p. 111Mr. Bad Laugh (Re-called)
Cross-examination by Mr. Discerner-of-facts resumed: Mr. Bad Laugh, I was asking you, when the Court adjourned yesterday, whether you considered the contents of the New Testament consistent with the idea that they were the production of a literary forger. I think you said you did?—I said nothing of the sort.
What did you say?—It is not my business to refresh your memory.
His Lordship: Be respectful to the Court, witness.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: What did you say?—I say I know the contents, and I have my own opinion.
And what is your opinion?—I am of opinion that you have no evidence who they were written by.
You are giving us your theory, and I am testing your theory?—You can test it as much as you like.
Your theory is that the New Testament was not written by those by whom it purports to have been written. Now, my question is, whether its contents are of a nature consistent with a false authorship?—Of that I judge for myself.
But some others have to judge on this occasion, and I put these questions to you that they may judge. I invite your attention to a few speciments of the contents. Here is an extract from Paul’s letters to Timothy: “Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me. For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens, to Galatia; Titus, p. 112 unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. Alexander, the coppersmith, did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works. Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words. At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me. I pray God it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, that by me the preaching might be fully known.” Do you think it likely that a literary forgery would have introduced these personal and circumstantial details?—Not having any acquaintance with forgers, I cannot say.
Writing to Titus, he says: “There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” Do you think it likely that a forger would write like that?—I don’t know.
Writing to the Hebrews, he says: “I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation; for I have written a letter to you in few words. Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you. Salute all them that have the rule over you and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.” Would a forger be likely to write that?—I don’t know.
James writes thus: “From whence came wars and fightings among you?—Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? . . . Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God . . . Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts ye double-minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. p. 113 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.” Could a forger write in that strain?—I don’t know.
Peter writes: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time, wherein ye greatly rejoice; though now for a season if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations, that the trial of your faith being much more precious than the gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise, and honour, and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ, whom not having seen, ye love: in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory.” Is it morally possible that a forger could write these words?—I don’t know.
Paul writes to the Corinthians: “For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool: for I will say the truth, but now I forbear lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing, I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore, I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong. I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me; for I ought to have been commended of you, for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.” Do you think the forger of a fictitious Paul’s letter could have written these words?—It is not for me to say.
p. 114 Paul writes to the Corinthians (1 Cor. iii. 1): “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk and not with meat; for, hitherto, ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? Who then is Paul and who is Apollos but ministers by whom ye believe, even as the Lord gave to every man?” Is it possible that these words can have been written by a forger?—It is not for me to say.
Paul writes to the Philippians (Phil. ii. 1): “If there be, therefore, any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory, but in lowliness of mind, let each esteem other better than themselves.” Are these the words of a forger?—I don’t know.
Writing to the Romans, he says: “What shall we say then to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword. . . . Nay, in all these things, we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, not things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Do you think it possible that these are the words of a forger?—It is not for me to say.
Now, let me direct your attention to the words of Christ as exhibited in the gospel narratives, and let me p. 115 ask you if the idea of those words being a forgery is not absolutely impossible to conceive?
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: We must really have some limits to this. My friend may as well read the whole New Testament at once.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I have nearly done with this part of my cross-examination. I am not needlessly taking up the time of the Court.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: That is just what I think you are doing.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I am illustrating the baselessness of the theory of the plaintiffs—that the Christian writings are a literary forgery. It is not possible to do this more effectually than by reading extracts from these writings. They speak for themselves.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: There may be two opinions about that.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: There always are two opinions about everything, but there is a right opinion, for all that: and the way to form a right opinion is to have the materials for it before you.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I cannot see what reading a whole book has to do with the question of whether the opinions and practices of the defendants are hurtful.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: You will see before the trial is over. Now, Mr. Bad Laugh, do you think it possible that a forger could have written these words: “You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him thy left also. And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee: and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. . . . Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good.” Do you think that reads like a forgery?—Perhaps not.
p. 116 What say you to this: “The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’s seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men . . . They love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogue, and greetings in the market, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren . . . Woe unto ye, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: for ye make clean the outside of the cup and platter, but, within, they are full of extortion and excess. . . . Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so, ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but, within, ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.” Do you think a forger would be likely to write these words?—There is no saying what men can write.
Very well: the Court will judge. I had prepared other extracts, but these will sufficiently illustrate the point. Now, sir, are you not aware that the authenticity of the New Testament is admitted in all the best literary circles?—I have nothing to do with what is admitted in literary circles—best or otherwise.
I am asking as to a matter of fact. Of course you may be ignorant of it. If so, you can say so. Is it not the fact that all men of scholarly attainments, whatever may be their opinions as to the contents of the New Testament, are agreed that the authenticity of the New Testament is beyond doubt?—It depends upon what you mean by “scholarly attainments.” I haven’t much opinion of scholarly attainments myself.
