p. 86On the re-assembling of the Court,
His Lordship: I understand the plaintiffs have completed their case so far as the hurtfulness of the defendants’ doctrine is concerned, and you now call witnesses to show its untruthfulness
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Yes, my Lord; and I feel it to be a little awkward to have to attempt to prove a negative; but your Lordship expressed a wish that I should make the attempt.
His Lordship: It will certainly strengthen your case against the defendants if you can show that the doctrine they promulgate is not only a hurtful doctrine, but a false doctrine as well.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I apprehend, my Lord, it is essential that the falsity should be made out before the case for the plaintiffs can stand; because if a doctrine be a true doctrine, its hurtfulness cannot be a reason for stopping it. Its hurtfulness in such a case would only be seeming. It would be a hurtfulness in limited relations, like the hurtfulness of an amputation.
His Lordship: I think it is necessary the falsity should be made out.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Very well, my Lord. It is an unusual course; but I bow to your Lordship’s decision. I call
p. 87Mr. Bad Laugh
(Mr. Bad Laugh objects to be sworn).
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: It is immaterial. I do not think it would add to the value of this man’s evidence in any way to have him put upon oath.
Witness: You keep your indecent tongue to yourself.
The Clerk: Order, order.
Witness: I shall not be insulted by any man. I know my constitutional rights, and I shall stand up for them if I have to do it over the bodies of every man in this honourable Court.
His Lordship: Order, witness. If you do not behave with proper decorum, I shall commit you for contempt of Court.
Witness: I shall behave with proper decorum, but I shall not put up with insult.
The Clerk: No one wants to insult you.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: My friend’s observation was somewhat insulting.
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: I simply stated a fact, which the witness himself proclaimed to the world.
Witness: I have done nothing of the sort.
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: He says the oath does not bind his conscience, and, therefore, does not add to the value of his evidence. That is all I say. I say more. I think it adds to the value of no man’s evidence. I think it a barbarous state of things altogether that a man’s word should not be supposed reliable unless he goes through a solemn cabalistic ceremony in open Court. It is called a Christian oath; but I am sure it has nothing to do with Christ. Christ forbad the taking of oaths.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: We are not here to discuss the abolition of oaths. You object to be sworn, Mr. Bad Laugh?—I do.
You and our friend are pretty well agreed, it would seem?—You well say “seem.”
Well, we will not pry into it further. You are not called to speak to the question of oaths. You are called to give the Court the benefit of your evidence on the p. 88 subject of the Christman doctrine of the resurrection of Christ?—I understand so.
You know something of the subject?—A little.
You have given it some attention?—Yes, I have studied, and written, and lectured, and debated on it.
You have gone into the matter carefully and thoroughly?—I have.
And what is your impression with regard to it?—That it is a piece of unmitigated humbug.
In what way do you arrive at that conclusion?—In every way in which such a conclusion could be arrived at.
Be more specific?—Well, I look at it first in itself. The idea of a dead man coming to life again is an absurdity on the face of it. It is more: it is an impossibility. Life requires a warm and fluid state of the blood; it requires an elastic and vital state of the tissues; it requires, above all, electrical conductivity in the nerves which have been called the electric wires of the animal system. Now, in the case of a dead man, all these conditions are suspended, and what is worse, they become more and more impossible every moment; for as every man in this Court in aware, the moment vitality is at an end, the fluids and tissues of the body commence to decompose directly. By the third day, putrefaction sets in. And any man who tells me that a body in that state can come to life again, I say he makes a fool of me. It don’t stand to common sense or reason, or anything else. It is a cock and bull story, like Jonah swallowing the whale, or something of that sort.
How do you account for the defendants believing it?—Heigh! I don’t know. I am not called upon to say. There are plenty of people in the lunatic asylum now-a-days, and plenty out of it that ought to be in.
You are aware, of course, that they base their faith principally on the New Testament account?—It is astounding what people can base their faith on.
You do not think that account is reliable?—I should think not.
As the result of your study of the matter, you have come to the conclusion that it is to be discarded?—Utterly.
p. 89 Perhaps you will indicate to the Court the grounds on which you have reached that conclusion?—Well, any book that tells me a cock and bull story like the resurrection, I should consider that quite a sufficient ground for refusing to believe, without anything else.
But you have something else?—Oh yes, lots.
Perhaps you will favour the Court with an indication?—Well, there is no evidence that the book was written at the time it professes to have been written. You cannot take it back further than the middle of the second century, at the very furthest; I am not sure if I don’t go too far in allowing so early a date as that.
You think there are grounds for believing that the apostolic story was compiled then?—Undoubtedly. It was the age of literary forgeries of all sorts. Even the Christians themselves allow that. They have an apocryphal New Testament, I believe, which they admit belongs to that age.
