Ingersoll answered from the Bible and Ingersoll against himself:...

Front matter

W •

W

• 0> iV«r„

Introduction

Tlie Bible is its best defender when permitted to speak. Many of its assailants have shown great ignorance of its contents.

A candid and careful perusal, such as wonld be given to a legal document where a fortune is involved, would convert any man who ever wrote against it. Much has been written in reply to the arguments of R. G. Ingersoll against the Scriptures.

Why another volume \

1. While there have been Replies to single Lectures, we have never seen a general Reply to all of his Lectures or Books against the Bible.

2. Many of the Replies have not only been confined to some one Lecture, but to unauthorized reports of the same, published in newspapers or elsewhere, which reports were not officially endorsed by him.

IV INTRODUCTION.

COL. INGERSOLL'S NOTE TO THE PUBLIC.

Washington, D. C, July 10, 1880.

I wish to notify the public that all books and pamphlets purporting to contain my Lectures, and not containing the imprint of Mr. C. P. Farrell as publisher, are spurious. * * I take this course to warn the public that these publications are fraudulent, the only correct editions being those

published by Mr. C. P. Farrell.

Robert G. Ingersoll.

We have secured from Mr. C. P. Farrell copies of the following works :

The Gods aud Other Lectures, The Ghosts and Other Lectures, Some Mistakes of Moses, IngersolV s Interviews on Talmage, What Must We Do to be Saved, The Christian Religion, or Ingersoll- Black Controversy, Orthodoxy, and Ingersoll Catechised.

In these "Correct Editions" Mr. Ingersoll cannot evade his statements.

3. His self-contradictions are exposed, Ingersoll in one Lecture being quoted against Ingersoll in the same or in another Lecture.

4. The Bible is allowed to speak first in its own defense, in reply to Ingersoll, and is made a prominent witness as in no other work.

The Bible never suffers from fair attacks

INTRODUCTION. V

upon it, and one cannot hope to gain much for his cause by misrepresentation.

5. As Infidelity is constantly assailing the Scriptures, there is necessity of a continual refutation. It is not merely Ingersoll's statements that we attack, but also the system of Infidelity of which he is an exponent.

6. Many accept the statements of leading infidels without investigating the Bible, and need to see the Scriptural side of the question. They hide behind Atheistic fortifications without knowing the weakness of their defense.

7. Several seeming contradictions of the Bible are made clear.

For conciseness and ready reference we have arranged the subjects through the work Alphabetically, and also inserted a Table of Indexed

Contents

OLIN MARVIN OWEN.

Index

■A. PAGE.

Adam, choosing a helpmeet, 118

Africa, 34-37

Altamont, death of, 210

An Infidel Experimeat, 205-207

Ararat, 27

Ark, resting place of, 26

' ' size of, 146

" number of creatures in, 143

Art, death of, 81

Ascension of Christ, 23

" " Mark's Testimony to, 25

" " Luke's Testimony to, 23-24

Ashantis, wives in, 226

Atonement 25

Authenticity of the Scriptures, 6

B.

Bacon, Francis, 11

Belief, Ingersoll against himself, 94

" Bible Readers," 40

Bible, The, and ' Moral Filth," 45

" "Bad Things" in 49

Bishop Whipple's anecdote, 210

Bonney, Tribe of, 36

Brain, Age of, 32-33

Bramah, 221

INDEX. Vll

VA PAGE.

Canaanites, wickedness of, 197

Cattle, Egyptian, , 149

Celsus, 14

Chance, 64

Chastity, 71

Children, and the Bible, 51

" government of, by Ingersoll's disciple, 53

Christ, spotless life of, 48

" Prophecy of, 157

" Resurrection of, 167-179 '

Church, wickedness of, 215

Citadel, The Bible a 21

Conception, The miraculous, 124

Conclusion, 227

Condescension of Christ, 131

Congo, wives in, 220

Creation, 54-70

' ' from nothing, 65

* ' conception of, 69

of fruit,.... 67

D.

