Chapter VI: Repartee

"He that can define, he that can answer a question so as to admit of no further answer, is the best man. Jesus spent his life conversing with humble people on life and duty, in giving wise answers, showing that he saw at a larger angle of vision, and at least silencing those who were not generous enough to accept his thoughts."--_Emerson._

REPARTEE.

"And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from
that day forth ask him any more questions."--_Matthew._

The present chapter brings us to the subject of Repartee. Of this form of wit, Professor Matthews says, "Nothing is more admirable, nothing more quickly enlists our sympathies, than this perfect command and quick, instantaneous concentration of the faculties, when a man is taken at a disadvantage and has to repel an insinuation or an insult at a moment's warning. That felicity of instantaneous analysis which we call readiness, has saved thousands of men from mortification or contempt. The dextrous leap of thought by which the mind escapes from a seemingly hopeless dilemma is worth more than all the logic and learning of the world." "The impromptu reply," says Moliere, "is precisely the touchstone of wit."

The pages of the Bible are sometimes enlivened by sharp repartees. The men of old time, the men of the Hebrew nation, understood the power of the quick and flashing answer, as well as more modern generations. Johnson and Foote and Sheridan might have found it by no means easy to hold their own in Judea. It is very likely that their powers would have been put to the severest test.

I.

Turning to the pages of the old Testament, we find many striking examples.

Ben-hadad sends word to the king of Israel, threatening to destroy his army. The king of Israel replies, "Tell him, Let not him that girdeth on his harness, boast himself as he that putteth it off."

Amaziah desired war with Jehoash. He sends to him saying, "Come, let us look one another in the face." Jehoash simply responds to the presumptuous challenge, "The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife. And there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trod down the thistle."

Job retorts upon Zophar, after a wearisome recital of dreary commonplaces intended for comfort, "No doubt but ye are _the_ people, and wisdom will die with you. But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you; yea, who knoweth not such things as these?" To the speech introduced by these words, Eliphaz sharply replies, "Art thou the first man that was born? or wast thou made before the hills? Hast thou heard the secret of God, and dost thou restrain wisdom to thyself? What knowest thou that we know not? What understandest thou which is not in us? With us are both the gray-headed and very aged men, much elder than thy father." Upon this latter sentiment Elihu expresses himself when he finds opportunity to put in a word; "Great men are not always wise, neither do the aged understand judgment."

Indeed the Book of Job abounds in sharp speeches and replies as cutting as the speeches they answer. The sufferer obstinately refuses to accept their theory of his affliction or to adopt the remedies his friends propose. "Ye are forgers of lies," he exclaims, "ye are physicians of no value. O that ye would altogether hold your peace, and it should be your wisdom." In response to this appeal, Eliphaz becoming piqued proceeds to administer consolation with the lash: "Shall a wise man utter vain knowledge, and fill his belly with the east wind? Should he reason with unprofitable talk or with speeches wherewith he can do no good?" "I have heard many such things," cries the wretched Job, "miserable comforters are ye all. If your soul were in my soul's stead, I could heap up words against you, and shake mine head at you; but I would strengthen you with my mouth, and the moving of my lips should assuage your grief."

There were some word-battles between Sanballat and Nehemiah while the latter was trying to build the walls of Jerusalem, and the former was doing his best to hinder the enterprise. "Come," says Sanballat, "let us meet together in one of the villages in the plain of Ono,"--let us be friendly, let us have a pleasant visit together,--"but he thought to do me mischief." The crafty Sanballat did not take the builder of Jerusalem napping. Nehemiah replies, "I am doing a great work so that I can not come down; why should the work cease whilst I leave it to come down to you?" Are your wishes of such mighty importance, O Sanballat that I should leave the Lord's work? Must the building cease that I may gratify your whim? Go to, Sanballat, go to; I can not come down. My work is great and noble; thou art a trifler and hypocrite! In precisely this vein was Spurgeon's reply to the pious bore who sent up word, "Tell him a servant of the Lord wishes to see him." It was Saturday afternoon, and Spurgeon replied, "Tell him I am busy with his Master!"

