Do you believe that Peter did deny Jesus three times before the cock crew at all?

Dr. B. I beg to apologise for the wor is in my answer, and to assure the audience and Mr. Bradlaugh that I mean nothing personal, but really this is another stale objection, like the three days and three nights, arising from norance. Mr. Bradlaugh does not understand the Hebrew idiom with reference to "cock crow.'

I. Do you believe that Peter denied Jesus thrice before the cock crew at al ?

Dr B. I do not.

I. Does Matthew say, or does the text of Matthew imply, that Peter denie Jesus three times before the cock crew?

Dr. B. It does not.

I. Do you think that Jesus was wrong when he said to Peter, "Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice?"

Dr. B. Jesus spoke of the time of cock crowing.

I. Did Jesus use the words that are attributed to him in the gospel according to St. Matthew?

Dr. B. Jesus probably spoke to the people in Syriac.

I. Did Jesus use the words Matthew says he used?

Dr. B. If by "words" you mean the precise words he uttered, Jesus probably spoke in Syriac.

I. Does Matthew correctly represent what Jesus said? Yes or no?
Dr. B. He does, according to the Hebrew-Greek idiom.

I. Does "the Hebrew-Greek idiom" say one thing and mean another?

Dr. B. The meaning of that idiom is the time of night.

I. I must again put my question, and read you Matthew xxvi., 34:— "Jesus said unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."

Now I ask-you having said that you do not believe that Peter did deny Jesus thrice before the cock crew-what is the meaning of that phrase? Dr. B. The meaning of that phrase is the time of night.

I. Is the English rendering of that verse, as we have it here, right or wrong?

Dr. B. It is impossible to render from one language to another word for word. For instance, the French "tout le monde," means all the world, but the French phrase is idiomatic.

I. I again repeat my question, Is the English rendering right or wrong? You have told me before about the idiom. I want to know is the English rendering of that idiom a correct one?

Dr. B. I repeat the same answer. (Disapprobation.) If I give foolish answers I lose my time.

I. What is the answer? Is the rendering right?

Dr. B. The English translation is sufficiently correct for any candid Inquirer.

I. You have said that the English translation is a correct one, and you have spoken of the Hebrew idiom. Do you mean that the translation is a literally correct one, but that it does not render the spirit of Hebrew idiom into English, or do you mean that it is absolutely and not merely literally correct?

Dr. B. It is sufficiently correct for any candid inquirer.

I. Does the English translation say that Peter was to deny Jesus thrice before the cock crew?

Dr. B. Taking the word as one compound it is perfectly correct.

I. That is not an answer to my question. I ask you yes or no. Doen Matthew say that Peter was to deny Jesus thrice before the cock crew? Dr. B. It does not say before the cock crew.

I. I will read to you vv. 69 to 75:

"Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him. saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

"But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. "And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. "And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.

"And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee.

"Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.

"And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly."

After reading that do you still deny that Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock crew at all?

Dr. B. I believe that Peter denied Jesus in the exact order mentioned in the gospels.

I. One of my early questions was, did you believe that Peter denied Jesus thrice before the cock crew at all? Your answer was that you did not. I ask you now, and want a distinct answer to my question, Do you believe that Peter denied Jesus thrice before the cock crew at all?

Dr. B. You change the word “ crow "into" crew -a noun to a verb I. How many times do you believe that Peter denied Jesus before the cock crew at all?

Dr. B. Exactly as stated in all the gospels.

I. Is that once, twice, or thrice?

Dr. B. Exactly as stated in all the gospels.

I. I ask you yes or no, did Peter deny Jesus thrice before the cock crew? Dr. B. Exactly as stated in all the gospels.

I. I ask you do you know that one of the gospels says that Peter only denied Jesus once before the cock crew?

Dr. B. I have already stated the difference between cock crowing and the phrase the cock crew.

I. That is not an answer to my question, which I shall repeat, and to which I require a categorical answer. Does not one of the gospels, after stating that Peter denied Jesus once, then state that the cock crew?

Dr. B. The public is the proper judge if my answers are adequate; they are before the public: if they are insufficient I shall be the loser.

I. Do you decline to answer my question, whether one gospel states, after narrating one denial, that then the cock crew?

Dr. B. I have given my answer, you may quote any passage you please. I. I will read to you Mark xiv., 67 to 72:

"And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.

"But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.

"And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by This is one of them.

"And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth thereto.

"But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

"And the second time the cock crew. And Peter cailed to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

Is that correct; yes or no?

Dr. B. Yes,

I. I will now proceed to Exodus xxxii., 7 to 14. Before reading them, I will ask you, Do you believe the God of the Bible to be immutable? Dr. B. I do.

I. I will now read the verses:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: "They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, these be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

66

And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

"And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

"Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, for mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

"Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

"And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

After reading this, my question is, Do you think the Lord originally intended to destroy the Israelites, and afterwards repented of his purpose? Yes or no.

Dr. B. God's promises are changeable, dependent upon man's conduct. God gives his warning once, and his punishment depends on man's attention to that warning. Isaiah liv., 5 to 10:

"For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall he be called.

"For the Lord hath called the as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.

"For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee.

"In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.

