When, however, he did attempt to deal with any part of the positive evidence I have rehearsed in your hearing, he has done that which he said he was not called upon to do; he has attempted to disprove my evidence. This he has done by a hurried, rather excited and somewhat disconnected recital of miscellaneous points and passages, which he rather hinted at as inconsistent with my argument, than tried to show that they actually were so.
There was one notable exception to that course of his. I produced the writings of Paul as one of my principal and most valuable evidences. They exist, which is a great fact. I mean the existence of the epistles bearing his name is a great fact, for a reading of them would convince any unbiassed mind that they are no forgery; an unbiassed reader instinctively feels that a forger or literary inventor could not produce such writings. I produced them as a weighty element in the argument. Mr. Bradlaugh did not attempt to disprove them; he said it was not his business. He knows he cannot. When he cannot, he says it is not his business; but when he thinks he can, he tries.
But I am not content to leave the matter in that position. I was a little taken by surprise, I must confess, by Mr. Bradlaugh's tactics on this point, because it is universally conceded now, with the exception of a few of the more unscrupulous and uncritical of the unbelieving class, that Paul lived in the first century, and that Paul wrote these letters. I assumed that Mr. Bradlaugh would admit this also, and argue the case on the basis of that admission. Therefore I had not come prepared with the complete and exhaustive technical evidence which it is possible to produce in support of the fact. I would have prepared myself with the evidence if I had expected Mr. Bradlaugh would have taken the position he has taken. I have come to-night so prepared, and I shall carry the chain of evidence not only back to A.D.150, but right straight away into the days of Paul himself in an unbroken chain--not a broken one, such as Mr. Bradlaugh says he is contented with in the case of Eusebius. In the case of Homer, Herodotus, Livy, and other ancient writers, he has to be content with a very faint and broken chain of evidence, and the principle which guides him in accepting that evidence would compel him in consistency to accept Paul even if there were only a few scattered links, instead of there being, as there is, a chain without a single link missing.
I asked him last Thursday night how far back he would allow the New Testament to have existed. he said A.D. 150. 1 asked him his reasons for fixing upon that date, and he declined to give me them upon the somewhat trivial plea of being afraid to furnish me with valuable information. I hope Mr. Bradlaugh will not any longer refuse to answer my question on such a ground, or he will lay himself open to the imputation that he is afraid to submit his case to the test of cross-examination. The object of all my questions is to put the position he takes to a logical test, and if he evades them, it is simply evading legitimate test, which will reflect injuriously on his advocacy. My object in asking for his reasons for admitting the existence of the New Testament as early as A.D.150, was that I might show to him had he given those reasons, that the evidence which carried the proof back to A.D. 150 would logically carry it back to the days of the apostles. This I hope now to make manifest.
There are five witnesses to the particular date Mr. Bradlaugh speaks of, not that they fix on A.D.150 as hard and fast line, but their witness establishes that date beyond all question. The five witnesses which I produce are Tatianus, who was born A.D.130, who wrote an oration to the Greeks and "The Harmony of the Four Gospels". Then there is Theophilus, of Antioch, who died A.D.181; he wrote three books to Autolycus, in which he mentions John, and makes thirty or forty quotations from the New Testament. We then have Athenagoras, an Athenian philosopher, who became a Christian, and flourished in the second half of the second century. He wrote a treatise on the Resurrection; and also addressed a petition on behalf of the Christians to the Roman Emperor of the day, asking that they might be shielded from the persecution to which they were subjected. In these two publications he quotes the New Testament twenty times. There is, then, Irenaeus, who was born A.D.130, died A.D.202. He wrote "five books against heresies". and in the course of his arguments, he mentions by name twenty one books of the New Testament. Earlier still, we have Melito, of Sardis, who wrote a work "Extracts from the Law and the Prophets", and in which he recognises the New Testament by speaking of the Old, a distinction which did not exist until there came to be a new one, of course. Then there is Papias, of Hierapolis, who died A.D. 153, a disciple of Polycarp, who wrote five books of Commentaries, in which he distinctly mentions by name Matthew, Mark, Peter and John. All these men flourished in the middle of the second century, and gave evidence of the existence of the New Testament, certainly in A.D. 150, for they quote from it as a book commonly accepted at that time. They were separate men, living in various parts of the world, all quoting the New Testament in A.D. 150, which excludes the notion that the New Testament only came into existence in A.D. 150; for, mind you, the argument is stronger than it appears. Athenagoras, for instance, tells the emperor, in his petition, that there was, at that time, a community acting upon the precepts of the New Testament, which he quotes. The very fact of his addressing a petition to the emperor is evidence of this; for how came such a petition to be presented, except that there had, for a long time, existed a community of Christians subject to persecution. Athenagoras, to show their inoffensive character, quotes the precepts of Christ from Matt. 5, as those by which they were governed. Consider what this proves. It proves that the New Testament must have existed a long time previous to the time of Athenagoras writing; for how, otherwise, could subjection to New Testament precepts (so contrary to the natural impulses of men), have been extensively brought about?
I say, then, that the evidence that carries the New Testament back to A.D. 150, logically carries it much farther back than that. But I am not content to rest my case there, and I march, step by step, back into the very age of the apostles while they were yet alive. I produce Justin Martyr. He was born A.D. 103; he was brought up a Greek philosopher, a man of education and of considerable natural abilities. I emphasise upon this, because this man was converted to Christianity in the year A.D. 130, ten years after which, he wrote an apology to the then reigning Emperor (Antoninus Pius) on behalf of the Christians; and again in A.D. 162, to Marcus Aurelius. In both of these, he quotes extensively from the New Testament. If the New Testament was only in existence in A.D. 150, how came Justin Martyr to quote from it in A.D. 140? and if Justin Martyr quoted from it in A.D. 140, is that not evidence of its existence many years before? for how could you imagine an educated man, as Justin Martyr was, embracing Christianity A.D.130, and quoting in A.D.140, from books which were not current in the Christian community, at least at the time he joined them? And if they were current at the time he joined them, they must have been current many years before, for the Christians were scattered in many places, and Justin Martyr travelled among them, and had the opportunity of knowing the facts on so simple a point as this, that is, whether they had the New Testament in their possession or not; and whether, being in their possession, it was a genuine book or the production of forgers. A curious kind of forgery certainly, as anyone may see if they will read; it is a forgery impossible on the face of it. And a successful forgery, extraordinary certainly, if it were a forgery, for it is made up of letters purporting to have been addressed to communities in detail, which communities were in existence, and knew whether they had received those letters or not. But Mr. Bradlaugh says "Oh no; I don't say they are forgeries." When I ask him if they are genuine, then he says, "I have no evidence of it." This is incomprehensible. He broaches a new and extraordinary definition of forgery. I always understood that a forgery was an attempt to imitate something real and valuable; but in this case, Mr. Bradlaugh denies the value or the reality of the thing said to be forged. He will not admit the existence of real apostolic writings, though he says there is plenty of forged apostolic writings. This is an extraordinary position for anyone to take, and I must leave you to draw your own conclusions as to its meaning in this case. I have already spoken of Tatianus, who died A.D.153. He wrote five books of commentaries, in which he distinctly mentions Matthew, Mark, Peter and John. I may say I come prepared with the names of the books and with the quotations from them, if required, wherein all these things appear. Next, I take Polycarp, who was born A.D.80, when the apostle John was still alive. he died A.D.167. While he lived, he wrote a letter to the Philippians. I have that letter in my possession, and with me on the platform. In that letter, Polycarp mentions three books of the New Testament expressly by name, and quotes from the New Testament fifty times. Polycarp, in the early part of his life, had the society of the apostle John, and learned from him concerning Jesus. This we learn from Irenaeus, the disciple and companion of Polycarp. Earlier than Polycarp, we have Ignatius, who was born A.D.35, a year after the crucifixion. He wrote seven epistles, in which seven epistles he quoted forty or fifty times from the New Testament, and refers once expressly to the Epistle to the Ephesians. He died A.D.107. If the New Testament were forged in A.D.150, how came it that Ignatius, who died A.D.107, quoted from it at the end of the first century? His epistles were written at the close of the first century, and in them he quotes the New Testament, which constitutes evidence not only that the New Testament existed at the time he quoted it, but that it was then recognised as a book which was a standard authority for reference among Christians. This shows a previous existence of many years. I go a step or two farther, and I take Hermas, who also flourished before A.D. 100, while John the apostle was still alive. In his work, entitled The Shepherd, there are at least fifty quotations from the New Testament, and we know that Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen and others, cite or refer to this work of Hermas as a writing antecedent to their days. Besides Hermas, we may take Clement, who is referred to by Paul. Clement was born A.D.30, and died A.D. 100. He wrote a letter to the Corinthian Church, as I stated on a former evening, in which letter he expressly refers to Paul's epistle to the same community, and quotes many times from the New Testament. Then there is the testimony of Barnabas, who wrote a letter somewhere about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, to which he refers as a contemporary event; and in this letter is quoted the New Testament more than thirty times.