Sanballat will have at him again: "It is reported among the heathen, and Gashmu said it, that thou and the Jews think to rebel; for which cause thou buildest the wall that thou mayest be their king, according to these words. And thou hast appointed prophets to preach of thee at Jerusalem, saying, There is a king in Judah; and now shall it be reported to the king according to these words. Come now, therefore, and let us take counsel together." To this tissue of falsehoods manufactured by the mendacious Gashmu, Nehemiah flashes back with indignation, "There are no such things as thou sayest, but thou feignest it out of thine own heart." Nehemiah comes very near giving what Touchstone would call the "lie direct," and he gives it without the qualifying "If."

Robert Collyer has the following comment upon Gashmu, who was quoted by Sanballat as authority for the charge that Nehemiah was going to set up for a king: "This only, this one thing is left: A good man was doing a good work with all his might, and bad men tried to hinder him. They tried to hurt his person. Gashmu was above that. He was none of your common rowdies. Sanballat and Tobiah might do that, but not Gashmu; yet Gashmu will sit there and nurse his dislike, and be glad to hear the petty stories that float like thistledown through the neighborhood against the innocent man; words are twisted and turned to meanings Nehemiah never thought of, and Gashmu hopes they are true; he wishes they were true; the wish is father to the thought, and he believes them. * * * So Gashmu has permitted his prejudices to grow into a lie. Gashmu is to live thousands of years for one purely false assertion, and to be the representative man of unprincipled gossips and narrow bigots as long as the world stands."

Another illustration. When the woman, in time of famine, appealed to the King of Israel as he passed by, "Help, my lord, O King," he turned upon her with the somewhat grim rejoinder, "If the Lord do not help thee, whence shall I help thee?" Her case was hopeless, if the Lord could do nothing.

Although the resemblance is not very strong, this incident suggests a story of Michael Angelo. It calls to mind the way in which he took revenge upon Biagio di Cesena. This courtier ventured to criticise his Last Judgment. With a swift stroke he turned the Minos of the fresco into a likeness of his critic. Biagio complained to the Pope. "Where has he placed you?" inquired the Pontiff. "In Hell," said Biagio. "I am sorry," replied the Pope; "If it had been in Purgatory, something might have been done, but in Hell I have no jurisdiction."

II.

Examples of prompt and keen retort are not confined to the Old Testament. When we turn to the New Testament, we find additional illustrations.

When Paul was making his defence before the Council, he said, "Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day." This declaration of innocence offended the High Priest Ananias, and he commanded those who stood by, to smite the speaker on the mouth. This raised the indignation of Paul, and with the swiftness of an arrow he transfixed the Priest, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall; for sittest thou to judge me after the law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?" This was understood as a bolt of invective by those who heard it, for they asked in alarm, "Revilest thou God's High Priest?" The answer of Paul was a still more subtle sarcasm: "_I wist not, brethren, that he was the High Priest_." There was nothing in the conduct of the man to betoken the dignity of his office. God's High Priest must surely be fair and impartial. God's High Priest would never counsel violence. The mistake, Paul would imply, was perfectly natural and excusable.

There is a story of John Randolph not unlike this. Indeed, the sarcasm is the same in spirit and purpose. Paul admitted that "one must not revile God's High Priest," but _he did not perceive that the High Priest was present_. The coarse, loud, ill-tempered person who commanded to smite him on the mouth could not be High Priest! The following was the occasion of Randolph's sarcasm: During the winter of 1834 a member of the House, to whom he was much attached, died. His place was taken by a young man, vain and ambitious, who began his career by making a bitter attack on Mr. Randolph. No reply was made by the latter. Several days passed, when a question came up in which he was deeply interested, and he delivered a very earnest and impressive speech. As he closed, he said, "I should not, Mr. Speaker, have returned to press this matter with so much earnestness, had not my views possessed the sanction and concurrence of my late departed friend, _whose seat, I lament, is now unhappily vacant_."

