UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Class Book Volume 
 
 ^ 0 . 4 - On 
 
t 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/theologicaldiscuOOcook 
 
, 
 
 t 
 
 ; 
 
THE V 
 
 1 1; I VI I : I'l \ I 1 1 | f I.'OI f 
 
 AUTHENTIC REPORT 
 
 THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION 
 
 BETWEEN THE 
 
 LEY. W. COOKE AND MR. JOS. BARKER, 
 
 HELD 
 
 DURING TEN NIGHTS IN NEWCASTLE. 
 
 I certify this report , taken (and revised while passing 
 through the press ) by me , to be authentic ; and , to the best 
 of my skill and understanding , correct . 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 J. BAKEWELL, 80, NEWGATE STREET; 
 MAY BE HAD THROUGH ALL BOOKSELLERS. 
 
 1845, 
 
■2LO V- 
 
 en 
 
PREFACE 
 
 & 
 
 <r> 
 
 .0 
 
 But few prefatory remarks are necessary. My antagonist is 
 well known as one who was once a popular advocate of 
 Christianity, but who has since renounced almost everything of 
 religion but a nominal profession of it, and has employed his 
 powers to undermine that Gospel he once defended. My resi- 
 dence in his locality was singularly providential— unsought 
 and unexpected by myself ; and equally so my collision with 
 him. Though I had known him intimately in his better days, 
 I had no desire to come into contact with him, and indeed felt 
 inclined to lay it down as a principle in my conduct to avoid 
 any public collision. But sent to repair the broken walls 
 which he hath ruthlessly thrown down, and to preach the 
 Gospel to a people scattered and bewildered by his pernicious 
 doctrines, and surrounded by a community of tens of thousands 
 whose minds were abused by his misrepresentations, I felt 
 called upon at length to oppose error by proclaiming the 
 truth, and to neutralize misrepresentation by publishing 
 facts. I was thus forced into the arena, and was chal- 
 lenged by my opponent to meet him in public Discussion. 
 This, I declined at first, neither deeming myself qualified 
 for debate, nor thinking it the best way to defend and 
 exhibit truth. These challenges, however, were repeated and 
 renewed almost every week in his publications ; and the same 
 honour was extended to all other ministers. Still declining, my 
 antagonist often insinuated to his readers that a secret consci- 
 ousness of the unsound ness of our principles was the true cause 
 of our not accepting his challenges. Therefore, looking at the 
 fact that this insinuation was believed by thousands, and that 
 immense masses of immortal souls were being deceived and 
 ruined by his sophistry and perversions of Holy Scripture, I 
 at last resolved, in the name of David’s God, to meet the vaunt- 
 ing Goliah. A committee, formed of about twenty-five minis- 
 ters and Christian friends of high respectability, and connected 
 with the several Evangelical Denominations, gathered around 
 me, arrangements were made, and the Discussion followed. 
 
 Respecting the arrangements, I have to observe that almost 
 every advantage my opponent desired was conceded to him, in 
 order to preclude the possibility of his evading the contest. 
 
 1. The subject, “ What is a Christian V 9 was chosen by him- 
 self. This, and this alone, was accepted by me. 
 
 2. The time was fixed by himself to suit his own convenience. 
 
 8. The place was chosen by himself. 
 
 4. The time for each speaker was determined by Mr. Barker. 
 He did indeed at first desire the time to be undefined, and 
 
 i^o^yy 
 
iv 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 that cacli speaker should occupy a whole evening at once, 
 if he thought proper. To this my Committee strongly objected, 
 alleging that on such a principle ‘there could be nothing like dis- 
 cussion, and therefore it was proposed to Mr. Barker that each 
 disputant should, after the first evening, occupy alternately 20 
 minutes, or half an hour. But to this Mr. Barker resolutely 
 objected, and insisted either that the time should be undefined, 
 or, as the only concession he would make, the disputants should 
 at least be permitted to speak for one hour and a half at a time. 
 To this, therefore, I and my Committee consented. 
 
 5. The standard of appeal was agreed to, chiefly in compli- 
 ance with Mr. Barker’s wishes. I and my Committee desired 
 the received text to be the standard. To this, however, Mr. 
 Barker objected, and, therefore, to cut off all occasion for his 
 evading the discussion, it was proposed to extend the appeal to 
 the authorities prescribed in the terms of discussion. 
 
 From these facts, my readers will see that all my opponent’s 
 complaints about my introducing the incarnation ‘of the Savi- 
 our were unfounded, as that was necessarily implied in the ques- 
 tion we bad to discuss ; and that all my opponent’s quotations 
 from modern writers were totally in violation of the law, which 
 limited our quotations from the Fathers to the first three cen- 
 turies. But my chairman urged me to allow my opponent to 
 proceed, alleging that it would be impossible for him to con- 
 tinue the discussion, unless permitted to read those copious ex- 
 tracts, and that by allowing him to proceed in his own way, he 
 would the more fully unmask himself to the audience, and he 
 left without excuse. To this I submitted. 
 
 The reader will clearly perceive that my opponent came 
 expecting to introduce ten subjects; that is, for each disputant 
 to deliver a lecture on a separate topic each night. This would 
 have been an evasion of discussion, and an imposition upon the 
 public, and therefore I resisted it. The doctrines of human 
 depravity, eternal punishment, and the hired ministry, which 
 Mr. Barker foisted in to eke out his time, of course I had not 
 time to dwell upon in the discussion. My object was to devote, 
 special attention to establish the doctrines of the Incarnation, 
 the Trinity and Atonement, subjects abundantly sufficient for 
 ten nights. Other matters will be noticed in a separate 
 treatise, which the purchaser may bind with the Discussion. 
 
 The public will now see what Mr. Barker’s sentiments really 
 are, and deception can be practised no longer; and they will see, 
 too, the sophistry, the falsehoods, the perversions of Scripture, 
 and the denial of Scripture authority, which are necessary to 
 uphold his tottering system of delusion. 
 
 I desire to testify my personal obligations to my friend Mr. 
 Grant, for the important services he rendered as secretary to my 
 committee, and as my chairman in the Discussion. 
 
 W. COOKE. 
 
 November 15tii, 1845. 
 
REPORT OP THE PUBLIC MEETING, 
 
 HELD ON THE OCCASION OF PRESENTING 
 
 A TESTIMONIAL OF PUBLIC RESPECT 
 
 TO 
 
 THE KEY. ¥. COOKE, 
 
 FOR HIS DEFENCE OF EVANGELICAL TRUTH AGAINST MR. J. BARKER. 
 
 On Tuesday evening, tlie 21st October, 1845, a public tea- 
 party was held in the Music-hall, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for the 
 purpose of presenting a public testimonial to the Rev. W. Cooke, 
 as a token of the high sense entertained of the services he had. 
 rendered to the cause of evangelical truth, by his public discus- 
 sion held during ten nights with Mr. J. Barker. Long before 
 the time, the spacious room was completely filled, and to pre- 
 vent the confusion which vrould have arisen from an over-pres- 
 sure, it was intimated to the numerous assembly outside, that 
 arrangements were making for a second tea. This considerably 
 delayed the meeting, but it added to the gratification of num- 
 bers who would otherwise have been disappointed. 
 
 After tea, arrangements were made to afford additional accom- 
 modation to the crowded audience, and the platform was occu- 
 pied by the Revs. W. Cooke, G. Bell, G. Sample, II . Watts, 
 J. Pringle, J. Blackwood, W. Innocent, T. Banks, D. Adam, 
 W. Lister, D. C. Browning, J. B. Johnston, W Shim well, and 
 Messrs. J. Allen, J. Finlay, G. Hunter, J. B. Falconar, S. Frost, 
 R. Foreman, G. Charlton, J. Rewcastle, J. Muers. The Revs. 
 J. Hibbert, J. Dale and W. Fulton were also present. 
 
 After thanks had been rendered to God, it was moved by Mr. 
 J. B. Falconar, and seconded by Mr. S. Frost, that John Allen, 
 Esq. take the chair. The Rev. 1 1. Watts gave out a hymn, 
 and the Rev. G. Sample offered up an appropriate prayer, re- 
 plete with pious sentiment and feeling. The Chairman, on 
 opening the business of the meeting, observed : — Doubtless 
 many had looked forward to the late discussion with consider- 
 able anxiety, and I must confess that 1 also had my fears lest 
 the subtlety and sophistry of Mr Barker shoald obscure the 
 truth for a season ; but as the discussion proceeded, 1 had the 
 satisfaction to witness how futile wereliis efforts against the truth, 
 how feebie the defence of infidelity, even when put forth by one 
 of its most experienced advocates. On the other hand, we be- 
 held our esteemed friend, Mr. Cooke, conscious of the goodness 
 of his cause, ardent and sincere in his attachment to it; and his 
 arguments were like the path of the just, shining more and more 
 unto perfect day. He was clear and instructive in his statements, 
 cogent ifi his reasoning, and powerful in his appeals. My own 
 fears of the result soon gave way, and I felt unspeakable satis- 
 
 A 
 
2 
 
 faction in tlie consideration that the truth was impregnable, and 
 Christianity was secure— that its advocacy was in safe hands, 
 and God was supporting his servant in the contest. I felt, as I 
 imagine many others felt, greatly surprized that Mr. Barker 
 fell so far short of the expectations of his friends, and offered a de- 
 fence so feeble, so evasive, and, indeed, every way objectionable. 
 And I was surprised, too, that our excellent friend, Mr. Cooke, 
 should, in his first attempt at public discussion, prove himself 
 so eminently qualified to guard the sacred treasure of divine 
 truth. He brought to the arduous task ardent zeal, learning 
 sacred in its character, profound in its research; with eloquence 
 natural, forcible, and overpowering. These powers he employed 
 in the best and holiest of causes, and, aided and supported* by 
 God, his defence, w r as, as we wished it to be, completely triumph- 
 ant. (The chairman sat down amidst signs of enthusiastic ap- 
 probation.) 
 
 The Rev. James Pringle rose to move “ That while this 
 meeting-most readily acknowledges that diversity of opinion which 
 necessarily exists on minor points in religion, wherever the right 
 of private judgment is recognised, it refers with grateful satisfac- 
 tion to thatgrowing affection, and to that unanimity of sentiment 
 on the great and essential doctrines of Christianity, which distin- 
 guish various religious denominations; and views with sacred 
 pleasure the practical demonstration of these principles on this 
 very interesting occasion.” Mr. Pringle stated that the resolution 
 recognised at once the importance of private judgment, and the 
 necessity of union on essential doctrines, and he trusted all in 
 that meeting were alive to their importance, and prepared to 
 make a stand against any system that would place a yoke 
 around their necks. The Church of Rome had endeavoured to 
 do this, but her efforts had been successfully resisted. Chris- 
 tians ought to forget their shades of difference in the defence 
 and promotion of great principles. Be rejoiced to see a better 
 day approaching. He had the pleasure of meeting the respect- 
 ed individual to whom they had assembled to do honour, and to 
 co-operate with him in a meeting of ministers who had united 
 themselves upon the broad principles of the Gospel. They 
 discussed matters with candour and freedom, and never an 
 angry look passed between them. A collision of minds like 
 that of metals produced light and heat. He would refer also 
 with pleasure to the recent meeting at Liverpool, when ministers 
 and friends of not less than seventeen different denominations 
 assembled for three days to promote Christian union. Part of 
 the first day was spent in humble confession, after which 
 certain fundamental principles were proposed as the basisofunion. 
 Amongst the last words uttered by Wesley and Whitfield, were 
 expressions in favour of union. However different in their 
 opinions on some points, they spoke the same language when on 
 their knees with God, expressive of one faith and hopt% when 
 about to enter into the joy of their common Lord. When he 
 
3 
 
 considered the excellent services rendered to the cause of truth 
 by his excellent friend on the right hand of the chair, and the 
 able, efficient, and triumphant manner in which he had con- 
 ducted the discussion, he could not but rejoice. He very cor- 
 dially moved the resolution. (Loud applause.) 
 
 Mr. George Charlton seconded the resolution, and in a short, 
 pithy address, recommended union and love amongst all evan- 
 gelical denominations. (Applause.) 
 
 The Rev. J. Blackwood rose to move the second resolution, 
 “ That this meeting, fully satisfied of the Divinity of the Chris- 
 tian religion, and of the supreme importance of its principles, 
 rejoices to know that the truth has ever been more than con- 
 queror in its conflicts with error, and that some of the ablest 
 vindications of Christianity have been called forth to confront 
 and silence the cavils and objections of its enemies, rejoices in be- 
 ing assembled, on this occassion, to celebrate the late triumph of 
 truth, and to testify their gratitude to the Rev. W. Cooke for 
 his very able defence of Christianity, and exposure of infidel 
 sophistry, in his discussion with Mr. Barker, and desires his ac- 
 ceptance of this Case, containing the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 
 and Bagster’s Comprehensive Bible, as a testimonial of their high 
 personal regard and esteem, and of their sense of the service he has 
 rendered to the cause of religious truth.” Mr. Blackwood said he 
 was satisfied from the first that Mr. Cooke possessed all the in- 
 telligence, learning, tenacity of purpose, and singleness of mind 
 necessary to hold up and defend the banner of truth to the discom - 
 fiture of its enemies. Alludingto the subjects which had been dis- 
 cussed, he said that the Christian revelation was given from God, 
 and intended to lead men, through an Almighty Saviour, to a 
 state of eternal blessedness. He adverted to the heresies of an- 
 cient times, and stated that though religion might be opposed 
 by its enemies, it would, like the resistless stream of a mighty 
 river, throw down and overcome every barrier to its progress. 
 The great essentials of religion were to recognise the God of the 
 Bible, not one of our own imagination ; to trust in the Re- 
 deemer of the Bible, and not in one of our own imagination ; 
 and to realize in their own hearts the work of regeneration and 
 sanctification. If these great truths were taken out of the Bible 
 there would be nothing left to distinguish it from the writings 
 of uninspired men. Although God’s servants had trials, even 
 on earth they had a large amount of reward. He believed that 
 his friend Mr. Cooke felt a large measure of peace and joy even 
 during the discussion. (Mr. Cooke, I did.) The approbation 
 of God and the conviction of having discharged a public duty 
 was more than a reward for all his anxieties in going forth to the 
 field of battle. He cordially moved the resolution, and would 
 call upon the chairman, as the organ of the meeting, to discharge 
 the duty imposed upon him in beseeching Mr. Cooke to accept 
 the present before them. He trusted that when he looked upon 
 it, it would be the means of leading him more and more to God 
 
4 
 
 — a means not of exalting but humbling him — that in all things 
 he may aim at the glory of God — and that the testimonial may 
 go down to his children, and his children’s children for many 
 generations, as a testimony of public respect. 
 
 4 he Key. G. Bfll rose and said, he liked to be near his friend, 
 Mr. Cooke, and had kept close by his side every night during 
 the discussion, except once, when he had another engagement. 
 The late discussion had removed many objections from his mind 
 respecting such means of defending the truth. The system 
 which, for w T ant of a better name, he would call Barkerism — 
 (■disapprobation from one or two persons) — well, if that name 
 did not please he had no objection tu withdraw it, but, at the 
 same time, it was strange that any man should be ashamed of 
 his own system. Some called it Unitarianism, but there w 7 as a 
 great deal of which Unitarians w’ould be ashamed. It contained 
 such an amount of nonsense as it w^ould be difficult to find in 
 any other system. Solomon said in one place, “ Answer not a 
 fool according to his folly,” and again, he said, “ Answer a fool 
 according to his folly,” and it was sometimes difficult to know 
 on which rule to act. Several pamphlets had been published 
 against the system, but no discussion took place until Mr. 
 Cooke came to the tow 7 n, w ho knew 7 more of this non-descript 
 kind of thing than any other person ; for he had seen it pretty 
 near its birth, and understood its history all along, and he be- 
 lieved his comingto Newcastle at this juncture was ordained by 
 the Providence of God. He had seen the heresy make several 
 attempts to arrive at manhood, but it never got so far, and w T as 
 mot likely to do so now 7 . To show how little ground there w 7 as 
 for fear respecting discussion, he might say that he had preached 
 against the system, and written two pamphlets, and he had not lost 
 a single member old or young by this heresy. He would bear 
 testimony to the ability with which Mr. Cooke conducted the 
 discussion. 11 is defence of the truth was distinguished by deep 
 piety, by clear and comprehensive views of the Christian sys- 
 tem, by a profound knowledge of the original tongues, and by 
 glowingand heart stirring eloquence. He cordially seconded 
 the resolution, and united in calling upon the respected chairman 
 to present the testimonial. [Loud cheering.] 
 
 On the motion being carried, the chairman rose, and turning 
 to Mr. Cooke, said, — My dear friend, the Christian public 
 feeling greatly indebted to you for the excellent defence of our 
 common Christianity on a recent occasion, have determined on 
 presenting you wdth this beautiful Case and the excellent works 
 it contains. In the name of the subscribers and this respect- 
 able assembly, I have to express their best wishes and prayers 
 for your prolonged health and continued usefulness. May you 
 continue to adorn the heavenly truth, and while you feel in your 
 own mind that you have acted as a minister set for the defence 
 of the Gospel, you have at the same time the grateful approbation, 
 of the Christian churches. May this Case long ornament your 
 
5 
 
 house, and its contents be found useful in your studies ; and 
 may your dear children long hereafter hare the pleasure and 
 satisfaction to remember that it was presented to their Father 
 as a token of the gratitude and admiration of the Christian 
 public for his noble defence of Christianity! [Much applause. J 
 
 [The Case has the following inscription engraved on a plate 
 inserted above the architrave •“ This case, containing the 
 Encyclopaedia Brittanica, and Bagster’s Comprehensive Bible 
 was presented by the Christian public to the Rev. W. Cooke, as 
 a testimonial of the high sense they entertain of his very able 
 and triumphant defence of the doctrines of Evangelical Truth* 
 in a public discussion with Mr. Jos. Barker, held in the Lecture 
 Room, Newcastle upon Tyne, August, 1845, on the question 
 4 What is a Christian V ”~] 
 
 Mr. Cooke, on being called upon, arose, and was received with 
 repeated demonstrations of approval. Silence being at length 
 obtained, he addressed the meeting to the following effect * 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Christian Friends, — My feelings on 
 this interesting occasion may be more easily imagined than de - 
 scribed. I am not indifferent to the opinions of the wise and 
 the good. Next, indeed, to the approbation of God and my 
 conscience, do I value the love and esteem of God’s people, but 
 such an estimate of my humble services in the cause of truth, 
 I did not presume to anticipate, and such a manifestation of 
 public favour almost overwhelms me. Sincerely and gratefully 
 do I thank the Christian public for this visible proof of their 
 regard, and especially for the principles which gave it birth ; and 
 though your estimate ot my services far surpasses their desert, 
 I have the assurance that its present manifestation is as sincere 
 and spontaneous as it was unexpected by me ; and expressing, 
 as it does, the honest and generous feelings of all denomina- 
 tions, I cannot but regard it witii the highest satisfaction and 
 gratitude. Before, I had a spark of love to all the followers of 
 Christ, but I feel that you have made me a greater debtor to the 
 truth and the whole church of God. Before, I had vowed on 
 the altar of the cross eternal enmity to the green-eyed monster 
 bigotry, and sectarian jealousy, but I am this night called upon, 
 to reiterate my vows and sharpen my weapons with renewed 
 determination and energy. I feel I am required to be more 
 deeply baptised with catholicity of spirit and love to all the 
 high and holy principles which distinguish and honour our 
 common Christianity. 
 