With regard to these witnesses, although I do not accept them as competent expositors of true Christian doctrine, yet they are competent witnesses of what existed while they were yet alive. A man may be a trustworthy witness of a fact without being accepted as a judge of the fact. For instance, scientific men may take the statement of an agricultural labourer as to the finding of a particular plant in a field, while we may reject his theory as to the nature and quality of the plant; or a country villager's evidence may be accepted to the existence of a certain custom in the village back to a certain date, without people being bound by his explanation of the meaning of that custom. We may accept the fact while we disregard the theory. So, these "Fathers", as they are called, may be taken as witnesses of what passed in their own day, as the writings of the apostles, though they may not be accepted as good judges with regard to the true nature of the doctrine of the apostles.
The evidence of the authenticity of the New Testament is so complete, that I can only account for Mr. Bradlaugh's objection to Paul's writings on one principle. There would be no difficulty about the authenticity if it were not for the apostolicity. If these writings of Paul merely ranked with those of the scholars of the day, Mr. Bradlaugh would accept the evidence of their authenticity. In fact he is bound to. There is no denial of the fact that these men whom I have quoted lived at that time. There is no denial of the fact that they wrote at that time, and that they quoted the New Testament. It would not alter the argument if it could be shown that these were not their writings, because the writings produced, even if forged, were forged in the age during which Polycarp and the others lived (as shown by the recognition of their existence by Eusebius, Irenaeus, and others), and the quotations they contain from the New Testament would have the same force as showing that the New Testament existed, as if they were the production of their professed authors.
The evidence is complete. I have carried the proof right back to the age of the apostles. I have proved the New Testament to have been in existence in the first century. It is a perfect marvel that we have such an unbroken chain of evidence, for we have to remember that the Christians in their beginning were a sect everywhere spoken against, despised and trodden down, and composed principally of the poor. The wonder is that documents should have been produced among them which should be extant to the present day. It was different in the days of Eusebius. Then the protection of the State was thrown over them, and Christian documents became public documents, and Christian writers public writers under imperial patronage, as Eusebius was. Before then Christian documents were private documents, and the wonder is that they are now in existence at all. Having been proved from the beginning of their existence, I ask you to take up and apply the argument concerning Paul which I advanced the last night we were together. That argument properly belongs to to-night, and is in the same line as that previously pursued, though the evidence is stronger. With the proof of the document there is the proof of the facts, and therefore of the conclusion I sought to deduce from them.
I have referred to the internal evidence which Mr. Bradlaugh has refused to look at. Surely internal evidence should go for something. In my judgment it weighs a great deal more than any amount of external evidence that can be produced. I think I shall be able, though necessarily in a brief manner, to indicate some general considerations on this point which will help to carry conviction as to the divinity of this book. This belongs to the second part of my general propositions--that the Scriptures besides being "authentic" are "reliable". He has confined himself to the word "authentic". He has limited me in the argument to the idea of authenticity. This is a mistake, for a thing may be utterly worthless and still an authentic record. I believe the Koran to be authentic, but I don't believe it to be reliable. I believe Mahomet wrote it, but I don't believe what he wrote in it. Even on the question of authenticity the Koran cannot be placed in competition with the Bible; but it is necessary, besides saying it is authentic, to show that the Bible is a reliable account of the Divine dealings with mankind; and I proceed by a few hasty thoughts to make that apparent.
I call attention to this fact that the Bible, as a whole, is in harmony with what is now found scientifically to be true, though written at a time when the whole world outside of it was wrapped in speculative fog. I refer now to two items in particular--God and man. With regard to God, the nations of the world said there must be a variety of gods, because there was a variety of power-manifestations. They saw fire and heat, and sunshine and darkness, and water and love and thunder, &c., and they argued these must be manifestations of separate deities. They, therefore, invented Jove and Venus, and Mars and Neptune, &c. A plurality of deities was believed in by almost every nation. But science has shown that all manifestations of power are referable to one common source, origin or principle, though that common origin is itself admitted to be inscrutable. The doctrine is defined as "the co-relation of forces": that is, that all forces have their root or origin in one principle. Now, that fact the Bible taught ages before it occurred to natural thinkers. It taught that there is but one God and one universal Spirit, out of which all things have come. Did time allow, I would show this by a number of citations; but my time is drawing to a close. But there is a difference between the Bible form and the scientific form of this doctrine. Science, at least in the hands of some scientists, makes a curious application of its "co-relation" discovery, which I venture to say does not bear a favourable comparison with the Bible use of that truth. I now refer to the doctrine of the origin of the universe, as expounded by men who wish to get rid of a God, upholder of all, proprietor of all, to whom we are all responsible. They say the primal force is an unintelligent impersonal force. They won't accept a personal God. They say they cannot comprehend such an explanation. They cannot comprehend how universal power should have a personal nucleus at one central point in the heavens, as taught by the Scriptures. They cannot grasp the idea of universal power being, in its totality, One Mighty Being. They reject it because they cannot understand it. But do they give us something they do understand? Let us see. They are obliged to admit that things have had a beginning, at least upon earth. They tell us of a time when the earth was in an incandescent state, and when there was no life on it. They tell us of a time before that, when there wasn't even an incandescent world, but when its substance existed in a nebulous ethereal form, diffused throughout the universe. We follow them, and ask them what preceded the nebulous condition of substance? and whatever it was, how came it to advance to a more concrete state? If the impelling motion was due to blind, unreasoning, unsentient generation in the inert universe of vapour or gas, or whatever it was, why didn't the generation take place countless ages before, when the same force being there, the same power of development existed? Why the blind force did not develop itself millions of years before it did is not explained. It ought to have brought itself out from eternity if there was no intelligence to plan, control, check, restrain, or stimulate. What a strange account of creation we have at the hands of such a theory. Here is the 1st chapter of Genesis, written by an American, according to the philosophy which Mr. Bradlaugh represents:--
CREATION ACCORDING TO DARWIN.