Very likely; but is it not the fact that the literary world are agreed that if the authenticity of any book is established by evidence, it is the authenticity of the New Testament?—How can I speak for the literary world?
p. 117 Very well, Mr. Bad Laugh; you don’t like the question, evidently, and the Court will judge as to the reason. I will put it in this way: Are you prepared to allege that the literary world does not believe in the authenticity of the New Testament?—I am part of the literary world.
Oh, well, that is information?—You need it, too; you mustn’t suppose that you know everything!
Well, you are the only part of the literary world that rejects the authenticity of the New Testament?—I don’t reject it. I say you have no evidence of an earlier authorship than A.D. 150.
Oh, you don’t reject it?—No, I have never pretended that the book was an out-and-out forgery. I say you have no evidence of the contrary. I place the onus of proof on you.
And we accept the onus, and have produced the evidence, or rather a small part of it?—And I say your evidence don’t convince me, if it convinces other people.
Can you tell us why evidence that convinces all the world doesn’t convince you?—Because it don’t. Besides, it don’t convince all the world. There are others besides me that don’t admit the authenticity.
But are they not chiefly those who are led by you?—I don’t know about that. I suppose they have minds of their own?
Now, Mr. Bad Laugh, is it not the fact that your chief objection to admitting the authenticity of the New Testament lies here, that if it is admitted, we, then, have the evidence of eye-witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, whose capability is shown by the quality of the writing, and whose honesty is attested by their self-sacrifices?—Nothing of the sort. You don’t think I would be such a fool as to admit such a thing?
I don’t know about that?—Then I object to your comments. I will not be insulted.
I have no wish to insult you. I wish to get at the facts of the case?—Then stick to the facts.
I am doing so. I ask if the New Testament is not a written eye-witness to the resurrection of Christ?—How can a book be an eye-witness?
p. 118 You know what I mean: the evidence of eye-witnesses?—You should say what you mean.
I will make my meaning apparent by a few extracts.
Sir F. D. Partialfact Unbelief: More extracts, my Lord.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: Yes. They are essential to the case. However, they are not extensive this time. Peter, in his 2nd epistle, makes use of the term “eye-witness.” He says: “We have not followed cunningly-devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYE-WITNESSES of his majesty” (2 Pet. i. 16). That this eye-witness embraced his resurrection will appear from the following statements: Peter speaks, “This Jesus God hath raised up, WHEREOF WE ALL ARE WITNESSES” (Acts ii. 32). “Him God hath raised from the dead, WHEREOF WE ARE WITNESSES” (Acts iii. 14). “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a prince and a Saviour . . . We are HIS WITNESSES of these things” (Acts v. 29). “We cannot but speak the things which we have SEEN AND HEARD” (Acts iv. 19). “To whom (his disciples) Christ showed himself ALIVE after his sufferings, by many infallible proofs being seen of them forty days” (Acts i. 3). “We (Peter and the rest of the apostles) are WITNESSES of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God raised up the third day and showed him openly, not unto all the people, but unto WITNESSES chosen before of God, even TO US, WHO DID EAT AND DRINK WITH HIM after he rose from the dead” (Acts x. 39).
These are casual allusions in the speeches of the apostles in the course of their apostolic work; but now consider the formal narrative of the resurrection of Christ in what are called the gospels. These are the narratives of personal witnesses in some stage or other of the resurrection. Take the account by Matthew, one of the twelve disciples:—
“When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ p. 119 disciple: he went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre. Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy: and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
p. 120 Mark’s account is thus:—“Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterwards he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.”
Luke supplies the most striking incident in the whole episode, thus: “And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus .of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to-day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; and when they found not his body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, p. 121 and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures? And they rose up at the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding. that p. 122 they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things.”
John’s account has touching features peculiar to itself: “But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seeketh thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. But p. 123 Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples, therefore, said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and he not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”
I will not trouble you at this time with the case of Paul, who says (1 Cor. xv. 8), “Last of all, HE WAS SEEN OF ME ALSO.” I will simply ask you if the New Testament, by the few extracts I have read, does not prove the resurrection of Christ, if its authenticity is admitted?—I don’t know about that. Suppose I admit the authenticity: you have a story by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: how do we know it is true?
I am coming to that. You remember what you said about “unmitigated humbug?” You admitted that humbug was intentional deception practiced for sinister ends. Will you please inform the Court what sinister ends, in your judgment, were served by the testimony of Christ’s resurrection on the part of the apostles?—I don’t see that I am called upon to answer that question.
You can answer it or not, just as you please?—I say a false story must be told for sinister ends.