 You are pleased to congratulate me upon the issue of my 
 late conflict in behalf of the truth of God; I thank you for 
 your congratulations, and would unite with you in the most 
 ardent and devout thanksgiving to that God, whose right 
 hand and holy arm hath gotten him the victory. Not unto us 
 
 * The speech in some parts was abridged in delivery; neither the time 
 nor the physical strength of the speaker, at that period, enabling him to ut- 
 ter all he had contemplated.” 
 
 a2 
 
6 
 
 — not unto us, but unto thy name, 0 Lord, we give the 
 glory. 
 
 It would not be true to assert, that 1 did not feel my late 
 conflict in the cause of truth, both an anxious and an arduous 
 undertaking. The struggle- was a protracted one, embracing 
 subjects of the highest moment ; and the immense importance 
 of its issue deeply impressed me with a consciousness of my 
 peculiar responsibilities. But my mind was graciously sustain- 
 ed both before and during the contest. Thank God, I had no 
 faltering in my convictions, and no coldness or indifference in 
 my estimate of Gospel truth. I had a deep and thorough con- 
 viction of the eternal truth and vital importance of the doc- 
 trines I advocated, and my affection for them enkindled 
 an interest in them. I was supported, too, by an upright 
 consciousness that I was called to the defence of the truth, 
 and that I was honestly endeavouring to glorify God in 
 the struggle. I knew, too, that I had the sympathies, the af- 
 fections, and the believing prayers of a multitude who have 
 interest in heaven. Hence 1 was raised superior to the fear of 
 man ; was nerved with strength adequate to the day, and left 
 the held unscathed, more in love with the truth audits glorious 
 Author. My ground never gave way under me. I felt every 
 step that I was treading upon a rock of adamant. I thank God 
 for the conflict, as well as for its issue. It has done me good per- 
 sonally. It has shown me more clearly than ever, the weak- 
 ness of error, and the omnipotence of truth. It has shown the 
 Christian public, too, that the system I opposed has no foundation 
 in scripture or reason — that it is propped only by sophistry, 
 by dishonest evasion, by ignorance of the word of God, or op- 
 position to its plainest teachings. It was infidelity in disguise, 
 hut now the mask is torn off, and the Christian public will see 
 it only to loathe it and turn from it in sickening disgust. 
 
 There are two aspects which this meeting hears, and they are 
 of the highest interest to us all, namely, the demonstration it af- 
 fords of Christian affection amongst Christians of all denomi- 
 nations, and the demonstration it presents of high, ardent, un- 
 compromising- love to the truth. We have here Christian 
 ministers and friends representing all the various denominations 
 in this town and neighbourhood, assembled in harmony and 
 love — in holy congratulation and unostentatious joy. The 
 voice of discord is silent, the strife of words interrupts not this 
 peaceable, this consecrated hour. We feel that we are brethren, 
 and have a common interest in the truth. The assaults of the 
 enemy have urged us closer to each others embrace — and the 
 multitude of them that believe are of one heart and 
 one soul. I hope this feeling will grow. It is growing, 
 and every thing in the aspect of the times, and in the move- 
 ments of Providence is promoting its growth. Clearer views 
 of truth and duty are dispelling our differences in sentiment, 
 and the active opposition of our foes is driving us to united 
 
7 
 
 prayer, to brotherly council and co-operation. Tire recent meet- 
 ing in Liverpool has been alluded to. I rejoice in that event ; 
 it will facilitate and hasten the day which every enlightened 
 Christian must long to see: — The blending of holy affections, 
 the removing of trivial distinctions, the dissolving of the cold 
 ice- walls of bigotry, and the amalgamation of Christian bodies. 
 The dawn of this day has appeared ; and its noontide must 
 certainly follow. Christians must unite. It requires no mira- 
 culous inspiration to predict that within seven years the num- 
 ber of Methodist denominations must be diminished by amal- 
 gamation, and that other communities approaching so nearly in 
 sentiment, must, ere long, be identical in name. The prayer 
 of the Saviour pleads for it ; the voice of Providence calls for 
 it ; the powerful opposition of our foes requires it ; and a higher 
 temperature of Christian love shall accomplish it. Let us de- 
 voutly pray for its glorious consummation. 
 
 The other feature which stands prominent in this assembly, 
 is a powerful demonstration of our love for the truth. I greatly 
 rejoice in this, for affection however ardent, without being based 
 on this principle, is merely animal excitement, spurious, evan- 
 escent, fitful, and illusive, as the inconstant gleam of the ignis 
 fatuus — leading men only through the mazes of error to destruc- 
 tion. Separate love from the truth and it loses its divine character 
 — it is henceforth passion, not principle ; enthusiasm, not a fruit 
 of the Spirit ; God cannot sanction indifference to religious 
 truth, however bland its smiles, and however liberal its pre- 
 tensions. 
 
 That stanza of the poet has been hackneyed to loathing in 
 these modern days of latitudinarianism — 
 
 “ For modes of faith let senseless bigots fight; 
 
 His can’t be wrong whose life is in the right.” 
 
 But that stanza, whatever its gifted author might intend, is as 
 false in principle as pernicious in its influence. It assumes that 
 the differences betwixt truth and error are only speculative — 
 that for practical purposes, superstition is as good as sound doc- 
 trine, scepticism is as good as Christian confidence, and there- 
 fore to contend earnestly for the faith, is only an idle waste of 
 words, or an ebullition of bigotry and religious rancour, and to 
 die for it is only a foolish and prodigal waste of life ! 
 
 But if this be true, why has God condescended to give to 
 man a written revelation of his will, and a system of religious 
 truth ? Why has he made man responsible for his belief in 
 the truth, and caused his eternal destiny to hinge upon his 
 faith \ 
 
 Error a matter of indifference ! — the whole history of man con- 
 tradicts this notion. It is the difference betwixt truth and 
 error which constitutes the difference betwixt the pure and 
 Heaven-Lorn system of Christianity, and ail the monstrous 
 systems of delusion which becloud the understanding, or cor- 
 
8 
 
 rupt the heart of man — which deny the existence, or obscure 
 the glory of the Eternal God. It was departure from the truth 
 —it was the changing of God’s truth into a lie which con- 
 verted the patriarchal religion into ^paganism, and the pure 
 spritual worship of God into monstrous forms of demon and 
 idol worship — until the world itself became an immense pan- 
 theon, crowded with hideous deities, the patrons of every vice, 
 the exemplars of every crime. It was the compromise, of truth 
 which changed the Jewish religion into an assimilation with 
 heathen abominations — which defiled the Holy Land with the 
 altars of Baal, the groves of Ashtaroth, and the fires of Moloch. 
 It was the compromise of truth in accommodation to the pre- 
 vailing philosophy which introduced the Gnostic heresies into 
 the Christian system, and gradually changed the temple of God 
 into the mystic Babylon. It was the compromise of truth 
 which originated the blasphemies and impurities of the Maho- 
 metan imposture, and every system of anti-Christian delusion 
 and impiety prevailing in the world. 
 
 The truth is important and essential to human salvation. Just 
 in proportion as men recede from Divine truth, they depart 
 from God, from holiness, from virtue, from sound morality, and 
 from the blessings of the covenant of grace. Christian graces 
 cannot grow on heathen principles, nor can gospel blessings be 
 associated with the spirit of scepticism and proud infidelity. The 
 truth is the instrument of salvation. If men are made 
 free, it is by the truth. If they are sanctified, it is by 
 the truth — the truth of God — and faith in that truth is 
 the condition of man’s present and eternal salvation. 
 Hence, the truth has ever been the object of the arch-fiend’s 
 malignity and hatred, and it has ever been his endeavour 
 to resist and prevent its influence — either to extirpate it 
 by violence, or corrupt it by fraud. This, I say, has ever been 
 the object of the foul tempter ; from the first lie he uttered to 
 man in paradise, when he contradicted God, and said, “ Ye 
 shall not surely die,” down to the present day ; and his success 
 in destroying the souls of men has been just in proportion to 
 his success in deceiving them. — All the religious falsehood and 
 imposture in the world, is the produce of Satan’s attempt to 
 supplant the truth of God in the heart of man. The Koran of 
 Mahomet, the Zendevesta of the Persian, the Shasters of the 
 Indian, the dogmas of Confucius, the mythology of the savage, 
 and the infidel philosophy of the sage, are all either his counter- 
 feits of the truth, or his substitutes for it. Lying prophets, 
 lying oracles, lying doctrines, and lying wonders, are so many 
 substitutes for the pure, holy, saving truth of God— so many 
 means by which the arch fiend endeavours to beguile the souls of 
 men, and lead them astray from God and from happiness. 
 Whether he can debase the intellect of man by the most abject 
 superstition, or whether he can elate man into a fancied demi- 
 god by the speculations of infidel philosophy, he cares not ; if 
 
9 
 
 he can either keep the truth from man’s heart by superstition, 
 or expel it from his heart by infidelity, his malignant object is 
 gained, his fatal intentions are accomplished. 
 
 The truth, therefore, is not only important, but infinitely im- 
 portant, nothing on earth is equally important. I rejoice 
 therefore that this meeting presents such a noble and glorious 
 demonstration of its uncompromising adherence to religiou s 
 truth. We do not come here with the hasty and hypocritical 
 'enquiry of Pilate on our tongue, “ What is truth?” An en- 
 quiry uttered by his faltering lips, while his treacherous heart 
 was meditating the surrender of the innocent and holy Redeem- 
 er to his betrayers and murderers. We do not come here 
 merely as “ Truth seekers”— an ominous appellation, in which 
 some glory to their shame. “ Truth seekers -What, has 
 Christianity been on the earth for 1800 years, and is its light 
 yet so feeble, and its evidence so equivocal, that it is a mark of 
 wisdom to be sceptical and uncertain whether it be true or 
 false? Thank God, we have been better taught. We know 
 that Christianity is true — we have not that problem to solve. 
 With an emphasis and satisfaction that knows no doubt, we 
 can exclaim with Archimedes, Eap^fca, BvprjKa, I have found it, 
 I have found it. We know that the Bible is divinely and in- 
 fallibly inspired. We have not that truth to seek, whatever 
 some would-be philosophers may profess. We know that the 
 Trinity is a doctrine of Holy Scripture, that Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost constitute the Christian’s God, in whose name he 
 is baptized— -his covenant God— -the object of his confidence, 
 love, and adoration. We have not this truth now to seek. 
 We know that the Lord of life and glory became incarnate, and 
 died an atoning sacrifice for sin. We have not these truths to 
 seek — we should be ashamed if we had. These and other great 
 truths are so plainly revealed, so explicitly taught— that we all 
 believe them; and so vitally important, that we regard them as 
 essential to salvation. Such, indeed, are our views of their sub- 
 lime and infinite importance, that we can hold fellowship with 
 none who reject them, and deem it no breach of charity to say, 
 66 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, re- 
 ceive him not into your house— neither bid him God speed — 
 for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” 
 
 Since, then, we have the sacred treasure of truth committed to 
 us, we are required to hold it fast. Some ages of the church 
 have been distinguished by the revelation of truth; for example, 
 the ages of prophets and apostles ; and others for the revival of 
 truth, as the ages of the illustrious Reformers. But this age is 
 distinguished by a loud and solemn call from Providence to 
 preserve the truth, and transmit it unimpaired to posterity. By 
 miracle the truth was given, but by ordinary means the sacred 
 deposit is to be preserved — by the same decision — the same vigi- 
 lance, the same fidelity and determination, as that by which we 
 secure our own salvation, are we to keep the mystery of the 
 
 a 3 
 
10 
 
 faith, and hold fast the holy doctrines of Christ and his 
 Apostles. 
 
 Never was there an age when these virtues were more in 
 requisition than in the present day. The enemy of 
 the cross has assumed new tactics m the conflict. His 
 malignity is as virulent as ever, and his hostility to the 
 truth unabated, but he has adopted a milder form of assault. 
 Ages back he tried the sword, the axe, the dungeon, the inqui- 
 sition, the rack, the fire — arid myriads of saints poured forth 
 their blood for the truth — but the arch-fiend found that the 
 blood of the saints became the seed of the church, and fierce 
 persecutions were the means of its most extensive and tri- 
 umphant propagation. Now, the sword of persecution slumbers 
 in its scabbard, and the sceptre of religious liberty is extended 
 to protect our persons and our property; but never was the 
 enemy more active in the propagation of error, or in his 
 attempts to undermine the foundations of our holy religion. 
 
 We have popery undisguised— lavishing her millions in the 
 erection of churches, cathedrals, colleges, and monasteries — and 
 compassing sea and land to multiply obsequious proselytes to 
 her spurious creed. We have popery again, under the name of 
 Pusevism, rising up within the very pale of the established 
 church, repudiating the doctrines of the reformation, calumni- 
 ating its martyrs, and sighing for the restoration of relics, wax 
 tapers, crucifixes, and the exploded formalism and superstitious 
 dogmas of the dark ages. 
 
 Again, we have infidelity, open and avowed, stalking forth 
 ■with unblushing hardihood, and in the open face of day show- 
 ing its foul and demoralizing character, and by the agency of 
 the press, and public lectures, diffusing a moral poison through 
 society — and again, we have infidelity disguised under the mask 
 of a reformed Christianity, employing the same agency and 
 aiming at the same objects. Though the theory of Mr. Barker, and 
 Robert Owen, and Taylor, and Paine, and Voltaire differ in 
 name, and in some of their minor details, they are essentially 
 one in their nature. They are all equally enemies to the Bible 
 and to Christianity. Employing the most artful and insinuating 
 address, and affecting the most benevolent and disinterested 
 regard for human happiness, they are each actuated by the 
 same hatred to the truth, and are equally aiming to destroy the 
 foundations of our faith. 
 
 We are not now to be beguiled by the specious name of 
 “ Evangelical Reform.” We now understand its true import. 
 It means “ to Reform the Gospel” — it means “ to effect an im- 
 provement upon the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures.” It means 
 to take the scissors and cut away portions of Matthew, and Luke, 
 and form the rest of the New Testament to their own liking. It 
 is just such a reform as that of the notorious Marcion — to reform 
 our creed in accommodation to infidel philosophy, by altering 
 the Gospels and denying the authority of the Apostles. The 
 
11 
 
 proper name for this reform is “ Evangelical Destruction” A 
 church may need improving and reforming, but when a man has 
 the effrontery to tell us that he seeks to reform the doctrines 
 of the Bible — to reform the Apostles as well as ourselves, we 
 must be able to understand him. When he tells us that God 
 did not know that Jesus would be the Messiah — that Christ 
 was not born in fulfilment of any prophecy-— that God did not 
 know whether he would be the Saviour or a profligate — “ a 
 pious young man” or an infidel. When he tells us that 
 inspiration is “common sense”— that “the Bible is a two- 
 mouthed guide, and a double-tongued director, leading men 
 contrary ways.” When he tells us plainly that “neither 
 Apostles nor prophets have authority to rule either our 
 faith or our consciences” — and that the writings of the 
 sceptic Joseph Priestley, and the licentious Koran of Mahomet, 
 and the dogmas of Confucius the heathen, are infallible guides 
 in the same sense as the Bible — I say, when a man tells us these 
 things, we must be dull if we did not understand him, and we 
 must be disloyal to Christ if we did not loathe his doctrine as a 
 moral pestilence — and we must be wanting in our duty to 
 society if we did not employ every means in our power to neu- 
 tralize its malignant influence, and sweep it from the earth. 
 
 These professions, however, of the pseudo-reformer — these 
 open disavowals of the authority of Scripture are important — 
 for they furnish the most unequivocal proof that his theory is 
 unsound , because it is unscriptural ; and they utter the plainest 
 confession that our doctrines are so firmly based upon the word 
 of God, that there is no way to undermine them but by sap- 
 ping the foundation on which they rest— the authority of the 
 Holy Scriptures. It is now published as with a sunbeam- -it 
 is now proclaimed as upon the house top, that if Bavkerism must 
 stand, the authority of the Bible must fall! If the Scriptures 
 maintain their place, the doctrines of orthodoxy are secure and 
 immovable ! The doctrines of orthodoxy, it is now admitted by 
 Barker himself are the doctrines of the Bible ; and his assaults 
 against them are just so many wicked and diabolical attempts 
 to invalidate the testimony of heaven— to obscure and extin- 
 guish the light of that revelation which God has given to man. 
 
 Sometimes the church has required reforms, and God has 
 raised up reformers, but they all present a perfect contrast to 
 this pseudo-reformer, and the corrupt dogmas he sacks to esta- 
 blish. 
 
 All other reformers — I mean those who were real reform- 
 ers of existing abuses— began their reforms by honouring the 
 scriptures— by appealing to the Scriptures— and based their 
 reforms upon the Scriptures. Mr. Barker’s reforms include a re- 
 jection of the Scriptures as well as their doctrines. A denial 
 of scriptural authority, and an abuse of the Scriptures are 
 essential parts of his system. They are a part of his so-called 
 reformation, for his reforms extend to the doctrines and prac- 
 tices of the apostles, as well as ourselves. 
 
12 
 
 Let us just compare the principles of some of the real reform- 
 ers, with the principles of Barkerian reform. 
 
 Josiali was a reformer. The kingdom of Judah had degene- 
 rated into idolatry, and become deeply corrupt— -and Josiali 
 introduced a great and glorious reformation— and how did he 
 accomplish this. Was it by Mr. Barker’s method— -by abus* 
 ing the Holy Scriptures, or setting reason above them ? No, 
 when the Book of the law of God was found in the temple, 
 he heard it read ; he rent his clothes in penitential grief and 
 anguish, and then he had its sacred contents read before all the 
 people, and all his reforms were based upon its infallible teach- 
 ings and requirements. 2 Kings xxiii. Wliat a contrast to the 
 Barkerian reform ! 
 
 Ezra was a Reformer of abuses, but all his reforms were 
 coupled with a deep and solemn reverence for the supreme and 
 infallible authority of Holy Scripture, and the doctrines, 
 manners, and worship of the people were remodelled in exact 
 conformity to the requirements of God’s word. Nehemiah, 
 viii. ix. It is also to be remarked that these holy reformers 
 practised no duplicity, no guile, no concealment— made no false 
 professions. They were open, ingenious, sincere, pious ; and 
 instead of calling the Scriptures bad names, they led the people 
 back to their sacred pages ; and the greatest, reform they accom- 
 plished was to inspire the people with the highest confidence in 
 their infallible truths, and submission to all their divine precepts. 
 The same spirit of sincerity, truthfulness, and respect for -Holy 
 Scripture, have characterized all true reformers raised up by 
 God, and owned by his blessing. This indeed is the test by 
 which the true servants of God have always been distin- 
 guished from false prophets and deceivers. ' “ To the law 
 and to the testimony ; if they speak not according to this word, 
 it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah viii. 20. 
 
 Wycliffe was a reformer in the 18th century. Did he vilify 
 the Scriptures, and endeavour to sink their credit amongst men? 
 No, — he revered the Scriptures. He assailed the corruptions of 
 the church, hut like Ezra and Josiali, he based his reforms up- 
 on Holy Scripture, and laboured to bring men back to the 
 word of God. The crowning act of his reforming efforts was to 
 give the Bible to the people — to translate it into the vulgar 
 tongue, that the nation might read and revere the word of God. 
 Dr. Lingard observes, “ Be made a new translation, multiplied 
 the copies with the aid of transcribers, and by his poor priests 
 recommended it to the perusal of their hearers. In their hands 
 it became an engine of wonderful power. A spirit of enquiry 
 was generated ; and the seeds were sown of that religious revo- 
 lution, which in little more than a century astonished and con- 
 vulsed the nations of Europe.” What a contrast to the self- 
 styled reformer, who calls the Bible “a two-mouthed guide, and 
 a double-tongued director!” 
 