1.--Primarily the Unknowable moved upon cosmos and evolved protoplasm.
2.--And protoplasm was inorganic and undifferentiated, containing all things in potential energy; and a spirit of evolution moved upon the fluid mass.
3.--And the Unknowable said Let atoms attract, and their contact beget light, heat and electricity.
4.--And the unconditioned differentiated atoms, each after its kind, and their combinations beget rock, air and water.
5.--And there went out a Spirit of evolution from the unconditioned, and working in protoplasm, by accretion and absorption, produced the organic cell.
6.--And cell, by nutrition, evolved primordial germ, and germ developed protogene, and protogene begat eozoon, and eozoon begat monad, and monad began animalculae.
7.--And animalculae begate ephemera: then began creeping things to multiply on the face of the earth.
And so on, and so on. Is that a bit more intelligible than this?--
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
If that is mysterious, I can only say it is at least not more mysterious than the Darwin mystery, and if I must choose between mysteries, I would rather have mystery with intelligence in it than mystery without intelligence. I can understand how things made a start, if there was a designing initiative to start them. I cannot understand how things could start if there was nothing to give them an organic propulsion.
Mr. BRADLAUGH: On this, the fourth night of the debate, the names
of the witnesses are mentioned, and Mr. Roberts says he can quote
from them, but he has carefully refrained from doing it, and I
will give you the reasons in my speech why he has not done so.
He says I admitted that the New Testament existed A.D.150. But
I am in the recollection of the audience, and still more in the
recollection of the short-hand writer, whose notes will speak
for themselves, and I am positive my answer was that not the slightest
evidence could be shown of the existence of the Four Gospels before
A.D. 150. 1 did not say that at A.D. 150 you could show
the existence of the book, and if Mr. Roberts thinks I said so
he has greatly misapprehended what I said. On the contrary, I
took that date to be on the safe side, because I knew it was a
long way on the safe side, and I cannot make out a man who has
listened with reasonable attention having so entirely misunderstood
the statement. Mr. Roberts has referred to Tatian, but not a
word has he
quoted from Tatian, because there is not a word in existence,
and that is a good reason for not quoting him. And here I must
ask Mr. Roberts not to use people's names as witnesses, but to
quote, with chapter and verse, the phrases on which he relies
as evidence. It is simple impertinence to read names to us and
tell us he has got the books here when those books do not exist
in the world. Mr. Roberts next quotes Theophilus. The reference
to Theophilus stands in much the same position as that to Tatian,
with this exception, that there is a commentary of Theophilus
which is referred to as spurious. If that is evidence all I can
say is that language gets very puzzling. It is alleged by Lardner
that the date given to Theophilus is A.D.181, and how that can
come before A.D.150 my arithmetic don't tell me. Next we come
to Athenagorus. With reference to this writer he never mentions
either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, by name, and when any texts
are quoted from him, I will undertake to quote from him that which
is not in the Four Gospels at all, and which he must have derived
from some other gospels, which it will be my duty to mention to
you before this evening is over. We now come to Ignatius--I beg
pardon, Irenaeus; and the very funny way in which Mr. Roberts
manages his dates is remarkable. He says "Irenaeus, born
A.D.130, died A.D.202", and therefore he brings him before
A.D. 150.
Mr. ROBERTS: No.
Mr. BRADLAUGH: I say yes, or I don't understand the meaning of
the language Mr. Roberts uses. The books against heresies attributed
to Irenaeus came between A.D. 180 and A.D. 190, and cannot possibly
affect the question of what took place before A.D. 150. Next
we are told there is Mileto. Would Mr. Roberts name the particular
works he relies upon. I don't mean the works of Christian evidence
mongers 300 years after, but I mean the works which Mileto has
handed down. I defy him to do it for the simplest of all reasons.
He can only quote to you by the process of using the works of
writers considerably later. Then Mr. Roberts uses the name of
Justin Martyr. I have taken the pains of looking up Justin Martyr,
who I thought would be referred to, because I wanted to have something
to say in my speech without referring to the very agreeable nonsense
with which Mr. Roberts concluded. Justin Martyr is supposed to
have lived from A.D. 130 to 140. Some put the date a trifle earlier
and others a great deal later. Mr. Roberts says he was born A.D.
103, converted A.D. 130. Will you permit me to tell you that
the whole of the dates which Mr. Roberts gives so glibly are disputed
dates--not disputed by infidels, but by religious men. There
are disagreements on every one of those dates, and it is not fair
and frank in a man calling witnesses to give you these as though
they were undoubted dates. However I am contented to take it
that Justin Martyr was converted in 130, and I will take it that
his works existed in A.D.140. Justin Martyr was a voluminous writer,
but the truth of the works published in his name have since been
abandoned as forgeries by Christians themselves. And then when
Mr. Roberts was referring to Justin Martyr, why did he not tell
you that the famous Paul, of whom he talks so much, is never once
named by Justin Martyr in any one of his writings. Why did he
not tell you that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as writers of
gospels, are never once named by Justin Martyr in any one of his
writings? Why did he not go on to tell you that Justin Martyr
repeatedly uses language to show that whatever gospels he had,
it was evident he did not have ours, for he talks of the father,
or rather the husband of the mother of Jesus as putting up in
a cave. He talks of fire kindled in Jordan at the baptism of
Christ, which does not come out of the Four Gospels. He talks
of Jesus whilst amongst men making works of carpentry, as ploughs
and yokes, which clearly don't come out of the Four Gospels.
But I won't weary you and waste your time by further referring
to Justin Martyr. It is clear that whatever books Justin Martyr
had, he does not mention the gospels. He does not, excepting
in one passage, use the word interpreted "gospel", and
that is an interpolation. He never mentions Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John; and the famous Paul is not mentioned from first to last.
