aAA^A^A^' 
 
 - - - * ' ; i 
 
 .^Aaa^** 
 
 ^^a^^^^a^^Aa^^^a^a^^ 
 
 .^wmim** 
 
 ^ r : n A^^AAi 
 
 
 ^ rs r\ ^ r\ I > r\ f\ 
 
 
 fS*:«*.z%llKfiK 
 
 aa^*;aaaW 
 
 .AAAA^W^r 
 
 *MW^**"*$ r 
 
 \. y -j;>- V> '^Vfe/ 1 ^** ** ; 
 
 Aaa* 
 
 LIBRARY OFMNGRESS. # # 
 
 Ǥ^. :S..L.Z77*j 
 ^L//... :.,.IBl | 
 
 * UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. 
 
 
 ^V^AA/ 
 
 
 ^A/V^' 
 
 ... .*..* J^ 
 
 ■aI/V* W k ' 
 
 UA'< 
 
 A 'jrv^r C^KAfrKAi ft >V^*A 
 
 *^A^\^*aj 
 
 AA**A 
 
■NftttWfotfcfil^™*M*W 
 
 
 
 firTW^uTMAT 
 
 
 w%mm£&£MMMi 
 
 %}^m0^^M^^ wpm 
 
 
 
 
 '^Aal^ftA: 
 
 $&XW„ 
 
 A*; ~ /VV 
 
 A»M- A *** 
 
 jifc& ; ^ 
 
 rmmmn ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *£a^ 
 
TIIE BIBLE VINDICATED 
 
 ST THE ASPERSIONS OF JOSEPH BARKER, 
 
 BY JOSEPH F. BERG. 
 
 iFTJ 
 
 REPORT 
 
 i 
 
 € lie Inlij Ikttqfam, 
 
 HELD DURING EIGHT EVENINGS, IN CONCERT HALL, CHESTNUT ST. 
 
 Commencing on Monday Evening, Jan. 9, and Closing on 
 Thursday Evening, Jan. 19, 1854 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 WILLIAM S. YOUNG, PRINTER, REAR OP 50 NORTH SIXTH STREET. 
 
 1854 
 
 ■ 
 
 Price 31 Cents. 
 
THE BIBLE VINDICATED AGAINST THE ASPERSIONS OE 
 
 JOSEPH BARKER, 
 
 BY JOSEPH F. BERG. 
 
 |itll Hepart tf tjje fcwMiniz 
 
 ON THE AUTHORITY AND INSINUATION OF 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, 
 
 Held during eight Evenings, in Concert Hall. Chestnut Street, 
 
 commencing on Monday evening, January 9th, and closing on 
 
 THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 19th, 1854. 
 
 3 U 
 
 [published by the committee or FRIENDS of dr, berg.] 
 
 PHILADELPHIA; 
 
 WILLIAM S. YOUNG, PRINTER, 50 NORTH SIXTH STREET 
 
 1854. 
 

 Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 18-54, by 
 
 Wjlliam S. Young, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
(£<flrn<jpnitbttn. 
 
 Philadelphia, January 20, 1854. 
 
 Rev. J. F. Berg, D. D., 
 
 Dear Sir, — It is the wish of many hundred 
 Christians who attended the debate just closed, 
 that an authorized copy of the speeches which 
 you delivered during that discussion should be 
 published under your own supervision. 
 
 It is well known that the report issued by 
 the Daily Kegister is, by no means, a fair re- 
 presentation of your arguments. Your enun- 
 ciation was unusually rapid; and we believe 
 that more than half again as much matter 
 was presented by you as by Mr. Barker in any 
 single speech, and yet he occupies far more 
 space in the columns of the Eegister than your- 
 self. Besides, your argument is not given by 
 that paper as you presented it, in very many 
 instances, and, in some, as the reporter acknow- 
 ledges, it is not given at all. 
 
IV CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Under these circumstances, you owe it to 
 yourself and to the public also, to place the 
 matter in a proper light by publishing your re- 
 joinders in full. 
 
 Hoping that you will accede to our request, 
 
 We are, 
 
 Your friends, 
 
 S. S. Shriver, 
 
 De Witt C. Moore. 
 
 Charles Collins, Jr. 
 
Philadelphia,, January 21, 185t 
 
 To Messrs. S. S. Shriver, De Witt C. Moore, 
 and C. Collins, Jr., 
 
 Gentlemen, — I cheerfully place my manu- 
 script in your hands, in accordance with your 
 request. The reporter of the Daily Kegister, no 
 doubt, did as well as most men could have done 
 under the circumstances, and, I believe, wished 
 to act with perfect fairness, but owing to causes 
 which you have mentioned, his report, as he 
 himself acknowledges, was frequently very im- 
 perfect. Of this I do not wish to complain, 
 His applications for my manuscript I declined. 
 On the last evening I voluntarily put the copy 
 of my closing speeches into his hands. 
 
 Wherever the remarks were extemporaneous, 
 I have either adopted the report of the Regis- 
 ter, when substantially correct, or supplied from 
 memory the substance of what was said, and 
 
Tl CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 in the appendix I have added a few notes, af- 
 fording answers to some objections which the 
 limited time allowed for the discussion did not 
 permit me to notice on the spot. 
 
 The report of Mr. Barker's speeches he com- 
 mends in his note to the Register, as "luminous, 
 and generally correct;" and, so far as I have 
 seen, they are a faithful transcript of his de- 
 nunciations of the Bible. They are given in 
 this report, at the request and suggestion of 
 many ministerial friends, as well as judicious 
 laymen, in order that they may stand on the 
 record; otherwise, I should have merely pre- 
 sented my own argument, after extending it 
 so as to include some points which were not 
 reached in the discussion. 
 
 It is right that I should acknowledge my in- 
 debtedness for valuable suggestions interwoven 
 in this effort to defend the Bible, from Dr. Alex- 
 ander's Evidences of Christianity, and Dr. R. J. 
 Breckenridge's masterly contribution to the no- 
 ble work lately published by Win. S. Martien, 
 Chestnut street, on the same subject; also, to 
 an anonymous work on the Philosophy of the 
 Plan of Salvation ; and to a treatise of the late 
 Rev. Joseph Buckminster. This acknowledg- 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. Vli 
 
 ment applies to the argument on the internal 
 evidences of the divine inspiration of the Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 In the hope that this publication will sub- 
 serve the cause of our blessed Redeemer, and, 
 in some humble degree vindicate the truth of 
 his word, I leave the matter in your hands, 
 
 And remain, 
 
 With great respect, 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 J. F. BERG. 
 
DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE. 
 
 [Mr. Barker's speeches are published, in this report, as they 
 appeared in the columns of the Daily Register ; and such re- 
 marks of Dr. Berg, as were extemporaneous, are copied from 
 the same source.] 
 
 First Evening — Monday, January 9th. 
 
 The long expected discussion between Mr. Barker 
 of Ohio, and the Rev. Dr. Berg of this city, was com- 
 menced this night, at Concert Hall. The audience 
 crowded the immense room to overflowing. Floor, 
 gallery, aisles, and platform were full. 
 
 Our reporter could not make his way up to the 
 stand. His report was most of it taken while jammed 
 up in the aisle, a benevolent stranger holding his hat. 
 It will not, therefore, be found very full. We aim 
 to give only the general train of reasoning of each 
 speaker. 
 
 Wm. D. Baker, Esq., was appointed chairman; -and 
 Rev. John Chambers and Mr. Thomas Illman, mode- 
 rators. At half-past seven o'clock, the chairman read 
 the rules agreed on by the parties. The most impor- 
 tant are as follows : 
 
10 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Mr. Barker rejects the Bible as a divine revelation. 
 
 Mr. Barker maintains that the doctrines, laws, and institutions 
 of the Bible, are of no superhuman authority. 
 
 The topics: 1. The internal evidence. 2. The external evi- 
 dence. 3. The tendency of the Bible, when the book is received 
 as of divine authority, Mr. Barker maintains to be injurious. 
 
 King James' version to be the standard, with liberty of appeal 
 to the original Hebrew and Greek. 
 
 The discussion to continue for eight evenings, with the un- 
 derstanding that it may be extended, by mutual consent, for 
 four evenings more. 
 
 Mr. Barker opens the discussion, and Dr. Berg rejoins, on 
 each evening. 
 
 Mr. Barker: Some attempts have been made to 
 prejudice the public against me, prior to my arrival. 
 I am charged with being an Englishman. This is 
 true. My defence is, that J could not help it. I am 
 also charged with not being a naturalized citizen. 
 This is also true. My excuse is, that the laws do not 
 permit me to be naturalized until after a longer re- 
 sidence than I can claim. My opponent will not avail 
 himself of these charges, because it happens that he 
 was born and educated in the same borough and 
 parish with myself. All I ask is, to have a candid 
 and impartial hearing. 
 
 We have to consider, 
 
 1. The origin of the Bible. 
 
 2. The tendency of its contents. 
 
 The common doctrine is, that its origin is divine, 
 and its contents sacred. Our view is, that it is the 
 work of imperfect man; that its teachings are purely 
 human ; and that it bears upon every page the impress 
 of men's liability to err. All books, as far we know, 
 have the same origin. 
 
 The Bible is a translation. The Greek and Hebrew 
 manuscripts are translations. The original manu- 
 scripts, of which they profess to be copies, are lost. 
 The contents of the present translation are erroneous. 
 Its contents, its grammar, its logic, its rhetoric, and 
 its poetry, all bear marks of human weakness and 
 imperfection. Its contents are of a mixed character ; 
 much truth, much error, much virtue, much of the con- 
 
THE BIBLE. 11 
 
 trary, much salutary philosophy, and much extrava- 
 gant error. Its morality corresponds neither with 
 our sense of goodness, mercy, justice, or charity. 
 
 1. It represents the Deity as subject to human in- 
 firmity — as eating, drinking, Trashing his feet, rest- 
 ing, after six days 7 work, on the seventh day. "On 
 the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." Ex. 
 xxxi. 17. "And the Lord was with Judah, and he 
 drove out the inhabitants of the mountains, but could 
 not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because 
 they had chariots of iron." Judges i. 19. 
 
 2. It represents God as deficient in knowledge. 
 He is said not to have known what Abraham was, 
 until he had tried him with the sacrifice of his son 
 Isaac, (see Genesis xxii.12;) nor did he know what 
 the Israelites were, until he had tried them for forty 
 years in the desert. 
 
 3. It represents God as having a local habitation 
 somewhere on high; as coming down; as travelling 
 from place to place. "And the Lord came down to 
 see the city and tower which the children of men 
 builded." Gen. xi. 5. We find that he is said to have 
 received information, by report, of the wickedness of 
 Sodom and Gomorrah. "I will go down now and see 
 whether they have done according to the cry of it 
 which is come unto me ; and if not, I will know." 
 
 4. It represents him as changeable, as repenting of 
 his acts. It says he repented of having made man, 
 and of having made Saul king. 
 
 5. It represents God as partial — as loving Jacob, 
 and hating Esau, (see Mai. i. 2-4;) as loving the Is- 
 raelites more than all the rest of the world. They 
 were not allowed to eat the flesh of beasts that had 
 died ; but they could sell it to the stranger. They 
 could not take usury of each other; but they might 
 take it of a stranger. They were not to make bond- 
 men of each other; but they might make slaves of 
 strangers. 
 
 6. It represents God as unjust, visiting the sins of 
 the parents upon the children. The seven sons and- 
 
12 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 grandsons of Ahab were killed for his sins. David's 
 infant died for his sin. The Amalekites were slain 
 for crimes committed several centuries before by their 
 ancestors. Whole tribes, classes, and races, are con- 
 demned for the sin of one. All serpents were cursed 
 because of one. All women were subjected to the 
 rule of their husbands forever, because of Eve. Man 
 was sentenced to eat his food in labour and sorrow, 
 and to die. And some say the death meant is worse 
 than bodily dissolution. God is said to have moved 
 David to number the people. David does so. God 
 is angry because he did so ; and gives him the choice 
 between seven years 7 famine, three months' defeat 
 before his enemies, or three clays' pestilence. David 
 chooses the pestilence, and there died of the people, 
 from Dan even unto Beersheba, seventy thousand 
 men. "And when the angel stretched out his hand 
 upon Jerusalem, to destroy it, the Lord repented him 
 of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the 
 people, It is enough, stay now thine hand." 2 Sam. 
 xxiv. 16. Here we have God represented as moving 
 a man to sin; angry because he sinned; sparing 
 the sinner, and killing seventy thousand innocent 
 people ! 
 
 7. It represents God in still darker colours, attri- 
 buting to him the direst cruelties. In the 31st of 
 Numbers, he is said to order Moses to " avenge the 
 children of Israel on the Midianites." All the males 
 were slain, but Moses was wroth and gave orders to 
 kill all the male children and all the women that had 
 known men. A part of the booty was given to the 
 Lord as his share. In the eleventh of Joshua, we 
 read that the Lord hardened the heart of certain 
 tribes that they should come against Israel in battle 
 and be destroyed. Joshua hung the five kings upon 
 five trees. God is said to have hardened Pharaoh's 
 heart. The result was the death of the oldest child, 
 not of Pharaoh, but of every one of his subjects. The 
 Lord is said to have commanded Saul to go and smite 
 Amalek, to "slay both men and women, infant and 
 
THE RIBLE. 13 
 
 suckling, camel and ass." Samuel hewed Agag to 
 pieces before the Lord. And the story of the flood ! 
 Were all impure? Were there no stainless women 
 and little children? Were all so lost that they were 
 to be destroyed without one word of pity or com- 
 punction? 
 
 8. It represents God as accepting human sacri- 
 fices. 
 
 The seven sons of Saul were hanged before the 
 Lord. (See 2 Sam. xxvii. 9.) The horrible sacrifice 
 by Jephtha of his own daughter is mentioned without 
 a" word of blame. (Dr. Berg here interrupted the 
 speaker to ask him to read the passage. Mr. Barker 
 did so, remarking that he did not usually read, be- 
 cause it took time ; but if at any time he mis-stated, 
 he would retract at once.) 
 
 9. It represents God as sending lying spirits. 
 These tempted Ahab to war. Paul says he sends 
 delusions that men may believe a lie. 
 
 It is true that the Bible attributes to God higher 
 qualities ; but these contradictions only prove it to 
 be the work of fallible men. It says he is change- 
 able ; and that he is unchangeable. It says certain 
 men saw God; and that no man hath seen him at any 
 time. It says that he has a body, and that he is a 
 spirit; that he repented him, and that he is not the 
 son of man that he should repent; that he was par- 
 tial to Jacob, and that he is impartial; that he grows 
 weary, rests and is refreshed, and that he is almighty 
 and never weary; that he has a local dwelling, and 
 fills heaven with immensity; that he does not know 
 certain things and that he is omniscient; that he 
 tempted Abraham and that he tempts no man; that 
 the sin of the father shall be visited upon the child 
 and that the proverb shall be heard no more : " The 
 fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's 
 teeth are set on edge;" that he is cruel, and that he 
 is good to all ; that he accepts human sacrifices, and 
 that he has no pleasure in them. These contradic- 
 tions are so many proofs that these books are of the 
 same origin with others. 
 
 2* 
 
14 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 The morality of the Bible is often low. The atro- 
 cities and immoralities of the Israelites are fre- 
 quently passed without blame. Abraham teaches his 
 wife to lie. David is said to have done right in all 
 things, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. Solo- 
 mon is not blamed for his profligacy, but for taking 
 wives from among the Gentiles, leading the people 
 from the worship of Jehovah. David's prayer (see 
 109th Psalm) is a terrible curse. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Berg was introduced by Rev. John 
 Chambers, and was received with loud applause and 
 cheers, spite of the previous request of the Chairman 
 that there should be no demonstration of feeling. 
 
 Before I proceed to the discussion of the topic pro- 
 perly under debate, I wish to make a few preliminary 
 remarks. I regret that I felt constrained to interrupt 
 my opponent, although I might have been justified 
 by the rules in so doing, inasmuch as Mr. Barker has 
 not touched the subject properly under discussion. 
 
 In the minds of some sincere and earnest Christians, 
 doubts exist touching the propriety, or at least the 
 expediency of any discussion such as that in which I 
 have consented to engage. In their judgment, the 
 lower grades of infidelity are so irrational, and the 
 objections of unbelievers against the law and the 
 gospel of the Bible are so absurd, as to seem beneath 
 the dignity of sober refutation. Besides, they are 
 not disposed to concede so much to the opponents of 
 divine revelation, as to seem even to place them on 
 a footing of equality by condescending to a public 
 argumentation of any questions touching the inspira- 
 tion and the authority of the Sacred Scriptures. 
 
 These considerations have had some weight with 
 myself. If they had not, I might have encountered 
 my opponent, in this public way, some weeks ago. 
 They are in accordance with the opinion of George 
 IV. of England, who replied, when Mr. Watson was 
 introduced to him as the author of the Jlpology for 
 the Bible, "Sir, the Bible needs no apology." I 
 admit it is not always prudent to give notoriety to 
 
THE BIBLE. 15 
 
 persons whose whole energy is expended in dissemi- 
 nating doctrines which are subversive of all virtue, 
 and of the order, and safety, and the very existence 
 of society. We are not bound by any moral obliga- 
 tion to pursue to the death every obscene bird that 
 may hoot or caw in its flight over our habitations, 
 and yet, if the owl or the raven become an annoyance, 
 there is no reason why, other engagements permitting, 
 the nuisance should not be abated. Neither are we 
 under any sort of necessity to notice the ravings of 
 infidelity run mad, though its insulting bravados may 
 tempt us to muzzle, or drive it elsewhere, and yet, 
 sometimes, it may be useful to give to the more no- 
 torious advocates of infidel folly, a crown of notoriety, 
 which, like the jingling of the cap and bells, may an- 
 nounce the advent of the wearer, wherever he may 
 go. 
 
 Should any one suppose that the precept which for- 
 bids us to cast pearls before swine, lest they trample 
 them under their feet, or to give that which is holy 
 to the dogs, lest they turn again and rend us, forbids 
 any such exposure of sacred things to the filthy scorn 
 of blasphemers, my answer is, that this is a rule, 
 which, like many others, is modified in its operation 
 by circumstances ; for the Apostle Paul tells us, that 
 there are divers unruly and vain talkers and de- 
 ceivers, whose mouths must be stopped. The only 
 means of doing this, which we advocate, is by expo- 
 sing the absurdity and the falsehood of their allega- 
 tions against Christianity, so that all sober and good 
 people — all friends of truth and righteousness shall 
 turn away from the doctrines of infidelity with 
 loathing and contempt. My opponent has for many 
 years been engaged in exposing to public view what 
 he is disposed to regard as the inconsistencies and 
 contradictions of the Bible, in the hope, by this 
 means, to impair confidence in its teachings as a rule 
 of faith and duty. This is a sorry business. If he 
 can find no sufficient guide to the practice of virtue 
 in the morality which it inculcates, and no ray of 
 comfort to cheer him in the prospect of the hour of 
 
16 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 death, why, we may well ask, should he not be willing 
 to leave to others the consolations which in life, and 
 in death, are beyond all price to them? 
 
 Why should he seek to quench the light that gilds 
 the dark hours of sickness and sorrow with triumph- 
 ant hope, or cover with a curtain of gloomy doubt 
 the brightness that gleams from the book of God, as 
 the lamp of eternal life? He has seen the Christian 
 die, and he may have witnessed the parting struggle 
 of the blasphemer, which I have not, for few men are 
 willing to die infidels, however recklessly of Christian 
 obligation they may live; and he knows, therefore, 
 full well, that there is not a hope that deserves the 
 name, not a solace that is worth the notice of the 
 dying, excepting those which spring from faith in 
 Christ as their root. These ripe clusters from the 
 Paradise of God can alone give health to the sick, 
 and life to the dying. But he will not have this 
 Bible, because, forsooth, it is full of contradictions! 
 And we must meet his objections and reconcile these 
 inconsistencies, and what then? Will he receive it 
 then? If he follows the current example of his pre- 
 decessors, he will repeat the very objections which 
 have been a hundred times exploded, or he will fab- 
 ricate some new testimony of the same kind. 
 
 Then, I am asked, Why not let him pass on in si- 
 lence? Why answer such a challenge at all? If you 
 will look into the proverbs of Solomon, you will find 
 there two propositions, which, on the principle of my 
 opponent, involve a contradiction so round and 
 plump, that one might think he could not have over- 
 looked it. They are these: "Answer not a fool ac- 
 cording to his folly, lest thou be like unto him." 
 And again: "Answer a fool according to his folly, 
 lest he be wise in his own conceit." Perhaps my 
 opponent will take occasion to expose the sins of So- 
 lomon, and witli such a contradiction in his Proverbs, 
 of course he cannot receive them as a gift of inspira- 
 tion. To my mind, however, this conflicting advice 
 involves no contradiction whatever; on the contrary, 
 it furnishes an excellent incentive to present duty, 
 
THE BIBLE. 17 
 
 Besides, I may remind you that the Master, whom it 
 is my highest honour to serve, was engaged, at one 
 time, in a controversy of forty days with Satan, the 
 father of infidelity, as we Christians hold, and why 
 may I not engage in a controversy of eight days or 
 evenings, with a servant of that Arch-Deceiver? An 
 Infidel, Satan is not; for the devils also believe and 
 tremble. Neither am I willing to admit, that all 
 who boast of their infidelity, and who deride and de- 
 nounce the Scriptures as so pernicious in their ten- 
 dency, are really so full of unbelief as they profess. 
 
 I am happy to have it in my power to establish 
 this assertion by documentary evidence published to 
 the world, under the auspices of that very virtuous 
 society, called the Sunday Institute. In a number 
 of the Public Ledger, which I hold in my hand, I 
 find an advertisement of a subject of debate, which 
 reads as follows : " Sunday Institute. In the after- 
 noon, at 3, question, 'Did Rev. Wm. L. M'Calla, in 
 the recent debate with Mr. Barker, maintain the 
 character of a Christian divine and polemic consis- 
 tently?' " What does this mean? Is not this a 
 strange inquiry for infidels to make, who would have 
 us believe that Christianity is a fable? These very 
 men, who tell you in one breath, that the influence 
 of the Bible is pernicious, when received as of super- 
 human authority, can find no higher model of moral 
 excellence than the character of a consistent Chris- 
 tian? Why do they not hold up to public admira- 
 tion, the character of a consistent blasphemer — a 
 consistent member of the Sunday Institute — a con- 
 sistent Atheist, Deist, Socialist, or Infidel? So again, 
 in the former clause of the same advertisement, we 
 have an announcement as the text of discourse : " Rev. 
 John Chambers and Christian charity, illustrating 
 each other: 1 Cor. xiii. chapter, 1st to 8th verses." 
 Why not give the portraiture of " Infidel charity," 
 and prove its superiority over the charity of Jesus 
 Christ? What kind of consistency is this? Will 
 men denounce the Bible, and yet acknowledge obe- 
 dience to its precepts as the highest virtue that can 
 
18 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 adorn the character ? Yet, so it is. Despite of itself, 
 Infidelity, when its purposes cannot be gained with- 
 out the mask of decency, is constrained to render 
 obeisance to the excellence of the gospel of Christ. 
 In the hearts of its enemies, hard as they are, there 
 is usually some little of the faith of the devils, who 
 believe and tremble. 
 
 My opponent comes before this community as an 
 aggressor upon the faith and the institutions of Chris- 
 tianity. As you are aware, he challenges any one to 
 meet the allegations, by which he would have us 
 believe that the Bible can be divested of all its time- 
 honoured claims upon the reverence of rational and 
 wise men, as a divine revelation. Some of my bre- 
 thren have insisted that it is my duty to accept this 
 challenge; and I am here for that purpose. De- 
 pending, first of all, upon that grace which the God 
 of the Bible has always given to those who humbly 
 seek it, and believing that the prayers and sympa- 
 thies of all who love the truth as it is in Christ, are 
 with me and for me, I hope to show you that the 
 boasts of this infidel are empty as the wind, and as 
 idle as the ravings of delirium. A blind man we 
 pity. We see him groping for the wall at noon-day, 
 stumbling at every step; whilst the little child that 
 can see, walks onward pleasantly and safely over ob- 
 stacles which the other cannot surmount. Now, we 
 can commiserate a man who is blind, and bemoans 
 his privation. We would gladly help him on his way. 
 We would guard him with tenderness, and never de- 
 sert him, so long as he required our aid; but if he 
 should become so much in love with darkness as to 
 tell us that it is better and safer than light, and 
 proudly challenge all who have eyes to see, to dis- 
 prove his arguments, we should be very apt to feel 
 that he had undertaken a hopeless task, in labouring 
 to persuade us to put out our eyes, that we might be 
 as gloriously blind as himself. Faith is the eye of 
 the soul. The soul that lias no faith, is blind. The 
 infidel, who offers us his unbelief as a substitute for 
 our faith, is not as wise as he might be, if he expects 
 to win our consent to the barter. 
 
THE BIBLE. 19 
 
 The first point which my opponent has laid down as 
 his gauntlet of defiance, is recorded, in the schedule 
 upon which we have mutually agreed as the basis of 
 our discussion, in these words: 
 
 "Mr. Barker rejects the Bible as a divine revela- 
 tion." 
 
 I am aware this is a negative way of stating the 
 proposition; but infidelity is nothing but a grand ne- 
 gation, from first to last : consequently, this was the 
 form most agreeable to my opponent. Before we 
 proceed to the discussion of any other topics, let us 
 look at the argument which this statement of my op- 
 ponent's position devolves upon me. It will naturally 
 be expected that I should endeavour to prove "the 
 necessity of a divine revelation" in the first place; 
 and I think my opponent is equally bound to produce 
 the standard of moral right and wrong, from whose 
 decisions there shall be no appeal. He rejects the 
 Bible. Very well. That we understand. But has 
 he no rule of right to offer in exchange? If he takes 
 away the light which, we believe, God has ordained 
 in the spiritual firmament, as surely as he has ap- 
 pointed the sun in the heavens to rule the day, and 
 the moon to rule the night, we are certainly not un- 
 reasonable if we ask him for the great light which 
 is to reconcile us to the loss. Let him give us some- 
 thing which will serve as a moral touchstone to de- 
 termine character. If he has nothing to present, 
 which is of superhuman authority, I am of the opinion 
 that it will not be a very difficult matter for me to 
 show that consistency will require him to take his 
 stand in the bogs of drivelling, stupid Atheism. In- 
 deed, I think it not unlikely that I shall drive* him 
 into just that position, before he is a fortnight older, 
 if his life and mine are spared so long. 
 
 A divine revelation is necessary. In support of this 
 proposition, I offer to my opponent three facts, which 
 he cannot deny; and which, like the strands of a 
 threefold cord, are not easily broken. 
 
 The first fact is this. The very instinct of the 
 human constitution leads man to recognise the ex= 
 
20 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 istence of a Supreme Being. To whatever cause this 
 maj r be due, the fact is the same. Man is a religious 
 being. He will worship. You may search the wide 
 world; go where you will, among nations civilized, 
 and uncivilized ; in all ages, in all climates, you can- 
 not find a race so brutalized, that they have no idea 
 of a God. 
 
 The second fact is this. The character of the wor- 
 shipper becomes assimilated to that of the Being whom 
 he worships. The operation of this principle is as 
 plain and certain as the ordinary operations of cause 
 and effect. The Being who is regarded as supreme, 
 becomes to the worshipper a standard of perfection. 
 The simple deduction of reason teaches that the only 
 way to propitiate the favour of the object of worship 
 is, by conformity to his will, by the performance of 
 actions that shall bear a resemblance to the attributes 
 and character of the superior Being. Thus, in every 
 act of sincere worship, there is an attempt to approach 
 the standard of supposed excellence presented in the 
 character proposed as a model. Hence you find, in 
 consulting the history of the idolatrous world, that 
 the character of any nation may at once be known, 
 from the character, or the attributes ascribed to the 
 gods of that nation. 
 
 The Egyptians were brute-worshippers ; and besti- 
 ality was the prevalent vice, which they dignified as 
 the highest virtue. Examine the paintings and sculp- 
 ture of their divinities, in the mummy catacombs, and 
 you find clusters of beasts, birds, and reptiles, in the 
 most disgusting relations, all illustrating the preva- 
 lent bias of the popular mind. 
 
 The worshippers of Venus practised the most abo- 
 minable licentiousness in the celebration of the ser- 
 vices at her shrine. Venus was a personification of 
 lust, and the deeds practised at her polluted altars, 
 were such as may not be named, although there is 
 some reason to believe that our infidel socialists 
 would re-enact them here, if they dared. 
 
 Bacchus was the god of wine and revelry. His 
 worship was a round of orgies and revolting drunken- 
 
THE BIBLE. 21 
 
 ness. " Drunk as Bacchus," is a proverb to this day. 
 He has a host of worshippers in our own Christian 
 country, who are his living epistles, known and read 
 of all men; proving the fact, that the character of the 
 worshipper is determined by that of the object of his 
 worship. This moral reaction is every where appa- 
 rent. Odin and Thor, the divinities of the Scythians 
 and the Northmen, were ideal hero-kings, blood- 
 thirsty, cruel, and vindictive; and their votaries, in 
 consequence, were more like bloodhounds than men: 
 their greatest delight was to revel in rapine and 
 murder. 
 
 Modern testimony supports the same truth. In 
 a document laid before the British Parliament, H. 
 Oakley, Esq., a magistrate in Lower Bengal, speak- 
 ing of the influence of idolatry in India, says, of the 
 worship of Kale, one of the most popular idols : " The 
 murderer, the robber, and the prostitute, all aim to 
 propitiate a being, whose worship is obscenity, and 
 who delights in the blood of man and beast; and 
 without imploring whose aid, no act of wickedness is 
 committed. The worship of Kale must harden the 
 hearts of her followers, and to them scenes of blood 
 and crime must become familiar." 
 
 In China, according to Medhurst, the priests of 
 Buddah understand and teach the doctrine of the as- 
 similation of the worshipper to the object worshipped. 
 They say: "Think of Buddah, and you will be trans- 
 formed into Buddah. If men pray to Buddah, and 
 do not become Buddah, it is because the mouth prays 
 and not the mind." 
 
 In close connexion with this fact, and so intimately 
 interwoven with it as to render a separation impos- 
 sible, is the deplorable truth, that all the objects of 
 Pagan worship, all heathen divinities, have presented, 
 without exception, a vicious and depraved character 
 as the model of perfection. Hence, as a natural con- 
 sequence, the standard of moral rectitude has been 
 not only defective, but absolutely abominable, among 
 all nations addicted to the worship of these false gods. 
 In obeying the instinct of their nature, so far as to 
 3 
 
22 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 worship a superior Being, or to pay homage to a mul- 
 titude of false gods, the intellect of the worshippers 
 has been beclouded, and their hearts have been cor- 
 rupted. This has been the invariable general result. 
 The question, then, forces itself upon us, Were there 
 any resources in the human mind, or any means in 
 the sphere of nature, by which the human race might 
 save itself, or be delivered from the debasing and 
 polluting influence of idolatrous worship? This leads 
 me to the statement of another proposition, which I 
 present as 
 
 The third fact: That no effort of human wisdom, 
 skill, or power, has ever been sufficient to emancipate 
 the human race from this bondage of corruption, or 
 to remedy the vicious effects of a false and idolatrous 
 worship. The history of idolatry presents a series of 
 interesting facts, which substantiate the truth of this 
 proposition beyond the power of successful contra- 
 diction. In the first notices which we have of idola- 
 trous worship, we find that it was, comparatively, 
 pure. By this I mean, that it occupied the highest 
 degree in the scale of degradation. Men worshipped 
 the sun, moon, and stars. But the course of error is 
 always downward. Ere long, therefore, they trans- 
 ferred religious honours to men, whom they regarded 
 as benefactors of the race, or of a particular tribe or 
 nation. From this point, they descended to the wor- 
 ship of beasts and reptiles; and as these were not 
 always present to the eye, in later ages, they formed 
 images of wood, or stone, or metal, and made gods of 
 stupid blocks of marble, timber, gold, silver, or brass. 
 Some sought gods among the vegetables, and leeks 
 and onions were deified; and just in proportion to 
 the degradation of the object of worship, was the de- 
 generacy of the character of the worshippers. We 
 are accustomed to hear much of the humanizing ef- 
 fects of art and science ; but the fact stares us in the 
 face, that those periods in Grecian and Roman his- 
 tory, which were the most resplendent in this respect, 
 were at the same time characterized by the most re- 
 volting corruption of public morals. The Augustan 
 
THE BIBLE. 23 
 
 age of Rome, and the era of Pericles and Alcibiades 
 in Greece, stand out in bold relief as the most idola- 
 trous, and, as a necessary consequence, the most hor- 
 ribly depraved, in all the annals of these departments 
 of history. The capitals of Greece and Rome were 
 the foci of lewdness, and mysteries of wickedness, 
 too vile to mention ; and from them the abominations 
 were radiated through all the towns and villages, 
 until the very earth was reeking with the fumes of 
 hell. 
 
 Philosophy tried its skill. Conscious of the evils 
 resulting from the popular idolatry, the sages of 
 Greece and Rome taught that the stories of the hea- 
 then deities were allegorical. They proposed to 
 identify these gods with certain natural virtues, or 
 duties growing out of the various relations of life. 
 In the effort to effect this, after destroying the per- 
 sonality of their gods, they fell over into the abyss 
 of Atheism, and men became, in their wisdom, only a 
 higher order of the brutes which perish. Their ef- 
 forts, moreover, were utterly ineffectual upon the 
 masses. The testimony of Dionysius Halicarnassus 
 is explicit on this point. He says: " There are only 
 a few who have become masters of this philosophy. 
 On the other hand, the great and unphilosophic mass 
 are accustomed to receive these narratives rather 
 in their worst sense, and to learn one of these two 
 things, either to despise the gods as beings who wal- 
 low in the grossest licentiousness, or not to restrain 
 themselves even from what is most abominable and 
 abandoned, when they see that the gods do the same." 
 Cicero, the greatest orator and philosopher of Rome, 
 has recorded this strong sentence as the result of his 
 observation. "Instead," says he, "of the transfer to 
 man of that which is divine, they transferred human 
 sins to the gods, and then experienced again the ne- 
 cessary reaction." 
 
 Philosophy, therefore, might see the evil, but it 
 was powerless to provide the remedy. It could de- 
 plore the existence of the plague, but it could not 
 arrest it. Unless, therefore, other means could be 
 
24 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 devised, and presented with authority sufficient to 
 claim the assent of the human mind and adapted to 
 the nature of man and the circumstances in which he 
 was placed, the race was doomed beyond the power 
 of redemption. Idolatry degraded it. If it was ever 
 to be lifted from this abyss of debasement, some mo- 
 del of moral excellence must be presented worthy of 
 the homage of a rational man. His affections must 
 be torn from gods, which were personations of the 
 lowest vices, and fixed upon a being, holy, pure and 
 good. Could man form such an object? Degraded, 
 as he was, how was he to transfer to his gods a cha- 
 racter of which he could have no conception? Can 
 the stream be higher than the fountain? Who can 
 bring a pure thing out of an impure? I know of no 
 absurdity more monstrous than to suppose, that an 
 imperfect and selfish being can originate a perfect 
 and holy character, set this before him as the model 
 of excellence and worship it as his god. All that he 
 can do is just what man, under such circumstances, 
 always has done, transfer his own vile attributes to 
 his gods, and in their worship experience, in his own 
 character, the reaction of his own depravity. For 
 the sake of argument, however, we will suppose, that 
 some man could be found, so constituted, as to origi- 
 nate the idea of a perfectly holy being as the object 
 of supreme worship; still the question recurs, how is 
 he to persuade the vicious masses to accept his idea 
 as a substitute for the worship to which they have 
 been accustomed? How shall he prove the exis- 
 tence of such a god as he prefers, after having scat- 
 tered to the winds the fabric of superstition and 
 idolatry with which the multitude have been con- 
 tent? All he could do would be just what philoso- 
 phy effected; he might make Atheists of idolaters. 
 Hence, it is plain that to save men from the corrupt- 
 ing influence of an irrational and absurd worship, two 
 things are indispensable; first, a pure object of wor- 
 ship must be presented before the mind, and secondly, 
 when this pure Being has been revealed, the mani- 
 festation of his existence and his attributes must be 
 
THE BIBLE. 25 
 
 accompanied with a power that shall attest its supe- 
 riority and establish its claims upon universal ho- 
 mage and veneration; so that men shall forsake the 
 abominations of false worship and devote themselves 
 to the service of a God, who is holy in all his ways 
 and righteous in all his works. Such a revelation, 
 Christians believe and know they possess in the Holy 
 Bible. Its claims we affirm to be established by 
 marks of superhuman authority. The miracles which 
 were wrought to support this revelation prove that 
 it is of God. The fulfilment of prophecies uttered 
 and recorded hundreds and thousands of years be- 
 fore the predicted events occurred, by men who 
 claimed to speak by divine inspiration as messengers 
 of the God of the Bible, stamp this book as divine, 
 and the purity of its morals, the excellence of its in- 
 stitutions, the harmony between universal providence 
 as displayed in past and current events and the attri- 
 butes of Jehovah, the exact correspondence between 
 the inner life and experience of the believer with the 
 recorded attributes and fruits of faith, these and a 
 thousand glories more, conspire to throw a radiance 
 around this sacred Book, which shall yet fill this 
 world with the blessings of purity and peace. But, 
 Mr. Barker rejects this Bible as a divine revelation. 
 Then I respectfully ask Mr. Barker to tell us in his 
 next speech, whence he has obtained his knowledge 
 of the existence of a God, and what are the attri- 
 butes of his God, and how he has revealed them to 
 him and to his brethren of the Sunday Institute, and 
 how these claims upon his belief and theirs are sub- 
 stantiated? Declare his name and his Son's name, 
 if ye can tell; and, then, let him tell us what object 
 God proposed in his creation? 
 
 My opponent is surely not aware of his indebted- 
 ness to the very book which he discards. I have al- 
 ready shown that his friends of the Sunday Institute 
 have the highest possible respect for the virtues which 
 adorn the Christian character, if we are to believe the 
 implied testimony of their published advertisement, 
 and yet they are unwearied in their efforts to dis- 
 
 3* 
 
26 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 seminate doctrines subversive of this very Chris- 
 tianity. They will not own the God of the Bible as 
 their God, and yet they are compelled to pay an in- 
 advertent homage to the excellence of his attributes. 
 Oh ! says Mr. Barker, we receive that which is good 
 and reject whatever is evil in the Bible. Wonderful 
 discrimination, truly I But, tell me, whence have you 
 this wisdom? How come you to be so rarely endowed 
 above your fellow heathen, as to be able to take forth 
 the precious from the vile ? How is it that, without 
 the intellect of a Socrates or a Cicero, you heathen 
 philosophers of the nineteenth century are in pos- 
 session of light which so far transcends your more 
 gifted predecessors? If you receive this Bible as a 
 gift from God, every question is answered ; but if you 
 reject it, do not borrow your ideas of virtue from it! 
 Be consistent, or you will expose yourselves to the 
 condemnation of all sane and sober people. This 
 Bible is either a revelation from God, or it is a fraud. 
 There is no alternative. It professes to be ordained 
 of God, as a lamp, burning and shining with celes- 
 tial light. You say, away with it, we will have none 
 of it. We will kindle our own fire and walk in the 
 light of sparks of our own kindling! Very well. 
 Bat now, wise men, bring forth your light. Where 
 is it? When did it shine? Was it in the days of 
 Robespierre, when the wise legislators of France set 
 up a prostitute in their Council Hall, called her the 
 goddess of reason, and worshipped her? Was it 
 when the dark inscription hung like a cloud over the 
 cemeteries of infidel Paris, "Death is an eternal 
 sleep ? " Is this your light ? Oh ! sirs, the red man of 
 the forest, the poor Indian, would blush to be asso- 
 ciated with men who have no souls ! You speak of 
 charity — infidel charity. When was it exhibited? 
 You must not tell us, you have charitable and bene- 
 volent men among you, and then dream that you have 
 answered our inquiry. You have them. We admit 
 it. We are glad of it; but is it their infidelity that 
 made them charitable ? Or is it their association with 
 Christians that has made them what they are, despite 
 
THE BIBLE. 27 
 
 of themselves? No, ye sages of these latter days, ye 
 lights of the world, if you would know the beauties 
 of infidel charity, you must look for them in an era 
 of infidelity, and among a nation of infidels ! Once in 
 the history of the world, and a merciful Gocl has per- 
 mitted it but once, that men might look at the picture 
 and remember it, while time lasts, once in the his- 
 tory of the world, infidel charity was permitted to 
 display her ruddy charms, and that period is known 
 as "The reign of Terror!' 7 Infidel charity has but 
 one emblem that is characteristic of her, it is the 
 guillotine! I select this cardinal virtue, charity, 
 merely as a type of the graces of Christianity. Re- 
 ject Christianity as a divine revelation — repudiate 
 all idea of the sacredness of the Scriptures, and you 
 destroy all claim to illumination, superior to that 
 which the heathen possessed. If my opponent ob- 
 jects to this, let him show whence he had obtained 
 his superior knowledge, and how he has learned to 
 admire virtues which the wisest of men destitute of 
 revelation have never been able properly to conceive, 
 or to appreciate. 
 
 I have presented only a few links of the chain 
 which connects sound philosophy with revelation as 
 its only guide, but at this point I drop this part of 
 the question, as it comes again in regular order, after 
 the settlement of Mr. Barker's two preliminaries. 
 
 After my opponent had stated that he rejected the 
 Bible as a divine revelation, I put this question to 
 him when the preparatory arrangements for the pre- 
 sent discussion were under consideration, "Am I to 
 understand, Mr. Barker, that you reject the institu- 
 tions of the Bible?" To this, he gave the answer 
 that stands on the record, thus: "Mr. Barker main- 
 tains that the doctrines, laws, and institutions of the 
 Bible are of no superhuman authority." 
 
 My opponent is very generous. He gives me three 
 times as much as I ask him for, and thus places me 
 under the pleasant obligation, for I wish to be equally 
 generous, of pouring three fold back into his bosom. 
 If the laws, doctrines, and institutions of the Bible 
 
28 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 are of no superhuman authority, then, I argue, they 
 are of no valid authority as a rule at all. If they 
 rest simply on human authority, with no superior 
 sanction to sustain them, then they claim obedience 
 and respect, only on the ground that might makes 
 right. If this be so, then all laws are tyrannies. For 
 what right has my neighbour to prescribe a law to 
 me? I am as much entitled to give a law to him as 
 he is to give one to me. Then we shall have a Social- 
 ist Jubilee as the first result of my opponent's posi- 
 tion. " All men are by nature free and equal." Laws 
 of merely human authority men may make and men 
 may unmake. Obedience to them becomes, therefore, 
 not a matter of obligation, but a question simply of 
 expediency. It will depend entirely on circumstances 
 whether a man shall obey or transgress them. He 
 may do as he thinks best about it. If he transgresses, 
 he offends his neighbour, perhaps — What of that? 
 If he obeys, he may, peradventure, offend himself; 
 and when it is a question of human authority, one 
 man has as good a right to his opinion, or preference, 
 as another. 
 
 But, some one may suggest, society has certain 
 rights, and these must be protected. My opponent 
 cannot avail himself of this opening to escape from 
 the meshes in which he is entangled. What is society ? 
 It is an aggregate made up of individuals. And if 
 some of these individuals combine, and then say you 
 shall do this, and you shall not do that, I ask, who 
 gave you this authority? Who gave us this autho- 
 rity? We gave it to ourselves. We took it. I an- 
 swer, you have no right to any superiority over me. 
 But, if we have not the right, perhaps we have the 
 might ! Then you are tyrants. This is the style in 
 which Socialists argue, and when men deny the exist- 
 ence of superhuman authority for the laws which go- 
 vern them, they reason logically and consistently 
 when they pursue this very line of argument. Now, 
 let us see where this process places my opponent. 
 
 He rejects the laws, doctrines, and institutions of 
 the Bible, so far as they claim superhuman authority. 
 
THE BIBLE. 29 
 
 I wish him joy of this rejection. A compend of these 
 laws is presented in the Decalogue, familiar to us all 
 as the ten commandments. These are of no divine 
 origin, or sanction, says my opponent. Therefore 
 men may have one God or they may have many, as 
 they may deem best. They may make to themselves 
 graven images, or they may not, just as they prefer. 
 They may take the name of Jehovah in vain, or they 
 may reverence it if they are so disposed. They may 
 profane the Sabbath, or they may remember it to keep 
 it holy. They may honour their father and their mo- 
 ther, or if they do not choose to do that, they may 
 take their parents when they get old and burdensome, 
 and dig their graves before they die, as some heathen 
 do at this very day, and trample their gray heads 
 down into the mire and dust, and leave them to 
 smother under the clods and turf. It is written, 
 "Thou shalt do no murder." What of that? It is 
 merely a human precept ; and who cares for human 
 authority, when as a man, his own will, lust, and pas- 
 sion are as valid human authority as any other that 
 you can name. It is written, "Thou shalt not com- 
 mit adultery." But, then, the family is a mere con- 
 ventional arrangement, it is simply a human institu- 
 tion, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong in vio- 
 lating this precept, provided it can be done conveni- 
 ently. And as for the old notion perpetuated in the 
 precept, which reads, "Thou shalt not steal," it is a 
 mere piece of injustice, because it keeps the rich man 
 from sharing his property with his poor neighbour. 
 The old Spartans taught that there was no harm in 
 stealing. Not a bit! The only disgrace consisted in 
 being found out! " Thou shalt not steal! " is a mere 
 human device with which the rich man seeks to keep 
 the poor man's rights from him. As for saying " Thou 
 shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour," 
 if the precept rests solely on the ground of human 
 authority, we will have to ask with Pilate, " What is 
 truth?" And then, how absurd to say, "Thou shalt 
 not covet! " If a man sees that his neighbour has a 
 fairer house than himself, what harm is there in wish- 
 
30 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ing that it was his? If his neighbour's ox ploughs 
 better, if his ass works better, or his man-servant, or 
 his maid-servant is more sprightly, intelligent, or 
 active than his own, or if his neighbour's wife is far 
 more engaging than his own old woman, what harm is 
 there in wishing that these comforts belonged to him- 
 self, instead of to another? We Christians believe 
 that the harm lies just in this, that the wish is father 
 to the thought, and that coveting that which is ano- 
 ther's is the first step towards murder, theft, and 
 adultery. 
 
 Understand me, now, I do not say that my oppo- 
 nent is the advocate of the peculiar morality which 
 I have been describing. If he were to ask me, Sir, 
 do you suppose that I would steal? I should answer 
 him, very promptly, I believe, most sincerely, you 
 would not; but this honesty of yours is not due to 
 your denial of the divine authority of the eighth com- 
 mandment; you are honest in spite of your infidelity, 
 and, by a happy inconsistency, your life is better than 
 your creed. I do say this, that your denial of the 
 divine authority of the morality inculcated in this 
 transcript of the law, annihilates all responsibility, 
 and obliterates all distinction between virtue and 
 vice, and that, were the principles involved in this 
 rejection carried out to their legitimate results, there 
 is no wickedness which I have named, and none that 
 can be named, that men would not be justified in per- 
 petrating. Law to be law must be invested with 
 authority greater than that possessed by the subject, 
 whose obedience it challenges, otherwise law becomes 
 only another name for injustice. A morality, there- 
 fore, which has not the authority of God as its basis, 
 is without foundation. If my opponent objects to my 
 mode of reasoning, (and if there is a flaw in it, I shall 
 be thankful to him if he will point it out,) we can 
 involve him in precisely the same difficulty by changing 
 the face of the argument. My opponent will tell you, 
 doubtless, that some of the transgressions already 
 specified are wrongs, vices to be restrained, or crimes 
 deserving punishment. Why are they crimes? Be- 
 
THE BIBLE. 31 
 
 Use they are violations of human laws. Or should 
 ne reply, They are transgressions of precepts inscribed 
 by the pen of nature, we shall be ready for him, on 
 that tack also. 
 
 One or the other of the horns of this dilemma he 
 must take. Now, waiving the argument for the pre- 
 sent, by which I believe I have successfully shown 
 that human authority is intrinsically worthless as a 
 sanction of law, we will suppose, that, in a country 
 like this, such transgressions would be really crimes, 
 though the laws were merely of human origin. But 
 how would it be, supposing this country were inhabited 
 by a race as enlightened as the Feejees, or the Pata- 
 gonians, who have no such legal standard as our own? 
 Would these things be crimes then? Would murder, 
 and theft, and adultery be offences worthy of severe 
 penalties? Would they be intrinsically wicked, or 
 wrong? The Patagonian law allows them. The 
 precepts, forbidding murder, and theft, and licen- 
 tiousness, are merely of human authority, and as the 
 Patagonian code dignifies these matters with the name 
 of virtue, and as their laws are based on human au- 
 thority too, what is wrong in Pennsylvania becomes, 
 by this process, perfectly right in Patagonia. Thus 
 infidel morality becomes a mere nose of wax. Infidel 
 law is liable to all the caprices of human lust and 
 passion. All the sacred relations and obligations of 
 life are undermined — vice is installed in the shrine 
 of virtue — anarchy usurps the throne of order — liberty 
 flies abashed from the presence of wild licentiousness, 
 and this earth becomes a Pandemonium in which only 
 devils can find a home, because men, under the fos- 
 tering care of infidel morals, have become incarnate 
 fiends. 
 
 My opponent rejects the institutions of the Bible 
 as of any superhuman authority, precisely as he 
 denies that its laws and doctrines have the sanction 
 of the Most High. The very first institution which 
 God ordained, according to the Scripture history, is 
 the Family; the second is the Sabbath; and it is re- 
 markable, that these two institutions, coeval with the 
 
32 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 creation of this world, are the objects against which 
 infidelity wages the most bitter and savage hostility. 
 If the idea that the Family is a mere human device 
 could gain possession of the mind and heart of this 
 nation, then the sense of sacredness which gives sta- 
 bility and honour to the compact which binds hus* 
 band and wife in bands, that God only may dissolve, 
 must vanish, and the domestic virtues, which are the 
 basis of domestic happiness, must cease to exact and 
 to receive the homage which is their due, and society 
 must then lapse into the condition of the brutish herd ; 
 human passions would be the only law, and the frame- 
 work of infidel society would be complete. 
 
 If there is a word which may well chill the heart, 
 and blench the cheek of woman, that word is Socialism. 
 There is no direr foe to woman's happiness than the 
 infidel advocate of "woman's rights!" There is no 
 shield that can protect her in the enjoyment of the 
 honours, and in the discharge of the duties which per- 
 tain to her in all the walks of life, like the aegis of 
 the Bible. The Family is the citadel of her strength. 
 Maintain that in the purity of its original institution, 
 and woman will find a strong arm to defend her, when 
 she needs protection, and a heart that will beat true 
 to the throbbings of her own pure affection I But let 
 the Bible lose its hold upon the homage of men, from 
 that hour woman becomes a slave. No folly is so 
 suicidal as that which persuades woman to lend the 
 sanction of her gentle, loving heart to the mad cruel- 
 ties of selfish socialism, that system of unbelief and 
 perfidy which is carnal, sensual, devilish 1 In the 
 family, as ordained of God, she finds a sanctuary from 
 the selfish tyranny that would degrade her from the 
 throne of pure loyalty and love, which heaven in 
 mercy has fixed in the heart of Christian men. As a 
 wife, a mother, a daughter, a sister, in all the do- 
 mestic relations which she adorns, she finds elements 
 of influence and happiness, to which pagans and infi- 
 dels are strangers. Will you tell her, the Family is 
 not ordained of God? Will you ask her to descend 
 from the sphere of a companion, a friend, a counsellor, 
 
THE BIBLE. 33 
 
 and a partner, to that of an abject slave, the victim of 
 caprice, a tinselled toy to be thrown aside when a 
 brighter bauble can be found ? 
 
 If the family be nothing more than a human insti- 
 tution, and not an ordinance of God, it is plain that 
 the same power which has originated, may also abro- 
 gate it. On the principle asserted by my opponent, 
 what security has he to offer for the stability of any 
 civil, social, or domestic relations? His whole fabric 
 is built upon sand, which may, at any moment, be 
 swept away by the floods of passion or caprice. Con- 
 trast with the position assumed by Mr. Barker, the 
 Christian theory as it stands revealed in the book, 
 which we revere as the Word of the living and true 
 God. Upon the basis of the Bible, civil, social, and 
 domestic institutions are safe. They are built upon 
 a rock. The Christian respects the righteous admi- 
 nistration of just and equitable laws. He is found 
 always on the side of that order which the Bible pre- 
 scribes. The authority of the civil magistrate is given 
 for the protection and the honour of those who do 
 well, and for the punishment of evil doers. He yields 
 a cheerful obedience to its demands. To resist them 
 is to resist, in his judgment, not man merely, but 
 God, because they are sustained by the authority of 
 the Most High. The liberty which he wishes to enjoy 
 is not a licentiousness, which permits him to throw 
 the reins upon the neck of his lusts, and let them 
 carry him, like an unmanageable horse, wherever 
 they will: it is liberty that rests upon law— just, 
 righteous law as its foundation. The law which is 
 supreme in his affections teaches him to love his 
 neighbour as himself. Therefore, there is no danger 
 that he will infringe upon the rights of his fellow man. 
 
 This secures social happiness. He cannot abrogate 
 the distinctions which the Providence of God has 
 made, but he is content with his lot, and however 
 humble his station may be, he will adorn and dignify 
 it by the graces of a Christian character. Whether 
 rich or poor, wise or ignorant, and I will add, whether 
 bond or free, his religion will ennoble any station in 
 4 
 
34 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 life, and secure for him the respect of all, who have 
 hearts to admire the brightest exhibitions of patriot- 
 ism, benevolence, and charity. The family is or- 
 dained of God. Therefore, its relations are sacred. 
 The Bible is the only book claiming to be a divine 
 revelation, which assigns to woman the sphere for 
 which her constitution is adapted. All other systems 
 regard her as a being of inferior nature. The Bible 
 teaches that she is man's companion, not his slave, 
 that the husband is the head of the wife, that she was 
 taken, when created, not from his head, that she might 
 rule over him, nor from his feet, that he should 
 trample upon her, but from his side, that he might 
 protect her in danger, and find her in hours of sick- 
 ness and sorrow ever near him as an angel of mercy. 
 The marriage relation, in this view, is not a merely 
 civil contract, it has a religious character also. It is 
 an institution which has God for its author. It is, 
 therefore, sacred. " Whom God has joined together, 
 let not man put asunder." This religious element 
 is the bulwark of domestic purity and happiness. 
 Every thing, therefore, that is designed to weaken 
 the reverence with which all well regulated society 
 regards this institution as of divine origin, is a blow 
 aimed at the root of the order and peace of the com- 
 munity. The doctrine of my opponent is poison, 
 which, if it once pollute the fountain, will diffuse 
 mortal sickness, for all the streams which permeate 
 the civil and social state, springing from the family 
 as their source, will be fraught with pestilence and 
 death. Anarchy and confusion will chant the hoarse 
 requiem of peace and righteousness over the ruined 
 foundations of just government, of social order, and 
 domestic purity, and upon the door-posts of the glo- 
 rious temple of freedom, which God has permitted 
 Christians to build in this happy country, our enemies 
 may then write "Ichabod," for the glory will be de- 
 parted. God forbid that they should ever do this 
 thing! We are not yet a nation of fools, who have 
 said in their heart, ''There is no God!" We are not 
 yet prepared to believe the insane notion that all in- 
 
THE BIBLE. 35 
 
 stitutions are human. We are not yet willing to 
 believe that the God who cares for the tiniest insect, 
 and for the lowest reptile that creeps along in its 
 slime, the God who has given a law to the birds, that 
 bids them flee to some warmer shore, when the frosts 
 and storms of autumn warn them of approaching 
 winter, and who teaches the worm to burrow deeper 
 into the earth, when its surface is chilled by the icy 
 wind, we will not believe that this God has left man, 
 his noblest, brightest creature on earth, without a law 
 that shall point him to a refuge beyond the storms of 
 this wintry coast, and teach him how he may escape 
 to a brighter and a happier shore. 
 
 Second Evening — Tuesday, January 10th. 
 
 Half-past seven, Rev. Mr. Chambers, one of the moderators, 
 announced that the discussion, on Thursday evening next, would 
 begin at seven o'clock precisely, and that there might be some 
 different arrangement for the sale of tickets. If so, it would be 
 announced in the papers. 
 
 Mr. Thos. Illrnan, moderator. — Mr. Barker will commence 
 the discussion. 
 
 Mr. Barker took his place at the stand. (Applause andhisses.) 
 
 Rev. Mr. Chambers. — It is requested that all marks of ap- 
 probation or the contrary shall be dispensed with this evening. 
 
 Mr. Thomas Illman joined in the request of the other mo- 
 derator. 
 
 Mr. Barker: — I trust that the meeting will conduct itself 
 with decorum, that attention will be paid to what both speak- 
 ers may say, and that there will be no obstruction to the 
 most free discussion. If what I have to say be true, it is 
 both your interest and duty to hear it. If it be false, you 
 will, if you listen, be better prepared to set me right. You 
 send missionaries to win other nations from their cherished 
 religious opinions. You do so in the hope that they will 
 listen to what differs from their views. In a certain respect, 
 my case is a similar one; I would win you to views other than 
 those you cherish, and ask a hearing. [The speaker here re- 
 capitulated rapidly the topics of the discussion as agreed upon, 
 and the points made in his speech of the previous evening. 
 He thought he had proved that the Bible represented the 
 
36 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Supreme Being as subject to human infirmity, eating, drink- 
 ing, washing his feet, resting after work, deficient in power, 
 and in knowledge ; having a dwelling-place, changeable, par- 
 tial, unjust, cruel, accepting human sacrifices, and sending 
 strong delusions and lying spirits; and also that on all these 
 points it represented him in colours directly the reverse, con- 
 tradicting itself in each particular. He thought he had proved 
 that the Bible, while recognising many of the virtues, also 
 justified many enormities, such as despotism — civil, ecclesias- 
 tical, and domestic; polygamy, cruelty, and the most impla- 
 cable rage and revenge.] My opponent did not answer me 
 on any of these points. He spent his time discussing mat- 
 ters, many of which were entirely foreign to the question. 
 I will notice these briefly, although most of them do not 
 logically belong to the first part of this discussion. 
 
 My opponent thought proper to bestow upon me thirty or 
 forty foul names. These I pass over. — They require no an- 
 swer from any one. Perhaps, Dr. Berg himself will agree with 
 me on this subject, and use them no more. If he continues to 
 use them, however, I shall let him travel alone on that path. 
 
 His anecdote of (leorge the Third or Fourth, who told 
 Bishop Watson, " Sir, the Bible needs no apology," proves 
 nothing. The word of a defunct English monarch is with- 
 out authority here. 
 
 He said that my doctrines are subversive of all virtue. 
 This charge will be in its appropriate place in the second part 
 of this debate — when we come to the tendency of the Scrip- 
 tures. We are now discussing the divinity of their origin. 
 I may observe here that what he said was backed by no ar- 
 gumentation. 
 
 He spoke of socialism. Now, as there are between fifty 
 and one hundred different doctrines that go under that name, 
 he should have been particular in stating which of them he 
 means to charge me with. But I have said nothing in fa- 
 vour of socialism, or about it. We are discussing the Bible, 
 not socialism. 
 
 He mentioned a card in which a member of the Sunday 
 Institute proposed to discuss, whether the outrageous conduct 
 of Bev. Mr. M'Calla, in the late debate, and the alleged par- 
 tiality of Bev. John Chambers were consistent with the cha- 
 racter of a Christian divine. He thought it a tribute to the 
 purity of the Christian character. It was not so, for its au- 
 thor thought the conduct complained of was in harmony with 
 the spirit taught by the Bible. In fact, I know of no con- 
 
THE BIBLE. 37 
 
 duct, bad or good, some part of the Bible may not be found 
 to justify. 
 
 My opponent says that "I know" no faith outside of the 
 Bible is worth any thing. I know nothing of the kind. His 
 idea is an imputation on the goodness of God, for nine-tenths 
 of God's children on this earth have died without hearing of 
 Christ or of the Bible. Are they then lost? I must say 
 that there are no arguments more charged with blasphemy 
 against the goodness of God, than many of those which are 
 put forward in behalf of the tenets of Christian sects. 
 
 He speaks of the death of infidels. Well, I have seen 
 Christians die, full of horror. I never saw infidels die so. 
 "Why should they ? What can they fear ? They believe in 
 no awful and eternal hell, in no great, malignant devil. For 
 them, God is perfect love, without the ingredient of hate or 
 malevolence in his character. Many of them believe in an 
 immortality of happiness and purity; their minds are not 
 tortured with apprehensions of malignant demons. Among 
 them are many of the best and happiest people I am ac- 
 quainted with. My opponent says that I am blind, and wish 
 you to put out your eyes. Nothing of the kind. I want 
 you to keep them, and especially to keep them wide open to- 
 night, to see which of us wanders from the question. 
 
 He says that we have no faith — that we believe nothing 
 — that infidelity is a great negation. And this because we 
 disbelieve the divinity of a certain book. It does not follow 
 that we believe nothing because we disbelieve the fables, 
 fallacies and follies of antiquity. Dr. Berg does not believe 
 in the Mormon Bible. Suppose a Mormon should, on this 
 account, charge him with believing nothing — with living in 
 a great negation. He would properly answer: "Is there 
 nothing in the broad universe to believe but your hateful 
 and hideous fables?' 7 And so I answer the Doctor. 
 
 He asks me how I can tell what is right or wrong without 
 the help of the Bible? If men cannot tell this without the 
 Bible, then is the Bible not true, for Jesus himself refers to 
 the test within the bosoms of men, and the Bible speaks of 
 the law written on the hearts of men. There is the light of 
 *the human conscience, made brighter by experience and ob- 
 servation, which is enough to guide us safely. There is a 
 test and touchstone of right in the moral constitution of man 
 himself. Dr. Berg refutes himself in speaking as he does of 
 internal evidence. 
 
 4* 
 
38 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 He thinks we owe all our good ideas to the Bible. Why- 
 does he not claim that we owe to it what we know of steam, 
 electricity, and other natural agents ? No, we owe the pre- 
 sent state of our conceptions of Truth and Goodness to the 
 great law of progress which pervades the universe. It is 
 stamped on every thing we see, on man as well as the animal 
 and vegetable creation. We see the earth discarding the old 
 and imperfect, and clothing herself with new forms approach- 
 ing more nearly to perfection. The primitive vegetable tribes 
 are replaced by better ones. Each stage is a step in advance. 
 And just as each successive vegetable production is an im- 
 provement on its predecessors, so is each new form of civiliza- 
 tion broader, grander and better than those which went be- 
 fore it. 
 
 Dr. Berg maintains the necessity of successive and progres- 
 sive revelations of the character of Grod. On this we are 
 agreed. Only I maintain that these revelations are not su- 
 pernatural, but are due to the experience of man himself. 
 
 The Doctor exclaims, " See how dark the world has been 
 wherever the Bible has not been known!" I answer, see 
 how dark it has been where the Bible has been known ! The 
 Jews had the Bible. Were they better than the G-entiles 
 around ? The prophets thought not. Isaiah denounces them 
 as rotten from head to foot. (Mr. Barker here read from 
 Isaiah.) And what did Jesus say of them ? Did he not call 
 the Scribes, Priests, and Pharisees, the professors and cler- 
 gymen of his day, hypocrites, liars, children of the devil, ser- 
 pents, &c. (He here read from Matthew xv. and xxiii.) 
 And did not these same teachers of the Bible of their day- 
 treat Jesus as a blasphemer, a seditious man, who wished to 
 upset the government, and who was so devoid of patriotism 
 as to be hostile to the nationality of his people? They 
 thought him not only from the devil, but coming in the name 
 of Beelzebub, the prince of devils. (Laughter.) 
 
 In the history of the world, there are some hundreds of 
 years designated as the Dark Ages. Then the priesthood and 
 church ruled. Their supremacy was complete, uncontra- 
 dicted. It was then, and in that Church, that a certain fear- 
 ful institution, called the Inquisition was originated. 
 
 In the last few years, two millions of people have been 
 starved to death in Ireland. By whom? By archbishops, 
 bishops, and an aristocracy who swear on the Bible, and mo- 
 nopolize the soil. A historian says, that in the reign of 
 
THE BIBLE. 39 
 
 Henry VIII., the first Protestant King of England, seventy- 
 four thousand persons were hanged. The Doctor speaks of 
 the first French Revolution. This is a large subject, re- 
 quiring some time for its discussion. There are many slan- 
 ders against the actors of that period, and the Doctor appears 
 to credit some of them. In the after part of this debate, I 
 expect to prove three things : 1. That the first French Re- 
 volution was due to the mismanagement, tyranny, and cruelty 
 of preceding kings. 2. That believers did more to cause it 
 than unbelievers; and 3. That it has proved a blessing to 
 France, by abolishing iniquitous laws, and oppressive insti- 
 tutions; doing away with exactions, increasing wealth, and, 
 what is better, distributing it. I will prove — and from or- 
 thodox authors — that the French are better fed, better clad, 
 more happy, and more peaceful. 
 
 As to the Romans, who, he says, were so vile, I think 
 their ideas of morality were better than those of the Jews. 
 
 He speaks of miracles as proving the truth of the Bible. 
 Will he say what a miracle is ? and how they prove the di- 
 vinity of a book? Will he tell us, too, how the fulfilment 
 of a prophecy proves the record of it divine? It may prove 
 its author divinely illuminated, but proves nothing as to the 
 character of the book. There are many prophecies which 
 have never been fulfilled and never can be. 
 
 The Doctor charges us with opposing the family institu- 
 tion. On the contrary, we love it. We love it when the 
 family is composed of one husband, and one wife, who live 
 together in aifection and equal honour, discharging their 
 duties to each other, to the world, and rearing a virtuous 
 offspring. Such is the family institution which I hold to be 
 of Divine authority. But this is not that of the Bible. 
 What family institution does the Doctor mean? One with 
 one husband and many wives, or one with several husbands 
 and one wife, or one where the husband is a master, and the 
 wife a slave, or one where the parties are equal? Is it Abra- 
 ham's family that he means, where there was wife and con- 
 cubine, and the latter with her young child was turned out 
 into the wilderness, at the risk of starvation? Is it Jacob's 
 family, where there were two wives, and two concubines? 
 (The time here expired, and Mr. Barker took his seat. Ap- 
 plause and hisses.) 
 
40 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Dr. Berg. I feel myself under some obligation, 
 not only to present the positive side of the argument 
 for the Divine authority of the Sacred Scriptures, but 
 also to notice the objections of my opponent. I could 
 wish, however, that these might be presented in their 
 proper relation. His first speech contained matter, 
 part of which belonged to one topic, and part to ano- 
 ther ; but I have no intention to dictate to him, if he 
 finds it difficult to adhere to the order of our preli- 
 minary agreement. I must, therefore, at this point, 
 enter upon an episode, and reply to the so called dif- 
 ficulties suggested by my opponent. In order to do 
 this more effectually, I propose, first, to establish a 
 few propositions which have a bearing upon the ques- 
 tions at issue. 
 