You have no doubt that it belongs to the ecclesiastical forgeries of that age?—I would not like to call it a forgery exactly; I believe it was a literary production of that age—an age of romance and fable—an age more prolific of ecclesiastical fiction than any age before or since.
As a literary production, you believe it to be a work of fiction?—As regards its main complexion, I do.
Its main complexion?—Yes. By that I mean its principal incidents and doctrines. I have no doubt that there was a man called Jesus Christ, who lived earlier. and who was remarkable in some ways; and I believe an attempt was made in the middle of the second century to put into literary shape such traditions as were in circulation about him.
And the New Testament is the result?—The New Testament is the result. I believe there is a slight foundation of historical truth in the account, but that it is mainly compounded of legend and myth built upon this foundation. I do not say the writers were bad men, but that they were misled by their zeal, and became victims to the deception which ignorant men practice upon one another in all ages. A slight ingredient of historical p. 90 truth has been outraged and distorted and smothered in fact, in a mass of mythical incrustation.
You have examined the New Testament, of course?—Very thoroughly in my time.
And you have satisfied yourself as to the character you impute to it?—Oh, undoubtedly. It is not merely that the Four Gospels cannot be shown to have been in existence at all before the year A.D. 150, which is 120 years at least after the alleged date of the death of Jesus: but even supposing it was proved that they were written at the time they profess to have been written, you have a whole mass of contradictions in the history of Jesus, which are irreconcilable with the idea of its being a true story—quite apart from the story of resurrection. Besides, we have to take the Old Testament into account. The New and the Old are bound up together, and they are both accepted by Christians as the word of God. I believe it is a favourite argument with some of them that they stand or fall together. It is impossible to even glance into the Old Testament without seeing the absurdity of calling it a divine revelation. It is full of contradictions and absurdities. It is inconsistent with science and inconsistent with itself. The acts of the God it professes to reveal are inconsistent with the character it imputes to that God. The legislation it represents as having emanated from Him is simply inhuman.
You consider the Old Testament also a literary fiction?—Not exactly a literary fiction. I have never contended, and do not know any decently educated man who does contend, that it is the work of ignorant and designing men, intended to deceive the people. On the contrary, I believe the Bible, like many other books, is a collection of the works of different men in different ages, many of the earlier books being simply collections of, or collections founded on, the works of earlier writers, differing from the ages out of which they grew, and with the men whose ideas, more or less accurately, we get in some of them; added to, curtailed, interlined, abbreviated, and augmented according to the fashions and whims and myths and superstitions of the different ages through which they have come down to us.
p. 91 You do not admit that there is any room for the claim of a divine character which is put forward for them?—Not for a moment; it is a self-evident absurdity. The book is a literary outgrowth of a dark age and a narrow-minded people, full of their blunders when they blundered, full of their crimes when they were criminal—having their poetry if they were poetical, but simply expressing the men and the age out of which it came.
You are prepared to swear—at least, not to swear—I believe you object to swearing, Mr. Bad Laugh?
Sir N. Acceptorof Alltruth: Not when it serves his purpose.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Don’t interrupt.
You are prepared to maintain, Mr. Bad Laugh, and tender your assurance to the Court as an expert in the matter, that the contents of the Bible, in both its Old Testament and New Testament departments, justify your representations as to its character?—Undoubtedly. I am prepared with chapter and verse, and all the particulars, if necessary.
We will not trouble the Court with them at present.
Cross-examined by Mr. Discerner-of-facts
I have a few questions to put to you, Mr. Bad Laugh?—I shall try to answer them.
You have spoken of the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection as “a piece of unmitigated humbug”?—Yes.
What do you mean by that?—I should have thought you would have known.
I must trouble you to explain?—“Humbug,” I take to mean sham, delusion, that which pretends to be true and isn’t; “unmitigated” I understand to be unmixed.
Does not humbug convey the idea of intentional deception for sinister ends?—Perhaps it does.
Do you attribute intentional deception for sinister ends to the men who originally propagated the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection?—I don’t know anything about the man who originally propagated the doctrine.
There were such men, of course?—It is not for me to say.
p. 92 Have you no opinion on the point?—My opinion is that we don’t know anything about such men.
Do you think the idea of Christ’s resurrection started without anybody to start it?—If the thing started with a book written in the middle of the second century, it would start with a book to start it, and in that case, without anybody to start it.
Do you say that the idea of Christ’s resurrection started in the middle of the second century?—I don’t know when it started. You cannot take it further back than the middle of the second century.
May it have commenced at that time in the way you suggest—with the writing of a book pretending to have been written a hundred years earlier?—It may and it may not.