Dahomme, Tribe of, 34

Darwin, 72

' ' believes in a Creator, 75

Death — Ingersoll against himself, . 78-81

of Art, 78

Declaration of Independence, Ingersoll against himself, 83

Definition of an Infidel, 199-200

Design in Creation, 54

Depraved People, God making, 85

Diseases, God " inventing," 86

Divine Ordinances, 185

Divinity of Christ proved by his Resurrection, 174

Doctrines of Infidels, 203

Till INDEX.

-Ci. PAGE.

Eternity of Matter, 58, 69

Evangelists, 5

Evolution, 61-65

P.

' ' Ingersoll's, 94

False professors of Religion, 41-42

Firmament, 100

Forgiveness, 105

" Gospel of," 98-99

Foreigners, 108-109

Franklin's advice to Paine, 212

French Revolution, 200-203

G.

Genealogy of Christ, 110

God — Ingersoll proves his existence, Ill

" does he " damn " his enemies, 106-107

" Image of, 121

" Gospel of Cheerfulness," 95

" " Forgiveness," 98

" " Good Living," 95

"Mercy," 98

'• " Water and Soap," 95

Gospels, why more than one ? 22

Grass, 67

Greek, why was the New Testament written in ? 18

Greece and Rome, 31-32

H.

"Happiness, the only possible good," 114

INDEX. IX

PAGE.

Happiness, whom does Infidelity furnish ? 117

Helpmeet, God made Adam a, 118

Herod, 2

Holiness, the only possible good, . . 116

Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ, 124-131

" descent of, 130, 173

Home, 120

Hospitals, 32

Hypocrite, The, an Infidel, 42

Hypocrisy in the Church, 42

I. Image of God, 121

Immortality, 122

Infidel Experiment, 205-207

Infidel Lecturer, The 209

Infidel's advice to his daughter, 209

Infidel, The, and Christian contrasted, 1

Infidel Traveller, The 39

Infidelity, Monuments of, 200

" powerless at death, 208

Infidel Standard of Right and Wrong, 179

Ingersoll's permission to investigate, 5

" petition to Congress, 46

" Interpolations," 90

J.

Jericho, 133

Jesus Christ, 124-132

" " Condescension of , 131

" increase of, 135

Jewish God, Cruelty of, 96

Judas, 137

Juju House, 36

" Justice, Gospel of," 95

X INDEX.

K-. PAGE.

Kaffir cruelty, 37

L.

Labor, not a curse, 138

Last words of Christ, 139

Lazarus, Resurrection of, 140

Liberty, Civil and Religious, 30

Liberal, Town of, 205

Lord Bacon, 11

Lord's Prayer, Parody on, 207

Lyttleton, Lord, 162

M.

Maidens, 194

Manuscripts of the Bible, 16-17

Mathew, Gospel in Hebrew, 21

on Faith, 88

Miracles, 140

" Moner," Ingersoll's, 68

" Moral Filth " of the Bible 45-51

Monad, 68

Monogamy, 151

Mother of Christ — Ingersoll against himself, 131

N;

New Testament — Ingersoll against himself, 142-143

Niagara, Bible like, 40

Number of creatures in the Ark,

P.

Paine ridicules the miraculous conception, 129

" dying words of, 178

Pigeons, 146

Plagues of Egypt, 148-150

Polygamy, 150-153

INDEX. XI

PAGE.

Progress, Ingersoll's definition of, 115

Probation, 154

Promises, 154

Prophecy concerning Christ, 157-161

" Purification," Jewish, 222-224

Pyramids of Egypt, 9

R.

Reasoning, 161-163

Religion and Morality, 163-166

Resurrection of Christ, 167-179

Right and Wrong— Infidel standard, 179-184

s.