 Whilst my opponent was speaking, the words of 
 Job came into my mind, "Canst thou by searching 
 find out God? " It must be evident to sound reason, 
 that the motives which control the counsel and action 
 of the Infinite God can be appreciated by a finite mind 
 only in so far as God has been pleased to reveal them, 
 and even then, they will often be imperfectly under- 
 stood. 77 His ways are not as our ways, nor his thoughts 
 as our thoughts. As far as the heavens are above the 
 earth, so far are his ways above our ways, and his 
 thoughts above our thoughts. 77 Therefore, before any 
 objection can be alleged as valid, the objector, until 
 he has utterly annihilated the internal and external 
 evidences of the truth of this revelation, must be in 
 possession of all the wisdom which controlled the 
 action of Jehovah in the administration of his moral 
 government. " For he that answereth a matter before 
 he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. 77 Of 
 one thing I am sure, the God whom Christians serve 
 never took counsel of my opponent. 
 
 Again; God 7 s plan of administration has been from 
 the first a system of gradual development. He teaches 
 man not only by the moral precepts of his word, but 
 by the discipline of his providence. Hence, we find, 
 that the history of our race, as recorded in the Bible, 
 shows that the institutions which he sanctions are 
 
THE BIBLE. 41 
 
 gradually, and often by a long process, proved to be 
 best for man's own interests. The preparation for 
 the introduction of Christianity was continued during 
 a period of four thousand years. That system which 
 my opponent had the hardihood to place on a level 
 with the Book of Mormon, was foreshadowed by a 
 long array of types and shadows and ceremonies, all 
 full of portentous meaning when viewed in their re- 
 lations to the Christian system; and which, even in 
 an insulated position, secured to the Jews civil pri- 
 vileges, and whilst they obeyed them, social and do- 
 mestic happiness, vastly superior to any which co- 
 temporaneous nations ever enjoyed. In accordance, 
 therefore, with this plan of revelation and discipline, 
 moral truth was imparted, just as men were prepared 
 to receive it. The Saviour himself pursued this plan 
 in training his disciples. " I- have many things to 
 say to you, but ye cannot bear them now," was a de- 
 claration which, on one occasion, he made to them. 
 In the early ages of the world, we find, therefore, 
 that human passions and even bodily organs are as- 
 cribed to God, for the simple reason that God wished 
 to make the truth more intelligible to his people. 
 These accommodations to human weakness could not 
 be productive of harm to the Jews, because, in con- 
 nexion with them, there was also a clear revelation of 
 the truth that God is a spirit. My opponent, himself, in 
 his position as an unbeliever, is a witness of this, for 
 he has shown very clearly that no such impressions 
 have been made upon his mind, because he denounces 
 them as false. Securing this idea of development in 
 the mind, you will find that such accommodations are 
 by no means frequent in the New Testament, except- 
 ing when the realities of eternity, the highest and 
 the lowest developments, to which the race is destined, 
 are shadowed forth. Heaven will be the development 
 of the greatest glory to which man can be raised, as 
 Hell will be the lowest abyss of degradation to which 
 he can sink. Our present state on earth is as much 
 a condition of pupilage as the Jewish economy was 
 in its relation to the Christian system, and vastly more. 
 
42 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 In considering the administration of God, we must be 
 able, therefore, to take in this w^ole vast range, 
 stretching from the creation of the world through 
 the illimitable cycles of eternity. Can my opponent 
 do this? I trow not. One thing, however, he can 
 do ; he can regard this book as a progressive revela- 
 tion. When, therefore, in accommodation to human 
 infirmity, God is represented as doing that which he 
 permits a creature to do, or as tempting David to 
 transgress the purity of his law by an act of pride 
 and presumptuous self-confidence, should we find that 
 in the New Testament any erroneous impression is 
 specifically corrected, candour requires that correc- 
 tion to be received. My opponent will find just such 
 an instance in the epistle of the Apostle James, i. 
 1 2 — 1 6 : ' ' Do not err, my beloved brethren," etc. The 
 only fair way of testing the truth of this book is by 
 regarding it as a whole — remembering the circum- 
 stances and the stages of its progressive revelation. 
 The principles which I have asserted are in them- 
 selves a sufficient answer to many of the insulated 
 objections which my opponent has brought forward, 
 but we will answer them more in detail. 
 
 His mode of argumentation, however, I must say, 
 is most unphilosophical. It requires no powers of 
 analysis, no process of generalizing, no train of logi- 
 cal deduction. It is a merely mechanical process; 
 and I hope my opponent is prepared to furnish some- 
 thing more worthy of his reputation as the redoubted 
 champion of infidelity. 
 
 I must ask here, again, does my opponent believe 
 in the existence of a God at all ? If he does, what 
 kind of a. God is he? What are his attributes? Is 
 the Supreme Being, whom he worships as the God of 
 nature, a God infinite in his perfections, or not? If 
 he is, then he is a merciful God. Whence does my 
 opponent gain this knowledge? From the works of 
 nature? He cannot derive it from them. From the 
 operations of his providence, or from human observa- 
 tion and experience ? He cannot prove this attribute 
 by a reference to them. He will find far greater dif- 
 
THE BIBLE. 43 
 
 Acuities staring him in the face, at his right hand and 
 at his left, in facts patent to his own senses. My op- 
 ponent has told us that the God of the Bible is unjust 
 and cruel. May that God open his eyes, that he may 
 see his error, and repent of the blasphemy. Jehovah, 
 he says, was unjust and cruel, because he commanded 
 the nations of Canaan to be exterminated, and spared 
 not even the women and the children. It was a ter- 
 rible sentence, I admit. If, without his command, the 
 Israelites had done this, they would have been cruel; 
 but when God commands it, to show his abhorrence 
 of sin, and his determination to punish the nations 
 that are wholly given up to lewdness and idolatry, 
 my opponent cannot say it is either cruel or unjust, 
 until he can prove that this severity was unauthor- 
 ized by the importance of the moral principle which 
 Jehovah designed thereby to establish. The holiness 
 of God may require severity for its vindication; and 
 it is blasphemous presumption in any creature that 
 God has made, to rise up and defame his character, 
 because he is a God who exercises judgment. A God 
 all mercy is a God unjust. 
 
 Let us see, now, where the principle advocated by 
 my opponent must land him. Is this world, in which 
 we live, controlled by the superintending providence 
 of a merciful God, or is it not? If it is, how is it, 
 that during the past summer, ten thousand human 
 beings fell before the fearful pestilence, in the course 
 of a few months, in the single city of New Orleans? 
 One inhabitant out of every ten was slain by the 
 ruthless plague ; thus literally decimating the popu- 
 lation, to say nothing of thousands more upon the 
 line of the Mississippi, and in other cities, and towns, 
 and villages of the South, upon whose graves the sod 
 is not yet green! Here were women and innocent 
 children cut off, not by a momentary pang, but by the 
 slow process of a most painful malady! Will my 
 opponent, therefore, blaspheme the God of nature? 
 Will he lift his daring hand, and say to the God of 
 providence, Thou art cruel and unjust? 
 
 The public mind is at present agitated with the 
 
44 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 apprehension that a noble vessel, bearing a living 
 freight of more than five hundred souls, has gone 
 down into the fathomless abyss of the dark, deep sea. 
 If it should be so, that they have found a grave in 
 the ocean, will my opponent lift his bold face to the 
 heavens, and cry, " God, thou art unjust?" Let him. 
 Christians will bow in humble submission, though 
 their hearts may bleed, and will say, "Lord, thy way 
 is in the sea, and thy paths in deep waters, and thy 
 footsteps are not known." 
 
 But we have a still more portentous difficulty to 
 encounter in the ordinary operations of Divine Pro- 
 vidence. Here is the fact, that men die. Why do 
 they die? Why is this incurable taint of mortality 
 so ingrained in humanity, that it is appointed unto 
 men once to die? My opponent found fault, yester- 
 day, with the explanation of this phenomenon, offered 
 in the Bible. Can infidelity solve this problem? 
 Here are fifty millions of the human race going down 
 every year to the chambers of the grave. Fifty mil- 
 lion illustrations, every year, of the Bible truth, that 
 " Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and 
 full of trouble. He cometh forth as a flower, and is 
 cut down. He fleeth as a shadow, and continueth 
 not." The old man of fourscore years, and the infant 
 of days; the lovely maiden in the prime of youthful 
 beauty, and the youth rejoicing in his strength, pre- 
 paring, like a giant, to run a race, all, without re- 
 prieve, must die. Will my opponent stand by the 
 graves of innocent children and helpless women, and 
 say, as he looks over the mounds that cover them, 
 "God, thou art cruel?" Let him. We will pray, 
 "Lord, so teach us to number our days, that we may 
 apply our hearts unto wisdom." My opponent may 
 ask, in view of these natural phenomena, whose ex- 
 istence he cannot deny, " Was it necessary to destroy 
 the whole world with a flood, and to overwhelm the 
 young and the innocent in those angry waves?" Be- 
 hold a flood which sweeps away generation after 
 generation — the old and young, the infant and its 
 mother. 
 
THE BIBLE. 45 
 
 I may say, however, that if there is a truth upon 
 which geology has affixed the impress of genuine 
 science, it is the fact of a general deluge. More of 
 this, however, at the proper time. In connexion with 
 the subject of the flood, incidentally noticed, my op- 
 ponent took occasion to speak of the contradiction 
 involved in the language which represents Jehovah 
 as repenting of having created man, whilst immuta- 
 bility is held forth as one of the divine attributes ; 
 for " God is not a man that he should lie, neither the 
 son of man that he should repent." I might make a 
 stand here, on the philological aspect of this ques- 
 tion; for the word niham admits of a rendering 
 which might perhaps relieve the apparent difficulty. 
 I waive that, however. This translation is good 
 enough. The objection is sufficiently answered by 
 the truth adverted to by my opponent, that the lan- 
 guage of Scripture is at times accommodated to the 
 modes of human thought and expression. No sane 
 man, no child that has been taught the first rudi- 
 ments of religion, would understand the words lite- . 
 rally; particularly when the metaphorical style of 
 oriental languages is taken into consideration. None 
 but an infidel, in a fit of desperation, would so mis- 
 represent the sense of a single expression, as to place 
 it at variance with the whole tenor of the abstract 
 teachings of this book. I find, in the very fact to 
 which this expression relates, one of the strongest 
 arguments for the immutability of God. Eather than 
 suffer his holy law to be transgressed with impunity, 
 such is his unchanging counsel and determination, 
 that he swept the whole race from the earth by one 
 fell catastrophe, when it had become hopelessly cor- 
 rupt, and the world was incurably polluted and 
 defiled. 
 
 So, again, when God is said to rest, or be refreshed ; 
 when he is represented as depending upon the issue 
 of human actions for his knowledge, or to the effect 
 of personal observation ; when he is represented as 
 coming down to see the city, that he might know 
 whether the sin of Sodom was really as great as the 
 5 
 
46 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 cry which had reached heaven represented it — all 
 these expressions are used in the ordinary language 
 of human thought ; and all evil results, in the form 
 of erroneous ideas respecting the character of God, 
 are sufficiently obviated by the plain doctrinal enun- 
 ciations which declare Jehovah to be infinite in wis- 
 dom and power. Such objections are, in fact, too 
 puerile to deserve serious refutation. 
 
 My opponent represents Jehovah as encouraging 
 immorality, because some of his favourites were at 
 times guilty of impurities in life or conversation. 
 This I unhesitatingly pronounce a blasphemous slan- 
 der. I speak not in anger, but rather in sorrow. 
 This language is strong, but is it any stronger than 
 the falsehood merits? Did God regard these trans- 
 gressions with favour? Did not his law forbid them? 
 And did not his providence punish them ? How then 
 can my opponent say, Jehovah encouraged immo- 
 rality? Abraham's dissimulation, Jacob's treachery, 
 David's heinous crime, Moses' petulance, all were 
 punished with a retribution proportioned to the of- 
 fence, and the record of God's displeasure stands in 
 this book, proving the holiness of Jehovah in the 
 face of all the defamation that the Father of lies can 
 invent. They were his favourites, not because they 
 were without sin, for the Bible tells us, "there is not 
 a just man on earth that doeth good and sinneth 
 not," and again, " all men have sinned and come short 
 of the glory of God;" and the Bible history confirms 
 the truth of the declaration by pointing out, even in 
 the lives of his saints, the defects and moral imper- 
 fections of their characters — but they were his fa- 
 vourites, because they were habitually devoted to his 
 service ! This my opponent knows as well- as I can 
 tell him. 
 
 • Again, he represents God as partial, in choosing 
 one people from the nations of the earth as his pecu- 
 liar people, and yet the Bible says, "he is no respec- 
 ter of persons." The very juxtaposition suggests the 
 explanation. In one respect, God is partial, using 
 the term by way of accommodation to my opponent's 
 
THE BIBLE. 47 
 
 infirmity, though I do not like the term, and in an- 
 other respect he is not partial. God is a sovereign. 
 He dispenses his favours as seems good to him. The 
 economy of nature as well as of grace sustains this 
 truth. It runs through all the order of his provi- 
 dence. He gives to one man health, to another sick- 
 ness, to one man wealth, to another poverty, he places 
 one man in a lofty station, and another in a lowly 
 condition. He follows the counsel of his own will, 
 and in thus carrying out his own plans, he has no re- 
 gard to the distinctions which men, or human society 
 may prescribe or recognise. He judges the king and 
 the peasant by the same law, he offers salvation to 
 the rich and the poor on the same terms. He con- 
 signs the master and the slave to the action of the 
 same law of mortality. He is no respecter of per- 
 sons, and yet he is partial in the allotments of his 
 providence, in the dispensations of intellect, and sta- 
 tion, and power, and in the endowments also of his 
 grace, for he is a Sovereign — the. King Eternal, im- 
 mortal, invisible, the only wise God, to whom be glory 
 and dominion for ever, Amen! 
 
 My opponent has told you that Jehovah demands 
 human sacrifices. Let us see if this is so. He ad- 
 verted to the case of Abraham. God, to prove his 
 faith, told the patriarch to take his son, his only son 
 Isaac, whom he loved, and offer him a sacrifice on 
 Mount Moriah ; but why did my opponent not also 
 tell us that at the moment when the hand of the fa- 
 ther was stretched out to slay his son, "the angel of 
 the Lord called, Abraham, Abraham, and he said, 
 Here am I ! And the angel said, Lay not thy hand 
 upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him!" 
 God proposed to try the faith of Abraham. Why? 
 Did he not know what Abraham would do ? Surely. 
 The trial was not needed for Jehovah's instruction, 
 but for Abraham's profit, in the strengthening of his 
 faith and for the advantage of the world as well as 
 of the church, by the lofty example of self-denying 
 confidence in the truth and mercy of God : Jehovah 
 requires human sacrifices ! Yes, Mr. Barker, he re- 
 
48 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 quires you and me to offer ourselves a living sacri- 
 fice, holy and acceptable to God, which is our reason- 
 able service, but Jehovah is not a Moloch ! He who 
 hates robbery for a burnt offering surely will not ac- 
 cept unnatural cruelty as an oblation of worship. 
 This we shall show you presently, when we come to 
 speak of Jephthah's vow; and yet, I say, if God had 
 permitted Abraham to consummate the act, though it 
 was contrary to his purpose to do so, Jehovah would 
 have had a perfect right in the exercise of his sove- 
 reignty to have demanded that, or any other sacrifice 
 that man can surrender at God's command. Abraham 
 knew that the promise was, " In Isaac shall thy seed 
 be called ; yet he that had received the promises of- 
 fered up his only begotten son ; accounting that God 
 was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from 
 whence, also, he received him in a figure." 
 
 [Dr. Berg was justifying the doctrine of judicial blindness 
 when his time expired. He sat down, remarking that as he 
 had been indebted, last evening, to the courtesy of Mr. Bar- 
 ker for a few minutes more, he would now repay the debt. 
 [Long and loud applause.] 
 
 Mr. Barker. — I am glad that my opponent has thought 
 proper to attempt an answer to my arguments of last night. 
 But how does he answer them? He says that God com- 
 manded Abraham to sacrifice his son, not for his own sake, 
 but for Abraham's, and that of the church. This is what 
 Dr. Berg thinks, but the Bible says exactly the contrary. 
 
 It gives the reason : " For now I lenow that thou fearest 
 God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son 
 from me." And so in the parallel passage, assigning the 
 reason for the forty years' sojourn in the wilderness : God is 
 said to have taken this means of trying and proving the Is- 
 raelites, because he did not know whether they were fit to be 
 his people or not. 
 
 The Doctor passed over, without notice, the passage in the 
 21st chapter of Samuel: "Then there was a famine, in the 
 days of David, three years, year after year; and David in- 
 quired of the Lord. And the Lord answered ; It is for Saul 
 and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites." 
 Here, the idea is, that God sent a famine to destroy an inno- 
 
THE BIBLE*. 49 
 
 cent people, because a king had, long before that, been cruel 
 to another people, the Gibeonites. How inconsistent is this 
 with all proper conceptions of the character of a Being of 
 perfect justice! But David's mode of propitiating God to 
 stay the famine, is no less shocking : " But the king took 
 the two sons of Rispah the daughter of Aiah, whom she 
 bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth ; and the five 
 sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom she brought 
 up for Adriel, the son of Barzillai, the Meholathite ; and 
 he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they 
 hanged them on the hill before the Lord : and they fell all 
 seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, 
 in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest." After 
 this hanging up of seven innocent men, we are told (2d 
 Samuel xxi. 14,) that " after that, God was entreated for 
 the land." 
 
 My opponent asks, Can we by searching find out God? 
 can we know Him and His attributes ? He might not have 
 asked the question, if he had read the first chapter of Ro- 
 mans. Paul tells us that "That which may be known of 
 God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. 
 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the 
 world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that 
 are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that 
 they are without excuse." We think with Paul, that the 
 character and attributes of God are to be known by the 
 works of his hands. We judge a tree by its fruits, a man 
 by his acts, and the Supreme Being by his works. The 
 Doctor says that God's ways are not as our ways. I think 
 that there are some people whose ways are very much like 
 those falsely attributed to God. 
 
 He thinks it is necessary we should have all the wisdom 
 of God before we can appreciate his works. 
 
 Dr. Berg. — My opponent misrepresents me. 
 
 Mr. Barker. — Will Dr. Berg please state what he did say? 
 
 Dr. Berg. — I said that, in order to be able to appreciate 
 the motives which govern the conduct of God, we must have 
 all his wisdom. [Applause.] 
 
 Mr. Barker. — To appreciate any conduct, we need only 
 to know what it is. If we would know the estimate placed 
 on his character in the Bible, we need only see the deeds as- 
 cribed to him. Human judgment is according to the fruits. 
 If these are bad, the tree is bad. We read in 1 Samuel xv., 
 
 5* 
 
50 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 that God ordered the total destruction of the Amalekites, 
 not for their own sins, but because of the acts of their fore- 
 fathers four hundred and fifty years before. 
 
 " Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which 
 Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way 
 when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek 
 and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; 
 but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and 
 sheep, camel and ass." 
 
 Now, I say that the ascription to God of the command for 
 such an inhuman butchery is sheer blasphemy. 
 
 The doctor says that I placed Mormonism on a level with 
 Christianity. I did not. What I did say was that a Mor- 
 mon could not properly charge the Doctor with believing no- 
 thing but a negation because he disbelieved the Mormon Bi- 
 ble; nor can he make the same charge against me because 
 I do not accept the books of the Scriptures as of divine origin. 
 
 He says that God reveals truth as man is prepared to re- 
 ceive it, that revelation is accommodated, in its types and 
 language, to human weakness. I maintain that men are al- 
 ways more ready to receive truth than falsehood, and that 
 the best way to prepare them to receive the highest truth is 
 to announce it to them. 
 
 He thinks that God is spoken of as having a body, in 
 order to make truth plainer. I think that so far from 
 making truth plainer, such language obscures truth. Its ten- 
 dency is to make false impressions and perpetuate false ideas. 
 Certainly it did immense injury to the Jews. Moses is the 
 veil between them and truth up to the present day. Such 
 incorrect writings are calculated to do great injury. The 
 crude and false representations of creation in Genesis are 
 even now blinds to millions. So long as men believe these 
 errors have the divine sanction, they cannot read the earth's 
 real history in the facts of geology, they cannot learn from 
 the wonders of creation to adore the character of its Author. 
 
 He says that to understand the Bible, we must take the 
 whole range of the events of history, and the moral govern- 
 ment of the world. That is to say, before we can learn any 
 thing from the Bible, we must know ten times more than 
 all the men who have ever lived. 
 
 He quotes James to show that God tempts no man. Then 
 the Bible should not say that he does. 
 
 He called me a few more bad names, but these I pass over. 
 
THE BIBLE. 51 
 
 He asks me whence I derive ray ideas of God. The Bible 
 says that the Divine character may be learned from the works 
 of his hands. The revelations of his attributes in the varied 
 productions of creation are the guides given to the human 
 mind. 
 
 He says that I represent God as cruel and partial. I did 
 not : I said that the Bible represented him so. 
 
 The Doctor thinks that God sends plagues and pestilences, 
 and that the yellow fever at New Orleans, and the agues in 
 the Western country, are among the operations of Providence. 
 I do not believe this. I believe that agues spring from swamps, 
 stagnant water, and — (Here the speaker was interrupted by 
 a violent explosion of hisses, laughter, shouting, and ap- 
 plause, the applauders being in a small minority.) 
 
 Dr. Berg. — I beg my friends not to interrupt the Speaker, 
 but to listen in silence to what he may say. 
 
 Mr. Barker. — Strange that Americans should doubt a pro- 
 position of this kind. Should doubt whether swamps, stag- 
 nant water, and similar causes, are the causes of ague ! Pes- 
 tilences have a similar origin. They may originate among 
 the decaying carcasses of a battle field, where men, in defiance 
 of divine law, have cut each other down in combat; they 
 then spread with fearful rapidity from country to country. 
 If men would but study the laws of health, the laws of na- 
 ture, and the causes of disease, they will be far more likely to 
 find out the means of lengthening human existence, and saving 
 the race from the ravages of pestilence, than by ascribing 
 them to the anger of the Deity. Does God send the drunk- 
 ard's headache? If he will abandon his cups and lead a 
 sober life, he will get rid of that complaint. Does God send 
 dyspepsia? Let the dyspeptic abandon his tobacco and im- 
 moderate use of coffee, and he may be cured. Does God take 
 the life of the suicide ? If men would only study the laws 
 of their mental, moral, and physical existence in the works of 
 nature, in the living book of God, instead of in out-of-date 
 documents, they would be infinitely healthier, infinitely hap- 
 pier, and infinitely better. Do not attribute your diseases to 
 God, or you will be apt to look to God for their cure. 
 
 The Doctor says that God destroyed the Amalekites for 
 their vileness and sins. The Bible says that he commanded 
 them to be destroyed because of what their tribe had done 
 some four hundred and fifty years before. ♦ 
 
 The Doctor asks, is this world governed by a superintend- 
 
52 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ing Providence? Yes — and his government is by means of 
 unchanging laws, discoverable by man, and to which he must 
 conform his acts, and from which he must not expect God to 
 swerve for the sake of accommodating himself to human igno- 
 rance or weakness. The great duty of man is to bring him- 
 self into harmony with the laws of God. 
 
 The Doctor says that the truth of the deluge is proved by 
 geology. Geologians do not agree with him. Dr. Hitchcock 
 and others say that there were successive deluges, and that 
 they all were innumerable ages prior to the age assigned by 
 Christians to the world. 
 
 He thinks that the "language of the Bible is accommodated 
 to human modes of thought and expression. So it is, for the 
 reason that the writers spoke as they knew and felt. They 
 expressed ideas as lofty as they could comprehend. They 
 believed that God could not work straight ahead six days 
 without being tired; and they said so. Their ignorance co- 
 loured their literary productions. I have no doubt that if Dr. 
 Berg wrote a Bible, he would write a better one. His mode 
 of interpreting the one we have would explain away all the 
 contradictions in the Mormon Bible. We cannot accept his 
 interpretation. We have to do with the Bible as it is, and 
 not as Dr. Berg or we would have it. 
 
 The Doctor charges me with representing God as encou- 
 raging immorality. I did not; I said the Bible represented 
 him so. We find his alleged favourites guilty of polygamy, 
 concubinage, adultery, and other crimes, and yet not blamed. 
 David had numerous wives, and yet we are told in the Bible 
 that he was without sin, "save in the case of Uriah." Solo- 
 mon is pronounced by the same authority the " wisest man." 
 Notwithstanding his abominable polygamy, he is not spoken 
 of as an adulterer. Indeed, in those days nothing seems to 
 have been considered adultery except seducing a wife that had 
 a living husband. The law does not define adultery. Strange 
 law that would allow the having seven hundred wives and 
 three hundred concubines to pass for virtue. 
 
 The Doctor says that I thought the Bible represented God 
 as partial, in saying that he loved Jacob and hated Esau. 
 This was not my only ground. He is said to have loved one 
 and hated the other before either was born. 
 
 He says that God dispenses to one health, to another sickness ; 
 to one wealth, to another poverty. We think that men have 
 a great deal to do with making themselves healthy or wealthy. 
 
THE BIBLE. 53 
 
 Better blame their own indolence, ignorance, want of eco- 
 nomy, or precaution, than throw the blame of their sickness 
 and poverty on God ! (Slight applause.) Such doctrines are 
 worse than those of the Greeks and Romans. 
 
 He charges me with representing God as accepting human 
 sacrifices. I did not. I said the Bible made that represen- 
 tation. 
 
 Having now disposed of the objections of my opponent, I 
 return to the subject I was upon at the close of my last speech. 
 I was speaking of the family institution, of the scenes in the 
 families of David and Solomon. The wisest man had lost all 
 respect for woman, and thought all was vanity, and vexation 
 of spirit. Are these the forms of the family advocated by 
 Dr. Berg? 
 
 The Doctor thinks that worshippers become assimilated to 
 the character of their deities. This is true. So much the 
 greater is the necessity for great care in the selection of our 
 objects of worship. 
 
 He assumes the Decalogue as a standard of virtue. Not 
 at all. I have already said it does not define adultery, nor 
 forbid polygamy or concubinage. It enjoins the observance 
 of the Sabbath. How shall it be observed? Must there be 
 no work, not even the kindling a fire or cooking a meal ? Dr. 
 Berg does not think this. And so with the other command- 
 ments. They are interpreted in a thousand different ways 
 among Christians themselves. 
 
 The Doctor says that Infidel morality is a nose of wax. 
 Are the rules of the Bible more certain ? If so, why are there 
 so many sects? It is not possible to fix in writing the stand- 
 ard of right and wrong. What is right for one may not be 
 right for another. Each man has his law within himself, 
 which, if he will follow it, will guide him as securely and 
 happily as the instinct of the bird guides it on the wing. In 
 order to obtain a rule of life from the Bible, one would have 
 to make impossible inquiries. He should ascertain whether 
 the original text was dictated by God, whether the copies 
 were perfect, the translators infallible, and the sense certain. 
 Impossible ! Every passage is perplexed. Take, for instance, 
 the sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are the poor in spirit/' 
 When are they blessed? and how? In Luke vi. 20, the 
 words "in spirit" are omitted. It says, "Blessed be ye poor." 
 Are the poor blessed ? We read also, " Blessed are they that 
 mourn." Is every stricken mourner a blessed man? How? 
 On such passages, men put their own meaning. Each man 
 
54 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 puts his law into the book, and does not take it from the 
 book. 
 
 I intend now to notice a few of the philosophical errors 
 contained in the Bible. 
 
 The account of creation in Genesis is at variance with the 
 revelations of geology in twelve or fifteen particulars. 
 
 1. The Bible teaches that the heavens and the earth, and 
 all the things therein, were created in six days. Geology 
 shows that thousands of ages were expended in the creation. 
 
 2. The Bible makes the earth to be only six or seven thou- 
 sand years old. Geology proves it to have existed for mil- 
 lions of ages. 
 
 3. The Bible teaches that only a day or two elapsed from 
 the creation of the first animal to the creation of man; Geo- 
 logy shows that countless centuries elapsed between the crea- 
 tion of the first animals and that of man. 
 
 4. The Bible teaches that all the races of animals were 
 created about the same time; Geology shows that the first 
 races of animals perished ages upon ages before the present 
 race of animals came into existence. 
 
 5. The Bible teaches that death entered the world by 
 Adam's sin; Geology shows that death was in the world 
 countless ages before man existed on the earth. 
 
 6. The Bible says that the sun was made from six to seven 
 thousand years ago: Geology shows that plants and living 
 things basked in his beams innumerable centuries before. 
 
 7. The Bible speaks of but one deluge, and that only four 
 thousand years ago: Geology shows there have been many 
 deluges, infinite ages ago : but can see no signs of such a 
 flood as that described in the Bible. 
 
 8. The Bible speaks of a firmament or solid framework 
 above the earth, in which the sun and moon and stars are 
 placed. Astronomy shows there is no such thing; and proves 
 the sun and moon and stars to be placed at different distances 
 from the earth. 
 
 9. The Bible talks of vast stores of water being placed 
 above the firmament — speaks of windows in the firmament 
 through which the waters are poured when God wants it to 
 rain. Science proves all these things to be but childish follies. 
 
 10. The Bible has contradictory accounts of creation. One 
 represents the lower animals as made before man; the other 
 represents man as made before them. One passage says 
 light was made and separated from the darkness on the first 
 
THE BIBLE. 55 
 
 day; the other says the sun was made on the fourth day, and 
 that it was then the light and darkness were separated. 
 
 And so on several other points the Bible is contradicted 
 "by science, and by itself. And let it be remembered, that 
 these geological facts are vouched for even by orthodox pro- 
 testant geologists, such as Professor Hitchcock, Dr. J. Pye 
 Smith, Dr. Harris, and others. 
 
 [A few minutes before the close of Mr. Barker's 
 reply, he was reminded by Mr. Illman, moderator on 
 his side, that his time had expired. Mr. Barker 
 thought not, he being entitled to the same number of 
 minutes he had allowed to Dr. Berg on the previous 
 evening. He then went on to close as reported.] 
 
 Dr. Berg. — I hope my opponent will be able to 
 settle his controversy with his moderator. All that 
 he has said in regard to the character of the God of 
 the Bible, is but another testimony to the truth of the 
 Scripture, that the things of God are not naturally 
 discerned. He has brought up a string of alleged 
 contradictions in biblical language, which he could 
 himself reconcile, if he were not as blind as a bat in 
 an ivy-bush or in noon-day. Any child who has re- 
 ceived a Sunday-school education could explain them 
 to him, could make them as plain as the nose upon 
 his face, or upon mine. What has he done in his ob- 
 jections to the Bible account of Creation and the De- 
 luge ? He has given us assertion upon assertion, but 
 not a grain of proof. He tells us that the Bible ac- 
 count is wrong, but does not show us how it is so. 
 What is his version of these matters? Come, Mr. 
 Barker, give us a little of your philosophy and then 
 set these things straight. We have his word that the 
 Bible account is not to be relied upon. But does his 
 saying so make it so? Can his unsupported asser- 
 tions invalidate the testimony of that sacred book ? 
 I protest against his course in this matter. Mr. Bar- 
 ker appears here to make almost innumerable asser- 
 tions. He comes with strings of reporters to put 
 them down, and, next morning, they appear in the 
 papers, conveying the impression that I have not an- 
 swered them. Why, it would take ten men to follow 
 
56 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 him up in all his objections. I do not know in ad- 
 vance what they will be ; it is impossible for me to 
 take notes of them ; I cannot write quickly enough to 
 put them down on paper. His arguments to prove 
 that the Scriptures are the works of men are worthy 
 of the tottering cause they support. Blank assertion 
 is not proof. Let my opponent remember this when 
 he utters silly denunciations of the Bible history of 
 creation. 
 
 My opponent cavilled at the character of Jehovah, 
 as encouraging deceit, in the case of the lying spirits 
 who deceived Ahab, and quoted the language of Paul, 
 11 For this cause shall God send them strong delusion 
 that they should believe a lie, that they all might be 
 damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure 
 in unrighteousness. 77 There is a so-called judicial 
 blindness, which, in the order of G-od's moral govern- 
 ment, he has entailed as part of the penalty of a wil- 
 ful rejection of the light of divine truth, in conse- 
 quence of which men are given up of God and by 
 the withdrawal of the restraints of his grace are per- 
 mitted to walk on unchecked in their career of guilt 
 and folly, until they are suddenly cut off in their re- 
 bellion and sent to their own place. This is some- 
 times the way in which God punishes apostates. Per- 
 haps we may say, it is the usual method of his proce- 
 dure towards them. " My people would not hearken 
 to my voice and Israel would none of me, so I 
 gave them up to their own heart's lust, and they 
 walked in their own counsels. 77 This is a doctrine 
 which, I admit, is clearly revealed in this book. My 
 opponent says, this is unjust. I say nay, but, man, 
 who art thou that repliest against God ? Look at the 
 doctrine as it stands here. What are its antecedents ? 
 It presupposes that the subject of this delusion has 
 wilfully rejected all the light of the law and the gos- 
 pel, and all the persuasive agency of the Holy Spirit. 
 He is one who has trodden under foot the Son of God, 
 and counted the blood of the covenant an unholy 
 thing, and done despite to the Spirit of grace. The 
 Scriptures teach that men are dependent upon the 
 
THE BIBLE. 57 
 
 Holy Spirit for light to guide them into all truth. 
 They teach also, that it is extremely hazardous to re- 
 sist his influence, because he may withdraw it. If 
 they grieve him by their rebellion, he will be their 
 Teacher no longer — and as they are dependent upon 
 him for the spiritual discernment by which Christ 
 and his salvation are apprehended by faith, which is 
 the gift of God, if men harden their hearts against 
 God's authority, and do this habitually, he will leave 
 them — to what? — to themselves. They have said, 
 "Depart from us, depart from us, we desire not the 
 knowledge of thy ways.' 7 God takes them at their 
 word, He departs! but he says, "Yea, wo also to 
 them, when I depart from them! 77 "Wo to them! 
 There are ten thousand evil spirits — hosts of infernal 
 principalities and powers lying in wait with Satan, 
 the arch-enemy of God, ready to deceive that they 
 may destroy ! Their path of approach to the soul of 
 the apostate is open. The walls are broken down — 
 the gates are unhinged. They enter — they take pos- 
 session. Truth flies from that God-forsaken temple — 
 error enters; it becomes a strong-hold of the devil, 
 and the last state of that man is worse than the first. 
 Thus Ahab was deceived by the lying spirits. Thus 
 God is said to send strong delusion that they may 
 believe a lie and be damned, because he leaves har- 
 dened transgressors to themselves and to Satan. 
 "Wherein is this unjust ? It becomes not a worm of the 
 dust to demand that every act of Jehovah's govern- 
 ment, or every principle of his moral administration 
 shall be perfectly plain to human reason ; but in this 
 I can see no injustice ; God 7 s ways are holy and his 
 judgments are right towards them that believe and 
 towards them that perish also. 
 
 My opponent produced the case of Jephthah as an 
 instance by which the character of Jehovah might be 
 defamed. 1 will read the history as we find it in 
 Judges xi. 30 — 40. It is so clear, that I was not at 
 all surprised that my opponent, notwithstanding his 
 habitual coolness, exhibited signs of impatience when 
 I asked him to read it. 
 6 
 
58 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 " And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and 
 said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children 
 of Ammon into my hands, then shall it be that 
 whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to 
 meet me, when I return in peace from the children of 
 Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it 
 up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over 
 unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; 
 and the Lord delivered them into his hands. And 
 he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to 
 Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the 
 vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the 
 children of Ammon were subdued before the children 
 of Israel. And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his 
 house, and behold his daughter came out to meet him 
 with timbrels, and with dances: and she was his only 
 child ; besides her, he had neither son nor daughter. 
 And it came to pass when he saw her that he rent his 
 clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast 
 brought me very low, and thou art one of them that 
 trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the 
 Lord, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, 
 My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the 
 Lord, do to me according to that which hath pro- 
 ceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath 
 taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of 
 the children of Ammon. And she said unto her father, 
 Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two 
 months, that I may go up and down upon the moun- 
 tains and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. 
 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two 
 months; and she went with her companions and be- 
 wailed her virginity upon the mountains. And it 
 came to pass, at the end of two months, that she re- 
 turned unto her father, who did with her according 
 to his vow which he had vowed : and she knew no 
 man. And it was a custom in Israel that the daugh- 
 ters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of 
 Jephthah, the Gileaclite, four days in a year.' 7 
 
 My opponent adduced this as an instance in point 
 to show that God demanded human sacrifices. 
 
THE BIBLE. 59 
 
 Mr. Barker: Xo; I adduced two other instances where 
 the Bible represents G-od as doing that; and I adduced the 
 case of Jephthah as an instance of human sacrifice narrated in 
 the Bible without any expression of blame. 
 
 Dr. Berg: Jephthah alone was responsible for his 
 act. He himself was the guilty agent, and without 
 the sanction, expressed or implied, of Jehovah. To 
 make the vow was a crime: and it was a greater 
 crime to fulfil it. 
 
 Xow, even on the supposition that Jephthah sacri- 
 ficed his daughter as a burnt offering, how will Mr. 
 Barker show that God demanded the sacrifice? Je- 
 hovah did not bid him take his daughter, and offer 
 her as a burnt sacrifice ; but it was done, if done at all, 
 on Jephthalr's own responsibility, as the entire nar- 
 rative shows. So that all that could be proved from 
 this instance would be, that Jephthah made a very 
 rash vow in the first instance, and committed a still 
 greater crime in fulfilling it. But I deny utterly 
 that this is the real meaning of the story. Jephthah 
 knew what victims G-od had prescribed for sacrifice. 
 He was disposed to make a votive offering of the first 
 of his possessions, or treasures, which might present 
 itself on his return. Had it been a bullock, he would 
 have given it for a burnt offering, or a goat, or a 
 lamb, or any beast or bird in the whole catalogue of 
 prescribed victims; but it was his daughter; he could 
 not offer her, for God had forbidden human sacrifices. 
 One of the grievances which brought God's displea- 
 sure upon the heathen nations, was that they made 
 their children pass through the fire to Moloch. Yet 
 Jephthah sacrificed his daughter; how? Precisely as 
 some parents now are said to bury their children 
 alive when they make nuns of them, and send them 
 to a convent, and yet no one supposes that people 
 mean by this, that these poor girls are literally laid 
 in the grave, before they are dead. Therefore, it is 
 said, that she asked for two months in which to be- 
 wail her virginity, and that she never was married, 
 statements utterly without meaning, on the supposi- 
 tion that she had been offered as a burnt sacrifice. 
 So much then for Jephthah. 
 
60 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 My opponent discoursed very feelingly on the sub- 
 ject of Jehovah's curse upon the serpent, and at- 
 tempted to show that this reptile was dealt with too 
 severely. He may be a better judge of what is due 
 to snakes than I am, but one thing is very certain, 
 the universal instinct of abhorrence with which the 
 serpent is regarded, is no trifling collateral evidence 
 of the truth of the sacred history, in which the curse 
 is recorded. 
 
 [The remainder of this speech was extemporaneous, and 
 we, therefore, take the report from the Daily Register, with 
 the correction of a few verbal mistakes.] 
 
 Though I would greatly prefer making positive 
 progress in the argument of the question, I will pro- 
 ceed to notice other objections made to the Bible by 
 my opponent. He charges that sacred book with 
 encouraging polygamy. I do not deny that polygamy 
 was practised in ancient times, and that there is a 
 faithful record of the facts in the Bible. Shall its 
 sanction be inferred from this? Solomon had many 
 wives, but no Christian ever thought he was doing 
 right in this. Let my opponent lay his finger upon 
 the text of the Word of God that sanctions polygamy. 
 Where is it said that a man may have two, three, 
 four, or eight wives? The argument is poor that in- 
 fers the approbation of the Bible because it says men 
 did what they ought not to have done. Its teachings 
 are pure on this subject. How many wives had Adam ? 
 One. How many had Noah ? One. And how many 
 had Noah's sons? One apiece. If you would know 
 what the Bible teaches on this subject, consult the 
 New Testament. The Saviour has settled that whole 
 matter. Let my opponent read what he says, and it 
 will save him a mint of trouble. 
 
 " Have ye not read that he which made them at the 
 beginning, made them male and female, and said: 
 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, 
 and shall cleave to his wife ; and they twain shall be 
 one flesh." Matt. xix. 4, 5. 
 
 There is not a single passage which can be inter- 
 preted as an approbation of a plurality of wives. 
 
THE BIBLE. 61 
 
 Moses, because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts, had 
 permitted certain things, but from the beginning, we 
 are told by the Saviour, it was not so. In not a soli- 
 tary instance can it be shown that God commanded 
 his people to practise polygamy, or commended it. 
 The moral government of God is progressive. In 
 His wisdom, He has permitted some facts to develop 
 themselves, probably in order that men might see and 
 know the full evils resulting from them. He may 
 have allowed the existence of polygamy that men 
 might see it to be the evil it is. 
 
 In his remarks upon the Sabbath, my opponent has 
 made a strange blunder. He thinks the Sabbath 
 was originally a Jewish institution! No; the Sab- 
 bath was not made for any nation or people, but for 
 the whole world. It is coeval with humanity itself. 
 The Saviour says that the Sabbath was made for man, 
 and not man for the Sabbath. It was intended for 
 Jew and for Gentile. It was consecrated in order 
 that God might establish an institution that would 
 bless man for all future ages-; that there might be 
 some cessation from the busy turmoil of life; that the 
 wearied labourer might repose his jaded frame, and 
 enjoy the refining and elevating influences of the fa- 
 mily relation, and the ennobling ones of worship; 
 that one day out of seven might be devoted to rest; 
 that there might be here on earth a type of the ever- 
 lasting rest that remains for the people of God. 
 
 [The above passage, as delivered, was one of elaborate 
 rhetorical finish and beauty, most imperfectly rendered in 
 bur meager sketch. It elicited long and enthusiastic plaudits.] 
 
 My opponent speaks of heaven. That word is not 
 in the infidel vocabulary. Where did he get it? 
 What right has he as an infidel to speak of heaven? 
 He, perhaps, forgets that he is no longer a Methodist 
 minister. (Laughter and applause.) 
 
 It is singular that what I said about the ever-pre- 
 sent agency of Providence in the affairs of this world 
 should have driven my opponent into the dreary re- 
 gions of atheism. He denies a particular superin- 
 
 6* 
 
62 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 tending Providence, and represents this world as go- 
 verned by laws that change not. But did these laws 
 make themselves? did they make the world? Are 
 they entirely independent of God? Do they need no 
 one to superintend their operations? Will he pre- 
 tend that God lives insulated from the creatures of 
 his hands, from the world he has made? What abo- 
 minable folly of atheism! ! (General applause.) In 
 what he said of plagues, did he not avow his unblushing 
 atheism? (Enthusiastic applause.) And the marshes? 
 (Renewed applause.) Agues come from marshes, do 
 they ? But who fixed the law which makes agues 
 come from marshes? My opponent's reasoning re- 
 minds me of the Hindoo, who, when asked on what 
 the world stood, replied, " On an elephant;" and 
 "On what does the elephant stand?' 7 "That stands 
 upon the back of a tortoise!" but the poor man for- 
 got that the tortoise must have something to stand 
 on also. I leave my opponent on the back of his 
 tortoise, and wish you all a good evening. 
 
 [The time here expired," and the vehement and vociferous 
 applause of the great majority, testified the general approba- 
 tion of the sentiments of the last speaker. The immense 
 audience slowly unpacked itself, and began to flow out of the 
 doors opened at both ends of the hall. This moment was 
 embraced by one or two excited gentlemen in the audience 
 to get up a discussion on a small scale among themselves, 
 but, at the request of Moderator Chambers, quiet was re- 
 stored, and the hearers separated without farther incident.] 
 
 Third Evening — Thursday, January 12th. 
 
 (Notwithstanding the inclemency of the evening, the au- 
 dience was almost, if not quite, as crowded as on the pre- 
 ceding evenings.) 
 
 Mr. Illman, Moderator on the side of Mr. Barker. — I wish 
 to secure for Mr. Barker this evening a candid and impartial 
 hearing; and for that end, make the request to the persons 
 present to abstain from all manifestations of applause. There 
 is no person, I think, who deliberately wishes to be in error. 
 For my own part, I wish to know the exact truth. I am an 
 old man, and am fast hastening to that period when I shall 
 
THE BIBLE. 63 
 
 have to appear before the final Judge ; and I wish to say, 
 then, that on this most important of all subjects, I have en- 
 deavoured to arrive at none but correct conclusions. 
 
 Mr. Barker took the stand. (Applause by a considerable 
 number, and hisses by a few, apparently to obtain silence.) 
 I think the request a reasonable one that there should be no 
 expressions of strong feeling on either side. I am sure that 
 those who favour my views will comply with it, in order that 
 the discussion may proceed in order and quiet; and I am 
 sure that the friends present on the other side will receive 
 with respect a similar request from Dr. Berg. 
 
 I will proceed at once to the remarks made by my oppo- 
 nent in his last speech. 
 
 The Doctor thinks that those passages which are quoted 
 to prove that the Bible represents God as using deceit, only 
 teach that God leaves those who wilfully reject the truth, to 
 themselves and to the lusts of their own hearts. Let us read 
 the passages and see whether this is true : 
 
 " If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, 
 and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the 
 wonder came to pass whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let 
 us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let 
 us serve them ; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that 
 prophet, or that dreamer of dreams : for the Lord your God 
 proveth you to know whether ye love the Lord your God 
 with all your heart and with all your soul." — Deut. xiii., 1-3. 
 
 Here God is the agent who employs those wonders, signs 
 and dreams, for the purpose of proving his people, so as to 
 know whether they love him. 
 
 " And he said, Hear thou, therefore, the word of the Lord : 
 I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of 
 heaven standing by him, on his right hand and on his left. 
 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab that he may 
 go up and fall at Ramoth-Gilead ? And one said on this 
 manner, and another said on that manner. And then came 
 forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord and said, I will per- 
 suade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? 
 And he said, I will go forth and I will be a lying spirit in 
 the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt 
 persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so. Now, 
 therefore, behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the 
 mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken 
 evil concerning thee." 1 Kings, xxii. 19-23. 
 
64 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Herein God gives direct permission to a lying spirit to go 
 and deceive Ahab. 
 
 I will now read from 2 Thess. ii. 9-12. 
 
 "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with 
 all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceiva- 
 bleness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they 
 receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved, 
 And for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, 
 that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned 
 who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous- 
 ness." 
 
 In the first of these passages, nothing is said about the 
 parties having previously resisted the truth, but he sends the 
 signs and wonders that he may know their dispositions. This 
 trial is requisite to his information. In the second passage, 
 allusion is made to Ahab. Nothing is said about his being 
 left to himself, but God tells the lying spirit to go forth. 
 In the last passage, it is true that the parties are said to have 
 resisted the truth; but even in this case, God does not leave 
 them to themselves. His positive agency in their deception 
 is expressly asserted. 
 
 The Doctor says that Jephthah/ s daughter was not offered 
 up as a burnt offering. Let us read the passage. 
 
 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said: 
 If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon 
 into mine hands, then it shall be that whatsoever cometh 
 forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in 
 peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the 
 Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering." 
 
 Further on in the same chapter (we read as follows :) 
 
 "And it came to pass, at the end of two months, that she 
 returned unto her father, who did with her according to his 
 vow which he had vowed." 
 
 Now if Jephthah did not offer her up as a burnt offering, 
 then it is clear that the Bible states what is not true; for it 
 says that he did. If he did offer her up, then is our charge 
 maintained. 
 
 But why, then, says the Doctor, should she lament her 
 virginity. Is it not as great a sacrifice to die childless, as 
 to live childless? But he says that the law forbids human 
 sacrifices. But we have multiplied passages in which the 
 Bible represents both God and his people as putting people 
 to death. And so the law forbids lying, but David lied to 
 
THE BIBLE. 65 
 
 Achish. The law forbids the death of the child for the sin 
 of the father, but the Bible gives accounts of children mas- 
 sacred for the sins of their parents; of men for the sins of 
 their ancestors. 
 
 The Doctor says if I will show him a passage in which God 
 commands to have seven hundred wives and three hundred 
 concubines, then he will allow that the Bible is an immoral 
 book. Well, suppose a novel should have for its hero a man 
 with that number of wives, and concubines, and mention the 
 fact without one word of blame, would we not call it immoral ? 
 The Bible says that the man who had seven hundred wives 
 and three hundred concubines was not only the wisest man 
 that had lived, but the wisest man that would ever live. It 
 has no blame for his polygamy. The Bible says also that 
 God gave David a considerable number of wives after he had 
 provided himself already with a very large number. And 
 yet it says that he lived without sin in the eyes of God, ex- 
 cept in the matter of Uriah, the Hittite. If this be not ap- 
 probation, I know not what is. I cannot conceive of any 
 express command more immoral than this. 
 
 The Doctor says that polygamy was permitted by Moses 
 on account of the hardness of the people's hearts; and he 
 quoted part of the passage in Matt. xix. 8, as proof. Now 
 the passage has no reference whatever to polygamy, but only 
 to divorce. — To prove this, I will read the passage: 
 
 "He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of 
 your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from 
 the beginning it was not so." 
 
 It is nowhere said that God or even Moses " permitted" po- 
 lygamy. 
 
 The Doctor next says that God permitted polygamy to 
 exist, so that its evils might develope themselves, and be 
 made manifest in the quarrels of families; that men might 
 see it to be the evil it is. Prodigious explanation! why, it 
 makes the character of God worse than the Bible does. It 
 makes bad worse. But where did the Doctor get this won- 
 derful information? From the Bible? No. Can he then 
 find out God's secret motives by his own unaided intellect? 
 He told us that such a thing was impossible ; that man could 
 not pry into his motives, which are as high as heaven, and 
 deep as hell. 
 
 He asks me where I get the word "Heaven?" thinking I 
 had forgot I had been a Methodist preacher. I answer that 
 
66 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 I know of no nation or country under heaven where the word 
 is not known : no language that does not contain it. 
 
 The Doctor asks — who fixed the law which makes agues 
 come from marshes ? And that some one must have done it. 
 All we said was that in our view, the laws of nature are 
 fixed; that health and disease are the result of the operation 
 of unchanging laws. "We have no objection to his question 
 and the freest discussion of it. We see that drunkenness 
 causes headache, lowness of spirits, and delirium tremens; 
 that marshes and stagnant water cause agues; that gluttony 
 causes apoplexy; that putrefying fish and other substances 
 cause fevers and pestilence ; and so with other diseases. The 
 more enlightened see this, and hence they are beginning, 
 when cholera approaches a city, to cleanse the streets, keep 
 the atmosphere pure, and to warn the people to be temperate 
 in their habits, as a better means of preventing or checking 
 its ravages, than fasting and humiliation. 
 
 The Doctor contends that our principles have an immoral 
 tendency. We, however, think just the contrary. If the 
 Bible were of unmixed truth, and we reject it, then they 
 would be of immoral tendency. But we do not reject it as 
 a whole; we reject no portion of it except the passages which 
 appear to us false and immoral. We have to guide us all 
 the teachings of nature interpreted by the law in our hearts. 
 We fully believe that what we sow, that shall we reap. We 
 believe that every sin is punished, and that there is no such 
 thing as the remission of punishment for sin ; that if a man 
 will drink, he will injure himself physically and mentally; 
 that if he will indulge in licentiousness, the result will be 
 the ruin of his physical system, and the abasement of his 
 moral and intellectual faculties; that if he will be cruel, he 
 will bring down curses upon himself. We believe that a mis- 
 spent life cannot be atoned for by any death-bed repentance. 
 We believe in no indulgences, no substitute in suffering, no 
 borrowed or imputed righteousness. We believe that man 
 will reap as he prepares the harvest. 
 
 I do not wish to be offensive, but the most immoral views 
 are frequently expressed by Christians in defence of their 
 doctrines. I will say nothing of the Catholic doctrine of 
 priestly absolution and indulgence. But I would ask — Is 
 there nothing as bad in Protestantism itself? What think 
 you of the Protestant doctrine that a man may escape from 
 the consequences of his acts, by simple faith in the blood of 
 
THE BIBLE. 67 
 
 auother; by a hearty reliance upon another's virtues; that he 
 is accepted and saved, if, at the last moment he repents; that 
 he may be a thief, hardened in crime, and dying on the cross, 
 and yet may be with the Saviour in Paradise that very day; 
 and that 
 
 ,; While the lamp holds out to burn, 
 The vilest sinner may return?" 
 
 that he may escape hell and gain heaven, because another 
 has done right? 
 
 I cannot conceive a more immoral doctrine than this. The 
 difference between it and the Catholic, is the difference be- 
 tween high price and no price. The Catholic must pay his 
 money, and that imposes upon him a restraint. People feel 
 this to be immoral. After a debate on the merits of Christ, 
 in which one man maintained that every one would reap as 
 he sowed; and the other that any one trusting in the merits 
 of Christ, would be saved without regard to his conduct, a per- 
 son who was present, said, "If that man's doctrine be true, 
 and I must depend upon my own acts, I must look about me." 
 In another debate between a Unitarian and a member of an 
 Evangelical denomination, the Unitarian said, "I cannot see 
 that we are not as good parents, husbands, brothers, sons, 
 and citizens as you are." A friend of the other side answered, 
 "You have need to be, for you have nothing else to trust 
 to." It is we who are seeking to overturn a doctrine immoral 
 in its tendency. 
 
 One word as to the rule of interpretation now so prevalent 
 among Christians. We are told that God used human lan- 
 guage in its current acceptation; that he condescended to ac- 
 commodate himself to human weakness, and speak of wrong 
 things as if they were right. Allow the same rule to the 
 Mohammedan, and he will explain away all the imperfections 
 and inconsistencies of the Koran : to the Mormonite, and he 
 will exculpate his Bible : to the Persian and the Hindoo, and 
 they will answer you well. You say to the Hindoo, "Your 
 sacred books teach the existence of 30,000,000 or 40,000 
 000, of gods;" and he will answer, "Oh! we don't believe 
 that; but when it was written, our forefathers believed it, and 
 the language was adapted to their faith." 
 
 Suppose your missionaries should go into China, and adopt 
 the Chinese idols of wood and stone, and speak of them as 
 the Chinese speak of them, instead of telling them the truth, 
 it would but perpetuate their superstition, Would it not, on 
 
68 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the contrary, be their duty to enlighten them ? Astonish- 
 ingly strange principle of interpretation ! but one to which 
 people fly whenever truth oppresses the mighty errors of an- 
 tiquity. One word more on David's case. The Doctor says 
 his immorality was not sanctioned. Let us see what the 
 Bible says on this subject. I read from 1 Kings, xv. 5. 
 
 " Because David did that which was right in the eyes of 
 the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that he com- 
 manded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter 
 of Uriah the Hittite" 
 
 Now here every act of David is approved except one. We 
 will now see what these acts of David were. I read from 
 1 Sam., xxi. 
 
 " And David arose, and fled that day for fear of Saul, and 
 went to Achish, the king of Oath; And the servants of 
 Achish said unto him, Is not this David, the king of the 
 land ? Did they not sing one to another of him in dances, 
 saying, Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thou- 
 sands. And David laid up these words in his heart, and 
 was sore afraid of Achish, the king of Gath. And he 
 changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad 
 in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and 
 let his spittle fall down upon his beard. Then said Achish 
 unto his servants, So, ye see the man is mad — Wherefore 
 then have ye brought him to me'? " 
 
 Now the law says, Lie not one to another; but David acted 
 out a lie. 
 
 And again we read, 1 Sam., xxvii. 5. 
 
 " And David said unto Achish, If I have now found grace 
 in thine eyes, let them give me a place, in some town in the 
 country, that I may dwell there : for why should thy servant 
 dwell in the royal city with thee? Then Achish gave him 
 Ziklag that day, wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings 
 of Judah, unto this day. And the time that David dwelt 
 in the country of the Philistines was a full year and four 
 months. And David and his men went up and invaded the 
 Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites, for those 
 nations were of old the inhabitants of the land as thou go- 
 est to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt. And David 
 smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and 
 took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the 
 camels, and the apparel, and returned and came to Achish. 
 And Achish said, Whither have ye made a road to-day? 
 And David said, Against the south of Judah, and against 
 
THE BIBLE. 69 
 
 the south of the Jerahmelites, and against the south of the 
 Kenites. And David saved neither man nor woman alive 
 to bring tidings to Gath, saying they should tell on us, say- 
 ing, So did David and so will be his manner, all the while he 
 dwelleth in the country of the Philistines. And Achish be- 
 lieved David, saying, He hath made his people Israel ut- 
 terly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant for 
 ever." Now here is a frightful mixture of lying, treachery 
 and cruelty. I say nothing of his many wives and his 
 other sins; and yet this same book says that David did that 
 which was right in the eyes of the Lord, save only in the 
 matter of Uriah the Hittite. In like manner Abraham is 
 said to have kept G-od's voice. But we find that he taught 
 Sarah to lie, that he bought slaves, that he used a bondmaid 
 as his wife, and afterwards turned her and her child out into 
 the wilderness to starve. I can't conceive what immorality 
 is, if it is not contained in these passages. 
 
 I will now briefly recur to the Bible account of creation. 
 In Gren. i. 3, we find that God said, Let there be light, and 
 there was light. And in another part of the same chapter, 
 after three days had passed away, we find that God again 
 created lights in the firmament of the heaven. [Cry in the 
 audience of ' Time up/] 
 
 3Ioderator. — You have two minutes more, Mr. Barker. 
 
 Mr. Barker. — So that we have three mornings and 
 three evenings before the sun was created. In the first 
 chapter, we find that G-od created man in his own image; 
 male and female created he them ; and also that he created 
 the lower animals. All this took place on the sixth day, 
 But in the second chapter, after the account of the seventh 
 day, on which G-od rested, we find that he again created 
 Adam and put him in the garden of Eden ; and that he 
 again created the lower animals, and among them all there 
 was no help-meet for Adam. After all this, G-od created 
 Eve. [Several cries of — Time up. Mr. Barker took his 
 seat, the house maintaining silence.] 
 
 Dr. Berg. — [As this gentleman rose from his seat, 
 there was a burst of applause ; when he reached the 
 stand there was a second one more general and en- 
 thusiastic. A few sounds of h'sh.] 
 
 Dr. Berg. — My opponent compels me, by his present 
 
70 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 mode of argument, to lay aside the more calm discus- 
 sion, which I would greatly prefer, from prepared 
 notes, and to resort to extemporaneous refutation. 
 I much regret that the preliminary arrangements of 
 this discussion have been forgotten by my opponent, 
 and that he introduces subjects entirely foreign to the 
 topic in hand. The consequence of this is, that the 
 form of the discussion is not regular; and that where- 
 ever he has wandered I have been compelled to ask 
 your indulgence for following him. I am glad that 
 he did not repeat his charge against me that I did 
 not answer his objections. I have answered them as 
 fast as I could talk, and he knows full well that it re- 
 quires far less time to make an objection than to an- 
 swer it. I find too that his frequently refuted argu- 
 ments are again and again presented. Before I go 
 farther, I would respectfully remind my opponent I 
 have asked him several questions which he has not 
 yet answered. I would now repeat them, and again 
 request an answer whenever it may suit his conveni- 
 ence to give it, and not one moment before. I ask him, 
 
 1. What is the name of the Supreme Being he wor- 
 ships? 
 
 2. What are the attributes of that Supreme Being? 
 
 3. How were these attributes revealed to him? 
 How does he know these attributes belong to the Deity 
 when he does not know His name? He said that he 
 had seen infidels die without fear, because they be- 
 lieved in a God of love, free from malignity. This 
 is true of Christians : their God is one of infinite com- 
 passion and love, and they go to him with the con- 
 fidence with which they would to a father. My op- 
 ponent says that the heathen know the attributes of 
 the Supreme Being from his works, and that Paul af- 
 firms that his eternal power and Godhead are known 
 from nature. These do not, however, include all the 
 attributes of Jehovah. Now I would like to know 
 how the others were revealed to him ; and I beg him 
 to answer me, unless he is unable to tell. 
 
 My opponent discards the idea that there is nothing 
 besides laws for the government of the universe : he 
 
THE BIBLE. 71 
 
 admits that there is something back of malaria for 
 the production of disease. This is certainly an ad- 
 vance towards the orthodox faith. (General applause 
 and laughter.) I am glad he is coming over, and 
 that this discussion is doing him some good. But his 
 views are not jet orthodox. He admits that there is 
 something back of marshes; that there are not only 
 fixed laws, but a law-giver, who superintends and con- 
 trols their operation. If he says that God fixes the 
 laws, and then leaves their operations to take care of 
 themselves, he is in the bog of atheism. (Slight ap- 
 plause and cries of h'sh.) 
 
 I find myself under the necessity of correcting a 
 few personal mistakes, for which my opponent is, 
 perhaps, not to blame in one respect, though he may 
 be in another. A report published in some of the 
 papers makes him say that we were born and educated 
 in the same borough. 
 
 Mr. Barker. — I did not say that. 
 
 Dr. Berg. — What did you say? 
 
 Mr. Barker. — I said that we were born under the 
 same government, and that you were educated in the 
 same parish in which I was born. 
 
 Dr. Berg. — I will state the way in which Mr. Barker 
 became possessed of his information. In the prelimi- 
 nary arrangements for this discussion, Mr. Barker com- 
 plained that in a former debate, my friend Mr. M'Calla 
 had used his foreign origin to excite prejudice against 
 him. I then said that I had crossed the water too. 
 But though there is this in common between us, there 
 are some striking differences between us. I crossed 
 when I was a child of 13 years of age ; I received my 
 education in this country, and have been here twenty- 
 eight years; and though I love its institutions, my 
 opponent is no worse in my estimation, though he is 
 from a foreign land. I shall ever look with love to- 
 wards the land where cluster my associations of school 
 and childhood. But I would remark that there is 
 this difference between us — I did not come to preach 
 disorder and sedition ; nor to upset the government 
 and institutions of the country, nor to insist upon 
 
72 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 topics which — [murmurs of disapprobation, hisses, 
 cries of question, and go on, bravos, and applause ; it 
 was a minute or two before order was restored.] 
 
 Dr. Berg: Allow me, my friends, to finish my sen- 
 tence, and do not take up my time with applause. In 
 alluding to this topic, I disclaim all intention to excite 
 any feelings of angry hostility against Mr. Barker. 
 My only object was, to prevent the introduction into 
 this debate of a topic wholly foreign to it, and which 
 I have understood, from several sources, my opponent 
 was resolved to force into it. I wished to forestal 
 this by stating the chief differences between us. I 
 think that when a foreigner enjoys the benefit of our 
 institutions, he should not interfere with them; that 
 modesty requires him to leave their reform to those 
 who are better entitled to discuss them. 
 
 My opponent objects to the Scriptures, that the ori- 
 ginal MSS. are lost ; and that there are diversities in 
 the copies. I would ask him, what work of antiquity 
 is not open to precisely the same objections? Is not 
 the original MS. of Homer's Iliad lost ? Are there not 
 diversities in the copies preserved ? Would he reject 
 it on that account, and say that there is no such book, 
 and that the work of Homer is entitled to no credit? 
 Virgil's iEneid is in precisely the same case. Would 
 he refuse to receive the Commentaries of Caesar, be- 
 cause the original MS. is lost, and there are different 
 readings? But let us come to modern times. 
 
 If I present you Shakspeare's Plays, you admit the 
 work to be genuine. But, how about the original MSS.? 
 Where are they? Have they not been copied and re- 
 copied ? I do not pretend to deny, that in a work, the 
 transcripts of which have been handed down from cen- 
 tury to century, there are not occasional interpolations. 
 It is admitted that these exist in the Bible ; but my 
 opponent can make nothing of this. The tendency of 
 his argument is to prove that there is no Bible. We 
 have the highest judicial authority in Europe and the 
 United States for saying, that it is settled as law, that 
 the best evidence is, where substantial agreement is 
 accompanied with circumstantial variety. The varia- 
 
THE BIBLE. 73 
 
 tions in different copies are the best proofs of the for- 
 mer existence of an original ; and thus is my oppo- 
 nent's argument on this point scattered to the winds. 
 [Slight applause, a few hisses, and cries of "Hush. "] 
 
 My opponent says that I called him some thirty or 
 forty foul names. If I did, I am sorry for it. But I 
 have no recollection of doing so. What I did, I may 
 do again; for when this blessed book lays down a 
 principle, I accept it as true. If it says that certain 
 expressions are blasphemy, and a man uses them, he 
 is a blasphemer, and I cannot help it. If it says that 
 persons who act in a certain way are children of the 
 devil, and I call them by that name, I cannot help it. 
 All that I can say is, that if my opponent feels that 
 the cap fits him, he can wear it. 
 
 My opponent has cited the denunciation by Christ, 
 of the Pharisees, as applicable to ministers and pro- 
 fessors of the Gospel ; and quotes Isaiah to prove that 
 the Jews were more vile than the Gentiles. Can this 
 be a charge upon the Bible? 
 
 Does the prophet not utter his denunciations against 
 those who refuse the Gospel? Does not Christ speak 
 of the Scribes and Pharisees as his enemies? To the 
 enemies of the Bible, then, do these passages refer. 
 [Slight applause.] To them belongs the appellation 
 of hypocrites; to them pertains the denunciation of 
 Christ. Of them it is said, " Ye serpents, how shall 
 ye escape the damnation of hell?" [General ap- 
 plause.] Again, he says that the Bible reflects upon 
 the character of God, by representing salvation as 
 withheld from nine-tenths of the human family. My 
 answer is, that all the gifts of God are gifts of grace ; 
 that men are by nature sinners, and have no claim 
 whatever upon the goodness of God ? and that all his 
 good acts towards his creatures are of undeserved 
 favour. 
 
 And let me tell him, that all the signs of the times 
 indicate that the period spoken of in the Bible, when 
 the light of the Gospel^shall chase away all the clouds 
 of error, when such a scene as this shall not be wit- 
 nessed; and when a man shall not need to say to his 
 
 7* 
 
74 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 neighbour, "Know the Lord, for all shall know him, 
 from the least to the greatest." God speed that glo- 
 rious day, when infidels shall cast their gods of dark- 
 ness to the moles and to the bats. 
 
 My friend paid me a compliment last evening which 
 it gives me great happiness to reciprocate. It is said 
 that to quote from a man is the highest compliment 
 possible. He brought to your notice a sentiment 
 uttered in a lecture of mine, which had found its way 
 to him. I have something here [holding up a book] 
 which he may recognise. How will the following 
 sentiments accord with his denunciations of the Bible? 
 
 "But there are other facts which deserve observation. 
 Many of the best men with whom I have had the happiness 
 to be acquainted, have been great readers and great lovers 
 of the Bible. Whether it was their attention to Bible teach- 
 ings that made them good, or their goodness that led them 
 to delight in Bible principles and influences, the result is 
 equally in favour of the Bible. If the Bible made them 
 good, the Bible must be good in its tendency; and if it was 
 their goodness that led them to delight in the Bible, there is 
 an affinity between the Bible and goodness ; they harmonize : 
 therefore the Bible must be good in its character. 
 