Quite so: and if the testimony of the apostles was false, there must be some sinister ends manifestly promoted by that testimony?—I don’t know that. We may not know the ends served, although we may know the story false.
Do you admit, then, that you know of no sinister ends served by the apostolic testimony?—I don’t admit anything of the sort.
p. 124 Do you say that you do know of minister ends served by the apostolic testimony?—I am not called upon to say.
I think you are?—Then I differ in opinion with you. Do you not know, sir, that the testimony of the apostles cost them all that is dear to men?—My opinion is that we don’t know anything about it.
Do you mean that Pliny’s letter does not prove the Christians to have been wholesale sufferers of persecution and death?—What if it does?
Do you mean that that experience on the part of believers in Christ did not begin in the days of the apostles, as exhibited in the authentic narrative of their acts in the New Testament?—What if it did?
What if it did? Why then does it not prove that the apostolic testimony cost them all that is dear to man?—That may be your opinion.
Let me read to you, sir, the words of the apostle Paul on this subject:—“For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; and labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless: being persecuted, we suffer it: being defamed, we intreat; we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.”
Now, sir, if the testimony for Christ’s resurrection brought loss and infamy, and death, on the apostles and their fellow-labourers, and if they persisted with that testimony in the face of such results, is it not evidence that they themselves believed that testimony?—Well, what a wonderful argument to be sure! Ha! ha! A crazed man believes he is the Prince of Wales: therefore it is true! I don’t know where we shall get to directly.
Do you say the apostles were crazed?—I don’t see how they could have been otherwise,—believing in the possibility of a dead man coming to life.
p. 125 Is that the only evidence of craze on their part you can produce?—I don’t know. Perhaps I could produce others if I were to look into it a little.
Looking into it little or much, can you produce any other evidence of craze besides their belief in the resurrection of Christ?—They don’t at all strike me as sane men.
You consider yourself, of course, a perfect judge of insanity?—I know that when a man tells me a cock and bull story, he is not exactly square; of course, I cannot help other people believing it.
Now, sir, I must keep you to the point. I must have your answer, “Yes” or “No.” Are you prepared to adduce any other evidence that the apostles were crazed, than their belief that Christ rose from the dead?—I tell you I think that, generally, they exhibit the aspect of men not sane.
I don’t ask your opinion: we all know the worth of that. I ask for evidence?—Then I shall not give evidence or anything else if you make insulting observations.
Never mind the observations: Have you any other evidence?—It is my opinion you don’t know evidence when it is produced.
Well, Mr. Bad Laugh, as you would unquestionably produce other evidence if you had it, we may take your answers as a confession of inability to do so. And now as the truth of the resurrection of Christ is the matter in question, it is certainly rather a considerable begging of the question to put forward the apostolic belief in it as evidence of insanity. You might as well call the defendants insane, and a few more of us, who have come to entertain the same conviction, in the same way, that is, as the result of evidence?—You had better not ask my opinion as to you and others.
I don’t. I ask about the apostles, and I ask whether the writings and speeches of the apostles are such as insane men could write. For example, let me read you his speech before Felix: “Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself: because that thou p. 126 mayest understand, there there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship. And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city: neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me; but this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men. Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. Whereupon certain Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with tumult. Who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me? Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council, except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.” Do you call that the speech of a crazed man?—I have my own opinion.
Read his brief speech to Festus when the Jews, having laid a plot for Paul’s murder on the road, Festus asked him if he would have his cause heard at Jerusalem. “I stand at Cæsar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Cæsar.” Do you think these practical words of prudence and common sense are the words of a crazed man?—I tell you I have my own opinion.
Take his speech before Agrippa: “I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee, touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews: especially because I know thee p. 127 to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently. My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews: which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers; unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth. I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. Whereupon, O king p. 128 Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusaelm, and throughout all the coasts of Judæa, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple and went about to kill me. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
“Festus (with a loud voice): ‘Paul, thou art beside thyself: much learning doth make thee mad.’
“Paul: ‘I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king (Agrippa) knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely, for I am persuaded none of these things are hidden from him: for this thing was not done in a corner’” (verse 26).
Do you think this episode in open court exhibits Paul in the light of a crazed man? Does it not rather show him in the possession of a cool, clear-headed, well-mannered, courteous, logical mind?—That may be your opinion, it is not mine.
Now I take you to one or two passages in his writings on the same subject, and for the same purpose. I read to you from his Epistle to the Galatians:
“I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God and wasted it: and profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal His Son to me, that I might preach p. 129 him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord’s brother. Now the things which I write unto you, behold before God, I lie not. Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judæa, which were in Christ: but they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. And they glorified God in me.”