 Luther was a reformer, but he also presents a perfect contrast 
 
13 
 
 to the author of what is falsely called 44 Evangelical Re- 
 form . 55 Did Luther begin his reform by exalting human merit? 
 No, —he saw that monstrous error was the origin of indul- 
 gences, of priestly power, of trafficking in human souls, and of 
 the licentiousness and profligacy of the dark ages. Luther’s 
 first lesson was to learn his own depravity, helplessness, and 
 guilt. Was his next step to degrade the Saviour to a level 
 with himself, or to a mere teacher of religion ? No, but to trust 
 -in his precious death as an atonement for sin — to rely upon him 
 as his Almighty Saviour — as God as well as man. Salvation by 
 faith in the atoning Lamb — in the incarnate God, was the con- 
 stant theme of Luther, and he held it forth as the 44 Articulm 
 stantis vel cadcntis ecclesice ” — that article which is the mark of 
 distinction between a standing and a falling church. It was 
 the revival of this doctrine — this very doctrine Mr. Barker 
 discards, which was the grand engine of the reformation. It 
 was the revival of this cardinal truth which proved a resurrec- 
 tion, to the church of God— a resurrection of experimental 
 piety, of genuine heart-felt holiness, when a multitude of new- 
 born spirits, rose up like the army in Ezekiel’s vision— -wit- 
 nesses of the truth and power of saving religion. 
 
 But did Luther, like Mr. Barker, vilify the Scriptures, and set 
 up reformer of prophets and apostles as well as cardinals and 
 popes'? — Oh, no: he revered the book of God, maintained its in- 
 fallible inspiration and supreme authority, and based all his 
 reforms upon its testimony. It was the discovery of the Scrip- 
 tures in a library that led Luther to Christ, and it was the gift of 
 the Bible to the German nation that accelerated and completed 
 the reformation. The reformer, in stating his own experience 
 observes, 44 When, by the Spirit of God, I understood these 
 words (the righteousness of God) ; when I learned how 
 the justification of the sinner proceeds from the Lord’s 
 mercy, through the medium of faith, then I felt myself 
 born again, like a new man ; then the gates were thrown 
 open, and I entered into the very paradise of God. From 
 that time, too, I saw dear Holy Scripture with eyes alto- 
 gether new. I went through the whole Bible, and collected 
 a, great many passages which taught me in what the work of 
 God consisted. And, whereas, before that, I most cordially 
 hated that expression, righteousness of God, I began, thence- 
 forth, to appreciate it, and love it as the sweetest and most 
 consolatory. Truly those words of Paul were to me the very 
 gate of paradise.” 
 
 The same veneration and love for Holy Scripture distin- 
 guished Melancthon, the learned co-adjutor of Luther in the 
 work of the reformation. 44 The Scripture,” Melancthon would 
 say, 44 slakes the thirst of the soul with a holy and marvellous 
 deliciousness ; nay, it is a celestial ambrosia. There only is the 
 true food of the soul to be found.” 44 The word of God,” Lu- 
 ther would exclaim , 44 is a sword, a war, a destruction ; it springs 
 
14 
 
 upon the children of Ephraim like a lioness in the forest.” The 
 high sense they entertained for the authority of the Bible, led 
 these gifted and devoted men to unite in translating it for the 
 people, and the two friends spent many an hour together in the 
 study and translation of the inspired word. Often would they 
 stop in their laborious researches to give vent to their admira- 
 tion. “ Reason thinks,” Luther would say, “ Oh, that I but 
 once could comprehend God ! For that I would run to the 
 end of the world. Listen, 0 man, my brother, God, the creator 
 of the heavens and the earth addresses thee.” 
 
 It was the neglect of the Scriptures which had brought on thQ 
 night of fearful darkness, which had rested for ages on the hemis- 
 phere of Europe. It was the neglect of the Scriptures which had 
 fostered the corruptions which everywhere prevailed; it was the 
 restoration of the Bible to its place in the confidence and esteem 
 of men, which dispelled that darkness, and swept away those 
 corruptions. D’Aubigne, the talented biographer of Luther, 
 remarks on the translation of the Scriptures, “ That trans- 
 lation promoted the spread of Christian piety more than all 
 the other writings of Luther. It put the great work of the 
 sixteenth century upon a foundation where nothing could 
 shake it. The Bible on being given to the people, brought 
 back the human mind, which had been wandering for 
 ages in the tortuous paths of the scholastic philosophy, to the 
 divine source of salvation. From the scriptures and from faith, 
 two sources, which are essentially but one, evangelical life has 
 flowed from the first, and is still diffusing itself in the world. 
 These two principles were opposed to two fundamental errors ; 
 faith to the Pelagian tendency of Catholicism : scripture to the 
 theory of tradition, and the authority of Rome. Scripture led 
 to faith, and faith led back to the scripture. c Man can do no 
 meritorious work ; the free grace of God which he receives by 
 faith in Christ, alone saves him.’ Such was the doctrine pro- 
 claimed in Christendom; but it was a doctrine which was sure 
 to direct Christendom to the scriptures. Accordingly, as the 
 word of the Bible had urged Luther’s contemporaries towards 
 Jesus Christ, the love which they bore to Jesus Christ, urged 
 them, in turn, to the Bible. It was not, as is supposed in our 
 days, a philosophical principle, in consequence of a doubt, or of 
 desire for inquiry, that they went back to scripture, but because 
 there they found the Word of him whom they loved. “ You 
 have proclaimed to us Jesus Christ,” they would say, “ let us 
 now hear himself;” and with this feeling they threw themselves 
 on the sheets that were handed to them, as they would have 
 done had a letter come to them from heaven.” Thus that doc- 
 trine which Mr. Barker denounces as an “ infernal delusion,” was 
 the very doctrine which exploded the formalism of popery, and 
 restored vital religion to the church ; and those very scriptures 
 which Mr. Barker denounces and declares have no “ authority to 
 rule either our faith or our consciences,” were the only autho- 
 
15 
 
 rity the Reformers acknowledged, the only foundation on which 
 they rested. They needed no other — the Word of God was suffi- 
 cient — and when men reject its authority, whatever may be their 
 pretensions, they are to be ranked, not with reformers and bene- 
 factors, but with enemies to the truth, corrupters and destroyers 
 of men’s souls. 
 
 Zwingii was a reformer contemporaneous with Luther, and 
 like him he venerated and loved the Holy Scriptures, and drew 
 from them the same holy and soul-saving doctrines, and God 
 blessed his labours with similar success. Unlike the frigid and 
 anti-scriptural doctrine of Mr. Barker, the reformer of Switzerland 
 lifted up his voice and proclaimed 44 Christ, true God and true 
 man, has acquired for us a redemption which will never end.” 
 44 Wherever sin exists,” exclaimed the reformer, 44 it is neces- 
 sary there should be death. Christ had no sin, neither was 
 there any guile found in his mouth; and yet he died ! Ah ! to 
 this death he submitted in our place. He desired to die in order 
 that thus he might restore us to life : and as he had no sins of 
 his own, the Father, who is rich in mercy, transferred 
 our sins upon him.” While the atonement and justi- 
 fication by faith stand thus prominent in his ministry, his 
 reverence for the Holy Scriptures, and his confidence in their 
 inspiration and supreme authority were ecjuahy manifest. He 
 copied the Epistles with his own hand, and afterwards commit- 
 ted to heart the whole of the New Testament, and portions of 
 the old. His biographer observes, 44 Thus did his heart attach 
 itself more and more to the supreme authority of the word of 
 God; and this authority he was not content with acknowledg- 
 ing ; he desired further that his life should become truly sub- 
 ject to it.” What a contrast again to the Barkerian reform, 
 which first reduces inspiration to 44 common sense,” then 
 denounces the Bible with the opprobrious epithet of 45 a two- 
 mouthed guide, and double-tongued director,” and finally 
 classes its authority with the writings of Mahomet, Confucius, 
 and Priestley. This is surely a wonderful method of reforming 
 the church of God. It is a reform which would take the 
 church back from Christianity to infidelity. 
 
 England was blest with a race of illustrious reformers at the 
 same period. Our Ridleys, our Latimers, our Rogers, our 
 Hoopers, our Taylors, our Bradfords, and a host of pious men 
 were raised up in the sixteenth century to expose the errors of 
 popery, to revive and defend evangelical truth by their writings, 
 and finally to seal that truth with their blood. These, like 
 their brethrenof Germany, are as unlike Mr. Barker in theirsenti- 
 ments as the bright hour of noon is unlike the darkness of 
 midnight. There is with them no degrading of the Saviour, 
 no denouncing of the atonement, no proclamation of human 
 merit, no disparaging of the Holy Scriptures. It is impos- 
 sible for any sentiments to be more opposed to each other 
 than their doctrines are to the chaos of error, of nonsense 
 
16 
 
 and blasphemy, called Barkerism. They cheerfully poured 
 forth their blood in attestation of their abhorrence of human 
 merit, and in proof of their confidence in the doctrine of 
 justification by simple faith in the death of Christ alone, 
 and their regard for the supreme authority of the Holy 
 Scriptures ; and the principles they avowed in active life, sup- 
 ported them in reproach, in bondage, and when expiring at the 
 stake. 
 
 The noble sentiments of Rowland Taylor, which he left as a 
 legacy to his parishioners just before he suffered martyrdom, 
 express the sentiments of the reformers generally, “ I say to 
 my dear friends in Hadleigh, and to all others that have heard - 
 me preach, that i depart with a quiet conscience, as touching 
 my doctrine ; for the which I pray you thank God with me. 
 For 1 have after my little talent declared to others, those 
 lessons that I gathered out of GOD’S BOOK, THE BLESSED 
 BIBLE. Therefore, if I or an angel from heaven should 
 preach to you any other Gospel than that ye have received, 
 God’s great curse upon that preacher. Beware, for God’s sake, 
 that ye deny not God nor decline from the word of faith, lest 
 God decline from you, and so do ye everlastingly perish. For 
 God’s sake beware of popery, for though it appear to have in 
 it unity, yet the same is vanity and anti-christianity, and not in 
 Christ’s faith and verity. Beware of the sin against the Holy 
 Ghost, now after such a light opened so plainly and simply, truly, 
 thorough] y, and generally to all England. The Lord grant all men 
 his good and holy Spirit, increase of his wisdom, contemning the 
 wicked world, hearty desire to be with God and the heavenly 
 company, through Jesus Christ, our only MEDIATOR, AD- 
 VOCATE, RIGHTEOUSNESS, LIFE, SANCTIFICA- 
 TION, and HOPE. Amen, Amen. Pray, pray.” 
 
 In these noble sentiments we see that deference to the autho- 
 rity of scripture, that recognition of our Lord’s divinity, and 
 sacrificial death — that renunciation of human merit, and that 
 entire dependence upon Christ alone for salvation which distin- 
 guished ail the reformers, and which enter into the very essence of 
 evangelical truth and experimental religion, in every age of 
 the world. In the presence of these hallowed sentiments and 
 soul-saving doctrines, the maudling theology of Mr. Barker, and 
 his contempt of the scriptures, can merit nothing from us but 
 abhorrence and execration. 
 
 John Knox, of Scotland, was a reformer, but, like his godly 
 compeers, his labours were directed to the revival of the same 
 evangelical truths, and he based all his doctrines upon the word 
 of eternal truth. 
 
 At a later age, the church was blest with reformers in 
 the puritan divines. But their reforms were directed chiefly 
 to matters of ecclesiastical discipline, and the removal of 
 some remains of popery from the church of God.. These 
 worthies never thought of repudiating the divinity of 
 
17 
 
 Christ, the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, the atonement, justifying 
 faith, or the doctrine of human depravity. On the contrary, 
 these are the doctrines which stand prominent in their writings. 
 They never thought of denouncing the supreme authority of 
 Holy Scripture, and putting the erring and contradictory deci- 
 sions of human reason in their place. The writings of Owen, 
 Howe, Baxter, Aileine, Bunyan, Charnock, and a host of wor- 
 thies in that age, are rich with evangelical sentiment, and mighty 
 in their appeals to the infallible and everlasting word. The 
 doctrines at which Mr. Barker profanely sneers were the great 
 themes of their eloquence, and that divine authority he con- 
 temns was the great tower of their strength. 
 
 Wesley was a reformer, or a reviver of great truths which had 
 become generally neglected or forgotten in our country. The 
 spirit of apathy rested upon the churches, and religion had de- 
 generated into lifeless forms and ceremonies, and God raised up 
 Wesley to originate a revival of religion, and a new era of ac- 
 tivity and zeal. How did Wesley promote his reform ? Was 
 it by preaching up Mr. Barker’s doctrine of human merit, by 
 degrading the Saviour, denouncing the Trinity, the atone- 
 ment, the great doctrine of justification by faith, and by 
 declaring the scriptures to be a two-mouthed guide and a 
 double-tongued director, leading men contrary ways? Look 
 at his sainted life, his remarkable history, his voluminous 
 writings. What a singular contrast to the principles of Mr. 
 Barker’s pseudo— Evangelical Reform. All Wesley’s personal 
 happiness in religion, and ail his public usefulness, arose from 
 his belief in those very doctrines which Mr Barker hates and 
 rejects. Wesley knew not the joys of pardon, until he cast 
 away all his self-righteousness, and rested by faith in the atoning 
 Lamb ; and the world derived no benefit from his ministry 
 until he proclaimed salvation by faith in the precious blood of 
 Christ. Before this he was not wanting in zeal, for he gave 
 himself up to be a missionary and crossed the Atlantic Ocean to 
 preach to the Indians, yet he laboured comparatively in vain. 
 But when Wesley learned from Peter Bohler the scriptural 
 plan of salvation — “the sinner’s short way of coining to God,” he 
 became a new man, and he felt the powers of the world to come, 
 tie then knew that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all 
 sin ; new principles began to operate in his heart, new joys over- 
 flowed his soul, and a new era began in his existence. He then 
 preached the word with power sent down from above, and signs 
 followed — the signs of God’s approval, the sign of the Spirit’s 
 testimony to his own eternal truth, and a multitude of precious 
 souls became living witnesses of God’s power to save. 
 
 If ever there was a man called of God to revive pure religion, 
 John Wesley undoubtedly was ; and if ever God impressed the 
 signature of his Spirit upon the labours of any man since the 
 days of the Apostles, he has impressed that signature upon the 
 labours of Wesley. Through his instrumentality an impulse 
 
18 
 
 has been given t*> religion which remains to this day — through 
 him the expiring lamp of truth and piety was revived and replen- 
 ished with fresh oil, and it yet burns brightly not only in our 
 own land, but has enkindled a light in every colony of the 
 British Empire, and in many of the darkest regions of the hea- 
 then land. Yet this is the man whom Barker holds up to pub- 
 lic ridicule, and the doctrines which God has honoured to the 
 salvation of millions and is honouring still, are the doctrines 
 which the self-styled Reformer denounces as “ licentious and 
 infernal delusions.” But when he rejects the authority of the 
 inspired writers we wonder not at his rejection of evangelical 
 truths, nor at his slanders upon the wise and the good. 
 
 While Wesley proclaimed the truth, he united with all his 
 predecessors in reformation, in basing it upon the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. He held the Bible as the word of God. Infallibly in- 
 spired and supreme in its authority, he revered and loved it ; he 
 studied it intensely for more than half a century, and surren- 
 dered his judgment and his heart to its teachings and require- 
 ments. “ I want to know one thing,” exclaims the devout and 
 humble Wesley, “ the way to heaven : how to land safe on that 
 happy shore. God himself has condescended to teach the way ; 
 for this very end he came down from heaven. He hath written 
 it down in a book. G give me that book. At any price give 
 me the book of God ! 1 have it : here is knowledge enough for 
 
 me. Let me be Homo unius libri — a man of one book.” 
 
 So, then, W esley did not call the Bible u a two- mouthed 
 guide,” but emphatically “ the Book of God.” He did not re- 
 duce its teaching to “ common sense,” for he says they were record- 
 ed by God himself, and therefore infallible. He did not say that 
 “ neither prophets nor apostles have authority to rule our 
 faith ;” he bowed implicitly to their inspired instructions. He 
 did not class the Bible with the writings of Mahomet, but the 
 Bible was his only book having authority in religion, because 
 it was the “ Book of God.” Such was Wesley, such was 
 Fletcher, and such have been all true reformers— -all who 
 have revived religion ; and all whom God has called to enlighten 
 and bless mankind, from the first era, when a revelation was 
 given to man, down to the present day. 
 
 Having thus glanced at the spirit and character of the seve- 
 ral reforms, which have been effected in different ages, we are 
 able to mark their striking contrast with the Barkerian reform. 
 It is clear that all other reforms resemble one another in all 
 great principles, but between them and Mr. Barker’s reform there 
 is no harmony in sentiment, in doctrine, in character. The 
 errors which true reformers exploded, Mr. Barker seeks to revive; 
 the truths which the reformers revived, Mr. Barker seeks to ob- 
 scure and destroy; the Scriptures, which all reformers honoured. 
 Barker undermines and vilifies. If the reforms of Josiali, of 
 Ezra, of Luther, Wesley, and others, be right in the main, and 
 -approved of God, then Barker’s must be wrong. If the one 
 
19 
 
 was reform, the other is destruction. If the one was of faith, 
 the other is infidel. If the one was of God, the other is of Sa- 
 tan. If the one was a blessing, the other is a curse. Indeed 
 its tendency is to throw society back, partly into the errors of 
 the dark ages, and partly into the infidelity of France at the 
 close of the last century. Its universal prevalence would ex- 
 tinguish the light of Christianity, and leave the world without 
 a Gospel and without a Saviour. 
 
 The author of this system of reform often designates it 
 “simple Christianity ” Simple Christianity? We have already 
 seen how much it is like Christianity — just as much like it as 
 the prince of darkness resembles an angel of light — and instead 
 of being simple , it is one of the most heterogeneous mixtures 
 that the mind of man ever compounded. It has in it an ingre- 
 dient of almost every bad system in the world. In its unita- 
 rianism it resembles the imposture of Mahomet, and no doubt 
 its sympathy with him leads to the frequent eulogiums which 
 Mr. Barker bestows upon that impostor. In its reducing Christ 
 to a mere man, it resembles the lowest Socinianism. In its im- 
 pious ridicule upon the Miraculous Conception, it resembles 
 the profane ribaldry of Thos. Paine. In the doctrine of human 
 merit, it resembles popery and Puseyism. In its pride of rea- 
 son, and daring perversions of Scripture, it resembles the Ger- 
 man JNeology. In its rejection of the Divine inspiration of 
 the Bible it assimilates to Deism. In its contempt of legal 
 marriages it resembles one feature of Socialism. And in 
 its denouncing civil governments and legal authorities it reminds 
 us of those whom the apostle Peter describes as “ despising go- 
 vernment and who are presumptuous, self-willed, and not afraid to 
 speak evil of dignities.” Yet this heterogeneous system, we are 
 told, is simple, unadulterated Christianity ! It is well we have 
 our Bibles and the exercise of common understanding to protect 
 us against such daring imposition. 
 