 " I have further to observe, that I never knew a bad, un- 
 principled man, a false and selfish man, a proud, a filthy, 
 and malignant man, that did delight in the Bible. I have in- 
 variably found such characters despisers, neglecters, or haters 
 of the Bible. I have known many profligate infidels, and 
 they were all haters of the Bible. I have known many pro- 
 fligate priests; and they were the same. Whether men be 
 infidels or priests, if they are selfish, deceitful, proud, filthy 
 or malignant, they are equally haters . of the Bible. There 
 is this difference: the profligate infidel generally lets his 
 hatred of the Bible appear, while the profligate priest labours 
 to conceal his hatred of the Bible, that he may live and grow 
 ' rich, by pretending to teach its principles. But even infi- 
 dels themselves pretend to love and revere the Bible sometimes, 
 when it suits their interests; and even priests allow their 
 dread and their hatred of the Bible to appear at times. But 
 whether they conceal or avow their hatred of the Bible, the 
 profligate, the bad, whether priests or infidels, will still be 
 found to be despisers or haters of the Bible. 
 
 " I have had considerable acquaintance both with infidels 
 
THE BIBLE. 75 
 
 and priests, so that I have had good opportunities of learning 
 the truth on this subject. I have especially had goo'd oppor- 
 tunities of learning the truth with respect to priests. And 
 I feel bound to declare, first, that I have in general found 
 them either the most ignorant, or the most wicked and malig- 
 nant of men. Some of them are exceedingly ignorant j they 
 study nothing; they know nothing; they care for nothing 
 but just going through the drudgery required of them by 
 their paymasters, and securing their livings." 
 . This was Mr. Barker's language only a few years 
 ago. How strangely have his views been changed ! 
 
 My opponent has also undertaken to laud the 
 French Revolution. Let us see what that revolution 
 was. I will read you a passage in reference to it, 
 from Scott's Life of Napoleon : 
 
 "One sect of the philosophers/' says Scott, " sufficiently 
 formidable, for a time, to gain the ascendency, declared that 
 it was not enough for a regenerate nation to have dethroned 
 earthly kings, unless she stretched out the arm of defiance 
 toward the powers, which superstition had represented as 
 reigning over boundless space. 
 
 "An unhappy man named Grobert, Constitutional Bishop 
 of Paris, was brought forward in full procession, and, with 
 tears and remorse, was made to declare to the Convention, 
 that Christianity was a piece of priestcraft, and to disown, in 
 solemn and explicit terms, the existence of the Deity; for 
 which he received a fraternal embrace from the president of 
 the Convention ! The world, for the first time, heard an 
 assembly of men, born and educated in civilization, and as- 
 suming the right to govern one of the finest of the European 
 nations, uplift their united voice to deny the most solemn 
 truth which man's soul receives, and renounce, unanimously, 
 the belief and worship of a Deity. A female, denominated 
 by them the Goddess of Keason, a mere dancing girl of the 
 opera, and of a lewd character, was ushered into the hall of 
 the Convention, by the municipal body of Paris, and placed 
 on the right hand of the president. To this character as 
 the fittest representative of that reason whom they worship- 
 ped, the national convention of France rendered public ho- 
 mage! This impious and ridiculous mummery had a certain 
 fashion; and the installation of the Goddess of Keason was 
 renewed and imitated throughout the nation, in such places 
 where the inhabitants desired to show themselves equal to 
 all the heights of the revolution. 
 
76 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 "The churches were, in most districts of France, closed 
 against 'priests and worshippers; the bells were broken and 
 cast into cannon; the whole ecclesiastical establishment was 
 destroyed; and the republican inscription over the ceme- 
 teries, declaring death to be a perpetual sleep, announced to 
 those who lived under that dominion, that they were to hope 
 for no redress, even in the next world. 
 
 "Intimately connected with these laws affecting religion, 
 was that which reduced the union of marriage to the state of 
 a mere civil contract of a transitory character, which any two 
 persons might engage in, and cast loose at pleasure, when 
 their taste was changed, or their appetite gratified. Sophie 
 Arnoult, an actress, famous for the witty things she said, de- 
 scribed the republican marriage as the sacrament of adultery ! 
 
 u The September massacre, to which allusion has already 
 been made, exceeds in atrocity the power of language to de- 
 scribe. The number of individuals accumulated in the va- 
 rious prisons of Paris, amounted to about eight thousand. A 
 banditti proceeded to the several prisons to execute the infernal 
 scheme. Out of their own number, they formed a revolu- 
 tionary tribunal, before whom the prisoners, dragged forth 
 from their dungeons, were tried. When a victim received 
 sentence of death, he was thrust into the street or yard, and 
 despatched by men and women, who, with their sleeves 
 tucked up, arms dyed elbow deep in blood, and hands hold- 
 ing axes, pikes, and sabres, were executioners of the sentence. 
 They often exchanged places, the judges going out to take 
 the executioners' duty, and the executioners, with their reek- 
 ing hands, sitting as judges in their turn ! Those who in- 
 tercepted the blows of the executioners, by holding up their 
 hands, suffered protracted torment; while those who offered 
 no show of struggle, were more easily despatched. Many 
 ladies, especially those belonging to the court, were thus 
 murdered. The Princess de Lamballe, whose only crime 
 seems to have been her friendship for Maria Antoinette, was 
 literally hewn to pieces, and her head, and those of others, 
 paraded on pikes through the metropolis ! It was carried to 
 the temple on that accursed weapon, the features yet beau- 
 tiful in death, and the long fair curls of the hair floating 
 around the spear. 
 
 " This hellish scene continued four days ; prison after pri- 
 son was invested, entered, and, under the same form of pro- 
 ceeding, made the scene of the same inhuman butchery. 
 
THE BIBLE. 77 
 
 The Jacobins had reckoned on making the massacre universal 
 over France. But the example was not generally followed. 
 The community of Paris were not in fault for this. They 
 did all they could to extend the sphere of murder. These 
 infernal crimes were protracted by the actors, for the sake of 
 the daily pay of a louts to each, openly distributed amongst 
 them by order of the Commune. When the jails were emptied 
 of state criminals, the assassins attacked the Bicetre, a prison 
 where ordinary delinquents were confined ! 
 
 "The bodies were interred in heaps, in immense trenches, 
 prepared beforehand by order of the Community of Paris; 
 but their bones have since been transferred to the subterra- 
 nean catacombs, which form the general charnel house of the 
 city. In those melancholy regions, while other relics of mor- 
 tality lie exposed all around, the remains of those who pe- 
 rished in the massacre of September, are alone secluded from 
 the eye. The vault in which they repose is closed with a 
 screen of freestone, as if relating to crimes unfit to be thought 
 of, even in the proper abode of death, and which France 
 would willingly hide in oblivion." "In the meanwhile, the 
 reader may be desirous to know what efforts were made by 
 the Assembly to put a stop to a massacre, carried on in con- 
 tempt of all legal interference, and by no more formidable 
 force than that of two or three hundred atrocious felons, often 
 indeed diminished to only fifty or sixty. They issued no 
 decree against the slaughter; they demanded no support from 
 the public force. Where in that hour, were the Girondists? 
 Whatever was the motive of their apathy, the Legislative As- 
 sembly was nearly silent on the subject of the massacres, not 
 only while they were in progress, but for several days after- 
 ward. 
 
 "At Nantes, hundreds, men, women, and children, were 
 forced on board of vessels, which were scuttled and sunk in 
 the Loire, and this was called republican baptism ! Men and 
 women were strung or bound together, and thus thrown into 
 the river; and this was called republican marriage ! Crowds 
 of citizens were piled together in dungeons, where the air was 
 pestilential from odour, from the carcasses of the dead, and 
 the infectious diseases of the dying. Men, women, and chil- 
 dren were to be seen sprawling together, like toads and frogs 
 in the season of spring, in the waters of the Loire, too shallow 
 to afford them instant death, the uppermost of the expiring 
 praying to be thrust into deeper water, that they might 
 
78 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 have the means of death. Humanity forbears to detail the 
 hundred other abominations there committed, compared with 
 which, the sharp, sudden, and sure blow of the Parisian guil- 
 lotine, was clemency. At Lyons, a black flag was hoisted 
 by the besieged on the G-reat Hospital, as a sign that the fire 
 of the assailants should not be directed on that asylum of 
 hopeless misery. The signal seemed only to draw the re- 
 publican bombs to the spot where they could create the most 
 frightful distress, and outrage in the most frightful degree 
 the feelings of humanity. 
 
 "The judges of the revolutionary committee were worn out 
 with fatigue — the arm of the executioner was weary — the 
 very steel of the guillotine was blunted. Collot d' Herbois 
 devised a more summary method. A number of from two 
 to three hundred were dragged from prison to the Place de 
 Brotteaux, one of the largest squares in Lyons, and there 
 subjected to a fire of grape shot. The sufferers fell to the 
 ground like singed flies, mutilated but not slain, and implo- 
 ring their executioners to despatch them speedily. And all 
 this under the direction of the French Jacobin Convention ! ! ! M 
 
 My opponent said that he loved the family institu- 
 tion, when there is one wife and one husband living 
 together in love, for the term of their natural life; 
 but is it not true, that when you deny the divine 
 authority of marriage, you strike a blow at the 
 very foundation of that institution? If it has no 
 other basis than human law, then has it no depen- 
 dence or stability. Men devise law for themselves, 
 and can change it to suit themselves. What the laws 
 make, they can unmake; what they enact, they can 
 annul; and unless there is a sanction higher and 
 greater than any human authority, there is no stabi- 
 lity whatever for this institution. [Dr. B. commenced 
 reading, when his time expired. As he took his seat, 
 there was long applause.] 
 
 Mr. Barker. — [Hisses and slight applause.] — Scott was a 
 Scotch tory, a reviler of the covenanters, a bigoted enemy of 
 all civil and religious reformers, and all his feelings were in 
 harmony with his antodiluvian politics. What is Allison's 
 account of the same matters ? Ho says that the horrors and 
 
THE BIBLE. 79 
 
 atrocities of the French revolution proceeded from the fact 
 that the French people had been long debased by long ty- 
 ranny; had been for centuries ground into the dust by task- 
 masters; they had been used like brutes, and they acted like 
 brutes when let loose. It would be easy to show, however, 
 that the atrocities in question fade into insignificance when 
 compared with those perpetrated under the believing regime 
 of the kings. [Slight applause and sounds of h'sh.] Let 
 us learn from this the necessity of free discussion of all sub- 
 jects in order that revolutions, if they do come, shall be 
 bloodless. If you wish men to feel the dignity of their man- 
 hood — and act with boldness and moderation in a revolution, 
 you must treat them like men before they get their liberty. 
 [Applause.] Nor is this the only explanation of the horrors 
 of that revolution. It must be remembered that all the des- 
 pots of Europe were banded together against the liberal cause ; 
 that they not only had their armies upon the frontier, but 
 sent their secret agents into France to foment intrigues, 
 ripen dissensions, and to entice to these bloody.tragedies, thus 
 aiming to disgrace the cause of liberty throughout the civil- 
 ized world. They succeeded but too well. The same game 
 was played during the last revolution. The kings of Europe, 
 afraid to employ open force, used gold; and by plots, conspi- 
 racies and artful commission of excesses, secretly undermined 
 the cause of the people and prepared the way for the present 
 despotism. No man who appreciates popular freedom should 
 apologize for those despots and tyrants who are banded 
 against the liberty of the world. (Applause.) 
 
 The Doctor says that I forget the rules of the debate. I 
 have not forgotten them, but have followed them with the 
 utmost scrupulosity. 
 
 He wishes me, when it shall be convenient to myself, to 
 tell him the name of the G-od I worship. It will be conve- 
 nient to me to tell him after the present discussion is over. 
 (Explosion of hisses, laughter, and shouts of turn him out.) 
 
 If the Doctor wishes, I will tell him all I think or feel at 
 that time. 
 
 (Immense explosion of shouts, hisses, sounds of h'sh. Dr. Berg 
 rose and made a sign with his hand to the audience to be still. Mr. 
 Barker took his seat. Rev. Mr. Chambers requested the meeting 
 to keep order, that the discussion might proceed. Dr. Berg joined 
 in the request. Renewed explosion of hisses.) 
 
 Let me add, that I will meet him in debate, if he wishes, 
 and discuss with him my views on the being of a G-od, (Slight 
 
80 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 applause, and cries of good.) If eight nights are to be spent 
 like the present one, they will barely suffice for the present 
 discussion ; I do not wish to undertake two things at a time. 
 (Slight applause.) 
 
 If the Bible be true, then is the character of God discover- 
 able from the works of nature. In the passage which I quoted, 
 it is said that "His eternal power and Godhead" may be "un- 
 derstood by the things that are made." Now the word God- 
 head is English, and Deity is the Latin equivalent; and the 
 doctrine of that passage is that the attributes of God may be 
 discovered by the light of nature. Those who hold the truth 
 in unrighteousness are blamed because they forgot God while 
 nature unfolded the truth to their eyes. 
 
 I hope I may be allowed one word on my relations to the 
 institutions of this country. The Doctor says, that there is 
 this difference between us, that I came to sow sedition and 
 upset the institutions whose benefit I enjoy. 
 
 I am unconscious of any such intention. I came to do 
 nothing of the kind. (A whistle — laughter.) Since my ar- 
 rival in this country, I have never uttered anything against 
 its institutions, unless slavery be one of them. In all cases 
 I have spoken my heartfelt admiration of the laws, customs, 
 and political liberties enjoyed in the United States. In the 
 only meeting on the subject of slavery which I have attended 
 in this city, 1 was blamed by some for the apology I made 
 for this country ; nor am I conscious of any intention to in- 
 troduce this subject into the debate, farther than to state and 
 prove that the Bible upholds it. This I have a right to do, 
 because I consider it one of the greatest of all crimes and 
 immoralities. But does Dr. Berg pretend that I am enjoy- 
 ing the benefits of slavery? 
 
 Dr. Berg. — I did not say that. 
 
 Mr. Barker. — I have wished that this country, excelling 
 in so many things, should be free from this stain. The sun 
 has spots upon his surface, but I have wished that the stars 
 of this Republic should have none. (Applause.) 
 
 In England (cries of question, order,) I have spoken in 
 public of this country as worthy of imitation, and I so spoke 
 against kingship, that I was arrested by order of the Attor- 
 ney-General. (Applause, and cries of question.) If you are 
 satisfied, I am. But when a wrong impression has been 
 given, and I can remove it in a few words, I think it my 
 duty to do it. 
 
THE BIBLE. 81 
 
 The Doctor speaks of Homer's Iliad, and asks if I would 
 reject that because of the different readings of its five hun- 
 dred manuscripts? I answer no. I would not reject that. 
 I would only treat it as a human composition. But if some 
 old Greek should tell me that the book was of God, I should 
 reject that idea. And when I find that the original manu- 
 script of the Bible is lost; that the copies we have are con- 
 tradictory; that there is no possibility of comparing them 
 with the original, I must remain in doubt forever as to the 
 right text; and I will not consider the book a Divine and 
 perfect one. (Groans and contemptuous laughter.) 
 
 The Doctor asks, how can I tell whether the passages I 
 quote are not interpolations. I cannot tell. If they are, the 
 book is human. If they are not, it teaches the grossest im- 
 moralities. 
 
 The doctor tells us that the best proof is where we have 
 substantial agreement with circumstantial variation. But 
 how tin we suppose a book is from God, when it contains 
 substantial contradictions and substantial immorality of the 
 grossest character ? (Hisses in the audience.) Let him call 
 me a blasphemer, if he please. He is at liberty to do so. But 
 it is not I who impugn the character of the Deity. I speak 
 in vindication of his attributes, and it is the book that im- 
 pugns it. (Applause.) The Doctor says that I maintained that 
 the Bible made the Jews corrupt — I did not. What I said 
 was from written notes, which I have here. The doctor had 
 said, Look how dark and depraved the people have been who 
 have had no Bible. I said, Look how dark and depraved 
 the people have been who have had the Bible. There is not 
 one word about the Bible having made them corrupt. 
 
 The Doctor says that all God's gifts are gifts of grace. Is 
 it grace to love one and hate another ? 1 called it cruelty 
 and injustice to save one and condemn all the rest to the 
 eternal anger of God; to let the sinner escape, and damn the 
 whole nation. 
 
 The Doctor hopes that the day is coming when Christianity 
 shall cover the whole earth. But Bishop Campbell and also 
 Mr. Stephen Colwell, of your own city, say that it is losing 
 instead of gaining ground. But let both sides be plainly 
 spoken and freely uttered. Let the mightiest triumph, and 
 I shall be content. 
 
 In a former speech, I said that I had seen Christians die 
 full of horror. I take pleasure in now adding, that among 
 
 8 
 
82 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 readers of the Bible, I have known some of the most noble, 
 most beautiful, most brave, and most holy persons with whom 
 it has been my lot to meet. As to the quotation he made 
 from my writing, I repeat that at the time I wrote that, I 
 was under the dominion of the law, and had no fellowship 
 with unbelievers. I had been taught by my parents, spiritual 
 pastors, and whole education, to believe in the natural de- 
 pravity of man, and that every unbeliever is a bad man, 
 though he appeared the most philanthropic in the neighbour- 
 hood ; and that the more fair he was outwardly the more 
 depraved he was inwardly ; and that the more beautiful his 
 character, the more consummate his hypocrisy. Every word 
 that I wrote then, I now retract. If I did not now bear 
 testimony to the truth, it would be to disclaim those oracles 
 which God has written in our hearts, and which are echoed 
 and re-echoed from every part of God's vocal creation. (Ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 The Doctor says that I deny the Divine authority of the 
 family institution, and that my principles undermine its 
 purity. Did I not say that the form of marriage was of Di- 
 vine origin, where one man and one woman lived together in 
 love and honour, and nurtured their children for the duties 
 of life and of immortality ? I repeat it now. And did I not 
 specify the forms to which I objected? Did I not say that 
 those objectionable forms were sanctioned by the Bible? 
 
 They are, when one man has many wives, as Abraham, 
 David and Solomon; or when one woman has many husbands; 
 or when the man is master, and the woman a slave. 
 
 The Bible has two different accounts of the creation. The 
 first account is, that the lower animals were created first, and 
 then man and woman. The second account is, that man was 
 created first; then the lower animals, and last of all, woman. 
 And here I may remark, that there are several different 
 names given to the Deity in Genesis. These and other 
 marks, show that Genesis is a compilation from several an- 
 cient and contradictory records, and is not a uniform book 
 proceeding from one author. 
 
 The Doctor said that the curse pronounced on the serpent 
 received collateral proof in the universal abhorrence with 
 which that animal is regarded. I do not know that that 
 horror is universal. Tt is not true that there is special enmity 
 felt by children rightly brought up towards them. At any 
 rate, was it just to curse the whole race of serpents through 
 all timo because six thousand years ago one serpent did wrong? 
 
THE BIBLE. 83 
 
 I will read the passage : 
 
 "And the Lord God said unto the serpent: Because thou 
 hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle." 
 
 Is the serpent cursed above all cattle? 
 
 "And above every beast of the field. Upon thy belly 
 shalt thou go." 
 
 The serpent is not the only animal that goes on its belly. 
 
 " And dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." 
 
 Now the serpent will not eat dust at all. 
 
 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy 
 sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth 
 children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he 
 shall rule over thee." 
 
 Are all women from one end of the globe to the other thus 
 to be cursed, because one woman did wrong? Is every 
 woman to be a subject, and every husband a lord, because of 
 the act of Eve? 
 
 "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened 
 unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of 
 which I commanded thee — saying thou shalt not eat of it, 
 cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat 
 of it all the days of thy life." 
 
 Is this so? Do all men eat in sorrow? Cannot a man, if 
 he act wisely, eat the fruits of his labour in peace and joy? 
 
 "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee : and 
 thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face 
 shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground; for 
 out of it wast thou taken : For dust thou art, and unto dust 
 shalt thou return." 
 
 Science tells us that thorns and thistles existed countless 
 ages before the date assigned to this curse ; and is it true 
 that all men eat their bread in the sweat of their face? 
 Do not some gain it more easily than others, and some even 
 without working at all? And is this not abhorrent to our 
 feelings to attribute to God this curse of death upon all men, 
 because one did wrong? If the God of the Bible is shown 
 to be guilty of such an abuse of power, it is time for another 
 revelation and another faith. 
 
 I will now briefly recur to the subject of the Deluge : 
 
 We are told that on account of the wickedness of men, God 
 resolved to destroy them all, both little and big, and all the cat- 
 tle, except one faniity and pairs and sevens of the lower ani- 
 mals. The ark in which these were to be saved was to be 
 about a hundred and fifty yards long, twenty-five yards wide, 
 
84 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 fifteen yards high, divided into three stories; and it was to 
 hold eight persons and about five hundred thousand of the 
 lower animals. There was but one door, and one window, 
 and that was shut. — [Cries of time up. Mr. Barker took 
 his seat, the audience maintaining silence.] 
 
 Dr. Berg: If I did injustice to my opponent in 
 mentioning the difference between us, I am sorry for 
 it. I am glad to find that he loves the institutions 
 of this country. I am glad to hear that he has no in- 
 tention to introduce the obnoxious topic to which I 
 alluded. I wished to forestal such an intention, as I 
 had heard of it from various quarters. 
 
 My opponent said that the strong language used by 
 him in his little book was the result of his prejudice 
 against infidels. 
 
 Mr. Barker : I stated that I had received a strictly re- 
 ligious training from my parents, and that therefore I could 
 not regard infidels impartially. I did not know facts enough 
 to justify these conclusions. 
 
 Dr. Berg: I am willing to take the word of my 
 opponent — either now or then, if he will tell me which 
 to take. His statements conflict. In his book he 
 speaks of having a considerable acquaintance with 
 infidels. If he speaks the truth now. he was in error 
 then. If he spoke it then, he is much mistaken now. 
 (Loud laughter and applause.) 
 
 My opponent declines telling me the name of his 
 God, and furnishing answers to other questions until 
 the eight evenings for which I am engaged to him 
 for this discussion shall have expired. If he will not 
 tell us in advance, we shall probably not hear it at all. 
 It is not likely that after this debate I will wish to 
 trouble an audience with a controversy with Mr. 
 Barker, for, from present indications, there will be 
 very little left of him by that time. (Vociferous 
 applause.) There is one subject I wish to introduce, 
 which may be grateful to this audience, because it 
 will give diversity to the train of thought now upper- 
 most. Mr. Barker said he had seen infidels die 
 calmly and composedly; because for them eternity 
 
THE BIBLE. 85 
 
 had no fears, and that he had seen Christians die full 
 of horror, because they had been taught to regard 
 God as malignant. No such thing. The Christian's 
 God is a God of love, a reconciled Father, ready to 
 forgive his children, and afford them an abundant 
 entrance into glory. Only out Of Christ is He a con- 
 suming fire. But he is all mercy to those who rejoice 
 in the Mediator. 
 
 I will now show you, out of my opponent's own 
 mouth, how dark infidelity is. He has told us that 
 there is no remission of sin, that no man who has sinned 
 can expect to be forgiven ; that there is no escape in 
 this world or the next. For infidels there is no Sa- 
 viour, but they must live, always looking forward to 
 fearful retribution. He has seen infidels die happily. 
 His experience is altogether different from that of 
 all others. I never saw one of these bold blasphemers 
 die, and I hope I never may. The records of such 
 scenes are so full of horror that they overwhelm with 
 dread. I will give you one or two instances, to which 
 I ask your solemn attention. 
 
 I have seen many Christians die, but I have never 
 seen one die in horror. They all testified to the con- 
 solations of the Bible. There are some men in our 
 city who extol Thomas Paine. They want a new re- 
 velation, and Thomas Paine has given his followers a 
 bible. They cherish it now. But hear the manner 
 of his death. I quote from an eye-witness. 
 
 During the latter part of his life ; though his conversation 
 was equivocal, his conduct was more so; he would not be left 
 alone night or day: he not only required to have some per- 
 son with him, but he must see that he or she was there, and 
 would not allow his curtain to he closed at any time; and 
 if as it would sometimes unavoidably happen, he was left 
 alone, he would scream and halloo until some person came 
 to him. When relief from pain would permit, he seemed 
 thoughtful and contemplative, his eyes being generally closed, 
 and his hands folded on his breast, although he never slept 
 without the influence of an anodyne. 
 
 "There was something remarkable in his conduct about 
 this period (which comprises the- "fortnight immediately pre- 
 
 8* 
 
86 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ceding his death,) particularly when we reflect that Thomas 
 Paine was author of the 'Age of Reason/ He would call 
 out, during his paroxysms of distress, without intermission, 
 ( Lord, help me ! — Grod, help me ! — Jesus Christ, help me ! 
 — Lord, help me!' &c; repeating the same expressions 
 without the least variation, in a tone of voice that would alarm, 
 the house. These exclamations induced me to think that he 
 had abandoned his former opinions; and I was more inclined 
 to this opinion, when I understood from his nurse (who was 
 a very serious, and I believe a pious woman,) that he would 
 occasionally inquire, when he saw her engaged with a book, 
 what she was reading; and being answered, and at the same 
 time being asked whether she should read aloud, he assented, 
 and would appear to give particular attention. 
 
 "I took occasion, during the night of the 5th and 6th of 
 June, to test the strength of his opinions respecting revela- 
 tion. I purposely made him a very late visit : it was a time 
 which seemed to suit my errand : it was midnight : he was 
 in great distress, constantly exclaiming in the words above 
 mentioned; when, after considerable preface, I addressed him 
 in the following manner, the nurse being present : — ■ 
 
 "Mr. Paine, your opinions, by a large portion of the com- 
 munity, have been treated with deference; you have never 
 been in the habit of mixing in your conversation words of 
 coarse meaning; you have never indulged in the practice of 
 profane swearing; you must be sensible that we are acquainted 
 with your religious opinions, as they are given to the world; 
 what must we think of your present conduct? Why do you 
 call upon Jesus Christ to help you ? Do you believe that he 
 can help you? Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus 
 Christ? Come, now, answer me honestly; I want an answer 
 as from the lips of a dying man, for I verily believe that you 
 will not live twenty-four hours.' I paused some time at the 
 end of every question; he did not answer, but ceased to ex- 
 claim in the above manner. Again I addressed him : i Mr. 
 Paine, you have not answered my questions — will you not 
 answer them ? Allow me to ask again, do you believe, or — 
 let me qualify the question — do you wish to believe, that Je- 
 sus Christ is the Son of God ? After a pause of some minutes, 
 he answered, ' I have no wish to believe on that subject.' I 
 then left him/' 
 
 He was also visited by a Quaker who was in the practice 
 of visiting the sick, for the purpose of aifording them con- 
 
THE BIBLE. 87 
 
 solatioD. He said, he never saw a man in so much apparent 
 distress. He sat with his elbow on his knee, and his head 
 leaning on his hand; and beside him stood a vessel, to catch 
 the blood that was oozing from him in five different streams, 
 like spider's-webs — one from the corner of his mouth, one 
 from each eye, and one from each nostril ! This Friend en- 
 deavoured to get him into conversation, but was only an- 
 swered by horrible looks and dreadful groans. He was also 
 visited by a preacher of the Methodist order. His object 
 was, if possible, to get from him the truth in his dying hour, 
 in relation to his future prospects with eternity. But all he 
 could get from him, in answer to his questions, was awful 
 groans, which seemed to unnerve the whole system. This 
 man was with him until he drew his last breath, and his im- 
 mortal spirit had fled. — Neale's Closing Scene. 
 
 In another part of this volume, I find a record of 
 the death of Francis Newport. 
 
 Francis Newport, who died in the year 1692, was favoured 
 with both a religious and liberal education. After spending 
 five years in the university, he was entered in one of the 
 Inns of Court. Here he fell into the hands of infidels, 
 lost his religious impressions, forsook the paths of virtue, 
 became an avowed infidel, and associated himself with a 
 club of educated but abandoned wretches, who met regularly 
 to encourage and confirm each other in wickedness. 
 
 He continued thus for several years, till habits of dissipa- 
 tion and vice brought on an illness, during which his former 
 religious impressions revived with invincible force. The 
 horror of his mind was inexpressible; the sweat poured from 
 his system; and in nine days he was reduced, principally 
 through mental anguish, from a robust state of health to 
 perfect weakness. His expressions and language, all the 
 while, were the most dreadful that imagination can conceive. 
 
 Writing to his companions, he said, "Who, alas! can 
 write his own tragedy without tears, or copy out the seal of 
 his own damnation without horror? That there is a God I 
 know, because I continually feel the effects of his wrath; 
 that there is a hell I am equally certain, having received an 
 earnest of my inheritance there already in my breast." 
 
 His friends, who had only heard he was distracted, hear- 
 ing him deliver himself in such terms, were amazed, and be- 
 gan to inquire of those around, what made him talk at such 
 
88 DISCUSSION ox 
 
 a rate? He, hearing them whispering together, and ima- 
 gining the cause, called them all to him, and said, "You 
 imagine me melancholy or distracted; I wish I were either, 
 but it is part of my judgment that I am not. No; my ap- 
 prehension of persons and things is rather more quick and 
 vigorous than it was when I was in perfect health; and it 
 is my curse, because thereby I am more sensible of the con- 
 dition I am fallen into. Would you be informed why I am 
 become a skeleton in three or four days? See how then I 
 have despised my Maker, and denied my Redeemer; I have 
 joined myself to the atheists and profane, and continued this 
 course under many convictions, till my iniquity was ripe for 
 vengeance, and the just judgment of God overtook me when 
 my security was the greatest and the checks of my con- 
 science were the least. How idle is it to bid the fire not burn 
 when fuel is administered, and to command the seas to be 
 smooth in the midst of a storm! Such is my case; and 
 what are the comforts of my friends? But I a/n spent, — I 
 can complain no more. Would to God that the cause of my 
 complaining would cease. The cause of my complaining! 
 this renews my grief, and summons up the little strength I 
 have left to complain again, like an expiring blaze before it 
 is extinguished. It is just so with me; but whither am I 
 going?" 
 
 As he said this he fainted away, and lay in a swoon for a 
 considerable time; but by the help of some spirits, he was 
 brought to himself again. 
 
 "My business/' says the writer, "calling me away for a 
 day or two, I came again on Thursday morning pretty early. 
 When I came in I inquired of his friends how he spent 
 his time. They told me he had had little company; and 
 his expressions were much shorter; but what he did speak 
 seemed to have more horror and despair than before. I 
 went to his bedside, and asked him how he did. He replied, 
 ' Damned and lost forever/ I told him the purposes of God 
 were hidden; perhaps he was punished in this life to fit him 
 for a better. He answered, 'They are not hidden to me, but 
 discovered; and my greatest torment, my punishment here, 
 is for an example to others. that there was no God, or 
 that this God could cease to be, for I am sure he will have 
 no mercy upon me !" 
 
 "'Alas!' said I, 'there is no contending with our Creator, 
 and therefore avoid such words as may provoke him more.' 
 
THE BIBLE. 89 
 
 " ' True/ replied he, ' there is no contending ; I wish there 
 was a possibility of getting above God — that would be a 
 heaven to me/ 
 
 "I entreated him not to give way to such blasphemous 
 thoughts, for — . Here he interrupted me. 'Read we not 
 in the Revelation of them that blasphemed God because of 
 their pains? I am one of their number. how do I envy 
 the happiness of Cain and Judas ! ' 
 
 "'But,' replied I, 'you are yet alive, and do not feel the 
 torments of those that are in hell/ 
 
 "He answered, ' This is either true or false; if it be true, 
 how heavy will those torments be, of which I do not yet 
 feel the uttermost? But I know it is false, and that I en- 
 dure more than the spirits of the damned ; for I have the 
 same tortures upon my spirit that they have, beside those I 
 endure in my body. I believe at the day of judgment the 
 torments of my mind and body will both together be more 
 intense; but, as I now am, no spirit in hell endures what I 
 do. How gladly would I change my condition for hell! 
 How earnestly would I entreat my angry Judge to send me 
 thither, were I not afraid that out of vengeance he would 
 deny me ! ' Here he closed his eyes a little, and began to 
 talk very wildly, every now and then groaning and gnashing 
 his teeth; but soon after, opening his eyes he grew sensible 
 again, and felt his own pulse, saying, ' How lazily my mi- 
 nutes go on ! When will be the last breath, the last pulse, 
 that shall beat my spirit out of this decayed mansion, into 
 the desired regions of death and hell? O, I find it is just 
 now at hand! And what shall I say now? Am not I 
 afraid to die ? Ah ! the forlorn hopes of him that has not 
 God to go to ! Nothing to fly to for peace and comfort !* 
 Here his speech failed him: we all, believing him to be dy- 
 ing, went to prayer, which threw him into an agony; in 
 which, though he could not speak, he turned away his face, 
 and made what noise he could to hinder himself from hear- 
 ing. Perceiving this we gave over. 
 
 "As soon as he could speak, (which was not till after 
 some time,) he said, ' Tigers and monsters, are ye also be- 
 come devils to torment me, and give me a prospect of hea- 
 ven, to make my hell more intolerable? ' 
 
 "'Alas! sir/ said I, 'it is our desire of your happiness 
 that casts us down at the throne of grace; if God denies as- 
 sistance, who else can give it? If he will not have mercy, 
 whither must we go for it?' 
 
90 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 "He replied, '0 ! that is the dart that wounds me! God 
 is become my enemy, and there is none so strong as to deli- 
 ver me out of his hand. He consigns me over to eternal 
 vengeance, and there is none able to redeem me ! Were 
 there such another God as he, who would patronise my 
 cause; or were I above God, or independent of him ; could 
 I act or dispose of myself as I pleased; then would my hor- 
 rors cease, and the expectations and designs of my formida- 
 ble enemies be frustrated. But O ! this cannot be for I 
 
 "His voice failed again, and he began to struggle and 
 gasp for breath; which, having recovered, with a groan 
 dreadful and horrid as if it had been more than human, he 
 cried out, ' 01 the insufferable pangs of hell and damnation!' 
 and then expired. 
 
 Now, here are passages which accord with the facts 
 of universal experience. Infidels are hardened when 
 in prosperity, but when they are near death the latent 
 fire of conscience is aroused, and spite of their pride, 
 they call on Christ for mercy. 
 
 My opponent says that the family institution, which 
 he loves, is of Divine authority. I respectfully ask 
 him how God has revealed it to him. He begins now 
 to see that some other foundation than human autho- 
 rity is necessary. Now, if the God of the Bible has 
 established the family institution, the authority is 
 there. We find that Adam and Noah had but one 
 wife; that the moral government of God is through- 
 out consistent, and that God never yet revealed that 
 polygamy was right. It is inconsistent with every 
 moral statute. I will add, that God sometimes per- 
 mits men to be convinced of the evil of certain insti- 
 tutions for the purposes of moral discipline. My op- 
 ponent insists that it is my duty to answer what he 
 says of the case in 2 Sam. xxi. The Gibeonites said 
 to David that they would have neither silver nor gold, 
 neither for them should any man in Israel be killed. 
 
 [Here the Dr. read the passage, for which, see previous 
 report.] 
 
 But they demanded that seven men of the sons of 
 Saul should be delivered to them. This was done, 
 
THE BIBLE. 91 
 
 and they were hanged. The reason of this punish- 
 ment was that the children of Israel had sworn to 
 protect the Gibeonites, who notwithstanding this oath, 
 were slain by Saul. 
 
 This only shows that God punishes murder. When 
 murder has been committed, God holds the land re- 
 sponsible for the innocent blood shed. 
 
 It appears that Saul had not only violated the 
 pledge of the princes of Israel, but had massacred a 
 defenceless tribe. 
 
 The blood of the Gibeonites cried to Heaven for 
 vengeance. The punishment was retribution, not 
 cruelty; and if there is one word infidels would blot 
 out of the Bible, it is retribution. But the children 
 of Saul were hanged for his sin, and my opponent asks 
 me — will God punish children for the offences of their 
 parents ? Yes : for he has said so ; and mortal man 
 cannot define all his ways. He is sovereign and holy, 
 and can do with us as he sees fit. On the same prin- 
 ciple, we find that if a man will degrade himself by 
 drunkenness, his children must pay the penalty; if he 
 has contracted disease by licentiousness, his offspring 
 must pay the penalty. These are enigmas we cannot 
 solve, but the facts are analogous. We cannot make 
 everything even in this world square with my oppo- 
 nent's ideas of right, and yet he imagines that we must 
 explain all the transactions of God's moral government. 
 
 And here let me bring to your attention a beautiful 
 illustration of infidel pity. It is in the shape of an 
 anonymous letter. The friends of Mr. Barker, not 
 content with the atrocities they find in the Bible, find 
 some in modern times to excite their compassion. I 
 do not like anonymous letters, but I have no other 
 than good feeling towards its author. It would have 
 been, perhaps, more manly to put his name to his pro- 
 duction, but I will do it the honour to read it: 
 
 " Tuesday. 
 
 "Rev. Sir: — Returning home from the discussion last 
 
 evening, and reflecting upon the dreadful exhibition of the 
 
 acts of the children of Israel, as ordered or sanctioned by the 
 
 Almighty, my mind was turned to a modern instance which 
 
92 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 might furnish a parallel to some of those atrocities. Allow 
 me the liberty of stating the facts. 
 
 " A few months ago only, three or four men went into the 
 humble lodgings of a poor man, depressed to the earth with 
 anxious days and sleepless nights, and in spite of his piteous 
 remonstrances, tied his hands behind his back, led him into 
 the back yard, and passing a rope round his neck, deliberately 
 strangled him to death. Strange to add, there were some 
 hundreds of spectators present, not one of whom ventured to 
 interfere; and to crown all, a minister of the gospel stood up 
 and made a prayer ! 
 
 "The unfortunate victim of violence left a widow and an 
 orphan boy to bewail their loss. The ringleader in this atro- 
 cious deed was Sheriff Allen, (movement in audience,) who 
 pretended that he acted by warrant of the Governor; the 
 name of the murdered man was Arthur Spring." (Explosion 
 of laughter, shouts and applause.) 
 
 Here is a pretty sample of manufactured infidel 
 pity! "The murdered man was Arthur Spring!" 
 Poor Spring ! Innocent creature that he was ! his 
 hands bound behind him, the rope around his neck, he 
 is the object of sympathetic regard. I pity him too, 
 but will you blot out retribution ? Should pity be ex- 
 hausted on the infamous murderer, and not a single 
 emotion be given to the poor women whom his ruth- 
 less hand had sent to their long account, whose throats 
 he had, at the solemn hour of midnight, cut from ear to 
 ear ? Away with such pity, which demands impunity 
 for crime. We owe no pity to those whose lives are 
 forfeited to the violated laws of God and man. But 
 my opponent tells us that he needs no divine revelation 
 because man has a law within himself, — has an inner 
 light to guide him. But suppose this light turns out 
 to be darkness, what then? (Loud applause and laugh- 
 ter.) Suppose men put that light out, there is no more 
 light in the world, no law, and where there is no law 
 there is no transgression. A man may destroy his 
 conscience, and what then? The pirate has this light 
 too, within himself. His conscience tells him there is 
 no harm in murdering to get money. If my opponent 
 is satisfied with a light so flickering, I wish him joy of it. 
 
THE BIBLE, 93 
 
 My opponent has ranch to say of the revelations of 
 nature. But if these will account for the introduction 
 of death into the world, I will thank him to show it. 
 The Bible is the only revelation that teaches anything 
 about this, and many similar subjects which, without 
 it, are enigmas. 
 
 My opponent brings up again to-night a number of 
 objections which I thought I had answered. If he 
 continues this course, it is evident there can be no end 
 to the discussion. I do not like what he says, nor he 
 what I say, and the better way, after stating what we 
 think, is to leave the decision to the intelligence of 
 the audience. He speaks again of God's having rested, 
 and says that to speak of God as if he had a body, con- 
 veys a false impression. Has he not read the beautiful 
 words of Isaiah? 
 
 " Hast thou not known, hast thou not heard, that the ever- 
 lasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, 
 fainteth not, neither is weary?" Is. xl. 28. (General ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 Does not my opponent himself stand here a living 
 witness that the passages on which he comments are 
 not to be understood literally ? 
 
 He spoke again of Ahab and the lying spirits. I 
 have shown you — (Here the time expired. Long and 
 general applause.) 
 
 Fourth Evening — Friday, January 13th, 
 
 [At six o'clock, an immense crowd had gathered at the 
 doors of Concert Halh When the doors were opened, it 
 flowed in. The seats were filled in a few minutes. Several 
 conversations between individuals of different opinions at- 
 tracted the attention of those who sat near. One of them 
 grew very animated. Cries of louder! Get on the platform ! 
 &c. One of Mayor Gilpin's police stilled the rising disorder.] 
 
 Quarter past seven. 
 
 Moderator Illman — According to the arrangement, Mr. 
 Barker will now commence. 
 
 Mr. Barker. (Profound silence.) As my opponent ap- 
 pears to have the impression that I have not observed the 
 9 
 
94 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 true order of this debate, I wish to remark that the question 
 is twofold : 
 
 1. Is the Bible of divine origin? 2. Are its contents, 
 when received as of divine authority, salutary or injurious'? 
 With respect to the first, those who maintain the affirmative; 
 appeal first to internal, second to external evidence. 
 
 If my opponent had opened the debate, he would have 
 stated the nature of the internal evidence, and presented you 
 with specimens of it. It fell to my lot, however, to open. 
 He did not lead, but I led. It was my duty to inquire 
 whether there was anything in the contents or style of the 
 Bible which showed it to be of human production. I did so, 
 and found much that was erroneous, or blasphemous; many 
 contradictory representations of God, much bad morality, 
 many evil examples presented as good ones; and many other 
 matters already referred to. Under each head, I presented 
 specimens. I have not deviated one hair's breadth from this 
 line of inquiry, except to notice the objections of Dr. Berg. 
 I am bound to pursue the same course to-night, when I ex- 
 pect to close the first part of this debate. On Monday night, 
 I expect to take up the external evidences; my opponent 
 will probably give his views on the same subject, and it will 
 be my duty to follow with such remarks as his may require. 
 
 At the close of my last speech, I was on the subject of the 
 Bible account of the Deluge, and of the Ark commanded to 
 be made to save the remnant of mankind. This structure is 
 said to have been about 150 yards long, 25 wide, and 15 
 deep; and divided into three stories. According to the best 
 calculations, there were 56,200 cubic yards inside. In this 
 space were to be placed — 
 
 1. Noah and his family — eight persons in all — with all the 
 food necessary for their support for one year; 
 
 2. Seven pairs of every species of fowl and clean beast, 
 and two of all unclean beasts; 
 
 3. Enough food for all these birds, beasts, and creeping 
 things, for one year and a half. 
 
 Imagine, if you can, that there were only eight persons to 
 feed, water, and tend half a million of animals, to keep all 
 clean, and well ventilated, and that, for this last purpose, 
 there was in the Ark but one window, a half yard square, 
 which, if I read the text aright, was kept closed! Then, 
 again, consider that this vast number of living creatures were 
 collected from widely different climates, temperate, tropical, 
 and arctic, and that their natural food was to be found only 
 
THE BIBLE. 95 
 
 in the places where they lived. It must have taken time for 
 Noah to travel and collect them from districts perhaps twelve 
 thousand miles apart, and to gather together the proper food, 
 and stow it away. As many of the animals were carnivorous, 
 he must have had to provide a great number of others for 
 their sustenance. Are there not strong marks of improba- 
 bility in all this? Are not these facts as recorded not only 
 improbable but impossible ? Could half a million of birds, 
 beasts, and creeping things, with their food, have been 
 crowded into the space assigned to the Ark ? Suppose each 
 pair of animals, and its food, could have been accommodated 
 in one cubic yard, the Ark would have been ten times too 
 small. But a pair, or seven pairs of certain animals, with 
 their food — elephants for example — would have occupied 
 half the Ark. In the dimensions given, it was not possible 
 to find room for one fiftieth part of all species of animals and 
 their food. The science of zoology has already discovered more 
 than 100,000 different species. Imagine, I repeat, half a 
 million ^of animals, including lions, tigers, elephants, and 
 cattle, shut up in the Ark, and only eight persons to take 
 care of and feed them, keep the Ark sweet and clean, and 
 ventilate it through a window generally kept shut ! ! ! Even 
 the Christian geologists give up the common story as impro- 
 bable. Professor Hitchcock says : 
 
 [Here Mr. Barker read from Professor Hitchcock's " Geo- 
 logy of Religion," a passage alleging the same difficulties 
 above urged, and the additional one, that a flood of the height 
 named would have taken eight times more water than there 
 is now on the surface of the earth. The reporter has not 
 been able to procure the book.] 
 
 Dr. J. Pye Smith, an eminent English geologist, and, in 
 this country, Dr. Harris, Professor St. John, and numbers 
 of others, concur in rejecting the common account, as not 
 only improbable but impossible. It must have required 
 strong arguments to persuade them to risk their reputation 
 for orthodoxy and adopt our view. 
 
 I will now notice a few more discrepancies in the Old Tes- 
 tament, and then pass to the New. I said, last night, that 
 Genesis bears all the marks of a compilation, that its ma- 
 terials are discordant, and it gives several different names to 
 the Supreme Being. What does it say of Abraham? It 
 tells us that he was a a hundred years old when his son Isaac 
 was born unto him." (Genesis, xxi. 5.) That both he "and 
 Sarah were old and well stricken in years, and it ceased to be 
 
96 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 with Sarah after the manner of women," (Genesis, xviii. 2;) 
 and Isaac's birth is represented as a sort of promised miracle. 
 Paul attributes it to Abraham's faith. He says of him in 
 Romans, fourth chapter: 
 
 "Who against hope believed, that he might become the 
 father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, 
 so shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he con- 
 sidered not his own body now dead, when he was about an 
 hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb. 
 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; 
 but was strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully 
 persuaded that what He had promised, He was able also to 
 perform. " 
 
 And the same apostle tells us of Abraham in his epistle to 
 the Hebrews: • 
 
 " Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as 
 dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as 
 the sand which is by the sea-shore innumerable." Hebrews, 
 xi. 12. 
 
 However, we find that Abraham and Sarah lived many 
 years after. Sarah lived long enough to see Isaac grow to 
 be some forty or fifty years of age; she was 127 years old 
 when she died. Abraham survived her. Now, it was hardly 
 to be expected that a man who, nearly half a century before, 
 is said to have been "good as dead/' and whose having a son 
 at that time is mentioned as miraculous, should marry again. 
 Yet we read in Genesis xxv., the following: 
 
 " Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was 
 Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jockshan, and 
 Mcdan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah." 
 
 Here is a numerous family for a man fifty years after he 
 was "good as dead/' and yet no mention is made of a miracle! 
 
 And again, we are told that Lot was a righteous man. 
 Notwithstanding this endorsement of his character, we find, 
 that when the men of Sodom compassed his house round, 
 and demanded, for the basest of purposes, the two strangers 
 that tarried with him, Lot went forth among them, told them 
 that he had two virgin daughters, and offered to surrender 
 these instead of the strangers ! The story is inconceivable. 
 I will not say that no righteous man would do this; but I 
 will say that no unrighteous man, with any remains of his 
 original nature in his heart, would volunteer to surrender 
 his young daughters to a fate more horribly revolting than 
 burying alive or sacrificing her as a burnt offering. 
 
THE BIBLE. 97 
 
 There are other statements in Genesis which physiology 
 forbids us to accept as true. One of them is the account, in 
 the nineteenth chapter, of the parentage of Moab and Ben- 
 Ammi. 
 
 I will now give you a few specimens of contradictory state- 
 ments in the New Testament.— Matthew xxvii. 44, says: 
 
 "The thieves, also, which were crucified with him, cast 
 the same in his teeth." 
 
 But we find in Luke that only one of the thieves did so. 
 
 "And one of the malefactors which were hanged, railed 
 on him, saying, if thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But 
 the other answering, rebuked, saying/' &c. — Luke xxiii. 30. 
 
 We find an equally glaring contradiction in the case of 
 Judas. Matthew says : 
 
 "Then Judas, which had betrayed him when he saw that he 
 Was condemned, repented himself and brought again the thirty 
 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have 
 sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And 
 they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he 
 cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed : 
 and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took 
 the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them 
 into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they 
 took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury 
 strangers in. Wherefore, that field was called the field of 
 Blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was 
 spoken by Jeremiah the prophet." 
 
 Now, mark you, there is no such passage or any similar 
 one in Jeremiah, but there is one something like it in Za- 
 ehariah, but it is no prophecy, saying, 
 
 "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of 
 him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel 
 did value; and gave them for the potter's field as the Lord 
 appointed me."— Matthew xxvii. 3-10. 
 
 Here we find that Judas took the pieces of silver to the 
 chief priests and elders, that he cast them down and went 
 and hanged himself, and that the chief priests bought with 
 the money the potter's field. But a very different story is 
 told in the first chapter of Acts. I will read the passage : 
 
 " Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been 
 fulfilled which the Holy Grhost, by the mouth of David, 
 spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them 
 that took Jesus, For he was numbered with us and had ob- 
 
 9* 
 
98 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 tained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a 
 field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he 
 burst asunder in the midst, and all his boivels gushed out. 
 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem : inso- 
 much as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, 
 that is to say the field of blood. — Acts 1. 16, 19. 
 
 Now, here are palpable contradictions: one says, the chief 
 priests purchased the field, the other that Judas purchased 
 it; one says that he invested the money in a purchase of 
 land, and the other that he cast it down in the temple ; one 
 says that "the field of blood" received its name for one 
 reason, and the other assigns a reason wholly different; one 
 says that he hanged himself, and the other that Jesus burst 
 asunder, and that all his bowels gushed out. (Explosion 
 of laughter, and cries at this slip of the tongue.) 
 
 Dr. Berg. Judas. 
 
 Mr. Barker, (pleasantly.) It is always well when an ad- 
 vocate of a cause makes a blunder, that he should make so 
 big a one as not to mislead any body. 
 
 The few instances I have given will sufiice to show an im- 
 perfectness in the Bible narrative which is wholly incom- 
 patible with the idea of its divine origin. 
 
 The Doctor appears to have misunderstood what I said 
 about death-bed scenes. I said that I had seen Infidels die 
 calm, and Christians die full of horror. A case of this latter 
 kind he may find reported in my works : an excellent lady, 
 upon whose last moments I waited, died in agonizing fear 
 of the future. Some diseases affect the mind more than 
 others, as delirium tremens, in which the sufferer imagines 
 himself pursued by demons which seek to drag him into a 
 fiery gulf. But, certainly, the ordinary Christian doctrines, 
 held by the orthodox in regard to the character of G-od, the 
 devil, and a hell of fire and brimstone, cannot but tend to 
 awaken fears in delicate organizations. Dr. Berg thinks that 
 all have sinned, and that if my doctrine of no remission of 
 the penalty of sin is true, Infidels must always be looking 
 forward to a fearful retribution in the world to come. The 
 inference is not well drawn, for there may be such a thing 
 as suffering the penalty in the present life. If a man will 
 continue to sin, he will suffer; but if he cease to sin and 
 amend his ways so as to bring them to conform with the 
 laws of his existence, he will be happy. 
 
 My opponent has read to you dreadful accounts of the last 
 moments of Paine, and Newport. But are they true? We 
 
THE BIBLE. 99 
 
 have no proof of it. Religions partisans do not always speak 
 the truth. Every reformer has been abused by the clergy. 
 The priests of his day, called Christ a blasphemer, a wine- 
 bibber, a child of the devil. Nor will the Doctor believe the 
 many stories told by the Catholic authors against Luther. Has 
 he good proof of these charges against Paine? They sounded 
 to me like slanders. Men do not often make formal speeches 
 to dying men, though they may write them. The author of 
 the account is evidently full of prejudice. For my part, I 
 never take the statement of a zealous protestant against a 
 catholic, or of a zealous catholic against a protestant. I am 
 no partisan of Thomas Paine, but I have read his works, and 
 convinced myself that what Bishop Watson and Simpson say 
 of them are gross misrepresentations, and often the veriest 
 falsehoods. If we could get the true story of Paine' s life 
 and death, we should doubtless find they have been more 
 foully misrepresented than his writings. It is well known 
 that there are persons who earn their living by* writing sto- 
 ries about the death-bed scenes of infidels and similar sub- 
 jects. There are large establishments who even keep such 
 persons under salary. So far as I have been able to read 
 the character of Paine, he was a lover of truth and virtue. 
 He attacked old errors with the determination and power of 
 a true reformer. It were folly to pretend that any human 
 being is free from imperfection ; but I would be false to my 
 own convictions, did I not declare that I consider Thomas 
 Paine one of the greatest benefactors of our race. (Time up. 
 Applause and hisses.) 
 
 Dr. Berg. — (Two rounds of enthusiastic applause.) 
 — It is sometimes well, when the smoke of the battle 
 has had time to clear aw r ay, to look at the results 
 which have been gained, before the contest is re- 
 newed, and I propose therefore, before proceeding to 
 the argument based on the internal evidences of the 
 inspiration of the Scriptures to sum up a few points 
 which have already been established. And first, let 
 me remark, that the truth of the Bible, its authority 
 as a divine revelation does not rest upon the ability 
 of any human advocate, to explain every thing which 
 may be found in its pages, so that all shall be patent 
 to human reason — for it is based not upon the wis- 
 dom of men, but upon the power of God. The mode 
 
100 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 pursued by my opponent is unphilosophical. Insu- 
 lated objections are secondary matters. They may 
 be considered after the overwhelming array of posi- 
 tive evidence has been investigated. 
 
 I have shown you that my opponent cannot tell you 
 the name of his God ; that he is compelled to quote 
 the very book which lie rejects, in order to give au- 
 thority to any precise knowledge of the Godhead of 
 a Supreme Being. The apostle in Romans, 1st chap., 
 uses the term Godhead, to denote the unity of the 
 Deity in opposition to the polytheism of the heathens. 
 I have shown you that the light of nature is insuffi- 
 cient to reveal many of Jehovah's attributes. With- 
 out the light of revelation, the works of nature and 
 of providence present a succession of enigmas which 
 no power of human science or philosophy can unravel. 
 I have shown you, that my opponent, without the aid 
 of this book, cannot even tell you why God has created 
 him ? He speaks of the immortality of the soul, but 
 how does he know this glorious attribute of man's 
 nature? Cicero did not know it. Plato did not 
 know it. Socrates did not know it. These sages of 
 heathenism hoped that it might be so, and yet Cicero 
 declared, that fondly as he hoped he might live even 
 after his body was entombed, the sight of death and 
 of the grave was enough to fill his heart with shud- 
 dering fear of annihilation. Reason may argue, but 
 it cannot dispel the gloom that hangs around the por- 
 tals of eternity. And then, should it be so, that the 
 soul is immortal, will it be happy or miserable, in 
 that world which stretches far beyond the tomb? 
 
 My opponent speaks of heaven, and tells you the 
 heathen had their heaven. True, they spoke of the 
 Elysian fields, but they were a paradise of shades, in 
 which gloomy ghosts flitted, without enjoyment equal 
 to that which this earth can offer. The heathen, I 
 may rejoin, believed, or supposed that there was a 
 hell also. Docs my opponent accept this doctrine on 
 the same ground? That sentiment which even they 
 found as a dictate of nature written in their inmost 
 hearts, declaring that retribution in another world. 
 
THE BIBLE. 101 
 
 was part of God's plan of moral government, infidels 
 usually scout. 
 
 My opponent has told us that the God whom in- 
 fidels honour is not a malignant being, and therefore 
 they can die in peace, and he has told us also, that 
 God never forgives sin. He has been at pains to 
 prove to you that infidels have no Saviour! I have 
 shown you how some of the leaders of infidel folly 
 have died — how they raved and trembled in anguish 
 which they themselves declared to be the torments of 
 damnation and despair, even before the spirit had 
 left the body. And now my opponent tells you, God 
 never forgives sin. Without atonement, he does not, 
 and this very fact written in nature and in providence, 
 that transgression is sure to be followed by the inflic- 
 tion of the appropriate penalty, proves, out of my op- 
 ponent's own mouth, that moral evil must, from the 
 same analogy, be followed by the operation of the 
 same law, and therefore the infidel, on his own ground, 
 is doomed to an eternal hell, because Gocl never for- 
 gives sin. Hear this, infidels ; remember it, your cham- 
 pion has proved there is a hell — an eternal hell, for 
 God never forgives sin. Blessed be God for the doc- 
 trine of salvation through the grace of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who has brought life and immortality, 
 out of the dark shades of heathen doubt and the 
 black midnight of infidel darkness into the glorious 
 light of the Sun of Righteousness! (Applause.) 
 
 My opponent quoted part of a hymn, and I am 
 sorry to say, grossly perverted it to suit his own pur- 
 poses. I will read the entire hymn, you will find it 
 in the Methodist Hymn Book, old edition, Hymn 201. 
 
 "Father, how wide thy glories shine! 
 
 How high thy wonders rise ! 
 Known through the earth by thousand signs, 
 
 By thousands through the skies : 
 Those mighty orbs proclaim thy power: 
 
 Their motions speak thy skill : 
 And on the wings of every hour 
 
 We read thy patience still. 
 
 " Part of thy name divinely stands 
 On all thy creatures writ ; 
 
102 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 They show the labour of thy hands, 
 
 Or impress of thy feet ! 
 But when we view thy strange design 
 
 To save rebellious worms, 
 Where vengeance and compassion join 
 
 In their divinest forms : 
 
 "Here the whole Deity is known, 
 
 Nor dares a creature guess, 
 Which of the glories brightest shone, 
 
 The justice or the grace ! 
 Now the full glories of the Lamb 
 
 Adorn the heavenly plains : 
 Bright seraphs learn Immanuel's name, 
 
 And try their choicest strains." 
 
 " may I bear some humble part 
 
 In that immortal song ! 
 Wonder and joy shall tune my heart, 
 
 And love command my tongue. 
 To Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
 
 Who sweetly all agree 
 To save a world of sinners lost 
 
 Eternal glory be. 
 
 "Part of thy name divinely stands 
 On all thy creatures writ, 
 They show the labour of thy hands 
 Or impress of thy feet!" 
 
 True ! but here — here in God's blessed book, 
 
 " Here the whole Deity is known, 
 Nor dares a creature guess, 
 Which of the glories brightest shone, 
 The justice or the grace ! " 
 
 Ah ! my opponent will find that the good old Me- 
 thodist Hymns will not sustain his theology now as 
 they once did ! (Applause.) 
 
 My opponent rejects the doctrine of atonement, 
 and yet he is continually speaking of the law of na- 
 ture as a guide to the heathen and a sufficient guide 
 to himself. Will he then accept as truth what the 
 heathen believed from natural instinct or reason? If 
 he does, he cannot discard the idea of atonement, for 
 the heathen felt that they needed sacrifices to ap- 
 pease their gods. But he does reject all idea of 
 atonement. He scoffs at it! Then, see, how my op- 
 
THE BIBLE. 103 
 
 ponent stands before you, a living witness of the utter 
 insufficiency of the light of nature as a guide to posi- 
 tive truth. Behold in himself, an argument for the 
 necessity of a divine, superhuman and supernatural 
 revelation, which like the voice of the Son of God, 
 on the sea of Galilee, may say to these conflicting 
 waves of doubt, " Peace, be still!" that in the soul, 
 the tumult of anxiety and dread may be hushed, and 
 there may be a great calm, the peace of God which 
 passeth all understanding, because the heart is stayed 
 on Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, who taketh away 
 the sins of the world 1 
 
 Thus, I have shown you, from my opponent's own 
 argument, the truth of the Bible declaration, that the 
 despisers of this book are without God and without 
 hope in the world. He may tell us, if he will, that 
 he has seen infidels die in calm contentment, and this 
 may be so, but what is that calmness, but the stupor 
 of a soul, whose vitality is destroyed — the torpor 
 of a conscience seared with a hot iron — the quiet of 
 strong delusion which God has sent as the penalty of 
 the perverse rejection of truth and the love of false- 
 hood, that in this delusion they may perish, who have 
 pleasure in unrighteousness ! The scornful manner in 
 which he speaks of justification by faith does not sur- . 
 prise me. The cross of Christ is to the Jew a stum- 
 bling-block, and to the Greek, foolishness, but surely 
 he knows, that the faith by which we profess to be 
 justified is one, which the Scriptures always represent 
 as associated with good works. True faith and holi- 
 ness are inseparable. But this is not the time for the 
 discussion of this doctrine; neither is the charge of 
 my opponent that the tendency of the Christian plan 
 of salvation is to licentiousness worthy of serious re- 
 futation, before a Christian community. How dare 
 my opponent bring such an accusation, when every 
 society of professing Christians who deserve the 
 name, teach with united voice, that faith without 
 works is dead ! ! (Applause.) 
 
 In accordance with the plan of the argument, which 
 I offered in the opening of this discussion, I should 
 
104 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 be naturally led to speak of the external evidences of 
 the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures ; but as the 
 internal evidences are named first in the order agreed 
 upon by preliminary arrangement, I shall proceed to 
 offer the proof which this department of the subject 
 offers, in rich profusion. 
 
 I may be permitted to remark, in relation to the 
 usual mode of argumentation pursued by those who 
 reject the Scriptures, that a far more logical, and, so 
 far as testimony is concerned, a far more rational and 
 satisfactory course would be, to refute positive evi- 
 dence, than to be continually occupying the negative. 
 My opponent would find in this enterprise something 
 worthy of the ability with which he deems himself 
 endowed. 
 
 In courts of justice, positive testimony from com- 
 petent witnesses, when substantiated by a chain of 
 circumstantial evidence, corroborating the details of 
 any transaction, is always regarded as proof, in the 
 face of any amount of negative testimony which an 
 opposite party may produce. The opponents of the 
 divine authority of the Scriptures are continually as- 
 suming the absurd position, that insulated objections 
 to a particular fact or facts, although repeatedly met, 
 are sufficient to set aside the very strongest unan- 
 swered evidence. This argues a foregone conclusion 
 on their part, to condemn the Bible, at all events. 
 Men might as rationally deny that the sun is set in 
 the heavens to give light and heat to the inhabitants 
 of this globe, because the telescope can descry spots 
 on its surface, as assert that the Bible does not pre- 
 sent credentials of its divine origin, because some 
 portions of it seem enveloped in obscurity. This fact 
 is no evidence that the Scriptures are a fraud. On 
 the contrary, I regard it as corroborative proof that 
 the Bible is from God. In the communications of the 
 infinite to the finite mind, some things may reasona- 
 bly be anticipated, that shall appear mysterious. 
 There are mysteries in nature ; and yet the pheno- 
 mena are none the less true, because they are unex- 
 plained. If I ask my opponent how the grass grows, 
 
THE BIBLE. 105 
 
 he cannot tell me; but he will not, therefore, deny 
 either its existence or its growth. In relation to ob- 
 jects cognizable by our senses, or to things which 
 depend upon the procedure of man in given circum- 
 stances, we can often reason with certainty ; but we 
 cannot do this when the question concerns the con- 
 duct or administration of God, because, in the latter 
 case, we lack the experience which we have in the 
 former. We have experience of man, but we have 
 not the same experience of God. On this ground, 
 some are disposed to attach less weight to the inter- 
 nal evidences of the divine authority of the Scrip- 
 tures, than to the external; and yet the fact is unde- 
 niable, that to the mass of Christian people, the 
 internal evidences of the inspiration of the Bible con- 
 stitute the foundation upon which their faith has 
 always rested. 
 
 All records, books, or documents — no matter when 
 or where they were written, or printed, or who their 
 authors may be — furnish, within themselves, evidence 
 more or less clear, of certain facts. This we call in- 
 ternal evidence, in opposition to the collateral, or 
 corroborative testimony, which constitutes external 
 evidence. Now, the internal evidence of the truth 
 of the Bible requires a careful study of its contents; 
 and in order to appreciate the force of this testimony, 
 a teachable, or at least an impartial state of mind is 
 indispensable. Unhappily for the opponents of the 
 Scriptures, they approach the consideration of this 
 subject in a spirit of prejudice and hostility ; and in 
 their experience, they furnish sad proof of the truth 
 of the declaration of Holy Writ, that such persons 
 wrest, or pervert the Scriptures to their own destruc- 
 tion. They enter upon the examination of this book, 
 not with an humble desire to know the truth, but, 
 with a foregone determination to cavil at its doc- 
 trines, its laws, and its institutions; and thus they 
 actually quench the light which beams from the candle 
 of the Lord, or rather, veil their eyes, so that they 
 are blind to all perception of the truth. 
 
 In presenting this part of the subject, we are in the 
 10 
 
106 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 position of one who is endeavouring to explain the 
 nature and effects of light to a man who is blind, and 
 who denies the existence of sun, moon, and stars, be- 
 cause he cannot see them. What are we to do in such 
 a case ? Our experience all goes for nothing, because 
 it differs from his own. He cannot see these things, 
 therefore he very absurdly argues, we cannot see 
 them. He will stand, winking and blinking at the 
 heavens, but he cannot see, and therefore he will not 
 believe. This perverse substitution of sight for faith 
 is fatal to every attempt which an infidel makes to 
 appreciate the Gospel. To talk of internal evidence 
 to him, is like descanting upon the melody of music 
 to a man who is deaf. His unbelief robs the soul of 
 its spiritual senses. 
 
 What avails it, that you bring in the testimony of 
 thousands, or of millions, in past ages, or of millions 
 at the present clay; or summon your witnesses from 
 "all quarters of the globe, his answer is still the same; 
 and he argues to the end of the chapter, "-My experience 
 differs from yours, and differs from theirs, and I can 
 discover nothing of the effects of which you speak, 
 therefore I deny their existence, except in your own 
 imagination.' 7 Here we have, again, his miserable 
 negative subterfuge, as an offset and an answer to all 
 the positive proof we can bring. 
 