How skillfully, in the story of the young man who had been healed of his blindness, does the subject of the cure parry the thrusts of the synagogue authorities! "Give God the praise," they exhort, "we know that this man is a sinner!" "Whether he be a sinner or no," says the young man, "I can not tell; one thing I know that whereas I was blind, now I see." Thus repulsed, they begin again. "What did he to thee? How opened he thine eyes?" He replies, "I have told you already, and ye did not hear; wherefore would ye hear it again? Will ye also be his disciples?" Stung to the quick, they revile him, "Thou art his disciple, but we are Moses' disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses, but as for this fellow we know not from whence he is!" Thoroughly aroused, the young man sends home to them a final thrust: "Why herein is a marvelous thing that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes? Now we know that God heareth not sinners; but if any man be a worshipper of God and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began, was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing!" Abuse and excision alone remain to the rulers of the synagogue. "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?" And they cast him out. Excommunication is the sole answer of priest-craft and bigotry to reason.

III.

To many readers it may seem impious to say that under the head of Repartee we must classify many of those words of Jesus with which he cuts through the sophistry of opponents and disentangles himself from the webs that are woven about him. Let it be remembered, however, that we are dealing with his utterances simply as literature; with their religious significance, we are not now concerned. We are discussing the sayings of Jesus as we would the sayings of Johnson or Goldsmith.

One of the most striking instances is found in the controversy over exorcism. When the scribes who came down from Jerusalem charged, "He hath Beelzebub and by the prince of the devils casts he out devils," he quickly reduced the accusation to an absurdity: "How can Satan cast out Satan? If he rise up against himself and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end." He goes further--"If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?"

There was one occasion, however, when Jesus himself seems to have been vanquished by a swift rejoinder. When the Syro-Phenician woman came to him in behalf of her daughter, in order to test her faith he said,--"Let the children first be filled, for it is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it unto the dogs." "Yes, Lord," she answered, "yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs." These words came from a bright intellect as well as from a trusting heart. Jesus appreciated the keenness of the reply no less than the confidence it expressed. "_For this saying_ go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter." "For once," says Macbeth, "Jesus was refuted and that by his own figure; and he wished to be refuted."

How we enjoy such a dilemma as the one in which he placed the chief priests and the scribes and the elders! They asked him, "By what authority doest thou these things? And who gave thee authority to do these things?" "I will also ask of you one question," says Jesus, "and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things--the baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me." "And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say from heaven, he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say of men,--they feared the people; for all men counted John that he was a prophet, indeed. And they answered and said unto Jesus, We can not tell." "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."

Another time "came to Jesus Scribes and Pharisees which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the Elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread?" How quick and effective the reply: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Nothing could be said in response. The question was absolutely closed. The disciples violate your tradition? Very good; but what does your tradition violate? Can we not see his opponents, falling back beaten, knitting their brows, taking counsel together, planning some overwhelming defeat for this impudent young heretic? What Thersites said of Ajax would well apply to them: "He bites his lips with a politic regard, as who should say, There were wit in this head an' 'twould out; and so there is, but it lies as coldly in him as fire in a flint, which will not show without knocking."

When the woman poured the spikenard on the head of Jesus, Judas, the virtuous Judas, forsooth! made objection. "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence _and given to the poor_?" Why not, indeed,--for Judas is custodian of the poor fund. "Judas," returns his Master,--and there was pathos as well as rebuke in the words,--"Judas, the poor ye have with you always, and whenever ye will, ye may do them good." This was the first time Judas had ever manifested any solicitude for the poor. "But me, ye have not always." Judas was silenced; but he began to brood revenge. Soon he stole out and went to the chief priests. He had not secured the price of the spikenard, but he would indemnify himself by selling his Master!

With what relish do we read the trenchant replies of Jesus to the Scribes and Pharisees and Herodians who had leagued to "entangle him in his talk." Easily as Samson broke the green withes, did he break the verbal fetters they forged. "In the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage!" "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." What can be more admirable viewed simply as repartee,--as illustrations of the "dexterous leap of thought by which the mind escapes from a seemingly hopeless dilemma?" If one were to read such fragments of Gospel history for the first time, without the idea that he must attach a solemn and awful meaning to every word, how would he delight in these intellectual contests and hail the genius of the victor!