"For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

"For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord, that hath mercy on thee."

I. That is no answer to my question. My question was, did God originally intend to destroy the people of Israel, and did he afterwards change and repent?

Dr. B. The passage describes God's actions and not his councils.

I. That is not an answer to my question. I uttered it distinctly, but I will repeat it again. Did God originally intend to consume the Israelites, and did he afterwards repent of the evil?

Dr. B. The passage does not describe God's promises and threatenings.

I. Does the passage say:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and behold. it is a stiffnecked people.

"Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." Dr. B. It does,

I. Does the passage say:

"And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

Dr. B. Yes.

I. Did the Lord God consume his people at that time. Yes or no?
Dr. B. He did not.

I. You say that God's promises are changeable, dependent on man's conduct. Does God know what I shall do to-morrow?

Dr. B. He does.

I. Do you believe that God always knew all my future actions?

Dr. B. He did.

I. You have now answered that God always knew what I should do. Did God know he would not fulfil his promise when he made it?

Dr. B. God knew and taught that his promises were conditional.

I. My question is, did God know he would not consume the people of Israel?

Dr. B. God knew and taught that his promises were conditional.
I. Which is the answer, that he knew or that he did not know?

Dr. B. God knew what man did not know; God adapted his language to man's moral nature.

I. You have already acknowledged that God knows everything in the future. I ask you, then, did God know when he made the promise that he would not carry it out?

Dr. B. God's threat being conditional, he knew he would not carry it out. I. Then do I understand you to say that God made a threat, knowing he would not carry it out?

Dr. B. The Bible is an inter-connected whole, and should be judged accordingly-the promise and condition.

I. What is the condition annexed to the threat in Exodus, xxxii.? Dr. B. It was implied in the known phraseology and theology of the Hebrews.

I. Had the Hebrews a phraseology and a theology when God spoke to Moses, or before then?

Dr. B. They had from Adam, derived through Noah and through Abraham.

The chairman here announced that the turn of Dr. Baylee to put questions would commence.

THE BEING, ATTRIBUTES, AND GOVERNMENT OF GOD MAN'S NATURE, ETC.

SECOND HOUR-FIRST NIGHT.

Dr. Baylee. Do you believe in intelligent causes?

"Iconoclast." I do not understand the meaning of the two words yo

have thus linked together.

Dr. B. What is the meaning of the word intelligent?

I. By intelligence I mean the quality of a mode of existence.

Dr. B. What is the character of that quality?

I. It differs according to the mode. Man's intelligence is higher than

that of some other animals.

Dr. B. What is intelligence?

I. I have told you that by intelligence I understand a quality of a mode of existence. If you want more, it further expresses a compound resultman perceives, but perception is not intelligence, although essential to it. Man compares, combines, collects, recollects-judges upon, and determines between, his perceptions. The totality of man's mental faculties and their results are ordinarily included under the word "intelligence."

Dr. B. Is an educated man an intelligent being?

I. He is, and so is the uneducated man; but the educated man mostly possesses a higher capability of giving and receiving ideas.

Dr. B. Is he the cause of his own capability of intelligence?

I. He is not.

Dr. B. Who is the cause of it?

I. As to "who," I do not understand you. If you say "what," I say I ind man's intelligence increased or retarded according to the surrounding conditions and to his organisation.

Dr. B. Did the conditions give existence to the intelligence?

L. Intelligence is often connected with certain conditions of existence; further I do not know.

Dr. B. How then can you assert that there is no first cause?

I. I have not yet asserted anything of the kind.

Dr. B. Is there a first cause-that is, a Deity who gave existence to all existing things?

I. Do you mean by first cause the God of the Bible? If you do, I

answer no.

Dr. B. Without reference to the God of the Bible, is there an intelligent first cause?

I. I do not understand the meaning of the three words in the manner you have combined or put them together.

Dr. B. I ask you again, is there an intelligent first cause independent of the Bible?

L I simply repeat the answer which I gave before-that I do not understand the meaning of the three words in the manner you have combined them. I should not understand what was meant by a square triangular circle.

Dr. B. Is it safe to follow the teachings of a man who confesses his ignorance of three common English words?

I. Ask as to each word separately, and I will tell you what I mean, the three as you combine them, to me have no meaning.

Dr. B. What is the meaning of an intelligent first cause?

I. In that shape I cannot answer, but I will endeavour to explain each separately. As I have already said, intelligence is a quality of a mode of existence. By "existence " I mean that which is in itself and is conceived per se; that is, the conception of which does not involve the conception of anything else as antecedent to it. By "first," I mean the initial, or prime commencement, of any limited number, and as "existence" does not involve limitation of duration, the term "first cause" is unintelligible to me. Dr. B. Do you define cause by the word existence?

I. Absolutely-yes.

Dr. B. What do you mean by an absolute cause?

1. I did not say absolute cause. I distinguished between "cause" absolutely, and "cause" relatively. By the latter, meaning a cause in popular language, itself an effect of a cause precedent, but exercising a causative influence for the effect it precedes.

Dr. B. What do you mean by cause absolutely?

I. I mean existence, that which is conceived per se; that is, the conception of which does not involve the conception of any other thing antecedent. Dr. B. Is thought an existence?