Again: “Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prison more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among the brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside these things that are without, that which cometh unto me daily, the care of all the churches.” Now, sir, does not that alone (even if it were not supported from a thousand historical sources) prove that the possibility of serving any sinister end is absolutely excluded from the whole case of the apostles?—Keep your temper. I have a right to my opinion.
Very well, there I leave the point. I safely do so in the hands of every disinterested listener at this trial?—Of course, they are all disinterested that agree with you.
Do you consider what I have read is the emanation of a crazed mind?—I have already answered. You need not ask me again.
I should not ask you these questions at all, if I had only you to consider. I should not think it worth while p. 130 to say one word to you about it, but I wish to bring the facts of the case before the Jury?—Then I shall not answer any more questions.
I am not quite done with you yet?—I have done with you, if you haven’t done with me.
You must answer a few more questions before we part?—I object to your incessant insult. I shall not answer any more questions.
You will have to answer whatever question I may think it necessary to put. As I said before, you are in a Court of Law: you are not on the platform of a Secular Society?—I appeal to the Court.
It is no use appealing.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I think my friend ought to be rather more sparing of his personal commentaries.
His Lordship: It would not hinder the case if they were omitted.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I have endeavoured to keep my patience with this witness as much as possible: and I trust your Lordship may be of opinion, that, in view of the nature of his answers, I have succeeded pretty well.
His Lordship: His answers have certainly not helped you much.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I apprehend, my Lord, that a witness is at perfect liberty to answer the questions in his own way?
His Lordship: In a certain sense that is true: but if a witness chooses to oppose a dogged resistance to all attempts to elicit the evidence, he cannot be surprised if counsel should grow a little testy under the process.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: Now, Mr. Bad Laugh, just a question or two more. I had intended reading you one or two further extracts from Paul’s letters: but probably those I have read will sufficiently answer my purpose?—Thank you.
There are one or two other matters of which you spoke to my friend in your examination-in-chief. I think you spoke of “a whole mass of contradictions” being discoverable in the history of Christ contained in the New Testament?—I did.
p. 131 Can you give us some of these contradictions?—Oh, very quickly.
Let us have them?—Which will you have first?
Anyone you like?—Well, take the number of the women said to have been at the grave of Christ on the morning of the resurrection.
Which is the contradiction?—According to John’s gospel, there was one woman; according to Matthew, there were two; and according to Mark, three; and according to Luke, any number. That, I call, a considerable contradiction.
Which way?—If you don’t see that, its no use my telling you.
Does John say there was one only?—What if he doesn’t?
Then in what way would the statement that one was present be a contradiction to the statement that there were two?—One is not two.
No, but if there are two, there is one in the two isn’t there?—Ah, that is a quibble.
If I say there is one man in the Court this morning, do I not speak the truth?—No, you don’t; there are hundreds.
Aren’t you here?—Don’t be insulting.
Aren’t you one man?—I’m not a hundred.
But you are one, and you are here, and if I say one man is here, this morning, I speak the truth, although there are hundreds besides. If I were to say there is only one man here, then I should not speak the truth. Now, I repeat my question: does John say that only one women came to the sepulchre on the morning of the resurrection?—I suppose you know what John says without me telling you.
I do know what John says, and I know he does not say “only,” and therefore I want to know how his statement, that there was one woman, is inconsistent with the statement of the other writers that there were more?—I hold it is a contradiction.
Well, that is your opinion?—I have a right to my opinion.
p. 132 I don’t say you haven’t, but I am entitled to show that your opinion is not a true one?—You cannot do that. I have done it. I show that you fail to make out a contradiction between one and two, because two includes one, though two would be inconsistent with “one only”; or between two and three, because three contains two, though three would be inconsistent with “two only,” or between three and any larger number: because a larger number contains three, though a larger number would be inconsistent with three only. None of the evangelists specify an exclusive number. They mention certain persons as present on the occasion, according to the aspect in which the matter appeared severally to them, and according to the incidents they selected for narrative. They vary their accounts without contradicting one another. A variance of that sort is not contradiction. I call a variation of that sort an evidence of truth, instead of a proof of falsehood. Tellers of a concocted story make their accounts tally exactly. Witnesses of the various stages of a matter speak to different facts, or to the same facts in a different way without contradiction. What other contradiction do you allege?—There is the discrepancy between Acts and Luke as to how long Christ was with his disciples after his resurrection. Acts says forty days; Luke and Mark say one day; and if that is not a contradiction, I don’t know what is.
Let us look at it. No doubt, the narrative of the Acts states “forty days,” but where does Mark or Luke (and remember that Luke was the writer of the Acts)—where do they say “one day only”?—I did not say anything about “only.”
