APPENDIX. 239 



reply, as it was evident he was perfectly at home on the subject, and 

 would sail tack for tack with me all night, if he lost confidence in his 

 opinions on one gaining more on another. At length he fell into a 

 fierce tirade upon the character of the Apostles. He thought them 

 cunning, selfish plotters, &quot; the same as their descendants, our reverend 

 aristocrats, that cannot find any better way of living than by pulling 

 wool over the poor workies eyes, while they draw fat salaries from 

 their pockets.&quot; 



&quot; A nice, lazy, comfortable sort of life they seem to have had of it, 

 don t they ?&quot; I answered. &quot; A jolly life, to be sure, loafing about with 

 their fat salaries. You remember what Dr. Paul s was : Of the Jews 

 five times forty stripes save one, thrice beaten with rods, once stoned, 

 shipwrecked, &amp;lt;fcc., weariness, painfulness, &c., &amp;lt;fcc. So runs his receipt ! 

 very fat, all that, isn t it? Now, are you not ashamed of yourself? 

 Talk about aristocratic parsons ! Every one of them started a work 

 ing man not one even of the bourgeoisie among them, unless it was 

 that same Paul, and he had his trade, and worked honestly at it to pay 

 his travelling expenses. You call them aristocratic. What do you 

 mean ? Why, sir, they were democratic socialists, and the worst sort, 

 having all things in common, the record of their acts says. And they 

 seem to have had a sufficiently generous spirit to make the idea work, 

 while all your modern communists only make themselves ridiculous 

 whenever they attempt it.&quot; 



He laughed aloud, and said that he wouldn t say another word 

 against the Apostles, if I would admit that they were socialists. They 

 certainly were not aristocrats. &quot; But,&quot; he complained, &quot; that does 

 not make them infallible guides, by a long shot. I want you to answer 

 my arguments against the infallibility of the Bible, if you can.&quot; 



&quot; I don t wish to,&quot; I said ; &quot; it is not at all necessary. Suppose you 

 can detect a few inconsistencies, misquotations, and puzzling expres 

 sions in the New Testament. The books have come a long journey be 

 tween them and us, and have passed through various hands. Wouldn t 

 it be strange if there were not some things knocked out of them and a 

 few tacked on ? You know there are three biographies of Christ, 

 written by different persons, among whom you cannot find any evi 

 dence of conspiracy or collusion, while there is much to the contrary. 

 Yet are they not consistent in every essential particular ? I think they 

 are ; and I am convinced the writers meant to give an honest, fair, and 

 correct account of what He said and did within their personal knowl- 