 It matters not that we speak of the sublime sanc- 
 tity of the doctrines and the precepts of the Gospel, 
 or of its adaptation to the human constitution; its 
 moral fitness and beauty have no charms for him; its 
 astonishing power to penetrate and search the heart, 
 and affect the conscience; the practical holiness to 
 which it leads; its power to soothe and comfort in 
 the depths of sorrow; the peace, and joy, and love in 
 the Holy Ghost, which it diffuses — all these are foreign 
 to his experience. And, though constituting, to the 
 Christian mind, the very brightest links in the golden 
 chain that binds this book to the throne of God, the 
 infidel has no appreciation of them. To him, there- 
 fore, they are no evidence at oil ; but, rather, the 
 fond dreams of an amiable, though still foolish fana- 
 
THE BIBLE. 107 
 
 ticism. Here again the infidel's experience substan- 
 tiates the truth of the Scriptures. " The natural man 
 receiveth not the things of the Spirit, neither can 
 he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, 
 and therefore they are foolishness to hint." Thus the 
 faith of the Christian, and the unbelief of the infidel, 
 both confirm the truth of the Scriptures. There are, 
 however, certain indelible marks of divine origin 
 stamped upon the pages of this book, which ought to 
 convince every rational mind that God is its author. 
 Its revelation of the being and attributes of God 
 commends it to enlightened reason. And here we find 
 deists continually borrowing from the Bible the name 
 and attributes of the Supreme Being, whose existence 
 they acknowledge. Why do they believe in one God, 
 and not in many ? Why do they prefer the deism of 
 modern times to the polytheism of former ages? How 
 do they know there is only one God? They may 
 learn his power and wisdom from the works of na- 
 ture, I admit; but how have they discovered that he 
 is a God of mercy, of truth, of justice, or that he is 
 eternal, omnipotent, and immutable ? The light of 
 nature is not sufficient to establish these attributes. 
 If I look out into the world, I see sickness, pain, 
 sorrow, poverty, misery, death. I see streams of 
 sorrow and anguish flowing on every side, and min- 
 gling their bitter waters with every fountain of plea- 
 sure and enjoyment. Tell us, infidel, how do you 
 reconcile this fact with your ideas of divine mercy ? 
 I see one man oppressing his neighbour, growing 
 rich upon the spoils wrung from the hard hand of 
 honest poverty; I see the wicked spreading himself 
 in great power, like a green bay tree, whilst the good 
 man is often compelled to languish in temporal dis- 
 tress; pining sometimes in a dungeon, dying some- 
 times in disgrace ; yet you tell me, infidel, God is 
 just — then answer, how can these things be ? This 
 book makes all this plain; but if you reject it, the 
 most common moral phenomena are enigmas, which 
 neither you, nor all the soothsayers, and astrologers, 
 and magicians of infideldom can expound. 
 
108 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Let us have your explanation, if your wisdom can 
 furnish any. Do you tell us, that the knowledge of 
 these attributes of God was a simple discovery of 
 human reason? Then, perhaps, you will oblige us by 
 informing our ignorance on another point. How was 
 it, that the Jews were favoured with this knowledge, 
 whilst other nations, far in advance of the Israelites 
 in every department of human learning, were utterly 
 ignorant of these important truths ? These are in- 
 quiries which are altogether worthy of my opponent's 
 philosophy and science. He will gain some credit, if 
 he can solve these problems to the satisfaction of an 
 admiring public! He has an opportunity of making 
 an impression upon the rock of truth, which his former 
 coadjutors have in vain hammered with their little 
 mallets, in their puny efforts to subvert the founda- 
 tions of Christian faith. This will be something 
 better than seizing a geological fossil, and assailing 
 believers in the truths of the Bible, as though he 
 could rout them with this weapon as easily as Sam- 
 son slew the Philistines with the jaw-bone of an 
 ass ! (Time up. Dr. Berg took his seat amid long- 
 continued and hearty applause.) 
 
 Mr. Barker. — (Applause and a few sounds of h'sh.) I 
 once more request my friends not to give any outward signs 
 of approbation, or the contrary. Thus far this debate has 
 proceeded with a considerable degree of order, and I trust 
 that order and peace will reign to its close. 
 
 Dr. Berg thinks that I have not misquoted a Methodist 
 hymn, but made an unwarrantable use of one. I accompa- 
 nied my quotation with a statement expressly designed to 
 guard against any such construction as he has placed on it. 
 I quoted it with reference to the verse quoted from Romans, 
 to show that the word " Godhead" is equivalent to the word 
 " Deity," and embraces all the Divine attributes; and that 
 it is not used, as the Doctor says, merely to denote his unity 
 as distinguished from Polytheism. It is not the hymn, but 
 Paul, that thinks all the attributes of God can be learned 
 from nature. 
 
 The Doctor says that my course is unphilosophical, and 
 that I continue to deal in negations of secondary matters, 
 without regarding the overwhelming array of positive cvi- 
 
THE BIBLE. 109 
 
 dence he has produced to prove the divine origin of the Bi- 
 ble. I am not aware of any such overwhelming array; I 
 have not seen it. It is impossible that any evidence can be 
 furnished of the divine character of a book which contra- 
 dicts itself. 
 
 He says I cannot give him the name of the God I worship, 
 without borrowing from the Bible. Now, it is admitted that 
 in the book of Job, one of the oldest, and generally admitted 
 to be the work of a Pagan deist, are to be found the best 
 and noblest views of the character of God. (Explosion of 
 laughter, hisses, and contemptuous shouts.) My opponent 
 asks why the Jews had higher and better views of the Deity 
 than the Pagans around them? Let him first prove the fact. 
 Let him make a fair showing that tbe Jews did not borrow 
 many of their ideas from the Pagans around them. The 
 word "God" is not Hebrew, but plain Saxon. There are 
 many different names used in the Old Testament, each de- 
 rived apparently from a different source. The word usually 
 translated "God" is rather plural than singular, and may 
 mean many gods as well as one. And if the character of 
 God cannot be learned from nature, then the Scriptures are 
 false, for they say that it can. He asks hoio we can know 
 his glorious attributes of mercy, truth, justice and omnipre- 
 sence, except from the Bible? Why the Bible itself an- 
 swers how. It says that the heavens declare his glory. 
 (Explosion of shouts, contemptuous laughter, hisses, groans, 
 and cries of oh! oh!) 
 
 Dr. Berg. — Allow me, my friends, to request you to permit 
 the discussion to proceed. Let him say what he pleases, 
 and do not interrupt him unnecessarily. 
 
 Mr. Barker. — I hope that those who interrupted me can 
 justify themselves in the eyes of reason. If Dr. Berg says 
 we cannot learn the attributes of God, except from the pages 
 of the Bible, and the Bible contradicts him flatly, am I not to 
 be free to quote it? I was about to offer further proofs of 
 the same kind, but I abstain. 
 
 The Doctor says that reason and nature cannot reveal the 
 details of the existence beyond this world. Can he overlook 
 the fact that, on these very points, Christian sects are as 
 much in the dark as Infidels? The Catholic believes in 
 three worlds beyond the grave, the Universalist in one, and 
 though the Swedenborgians believe in two, these differ in 
 nearly every respect from those believed in by the orthodox 
 10* 
 
110 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 evangelicals. The particular views of the sects differ endlesslj 
 One believes that hell is a place of eternal torture with fire 
 and brimstone; another that sinners are only punished by 
 pangs of conscience. One believes in heaven as a place of 
 positive material enjoyment; and another that its happiness 
 is of a mystical and undefinable character. If the Bible 
 tells anything certain on these points, why are such various 
 views entertained? 
 
 He says that there is no Saviour outside the Bible. 
 Nothing of the kind. Each man has a saviour within him- 
 self. (Explosion of contemptuous laughter.') There is a 
 healing and recuperative energy in all nature. Wound a tree 
 once, and the sap will begin the healing process, the fibres 
 will reunite, and the bark grow over the spot. Wound the 
 flesh once, and it will get well. And so on when the soul is 
 wounded by one sin, if the man will sin no more, he will in 
 time recover his moral energy and happiness. But repeat 
 frequently the wounds, and the tree will die, the flesh will be 
 covered with ulcer and gangrene, and the soul will be de- 
 based and lost. The Doctor thinks that in this law of en- 
 durance of the natural results of our acts, there is no room 
 for forgiveness. No, but the law cries incessantly to the 
 sinner, Give up your transgression, amend your ways and 
 live! 
 
 He asks, Will I accept the doctrine of the atonement 
 because the heathen do who accept the guidance of rea- 
 son? No. It is not a fair inference that I should. Will 
 he accept the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, or the conclu- 
 sions of every sect professing Christianity ? And do not the 
 orthodox differ on ten thousand subjects? The Bible may 
 be unread, misread or misunderstood; and so may Nature. 
 Men may hold to the Bible, and, at the same time, to many 
 errors not taught in it; and so they may do with Nature. 
 Besides, have the heathen ever taken Nature as a guide ? 
 Give us a proof that there were not priests who held them 
 in spiritual bondage. Prove to us there were not classes of 
 persons interested to forge superstitions for the masses of the 
 people. If the works of God had been consulted in their 
 teachings, the heathen would have known more of him, for 
 every year is a fresh revelation. (Applause and hisses.) 
 
 He asks whether I will deny the light and heat of the sun 
 because there are spots upon its surface? No; but if he says 
 there are no spots, his assertion cannot stand against the 
 
THE BIBLE. Ill 
 
 fact. And so of the Bible; the men who wrote it had clear 
 views on many subjects, and imperfect and erroneous ones on 
 many others; if he tells us it is pure, and we find it not so, what 
 then? Shall we believe it was dictated by the Supreme Being 
 when we find it not only full of errors, but containing flat con- 
 tradictions, gross immoralities and blasphemy. (Violent ex- 
 plosion of hisses, cries of f air-play, go on, hear both sides, &c> 
 &c.) He says we approach the study of the Bible with hearts 
 full of prejudice and hostility. Can he read our hearts? Has 
 he no prejudice? And mark you this! if the Bible was of 
 God, would it not overcome our prejudices? Surely, those 
 who do not believe are the ones to be converted. Is the Bible 
 good for nothing but to persuade those who already believe? 
 And mark you this also ! most of the unbelievers of the pre- 
 sent day were brought up as Christians; all the prejudices of 
 their education, and all their interests are on the side of the 
 Bible. If they desert the common belief, they risk all. They 
 doubt reluctantly, struggle against their new convictions, and 
 yield only when conquered by an irresistible mass of evidence. 
 (Applause.) They become unbelievers in spite of reputation ; 
 they risk their pecuniary interests, they are ridiculed, scoffed 
 at, persecuted, sometimes mobbed, and in some countries, in 
 dauger of being burnt at the stake. Generally, they are of 
 enlightened, intelligent, and investigating minds, and are 
 forced to their conclusions by unanswerable proofs. (Ap- 
 plause and hisses.) 
 
 The Doctor says that we are blind, and that the sun is on 
 his side. That is the matter under discussion. We claim it is 
 on our side. But let both sides be fully spoken, and our 
 firm trust is that the mightiest will prevail. (Applause.) 
 He says that offering to infidels internal evidence of the Di- 
 vine origin of the Scriptures is like offering light to the blind. 
 Of what use, then, is the Bible ? If it can't enlighten infidels, 
 who are the only ones that need it, what is it good for? Is 
 it good only for Christians? Will he give a candle to those 
 who have the sun already? (Slight applause.) 
 
 He speaks of the consolations, joys, peace, and raptures 
 of the Christian in communing with God. Is he not aware 
 that these raptures are enjoyed by Pagans also? that they, 
 too, can commune with God ? But no Pagan believes in the 
 black and terrible hell of the Bible. They smile when mis- 
 sionaries tell them of a hell of fire and brimstone, and say, 
 "The people in your country may deserve that, but we are 
 
112 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 sure we do not." They think it a monstrous idea that a good 
 Father should reserve his children for so frightful a fate. 
 And it is monstrous to say that the God of heaven would do 
 this. The doctrine of predestination, which makes God de- 
 cree a few to happiness, and the rest to eternal pain and tor- 
 ment, cannot be matched for horror and blasphemy by any 
 notion to be found in the Pagan world. (A storm of hisses 
 and applause.) 
 
 The doctrine that that which is wrong here will be righted 
 in the future state is injurious in its tendency. God rights 
 matters here as well as there. Men reap what they sow. 
 There are a few men who are beginning to believe that the 
 despot has not, after all, much the advantage of his victim; 
 that the wronged suffer less than the wronger ; and that it is 
 far better to suffer an injury than wilfully to inflict one. 
 (General applause.) 
 
 My opponent charges the Deists with borrowing from the 
 Bible. It owes more to them, than they to it. Who forced 
 the clergy to put upon the Old Testament a higher and bet- 
 ter meaning? The Deists. Who forced them to insert a 
 little geological truth into their interpretations of Genesis ? 
 The Deists. And so it is always; men of science, reasoners 
 and philosophers gather the truths revealed by the works of 
 nature, the priests resist them as long as possible, and when 
 they can no longer do so, they seize the new views, cram them 
 into the Bible, and pretend they were always there. (Mingled 
 laughter, applause, hisses and h'sh.~) Do we obtain from the 
 Bible our notions of justice, when we find God represented as 
 destroying a nation for an offence committed 450 years before, 
 by its ancestors ; when we find seven men hung up before 
 the Lord, for an act committed long before, by their father? 
 
 Strange indeed, that prejudice should be strong enough 
 to maintain a position so absurd ! But we remember the day 
 when we were equally blind, and can pity those who are 
 under this delusion. (Laughter and hisses.) 
 
 We are told that the purity of the doctrines of the Bible 
 proves it to be of divine origin. Then you must first prove 
 they are pure. The only way to do this, is first to ascertain 
 what is pure, and then see if the Bible harmonizes with that. 
 But theologians tell us we cannot know what is pure without 
 the Bible. That is, to prove it true, we must assume it to be 
 true. And so with the narrative. If we say that geological 
 truths impugn the Scripture account of creation, we are told 
 
THE BIBLE. 113 
 
 that we must take that account for granted, because it is of 
 superhuman revelation. 
 
 There is much matter in the Bible that cannot be divine. 
 Take some of its ideas on government. They are such as 
 can meet with the full sympathy of none but the worst of 
 mankind. I read from the 18th chapter of Komans: 
 
 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for 
 there is no power but of God; the powers that be are or- 
 dained of G-od. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power 
 resisteth the ordinance of God : and they that resist shall 
 receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a ter- 
 ror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou, then, not be 
 afraid of the power ? Do that which is good, and thou shalt 
 have praise of the same : for he is the minister of God to 
 thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; 
 for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister 
 of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth 
 evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for 
 wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause, pay ye 
 tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending con- 
 tinually upon this very thing." — Komans xiii. 1-6. 
 
 Adam Clark says, that this means that a man must obey 
 every government under which he lives. No matter whether 
 it be British, or Prussian, or Austrian. Are despots ordained 
 of God? Are all rulers a terror to evil works? Have not 
 most of them persecuted every true reformer? Go into Italy 
 and do good, and see whether you will "have praise of the 
 same." Have Kossuth and Mazzini, in their noble efforts to 
 redeem their respective countries from thraldom? — (Cries of 
 time up. — Mr. Barker sat down, the audience maintaining 
 silence.) 
 
 Dr. Berg: [General applause, a few hisses, fol- 
 lowed by a second round of enthusiastic applause.] 
 
 Mr. Chambers: I hope that the Doctor's friends 
 will not occupy his time. 
 
 Dr. Berg: If those on the other side want to hiss, 
 let them go ahead. They will not annoy me in the 
 least. 
 
 It is hardly to be expected that I should notice the 
 speech of my opponent, as though given us as sober 
 argument. He is certainly gifted with wonderful 
 powers of sophistry. I have heard many sophisms 
 
114 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 in my time, but I never heard any so palpable. Some 
 parts of his speech sounded to me as if presented in 
 joke. (Cries of question, question.) In what I said 
 about the passage in Romans, I meant to call attention 
 to the fact, that the word " Godhead " is used to denote 
 the unity of God, in contradistinction to polytheism, 
 and does not include all his attributes. In his quota- 
 tion of the hymn he left out the part which speaks of 
 the "whole Deity/ 7 as revealed in his word. 
 
 He spoke of the doctrine taught in Romans xiii., 
 in regard to rulers. I do not understand that pas- 
 sage as sanctioning all rulers and governments, but 
 as pointing out what rulers and governments should 
 be. It means that Christians can righteously obey 
 rulers that govern well, and honour those who are a 
 terror to evil doers. Are not such rulers entitled to 
 respect and confidence? Why should they not be 
 obeyed? Why should we rebel against those who 
 execute wrath only upon them that do evil? 
 
 I wish to run over some of the arguments on the 
 internal evidence, this evening, so that I may be able 
 to present my respects to what my opponent has said 
 of Noah's Ark. 
 
 I assert, without fear of successful contradiction, 
 there is not now in all the world, an individual who 
 believes in one all-perfect God, who is not indebted for 
 the knowledge of this truth, either directly or indi- 
 rectly, to the Bible. There is no other representation 
 of the character of God that will bear the test of 
 reason; and though I maintain there are many things 
 revealed concerning God, the discovery of which is, 
 from their nature, beyond the power of reason, there 
 is nothing in this book, touching the character or the 
 dealings of God, that is contrary to sound reason. 
 
 Sometimes the Scriptures represent Jehovah as 
 having the organs and the passions of a human being; 
 but all these expressions are evidently employed to 
 accommodate the truth to a human understanding. 
 The language of men is too feeble to express ade- 
 quately either the attributes or the operations of 
 God. His essence, his mode of existence and action, 
 
THE BIBLE, 115 
 
 are, from their nature, infinitely above our concep- 
 tions. If the language, therefore, in which we speak 
 of him, is to be at all adapted to human comprehen- 
 sion, we are compelled to form our ideas of his per- 
 fections and operations, with some reference to the 
 faculties and operations of the human mind. This 
 necessity of accommodation extends, not merely to 
 the use of words, which may literally denote bodily 
 organs, or human passions, but it applies also to 
 the operations of the Divine will and intellect. 
 
 Infidels abuse this very condescension of God to 
 human weakness, in order to tarnish and blaspheme 
 his character! If any mystery hangs around a doc- 
 trine of the Scriptures, they scorn it, because it is 
 unintelligible; but when a truth is made plain, even 
 to their apprehension, they discard it, because it is so 
 simple as to be unworthy of a Divine author; or they 
 cry out, "There is a contradiction here" because the 
 emotions of human passion are ascribed to the Deity. 
 Oh! if the unbeliever could begin, even in his blind- 
 ness, to lay hold of the Word of Life, with any feeling 
 of desire, however faint, to know whether this book 
 is of God, it would grow upon him with a gentle, yet 
 mighty power, until his very darkness would be made 
 light. 
 
 There is a majesty and power in the very enuncia- 
 tions of the doctrines and precepts of this book, which 
 place it immeasurably above every other volume of 
 which we have any knowledge. It stands alone. No 
 other book is like it. Men feel, almost intuitively, 
 that it is pervaded by a Divine intelligence. There 
 is a gravity, a concentration, a solemnity, an earnest- 
 ness, an indescribable dignity, which impress the 
 heart that has not been trained in unbelief with a 
 feeling that its utterances are divine, and that He 
 who speaks has, above all other beings, a right to be 
 heard. It teaches with authority, and not like the 
 scribes of the world. Take it as it is, the Bible is a 
 wonder ; and the idea that this book is simply an 
 elaboration of unaided human intelligence, involves 
 an amount of credulity to which no parallel can be 
 
116 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 found, except in the monstrous absurdities of atheis- 
 tical folly. The more closely we scan its contents, 
 the more firmly will this conviction be fastened upon 
 the mind. 
 
 We find in it no less than sixty-six separate books, 
 some of which are the most ancient writings on re- 
 cord. Every department of knowledge is embraced 
 in its contents. Not a subject in the whole circle of 
 the sciences can be named, to which some allusion is 
 not made. History, government, laws, institutions, 
 manners, customs, morals, religion, philosophy, bio- 
 graphy, poetry — every thing that pertains, within 
 the compass of human society, and the best interests 
 of the race, is noticed; and when discussed, every 
 subject is presented with a clearness and precision, 
 and with a power and truthfulness, utterly inexplica- 
 ble, on the supposition that it is pervaded merely by 
 a human intelligence. 
 
 The principal writers who were engaged in these 
 compositions may number some thirty persons ; and 
 they, again, are from every station and position in 
 life. Kings, priests, judges, rulers in a free republic, 
 generals, citizens, scholars, artisans, farmers, shep- 
 herds, fishermen, tax-gatherers; endowed with every 
 diversity of temperament; of every time of life, from 
 youth to old age ; of every degree of mental cultiva- 
 tion, from unlettered simplicity to attainments in 
 literature and science the most astonishing; of every 
 condition, from abject poverty to abounding affluence, 
 are found in the catalogue of inspired penmen. And 
 yet, with all this diversity, though their writings ex- 
 tend through a period of sixteen centuries or more, 
 and treat upon this vast range of subjects, such is the 
 character of these books and treatises, that the fiercest 
 scrutiny, continued for more than seventeen centu- 
 ries, since the last of the writers died ; a scrutiny the 
 most searching, unsparing, and bitter, the history of 
 literature has ever witnessed ; a scrutiny which lias 
 claimed every advantage, and conceded none; such, I 
 say, is the character of these writings, that although 
 subjected to this ordeal, without a parallel in the his- 
 
THE BIBLE. 117 
 
 tory of literature, not a solitary solecism, not a single 
 real discrepance of fact, of principle, of moral doc- 
 trine, or precept, or religious opinion, can be found 
 in any one, or in all of them put together. They 
 agree ! Their agreement, moreover, is of the very 
 kind that forbids the imputation of collusion. They 
 maintain substantial agreement amid circumstantial 
 variety, without a single contradiction, all the alle- 
 gations of infidels to the contrary, notwithstanding. 
 They thus present the evidence, which, according to 
 the highest judicial decisions of Europe and America, 
 is acknowledged to be the best criterion of truth — 
 "Substantial agreement under circumstantial vari- 
 ety.' 7 One writer, in narrating the same transaction 
 which another has described, will introduce circum- 
 stances which the other has omitted, without in any 
 single instance invalidating the concurrent testimony 
 respecting any fact, or event, which may be the sub- 
 ject of notice. 
 
 Nor is this all. Since their day, science has made 
 large discoveries touching the physical laws which 
 control the universe; and yet these early records, 
 when contrasted with the latest elaborations of scien- 
 tific truth, are still in harmony with the brightest 
 trophies of human intellect. And more than this, and 
 I may say, more than all, every one of them stands 
 forth with the indelible stamp of those sublime en- 
 dowments, that awful intelligence and superhuman 
 insight, which, on the supposition that they spoke and 
 wrote merely under the promptings of a human spirit, 
 are absolutely incomprehensible. 
 
 Infidels have been found, so stultified by atheistic 
 blindness, as to speak with disparagement and con- 
 tempt of those portions of the Scriptures, which, for 
 grandeur of thought and expression, are inimitable; 
 and which, in every age since the publication of the 
 sacred canon, have furnished the brightest gems that 
 grace the loftiest conceptions of the orator and poet. 
 The Book of Job, of Psalms, or of Proverbs, would 
 have been sufficient, merely on the ground of literary 
 merit, to have immortalized the age which produced 
 11 
 
118 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 it. Take the Book of Psalms alone, which infidels 
 are in the habit of deriding, as a compilation of the 
 religious odes of a barbarous people, and is it not a 
 marvellous thing, that such a people, with a language 
 so narrow, should have been able, despite these dis- 
 advantages, to give expression to truths the most 
 abstract and exalted that can excite or control reli- 
 gious emotions, in a style which the genius of men, 
 before and since, has never been able to equal, or 
 even approach ! 
 
 Then, look again at the clear insight into the work- 
 ings .of the human heart, and the springs controlling- 
 human conduct, revealed in the very earliest of these 
 records. They express the sum of all human expe- 
 rience more accurately than the wisest of men can 
 describe it now, after the lapse of so many ages of 
 progress and observation. That which we are only 
 beginning now to understand, was clearly and dis- 
 tinctly understood, ages before the researches of mo- 
 dern science began; and the more we ascertain of the 
 actual state of the universe, the more are we struck with 
 the truth, that the absolute results of all knowledge are 
 assumed by these writers as admitted axioms, rather 
 than theories to be proved, or problems to be solved. 
 The more we learn, the more are we persuaded that 
 they knew more of these very truths than we are yet 
 able to comprehend. They utter them, too, in a style 
 which shows that they speak not of the results of 
 their own observation or scrutiny, but that they are 
 publishing truths revealed by a higher intelligence. 
 This is a fact of vast significance. If ever infidelity 
 has been put to utter confusion, it is when assailing 
 the Bible on the ground of the discoveries of science. 
 Upon this point, I shall have occasion to speak more 
 in detail, when the subject presents itself in its proper 
 place. I merely allude to it now. The fact is impor- 
 tant in its relation to the weight of internal evidence, 
 which proves the divine origin of this book. 
 
 Smatterers in science are sometimes infidels, and 
 they imagine that their unbelief is a mark of vastly 
 superior wisdom and intelligence; but as knowledge 
 
THE BIBLE. 119 
 
 advances, every single positive attainment of truth 
 has revealed another bright star in the galaxy of con- 
 stellations which pour the light of corroborative evi- 
 dence upon the truth of this sacred book. The boasts 
 of infidel science, and the vaunted discoveries which 
 it has claimed in support of its poor negations, have 
 been, in every instance, progressively overthrown ; 
 and the arguments of the opponents of revelation 
 have been overwhelmed in the wreck of their own 
 fabric, buried under the rubbish of their own gather- 
 ing, and consigned to the dust and infamy of merited 
 contempt. 
 
 Another point, worthy of special attention, in dis- 
 cussing the internal evidences of the authority of the 
 Scriptures, is the universal belief in the superinten- 
 dence of a divine and all-controlling providence. 
 This doctrine is almost as widely diffused as the be- 
 lief in the existence of a God. The Scriptures teach 
 this truth with the utmost plainness: they declare 
 the principles of God's moral government, and the 
 whole course of history confirms their statement; so 
 that the providence and the word of God are in con- 
 stant harmony. The great and eternal truths upon 
 which his providence rests are set forth in his word, 
 and in that word only. Here we have the general 
 laws of the dirine government proclaimed with a 
 precision which is utterly inexplicable on any other 
 supposition than this, that the Bible is a revelation 
 of God's counsels. 
 
 If the keenest created intellect were in possession 
 of all the facts of history, during the long succession 
 of centuries, from the birth-day of this globe to the 
 present day, the grand results of the world's expe- 
 rience could not be set down in abstract propositions, 
 so clearly as these laws were stated in God's book, 
 whilst the dew of the world's youth was still fresh 
 upon it. 
 
 After all the experience gained from the develop- 
 ments of Providence, during the cycles of nearly six 
 thousand years, we see only dimly what was clearly 
 revealed, and firmly fixed in the mind that guided 
 the pens by which these living oracles were traced. 
 
120 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Leaving this train of general remark, let us fix our 
 attention upon the central object of this revelation, 
 Jesus of Nazareth. And if we gain any thing ap- 
 proaching to an adequate idea of his character, the 
 mind of the infidel must be more beclouded, and his 
 heart must be harder than that of the centurion at 
 the cross, if he does not exclaim, with the Roman — 
 "Truly, this was the Son of God!" 
 
 I had hoped to complete what I had to say on this 
 head, but it would take me twenty minutes more. I 
 have two or three minutes, which I will devote to my 
 opponent's account of the creation. Where he got 
 his knowledge, I know not. If he knows all about 
 it, he is the wisest man that I ever heard of. [Laugh- 
 ter.] Let us inquire what the Bible really says about 
 it — not how this infidel interprets its language. If 
 any one imagines that the Bible says the world is 
 just five thousand eight hundred and fifty years old, 
 he is grievously mistaken. It says: 
 
 " In the beginning God created the heaven and the 
 earth." 
 
 Will he be good enough to tell us when this begin- 
 ning was? [Loud applause.] 
 
 "And the earth was without form and void ; and 
 darkness was on the face of the deep : and the Spirit 
 of God moved upon the face of the waters." 
 
 Will he tell us how long the earth was without 
 form, and void? Will he tell us how long darkness 
 was upon the face of the deep? [Laughter.] 
 
 "And God said, Let there be light; and there was 
 light." 
 
 Will he tell us how long this darkness brooded 
 upon the face of the deep, until God said, "Let there 
 be light, and light was?" (Applause.) Geology brings 
 to light the truth that the first animals on the globe 
 were aquatic; thus confirming the fact asserted by 
 the Scriptures. Now mark this fact — that the matter 
 of which the earth was formed was originally in a 
 semi-fluid state. 
 
 [Time expired. Loud and long applause. The 
 audience then dispersed quietly.] 
 
THE BIBLE. 121 
 
 Fifth Evening— -.Monday, January IZth. 
 
 [At six o'clock, the Hall was nearly full. The people 
 were quiet and orderly, being evidently inclined to leave the 
 debate to the champions. Seven o'clock.] 
 
 Moderator Illman. I would beg leave to say one or two 
 words before the debate commences. The moderators have 
 received several anonymous letters complaining that they do 
 not preserve order. Indeed, a lady remarked that she could 
 not see what use we were of. These persons are not aware 
 of the scrupulous manner in which we inspect our watches 
 to see that neither speaker gains the most infinitesimal part 
 of a minute. "We can only appeal to that generosity which 
 belongs to the American character, to give us a candid and 
 impartial hearing. All we ask is that you comply with the 
 Doctor's request: "Be aisy, and if you can't be aisy ; be as 
 aisy as you can/' 
 
 Mr. Barker. (Profound silence.) It seems necessary 
 to state once more what is the point under discussion, and 
 what is not. 
 
 1. The question then, at present under discussion, is the 
 origin of the Bible. Our opponent says it is of divine ori- 
 gin; we contend it is of human origin. This is all we con- 
 tend for at present. Mark, we do not contend that the Bible 
 is wholly false or evil, but simply that it is imperfect, — of a 
 mixed character, partly true and partly false, — partly good 
 and partly bad, like other human books. To prove that it 
 is of divine origin, that it is inspired, in the orthodox sense 
 of the word, the book must be proved to be all true, all good, 
 without mixture of evil. On the contrary, to prove that it 
 is of human origin, it is enough to prove that its contents 
 are of a mixed character. 
 
 2. "We have no wish to destroy the Bible or to prevent 
 people from reading it; we simply wish to show men that 
 the book is not of divine authority; that they are not to be- 
 lieve what it says unless it looks like truth j or to do what 
 it bids them, unless they think it would be best to do so. 
 We wish them to know that they have a right and that it is 
 proper, and that it is necessary that they should use the same 
 liberty with the Bible that they do with the works of Newton, 
 Locke, Milton, Dryden, Pope, Webster, taking all that looks 
 like truth and that favours goodness, and leaving all that 
 looks like falsehood or that seems to favour evil. 
 
 3. We have no wish to destroy the Bible anv more than 
 
 11* 
 
122 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 we wish to destroy the Koran, or the Greek and Roman 
 classics; we would have them all preserved. They are in- 
 teresting and useful. They reveal to us the thoughts, the 
 customs, the characters of past generations. They show us 
 where the race of man once stood in politics, religion, phi- 
 losophy and manners, and thus afford us an opportunity of 
 comparing the world as it is now with the world as it was 
 long ago, and of finding out what progress it has made. 
 Even the errors and follies, the crimes and cruelties, the im- 
 pieties and blasphemies, the immoralities and obscenities, the 
 contradictions and inconsistencies, the fables and the forge- 
 ries of those ancient books, are all of use, when regarded 
 simply as monuments of antiquity, as revelations- — not of the 
 mind and will of God — but of the ignorance, and rudeness, 
 and depravity of childish, savage, or half-barbarous times. 
 
 4. But those ancient books have much in them that is 
 beautiful, tender, good. They have touching stories, beauti- 
 ful fables, excellent poetry, noble sentiments, powerful elo- 
 quence, calculated to arouse and excite the mind, and pro- 
 mote our intellectual and moral developement. The man 
 who regards the Bible as a human production, may read it 
 with as much pleasure, and study it with as much profit, as he 
 who regards it as a divine production. Nay, more. He can 
 take all the good, and yet feel free to reject the bad. He 
 can admire and love the beautiful, without feeling obliged to 
 forge new rules of interpretation, and do violence to his com- 
 mon sense and conscience, in order to explain away the false, 
 the foolish, the immoral, and the blasphemous portions, nay, 
 to reconcile historical, theological, and moral contradictions. 
 
 5. Our opponents say we reject the divine authority of 
 the Bible because its doctrines and its precepts are so de- 
 cidedly against all vicious indulgences. The contrary, how- 
 ever, is the truth. One of the reasons why we reject the 
 divine authority of the Bible is, that its doctrines and pre- 
 cepts are too favourable to evil. If we wished to lie, and 
 steal, and commit murder, or to kidnap and enslave our fel- 
 low men, ay, to have a plurality of wives and a number of 
 concubines, and justify ourselves in doing so, where could 
 we find a book better suited to our purpose than the book 
 which tells us that the men who indulged in all those vices 
 were the friends of God, men after God's own heart, and de- 
 clared by God himself to be the best and wisest men that 
 ever lived ? No, friends, the morality of the Bible is too lax. 
 Even the morality of the New Testament, though often un- 
 natural and extravagant, is not so strict, so pure, so perfect, 
 
THE BIBLE. 123 
 
 as it should be. — The morality of the New Testament, and 
 even portions of the Old Testament, is better, purer, far 
 better and purer, than the morality of the orthodox priest- 
 hoods and churches of the day, whether Popish or Protes- 
 taut; but it is not half so pure, so perfect as the morality of 
 humanity, — the morality of what is foolishly and falsely called 
 Infidelity. Our morality- — our law allows no crime — tolerates 
 no neglect of duty — provides for us no indulgences, no substi- 
 tutionary victim, no borrowed garments of another's righteous- 
 ness. It requires unchanging fidelity to duty, or compels us 
 to endure the penalty in full, without the least abatement. 
 
 We say the morality of certain portions of the Bible is 
 better than the morality of the orthodox churches and priest- 
 hoods. We go further. In some of the Psalms and some 
 of the Proverbs; in portions of the book of Job, and in the 
 writings of some of the prophets, we meet with passages so 
 beautiful, so pure, so tender, and some so full of the spirit of 
 humanity and philanthropy, that to admire them too much, 
 or to prize them too highly, seems almost impossible. Happy 
 would it be for the world if the churches and priesthoods 
 would read and study them, and begin to reduce them to 
 practice. In the G-ospels and the Epistles too we find passages 
 on charity and beneficence, on temperance and purity, on the 
 subjugation of the animal part of our nature to the intel- 
 lectual and the moral — passages on the duty of employing 
 our talents and resources for the good of our fellow men — - 
 and on our obligations to live and labour for the regeneration 
 and salvation of our race, which, when favoured with that 
 liberal interpretation which the enlightened philanthropy 
 of modern heresy sometimes gives them, are really excellent. 
 We find much, also, in the examples of Jesus and Paul, and 
 some of their early followers, as presented in portions of the 
 New Testament, well worthy of admiration and imitation. 
 All these things we prize and cherish. We wish both to 
 practise them ourselves and to bring all others to practise 
 them. But when you have brought together every beautiful 
 and valuable passage in the whole book, you have nothing 
 like a perfect rule of life. You must look elsewhere if you 
 want to be furnished to every good work. You must study 
 the human system — you must read the laws which are -tf rit- 
 ten on your organization, and the laws inscribed on the w orld 
 around you, if you would learn your duty fully. In short, 
 you must know the laws of your own being, and understand 
 your relations to your fellow creatures and to the world of 
 
124 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 things around you, if you would either know in which way 
 you ought to go, or be supplied with sufficiently powerful 
 motives to induce you to work in that way. 
 
 Besides, the good parts of the Bible are so mixed up with 
 inferior materials — the moral sentiments are so blended with 
 low and selfish, with superstitious and unnatural, with illibe- 
 ral and cruel, with blasphemous and inhuman doctrines, and 
 so obscured with bad examples and immoral fables, that it 
 requires a man of superior intelligence and moral powers to 
 separate the good from the bad. 
 
 We have, however, no more sympathy with the pretended 
 rationalist, who quarrels with the Bible on account of the 
 good that is in it, than we have with the proud pretenders 
 to superior piety, who make use of the Bible as a means of 
 blinding, and misleading their brethren, and of raising them- 
 selves to wealth and power, at the expense of their less crafty 
 and more credulous neighbours. 
 
 We have shown that though the Bible contains much that 
 is good, there is nothing in it to prove that any portion of it 
 is of superhuman origin; much less is there any thing in 
 the Bible to prove the whole of the book divine. Even the 
 best parts are no more than the natural utterances of the hu- 
 man heart; while other parts bear marks of having come 
 from rude, uncultivated, ignorant, and barbarous portions of 
 our race. 
 
 We have shown that all Bibles in existence, whether called 
 translations or originals, whether printed or manuscript, 
 abound with contradictions, immoralities, blasphemies, and 
 faults and errors of every kind. 
 
 We have shown that the Bible in common use, and it is 
 as good as the Greek and Hebrew Bibles, and in some re- 
 spects much better, attributes to God the weakness and im- 
 perfections of humanity. 
 
 That it charges him with infinite injustice, and with hor- 
 rible cruelties. 
 
 That it represents him as the patron of vice, and the spe- 
 cial friend of enormous, prodigious criminals. 
 
 That it sanctions the grossest and most atrocious crimes, 
 such as lying, theft, and murder; adultery, polygamy, and 
 concubinage; kidnapping, slaveholding, and retail and whole- 
 sale slaughter; the slaughter of the innocent; the slaughter 
 of helpless women and children; the slaughter at one time 
 of thousands and tens of thousands of mothers and their chil- 
 dren in cold blood. We have shown that it sanctions every 
 
THE BIBLE. 125 
 
 form of despotism, both in the State, the Church, and the fa- 
 mily. We have shown that it abounds in contradictions; 
 contradictions in theology; contradictions in morals; con- 
 tradictions in history; contradictions of the most palpable 
 and irreconcilable character. T\ r e have shown that it tells 
 the most foolish stories, gives the most unphilosophical and 
 childish accounts of the creation, and the early history of our 
 race; and we may add, now, that there is no kind of error 
 or defect, to which the literary productions of men are liable, 
 which may not be found in the Bible. It has errors of style, 
 and errors of sentiment. It has errors in grammar, errors 
 in rhetoric, errors in logic. It has geological and astro- 
 nomical errors, meteorological and geographical errors; his- 
 torical and biographical errors; errors, botanical and zoologi- 
 cal; [hisses and continuous laughter,] chemical and physio- 
 logical; chronological and arithmetical; [renewed hisses,] 
 medical, moral, and prophetical. [Hisses.] 
 
 Every charge which we have made in former speeches we 
 have proved by unanswered and unanswerable arguments. 
 (Storm of hisses; cries of fair play; moderator, let him go 
 on.) I suppose none of you think your hisses and cries are 
 any answer to my arguments. The answer must come from 
 my opponent. (Kenewed hisses.) 
 
 Moderator Illman. — All we ask of you, gentlemen, is to 
 grant us an impartial hearing. 
 
 Moderator Chambers. — I do beseech the audience to grant 
 what they ask — (leave him in the hands of Dr. Berg.) 
 
 Mr. Barker. — Not one of our statements has been re- 
 futed; not one of our objections has been obviated. No 
 answer can be given to our arguments, which would not 
 as easily justify any other book, however bad or obscure. 
 There is no book that I have ever had the opportunity of 
 seeing, that contains any thing worse than what is to be 
 found in the Bible. There is no book, — 
 
 1. That contains more glaring or more palpable contradic- 
 tions. 
 
 2. There is none that contains more blasphemous repre- 
 sentations of God. 
 
 3. There is none that contains things more indecent or 
 obscene. 
 
 4. There is no book that contains things more unphilo- 
 sophical. 
 
 5. There is no book that contains more immoral doctrines 
 and examples. 
 
126 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 6. There is none that contains more foolish or childish 
 precepts and stories. 
 
 So that if it can be justified, any other book can. 
 
 Our opponent has given you a discourse on the internal 
 evidence of the Bible — but he has not even defined what is 
 internal evidence. Nor did he offer any proof of his strong- 
 est assertions. He says that the style is unequalled in lite- 
 rature. A bare assertion ; but suppose it were, that would 
 not prove it divine. He says he has proved its statements 
 to be in harmony with all the discoveries of modern science ! 
 but we do not remember having heard him prove it. Sup- 
 pose he had, that would not prove it to be more divine than 
 any standard work on science. He says that the laws of Di- 
 vine Providence, by which the world is governed, are given 
 in the Bible with a precision unequalled. We, however, 
 cannot find them in the Bible at all, and if they were, it 
 would not prove the divinity of the book. The Doctor, as 
 advocate of the divine origin of the book, has his whole work 
 to begin over again. 
 
 There are a few things in the Dr.'s speeches which I would 
 notice. 
 
 He says that the seven sons of Saul were hung up by way 
 of righteous retribution for the murder committed by their 
 father. Strange retribution, to execute one man for the crime 
 of another ! Suppose that our government should act upon this 
 principle, and permit thieves and murderers to escape with im- 
 punity, and after they were dead, should hang up their inno- 
 cent sons and grand-sons ! Should we call it righteous retri- 
 bution then? What a perversion of the moral sense there 
 must be to attribute such atrocities to the Divine Being! 
 But the Dr. tells us that God is sovereign and can do as he 
 pleases. We do not deny it, but a sovereign has no more 
 right to do wrong than other people. He cannot abuse his 
 power, and commit atrocities at pleasure. But the same 
 principle is carried out in nature, we are told. 
 
 The sins of the drunkard and sensualist are entailed in 
 disease upon their posterity. Yes, but is God answerable 
 for the doings of drunkards and sensualists ? It is blasphemy 
 to charge them upon God. As well may we charge him with 
 the sins of all men. The drunkard is as really the cause of 
 the disease which he transmits to his children as the mur- 
 derer is the cause of the death of his victim. The crime 
 does not cease to be mine because I commit it on a babe be- 
 
THE BIBLE. 127 
 
 fore it is born. Give God the credit of his beneficent laws, 
 but do not charge Him with men's violations of those laws. 
 
 The Dr. says God's ways will not square with our ideas of 
 justice. Portions of the Bible say they will. The Bible it- 
 self says, "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that con- 
 demneth the just, even they both are abomination to the 
 Lord." Prov. xvii. 15. 
 
 The Dr. charged the anonymous letter he read on some 
 unbeliever. I should have given it a different parentage. 
 However, it had nothing to do with the question. 
 
 As to capital punishments, I suppose he may find persons 
 opposed to them among Christians, as well as among others. 
 
 As to those who pity the murderer instead of pitying the 
 murdered, if there be such people, we should like them no 
 better than our opponent does. 
 
 Our view of punishment is this, that it should be adapted 
 to secure society; and, secondly, to reform, if possible, the 
 criminal. We question the wisdom of cherishing revenge. 
 
 We would kill a man without hesitation that should at- 
 tempt to murder another, if we could not otherwise prevent 
 the murder: but when we had got the murderer safe in our 
 hands, we should feel it a violation of the law of God, in our 
 nature, to kill him in cool blood. 
 
 The Dr. asks, what is a man to do if the light within be- 
 comes darkness? We answer, what can be done in the case 
 of a man who turns the gospel into a patron of licentiousness. 
 They must both take the consequences. But where there is 
 no law, there is no transgression, says the Dr. But in the 
 case supposed, there is a law, only the man refuses to read 
 and obey it. 
 
 Dr. Berg said I made complaints against the ordinances of 
 Jehovah. I only complained against those who attribute to 
 Jehovah ordinances which are not his. 
 
 The Dr. says, if I will account for the introduction of death 
 into the world, he will thank me. But we had better have 
 no account of the matter at all, than one which is manifestly 
 false and blasphemous. 
 
 At the close of his last speech, the Doctor took up the ac- 
 count of the creation in Genesis, and said that the Bible does 
 not teach that the world is 5858 years old; that it does not 
 say that the world was made in six days, but "in the begin- 
 ning; " and he asked me, with a triumphant air, to tell when 
 that beginning was, intimating that it endured endless ages. 
 He and his friends seemed to think his retort a triumph. We 
 
128 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 answer, the Bible expressly teaches that the "beginning," 
 when the heavens and the earth were made, was a part of 
 the six days. This is plainly the meaning of the passage in 
 Genesis. Other passages, however, are more explicit still. 
 Look at Exodus xxx. 9, 11 : 
 
 "Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work; " * * 
 " For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea 
 and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: where- 
 fore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." 
 
 And again, look at Exodus xxxi. 17 : 
 
 " It (the Sabbath) is a sign between me and the children 
 of Israel for ever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and 
 earth, and, on the seventh day, he rested and was refreshed." 
 
 Before these authorities, the Doctor's triumph comes to a 
 close. The Bible itself, his pretended infallible book, de- 
 clares that his interpretation is wrong. [Interruption by 
 cries of time, time.~\ Not one of the statements he has made 
 in favour of the Bible has been proved — not one of them. 
 [Cries of time. Mr. Barker turned to the moderators, who 
 decided that only a few moments remained.] No allowance 
 has been made for time lost in interruptions. [Cries of Berg, 
 Berg.] 
 
 Dr. Berg. — (Two rounds of applause and cheers.) 
 With your permission, I will now notice my oppo- 
 nent's speech of last Friday evening, and will en- 
 deavour to straighten matters with him in this cast- 
 ing up of accounts. 
 
 My opponent, in his speech on last Friday evening, 
 has at last, with great reluctance, consented to an- 
 nounce the name of the Supreme Being, whose ex- 
 istence he has recognised. He tells us, his name is 
 God. Need I remind him, that this is a generic 
 term, and that he is merely presenting an abstract, 
 instead of a concrete idea? If I were to ask him, 
 Sir, what is your name? Would he answer me, if 
 he answered at all, by telling me, that his name is 
 "Mankind?" Does he not know, that every man 
 must have a name of his own, in order to distinguish 
 him from his fellows? The heathen had their gods 
 and goddesses, false deities all of them, but every 
 one had a name, to distinguish him from the rest. If 
 
THE BIBLE. 129 
 
 he had asked me for the name of my God, I should 
 have told him, the God whom Christians serve has 
 revealed his titles to us, and to the world. In his 
 word he declares, " I am Jehovah! that is my name, 
 and beside me there is no God." So, then, my oppo- 
 nent has found out at last that he has a god, but his 
 name he has not yet discovered ! He quotes the Bi- 
 ble to prove that " the heavens declare the glory of 
 God, 4 and the firmament showeth his handiwork!" 
 But, do the heavens declare all his attributes ? His 
 power and Deity they do proclaim, 
 
 "Forever singing, as they shine, 
 The hand that made us is Divine. 
 
 Besides, our God made the heavens. Jehovah 
 stretched out the heavens as a curtain. "The sea is 
 his, he made it, and his hands formed the dry land!" 
 Let him not confound his god with ours. Our God 
 is manifested in Jesus Christ, but his god, where is 
 he? who is he? If he cannot answer the question, I 
 will do it for him. The god who made him an Infi- 
 del, and a blasphemer of the Christian faith, is the 
 god of this world; his name is Satan; the Father of 
 lies, a murderer and a liar from the beginning! My 
 opponent told us that Job was a Pagan Deist. 
 Wonderful discovery! a Pagan Deist! How is it, 
 then, that Job, in that inimitable epic poem, known 
 as the book of Job, which, for sublimity of thought, 
 and grandeur of expression, stands unrivalled by any 
 other poem, in any age of the world ; this most an- 
 cient of all books, transcending in pathos, and in 
 power of imagery, all efforts of merely human genius 
 — how is it, that Job, this Pagan Deist, has put on 
 record these words, which my opponent, as well as 
 myself, has so often heard, gushing from the lips of 
 the dying Christian, in the full assurance of faith, 
 "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall 
 stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though 
 after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my 
 flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and 
 mine eyes shall behold, and not another!" No! Job 
 12 
 
130 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 was neither a Pagan Deist, nor an infidel Deist. He 
 was a believer in Christ, and, mark it well, in the ear- 
 liest record of this sacred book is a clear enuncia- 
 tion of the faith of a man of God, who believed in 
 the promised Messiah, the Christ, who is the resur- 
 rection and the life, thus stamping another of the 
 seals of a pervading divine intelligence upon the 
 pages of this sacred volume, to prove, in the face of 
 all who reject it, that the Bible is the book of God ! 
 
 My opponent offered an elaborate eulogy of Tom 
 Paine — a sad contrast, I own, with the former topic, 
 but neither Job nor Tom Paine will keep hi3 sink- 
 ing cause from merited perdition! Tom Paine! a 
 loathsome drunkard! a filthy debauchee, whose name, 
 were infidels wise, would be permitted to rot in its 
 own infamy, wrapped in the slimy filth of his Age of 
 Reason, as its shroud. Tom Paine has found a eulo- 
 gist, eloquent alike in defaming the Scriptures, and 
 extolling the basest miscreant that ever held the flag- 
 staff of infidelity! He tells us Paine is slandered, 
 that the record of his dying hours is a perversion. 
 Was my opponent at the bedside of that unhappy 
 man, when in sullen moaning for help from God and 
 Christ, the infidel died without hope? If he was 
 not, what right has he to expect that we shall discard 
 the testimony of those who were, and who were 
 quite as worthy of credit as he ever can be? 
 
 My opponent descanted upon the horrors of the 
 hell of which the Bible speaks, and into which the 
 wicked, and all the nations that forget God shall be 
 turned. He represented Christians as believing that 
 the vast majority of the human race will forever 
 perish in everlasting and intolerable torment. Chris- 
 tians hold no such doctrine. The vast majority of 
 the human family die in infancy, and that Saviour 
 who has said, " Suffer little children to come unto me, 
 and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven/' will not reject those who are the purchase 
 of his blood. True, by nature all are the children 
 of wrath, but if, without their knowledge, children 
 are partakers of condemnation in Adam, the analogy 
 of grace teaches that, without their knowledge, they 
 
THE BIBLE. 131 
 
 are partakers also of the redemption that is in Christ. 
 Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and he loves the lambs 
 of his flock. We need not follow our little children 
 to the grave with the least apprehension that for 
 them a gloomy future is reserved. But the wicked 
 shall be turned into hell, and this hell is an abode of 
 ceaseless torment, says my opponent. Yes, truly, 
 Jehovah is a holy God, and yet he is a God of love. 
 His love forbids him to mar the joy and peace of 
 heaven by the admission of any that are defiled by 
 guilt — all who dwell there have washed their robes 
 and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 
 What father would bring the plague into his family, 
 and expose his children to the fatal pestilence by 
 making his house a lazaretto? In our father's house, 
 above, the leprosy never enters. Death keeps the por- 
 tals, but death can never enter, because sin is forever 
 shut out. Therefore the sinner who has rejected God 
 and despised Christ, and who is all over wounds and 
 bruises and putrefying sores, from the crown of his 
 head to the sole of his foot, can never enter heaven! 
 Hell is the moral lazar-house of the universe. Its 
 inmates are children of wrath for ever. My oppo- 
 nent has said God never forgives sin. Out of Christ, 
 never. But in Christ, always, and forever! No 
 Christ, no heaven ! No cross, no crown ! My oppo- 
 nent says this doctrine is horrible, but does he expect 
 a holy God to measure divine hatred of sin by my 
 opponent's love of sin? He hates sin so intensely, 
 that he spared not his beloved Son, but " he so loved 
 the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have 
 everlasting life." Of this we may be sure, no greater 
 number shall endure the punishment of everlasting 
 banishment from his presence, than he sees shall 
 suffice to set before the universe the tremendous 
 truth, that men cannot trample upon his laws or 
 upon his grace and go unpunished. 
 
 I say, infidels have no Saviour; "not so," says my 
 opponent; "every man has a saviour within himself." 
 He argues, " cut your finger, and it will bleed ;" nature 
 thus puts forth her energy to heal the hurt. True, 
 
132 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 but how has he learned that the soul possesses this 
 recuperative power? Wound the soul by sin or vice, 
 will it bleed? no; but conscience will resent the 
 wrong and lash the wounded spirit with reproach. 
 Does this heal the soul? Does this atone for the 
 transgression ? If it does, we shall then have a very 
 precious morality as the result. A thief picks your 
 pocket, and makes off with your purse; his conscience 
 troubles him, and this makes it all right. He keeps 
 your money, and he has a saviour within himself. But 
 how, supposing his Conscience is seared and dead? 
 Then it does not trouble him of course ; still he has 
 a saviour within himself, and he has your money too. 
 The penalty of the violated laws of nature must be 
 borne, says Mr. Barker. Admitted. The penalty 
 of violated moral law must be borne also, I rejoin. 
 Very well. What is that penalty? Is it the sting of 
 conscience? How long must conscience sting for an 
 offence? Till it is forgotten? Does then forget- 
 ting an offence heal the wound of the soul? Ac- 
 cording to my opponent, God never forgives sin; 
 then if the sting of conscience be the penalty, con- 
 science must forever sting, and thus my opponent's 
 argument confirms the doctrine, that there is an 
 eternal hell! Again, Mr. Barker says, knowledge 
 is progressive. Admitted ; then, he adds, the Jews 
 were indebted to the Pagans for their best ideas 
 of God. If so, how is it that progress is absolutely 
 restricted to nations that have the Bible and obey 
 its teachings? What progress have the Malays made 
 in the last hundred years ? Compare their progress 
 with that of the Sandwich Islands, and blush for 
 the absurdity of infidel denials of the power of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 My opponent held up to contempt the story of Abra- 
 ham being blessed with children in his old age. I 
 answer, the God of Abraham was and is the Almighty 
 God, and, therefore, this objection is as feeble as in- 
 fidel silliness can make it. Out of the stones of the 
 street, God can raise up children to Abraham, for he 
 is the Creator of the ends of the earth, and of all who 
 dwell upon it. 
 
THE BIBLE. 133 
 
 One more objection, and then we will examine Mr. 
 Barker's notions respecting the ark. He alleges that 
 the only fault found with David was in the matter of 
 Uriah the Hittite, and that God declared, that with 
 that single exception, David was a man after his own 
 heart, and yet David played the hypocrite by feign- 
 ing madness, <fcc. Mr. Barker might have made out a 
 still stronger case, for David himself confesses that 
 innumerable evils had compassed him about, and 
 that his iniquities were more than he could number. 
 But even in that case, I should have told him, sir, 
 the author of the Bible has given men reason that 
 they may exercise it with candour. Now as the Scrip- 
 tures consistently teach that all men fall short of the 
 glory of God, and, therefore, need daily forgiveness 
 as much as they need daily bread, it is plain, Jehovah 
 must have had reference to the sin of David which 
 had left a stain of infamy upon his administration, 
 the penal consequences of which were not to end 
 with David's life, but to descend to his posterity. Mr. 
 Barker may complain of this principle as unjust. That 
 is not my business. I leave him to settle that ques- 
 tion with Jehovah, and with his own nameless god, 
 who, if he be the Creator, has so constituted man's 
 physical nature that the children to the third and 
 fourth generation must often bear the penalty of a 
 parent's sin. When Mr. Barker can make this fact 
 square with his notions of justice, he will have learned 
 something that may help him in his efforts to under- 
 stand something more of God's moral administration, 
 than he seems able to comprehend at present. Mean- 
 while, Christians will not impugn Jehovah's justice, 
 because his ways are not Mr. Barker's ways, nor his 
 thoughts Mr. Barker's thoughts. The imprimatur 
 of my opponent's approbation is not essential to the 
 perfection of Jehovah's character. 
 
 We come now to the examination of Noah's ark; 
 and here, I cannot withhold an expression of surprise 
 at the want of fairness in my opponent's statements, 
 and the utter disregard of considerations of which he 
 could hardly be ignorant, without justly exposing his 
 
 12* 
 
134 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 position as a champion of infidelity to merciless ridi- 
 cule and contempt. I shall prove to you that the ark 
 was not only large enough to accommodate all the 
 animals which Noah was commanded to gather into 
 it, but that there was room enough and to spare to 
 accommodate my opponent and the whole of the Sun- 
 day Institute into the bargain, though, I suppose, if 
 they had lived in Noah's day, they would have 'been 
 outsiders. As to the dimensions of the ark, I will 
 accept the capacity mentioned by my opponent, al- 
 though there is good reason to believe, that the Egyp- 
 tian cubit, measuring twenty-one inches and -j%%%, or 
 nearly twenty-two inches, instead of the cubit mea- 
 sure of eighteen inches, was the standard recognised 
 in the account. But, taking the shortest cubit, we 
 have as the result, a vessel four hundred and fifty feet 
 long, seventy-five feet broad, and forty -five feet high, 
 presenting a capacity of one million five hundred 
 and eighteen thousand seven hundred and fifty cubic 
 feet. Reduced to the standard of modern measure- 
 ment, we should have a vessel of forty thousand four 
 hundred and thirteen tons. A first rate man of war 
 is between two thousand two hundred and two thou- 
 sand three hundred tons 5 the ark consequently pos- 
 sessed a capacity of storage equal to that of eighteen 
 ships of the line of the largest class, which upon a 
 moderate computation are capable of carrying twenty 
 thousand men, with stores and provisions for six 
 months' consumption, besides eighteen hundred pieces 
 of cannon. 
 
 My opponent told you that five hundred thousand 
 different kinds of animals were to find accommoda- 
 tion in the ark, and that allowing one cubic yard to 
 each, at the lowest estimate, ten thousand cubic yards 
 would be wanting for the mere storage of the con- 
 tents. I know not whether most to admire my op- 
 ponent's credulity, or his courage in making such a 
 statement before an audience so intelligent as this. 
 The celebrated naturalist Buffon tells us that all the 
 various kinds of four-footed animals may be reduced 
 to from two hundred to two hundred and fifty dis- 
 
THE BIBLE. 135 
 
 tinct species, including all varieties from the mouse 
 to the elephant. Cuvier's estimate of five hundred 
 thousand tribes of animated nature includes, first, 
 fishes, and these we may as well heave overboard, as 
 they will probably live quite as well in the water as 
 in Noah's ark. Next, we can dispense with amphi- 
 bious animals, such as crocodiles, lizards, frogs, and 
 the like. If they are disposed to rest, they can climb 
 upon some floating log or tree, so Noah need not be 
 troubled about them. All that he was to care for 
 were animals that dwelt upon the dry land ; for it is 
 written, "All flesh died that moved upon the earth, 
 both of fowl and of cattle, and of beast and of every 
 creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every 
 man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of 
 all that was in the dry land, died. 77 Thus, we have 
 thrown out part of the cargo which Mr. Barker wishes 
 to impose upon the patriarch's vessel — beasts, fowl, 
 and creeping things are the only articles specified in 
 the original invoice, together with the food requisite 
 to sustain them for a year and upwards, and accommo- 
 dations and provisions for Noah and his family. 
 
 Now, Mr. Barker proposes to give each one of his 
 five hundred thousand animals a cubic yard apiece. 
 A very liberal allowance, when you consider the vast 
 number of insects, winged and creeping, and the large 
 number of smaller birds and animals, included in his 
 enormous estimate. A pair of turkeys could be ac- 
 commodated in the space of a cubic yard, with all 
 comfort; and as for " creeping things," constituting a 
 vast proportion of the items in the bill of lading, how 
 many might be stowed away in a space of three solid 
 feet, I leave for the solution of the curious in such 
 matters, who know, from experience, that a whole 
 regiment of " creeping things " may be accommodated 
 in very circumscribed limits ! Think of allowing a 
 cubic yard for animals that can hardly be discovered 
 without the aid of grandmother's spectacles! 
 
 It will not do for my opponent to speak of the ele- 
 phant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, and the like, as an 
 offset; for the disproportion between the deficit of 
 
136 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 space, in their case, bears no proportion to the com- 
 parative excess of space requisite in the other. The 
 number of large animals is very small, whilst the 
 number of small animals is immense. 
 
 Now, I ask, with 1,518,750 cubic feet to work upon, 
 according to my opponent's own standard, or 2,243, 
 521 cubic feet, taking the Egyptian measure as the 
 standard, will any candid man be at a loss to find room 
 in the three stories into which the ark was divided, 
 for one pair of every kind of unclean animals, or 
 seven pairs of clean animals, with all the provision 
 which they would require for a year, or eighteen 
 months? 
 
 But, then, there was only one window, and that 
 was only a cubit wide! Indeed! Where did my 
 learned opponent get this wisdom ? Has he consulted 
 the spirits, and been instructed by them? He quoted 
 the Bible for this warrant. Yes ; but, unfortunately, 
 he quotes the Bible unfairly. What are the words? 
 "A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit 
 shalt thou finish it above ; and the door of the ark 
 shalt thou set in the side thereof: with lower, second, 
 and third stories shalt thou make it." Gen. vi. 16. 
 [Time up. Dr. Berg sat down amid tremendous cheer- 
 ing.] 
 
 Mr. Barker. — (Slight applause — hisses.) A curious 
 place, truly, to put a window — in the roof! a three storied 
 ark ventilated by a roof-skylight! Through this the eight 
 persons were to throw all the filth made by half a million of 
 animals; through this lay the road for water, not only for 
 drinking, but for making all clean. A curious explanation, 
 truly ! Why, if you should ask any farmer accustomed to 
 keeping cattle, whether in a barn, 150 yards long 25 wide, 
 and 15 deep, or in one of the dimensions claimed by my op- 
 ponent, he would winter seven pairs of every species of fowl 
 and clean beast, and two pairs of every unclean beast, add- 
 ing other beasts in sufficient number for the sustenance of 
 the carnivorous animals, and stowing away enough grain, 
 grass and other kinds of food for the rest, he would laugh at 
 you. And the wintering would be for four or five months 
 only, and not for twelve or eighteen. He would laugh more, 
 should you ask him whether Noah (the speaker said "Eve," 
 
THE BIBLE. 137 
 
 a slip of the tongue, which occasioned a titter in some parts 
 of the house) with his wife and three sons, with their wives, 
 could tend all these animals, clean the ark, and keep the air 
 pure, and the ark well ventilated, by means of one window, 
 and that a roof-skylight! the worst place possible for the 
 purpose of ventilation ! For the number of species of ani- 
 mals, my opponent quotes Buffbn, an out-of-date author who 
 wrote before zoology had taken its present scientific form. 
 He spoke also of Cuvier as an authority of mine. I never 
 referred to Cuvier. I quoted from Prof. Hitchcock, a dis- 
 tinguished geologist of your own country, and President of 
 one of its leading colleges. I will again read the passages : 
 
 " The first difficulty in the way of supposing the flood to 
 have been literally universal, is the great quantity of water 
 that would have been requisite. The amount necessary to 
 cover the earth to the tops of the highest mountains, or about 
 five miles above the present oceans, would be eight times 
 greater than that existing on the globe at this time." * * 
 
 " A second objection to such a universality is, the difficulty 
 of providing for the animals in the ark. Calculations have, 
 indeed, been made, which seemed to show that the ark was 
 capacious enough to hold the pairs and septuples of all the 
 species. But, unfortunately, the number of species assumed 
 to exist by the calculators was vastly below the truth. It 
 amounted only to three or four hundred; whereas, the actual 
 number already described by zoologists is not less than one 
 hundred and fifty thousand ; and the probable number exist- 
 ing on the globe is not less than half a million. And for 
 the greater part of these must provisions have been made, 
 since most of them inhabit either the air or the dry land. 
 A thousand species of mammalia, six thousand species of 
 birds, two thousand species of reptiles, and one hundred and 
 twenty thousand species of insects are already described, and 
 must have been provided with space and food. Will any one 
 believe this possible in a vessel not more than four hundred 
 and fifty feet long, seventy-five feet broad and forty-five feet 
 high? 
 
 "The third and most important objection to the univer- 
 sality of the Deluge is derived from the facts brought to light 
 by modern science, respecting the distribution of animals and 
 plants on the globe/' * * * * "If tropical animals 
 and plants, for instance, were to migrate to the temperate 
 zones, and especially to the frigid regions, they could not 
 long survive ; and almost equally fatal would it be for the 
 
138 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 animals and plants of high latitudes to take up their abode 
 near the equator." * * * "Now suppose the animals 
 of the torrid zone at the present day to attempt by natural 
 means to reach the temperate zone; who does not know that 
 nearly all of them must perish?" — President Hitchcock's 
 Religion of Geology, pp. 128 — 131. 
 
 Why, the food requisite for the graminivorous animals alone 
 for eighteen months would have filled the ark. And of this, 
 much would have had to be preserved green. The sheep 
 necessary for a single pair of lions would have occupied no 
 inconsiderable space; and the sheep, in their turn, would 
 have needed large quantities of fodder. Besides, all these 
 animals could not be packed in: those who tended them needed 
 room to get about the stalls for the purpose of cleaning them, 
 and room to pass up and down stairs. If, too, they had to go 
 up stairs for water, if they had to carry up stairs all the re- 
 fuse, we cannot help thinking what a getting up stairs there 
 must have been. (Laughter.) 
 
 The Doctor asked me the name of the God I worship. I 
 told him, God. To this he objects that the term is generic, 
 that an individual when asked his name, does not answer by 
 calling himself "mankind," but must give the name which 
 distinguishes him from other men. Now, I was not before 
 aware that there are many Gods; I thought there was but 
 one. Men need different names because they are many; but 
 there is only one God, and He needs but one name. The 
 Doctor says that his God made the heavens, and asks me what 
 mine has done. I am happy that for once we are agreed; for 
 that is my God too. 
 
 He speaks of the beautiful passage in Job : "I know that 
 my Redeemer liveth," &c. The best commentators agree 
 that the sense given by him to the passage has no authority 
 in the original text; but in the translation only. 
 
 He says that Paine was a loathsome drunkard and a filthy 
 debauchee, and alleges that I said the account he read of 
 Paine's last moments was untrue. I said no such thing. I 
 undertook no defence of Paine's private character. I said 
 the account sounded to me like a slander; that the clergy ever 
 stood ready to belie every reformer; that I knew they had 
 belied his writings, and supposed they had done the same by 
 his private character. I know by experience how eager, un- 
 scrupulous and reckless, Christians frequently are in what 
 they say of unbelievers. A Christian lady, who had attended 
 this debate, said I had come upon the platform half-drunk. 
 
THE BIBLE. 139 
 
 Now, I have not taken a glass of ardent spirits for nineteen 
 years. A minister in one of your pulpits charged me with 
 something much worse than this. His brethren have heaped 
 upon me a thousand slanders. If they will say these things of 
 living men, who can answer, what will they not say of dead 
 men, who have none to defend them ? All manner of evil 
 is said about every one identified with an unpopular move- 
 ment. If the chief priests called Jesus a devil and the prince 
 of devils, surely no other reformer can expect to be exempted 
 from abuse. 
 
 The Doctor informs us that few are lost, but that the vast 
 majority of the human family are saved. My answer shall 
 be in the words of Christ. 
 
 "Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to 
 destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Be- 
 cause straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth 
 unto life, and few there be that find it." — Matt. vii. 13, 14. 
 Now if "many" be more than "few," the Bible is on my 
 side of the question. He says that children are taken into 
 heaven, but the passage we referred to for proof says no such 
 thing, but that heaven is composed of people like little chil- 
 dren. 
 
 He speaks of my "love of vice." This requires no answer. 
 He ridicules the "inner light," and supposes that a man 
 who picks a pocket is to be punished only with the pangs of 
 conscience, when he may have none. Did I say any such 
 thing? And is it the men that believe in the "inner light" 
 who pick pockets ? Are the Quakers addicted to this vice ? 
 Which was the purer, William Penn, or the orthodox party 
 that put him in prison, and, in addition, picked his pockets ? 
 (Applause, hisses, one hiss from platform.) 
 
 Who are every where the men of progress? Those called 
 infidels. Who are every where the conservatives? The 
 priests. Wherever so-called infidels have been most nume- 
 rous, progress has been most rapid and general; wherever 
 priests have been in power it has been slowest. Which was 
 the man of the future, Galileo, who asserted the revelation 
 of God in nature, or the Pope who imprisoned him? And, 
 at the present time, the infidels are, in Europe, the men of 
 Progress and Liberty, while the worshippers of an ancient 
 book are the men of Reaction and Tyranny. 
 