 It is a curious fact that while this system has no affinity 
 with the doctrines of apostles, prophets, and those whom the 
 providence of God has raised up to promote salutary reforms, it 
 seeks alliance and aid from the most notorious corrupters of the 
 faith, and delights to lean upon their authority. For example, 
 Marcion, the notorious forger and falsifier of the Scriptures, is 
 authority abundantly sufficient to overturn the credit of the 
 Evangelists. Priestley who tells, you that if the Apostles did 
 teach that Christ made the world, we are under no obligation 
 to believe them, is another mighty authority with him. And 
 Bamohun Boy is introduced as a weightier name than all 
 the Biblical interpreters that ever wrote in favour of evange- 
 lical truth. The audience will remember how frequently 
 his name was flourished before us during the discussion, 
 and no doubt some of you wondered who this Bamohun Boy 
 could be. You will be surprised when I tell you that this Ba- 
 mohun Boy was a half enlightened and half converted Indian 
 Brahmin ; you will be still more surprised when I tell you that 
 
20 
 
 this said Ramohun Roy was so wise — was such a profound theo- 
 logian, that he aspersed and taught his countrymen to asperse 
 the miracles of the saviour, comparing those miracles to the fa- 
 bulous miracles of the Hindoo Sages, and said that they are 
 “ apt at best to carry very little weight with them.” Yes, in 
 his work on the precepts of Jesus, Ramohun Roy thus 
 asperses the miracles of the Saviour — the evidence on which the 
 whole fabric of Christianity depends. Now, this is the illustri- 
 ous Divine whose name was so frequently obtruded upon your 
 attention during the discussion as a man of such extraordinary 
 wisdom and authority. So it seems the authority of those who 
 corrupted the Gospels, of those who openly deny the teach- 
 ings of the Apostles, and of those who traduce the Saviour’s 
 miracles is authority quite sufficient to sustain the whole fabric 
 of the Barkerian reform. My audience will remember these 
 facts when they read the discussion, and apply them as tests of 
 the candour, the truthfulness, and the soundness of Barkerian 
 argumentation in general. 
 
 Whiie I am addressing you, I wish to notice another subject 
 connected with the discussion, — the charge which my opponent 
 made against me in reference to misquoting Seneca and Jona- 
 than, the Targumist. During the discussion, my precious time 
 was too much occupied with other and more important subjects 
 to do more than just to deny the charge, and to cast it back 
 upon my opponent’s dishonesty. I would now remark, first, 
 that were the charge true, it would not affect the foundation 
 of my argument, as, neither in my writings nor in the dis- 
 cussion did I ever ground a doctrine upon the testimony of 
 either Pagan Philosophers or Jewish Rabbies, or any uninspired 
 writer, but upon the infallible Word of God. 1 did refer to 
 such writers, but it was merely for illustration, not for proof. 
 The Scriptures are the only foundation on which 1 build, and 
 on which I desire others to ground their confidence in religious 
 matters. But, secondly, the assertion of my opponent is false, 
 absolutely false in reference, both to Seneca and Jonathan. 
 Look at the language of Seneca, in the 8th chapter of his writ- 
 ings to his mother Helvia, and you will find, that in speaking 
 respecting the formation of the universe, three Divine Persons 
 are mentioned. “ The ALMIGHTY GOD” — the “ incorporeal 
 REASON,” (corresponding with Aoyoc)— and the “ DIVING 
 SPIRIT.” True, he also mentions fate, but here he evidently 
 refers to the opinion of the Stoics, and not to his own senti- 
 ments.* 
 
 As for his allusion to Jonathan, it is founded either upon mis- 
 take or a wilful intention to deceive. I never made such a 
 statement, either in speaking or writing, as the one he alleges. 
 
 * Id actum est, mihi crede, ab illo, quisquis Formator uniyersi fuit,sive 
 ille I)eus est potens omnium, sive incorporalis Ratio ingenitum, operum 
 artifex, sive Divinus Spiritus per omnia maxima minima, ceqnali inten- 
 tione diffusus, sive fatum et immutabilis causarum inter se coherentium 
 series. 
 
21 
 
 But that Jonathan does apply prophecies to Christ where he is 
 called Jehovah, is evident in Jeremiah xxiii., 5—6., and xxxiii., 
 15—16, where the Messiah is expressly mentioned by the Tar- 
 gumist, and the prophecies and bivine titles are applied to him. 
 Now, when a cause cannot he supported withoutsuch daringfalse- 
 hood, as well as wholesale perversions of Scripture, it is a clear 
 indication that it is a bad one, and furnishes another reason 
 why it should be rejected and adhorred by all wise and good 
 men. 
 
 We are free to confess that the church needs improving and 
 reforming in some respects ; but we are quite sure that she is 
 not to be reformed by impugning the Scriptures, by denouncing 
 the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles, by discarding the 
 elements of vital and experimental religion, by overthrowing 
 the foundations of Christianity, and substituting the principles 
 of infidelity. The church does need more benevolence, more 
 charity to the poor, more liberality in supporting religious 
 institutions, more holiness of character, and more enterprize in 
 assailing every form of evil and carrying out the glorious pur- 
 poses of God ; but we are quite satisfied that her improvement 
 in these high qualities can be originated only by holding fast 
 the principles of the Gospel, and faithfully working them out. 
 To make the church what she ought to be she requires to be 
 more fully invigorated with those very principles which Mr. 
 Barker discards. She needs more vitality that she may be 
 more fruitful. Zeal, benevolence, pure morality, and holy 
 enterprize, must spring from love to Christ, and love to Christ 
 must be originated by faith in his precious blood. Ibis was 
 the doctrine of the Apostles and the reformers, and it is this 
 which distinguishes Christianity as a religion of truth, of vital- 
 ity and power. it was this doctrine which generated pure 
 experimental religion in the hearts of the first Christians, and it 
 was this which revived it in the days of Luther, Baxter, and 
 Wesley, and this must be its vital principle down to the end of 
 time; lor, says the Saviour, “ Except ye eat my flesh and drink 
 my blood, ye have no life in you.” 
 
 Therefore, instead of relaxing our confidence in Iioly Scrip- 
 ture, we must believe its doctrines the more firmly, and em- 
 brace its promises with more avidity. Instead of degrading 
 Christ we must exalt him still higher in our views, our affec- 
 tion, and esteem. Instead of being elated with self-righteous- 
 ness and human merit, we must humble ourselves in the dust, 
 and rest only on the precious atonement for salvation. Instead 
 of renouncing experimental religion we must drink deeper 
 draughts from the wells of salvation ; and instead of forsaking 
 the assembling of ourselves together as the manner of some is, 
 we must increase our attachment to Christ’s ordinances and 
 pour out our united supplications with redoubled confidence 
 and fervour. From such principles and such conduct a glorious 
 reformation will proceed. The Holy Spirit will be poured out, 
 and we shall see a reformation, not in the doctrines of the Gospel 
 
22 
 
 but in ourselves. Then, instead of our presuming to reform 
 the Gospel, we shall allow the Gospel to reform our hearts and 
 our lives — generating in our souls the spirit of vivid, healthful, 
 burning love to God and our fellow-men, and moulding our 
 lives to practical conformity to all the requirements of the 
 Gospel. Now, this is the reform we need, and such are the 
 means by which it may be effected. Therefore, the principles 
 of Barkerism must be rejected as only tending to corrupt Chris- 
 tianity, and the principles of the Gospel must be adhered to, 
 and worked out to their glorious consummation. There never 
 was a revival of practical religion but as it flowed from experi- 
 mental piety, and there never was a revival of experimental 
 religion but in which there was a revival of evangelical truth. 
 
 Every aspect in which the truth can be viewed, reflects its 
 infinite importance, and gives us to see the solemn duty of the 
 church to preserve and defend it. it was given by God, and 
 his condescension and mercy in bestowing the precious treasure 
 challenge our gratitude and fidelity to preserve it pure and un- 
 tarnished. God commands the church to hold it fast, and 
 threatens to punish its betrayal with the most terrible infliction 
 of his displeasure. The truth, as we have seen, is essential to 
 vital religion, and therefore the latter can be perpetuated and 
 promoted only by the faithful preservation of the former. The 
 history of the church, in all ages, lifts up a loud and admonitory 
 call to Christians of the present day to preserve unalloyed the 
 truth entrusted to our care. When that truth has been betray- 
 ed, awful have been the consequences inflicted. Monstrous 
 errors have grown luxuriant, and the church for ages has been 
 more like a noxious wilderness than the garden of the Lord. 
 When the light of truth has been forsaken, the light of the 
 Spirit has been judicially withdrawn, and centuries of midnight 
 darkness have rested on the nations. The church has slumbered 
 and the world has perished. How often has this dark scene 
 been repeated in the history of the church ! Surely such events 
 should teach us wisdom. The sad experience of past ages is 
 recorded for our learning. This fact augments the weight of 
 our responsibility, and should excite us to vigilance, to fidelity, 
 to zeal for the truth of God, lest we fall after the same example 
 of unbelief, and our apathy entail upon ourselves and future 
 generations the curse of a corrupted faith, or the scourge of a 
 licentious infidelity. 
 
 The blood of martyrs challenges our fidelity. Every martyr 
 has attested his love for the truth, and his high sense of its im- 
 portance by dying for it. Ardently as he loved his friends, his 
 children, his partner, he loved the truth still more, and reck- 
 oned life itself but a trifle compared with its w T orth. Multitudes 
 have died to revive the truth as w r ell as to preserve it, for fear- 
 ful have been the struggles to restore the sacred treasure when 
 once it has been lost. Though it has descended to us free as the 
 light of Heaven, and as cheap, not costing us a tear, or a pang ; 
 it has cost former ages torrents of precious blood, and myriads 
 
23 
 
 of valuable lives. Our forefathers fought the good fight of 
 faith, and we enjoy the blessings they won. Can we forget 
 this? They endured reproach, confiscation, banishment, and 
 death, to restore forgotten truths, and transmit t^em to their 
 children. Can we forget this? Can we look with apathy and 
 indifference on a treasure which cost them such a sacrifice to 
 procure for us ? Can we, Judas-like, treacherously betray the 
 interests of truth into the hands of infidelity ? We cannot. We 
 will not. Our gratitude to former ages, our veneration to de- 
 parted worth, our fidelity to God, and our personal interest in 
 the truth, conspire to forbid it. 
 
 An enlightened regard to our posterity conspires with all 
 other motives to urge us to be faithful to our trust. W e occupy 
 an important position. We stand between two generations, 
 the one is passing away, and will soon disappear ; the other is 
 rising up, and will soon fill the spheres we now occupy. The 
 interim presents a fearful struggle between truth and error, be- 
 twixt Christianity and infidelity, and on the vigilance, the con- 
 sistency, and faithfulness of those now in the bloom and vigour 
 of life — on the fidelity of those especially whose judgment, 
 character, and talents qualify them to influence public opinion, 
 to guide and controul the minds of the present generation, the 
 welfare of future ages greatly depends. The rising generation 
 will be cast into the mould of the prevailing sentiments and 
 principles of the times we live in. This is the crisis, and our 
 conduct in it will give a character and complexion to future ages 
 and generations. If we betray the truth which God lias committed 
 to our trust, which providence has solemnly charged us to keep, 
 which the souls of myriads of martyrs lying under the altar 
 call upon us to preserve entire, which the pages of past history 
 admonish us to hold fast, which all the interests of religion 
 command us to retain, then black will be our ingratitude to God, 
 treacherous will be our conduct to all our worthy ancestors, 
 and murderous will be our conduct to our children and genera- 
 tions yet unborn. We entail upon posterity the leprosy of our 
 unbelief and apostacy ; we infect the atmosphere which they 
 have to breathe ; we poison the fountains they have to drink ; 
 we intercept the heavenly rays which were intended to enlighten 
 and save them, and involve them in the malaria of pestiferous 
 delusions, and damnable heresies ; we throw society back ; we 
 postpone the day of millenial glory, and originate events which 
 may introduce again the darkest and bloodiest scenes which 
 have yet transpired in the history of our world. On the other 
 hand, if faithful to God and his cause, we shall prove ourselves 
 worthy of the times we live in — worthy of our noble-minded 
 ancestors, and of the trust providence has committed to us. 
 The truth will be preserved, the designs of the enemy defeated, 
 and the benevolent purposes of God accomplished. Our poste- 
 rity, too, will bless us, and will enter into the inheritance of 
 our privileges and our labours. The impulse given to truth 
 and religion in the past century, will be accelerated and 
 
24 
 
 extender! in this, and the momentum will be transmitted to future 
 ages. The triumphs of the cross will be advanced. Science, 
 and art, and commerce, and all the secular advantages of this 
 enterprising age will be made subservient to the great interests 
 of religion, and the conversion of the* world. The earth will 
 help the woman. The operations of providence will pro- 
 mote the purposes of grace ; and that blessed era will 
 draw near when the truth shall be everywhere triumphant, 
 when ail the enemies of the gospel shall bow before its power, 
 and the whole earth shall be hi led with the glory of God. Then 
 let us gird up the loins of our minds, put on the whole armour 
 of God, and fight the good fight of faith. Let decision, vigi- 
 lance, earnestness, benevolence, holiness, prayerfulness, and 
 Christian enterprize characterize our whole conduct. Let our 
 hearts retain the truth, our lives adorn it, and our labours pro- 
 mote it. Let us be steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding 
 in. the work of the Lord, knowing that our labour is not in 
 vain in the Lord. Again I thank you most sincerely for the 
 expression of your kindness. Through life I shall, cherish the 
 recollection of this evening, and my increased obligation to 
 God and his Church. 
 
 Mr. George Hunter rose and moved that Mr. Cooke be re- 
 quested to publish his address. Carried by acclamation ; and 
 Mr. Cooke rose to say he should feel pleasure in complying with 
 the wishes of the meeting. 
 
 The Lev. D. Adam moved “That while this meeting would 
 make honourable mention of the arduous services of Mr. G. F. 
 Grant, as Secretary and Chairman to Mr. Cooke during the late 
 discussion, and would congratulate the friends of truth on its 
 triumphant termination ; it desires also to impress upon Chris- 
 tians individually their personal responsibility to an active and 
 a faithful discharge of their Christian duties, assured that a holy 
 and consistent life is the best practical evidence of the divinity 
 of their principles, the most effectual way to stop the mouths of 
 gainsay ers, to promote the glory of God, and advance the present 
 and eternal welfare of mankind.” Mr. Adam in a short, but effect- 
 ive speech, referred to the discussion with approval, and exhort- 
 ed Christians to adorn the Gospel by a holy life. If they could 
 not all defend the Gospel like Mr. Cooke, they could all ho- 
 nour it by their holy lives. 
 
 Mr. Finlay briefly seconded the motion, and bore testimony 
 to the important services of Mr. Grant. 
 
 It was moved by the Rev. D. Browning, and seconded by Mr. 
 J. Finlay, that the thanks of the meeting be respectfully pre- 
 sented to the Chairman, for liis efficient and valuable services on 
 the occasion. 
 
 The doxology was sung, and the Rev. J. B. Johnston then en- 
 gaged m prayer, and the meeting separated under the most de- 
 lightful feelings. Old inhabitants of Newcastle say it was one of 
 the most interesting meetings ever held in the town. 
 
 NEWCASTLE : PRINTED BY J. BLACKWELL AND CO. 
 
AUTHENTIC REPORT] 
 
 £third EDITION 
 
 DISCUSSION, 
 
 &C. 
 
 FIRST NIGHT. 
 
 TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1845. 
 
 The first discussion was held in the Lecture Room, in Nelson- 
 street, Newcastle, at seven o’clock on the above evening. The 
 depressed platform in the centre of one side of the room was 
 furnished with tables for the use of the disputants, seats for the 
 Chairmen and Umpire, and accommodation for the Committees 
 of the two gentlemen ; that of Mr. Cooke being on the right, 
 and that of Mr. Barker on the left of the Umpire. Tickets for 
 the course, transferable, had been at the disposal of each party, 
 in equal numbers of seven hundred each. They were sold at 
 Is. 6d. ; and well nigh the whole were bought before the com- 
 mencement of the discussion. Consequently the Lecture Room 
 was crowded on the occasion but the accommodation it afford- 
 ed was, notwithstanding, satisfactory. 
 
 Mr. Joseph Barker entered the platform, alone, about 7 ien 
 minutes to seven. His reception was warm on the part of his 
 friends — several members of his Committee having already 
 occupied the position assigned them. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Cooke and his Committee entered in a body 
 about seven o’clock ; and the rev. gentleman was likewise 
 greeted with much cordiality. Shortly afterwards, 
 
 Mr. J. Henderson said : — I rise to announce that Dr. Lees 
 will take the chair on behalf of Mr. Barker. (Applause.) 
 
 Dr. F. R. Lees, of Leeds, took the chair accordingly. 
 
 Rev. R. Banks : — And I beg to announce that Mr Jas. F. 
 Grant will take the chair on behalf of Mr. Cooke. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Grant accordingly took his seat at the head of Mr. 
 Cooke’s table. 
 
 Mr. Grant ; — As Chairman for Mr. Cooke, I beg leave to 
 read the terms on which the discussion is to be conducted,— 
 Mr. G. then read the following as the 
 
 A 
 
2 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 [first 
 
 TERMS 
 
 On which the Discussion was to be conducted, as agreed on and 
 signed by the Disputants, ‘June 18, 1845 
 
 I. That the question be first discussed, “ What is a Chris- 
 tian V 9 With the principles of the Christian’s faith and prac- 
 tice in their order. And also— 1st. That in order to prevent 
 the discussion being perverted from its legitimate and avowed 
 objects, no statements shall be allowed* to be made which 
 impugn either the infallible inspiration of the sacred writings, 
 or the divine authority of any book contained in the author- 
 ized version. 2nd. That the Holy Scriptures, including all the 
 books of the authorized version, with the Hebrew text of Van- 
 der iiooght, as the original of the Old Testament, and the 
 Textus Iteceptus, as the original of the New Testament, shall 
 be the only authoritative standard of appeal, with the follow- 
 ing qualifications, viz. Should either disputant quote any 
 passage excepted to by Kennicott or Boothroyd, in the Old 
 Testament ; or by Griesbach or Schulz, in the New Testament, 
 such passage shall be considered fairly open to legitimate consi- 
 deration and criticism. 3rd, That all quotations shall be made, 
 in the first instance, by chapter and verse, from the authorized 
 version : but each disputant shall have the right of reference 
 to tlie original texts and critics, as above, when the authorized 
 version is disputed, 4th. That the versions whose antiquity 
 and character have weight- -say the Septuagint, the Syriac, the 
 Latin Vulgate, and the Chaldee Paraphases, with the Fathers 
 of the first three centuries, maybe quoted in illustration; hut 
 not, as the Scriptures above, for authorities. All quotations 
 from Versions and Fathers to he made by direct reference, 
 and the original text of each to be produced at the time, if 
 required. 5th. That Mr. Cooke engages to take the lead in the 
 discus Jons. 
 
 II. Th it neither disputant shall exceed one hour and a half 
 each evening, the evenings being equally divided, unless the 
 other relinquish his right, or refuses to occupy the time. 
 
 III. That the discussions take place in the Music Hall, or, fail- 
 ing it, in the Lecture Room. Admission to he by tickets, trans- 
 ferable, pledging the holder to non-interruption and non-inter- 
 ference. The number printed not to exceed the fail* contents of 
 the place. To be printed by an impartial printer, equally divided 
 between the disputants, each half signed with the initials of the 
 opposing party’s secretary, to be disposed of as each party may 
 choose, and any surplus employed as each pleases. Each party 
 giving security, by deposit, to an accredited treasurer, for an 
 equal share of the expense to be incurred, including a reporter. 
 
 IV. That the speeches be taken down by an accredited and 
 impartial reporter; revised by each, under his approval ; pub- 
 lished by each, from the same accredited copy; and sold by 
 each party, at his own option. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 3 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Y. That each party choose his own chairman ; the chairmen 
 to choose an umpire, “ that all things may be done decently and 
 
 in order.” 
 
 VI. That the discussions be on A Christian, and his princi- 
 ples only. But the writings and speeches— published or de- 
 livered— of each disputant, to be freely, but fairly, quoted and 
 remarked on by each, for illustration, neither party being 
 allowed to object to this. Each disputant being allowed ten 
 minutes, if he require it, before replying, to arrange papers, 
 notes, references, & c. 
 
 VI I. That the doors be opened at six o’clock each evening, 
 the discussions to commence at seven, and close at ten, ora quar- 
 ter past ten o’clock. 
 