Sailor, the wrecked, 39

Serpents, , 196

Shakespeare, morals of, 48

" ' * v the greatest of the human race," 47

" authenticity of his works, 29

Solomon's Temple, 82

Sot, how saved, 164

Sublime Truths, 191-193

T.

Tallyrand, 175

Thief on the Cross — Ingersoll against himself, 193

Truth, Telling the. 93

u.

Universe, 54-69

V . PAGE.

" Various Readings," 16

Voltaire, dying words of, 177

w.

" Ingersoll in, 197

West, Gilbert 162

What is an Infidel? . 198

" Why do you nut respond ? " 225

Who wrote the New Testament? — Ingersoll against

himself, 22

Wickedness in the Church, 215

World— Ingersoll against himself, 22-")

ingersoll Answsrad from thi Bible.

i.

The Infidel and Chkisttan Contbasted.

An ancient philosopher refused to look through one of Galileo's telescopes at the starry heavens lest he should see something that would unsettle his faith in Aristotle's philosophy. Many fear to examine the Bible from good motives, lest their own preconceived theories should be overthrown. Infidels sometimes read the Bible, but too often actuated by the same spirit which prompted Herod to say :

Go and search diligently for the young child, and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. — Matthew ii., 8.

Ostensibly the king desired to "worship him." His real motive was to kill the new born babe. No book extant has been subjected to such severe tests as the Bible. No other work could have endured the strain. The ancient history of the world does not rest on as firm a foundation as the Word of the Lord.

2 IXGERSOLL AXS\VERED

If we consumed half as much time in endeavors to hnd the center of the channel that leads into the great ocean of Divine Truth as we do in searching for snags, we should steer clear of all obstacles, and sailing out upon the broad deep aud mighty waters, be brought to an experimental knowledge of the great truths of the Gospel of Christ. It is a trite but true saying that "none are so blind as those who will not see." I am standing on deck, beside an old tar in mid-ocean. He exclaims: "I see a sail — a vessel is coming." " But you are mistaken," I respond ; "I cannot see it."

Would it be rational for me to deny the fact because I do not catch the gleam of the snowy sail ? His eyes have been trained to looking great distances. By practice before the mast they have become strengthened as mine have not, and it is folly for me to deny the fact of his seeing it, coming in the distance. It is unwise for the infidel standing beside the true Christian, wdiose eyes have been opened by the power of grace, to say : "I see nothing divine in Revealed Religion ; therefore, you see nothing."

The Christian sees. He knows there is something in true Christianity besides mere theory. He has experienced religion, not in his head only but his heart. The infidel may not discover the ship, but the real Christian beholds it coming triumphantly over the wave, freighted down with the fruits of Paradise.

It is useless for one in the valley to shout to his friend who has climbed to the summit of yon mountain, "Your eye beholds no more than mine." Yet the skeptic, standing in the valley of unbelief, cries to him who has scaled the mount of God, "You can from those heights discover nothing but that which is seen by me."

His vision is obscured by the mists and fogs below, while the believer has risen above these, where the sun of Righteousness shines upon him in resplendent glory. The former looks for happiness into the stagnant pool at his feet ; the latter at the bright River of Life that rolls on in unchanging grandeur. The one is lured by the siren song of earth ; the other is charmed by the music of the skies. The Christian has caught the distant echo of the song they sing around the Eternal Throne. "The song of Moses, the servant of God, and the Song of the Lamb." (Rev. xv., 3.)

He stands by faith like

" Some tall cliff, that rears its awful form, Swells from beneath and midway leave3 the storm, Though round his breast the rolling clouds are spread, Eternal sunshine settles on his head."

The infidel looks into an open grave as his brightest future ; the Christian also gazes into the tomb, but through it into an open heaven. With him death does not "end all." It is not the falling of the curtain and the end of the scene. He closes his eyes upon the visible, and perishable, only to open them upon "things unseen and eternal;" with him death is the entrance to "eternal life." The unbeliever views in death nothing but "silence and pa thetic dust." The Christian, by faith, sees

" Sweet fields beyond the swelling flood, Stand dressed in Jiving green." .