 He asks who instituted the law by which the drunkard 
 entails disease upon his children? Did I not say it was 
 
140 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 God? But is it, therefore, God who causes the disease? 
 Has he not left man free to avoid drunkenness? The law 
 is good; it treats man as a free agent; and God is not to 
 blame if man perverts it. 
 
 We come now to the Doctor's speech on internal evidences. 
 
 The Doctor made a number of statements in favour of the 
 Bible, but how many of them did he prove? He did not 
 even attempt to prove one of them. With the exception of 
 one or two, which amount to nothing, they cannot be proved. 
 They are not true. 
 
 He says the Bible has a peculiar gravity, dignity, and so- 
 lemnity of style. 
 
 Read Solomon's songs, or the childish fables of Genesis, 
 or the ridiculous revelations which abound in Exodus, Le- 
 viticus, and Numbers, about the tabernacle, altar, priestly 
 attire, and see whether it has. 
 
 But is every thing written in a grand and solemn style of 
 superhuman origin ? Then the world has superhuman books 
 in abundance. 
 
 He says there is not a subject in the whole circle of the 
 sciences to which allusion is not made in the Bible. Sup- 
 pose it were true, what then? Would it prove the book di- 
 vine? No more than it proves the American Encyclopedia 
 divine. But it is not true. I could mention a thousand 
 subjects, of great importance, to which the Bible makes no 
 allusion, and a thousand more after that. 
 
 He says every subject is presented in the Bible with a 
 power, a truthfulness, and a clearness unparalleled. It was 
 a pity he made no attempt to prove this statement. Every 
 subject presented with a clearness! I thought certain por- 
 tions of the Bible were remarkable for their mysteriousness. 
 Truthfulness! Why some of its statements are the most 
 monstrous falsehoods the mind of man can conceive. 
 
 He says not a solitary real discrepancy of precept, doc- 
 trine or fact can be proved against it. And this was said 
 before an audience that had listened to the historical, theo- 
 logical and moral contradictions which we had just before 
 mentioned. 
 
 The Dr. says the teachings of the Bible are in harmony 
 with all the discoveries of science. Did he try to prove this? 
 But I had forgot. The Dr. did not finish his speech. Per- 
 haps he will try to prove his statements towards the close. 
 We shall see. 
 
THE BIBLE. 141 
 
 He says the book of Job, or the Psalms, would have been 
 sufficient to give immortality to their authors, on the ground 
 of their literary merit alone. This we are willing to ac- 
 knowledge; but is every work of superior literary merit of 
 superhuman origin? If so, we have superhuman books with- 
 out end. Every nation has them. Every age produces them. 
 
 We not only acknowledge the great literary merit of por- 
 tions of the Bible, but the excellency of the morality of seve- 
 ral portions of the book. But what then? We find both 
 high literary merit and beautiful moral principles, in thou- 
 sands of books, which make no pretensions to a superhuman 
 origin. Again. It is worthy of remark, that some of those 
 portions of the Bible which excel as literary compositions, 
 imbody or inculcate immoral principles of the most revolting 
 character. 
 
 Take the 137th Psalm; a more beautiful little poem can 
 hardly be imagined. But look at its close : "0 ! daughter of 
 Babylon, who art to be destroyed — happy shall he be that 
 taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." It 
 is thus with several of the Psalms. Poetical beauty accom- 
 panies the most savage and revengeful sentiments. We have, 
 in our day, poetry equal in beauty to the best of the Psalms, 
 and far surpassing them in truthfulness and morality. 
 
 The Dr. says I have wonderful powers of sophistry. I 
 have often observed that when my opponents find my argu- 
 ments unanswerable, they raise the cry of sophistry. (Hisses.) 
 If I were really to use sophistry, they would expose it; but 
 when they find nothing but unanswerable arguments, (hisses,) 
 they give them an ugly name, and try to get out of the way. 
 Such devices may impose on some, but not on all. They 
 may answer for a time; but not forever. 
 
 The Dr. says the word Godhead, in Romans, means the 
 unity of God. He acknowledges, at last, you see, that na- 
 ture does reveal the unity of God. 
 
 He says that Bom. xiii., is intended to show what kind of 
 rulers are worthy of reverence and obedience. We answer, 
 the passage itself proves the contrary. Let us read it ? 
 
 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For 
 there is no power but of God. The powers that be are or- 
 dained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, 
 resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall 
 receive to themselves damnation." 
 
 Can words be plainer ? If these words do not teach that 
 
 13 
 
142 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 all powers, all rulers, are ordained of God — that the govern- 
 ments then existing were of God — that every Christian was 
 to be subject to them, and obey them — and that whosoever 
 dared to resist them should receive damnation, there are no 
 words that can express such a meaning. If the writer had 
 meant to say, whenever you have got good rulers, who com- 
 mand only what is good, and forbid only what is evil, obey 
 them; he could easily have said so. He could as easily have 
 said what he thought, as what he did not think. To sup- 
 pose that God, or even a man of common sense would say : 
 "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there 
 is no power but of God : the powers that be, are ordained 
 of God,- — whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth 
 the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to 
 themselves damnation," — when he simply meant, obey good 
 governments — such governments as give only good and righ- 
 teous commands, is out of all reason. 
 
 Besides, if the passage meant no more than what my oppo- 
 nent says, it would amount to nothing. Obey good govern- 
 ments. But can every government be said to be good? 
 Who is to judge? The governments themselves? Then we 
 must obey all, for where is the government that will ac- 
 knowledge it is not good? Must every one judge? The 
 command is as good as none; it leaves men perfectly at 
 liberty. 
 
 Again, in corresponding passages, about masters and ser- 
 vants, servants are commanded expressly to obey, not only 
 the good and gentle masters, but the froward. And wives are 
 commanded to obey, not only the Christian husbands, but 
 unconverted Pagan husbands. 
 
 The Doctor said that our law was a nose of wax. But what 
 is his, if its precepts can be dealt with as he deals with the 
 passage before us? 
 
 Besides, where were the good governments he talks about? 
 The governments that commanded nothing but what was 
 good, and forbade nothing but what was evil? There were 
 no Christian governments. Were the Pagan governments 
 so good as to command nothing but what was good, forbid 
 nothing but what was evil? What then becomes of my op- 
 ponent's remarks about the darkness and depravity of the 
 Pagan world? 
 
 The interpretation of my opponent is the most forced and 
 unnatural conceivable. It is not an interpretation, but a 
 
THE BIBLE. 143 
 
 perversion. Of course, it is very inconvenient to have such 
 passages in a favourite book; but there they are. 
 
 Take, then, the passage in its plain and unperverted 
 meaning, and it enjoins the basest servility to despotic power, 
 and teaches the grossest and most palpable falsehoods to be 
 found in any book on earth. It dooms to damnation the 
 best, the bravest, and the noblest spirits that have honoured 
 and blest humanity. Cromwell and Hampden, Milton and 
 Sidney, Kossuth and Mazzini, and men, to whom your own 
 great country has given birth, whose names are worthy of ever- 
 lasting remembrance, and whose virtuous deeds and noble 
 daring have made them the idols of the friends of freedom, 
 and the lights and guides of the world, it consigns to the 
 horrors of damnation. It is a happy thing that men are so 
 often better than their creeds and sacred books. If it were 
 not that men are impelled to great and noble deeds in spite 
 of their old authorities and guides, no man could take up 
 arms against a tyrant, till he had renounced his faith in the 
 Bible. As it is, the men who war with tyrants and with 
 tyranny, as well as reformers generally, must be looked for 
 among the hosts of unbelievers. 
 
 The Doctor says that there is nothing in the Bible about 
 G-od that is contrary to reason. 
 
 We answer, some passages say Jacob, and the elders of 
 Israel, and Isaiah saw God; while others say no man hath 
 seen or can see him; one class must be contrary to reason. 
 
 Besides, we have proved, by a hundred passages, that the 
 Bible attributes to Grod, not only human infirmities, but the 
 greatest cruelty and injustice. 
 
 He says language is incompetent to express the real cha- 
 racter of Grod. 
 
 Then why should any one use it for that purpose ? But 
 I thought the Doctor told us that some portions of the Bible 
 did express G-od's character truly. 
 
 Our opponent says we pervert the language of scripture. 
 
 A strange charge this, to come from one who could deal, 
 as he did, with the passage in Romans, and others ! It is 
 especially strange to be made against one who takes the Bible 
 exactly as he finds it, and who grounds all his statements on 
 its plain and obvious meaning. 
 
 He says we reject the truth because it is so simple, and 
 that we are influenced by the worst of motives. 
 
 Does not our opponent know how easy it would be for us 
 to return such charges ? 
 
144 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 But we hope to be preserved from yielding to the strong 
 temptation. We have no infallible book to guide us, but we 
 think we can see a better way than charging an opponent in 
 public debate with impure and vicious motives. There is 
 a precept in the Gospels which says, " Judge not, that ye be 
 not judged." We do not ourselves regard the precept as 
 divine or unobjectionable; but a person who does so regard 
 it would do well not to violate it so often in a public audience. 
 However, we believe that a man is justified by works and 
 not by faith alone, and we should try to act accordingly. 
 
 He says the Bible is a wonder. So it is in more respects 
 than one. 
 
 He says it has been proved, over and over again, that all 
 the parts of the Bible agree. Will he please find us one of 
 those proofs? We never had the happiness to see one. 
 
 His remarks about raking up things out of gutters, sca- 
 venger work, and the like, my opponent will allow me to 
 pass unnoticed. 
 
 He speaks of the arguments of unbelievers being over- 
 whelmed. I recollect no instance of such a thing in the pre- 
 sent debate. And Paine's arguments have never been met. 
 Let me say here, that those who have not read Paine's works 
 cannot conceive how wretched are the pretended refutations 
 which have appeared under the sanction of the clergy. 
 
 He says that the best evidence of .the divine origin of the 
 Scriptures is the substantial agreement and circumstantial 
 variation in their statements. But he gave no instances in 
 point. 
 
 The Bible states, in one passage, that God tempted David 
 to number the people, and in another, that Satan tempted him. 
 Where, I ask, is the substantial agreement? Are God and 
 Satan the same thing? 
 
 The Bible states, in one place, that the two thieves reviled 
 Jesus; and in another that one reviled him and was rebuked 
 by the other. Where is the substantial agreement? Is one 
 two? (Interruption by a cry of Time.') The moderators will 
 attend to their duty, if permitted. 
 
 The Bible states, in one place, that a certain man was two 
 years older than his father, and, in another, that he was eigh- 
 teen years younger. Where is the substantial agreement? 
 
 The Bible states that Saul slew all the Amalekites except 
 Agag, and that Samuel hewed Agag in pieces; but it also 
 states that after this, David went out to war against them. 
 Where is the substantial agreement? 
 
THE BIBLE, 145 
 
 The Bible says, in one passage, that Judas bought a field 
 and broke asunder in the midst, and his bowels gushed out; 
 and, in another, that the high-priests bought the field and that 
 Judas hanged himself. Where is the substantial agreement? 
 
 Here are substantial, radical differences and irreconcilable 
 variations. Besides, the maxim which he cites is applicable 
 only to human courts, where human witnesses, liable to err, 
 testify, and it is necessary to sift the truth from the mass of 
 their statements. It is not applicable to the declarations of 
 the omniscient God, who cannot err or speak falsely. (Ap- 
 plause and hisses. Time up.) 
 
 Dr. Berg: [Applause.] My opponent says that I 
 point to no passage in support of my assertion that 
 we find substantial agreement with circumstantial 
 variety in the Scriptures. Now, there is hardly a 
 child who cannot understand that substantial agree- 
 ment between the accounts of different writers con- 
 sists in both giving the same fact. He says one pas- 
 sage asserts, 
 
 "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled 
 against Israel, and he moved David against them to 
 say, Go, number Israel and Judak. 77 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. 
 
 While another says, 
 
 "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked 
 David to number Israel. 77 1 Chron. xxi. 1. 
 
 He asks, Where is the substantial agreement? Is 
 God Satan? 
 
 Well, the substantial agreement is, that David was 
 tempted. 
 
 Again he quotes, 
 
 "And they took counsel, and bought with them the 
 potter's field." Matt. xxvi. 7. 
 
 And compares it with, 
 
 "Now this man purchased a field with the reward 
 of iniquity. 77 Acts i. 18. 
 
 The substantial agreement here is, that the field 
 was bought, and with the price of Judas 7 treachery ! 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 We pass over the blasphemous comparison he in- 
 stitutes by asking, "Are God and Satan one? 77 — and 
 
 13* 
 
146 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 merely assert, that we have already answered his 
 miserable subterfuge. We have said, that the Bible 
 must be taken as a whole, and we have referred him 
 to the passage which says : 
 
 " Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted 
 of God ; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither 
 tempteth he any man; but every man is tempted, 
 when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." 
 James i. 13, 14. 
 
 If my opponent will persist in advancing such 
 things as arguments, he will lose his reputation for 
 fairness. To quote passages out of their connexion, 
 may be worthy of an infidel, but is unworthy of a 
 man. [Hisses, tumultuous applause, and cries of 
 "Keep quiet. 77 ] 
 
 My opponent gives his oft-repeated argument, that 
 Romans xiii. 1-3, teaches that we are to submit to 
 all rulers, be they good or bad, and that damnation 
 is meted out to those who resist them, under any pre- 
 tence whatever. It is not so. The passage teaches 
 simply : 
 
 1. That civil government is ordained by God. 
 
 2. That civil government is worthy of the obedi- 
 ence and respect of God 7 s people, when rulers "are 
 not a terror to good works, but to the evil; 77 when 
 government is conducted in accordance with the laws 
 of God 7 s word. It is the evil who are trying to stir 
 up sedition, and break down all governments; who 
 will not admit the existence of any right rule, because 
 it interferes with the excesses in which they delight, 
 and the licentiousness to which their passions would 
 lead them. Does the Bible teach obedience to despots, 
 when their commands oppose His law? Does my op- 
 ponent assert that God is the author of kingcraft ? He 
 well knows it was in anger God gave the Jews a king, 
 and that the first form of government which God gave 
 the Jews was a pure republic. My opponent says that 
 it is written, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. 77 
 So it is; and it is also written, "Ye shall know them 
 by their fruits. Every good tree bringeth forth good 
 fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 77 
 
THE BIBLE. 147 
 
 And while we are not to indulge in an uncharitable 
 or censorious spirit, we are not forbidden by that 
 passage to form an estimate of airy character from its 
 fruits. 
 
 I had scarcely, when my time expired, entered 
 upon the consideration of my opponent's caricature 
 of the window of the ark. The passage reads: 
 
 "A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a 
 cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the 
 ark shalt thou set in the side thereof: with lower, 
 second, and third stories shalt thou make it." 
 
 The term "window" is used here to indicate the 
 means of admitting light; hence it is spoken of as 
 being " above." "And in a cubit shalt thou finish it 
 above;''' that is, at the top it shall be reduced to a 
 cubit. And what does this indicate? Simply, that 
 the roof of the ark, in which the translucency, or 
 transparency was set, or this window on the roof, sloped 
 upward to a ridge at the top, of about a cubit in 
 width. How was the ark to be ventilated by means 
 of only one small window of a cubit in size? Sure 
 enough ! I leave my opponent to answer that ques- 
 tion, because the Bible account makes no such state- 
 ment. 
 
 But, says Mr. Barker, it says nothing about venti- 
 lators. Truly, and it says nothing about nails, or 
 spikes, either; but are we therefore to suppose that 
 it was built without them? The description of the 
 ark was given to Xoah in such a manner as to be in- 
 telligible to him; and in the account furnished in the 
 Scriptures men are required to exercise some little 
 degree of candour and common sense: and if they do 
 exercise these, they will not argue that the ark was 
 destitute of every comfort, because all the details are 
 not specified. 
 
 So, too, of the door. Mr. Barker says, there was 
 only one. I take the words differently: "The door 
 of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof: with 
 lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." 
 This seems to me to indicate that each story of the 
 ark was furnished with a door. 
 
148 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 To go into a detailed examination of the construc- 
 tion of the ark, would require more time than the 
 limits of this discussion will allow. But I may re- 
 mark, before dismissing this topic, that those who 
 are, from their profession, capable of forming an 
 opinion entitled to respect, tell us that the propor- 
 tions of the ark, as described by Moses, are so strictly 
 consistent with the most modern improvements in 
 ship-building, that Noah must have been an extraor- 
 dinary mechanical genius, to have been able to con- 
 struct such a vessel, in that early age of the world; 
 so that here, again, the internal evidence of this book,' 
 on this question, is, that Noah was divinely directed 
 in the preparation of the ark. 
 
 My opponent, I must not forget, sought to make 
 some capital out of the difficulty of procuring animals 
 from so many different parts of the earth. Just as if 
 the God who had power to create those animals, was 
 unable to direct them, by the promptings of instinct, 
 to repair to Noah ! Let him not confound his name- 
 less god with Jehovah, the Christian's God, who is 
 the Creator and Sovereign of the universe ! This he 
 is continually doing. Our God is the God of nature, 
 of providence, and of grace I This subject of the ark 
 is important on the ground of its intrinsic interest; 
 but its associations are still more momentous. Infi- 
 dels are constantly asking for facts, which all the 
 world agree in — facts, admitted, established by un- 
 biassed evidence. Here is just such a fact, in the 
 story of the deluge. Was it a real occurrence? All 
 mankind acknowledge it in the traditions of the past. 
 North and South, East and West, every where among 
 the nations, you find distinct historical reference to 
 the deliverance of their great ancestor from over- 
 whelming waters. And how was he saved ? What 
 does pagan tradition tell respecting the mode in 
 which he was rescued ? All agree it was by means 
 of enclosure in a large floating edifice of his own 
 construction. Then he must have had some intima- 
 tion of this catastrophe. Whence was it derived? 
 Did the earth whisper to him out of the dust, that at 
 
THE BIBLE. 149 
 
 the end of twenty or thirty years, it would disgorge 
 a flood? Or did the stars announce the dissolution 
 of the clouds in terrific rain ? Whence then did Noah 
 gain his foreknowledge of the flood? Did he begin 
 to build when the first showers descended? But then 
 it was too late. Why be alarmed at the rain? Had 
 he not often seen rain before? 
 
 Blot out the Mosaic record, and you are still not 
 over the difficulty. You meet the story of the deluge 
 in all the records of antiquity. You find it in Greece, 
 in Egypt, in India, in Britain. You see its memo- 
 rials installed in the most sacred rites of all the na- 
 tions that ever controlled the destinies of the world, 
 under Providence, all attesting, in their annals, the 
 fact of the flood's occurrence. Whence this universal 
 consent? Are all mankind fools, and dupes of super- 
 stition, excepting infidels? Then, admit the fact of 
 a deluge as established, and it implies a communica- 
 tion from God to man. For who but God could give 
 Noah this information? Why did the patriarch pro- 
 vide against a flood, instead of against fire, earth- 
 quakes, or explosions? Simply because he was fore- 
 warned of God; as the Apostle Paul tells us: "By 
 faith, Noah being warned of God of things not seen 
 as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving 
 of his house, by the which he condemned the world, 
 and became heir of the righteousness which is by 
 faith." 
 
 Let us pass from these annals to the teaching- of na- 
 ture. We find truth imbedded in the earth ; we find 
 the discoveries of geology confirming a deluge. 
 
 My opponent says there is in parts of the earth no 
 trace of the deluge. 
 
 Mr. Barker: I did not say so. Professor Hitch- 
 cock (holding up "Religion of Geology") says, there 
 is no trace, in any part of the earth, of such a deluge 
 as that spoken of in the Bible. 
 
 Dr. Berg : Then Professor Hitchcock tells a sad 
 
 makes a tremendous mistake. In almost all parts of 
 the earth we find indelible impressions, firmly con- 
 vincing us that God did bring about the catastrophe 
 of submerging the world with water. 
 
150 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 My opponent alluded to my remarks on Friday 
 evening on the first chapter of Genesis, and totally 
 perverted them. 
 
 Let me now advance on the positive side of the 
 argument for internal evidence of the Divinity of the 
 Bible. 
 
 The advent, or the appearance of a personage such 
 as Jesus Christ is represented in the New Testament, 
 in one of the most corrupt ages of the world ; the pre- 
 sentation, in his character, of a model of moral excel- 
 lence such as the world had never before, and has never 
 since beheld; a character unrivalled, and almost un- 
 approached, by the brightest examples of virtue ever 
 known on earth ; — the advent of such a personage, at 
 such a time, in such a country, is an event utterly out 
 of the course of nature, and constitutes a phenome- 
 non, in comparison with which, the brightest miracle 
 appears dim. 
 
 My opponent must get rid of this difficulty, before 
 he can persuade us that Christianity is a delusion. 
 He will hardly deny the fact of the existence of 
 Christ, altogether; but if he should be tempted to 
 expose his folly to the rebuke which, in that case, it 
 will be sure to encounter, how will he then account 
 for the still more wonderful phenomenon, that four 
 writers, like the Evangelists, should acquire, without 
 superhuman suggestion, the idea of such a character, 
 and transmit such a portrait as this, of Jesus Christ? 
 Imagination, I know, can form the idea of an ex- 
 traordinary character; but how are four men to com 
 ceive, at the same time, the idea of a chaiacter like 
 this, of Jesus Christ — with no original — with no pro- 
 totype before them, from which to draw their copy? 
 The idea is absurd. The character of Christ was real. 
 The Evangelists were utterly incompetent, of them- 
 selves, to originate any such portrait. To suppose 
 that they did this thing, involves an amount of absurd 
 credulity, to which no sane man would wish to plead 
 guilty. They were plain, some of them unlettered, 
 men; they were not the miracles of genius, which 
 they must have been, to enable them to originate, in 
 
THE BIBLE. 151 
 
 their own imagination, the lovely character of our 
 blessed Redeemer. 
 
 Let me call attention to a few points, which, to my 
 mind, appear to furnish the strongest possible inter- 
 nal evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus. 
 
 The first point is this, that the character of Jesus, 
 his appearance, his principles, his doctrines, his go- 
 vernment, his kingdom, were altogether different from 
 those which the Jews expected the Messiah to present 
 They looked for one whose kingdom was to be of 
 this world. The coming of Messiah was regarded by 
 them as the grand event that was at once, and forever, 
 to break the yoke of civil bondage, and then to exalt 
 their nation to the pinnacle of human power and gran- 
 deur. Jesus Christ appeared. He proclaimed him- 
 self as the long promised hope and consolation of Is- 
 rael. He came at a period when the expectation of 
 some mighty event in the appearance of an exalted 
 personage was rife, not only in Judea, but prevailed 
 in the east. It was known to the classical historians 
 of that age, and probably to the Roman emperor also. 
 The origin of these impressions was doubtless due to 
 the prophecies of the Old Testament, which clearly 
 designated, as we shall show in due season, the time, 
 the place, and other circumstances in which Messiah 
 was to appear. These classical testimonies are of suf- 
 ficient moment to authorize a quotation of them. The 
 first is from Josephus. When speaking of the causes 
 which stimulated the Jews to revolt from the yoke 
 of the Romans, he says, " That which chiefly en- 
 couraged them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, 
 found also in our sacred writings, that about that 
 time some one from Judea should obtain the empire 
 of the world. This they understood to belong to 
 themselves, and many of their wise men were mistaken 
 in their judgment; for this oracle referred to the 
 government of Vespasian, who was proclaimed em- 
 peror in Judea. 77 Josephus gives this explanation as 
 a compliment to his master, the Emperor. The 
 second testimony is from Suetonius (see Vesp.ch.iv.) 
 a Roman historian, who wrote, about the same time, 
 
152 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the biography of the Emperors. His words are : 
 11 There had been for a long time, all over the East, a 
 notion, firmly believed, that it was in the books of 
 the fates, that some one from Judea was destined 
 about that time to obtain the empire of the world." 
 The third is from Tacitus. After narrating the ca- 
 lamities of the Jews and the destruction of their 
 city, (Hist. 1. 5, c. 13,) he observes that "the mass of 
 the people entertained a strong persuasion, that it 
 was mentioned in the ancient writings of the priests, 
 that, at that very time, the East should prevail, and 
 some one from Judea obtain the empire of the world. 
 These ambiguities predicted Vespasian and Titus; 
 but the common people, according to the usual in- 
 fluence of human passions, having once appropriated 
 to themselves this destined greatness, could not be 
 brought to understand the true meaning by all their 
 adversities." Other passages might be adduced, but 
 these may suffice, that others, as well as the Jews, 
 were in expectation of this great event, which we 
 believe to have been accomplished in the advent of 
 Jesus Christ. This general persuasion is attested 
 also by the fact, that many persons appeared about 
 this time in Judea, pretending to be the Messiah, and 
 deluding multitudes of Jews to their ruin. 
 
 Now, let it be remembered that the four Evan- 
 gelists were not only Jews, participating therefore in 
 the national prejudices respecting the Messiah, but 
 that they were, moreover, from the circumstances of 
 humble birth and education, predisposed to favour 
 the contracted views prevalent among their country- 
 men. How is it, then, that these men undertake, in 
 opposition to all their own natural prejudices and to 
 all the expectation of the Jewish nation, to hold up, as 
 the Messiah, one whose whole character presented 
 the strongest possible contrast to these anticipations, 
 and as they tell us, with artless simplicity, utterly at 
 variance with their own original wishes and opinions; 
 opinions to which they adhered until after the death 
 and resurrection of Christ? 
 
 If my opponent should assert that the gospels 
 
THE BIBLE. 153 
 
 were written after the destruction of Jerusalem, as 
 infidels sometimes pretend, in order to escape from the 
 evidence of the Saviour's predictions, the difficulty re- 
 mains unanswered; for how is it, that these Evange- 
 lists, Jews by birth and conviction, should make him 
 predict the very overthrow which it was thought he 
 would prevent? How should they, despite of their 
 most cherished prejudices, be willing to receive him 
 as the Messiah? 
 
 2. The second point in the character of Christ is 
 its marked peculiarity, distinguishing it from every 
 other described either in sacred or profane history. 
 
 If the evangelists had been drawing a mere fancy 
 sketch, they might perhaps have found one in the 
 succession of prophets, who had adorned the former 
 annals of their nation, and might furnish an ideal 
 prototype; but Jesus Christ differs essentially from 
 them all. Meek and lowly, patient and gentle as he 
 was, he speaks as one who knows that his mission is 
 to establish a new dispensation, and to bring the race 
 into a nearer and more intimate communion with 
 heaven. Unlike all the founders of Jewish sects, he 
 comes without austerity. His manners are familiar, 
 but invested with indescribable dignity; none are too 
 mean to be beneath his notice. Whilst delighting and 
 comforting his friends, and ready to communicate in- 
 struction to every honest inquirer, he overwhelms 
 his enemies by the pungency of his appeals to their 
 own consciences. He assails without fear the hypo- 
 crisy of the rulers of the Jewish synagogue, denoun- 
 cing terrific woes upon the Pharisees, who, whilst 
 alive to all the minor duties of the ceremonial law, 
 were dead to the weightier matters of the moral law, 
 and who while tithing mint and anise and cummin, 
 forgot the practice of justice, mercy and truth. This 
 poor Jew from the village of Nazareth presented his 
 maxims and doctrines with an air of authority, so 
 grand and impressive, that the very men who thirsted 
 for his blood and came to drag him before their un- 
 righteous tribunals, went away confounded, and ex- 
 claiming, "Never man spake like this man!" This 
 14 
 
154 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 originality will appear still more striking, when we 
 remember that the Jews were wedded to habits and 
 opinions marked ont by their traditions. 
 
 The ceremonial law had been made even more ex- 
 acting by the glosses of their rabbis. Originally 
 adapted to their natural circumstances in the early 
 ages of their history, its real power had been pam- 
 pered by traditionary fetters. The Jewish Talmud, 
 whose teachings were regarded witlf reverential awe, 
 was a compilation of the most grotesque superstitions. 
 The religion of that age was not the religion which 
 Moses had taught, for the Saviour complained tha.t 
 they had made void the law of God by their tradi- 
 tions. Now imagine, how extraordinary to the Jews 
 of that age, must have been the character, and the 
 whole demeanour of Christ: we see him sitting down 
 to meat with unwashed hands, when religious obliga- 
 tion demanded perpetual ablutions; eating with pub- 
 licans and sinners, and mingling in social conver- 
 sation with gentiles, from whose touch the Jews 
 shrunk, as though it had been polluting. Listen to 
 his discourses, and instead of sacrifices and tithes, we 
 hear Mm giving preference to mercy; instead of en- 
 forcing punctilious regard to outward ceremonies, he 
 exalts obedience to the moral law ; instead of praising 
 external sanctity, devoid of sincerity, he preaches 
 purity of heart: and he does all this, claiming to be 
 the, Messiah, the darling object of national expecta- 
 tion! Could such a character have been unreal? 
 How could four unlettered Jews, all whose preju- 
 dices and interests were adverse to any such assump- 
 tion of prerogatives have invented such a character? 
 Look at the artless simplicity with which it is drawn. 
 There it stands, without an effort at adornment, in 
 the grandeur of its own ingenuous simplicity. The 
 infidel, soured by prejudice, may turn away from the 
 portrait of Christ, but what unbiassed mind can fai* 
 to discern, in its lineaments of moral beauty, the 
 image of the glorious Son of God, bearing, in its ori- 
 ginality, the seal of divine authority? [Time. Long 
 Applause.] 
 
THE BIBLE. 155 
 
 Mr. Barker. — (Silence.) As the discussion to-night 
 may lead to some freedom of comment on the New Testament, 
 and the character of Jesus as there taught, it may not be 
 amiss to make a few preliminary remarks. We wish it dis- 
 tinctly understood that we find no fault with the New Tes- 
 tament on account of anything good in its contents. All its 
 exhortations to virtue, patience, charity, courtesy, temperance, 
 and purity, we cordially approve. Whatever is beautiful, 
 noble, good, and generous, in the characters it recommends 
 as examples, we admire. If we have any objection to it, it 
 is to such portion of its contents as seem to us at variance 
 with truth and human duty. If our duty should lead us to 
 point out any defects, if not positive faults, in the leading 
 characters, we wish it understood that we find no fault 
 with what is good in them. We do not find fault with the 
 Church because it is too good, too pure, too gentle, too cour- 
 teous, or too useful to mankind. We find no fault with the 
 Ministry because on the ground that it presses human duty 
 too closely on the conscience, or that it wars too sternly with 
 the great evils of intemperance, slavery, oppression and im- 
 purity. But we find fault with the book because we think 
 it falls short of the real standard of truth and human duty; 
 and with the Church and Ministry because their members are 
 too little for Grod, and too much for themselves, too anxious 
 for popularity, wealth and power; not zealous enough for 
 the annihilation of those social evils which cause ignorance 
 and wretchedness, and for the accomplishment of those re- 
 forms which would tend to the instruction, purification, hap- 
 piness, and salvation of the race. In fine, our objection to 
 them is, that they are not sufficiently wise, or holy, or chari- 
 table, or virtuous. 
 
 The Doctor says, "I ought to know" that the faith which 
 leads to salvation is always accompanied by good works. 
 Now it happens that I do not know any such thing. The 
 vast multitude of those who profess Christianity, and, accord- 
 ing to the Doctor and the Bible, I must judge the doctrine 
 by its fruits, do not distinguish themselves by good works, 
 bat tumble into the mire of sin, and defile themselves and 
 others with licentious abominations. This is, too, the ten- 
 dency of their doctrine. If they believed that men reap as 
 they sow, they would sow good seed; but as they believe 
 they will reap as another has sowed, they are apt to be care- 
 less about it. Suppose a gardener, instead of trusting to his 
 
156 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 own culture, believes his garden will be kept free from weeds 
 by the horticultural skill of a neighbour, the tendency would 
 be to make him defer his labour until some period which 
 might be extremely convenient. But if he believes that fruits 
 and flowers will come only in reward of his own industry, he 
 will be diligent. And so in respect to outward conduct: if 
 I am to be damned or saved, according to the life I lead, I 
 am apt to seek out the best course of life and follow it. But 
 if, on the other hand, I am to be saved by faith, and works 
 are a secondary matter, if I am to rely on another's merits 
 and another's sufferings, the tendency is to make me anxious 
 to get hold of the true faith, to care more for believing right. 
 And as men are not generally philosophers competent to de- 
 cide in philosophical and theological doctrines, they are led 
 thus to submit to the opinion of priests, who can judge better 
 than they. They put their intellects out to nurse, and, it 
 often happens, their intellectual faculties are nursed out of 
 existence, and they become incapable of distinguishing abso- 
 lute truth from palpable falsehood. (Hisses.) When taught 
 that "while the lamp holds out to burn, the vilest sinner may 
 return," that sins red as scarlet may be made "white as 
 wool" by an act of faith on a death-bed, and that a man may 
 sin during a life, and then get clear and go to heaven by be- 
 lieving, at the last moment, in another's merits, the tendency 
 is to make a man put off a good life until it is too late to 
 lead one. 
 
 The Doctor said that the Scribes and the Pharisees were 
 the infidels of Christ's day. If so, infidels then were very 
 different from infidels now. Infidels now-a-days do not pray 
 and preach in the synagogues, or at the corners of the streets; 
 and especially they do not devour widows' houses, and, for a 
 pretence, make long prayers; they do not pay tithes of mint, 
 and anise, and cummin, and neglect the weightier matters of 
 the law; they do not talk much of trifling ceremonies, but 
 rather of freedom, and intellectual and moral cultivation: 
 they would give a broad wagon-road to opinions on doctrine 
 for a little temperance, charity, purity, and manliness in a 
 man's own character. The Doctor knew that the Phari- 
 sees of Christ's clay were sectarians, and that they made 
 broad their phylacteries. The infidels were the Saddueces, 
 and it is a remarkable fact that Jesus had little, if any, mult 
 to find with their morality. The Pharisees were the teachers 
 of the law, and, against them, Christ fulminated his most 
 terrible anathemas. 
 
THE BIBLE. 157 
 
 The Doctor says the "substantial agreement" in the two 
 stories, respecting the numbering of the people, was that 
 David did number them; and the u circumstantial variation" 
 in the stories is, that one of them says, Satan moved liim to 
 do it, and the other that God did. And this substantial 
 agreement and circumstantial variation the Doctor says is 
 the strongest of all kinds of testimony. 
 
 Well, let us see how such testimony would work in a court 
 of justice. A man has been murdered, and two witnesses 
 are brought who say they know who murdered him. There 
 stands the prisoner suspected of the murder. Samuel is 
 sworn, and testifies the prisoner at the bar killed the man. 
 I saw him do it. I am infallible, besides. I speak by divine 
 inspiration, and cannot therefore err very well. Ezra is sworn 
 next, and he testifies that the person wbo committed the mur- 
 der was quite a dhTerent man from the prisoner at the bar. 
 AY by, says he, the prisoner at the bar is black, whereas the 
 murderer was white. I saw the murder committed. I knew 
 the murderer perfectly. Besides, I am inspired of God; I 
 cannot be mistaken. 
 
 Would these two witnesses settle the matter? Just the 
 contrary. They would destroy each other's credit. 
 
 But suppose another witness, called James, steps forward, 
 and says no man murdered the dead man; he died of an in- 
 ternal disease. I am divinely inspired, and know. This 
 surely would prove the charge against the prisoner. Ridicu- 
 lous ! The result of such testimony would be the discharge 
 of the prisoner, and the arrest of the three witnesses as per- 
 jured impostors, notwithstanding their pretensions to divine 
 inspiration. 
 
 Imagine a civil suit respecting a field. I want to prove 
 the field was purchased by a brother priest, and I bring two 
 witnesses to prove the point. Matthew qualifies first, and 
 swears I am an infallible witness. God has made me so. 
 God speaks through me. The field was bought by the priests. 
 
 Luke qualifies next, and swears : I have a perfect know- 
 ledge of all these things. I am God Almighty's speak- 
 ing trumpet. It is not I that speak, but God that speaketh 
 through me. Judas bought the field. While the court is 
 all amazement Matthew appeals to Jeremiah to confirm his 
 statement; Jeremiah is sworn, and says he knows nothing 
 about it. Zachariah is called on, and says it was lie that 
 bought. And they all declare themselves inspired and infal- 
 
 14* 
 
158 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 lible. The court says the case must be dismissed. "Please 
 your honour," says the counsellor, "the case seems very 
 plain. The evidence is the best that can be. We have sub- 
 stantial agreement with circumstantial variation. Is this the 
 way the evidence is to be trifled with?" Substantial agree- 
 ment and circumstantial variation! You may prove any- 
 thing by such rules. There are the Doctor and myself; we 
 both believe there is such a book as the Bible; this is the 
 substantial agreement. But the Doctor says the Bible is of 
 God; while I contend it is of man. This is a circumstantial 
 variation. Nothing more. We are therefore agreed. 
 
 The Doctor says again, that what the thirteenth of Bomans 
 teaches is, that civil government is ordained of God, and that 
 good rulers are worthy of the respect of all God's people. 
 
 That is just what the passage does not teach. What the 
 passage does teach is — 
 
 1. That we are to obey the powers that be, making no ex- 
 ceptions or qualifications. 
 
 2. That if we resist them we shall receive damnation. 
 
 As reasons why we ought to obey rulers, the passage tells 
 us — 
 
 1. That there is no power but of God. 
 
 2. That the powers that be — the powers then in being — 
 were of God. 
 
 3. That whoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth 
 the ordinance of God, and shall receive to themselves dam- 
 nation. It adds, as a fourth reason, that rulers are not a 
 terror to good works, but — 
 
 5. That they are a terror to evil, and 
 
 6. That if we do that which is good, we shall have praise 
 from them, &c. 
 
 These are the plain, the positive, the unqualified teachings 
 of the passage, and baser and falser teachings, I defy the 
 world to produce. I know well enough that the Doctor 
 could write a better passage, but that is not his business. 
 His business is to prove the passage to be of God, or else 
 give up his theory of scripture inspiration. 
 
 The Doctor says infidels take the ground that men have no 
 right to rule. Does he mean that we take such ground ? If 
 so, it is a calumny — a base and inexcusable calumny. We 
 say that men have a right to rule, when their countrymen 
 appoint them to do so. True, we say that men have no 
 right to rule in virtue of their birth, or in virtue of ill-gotten 
 wealth. And we also say, that even when men have been 
 

 THE BIBLE. 159 
 
 appointed by a nation to rule, they have no right to use their 
 power against the rights and liberties of the nation. If we 
 are wrong in so believing, have pity on us, and enlighten us. 
 But our principle is, that rulers are for the people, not the 
 people for the rulers. That the people are sovereign, and 
 the rulers servants. That neither king, nor aristocrat, nor 
 priest, has any more right to rule, than the printer or the 
 ploughboy, till commissioned to do so by the people. If rulers 
 abuse their power, the people have a right to depose them. 
 If they resist the will of the people, the people have a right to 
 tumble them from their places by force, and to punish them 
 for their insolence too. The people have a right to resist 
 every form of tyranny and usurpation. " Resistance to tyrants 
 is obedience to God." The English were never farther from 
 damnation than when they humbled the tyrant and the traitor 
 Charles ; and the descendants of those English reformers were 
 never farther from damnation, than when they resisted the 
 tyranny of George the Third, and declared this glorious 
 country free and independent. 
 
 These are the principles of those you reproachfully call 
 infidels. If you have any better, let us hear them. 
 
 My opponent says God instituted a republican form of 
 Government among the Jews. 
 
 Then God did well, in our judgment. But did he give 
 no power to the priests, think you? 
 
 God never instituted king-craft, the Doctor says. So we 
 think ; but there is much king-craft in the world, and priest- 
 craft too, and the Bible says the powers that be are or- 
 dained of God — and that whosoever resisteth the power re- 
 sisteth the ordinance of God. 
 
 To justify himself in charging us with immorality, he 
 quotes the passage, — "By their fruits, ye shall know them." 
 Let us quote the whole passage: — " Beware of false prophets, 
 which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are 
 ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." 
 
 I take the meaning to be, " Ye shall know whether preachers 
 are really the friends of the people or not by their lives." Does 
 my opponent know anything about my life? Does he know 
 me to be a drunkard, a profligate, or a thief? If he thinks he 
 does, let him speak. If he will prove me guilty of any 
 crime, or stained with any vice, I will retire, and leave the 
 platform and the victory to him. Those personal charges 
 and insinuations are discreditable and inexcusable. (Sen- 
 sation.) 
 
160 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 The Doctor says that there are proofs in almost every part 
 of the earth that at some remote period God visited the earth 
 with a flood. We answer, there are proofs of several great 
 floods, geologists say; but even theological geologists, such 
 as Hitchcock, Pye Smith, and Dr. Harris, say that there is 
 no trace of such a flood as the one recorded in Genesis; that 
 there are no traces of any universal deluge; that the great 
 flood of which the earth bears traces all took place before 
 the appearance of man on the earth. As for the origin of 
 the almost universal tradition of which the Doctor spoke, 
 what more natural than for men, when they saw almost every- 
 where the marks of great floods, to frame some such stories 
 as those of the Greeks and Romans, or the monstrous and 
 impossible fable of the Bible. 
 
 One word more about this deluge story, and we have done 
 for the present. According to Hitchcock and other Chris- 
 tian geologists, there are half a million species of birds, 
 beasts and creeping things. According to the Bible, there- 
 fore, there would have to be above a million in the ark; for 
 of the birds and all clean beasts there would be fourteen of 
 a species. Noah and his family would have to feed, water, 
 and clean after 3350 a minute, (hissing and applause,) or 66 
 in a second. The idea is monstrous. (Hissing and ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 The Doctor again says that the matter of which the uni- 
 verse is made was created an indefinite period before the six 
 days mentioned in Genesis. So say we; but the Bible does 
 not say so. The Bible says nothing about the creation of 
 matter; it simply speaks of the creation of the heavens and 
 the earth, the sea, and all that in them is; and these it over 
 and over again declares, contrary to the revelations of geology, 
 were all made in six days, about six thousand years ago. 
 
 However, I am glad the Doctor is beginning to place him- 
 self on geological, philosophical, infidel ground. 
 
 He has told us twice that the natural man understandeth 
 not the things of the Spirit, neither can he know them, be- 
 cause they are spiritually discerned. We ask, Why then 
 does he talk to natural people about them ? Did he come 
 here to talk to the regenerate only? If natural men cannot 
 understand spiritual things, how are they to become spiritual? 
 Can we be converted by the truth before we understand it? 
 Are we to be converted first, and understand it only after- 
 wards? What is the use of your spiritual things, if people 
 can be regenerated and made spiritual without them? 
 
THE BIBLE. 161 
 
 My opponent should know that the original word should 
 be translated animal, not natural. The animal man, — the 
 man lost in sensuality, — the man in whom the intellectual and 
 moral faculties have never been unfolded, cannot well under- 
 stand the thiDgs of the Spirit; but are ice thus animal? Does 
 it become the preacher of humility to say, My intellectual and 
 moral faculties are well developed; but my opponent's are 
 not developed at all ? I am spiritual, and can judge all things; 
 but my opponent is animal, and can judge or discern nothing. 
 
 Perhaps it would be as well to let others judge which of 
 us seems to understand things best. 
 
 "We had next an essay on the advent of Jesus, and on his 
 character aud doctrine. The object of the essay was to prove 
 the Bible of superhuman origin, I suppose; for the superhu- 
 man origin of the Bible is the point in dispute. 
 
 Did the essay make good that point? Did it prove a single 
 book, or single chapter of the Bible of superhuman origin? 
 Not at all. 
 
 He says there was a general expectation, about eighteen 
 hundred and fifty years ago, that some great personage was 
 to be born, in Judea, who should gain the empire of the 
 world. 
 
 Very well: what then? 
 
 Several persons appeared among the Jews, says he, and 
 professed to be that person. 
 
 Exactly so; the very thing to be expected in such circum- 
 stances. There is a tendency in such expectations and pro- 
 phecies to fulfil themselves exactly in that way. 
 
 But Jesus of Nazareth was the person really alluded to. 
 "Where is the proof? Did the Dr. give us any? We think 
 not. But suppose he had proved this point; would it prove 
 the divine origin of Solomon's song, or of the blasphemous, 
 immoral and contradictory portions of other parts of the 
 Bible? Would it prove the superhuman origin of any book? 
 Nothing of the kind. 
 
 But the character of Jesus was perfect, and his doctrine 
 was true and divine, said the Dr. 
 
 But did he prove what he said? He did not even attempt 
 to prove it. His essay, on this point, was all assertion; bare, 
 unsupported assertion. 
 
 Did he tell us what constitutes a perfect character? No. 
 
 Did he tell us how we may know when a character is per- 
 fect? No. Did he tell us on what grounds he judged the 
 
162 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 character of Jesus to be perfect? No. But to maintain his 
 proposition, he must prove all this. What 'proof does the 
 New Testament offer of the real character of Christ ? None. 
 But the Dr. says his portrait is drawn by those who were 
 well acquainted with him. He offered no proof that this was 
 so, but if it was, are we sure that their narration is always 
 accurate? (Cries of — Time up.) 
 
 Dr. Berg. — (Enthusiastic applause.) Before pro- 
 ceeding to answer my opponent's speech of this even- 
 ing, I will allude to a few points made by him last 
 evening. He says of the account given by Matthew, 
 
 "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy 
 the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of 
 silver, the price of Him that was valued, and gave 
 them for the potter's field." Matthew xxvii. 9, 10. 
 That no such words are found in Jeremiah, though a 
 somewhat similar account is given by Zechariah. 
 Zech. ix. 13. I will easily explain this by the quo- 
 tation of a few words from " Gaussen on the Inspira- 
 tion of the Scriptures." 
 
 " We know by Jerome, that there existed in his 
 day an Apocryphal book of the prophet Jeremiah, 
 in which the words quoted by St. Matthew are found, 
 letter for letter. It is also known that the second 
 book of Maccabees records many of the actions and 
 words of Jeremiah, which are taken from another 
 book and not from his Canonical Prophecies. Why 
 then should not the words quoted by the Evangelist 
 really have been pronounced by Jeremy, and might 
 they not have lived in the memory of the Church, 
 down to the time of Zechariah; who would then 
 himself theopneustically give them a place in holy 
 writ? as is the case in the traditional words of Enoch, 
 quoted in the Epistle in Jude; or the traditional 
 words of Jesus Christ, quoted by the Apostle Paul, 
 in the Book of Acts. What confirms this supposition 
 is, that the words cited by Matthew are only partly 
 found in Zechariah. Moreover, it is known that this 
 prophet loved to record the words of Jeremiah." 
 
 My opponent then introduced a large amount of 
 
THE BIBLE. 163 
 
 chaff, which would require time to winnow and sift. 
 You cannot wish me to occupy either my time or yours 
 for this purpose now. (Applause.) 
 
 There are certain kinds of argumentation which 
 it is almost impossible to meet by sober refutation. 
 When we find a man assuming the strut of self-satis- 
 fied complacency in order to hide the vexation of 
 spirit which betrays itself, notwithstanding all efforts 
 of concealment, and beginning to quibble and equivo- 
 cate, and try to supply his lack of argument by the 
 most glaring sophistry and evasion, we can hardly 
 demand more or less of his opponent, than that he 
 should present a few samples of the polemical tricks 
 by which the enemy of truth endeavours to escape 
 from his embarrassments. I shall therefore cull a 
 few specimens of my opponent's style of dialectics, 
 and leave him to the enjoyment of the fragrance they 
 will diffuse. You will remember he quoted me as 
 arguing thus : " There is a grandeur of style, a concen- 
 tration of thought, about the Bible, which bespeaks 
 its divine origin." So indeed; he rejoins, then every 
 book which is thus characterized is of superhuman 
 authority? Certainly not. But does my opponent 
 call this a candid statement of my position? Did I 
 introduce these features as the proof, or as merely a 
 link in the chain of evidences ? He goes from point 
 to point, and from link to link, and holds up each 
 separate item, as though I had made my argument 
 depend upon the statement of insulated peculiarities, 
 instead of regarding the combination of the excel- 
 lencies of the Scriptures as the point in debate. The 
 absurdity of my opponent's position may easily be 
 made apparent. Suppose, he were engaged in de- 
 scribing the qualities of man's physical nature, inclu- 
 ding of course body and soul, though as some infidels 
 declare they have no soul, we may perhaps, to make 
 the illustration plainer to them, leave the spiritual 
 part out of the question. Among other things, my 
 opponent tells us, every man has two ears, unless they 
 have been cropped for some misdemeanor; but in his 
 normal state as a man, he has two ears, among other 
 
164 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 qualities which he describes. I come to him, after 
 the lapse of a day, and show him an animal that has 
 two long ears, which I introduce to him as his fellow 
 man and invite him to embrace his brother! What 
 would he think of such a perversion of his argument! 
 Precisely what I think of his style of reasoning — it 
 might pass for a joke, but it would be very sorry 
 logic. He would tell me, Did T say that every animal 
 that has two ears is a man? I rejoin, Did I say that 
 every book which presents " concentration of thought, 
 and dignity of expression" is superhuman? This 
 kind of artifice constitutes the strength of my oppo- 
 nent's tactics. He has given us samples of it in every 
 speech in which he has pretended to answer my ar- 
 guments, but I shall not follow him. The Latins say, 
 " Ex pede Herculem," I will add a new saying which 
 may be taken, as a parody, "ex aure asinum." 
 
 The same device is seen in his attempts to evade 
 the point of my rejoinder, when I show him that 
 the word God is a generic term. "Oh!" says he, "I 
 thought there was but one God." " Thou believest 
 there is one God. Thou doest well. The devils also 
 believe and tremble." There is but one true God, I 
 admit, but as there is a multitude of imaginary dei- 
 ties or gods, the term has come to be generic also, 
 and as my opponent's god is not the God of the Bible, 
 if he owns any god at all, he ought to have a distinct 
 name, be it Jupiter, Apollo, or Joseph Barker! He 
 tells me that I admit that the heathen could come at 
 a knowledge of the unity of the Divine nature, be- 
 cause I say, the word Osiot^, which St. Paul uses in 
 Rom. i., denotes not the attributes of God, but sim- 
 ply his being, or the unity of his being. I do ad- 
 mit that this passage denotes the possibility of know- 
 ing the power of God, and the fact of his existence 
 as one God, but does that prove that the heathen 
 did know the latter truth? Is it not a fact, that 
 though they might have known these great truths, 
 "they, nevertheless, professing themselves wise, be- 
 came fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible 
 God into an image made like to corruptible man, 
 
THE BIBLE.- 165 
 
 and to birds, and four-footed beasts and creeping 
 things/ 7 and that instead of worshipping one God, 
 they bowed the knee to a multitude of false gods? 
 Show me a nation under heaven that professes any 
 idea of one all perfect God, that has not borrowed it 
 from the Bible ? Without the Bible, notwithstanding 
 that the heathen are responsible for all the know- 
 ledge which may be obtained from the works of cre- 
 ation, they are nevertheless still addicted to the 
 grossest forms of superstition and idolatry, as they 
 ever have been! 
 
 My opponent has quoted the words, "that which may 
 be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath 
 showed it unto them, " as though the apostle meant 
 that the light of nature is sufficient to teach men all 
 that can be known of God!" Preposterous folly! 
 What ! Does the apostle Paul teach that the reve- 
 lation of the divine will and counsel contained in 
 the law and the prophets and in the inspired writings 
 •was altogether needless? Was Paul an infidel Deist, 
 as Job was a Pagan Deist? Any man who looks at 
 that passage honestly, will see that it is explained by 
 the very terms with which it stands in close connex- 
 ion, and that the apostle means just what he says; 
 that the heathen are responsible for all the know- 
 ledge of God which they can derive from the works 
 of nature. " Because, that which may be known of 
 God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto 
 them. For the invisible things of him from the 
 creation of the world are clearly seen, being under- 
 stood by the things that are made, even his eternal 
 power and Godhead; so that they are without ex- 
 cuse!" What becomes now of Mr. Barker's asser- 
 tion, that all the attributes of God are known from 
 the works of nature? Why should Paul specify 
 eternal power, one attribute, if the next word, God- 
 head, were intended to intimate that the heathen 
 knew all the attributes of Jehovah? Thus, again, 
 my opponent, shows the poverty of his own resources 
 as an infidel, by running to the Bible for his proofs; 
 but his quotations cannot save him. 
 15 
 
166 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Look again at the style in which he seeks to evade 
 the overwhelming conviction of ignorance, or some- 
 thing worse, in the proof that Job, whom he styled a 
 Pagan Deist, was an humble believer in Christ, as 
 his Divine Redeemer? Oh! says he, the passage 
 does not mean that at all — your own commentators 
 deny its application to Christ! But, how is this? 
 I thought Mr. Barker wanted us to take the plain 
 meaning of the words of the Bible without the light 
 of commentators, and now when the plain meaning 
 slays him by proving that the oldest book extant con- 
 tains a direct prediction of Christ, he runs to the com- 
 mentators! Well, if he gets among them, they will 
 show him very little favour, for nine-tenths of them fa- 
 vour the view I have presented, and not one Christian 
 out of a thousand could accept any other. Commenta- 
 tors say you? But Mr. Barker is his own commenta- 
 tor. He has a plan of hermeneutics which surpasses 
 every other system in convenience. So again, when I 
 quoted the words of Christ, "Suffer little children 
 to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven," he proceeds, like an ortho- 
 dox " priest," to compare Scripture with Scripture to 
 get at the meaning, and he tells us the words do not 
 teach that little children when they die go to hea- 
 ven, but they mean simply that those who would re- 
 ceive the gospel, must become like little children! 
 Now the truth is, the words imply both what I assert 
 and what Mr. Barker ascribes to them. " If of such 
 is the kingdom of heaven," then Christ will not turn 
 them away from heaven. Mr. Barker knows that the 
 words kingdom of God, and kingdom of heaven in the 
 New Testament imply frequently the gospel dispensa- 
 tion, which in its widest range includes the true 
 church of Christ on earth, and in heaven, or the whole 
 administration of Christ's kingdom of glory. But 
 what are we to think of this shuffling mode of argumen- 
 tation adopted by my opponent, shifting his ground 
 as lie does when the truth presses him? One mo- 
 ment he laughs at the idea of a divine interposition 
 to keep Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac — that 
 
THE BIBLE. 167 
 
 story he puts among the fables of the Bible, and yet 
 he tells us God demands human sacrifices, and then 
 cites the case of Jephthah's daughter to show that 
 Jehovah did not interfere in order to save the poor 
 girl from being offered a burnt offering. Did ever 
 man blow hot and cold more fiercely than my oppo- 
 nent? What ridiculous folly to place Abraham's 
 obedience and Jephthah's rashness on the same foot- 
 ing, supposing that Jephthah did offer his daughter 
 as a burnt sacrifice ! If an infidel in his desperation 
 should leap from the roof of this hall and dash his 
 head upon the pavement, would God be chargeable 
 with accepting human sacrifices, because he does not 
 suspend the laws of nature in order to save the sui- 
 cide from death ? 
 
 My opponent betrayed the wretched subterfuges to 
 which he is compelled to resort, by denying the ana- 
 logy between the moral government of God as re- 
 vealed in the Bible, and the administration of the 
 laws of nature, patent to his own senses. He says it 
 was cruel in God to have the sons of Saul hanged on 
 account of their father's sin in murdering the de- 
 fenceless Gibeonites, after the faith of the princes of 
 Israel had been solemnly pledged for their protec- 
 tion! I tell him, settle the question with your name- 
 less god, who, you say, is the god of nature, and by 
 whose law the children of the drunkard and the sen- 
 sualist are made to suffer calamities entailed by pa- 
 ternal or ancestral crimes. He answers, what civil 
 government would be justified in pursuing such a 
 course? I answer, none! Because such things are 
 from their nature beyond the province of human ju- 
 risdiction and control. This is another of the piti- 
 ful evasions, by which my opponent seeks to escape, 
 when he is cornered. The question is one which be- 
 longs to God's administration, not to man's ; the so- 
 lution of the fact is not my province, but the fact 
 that God does visit the sins of the father upon the 
 children is proved by the order of nature and of 
 providence as fully as by the dogmas of revelation. 
 Let my opponent tell us why it is that the god of na- 
 
168 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ture, who is his god, if he has any, has so ordered 
 this course of nature that the penal consequences of 
 the sin of parents are often transmitted to their pos- 
 terity? Is his god almighty? If so, could he not 
 have ordered the physical constitution and the laws 
 of physiology differently, so that no such injustice 
 should be done to unborn children? Let him recon- 
 cile this with his ideas of a merciful god. 
 
 Do you not see in this very train the verification 
 of the Bible doctrine, which links the misery of the 
 race with the transgression of its first progenitor? 
 
 Another point I must not forget, because it is im- 
 portant as a development of infidel theology. I 
 asked my opponent how the soul has power to re- 
 cover from the effects of sin or vice? He stated that 
 every man has a saviour within himself. If I under- 
 stand him now, conscience is the law of that internal 
 saviour, and obedience to the dictates of conscience 
 constitutes the salvation or recovery of the soul from 
 sin. Thus, if a man steals your money, he must not 
 keep it, he must make restitution. So far, so good. 
 He satisfies you; but has he committed no oflence 
 against God, which requires satisfaction? Does the 
 law of God say, "Thou shalt not steal?" or is this 
 merely a human ordinance, as Mr. Barker says? If 
 it be merely a human statute, then to disobey, on his 
 principles, involves no offence against God, because 
 God's authority has nothing to do with it. What 
 kind of a god is the infidel's god, that cares not whe- 
 ther his worshippers steal, commit adultery, or lie 
 and cheat? But here is a difficulty. A man robs 
 you, and while he is working out his salvation, by 
 considering whether he will hear the law of his in- 
 ternal saviour, or not, he is suddenly taken ill, and 
 dies before he can make restitution! What then? 
 God never forgives sin, you know, according to my 
 opponent. What becomes of this unfortunate vio- 
 lator of the eighth commandment? Will Mr. Barker 
 send him to the infidel's heaven, of which he told us 
 the other day? Or will that saviour which every 
 man has within himself, save the pirate, the gambler 
 

 THE BIBLE. 169 
 
 and the profligate, whose heart is as hard as vice and 
 profligacy can make it? Oh! what a miserable jar- 
 gon of contradiction is involved in the atheistic creed 
 of my opponent, when he denies that the laws, doc- 
 trines and institutions of the Bible are of any super- 
 human authority! 
 
 Numberless points in his former speeches might be 
 exposed in the same style, but the game is not worth 
 the powder. Thus, when he says the Bible does not 
 define what adultery is, though this is a flat untruth, 
 we might ask, how is it then that all Christians 
 know what adultery is? Perhaps, because infidels 
 have taught them what it is. Then, again, he talks 
 of a contradiction in the history of the crucifixion, 
 because one evangelist says that one of the thieves 
 that were crucified with Christ railed at him, whilst 
 the other prayed to him, and another evangelist says, 
 that both railed at him. How does he know that 
 both statements are not true? Had Mr. Barker been 
 there, when Jesus was crucified, joining in the cry, 
 "Away with him! away with him! — we will not have 
 this man to reign over us!" he would, perhaps, have 
 found that at the beginning of that fearful scene of 
 crucifixion, both malefactors railed at Jesus, but that 
 soon, subdued by the majestic sweetness of the suf- 
 fering Saviour, the heart of one of those companions in 
 sorrow was broken, and he began to pray and to re- 
 buke the reviling infidel, who, even in death, taunted 
 the Saviour and derided his kingly power. Does he 
 ask for substantial agreement here, amid circumstan- 
 tial variety? See it, in the great truth that Christ 
 was crucified between two thieves, thus fulfilling the 
 prophecy of Isaiah, hundreds of years before that 
 fearful day of crucifixion, "and he was numbered 
 with transgressors.'' Before my opponent can cite 
 any contradiction as proved, it is for him to show that 
 the apparent discrepance cannot possibly be recon- 
 ciled by any rational explanation. 
 
 I will now proceed with the argument, drawn from 
 the character of Jesus Christ. When my opponent 
 
170 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 attacked that argument, he knew that I had only en- 
 tered upon the threshold of it. This was scarcely 
 fair, but I go on. 
 
 3. The character of the Redeemer is marked by fea- 
 tures of unexampled moral grandeur. There is the 
 most wonderful combination of qualities apparently 
 the most opposite. The most imperturbable fortitude 
 is found associated with tenderness the most exqui- 
 site. The majesty of supernatural greatness is linked 
 with the most condescending familiarity, the dis- 
 plays of superhuman power are associated with a hu- 
 mility that condescends to the most menial service of 
 benevolence. He who raises Lazarus from the dead 
 washes the feet of his disciples. Claiming to be Lord 
 of all, and dispensing bounties like a Prince, yet the 
 Son of man amassed no treasure, and was content, 
 though he had not where to lay his head. Repre- 
 sented as working the most astonishing miracles, 
 which overwhelm the beholders with amazement, he 
 seems unconcerned about his fame, and calmly leaves 
 his deeds to make their own impression. Then, view 
 him in his hours of suffering. Oh ! what majesty en- 
 circles the brow of Jesus of Nazareth ! He is great 
 when uttering those precepts of unearthly grandeur, 
 commanding the vindictive Jew to love his enemies 
 and bless his persecutors — he is mighty, when in the 
 majesty of divine tenderness, he stops the mournful 
 train who are bearing the widow's son to the tomb, 
 and gives him back to his mother's embrace ; but he 
 is greater and mightier still, when he hangs upon the 
 cross of Calvary, and whilst the rabble shout and re- 
 vile, he prays, "Father, forgive, they know not what 
 they do;" and then, amid the rending of the rocks 
 and the throes of nature quivering in agony, he bows 
 his head and gives up the ghost. 
 
 Need we press the argument that the Evangelists 
 were the conscientious narrators of facts which they 
 believed. How could they in that age of corrupt lite- 
 rature, men as they were, of uncultivated taste, how 
 could they emerge from the influence of the babbling 
 follies of false traditions, and startle the world with 
 
THE BIBLE. 171 
 
 the portrait of a character, such as had never before 
 been conceived, and clothe it in the simplest garb of 
 unaffected narrative? We see the sublimity in the 
 character of Jesus, but this is not owing to any art 
 of the narrators; it is the sublimity of truth that 
 needs no ornament and can bear none ! 
 
 4. The perfection of this portrait is its symmetry. 
 From first to last, it is consistent. Amid all the cir- 
 cumstances of his life, there is the same undeviating 
 devotedness to his Father in heaven, the same conde- 
 scension to human infirmity, and the same compassion 
 for human sorrow — the same meekness under re- 
 proach — the same self-denying contempt of worldly 
 pomp and splendour, the same calm repose in the fa- 
 vour of God. Whether the multitude frowned and 
 cursed him, or hailed him with hosannas — whether 
 driven in fury from his native city, or borne in triumph 
 into Jerusalem, whether comforting his disciples in 
 private, or exposed to the insults of an infuriated 
 rabble, whether expiring on the cross, or living in 
 the brightness of the resurrection, he is still the 
 same great and compassionate Jesus of Nazareth, the 
 friend of the poor, the Saviour of sinners! Never, 
 throughout the whole course of his mysterious sojourn 
 upon earth, does a word drop from his lips, unworthy 
 of the majesty of the divine character and mission 
 which he claimed ; his whole life was one continued 
 attestation of the truth that he was what he professed 
 to be, God manifest in the flesh, the Son of God, and 
 the Son of man, holy, harmless and undefiled. 
 
 This may suffice as our leading argument on the 
 internal evidences of the truth of the Bible and of 
 Christianity. Let my opponent meet it. Let him 
 explain, on his principles, the phenomenon exhibited 
 in the life and character of our adorable Redeemer. 
 
 Infidels admit that Jesus Christ was a good man. 
 Rousseau has left on record one of the most beauti- 
 ful testimonies to the exalted purity of Christ's cha- 
 racter to be found in any language. After contrast- 
 ing the death of Socrates with the death of Christ, 
 
172 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 he says: "Yes, if the life and death of Socrates were 
 those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were 
 those of a God. Shall we suppose the evangelic his- 
 tory a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not 
 the mark of fiction: on the contrary, the history of 
 Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so 
 well attested as that of Jesus Christ. Such a suppo- 
 sition, in fact, only shifts the difficulty without ob- 
 viating it: it is more inconceivable, that a number of 
 persons should agree to write such a history, than 
 that one only should furnish the subject of it. The 
 Jewish authors were incapable of the diction and of 
 the morality contained in the gospel, the marks of 
 whose truth are so striking and inimitable, that the 
 inventor would be a more astonishing character than 
 the hero. 7 ' This is a tremendous confession. 
 
 Paine is another witness. This wretched man, after 
 scandalizing the account of Christ's supernatural birth 
 in his Age of Reason, uses the following language : 
 
 "Nothing that is here said can apply even with the 
 most distant disrespect to the moral character of 
 Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and amiable man. 
 The morality that he preached and practised was of 
 the most benevolent kind; and though similar sys- 
 tems of morality had been preached by Confucius 
 and by some of the Greek philosophers many ages 
 before, by the Quakers since, and by many good 
 men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any." 
 
 [Time up. Dr. Berg sat down amid tremendous 
 cheering.] 
 
 Mr. Barker. "He was a virtuous and amiable man/' 
 says Paine. And so, as far as I know, will every unbeliever 
 say. [>4 whistle."] We say that the portrait of Christ, as 
 given by the Evangelists, possesses many beautiful traits, 
 But we deny, at the same time, that his teachings were al- 
 ways perfectly good, and that his reported arguments were 
 always sound. If llousseau published the passage just quoted 
 as expressive of his own convictions and not of those of some 
 character in a novel, why call him an infidel? If he uttered 
 
THE BIBLE. 173 
 
 them as his own, if he abode by them during life, without 
 altering or withdrawing them, then he was a Christian and 
 no infidel. But if he changed his opinions and withdrew 
 them, then there will probably be found some reason for it 
 in his works. Paine's writings show that he admired moral 
 and intellectual excellence wherever found, that he studied 
 with rapture the beauties and wonders of nature and art, that 
 he repeated with enthusiasm the touching poetry of the 19th 
 Psalm, and did full justice to the character of Christ. 
 
 The Dr. says that there were apocryphal books of Jere- 
 miah and Enoch, and that Matthew referred to the former. 
 What! Matthew, an inspired man, quoted an apocryphal 
 book! 
 
 He says that I deal in glaring sophistries. A real sophis- 
 try is never called such; it is exposed. But when a dispu- 
 tant finds an argument he cannot answer, he is glad to escape 
 with denouncing it as sophistry. [Hisses.] He complains 
 of my dealing with one of his arguments as insulated — says 
 it was but a "link in the chain." Well, if all the links are 
 shown to be unsound, what becomes of the chain? 
 
 He speaks of animals with two ears. If I had attempted 
 to prove anything analogous to the proposition that every 
 animal with two ears is a man, I would have exposed myself 
 to the charge of folly and absurdity. But I did nothing of 
 the kind, and it is to no purpose that our friend, by a vast 
 deal of learning and research, no doubt, has discovered that 
 there are other animals in the world with two ears besides 
 man. (Hissing, applause.) This evening, the Doctor has 
 changed his plan. Having exhausted the English language, 
 he has taken to calling me bad names in Latin. (Applause 
 and hisses.) He seemed ashamed to speak [hisses] what he 
 had to say so that everybody could understand him, but said 
 in Latin: u Ex ore asinum" that is to say, "You may see 
 from Barker's mouth that he is an ass." (Hisses and ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 Dr. Berg. — I said, "Ex aure." 
 