 That a copy of this agreement be signed by each disputant 
 respectively, and handed to the other party. To be printed 
 and distributed, as the basis and terms of the discussions, when 
 the other arrangements are made. 
 
 Signed by WILLIAM COOKE, 
 June 18, 1845. 
 
 Witness — J. F. Grant. 
 
 Signed by JOSEPH BARKER, 
 June 18, 1845. 
 
 Witness — Alex. Guthrie. 
 
 Mr. Grant: — I now have the pleasure to introduce Mr. Cooke 
 as the gentleman wlro will lead the* discussion ; but I think my 
 friend, Dr. Lees, will address a few words to you first. Is Mr. 
 John Nicliol present ? 
 
 This question -was asked with a view to Mr. Nicliol taking 
 the third Chair, as Umpire. He was not present at the time. 
 Two or three other gentlemen were nominated, but they de- 
 clined. The Rev. James Pringle was then requested to take 
 the vacant seat. He seemed reluctant ; but finally accepted it 
 provided his nomination had the full concurrence of both par- 
 ties ; and Mr. Barker having intimated that he had no objection 
 Mr. Pringle undertook the umpireship for the evening amidst 
 a few symptoms of disapprobation. This led 
 
 Mr. Grant immediately to observe : — The company are 
 pledged to non-interference, and I expect they will attend* to it. 
 (Hear, hear.) It is not the place of any individual there to dic- 
 tate what is to be done. (Applause.) 
 
 Dr. Lees then rose and said : — X may state, on behalf of Mr. 
 Barker and his Committee, that they do not consider of much 
 importance the question regarding the election of the Umpire 
 under the present circumstances ; because they think it is al- 
 most impossible to get a person, on either side,* perfectly impar- 
 tial. If partiality be displayed at any time, it is open to Mr. 
 Barker and his friends, and the friends of truth, to object ; but 
 I trust that until such manifestation does occur, the audience 
 will not interfere with the regulation of the proceedings. Be- 
 fore our friend Mr. Grant calls upon the gentleman who will 
 
4 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [first 
 
 lirst address you, permit me to say that we are assembled to- 
 night upon a most important and solemn subject,— the investi- 
 gation of great and vital questions- -questions of truth or error ; 
 and that it becomes us as Chairmen, and you as individuals, to 
 dispose ourselves to enter into the discussion with proper feel- 
 ings, and with that impartial state of mind which will enable 
 us all to see the evidence which is advanced on one side or the 
 other, and to act as wise men. Let us, in the spirit of rational, 
 and, above all, as Christian men, be temperate and calm, so that 
 good order may be preserved, and so that we may impartially 
 be brought to a consideration of the evidences regarding both 
 the spirit and the reason of our common faith. 
 
 Mr. Grant:— Now hoping that our friends will attend to the 
 advice so ably and clearly given by Dr. Lees, I beg to call upon 
 Mr, Cooke to commence the discussion. 
 
 Mr. Cooke then rose, and was received with considerable ap- 
 plause. 
 
 Mr. Grant: — As the company are divided and differ in opi- 
 nion, it is extremely desirable that they should endeavour to 
 keep down applause, for this plain reason. It is not an ordinary 
 meeting. The parties are equally divided, and whatever one 
 approves, the other must censure, take which side you please. 
 It is therefore exceedingly desirable to prevent interruption 
 and thus enable the disputants to proceed quietty, and to lay 
 their reasons calmly and deliberately before you. (Hear, hear, 
 and applause.) 
 
 Mr. Cooke then proceeded : — Mr. Chairman and Christian 
 -Friends, — I appear before you this evening in consequence of 
 the repeated challenges which Mr. Joseph Barker has issued to 
 all orthodox ministers to meet him in public discussion. Most 
 intelligent and respectable ministers treated those challenges 
 with indifference and silence. That silence, however, 1 am 
 jsorry to say, was misconstrued, and represented as an indication 
 of a* secret consciousness, on our part, of the unsoundness of our 
 principles : and I appear before you this evening, as an hum- 
 ble individual, to repel that insinuation, and to stand forward 
 in defence of those sacred principles of the truth of which we 
 have an upright consciousness, and which we are prepared to 
 defend to the utmost of our power. I could wish, indeed, that 
 a task so important as this had fallen into abler hands ; and I 
 say this with undissembled sincerity, and without the least af- 
 fectation. However, such powers as God has given to me I am 
 prepared to employ, not only with the pen, but viva voce , in de- 
 fence of those great truths to which I stand pledged ; and which 
 constitute the basis of our hopes, and the consolation of our 
 hearts. 
 
 The subject proposed for discussion by Mr. Barker, and ac- 
 cepted by me, is, — “What is a Christian, and what are his 
 Principles?” Of course I understand it to mean a true Chris- 
 tian ; for that understanding appears to be essential to the very 
 
NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. ' 5 
 
 existence of the debate. I regard the term Christian, as com- 
 monly understood, to be a designation of profession, and not of 
 character. It appears to have been thus employed both by 
 sacred writers, and also by profane writers. It is said in Acts 
 xi, 28, “ And the disciples were called Christians first in Anti- 
 och.” Some, I know, suppose that the disciples gave that name 
 to themselves under divine direction ; but I think that cannot 
 be correct, because it is not the appellation which is commonly 
 assigned to the followers of Christ in the New Testament. 
 Saints, Brethren, Disciples, and Believers, are the common ap- 
 pellations which were given to the followers of Christ. But it 
 is a well-known fact that the people of Antioch were much 
 addicted to scurrilous jesting ; and as the disciples of our Saviour 
 were objects of reproach and contumely, it is probable that the 
 name was assigned to them as expressive of reproach and con- 
 tempt. The term is employed, I believe, in only two other 
 places in the New Testament. In Acts xxvi, 28, Agrippa says 
 to Paul,— u Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” 
 Agrippa did not understand the nature of experimental piety ; 
 nor is it rational to suppose that he made any reference to it. 
 But Agrippa knew that there was a sect of people called Chris- 
 tians ; and having listened to the eloquent and powerful de- 
 scription which the Apostle had given of his own conversion, 
 he beheld such striking evidence of the divine origin of the 
 Christian religion that he says,— “Almost thou persuadest me 
 to be a Christian ;” that is, to renounce Judaism, and to em- 
 brace the profession of the Christian faith. Peter uses the term 
 Christian in his first epistle, the 4th ch. and the 16th verse. He 
 says,—' “ If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be 
 ashamed : but let him glorify God on this behalf.” It appears, 
 that there the term is introduced as an expression of reproach 
 employed by the enemies of Christ and of his followers ; and 
 St. Peter says, in a preceding passage, — “ If ye be reproached 
 for the name of Christ, happy are ye ; for the spirit of glory 
 and of God resteth upon you : on their part he is evil spoken 
 of, but on your part he is glorified.” Thus, it appears that the 
 term Christian was employed, at first, as a designation of pro- 
 fession, and not of character ; and we find it thus used by Pliny 
 in his 97th letter to Trajan ; by Tacitus, in his Life of Nero ; 
 and by Suetonius also it was employed in the same sense — as. a 
 designation of profession. 
 
 I therefore understand that the subject of discussion is-— 
 “ What is a true Christian and I thus stated the subject in 
 my tract when I consented to meet Mr. Barker in discussion. 
 
 It cannot be expected that I should, in my first address, mi- 
 portray all the features of the Christian character. I 
 shall theielore call attention, at present, to a few great princi- 
 ples by which the Christian is distinguished. And I remark 
 that a Christian, in the first place, is one who believes in the 
 doctrines and truths which God lias revealed in the Christian 
 
 a 2 
 
6 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [[first 
 
 economy. In the second place, that a Christian is one who 
 conforms to the requirements which God has enjoined in the 
 Christian Revelation. In the third place, that a Christian is 
 one who enjoys the blessings which God offers in the Christian 
 Revelation. Now these three propositions include generally 
 what I conceive to be a Christian ; and furnish an answer to the 
 question — 44 What is a Christian V ’ 
 
 Rut 1 shall endeavour to amplify them to some extent. I 
 say a Christian, then, is a man who believes in the truths and 
 doctrines which God has revealed in the Christian dispensation. 
 Man fell by unbelief * he must be restored by faith. Man fell 
 by transferring his confidence from bis Creator to a cruel and 
 malignant spirit — the Tempter — the Prince of Darkness ; and 
 man must be restored by placing his confidence in God, and 
 those great truths which God has revealed for man’s enlighten- 
 ment and salvation. The Scriptures are emphatic and decisive 
 in declaring the vital importance of faith. They describe it 
 as essential to the formation of the Christian character— 
 as an indispensable condition of our receiving the blessings of 
 salvation, and as the very foundation of every virtue-— of every 
 holy principle. Indeed the very name by which a Christian is 
 commonly distinguished is expressive of his faith. What is he 
 called ? A believer. A believer in what \ Not in human sys- 
 tems of philosophy. There is no reference to them. But a 
 believer in the glorious Gospel— dn those truths which heaven 
 has revealed toman. While, on the other hand, he who re- 
 jects those truths and doctrines is appropriately designated an 
 unbeliever. The: very announcement of the Gospel message is 
 combined with an absolute requirement of faith in its teachings. 
 In Mark i, 15, we find these words : — •“ Repent ye, and believe 
 the Gospel”— believe the Gospel. In the great commission 
 which our blessed Lord gave to his disciples to go into all the 
 world, and preSfph the Gopel to every creatore, we have faith 
 placed before us in the same prominent and important aspect, 
 as a duty imperative upon all ; and as a duty so vitally impor- 
 tant and essential that man’s eternal destiny is made to hinge 
 upon the performance of that duty. In the 16th ch. of Mark, 
 and loth verse, it is said , — u Be that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” 
 And when the Apostle Paul is adverting to certain characters 
 who, instead of receiving and believing the Gospel, reject it, 
 or pervert it, he utters these solemn w’ords, 44 That they all 
 might be damned w ho believed not the truth, hut had pleasure 
 in unrighteousness.” Such is the importance which God 
 himself has attached to faith* W ithout it, no man can he a 
 Christian. Without it, we cannot enjoy the blessings of the 
 Gospel. Without it, we must eternally perish. 4k lie that be- 
 lieveth not, shall he damned.” 
 
 I further remark, as another principle of the Christian’s cha- 
 racter, That this, faith in the Christian is ever combined with 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 7 
 
 N1GIIT.“| 
 
 an humble, a teachable, a truth-loving disposition. It is be- 
 cause he is conscious of his wretchedness and guilt that he 
 utters the anxious enquiry, “What must Ido to be saved V* 
 It is because he is convinced of his own ignorance m the things 
 of God that he applies to the sacred oracles, humbly saying, 
 “ Speak, Lord! for thy servant heareth.” And it is because he 
 honevtly loves the truth that he implicitly submits his under- 
 standing and his heart to its dictates and requirements. And 
 such a mind is prepared lor the reception of the truth. Such 
 a mind will ever be aided by the Holy Spirit in its enquiries 
 after the truth ; and, having found the blessed treasure, will 
 hold it fast, and bring forth fruit unto perfection. These dis- 
 positions, in fact, are a soil in which the seed of truth will ve- 
 getate, and take root, and spring up, and bear fruit to God’s 
 glory, thirty, sixty, and a hundred-fold. But the unbeliever, 
 on the other hand, is proud and unsubdued ; vain of his own 
 powers, and confident in his own decisions. He leans to his own 
 understanding, and is wise above what is written ; and, as a 
 natural consequence of his self-sufficiency, his reverence for re- 
 vealed truth will sink just in proportion to the height ot his 
 confidence iii his own powers, and his dependence upon his own 
 sufficiency. Hence it follows that when the teachings of the 
 Bible clash with his own judgment, he will be found either to 
 reject its inspiration, or to employ the arts of sophistry to per- 
 vert its meaning. (“Hear, hear,” “Order,” and disapproba- 
 tion.) Such a man may designate himself a true Christian, 
 but he certainly has no claim to that distinguishing and honour- 
 able appellation. He is either fatally deceiving himself, or else 
 he is an impostor, and is artfully deceiving others. Nor can 
 the truth dwell in a mind like that. The morbid state of the 
 heart forbids its admission there. His pride of intellect — his 
 vain confidence and self-sufficiency, will most certainly originate 
 sentiments and opinions at variance with the truth of God. 
 And here commences the conflict betwixt the errors of man and 
 the truth of the gospel : — a conflict which will last until the 
 sinner is either subdued or destroyed ; for the Word of God 
 cannot be broken. It is a rock of eternal adamant ; and they 
 who fall upon it, will he broken ; but they on whom it shall 
 fall, will be ground into powder. 
 
 Mow it is this pride and perversity of heart which has caused 
 the Gospel to be rejected by some, and to be perverted by others, 
 in every age of the world. It was this pride and perversity of 
 heart which caused the Gospel to be a stumbling block to the 
 Jews, and foolishness to the proud and speculative Greeks. It 
 was this pride and perversity of heart which caused the Phari- 
 sees and the Sadducees not to receive the glad tidings of salva- 
 tion when announced in the accents of the Redeemer, who came 
 to save the world from darkness and guilt. It was not because 
 they had not light ; for they walked amidst the noontide splen- 
 dour of the Redeemer’s ministry. It was not because they had 
 
8 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [first 
 
 not evidence ; for they were surrounded by the glorious mani- 
 festations of the Son of God. They heard him speak, and be- 
 held the leper cleansed. They saw his touch, and beheld 
 the dead arise. They heard his voice, and demons were 
 silenced, or confessed his heavenly mission to the world. They 
 beheld him feed five thousand with a few loaves and fishes ; and 
 yet, notwithstanding all these splendid manifestations of the 
 Saviour’s power, and of his mission being divine, they con- 
 tinued in unbelief, and ascribed his miracles to a diabolical 
 agency. Though confounded, they would not be convinced, 
 but pertinaciously asked for a sign. Though earth, and hell, 
 and heaven combined to attest the divinity of the Redeemer’s 
 mission and of his doctrines, they would not believe, but asked 
 for a sign. And it was just the same pride and perversity of 
 heart which prevented Saul of Tarsus from receiving the 
 Gospel for a period. Yes! while he was proud and unsubdued, 
 he continued in ignorance and unbelief. And yet it was not 
 for want of natural sagacity : the epistles of Paul evince intel- 
 lectual power. It was not through want of literature : he had 
 sat at the feet of Gamaliel. It was not for want of revealed 
 means to find the truth, for he had the ample pages of prophecy 
 before him, pointing out and characterizing the person, the 
 work, and the death of the glorious Redeemer. It was not for 
 want of the evidence which accompanied the preaching of the 
 truth ; for he witnessed the miracles of the Apostles of our 
 Saviour, and he beheld practical demonstration of the divine 
 power of the Christian religion. He held the clothes of those 
 who imbued their hands in the innocent blood of the murdered 
 Stephen. He gazed upon the countenance which shone with 
 brightness like that of an angel. lie saw the martyr’s calm 
 and dignified countenance, which nothing but the strength, the 
 purity, and the power of true religion could light up. He be- 
 held the meekness, the self-denial, the spiritual-mindedness and 
 love of the dying saint employing his latest moments in prayer 
 for his murderers. And yet amid all these evidences of the 
 truth of the Christian religion, and these manifestations of its 
 vital power, he could continue glutting his savage heart with 
 the martyr’s blood. But when Saul of Tarsus assumed a new 
 position — when he fell to the earth, and uttered the enquiry, — 
 u What wilt thou have me to do?”- — then the scales fell from 
 his intellectual vision as well as his bodily sight ; and he beheld 
 the glory of the Lamb of God. He perceived the attractions of 
 the true Messiah ; he beheld the evidence of the divine origin of 
 our religion ; and He who before was the object of his con- 
 tempt, and whose doctrines he sought to extirpate by persecu- 
 tion and blood, became the sole object that filled the orb of his 
 vision, and became the grand centre of attraction, around which 
 his affections revolved, and to whom his life was henceforth de- 
 voted. There must be, I say, an humble spirit — a teachable 
 disposition ; there must be a love for the truth of God, or that 
 
ME. COOKE. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 9 
 
 truth can seldom be perceived by the intellect — can never be 
 cherished and welcomed by the affections. And the heart that 
 is not thus humbled can never be actuated and guided by the 
 Holy Spirit, which is essential to inspire conviction, and to give 
 power to the truth. “ Even so, righteous Father, for so it seem- 
 ed good in thy sight : because thou hast revealed these things 
 unto babes, and hast liid them from the wise and prudent . 5 9 
 (Matt. xi. 26.) 
 
 1 further remark, that the Christian does not except from his 
 creed any truth or doctrine on the ground of its being “ unim- 
 portant;” though there are those who do so. For example, 
 with regard to the Miraculous Conception, it is rejected, and then 
 it is stated that the doctrine is unimportant. I do not wish to 
 make personal allusions. I am grappling with great principles; 
 and if my remarks appear to tend that way, i hope the audience 
 will not suppose I am under the influence of any emotion that 
 has the least approach to vindictiveness or impropriet 3 r of feel- 
 ing. But I must speak plain truths, no matter what may be 
 their application. Now 1 say that this involves one of two fal- 
 lacies ; — either that because a doctrine is unimportant, it is un- 
 true ; or else, that because an individual conceives a doctrine to 
 be unimportant, he has a right to reject it ; and, of course, as 
 he makes himself the supreme judge in that case as to what is 
 important and what is not important, he assumes to himself the 
 right of rejecting from God’s word whatever he may please. 
 That is the principle involved. Now this is but a thin pretext 
 of infidelity ; and the seal y monster can be seen through the thin 
 disguise. The Christian does not thus cashier the word of God 
 — does not thus reflect upon God’s wisdom, nor charge the Al- 
 mighty with revealing things trifling and unimportant. He 
 knows that God is wise in all he says, and has important rea- 
 sons for all that he makes known to man : and he therefore re- 
 ceives with reverence all the instructions of heaven — all the 
 doctrines of God ; and whether he can perceive their immediate 
 connection with his salvation, or not, yet since God has con- 
 descended to reveal them, he gladly and reverently embraces 
 them, and he holds them in religious veneration. 
 
 Further, a Christian does not reject from his creed certain 
 doctrines, alleging that they are mysterious, or incomprehensi- 
 ble, or inexplicable ; or because their modus operandi or modus 
 existentis involves something he cannot fathom or comprehend. 
 For this involves the following fallacy or sophism — that there 
 can be no truth in existence but what is either grasped by the 
 human intellect, or must be in conformity with man’s existing 
 notions. It implies, too, that man is so wise that he does not 
 need a revelation from God, as he is already qualified to im- 
 prove upon that which God has given. The Christian does not 
 act in this way. The Christian has no idea that he is wiser 
 than the Bible. He knows it is because he is ignorant and 
 needs^instruction that a revelation has been given to enlighten 
 
10 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [first 
 
 Mm ; and instead of dictating to his Maker what he ought to 
 reveal, or opening his Bible to cavil with what God has reveal- 
 ed, or what God has declared, he reverently embraces whatever 
 the Almighty condescends to dictate unto him, — receives it as 
 true, and welcomes it to his heart, although he may not be able 
 to comprehend it with regard to some of its modes. The Chris- 
 tian believes what his Maker declares in his holy word. He 
 may meet with some things— some doctrines and some facts, 
 which are mysterious ; which involve enquiries that the most 
 elaborate efforts of the human mind cannot explain: but he is cer- 
 tain that they are true, because God has declared them. His prin - 
 ciple is, not to make the Bible conform to his sentiments, but to 
 make his judgment conform to the teachings of revelation. 
 That is the principle which actuates and guides him. He 
 meets with mysterious things in the volume of nature, and is 
 prepared to expect them in the volume of revelation, since God 
 is the author of them both. He knows, too, that what is call- 
 ed human reason is nothing more than man’s faculty of judg- 
 ing ; and he knows that man’s faculty of judging infallibly can 
 only be commensurate with the range of his knowledge ; and 
 that where that knowledge is imperfect, or obscure, or partial, 
 his capability of judging with certainty is proportionately defec- 
 tive and imperfect. He knows, too, that he has erred already in a 
 hundred cases with regard to subjects with which he is the most 
 familiar : and he knows, likewise, that he is as liable to err in the 
 things of God, especially when he assumes to be his own teacher, 
 and disregards the instructions of divine revelation. He is there- 
 fore satisfied, that, whatever doctrine the Almighty declares in his 
 Word, however incomprehensible in its mode, however inex- 
 plicable in its manner, is not only true in itself, but in harmony 
 with all other truth. He knows that there is no obscurity in 
 the doctrine itself. The obscurity is in his own mind. And 
 probably the day may come when, with higher faculties, and in 
 a brighter region, and in more intimate intercourse with his 
 God, that obscurity will pass away ; and he will see the truth, 
 the harmony, the consistency, and the beauty of every doctrine, 
 however obscure at present, as clearly as he now sees the truth, 
 the harmony, and the beauty of the most familiar facts that oc- 
 cur around him, or are cognizable by the organs and operations 
 of his senses. 
 