Your allegation of contradiction requires that “only” be understood because, of course, Christ was one day with them, if he was forty?—Forty isn’t one.
But where does it even say one day?—You cannot make it anything else. You will find the story in Luke as distinct as possible: first, the journey to Emmaus, “They rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem,” where they found the eleven gathered together: then Christ appears, and after talking to them, he led them out to Bethany, p. 133 and there ascended. That is corroborated by Mark xvi., which says, that when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared unto two of them, and afterwards to the eleven. “So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” If that don’t mean one day, language is not of much use.
Language is of great use when properly employed and understood. If is said “one day,” there would be a difficulty?—If it don’t say one day, it means one day by any decent interpretation.
It depends upon what is a “decent interpretation.” I call that a decent interpretation which finds a place for the definite in the indefinite?—Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not indefinite.
They are, on the point of time?—I say they are not. Can you point to a statement of time?—The time is indicated.
Are they not indefinite as to time?—I think not. Can you produce a statement as to the time occupied by the events they narrate?—Not in so many words.
Very well, but the statement in Acts i. 3 is definite—forty days?—Yes.
Are you aware that Luke is the author of the Acts of the Apostles?—It is said so.
Is there any doubt about it?—I don’t know.
Are you not bound by the commonest canon of literary criticism to find a place in Luke’s indefinite mode of putting the matter for the definite? That is, must you not make room in Luke xxiv. for the forty days of Acts i. 3?—It may suit you to do such a thing, but it don’t suit me.
As a matter of fact, is there not such room between verses 49 and 50 of Luke xxiv.?—It don’t look like it.
Never mind the appearance?—Appearances go for something sometimes.
But now we are dealing with facts precisely. Verse 49 finishes the remarks made by Christ to the eleven, on the occasion of his first interview. Verse 50 tells that “he led them out as far as to Bethany:” what is there to show the time between the one and the other?—It shows no time.
p. 134 What is there to show there was no time?—I say it shows no time.
What is there to show that the one was immediately after the other?—The word “and.”
Does the word “and” mean immediately after?—The thing comes immediately after.
In the order of narrative, admitted: but what is there to show that Luke meant that the going to Bethany was immediately at the close of the first interview?—I have already told you.
Is it not, in fact, a simple conclusion of the narrative in which details and times are indefinitely “slumped” in four concluding verses?—That is not my opinion.
Well, Mr. Bad Laugh, the Jury will judge?—Other people can judge as well as the Jury.
Your judgment is that because the events narrated in Luke xxiv. appear all to be compressed within one day, although there is evidence to show they extended over forty days, therefore, we are to reject the authentic account of Christ’s resurrection, in spite of the overwhelming evidence otherwise in its favour?—I do not admit the overwhelming evidence.
Very well, we will pass on. What other contradictions are there?—Well, the New Testament tells us that Christ was the son of Joseph, and yet that he wasn’t the son of Joseph, but the Son of God.
Do you see a contradiction in that?—I should rather say so.
Where does it lie?—You must be rather stupid if you want me to point that out.
I must trouble you to do so?—How can a man be a son of Joseph and not a son of Joseph at the same time?
In the way the New Testament exemplifies. Jesus, the Son of God, was the son of Mary, and because Mary was the wife of Joseph, in whom she was legally merged as “one flesh,” Jesus could not be the son of Mary without being the son of Joseph also, in the putative sense?—It’s all very nice, but it don’t get rid of the difficulty.
There is no difficulty?—No difficulty in being told of a man who had no father, but only a mother?
p. 135 We are not told of any such man?—I say we are. Your Jesus was such a man, if language means anything.
Jesus had Joseph standing in the relation of a human father, so far as the family circle was concerned, though Joseph was not his actual father in the genital sense. His real father was God, as he always proclaimed, and as the account of his begettal makes plain?—You only make the contradiction worse. You give us a man who had a mother but no father, and after a bit two fathers.
Perfectly true, Mr. Bad Laugh, that Jesus had no actual human father, but a human mother; yet having Joseph for his putative father and God for his real father, he had two fathers. It is not the first time, in the history of the world, that complex truth has seemed an incomprehensible paradox. It is not for me to say in whose eyes it has so appeared. The right perception requires a discernment and a candour that I fear are beyond your range. What are your other contradictions?—I object to your impertinences. I shall not put up with your insults.
Be calm, Mr. Bad Laugh?—I shall be nothing of the sort if you choose to question me like an indecent donkey.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: I think my friend exceeds the bounds of professional liberty in the remarks he makes to the witness.
His Lordship: It is well to abstain from comment as much as possible.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: Let me have your next so-called contradiction, Mr. Bad Laugh?—They are real contradictions if you please.