The one looks out upon creation adoring his "Mother Nature," admiring the spring-time, the resurrection of vegetable life, worshipping the flow T ers as they bud and blossom, but oh how soon the sighing winds of autumn w r rinkle the face of his God! The other admires the same creation, views with greater satisfaction the very same natural scenery, but he cannot stop with the visible ; his eye sweeps beyond to a realm where

"Everlasting Spring abides And never- withering flowers."

We will go w T ith the unbeliever in his sublimest contemplations of the visible world, but wmen he would have us pause here, we demur. The longings of our immortal nature strike for a purer region where we can read a deeper and higher philosophy written by the finger of Jehovah, not merely in the visible world, but far

FROM THE BIBLE.

beyond the Orion and Pleiades in characters of living fire around the Throne of God.

II. Ingersoles Permission to Investigate

If any authority were required for investigating and exposing R. Gr. Ingersoll's misrepresentations of the Bible, and his self ' ' contradictions," it would be found in his own language.

IKGERSOLL.

All books should be examined in the same spirit, and truth should be welcomed and falsehood exposed, no matter in what volume they may be found. — Some Mistakes of Moses, Page 54.

Having received full permission by the gentleman himself, whose ' ' books ' ' we are to ' ' examine," we proceed with our task, hoping that the "truth" will be "welcomed" when the "falsehoods" are "exposed," "no matter in what volume they may be found ."

But let it be remembered that to prove the Bible to be true is one thing ; to answer every objection .which can be brought against it is quite another. If, to substantiate its truths, we must meet every cavil the infidel world can possibly urge, then does infidelity fall by its own sword, since the objections to it are legion, far greater in number than can possibly be urged against the Bible and Revealed Religion. When however, to produce arguments against these, one is obliged to resort to misrepresentation of the Scriptures, it is time for every lover of truth, Christian or infidel, to enter a solemn protest. It is indeed a poor system which has Falsehood for its chief corner stone.

III. A

Authenticity of the Sceiptukes.

ingersoll.

The fact is, no one knows who niade the statements of the Evangelists. There are three important manuscripts upon which the Christian world relies. The first appeared in the catalogue of the Vatican in 14T5. This contains the Old Testament. Of the New, it contains the four gospels, the Acts, the seven Catholic Epistles, nine of the Pauline Epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews as far as the fourteenth verse of the ninth chapter. This is known as the Codex Vatican. The second, the Alexandrine, was presented to King Charles the First, in 1628. It contains the Old and New Testaments, with some exceptions. * * * The last is the Sinaitic Codex, discovered about 1850, at the convent of St. Catharine's, on Mount Sinai. It contains the Old and New Testaments. * * * In matters of the utmost importanci' these manuscripts disagree, but even if they all agreed it would not furnish the slightest evidence of their truth.— The Christian Religion, page 65.

"Who wrote the New Testament? I do not know. Who does know? Nobody. We have found many manuscripts containing portions of the New Testament. Some of these manuscripts leave out five or six books ; many of them. Others more ; others less. No two of these manuscripts agree. Nobody knows who wrote these manuscripts. They were all written in Greek. The disciples of Christ., so far as we know, knew only Hebrew. Nobody ever saw, so far as we know, one of the original Hebrew manuscripts, Nobody ever saw anybody who had seen anybody who had heard of an} body that had ever seen anybody that had ever seen one of the original Hebrew manuscripts — What Must We Do to be Saved ? pages 17-18.

What an "anybody" passage this is ! Can "anybody " understand it \

I admit that I have said, that the Bible is cruel, that in many passages it is impure, that it is contradictory, that it is unscientific. — Interviews on Talmage, page 212.

bible:.

"thus saith the loed."