If you say it may not, do you mean that it may have commenced earlier than the middle of the second century?—It does not matter what I mean, I have given you my answer.
It matters everything what you mean, Mr. Bad Laugh. We are here for the purpose of considering meanings very particularly. We are in a Court of law: we are not on a debating platform; and it will be His Lordship’s duty to see that you define your meanings very precisely?—Very well, what do you want to know?
Do I understand you to give it as your opinion that the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection may have commenced earlier than the middle of the second century?—You cannot take it back further than that.
I am not asking how far we can take it back: we shall see about that directly. I am asking what your opinion is about it?—I have no particular opinion.
You must have some particular opinion, or else you insult the Court in asking us to accept your judgment as an expert, as my friend called you?—I say it may have begun in the middle of the second century, and it may not.
It may not?—Yes, it may not.
Then it may have begun earlier?—It may have begun later.
Oh no: that could not be: you admit that we can take p. 93 the New Testament back to that time?—Well, what of that?
Well, it must have begun at that time at the very latest. according to your own admission?—Very well.
Then it may have begun earlier?—We have no evidence of an earlier beginning.
Never mind what we have evidence of just now: the question is, does the evidence, as you estimate it, exclude an earlier beginning?—I am not going to help you by saying what it does or what it does not exclude.
You must not be impertinent. You must answer the question. His Lordship will tell you that you are bound to answer the questions?—I will answer the questions as far as I can follow you.
Do you mean to say that you cannot follow this simple question, whether or not, so far as you know the evidence, the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ may have originated earlier than the middle of the second century—I tell you I don’t know.
Very well: we will accept that answer. No doubt it represents the truth. It is ignorance, and not knowledge, that opposes the truth in this matter.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Don’t make speeches.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I know my duty. Now, Mr. Bad Laugh, are you not aware that there were Christians long before the middle of the second century?—Yes; we can trace them as Essenes before even the alleged date of the death of Christ.
Ah, but as Christians! Never mind the Essenes just now. Were there not Christians long before the middle of the second century?—Yes, and Essenes.
Never mind the Essenes?—We must mind them—we must mind facts!
I want you to keep your mind on the Christians, just now?—And I keep my mind on the Essenes.
Were the Christians and the people you call Essenes the same?—I think there is tolerable evidence that the one developed from the other.
I should prefer to be relieved of the complication of the Essenes at present?—Perhaps you would, but I don’t choose you should.
p. 94 Don’t be impertinent, witness. Answer the questions.—I am answering them.
Were there believers in Christ before the second century?—How can I tell. I was not alive then.
Are you ignorant of the evidence?—It is not for me to produce your evidence.
Do you not know that in A.D. 112, Pliny the Younger, Roman governor in Asia Minor, wrote a letter (now extant) to the Emperor Trajan, asking what he was to do with the Christians on account of their multitude and the tenacity of their convictions?—I think the letter of Pliny is a fairly historic document.
And are you not aware that Josephus, in his Antiquities, quotes a writing of the Roman author Tacitus, who lived in the reign of the Emperor Nero, to the effect, that Nero ascribed a certain fire that broke out in Rome, to the Christians, whose founder, he says, was “Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was brought to punishment by Pontius Pilate”?—I am inclined to think the quotation from Tacitus is liable to impeachment.
Oh, I daresay you are inclined to think everything liable to impeachment that favours the cause of Christ?—Thank you. I am in the habit of impeaching everything I choose to think impeachable, and I generally do it successfully.
On what ground is the quotation from Tacitus to be impeached?—Because it is not found anywhere out of Josephus’s writings.
Are you not aware that we are indebted solely to Josephus’s writings for the knowledge of the existence of many other ancient writings—such as Manetho, the Egyptian; Berosus, the Chaldean, etc.?—He quotes those men.
And is it not a fact that but for his quotation of them, the world would never have known of their existence?—So I have heard it argued.
Is it not a fact?—What has it to do with the case?
Much; Josephus quotes Tacitus, who tells us there were Christians in Rome so early as A.D. 60, and that their founder was Jesus Christ, who was executed, 30 years previously, in Jerusalem?—It is too important a document p. 95 to accept on the unsupported evidence of Josephus.
Can you disprove the evidence of Josephus that Tacitus wrote the passage in question?—It is not my business to disprove.
Are you not aware that the writings of Tacitus have in recent times been discovered in a fragmentary form?—I have heard something to that effect; but I don’t see that it amounts to proof. Somebody may have invented the fragments.
Nobody invented Josephus?—I suppose not.
You cannot disprove him?—It is not my business. You say you cannot accept him unsupported, and when the support it brought forward, you doubt it?—I doubt everything till it is proved.