After the besiegers, in the preceding incident, had exhausted their fruitless ingenuity, Jesus turns upon them with the question, "What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is he?" "The Son of David," they feebly mutter. "How then doth David call him Lord? If David call him Lord, how is he his son?" That ended the controversy. The combined forces of theology and politics retired in confusion, evidently looking, as Dickens said of the portraits of the Dedlock family, "as if they did not know what to make of it." They had lost the battle. One can imagine the evangelist who afterwards wrote the account, almost chuckling with inward satisfaction, as he recalled the scene and recorded the result: "And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day ask him any more questions."

VII. Wit and Logic.

"Who would say that truth ought to stand disarmed against falsehood, or that the enemies of the faith shall be at liberty to frighten the faithful with hard words or jeer at them with lively sallies of wit, while the Christians ought never to write except with a coldness of style enough to set the reader asleep?"--_Augustine._

WIT AND LOGIC.

"I was not gone far before I heard the sound of trumpets and alarms,
which seemed to proclaim the march of an Enemy; and as I afterwards
found was in reality what I apprehended it. There appeared at a great
distance a very shining light, and in the midst of it a person of most
beautiful aspect; her name was _Truth_. On her right hand, there
marched a male deity, who bore several quivers on his shoulders, and
grasped several arrows in his hand. His name was Wit."--_Addison._

In her essay on Heine, George Eliot writes: "Every one who has had the opportunity of making the comparison, will remember that the effect produced on him by some witticisms is closely akin to the effect produced on him by subtle reasoning which lays open a fallacy or absurdity; and there are persons whose delight in such reasoning always manifests itself in laughter. This affinity of wit with ratiocination is the more obvious in proportion as the species of wit is higher and deals less with words and with superficialities than with the essential qualities of things. Some of Dr. Johnson's most admirable witticisms consist in the suggestion of an analogy which immediately exposes the absurdity of an action or proposition; and it is only their ingenuity, condensation and instantaneousness which lift them from reasoning into wit." The opinion of George Eliot has been shared by others. Pitt declared that "all wit is true reasoning," and Rogers says that "wit is truth." A French writer has observed that "reason needs to be armed with the terrible epigram." And even solemn John Milton writes of Plato's dialogues, "There is scarce one of them, especially wherein some notable sophister lies sweating and turmoiling under the inevitable and merciless dilemmas of Socrates, but he that reads, were it Saturn himself, would be robbed of more than a smile."

There are in literature abundant examples of the condensed logic of wit,--the logic that exposes a fallacy, answers an objection and demolishes an argument, without resorting to major and minor premise and formal conclusion. One or two of these may pave the way to the main purpose of this chapter. "Where was your Protestant Church before Luther?" asked a Catholic of Wilkes. "Did you wash your face this morning?" said Wilkes. "I did, sir." "Where was your face before you washed it?" The logic of wit as employed by Dr. Johnson, is referred to by George Eliot. On one occasion it was debated whether a clergyman who had five years before been guilty of some grave sin should be reinstated. Johnson inquired whether the man had repented. It was admitted that he had. "Then," said Johnson, "if he has repented, is he not good enough to go to heaven?" "Certainly." "Why, sir, then there is no objection. A man who is good enough to go to heaven is good enough to be a clergyman." Johnson denounced Lord Bolingbroke in the following immortal analogy: "Sir, he was a scoundrel and a coward; a scoundrel for charging a blunderbuss against religion and morality, a coward because he had not resolution enough to fire it off himself, but left half-a-crown to a beggarly Scotchman to draw the trigger after his death."

A certain clergyman who had been addicted to bawling and roaring in the pulpit said, "I once thought it was the thunder that killed, and know now that it is the lightning that does the execution. I mean to thunder less and lighten more." Sir Thomas Overbury punctures certain pretensions thus: "The man who has not anything to boast of but his illustrious ancestors, is like a potato--the only good belonging to him is underground." Thompson, of the _Westminster Review_, defended the Radicals against the attacks of the Whigs in this manner: "Noah was a Radical when, hearing the world was to be drowned, he went about such a commonsense proceeding as making for himself a ship to swim in. An antediluvian Whig would have laid together half-a-dozen sticks for an ark and called it a 'virtual representation.'"

The principle that underlies these instances is obvious. The form may vary but in every case there is an analogy that serves all the purposes of formal logic,--"an analogy which immediately exposes the absurdity of an action or proposition." The writers of the Bible understood and employed the same principle.

