the manner of my friend’s questions, I say it is mystifying the witness, and wasting the time of the Court.
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: I am perfectly satisfied with the answers I have elicited from the witness. I had a further question or two, but I have no desire to inflict further torture on my friend. He may proceed with his re-examination.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I have no further questions to put to this witness. Our friend has so mystified us all, we scarcely know where we are.
His Lordship: You call your next witness.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I had several other witnesses to speak to the demoralizing effect of the doctrines of the defendants; but in view of my friend’s tactics, I think I will serve the interests of my clients best in not p. 85 calling them. They would only strengthen the evidence already given
His Lordship: They would introduce no new element?
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: No, my Lord. They would confirm the statements of Mr. Town Gossip, and Mr. Shrewd Observer, as to the disastrous effects of the Christman doctrine wherever it is received, but, as I understand, they would speak to no new facts. And if I were to put them into the box, I should only expose them to my friend’s embarrassing and impertinent Jesuitries.
The Clerk of the Court: Scarcely Parliamentary.
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: I don’t mind. It relieves my friend’s mind, who is evidently distressed.
His Lordship: What course do you propose?
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I propose, my Lord, to act on your Lordship’s suggestion, and to call a couple of witnesses who will most effectually prove the legendary character of the central dogma of the defendants’ system of faith—the resurrection of Christ.
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: We court the issue, my Lord.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Oh, of course. Some men are prepared to prove black white any day.
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: I am afraid that is what the plaintiffs are trying to do in this case.
His Lordship: You do not call your witnesses now?
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I am prepared to call them now, but perhaps your Lordship would prefer to take them after lunch?
His Lordship: Yes.
The Court adjourned for lunch.