Out of your own mouth, I prove Pliny and Josephus (and, therefore, Tacitus). Proving them, I prove the existence of believers in Christ in multitudes, both at the beginning of the second, and at the middle and end of the first century. How do you reconcile that fact with your suggestion that the belief in Christ’s resurrection perhaps originated in the middle of the second century?—I say we can trace the New Testament back to the middle of the second century, but no further.
You do not answer the question?—I answer it in the best way I can.
Very well; we will take your answer as the best you can give. No doubt it is so. You see the lion in the street, and you naturally get down a bye-lane?—I am not very frightened at your lion.
Why don’t you charge at him then?—I say we have no certain knowledge of the Christians of the first and second centuries.
Then you say what is contrary to the evidence produced and admitted. The evidence, even apart from the New Testament, gives us certain knowledge of their existence in great numbers before the end of the first century. Even if we hadn’t Tacitus, Pliny would be sufficient. In A.D. 112, Pliny speaks of “many of every rank and of both sexes” being Christians, and says their faith had “spread like a contagion, not only into cities and towns, p. 96 but into country villages also.” He also speaks of the Roman idolatry having been “LONG intermitted.” Such a state of things could not have been brought about in a few years in the slow, crude days of the first century. Consequently, Pliny’s statements, written in A.D. 112, is proof of the existence of a numerous body of Christian believers well back into the first century. It is a matter of “certain knowledge,” which you say we have not?—I have a right to my own opinion.
Oh, no doubt: I am only showing what your opinion is worth?—Thank you.
Now let me draw your attention to another point. Can you tell me whether or not the Christians were a popular sect in these early times!—I suppose you know all about that. You don’t require to ask me.
I am testing your theory of “unmitigated humbug,” and you must answer?—No sect is popular at the first, I suppose. The Secularists are not popular.
Are you aware that the Christians were persecuted?—Yes, I suppose the Secularists would be persecuted if the Christians had the power.
Are you not aware that they were hated, despoiled of their goods, and deprived of liberty and life?—There have always been such things.
I don’t ask for generalities. I wish to confine you to specific facts?—I shall not be confined any more than I like.
You must answer the questions, Are you not aware that Pliny in the letter already referred to—a letter written A.D. 112, as everyone admits, and as even you are compelled to admit—I say, are you not aware that in that letter, Pliny exhibits the facts that it was a common thing for Christians to be executed?—I should prefer the words of Pliny.
Very well, here they are: “I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not. If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intervening threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confessions, I p. 97 ORDERED THEM TO BE EXECUTED; for I did not doubt, but, let their confessions be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished.” These are the words of Pliny?—Very well, I have said that Pliny’s letter is a fairly historical document.
Do they not show that it was a common thing, at the beginning of the second century, for Christians to be executed?—The words speak for themselves.
I am content with that answer. The words do speak for themselves. Now I ask your particular attention to the application of these facts?—I know nothing about applications.
Wait a little: you said this doctrine of the resurrection of Christ was humbug, and you adopted my definition of humbug as “intentional deception for sinister ends.” Will you tell me what sinister end was served by either the preaching or the believing in the resurrection of Christ at a time when it was death to do either?—Well, I suppose some people like to be martyred.
Oh, that is your answer, is it?—Yes: I think it is a very good answer. It is notorious that there was a rage for martyrdom in the time of Ignatius, as his epistles show; that would be at the beginning of the second century.
Do you think people like to be martyred for the sake of the thing?—I have no doubt there are people vain-glorious enough to go through the thing for its own sake.
Did ever you know of people willing to encounter poverty, imprisonment, and death, from the motive of vain glory?—I am happy to think that such a race of fools is well nigh extinct.
Then your theory is somewhat inconsistent with your “experience”?—Not altogether. I have met vain-glorious persons.
I have no doubt of it: but you have not found vain-glorious persons possessed of the kind of courage that would lead them to death for the sake of a principle? They are generally the most cowardly of men where self-sacrifice is involved?—That is not an universal experience.
It is certainly general experience?—There were certainly p. 98 vain-glorious persons among the martyrs of the first centuries.
That I do not deny as a probability: but the question to consider is, what was the leading motive in the “rage for martyrdom,” to which you have referred? Was it not the conviction that it would secure the advantage proposed in connection with the preaching of Jesus Christ?—I have no doubt there was something of that sort in it.
Was not that an advantage connected with another life?—Such as the poor dupes looked forward to—yes.
Was not their submission to death, therefore, an evidence of very earnest conviction on their part?—Oh, that I do not deny.
Then, so far as they were concerned, it was no affair of “humbug”?—Oh, I daresay they thought they were all right.
