Veritas seems stilt to be in ordin-ately proud of having been able to prove that something exists. Good luck to him. It is unfortunate that this is perhaps the only thing in his final article of which he can be proud: a string of biased, unsound pronouncements uttered with the rhetorical sincerity of a dogmatist.

Mere assertion, however sincere, is no proof. This applies both to Christ's assertions that he was God, and to Veritas's naive assertions that this self-identification with the Hebraic Jehovah is ipso facto true. There is no reason at all to connect the great universal philosophy preached and practised by Christ with any of the conventional features of Jehovannic theology. The one amounts to a general denial of the other.

And the Resurrection? Very touching. Very heroic. Very divine. And in spite of accounts of it being found in "one of the most thoroughly tested of all historical documents," I would venture to assert (humbly) that the four accounts of it are different—it is not my purpose to imitate some of my predecessors in this controversy in abusing the space at my disposal, so if Veritas wishes to find the differences, let, him read the New Testament, which is, after all, one of the most thoroughly tested of all historical documents. . . .

And when second-hand, hearsay evidence from a biassed witness is accepted in a court of law, I will accept Veritas's arguments.