I will pass on to the next matter Mr. Roberts mentions. He says
that a forgery is an attempt to imitate, and must be an attempt
to imitate some valuable document. But if that be true, in what
position is Mr. Roberts placed? I have here a list of fifty or
sixty writings which have been abandoned as forgeries-- books
published as Acts; books published as Gospels; books published
as Epistles. I may have time to read the list to you, but at
present I only refer to it. But if Mr. Roberts' contention is
true, the existence of a false gospel of Barnabas would be evidence
of an imitation of a true gospel of Barnabas; and if the contention
has not that value, then it has no value at all. I ask you to
remember that Justin Martyr's silence is important, because he
does, in his writings, mention a revelation to John, and he mentions
it in a peculiar, curious fashion, which, no doubt, you are thoroughly
acquainted with, and I say the fact that Justin Martyr mentions
that so distinctly shows that he could not have had others to
mention, or he would have mentioned them with equal distinctness.
I pass on to the next witness, Tatian. Mr. Roberts said he would
quote to you from Tatian. There is not a scrap of Tatian existing
except in a quotation of Eusebius, and it is utter pretence to
carry you back in this fashion without explaining it to you.
But what is the evidence of Tatian? It is the evidence of four
gospels. If evidence at all, it is evidence against the Four
Gospels we have. I have carefully compared the evidence, and
I know exactly what I am saying. I say that the evidence is distinctly
against the books and not in favour of them. We are told that
Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect. Tatian's
evidence is that what existed was only in Greek, and there is
no evidence of there having been any translation at all or any
sort of testimony as to the way it comes to us in the fashion
it has done. Again he says of Mark, that Mark being the interpreter
of Peter, whatever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy, not
in the order in which things were spoken or done by our Lord,
for he never heard of or saw our Lord. What becomes, then, of
the Four Gospels in the earlier part of the history? But it is
a history composed in a fashion which precludes the possibility
of the evidence of Tatian applying to it at all.
I now come to the alleged epistle of Polycarp, and I don't want
to use any unduly strong language, but when people quote gospels
and epistles as though they were not open to the slightest objection
at all, they are dealing in a manner that is utterly unfair, and
I urge that the evidence against the authenticity of the epistle
of Polycarp has to be considered by anyone of those who take these
things in hand for discussion at all, and I urge that the bulk
of these epistles had to be abandoned as forgeries. A great German
writer says the authenticity of this epistle has been called in
question by a writer whom he names. The contents of them I will
deal with presently. There is no evidence of anything about when
Polycarp lived, and the authorised translators tell us that of
Polycarp's life little was known. The whole story of his martyrdom
is spurious and forged, and when you quote him, if I admit the
evidence is true, I ask what have you got about Matthew? What
have you got about Mark? What have you got about Luke? or what
have you got about John? Not a solitary single word, and in order
to show you this, I will take one of your witnesses, Clement of
Rome. Would you believe that the writers and translators of the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, the Rev. Dr. Donaldson and the Rev. F. Crombie,
are obliged to tell you, in their introduction, that "who
the Clement was to whom the writings are ascribed cannot, with
absolute certainty, be determined." Mr. Roberts places Clement
at A.D.30 or A.D.83. But taking Clement as presented to us, what
does he prove? First, I submit to you if he proves anything,
it is fatal to the Bible, for whatever he quoted was not in the
Bible which we have, the authorised English translation, and I
will give you my evidence; but before I do so, permit me to refer
to Mr. Roberts' own case. He says Clement lived A.D.30, and this
epistle was written A.D.83. Supposing that to be true, in the
second chapter we have the passage: "Every timely honour
and happiness were bestowed upon you, and my beloved did eat and
drink, and waxed fat and wicked." This was said of a people
which Mr. Roberts says were a persecuted race. Because honour
and happiness were bestowed upon them they eat and grew fat--these
followers of Christ, before there were any infidels to corrupt
them at all. Again, he said, "I am but the smoke of a pit."
Find me that within the cover of this book! Then, I say, the
book he has proved is not the book we are discussing before this
audience. But Mr. Roberts has given us the evidence of the resurrection.
Let his own witness talk about the resurrection. In chapter
25 he says, "Let us consider the wonderful scenes of the
resurrection which take place in eastern lands. There is a certain
bird that is called the phoenix. There is only one of the kind,
and it lives 500 years, and when the time of dissolution draws
near, that it must die, it builds a nest of frankincense and myrrh,
into which it enters and dies." He then describes the process
of the bird rising from its ashes, and that is the kind of nonsense
to prove the Bible true. But let us see what is the evidence
of Clement, and I refer Mr. Roberts now to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical
History--book 3, c.38; book 2, c. 1-- and I say he will find Eusebius
there speaking with the same authority of the other writings of
Clement, which have since been abandoned as forgeries. How dare
Mr. Roberts pretend to talk of Clement, when he produces no witnesses;
for those he quoted were not witnesses; they were only people
who spoke from hearsay, like Tom who heard Dick say he knew William's
grandmother 50 years ago. (Hisses.) You do quite right to hiss,
because the evidence can only be answered in that fashion. You
do well to hiss, because you show that the sharp point of the
blade has been thrust right through your advocate, and that you
are afraid of hearing me. You do well to hiss, because it shows
that your witnesses have been turned out by judge and jury with
bad characters, and we cannot indict them for perjury, because
they do not exist. Now we come to Hermas and Barnabas, but it
would be dealing unfairly with two such reputable witnesses to
waste the end of my speech upon them, and I shall occupy the few
minutes that remain to me by commenting on the commencement of
Mr. Roberts' speech this evening. He said the existence of the
Jews was required on the hypothesis of the truth of the Bible.
So I say is the existence of Mahomedans required on the hypothesis
of the truth of the Koran. So the existence of the Mormons is
required in confirmation of the truth of the story of Joseph Smith.
So the existence of fire-worshippers proves the truth of the
founder of their story, and the existence of the followers of
Confucius to the truth of his works. And so I might go all through.
These are simply the verbal phrases of nonsense which have been
too much used. I don't deny the Jews. I don't deny that they
had sacred books. Every people have their sacred books. The
question I have discussed is, does the Bible contain an authentic
revelation to man? Mr. Roberts says that I have dealt entirely
with the internal evidence, and that I have not dealt with the
external--that I have not dealt with the existence of an ecclesiastical
tyranny. I cannot distinguish much difference in this particular
between the Church of England and the Church of Rome, and the
Nonconformists persecuting the Quakers in New England. Our friends
of the Church of Rome as well as of the Church of England have
been found in opposition to progress and education. That is why
I impeach the book; that is why I impeach Rome. But it is no
question of taking an ecclesiastical tyranny alone, if you tell
me it is the out-growth of the book. By their fruits ye shall
know whether the book is the book of truth. You tell me of a
tree planted 1,800 years ago, and you tell me to come under its
branches. I show you wars and murders, anathematising and persecution.
I shake your rotten tree, and I say, "Look at the fruit."
(Hisses.)
The CHAIRMAN: You do quite wrong to hiss, and you do quite wrong
to cheer. You would do quite right to remain quiet and listen
to the arguments. Mr. Roberts will now have the option of speaking
for a quarter of an hour, or of questioning Mr. Bradlaugh, who
will subsequently have the same opportunity.
Does the Koran foretell the existence of Mahomedanism at a period
3,000 years after its establishment?- I think not.