Exodus, iv., 22; Joshua, vii,, 13; xxiv., 2 : Judges, vi., 8; 1 Samuel, xv., 2, xi., 27: 2 Samuel, xii., 11, xxiv., 12; 1 Chron., xvii., 7; Jeremiah, vi., 9, etc.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.— 2 Peter, i., 21.

The Bible is the word of the Lord. The writers of other works have no higher authority than the human ; but again and again the inspired penman commences or accompanies his message by a

" Thus saith the Lord."

Profane poets and historians do not introduce their works in this manner.

Mr. Ingersoll is his own authority. He accepts and rejects what he pleases of the Scriptures, greatly misrepresents them, his authority being,

Let us examine the above reasoning. The New Testament is untrue :

First. Because "no one knows who wrote

Second. Because it is "contradictory." The Evangelists do not "agree."

Third. Because " if they all agreed it would not furnish the slightest evidence of their truth ?" What then would furnish the slightest evidence of their truth ? It is a wonder he did not add :

Fourth. Because if we knew the Bible were true, if it were demonstrated before our eyes, if we saw it written in letters of fire amid the darkened heavens, if the Evangelists should rise from the dead, and in tones of thunder, declare in our hearing that they wrote the Gospels, we would not believe it.

If, "in matters of the utmost importance, these manuscripts did really "disagree," or their authorship had been disproved, we might reasonably doubt their correctness, but these things Mr. Ingersoll utterly fails to show. According to his evolution theory the Gospels must have written themselves. One might as

FROM THE BIBLE.

well exclaim : Who built the Pyramids of Egypt % I do not know. Who does know \ IN obody. And conclude they built themselves. ''"Nobody ever saw anybody who had seen anybody 'who had heard of anybody that had, ever seen anybody that had ever seen one" of the builders of the Pyramids.

Did the Pyramids evolve? Can Ingersoll prove that the people who erected them ever existed \ Because their origin is shrouded in mystery, will he conclude that they were selfmade? No. They rest upon solid foundations and give clear evidence in themselves that they were built by man — but when, and by whom %

The Bible must have been written. The Old Testament, the foundation, while above the ground rises in eternal grandeur, the New Testament, both of these containing the clearest internal evidences of a Divine Revelation. As the Pyramids of Egypt stand in the midst of a desert, the wonder of the world, so this Pyramid of Eternal Truth rears its head sublime, in the midst of the barren Desert of Sin.

It stands upon a more lasting foundation than the ancient monuments of Egypt. It stands proudly defying the storms of infidelity that have for ages beat against it. It stands erect, with its blazing inscriptions, for the elevation and salvation of man, not written in 2 hieroglyphics, but so plainly "that the wayfaring men, though fools," need not mistake the reading. To this Eternal Pyramid of Truth, whose foundations have never been shaken, we may look for salvation from sin in this world, and eternal life in the world to come.

The elements are beginning to tell on the Ancient Pyramids; the traveler chisels off a piece of the stone as a memento, but no storm, no chisel of Infidelity, has removed any portion of this Monument of Truth, reared by the Lord Almighty.

Ingersoll does not "know" "who wrote the New Testament." Does he "know" who is the author of Shakespeare's writings, which he so universally praises ? Hear him !

Shakespeare, the greatest of the human race.— Orthodoxy, page 42.

Shakespeare, the man who found the human intellect dwelling in a hut, touched it with the wand of his genius and it became a palace, domed and pinnacled. Shakespeare, who harvested all the fields of dramatic thought, and from whose day to this there have been only gleaners of straw and chaff. — The Ghosts and other Lectures, page 138.

No one pretends that Shakespeare was inspired, and yet all the writers of the Books of the Old Testament put together could not have produced Hamlet. — Some Mistakes of Moses, page 52.