You admit that the crowds spoken of by Pliny, many of whom he ordered to be executed, believed in the truth of the resurrection of Christ?—I suppose they did.
Is there any doubt about it?—I suppose not, but that don’t prove the resurrection of Christ. Every faith has its martyrs: but that don’t prove that every faith is true.
Stop a bit. One step at a time. We are getting on very nicely. We have made considerable progress. We now have it that the faith of Christ existed long before the middle of the second century; that crowds in various wide-lying provinces of the Roman Empire believed in it at the end of the first century, and believed in it so earnestly that they allowed themselves to be put to death, in the expectation of advantage that Christ would afterwards bestow upon them. We also have it, that so far as they were concerned, the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ was no matter of “humbug,” but of earnest conviction, leading them to a course producing no present benefit, but the reverse—the loss of all that is dear to men. I now return to my first question: Do you attribute intentional deception for sinister ends to the original propagators of the doctrine?—I don’t know who they were, and how can I tell?
How can you tell? You have “told.” You distinctly p. 99 stated in answer to my friend, that the resurrection of Christ was a piece of unmitigated humbug. We have found that it was no humbug on the part of the believers of it in the end of the first century; and therefore if it is humbug at all, it must have been so on the part of its original propagators only. And now you say you cannot tell, because you don’t know who they were?—Oh, it is very easy to sum it all up so. I say that speaking generally, ecclesiastical miracles are humbugs, and of course, the resurrection of Christ was the first.
That won’t suit me at all. We must have no “speaking generally” now. We must have speaking particularly. We are dealing with facts and not with fancies. We have got to a point, and to that point I mean to stick until we get to a clear settlement, either that the case is one of unmitigated humbug as you say, or that your verdict is the blatant recklessness of a man who does not know what he is talking about?—Thank you. You are very polite, I must say.
Never mind the politeness. Let us stick to the point. I ask again, do you mean to say that there was intentional deception for sinister ends on the part of the original propagators of the resurrections of Christ?—I have no doubt, if we knew who they were, we should find there was something of that sort.
Don’t you know who they were?—No.
Why not?—Because we have no information.
Do you consider the New Testament narrative no information?—Aye, but you cannot carry that back further than the middle of the second century.
What do you mean?—I mean there is no corroborative evidence of its existence before that date.
What do you call corroborative evidence?—Mention of it by contemporary writers.
May a book not exist without mention by contemporary writers?—Possibly, of course.
Do you believe in the authenticity of the writings of Homer?—Of course.
And Herodotus?—And Herodotus.
Can you produce any mention of their works by contemporary p. 100 writers—writers who lived at the time these works were produced?—I don’t know that I can. They are too ancient for that.
How do you “carry them back” to the date of their origin?—Well, there is the uncontradicted reputation of the thing; that is sufficient in a case where there are no special claims involved.
Are you not aware that there is an uncontradicted reputation in the case of the New Testament?—No, I am not aware of that. I contradict it.
Since you didn’t live to know the facts in the first century, or in the middle of the second, when you say the New Testament may have been produced, what is the value of your contradiction?—That every man must judge for himself.
Might not I contradict Homer in the same way?—You might.
Would it in any way detract from your conviction of the authenticity of Homer?—No. You could have no reason for such a contradiction.
Very well, it is your reason, and not your contradiction we have to do with. I again ask why you consider we are not to receive the New Testament as information concerning the original propagators of the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ?—And I again say, because you cannot carry it further back than the middle of the second century.
Let us see if we cannot. You admit that the existence of the book can be carried back to A.D. 150. On what ground do you believe it existed at that time?—It is not for me to supply you with evidence.
It is for you to answer the questions?—I am not bound to answer a question of that sort.
You are bound to answer any question I may put in this trial, as his Lordship will tell you.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I object. I submit my friend has no right to put the question. He has a right to ask the witness what his opinions and conclusions are; but he has no right to go into the grounds upon which the witness may have formed those opinions.
p. 101 Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I differ entirely from my friend there. The opinions of the witness would be of very little value unless we were at liberty to test the grounds of them. They would be of great value to my friend, but not to us. We wish to test the competence of the witness to form the opinions he has placed before the Court: and I cannot do this unless we have the fullest liberty.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Fullest liberty! At the rate this trial is going on, we shall get through by next Christmas, perhaps.
His Lordship: I think the witness is bound to answer the question. His opinions cannot suffer if the grounds of them are good.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: Now, witness, answer the question. On what grounds do you admit that the existence of the New Testament can be carried as far back as A.D. 150?—Mention by contemporary authors will carry it as far as that.
Give me the contemporary authors that carry it as far back as that?—I don’t see that I am bound to do that.