Well, let us have them?—It is of no use. I have given you several, and you pitch them on one side.
I show they are no contradictions. That is the object of my examination?—Then I will not be examined any further.
You must answer the questions?—Only if the Court rules I must.
His Lordship: The witness has already been told he must answer all questions put to him.
Witness: But this person has no right to insult me.
p. 136 Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I have no wish to insult. You make my task difficult by your obstinacies?—I protest against the remark.
I must ask you for the next contradiction?—Well, the New Testament tells me that Christ’s mother’s husband had two fathers.
You mean Joseph?—Of course.
Where does it tell you that Joseph had two fathers?—You know as well as I do.
I am not aware of such a statement?—You have two genealogies—one in Matthew, and one in Luke. They are different lines, and yet Joseph is in both.
Do you know how that comes to be the case?—Oh, I suppose you have some hocus-pocus way of getting over it.
Are you not aware that one line (Matthew’s) is Joseph’s, and the other (Luke’s) is Mary’s, but that Mary having become legally merged by marriage in Joseph could only, by Jewish custom, be represented by her husband, who, therefore, appears in his own line and Mary’s too, by which he appears to have two fathers, while one of them is only his father-in-law?—I call that a miserable wriggle out of a difficulty.
Well, we will leave it to the Jury. Have you any other contradictions?—Lots of contradictions, but what is the use? It is only a waste of time to go through them. It will be the same in every case. You do not take them honestly. You quibble out of them.
Never mind, let us have them?—It is no use.
Do you withdraw them?—No, I don’t withdraw them.
Are any of them stronger than those you have brought forward?—Those I have brought forward are strong enough in all conscience?
Very well, Mr. Bad Laugh, we will pass from that, and we will now take the Old Testament. You said something to the effect that it was impossible to glance into the Old Testament without seeing the absurdity of calling it a divine revelation. You said it was full of contradictions and absurdities?—I do say so.
You said it was inconsistent with science?—Yes, I do say so.
p. 137 Were you in Court during the examination of Mr. Shrewd Observer?—Yes.
You heard his concessions on this point?—Yes, he was too easy a witness by half.
You would not have been so candid?—I object to the question.
Well, we will not go over the scientific ground again. The case, on this point, was fully developed in the cross-examination of Mr. Shrewd Observer?—He was no scientific witness. I could have made a better figure myself.
Never mind. We will leave that. You said the Bible was inconsistent with itself?—I did.
In what way do you make that out?—As I have already said, the acts it records of the God it professes to reveal, are inconsistent with the character it imputes to him.
I must trouble you for some proof of that allegation?—There is lots of proof, but it does not seem of much use giving proof to some people.
Never mind, let us try. You must either withdraw your statement that there are contradictions, or you must give us cases?—Well, the Bible calls God invisible, and yet you have Jacob saying, “I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” If that is not a contradiction, I don’t know what is one.
Let us see: things are not always what they seem?—That’s what I say.
Do you know what Jacob is referring to when he says, “I have seen God face to face”?—God is God, I suppose.
Yes, but do you not know that God may be exhibited in various relations?—I know nothing about relations.
Do you not know that the name of God may be placed upon or in a being that is not God in the uncreated sense?—I tell you I know nothing of such stupid distinctions.
Then I must inform you. In Exo. xxiii. 20, we read of God saying to Moses: “Behold, I send an angel before thee . . . beware of him and obey his voice: provoke him not: he will not pardon your transgressions: for MY NAME IS IN HIM.” If an angel bore the name p. 138 of God, would not that angel be God to Israel? How could an angel be God?
I am showing you: are you not aware that, in this same way, Moses was God to Pharaoh.” If Moses was a God to Pharaoh, in Scripture phraseology (and it is the usage of Scripture we have to consider) would not an angel with the name of God on him be God to Israel?—You can, of course, twist it into any form you like.
Suppose, therefore, an Israelite were to have seen this leading, guiding, God-representing angel, could he not say, “I have seen God”?—That is a mere suggestion to get out of the difficulty.
I beg your pardon; you will find it is the specified truth of the case. Are you aware that the very personage to whom Jacob referred when he said he had seen God face to face, is declared in the Scriptures to have been an angel?—I am not aware of such an extraordinary fact, and if I were, I should not believe it.
In Hos. xii. 4, there is this allusion to the incident: “By his strength he (Jacob) had power with God, yea, he had power over the angel and prevailed.” If you turn to the account in Gen. xxxii., in which you found your allegation of contradiction, you will find it agrees with this allusion?—I have no inclination to turn to it.