Is Ingersoll certain that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him \ His right to authorship has been ably attacked. The articles written disputing it would make quite a volume. To Francis Bacon has been assigned the authorship of these plays by those who deny it to Shakespeare. We have as good and better evidence that he never wrote the plays attributed to him than we have for rejecting the authenticity of the Scriptures, and yet the majority of critics believe he and not Lord Bacon is their real author.

The only works of Shakespeare certainly published under his own hand were the two two poems. Venus and Adonis and the Rape of Lucrece, which appeared in 1593-1594, respectively. As was naturally to be looked for in the case of pieces on the stage so popular, certain of his dramas found their way from time to time into print, but no authoritative edition of any of them was issued during his life-time.— Chambers' Enc.

It is to be regretted that Shakespeare should forget or neglect to "authorize" his works.

"The fact is, no one knows who made the statements of the Evangelists." Is this true? Then does any one know who made the statements of Shakespeare \ "Even if the manuscripts all agreed it would not furnish the slightest evidence of their truth." Indeed ! Suppose, then, w r e say "even if the manuscripts of the historians all agreed that Shakespeare wrote the works ascribed to him it would not furn'sh the slightest evidence of their truth, or of Shakespeare's authorship." What then %

Are the Scriptures untrue because their authenticity is questioned? Then IngersolTs Shakespearean God, with all his library of poetry and song, crumbles into ashes.

Suppose no writer had ever assailed the authenticity of Shakespeare' s works ? How could Ingersoll, even then, positively know that Shakespeare wrote the plays ascribed to him \ Suppose I emphatically deny it \ How will he prove I am incorrect \ By the historians \ How can he certainly "know " that they told the truth \ Some of them never saw the great # poet, and depend upon other historians lor their information ; can he positively "know " that these other historians were truthful \ Besides, these writers might all have been deceived, or they might have been bribed to write a narrative of a man they had never seen, or the history might have been the creation of their own imagination. How is it to be proved that such, a person ever existed? Did Ingersoll or any living person ever see him 2 Might not those who thought they saw him have been deceived % May we not apply Ingersoll' s logic to Shakespeare: u Who wrote Shakespeare f I do rt t Jen ow ; wh o does Jc n o id f Nobody" and challenge Ingersoll to prove the right of Shakespeare to the authorship of the books he exalts so highly ? He may prove it to his own satisfaction, but he cannot convince every one. Ingersoll believes Shakespeare is the author of the works ascribed to him, but how will he so settle the matter that no one will ever question it again.

The great difficulty with infidels is they either do not understand, or do not appreciate, the laws of evidence. They ask for proofs in support of the authenticity of the Bible which they could not adduce in defense of facts they know to have existed. They deny the authorship of the Bibl^, and yet credit the authenticity of other works on far less evidence than is produced in defense of the Sacred Word.

We could ask many questions in reference to infidelity which no skeptic could answer, so that the infidel sophism, "who does know % — nobody," falls by its own weight. Ingersoll undermines himself. But the Christian world do know who wrote the Bible. " The fact is," the authenticity of the Scriptures has been proved again and again, not by prejudiced critics, but by the best and most competent scholars of every age. Would space permit we might with profit begin with the Revised Version and trace the New Testament through its printed and manuscript history to the very days of the apostles. Christian writers in the early history of the church w r rote in defense of the New Testament. Polycarp (A. D. 69-156), Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons (born about

A. D. 115, and martyred about A. D. 190) Tertullian (A. D. 160-220), and many others have left on almost every page profuse quotations from the New Testament. The writings of Origen (A. D. 185-254) contain more than two-thirds of the New Testament. TIad it been burned, and every manuscript of the apostles utterly destroyed A. D. 325, when the council of Nice was held, there are but few sentences in the whole book that could not have been collected and the volume reproduced from the writings of Christians, which writings existed then and are extant to-day.

The council of Nice did not then, as infidels sometimes allege, make or compile the New Testament. '*Who does knowl Nobody.' 1 There were infidels who lived and wrote against Christianity at its dawn who knew more about u who wrote the New Testament" than the modern champion of infidelity, even after the accumulated infidel knowledge of eighteen hundred years.