Yes, you are bound to answer the questions. His Lordship has so decided?—You are so pertinacious. You tie a fellow down most indecently.
Mention to me the author I ask for?—I don’t see what you want that for, seeing you claim an earlier existence.
I am going to show that the evidence that carries it to A.D. 150 carries it much further as well?—Oh, that is it, is it! Then I don’t see that I am entitled to help your case.
Don’t waste the time of the Court. I may have to ask for your committal if you do not answer the questions?—You are mistaken if you think that will frighten me. I am the wrong man to be intimidated.
I do not wish to frighten or intimidate you. I wish you to answer the questions?—I am answering them to the best of my ability.
On what author do you rely as proving the existence of the New Testament in A.D. 150?—I do not rely on any one in particular. I rely on the general drift of contemporary literature.
p. 102 That is not definite enough. Contemporary literature is made up of particular books; I must have particular books?—Well, you may take it that I mean the ecclesiastical writers in general of that age—the writers of any account, I mean—generally known as the Christian fathers.
Names please?—Why everybody knows their names.
You must mention them?—Well, there is Clement, of Alexandria; Irenæus, of Lyons; Justin Martyr, and perhaps Papias.
There are others, are there not?—One or two others; they are known to every scholar; Tertullian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, etc.
Why do you fix on A.D. 150?—I do not fix on that date in a hard and fast sense. I say, that generally speaking, we are safe in saying that these writers show the New Testament existing at that date.
Now let us see if they do not prove a much earlier date than that. Take Irenæus, the Christian bishop, who settled in Gaul. He was born early in the second century. You know what he says in his book, “Against Heresies”?—I cannot charge my memory.
Well, writing in the middle of the second century, he speaks thus:—“Matthew, among the Jews, wrote a gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome. After the death of the fore-named apostles, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that Peter had preached. Next Luke, Paul’s companion, put down in a book the gospel preached by Paul. Lastly, John, the beloved disciple, published his gospel while he was dwelling at Ephesus.” You may also be aware that he mentioned by name thirteen of Paul’s epistles, and quotes copiously from them in the course of his argument against heresy. Now, upon that my question is this: Do you think is possible that a man, writing in the middle of the second century, could speak of, and use in this way, a book just written by some anonymous person (according to the theory you have placed before the Court), a book that nobody had heard of before, that nobody knew anything of?—There is no saying what people can do p. 103 Irenæus quotes the New Testament in his argument against heresies: would he have quoted as an authority a book that nobody knew anything of?—He might have done so.
You think he would found an argument on a book that nobody recognized, and that had only just been concocted?—He might.
Did you ever know of such a case? Did you ever know of a person in some dispute, quoting, as an accepted authority of some standing, a book only just invented?—What has that to do with it?
A good deal, and you feel that it has, or you would answer?—A man hard up in an argument is glad to use anything. A drowning man catches at straws.
You think Irenæus deliberately quoted from a book that he had never heard of before, and that nobody knew anything about, in settlement of points of doctrine, for which there was no recognized standard? and that he gave familiar information about the origin and authorship of the books of the New Testament, of which nobody had heard anything before?—He may have invented it himself for aught I know.
And then quoted it as proof of his arguments?—And then quoted it as proof of his arguments.
How do you imagine he could expect such a mode of proof to have any weight?—Oh, that is not my business.
Is not his appeal to the New Testament an evidence that at that time the New Testament was known and recognized as an authority?—I cannot see it.
Do you know of any other case in which appeal is made to an authority that is not recognized, and that nobody knows anything about?—That has nothing to do with it.
Is not such a thing a moral impossibility?—If Irenæus did it, it is not impossible.
Are you not aware that there is evidence of the existence and currency of the New Testament at that time, independently of Irenæus?—It is not for me to produce your proof.
Did Irenæus know Polycarp?—I suppose he did. Is there any doubt about it?—Personally I don’t know anything about it.
p. 104 Are you not aware that Irenæus wrote a letter to one Florinus, which is extant to the present day, in which he says: “I saw you when I was a boy in the Lower Asia, with Polycarp; and you were then, though a person of rank in the Emperor’s service, very desirous of being approved of by him . . . I can describe the very spot in which Polycarp sat and expounded, and his coming in and going out, and the very manner of his life and the figure of his body, and the sermons which he preached to the multitude, and how he related to us his converse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; how he mentioned their particular expressions, and what things he had heard from them of the Lord, and of his miracles, and of his doctrines. As Polycarp had received from the eye-witnesses of the Lord of Life, he told us all things agreeable to the Scriptures”?—Very well, suppose Irenæus did know Polycarp.
Do you know when Polycarp was born, and how old he was when he died?—Very likely you will be able to enlighten us.