At verse 24, you read, that “there wrestled a man with him (Jacob) to the breaking of the day.” The man wants to get away, but Jacob retains him by superior strength until his visitor shows his divinity by disabling him by the exercise of occult power, and releasing himself from Jacob’s muscular grasp. Jacob becomes aware of the angelic nature of his visitor and says, “I have seen God (Elohim) face to face, and my life is preserved”?—A very nice story.
Whatever you may think of the story, is it not evident that, according to the Scriptures, it was an angel that Jacob saw when he said, “I have seen God face to face”?—The thing is mixed up.
The moon looks mixed up to a man in his cups?—None of your insults.
Where is the contradiction between an invisible God and visible angels?—The contradiction is between invisible God and visible God.
p. 139 That is your contradiction?—I beg your pardon: it is the Bible’s.
Not when you understand it?—I fancy I understand it. Just so, you fancy your understand it when you don’t.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Keep to the question, please.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I am keeping to the question pretty closely. Now, Mr. Bad Laugh, let us have another of the contradictions?—Oh, there’s no end of them. The Bible not only reveals a God, who could be seen, and who could not be seen, but a God who knew everything and did not know some things; a God unchangeable, continually changing; a God all-wise, repenting and grieving at the unanticipated failure of his plans; and a God who was everywhere, but who lived somewhere above, and who came down occasionally.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: That ought to satisfy my friend!
Witness: I could smother them in contradictions.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: Yes, it is very easy to rattle off assertions. What are the assertions worth? That is the question. We have seen how much they are worth on the seeing and not seeing point. Let us take the others one by one?—Keep the angels out of it.
I shall keep nothing out of it that belongs to it. The elements of the subject must be taken into account before the subject can be understood?—It is something new to me to mix up angels with God in the way you do.
It may be new to you, but it is the key to the so-called contradictions you have referred to?—I don’t admit it has anything to do with the subject.
Then I shall compel you to admit it. I have already done so in the case of Jacob’s “seeing God,” and now for “a God who knew everything, and did not know some things.” Presumedly your reference is to what is recorded in Gen. xviii. 20, 21, “And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me, and if not I will know”? p. 140 —Yes, I say that is a God who did not know some things, and the God of the Bible is said to know everything.
Have you observed who the speaker is?—The Lord.
Aye, but the Lord speaks in “divers manners”?—I know nothing about that.
You ought to know it if you know the Bible as much as you profess?—Of course I know what it says.
Does it not say that God spoke at sundry times and divers manners (Heb. i. 1)?—Very well?
Very well: the question is, what was the manner of speech in the case in question. Who communed with Abraham in the utterance recorded in Gen. xviii.?—It says the Lord.
It says more: It says, “three men stood by him” (ver. 2); and further on (chap. xix. 1), when two of these men had gone towards Sodom, it says, “Two angels came to Sodom”?—That only makes the matter worse. It makes men unto angels, and angels unto men. That is a contradiction I had not noticed before. I am obliged to you.
Angels are like men, or rather men are like angels, in whose image they are formed: and therefore, angels not known to be such—which they were not in this case, Abraham taking them for wayfarers (verses 4 and 5)—would naturally be described as men. They are in fact immortal men; and saved men are described by Jesus as men into angels, and angels into men. That is a con- (Luke xx. 36).
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: We are not here to listen to a lecture on angels.
Mr. Discerner-of-facts: I am answering your witness’s remark. The point lies here: Was not the speaker an angelic speaker who said, “I will go down and know,” etc.?—So you want to make out.
Was it not so?—The narrative speaks for itself.
It does, and, with that we may leave it to the Jury. Now, the speaker being an angelic bearer of God’s name, where is the contradiction between his not knowing some things, and God’s knowing everything?—Ah, but I don’t admit that distinction.
Perhaps you don’t, but is not the distinction a matter of fact for all that?—I don’t see it.
p. 141 Are you aware that Christ expressly alleges the limited knowledge of the angels (Mark xiii. 32)?—I don’t know much about angels. Their visits are few and far between.
Does he not say in reference to a certain matter that “No, not the angels in heaven” know it?—Suppose he does?
Are not the angels limited ministrant intelligences, whose attitude David represents as “doing God’s commandments, hearkening to the voice of His words” (Psa. ciii. 20), and of whom Paul says: “They are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. i. 13, 14)?—What has that to do with the matter?
It has to do with those instances of limited knowledge apparently attributed to the Almighty, but in reality pertaining to the instruments employed to execute His purpose in its details?—I call it a get-out.