I.

One of the best examples of its use is found in Nathan's parable. He goes to David and tells him: "There were two men in our city; the one rich, the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds; but the poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb, which he had brought and nourished up; and it grew up together with him and with his children; and it did eat of his own meat and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd to dress it for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb and dressed it for the man that was come unto him." Such an action is so atrocious that it kindles David's wrath. He little suspects the purpose of the wily prophet. "As the Lord liveth," he cries, "the man that hath done this thing shall surely die! And he shall restore the lamb four-fold because he did this thing, and because he had no pity." Beware, David, beware! This Nestor-prophet, this Nathan of the subtle wit and keen-edged tongue hath digged a pit for thee and thou hast fallen into it. Swiftly the prophet smites the bewildered king with the conclusion, "_Thou art the man!_" Could a volume of reasoning have so impressed David with the enormity of his crime as this simple "analogy" of Nathan?

A similar instance is found in the first book of Kings. Ahab the king of Israel had allowed the Syrian general, Ben-hadad, to escape. One of the prophets, determined to rebuke him, disguised himself and sat by the wayside, waiting until the king should pass by. "And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king and said: Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle, and behold a man turned aside and brought a man unto me and said, Keep this man; if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver. And as thy servant was busy here and there he was gone." Ahab does not suspect the snare of the prophet. What would my lord, the king, decide? Shall thy servant pay the forfeit? "And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hath decided it." And he made haste, removed his disguise, and said to the king: "Thus saith the Lord: _Because thou hast let go out of thine hand a man whom I had appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people_." Ahab has judged himself. No wonder he was vexed. "And the king of Israel went to the house heavy and displeased." Nothing so disconcerts one as the recoil of his own logic.

Let us place side by side with these illustrations one or two pieces of the same kind of reasoning from Shakespeare. The Court Fool endeavors to show Lear his own pitiful lack of wisdom in giving away his kingdom to his daughters:--

"FOOL.--Nuncle, give me an egg, and I'll give thee two crowns.

"LEAR.--What two crowns shall they be?

"FOOL.--Why, after I have clove the egg i' the middle and eat up the
meat, the two crowns of the egg. When thou clovest thy crown i' the
middle and gavest away both parts, thou borest thine ass on thy back
o'er the dirt; thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown when thou
gavest thy golden one away."

Upon another occasion the following dialogue occurs:--

"FOOL.--Canst thou tell how an oyster makes his shell?

"LEAR.--No.

"FOOL.--Nor I neither; but I can tell why a snail has a house.

"LEAR.--Why?

"FOOL.--Why to put his head in; not to give it away to his daughters
and leave his horns without a case."

Lear is so stung with the sense of his folly by these "analogies" of his jester that he exclaims in rage and bitterness, "I shall forget my nature!" It is the argument of Nathan, "Thou art the man."

Upon the same principle, but in a different way, the Psalmist reasons with those who "slay the widow and the stranger and murder the fatherless," and who say, "The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it." Thus he argues: "Understand, ye brutish among the people; and ye fools, when will ye be wise? _He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?_"

Under this head must we also place the judgment of Solomon, when the two women came before him, each claiming the living child. "Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth and thy son is dead; and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead and mine is the living one. And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other. Then spoke the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her heart yearned upon her son, and she said, O my Lord, give her the living child and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither thine nor mine, but divide it. Then the king answered and said, Give her (the first) the living child, and in no wise slay it; she is the mother thereof." Solomon had to use a sharp argument, but he settled the controversy.

II.

The "suggestion of an analogy that immediately exposes the absurdity of an action or proposition," was the favorite method of argument with Jesus.

He spun no metaphysical cobwebs, he used no long chains of linked propositions; it is no irreverence to say that his quick wit was his main reliance. In a sentence or two, with a simple, homely figure, he reduced to an absurdity the conduct he censured and the proposition he opposed.

On one occasion he was asked, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day?" "What man shall there be among you," he answered, "that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it and bring it out? _How much more, then, is a man better than a sheep?_ Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath day."