Then in what sense does the hypothesis of the Koran's truth require
the existence of Mahomedanism at the end of a similar time?--At
what time?
3,000 years after the writing of the Koran?--3,000 years have
not elapsed since the date of Mahommed. Therefore I cannot answer
the question.
Then I will change the date to 1876, and repeat my question?--If
you will repeat it, I will try to answer.
In what way does the hypothesis of the truth of the Koran require
that we should find Mahomedans in existence now?--The supposition
may be equally devised for any religious system embraced by so
many millions of people.
Does the Koran foretell that Mahomedanism should exist centuries
after its production?--I cannot challenge my memory.
I must ask you to try and remember?--My copy of the Koran is at
home. I will look by to-morrow night.
I have a copy here (handing the book to Mr. Bradlaugh. Mr. Bradlaugh
sits down and turns over the book).--Go on with your questions.
No; I cannot while you are reading.--Oh, I can answer you quick
enough.
Excuse me, Mr. Bradlaugh: I must wait till we have disposed of
the present question. Read and I will wait.--I will, and perhaps
I may find some things useful to both of us. (Turns over the book).
Go on with your questions.
I must wait till you find the place.--I said I was not aware of
any text capable of being so construed in the Koran, but you can
go on. (Keeps turning over the leaves.)
Allow me to ask you to put down the book if I am to go on?--I
will answer your questions. I was going to give you a text which
I think will conflict with the other book a little. I think that
you will find that the Koran, chapter 24, provides for
the better treatment of slaves than the Bible does in Leviticus,
chapter 25. There are other things I will find if you will give
me time.
That is not to the point at present. I now ask you whether you
are aware that the Bible foretells the existence of the Jews till
the end of time?--I am not aware of it.
Will you allow me to present you with evidence?--You have a right
to do what you please. You have a right to occupy a quarter of
an hour.
I now quote from the 30th chapter of Jeremiah and the 10th and
11th verses:"Fear thou not, 0 my servant Jacob; neither be
dismayed, O Israel: for lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy
seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return
and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid.
For I am with thee, saith the Lord, to save thee: though I
make a full end of all nations whither I have scattered thee,
yet Will I NOT MAKE A FULL END OF THEE: but I will correct
thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished."
I ask upon that, whether the existence of the Jews does not bear
out the hypothesis of that being a true prophecy?--No, because
in Genesis God made an equally kind promise which He did not keep,
and I have no means of estimating one more than the other.
Give me a promise He did not keep.--More than one. In Genesis
chapter 12, verse 7: "And the Lord appeared unto Abraham
and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land;" and again,
Genesis chapter 13, verse 15: "Lift up now thine eyes, and
look from the place where thou art, northward and southward and
eastward. For all the land which thou seest to thee will I give
it, and to thy seed for ever." I say the Jews have not had
it for ever.
So you say; but is that a proof that they won't?--Yes it is, because
it is said, "To thee will I give it, and to thy seed for
ever", and, clearly, as some years must be taken off the
"ever", it cannot be fulfilled.
You said you were going to give me a case of a promise not fulfilled?--I
will give you a dozen.
Let us keep to the one you have adduced at present. You think
God has not fulfilled what he promised to Abraham. Is it not
possible it may yet be fulfilled?--No; because the words are,
"I will give it thee for ever", &c., and if the
Jews are not in existence there, it is quite clear, according
to your own contention, that they have not had it for "ever".
That is to say "for ever" when they get it under the
promise?--But it is said, "To thee (Abraham) will I give
it". Abraham never had an inch of it.
Are you aware that he is to have it when Christ comes to establish
his kingdom upon the earth?--I don't know what will happen when
Christ comes.
If you are not acquainted with what will happen when Christ comes,
are you in a position to speak of an unfulfilled promise?--Yes.
The land was given to Abraham and his whole seed. Abraham did
not get it, and several generations have not got it; and it is
clearly unfulfilled as far as they are concerned.
But if Abraham and his seed have it for ever at a future time,
will not the promise be fulfilled?--No; because it won't be 'ever'
after the promise.
It will be 'ever' after its fulfilment. The 'ever' begins with
its fulfilment surely?--It will be several ages short of ever.
Well, we will leave that. Do I understand you to deny that the
Christians suffered persecution in the first century?--I have
no evidence of the existence of persecution. I only find your
own witness saying they received "honour and happiness, did
eat, drink, become fat and kicked."
Do you believe that Tacitus lived and wrote in the first century?--I
forget the exact date of Tacitus' writings. I have no doubt he
lived and wrote about that date.
Are you aware that Gibbon admits the authenticity of the writings
of Tacitus?--Gibbon was a Christian, and I am not. I have read
Gibbon and I have read Tacitus. Gibbon lived 1600 years after
Tacitus. You have Gibbon on your side, but Gibbon was a Christian
gentleman, and I am an Atheist gentleman. I may say I
don't lay particular weight on the era of Tacitus' writings.
I believe it was at the close of the first century.
Do you admit he wrote?--No doubt.
Do you admit what Tacitus declares, that Nero, in order to stifle
the rumours that he set Rome on fire, ascribed it to a people
"called by the vulgar Christians", whom he persecuted
greatly? Do you admit that was in the first century?--I don't
think it was. It is not noticed by Eusebius, and he would not
have circulated the turbid writings of Josephus if he had had
to his hand the writings of Tacitus. That is only my opinion,
and I am corroborated by knowing that our "Christian Evidence"
people altered every book they could.
Do you endorse this: "The most sceptical"--What are
you reading?
I will tell you when I have read it:--"The most sceptical
are obliged to respect the truth of this extraordinary fact, and
the integrity of this passage" from Tacitus. Do you admit
that Gibbon wrote that? --I do.
Do you admit Gibbon to be a first-rate authority?--It may be that
Eusebius had Tacitus to his hand. If so, it is most extraordinary
that he missed that passage, if it existed, and circulated one
which all intelligent men abandon as a forgery.
Supposing Gibbon says the Christians were persecuted in the first
century, would you believe that they then existed? --I am inclined
to think that the people whom you call persecuted Christians existed
before that.
How far back would you take them?--I don't know how far back:
Philo takes them back before the first century.
Do you take the name of Christ in connection with them back before
that time?--At least 1,000 years before that time.
Do you mean to say that you find people called Christians before
the first century?--That is not the question you asked me.
That is my question.--I don't know. I do find the name of Christ.
How came the name of Christ to be associated with the body of
Christians?--I don't know.
Do you admit it has become so associated?--Yes.
And associated some time between A.D. 150 and A.D. 1?--I have
no means of forming an opinion.
Then you deny this extract from Tacitus?--That is not the way
of putting it. You asked me a question and I frankly answered
it. You asked me the position of Tacitus. I answered by giving
my reasons for what I think it was. But my reasons don't go any
further than my own expression of disbelief, and don't go the
length of absolute denial, but they put upon you the burden of
proving it.
As a reasonable gentleman, I ask what have you reason to believe
on the subject?--I find that the author Eusebius don't quote it.