Are you aware that he was born in the very first century itself, viz., A.D. 80, and lived to the age of 87?—Well, what of it?
Do you know that such a man, whose life overlapped that of the Apostle John himself, has left writings in which he recognizes the existence of the New Testament, and appeals to it in the same way as Irenæus?—I am not aware of it.
Very well, listen to this; they are extracts from an epistle he wrote to the Philippians: “Do we not know that the saints shall judge the world as Paul teaches” (chap. xi.). “Neither I, nor any one like me, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed PAUL, who wrote to you a letter” (chap. iii.). “Remember what the Lord said: Judge not that ye be not judged; forgive and ye shall be forgiven” (a quotation from Matthew). Are not these allusions to the apostolic writings, which we know as the New Testament?—It is not for me to say.
Do you not know that the words quoted by Polycarp in these sentences are in the New Testament?—They may be.
p. 105 Are you ignorant of the fact?—I am not so ignorant as you suppose.
If a man who lived 20 years contemporarily with the Apostle John, and who travelled among the various congregations of the Christian community, quotes the New Testament as an authority, is it not a proof that the New Testament was in existence among them in the end of the first century?—You may think so.
Can you show it is not a proof?—It is not for me to prove a negative. Besides, the end of the first century is not soon enough for your case. You hold it was produced in the lifetime of the apostles.
I have not done yet?—Oh.
And even if I could carry it no further than the end of the first century, that would be quite sufficient. A book in circulation as a recognized authority at the end of the first century, must have originated and obtained that position many years before. But I take it further. You spoke of Ignatius, in connection with your theory about people having a liking for persecution. Do you know when Ignatius lived?—It is not for me to say.
Will you contradict me if I say he was born only a year-and-a-half after the crucifixion of Christ, and lived out the first century, dying in martyrdom at the age of 72, A.D. 107?—If that is so, you cannot of course expect me to contradict it.
Is it not so?—I suppose so.
Is there any doubt about it?—I suppose not.
Do you know he wrote seven epistles which are extant to-day?—So it is said.
Don’t you know it to be the fact?—Very well.
Now, are you aware that in the course of these epistles there are incidental recognitions of the existence of the New Testament?—Very likely you will give us them.
In his epistle to the Ephesians (to whom Paul also wrote) he speaks thus, in section 12: “You are the companions of St. Paul, who, throughout his whole epistle to you, mentions you with praise.” (This is the fact, as may be seen by reading Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians in the New Testament). He likewise quotes many times the p. 106 words of the New Testament without giving the reference, for example: “The tree is known by its fruits” (to the Eph. xiv.); “Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (to Polycarp 2); “Christ was baptized of John to fulfil all righteousness” (to Smyrna). All these words are in the New Testament?—Very well.
Very well: do you not see the conclusion arising from the fact of a man who lived 30 or 40 years contemporarily with the Apostle Paul, referring to Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, and quoting the words, of the New Testament?—I am not here to construe conclusions for you.
Does it not prove the existence of the New Testament a long way into the first century?—You may think it does.
Don’t you?—It doesn’t matter what I think.
I admit that. Now, do you know that there is further evidence still; that Hermas, who flourished before the end of the first century, wrote a book called The Shepherd, in which there are some fifty quotations from the New Testament, without naming the books; that Clement, of Rome, born A.D. 30, died A.D. 100, wrote an epistle to the Corinthians, in which he says: “Take into your hands the epistle of Paul, the apostle, and see what he wrote to you” (chap. xlvii); and, finally, that the epistle of Barnabas (extant in the first century, as proved by the allusions of other writers to it) quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1st Peter, and Revelations?—As to Hermas, and Clement, and Barnabas, there were so many forgeries in the early centuries (admitted by your Christian writers to have been so) that we have no evidence that they were genuine productions at all.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, I allow that these three were forgeries?—It would make a considerable difference, I should think.
Not a particle of difference?—Not a particle of difference whether a book is genuine or a forgery?
Not a particle: they were in circulation in the first century, and whoever wrote them, they could not have quoted the New Testament if the New Testament had not existed at that time?—Your logic is an India-rubber logic; p. 107 you can twist it any way to suit yourself. You first say books are true, and then that if they are not true, it don’t matter. If that isn’t blowing hot and cold, I don’t know what is.
I am afraid you are dull?—I am sharp enough to see that, any how. You don’t catch me swallowing books whether they are true or not true, just as you choose to imagine.
The authorship might be pretended: but the books themselves are a fact, and speak for themselves. They are proved to have been extant in the first century, and the argument is that they could not have quoted from the New Testament if the New Testament had no existence. If you cannot see that, how can you expect the Court to accept you as an expert in the matter?—That is for the Court to decide.