 Mr. Barker. — I thought you said ore. 
 
 Dr. Berg. — No — aure. 
 
 Mr. Barker. Great difference, truly ! I give him the due 
 credit for it. He did not say from his mouth, but " from his 
 ear you may see he is an ass." You may see from this 
 what credit is due to his statements, for he knows that my 
 ears are no longer than his. And if he cannot be trusted in 
 these matters, he cannot be trusted in any thing he says. 
 
174 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 [Tremendous hisses and applause. Some of the applause 
 came from the platform.] 
 
 Wm. D. Baker, Esq., Chairman. There has been repeat- 
 ed disorder upon this stage, and I despair of seeing the Mo- 
 derators succeed in preserving order in the audience when the 
 signal of the contrary is given from those who should set a 
 better example. I have been privately appealed to, to do 
 my duty. My only duty is to keep order upon the stage 
 and keep silence, unless some question is referred to me by 
 the Moderators. And 1 now wish it distinctly understood 
 that if there is any further disorder upon this stage, I am not 
 to blame. [Cries of good, good.'] 
 
 Mr. Barker. — The Doctor recurs to the fact that chil- 
 dren suffer for the sins of their parents, and considers it ac- 
 cording to Scripture. Now I find the Scripture says just 
 the contrary : Ezekiel declares " that this shall no more be a 
 proverb in Israel; the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the 
 children's teeth are set on edge." And as to the natural 
 laws of penalty for every transgression, I cannot imagine that 
 better ones could be established by Almighty power. And 
 it is far better to have fixed laws, so that men may know 
 what they have to expect, than uncertain ones, so that they 
 could have no rule whatever of life. I will add, that I con- 
 sider the doctrine that He has linked the misery of the hu- 
 man race with the misery of its first progenitor, and that He 
 has condemned the majority of mankind to an eternal hell 
 of fire and brimstone for one man's transgression, as the mas- 
 terpiece of blasphemy. Neither man nor devil, black as he is 
 painted, could invent a blacker and more terrible blasphemy. 
 (Sensation.) He says that a father would punish his child, 
 and, without atonement, would punish him forever for an of- 
 fence. If the case mentioned were mine, I would not. I 
 would reprove the child, and show him why he should not 
 repeat the offence; and I cannot believe that the good God 
 is less mild and less loving than an earthly parent. 
 
 I have said that the tendency of the Scriptures, when ac- 
 cepted as divine, is bad. Does not every man who is guilty 
 of adultery or polygamy fly at once for shelter to the Bible? 
 Do not the Latter Day Saints justify polygamy on the ground 
 of the example of the patriarchs and of David and of the 
 wisest of men ? I was reading, some time ago, a Presbyte- 
 rian paper which declared that there were some sins at which 
 God would never connive, and at others which he would, in 
 certain circumstances; that he would not connive at idolatry, 
 
THE BIBLE. 175 
 
 but that he would at polygamy, concubinage and slavery! 
 And yet these men cast the first stone at Infidels for immo- 
 rality ! There is no book, in the whole circle of literature, 
 portions of which encourage licentiousness more plainly than 
 the Old Testament Scriptures. (Sensation.) And as to the 
 discrepancies in its statements, I have no doubt that if my 
 opponent could find as many and as glaring ones in the Mor- 
 mon Bible, he would regard them as triumphant demonstra- 
 tions that that book was an imposture and fraud. 
 
 The Doctor speaks of Christ's character as one of unex- 
 ampled moral grandeur, as one exhibiting a combination of 
 many qualities apparently opposite. We have no doubt he 
 was a sane and good man, but there is no proof of the nu- 
 merous qualities attributed to him by the Doctor. We are 
 told that Christ was unconcerned about his fame, yet we read 
 that he inquired of his disciples what men said of him. He 
 prayed for his murderers ! Did no one else ever do so ? We 
 read of cases in which good men did the same long before 
 the Christian era. The Doctor tells us the rocks were rent 
 at the time of the death on the cross. Why take this for 
 granted? Why not prove it before assuming it to be true? 
 In fact, there is no proof that the Evangelists were the au- 
 thors of the narratives which are called by their names, and 
 which were probably compiled by others, and afterwards put 
 under their names by ignorant or fraudulent men. There 
 are chronological marks about some of them which show that 
 they were not written by eye-witnesses, but made up from 
 floating traditions. Hence the incongruities and uncertain- 
 ties of the record. 
 
 But Christ's character was perfect! There are some things 
 put into his mouth by his biographers — sayings to his mother 
 and others — which, so far from becoming God, would not 
 become a perfect man. My opponent, instead of asserting, 
 should have established his propositions in relation to the 
 symmetry, consistency and elevation of his character, and 
 shown that a character so beautiful had not preceded Christ, 
 and that there were no such bright characters in his day. 
 He should have established that Christ, in his whole career, did 
 nothing blameworthy, but performed his whole duty. Can 
 he do all these things with no more aid than the imperfect 
 records of the Evangelists? 
 
 But it is necessary to do all these things, before he can 
 prove the character of Jesus to have been perfect. Besides, 
 what proof did he give us, that the character given of Christ 
 
176 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 in the New Testament, is his true character ? None. What 
 proof can he give, that the character of Christ as given in the 
 Gospels is a genuine, real, true character of any one ? None. 
 
 It was drawn by people well acquainted with him. Where 
 is the proof? But suppose it was, do people well acquainted 
 with public characters, all picture them truly? By no means. 
 
 Does not prejudice or passion, love or reverence, often cause 
 them to exaggerate? Is it not common with people to think 
 more highly of their friends and benefactors than they ought 
 to think? Does not affection often blind people to the faults 
 or failings of their friends, and throw a more than natural 
 radiance about their virtues and excellencies? It does. 
 Might it not be so in the case of Jesus and his friends? 
 Where is the proof that it was not? But further, where is 
 the proof that the portrait given us of Jesus in the Gospels, 
 was drawn by persons acquainted with him? There is no 
 such proof. There is proof to the contrary. 
 
 But the character of Jesus is so much above all that could 
 be imagined in such a dark and vicious age, that it is impossi- 
 ble any one could have feigned it, or painted it from fancy. 
 
 Has my opponent then found out how far the powers of 
 fancy can go ? The truth is, nothing is more common than for 
 genius to imagine and to picture forms and characters more 
 beautiful than reality. The painter, the sculptor, and the 
 poet, all give us forms and characters more beautiful and more 
 perfect, than the real forms and characters in the world 
 around them. 
 
 Biographers and historians do the same. So far from it 
 being difficult to do so, it is difficult not to do so. It is a com- 
 mon complaint, that writers of lives make the men they write 
 about into angels. They drop their faults, and multiply and 
 magnify their virtues. They act on the principle of saying 
 nothing but good of the dead. The writers of Wesley's life 
 say nothing of his foolish conduct towards his wife. The 
 Quaker editors of George Fox's life leave out all such pas- 
 sages as appear likely to lower him in the estimation of his 
 readers. Our love often blinds us to the faults or failings of 
 our friends, even while they are living, but how much more 
 powerfully does affection operate in this way when our friends 
 are dead ! 
 
 Men are always imagining persons and things, and states 
 of society, better or more perfect than any that really exist. 
 The earth never saw a golden age, yet poets have often paint- 
 
THE BIBLE* 177 
 
 ed it. There are no real Utopias on the earth, but there 
 are many such places in books. There are no winged angel s, 
 perhaps, either in earth or in heaven, yet there are many to 
 be seen in pictures. 
 
 There is scarcely a poem, a biography, or a history ; a novel, 
 a romance, or a picture-gallery, which does not present fairer, 
 more perfect, more beautiful characters or forms than are 
 met with in the world of realities. 
 
 Cannot malice paint a man blacker than he is? Of course 
 it can. It can turn a poor creature, however innocent, into 
 a deviL And cannot love and gratitude paint a man fairer 
 than he is? Of course it can. It can turn the most homely 
 creature into an angel. And who will prove that it might 
 not be so in the case of Jesus and the Evangelists? 
 
 But remember, says our opponent, the character of Jesus 
 was drawn in a most dark and depraved age. But we happen 
 to know better. The age in which Jesus is said to have ap- 
 peared was more than usually enlightened, and could boast 
 of much superior virtue. You need only to look into Roman 
 and Grecian history to see this. 
 
 Besides, the beautiful portraits and exalted sentiments of 
 superior men of preceding ages had been presented, and the 
 moral portrait painter of the age had access to them. There 
 were the beautiful sentiments of poets and prophets — the 
 exquisite portrait of the Patriarch Job, in the 29th and 31st 
 chapters of the book that bears his name, and the unsur- 
 passed expressions ^f moral truth attributed -to Balaam, a 
 pagan prophet, in chapter 6th of the book of Micah. 
 
 The facts that present themselves in refutation of the as- 
 sertions of my opponent are innumerable. But it is waste 
 of time to dwell on this point. It will be soon enough to 
 deal with the arguments of my opponent when he has been 
 so good as to bring them forward. 
 
 The Doctor says the Jews were expecting a temporal prince 
 as their Messiah, who was to raise their nation to dominion 
 and glory ; while Jesus spoke only of spiritual dominion and 
 glory and blessedness in heaven. What he promised his 
 disciples were poverty, reproach, persecution and death. My 
 opponent is greatly mistaken. According to the Gospels, 
 Jesus spoke of himself exactly as a temporal prince, and 
 promised his followers wealth, and honours and dominion here 
 on earth. 
 
 The Doctor will not deny that the disciples expected Jesus 
 16 
 
178 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 to set up an earthly kingdom, I suppose. He will not deny 
 that they quarrelled among themselves about the highest 
 places in his kingdom? He will remember what two of 
 them said to him, according to the story; "We trusted it 
 was he that should deliver Israel, but now their hopes were 
 blighted." I suppose he remembers the questions his dis* 
 ciples are said to have put to him before he was finally parted 
 from them: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the king* 
 dom to Israel?" And finally, I suppose he will remember it 
 is said that when he parted from them, some of his attendants 
 cheered the disappointed office-hunters with the assurance 
 that their friend would come again, as they had seen him go 
 away, and that the hope of his speedy return was the great 
 support of the early church. 
 
 And now for the words of Jesus hiinself, as attributed to 
 him in the Gospels. 
 
 1. In Matthew vi. 33, he tells them that if they will seek 
 the kingdom of God and its prosperity, all other things needed 
 shall be added to them. 
 
 In Markx. 29, 30, he says: 
 
 " And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, there 
 is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or 
 father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake 
 and the gospel's, but he shall receive a hundred-fold now in 
 this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and 
 children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to 
 come, eternal- life." 
 
 In Matthew xix. 28, he says: 
 
 "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that 
 ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the 
 Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall 
 sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." 
 
 Not a statement, then, of my opponent, will bear investi- 
 gation. He errs on every point. 
 
 But now let us take a somewhat different view of the 
 subject. He says the New Testament is divine. We ask 
 for proof, and he gives none. [Time expired.] 
 
 I)r. Berg. — (Applause.) When I said Ex aure 
 asinum, I did not mean to say that my opponent was 
 an ass, but that his arguments were foolish ; so that 
 his eloquent denunciation of personal attacks does 
 not apply. I would advise him, however, when next 
 he has occasion to use the Latin language, to better un- 
 
THE BIBLE. 179 
 
 derstand i ts drift. My time was up just as I introduced 
 Paine as a witness to the high moral character of 
 Christ. But my opponent differs from Paine. I took 
 it for granted that they stood in the same catalogue, 
 but it seems not. My opponent stands alone. He is 
 the only one among infidels I have ever heard of, who 
 has no word of commendation for the character of 
 Christ; who thinks that character worthy of no love 
 or veneration. He overtops them all, and in that 
 bad eminence I leave him. 
 
 Mr. Barker. — I did not say the character of 
 Christ was unworthy of veneration. I believe it was. 
 (Hisses.) 
 
 Dr. Berg. — Did he not attempt to impair the hold 
 which that character has upon every Christian? (Ap- 
 plause.) All other infidels concede that he was a 
 good man. Will a good man lie? Xo. Then Christ 
 spoke truth, and when he claims to be the Son of God, 
 to work miracles, to save sinners, he claims no more 
 than what belonged to him. Who will call him good, 
 if, under the guise of seeming virtue, he was all his 
 life endeavouring to establish a fable? Would not 
 this have been hypocrisy? But by the concessions of 
 my opponent's predecessors in the warfare against 
 Christ, it is admitted that he was entitled to the re- 
 verence of mankind. They admit his truth, his good- 
 ness: then they must admit his claims, and thus they 
 are overthrown by their own concessions. 
 
 Joseph Barker is another witness. This man, 
 though in a public debate, continued through succes- 
 sive nights, utterly unable to tell his opponent the 
 specific name of his God, and compelled by his own 
 admission to admit that he cannot explain how he 
 comes into the possession of a clear knowledge of all 
 the attributes which he ascribes to his God, and having 
 failed by garbled extracts from the Methodist Hymn 
 Book and from the Bible, to which in his desperation 
 he had recourse, in order to prove that he can dis- 
 cover all the attributes of his God from the works of 
 nature, was nevertheless constrained, reluctantly, to 
 acknowledge that Christ was not unworthy of vene- 
 ration. 
 
180 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 These, I repeat, are tremendous concessions. They 
 prove all that my opponent has laboured hard to dis- 
 prove. If Christ was a good man, then he spoke the 
 truth. If Christ was a good man, then the claims 
 he asserted are substantiated. For who will say 
 that he was a good man, if he wore the external garb 
 of virtue merely to establish that religion which my 
 opponent discards as a miserable fable: a system 
 which he denounces as a dynasty of priestcraft, hy- 
 pocrisy and oppression ? Thus, my opponent is pinned 
 to the wall, pierced by the point of his own sword. 
 What were the claims which Jesus from first to last 
 asserted as credentials of a divine commission? 
 
 1. He claimed to be a perfect teacher. 
 
 2. He claimed to set a perfect example: to be the 
 model man of the race. 
 
 3. He claimed to be a perfectly sinless being. 
 
 4. He claimed that all men should love and obey 
 him. 
 
 5. He claimed to work miracles as no other man 
 ever did. 
 
 6. He claimed, that in him all the prophecies of the 
 Old Testament respecting the Messiah, were fulfilled. 
 
 7. He claimed that he would himself rise from the 
 dead. 
 
 8. He claimed that he would ascend to the right 
 hand of God. 
 
 9. He claimed, that as the Lord of heaven and 
 earth, he would administer the government of the 
 world. 
 
 10. He claimed, that as the final judge of quick 
 and dead, he would revisit this world, in poAver and 
 great glory, and mete out the awards of eternity to 
 all men, an eternal heaven to his friends, and an end- 
 less hell to his foes! 
 
 Let my opponent escape from this dilemma if he 
 can. All the powers of sophistry which he can com- 
 mand, all the pomp of bold assertion in which he so 
 much excels, cannot extricate him from this terrible 
 contradiction. I hold him bound, despite his strug- 
 gles upon the rock of salvation. He must either de- 
 
THE BIBLE. 181 
 
 noimce Christ as an enthusiast and impostor, and thus 
 retract his concession that Jesus was a good man, or he 
 must admit that these attacks upon the law and the pro- 
 phets, these denunciations of the falsehoods and impie- 
 ties of the Old Testament Scriptures, the moral portion 
 of which Jesus endorsed fully and to the letter, are slan- 
 ders, base falsehoods, which none but the Father of lies 
 could suggest, or the children of that Father publish 
 to the world. Let him choose upon which horn of that 
 dilemma he prefers to be slain. Let him show how 
 a good man, like Christ, could give his entire energy 
 and life, and devote himself even to an ignominious 
 death, in order to uphold that moral government 
 which my opponent denounces as barbarous and unjust ! 
 Let him show, how a good man could impose upon 
 the credulity of assembled thousands, by professing 
 to work miracles, when in reality he wrought none ! 
 Let him show how a good man could claim, that all 
 the prophecies, continued from the beginning of the 
 world's history, for 4000 years down to his advent, 
 relating to the Messiah, were fulfilled in him, when 
 in reality these prophecies were dark and unmeaning, 
 and were not accomplished as Christ declared them 
 to be! The whole question hinges upon the simple 
 inquiry, Was Jesus Christ sincere in putting forth 
 these claims? If he was, and if they were not well 
 founded, then, with reverence be it spoken, he was a 
 deluded fanatic; if he was not sincere, then his ene- 
 mies spoke the truth when they denounced him as a 
 deceiver. If the former case be chosen, that he was 
 sincere, but deluded, then a wilder case of hallucina- 
 tion is inconceivable. Think of Jesus of Nazareth, 
 so lowly to all human appearance, proclaiming him- 
 self as the light of the world, and the author of a 
 new life to his followers, enabling them to survive 
 the shock of death itself! Think of his offers to sa- 
 tisfy the longings of the soul after immortality, and 
 calling aloud, " If any man thirst, let him come unto 
 me and drink!" Think of his claim to be one with 
 God, and that all things were delivered to him by the 
 Father, and that all petitions addressed to him by his 
 
 16* 
 
182 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 disciples should be granted. Think of the prediction 
 of his death and resurrection and ascension to hea- 
 ven, and then tell me, if Christ was a sincere but de- 
 luded man, where in all the wildest vagaries of hu- 
 man insanity can aught be found that can furnish a 
 parallel to these? But, did he, with a sound mind, 
 put forth these claims with the intention to deceive? 
 No! It is impossible! Look at that moral charac- 
 ter, so lovely and blameless. Look at his all per- 
 vading piety— his self-sacrificing benevolence ! Hear 
 him pray for his murderers on the cross, and then let 
 the infidel tell us, if his tongue does not falter in 
 uttering the blasphemy, that, through all this, this 
 glorious model of excellence, was planning a scheme 
 of deception the most monstrous that ever human 
 heart conceived ! Do we not know that this was not 
 so ? Strike down the image of Christ, and you de- 
 stroy all possibility of faith in any indications of good- 
 ness! You may fill the air with pestilence — disrobe 
 the sun of his beams— the calamity may be borne, but 
 oh! if you quench the light of Christ's virtue, you 
 take from us the life of life! 
 
 I know that nothing is too sacred for infidel blas- 
 phemy. I know that the atheistic crew, who mock 
 the institutions, and deride the faith of our common, 
 glorious Christianity, are prepared for any atrocity 
 which the malignity of the devil can suggest. I know 
 they would spit upon the face of the Saviour, and 
 smite, with the fist of wickedness, that countenance 
 upon which angels gaze with holy awe and admira- 
 tion. I know that all which infidel malice can devise, 
 and infidel hardihood attempt, has been done, to de- 
 stroy the moral power of the doctrine of Christ; but 
 I admonish my opponent in advance, to beware how 
 he reviles the blessed name of our King, Jehovah- 
 Jesus, lest he who holds the breath of man in his con- 
 trol should let him know that there is a God in. 
 heaven, and cause his blasphemies to freeze upon his 
 lips ! 
 
 I proceed now to consider the external evidences 
 of the truth of the Bible; not because the argument 
 
THE BIBLE. 183 
 
 for its Divine inspiration, on the ground of internal 
 evidence, is by any means exhausted — for I have 
 scarcely glanced at the mass of testimony by which 
 it is supported — but because I have given quite 
 enough to my opponent to keep him well employed, 
 should he attempt an answer. And as Jesus Christ 
 is the great central object of this whole book, I pro- 
 pose, in discussing the department of prophecy, the 
 first subject under the grand division of external evi- 
 dences, to confine myself chiefly to the consideration 
 of about one hundred distinct predictions relating to 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, all of which were literally ful- 
 filled in the circumstances attending his birth, his 
 life, death, resurrection from the grave, and ascension 
 to the right hand of the Majesty on high. 
 
 The argument deduced from prophecy is simply 
 this. By prophecy, we mean a knowledge and mani- 
 festation of secret things, which it is not possible that 
 human sagacity could foretell, and which therefore 
 involve the necessity of an extraordinary revelation 
 from God ; and we argue, that when Ave find Jehovah, 
 through successive ages, indicating, thousands of 
 years before-hand, that a certain great event should 
 take place, and hundreds of years before that event 
 took place, indicating, by successive prophets, the 
 most minute incidents in the history of Him who is 
 represented as the Messiah, the conclusion is irre- 
 sistible, that the commission of that personage is 
 divine, and that Christianity is therefore ordained of 
 God as the religion by which the world is to be blessed 
 with the knowledge of God's counsel and character, 
 and with the blessings of salvation. 
 
 This inference we deem irresistible, and beyond 
 the power of infidel sophistry or denial to gainsay or 
 resist. My opponent may tell us, in every speech he 
 utters, about this contradiction, or that solecism; but 
 if we prove to him that these prophecies respecting 
 the Messiah have been accomplished, his string of 
 paltry objections becomes a rope of sand, which a 
 puff of wind will scatter to the four corners of the 
 earth. Jehovah himself indicates this as one of the 
 credentials of divine revelation. 
 
184 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 In the forty-first chapter of Isaiah, a chapter of 
 gorgeous beauty, and precious evangelical promise, 
 he says: " Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring 
 forth your strong* reasons, saith the King of Jacob. 
 Let them bring them forth, and show us what shall 
 happen; let them show the former things, what they 
 be, that we may consider them, and know the latter 
 end of them : or declare us things for to come. Show 
 the things that are to come hereafter, that we may 
 know that ye are gods ; yea, do good or do evil, that 
 we may be dismayed, and behold it together." Then, 
 as if gazing upon the blank confusion of the pagan 
 and infidel worshippers of false gods, the prophet 
 cries out, in Jehovah's name: "Behold, ye are of 
 nothing, and your work of naught; an abomination 
 is he that chooseth you." Then he foretells the 
 coming of Messiah: "I have raised up one from the 
 north, and he shall come: from the rising of the sun 
 shall he call upon my name; and he shall come upon 
 princes as upon mortar, and as the potter treadeth 
 clay. Who hath declared from the beginning, that 
 we may know? and before time, that we may say, he 
 is righteous? Yea, there is none that showeth; yea, 
 there is none that declare th; yea, there is none that 
 heareth your words. The first shall say to Zion, Be- 
 hold, behold them : and I will give to Jerusalem one 
 that bringeth good tidings. For I beheld, and there 
 was no man; even among them, and there was no 
 counsellor, that, when I asked of them, could answer 
 a word. Behold, they are all vanity; their works 
 are nothing; their molten images are wind and con- 
 fusion!" (Verses 21 to 29.) 
 
 My opponent may perhaps talk of the oracles of 
 heathenism as an offset to the Christian argument; 
 but I shall say of them, in advance, all that I think 
 need be said, in a single sentence: In all the divina- 
 tions of pagan oracles, there is not a single clear 
 token of genuine prophecy. By this I mean, they 
 were destitute of dignity and importance: they had 
 no connexion with each other; they related to no one 
 object of central interest, and seldom, if ever, Looked 
 
THE BIBLE. 185 
 
 into times remote from their own. The prophecies 
 of the Bible, on the other hand, constitute a chain, 
 all linked together, and leading every man, who ap- 
 proaches with honest heart to handle the word of 
 life, to Jesus Christ as their centre ; and throughout 
 the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and the Christian dis- 
 pensations, they concur in a harmony and uniformity 
 of design, which clearly reveal their origin. The 
 whole range of prophecy is of prodigious extent. It 
 begins with the history of the fall of man, and ends 
 with the consummation of all things ; it was uniformly 
 carried on in the line of one people, separated from 
 the rest of the world, and made the repository of the 
 divine oracles; and it centres in one glorious Person, 
 who, though spoken of as the "Seed of the woman, 7 ' 
 and "the Son of man," is still represented as being 
 superior to angels and men ; as far above all princi- 
 pality and power; as the Heir of all things, by whom 
 Jehovah made the worlds; as the Son of God, equal 
 with God, the express image of his person, and the 
 brightness of the Father's glory; one in essence, dis- 
 tinct in person, and, with the ever-blessed Spirit, con- 
 stituting the Triune God, who is over all, blessed for 
 evermore. 
 
 Of such transcendent dignity is Jesus Christ pos- 
 sessed, whom Christians adore as the Saviour of them 
 that believe, and whom they receive as their Messiah 
 and Lord. 
 
 I propose now to offer a series of prophecies re- 
 lating to Christ, all of which were fulfilled in him. 
 
 For the sake of convenience, I present these prophecies in the 
 following, which is from a summary extracted from Simpson's Plea 
 for Religion and the Sacred Writings. 
 
 [N. B. Some of them were not introduced into the discussion for 
 want of time.] 
 
 Messiah was to come among men before the destruction of the 
 second temple. — Jesus Christ preached in that temple; and it was 
 totally destroyed within forty years afterwards. (Compare Haggai 
 ii. 7 ; "And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall 
 come ; and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts; " 
 with Matthew xxi. 23 ; "And when he was come into the temple, the 
 chief priests and the elder of the people came unto him as he was 
 teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things ? and 
 who gave thee this authority?") See Josephus. 
 
186 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Messiah was to come into the world before the dominion of the 
 Jews was taken away. — Christ was born that very year when Au- 
 gustus Caesar imposed a tax upon the Jewish nation, as a token of 
 their subjection to the Roman government. (Compare Genesis xlix. 
 10, with Luke ii. 1 — 7.) 
 
 When Messiah should make his appearance among men, it 
 was to be a time of general peace, after dreadful wars and convul- 
 sions. — When Jesus Christ came into the world, the Roman wars 
 were just terminated, the temple of Janus was shut, and universal 
 peace reigned through the empire. (Compare Haggai ii. G, 7, 9, 
 with the Roman History of this period.) 
 
 Messiah was to make his appearance among men, at a time 
 when there should be a general expectation of him. — When Jesus 
 Christ came into the world, all nations were looking for the advent 
 of some extraordinary person. (Compare Haggai ii. 7 — 9, with 
 Matthew ii. 1 — 10, and John i. 19 — 45.) 
 
 Messiah was to be born according to the ordinary course of 
 nature, but to descend from a pure Virgin. — Jesus Christ was born 
 of the Virgin Mai'y. (Compare Genesis iii. 15; Isaiah vii. 14; and 
 Jeremiah xxxi. 22; with Matthew i. 22, 23.) 
 
 Messiah was to be the son of Abraham, the father of the faith- 
 ful, and the friend of God. — Jesus Christ was sprung from that 
 illustrious Patriarch. (Compare Genesis xxi. 1 — 12, with Matthew 
 i. 1—16.) 
 
 Messiah was to be the Son of Isaac, and not of Ishmael. — Jesus 
 Christ was sprung from Isaac, and not from Ishmael. (Compare 
 Genesis xvii. 16 — 21, with Matthew i. 1 — 16.) 
 
 Messiah was to be the son of Jacob, and not of Esau. — Jesus 
 Christ did descend from Jacob, and not from his brother Esau. 
 (Compare Genesis xxv. 24 — 34; xxvii. 27 — 29; xxviii. 13, 14; with 
 Matthew i. 1—16.) 
 
 Jacob had twelve sons. Messiah was not to spring from any 
 other of the twelve, but from Judah. — Jesus Christ claimed Judah 
 as his ancestor in a direct line. (Compare Genesis xlix. 8 — 12, 
 with MattheAv i. 1—16.) 
 
 Messiah was to be sprung from Jesse, the father of David, king 
 of Israel. — Jesus Christ was his descendant. (Compare Isaiah xi. 
 1, with Matthew i. 1—16.) 
 
 Jesse had eight sons. David was the youngest. From none of 
 seven elder, but from David alone was Messiah to derive his origin. 
 — Jesus Christ was the son of David. (Compare 1 Samuel xvi. 
 1—13; 2 Samuel vii. 12—15; Psalm lxxxix. 19—37; Matthew i. 
 1—16.) 
 
 Messiah was to be born in a poor and mean condition, when the 
 family should be reduced to a very low estate. — Jesus Christ, both 
 on his father and mother's side, was of very low ami mean appear- 
 ance, though descended from such illustrious ancestors. (Compare 
 Isaiah liii. 2; Luke i. 48, 52; ii. 7, 24.) 
 
 Messiah was to have a messenger going before him, to make 
 ready a people prepared for the Lord. — Christ had a messenger 
 goiii^; before him, who fully bare witness to his pretensions. (Com- 
 pare Malachi iii. 1, with John i. 19 — 34, and iii. 26 — 36.) 
 
 The forerunner of Messiah was cither to be Elijah himself, or 
 
the bible; 187 
 
 one in the spirit of Elijah. — John the Baptist, the forerunner of 
 Christ, was altogether in the spirit of that great prophet, (Com- 
 pare Malachi iv. with Mark i. 1—8.) 
 
 The forerunner of Messiah was to preach in the wilderness, and 
 to prepare the minds of the people for his coming. John the Bap- 
 tist did preach in the wilderness of Judea, and professed himself to 
 be sent to prepare the Jews for the advent of Christ. (Compare 
 Isaiah xl. 3 — 5, with Matthew iii. 1—16.) 
 
 The forerunner of Messiah was to be considerably successful in 
 his office — John the Baptist was treated with great respect by his 
 countrymen, and made large numbers of disciples, (Compare 
 Isaiah xl. 3—5, with Luke iii. 21.) 
 
 Messiah was not to be born at Jerusalem, the capital of his king- 
 dom, but at Bethlehem, an obscure country village. — Jesus Christ 
 was born at Bethlehem, by a very peculiar providence. (Compare 
 Micah v. 2; ''But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little 
 among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto 
 me that is to be Buler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from 
 of old, from everlasting;" with Matthew ii. 2; "Saying, "Where is 
 he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the 
 east, and are come to worship him.") 
 
 Messiah was to go down into Egypt, and to be called out from 
 thence. — Jesus Christ went down into Egypt, soon after his birth, 
 and was called out from thence by an angel of the Lord. (Compare 
 Hosea xi. 1, with Matthew ii. 13- — 23.) 
 
 Messiah was to converse and preach the gospel in the region of 
 Galilee. — Jesus Christ lived and conversed so long in that obscure 
 and despicable part of the land of Israel, that he was, by way of con- 
 tempt, denominated the Galilean. (Compare Isaiah ix. 1, 2 ; "Never- 
 theless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when 
 at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of 
 Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way 
 of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people 
 that walked in darkness have seen a great light ; they that dwell in 
 the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined; " 
 with Matthew ii. 22, 23; "But when he heard that Archelaus did 
 reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to 
 go thither : notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he 
 turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a 
 city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken 
 by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene;" and Matt. iv. 
 23, 25; "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their syna- 
 gogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all 
 manner of sickness, and all manner of disease, among the people. 
 And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, 
 and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judea, and from 
 beyond Jordan.") 
 
 Messiah was to sustain the office of a Prophet, when he came to 
 redeem mankind. — Jesus Christ sustained that office in all its ex- 
 tent. (Compare Deuteronomy xviii. 15, 18; Acts iii. 22, with Luke 
 xxiv. 19; Matthew xxiv.) 
 
 Messiah was also to sustain the office of a Priest when he ap- 
 peared on earth. — Jesus Christ was a Priest, and offered, not in- 
 
188 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 deed the blood of bullocks and of stoats, but his own most precious 
 blood. (Compare Zechariah vi. 13; Hebrews ix. 11—14.) 
 
 Messiah, though a Priest, was not to be of the tribe of Levi, and 
 after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchizedec. — Jesus 
 Christ was of the tribe of Judah, and had an everlasting priesthood, 
 after the order of Melchizedec. (Compare Genesis xiv. 18; Psalm 
 ex. 4; Hebrews vi. 20; vii. 1—28.) 
 
 Messiah was, moreover, to sustain the office of a King, when he 
 took on him human nature for the salvation of his elect.— Jesus 
 Christ was a King, even while upon earth ; and, now that he is in 
 heaven, his dominion extends over all worlds. (Compare Psalm ii. 
 6; Zechariah vi. 13; ix. 9; with Luke i. 32, 33; John xxiii. 36, 
 37 ; and Rev. xix. 16.) 
 
 Messiah was to be a righteous King, and emphatically the Prince 
 of Peace. — Jesus Christ was eminently distinguished as a righteous 
 person, and the great peace-maker both on earth and in heaven. 
 (Compare Isaiah xxxii. 1; Psalm xlv. 1 — 17; lxxii. 1 — 19; Jere- 
 miah xxiii. 5; Zechariah ix. 9; Isaiah ix. 6: Luke ii. 14; Ephe- 
 sians ii. 4 — 22.) 
 
 The kingdom of Messiah was to be universal and everlasting — 
 Jesus Christ has a kingdom, that, in due time, shall be universal in 
 its extent, and eternal in its duration. (Daniel vii. 27 ; Luke i. 32, 
 33; Rev. v. 12—14.) 
 
 Messiah was to be emphatically the Just One. — Jesus Christ not 
 only answered the description, but is repeatedly called by that 
 name. (Compare 2 Samuel xxiii. 3; Isaiah xi. 5; Acts iii. 14; vii. 
 62; xxii. 14.) 
 
 Messiah, to whom belonged the land of Judea, was to be denomi- 
 nated Emmanuel. — Jesus Christ was the proprietor of that holy land, 
 and was expressly called by the name of Emmanuel. (Compare 
 Isaiah vii. 14; viii. 8; Matthew i. 23; and John i. 11.) 
 
 Messiah was to be endowed with a peculiar degree of wisdom and 
 understanding. — Jesus Christ, his enemies being judges, spake as 
 never man spake, and taught a more pure and excellent doctrine 
 than ever had been received among mankind before. (Compare 
 Isaiah xi. 1 — 5; John vii. 46; Matthew xiii. 54 — 58; Matthew v. 
 vi. and vii. chap.) 
 
 The doctrine of Messiah was to be of the most healing, encou- 
 raging, and consolatory kind. — The doctrine of Jesus Christ was 
 singularly adapted to the healing of wounded minds. (Compare 
 Isaiah lxi. 1—3; Matthew xi. 28—30; John xiv. 1—3.) 
 
 The doctrine which Messiah should preach was to have a power- 
 fully transforming influence upon the minds of men. — The Gospel 
 of Christ had all this effect upon the dispositions and conduct of 
 every one of his genuine disciples. (Compare Isaiah xi. 6 — 8; with 
 Acts ii. 41—47.) 
 
 Messiah was to be peculiarly kind and affectionate to young, dis- 
 tressed, and tender-spirited persons. — Jesus Christ was singularly 
 attentive to all such characters. (Compare Isaiah xl. 11; lv. 1 — 3, 
 lxi. 1—3; Matthew xii. 20; and Mark x. 13—16.) 
 
 In confirmation of his divine mission, Messiah was to display 
 many wonderful works among the people. — Jesus Christ Avrought 
 abundance of miracles in confirmation of his pretensions, and the 
 
THE BIBLE. 189 
 
 doctrines he taught. (Compare Isaiah, xxxv. -5, 6 ; with Matthew 
 viii. and ix. chapters, and John xxi. 25.) 
 
 Messiah was to have but little success in preaching the Gospel 
 among his countrymen the Jews.— Jesus Christ was almost univer- 
 sally rejected by them. (Compare Isaiah liii. 1; xlix. 4; B,om. x. 
 1, 3, 21.) 
 
 The minds of the Jews were to be so veiled that they should not 
 know their Messiah when he came among them.— The minds of the 
 Jews were so sealed up, and enveloped in prejudice against Jesus 
 Christ when he appeared, that he was treated by them as an impos- 
 tor and deceiver. (Compare Isaiah vi. 9 — 13; xxix. 9 — 14; 2 Cor. 
 iii. 5—18.) 
 
 Messiah was to be despised and rejected of men ; a man of sor- 
 rows and acquainted with grief.— Jesus Christ was despised and re- 
 jected of men; and a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. 
 (Compare Isaiah liii. with Matthew xxvi. and xxvii. chapters, and 
 Phil. ii. 7, 8.) 
 
 Messiah was to be seen riding into Jerusalem, sitting upon a 
 young ass, as a token of the humility of his mind.— Jesus Christ 
 answered this prediction, as Well as every other that went before 
 concerning him, in the most minute circumstance. (Compare 
 Zechariah ix. 9, with Matthew xxi. —11.) 
 
 When Messiah should enter Jerusalem in his meek and humble 
 manner, great crowds of the common people should welcome him 
 with shouts and rejoicing. When Jesus Christ rode into that proud 
 metropolis in low disguise, the general cry of the mob was, Hosan- 
 na to the son of David; blessed is he that cometh in the name of 
 the Lord: Hosanna in the highest. (Compare Zechariah ix. 9, with 
 Matthew xxi. —11.) 
 
 Messiah was to be actuated with such a burning zeal for the 
 house of God, as even to be endangered by it. — Jesus Christ dis- 
 played that zeal upon various occasions. (Compare Psalm lxix. 9; 
 John ii. 17.) 
 
 Messiah was to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies by the 
 treachery of an intimate friend.— Christ was betrayed by one of 
 the disciples whom he had chosen. (Compare Psalm xli. 9: lv. 12, 
 13: Matt. xxvi. 47—50.) 
 
 Messiah was to be sold for thirty pieces of silver. Jesus Christ 
 was sold for the sum predicted. (Compare Zechaiiah xi. 12 : Matt, 
 xxvi. 14—16.) 
 
 Messiah's price, the thirty pieces of silver, was to be cast to the 
 potter in the house of the Lord. — All this was done when Judas be- 
 trayed his Master. (Compare Zechariah xi. 13; Matthew xxvii. 
 3—10. 
 
 Messiah was to be condemned in judgment, and suffer death 
 under the colour of public justice. — Jesus Christ underwent a mock 
 trial, was declared innocent by his very judge, and yet delivered 
 over to be crucified. (Compare Isaiah lix. 8, 9 ; Matthew xxvii. 
 chapter.) 
 
 The followers of Messiah were all to forsake him in the time of 
 his greatest need. — When Jesus Christ was apprehended, and put 
 upon his trial, all his disciples forsook him and fled. (Compare 
 Zechariah xiii. 7 ; Isaiah Ixiii. 5 ; Matthew xxvi. 56.) 
 17 
 
190 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Messiah was to finish his public employment, in confirming the 
 covenant, in about three years and a half. Jesus Christ began his 
 public office at thirty years of age, and was put to death at thirty- 
 three and a half. (Compare Daniel ix. 27, with the period of our 
 Lord's ministry in the four Gospels.) 
 
 Messiah was to be ignominiously scourged by his persecutors.—" 
 Jesus Christ was treated in this manner. (Compare Isaiah 1. 6, 
 with Matthew xxvii. 26.) 
 
 Messiah was to be oppressed and afflicted, and yet not open his 
 mouth in complaint. He was to be brought as a lamb to the slaugh- 
 ter, and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb, so he opened not his 
 mouth. — Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins 
 of the world, before Pilate held his peace. "And when he was ac- 
 cused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing." (Com- 
 pare Isaiah liii. 7, with Matthew xxvi. 63, and xxvii. 12 — 14.) 
 
 Messiah was to be taken up with wicked men in his death.— 
 Christ was suspended on a cross between two thieves. (Compare 
 Isaiah liii. 9, with Matthew xxvii. 38, 60. 
 
 Messiah was to be buried in the sepulchre of a rich man — 
 Christ was buried in the tomb of a rich counsellor. (Compare Isaiah 
 liii. 9, with Matthew xxvii. 38, 60.) 
 
 Messiah was to be put to death at the end of 490 years, from 
 the time when a commandment should go forth to restore and to 
 build Jerusalem. — Now it is remarkable, that from the seventh year 
 of Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia, from whom Ezra re- 
 ceived his commission, ch. vii. 8, to the death of Jesus Christ, 
 there are just 490 years. (Daniel ii. 24.) 
 
 Messiah was to be presented by his enemies with vinegar and 
 gall during his sufferings. — In this manner was Jesus Christ treated, 
 as he hung upon the cross. (Compare Psalm lxix. 21, with Matt, 
 xxvii. 34, and John xix. 28—30.) 
 
 The persecutors of Messiah were to pierce his hands and his feet, 
 — So did the bloody Jews and Komans treat the Redeemer of man- 
 kind. (Compare Psalm xxii. 16, with Matthew xxvii. 35.) 
 
 "When Messiah was put to death, his enemies were to part his 
 garments among them, and for his vesture they were to cast lots. — 
 When Christ was crucified, these actions took place. (Compare 
 Psalm xxiii. 18, with Matthew xxvii. 35.) 
 
 When the Messiah should suffer death, not a bone of his body 
 was to be broken. — When Christ was crucified, not a bone of him 
 was injured. (Ex. xii. 45, and Num. ix. 12, with John xix. 28—30.) 
 
 When Messiah should be put to death, his side was, by some 
 means not declared, to be pierced. — When Jesus Christ was cruci- 
 fied, his side was pierced with a spear. (Compare Zechariah xii. 
 10, with John xix. 34, 37,) 
 
 When Messiah should come, there was-to be a fountain opened 
 to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin 
 and for uncleanness. — When Christ came, he appeared to pat away 
 sin by the sacrifice of himself, and by the shedding of his blood 
 once for all. (Compare Zechariah xiii. 1 ; and Hebrews ix. and x. 
 chapters.) 
 
 Messiah was to make atonement for the iniquities, transgressions, 
 and -ins of the world — Jesus Christ was a propitiation for the sins 
 of the whole world. (Is. liii. 5; Daniel ix. 21 ; 1 John ii. 1, 2.) 
 
c 
 
 THE BIBLE. 191 
 
 Messiah was to make this atonement in the last of Daniel's se- 
 venty weeks. — Jesus Christ was crucified that very week. (Daniel 
 ix. 27.) 
 
 Messiah was to abolish the old and establish a new dispensation. 
 — Jesus Christ abolished the ceremonies of the Law of Moses, and 
 brought in a more perfect and rational economy. (Compare Jere- 
 miah xxxi. 31 — 34, with Hebrews viii. 6 — 13.) 
 
 Messiah was not to lie in the grave and be turned to corruption 
 like other men. — Jesus Christ did not continue iu the grave, nor 
 did he see corruption like the rest of mankind. (Compare Psalm 
 xvi. 10, with Matthew xxviii. 6.) 
 
 Messiah was to be raised from the grave on the third day after 
 his interment. — Jesus Christ was buried on the Friday, and rose 
 from the dead on the Sunday morning following. (Compare Hosea 
 vi. 2; Matt. xx. 19; Matt, xxvii. 1 — 7; 1 Corinthians xv. 4.) 
 
 Messiah was to ascend up into heaven, and reign there at his 
 Father's right hand, invested with universal dominion. — Jesus Christ 
 did ascend up into heaven in the sight of many witnesses, and took 
 his place at the right hand of power, invested with universal domi- 
 nion. (Compare Psalm xvi. 11; lxviii. 18; Isaiah ix. 6, 7; Luke 
 xxiv. 50, 51 ; Acts i. 9; and Matthew xxviii. 19.) 
 
 When Messiah ascended into heaven, his ascension was to be at- 
 tended with the ministers of heaven, to usher him into his Father s 
 presence. — When Jesus Christ ascended up into heaven, two men 
 stood by the Apostles in white apparel, and addressed them on the 
 joyful occasion. (Compare Daniel vii. 13. 14, with Acts i. 10, 11.) 
 Messiah was to send down from heaven the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, as a token and pledge that he was exalted, and that his 
 Father was pleased with what he had done upon earth for the re- 
 demption of his people. — Jesus Christ sent down the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost, in the most conspicuous and miraculous manner. (Compare 
 Psalm lxviii. 18; Joel ii. 28 — 32, with Acts ii. 1 — 4, and Ephesians 
 iv. 8—12.) 
 
 The doctrine of Messiah was to begin to be preached at Jerusalem, 
 and from thence to spread itself through the nations. — The gospel 
 of Christ was first preached in that city, and actually dispersed 
 itself through all the neighbouring countries in the course of a few 
 years. (Compare Isaiah ii. 1 — 4; Micah iv. 1 — 4; with Acts 2d 
 chapter, and Romans x. 18.) 
 
 Though Messiah was generally to be rejected and despised in his 
 life-time; after his death the pleasure of the Lord, in the conversion 
 and salvation of mankind, was to prosper in his hand. — How exactly 
 these circumstances agree with the history of Jesus Christ, is well 
 known to every Christian. (Isaiah liii. 10 — 12.) 
 
 The followers of Messiah should meet with great and severe trials 
 and persecution for their adherence to his cause. — The followers of 
 Jesus Christ had the whole world in arms against them for seve- 
 ral ages. (Compare Isaiah lxv. 5, and Malachi iii. 1 — 3, with Matt. 
 x. 16 — 18, and 1 Corinthians iv. 9.) 
 
 The rejectors of Messiah should be rejected of God, and his fol- 
 lowers called by another name. — The Jews, who would not have 
 Christ to rule over them were rejected by him, and his followers 
 were called by another name, through divine appointment, as it 
 
192 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 should seem, to accomplish this prophecy. (Compare Isaiah lxii. 2; 
 lxv. 15, with Acts xi. 26.) 
 
 This is a concise view of some of the predictions contained in the 
 Old Testament, concerning the nature, birth, life, doctrine, suffer- 
 ings, death, resurrection, ascension, and kingdom of the Lord and 
 Saviour Jesus Christ. There can be no doubt respecting the priority 
 of the predictions to the birth of Christ, because it is well known 
 by every person, who is at all conversant in these matters, that the 
 Old Testament was translated out of Hebrew into the Greek lan- 
 guage, and dispersed over the world, many years before Christ 
 came ; and that the latest of the predictions was upwards of three 
 centuries before the birth of the Redeemer of mankind. Such a 
 variety of circumstances, therefore, predicted concerning one man, 
 so many years before he was born, of so extraordinary a nature, 
 and under such convulsions and revolutions of civil governments, 
 all accomplished in Christ, and in no other person that ever ap- 
 peared in the world, point him out with irresistible evidence, as 
 the Saviour of mankind. I call upon, and challenge the most 
 hardened infidel in Christendom to refute the conclusion. 
 
 Let my opponent meet this argument from pro- 
 phecy, which establishes Christ's claim to Messiah- 
 ship, if he can. Let him show how all these distinct 
 predictions relating to minute circumstances, so lite- 
 rally fulfilled in the history of Jesus of Nazareth, 
 may be accounted for without the aid of divine pro- 
 vidence. Sneers and blasphemies will not help him 
 here. Let him meet the argument, presented in the 
 fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. If he deems the evi- 
 dence from prophecy of so easy refutation, let him 
 tell us what shall be on the morrow. We shall be 
 happy to test his natural powers, if he will step forth 
 and as an infidel seer, declare to us in detail, the cir- 
 cumstances of his own precious history, for a week in 
 advance. He cannot do it. Among all the gods of 
 infidelity there is not a counsellor that can reveal the 
 future. This is Jehovah's prerogative alone. He 
 has put this seal upon the Bible, that infidels may 
 know that the God of Israel is the Lord, and that 
 beside him there is no God. How is it possible that 
 these specialities should all be literally accomplished 
 in the history of Christ, unless he was indeed the 
 Messiah, ordained of God, the hope and consolation 
 of the believing world? With unshaken confidence, 
 we may say, in the words of Philip to Nathaniel, 
 "We have lbund him, of whom Moses in the law and 
 the prophets did write ! " Infidels may smite his glo- 
 
THE BIBLE. 193 
 
 rious visage and pour contempt upon his spotless cha- 
 racter, and basely slander the holy Redeemer, but 
 their filthy aspersions shall only cover their own 
 names with merited and everlasting infamy. If the 
 infidel can believe that all the coincidences of pro- 
 phecy and history were the cifects of blind chance, 
 we can say with truth, Oh! infidel, great is thy 
 faith! Of all men, infidels, and of all infidels, Athe- 
 ists are the most credulous. Witness their rejection 
 of the evidence of prophecy! — [General applause.] 
 
 Seventh Evening — Wednesday, January 19M. 
 
 Mr. Barker. [The speaker commenced with a rapid re- 
 capitulation of the points claimed by bim to have been estab- 
 lished in previous speeches. This was followed by a few ge- 
 neral remarks on the small number of persons who have had 
 the Bible and the "blind reliance " of professing Christians 
 upon their spiritual guides. He then proceeded as follows.] 
 
 You have heard from my opponent that Paine regarded 
 Jesus as a virtuous and benevolent man, and the morality he 
 taught as amiable and good. If you were to read his writings, 
 you would find many other good things there. The priests 
 are afraid of people reading them, lest they should be con- 
 verted by their sound sense and powerful argument. The 
 reason why they call him a drunkard is not because he was 
 one, but to prevent men from reading his writings. 
 
 One word more in regard to Paine's character. Does my 
 opponent think that to prove Paine a drunken profligate 
 would be to prove the Bible divine, or our views of the Bible 
 erroneous? If so, he must think that to prove a professor 
 or a minister of Christianity a drunkard or a debauchee, 
 would be to prove the Bible false ! And what would be the 
 result then ? We should have proofs by hundreds of thou- 
 sands. All we should have to do in that case would be to 
 name Bishop such a one, or Elder such a one, or Brother 
 such a one, and the doctrine of Bible inspiration would 
 be overthrown. One of the most drunken and licentious 
 classes of men in England, if not the most drunken, is 
 the Methodist priesthood. You know the opinion enter- 
 tained by Protestants of the Catholic priesthood. Bad as 
 it is ; it has been, if it is not even now, too true. .Jesus, ac- 
 
 17* 
 
194 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 cording to the Gospel, spake of the clergy as whited sepul- 
 chres, fair outwardly, but inwardly full of all uncleanness. 
 The same is true of the clergy now, we imagine. But does 
 this prove the Bible merely human? It does not. 
 
 A word about drunkenness. The Bible gives people liberty 
 to use wine and strong drink; and we know how the use of 
 such drinks generates the appetite and leads to drunkenness. 
 One passage even says : 
 
 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and 
 wine unto him that is of heavy heart. Let him drink and 
 forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more." 
 Prov. xxxi. 6, 7. 
 
 And a man must drink very freely to do that. Another 
 passage represents Jesus as making wine for a marriage feast. 
 The guests had finished what had been provided by the 
 host, and Jesus, according to the story, made — how much do 
 you think? — about one hundred and thirty gallons. This, 
 supposing the number of guests to have been about twenty, 
 would be six gallons apiece. (Hisses. Laughter. Cries of 
 oh ! oh !) A liberal supply for men who had already drunk 
 what the host had provided. Another passage says : 
 
 " Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy 
 stomach's sake, and thy frequent infirmities." 
 
 Is it to be wondered at, that lovers of the Bible so often 
 are lovers also of the bottle, and slaves to intemperance? 
 Those passages are among the strongholds of the drinking 
 system, and will be so, so long as the Bible is regarded as 
 divine. 
 
 Now, look at nature as a guide in this matter. She utters 
 her most urgent protests against its use. The taste, the sto- 
 mach, the brain, the nerves, the muscles, all cry out against 
 it. The burning throat, the aching head, the heavy eye, the 
 reeling brain, the subsequent depression of feelings, all are 
 God's voice speaking in man's nature against the use of the 
 destructive drink. Let men's attention be called to the voice 
 of nature or of God; let their minds be enlightened with re- 
 spect to the fearful ravages intoxicating drinks make when 
 taken into the system, and the use, the sale, the manufacture 
 of the drink will cease through all the abodes of man. Our 
 law, the law of our nature, and the laws of nature generally, 
 go unchangeably and forever against intoxicating drinks; 
 and no man can name any excuse either for drunkenness or 
 moderate drinking, who is acquainted with them. 
 
THE BIBLE. 195 
 
 I grant portions of the Bible speak against drunkenness; 
 but it does not say what drunkenness is. (Hisses. Laughter. 
 Cries of oh ! ) It gives no rules by which a man may know 
 when he is drunk, (Hisses.) It allows people to vse the 
 drink in undefinable quantities, and drunkenness naturally 
 follows. Our law is against the use of the bewitching and 
 destructive article altogether. A believer therefore in na- 
 tural law, is most inconsistent if he drinks. 
 
 But let us not be understood as allowing the charges 
 made against Mr. Paine. In Paine's day almost all drank. 
 Paine was not an exception. But he appears to have been 
 more temperate than his neighbours, as unbelievers generally 
 are. (Hisses and applause.) 
 
 The Doctor says I traduce the character of Christ. I do 
 not. To speak of a good man as imperfect, is not to traduce. 
 
 But I speak of it as not worthy of the reverence of man- 
 kind. I do not. The character of every good man, and es- 
 pecially of every brave reformer and philanthropist, is worthy 
 of reverence, even if it should not be free from imperfections. 
 
 He says if Christ was a good man, he must have spoken 
 the truth on all occasions, and the claims he put forth must 
 have been valid. 
 
 1. It does not follow. Good men may err. 
 
 2. Besides, there is no proof that Jesus spoke all that the 
 Gospels represent him as speaking. There is no proof to 
 the contrary. 
 
 3. Apply the Doctor's reasoning to the case of Sweden- 
 borg. We have the fullest evidence that he was a good man. 
 He was, besides, a philosopher. Yet the Doctor does not al- 
 low his claims. He claimed to be inspired. He believed 
 that God had granted him innumerable revelations. His 
 revelations, too, were of a pure and benevolent tendency. 
 He even foretold future events, if testimony is worthy of 
 any credit, and read men's hearts. He knew what was 
 taking place in distant lands, at the moment it was taking- 
 place. There were none of the common indications of insa- 
 nity about him, but the marks of the highest intelligence; 
 purity, disinterestedness, philanthropy, and even piety. For 
 he was a Christian, though a philosopher. All this is at- 
 tested in a manner in which the Gospel story is not attested. 
 Yet we do not admit his claims. We believe he was in 
 error to some extent. There are laws of nature at work in 
 his case which he did not fully understand. His belief in 
 
196 DISCUSSION OK 
 
 supernaturalism, his erroneous Christian philosophy, led him 
 to misinterpret his experience, and to put forth claims in 
 behalf of his doctrines which were not valid. It has been so 
 with thousands. It might be so with some of the founders 
 of Christianity. But in their case we do not know what 
 claims they put forth. In the case of Swedenborg we do. 
 
 The Doctor says Jesus claimed to be a sinless being, a per- 
 fect teacher, a perfect example, entitled to universal obedience, 
 a worker of miracles, such as no other man ever worked, &c. 
 We ask, 1. Where are the proofs that he put forth those 
 claims? The Gospels say so. But where is the proof that 
 the Gospels are strictly true ? Where is the proof that the 
 writers of the Gospels knew the truth on the subjects on 
 which they wrote? 2. Where is the proof that they were 
 faithful witnesses? 3. Where is the proof that the Gospels 
 have come down to us uncorrupted ? There is no proof of 
 any of these points. There is no proof to the contrary. 
 There are no good grounds for the common belief; there 
 are the strongest reasons for rejecting it; reasons literally 
 innumerable. 
 
 I must either denounce Jesus as an enthusiast or impostor, 
 says the Doctor, or acknowledge him a divine and superna- 
 tural personage. 
 
 Not at all. It is only necessary to suppose that he was a 
 good, kind man, a preacher of righteousness to the best of 
 his knowledge, and a friend and benefactor of the poor, and 
 all the rest can be accounted for without difficulty. We 
 know how churches magnify and glorify their founders, — 
 how rapidly fabulous stories spring up about popular leaders 
 even while they live, and how much more rapidly they mul- 
 tiply and gather round the memories of the good and the 
 great when they are dead. A thousand stories of miracles 
 are in circulation respecting Father Matthew; and the number 
 may be doubled after his death. Stories of miraculous works 
 are to be found in the Lives of Wesley, Brammell, and other 
 Methodist ministers. These miraculous stories sprang up 
 more rapidly formerly, and multiplied much faster. It was 
 so in every country of antiquity. All the great men were 
 miracle workers in the estimation of the masses. The early 
 histories of Greece and Home arc full of miraculous stories. 
 So are the ancient writings of other nations. In earliest ages 
 men made their benefactors into gods. In later times they 
 were content with making them into sons of God. Miracu- 
 
THE BIBLE. 197 
 
 lous powers and supernatural gifts were ascribed to them. 
 Days were set apart for their worship, and priesthoods esta- 
 blished to attend to their interests. 
 
 All these things could take place in times of ignorance 
 and credulity, without fraud, or with comparatively little 
 fraud. So it might be with Jesus. It was enough that he 
 was a good man and a reformer: a friend of freedom and a 
 friend of man : an enemy of the priests and sectarians of his 
 day, and a stern denouncer of their false theology, their 
 vicious morality, and their deceitful, selfish, and intolerant 
 doings. The love and admiration of his followers, without 
 any ill design, would make him first a prophet, then a worker 
 of miracles, then a being of supernatural origin, or Son of 
 God, and even God himself. It was as natural for the love 
 and admiration of his friends to make him a God, as for the 
 hate and rage of the priests and sectarians to make him a 
 devil. Both were natural. 
 
 When once exalted, all the rich sayings afloat in society, 
 and all the best maxims of antiquity would be attributed to 
 him, and mixed with the tradition of his own sayings. Tales 
 of miracles would grow as rapidly and as plenteously as 
 flowers in spring. Those tales of miracles and traditions of 
 his sayings, would in time be written down. The writers 
 might be no cheats. They might be as firm believers in 
 the traditions of the churches which they collected, as the 
 churches themselves. One writer would copy another, 
 making such alterations as tradition or his own conjectures 
 might seem to require. The plain matter of fact writers 
 would compose such books as those of Matthew and Mark. 
 The more imaginative could colour his narrative, and give us 
 such a story as that ascribed to Luke, while the dreamy, 
 poetical, transcendental philosopher, would produce such a 
 gospel as that of John. 
 
 Mark, we do not say the canonical gospels iccre produced 
 in this way, though we are inclined to believe they were, but 
 only that they might be thus produced. The facts we have 
 given, show that the representations of Jesus, of his sayings 
 and doings, found in the gospels, might all be accounted for, 
 without either supposing that Jesus was a fanatic or an im- 
 postor; or that the authors of the Gospel were wicked and 
 wilful deceivers. I am sorry the time is so short, or I could 
 give a thousand facts, (hisses and contemptuous laughter,) 
 both from ancient and from modern writers, as well as from 
 
198 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the experience and observations of living witnesses, in confir- 
 mation of this view of the case. 
 
 But how came the gospels to bear the names of Apostles 
 of Jesus, if they were not composed by them ? We answer, 
 how came the Apostles' creed, the Apostolical constitutions, 
 the apocryphal gospels and epistles to be called after the 
 Apostles? We answer — 
 
 1. Books often get the names of men who are not their 
 authors, where there is no intentional fraud. It was thus in 
 ancient times especially. But — 
 
 2. At a very early period fraud began to be practised in 
 the church, and that on a very large scale. Men wrote books 
 without end, and gave them out as the works of Jesus, Tho- 
 mas, Nicodemus, or any one whose name was in high esteem. 
 Hence, a great number of gospels appeared, and a still greater 
 number of Epistles. These pious frauds increased with ama- 
 zing rapidity. Falsehood was held to be lawful if it tended 
 to the praise and glory of God. To prove this, I need only 
 quote another passage from Mosheim. He says : [Here Mr. 
 Barker's time expired.] 
 
 Dr. Berg. — I am anxious to proceed with the posi- 
 tive argument, for time is urgent; but as my opponent 
 seeks to cover the real questions at issue by a web of 
 perversions, it may perhaps be well to pause for a 
 moment in order to brush them out of the way. He 
 is evidently beginning to find, that his reckless as- 
 sertions and bold blasphemies against the God of the 
 Bible are not argument, and that apparent discrepan- 
 cies require nothing more than the exercise of a little 
 candour in order to reconcile them. In giving a 
 revelation to men, God does not change the nature of 
 the instruments whom he employs as the medium of 
 his communications. He speaks to fallible men by 
 the mouths of prophets, evangelists, and apostles, 
 and all that we are concerned to know is the great 
 truth which affects the present happiness and eternal 
 destiny of men. Circumstantial variations, I repeat, 
 are no valid objection. Thus, when it is said, by one 
 evangelist, that Judas bought the potter's field for 
 thirty pieces of silver, the price of his treachery; 
 and another says that the priests bought it for the 
 
THE BIBLE, 199 
 
 same money; who does not see that this variation is 
 merely one of those circumstantial discrepancies which 
 are arising every day in the ordinary intercourse 
 and conversation of men, on any subject or fact that 
 may be called in question ? My opponent, in his 
 usual style of unfairness, substitutes a transaction of a 
 totally different nature from that which the Bible in 
 this case proposes. The question at issue is, "Was 
 the potter's field purchased for the price which Judas 
 received for the betrayal of his Lord?" A very dif- 
 ferent thing this from a murder case, where the ques- 
 tion turns upon the person who committed it, and not 
 upon the fact of its having been perpetrated. What 
 a contemptible system of trickery is this, which the 
 enemies of the Bible are continually practising ! Now 
 let us examine the testimony of the three witnesses, 
 whom Mr. Barker cites. Here is Matthew, an honest 
 man, who left a lucrative office, and at the invitation 
 of Christ arose and followed him. What does Matthew 
 say touching this inquiry? Was this potter's field 
 bought with those thirty pieces of silver which Judas 
 received as the price of his treachery? It was, says 
 Matthew : " Then Judas, which had betrayed him, 
 when he saw that he was condemned, repented him- 
 self, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to 
 the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned, in 
 that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they 
 said, What is that to us ? see thou to that. And he 
 cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and de- 
 parted, and went and hanged himself. And the chief 
 priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not law- 
 ful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the 
 price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought 
 with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in." — 
 Matthew xxvii. 3 — 7. What says Luke ? Hear him : 
 " Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have 
 been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of 
 David, spake before concerning Judas, which was 
 guide to them that took Jesus. For he was num- 
 bered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 
 
200 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of ini- 
 quity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the 
 midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was 
 known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem ; insomuch 
 as that field is called in their proper tongue, Acel- 
 dama, that is to say, The field of blood."— Acts i. 
 16 — 20. Now let me ask my opponent, would he be 
 willing that in the ordinary transactions of life, the 
 veracity of men should be judged by the rule he pro- 
 poses ? Is a man a liar, because he says he has 
 bought a horse, when the animal has been paid for 
 through a third person, with his own money ? Is a man 
 a liar because he says, Such a person bought a field, 
 although another man acting as his agent paid the 
 money for it? This field was bought with Judas's 
 money, the thirty pieces which the scribes and pha- 
 risees gave him for betraying his Lord, and these two 
 witnesses substantiate the fact, with the circumstantial 
 variations that are common in ordinary narrations of 
 two individuals concerning the same occurrence, when 
 there is no collusion between the parties. But there 
 is a third witness. His name is Zechariah. What does 
 he say ? Mr. Barker says, Zechariah tells us, he 
 bought it, not Judas, nor the priests, but he Zechariah 
 himself. Zechariah xi. 12, 13. Here is a clear and 
 distinct prophetic enunciation of the fact, more than 
 four hundred years before the event took place, that 
 the Lord was prized at the goodly price of thirty 
 pieces of silver, and that these thirty pieces were paid 
 for the potter's field! Was ever the folly of an infidel 
 blasphemer of the truth more glaringly apparent than 
 in my opponent's case? This is a specimen of what 
 he calls unanswerable argument, but which every 
 honest man despises as a most miserable quibble; no 
 more miserable, however, than the rest of his con- 
 temptible sophistry. So again, when he speaks of the 
 numbering of Israel, one account is given by Samuel, 
 the other by Ezra. One says Satan tempted David — 
 the other says God tempted him. The substantial 
 agreement is that David and Israel too, were lifted 
 
DISCUSSION ON 201 
 
 up by national pride. That is the question. God is 
 frequently said to do what he permits others to do. 
 This reconciles the discrepancy, and scatters the blas- 
 phemous aspersions upon the character of God, as the 
 wind blows away the smoke that obscures a diamond ; 
 for I have already shown that the Bible is to be taken 
 as a whole; and the apostle James settles the contro- 
 versy on this point, when he says, "Let no man say 
 when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God 
 cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any 
 man: but every man is tempted when he is drawn 
 away of his own lust and enticed." So, so, says my 
 opponent, then it ivas neither God, nor Satan, but 
 David's oivn lust that tempted him! I answer, Satan 
 stirred up the lust of David's own heart, and God 
 permitted Satan to do it, and this is all the explana- 
 tion that any honest inquirer after truth will need. 
 As for satisfying an atheist, the Bible never presents 
 or argues a special case with any such design. It 
 merely says, " The fool hath said in his heart, There 
 is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abomi- 
 nable wickedness." My opponent says, I call him 
 foul names ; I do not ; but the Bible, which is the word 
 of God, speaks in terms of abhorrence of him and 
 of all who hold his infamous and blasphemous views, 
 and I shall quote the Bible to the end of the chapter, 
 let my opponent wince as he may. I hope, however, 
 if he ever attempts to translate Latin again, he will 
 display some larger acquaintance with the real drift 
 of the language. My opponent has assailed the mi- 
 nistry. I should have indeed been mortified if any 
 words of commendation had fallen from his lips ; for 
 if my opponent can spend a large proportion of his 
 half hour in perverting the conduct and aspersing 
 the character of our ever blessed Master, I should be 
 sorry indeed, if the ministers of Christ were exempt 
 from his condemnatory remarks. That would be evi- 
 dence that they do not resemble in any degree, how- 
 ever imperfect, the precious model proposed for their 
 imitation. If they have called the Master of the 
 18 ' 
 
202 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 house Beelzebub, how much more shall they vilify 
 them of his household? Surely it is enough that the 
 disciple should be as his Lord, and the servant as his 
 Master. Still, I may be permitted to notice the 
 remarks of my opponent, as they embody the stereo- 
 type calumnies of the enemies of Christianity against 
 an office which Christ himself has committed to men, 
 as his ambassadors. My opponent speaks of us, as 
 actuated by the most sordid motives. I might easily 
 retort, and perhaps overwhelm him with a rejoinder 
 here, under which even his equanimity would quail, 
 but I can afford to be generous. I need not say, that 
 the pulpit of this country, take it as a whole, embo- 
 dies quite as much talent, quite as much intellect, 
 and involves an amount of mental labour and anxiety, 
 quite as great as those exacted of any other profes- 
 sion that can be named. No lawyer, no physician 
 would be content with the stipend which ministers of 
 the gospel receive, as a quid pro quo for their ser- 
 vices. The average salary of the ministers of this 
 country is not $400 per annum. What man who oc- 
 cupies a pulpit, were he to devote his energies to the 
 practice of any other profession, law or medicine, or 
 merchandise and trade, would deem himself paid for 
 the toil and anxiety involved in the duties of the 
 ministry of the gospel? We are the servants of all, 
 who may make demands upon our time, and labour, 
 our health or our sympathy; and, sirs, I tell you, if 
 the reward of temporal emolument, let it come in the 
 shape of honour or of dollars, were the sole induce- 
 ment for the practice of our profession, there is not 
 a man in any pulpit, in any part of the land, deserv- 
 ing the name of a minister of Christ, that would not 
 be as great a fool as any Atheist that ever lived, if he 
 did not abandon his calling on the spot! But ours 
 is a work of faith. We look to eternity. We believe 
 that this book is a genuine and authentic revelation. 
 We know it is the word of God. We believe, there- 
 fore we speak, and if by the blessing of God, we may 
 be instrumental in leading our fellow men to Christ, 
 
THE BIBLE. 203 
 
 we are repaid: this is our joy and our crown of re- 
 joicing. Reproach, contempt, persecution, calumnies, 
 and all the intrinsic difficulties of our profession, 
 anxiety, distress, poverty, and sometimes ingratitude 
 and injustice are so many honours, which we thank- 
 fully wear, in seeking to fill up that which is behind of 
 the affliction of Christ. Infidels, I know, will tell you 
 we care for the fleece, not for the flock : infidels will tell 
 you, Christ points to «s, when he says, "Beware of 
 false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, 
 but inwardly they are ravening wolves;" but if ever 
 the words of that Saviour were sharp as arrows in the 
 hearts of his enemies, these words go like drawn swords 
 into the heart of infidelity. Who are these wolves in 
 sheep's clothing? Who, but the men, who talk of 
 "liberty, equality, fraternity," when in their very 
 souls they know, and when the very language of my 
 opponent shows that he regards us as oppressors, who 
 are to be put down: hence I argue, if he and his as- 
 sociates had the power, they would silence the voice 
 of the pulpit, and hurl every minister of the gospel 
 into the lowest dungeons of oppression and contempt, 
 if they did not consign them to the gallows, or the 
 lamp post, as in those palmy days when infidel re- 
 publicans bathed their swords in the heart's blood of 
 all who would not pronounce their infernal shibboleth. 
 Once, in the cities of France, God did in judgment 
 let loose the passions of atheistic despisers of his 
 truth, that they might scourge with scorpions the 
 nation that had despised his covenant. Your infidel 
 reformers are the ravening wolves in sheep's clothing. 
 Beware of them. They come with honeyed words to 
 tell you, that they are slandered when the right of 
 the people to rule is questioned, or denied. They 
 are the friends of the dear people, and such were 
 Robespierre and Danton and Marat, until the dear 
 people, or what was left of them, paid back the debt 
 of charity, and sent the bloody instruments of wrath 
 to plague their abhorred inventors. My opponent 
 would have you believe that he and those who think 
 
204 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 and act with him are the true republicans. But what 
 kind of a republic is that, which is based upon infidel 
 laws, which rest merely on human authority ; on human 
 authority too, in its lowest and most degraded form ? 
 He finds no fault with us, so far as we advocate moral 
 reforms, but our conservatism he cannot endure; I 
 thank him for that statement. Our conservatism is 
 one of the bulwarks of the land. It has contributed, 
 with the conservative statesmanship of the purest 
 patriots in the country, to save this confederacy from 
 the horrors of infidel, radical treason, with its long 
 train of internecine and servile conflicts and carnage. 
 Every friend of liberty based on law, every patriot in 
 the land, whether professing Christian, or not, will 
 join in the prayer that the pulpit of America may 
 ever be preserved from infidel contamination, from 
 infidel machinations and infidel mercies! 
 