Celsus, the Epicurean Philosopher, wrote against Christianity about A. D. 176 Porphery, another opposer, about A. D. 270, quoting a multitude of passages from the New Testament proving that more than fifteen centuries ago Christians accepted it as the foundation of their religion.

Can infidels give a consistent reason why w T e should reject the testimonies of the Evangelists, when not only Christian but Infidel writers corroborate the facts the disciples recorded % Shall we reject all facts, no matter by whom written ? We must then plunge into darkness worse than heathendom, and can know nothing in reference to the past.

The Gospel was not planted on the earth in an age of ignorance. Christ did not make his advent at a time of intellectual darkness, and the disciples did not write when there were no poets, historians or philosophers. When the Gospel came into the arena, intellectual culture and development were at their height in Greece and Rome, and the historians of these nations had ample opportunity for investigation. The transactions of Christ and his disciples were not done in a corner, and when they are recorded not only by themselves, but the facts are corroborated by cotemporary writers, Jewish, Christian and heathen, how can we reject them without undermining all the historical facts of the world %

Does any one know who wrote the "manuscripts" of Homer, Herodotus, Socrates, Caesar, Sallust, Cicero, Livy, Horace or Yirgil % The same line of evidence which proves the authorship of these "manuscripts" proves the authenticity of the Bible. Indeed the proofs showing the authenticity of the manuscripts of the Scriptures are clearer, far "greater in number aud more overwhelming than any evidence that can be produced in defense of the authorship of the writings of any ancient poet, historian, or philosopher. The manuscripts of no ancient writer have been so wonderfully preserved as those of the Word of God.

The number of New Testament manuscripts complete or fragmentary, now known, exceeds seventeen hundred. dating from about A. D. 330 to 1500, of these probably seventy or eighty are over a thousand years old. * * *

Of course, the earliest printed editions of the New Testament were issued before most of these hidden manuscripts were discovered and compared ; and hence contained slight errors of copyists, which could only be detected when other copies were collected and collated. Since that time, a vast number of such manuscripts have been discovered, and compared, word by word, and letter by letter ; and every real discrepancy in the sense, as well as every little error in spelling or copying — like the failure to dot an i, or cross a t — has been noted and reported, thus making up the vast number of " various readings," about which skeptics talk — ninety-nine out of a hundred of which are of no consequence whatever. Obviously if there were but one manuscript of the New Testament in existence there could of course be no "various readings ; " but the more manuscripts discovered, the more of these ''various readings '" there will be ; and as there are ten times as many manuscripts of the New Testament as of any other ancient book, of course there will be ten times as many '•various readings;" and whenever any new reading of importance is discovered, then it is necessary to look through the best ancient manuscripts, and see what is really the true reading of the passage.

No existing manuscripts of Greek or Roman classics can compare with those of the New Testament in number, or antiquity ard authenticity. Of Herodotus, the oldest and the most important of the classic historians, there are extant about fifteen manuscript copies, most of them written since A. D. 1450. One or two may date back to the ninth or tenth century. There are still fewer manuscript copies of the writings of Plato. One of the earliest bears date A. D. 895. And the text of these ancient writers is far less correct than that of the New Testament manuscripts. Take, for example, the Comedies of Terence, who was born at Cnrthage 195 B. C. The learned Dr. Bentley asserts, in his reply to Collins (Part I., § 32), that the oldest and best manuscript copy, now in the Vatican Library, has '• hundreds of errors;" and remarks, " I myself have collated several, and do affirm that I have seen twenty thousand various readings in that little author, not near so big as the New Testament ; and am morally sure that if half the number of manuscripts were collated for Terence, with that minuteness which has been used in twice as many for the New Testament, the number of variations would amount to above fifty thousand.'"'