Under this heading there is all editorial in the Christian-Evangelist reviewing the last lesson which I gave its senior editor. He says: "Professor McGarvey, so far as we know, never manifested the qualities of a humorist until he assumed the role of a Biblical critic." He does me too great honor in representing me as [71] having assumed the role of a Biblical critic. I make no such pretension. I only aim to stand in between the critics, some of whom I have had opportunity to study, and my brethren who have not enjoyed this opportunity, that I may give the latter the benefit of my readings, and guard them against being misled. If the editor had known me better, he would have known that, without being a humorist, I have always been somewhat given to humor; perhaps too much so for a preacher. I have always been disposed to laugh at things which were ludicrous, and the only development in this respect of which I am conscious in connection with Biblical criticism, is this: I find myself now disposed to laugh at some things which once made me angry. When I first began to read these destructive critics, I was like Elihu while listening in silence to the sophistical arguments of Job and his friends--my wrath was kindled. I recollect particularly that when I read Robertson Smith's "Old Testament in the Jewish Church," I was out of humor from beginning to end. But now that I see farther into the sophistries and follies of the critics, I laugh at some things which then kindled my wrath. I have experienced a change somewhat like that of the barnyard animals when, after the ass had come in clothed with the lion's skin, and had frightened them all, they saw his long ears stick out, and all broke into a roar of laughter. I must be excused, then, if I laugh at some of the ridiculous positions of the critics and their apologists.

      I have observed, too, that some things are exposed in their nakedness as soon as you turn the laugh on them, and that a good laugh is sometimes more effective than any amount of argument. If a fellow should stand up and say that two and two make five, and you should undertake to argue with him, such a fellow will dispute [72] all day, and have the last word in spite of you. But if you laugh, the company will probably laugh with you, and that's an end of the matter. It is precisely so in regard to many of the positions and expositions of the destructive critics; so I have laughed, and I will laugh, at their folly. If I were writing a book, I would try to straighten my face and put on my dignity; but as I am only writing for a weekly paper, I can afford to have a little fun.

      I trust that my efforts to induce the editor of the Evangelist to deal more fairly with the Presbyterians in regard to the Briggs trial, have been effectual; but while he drops the Presbyterians in his last article, he runs a tilt against the apostles; and I see that I must give him another lesson before I let him go. He says: "It can hardly be doubted that between Paul and the other apostles there were graver differences than those embodied in the charges against Professor Briggs. And yet we never read of Paul recommending that any of his fellow-apostles be tried for heresy." This is a statement that I dare not laugh at. It is too serious. If the editor means what he says, he is himself involved in a graver error than any charged against Professor Briggs. The thought here uttered is an echo from Christian Baur, and the Tubingen school which he founded. We all know very well that Peter was once involved in a moral aberration which Paul disapproved and severely rebuked, and from which Peter promptly recovered; but if there were doctrinal differences between them, whether as serious as those between Professor Briggs and the Presbyterians, or less so, the Tubingen professors were never able to show it, and the editor of the Christian-Evangelist will scarcely succeed where they have failed. Prove this proposition, and you have swept away the [73] very foundation of apostolic authority. But I will not press the point further until the editor shall have an opportunity to explain himself. I am not willing to believe that he has here expressed his real conviction; and I therefore ask him to say whether he means what he says; and, if he does, I respectfully call for some specifications of the differences between Paul and the other apostles, which are so obvious that they can "hardly be doubted," and which are graver than the errors charged against Professor Briggs.

[SEBC 71-74]