 The Gospel never professes that all its doctrines are devoid of 
 mystery or difficulty to man. On the contrary, many of the Re- 
 deemer s sayings, though he spoke with so much plainness — many 
 of them were hard to human reason — natural and carnal reason, 
 I mean. Hence, when he stated that he gave his flesh for the life 
 of the world, and that men must eat his flesh, and drink his 
 blood, or they could have no life in them, the people said, — 
 “ This is a hard saying ; who can hear it V 9 But the replies of 
 our Saviour show that, hard as it was to their reason, it was not 
 to be rejected as untrue; and he charges them with positive 
 
NIGHT . 1 MU COOKE. II 
 
 unbelief, because of their murmuring at his statements, and com- 
 plaining that they were hard to understand. See the 6th 
 chapter of John’s Gospel, from the 53rd to the 64th verses. 
 The Apostle Paul taught some things which Peter spoke of as 
 hard to be understood. See Peter’s second Epistle, 3rd. ch. and 
 16th verse. But were they to be rejected \ They were not ; 
 but they were the very subjects which men of corrupt minds 
 perverted to their own destruction — u Wrested or perverted 
 zmto their own destruction .” So says the Apostle : and we fre- 
 quently read of subjects which are mysterious in the Holy 
 Scriptures. We read of u the mystery of faith.” And the 
 Apostle says, in the 1st Epistle to Timothy, 3rd ch. and 16th 
 verse — “ Great is the mystery of godliness.” But was that 
 mystery to be rejected % — was that doctrine to be put away by 
 the puny mind of man, because it could not grasp it ? See also 
 the 1st epistle to Timothy, the 3rd ch. and 9th verse. — “ Holding 
 the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.” To reject a 
 doctrine because it is difficult to be comprehended, is just the 
 same thing as to reject a duty because its performance is diffi- 
 cult to flesh and blood ; and he who rejects either is guilty of 
 disobedience. The Gospel requires obedience and submission ; 
 uniform and entire submission to God. And there is the obe- 
 dience of faith as well as the external obedience of the life — 
 there is the submission of the understanding and the judgment, 
 as well as the submission of the conscience and the moral pow- 
 ers. But he who rejects a truth or doctrine which God declares, 
 refuses that submission, and acts in rebellion against his Maker : 
 he is under the influence of the carnal mind, which is enmity 
 against God ; and therefore cannot be a Christian. 
 
 But I here anticipate an objection or two. It may be said 
 that a man may not know all the truths or doctrines i u 
 the Gospel at the time of his acceptance with God : and there- 
 fore cannot be said to believe them seriatim . I may make that 
 admission without at all weakening the force of my argument ;~ 
 for not to know a doctrine is undoubtedly different from reject- 
 ing a doctrine. If a man does not know , it is the rssult, merely, 
 of a want of information : but if a man rejects a doctrine, it is 
 the result of unbelief ; and it is unbelief that makes God a liar, 
 and grieves the Holy Spirit, and excludes man from the covenant 
 of grace ; for “ he that believeth not shall be damned.” The rule- . 
 with regard to faith is parallel with the rule of our obedience. 
 A man, when first brought to God, may not know specifically 
 and individually , every duty he ought to perform throughout 
 the whole course of his life : but there is in him the principle of 
 obedience — there is in him unreserved submission to God— a 
 principle applicable to every duty prescribed and specified 
 in God’s word — and applicable also to every other duty 
 which may subsequently arise from new circumstances, new 
 relations, and the diversified dispensations of Jehovah’s provi- 
 dence. And so with regard to the Christian’s faith ; it may 
 
32 ME. COOKE. [SECOND 
 
 not seriatim embrace or recognize every doctrine at the moment 
 of our acceptance with God ; but that principle of faith is 
 unreserved confidence in God’s word— actually embracing every 
 doctrine at present recognized, and prepared to embrace every 
 other doctrine which may subsequently be found to be re- 
 vealed in the oracles of God. It is the rejection of a doctrine, I 
 say, which constitutes the sin of unbelief. 
 
 I may illustrate this by a few examples. When Noah first 
 found grace in the eyes of the Lord, he did not know that it 
 was the purpose of the Almighty to destroy the world by a 
 deluge. But when that purpose was revealed to Noah, the 
 Patriarch believed it, though the world derided it, and scouted 
 it as incompatible with the benevolence of the Divine charac- 
 ter. But that faith of Noah was not a new principle, but the 
 application of an old principle to a new revelation. When 
 Noah was first brought to God, he did not know that the Al- 
 mighty would require him to encounter the task of construct- 
 ing an ark for the purpose of saving himself and family, and 
 the numerous animals that were to be preserved ; yet when 
 that duty was commanded, Noah did not hesitate to obey, 
 though it cost him full 120 years of labour, and lie had to en- 
 dure the brunt of the world’s reproach and scorn. But in this 
 obedience there was no new principle, but the application of 
 an old principle to a new precept. So with regard to the pa- 
 triarch Abraham. When God first called him to seek his face, 
 and leave his native country, the patriarch did not know that 
 God would ever give him such a hard command as that of sacri- 
 ficing his own son : but there was in the patriarch’s bosom the 
 principle of obedience ; and when the command came Abraham 
 proceeded with a steady purpose to obey the command of God. 
 And when Abraham was first called of God, he had no concep- 
 tion of those discoveries of truth and those blessed purposes of 
 God which were subsequently revealed to him ; but there was 
 in the mind of the patriarch the principle of faith, similar to 
 the principle of faith display ed by Noah— faith in the promise 
 that in his seed should all the families of the earth he blessed : and 
 that principle involved the reception of every other truth which 
 might be revealed to him in the subsequent course of his his- 
 tory by the benevolence of his Father and his God. Now if 
 Noah had rejected the truths subsequently made known, or if 
 Abraham had rejected those revealed to him, and persisted in 
 unbelief, their former faith, by which they were interested in 
 God’s covenant, would have been destroyed, and they would 
 3iave been severed from their union with God, and the enjoy- 
 ment of his favour. The principle of Abraham was never that 
 of testing God’s revelation by the dictates of carnal reason or 
 worldly wisdom. If he had, the bright example which his his- 
 tory unfolds would never have been given to man. When God 
 promised the patriarch that he should have the land of Canaan 
 for an inheritance, he believed it, whatever natural difficulties 
 
MR COOKE. 
 
 13 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 stood in the way. When he promised him a son from whose 
 loins the Messiah should spring, and a mighty nation proceed, 
 the patriarch believed it. And though the fulfilment of the 
 promise was delayed until it was physically impossible that it 
 could be fulfilled, he believed it still. He did not consider his 
 own body as now dead, nor the deadness of Sarah’s womb; but, 
 knowing that the God who promised was able to perform, he 
 hoped against hope, and was strong in faith, giving glory to 
 God. And when Abraham received the command of God to 
 sacrifice his son — that son on whose strong arm the aged father 
 leaned — that son in whom his tenderest affections were cen- 
 tred — that son on whose existence his own welfare and the 
 world’s salvation seemed to depend ; — when God required that 
 son to be offered up as a victim — although it appeared contrary 
 to common sense and reason, so called, the patriarch was pre- 
 pared to obey the precept, and still held fast the promise of 
 his God. His faith was not governed, as a principle, by human 
 probabilities. So the faith of a Christian regards the testimony 
 of Heaven — of that God, who cannot be deceived himself, and 
 who will not deceive the creatures that depend upon him. 
 
 Now the Christian possesses this faith — the Christian retains 
 this faith — the Christian is required to retain it — and the Chris- 
 tian continues a true Christian only while he retains this faith 
 in God. Hence the numerous exhortations we have in Hoi;, 
 Scripture to hold fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast 
 unto the end; and hence the distinction made between a heretic 
 and a true Christian. A heretic is not an infidel in the broad 
 sense of the term. He is an individual who partially embraces 
 Christianity, and partially rejects it. He is an individual who 
 holds the truth in part, and rejects it in part; as Hymenseus 
 and Philetus held the Messiahship of Jesus, but rejected the 
 doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Hence in the Holy 
 Scriptures, to mark the importance of faith, we find that here- 
 tics are denounced in language of unmeasured reprobation and 
 condemnation. In Acts the 20th chap, and 29th verse, the 
 Apostle Paul admonishes the Ephesian church, that after his 
 departure grievous wolves would enter in among them, not 
 sparing the flock. “ Also of your own selves,” he adds, “ shall 
 men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after 
 them.” The Apostle Peter, in his second epistle, 2nd chap., 1st 
 and 3rd verses, speaks of “ liilse prophets,” who should “ bring 
 in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, 
 and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” Though the 
 Gospel beams brightly with benevolence, and though the Gos- 
 pel inculcates benevolence, it never tolerates the renunciation 
 of truth, but speaks of those who reject it as the worst enemies 
 of the Gospel; and such are pronounced “accursed,” even by 
 the benevolent Paul, who could die for his countrymen at any 
 moment when the Providence of God required it. Adverting 
 to those who had corrupted the faith, Galatians i, from the 6th 
 
14 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [first 
 
 to the 8 th verses, he speaks in the following language: — “ I marvel 
 that ye are so soon removed from him that called yon into the 
 grace of Christ, unto another Gospel; which is not another ; 
 hut there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gos- 
 pel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach 
 any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached 
 unto you, let him be accursed.” Then he repeats the sentiment 
 and gives it peculiar emphasis, — “ As we said before, so say I 
 now again, if any man preach any other Gospel unto you than 
 that ye have received, let him be accursed.” In the 5th chapter, 
 at the 10th and 12th verses, he says, — “ I have confidence in you 
 through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded : but 
 he that troubletli you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.” 
 And he goes on to say, — “ I would they were even cut off which 
 trouble you.” Now, these characters, so far from being acknow- 
 ledged to be Christians, were to be expelled from the church of 
 God—were to be cut off from communion with the church. 
 Hence the Apostle says, in his epistle to Titus, 3rd chap. 10th 
 and 11th verses, — “ A man that is an heretic after the first and 
 second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is sub- 
 verted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.” He adverts 
 to Hymenams and Philetus, in the first epistle to Timothy, 1st 
 chapter and 19th and 20th verses, as those whom he had de- 
 livered unto Satan— -as those whom he had expelled from 
 church membership. Thus he fixes upon them the brand of 
 his disapprobation as corrupters of the truth, though there is no 
 evidence of their denying any other doctrine than the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead. They admitted the Messiahship of Christ, 
 but denied the resurrection of the dead. The Apostle John, 
 with all his sweetness of temper, with all his benevolence of 
 disposition, with all his yearning compassion, with all the mild 
 lessons learned while leaning on the Saviour’s bosom, thus 
 speaks of those who corrupt the faith : “ If there come any 
 unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your 
 house, neither bid him God speed : tor he that biddeth him 
 God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”- -2 John x. 11. 
 
 Now such is the importance which the Scriptures attach to 
 Christians retaining the faith which they first had, and holding 
 uncorrupt and undefiled those great doctrines which God has 
 revealed to man in His Word. Man is not to speculate on 
 God’s truth to pervert it. Man is not to take a licentious free- 
 dom with the revelation of heaven. He must yield his mind, 
 docile and teachable, to receive what Heaven would communi- 
 cate, and hold the teachings of his Maker in religious venera- 
 tion’and practical regard. The Christian is admonished against 
 all those corrupters of the truth to whom I have referred. He 
 is exhorted to hold fast the form of sound words--to prove all 
 things but to hold fast that which is good. He is required to 
 contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. lie 
 is admonished to “ beware lest any man should spoil him 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 15 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 through philosoph} r and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the 
 world, and not after Christ.” He is required to be no more as a 
 child, 44 tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine,” or to be 
 ensnared by men who lie in wait in cunning craftiness to deceive. 
 He is to be on his guard against their pernicious influence. He 
 is reminded that the progress of the heretic is downward ; that 
 one error becomes the parent of another ; and 44 that evil men 
 and seducers will wax worse and worse, deceiving and being 
 deceived;” giving up first one truth and then another truth, 
 and unsettling almost every truth : and thus, as the Apostle- 
 describes them, waxing worse and worse. 
 
 As an antidote to these evils, he is exhorted to cleave to the 
 Holy Scriptures. And it is remarkable that when the Apostle 
 Paul is directing the attention of Timothy to men who held 
 fatal errors, he significantly intimates that the great cause of 
 their delusions was their contempt of the Holy Scriptures; and 
 in contrast to their conduct, he exhorts Timothy to cleave to the 
 Holy Scriptures. In the 14th, 15th, and 16th verses of the 
 chapter which is now referred to— namely, the the third chapter of 
 the second epistle, he says, — 44 But continue thou in the things 
 which thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of 
 whom thou hast learned them ; and that from a child thou hast 
 known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise 
 unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” And 
 then he adds, 44 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 
 and is profitable for doctrine” — (yes ; and this is an interpre- 
 tation which I am prepared to defend) — 44 All scripture is given 
 by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, 
 for correction, for instruction in righteousnes ; that the man of 
 God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” 
 
 Now, the Christian is one who obeys these injunctions, and 
 who is animated and actuated by the example of those illustrious 
 spiritual heroes who are brought before us in the 11th chapter 
 of St. Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews. He is animated and en- 
 couraged, I say, by the example of an Abel, of an Enoch, of 
 a Noah, of an Abraham, of the other patriarchs, of a Joseph, 
 of a Moses, of a Jeptha, of a Rahab, of a Sampson, of a Gi- 
 deon, of a Barak, of a David, of a Samuel, and of the pro- 
 phets, 44 who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righte- 
 ousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 
 quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, 
 out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight* 
 turned to flight the armies of the aliens.” 44 These all, 
 having obtained a good report through faith, received not the 
 promise : God having provided some better thing for us, that 
 they without us should not be made perfect. Wherefore seeing 
 we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses,’’ let. 
 us hold fast our faith — let us be followers of them who through 
 faith and patience inherit the promises. The Christian, 1 say, 
 is one who is admonished by the corrupt examples to which 1 
 
16 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [first 
 
 ha-ve referred ; wlio obeys the injunctions which I have quoted; 
 and who is animated and encouraged by those noble examples 
 of faith which are before us. He is one who embraces the 
 truth and holds it fast. He is one who clings to the word of 
 God as the word of unchangeable and eternal truth. He neither 
 sells it for gold, nor exchanges it for philosophic speculations, 
 nor corrupts it by superstition, nor fritters it away by sophisti- 
 cal evasion. He welcomes its angelic form ; he rejoices in its 
 bright beams ; he submits to its divine authority ; he embraces 
 its precious promises ; and he conforms to its hallowed require- 
 ments. Amidst all the temptations of Satan, and the allure- 
 ments of the world ; amid all the seductive, the artful, the de- 
 signing, the sophistical attempts of man to rob him of his sacred 
 treasure, he holds it fast. In active life, it guides and controuls 
 him. In affliction, it consoles him ; in tribulation, it cheers 
 and comforts him ; in death, it inspires him with triumph ; 
 and on leaving the world he exclaims — “ I have fought a good 
 fight — I have finished my course — I have kept the faith.” This 
 is a Christian, so far as the first principle in his conduct is 
 concerned. I have a volume, in regard to other points, to bring 
 before you ; but I perceive, from the index, oil my watch, that 
 I cannot now go through all the features of the Christian 
 character. 
 
 1 remark that , cis the second principle of his character , he 
 obeys the requirements which God enjoins in the Christian revela- 
 tion. Faith without works is dead, being alone. But the 
 Christian’s faith is not dead — is not alone. It is not a cold, spe- 
 culative notion, floating on the surface of the brain, but a vital 
 principle dwelling in the heart, active, energetic, and purifying. 
 It works by love ; it produces holy fear ; it generates repent- 
 ance ; it excites holy desires and affections. I would dwell 
 upon “ love” especially, during the short time that I have yet 
 to speak this evening, for two reasons ; first, because it is the 
 great principle of obedience ; for while faith lays the founda- 
 tion, love erects and completes the noble and the glorious su- 
 perstructure : and, secondly, because love includes feeling as 
 well as principle ; and is opposed to that cold and insipid piety 
 which is ever the ally of a spurious faith, or a defective and 
 heretical theology. Some people exclaim against excitement, 
 as if there were no feeling in religion — as if it were light with- 
 out heat — as if it did not excite the affections. An ominous 
 indication that they understand not the genius of the Gospel. 
 It is experience, as well as knowledge. The sun of righteous- 
 ness warms while he enlightens. And while principle strikes 
 •deep its roots in the conscience and the moral po wers, it gene- 
 rates holy affections, and brings forth the fruit of obedience to 
 God. 
 
 The Christian loves God. “We love him,” says the 
 Apostle, “ because God first loved us.” Yes! He first loved 
 us. That is the exciting cause. He has exhibited that love in 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 17 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 his conduct towards us, and has communicated that love by hi3 
 Spirit within us. It is the communication of this love which 
 gives the soul new powers of perception and sensibility — 
 which makes the scales fall from our eyes, and our marble 
 hearts dissolve. Then new and mighty wonders are spread 
 before our intellectual vision ; emotions of joy, unknown 
 before, glow intensely in our bosom, and in grateful amazement 
 we exclaim herein is love, not that we have loved God, but that 
 he hath loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our 
 sins. Viewing, on the one hand, our wretchedness, our help- 
 lessness, and guilt ; and, on the other, the stupendous and mys- 
 terious exhibition of the Saviour’s love in our redemption, gra- 
 titude fills our hearts, praise flows from our tongues, and we 
 sink overpowered by the immensity of our obligations. Thus 
 the soul is sweetly constrained to love God as the author of its 
 being, and the fountain of its joy — a feeble acknowledgement 
 of the mercies received. That love for God which dwells in the 
 Christian’s mind implies supreme satisfaction in God. “ The 
 carnal mind is enmity against God.” That is its appropriate 
 characteristic — “enmity against God” It is under the influ- 
 ence of dispositions and affections hostile to the divine nature, 
 and to the divine character. Yes, every feature of the divine 
 character — every precept of the divine law — every proceeding 
 of the divine government, which forbids the indulgence of his 
 unholy passions, and threatens punishment against his conduct, 
 is an object ofthe sinner’s hatred. Onthe one hand, unable to shun 
 the glance of omniscience, to wrest the sceptre from the hand of 
 omnipotence, or to evade the shafts of justice ; and, on the 
 other hand, unwilling to bow to the requirements of mercy, his 
 malignant heart rises in rebellion against the Saviour ; and 
 rather than submit to his holy law, he would, if possible, revo- 
 lutionize the government of God, and overthrow the throne of 
 his glory. But principles and sentiments diametrically opposite 
 to these influence and govern the heart of the true Christian.. 
 He not only knows God, but he approves of him and admires 
 him. Every feature of liis character — his holiness and justice, 
 as well as his love and mercy — every precept of his law, its re- 
 straints, prohibitions, and commands ; and every part of the eco- 
 nomy of his government, he beholds with satisfaction and com- 
 placenc 3 r . In his esteem, all the attributes of God are excellent 
 and glorious. His whole law is holy in its nature, just in its 
 requirements, and benevolent in its end ; and all his ways are 
 distinguished by mercy and truth. The Christian would not, 
 if he could, have any thing altered to suit his own convenience, 
 pleasure, or interest, at the expense of the Saviour’s glory, or in 
 contradiction to his blessed will. In his esteem, Christ is the 
 standard of excellence, by which he would have every thing 
 tested ; and his will the authority to which he would have every 
 thing submit. 
 