At another time the same subject came up. Because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath day, the ruler of the synagogue was filled with indignation and made a very grotesque spectacle of himself. He stormed, scolded, and roared to the people, "There are six days in which men ought to work; in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day." Jesus answered: "Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, _be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day_?" The indignant ruler had to smother his wrath. "And when he (Jesus) had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed." The people enjoyed their confusion, and evidently applauded the sharp-witted young prophet who had silenced the fault-finding tongues of the rulers. "All the people rejoiced for the glorious things that were done by him!"

The Scribes and Pharisees were once murmuring and complaining that he mingled with publicans and sinners, and even condescended to eat with them. "And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance!"

When the Pharisees and Sadducees desired that he would show them a sign from heaven, he answered and said unto them, "When it is evening, ye say that it will be fair weather for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to-day; for the sky is red and lowering. O, ye hypocrites, _ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?_" He uses essentially the same argument for a similar request: "When ye see a cloud rise out of the West, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower, and so it is. And when ye see the South wind blow, ye say, There will be heat, and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, _ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?_" Says Geike, "With biting irony, he turned on them in a few brief, incisive sentences. * * * An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign of the approach of the Kingdom of God, while it is blind to the signs around that the Messiah must come, if the nation is not to perish."

In a similar manner he shows how ridiculous are the doubts of those who fear that God will not answer prayer. "If a son ask bread of any of you that is a father, will ye give him a stone?" How this must have arrested the attention of his auditors; how they began to listen, curious to know what was coming next. "Or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" Now they exchange glances as much as to say, "No, no; surely we would not do that!" But only for a moment. The expectant faces are again turned upon the Great Teacher. "Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?" "No, no!" and now they are eager for the conclusion: "_If ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?_" It is the climax of absurdity for you to think that you are better than God, and will do more for your children than the Great Father will do for his children!

The disciples of Jesus came to tell him that the Pharisees are offended at some of his sayings. His only reply is, "Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

When he charges the Pharisees with tithing mint, anise, and cummin, while neglecting judgment, mercy and faith, he stamps their conduct with an "analogy" that makes them ludicrous forever, "Ye blind guides _which strain out a gnat and swallow a camel_."

At dinner, he was rebuked by his host for permitting a penitent woman to wash his feet with her tears and wipe them with the hairs of her head. "Simon," calmly returned the guest, "I have somewhat to say to thee." "Master, Say on." Jesus then proceeds to impale him upon the following question: "There was a certain creditor which had two debtors; the one owed him five hundred pence, the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me, therefore, which of them will love him most?" Simon understands whither the question tends, and slowly and reluctantly comes his answer: "I--suppose--that--he--to--whom--he-- forgave most." "Thou hast rightly judged." Yes, Simon, but thou hast condemned thyself and justified the woman.

The story of the vineyard and its application are similar to Nathan's parable. "There was a certain householder which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about and digged a wine-press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first; and they did unto them likewise. But last of all, he sent unto them his Son; saying, They will reverence my Son. But when the husbandmen saw the Son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on the inheritance. And they caught him and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him."

This is the story. Jesus turns to the Pharisees: "When the Lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto these husbandmen?" Priests and Pharisees are moved with indignation. This is horrible; it almost exceeds belief. Those husbandmen were monsters of ingratitude and wickedness! The Pharisees answer: "He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons."

Fatal answer for you, O Scribes and Pharisees! "Therefore I say unto you, _the Kingdom of God shall be taken from_ YOU, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." There is a touch of humor in Matthew's description of the manner in which the real object of this story dawned upon the minds of the hearers. "And when the Pharisees had heard his parable, _they perceived that he spake of them_." Are we not irresistibly reminded of Falstaff, when the fairies in the forest turned out to be flesh and blood, "I do begin to perceive that I am made an ass?" Do we not feel about many of these condensed arguments of Jesus, as Milton did about the "sophist sweating and turmoiling under the inevitable and merciless dilemmas of Socrates," that "he who reads, were it Saturn himself, would be robbed of more than a smile?"

Let us add by way of comparison, a passage from the Athenian Master. Here is a fragment of dialogue upon the enslaving power of money.