You may call it what you like. It is the natural explanation of the matter at which you cavil. The angels plainly appear in a variety of sayings and transactions attributed to God, for the simple reason that when so appointed they are God to man. The apparent identity between the angels and God is illustrated many times over; for example, we are informed that Jehovah rained fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. xix. 24). Yet the angel urging Lot to escape, speaks of it as his work, saying, “Haste thee, escape thither, for I cannot do anything till thou be escaped thither” (verse 22). Again, GOD said to Abraham, “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, and offer him for a burnt offering” (Gen. xxii. 1): yet afterwards, “the angel of the Lord called out of heaven, saying . . . . thou hast not withheld thine only son from ME” (verses 11, 12). Again, Jacob says, “The angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying . . . I am the God of Bethel” (Gen. xxi. 11-13). Again, “The angel of the Lord appeared unto Moses . . . . Moreover, He said, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exo. iii. 2-6), and so on. The same thing will be found throughout the historic Scriptures generally, and it explains the discrepancies which you so p. 142 glibly rattled off, Mr. Bad Laugh?—Yes, I like to rattle them off; they are so telling.
They can only be telling with those who do not understand the subject?—I find them telling with most people.
When their eyes are opened, the effect will be different?—I have been opening their eyes right and left.
I am afraid we should not agree as to the nature of the process. I had intended following up the other points of alleged contradiction, as to changeableness and unchangeableness, repenting and not repenting, omnipresense and localization; but I think I will spare you. Having indicated the principle of their explanation (or most of them), I will leave my friend, Mr. Alltruth, to deal with them more particularly, if he likes, in his speech for the defence, and also the same with your allegations as to the nature of the Mosaic code?—You are done with me?
I think I have done with you for the present.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: High time, too.
Re-examined by Mr. Dontwanto Believeanyhow
Mr. Bad Laugh, you have not suffered much, I hope, from the rack-and-thumb-screw process to which my friend has subjected you?—Oh, no, thank you. I have enjoyed it rather.
He has not shut you up?—It takes a cleverer man than what-do-you-call him to shut me up.
In point of fact, you never have been shut up?
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: It is only an honest man that can be shut up.
The Witness: You shut up.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: What I say is correct. Bring convincing reasons to bear upon an honest man and you convince him, and he has nothing more to say; but your professional agitator, spouter, partizan, hobbyist, or what not, is beyond reach of conviction. You cannot shut him up. The little mind he has is made up; it is set in a certain shape, and all his personal surroundings tend to keep it in that shape. You might as well try to stop a windmill by argument as to shut him up.
p. 143 Mr. Dontwanto Believeanyhow: Somewhat of an interruption my Lord. I was re-examining the witness.
His Lordship: Proceed.
Now, Bad Laugh, you have been taken all through ecclesiastical history by my friend, and all up and down the Bible, and I know not where. Have you altered your mind as to the character of the New Testament?—Not a bit.
Have you altered your mind as to the character of the fantasies indulged by the defendants?—Not in the least.
You still hold to it that they are fantasies?—Undoubtedly.
And hurtful fantasies?—And hurtful fantasies.
Fantasies for which there is no reasonable foundation?—I should say no foundation at all.
My friend said something about the literary world being on the side of the authenticity of the New Testament: are you aware that some of the brightest stars of modern scholarship are distinctly against the claims of Jesus of Nazareth?—Oh, undoubtedly: Strauss, in his peculiar way; Renan, in his polished Life of Jesus; the author of Ecce Homo; the writers of the Essays of Reviews; Gibbon also, the author of the Decline and Fall; David Hume; John Stuart Mill, and hosts of others have all in different ways discredited, and in fact utterly exploded the view of Christ exhibited in the four gospels. In fact, you cannot find a fairly educated man anywhere who indulges that view. It has gone out: it is a thing of the past. Science has simply killed it. It only lingers among ignorant well-meaning fellows like the defendants.
The various points raised by my friend, you consider mere quibbles?—Oh, mere quibbles: stale quibbles disposed of long, long ago.
In fact, you do not consider them worthy of notice?—That is my feeling.
That accounts for what my friend seemed to consider the somewhat abrupt manner in which you answered the questions?—Quite so. I am weary of the thrice thrashed-out rags.
An old rag and bone business you consider it altogether? p. 144—Nothing else. They have made it so pretty extensively on the Continent, where quite a nice thing has been made out of the sale of relics—bits of bone, teeth, hair, and such like.
Very well; that will do for the present.
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: Our next, and, I believe, concluding witness, is Professor Bioplasm. Perhaps at this stage your Lordship will take an adjournment?
His Lordship: Will the Professor’s examination take long?
Sir F. C. Partialfact Unbelief: The Professor’s examination in chief will be brief enough; but I daresay my friend on the other side may have a few questions to put to him.
Sir Noble Acceptorof Alltruth: The next witness, my Lord, is a man of a very different type from the last witness; and I should hope his cross-examination may be brought into reasonable compass.
His Lordship: Very well, we will take him after lunch.
The Court adjourned for lunch.