 Thus, the Christian loves God ; and from love to God there 
 
13 
 
 MR COOKE. 
 
 [first 
 
 springs another principle, as enjoined in God’s word, namely, 
 love to his fellow-man. He loves the Christian, his brother. 
 He is hound to him by the dearest ties, and the most powerful 
 and special obligations. He loves him, and sympathizes with 
 him in affliction. He loves him and delights in his society. He 
 loves him, and feels it a pleasure, as well as a duty, to minister to 
 his comfort and promote his happiness. He loves the sinner, 
 too, if not with the love of approbation, yet with the love of 
 compassion. It is Christ’s command — “ Love your enemies, 
 bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and 
 pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. 5 ’ 
 He loves the poor heretic, too, though he is commanded to hate 
 his pernicious ways, and to have no fellowship with him. Though 
 he may feel if to be a public duty to draw aside the vail from 
 his protean form, and trace the deceiver along his slimy sinu- 
 ous course into the secret recesses of error, yet after all he loves 
 him, and would delight to do him good, and promote his tem- 
 poral and eternal welfare. For the welfare of man, he is ever 
 willing to spend and be spent. 
 
 While he loves God, he hates all sin. Whatever pleasures, 
 honours, emoluments, sin may promise or present, he rejects 
 them all ; and whatever sufferings, reproaches, or deaths may 
 attend the course of obedience, he welcomes them for the honour 
 of Christ : he loves him more than life, and is prepared to lay it 
 down for his sake. 
 
 1 might dwell at some further length upon the principle ox 
 obedience, but I have not time. However, with regard to 
 love to man— with regard to obedience to God, — these duties 
 are so plain that I suppose there will not he much debate upon 
 them on the present occasion. “ He that committeth sin is 
 of the -devil ; for the : devil sinneth from the beginning:” but he 
 that “is bom of God cloth not commit sin ; for bis seed remain- 
 eth in him : and lie cannot sin, because lie is bom of God.” 
 1 John iii. 8. 
 
 Then with regard to the third principle— the Christian enjoys 
 the blessings which God has promised To him in the gospel. 
 Here is an ample field for expatiation ; but I can only just 
 mention these blessings. I say, then, first, that the Christian 
 enjoys the pardon of sin through Christ. Secondly, he enjoys 
 the privilege of access to God through Christ. Thirdly, he en- 
 joys the witness of the Holy Spirit through Christ. And, 
 fourthly, lie enjoys a title to the blessedness of eternal life 
 ; through Christ. 
 
 These are my views of a Christian, and his principles. But be- 
 fore X sit down, I will just show you what I believe a Chris- 
 tian is not. Mr. Barker may differ from me with regard to 
 the views I have stated in describing the faith of a Christian ; 
 but according to his oft-repeated and published statements, in 
 tracts now lying before me, he admits that persons holding these 
 sentiments are Christians. Those statements he will not 
 
NIGHT.] 
 
 MR. COOKS. 
 
 19 
 
 now deny. There is nothing, therefore, in any of the doctrines 
 advanced by me which, on Mr. Barker’s own showing, un- 
 cliristianizes the man who holds them. Since, then, the ques- 
 tion is — “What is a Christian %— and what are his principles V* 
 it becomes absolutely necessary to the existence of debate, that 
 I should state what a Christian is not. I shall do this 
 briefly — taking the Holy Scriptures for my guide. In his 1st 
 epistle, v. 10, John declares, 44 He that believeth not God 
 hath made him a liar ; because he believeth not the record that 
 God gave of his Son.” Now it will be admitted at once that he 
 who maketh God 44 a liar,” is no Christian. Let us, then, ap- 
 ply this. 
 
 First — one record which God has given of his Son is, that he 
 came in the flesh. He who believeth not that record of God, 
 hath made him a liar. St. John says, in the 4th chapter of the 
 same epistle, and the 1st verse, — 4 4 Beloved, believe not every 
 spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God : because 
 many false prophets are gone out into the world.” Therefore 
 lie that denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is a deceiver, 
 and not a Christian, according to the interpretation of the 
 Apostle John, 
 
 Another record which God gave of his Son is, that he was born 
 of a virgin. See the 1st and 2nd chapters of Luke, and the 1st 
 chapter of St. Matthew. Mr. Barker disbelieves that doctrine; 
 and therefore he, according to St. John’s statement, makes God 
 a liar ; and he who makes God a liar is no Christian. 
 
 A third record of God concerning his Son is, that hfe was per- 
 sonally foretold — that he was born in fulfilment of’ prophecies 
 which related to him personally — that he was the Christ from 
 his birth. Mr. Barker denies this record which God has given 
 of his Son ; and St. John says, — 44 He that believeth not God 
 hath made him a liar.” See* Isaiah, cli. 7, v. 14 ; and the first 
 two chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke. My proofs of Mr. 
 Barker’s denial of this doctrine are in his own writings, which 
 I shall subsequently bring forward. 
 
 The fourth record of God concerning his Son is, that he was 
 without sin. Mr. Barker disbelieves this doctrine, and holds 
 that the Lord ci life and glory, merely 44 became a truly pious 
 young man.” My proof that God bare this record of his Son is 
 found in the 7th chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews, 
 2Gth verse : — 44 For such an High Priest became us, who is holy, 
 harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than 
 the heavens.” My proof of Mr. Barker’s denial is found in his 
 own writings. See 44 The Christian,” No. 19. The conclusion 
 is inevitible. 
 
 The fifth record of God concerning his Son is, that 44 In the 
 beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
 Word was God,” John i. 1. In chap, xvii, 5, this apostle says 
 that Christ was with the Father before the world was, and 
 therefore asserts his pre-existence : 44 And now, 0 Father, glorify 
 
20 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [FIRST 
 
 thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had wdtk 
 thee before the world was.” Mr. Barker disbelieves this record, 
 and maintains that the Saviour of the world had no existence 
 prior to the birth of his human nature. The apostle John says. 
 
 He that believeth not God hath made him a liar.” Mr. Bar- 
 ker, I repeat, disbelieves this statement. What is the inference \ 
 
 The sixth record which God bare concerning his Son is, that 
 he is God. Take the three first verses of St. John’s gospel. 
 “ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
 and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with 
 God. All things were made by him ; and without him v r as 
 not any thing made that was made.” Mr. Barker disbelieves this 
 doctrine ; and asserts that Christ was only a man, or, to use his 
 own words, a <# simple man.” Now, he that believeth not God 
 hath made him a liar ; and Mr. Barker disbelieves that state- 
 ment of God’s -word. 
 
 The seventh record which God gave concerning his Son is, 
 that his death was a propitiation, or an atonement — (and I am 
 free to use the word atonement, and shall stand by it if required) 
 
 • — an atonement for our sins. Jesiis Christ, whom God hath 
 sent forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to de- 
 clare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
 through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this 
 time his righteousness that he might be just, and the justifier 
 of him that believeth in Jesus.” — Rom. iii. 25, 26. This doc- 
 trine Mr. Barker also disbelieves. 
 
 All these points relate to Mr. Barker’s great principle, that 
 “ a Christian is one who believes J esus to be the Christ, and sub- 
 mits himself to liis teachings.” This is the principle which I 
 have to grapple with, and vdiich I mean to grapple with; and 
 I mean to employ the knife, and shall dissect it to its very 
 core. 1 shall expose its fallacy, and debate it foot by foot 
 throughout this discussion. I confine myself, at present, to the 
 doctrines vdiich relate to the person, nature, and work of Jesus 
 Christ, and I do this, because Mr. Barker’s definition of Chris- 
 tian faith has respect only to one object, namely, to Jesus Christ. 
 At present, therefore, I confine myself to these subjects. Mr. 
 Barker will excuse me, if I request him to do the same ; and 
 when we have gone through our observations with regard to the 
 person and work of Christ, we can proceed to other topics. In 
 reference to the Holy Spirit and Holy Trinity, w r e can proceed 
 to them on subsequent evenings of the discussion. The topic 
 now before us affects the nature and person of Christ, to 
 which Mr. Barker’s definition of a Christian has reference. I 
 do not expect him to go through all in one evening : but I call 
 upon him to enter upon the first charge relative to the Miracu- 
 lous Conception. He states that the man is a Christian who 
 believes Christ to be the Messiah. I say no man is a Christian 
 while he denies that fact which appears in the first pages of the 
 New Testament — which is the very first fact taught by the 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 21 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 evangelist Matthew — and which is taught also in the first 
 chapter of St. Luke. I have nearly exhaused my time. Per- 
 haps I have yet a few minutes. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Exactly eight minntes. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Then 1 shall just take the opportunity of read- 
 ing over the “article” in Mr. Barker’s pamphlet to which I 
 have especially referred, which I hold to be unchristian — 
 which 1 am prepared to prove is unchristian — and which, if 
 God gives me health, (unless I have mistaken the truth of 
 God) I will prove to be so. What I am now about to read is 
 entitled, as I have said, “ The Article;” and I find it in the 19th 
 number of “ The Christian.” 
 
 “ I believe that Jesus was born and made as we are ; that he 
 was made in all respects like unto his brethren. I believe that 
 he was the son of Joseph and Mary, born in honourable wedlock. 
 I do not believe in the story of the Miraculous Conception ; I 
 believe it is a fiction. I do not believe that Matthew wrote the 
 account of the Miraculous Conception ; I believe the story was 
 added to his gospel after his times. I believe that the gospel of 
 Matthew began originally at what is now the third chapter ; 
 that it began like Mark’s gospel, with the account of John the 
 Baptist. I believe that Jesus was as liable to sin as other 
 children. I do not believe that Jesus, when born, or while a 
 child, differed from other children at all. I do not believe that he 
 was the Christ when he was born ; nor do I believe that it was 
 fixed that he should be the Christ till after he had proved him- 
 self, by his devoted piety, a suitable person for the work of the 
 Messiahship. I believe that Jesus, at first, was just on alevel with 
 the rest of mankind, and liable both to the common imperfec- 
 tions and failings of liis brethren. I believe that lie became a 
 truly pious young man, and that on account of his piety, God 
 chose him for the great and glorious work of forming a new 
 church, of founding a new and spiritual kingdom. I believe 
 that God first tried him, and proved his fidelity and constancy, 
 and that when he found, him true and firm in his purposes, 
 anointed him with the Holy Spirit, gave him powers and in- 
 structions to fit him for his work, and then sent him forth as 
 the instructor, the regenerator, the governor, the Saviour 
 of mankind. I do not believe that Jesus was foretold as an 
 individual, or that Jesus was born in fulfilment of any prophecy. 
 To me it seems that what was foretold was a prophet like unto 
 Moses, a Teacher, a King, a Saviour, and that the prophe- 
 cies respecting the Messiah would be fulfilled by the appoint- 
 ment of any suitable good man to the work of teaching, re- 
 forming, and saving mankind. 
 
 “ I do not think that God would have been thwarted in his 
 purposes, if Jesus had proved unfaithful. I believe that if, 
 when Jesus was tried, he had failed, God would have laid him 
 aside, and chosen some other person. No one can say that God 
 had not tried others before he tried J esus, and found them wanting 
 
22 
 
 MR COOKE. 
 
 [first 
 
 No one can say that he did, but no one can say that he did not. 
 I do not believe that there was any danger of Christ failing, 
 after Cod had sent him forth as the Messiah. I believe that 
 God had tried him sufficiently before he appointed him to the 
 Messiahship, to know that he was sufficiently firm, that he was 
 sufficiently fixed and established in righteousness to be safely 
 entrusted with the important office of the Messiahship. 
 
 “ 1 do not believe that God from the beginning foreknows any 
 man’s character. I believe that when a child is first born into 
 the world, God no more knows whether it will be good or bad, 
 faithful or unfaithful, righteous or wicked', than the parents of 
 the child themselves. I do not believe that the character, the 
 faithfulness or unfaithfulness of a child can be foreknown. I 
 believe that God can only learn what men will be, or whether 
 they will continue righteous or wicked, by trying or proving 
 them. Of course, I do not believe that God foreknew what the 
 character of Jesus would be before Jesus was tried. I do not 
 believe that Jesus was the supreme God. I do not believe that 
 he was God the Son. I believe that Jesus was at first a simple, 
 a perfect, a proper man. I believe he was just such a person, 
 just such a man as his brethren. I do not believe that Jesus 
 existed before his conception and birth of Mary, any more than 
 that other men existed before their conception or birth. 1 do 
 not believe that any other passage of Scripture proves that he 
 existed before he was conceived or born. I believe that God 
 dwelt in Christ, hut I believe that the God that dwelt in him 
 was God the Father, the only God there is. I believe that 
 Christ had unparalleled wisdom and power, but I believe that 
 he received them from God his F ather. I believe that Christ 
 received all he had from God ; I believe that he received his 
 very life and being from God. I believe that God was his Crea- 
 tor or Father, as truly as he is our Creator or Father. I do not, 
 however, believe that Jesus was the Soil of God in no higher 
 sense than we are”— 
 
 Here Mr. Cooke was interrupted by a remark of “ Time is 
 up and he immediately resumed his seat. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — I beg leave, on behalf of Mr. Cooke, to 
 thank the audience for the attention with which they have 
 heard him ; and especially for the very slight manifestation 
 of feeling which has been evinced. 1 hope the same conduct 
 will he observed towards Mr. Barker, and throughout the dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — I feel very much pleasure that hitherto we have 
 proceeded in that excellent spirit which ought to distinguish 
 every discussion of an important subject. I have now the plea- 
 sure of calling upon Mr. Barker to defend his positions ; and I 
 trust, in common with Mr Grant, that he will receive from you 
 that attention which has been rendered to Mr. Cooke. And I 
 may also say, that it is desirable, and the wish of Mr. Bar- 
 ker, and of liis committee, that no expression of applause or 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 23 
 
 night.] 
 
 of disapprobation, should be connected with his remarks. If 
 such conduct be faithfully observed by you, it will not only be 
 an acquiescence in the wishes of the Chairman and others, but 
 passion will be kept down, and judgment be the better exercised. 
 |_IIear, hear.] 
 
 Mr. Barker then proceeded : — Respected Chairmen and 
 Friends, — I stand before you as the advocate of a pure and un- 
 adulterated Christianity. My only object is to promote the 
 glory of God in heaven, and the welfare of mankind on earth. 
 Yon are all aware that I have frequently been denounced as a 
 heretic, an infidel, and a blasphemer. Many of the views which 
 I hold and advocate have been represented as utterly anti- 
 Christian, unscriptural, tending to subvert and destroy men’s 
 souls. I am wishful to state my views on a number of great 
 points ; and to lay before you my reasons for holding and for 
 advocating them. And I am wishful that when you have heard 
 this statement of my views, and pondered on what I have to 
 advance in their favour, you should judge for yourselves, in the 
 fear of God, and in the love of truth, and with a strict regard 
 to the sacred oracles, to the teachings of Jesus Christ as con- 
 tained in the Scriptures, whether those denunciations have 
 been deserved ; whether I am a heretic, an infidel, and a 
 blasphemer ; or whether I defend the truth as taught by 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 I have nothing to ask from this audience, but a patient and 
 attentive hearing, and a calm consideration of what may be 
 stated. I have not the slightest desire to mislead any individual. 
 I wish people to keep their minds wide awake. I wish them to 
 listen with particular attention. I wish them to carry their 
 Bibles in their minds, as far as they have them in remem- 
 brance, and to compare, as I pass along, every thing that I 
 state with the doctrines of Jesus, as recorded in the sacred 
 Scriptures. If I am found to teach any thing contrary to what 
 Jesus Christ taught, I wish you to reject it without ceremony. 
 If I am found to oppose any thing which Jesus Christ 
 taught, I wish you to oppose me. 1 wish you simply to be 
 guided by the doctrines of Jesus, and to admit nothing 
 which I have to state except in so far as I give the plain testi- 
 mony of Christ and his apostles for the statements which I lay 
 before you. 
 
 I am, of course, aware that many of the statements which I 
 shall have to make, and which I shall feel bound to advocate, 
 will be somewhat new and strange to the ears of many who 
 may hear me. But all that is strange to us, is not at variance 
 with truth. There may be many here that have still some- 
 thing to learn. Perhaps we none of us are wise to perfection. 
 Let us therefore endeavour to judge calmly and candidly 
 and give to every thing that may be stated by either dispu- 
 tant, both a fair hearing, and a just, deliberate, and honest 
 consideration. 
 
24 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [first 
 
 I shall proceed, myself, to state my views on the first 
 great question under consideration ; namely — “ What is a 
 Christian ?” I shall then, after having stated my own views, 
 proceed to notice the views which have been advanced by 
 my opponent. I shall proceed, in the first place, to state 
 my own views with respect to the first question — What is a 
 Christian ? 
 
 In the first place, then, a Christian is a disciple of Jesus 
 Christ. In Acts, 11th chap, and 26th verse, it is stated that 
 ** the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.” It is 
 plain, then, that Christian was only another word for disciple. 
 The word “ Christian,” is another name given to those who 
 previously bore the name of “disciples,” — disciples of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 I observe, in the second place, that the word disciple is a 
 Latin word, which signifies a scholar, or a learner. A disciple 
 of Jesus Christ, therefore, is a learner, or a scholar of Christ ; 
 one who receives Jesus Christ as his teacher, one who places 
 himself under Christ as an instructor sent from God, with a 
 desire to learn Christ’s doctrines, that he may reduce them to 
 practice. Every individual, then, who receives Jesus as a 
 teacher come from God, and who places himself under Jesus as 
 a scholar, with a view to learn the Christian doctrine, in order 
 that he may be conducted to present purity and happiness, and 
 to future everlasting blessedness, is a Christian. And this, I 
 may say, is the whole that is included in being a Christian. 
 Every one that receives Jesus as a teacher, and seeks to learn in 
 order to practice his doctrines, is a Christian : and no one else 
 but those who thus receive him as a teacher, and place them- 
 selves under him in order to practice his teachings, can be re- 
 garded as a Christian. 
 
 The word “ disciples” is frequently employed in other cases, ' 
 besides that of Christ and his followers. We read of John’s 
 disciples, and of Moses’s disciples, A disciple of Moses was one 
 who believed that God spoke by Moses. A disciple of John 
 was one who believed that his baptism and doctrine were from 
 heaven. A man who thus received Moses as a person through 
 whom God spoke, and who received and obeyed the doctrines 
 taught by Moses, was a true disciple of Moses. Those who re- 
 ceived the baptism and doctrine of John, or regarded John as a 
 messenger from God, were true disciples of John. And one 
 who receives Jesus as a teacher come from God, and places him- 
 self under his instruction and government, is a true disciple of 
 Jesus ; and as the term Christian means a disciple of Christ, 
 every such person is a true Christian. 
 