The whole of the early ages abounded in forgeries, and I cannot
think so important a statement would have been missed.
Do you think Josephus wrote about the same time?--I should think
about the same time or a little earlier.
Are you aware that Josephus quotes Tacitus?--Yes, but not for
Christ, and he cannot have missed so important a corroboration.
There was no need of putting the forged testimony of Josephus
if the real evidence was to be found in Tacitus.
Are you aware that Josephus quotes that passage in Tacitus concerning
Nero's destruction of Rome?--I am not aware that he quotes it
as from Tacitus.
Will you please find me the quotation in which Josephus speaks
about Jesus? Mr. R. (reading): "Now there was about this
time Jesus, a wise man, if it is lawful to call him a man, for
he was a great doer of miracles."
Do you find a word there about Tacitus?--No.
What do you mean by saying Josephus quoted Tacitus?--I did not
say so as to this passage.
I quite misunderstood you, then. I certainly believed you to
imply that a quotation from Tacitus was to be found in Josephus.
If Mr. Roberts says I misunderstood him I only want it distinctly
recorded. Will you please give your authority for saying that
Clement of Rome was born A.D.30?--I have only the authority of
the ancient writers.
Of whom? Name him. (Mr. Roberts turns to a book). If you are
going to quote from Eusebius I will find you the chapter. --I
have the Apochryphal New Testament published by Hone.
I am afraid Hone is not an ancient writer. I want an ancient
writer, not one of this century.--William Hone's statements are
based upon his researches into ancient manuscripts, and are to
be accepted as credible.
William Hone's statement is not ancient?--He is not my only authority.
Give me your other.--I give you Milner.
Is he an ancient writer? I want an ancient writer.--He is a gentleman.
Mr. R., they are all gentlemen. I am not disputing that, I want
an ancient writer.--He is a gentleman who conducted his investigations
in the light of ancient works in the most searching manner.
That is no categorical answer to my question. The rules of this
debate say that questions must be answered categorically, and
to answer me by explaining who Milner is, is not categorical.
I don't want modern writers, because they only base their statements
upon something else. If you tell me you have only read modern
writers, I can understand. Have you read the ancient authority?
If you have not read the original writing, have you read translations
from books such as are prepared from the original language? I
don't want your "Christian Evidence" mongering works
of modern times. I want the original authorities. Tell, me have
you any others you have taken the pains to refer to?--Not on the
question of Clement's age.
Have you in relation Barnabas?--My answer must be the same.
Hermas, Irenaeus, Mileto?--My answer must be the same in all these
cases.
Justin Martyr? Do you mean to say that you have formed your judgment
upon ancient matters without taking the trouble to go back to
the ancient writers?--I have gone through a number of ecclesiastical
histories.
What ancient ones?--Ecclesiastical histories are not ancient.
Yes, there are some?--What do you mean by "ancient"?
I am asking questions. It is your duty to answer them. I mean
by "ancient" relating to the period of the writers whose
names you have used.--Precisely so. I have given an answer.
In some cases, I have referred to the first authorities.
Name one to whom you have referred to in relation to this discussion?--I
have not referred to original documents.
Nor have I, but I have been to the best translations, and I want
to know if you have taken the trouble to do that. Tell me what
edition of Justin Martyr you have used?--I have already observed
that I have in some cases referred to the first authorities, and
others I have taken second-hand on the authority of credible gentlemen.
What do you mean by "some cases"? --I cannot be more
explicit.
Have you a translation of Melito?--Having said "some cases",
allow me to state the cases. There is the case of Barnabus; there
is the case of Hermas; there is the case of Polycarp, of Clement,
of Ignatius. You had better take my general answer, in the way
I put it, viz., that I have not found it necessary to refer to
original authorities for well-vouched statements.
I want an honest answer, and not a general answer which avoids
it.--My answer is that. In the main my information is second-hand.
I have read translations of the original authorities in the cases
I have mentioned.
As you have mentioned translations, is every statement of Clement
true within your knowledge?--Not recollecting the whole of them,
I cannot answer. I may say in brief that I refer to them merely
for a question of facts. Even an idiot can speak to facts.
Is there any one you can recollect which was not true?--I think
I cannot say yes.
Can you say no?--I cannot say no at the moment.
You mean to say that in the speech I made three quarters of an
hour ago, although I read Clement, you do not know whether it
is true or not?--You read in so hurried and incoherent a fashion
that I have a difficulty in making out what you do say.
I shall not ask any more questions. (Mr. Bradlaugh sits down.)
The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Roberts will now speak for a quarter
of an hour.
Mr. ROBERTS: I said in my opening speech that I did not require
the testimony of these men whom I have been compelled to produce,
in order to be persuaded that the apostles wrote the New Testainent
at the time they professed to have done so. I think the internal
evidence is so convincing that no man of clear, calm, patient,
unbiassed intellect can fail, in the reading of it, to be persuaded
of that fact. A good illustration of this just occurs to me.
A certain sceptical gentleman some years ago, speaking with an
infidel friend, said that if anybody wanted a cure for infidelity,
he would be certain to find it in the reading of the Bible every
day for one year. The prescriber of the advice was not consistent
enough to carry it out in his own case; but he has since done
so, as the result of his attention having been called to a new,
or at all events, non-orthodox interpretation of the Bible, and
that gentleman is now a believer in the word of God. My anxiety
is to bring to bear the argument leading to that result, to so
present before you the internal characteristics of the Bible as
a whole, as to show you that it is a divine book, and cannot be
a human book. I can only do this in a brief form. I will lay
before you examples of the Bible's uniform depreciation of human
nature --a peculiarity which is characteristic of the Bible alone.
We have in the 8th Psalm this enquiry made: "What is man
that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest
him?" In Psalm 144 a similar question is asked and answered
in this way: "Man is like to vanity: his days are like a
shadow which passeth away." In the 40th chapter of Isaiah
we read: "The voice said Cry; and he said, What shall I cry?
All flesh is grass, and all the goodness thereof is as the
flower of the field,, the grass withereth, the flower fadeth,
because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it; surely the people
is grass." Isaiah 2, last verse: "Cease ye from man,
whose breath is in his nostrils, for wherein is he to be
accounted of" Ezekiel 36:22nd verse: "Not for
your sakes, O house of Israel", that is, not for
their sakes would he bring them from all the nations among whom
they were scattered. "I do not this for your sakes,
O house of Israel, but for my holy name's sake, which ye
have profaned among the heathen whither ye went."
In the 17th of Jeremiah, at the 5th verse, we read: "Cursed
be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm ...
but blessed is the man that putteth his trust in the Lord.
" In the 9th of Jeremiah, 23rd verse: "Let not
the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory
in his might,, let not the rich man glory in his riches; but
let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and
knoweth me."
I mean to contend upon these quotations, which are but a specimen
of the universal character of the Bible, that no book, pervaded
by such sentiments of depreciation towards man, could have a merely
human authorship. I base this contention on the tendency of all
writers, whether ancient or modern, Jew or Gentile, to glorify
human nature, and boast in human achievements. All human writers,
without exception, run in the line of thought illustrated in Mr.