"Come, now, and let us reason with the unjust who is not intentionally in error. 'Sweet sir,' we will say to him, 'what think you of things esteemed noble and ignoble? Is not the noble that which subjects the beast to the man, or rather to the god in man? and the ignoble that which subjects the man to the beast?' He can hardly avoid saying Yes,--can he now?"

"Not if he has any regard for my opinion."

"But if he admit this, we may ask him another question,--How would a man profit if he received gold and silver on condition that he was to enslave the noblest part of him to the worst? Who can imagine that a man who sold his son or daughter into slavery for money, especially if he sold them into the hands of fierce and evil men, would be the gainer, however large might be the sum which he received? And will any one say that he is not a miserable caitiff who sells his own divine being to that which is most atheistical and detestable, and has no pity?"

This selection will enable us to see that the method commonly used by Socrates was essentially the method that Jesus so frequently employed.

III.

When we pass on to other portions of the New Testament, we find examples of the same kind of reasoning in James and Paul.

Most admirably does James show the futility of faith without works. "What shall it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and hath not works? Can faith save him? If a brother and sister be naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

The class of people referred to by James are aptly described by Fielding in the character of Peter Pounce. "Sir," said Adams, "my definition of charity is a generous disposition to relieve the distressed." "There is something in that definition," answered Peter, "which I like well enough; it is, as you say, a disposition to do it, and does not so much consist in the act as in the disposition to do it. But, alas! Mr. Adams, who are meant by the distressed? Believe me, the distresses of mankind are mostly imaginary, and it would be rather folly than goodness to relieve them." "Sure, sir," replied Adams, "hunger and thirst, cold and nakedness, and other distresses which attend the poor, can never be said to be imaginary evils." "How can any man complain of hunger," said Peter, "in a country where such excellent salads are to be gathered in almost every field? or of thirst, where every river and stream produce such delicious potations? And as for cold and nakedness, they are evils introduced by luxury and custom. A man naturally wants clothes no more than a horse or any other animal; and there are whole nations who go without them." Peter Pounce would have said to the "brother or sister naked and destitute of daily food," "_Depart in peace; be ye warmed and filled._"

The declaration of James that "faith without works is dead," is illustrated in the sayings of others also:

"Sweet words, empty hands."--_Telugu._

"Kindness, but no milk."--_Urdu._

"Though they are brothers, their pockets are not sisters."--_Turk._

"It is not by saying Honey, Honey, that sweetness comes into the
mouth."--_Ib._

"His words leap over forts, his feet do not cross the
threshold."--_Telugu._

"If you do not ask me for food and raiment, I will care for you as my
own child."--_Ib._

Equally admirable is that comparison of Paul in which he likens the Church to the human body and shows the folly of jealousy and schism: "If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?"

Very pleasantly, but very effectually, does he remind those who professed to "speak with tongues" a sort of supernatural language, in the early Christian assemblies, that it was "better to speak five words with the understanding than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." An illustration serves his purpose. "Even things without life, giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in sound, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air."

Paul maintains the right of those who establish and teach churches, to be supported by those churches. It was a right upon which he did not always insist in his own case; but he fought for it as a great principle. "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this: Have we not the power (the right) to eat and drink?" The objector would admit this. Very well! "Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? * * * If we have sown unto you in spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap of your carnal things? * * * Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? They which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel." There is no gainsaying this argument. The "analogy" is unanswerable.

Already once or twice in this chapter, reference has been made to Socrates and his method. Much of the following passage would apply equally well to Jesus or James or Paul: "He generally begins with some question, apparently so simple, so stupidly simple, and at such a distance from the field of discussion, that his opponent often hesitates whether most to admire the docility or wonder at the stupidity of the querist, and with a complacent smile, half of pity, half of contempt, promptly replies. Other questions succeed faster and faster, more and more difficult, and gradually approaching, in one long spiral of interrogations, the central position in which the unhappy sophist's argument stands. He now finds it impossible to escape, and confounded, perplexed and irritated, discovers that he is compelled to admit some palpable contradiction to his original assertions, and this too by means of those simple and innocent premises which he had so unsuspectingly granted. He feels himself within the coils of a great logical boa-constrictor who binds his folds together tighter and tighter till the poor sophist is absolutely strangled."