 My opponent thought fit to take to himself what I 
 said respecting the tendencies of infidel morality. He 
 says, prove that Zhave been guilty of any crime, and 
 I will retire from this platform. With his personal 
 character, I have nothing to do, nor did I allude to it, 
 and he knows it. If I had sought to embarrass him 
 by any odium of this kind, I should have wronged my 
 own sense of propriety. All I assert is that the ne- 
 cessary tendency of the atheistic rejection of divine 
 authority as the sanction of law, is to unbounded li- 
 centiousness. I have to deal with principles and not 
 with men, and this principle I established in my first 
 speech, which my opponent, not only has not answered, 
 but which he dare not approach with an attempt at 
 candid argument. 
 
 I find also, that he has not yet done with the ark. 
 A large number of his objections are silenced, but still 
 he is not satisfied that Noah's family could attend to 
 sixty-six animals in one second, this being the average 
 amount of labour required of the inmates of that 
 vessel. What a ridiculous perversion! His 500,000 
 animals never yet have been collated. He takes the 
 random estimate of Professor Hitchcock, on trust, 
 
THE BIBLE. 205 
 
 without a particle of that evidence to sustain it, which, 
 in the case of the Bible, he exacts with such severity. 
 If he had half the faith or half the willingness to 
 abate objection to difficulties hi the Bible, exhibited 
 in his belief of Hitchcock, he would abandon his infi- 
 delity. I have already shown that authority quite as 
 good as Hitchcock, presents the number of animals at 
 from two hundred to two hundred and fifty different 
 genera. Now, Noah was not bound to make his se- 
 lection according to present distinctions of natural- 
 ists. New varieties might very readily have been 
 formed since his day. Monkeys we know, for ex- 
 ample, present an almost interminable variety, and 
 yet all have sprung from two or three original types. 
 Besides, his 500,000 animals include 120,000 insects. 
 How long would it take Mrs. Noah to clean after them? 
 His 1000 mammalia include the whale of course, and 
 how many whales do you suppose Noah took with him 
 into the ark? I will settle this ark business, so far 
 as I am concerned, in this debate, in a few words, and 
 leave my opponent to laugh at Noah and his vessel, and 
 its contents, as the infidels of Noah's day did before 
 him, until he is content to drop the subject, or send 
 it to keep company with Solomon's seven hundred 
 wives and three hundred concubines! The ark was 
 four hundred and fifty feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 
 feet high, according to the very lowest estimate known. 
 It contained three stories averaging 15 feet from the 
 floor to the ceiling. This hall in which we are met, 
 is one hundred and fifty feet long from wall to wall, 
 and sixty feet wide in the clear. Therefore, the 
 ark was on each floor exactly three times as long as 
 this entire building from front to rear; and it was 
 one fourth wider from side to side. It had, moreover, 
 three stories of 15 feet high, to say nothing of a 
 window, (save the mark,) one cubit square ! Put 
 these three stories into one, and you have a vessel 
 nine times as long as this building, and three and 
 three-fourths times as wide, with 15 feet from the 
 floor to the ceiling, and if by stowing cages and boxes 
 
 18* 
 
206 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 one upon another, he would be unable to accommo- 
 date the specimens of living animals known and de- 
 scribed by naturalists as belonging to genera, really 
 distinct, including 120,000 insects, then I say, Noah 
 was not as wise a man as I take him to have been. I 
 suppose, too, he would be disposed in the choice of 
 animals such as the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopota- 
 mus, elk, and the like, to select young animals, if he 
 wished to economise space. We have had, during this 
 discussion, over 2,200 people in this hall at once, and 
 allowing seven feet and a half for each row, and placing 
 two tiers in the fifteen feet, we should have standing 
 or sitting-room for 59,400 persons, were the ark no 
 wider than this hall, though it was one-fourth wider; 
 and if the three stories were reduced into one, the 
 width would, of course, be three and three-fourths 
 greater ; so that there would be ample space to stow 
 away all the necessary provision. Now, when you 
 take into consideration that the number of animals 
 larger than man bears no proportion to the number 
 of animals that are smaller, and that my opponent's 
 enormous estimate includes 120,000 kinds of insects, 
 to say nothing of fishes and amphibious animals, which 
 he has no business to enter on the invoice, that, by 
 his own showing, the whole aggregate of mammalia 
 will reach only 1000 different genera, most of them 
 very small, I cannot conceive what possible objection 
 against the capacity of the ark can stand the test of 
 fair criticism. Here, I leave this matter, and proceed 
 to other points, which may require a word of com- 
 ment. Many of my opponent's statements are sheer 
 blank assertions. He says the evangelists merely put 
 on record certain traditions respecting Christ; and 
 that, no doubt, they greatly exaggerated the excellen- 
 cies of his character through that amiable propension 
 of our nature which leads us to speak in exalted terms 
 of our departed friends. And is it thus, that the ar- 
 gument of my opponent is to be sustained? Tradi- 
 tions ! No; some of them relate what they had them- 
 selves seen Christ do, and heard Christ speak. Mat- 
 
THE BIBLE. 207 
 
 thew was a disGiple of Christ, a publican, one who 
 had been a tax-gatherer, but who attached himself to 
 Christ's person, and accompanied him in his journey- 
 ings from place to place. Mark was the familiar com- 
 panion of the apostle Peter, and wrote, as the most 
 authentic accounts show, under the direction of Peter, 
 who had enjoyed the very best opportunities for know- 
 ing the truth of the facts here related. Luke was the 
 friend and counsellor of St. Paul, a man of learning 
 and of research — one who had the confidence and in- 
 timacy of the apostles, who were eye-witnesses of the 
 facts which he narrates; and St. John was the disci- 
 ple whom Jesus loved, who leaned upon his master's 
 breast, and enjoyed the closest intimacy with the Sa- 
 viour. Did these men patch up their story from tra- 
 dition? "What need had they of traditions? If they 
 did, is it not a marvel that these four men writing at 
 different times, in different places, should have stated 
 the same truths with so much substantial agreement, 
 and so little even of circumstantial variety? 
 [Time up.] 
 
 Mr. Barker. — The Dr. says that Matthew was an apostle. 
 
 Dr. Berg. — No, sir, I said that he was a disciple. 
 
 Mr. Barker. — If the Dr. does not say he was an apostle, 
 the Bible does. [Slight laughter.] The Dr. assumes that 
 Luke wrote the gospel attributed to him, and I admit that 
 when he shall have proved this, he will have done something. 
 He says that God did not change the nature of the fallible 
 men whom he chose as instruments to write his word, but 
 that he preserved them from error. Now, they fell into the 
 grossest and most palpable error of every description, and do 
 not seem to have spoken the mind of God at all, but wrote 
 what they had in their own minds. 
 
 Introducing again the circumstantial variations, he spoke 
 of the case of Judas. He says that the important question 
 is, whether the field was bought ? If the fact of buying was 
 the only one, why are the authors so careful to tell us who 
 bought it? He asks whether a man would be charged with 
 lying if he should say that he had bought a field, when an- 
 other had bought it for him ? He would be chargeable with 
 mistake if the point was important — a mistake he would not 
 
208 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 commit if lie was acting under divine inspiration. He would 
 prove that he was human, and we charge the authors of the 
 gospels with nothing more. He supposes that a horse is 
 bought for a man by an agent; lie claims that he could say- 
 he bought the horse. Now, if he can show that the priests 
 were Judas' s agents in the case, he will do something, but 
 there is no such agency hinted at. 
 
 In quoting the prophecy of Zechariah, the Dr. left out the 
 conclusion — " As the Lord appointed me" which shows that 
 Zechariah spoke of himself and not of Judas. 
 
 He says that God permitted Satan to tempt David, and 
 that God may be said to do what he permits; then, accord- 
 ing to the Dr., is God answerable for every crime; for he 
 permits them to occur, and may be said to do them, to use 
 the Doctor's theology. This is carrying blasphemy further 
 than even the Bible carries it. Who was it tempted David? 
 Satan, God, or nobody? The Bible says all three. Does 
 this prove agreement? Here is a triple contradiction. We 
 are told that God sent Satan. Was God on such terms with 
 Satan as to send him to do any thing ? It is evident that 
 the Dr. could write a better book, but that is not his task. 
 His task is to prove that the one already made is of divine 
 origin. 
 
 He says that I should, before translating Latin, endeavour 
 to understand its drift. I have never boasted of learning, 
 but I would be willing to leave it to competent judges, which 
 understands Latin the best. 
 
 He says I attribute to ministers sordid motives. I did 
 not. [Hisses and laughter.] But if I did, I could justify 
 myself by his example. Does he not habitually charge the 
 Catholic priesthood, who are the majority of the clergy, with 
 sordid motives? and if he does that, surely he will not deny 
 me the right to attribute the same motives to the Protestant 
 minority. 
 
 He says that Infidels are the wolves in sheep's clothing, 
 alluded to by Christ. Then, I suppose, that to prove our- 
 selves not to be wolves, we must speak in favour of tyranny? 
 Does the Doctor never speak of liberty, fraternity, and equa- 
 lity? Not much, I fear. I know that the priesthood in 
 Europe is the upholder of every form of tyranny. And I 
 am inclined to think that the American church is the bul- 
 wark of American slavery, which is the worst form of despo- 
 tism on the face of the earth. (Hisses.) If, in order not to 
 pass for a wolf in sheep's clothing, it is necessary to favour 
 
THE BIBLE. 209 
 
 war, and uphold tyranny and slavery, then, I say, let me 
 pass for a wolf in sheep's clothing. (Applause. Irish voice — 
 "An' sure ye are!") 
 
 He alludes to me as having spoken of the reign of terror 
 as one of peace for the people. He did not hear the speech 
 to which he alludes, or he would not make such an assertion. 
 What I did say was that Thomas Carlyle says it was a terror 
 to the few and not to the masses, and that most of the men 
 who perished were of the classes which speak, write, and 
 print, and have made the world hear of their sufferings, but 
 that a much greater number were put to death in the pre- 
 ceding reigns of believing monarchs and nothing said about it. 
 
 And I think Thos. Carlyle was much, much too near the 
 truth. 
 
 The Dr. has much to say of the comparative merit of Chris- 
 tians and unbelievers — let Christians testify on this point. 
 I refer you to the "New Themes, by Mr. Stephen Colwell, a 
 Christian in good standing, of your own city. He tells you 
 that the Christians are eager for wealth, backward to sympa- 
 thize with progressive movements, and full of the spirit of 
 opposition to those who speak of the rights of the labouring 
 man and the elevation of labour. In some respects he places 
 Tom Paine above the Christian clergy of his own country. 
 I give you a quotation also from the N~. Y. Evangelist, a 
 Presbyterian paper: — 
 
 "To the shame of the church, it must be confessed, that 
 the foremost in all our philanthropic movements, in the in- 
 terpretation of the spirit of the age, in the practical applica- 
 tion of genuine Christianity, in the reformation of abuses in 
 high and in low places, in the vindication of the rights of 
 man and in practically redressing his wrongs, in the moral 
 and intellectual regeneration of the race — are the so-called 
 infidels in our land. 
 
 "The church has pusillanimously left, not only the working 
 oar, but the very reins of salutary reform in the hands of 
 men she denounces as inimical to Christianity, and who are 
 practically doing, with all their might for humanity' 's sake, 
 that which the church ought to be doing for Christ's sake; 
 and if they succeed, as succeed they will, in abolishing 
 slavery, banishing rum, restraining licentiousness, reforming 
 abuses and elevating the masses, then must the recoil on 
 Christianity be disastrous. Wo, wo, wo to Christianity; 
 when Infidels, by force of nature, or the tendency of the age, 
 get ahead of the church in morals and in the practical work 
 
210 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 of Christianity. In some instances they are already far in 
 advance. In the vindication of truth, righteousness, and 
 liberty, they are the pioneers, beckoning to a sluggish Church 
 to follow in the rear." 
 
 I will read another from the JV. Y. Independent, a paper 
 of the same denomination : — 
 
 "Among all the earnest-minded young men, who are at 
 this moment leading in thought and action in America, we 
 venture to say that four-fifths are skeptical even of the great 
 historical facts of Christianity. 
 
 u What is told as Christian doctrine by the churches claims 
 none of their consideration, and there is among them a ge- 
 neral distrust of the clergy as a class, and an utter disgust 
 with the very aspect of modern Christianity and of the church 
 worship. 
 
 " This skepticism is not flippant; little is said about it. It 
 is not a peculiarity alone of the radicals and fanatics : most of 
 them are men of calm and even balance of mind, and belong 
 to no class of ultraists. It is not worldly and selfish. Nay, 
 the doubters lead in the bravest and most self-denying en- 
 terprises of the day." 
 
 In the early ages of Christianity, the Christians were no 
 better; for pious ends, they propagated the most shameless 
 falsehoods and perpetrated the most outrageous literary 
 frauds. 
 
 The leaders of the church encouraged them. They taught 
 that falsehood was not only lawful but praiseworthy, when 
 used for the good of souls and the spread of the gospel. You 
 shall hear the testimony of Christians on this head. The 
 following is from Mosheim, the ecclesiastical historian, whose 
 reputation for truth and candour stands high both here and 
 in Europe : — 
 
 " Not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, several 
 histories of his life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and 
 fabulous vjonders, were prepared by persons, whose inten- 
 tions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings discovered 
 the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all: 
 productions appeared which were imposed upon the world by 
 fraudulent men, as the writings of the holy apostles." 
 
 " The Platonists and Pythagoreans held it as a maxim, that 
 it was not only lawful, but even praiseworthy to deceive, 
 and even to use the expedient of a lie, in order to advance 
 the cause of truth and piety. The Jews who lived in Egypt, 
 had learned and received this maxim from them, before the 
 
THE BIBLE. 211 
 
 coming of Christ, as appears incontestably from a multitude 
 of ancient records. And the Christians were infected from 
 both these sources with the same pernicious error, as appears 
 from the number of books attributed falsely to great and 
 venerable names, from the sibylline verses, and several su- 
 perstitious productions which were spread abroad in this and 
 the following century." 
 
 Other passages of this kind might be quoted from this 
 work in abundance. But these are enough. 
 
 Take, however, the following from another work of Mo- 
 sheim : 
 
 " But these few particulars not being found sufficient to 
 satisfy human curiosity, some artful unprincipled characters 
 amongst the early Christians had the presumption to avail 
 themselves of the ignorance and inquisitiveness of a credulous 
 multitude in this respect, and under the pretence of illustra- 
 ting this obscure part of our Saviour's life, to impose on the 
 public a compilation of ridiculous and nonsensical stories, 
 which they entitled Gospels of the infancy of Christ." 
 
 Other writings were forged in the names of Clement, Poly- 
 carp, Ignatius, and many others. Some wrote books and 
 sent them abroad under the names of Noah, Seth, Abraham 
 and Enoch. Others were forged in the names of celebrated 
 Gentiles. Books previously written were altered to meet the 
 wants of the priesthood. Frauds overflowed the church like 
 a deluge, till a darkness like the fabled darkness of Egypt 
 wrapped the converted nations as in a pall, and chaos came 
 again. Here, also, I could give almost a world of facts illus- 
 trating my statements, and establishing my positions. But 
 time will not permit. These, however, are sufficient to show 
 the unsoundness of the arguments of my opponent. His 
 theory is but as the vapour which the wind carrieth away. 
 
 I know the seeming arguments with which such theories 
 are sometimes propped; but they are errors, are frauds from 
 first to last. The whole external argument rests on testimony, 
 and the testimony on which it rests is good for nothing. It is 
 false from first to last — a world of falsehood. Begin with. 
 Home or Watson, or the random writer from whom my op- 
 ponent reads so rapidly his pretended list of prophecies; or 
 begin with Newton, Keith, or Nelson; and not a solitary state- 
 ment of any of them can be safely trusted. I could give you 
 a hundred proofs, that the modern defenders of Bible inspi- 
 ration act as freely on the principle, that it is right to use 
 falsehood for the good of souls and the defence of the church 
 
212 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 and the Bible, as the ancient ones, though they do not find it 
 convenient to avow the principle as their elder brethren did. 
 Take an example. Here is Nelson, an American defender 
 of the Bible. His work is published by the American Tract 
 Society, so that the orthodox churches and priesthood are 
 answerable for its contents. Yet its contents are a mass of 
 falsehood, much of it wilful falsehood. Take the following 
 as an example. 
 
 In his " Cause and Cure of Infidelity," Nelson quotes, or 
 pretends to quote from Voltaire, as follows : 
 
 "Men saw Isaiah walking, stark naked, in Jerusalem, in 
 order to show that the King of Assyria would bring crowds 
 of captives out of Egypt and Ethiopia, who would not have 
 anything to cover their nakedness. Is it possible that a man 
 could walk, stark naked, through Jerusalem, without being 
 punished by the civil power?" 
 
 Nelson then says: 
 
 "What impression must this make on one who opened the 
 book in search of a support of his system of infidelity ? I 
 had read the Bible and heard it read often, (through neces- 
 sity,) when I was young. I knew that many who read this 
 would think it true, and make their inferences without fur- 
 ther examination ; but I knew it false, and I knew that the 
 author must have known its untruth. He knew that the 
 man without arms was and is called naked in a military 
 sense. Armed troops, and naked troops, are terms in com- 
 mon use. Those who are not only despoiled of arms, but 
 destitute of robes and upper garments, as slaves commonly 
 are, were called naked. No one means by this stark naked- 
 ness except those who choose so to understand it; and those 
 who thus choose, have something in their hearts which so 
 actuates them." 
 
 Now what is the passage referred to in Isaiah. It is in 
 chapter xx. 
 
 "At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of 
 Amoz, saying, Go, and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, 
 and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking 
 naked and barefoot. And the Lord said, Like as my servant 
 Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign 
 and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; so shall the 
 king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the 
 Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even 
 with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt." 
 
 It is clear that the Rev. Dr. Nelson was either a scatter- 
 
THE BIBLE. 213 
 
 brain or a reckless liar. Yet it is this man's book that has 
 been endorsed by the American Tract Society. 
 
 Take Keith on the Prophecies : he not only falsifies his- 
 tory, but alters prophecy, and actually makes prophecy where 
 there was none. 
 
 Take Simpson, Bishop Watson and Mcllvaine; they all be- 
 lie the writings of Paine, on points respecting which they 
 could not be deceived, if they ever read his writings. And 
 to slander a man's writings on mere hearsay, without reading 
 them, is almost as bad as to slander them wilfully after read- 
 ing them. 
 
 Then think of the worlds of pious fraud embodied in the 
 histories, traditions and legends of the church of Rome. You 
 can believe in the infinite, unscrupulous, systematic deceit of 
 the Catholics. The Catholics can believe in the deceitfulness 
 of Protestants. We can believe in both. A most ignoble 
 pair. Yet the testimony of these two profligate, perjured 
 witnesses, who call each other liars to the face, and damn each 
 other to the eternal fires of pitch and brimstone in the bot- 
 tomless abyss, is all the advocate of Bible inspiration has on 
 which to rest his case. 
 
 We had next an appeal to prophecy. But observe, my 
 opponent should have done three things to make an argument 
 out of prophecy, all of which he omitted to do. He should, 
 
 1. Have proved that the passages to which he referred were 
 prophecies, and prophecies of Jesus. 
 
 2. He should have proved that the gospel histories are 
 real true histories; statements of facts. 
 
 3. He should then have shown that the prophecies were 
 really fulfilled in those facts. 
 
 He should have taken each pretended prophecy separately; 
 told us where it was ; shown us that it really meant what he 
 supposed; then carried it over to the fact supposed to be its 
 fulfilment — shown us that the supposed fact really happened 
 as represented in the gospel; shown that the fact and the 
 prophecy corresponded; and so in every case. But this my 
 opponent did not do. Perhaps he will try to do it. We will 
 wait and see. Till he has done it he will have proved nothing 
 more than that he is very wishful to seem to prove some- 
 thing whether he can, in reality prove it or not. 
 
 There are a few other points my opponent will do -well to 
 consider, 
 
 1. How prophecies sometimes fulfil themselves ? 
 
 19 
 
214 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 2. How historians make history out of prophecy. See 
 Mosheim. 
 
 3. How easy, with prophecy in view, to modify the story 
 of a man's life, so as to fit the one with the other. 
 
 4. God employing false prophets to deceive into belief of 
 a false religion. 
 
 He says that Jesus sanctioned the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 1. We ask for proof. 
 
 2. We see proof to the contrary. 
 
 In the New Testament I find errors gross and numerous. 
 (Laughter and hisses.) We need no further proof that cer- 
 tain parties in the audience can laugh and jeer duriDg a se- 
 rious debate. I find in the New Testament an error in ge- 
 nealogy; the descent of Jesus is traced in two genealogies 
 through Joseph to David — each of the two contains different 
 persons, and a different number of generations, and yet, after 
 so much painful labour to prove him of the seed of David 
 through Joseph, we are told that he was not Joseph's son at 
 all. Not one word is said about the ancestry of Mary. We 
 find errors in reference to prophecies. — Matthew tells us that 
 the child was called Jesus, "that it might be fulfilled which 
 was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a 
 virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and 
 they shall call his name Emanuel." A pretty reason, truly, 
 for calling him Jesus, that the prophet had said he should 
 be called Emanuel. 
 
 And another. Matthew tells us that Joseph took the young 
 child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt, and 
 was there until the death of Herod, "that it might be fulfilled 
 which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out 
 of Egypt have I called my Son." We waive, for the present, 
 the objection that Luke gives an account of Christ's infancy, 
 which makes this visit to Egypt impossible. The words al- 
 luded to are to be found in Hosea, but in Hosea is no pre- 
 diction. And so with other pretended predictions; not one 
 of those mentioned by the Doctor makes mention of Christ, 
 or refers to him in any way. There are similar contradictions 
 in the History of the New Testament, and to its morality we 
 have the objection that it inculcates the basest servility to 
 tyrannical government — that it places the wife under the de- 
 spotic control of the husband — and that it enjoins upon ser- 
 vants to be obedient in all things to their masters, not only 
 
THE BIBLE. 215 
 
 to the good and gentle, but even to the froward. [Time ex- 
 pired. Hisses and applause.] 
 
 Dr. Berg : [Great applause.] 
 
 Mb. Chambers : I would again request the audience 
 to abstain from all applause until the discussion is 
 over. Then clap as much as you please. 
 
 Dr. Berg: I would thank mv opponent, when he 
 quotes me again, to quote me correctly. I said Mat- 
 thew was a disciple, though it is true he was also an 
 apostle. 
 
 I was just beginning, when my time was up, to 
 show that it was impossible that the evangelists could 
 have patched up the Gospel from floating traditions. 
 My opponent has proved that in the early age of 
 the Church there were many spurious works in the 
 world, purporting to be the exponents of religious 
 systems. He instances the Book of the Shepherd of 
 Hermes. But what has the Book of the Shepherd of 
 Hermes to do with the Book of Matthew? My op- 
 ponent's business is not to prove Hermes not true, 
 but to prove Matthew not true. How does he accom- 
 plish this end? These books of Hermes and others 
 are not true, and therefore the books of Matthew, 
 Mark. Luke, and John are not true! Indeed! Why, 
 I might thus infer the falsity of the Bible from the 
 fictions of Don Quixote. What earthly need was 
 there of these traditions? If the evangelists did 
 patch up the Gospel from floating traditions, is it not 
 a marvel that all four of them should, at different 
 times, in different places, and with no collusion or 
 comparison with each other, state the same truths 
 with so much substantial agreement? How will my 
 opponent account for this? Especially when, if the 
 question of motive be introduced, the very high- 
 est considerations of interest would have forbidden 
 any connexion with the cause of Jesus of Xazareth? 
 What did they gain by professing Christ? Perse- 
 cution, imprisonment, reproach, and death, were the 
 temporal penalties of their profession. Impostors do 
 not covet these as the reward of their toil. Impos- 
 
16 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 tors flatter the lusts and pride of men : the evange- 
 lists rebuked them. Impostors seek to amass wealth 
 and power; but these men suffered the loss of all 
 things, for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ. 
 No! They were honest men; their lives prove it; 
 their whole social and civil position proves it. And 
 if they were honest, their record is true ; because it 
 speaks of the details of their own experience and ob- 
 servation, or of the experience of others, who, like 
 themselves, had sacrificed every thing for the truth. 
 This whole subject, including the life of Paul and his 
 fellow apostles, presents, in connexion with the cha- 
 racter of Christ, an overwhelming argument for the 
 truth of the Scriptures. 
 
 Think of Paul, a Pharisee of the straitest sect, a 
 Hebrew of the Hebrews, zealous for the law; caressed, 
 honoured by the rulers; young, aspiring, impetuous, 
 with a cultivated mind; skilled in the highest depart- 
 ments of human philosophy, science, and learning; 
 with every prospect of worldly promotion, to fire his 
 ambition; turning from the open pathway of prefer- 
 ment, turning from the bitter hatred with which he 
 persecuted the followers of Christ, hauling men and 
 women to prison and to death ; abandoning the friends 
 who loved him, and whom he respected; forsaking 
 the feet of Gamaliel for the feet of Christ; seeking 
 the society, the forgiveness, the confidence of men 
 whom he once despised and hated, and counting the 
 things that once were gain to him, all nothing, for 
 the sake of Christ; devoting all his energies, and, 
 with indomitable perseverance and quenchless fer- 
 vour, promoting the Gospel as the best and noblest 
 interest; and in the face of kings, and priests, and 
 rulers, Pharisees, and Sadducees, infidels alike, be- 
 cause they both rejected Christ; in the face of the 
 learned and of the ignorant, proclaiming Jesus and the 
 resurrection as man's only hope and consolation, in 
 life and in death! And why? What had wrought 
 this wonderful change? He tells you, through Luke, 
 his beloved companion, and he alludes to the inci- 
 dents in that story in his epistles; and mark, if this 
 
THE BIBLE, 217 
 
 man be an impostor, how is it that lie every "where 
 recommends the most self-denying devotion to the 
 duties of practical benevolence; that he sacrifices all 
 temporal good, and looks upon the sacrifice with a 
 generous contempt, that regards it as of no account? 
 How is it, that the blandishments of enemies, and 
 their cruelties, are alike unable to wrest this jewel of 
 faith in Jesus, from his profession? Would he, as an 
 impostor, (and if he spoke not the truth, he was an 
 impostor, there is no room here for misapprehension 
 or delusion,) would he, as an impostor, thus sacrifice 
 every thing — home, kindred, "wealth, position, repu- 
 tation, friends, and encounter perils by land, and 
 perils by sea, and perils among false brethren, and 
 run the gauntlet through scourgings, and contempt, 
 and bonds, and go daily in danger of his life — all for 
 the sake of giving sanction to a story, which, if not 
 true, he must have known to be an enormous lie ? 
 He believed that the retributions of eternity against 
 the enemies of truth, are fearful. Would he encoun- 
 ter them by engaging in systematic fraud and false- 
 hood ? He believed the practice of virtue, in its high- 
 est forms, to be the lowest duty of every Christian. 
 He taught the doctrine of justification by faith, the 
 imputed righteousness of Christ, being the robe of 
 salvation; and yet, neither he, nor any of the apos- 
 tles, nor Christ himself, no, nor any other true fol- 
 lower of that Saviour, ever gave a warrant to any 
 man, by his example, to charge upon this doctrine a 
 tendency to licentiousness. It is a foul slander; for 
 how can that faith, which, in its very nature, purifies 
 the heart, lead to corruption? 
 
 See the bright refutation of the calumny, in the 
 example of those who, like Paul and the apostles, 
 walked by faith and not by sight, and then tell me, 
 how can any man who regards the force of truth, for 
 a single moment assume the absurd position, that 
 these men were either fanatics or deceivers? A sup- 
 position more monstrous never yet has tormented 
 human credulity. Infidelity never, in its most pre- 
 sumptuous paroxysms of atheistic folly, has so utterly 
 
 19* 
 
218 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 exposed the rottenness of its foundations, as in deny- 
 ing, as it must do in these instances, the very attri- 
 butes of humanity. 
 
 When my opponent tells us, there is much in the 
 Psalms, in the Proverbs, in the Book of Job, in the 
 sayings of Christ, in the writings of Paul, which is 
 beautiful, and pure, and good, and which we cannot 
 prize too highly, and then adds, "but all this cannot 
 furnish a perfect rule of life;" and in addition, tells 
 us, we must read what is written in the laws of our 
 organization, if we would know the duty we owe to 
 ourselves — I know not whether most to admire the 
 self-complacency which leads him to suppose that he 
 is able to give a better rule than this which is pre- 
 sented in the Bible, or the facility with which he 
 overlooks the laws of our organization, that govern 
 the mind in determining the weight and worth of 
 evidence, or the utter blindness which he exhibits for 
 the perception of those laws, when, despite of him- 
 self, he is compelled to pay reluctant homage to the 
 moral excellencies of men, whom his argument brands 
 as the most arrant fanatics and simpletons the world 
 has ever seen ! Surely, he will pardon us, if we ex- 
 press some doubt respecting his qualifications to point 
 out a more excellent way. 
 
 We want something fixed and substantial. We 
 can hardly be satisfied to take, as the perfect rule of 
 life, the vagaries of a man, who, having lost his an- 
 chorage, has drifted upon a sea of dark speculation, 
 and is blown about with every wind of doctrine, and 
 who, without chart, or compass, or light in the heaven 
 to guide him, is engaged in studying the laws of his 
 organization, whilst his vessel is settling down into 
 the trough which will soon cover it forever, and leave 
 him, like the dying Hobbes, to "take a leap in the 
 dark — ay, and into the dark!" 
 
 He tells us, he has no fear; for if he would deal 
 gently with his own erring child, he is quite sure that 
 his heavenly Father will thus deal with his erring 
 children. Perhaps he forgets that this will hardly 
 comport with the doctrine expressed on a former 
 evening, in the course of this debate, that God never 
 
THE BIBLE. 219 
 
 forgives sin ! Still I forgive him this lapse of memory ; 
 for he has said so many absurd things, that it might 
 perhaps be deemed ungenerous to insist upon a recon- 
 ciliation of these incompatibles. He laughs at the 
 idea of a Devil, a malignant being, the sworn foe of 
 God and man; but how does he know there is no 
 Devil? Is his denial sufficient to blot Satan out of 
 existence ? Is his ipse dixit enough to authorize us in 
 ignoring the confirmations of that existence, graven 
 on the history of our race? God is not the author of 
 sin, though he permitted Satan to fall; and yet, God 
 will not annihilate moral character, by making his 
 rational creatures, either in heaven, on earth, or in 
 hell, mere passive machines, devoid of all responsi- 
 bility. Men and angels, whether holy or fallen, are 
 responsible for their belief, and for their actions too, 
 and to that responsibility he will hold them, both 
 now and forever. 
 
 My opponent has referred, among other things, to 
 the dark ages. What made them dark, but the 
 quenching of the light of the Scriptures ? Let infidels 
 cover the candle of revelation with their bushel, and 
 how long would it be before a darkness, blacker than 
 Egyptian midnight, would cover our land with its 
 dismal pall of horror, and send upon us the plague of 
 thick darkness, which would be felt as the direst ven- 
 geance of an angry God? [Tremendous cheering.] 
 
 eighth night.— Thursday, January l§th. 
 
 Seven o'clock. — As Dr. Berg descended the amphitheatrical 
 stage, he was greeted with enthusiastic applause. Mr. Bar- 
 ker, who entered immediately after, was greeted with hisses 
 and faint applause. 
 
 Moderator Illman. — I have to request of Mr. Barker's 
 friends that, to-night, they will keep perfectly quiet, and 
 really show, as they have done heretofore, what our oppo- 
 nents gain so much credit for talking about, (i27s.ses.) 
 
 Mr. Barker. — All I ask is a patient and, if possible, a 
 candid hearing. I am not conscious of having done or said 
 
220 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 any thing in this debate to provoke ill feeling. As is neces- 
 sary in such a debate, I shall exercise my liberty of speak- 
 ing in plainness and all freedom what I think and feel, and 
 nothing else. If, however, any should find it impossible to 
 govern the expression of their feelings, I shall not be inclined 
 harshly to censure them, for I remember the time when I 
 would have been less likely to govern myself than at pre- 
 sent. 
 
 The subject of discussion is, 1. The origin of the Scrip- 
 tures, as indicated by internal and external evidence; and 
 2. Their tendency when accepted as of divine authority. 
 The debate has turned almost wholly on the first topic, while 
 the tendency of the Scriptures when accepted as from God, 
 has been touched upon only incidentally. I propose to speak 
 of it, after noticing some of the Doctor's remarks on the last 
 evening. 
 
 The Doctor says it is impossible, that the Gospels could 
 have been written from translations. Now if he will prove 
 it impossible, he will have done something for his cause. Till 
 then, he will allow us to believe, that nothing could be easier 
 or more natural. 
 
 Does it follow that the Gospels are untrue, because the 
 Shepherd of Hermes was a forgery ? 
 
 No; but the fact, that the early Christians forged so many 
 books, and that the fathers of the church encouraged such 
 frauds, destroys the worth of their testimony. And we have 
 nothing but the testimony of those forgers and false wit- 
 nesses in favour of the genuineness and truthfulness of the 
 Gospel. And when the foundations are destroyed the build- 
 ing falls. 
 
 But would the writers have stated the same matters with 
 so little variation and so much agreement, if they had writ- 
 ten from traditions? "We answer, the Gospels are just such 
 writings as we should expect from such a source. 
 
 What did the disciples gain by following Christ? We 
 know what Jesus promised them, and what they expected, 
 according to the Gospels; namely, thrones, empires, wealth 
 and glory. 
 
 The evangelists were honest men ; and if so, their record 
 must be true; for they spake of their own experience. But 
 the Doctor has yet to prove that the writers give us their 
 own experience. — He has yet to prove that the gospels were 
 written by the persons whose names they bear. 
 
THE BIBLE. 221 
 
 But think of Paul, says the Doctor, converted, and em- 
 bracing Christianity, under such peculiar circumstances. 
 
 But the Doctor must first prove, that Paul teas thus sud- 
 denly converted, (hisses) and second, that he ivas a man of 
 so much judgment and sound sense, as he supposes, and 
 lastly, that men of judgment and sound sense, have never 
 been converted to false religions, by imaginary visions or 
 voices — none of which can be proved ; the opposite can be 
 proved. The history of Southcotanism, Millerism, Sweden- 
 borgianism, Mormonism, and Irvingism, have taught us les- 
 sons on these subjects. 
 
 Could Paul have written and lived as he did, if he had 
 been an impostor ? 
 
 It is hard to say Jwio impostors may write and live? [Cry 
 in audience, " It is, it is." Laughter and hisses.] But we are 
 not supposing Paul to have been an impostor. He might be 
 deceived. But how are we to know how Paul wrote and lived? 
 My opponent takes for granted what he ought to prove. 
 
 Would Paul have encountered the hell threatened to liars, 
 by telling falsehoods? 
 
 My opponent should understand that Christians distin- 
 guish between lying, and using falsehoods for the good of 
 souls. They contend, that to deceive people for their good 
 and the cause of God, is not lying. [Hisses."] 
 
 Paul taught the doctrine of justification by the imputed 
 righteousness of Christ. 
 
 He did no such thing. 
 
 The Doctor says I have the self-complacency to think that 
 I could give a better rule of life than the Bible. 
 
 The Bible gives opposite rules of life. No one could well 
 give a worse rule than one; and it would be no great mat- 
 ter to boast of, to be able to give a better than its best. 
 [Hisses.] 
 
 But I do not understand the laws of evidence ! 
 
 He is mistaken. I understand his laws of evidence very 
 well ; but they are bad ones. 
 
 But they want something fixed as a rule of life. 
 
 Then they must go somewhere else for it. The Bible fur- 
 nishes no fixed rule. 
 
 I am to take a leap in the dark, the Doctor says, and into 
 the dark. 
 
 "Well, I hope the Doctor will allow me to take my own 
 time to it. But we think we are not quite so much in the 
 dark as the Doctor. 
 
222 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Our God never forgives sin, he says. True, but he does 
 what is better. He punishes us so as to cure us of sinning. 
 (Hisses.) He says God is not the author of sin. But he 
 must be, if he does what he permits to be done. 
 
 The darkness of the middle ages was caused by quenching 
 the light of the Scriptures, says the Doctor. Were the 
 Scriptures, then, unable to keep themselves from being ex- 
 tinguished? Strange light of the world. But who quenched 
 their light? Those who had them? Then what comes of 
 your argument, that those who have the Scriptures, are bet- 
 ter people than others. And pray what enlightened the 
 world, when the light of the Scriptures had been put out ? 
 The truth is, we are indebted for the preservation of the 
 Scriptures, to the light and virtue which exist in human 
 nature, independent of the Scriptures. If it were not for 
 the Infidels as they are falsely called, the light of the Scrip- 
 tures would be extinguished again. (Great hissing.) The 
 priests and churches invariably put out its light where they 
 can. It is the darkness of the Scriptures they want; it is we 
 who prize its light. 
 
 We had next a repetition of his pretended prophecies ; but 
 did not the Doctor see and feel, that he was taking for 
 granted the points to be proved? He should have proved, 
 
 1. That the passages he quoted were prophecies of Christ. 
 But this he never attempted ? He would have failed if he 
 had. Not one of them so much as mentions Christ. Many 
 of them are no prophecies at all; and none of them can be 
 proved to refer to Christ. 
 
 2. He ought to have proved next, that what he calls the 
 gospel facts are facts. That he did not do. It can't be 
 done. 
 
 3. He should have proved next, that the alleged prophe- 
 cies and alleged facts, agreed ; but even this he did not do. 
 
 But it is easy for a man who writes a life from fancy and 
 tradition, to adapt the story to alleged prophecies. It is 
 natural, also, for supposed prophecies to generate fables, and 
 cause them, in time, to be mistaken for facts. Christians 
 have followed the business of making history out of prophe- 
 cies, and prophecies out of nothing for eighteen hundred 
 years. The business is not so good now, but it is still carried 
 on. 
 
 The Doctor says I rely on Professor Hitchcock's testimony 
 about the deluge. No. We merely quote the Professor as 
 
THE BIBLE. 223 
 
 corroboratory, because he is a Christian. All modern geo- 
 logists, so far as I am acquainted with their works, give the 
 same testimony. 
 
 He says I fled to commentators to support my view of the 
 passage in Job xix. I did two things. I said the passage 
 in Hebrew does not say what the translators make it say; 
 and that in saying this I am borne out by many commentators. 
 
 I now come to the influence of the Bible when accepted 
 as the revealed word of the Creator. And here, I will not 
 go for evidence to infidel writings, or appeal to infidel pre- 
 judice, but will take the testimony of Christians themselves. 
 My first quotation is from John Wesley, the founder of the 
 Methodist Church. He says: 
 
 "The Reformed Christians in Germany, and France, in 
 Sweden, Denmark, Holland, in Great Britain and Ireland, 
 are far beneath the heathens, even far beneath the inhabi- 
 tants of China and Hindoostan, in justice mercy and truth." 
 
 "For we, who by thy name are named, 
 The heathen unbaptized out sin." [Vol. ix. p. 216.] 
 
 Again he says : 
 
 Historians, indeed, tell us very gravely of nations in every 
 century, who were converted to Christianity. But still 
 these converts practised all kinds of abomination, exactly as 
 they did before : no way differing either in their tempers or 
 in their lives, from the nations that were still called heathens. 
 —Vol. ix. p. 215. 
 
 And again : 
 
 We learn from Tertullian, that in the second century, 
 "not only the tempers of the Christians were exactly the 
 same with those of their heathen neighbours, but their lives 
 and manners also; pride, passion, love of the world remaining 
 alike in both." Vol. ix. p. 213. There are stronger pas- 
 sages still in Vol. xii. p. 223. iTake the following: 
 
 "Now what can an impartial person think concerning the 
 present state of religion in England ? Is there a nation 
 under the sun which is so deeply fallen from the very first 
 principles of religion ? Where is the country in which is 
 found so utter a disregard to even heathen morality ? Such 
 a thorough contempt of justice and truth, and all that should 
 be dear and honourable to rational creatures ? What species of 
 vice can possibly be named, even of those that nature itself 
 abhors, of which we have not had for many years a plentiful 
 
224 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 and still increasing harvest! What sin remains either in 
 Rome or Constantinople, which we have not imported long 
 ago, (if it was not of our own native growth,) and improved 
 upon ever since? Such a complication of villanies of every 
 kind considered with all their aggravations; such a scorn of 
 whatever bears the face of virtue; such injustice, fraud and 
 falsehood; above all, such perjury, and such a method of 
 law, we may defy the whole world to produce. What num- 
 bers of those who profess religion, confute their profession by 
 their practice ! yea, and perhaps by their exorbitant pride, 
 vanity, covetousness, rapaciousness, and oppression, cause 
 the very name of religion to stink in the nostrils of many, 
 otherwise reasonable men ! 
 
 As this is a delicate subject, rather than say any thing 
 myself, I will state the conclusions to which one of your 
 own citizens, an orthodox Christian, has arrived on the same 
 subject. In his a New Themes for the Protestant Clergy" 
 Mr. Stephen Colwell expresses the following opinion : 
 
 The church forbade all freedom of thought or speech, ex- 
 tinguished all thirst for knowledge, and all independence of 
 soul, and made men its slaves. — Pp. 89, 90, of New Themes 
 for the Protestant Clergy. 
 
 The craving for power is more eager in priests than in po- 
 liticians. Its exhibitions are more hateful and mischievous 
 in every thing concerning religion. The thirst for power, 
 the rage to govern, infects every religious denomination : it 
 reaches to every thing in men's conduct, and every thing in 
 their opinions. — Pp. 99, 100. 
 
 The contest between protestants and catholics at the refor- 
 mation, was the most remarkable for fierceness the world ever 
 witnessed. Rome exerted all her power and all the unscru- 
 pulous wickedness of interested dignitaries. In this contest, 
 charity had no part. — P. 109. 
 
 The church forged fetters for the world, which held men 
 in bondage for a thousand years. — P. 118. 
 
 No selfishness is so intense as that which prevails in pro- 
 testant countries. This is their chief characteristic. In the 
 contest for wealth every possible human effort is exerted. — 
 P. 124. 
 
 The protestant ministry plunges into the stream. — P. 126. 
 
 The clergy of the church of England embezzled all chari- 
 ties — perverted them. They robbed the poor of many mil- 
 lions a year. They pay not the slightest regard to the trusts 
 
THE BIBLE. 225 
 
 reposed in them. The protestants worse in this respect than 
 the catholics. The English Bishops waste millions a year 
 of wealth given to the poor, while the poor, to whom the 
 wealth was left, starve in their presence. — P. 140, 141. 
 
 The English Church, from the first, took the treasures 
 from the poor, then left the poor to the World. — P. 141, 2. 
 
 Many thousands were hung in the reign of Henry VIII. 
 for being unemployed, or idle poor. They first robbed, then 
 gave the poor the bad name of vagabond, then hung them. 
 —P. 143. 
 
 The Church of England, for three centuries, has shut her 
 eyes from beholding, shut her ears from hearing, and with- 
 held her hands from removing the woes of ten generations 
 of increasing millions of suffering poor. The State has re- 
 duced the treatment of the poor to a system, which has since 
 been adopted for criminals. — P. 143, 144. 
 
 The poor are regarded as a burden on society, to be got rid 
 of by any course short of murder. A clergyman, Malthus, 
 wrote a book to discountenance charity — to encourage people 
 to let the poor starve, &c. — P. 151. 
 
 Inhumanity can go no farther. Other Christians have not 
 taught or practised the precepts of charity. — P. 154. 
 
 They exhibit all manner of uncharitableness in their bear- 
 ing towards each other. — P. 154. 
 
 Full of self-righteousness. Do nothing even to raise the 
 poor to a state in which they can live by their labour. — P.160. 
 
 Mr. Colwell can find no traces of any great movement 
 among English Christians to redeem the poor from their 
 helpless bondage. — P. 160. 
 
 They do not even preach the gospel to the poor. — P. 161. 
 
 The labour of Great Britain absorbed by a comparatively 
 few. The producer of wealth left to starve. — P. 167. 
 
 Scores of churches surround us, mutually repelling and 
 attacking each other, and presenting a scene of strife, jealousy, 
 animosity and evil-speaking, with scarce a parallel for viru- 
 lence. — P. 176. 
 
 The bitterness of division only increases as the differences 
 between them become less. — P. 177. 
 
 Each sect rent by internal feuds. — P. 177. 
 
 Many of them convulsed to their centres, or blown asunder 
 by explosions of strife and evil passions, which would be a 
 disgrace to civilized people. — P. 177. 
 
 Where protestantism prevails, a hard and unrelenting sel- 
 
 20 
 
226 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 fishness, a devotion to Mammon never before equalled, a grind- 
 ing competition in all the pursuits of life, a race for wealth 
 and power in which the multitudes are distanced by a few, 
 who become masters, and wield their power with unpitying 
 severity; a scene of strife, of endless divisions, of hot dis- 
 cussions about trifles, of sectarian rivalry, in which every 
 element of evil mingles, often without even a spice of human 
 kindness.— P. 183. 
 
 The Clergy. — The frailties of human nature have been 
 as apparent among them as others. They have shown them- 
 selves as susceptible to temptation. — P. 203. 
 
 The charge of a pastor has grown to be an affair of busi- 
 ness, not a mission of truth and mercy to the poor. Their 
 discourses are not addressed to the poor, but to the owners 
 of the churches. — P. 215. 
 
 In what protestant country are the clergy regarded by the 
 mass of the poor as their special friends ? In what country 
 do the poor receive from ministers or bishops, as such, any 
 evidences of special regard, temporal or spiritual, beyond 
 what may be dictated by and subserve the interests of such 
 ministers and bishops themselves? — P. 224. 
 
 In Protestant countries, the wrangling disputes, and un- 
 charitable bearing of the various Churches, carry disgust and 
 dislike wherever they are witnessed. — P. 260. 
 
 Mr. Colwell holds the following opinions of Infidels and 
 men of the world : 
 
 Unbelievers do not dislike or despise Christians for the 
 good that is in them but the evil. It is worthy of special 
 remark, that the exercise of charity, of brotherly love, of 
 humanity, embracing those duties which Christians most 
 overlook and neglect are the very duties in which men of 
 the world are most willing to engage and carry on indepen- 
 dently or in company with Christians. It is further to be 
 noted, that very many of the benevolent and Christian en- 
 terprises of the day are, in fact, more indebted to the libe- 
 rality of men not professing to be Christians, than to those 
 who are. In those very departments in which Christians 
 are most deficient, men of the world are most efficient, — 
 most inclined to act. The strict moralists of the world feel 
 that their own conduct, even in what they deem Christian 
 virtue, is so much superior to that of professed Christians, 
 that they cannot reverence the Christian religion. — P. 265. 
 
 It is a fact worthy of note and careful reflection, that many 
 
THE BIBLE. 227 
 
 of the most zealous friends of humanity have either been in- 
 fidels, or have shown a strong bias in that direction. We 
 refer not to those who are merely seeking political reforms; 
 but to those who apparently desire to go deeper, and effect 
 more radical changes for the better in human condition. To 
 go no farther back than Paine, a long list of men might be 
 found whose zeal for humanity made them infidels, or whose 
 infidelity begat their zeal for human welfare. They were 
 looking for something to be accomplished. They find Chris- 
 tians arrayed against their plans, and they array themselves 
 against Christianity. There is an appearance as if infidelity 
 were on the side of human well-being, while Christianity 
 stauds up in defence of ancient abuses, oppressive legislation, 
 and social enormities. Is it so that those who set themselves 
 to examine existing institutions and the evils which afflict 
 humanity, are brought to the conclusion, that Christianity is 
 one of the chief barriers to progress in the path of charity 
 and social well-being? — P. 268. 
 
 One-third of mankind are rich, or in easy circumstances, 
 and resist all great changes. They are conservatives. And 
 it so happens, in Christendom, that this happy third consists 
 of the priesthood, the nobles, public officers, gentry and men 
 of wealth.— P. 270. 
 
 In chartism, in democracy, in socialism, there is not ne- 
 cessarily any ingredient of infidelity; and yet, in fact, we 
 find them, to a large extent, travelling together; because Chris- 
 tians, as such, and those who pretend to be such, have, with- 
 out just discrimination, opposed every movement of reform, 
 as dangerous to society. — P. 272, 273. 
 
 Ecligion and its institutions constitute a very effective 
 power. This power is abused both positively and negatively, 
 by what it does and what it prohibits being done; it is effi- 
 cient for evil and repressive of good. 
 
 Those holding and yielding this power have always been 
 inclined, not only to stifle inquiry into abuses, (which might 
 expose them,') but also all free expression of opinion which 
 might in any way bring the validity of their dogmas in ques- 
 tion. It was easier for them to sit tranquil in their places, 
 and hold men to one track of thought, than to examine and 
 try the soundness of positions as fast as they might be ad- 
 vanced. This power for repression of truth and all disturb- 
 ing investigation, we find freely exercised. Thus the catholic 
 opposition to the astronomical discoveries of the middle ages. 
 
228 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Thus the modern opposition to the conclusions of geology, 
 and thus the almost universal opposition among rigid church- 
 men and the severely orthodox, to all free inquiries into 
 human condition, the rights and wrongs of the poor, and into 
 the great problem of proper security for human labour. These 
 subjects are proclaimed to be ground which free inquiry 
 should not touch; ground within the domain of religion, and 
 therefore not to be touched but by holy hands. Yet these 
 same persons do not so much as touch these subjects with 
 their little fingers. They do not enter in themselves, and 
 they would fain prevent others from entering. — P. 27,29. 
 
 The worst, the most inhuman book on the treatment of 
 the poor ever published — the most inhuman book possible, 
 was written by a clergyman; Malthus. The answer; the 
 indignant, crushing answer to that book was from an infidel, 
 W. Godwin.* 
 
 * The following Letter from the author of "New Themes," is in- 
 serted as an act of justice : — 
 
 Philadelphia, Jan. 24, 1854. 
 Rev. J. F. Berg, D.D., 
 
 My dear sir, — 1 regret to learn that your opponent, in the re- 
 cent debate, in which you have battled with such distinguished suc- 
 cess for Christianity, introduced my name, with quotations from 
 "New Themes." Not having been present, I cannot say whether 
 any unfairness was practised in the selection of these extracts. I 
 fear, however, that your antagonist had not the candour to say that 
 the book from which he quoted contains evidence that its author is 
 ardently devoted to Christianity. The passages cited were in- 
 tended to point out certain faults of Christians, which mark a de- 
 parture from the true spirit of their religion, an undue devotion to 
 formulas and theology, as compared with the practical duties of 
 Christianity, and a neglect of those great social questions which now 
 agitate the civilized world; the due solution of which, in the light 
 of Christian truth, is of such deep concern to the mass of the hu- 
 man family. It was considered as proper to point out the faults of 
 protestantism, as of a single denomination or an individual. It was 
 deemed right, even though humbling, to show in what respect Chris- 
 tians might take a lesson from infidels, as physicians often learn im- 
 portant lessons from quacks. We shall not regret this notice even 
 by an enemy, if it induces an examination of the subjects referred 
 to in these citations, which are of an importance far from being duly 
 appreciated in their bearing on the progress of Christianity. 
 
 I have no hesitation, however, in making a discrimination be- 
 tween infidels as well as between Christians. Some Christians are 
 undoubtedly better than others — more enlightened, more humble, 
 more strict imitators and followers of their Lord and Master; — so, 
 some infidels are worse than others, more daring, more reckless, 
 more remorseless foes of society, and more strictly and blindly obe- 
 dient to their lord and master. Godwin was probably not one of 
 
THE BIBLE. 229 
 
 So much for the opinions of Mr. Colwell, respecting Chris- 
 tians and infidels. And here let me interpose one remark, 
 in regard to the alleged unwillingness of Christians to hear 
 any thing said against their views. I take it for granted, that 
 in the present discussion, their object is to turn infidels into 
 Christians. If so, they should and will observe such a calm 
 deportment, as will show that they are convinced that any- 
 thing like free discussion, will always turn out in their favour. 
 (Mr. Barker had begun to state a few things his opponent 
 should prove, when his time expired. As he repeated them 
 in his closing speech, they will be found there. As he took 
 his seat there were a few hisses.) 
 
 Dr. Berg. [Applause.] My friends will oblige me 
 by endeavouring to listen with as much calmness as 
 they possibly can. I ask this as much on my oppo- 
 nent's account as on my own. For the last two weeks 
 I have been weighed down by the pressure of intense 
 excitement, and my physical system is now beginning 
 to feel it. 
 
 You will hardly expect an extended reply to the 
 assertions of my opponent that Christians make a dis- 
 tinction between lying and using pious frauds for the 
 good of souls, and that they do not call the latter lying 
 at all. A baser slander was never uttered by any man, 
 be he called infidel or any other name. (Applause.) 
 
 My opponent asks, Are those who have the Bi- 
 ble any better than others? No! unless they use 
 it, and practise what it teaches. I do not believe 
 that any society of Christians ever taught that the 
 mere possession of the Scriptures, without the prac- 
 
 these worst; for in his controversy with Malthus he quotes largely 
 from the New Testament in support of his views as a friend of hu- 
 manity. 
 
 The temper which dictates a regular crusade against Christianity, 
 which desires to shake the faith of the poor in their religion, which 
 exerts its utmost powers to loosen the bonds of Christian civiliza- 
 tion, betrays a spirit than which I can conceive nothing more diabo- 
 lical. Those who deliberately pursue such objects, seeking public 
 opportunities of disseminating sentiments and expressions, the ca- 
 sual hearing of which on the street would produce a shudder, are, 
 in my view, worse enemies of society than the guilty beings who 
 inhabit the penitentiary. 
 
 Very sincerely yours, S. C. 
 
 20* 
 
230 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 tice of its precepts, saved the soul. When you pro- 
 duce to me a man who makes the Bible his rule of 
 faith and duty, I will show you a man who, in all the 
 relations of life that he can possibly sustain, is upright 
 before God and men. — [Applause.] 
 
 My opponent speaks of pretended prophecies. Has 
 he proved that they are pretended ? Does he forget 
 that this burden of proof is on him? Where is the 
 evidence that they do not mean what we hold as their 
 meaning? Let him prove that they are pretended. 
 [Good ! Applause.] Let him show us how he can 
 get over the distinct enunciation of Messiah's birth. 
 Let him show how it could possibly be known before- 
 hand that he would be born at Bethlehem. Let him 
 show how, at the very period foretold in prophecy, he 
 was born at Bethlehem. Let him show how the pre- 
 dictions of his birth — his life — his sufferings — his 
 death — are all fulfilled in the History. Let us hear 
 him explain these coincidences. 
 
 My opponent has shown the same want of faith 
 which all infidels have in human testimony. He could 
 never discover whether there is a Declaration of In- 
 dependence, written by Thomas Jefferson. The ori- 
 ginal cannot be found. Some say that it is preserved 
 in the office of the Secretary of State ; others, that 
 it is not. All the witnesses are dead, as well as the 
 signers. But even suppose they were alive, and would 
 assert the reality of its existence, it is only human 
 testimony and my opponent will not take that. If 
 you find a man who thinks that every human being is 
 an intolerable rascal, you may be sure that human 
 nature in his own person is exceedingly depraved. 
 
 My opponent has assumed the fearful risk to his 
 argument, which I have shown he cannot avoid, by 
 pretending to doubt the reality of the character of 
 Christ; but the reasons by which he seeks to support 
 this position are not worthy of the name of argument. 
 They consist of blank assertions in the face of the 
 overwhelming evidence which proves that the evange- 
 
THE BIBLE. 231 
 
 lists were describing a real character. This evidence 
 I have already presented. I need not recapitulate it 
 here. But he tells you that even if it was real, it is 
 far from being perfect. That it fails to answer the 
 model of infidel perfection is readily conceded; and, 
 perhaps, as my opponent has so often alluded to Tom 
 Paine, as a much abused and slandered man, it may 
 not be amiss to show what an infidel, and an intimate 
 friend of Paine has left on record concerning that pa- 
 ragon of infidel excellence. I allude to the Letter 
 of William Carver, who, be it remembered, was a co- 
 labourer of the famous author of the Age of Reason, 
 and whose testimony cannot be challenged on the 
 ground that he was a Christian, because he was as 
 pious and devoted a blasphemer as Tom Paine him- 
 self. He addressed the following letter in reply to 
 one from his friend : — 
 
 Mr. Thomas Paixe: — I received your letter, dated the 25th tilt. , 
 in answer to mine, dated November 21, and after minutely examin- 
 ing its contents, I found that you had taken the pitiful subterfuge 
 of lying for your defence. You say that you paid me four dollars per 
 week for your board and lodging, during the time you were with 
 me, prior to the first of June last ; which was the day that I went 
 up by your order to bring you to York, from New Eochelle. It is 
 fortunate for me, that I have a living evidence that saw you give 
 me four guineas, and no more, in my shop, at your departure at 
 that time ; but you said you would have given me more, but that 
 you had no more with you at present. You say also, that you 
 found your own liquors during the time you boarded with me; 
 but you should have said, ' ; I found only a small part of the liquor 
 I drank during my stay with you; this part I purchased of John 
 Fellows, which was a demijohn of brandy containing four gallons, 
 and this did not serve me three weeks." This can be proved, and 
 I mean not to say any thing that I cannot prove ; for I hold truth 
 as a precious jewel. It is a well-known fact, that you drank one 
 quart of brandy per day, at my expense, during the different times 
 you have boarded with me, the demijohn above mentioned excepted, 
 and the last fourteen weeks you were sick. Is not this a supply of 
 liquor for dinner and supper ? As for what you paid Mr. Glen, or any 
 other person, that is nothing to me. I am not paid, and found you 
 room and firing besides. You say as you paid by the week, it matters 
 not how long your stay was. I accede to your remark, that the 
 time of your stay at my house would have been of no matter, if I 
 had been paid by the week, but the fact is otherwise. I have not 
 been paid at all, or at least, but a very small part ; prove that I 
 
232 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 have it if you can, and then I shall be viewed by my fellow-citizens 
 in that contemptible light that they will view you in, after the pub- 
 lication of this my letter to you. You ask me the question, "How 
 is it that those who receive do not remember as well as those that 
 pay ? " My answer is, I do remember, and shall give you credit for 
 every farthing I have received, and no more. I will ask you what 
 consolation you derive to your mind in departing from truth, and 
 endeavouring to evade paying a just and lawful debt? I shall pass 
 over a great part of your letter with silent contempt, and oppose 
 your false remarks with the plain truth. As the public will see 
 your letter as well as mine, they will be able to judge your conduct 
 and mine for themselves. You say that I seem not to know any 
 thing about the price of boarding in the city ; but I know the price 
 is from three dollars to five, and from that to ten ; with an additional 
 charge if the boarder should be sick for three months or upwards. 
 I shall show you how I calculate my expenditures, by the bill that 
 will be rendered to you, and I believe it will be an important lesson 
 to those who may undertake to board you hereafter. I have no per- 
 son to help me calculate or write, but fortunately took the advice 
 of a friend, and got him to keep an account of all the times you 
 stayed with me. You assert that your being at my house only added 
 one more to the family ; I shall prove that it added to the number 
 of three. You know very well when you came, I told you I must 
 hire a servant-girl if you stayed with me. This I did for five months, 
 at five dollars per month and her board. This I would not have 
 done, unless you had given me ground to believe you would have 
 paid me. After your departure, she was discharged. Now, sir, 
 how will you go to prove that yourself, and Mrs. Palmer, and the 
 servant-girl are one ? In order to do this you must write a new 
 system of mathematics. You complain that I left your room the 
 night that you pretended to have been seized with the apoplexy ; 
 but I had often seen you in those fits before, and particularly after 
 drinking a large portion of ardent spirits, those fits having frequently 
 subjected you to falling. You remember you had one of them at 
 Lovett's hotel, and fell from the top of the stairs to the bottom. You 
 likewise know I have frequently had to lift you from the floor to the 
 bed. You must also remember that you and myself went to spend 
 the evening at a certain gentleman's house, whose peculiar situation 
 in life forbids me to make mention of his name ; but I had to go to 
 apologize for your conduct; you had two of those falling fits in 
 Broadway, before I could get you home. 
 
 You tell me that I came up stairs in the night, and opened the 
 cupboard, and took your watch. This is one more of your lies ; 
 for I took it during the time your room was full of different descrip- 
 tions of persons called from a porter-house and the street, at the 
 eleventh hour of the night, to carry you up stairs after you had 
 fallen over the banisters; and as the cupboard door was open, the 
 watch lay exposed. I told you next morning I put your watch in 
 my desk, and you said I had done right. Why did you not complain 
 before? I believe that I should do the same again, or any other 
 person in my situation ;' for had the watch been lost, you would 
 
THE BIBLE. 233 
 
 have thought that I, or some one of my family, had got it. I be- 
 lieve, it will not be in your power to make one of my fellow-citizens 
 believe, that at this period of my life I should turn rogue for an old 
 silver watch. 
 
 You go on to say, "Did you take anything else?" Have you 
 assumed the character of a father-confessor, as well as a son of 
 Bacchus! Did you lose any thing? Why do you not speak out? 
 You have been so long accustomed to lying, one more will not choke 
 you. Now, sir, I have to inform you I lost a silver spoon that was 
 taken to your room, and never returned. Did you take that away 
 with you ? If not, I can prove that you took something else of my 
 property without my consent. You likewise gave a French boy, 
 that you imported to this country, or was imported on your account, 
 a nice pocket bottle, that was neither yours nor mine ; it being the 
 property of a friend, and has since been called for. I lent the bot- 
 tle to you, at the time you was sick with what you call apoplexy, 
 but what myself and others know to be nothing more than fallen 
 drunken fits. I have often wondered that a French woman and 
 three children should leave France, and all their connexions, to fol- 
 low Thomas Paine to America. Suppose I were to go to my native 
 country England, and take another man's wife, and three children 
 of his, and leave my wife and children in this country. What would 
 be the natural conclusion in the minds of the people, but that there 
 was some criminal connexion between the woman and myself? You 
 have often told me that the French woman alluded to, has never re- 
 ceived one letter from her husband, during the four years she has been 
 in this country. How comes this? Perhaps you can explain the 
 matter. 
 
 This precious morsel we obtain as the result of a 
 quarrel between Paine and his friend, and it is an apt 
 illustration of the old saying, to the effect that when 
 a certain class of people fall out, honest men are be- 
 nefited. 
 
 Perhaps it might be for edification and profit to 
 have this letter read annually on the anniversary of 
 the birth-day of St. Thomas Paine. It might possi- 
 bly stimulate his admirers to greater zeal in striving 
 to attain the highest model of infidel perfection. 
 