Bradlaugh's National Reformer, which speaks of the dignity
of manhood and the greatness of human nature.
Then we have no parallel in any human writing to the constant
exaltation of God as the great object of all arrangements and
operations. "This people", for instance, we read, referring
to the Jews, "have I formed for myself: they shall show forth
all my praise." Again, consider this: I Cor. 1st chapter
26th verse: "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that
not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble
are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world
to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things
of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and
base things of the world and things which are despised hath God
chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things
that are; THAT NO FLESH SHOULD GLORY IN HIS PRESENCE." This
is not a sentiment native to human nature. Human sentiment always
runs in a contrary direction. Man always chooses the powerful,
the great, the rich, the mighty, the noble, for the accomplishment
of any schemes he may conceive, as we see in all other religions
throughout the whole world in every country and in every age.
If the Bible were a human production, it would be characterised
by human sentiments with regard to human nature; for it is an
absolutely universal characteristic of man to glory in man and
to boast in his own or somebody else's wisdom, riches, glory and
might. The Bible runs directly counter to human feelings and
sentiments in this matter, throughout its entire contents. This
is inexplicable if it is a human production: but if the Bible
be the reflect of divine views communicated by the Spirit of God
to the writers, there is an explanation, instant and entirely
satisfactory.
Then we have the perfect modesty of all the men who took a part
in the development of Bible things; that is, modesty as regards
any credit for the part they performed. I will give you a few
illustrations of this. In the 3rd chapter of the Acts of the
Apostles and the 12th verse, Peter says: "Why look ye so
earnestly upon us as though by our own power or holiness we
had made this man to walk?" Is it not the tendency in
human nature, acting by itself, to take the credit of any gift
possessed and to glory of it and make it the means of honour and
personal consequence? No one with the history of mankind before
him can deny this; but here are men who refuse the credit, as
in the case recorded in the 14th of Acts: "Sirs, why do ye
these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and
preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities UNTO
THE LIVING GOD." Again, in the 10th of Acts and at the 25th
verse we read: "And as Peter was coming in Cornelius met
him" (Cornelius having sent for him by divine direction),
4 4 and fell down at his feet and worshipped him; but Peter took
him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man". In
1st Cor. 15:9, we find Paul saying: "For I am the
least of the Apostles that am not meet to be called an apostle,
because I persecuted the church of God." In Exodus 16:8,
Moses, speaking of the murmurings of the people says: "
What are we? Your murmurings are not against us, but against
the Lord." In Numbers 11:29, Moses, when told deprecatingly
by Joshua that somebody else had received the Spirit, replied:
"Enviest thou for my sake? Would GOD all the Lord's people
were prophets and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon
them." In Daniel 2:30, Daniel, when cited before Nebuchadnezzar
to explain a dream which had baffled the magicians, prefaced his
explanation by these words: "As for me, this secret is not
revealed to me for any wisdom I have more than any living, but
for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the
king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart."
Now, if Daniel had been an impostor, like all other impostors,
he would have placed his own credit in the front rank; instead
of that, he says the explanation he is about to give is not due
to his superior wisdom, but to communication from God. That is
the utterance of a true man, who knew that the information was
not out of his own head, but that he had received it from external
sources. If so, the divine character of what he said is proved.
Then there is the case of Joseph in Gen. 12:15, 16. Joseph was
standing before Pharaoh under similar circumstances, and was called
upon to explain an enigmatical dream. Pharaoh said to him: "I
have heard say of thee that thou canst understand a dream to interpret
it. And Joseph answered Pharaoh saying, It is not in me; GOD
SHALL GIVE PHARAOH AN ANSWER OF PEACE." Coming down to Christ
himself we see the same peculiarity. What does he say concerning
the miracles he wrought and wisdom he spake? "The words
that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father that
dwelleth in me, He doeth the works."--(John 14:10). "I
am come in my Father's name."--(John 5:43.) And again "Of
mine ownself, I can do nothing."--(John 5:30.)
Now, although this argument may not tell in an excited public
meeting, yet in the calm hours of anxious thought, I am certain
its full weight will be felt by those who are capable of appreciating
an argument. It goes more than anything to show that the men
who had to do with the transactions involved in the Scriptures
and the writing of them were true men, and not such men as Mr.
Bradlaugh would represent them to be; though, by the way, he has
not given us his idea very distinctly. I should like to hear
him define what he thinks they were. He does not consider them
designing or ignorant men. Were they honest and enlightened men,
then? If so, is not the Bible an authentic and reliable record
of divine revelation? The circumstances in which they were concerned
were of that character that the men must either have been true
or knowingly and deliberately false. They were not like questions
of opinion, in which a man may be mistaken without being insincere.
The matters to which they stood related were matters of fact,
in which the transactors of them must have known positively whether
their professions were true or false. And those professions were
at the very time put, in many instances, to so severe a test,
as to have dispelled any mist of doubt.
Let me give a single affecting illustration in the case of Jeremiah;
and, by the way, this bears upon a point which it is well to notice.
Mr. Bradlaugh tauntingly asked how he was to distinguish between
the false prophet and the true. I answer they may both be distinguished
by a simple test. In fact, they are to be distinguished the one
from the other on the very principle by which I have sought to
demonstrate the divine character of the Bible. The Bible speaks
uncomplimentarily of human nature; all other books speak well
of it. So the true prophets went against the popular current
in denouncing popular sins, while the false prophets "spoke
smooth things".--(Isa. 30:10). This peculiarity of the false
prophets is illustrated in the following citation: Jeremiah 23:16:
"Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Hearken not unto the words
of the prophets that prophesy unto you; they make you vain; they
speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of
the Lord. They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord
hath said, ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one
that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall
come upon you." The disagreeable result of a true testimony
is illustrated even in Jeremiah's case on the occasion when he
was inclined to hold his peace. He said: "The word of the
Lord was made a reproach unto me and a derision daily. Then I
said, I will not make mention of Him, nor speak any more in
His name." The thing he said was a disagreeable thing,
and brought upon him an attempt, on the part of the rulers of
Jerusalem, to destroy his life; and then he makes this pathetic
appeal to the princes and the people, which we find in Jeremiah
26:12, and in which the truthfulness of his profession is apparent:
"The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against
this city all the words that ye have heard. Now, therefore, amend
your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your
God, and the Lord will repent Him of the evil that He hath pronounced
against you. As for me, behold I am in your hand,--do with
me as seemeth good and meet unto you. But know ye for certain,
that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood
upon yourselves and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof:
for of a truth the Lord hath sent, me unto you to speak all
these words in your ears."--(Time called.)