And the Court will decide. And now, Mr. Bad Laugh, have you made yourself familiar with the contents of the New Testament?—I should think I have.
You know it thoroughly?—Thoroughly.
And knowing it thoroughly, you are deliberately of the opinion that it was not written by the men by whom it purports to have been written, by whom all the world for all ages has believed it to have been written, and against whose authorship not a whisper has ever been raised in the heart of the Christian community from the day it was placed in their midst to the present day?—I have a right to my opinion. It will not be the first time one man has been right and all the world wrong.
I do not deny your right to your opinion: I am asking if that is your opinion?—I have already expressed my opinion.
Not very definitely, I think?—Definitely enough for my views.
Have you realized that the New Testament is mainly composed of letters written to communities?—Suppose I have?
You are aware there is a long letter addressed to the Christian community at Rome: two long letters to the Christians in Corinth: one to the Christians in Galatia; p. 108 one to the Ephesians; one to the Philippians; one to the Colossians; two to the Thessalonians?—Very well, what of that?
Have you considered how difficult it would be to palm off a book of the sort as an authentic book, if it were not so?—How do you mean?
You have spoken of forgeries and spurious writings in the early centuries?—Yes, there were lots of them.
Very well; if the New Testament was one?—I have not said so.
You withdraw the suggestion?—I withdraw nothing.
You must either withdraw or stick to what you have said?—I stick to all I have said.
Very well: you said distinctly enough, in answer to my friend, that the New Testament was the result of an attempt, in the middle of the second century, to put into literary shape the various Christian traditions, or something to that effect?—Very well.
Would not that be a forgery, if the writer pretended to write letters by Paul, which Paul never wrote?—It is according how you take it.
Well, I repeat my question: have you considered the impossibility of floating a fictitious book of that character?—I don’t know about impossibility. It is no new thing for a fictitious book to be floated.
It is difficult to float a fictitious book of even a private authorship: sometime or other it is sure to get contradicted; but here is a book to which many public bodies were parties?—What do you mean by private authorship?
I mean this: a man publishes a book under a certain name; he knows the true authorship; nobody else may; and it may come before the public without anybody else being able to tell whether the authorship is genuine or not. In such a case, a fictitious book may get into circulation, though, even then, the truth is liable to leak out somehow. But suppose a man were to publish a book consisting of communications falsely purporting to have been addressed to various corporations and public bodies, would not the imposture be detected and exposed in a moment?—It depends.
p. 109 The corporations would know whether the communications had been addressed to them; and if there were thirteen corporations with an average of 50 members each, there would be 750 persons, besides the author, who would know the truth of the case. Would it not be impossible to float such a deception?—I don’t know.
Take for example the collected speeches of John Bright, which have just been published, or the collected speeches of Earl Beaconsfield, which are about to be published; if those speeches had never been delivered, would not the fact be known and proclaimed at once by the various towns where they professed to have been delivered?—Absurd question.
But suppose someone were to simulate the style of Beaconsfield and issue a tale purporting to be of his authorship, there being nobody but one knowing the truth, such a book might obtain credence as a production of Beaconsfield?—Nobody would be so mad as to do such a thing.
Now, in the case of the New Testament, whose currency we have traced to the very age of the apostles themselves, the Christians at Rome knew whether they had received such a letter from Paul; the Christians or Corinth knew whether they had received such a letter from Paul; the Christians at Ephesus, Colosse, Thessalonica, and so on, all knew whether they had received such letters from Paul as the newly-compiled New Testament represented, and the knowledge would be transmitted from generation to generation. How is it possible, in the face of these considerations, to maintain the idea that the New Testament was a private literary forgery, committed in the middle of the second century, or at any other time?—I have a right to maintain whatever commends itself to me as truth.
Does an impossibility commend itself to you as truth?—That is my business.
Very well: we will pass on. Have you considered the contents of the New Testament?—You don’t suppose I have lectured and debated on the New Testament without having considered its contents.
p. 110 Having considered its contents, are you of opinion that they are consistent with the idea of the book having been the work of a literary forger?—I have already given you my opinion.
Let me invite your attention to some specimens of its contents—
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: My Lord, it is evident that this cross-examination will extend to a great length. My friend said he had a few questions to put to the witness. It is evident he is going to take us over the whole field of the Christian evidences.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: My questions would be very few, if your witness were candid.
Witness: I am not going to be insulted by you or anyone else. I appeal to the Court.
His Lordship: I think it would be advisable for Counsel to withhold their opinions of the evidence.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I was merely accounting for the length to which my questions have gone.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I propose we take an adjournment till to-morrow morning, as it is getting late.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I do not object.
The Court adjourned.