 My opponent has a short and easy method of dis- 
 posing of any amount of evidence. All he has to do 
 is, to tell us "it amounts to nothing," and then put 
 at the end, Q. E. D. — Quod erat demonstrandum ! and 
 the case is as clear as darkness can make it. What ! 
 is the moral phenomenon presented in the character 
 of Christ so easily explained? Infidels have not al- 
 ways felt in this matter with my opponent, and I can- 
 
234 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 not conceive how any man who is disposed to take evi- 
 dence on any question in a spirit of candour, can dis- 
 miss such an argument in so summary a manner. If 
 my opponent will turn to Dr. M'Culloh's book, entitled, 
 "Proofs of the Credibility of Scripture Writers," vol. 
 i. p. 240, he will find the following confession from 
 Lord Bolingbroke, one of the wittiest and shrewdest 
 writers that ever assailed Christianity. He says: — 
 "The gospel teaches universal benevolence, recom- 
 mends the precepts of it, and commands the observa- 
 tion of them in particular instances occasionally, al- 
 ways supposes them, always enforces them, and makes 
 the law of right reason a law in every possible defini- 
 tion of the word beyond all cavil — I say, beyond all 
 cavil; because a great deal of silly cavil has been em- 
 ployed to perplex the plainest thing in nature, and 
 the best determined signification of words according 
 to the different occasions on which they are used." — 
 (Bolingbroke, Essay iv. sect. 5.) " The gospel of 
 Christ is one continued lesson of the strictest mora- 
 lity, of justice, of benevolence, and of universal cha- 
 rity." (Bolingbroke, Fragments of Essays, 20.) Thus 
 out of the mouth even of an infidel, the gospel is 
 shown to be a perfect rule of life. My opponent must 
 remember that the standard of perfection which he 
 proposes, and which, if I understand it, amounts to 
 obedience to the laws of our organization, is an ab- 
 straction which common people cannot comprehend; 
 and, moreover, after he has arrived at a knowledge 
 of these laws, they will require expounders, who 
 must come with authority, otherwise they will become 
 a jargon of confusion, as every man will claim an 
 equal right to offer his exposition as the true theory. 
 My opponent told us that the precepts of the Bible 
 led to intemperance in the use of strong drink. True, 
 he says, the scriptures forbid drunkenness, but then, 
 they fail to tell us what drunkenness is ! What next? 
 He cited the marriage supper at Cana, in Galilee, at 
 which, he tells us that Christ, after the guests had 
 drunk the house dry, furnished an additional supply 
 
THE BIBLE. 235 
 
 of 130 gallons of wine ; and as there were twenty 
 guests at that wedding, this would amount to a little 
 over six gallons apiece. He thinks this was a boun- 
 tiful provision. So do I. Perhaps Mr. Barker will 
 tell us where he has obtained his information respect- 
 ing the number of guests. I cannot find any thing 
 about this number (twenty) in my Bible, though 1 
 have spent some time in looking at the account of the 
 transaction furnished in this book; and, not only so, 
 I am at a loss to know how the six water-pots, con- 
 taining two or three firkins (j^t^tai) apiece, could 
 amount to 130 gallons ! The word metretes, called fir- 
 kins, is used by the Seventy as equivalent to the He- 
 brew Seah, two and a-half gallons ! and, so forty-five 
 gallons would be nearer the mark, or one hundred and 
 six-teen, if equal to the Hebrew Bath. 
 
 As to the number of guests, we are told that the 
 mother of Jesus was there, and both Jesus was called 
 (invited) and his disciples to the marriage. How 
 many disciples Jesus had at that time, we have no 
 means of determining; but we do know, and my op- 
 ponent surely cannot be ignorant of the fact, that 
 marriage ceremonies among the Jews were attended, 
 when the parties were of any note, by a large train of 
 the friends both of the bridegroom and the bride ; and 
 as this seems to have been an occasion of more than 
 ordinary interest, there can be no doubt that the 
 guests were far more numerous than Mr. Barker is 
 pleased to imagine. The bride, he knows, was usually 
 attended by at least ten bridesmaids, and the bride- 
 groom, if a notable personage, was accompanied by 
 a large retinue of friends. Still, why provide so much ? 
 Did our Saviour expect them to drink it all at once? 
 No ! There is a far better reason for the abundance. 
 According to the Jewish custom, as my opponent ought 
 to know, all the wine left after marriage ceremonies, 
 was sold, or given to the poor; and for them Christ 
 wished to make provision. (Applause.) Thus every 
 slander against the character of Christ, is hurled back 
 to the confusion of its assailant, (Applause.) 
 
236 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Now, I should not have taken up my time in no^ 
 ticing this objection of my opponent, if it were not 
 that it affords a sample of the reckless style of argu- 
 mentation adopted by the enemies of the Bible in 
 order to vilify the character of Christ. What are we 
 to think of a disputant who, in the face of these facts 
 which he cannot deny without a fatal exposure of ig- 
 norance, can tell us that Christ intended to furnish 
 each guest at that marriage-supper with over six gal- 
 lons of strong drink ! Suppose he made a hundred 
 and thirty gallons, was it all to be used at once ? This 
 looks like the desperation of blasphemy ! (Applause.) 
 My opponent will say, at any rate, the Bible allows 
 the use of wine. So it does ! but it forbids the abuse 
 of it. What is the abuse of it? Getting drunk! 
 Well; but what is getting drunk? Perhaps, if my op- 
 ponent can make it convenient to attend some anni- 
 versary of the birth of the tutelary saint of infidelity, 
 he will not be any longer at a loss for an answer to 
 his question ! My opponent says he does not traduce 
 the character of Christ, and that I have not proved 
 that He claimed to be a perfect character. Mr. Bar- 
 ker must pardon me for having taken for granted that 
 he had some little acquaintance with the contents of 
 the New Testament. If he does not know that Christ 
 claimed to be perfect in his own character, and per- 
 fect as a teacher, then I must advise him to read the 
 gospels before he undertakes to vilify Christianity. I 
 would as soon undertake to prove that the sun shines, 
 as to prove that Christ did put forth these claims. 
 They are essential to the very authority which He 
 claimed for his teachings. Another instance of the 
 ingenuity of my opponent is presented in his attempt 
 to represent me as condemning "liberty, equality, 
 and fraternity" in every sense, because I objected 
 to it in the scope given to this motto by the wolves 
 in. sheep's clothing, who know in their hearts that had 
 they the power, they would usher in another infidel 
 millennium, that Reign of Terror to the few! The 
 few by r. Barker's showing are the aristocrats and 
 
THE BIBLE. 237 
 
 the priests, as all ministers of the Christian religion, 
 without exception, are denominated and denounced 
 by my opponent, and by his brethren of the Sunday 
 Institute, who chant odes to their nameless god in 
 anticipation of the downfall of every Christian ordi- 
 nance and institution ! The spirit of infidelity is a 
 ravening spirit with all its professions of philanthropy, 
 and, therefore, Christ says, "Beware of false prophets, 
 which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly 
 they are ravening wolves." To hear them talk of 
 liberty and love, sounds like the bleating of pet-lambs, 
 but we know them, and we do not trust them. 
 
 I offered my opponent some of the prophecies which 
 refer to Christ in evidence of the truth that Christi- 
 anity is a revelation from God. As he objects to them, 
 notwithstanding the overwhelming array of proof, po- 
 sitive, plain and undeniable, I will briefly present for 
 his additional reflection another fact, viz. : that Jesus 
 Christ was not only the subject of prophecy, but was 
 himself the most illustrious of prophets, and gave 
 ample proof of his divine commission by his prophe- 
 cies, as well as his miracles. Bishop Newton gives 
 the following summary of the prophecies uttered by 
 Christ, and it is a fair test of the validity of the Sa- 
 viour's claims, if we take him at his word. "Now," 
 says Christ, "I tell you before it come, that when it 
 is^ome to pass, ye may believe that I am he." What 
 did Christ foretell? Everyman that knows anything 
 about the New Testament knows this, — that Christ 
 foretold not only his own sufferings, death and resur- 
 rection, but also the manner and circumstances of 
 them : — 
 
 That he should be betrayed by one of the twelve, even by Judas 
 Iscariot, the son of Simon ; that all the rest should be offended be- 
 cause of him that very night, and notwithstanding their protesta- 
 tions to the contrary, should forsake him and fly : that Peter parti- 
 cularly, who was more zealous and eager than the rest, before the 
 cock crew twice, should deny him thrice ; that he should be betrayed 
 to the chief priests, and be delivered to the Gentiles to mock, and 
 to scourge, to spit upon, and to kill him ; that he should be cru- 
 cified, and the third day should rise again, and appear to his dis- 
 
 21 
 
238 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 ciples in Galilee. He foretold that his apostles should be enabled 
 of plain fishers to become fishers of men ; that they should be in- 
 dued with power from on high to speak with new tongues and to 
 work miracles ; that they should go forth into all nations, and publish 
 the glad tidings of the gospel unto the uttermost parts of the earth. 
 He foretold the persecutions and sufferings which his disciples should 
 undergo, and particularly by what manner of death Peter in his 
 old age should glorify God, and that John should survive till after 
 the destruction of Jerusalem. He foretold the rejection of the Jews 
 and the calling of the Gentiles ; that the kingdom of heaven should 
 be taken away from the former, and be given to the latter, who 
 should bring forth the fruits thereof; that the number of his dis- 
 ciples from small beginnings should increase wonderfully, as a little 
 seed groweth into a tree, and a little leaven leaveneth the whole 
 lump ; that his church shall be so founded on a rock, that it should 
 stand forever, and all the powers of hell should not prevail against 
 it. These things were most of them contrary to all human appear- 
 ances, and impossible to be foreseen by human prudence or effected 
 by human power; and He must be thoroughly acquainted with the 
 hearts of men, and with the direction and disposition of future 
 events, who could foretell them with such certainty and exactness; 
 and some of them are actually accomplishing in the world at this 
 present time. 
 
 But none of our Saviour's prophecies are more remarkable than 
 those relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, as none are more 
 proper and pertinent to the design of these discourses; and we will 
 consider them as they lie in the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew, 
 taking in also what is superadded by the other evangelists upon 
 parallel occasions. These prophecies were delivered by our Saviour 
 about forty years, and were committed to writing by St. Matthew 
 about thirty years, before they were to take effect. St. Matthew's 
 is universally allowed to be the first of the four Gospels ; the first 
 in time, as it is always placed the first in order. It was written, as 
 most writers affirm, in the eighth year after the ascension of our 
 Saviour. It must have been written before the dispersion of the 
 apostles, because St. BartholomeAV is said to have taken it along 
 with him into India, and to have left it there, where it was found 
 several years afterwards by Pantajnus. If the general tradition of 
 antiquity be true, that it was written originally in Hebrew, it cer- 
 tainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem ; for there was 
 no occasion for writing in that language after the destruction of 
 Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews into all nations. It is as- 
 serted upon good authority, that the Gospels of Mark and Luke 
 were approved and confirmed, the one by St. Peter, the other by St. 
 Paul. So Papius, Bishop of Hierapotis, and Clemens Alexandrinus 
 say expressly that the Gospel of St. Mark was written at the desire 
 of the new converts, and ratified by St. Peter. So the learned Ori- 
 gen affirms, that the second Gospel is that of Mark, who wrote as 
 Peter dictated to him; and the third Gospel is that of Luke, which 
 is commended by Paul. So Tertullian saith, that Mark's Gospel is 
 affirmed to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was ; and Luke's 
 Gospel they are "wont to ascribe to Paul. So Jerome saith, that 
 
THE BIBLE. 239 
 
 the Gospel according to Mark, who was the disciple and interpreter 
 of Peter, is said to be Peter's. These authorities are more than 
 sufficient to weigh down the single testimony of Irenseus to the con- 
 trary ; but besides these, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, and other 
 fathers might be alleged to prove, that the Gospels of Mark and Luke 
 received the approbation, the one of St. Peter, the other of St. Paul; 
 and it is very well known that both these apostles suffered martyr- 
 dom under Nero. The Gospel of St. Mark must have been written 
 at the latest in the reign of Nero ; for he died in that reign, in the 
 eighth year of Nero, according to Jerome. The Gospel of St. Luke 
 was written before the Acts of the Apostles, as appears from the 
 preface to the latter ; and the Acts of the Apostles concluding with 
 St. Paul's dwelling at Rome two years, it is probable that this book 
 was written soon after that time, and before the death of St. Paul. 
 It may be concluded then as certain, that three of the four Gospels 
 were written and published before the destruction of Jerusalem; 
 Dr. Lardner himself, who fixed the time of writing the first three 
 Gospels later than most other authors, yet maintains that they were 
 all published some years before the destruction of Jerusalem ; and 
 in all probability the writers themselves were dead before that period; 
 St. Matthew and St. Mark were certainly so ; and consequently it 
 cannot with any colour of reason be pretended that the predictions 
 were written after the events. St. John is the only evangelist who 
 lived and wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem ; and he pur- 
 posely omits these prophecies, to prevent this very cavil, as we 
 may suppose with reason. Neither can it be pretended that these 
 predictions were interpolations made afterwards, because they are 
 inserted in several places, and woven into the very substance of the 
 Gospels; and because they are cited and alluded to by ancient 
 writers, as well as other parts ; and because they were not to be ac- 
 complished all at once, but required several ages to their perfect 
 completion; and we see them, in some instances, fulfilling to this 
 very day. 
 
 [The Dr. took his seat. Great applause.] 
 
 Mr. Barker. [A few hisses — cries of order.] I must 
 express my astonishment that my opponent should found his 
 arguments on the statements of the very book which his ob- 
 ject is to prove worthy of credit. Before he quotes from it, 
 he should prove it of authority, especially when its authority 
 is the question in debate. [Applause — hisses.] 
 
 He objects to my statement that Christians make a distinc- 
 tion between ordinary lying and lying for a good purpose, 
 and that many of their authors do not call pious frauds lying 
 at all. He does not then know, that his brother minister, 
 President Mahan, of Oberlin College, and Paley, of the Eng- 
 lish church, consider lying as justifiable in certain cases. If 
 he does not, I am sorry that he is so little acquainted with 
 Christian literature. 
 
240 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 He says that the Bible does not benefit unless men obey 
 it. His doctrine was different when he claimed that the 
 countries which have had the Bible have not been so dark 
 and depraved as others. And his brother Nelson says that 
 the countries which have had the Bible have been distin- 
 guished for nobler and clearer views, and for a more enlarged 
 philanthropy. 
 
 He says the burden of proof against the prophecies rests 
 on me. But he must acknowledge that he should first prove 
 that the prophecy is in the Scriptures; 2d, that it refers to 
 Christ; and, 3d, that it was fulfilled in facts whose occurrence 
 can be established. 
 
 He charges me with want of faith in all human testimony, 
 because I reject the evidence for the divine origin of the 
 Bible. Does he believe all testimony ? does he believe what 
 the Turks offer for the divinity of the Koran, or the Hindoos 
 for that of their sacred books, or the Mormons for that of 
 Joe Smith's Bible ? 
 
 The difference between the Doctor and myself is that he 
 discards all testimony except what makes for his own system, 
 while I put on the same footing the testimony for the divinity 
 of the sacred books of all nations, unless, indeed, that offered 
 by Christians be the most deceitful of all. (iZmes.) The 
 Doctor considers the Turks unaccountably credulous, the wri- 
 ters of the Koran deceivers, and the Mormon leaders depraved 
 rascals ; but, condemning the rest of the world, he has his 
 narrow corner to retreat to : he believes that Christians alone 
 speak the truth. There is little difference between us then 
 on that point, for I too have a corner to retreat to; I believe 
 that unbelievers may speak the truth. 
 
 As to the letter of Thomas Carver, though it sounded at 
 first like a forgery, I think it might have been written by 
 him. (Sensation and derisive laughter.) But the man who 
 could write that, at his time of life, he would not turn thief 
 for a silver watch, might have been a thief for much less than 
 a silver watch. 
 
 Bolingbroke's certificate to the universal benevolence of 
 the Gospel may pass for what it is worth. Some passages de- 
 serve all that he says. The better plan is to take the good 
 and leave the bad. (Here a transposition of adjectives caused 
 an outburst of laughter and insulting shouts. Moderator 
 Chambers requested silence.) What I supposed as to the num- 
 ber of persons present at the wedding Cana has been treated as 
 
THE BIBLE. 241 
 
 if positively said. As it was Christ's first miracle, it is not 
 probable he had many disciples. 
 
 I will now proceed with my summary of the debate, so 
 that those who wish may see what has been done and what 
 has not been done. 
 
 The Dr. was to prove: — 
 
 1. That the Bible is of superhuman origin. 
 
 2. That its tendency, when so regarded, is to do good, and 
 nothing but good. 
 
 To prove the first point, he was to produce — 
 
 1. Internal — 
 
 2. External evidence. 
 
 "What has he done ? It is not for us to judge. We know 
 what it was necessary to do. We will state some of the 
 things which he has not done, and which remain for him to 
 do. 
 
 He should prove— 
 
 1 . That the style of the Bible is more than human. 
 State what are the marks which distinguish a divine from 
 
 a human style. 
 
 2. That the contents of the Bible bear marks of a super- 
 human origin. 
 
 State precisely what things man can originate in philoso- 
 phy, morality and theology, and what he cannot, and prove 
 all the contents of the Bible to be of the latter kind. 
 
 3. He should produce a book that contains lower or grosser 
 representations of God — one that more plainly attributes to 
 Him the human form and human imperfections. 
 
 4. Produce one that attributes to God more bloody deeds, 
 more inhuman butcheries, more heartless slaughters of un- 
 offending people, of helpless, unprotected women and children? 
 
 5. Produce a book that talks more childishly about as- 
 tronomical, geographical, meteorological, or scientific matters 
 generally. 
 
 6. Produce a book that says more in favour of polygamy, 
 concubinage — that represents polygamists as the special 
 friends of G-od, as persons obeying in all things G-od's laws, 
 and that tells us that the one who had seven hundred wives 
 and three hundred mistresses was the wisest of them all — the 
 wisest man that ever lived or that ever shall live. 
 
 7- Produce a book more in favour of slavery, the subjuga- 
 tion and oppression of woman, and the absolute despotism of 
 the husband. 
 
 21* 
 
242 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 8. Produce a book that more expressly requires members 
 of churches to obey their church rulers, or that lays a 
 broader or a deeper foundation for priestcraft. 
 
 9. Produce a book that teaches falser doctrines respecting 
 political rulers, or that requires more servile, more absolute 
 subjection and obedience to the powers that be, or that strikes 
 more directly or more fatally at the civil rights of men. 
 
 10. Produce a book that says more in favour of slavery, 
 that authorizes worse forms of slavery, that sanctions grosser 
 cruelties towards slaves, that connives more at the licentious- 
 ness inseparable from slavery, or that requires from slaves 
 more absolute and universal obedience to the commands of 
 their masters, whether good or bad, whatever those commands 
 may be. 
 
 11. Produce a book that authorizes harsher treatment of 
 children by their parents, or that speaks more strongly in 
 favour of the free and unsparing use of the rod. 
 
 12. Produce a book that contains a greater number of 
 childish, trifling, ridiculous, contemptible laws about offerings, 
 priests, and ceremonies. 
 
 13. Produce a book that contains more cruel and revolting 
 laws about the treatment of women and wives, than several 
 of those in the books of Moses. 
 
 14. Produce a book that contains more partial laws, than 
 those about servitude, bad meat, usury, and the like. 
 
 15. Produce a book that represents God as more unjust 
 than those parts of the Bible do, which represent him as 
 punishing whole races of beings, throughout all ages, for the 
 offence of one individual of each race, and as commanding 
 innocent sons and grandsons to be hung or beheaded for a 
 father or a grandfather's fault, or whole nations to be utterly 
 cut off, man, woman and suckling, for an offence alleged to 
 have been committed four hundred and fifty years before. 
 
 16. Produce a book that represents God as more fiercely 
 or implacably revengeful. 
 
 17. Produce a book that contains a more horrible or in- 
 fernal effusion of revenge and cruelty than the one hundred 
 and ninth Psalm, said to be a Psalm of David, a man after 
 God's own heart. 
 
 18. Produce a book that goes farther in the encouragement 
 of cruelty, — cruelty of the most savage and inexcusable kind, 
 than the book which says, Babylon, happy shall he be, 
 that taketh and dashcth thy little ones against the stones, 
 Psalm cxxxvii. 
 
THE BIBLE. 243 
 
 19. Produce a book that contains a greater number of con- 
 tradictions, or contradictions of a more palpable or astounding 
 character. 
 
 20. Produce a book that contains more indecent or ob- 
 scene stories, or more disgusting allusions, or more filthy 
 exaggerations, than the stories about Onan, Lot, the wives 
 of Jacob, Sarah, &c, and passages in the Pentateuch, the 
 Song of Solomon, and the prophets. 
 
 21. Produce a book that portrays a more deceitful, sel£> 
 ish, scheming, swindling supplanter than the old Jew Jacob, 
 who is said to have had such power over God as to have beaten 
 him in a wrestling match, and to have won from God him- 
 self the new name of Israel, or conqueror of God. 
 
 22. Produce a book that gives two more different or in- 
 consistent portraits of the same person than the Gospels of 
 Matthew and John give of Jesus. 
 
 23. Produce a book that teaches more foolish doctrines, 
 or that gives more foolish rules in relation to giving, lending, 
 taking thought for to-morrow, laying up for ourselves trea- 
 sures on earth, selling all property and giving the proceeds 
 to the poor, being content in whatever condition or calling 
 we may be, and the like. 
 
 24. Produce a book that gives a representation of the 
 laws by which the universe is governed, and the affairs of 
 mankind controlled, more at variance with the fixed and un- 
 alterable laws revealed by nature and mankind themselves. 
 
 25. Produce a book which presents for our admiration 
 and imitation more defective or faulty characters than the 
 prophet who could call down fire from heaven on his fellow- 
 men, curse children, and cause forty and two of them to be 
 torn in pieces by wild beasts for calling him bald-head, mur- 
 dered eight hundred and fifty dissenting prophets in a day, 
 hewed men in pieces in cool blood, lied, cheated, kidnapped, 
 bought and sold human beings, bred slaves, lived in un- 
 bridled licentiousness, and practised almost every known 
 abomination. 
 
 26. Produce a book that tells a greater number of ridicu- 
 lous and impossible stories than those about a reasoning 
 serpent, the talking ass, the swimming iron, the origin of 
 giants, the first transgression, the tree of life, the flaming 
 sword and cherubim, the tower of Babel, the confusion of 
 tongues, the monster fable of the flood, the foxes and fire- 
 brands of Samson, the whale and Jonah, the devils and 
 
244 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 swine, the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites, the ex- 
 perience of Jacob on his flock, and the thousand similar im- 
 possibilities so gravely recorded as historical and scientific 
 verities. 
 
 Define a miracle, and show how a miracle may be distin- 
 guished from events that are not miraculous. 
 
 Prove that miracles have been wrought. 
 
 Prove that miracles demonstrate the presence and special 
 agency of God. 
 
 Prove that devils or bad men never wrought miracles. 
 
 Prove that God never wrought miracles, or caused them 
 to be wrought, for the purpose of proving or tempting people 
 to embrace false religions, or believe a lie. 
 
 Prove that the magicians of Egypt did not work miracles. 
 
 Prove that the false Christs mentioned in the Gospels did 
 not show great signs, and work great miracles, so as to 
 deceive all that were not God's very elect, and incapable of 
 being deceived. 
 
 Prove that the miracles said to have been wrought by Moses, 
 Joshua, Elijah, Jesus, and his Apostles, were wrought. 
 
 Prove that they were wrought by God, and not by some 
 other unseen power, as some of the other Bible miracles are 
 said to have been wrought. 
 
 Prove that God wrought them to prove the truth of certain 
 doctrines, and his approbation of certain persons, and of their 
 sayings and doings, and not for the purposes of tempting, 
 proving, misleading, or deceiving men, in order to bring them 
 to believe a lie and be damned. 
 
 Prove that the Jews and Gentiles, in the days of Jesus, 
 were not very wicked ; that they had not both rejected or 
 corrupted previous revelations of God's truth; that they had 
 not refused to receive the truth in the love thereof; that they 
 had not pleasure in unrighteousness ; or that they were not 
 exactly the kind of men to whom the Apostle says God is 
 accustomed to give up to themselves; to their own hearts' 
 lusts, or on whom it is his plan to send strong delusions of the 
 devil to work before them and among them all kinds of lying 
 wonders and miracles, irresistible in their power to deceive, 
 to bring them to believe a lie, that they might be damned. 
 
 Prove that the books of the Bible were written by the 
 persons whose names they bear. 
 
 Prove it by testimony that has not been proved untrust- 
 worthy by being convicted of deceit and lies. 
 
THE BIBLE. 245 
 
 Prove that the persons who wrote those books were spe- 
 cially, miraculously endowed by God, so as to be secured 
 against the possibility of error or mistake. 
 
 Prove this by arguments such as men of common sense 
 and common attainments can understand. 
 
 Prove that the claims to divine inspiration, put forward 
 by writers of books, or by others in behalf of books, are not 
 generally false. 
 
 Prove that the claims put forth in behalf of the Bible are 
 an exception to the general rule. 
 
 Prove that the Jewish priests, and the Jewish scribes, 
 and many of the Jewish prophets, who composed those books, 
 or who had the care and management of them, were not, ac- 
 cording to Jeremiah, from the least even unto the greatest of 
 them, given to covetousness, and that they were not, from the 
 prophet even unto the priest, given, every one of them, to 
 deal falsely. Jeremiah, vi. 13 — that in transgressing and 
 lying, and conceiving and uttering from the heart words of 
 falsehood, they had not gained a deplorable notoriety — that 
 truth had not fallen in the streets — and that equity could 
 not enter — that it had utterly failed — so that he that depart- 
 ed from evil made himself a prey — as Isaiah says, That they 
 were not the children of the devil, devising lies and plotting 
 murder, like him, as Jesus says, that they did not forge and 
 corrupt books to aid them in their villanous plots, that the 
 high priest Hilkiah, who pretended to find the Book of the 
 Law of the Lord, as recorded in 2 Kings, xxii. did not forge 
 the book, to gain favour for his priestly ceremonies, his gain- 
 ful institutions of offerings and sacrifices, and the establish- 
 ment of the priestly power over the people. 
 
 Prove that the early Christians did not practise deceit, use 
 frauds, for the purpose of gaining proselytes, silencing objec- 
 tions, and extending their religious system. 
 
 Prove that they did not especially write fabulous books, 
 forge the names of celebrated characters to give them autho- 
 rity, and thus impose first on the ignorant and credulous 
 multitudes, and ultimately on the people at large. 
 
 Prove that even the well meaning and truly pious and be- 
 nevolent did not use those pious frauds, believing they were 
 serving God and blessing men by endeavouring thus to spread 
 abroad what they deemed to be the only saving truth. 
 
 Prove that they did not labour in this department of piety 
 and benevolence more than in any other, and that the result 
 was not the production of a multitude of fabulous Gospels, 
 
246 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 forged epistles, creeds, and constitutions, false tales of reve- 
 lations, miracles, and remarkable interpositions of Providence; 
 forgeries in the names of Gentile oracles and philosophers, 
 the corruption of the writings of Jews and Pagans, and such 
 a multiplication of frauds of all conceivable descriptions, as 
 the world has never before either beheld or dreamed of. 
 
 Prove that this system of fraud was not continued through 
 every age of the church, till the Christian priesthood, so 
 called, gained the empire of the world, and introduced those 
 ages of intellectual and moral darkness which are now, and 
 must remain forever, the wonder and the grief of every friend 
 of truth, of freedom, of virtue and humanity. 
 
 Prove that our modern priesthoods, both Catholic and 
 Protestant, have not continued this system of fraud, these 
 deceitful arts to this day, and that their defences of Biblical 
 inspiration, and their pretended histories of the lives and 
 deaths of heretics and unbelievers, reformers and philanthro- 
 pists, are not, as a general rule, either a compilation of an- 
 cient frauds and forgeries, or the fabrication of new ones, 
 published, sometimes in pious and benevolent ignorance, and 
 at other times, for the purpose of perpetuating their power 
 over the bodies and souls of their dupes, and maintaining 
 themselves in ease and affluence, at the expense of the toiling 
 millions of the community. 
 
 Prove, in short, that you have anything more than hearsay 
 for your belief in the superhuman origin of the Bible — the 
 hearsay of known and proved, of armed and systematic de- 
 ceivers, or of blind unreasoning superstitious dupes of priestly 
 guile. 
 
 Prove to us that the passages you quoted from the Bible 
 as prophecies, are prophecies. 
 
 Prove that they were spoken or written in reference to 
 Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 Prove that the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth given in the 
 Gospels are true accounts. 
 
 Prove, next, that these accounts are, what you say, a lite- 
 ral fulfilment of the passages you quote as prophecies — that 
 the prophecies and records exactly agree. 
 
 Prove that the Gospels were written by the persons whose 
 names they bear. 
 
 Prove that the persons whose names they bear were com- 
 petent and trustworthy witnesses of the things they profess 
 to record. 
 
 Prove that the Gospels might, and that they were not, 
 
THE BIBLE. 247 
 
 written long after the time when Jesus is said to have lived 
 and taught and died. 
 
 Prove they are not collections of traditions, believed by 
 the earlier Christians, but having all the uncertainty and 
 mixture of fable and exaggeration so common with the tra- 
 ditions of a dark and credulous age. 
 
 Prove that the partial agreement and partial disagreement 
 of the Gospels are not exactly such as might be naturally 
 looked for in the works produced by different authors, but 
 compiled from the same traditionary sources. 
 
 Prove that there is anything in the style or contents of 
 the Gospels beyond what the power of man might produce. 
 
 Prove that the book has no errors, no contradictions. 
 
 Prove that the character of Jesus as portrayed in the 
 Gospels is a perfect character. 
 
 Prove that he did not, according to the gospels, teach false 
 and contradictory doctrines, bad and contradictory morals. 
 
 Prove that he did not, according to the gospels, violate 
 his own precepts, doing the very things which he warned 
 other people not to do, on pain of God's wrath and damnation. 
 
 Prove that he did not encourage hopes of earthly honour 
 and power, and wealth, and of national aggrandizement in 
 his disciples, which they never realized. 
 
 Prove that he did not, according to the gospels, make po- 
 sitive promises to his disciples of thrones and empire, of 
 houses, lands and friends here on earth which he never ful- 
 filled.— Matthew xix. 27, 29; Mark x. 28, 30. 
 
 Prove that he did not utter false prophecies respecting the 
 end of the world, when he said, this generation shall not pass 
 away till all these things — the end of the world and the like 
 —shall be fulfilled. See Matt. xxiv. 29, 34. 
 
 Prove that, though the character of Jesus, as given in the 
 gospels, were a perfect and moral character, it might not be 
 a fancy piece — the production of love, veneration and poetry 
 from their own resources and the aids afforded by the forms 
 of varied moral beauty in the living characters around them, 
 and the beautiful portraits of virtuous excellence presented 
 in the history, the biography, and the poetry of their prede- 
 cessors. 
 
 Prove that the natural tendency of the human soul is not 
 to beautify and adorn, to improve and perfect the idea it 
 forms of the object of its affection, its gratitude, its reverence, 
 and that the poet, the sculptor, and the painter, the historian, 
 
248 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 the biographer and the novelist, do not generally, if not in- 
 variably, create for us forms, and characters, and scenes more 
 beautiful, more perfect, more entrancing than the homely re- 
 alities of nature and experience. 
 
 Give us an argument to prove the necessity of divine reve- 
 lation in ancient times, which would not prove as conclusively 
 the necessity of a new revelation now. 
 
 Give us an argument to prove the Bible essential to the 
 present or future welfare of mankind, which does not, in ef- 
 fect, amount to blasphemy against God, so long as the great 
 majority of mankind are now, and always have been, left 
 without the Bible. 
 
 Prove, that if God could, consistently with his goodness 
 and justice, leave nineteen-twentieths of his children without a 
 supernatural revelation, he might not, consistently with his 
 goodness and justice, leave the remaining twentieth without 
 supernatural revelation. 
 
 Prove that the Jews who had the Old Testament Scriptures 
 were wiser or better people in the days of the prophets, of 
 Jesus and of Paul, than the Gentiles who had not those Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 Prove that heretical Samaritans are not generally better 
 people than orthodox Jews; and that even unbelieving Sad- 
 ducees are not less selfish, less deceitful, less cruel, less filthy, 
 less dishonest and less murderous, than the high professing 
 sectarians and clergymen who make long prayers in the syna- 
 gogues and public places, and once a year, perhaps, appear 
 unto men to fast. 
 
 Prove, that even now, their very enemies being judges, 
 the heretics and unbelievers, as the priests misname them, 
 are not the first in all beneficent reforms; the bravest and 
 most zealous advocates of freedom and the rights of humani- 
 ty; the boldest assailants of political and priestly tyranny; 
 the sternest foes of kidnapping, slaveholding, and man-hunt- 
 ing; the truest friends of free discussion; the most gentle- 
 manly, courteous, and, in all respects, the best behaved and 
 talented disputants; the first to acknowledge and correct a 
 mistake; the last to call foul names, or attempt to appeal to 
 the prejudices, or rouse the passions of an audience. 
 
 Prove that the churches and priesthoods of the day, whe- 
 ther Catholic or Protestant, arc not the tories, the conserva- 
 tives of abuses, the props of despotism and tyranny, the 
 bulwarks of oppression, the foes of free inquiry, the friends 
 of blind belief, the persecutors and slanderers of men of 
 
THE BIBLE. 249 
 
 science, and the enemies of all reforms, the advocates of 
 bloody laws, the great obstructions in the path of progress, 
 the plunderers of the poor and toiling, the flatterers of the 
 rich, the idolaters of the powerful, and the betrayers of the 
 weak and friendless. 
 
 Prove that even where the Bible is most extensively cir- 
 culated, the people who make least of its authority, such as 
 the old-fashioned Quakers, who subject it to the light within, 
 the Progressive Unitarians, who subject its teachings to 
 reason, and modify them accordingly, the bolder Universalists, 
 who subject the book to their benevolent instincts, and allow 
 no authority to a passage till it has been forced to speak the 
 language of humanity and philanthropy; the anti-supernatu- 
 ralists, who take the book as a set of human compositions, 
 and receive or reject its teachings, as seem best to their 
 own judgments; and liberally educated men of the world, 
 who have kept themselves out of the meshes of the, Church 
 and the priesthood, and who know no guide of life but their 
 own good sense, and better feelings : and we say prove that 
 these classes of men are not the best, the purest, the kindest, 
 the most liberal and talented, the most honest and truthful, 
 the most just in their dealings, the most upright in their 
 public or political transactions, the most generous patrons of 
 worth, the readiest to do good to all as they have oppor- 
 tunity — the best, the most respectful as well as affectionate 
 husbands, the most agreeable as well as the most faithful of 
 parents, and the happiest as well as the most honourable and 
 useful of mankind. 
 
 Prove that those who regard the Bible as wholly divine — 
 who blindly submit to its teachings, or rather to the teach- 
 ings of their priests, are not, with some exceptions, the most 
 morose and uncivil, the most conceited and uncourteous, the 
 most intolerant and inhuman, the most proud and unchari- 
 table, the most ignorant and bigoted, the most unnatural and 
 inhuman, the most deceitful and treacherous, and, when pro- 
 voked by freedom and manly demeanour, the most malig- 
 nant and revengeful, the most ferocious and bloody. None 
 can hate like those whose hate is aided by religion. None 
 can so relish the horrors of another's martyrdom, or enjoy 
 with such zeal the agonies of his heretical victim, as the blind 
 adorer of a Bible or a priesthood. 
 
 Name to us a war more bloody or inexcusable than the 
 war of the Church, called the Holy War. 
 
 22 
 
250 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 Point us to an institution more inhuman or devilish than 
 the Inquisition — the Holy Inquisition — the pet institution 
 of the Clergy. 
 
 Tell us of a bloodier or more butcherly massacre than the 
 massacre of St. Bartholomew. 
 
 Name an order of men more crafty or dangerous, more 
 proverbial for the employment of every forbidden art for the 
 accomplishment of their deadly aims, than the Jesuits, the 
 most holy order of the church. 
 
 Mention a place of a more doleful sound, or more melan- 
 choly meaning — a place the mention of which is associated 
 with the idea of darker deeds or more revolting crimes, than 
 the nunnery or monastery, the holy of holies of the church. 
 
 Mention a modern institution of more gigantic proportions, 
 of more deadly influence, more fraught with injustice and 
 cruelty, more fruitful of tears and tragedy, more ominous of 
 coming evil, more discreditable to a great and mighty people, 
 or more distressing to the wise and good of every nation 
 upon earth, than American slavery, the nursling of the 
 American church and clergy. 
 
 Name a calamity more appalling and tremendous than the 
 Irish famine; or guilt more atrocious than the guilt which 
 caused it; the guilt of the English aristocracy and state 
 priesthood, and worshippers of the Bible. 
 
 Mention a war more unjust than the opium war, waged by 
 the Bible-believing rulers of England. 
 
 Name to us doctrines more absurd, more monstrous, more 
 impossible, more licentious, more blasphemous, than the doc- 
 trines of modern Protestant orthodoxy. (Hissing and ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 Dr. Berg. — (Immense applause.) — My opponent 
 seems to have unburdened himself. He again charges 
 me with calling him foul names, but it is not in my 
 power to exhibit the malignity my opponent evinces 
 in attempting to brand with infamy the character of 
 the best and purest men in this or any other land. 
 
 He charges me with a long string of sins of omission 
 and commission. If any man should undertake to 
 answer them, he would be as old as Methuselah be- 
 fore he was done. (Laughter.) Among his so-called 
 absurd stories of the Bible, he mentions the fact of 
 Balaam's ass speaking. He might as well have let 
 \ 
 
THE BIBLE. 251 
 
 that venerable brute go by without challenge. He was 
 a sensible ass, and there have been many asses since 
 his day who have opened their mouth to much less 
 purpose. (Uproarious laughter and shouting.) Then, 
 he sneers at Jonah's whale. Could not God Almighty 
 prepare a fish large enough to swallow a man? And it 
 is expressly asserted that the fish was prepared for that 
 very purpose. He may as well let the whale alone. 
 
 My opponent has spoken with learned precision on 
 the subject of geology. He has doubtless large ac- 
 quaintance with the subject, gathered from personal 
 investigation, for as he walks by sight, and not by 
 faith, it cannot for a moment be supposed that so con- 
 sistent a casuist as my opponent, would, in order to 
 invalidate the Mosaic history, quote Mr. Hitchcock 
 and expect us to receive Mm as authority superior to 
 Moses. As yet, however, he has not furnished the 
 results of his own knowledge or experience. Perhaps 
 he will yet do so. The details will no doubt be of 
 thrilling interest ! But let him do as he may, what a 
 miserable piece of deception and presumptuous impos- 
 ture is presented in this whole ado about geological 
 testimony. Geology, as a science, is yet in its infancy. 
 Its oracles are as contradictory as the sophisms of Athe- 
 ism. They contradict one another and they contra- 
 dict themselves. Whom shall we follow? Shall we 
 go with Buckland, when in company with Cuvier, Le 
 Due, Dolomien and others; he tells us the traces of the 
 Mosaic Deluge are indubitable: or shall we believe 
 him when in his Bridgewater Treatise, he somewhat 
 modifies his views? Shall I take my stand with Hugh 
 Miller, when in his "Old Bed Sandstone," he teaches 
 that "The system began with an age of dwarfs, and 
 ended with an age of giants?" or shall I follow him 
 in his "Footprints," another of his books, in which 
 he reverses his former theory, and at the very base 
 of the system, " discovers one of the most colossal of 
 its giants," and instead of an ascending order of pro- 
 gressive development, asserts a descending order of 
 progressive degradation ? Which of Lyell's contradic- 
 
252 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 tory positions shall I take? There is one point at 
 least, in which all are agreed, it is this: — There is not 
 a geological theory extant which would not be over- 
 throivn, and the whole science revolutionized by the 
 discovery of a single new fact. Miller in his Foot- 
 prints, p. 313, says, speaking of geology, "It fur- 
 nishes us with no clue by which to unravel the unap- 
 proachable mysteries of creation ; these mysteries be- 
 long to the wondrous Creator, and to him only. We 
 attempt to theorize upon them, and to reduce them to 
 law, and all nature rises up against us in our presump- 
 tuous rebellion." Now hear him. "A stray splinter 
 of cone-bearing wood — a fish's skull or tooth, the ver- 
 tebra of a reptile, the humerus of a bird — the jaw of 
 a quadruped — all, any of these things, weak and in- 
 significant as they may seem, become in such a quarrel, 
 too strong for us and for our theory — the puny frag- 
 ment in the grasp of truth, form as irresistible a 
 weapon as the dry bone did in that of Samson of old, 
 and our slaughtered sophisms lie, piled up " heaps 
 upon heaps, before it." This is the testimony of a 
 man who is a geologist. Whether my opponent is, or 
 is not, I cannot say. If he is, instead of asserting 
 things as geological facts, it would be his duty to prove 
 them, for he may rest assured his assertions will carry 
 very little force of conviction, in a Christian community. 
 The probability is, he is not a practical geologist at 
 all. If he were, he would not preach Hitchcock, praise 
 Hitchcock, and to all practical purposes, if not swear, 
 at least affirm by Hitchcock as lustily as he does ! 
 And is this the kind of evidence upon which the Bible 
 is to be discarded ! Are we to take the mutterings 
 of geological wizards, who peep out of the dust, as 
 louder and better truths than the dictates of this book, 
 when the best of them, the man who stands in the front 
 rank of geologists, admits that a stray splinter of wood, 
 or the wing-bone of a bird, would be weapon enough 
 to beat the brains out of the best system geologists 
 have ever devised. Oh ! what faith my opponent has 
 in Hitchcock ; and yet I have very little doubt, if the 
 
THE BIBLE. 253 
 
 truth were known, other parts of Hitchcock's book 
 might be used to show that in rejecting the 'Mosaic 
 history of the deluge, he is at variance not only with 
 the Bible, but with his own principles. Geologists 
 must be more modest. Let them tarry in Jericho till 
 their beards are grown; and when the science which 
 they are cultivating is out of its cradle, and able to 
 stand erect upon its own feet, the first impulse of its 
 generous manhood will be to proclaim from the very 
 heart of this great earth which Jehovah has made, 
 that the Bible is the book of God as surely as heaven 
 and earth declare his glory and show his handiwork ! 
 According to the code which regulates public dis- 
 putations, I am not at liberty to introduce any new 
 topic into the closing speech. I shall, therefore, con- 
 fine myself to some remarks, recapitulating the points 
 of the discussion, and appealing to all within the 
 sound of my voice, to cherish the Bible as a precious 
 gift beyond all price that can be named in its influ- 
 ence upon the dearest interests of humanity. The su- 
 periority of the Christian revelation over the tradi- 
 tional revelation of Deism, is manifest in the fact that 
 the one rests its hopes for the future upon a posi- 
 tive basis, whilst the other is built upon a negation of 
 every thing supernatural. This is not philosophical, 
 because, as the very existence of nature establishes 
 the fact of a supernatural and overruling power as the 
 originator of this glorious frame-work, the govern- 
 ment of the intellectual and the moral part of the cre- 
 ation of God, would call for a corresponding indication 
 of the divine will and purpose, in clothing it with those 
 subtle attributes which are spiritual and immortal. 
 We have shown that man's nature leads him to wor- 
 ship ; that his character becomes assimilated to the 
 being which he worships ; and that whenever man has 
 been left merely to his own resources, his course has 
 been a downward one of superstition, abominable ido- 
 latry and licentiousness. We have proved that man 
 possesses no resources by which to extricate himself 
 from this miry abyss — that art and science could not 
 
 22* 
 
254 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 do it — that philosophy could not do it — that all philo- 
 sophy ever effected towards the deliverance of the 
 race was to make atheists of idolaters. I have shown 
 that before any religion can challenge universal obe- 
 dience or assent, it must be invested with the marks 
 of superhuman authority — that it must be accredited 
 of God by indications that shall attest its divine ori- 
 gin. Hence the necessity for miracles and prophecy 
 is a philosophical necessity. The Bible, to be of God, 
 must bear not only internal evidence of its divine ori- 
 gin, but external also. My opponent utterly denies 
 the superhuman authority of the laws, doctrines, and 
 institutions of Christianity, Then I have shown that 
 he has no foundation upon which he can build the au- 
 thority of law at all. Laws of merely human origin, 
 depending on no eternal principles of divinely re- 
 vealed and divinely attested right, are no laws at all. 
 Men may make, and men may unmake them. With- 
 out a law from God, one man's authority is as good 
 as any other's; and thus anarchy stalks forth upon 
 her work of desolation, and, amid the ruins of civil 
 freedom and social order, and the sad wrecks of do- 
 mestic purity and peace, the grand negation of infi- 
 delity stands confessed as an accumulation of positive 
 horror, desolation and wo — a calamity of direst influ- 
 ence upon all the relations of life. I have shown that 
 to deny a superhuman revelation places the infidel in 
 the sad predicament of utter inability to announce 
 the name of a specific God/or to account for the har- 
 mony of the attributes ascribed to the deistical idea 
 of a Supreme Being, or even to tell what those attri- 
 butes are, or even to show, with any degree of cer- 
 tainty, what object the Supreme Being (if, indeed, 
 there be one in his creed,) proposed in the infidel's 
 creation. I have endeavoured to show you that the 
 internal evidences of the scriptures sustain its claims; 
 that the alleged contradictions offered by infidel as- 
 sailants are captious cavils; that these apparent dis- 
 crepancies are often the result of the employment of 
 language accommodnted to human infirmity; and that 
 
THE BIBLE. 255 
 
 the argument by which such accommodation is de- 
 nounced as pernicious, is neutralized by the clear and 
 positive declarations that God, as God, is not subject 
 to the passions, or arrayed in the form of humanity, 
 so that they who would pervert the Bible on this ac- 
 count, do it in the face of its own protest. I have 
 shown that the more closely Bible history is studied, 
 the more clearly is the verity of its facts established; 
 for it has been manifest that the infidel objections 
 against the Mosaic account of the deluge and the ark, 
 paraded with so much pomp of authority, are idle 
 and absurd. In short, regarding the purity of its mo- 
 rals — the dignity of its style — the varied extent of 
 its subjects — the harmony between the laws of the 
 Bible and the operations of Providence — the clear 
 and distinct explanations of phenomena, such as the 
 introduction of sin, sickness, misery and death into 
 the world, which, without the scriptural solution, are 
 problems which infidelity can never unravel or recon- 
 cile with the idea of a God who governs in accordance 
 with the laws of justice and mercy — regarding, I say, 
 all these things, and the want of man's nature which 
 seeks for and feels after the light beyond the grave 
 furnished in the gospel; and, then, above all, the glo- 
 rious example of Christ, so pure, lovely and gentle, 
 startling the world by a blaze of celestial glory, when 
 the midnight darkness of corruption was blackest, and 
 calling men to the faith of the gospel by the most 
 wonderful attestations of divine power, in working mi- 
 racles, and blessing the poor and the outcast with the 
 sweet mercies of Heaven, and offering to sinful men 
 the wondrous plan of redemption through the blood 
 of the cross, fulfilling the plainest predictions in the 
 circumstances of his own life and sufferings, death 
 and resurrection; and himself predicting events which 
 were literally accomplished, not only in the terrestrial 
 fulfilment of His mediatorial work, but after His as- 
 cension into heaven — regarding all these things, and 
 the consistent testimony of evangelists, disciples and 
 apostles, who sacrificed all for Christ and the gospel, 
 
256 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 and lived and died in the defence and the faith of it, 
 and gave the best practical testimony in the holiness 
 of their lives, that they were the messengers of God 
 and of Christ, I cannot conceive of any amount of 
 rational doubt that must not yield before the pressure 
 of this flood of testimony. 
 
 We love this Bible ! We can conceive no direr ca- 
 lamity to the race than to be deprived of its pure 
 morality ! and we know of no blacker gloom, even in 
 imagination, than that which pours its shadow over 
 the soul when the weary spirit is breaking through 
 the dissolving walls of its earthly house, unsolaced 
 by this light of life! No Bible! Oh! horrid depri- 
 vation ! No Bible ! ! Then is this world one grand en- 
 igma — a tangled tissue of contradictions, unanswered 
 and irreconcilable. I see the flowers springing from 
 the warm bosom of the earth, and lifting their meek 
 eyes towards heaven, and I say — surely there is a God, 
 and this fragrance is earth's incense of praise! I 
 hear the birds singing among the branches, happy 
 and free, rejoicing in the pure air and sunlight of the 
 bright heaven, and I say — surely there is a God, and 
 this music is nature's anthem of thanksgiving ! I look 
 out upon the furrowed field, and the springing corn 
 smiles its blessing upon the God who sends the soft 
 showers in their season. I see the joy of the harvest, 
 and the golden sheaves praise him, and the fruitful 
 trees praise him, and in full concert all his works de- 
 clare that He is good. But I hear a cry of anguish — 
 it is the moaning of an infant gasping in its mother's 
 arms — I see it pale and quivering in its agony — I 
 hear the wail of sorrow which woman alone can ut- 
 ter, as she bows to weep over the dead whom she has 
 borne. This world — what is it? A wilderness of 
 graves ! A mighty charnel house ! from which groans 
 of pain and sorrow are forever rising to the heavens ; 
 and I ask, "Is this world governed by one God who 
 is good, and by another who is evil?" And is it so 
 that the evil is mightier than the good? Wretched 
 man that I am ! How shall I appease the wrath of 
 
THE BIBLE. 257 
 
 the malignant Being who wars thus constantly against 
 human happiness, and finally prevails, so that men die; 
 and dying, shall they ever live again? What answer 
 shall I give ? Shall they live again ? and if they do, 
 will that life be a blessing or a curse? What can I 
 say ? There is no Bible ! and every grave confounds 
 me — the joys of life perplex me — its sorrows depress 
 me. I am afraid to live — I dare not die! Oh! what 
 can I do without the Bible ? What can I know with- 
 out it, that shall still the eager questionings of the 
 restless, deathless spirit, that is beating like a caged 
 bird against these earthen walls — struggling after the 
 purer, wider range of its immortal sphere? I know 
 nothing, except that I am a child of sorrow and an 
 heir of death. I can do nothing but regret my ex- 
 istence, and submit to my fate! So says the infidel — 
 but not so the Christian. This world is no enigma to 
 him. He cannot explain every detail, but he can see 
 a glorious harmony between the operations of Provi- 
 dence and the testimony of the Bible. He knows that 
 God is good. He knows that God is holy — that mo- 
 ral law has its penalty for transgressions as surely 
 as natural laws have theirs; and, therefore, he knows 
 there will be sorrow where there is sin; but then, he 
 learns this is not remediless. Christ has repaired^the 
 ruin and provided the remedy. It is faith in him as 
 the author of a new life that is mightier than the 
 power of death. It is faith which binds the soul to 
 Christ, and raises it through all these scenes of sor- 
 row to the joy of the heavenly inheritance! Let us 
 cherish this Bible! Let us read it — its words are 
 pure as silver refined ! Its precepts are apples of 
 gold; and, in keeping its commands, there is infinite 
 reward ! Let America keep the Bible, and the Bible 
 will keep America. It will be the'salt of divine truth 
 that shall rectify the tendencies to moral corruption, 
 whether in|the family, in society, or in civil govern- 
 ment, and it shall save the land from infidel licen- 
 tiousness and misrule. Remember that God no sooner 
 caused any part of his will or word to be written, than 
 
258 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 he also commanded the same to be read, not only in 
 the family, but also in the congregation, "that they 
 might hear, and that they might learn, and fear the 
 Lord their God, and observe to do all the words of this 
 law." Defend! protect! and love the Bible, and the 
 God of the Bible will cause his presence to be your 
 glory; and upon that glory shall be the defence of his 
 own Almighty arm ! God grant to you all the bless- 
 ings promised in his word, to them that love his truth ; 
 and ever save our country from the blasting mildew 
 of infidel folly and falsehood. 
 
 My opponent may deride the faith of Christians 
 as sheer submission to the frauds of a protestant 
 priesthood, but so long as ministers of the gospel en- 
 join upon all men the duty of searching the scriptures, 
 we can let this assertion pass with others alike un- 
 founded, and leave our faith and character to the or- 
 deal of that day, when the fire shall try every man's 
 work what it is; and the ways and the word of God 
 shall be finally and forever vindicated. 
 
 CLOSING SCENES. 
 
 During the delivery of the peroration, the audience listened 
 with the most rapt attention. Many hands were held up to 
 check the demonstrations of applause that would break out at 
 many passages, from auditors in different parts of the house. 
 At the conclusion the applause was tremendous. It was a ve- 
 ritable ovation. His friends seemed to wish to testify, as strong- 
 ly as possible, their sense of his triumph in the important de- 
 bate just closed. The people had risen, when one of Dr. Berg's 
 friends advanced to the front of the stage, holding a paper in 
 his hand. 
 
 Mr. G. H. Stuart: If the Christians will take their seats a mo- 
 ment, I will read this paper. (Here one or two persons near 
 him — one of them, our reporter — remonstrated with him on the 
 impolicy of detaining a large and excited audience, already in 
 the confusion attendant on leaving their seats. Others, however, 
 urged him to go on: the audience had partly complied with the 
 request to sit down.) 
 
 Mr. Stuart: I do not wish to give occasion to any disorder. 
 J f not thought proper I will not proceed. (Cries of go on ! go on ! 
 
THE BIBLE. 259 
 
 read !) I have here a series of resolutions (laughter, hisses, 
 and confused cries,) expressive of the sense of the majority as 
 to the result of this debate, in which Dr. Berg has achieved so 
 signal a victory. (Hisses, applause and shouts.) The audience 
 may be looked on as a jury; it has heard both sides, and should 
 now give its decision. (Mr. Illman came forward and obtained 
 silence.) 
 
 Mr. Illman : The mover should remember that if the audi- 
 ence is a jury, it should retire before making its decision. (Laugh- 
 ter, cries of good, good, adjourn.) 
 
 Wm. D. Baker, Esq.: But Mr. Illman forgets that it is not un- 
 common for a jury, when the evidence is all on one side, to 
 give its decision before leaving the box. (Vociferous applause 
 and laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Stuart: I will proceed to read the resolutions, so that 
 you may know what they are: — 
 
 Whereas, Throughout the interesting discussion which has 
 now been brought to a close, the appeal has been to the judgment 
 of the audience: And, whereas, this audience, after having lis- 
 tened patiently and attentively for many nights to the arguments 
 submitted to its judgment by the disputants who have occupied 
 the platform, has now a right to utter its judgment. Be it there- 
 fore, 
 
 1. Resolved, That we feel ourselves under obligation to 
 render thanks to Almighty God for the triumphant vindication 
 of the Divine Authority of the Bible, which He has enabled 
 his servant to achieve in the discussion just terminated; and 
 that with one heart and one voice, we thank the Rev. Dr. Berg 
 for the manliness and powerful eloquence with which he has 
 spoken on this platform as a witness for Christ. May God bless 
 the champion for the truth. 
 
 2. Resolved, That we hold the Bible to be the Word of God, 
 on the authority of no man, however wise — on the authority of 
 no priesthood, however holy — on the authority of no church, 
 however ancient, pure, or catholic — but, because, having truth 
 for its matter, and salvation for its end, it is itself its own evi- 
 dence that it is the word of God who cannot lie — and, because, 
 by its known effects upon the hearts and lives of men, it com- 
 mends itself to the same inward light by which we know that 
 God made the heavens and the earth. 
 
 3. Resolved, That we are fully persuaded that the universal 
 acceptance of the Bible as the word of God, and universal obe- 
 dience to its precepts, would free mankind from ignorance, false- 
 hood, superstition, idolatry, and all the varied forms of vice, and 
 crime, and sin — would cause wars, tyranny, wrong and oppres- 
 sion e\ery where to cease — would unite mankind in the holiest 
 bonds of brotherhood — would expand the intellect, purify the 
 affections, and dignify the character of man — would mould his 
 degenerate nature into forms of moral loveliness and grandeur — 
 
260 DISCUSSION ON 
 
 and would, by renewing man in the image of his Creator, re- 
 instate him in his proper position as the most glorious of all 
 God's creatures beneath the sun, and prepare him for the reali- 
 zation of the highest aspirations of his renovated nature, in the 
 ineffable beatitude of the heavenly state. 
 
 4. Resolved, That we regard the Bible as the bulwark of ci- 
 vil and religious liberty, the pillar of all lawful authority, and 
 all just government; that we regard its principles as subversive 
 of all institutions, of whatever name, that are hostile to man's 
 well-being, and his indefinite advancement in knowledge, hap- 
 piness, and purity; while we regard them as conservative of all 
 that is excellent in all human institutions, and only of that which 
 is excellent. 
 
 5. Resolved, That shrinking as we do with unutterable horror 
 from the deadly dogma that God never forgives sin, we rejoice 
 with joy unspeakable and full of glory, that we have a Saviour, 
 Jesus Christ, the Son of God; the great Messiah, whose advent 
 was predicted by prophets, and announced by angels; whose 
 divine mission was attested by the spotless purity of his cha- 
 racter, the grandeur of his miracles, and the unapproachable ex- 
 cellence of his doctrines and precepts; whose death upon the 
 cross was the great atonement for sin, as his endless life in 
 power and glory at the right hand of God in heaven is the assu- 
 rance to all who believe in his name. 
 
 0^7= The report of the closing scenes, furnished for the Daily 
 Register, so far as regards the last paragraphs, is a wretched 
 perversion, and \hows plainly, that its author was unable any 
 longer to conceal his sympathy with the prostrate champion of 
 infidelity. It bears its own refutation upon the face of it; for 
 Moderator Illman would hardly have perpetrated the silly sole- 
 cism of comforting his discomfited and forlorn disciples of the 
 Sunday Institute, by reminding them, with a characteristically 
 profane witicism, tC Broad is the road and wide is the gate which 
 leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat, 
 because strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth 
 unto life, and few there be that find it," unless he had felt that 
 the overwhelming sentiment of the majority was expressed in 
 the resolutions offered by Mr. George H. Stuart— a gentleman, 
 whose moral worth is too well appreciated in this community 
 to require any vindication from the contemptuous sneers of any 
 reporter, or editor, whose sympathies are in unison with the 
 blasphemous hatred of revealed truth, exhibited by the cham- 
 
THE BIBLE. 261 
 
 pion of atheism. The request of Mr. Stuart, that all in favour 
 of the resolutions just read, should signify their assent by 
 holding up the right hand, was answered by a flash which 
 gleamed, from nearly two thousand uplifted hands; and. the 
 spectacle was felt, by every eye-witness, to be what the Rev. 
 Dr. Hodgson so accurately declared it, one of moral grandeur 
 and sublimity, such as is rarely witnessed; or, as Rev. Mr. 
 Chambers said, on the same occasion — " Such a forest of limbs, 
 tipped with fingers, I never saw before." The people gave a 
 great shout! Who could blame them for that? They felt that 
 the truth had triumphed, and their enthusiasm was right. 
 
 When the request was made, that all opposed to the resolu- 
 tions, should signify their dissent by holding up the right 
 hand, the advocates of infidelity, unwilling to display their 
 leanness, refused to vote ! The people gave another great shout : 
 but this time it was in another key; and three such groans were 
 never given in Concert Hall before, as were offered to the me- 
 mory of Joseph Barker. May he live to repent of his errors, 
 and devote his noble powers to the furtherance of the religion 
 which he now labours to destroy; and thus resume the position, 
 which he once held with so much honour, as the champion of 
 revealed truth, against the hosts of aliens from God's common- 
 wealth. An Ete-witness. 
 
 At the close, the Register's reporter says: — " What little ex- 
 citement remained, was speedily allayed by the weather with- 
 out. The pavements were covered with half-melted snow and 
 ice, and a most unpleasant compound of snow and water came 
 drizzling down from the murky sky. And so ended the most 
 remarkable debate ever held in America." 
 
 23 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 11 No man hath seen God at any time. 
 
 Mr. Barker endeavours to make a point, from alk-ged contra- 
 dictions respecting man's vision of God. He tells us, John 
 says, " No man hath seen God at any time :" and yet repeated 
 apparitions of Jehovah are detailed in the Old Testament. When 
 infidels quote Scripture, they very often imitate Satan in their 
 appeals to the word of God. When the Devil had taken Christ 
 to the pinnacle of the temple, the liar-murderer tempted the 
 Saviour in this wise: "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself 
 down from hence; for it is written, He shall give his angels 
 charge over thee, to keep thee: and in their hands they shall 
 bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 
 And Jesus answering, said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not 
 tempt the Lord thy God." The Psalm from which the Devil 
 quoted was Messianic, and Satan knew it, therefore there was 
 peculiar aptitude in the reference; but mark! the liar left out 
 the important words, "in all thy ways." He merely said : "He 
 shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee," instead 
 of "to ke'<3p thee in all thy ways." The ways of the just are 
 not ways of presumption, therefore Christ answers, "It is said, 
 Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." So when Mr. Barker 
 telte us, it is written, "No man hath seen God at any time," he 
 finds it convenient to leave out the words, which explain this 
 alleged contradiction, though they stand in the same sentence, 
 and should be pronounced in the same breath — viz.: "'The only 
 begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de- 
 clared him." John here plainly states, that all apparitions or 
 manifestations of Deity were in the person of the Son of God, 
 who was God manifest in the flesh. Under the old covenants, 
 when God appeared to men, it was in the person of Jehovah- 
 Jesus. Thus he says, in answer to Philip's challenge, (John 
 xiv. 8,9,) "Lord, show us the Father, and it sumceth us." 
 "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not 
 known me, Philip? He that hath seen me, hath seen the Fa- 
 ther: and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" &c. The 
 words are spoken with reference to the person of the Father out 
 of Christ, and thus it is true, " No man hath seen God at any 
 time;" but as the Father is in Christ, and Christ in the Father, 
 as Jesus is God as well as man, he says, "He that hath seen 
 me, hath seen the Father." There is therefore no contradiction 
 here, but a plain scriptural declaration of the Deity of Jesus. 
 
APPENDIX. 263 
 
 Natural Science. 
 
 Mr. Barker, in his accustomed style of bold assertion, enume- 
 rates a long list of- sciences, whose witness, he tells us, is all 
 against the Bible ; but as he has not vouchsafed to furnish the 
 proofs from his philosophical treasury, we may let his blank 
 assertions stand, without special refutation. We may however 
 remark, that the wisdom of infidels must be immense, to enable 
 them to arrive with so much precision at the results of natural 
 science, when it is well known their principles will not permit 
 them to take any thing on trust. They are indeed prodigies of 
 learning. Doubtless they are the men, and wisdom shall die 
 with them! 
 
 Jephthafcs Vow. 
 
 In confirmation of the view presented in the discussion, I may 
 add, that the original admits of a rendering which entirely re- 
 moves Mr. Barkers, or rather, Voltaire's, aspersion; for it is au 
 old and a stale falsehood, that Jehovah required human sacri- 
 fices. The words may properly be rendered: "Whatsoever 
 cometh forth to meet me, shall be the Lord's, or, (instead of 
 and,) I will offer it for a burnt offering.'' The particle em- 
 ployed in the passage is frequently disjunctive, and there can 
 be no doubt this is its true force in this instance. Jephthah's 
 daughter was set apart to the service of the tabernacle, and thus 
 was devoted as the Lord's. 
 
 Ex aure asinum. 
 
 This Mr. Barker translates: "You may know that 1 am an 
 ass by my ear!" He puts the concrete for the abstract. He 
 ought to have said, You may know an ass by his earj 
 
 Mr. Barker repeatedly uses the name Jehovah in his speeches, 
 as though he recognises the existence of a God of the Bible. 
 The name Jehovah is divinely revealed, and belongs only to the 
 God made known in the Scriptures. "I am Jehovah — that is 
 my name. My glory will I not give to another, neither my 
 praise to graven images!" Infidels have no right on their prin- 
 ciples to ascribe Jehovah's titles or attributes to their nameless 
 god. Jehovah, "the self-existent," forbids it, and consistency 
 demands that they abstain from such application. 
 
 The atheist's creed has been by a shrewd writer summed up 
 thus : — 
 
 1. "I believe that there is no God; but that matter is God, 
 and God is matter; and that it is no matter whether there is any 
 God or no!" 
 
 2. "'I believe that the world was not made; that the world 
 made itself; and that it had no beginning; that it will last for- 
 ever, world without end." 
 
264 APPENDIX. 
 
 3. "I believe that man is a beast; that the sonl is the body, 
 and the body the soul; and that after death there is neither 
 body nor soul." 
 
 4. "1 believe that there is no religion; that natural religion is 
 the only religion, and that all religion is unnatural." 
 
 5. "I believe not in revelation; I believe in tradition." 
 
 6. Lastly, " I believe in all unbelief." 
 
 Light of nature. 
 
 What is it? Where are the laws of nature that teach a pure 
 morality 1 ? What heathen philosopher of ancient or modern 
 times has published a moral law that can endure the test of a 
 standard of moral purity? 
 
 Dr. Sleigh sums up the matter as follows: — 
 
 Now to which of the following infidel philosophers shall we 
 refer, to teach us genuine morality? — 1. Zeno, the stoic, and 
 Diogenes, the cynic, sanctioned the foulest impurities: of which 
 Socrates also was more than suspected ! — 2. Lycurgus and Solon, 
 authorized, yea, legalized the murder of delicate children! — 
 3. Draco, the celebrated Athenian, punished all crimes alike, 
 with death! — 4. Plato recommended a community of wives! — 
 5. Aristotle maintained the right of making war on Barbarians ! 
 — 6. Cato, the elder, was remarkable for the ill usage of his 
 slaves, and the younger Cato gave up the person of his wife! — 
 7. Mohammed sanctioned unlimited sensualities ! — 8. Lord Her- 
 bert (one of the most celebrated modern infidels) says, "the 
 indulgence of lust and anger, is no more to be blamed, than the 
 thirst occasioned by dropsy!" — 9. Mr. Hobbes, (the celebrated 
 moral philanthropist!) says, "that every man has a right to all 
 things, and may lawfully get them if he can!" — 10. Lord Bo- 
 lingbroke states that self love is the principle of morality: that 
 modesty is only vanity! That polygamy is a part of the reli- 
 gion of nature !— 1 1. Mr. Hume maintained that self-denial, self- 
 mortification, and humility, are not virtues; but are useless and 
 mischievous; that pride, self-valuation, fyc. are virtues! That adul- 
 Xery must be practised, if men would obtain all the advantages 
 of life! — 12. Both Voltaire and Helvetius advocated the unlimited 
 gratification of the sensual ajypetites! — 13. Rousseau made feelings 
 his standard of morality! "I have only to consult myself," 
 said he, "concerning what I do. All that I feel to be right, is 
 right," &c. This is exactly the pinciple of morality taught as 
 the Tammany Hall rule, where it is said "whatever gives me pain is 
 wrong, whatever gives me pleasure is right ! " — 14. Lastly, comes 
 Mr. Robert Dale Owen, with his rules of morality, one of which 
 is, that a man may throw off his wife, as often as he would his gar- 
 ment, when worn out ! 
 

A**** 
 
 M$MtPM*y- v :r*nm 
 
 mmB 
 
 
 AftAttF 1 
 
 m 
 
 mm^0&M 
 
 
 
 
 vMJijIJm 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 &2 .A A A ft 
 
 ;^^^ 
 
 ^ftft^Maai&iU*^ 
 
 ^m 
 
 A»»» »*** ' A »' ,r 'i*A^ ' w-vv> 
 
 ^A, N ^W^ A ^^ . . 
 
 
 Nm 
 
 h^kh0^Mftf^m^ 
 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
 Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 Treatment Date: Jan. 2005 
 
 PreservationTechnologies 
 
 A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111 
 
 aIaA 
 
Z/\'ft%*f<nr\ 
 
 
 Mf\^^AN 
 
 
 ryftfiK**.! 
 
 mmmmmiMmiMm 
 
 
 ''jtiCfflmti& 
 
 
 ^aMa^a/ 
 
 
 A « A /v /v ^ 
 
 
 Afaw 
 
 
 MMM^ 
 
 '****** 
 
 a ^S*^M^f : ' ! 
 
 ;^nnn^wpr ■ - AaaA a A An^nkr ax ah' * 
 
 
 *Ma a._.a-..a: 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 013 774 642 6