Mr. BRADLAUGH: Mr. Roberts, in his first speech, said he had a
large number of witnesses, and that he could read from them, chapter
and verse. For I challenged him to do so--that will be in the
memory of all of you. I challenged them in very explicit terms;
and instead of venturing to read a line of any of them he has
occupied himself by reading texts from the Bible. I went through
the witnesses, and I put it to you, that although I could not
possibly guess what his first speech would be, that I dealt with
the majority of them there and then, and he has not ventured to
pretend that any one of my statements was untrue. But the difficulty
is that if mine were true, his were not accurate. He said to
you, when he was talking about Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras
and Mileto, that he had got these and would read them if Mr. Bradlaugh
challenged him. Mr. Bradlaugh did challenge him, and he has not
read them, and will never read them during this debate. I carefully
distinguished between what he could read and what he could not.
I took one writer, Clement, whom he could have read. Clement
I have read not at second-hand but in a translation. If he had
read Clement, as I quoted Clement, does he mean to say I did not
read the passages of Clement distinctly enough for him to know
their truth or falsehood? Mr. Roberts ought to have known Clement
and the others, or he ought not to have challenged me to debate.
Mr. Roberts says he had taken his information from reliable writers.
My objection is that the mass of writers who wrote on the side
of Christianity is not reliable. We may take a few men and agree
with Lardner as to their credibility. I believe that Lardner
writes thoroughly, earnestly, and honestly, and although I don't
agree with reference to his ancient authority when Lardner's opinion
is distinct and complete with regard to it, he is entitled to
some respect. But when I find a man like Paley convicted of receiving
information at second and third hand, and making blunders, do
you think somebody ought to pass muster whose information comes
at third or fourth hand? It is not reasonable; it is fencing
with an empty scabbard--not fencing at all. In his last speech,
Mr. Roberts says he does not need external evidence; then he should
not call it. If that was the case, our friend in his first speech
should not have tried it. I have only found this that my opponent
has offered to advance evidence with this curious result, that
all through I have always been right and we have not heard Mr.
Roberts right in one instance. Take Solomon in the writer Josephus,
the Proverbs in the writer Josephus. When he got Josephus, although
Mr. Roberts was ready with explanations, there was not a word
about Solomon or the Proverbs in the quotation. Mr. Roberts says
I misapprehended him about Josephus and Tacitus, and I am bound
to accept what he said; but I cannot imagine what he meant by
asking me about Josephus and Tacitus. The question was what Josephus
had written about Tacitus? and if it was not put with that object,
then it was an attempt at bewilderment on the part of the questioner.
At present I take it he has been misinformed. He did not quote
Tatian to you. He has not read a line from Tatian, and he never
will. In my speech I referred him to the only authors he could
get references from. If he likes he can have my books, and I
think I can supply him from my own little library with such English
translations as exist of every one, not only of the people whose
works are supposed to be whole, but of such extracts as are supposed
to be prepared not from infidel sources--for I don't go to infidel
sources--but from Christian sources.
Where are we about to go in this debate? Mr. Roberts first says
there is external evidence. So there is. Now quote it and see
what it is worth! But he cannot even do that. And, then, again
I appeal to my friends, and I appeal to Mr. Roberts, whether he
thinks the way to convince me that this book is God's authentic
revelation, is by quoting to me writers I am better acquainted
with than he is, and who don't say a word of what he thinks they
say. It might do with somebody who never debated at all, but
it doesn't do with me. Now what have we? We have a statement
that we must account for Christianity, and in accounting for Christianity
we may be very simple. Every religion in the world is the result
of growth more than of fraud. There are some few cases, but very
few, in the world, in which people have been utterly fraudulent.
But the truth of cases in which men make headway, are cases in
which they have had strong convictions--very often believe themselves
to be thoroughly in the right, and although I may think them utterly
wrong, it is not an impeachment so much of their morale as
it is of their accuracy in dealing with these things. I do not
regard Johanna Southcote as I would a woman not misled by enthusiasm.
It does not follow because I do not regard a book as true, therefore
I regard it as a directly fraudulent manufacture. The Pantheisms
of the world, the religions of the world, the superstitions of
the world--call them what you will--have not been the product
of special men at a special moment. They have been the outcome
of special organisations, and with different types of men we obtain
different types of religion. It is only some men who have never
been out of some Christian Evidence volume--with a large amount
of "evidence" at fourpence a volume--it is only such
men who put to you the conclusion of absolute fraud and forgery,
or of absolute truth. All the religions of the world have some
truth in them. I don't deny there have been good Christians;
but when I am to have the apostles put to me for examples of perfect
modesty, and Peter, of all people, quoted as "modest Peter",
I must give you an illustration of Peter's modesty. Peter to
whom God had revealed, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona,
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father
which is in Heaven." How does "modest Peter" then
get on when his master was being despitefully used? "Modest
Peter" declared "I know not the man"; with an oath,
"I know not the man". "But surely you were of
the company", says a bystander: "Damn you, I don't know
the man". That is your "modest Peter". If that
was modesty, then Tatian was evidence. But let us, if you please,
see what we are to do? External evidence--very inconvenient when
it is to touch internal evidence. Very inconvenient! "Mr.
Bradlaugh talks so quickly and incoherently". Then I will
talk slowly about the internal evidence, and will remind you that
this divine revelation says that John did know Jesus, and that
he did not know him at one and the same moment of time; we have
not been honoured with an explanation of that; nor of his own
witness, Justin Martyr, saying that a fire was kindled in the
river Jordan just at the moment of the baptism. He has not answered
about three days happening between late on Thursday evening and
before Saturday was over. He has not answered whether it was
one woman, or two women, or more than two women, who went first
to the grave. He has not answered the slight contradiction between
Luke 24 and Acts 1, as to 40 days Christ was said to be upon the
earth after the resurrection. He has not answered any one of
the mass of contradictions which have been pointed out, and although
I may talk quickly I talk tolerably clearly; and if he imagines
the Bible to be true, I can only say I wish him quicker wit when
he challenges me another time. But we have had sneers at infidelity
and references to the National Reformer--not a bad journal.
I did not introduce it; Mr. Roberts did. It is a very good journal;
there is a great deal of sensible writing in it to my taste.
It happens to contain in the volume for 1867 the whole of the
evidence which Mr. Roberts has referred to to-night, all turned
down. He could read it from there. He would do right to refer
to it, and it would have saved him from some blunders. Then he
talked of infidelity. What is infidelity? The world calls me
infidel, and I am not ashamed. What is an infidel? If it is
to be unfaithful to my views, then I am not. If it is to be unfaithful
to my convictions, then I am not. If it is to be unfaithful to
my country, then I am not. If it is to be unfaithful to the redemption
of the human race, then I am not. If it consists in disbelieving
that God made a damnation trap to catch all the human race in,
then I am an infidel. I have used no hard words against Mr. Roberts.
The word infidel came several times from him. I am content to
argue out this question without the slightest resort to verbal
retaliation. But I carry two swords and it depends upon those
who fight me which one I fight with. I am ready to fence with
the rapier, and I can handle the two-handed broad-sword too, and
if wielding the two-handed weapon is necessary, I wield it. At
the last moment, before I sit down, I remind Mr. Roberts that
he professed to have upon the platform the writings of Tatian,
Theophilus and others. He has not quoted them, and cannot quote
them, and never will quote them throughout this discussion.