 If you refer to the 9th chapter of John, you will find a con- 
 versation between the man whose eyes had been opened and the 
 Pharisees, which may illustrate these remarks. Beginning at 
 the 17tli verse, you read,— “ They say unto the blind man again, 
 What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 25 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 said, he is a prophet. But the Jews did not believe concerning 
 him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they 
 called the parents of him that had received his sight.” They 
 asked the parents, who said their son was born blind ; but as to 
 the manner in which he received liis sight, they again referred 
 him to their son, saying, he was of age, and should speak for 
 himself. i( Then again called they the man that was blind, and 
 said unto him, Give God the praise ; we know that this man is 
 a sinner. He answered and said, W hether he be a sinner or no, 
 I know not : one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now 
 I see. Then said they to him again, What did he to thee ? how 
 opened he thine eyes \ ITe answered them, I have told you 
 already, and ye did not hear : wherefore would ye hear it 
 again ; will ye also be his disciples ; then they reviled him, and 
 said, Thou art his disciple ; but ice are Moses’ disciples. We 
 know that God spake unto Moses : as for this fellow, we know 
 not from whence lie is. The man answered and said unto them, 
 <6 Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from 
 whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.” And so 
 forth. That man was a disciple because he received Jesus as 
 the great teacher, and placed himself under his instruction and 
 government. The pharisees would have become his disciples, 
 if they had received him as one sent from God. They were 
 Moses’ disciples, because they believed that God spake by Moses; 
 and they would have been Jesus’ disciples, if they had believed 
 his doctrines, and placed themselves under his instruction and 
 government. 
 
 I may observe, that as a child is a scholar, or learner, from 
 the moment that he chooses an individual as his teacher, and 
 enters the school with the intention of learning the lessons 
 there taught, and submitting himself to the authority of the 
 person who teaches ; so it is in reference to parties entering the 
 school of Christ, and choosing him for their teacher. They are 
 disciples, scholars, and therefore Christians, from the moment 
 they make their choice of Jesus as a teacher, — from the moment 
 they begin to study his doctrines with a hearty intention of re- 
 ducing them to practice. It does not require a certain amount 
 of learning or knowledge to make a man a Christian. As in a 
 school there may be a hundred scholars, and no two of them 
 possesses the same amount of knowledge, and yet all are 
 scholars — all learners — and all may be equally submissive to 
 the teaching and authority of the master ; so in the school of 
 Christ, there may be ten thousand, or ten thousand times ten 
 thousand scholars, who, having entered and received him as 
 their teacher, and heartily placed themselves under his instruc- 
 tion and government, are true disciples, learners, scholars ; and 
 yet not two of them have the same amount of knowledge. They 
 may differ endlessly in knowledge or opinion ; still, as they 
 have chosen Jesus as their teacher, and placed themselves under 
 his instruction and guidance, they are equally scholars, of 
 
26 MR. BARKER. [FIRST 
 
 disciples ; and, as the word Christian is another name for the 
 term disciple, they are from that time true Christians. 
 
 I give this statement in opposition to a vast number of false 
 definitions as to what it is that constitutes a man a Christian. 
 We are sometimes told that a man cannot be a Christian unless 
 he believes certain opinions. For example, we are told that 
 he cannot be a Christian unless he believes in the Trinity; unless 
 he believes in satisfaction to the justice of God by the death of 
 Christ ; unless he believes in natural, total, and hereditary de- 
 pravity, the depravity of every child born into the world. I 
 am wishful to show that these accounts of what constitutes a 
 Christian, are not warranted by Scripture : that, on the con- 
 trary, the Scriptures give that simple, intelligible, plain 
 definition of the matter which I have just briefly laid before 
 you. 
 
 I shall meet some of these objections as they present them- 
 selves. We are tcld, in the first place, that a man is not a 
 Christian unless he believes in the Trinity, — or that there are 
 three persons in the Godhead. 1 answer, the Scriptures do not 
 say so. They never mention such a thing. There is no such 
 word as “ Trinity” in the Scriptures : there is no such phrase 
 as u three persons in one God.” There are no words in Scrip- 
 ture that can fairly^be asserted to amount to the same thing as 
 these phrases. Way, these phrases, — three persons in one God, 
 Trinity in Unity, and the like, are acknowledged to be in- 
 explicable and unintelligible by the parties who use them. So 
 that it would he vain to seek for the meaning in other phrases, 
 when the meaning itself is not yet understood. Again, while 
 the Scriptures never teach that a man cannot be a Christian un- 
 less he believes in the Trinity, they do teach, and that most 
 clearly, the contrary ; — they teach that a man may be a Chris- 
 tian— a disciple of Christ, before he even knows whether there 
 be such a thing as a Holy Ghost ; to say nothing about finding 
 out the Holy Ghost to he a third person in the Godhead. “ It 
 came to pass that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having 
 passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus : and finding- 
 certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy 
 Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, we have 
 not so much as heard whether there he any Holy Ghost.” They 
 were disciples. Paul regarded them as true Christian disciples. 
 But yet they had not so much as heard whether there was any 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 Another statement is that a man cannot he a Christian unless 
 lie believes in Satisfaction to Justice by the death of Christ. I 
 answer, that the Scriptures do not say so. There is no such 
 doctrine as the doctrine of Satisfaction— the doctrine that Christ 
 died to satisfy divine justice, in the whole sacred volume. The 
 death of Jesus Christ is never represented in the sacred writ- 
 ings as a satisfaction to divine justice. On the contrary, it is 
 orepresented as a means to redeem men from iniquity, to purify 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 27 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 them, and make them peculiar people, zealous of good works ; 
 and thus to bring people to happiness and to God. In the se- 
 cond place, the Scriptures teach that there were many disciples 
 of Christ before it was discovered that Christ would die at all, 
 or that he would rise again from the dead. Peter, and James, 
 and John, and their companions, were disciples, and had been 
 so for a length of time; and yet in the 16th chapter of Matthew, 
 we have the following account respecting this matter, beginning 
 at the 21st verse : — “ From that time forth began Jesus to show 
 unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, 
 and suffer many things of the elders and Chief Priests and 
 Scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then 
 Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from 
 thee, Lord : this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and 
 said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, adversary, thou art an 
 offence unto me : for thou savourest not the things that be of 
 God, but those that be of men.” Peter, therefore, though 
 in many respects he savoured the things that be of God 
 and was ready both to preach and to suffer for Christ’s 
 sake, could not entertain the idea of Christ’s death; and of 
 course could not be a believer in that death being a satisfaction 
 to divine justice. And yet he was a disciple : and in the pre- 
 ceding verses of the same chapter he is pronounced blessed, be- 
 cause he had believed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the 
 living God ; proving that believing this is the faith which 
 makes men disciples : and that the faith which receives the 
 death of Christ as true may not come till afterwards. These 
 individuals were disciples before they learned that important 
 doctrine, especially before they got clear views on the subjects 
 connected with Christ’s death. In the 9th chapter of Mark, at 
 the 9th and 10th verses, you may find that they knew as little 
 in reference to Christ’s resurrection, as they did in reference to 
 his death : — “ And as they came down from the mountain, he 
 charged them that they should tell no man what things they 
 had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead. And 
 they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with 
 another, what the rising of the dead should mean.” " 
 
 I wish to observe, that I am not at present entering into the 
 question at large as to whether the doctrine of the Trinity be 
 scriptural or not, or as to whether the doctrine of Satisfaction to 
 Divine Justice be scriptural or not. These are points which will 
 be considered at length hereafter. What I am now wishing to 
 show is principally, that a belief and understanding of these 
 doctrines, even supposing them to be true, is not essential to 
 make a man a Christian ; and that a man may be a true Chris- 
 tian, or disciple, or learner of Christ, before they are known. 
 
 Again, it is stated that a man cannot be a Christian unless he 
 believes in natural, hereditary depravity. I answer, the Scrip- 
 tures never say so. Chiist says not one single word about any 
 such subject. What he does say, on the contrary, is, — “ Suffer 
 
28 MR. BARKER. [FIRST 
 
 little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such 
 is the kingdom of heaven.” And we know that heaven is not 
 made up of people who are totally depraved. 
 
 It is further said that a man must be born again — born of 
 God, before he can be a Christian. I answer, every one is bom 
 of God who believes in Jesus as the Christ, and who gives him- 
 self up to Christ’s instruction and government. In proof of 
 this 1 refer you to the 5th chapter of the 1st epistle of John, 
 and first verse, — “ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ 
 is born of God.” 
 
 It is said that a man cannot be a Christian unless he trusts 
 for acceptance with God in the merits of Christ, and in the 
 merits of Christ alone. The Scriptures, however, do not say 
 that. You have heard from my opponent something about par- 
 ties being wise above what is written. Now whatever wisdom a 
 man may have, teaching him that a man cannot be a Christian 
 who does not believe in the Trinity ; who does not exclusively 
 trust in Christ’s merits to secure acceptance with God ; who does 
 not believe in natural, total, hereditary depravity ; who does not 
 believe in satisfaction to divine justice 1 say, whatever wis- 
 dom he may have, leading him to believe these doctrines, and to 
 tell a man that he cannot be a Christian unless he believes in 
 them, is all wisdom that is got somewhere else than from the 
 Bible ; and he that is wise in this way, is wise either above what 
 is written, or very far wide of what is written. With respect 
 to the last statement, that no one can be a Christian unless he 
 trusts in the merits of Christ for acceptance with God, there is 
 not a single word in favour of any such doctrine in the whole 
 Bible. There is nothing about the merits of Christ mentioned 
 in the Scriptures. There are no words that amount to the same 
 meaning as the phrase “ the merits of Christ.” Some tell us, 
 that though the words are not there, the thing is there. But if 
 the thing is there, why are not the words put in. They were 
 persons who believed in the merits of Christ that translated the 
 Scriptures ; and if they had found the thing, do you think they 
 would have kept out the words ? If those who translated the 
 Scriptures had found the thing, would they not have put the 
 words there also? Yet neither in the old government translation, 
 nor in those of John Wesley, Dr. Conquest, nor any other trans- 
 lation, Trinitarian, or Anti-Trinitarian, Orthodox, or Heterodox, 
 can any one find such a phrase as the “ merits of Christ.” And 
 as there is no mention of the merits of Christ, there cannot be 
 any mention of any such thing as trusting in the merits of Christ 
 for acceptance and salvation. Men, therefore, are Christians 
 from the moment they choose Christ as their teacher, however 
 little they may know of his doctrine ; just as a child is a learn- 
 er or scholar, the moment he chooses a teacher, and places him- 
 self under his instruction and government. 
 
 With respect to Christ’s first disciples, we have noticed one 
 or two of their errors. I may notice a few other of their 
 
NIGHT. ] MR. BARKER. 29 
 
 mistakes. They frequently misunderstood Christ’s doctrine,, 
 When he said to them, — “ Beware of the leaven oi the Scribes 
 and Pharisees,” they did not understand him. It was alter he 
 had given them an explanation only that they understood one 
 of the simplest matters, namely, that it was of the doctrine of 
 the Scribes and Pharisees that they were to be aware, and not 
 of their bread. They did not understand the nature ol Christ’s 
 kingdom. They fancied he was to be an earthly monarch, who 
 would subdue the nations of the earth to the Jews. Two of 
 them contended as to which should sit at his right and left hand 
 in his kingdom. The mother of two of them asked as a favour, 
 on behalf of them, that they might sit at his right hand and on 
 his left. Others of them contended which should be the great- 
 est in his kingdom. And even at the time oi his ascension, they 
 seemed to entertain the idea that Jesus would restore the king® 
 dom — the dominion to Israel ; that the result of Christ’s mis- 
 sion would be to free the Jewish people from subjection to fo- 
 reign dominion, and make them the governors or heads of the 
 lower world. They did not understand the simple doctrine that 
 Christ came for the salvation of the Gentiles as well as of the 
 Jews ; that the Gospel was to be preached to every creature ; 
 and that every creature who received the doctrine, and yielded 
 obedience to it, was to be saved, — saved without regard to the 
 law of Moses, or to circumcision — saved by faith in Jesus as 
 the Christ — faith working by love. It was ten years after the 
 day of Pentecost that Peter learned the important duty of 
 preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. And then he had to be 
 taught it by a vision ; to be thrust out, as it were, by miraculous 
 interference, and taught to understand the plain command, to go 
 into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. And 
 when Peter was thus directed, he said , — “ Not so, Lord ; for I 
 have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And 
 the voice spake unto him again the second time. What God 
 hath cleansed, that call not thou common.’’ The early disciples, 
 too, had differences of opinion — were of various opinions ; and 
 of course the opinions of some of the parties must be wrong,. 
 See the 14th chapter of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, where 
 he gives you instances of their differences of opinion. “ One 
 belie vetli that he may eat all things : another, who is weak, 
 eateth herbs.” u One man esteemeth one day above another ; 
 another esteemeth every day alike.” Paul, however, does not 
 say that those who esteem every day alike are not Christians; 
 nor that those who esteem one day above another are not Chris- 
 tians. He regarded both as Christians; and says , — ■“ Let every 
 man be fully persuaded in his own mind and let every man 
 act according to his persuasion, in the fear of God, in love to. 
 his brethren ; no one judging his brother in reference to these, 
 matters. Similar differences of opinion may exist among 
 Christians still. A man may be a Christian, and yet a Roman 
 Catholic. He may be a Christian, and yet a Protestant. He 
 
30 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [first 
 
 Biay be a Christian, and yet be a Quaker, a Baptist, a Metho- 
 dist, a Calvinist, a Trinitarian, an Anti-Trinitarian, and so forth. 
 And he may be a Christian, and be none of all these. It is not 
 necessary, in order to a man being a Christian, a learner, a 
 scholar of Christ, that he should belong to any sect, to any de- 
 nomination, or to any religious society. All that is essential to 
 a man’s being a Christian is the reception of Jesus as a teacher, 
 and subjection to Christ’s direction and authority. A man may 
 be a Roman Catholic, and yet regard Jesus as a great teacher 
 come from God, and the divinely -appointed Saviour of mankind. 
 Tie may be a Protestant, and have the same faith and practice, 
 lie may be a Calvinist, a Methodist, a Baptist, or a Quaker, a 
 Trinitarian, or an Anti-Trinitarian, and have faith in Jesus as 
 the Messiah ; and be sincere in heart, and sound in faith ; and 
 Ills single, undivided, constant object shall be to understand and 
 do the will of his heavenly Father, as revealed and exemplified 
 by Jesus Christ. 
 
 It was intimated by my opponent that there is a difference 
 between ignorance and unbelief ; between error and infidelity ; 
 between mistake and disobedience. This is a very important 
 principle. It would be well if it were better understood. It 
 would be well if all Christians understood it ; and if ail Chris- 
 tians, and all professed preachers of the religion of Christ, 
 would act consistently and constantly upon it. 1 1 is, however, 
 a fact, that vast numbers seem to make no distinction between 
 ignorance and unbelief, between error and infidelity, between 
 mistake and disobedience. If it be a man’s sincere conviction 
 that every day is alike, he is still denounced as unchristian. If 
 it be a man’s conviction that one day is more excellent than 
 another, that is a recommendation to a great portion of profess- 
 ing Christians to receive him into the fold of Christ’s disciples 
 at once. So in reference to other particular interpretations of 
 the sacred writings. If a man differ from the principal parties 
 of the day, in reference to certain matters, speculations, or 
 opinions, he is at once denounced as unchristian. It may be 
 that he is in the wrong : hut it may also be that his error is not 
 his fault, hut his misfortune ; — that the reason is, that he has 
 not yet heard such things ; and how can a man believe any 
 thing of which lie has not yet heard? If he mistake the mean- 
 ing of Christ’s sayings, it may be, probably, because he has not 
 bad a better opportunity of understanding their nature. And 
 if he happen to go contrary to some parties, in regard to meats, 
 drinks, days, baptism, washings, and the like, lie is not to be 
 degraded on that account. Even if, in these points, he is in the 
 wrong, it may he simply through mistake, and not through dis- 
 obedience. A man is not necessarily to be taken as going con- 
 trary to God’s authority, because he differs from another man 
 as to what God’s authority requires ; nor to be regarded as re- 
 jecting God’s truth, and calling God a liar, because lie differs 
 from others as to what God has said, or as to what God’s 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 81 
 
 1STIGHT.] 
 
 sayings really mean. Two men may have equal respect for God’s 
 authority, equal faith in his veracity, and be at an equal dis- 
 tance from the habit and practice of calling God a liar, and yet 
 differ widely as to wliat God has said to man ; and if they shall 
 agree as to what he has said, they may differ very widely as to 
 what God meant. These two parties, thus widely differing both 
 as to what God says and means, may still be equally believers 
 in God— may equally say that God is true — may equally revere 
 his authority — may have an equal regard for the honour of 
 God, and be equally desirous of carrying out his truth in their 
 lives. 
 
 Men may be divided into five great classes : — 
 
 1. Atheists ; who do not believe in God. 
 
 2. Deists ; who do believe in God, but who do not believe in 
 
 Moses and the prophets, or in Christ and his apostles. 
 
 8. Jews ; who believe in God and who believe in Moses and 
 the prophets ; but do not believe in Jesus as the Christ. 
 
 4. Persons who believe in Jesus as the Christ, but do not 
 
 obey his teachings, and are not wishful to understand his^ 
 doctrine. And 
 
 5. Christians ; persons "who both believe in God and in Moses 
 
 and the prophets, and in Jesus as the Messiah ; and who 
 add to faith, virtue ; who give their hearts to God, 
 and make it their study to understand and obey God’s 
 precepts. 
 
 The individual, who believes in Jesus as the Christ — who re- 
 ceives his doctrines as the oracles of God — and who surrenders 
 his life to virtue, as inculcated in the gospel, is the true Chris- 
 tian. A Christian is distinguished from an Atheist in this — 
 that lie believes there is a God, and that God is a re warder of 
 them that diligently seek him. He differs from a Deist in this 
 — that he believes that God has revealed himself, and made 
 known his will by prophets. He differs from a Jew in this — 
 that he believes in Jesus as the Christ, the person appointed by 
 God to be the teacher, the Saviour, and the judge of men. He 
 differs from the profligate, and nominal, and unfaithful profes- 
 sor of Christianity in this — that he respects Christ’s authority, 
 and habitually surrenders himself to Christ’s instructions. But 
 he is not to be distinguished from others who believe in Jesus 
 as the Christ, and place themselves in subjection to him, as if 
 he were no Christian, because he does not hold their distinctions 
 of days, or their peculiar views, or opinions, or act in exactly 
 the same manner as they act. All men, whether Catholics or 
 Protestants, Baptists or Quakers, Trinitarians, or Anti-Trini- 
 tarians, Methodists or Calvinists, who believe in Jesus as the 
 Christ — who receive him as a teacher sent from God, and as the 
 appointed Saviour of the world — and who place themselves 
 under his instruction and government, that he may lead them 
 to all truth and righteousness, and bring them to present and 
 everlasting blessedness — are all Christians, however widely 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 32 
 
 [first 
 
 they may differ in opinion, in name, or in many of their 
 practices. 
 
 When men profess to be Christians, how is it to be ascer- 
 tained whether their profession be sincere or not ? Is it by 
 reference to their opinions ? No. Is it by reference to outward 
 ordinances? No. It is by reference to their general conduct ; 
 and, especially, by reference to their temper and dispositions 
 towards their brethren. This has been noticed by my oppo- 
 nent. On this point, we to some extent agree ; perhaps not, 
 however, fully. There may be a wide difference ; and I shall 
 therefore state my views with perfect freedom. In the 8th 
 chapter of John’s gospel, from the 30th to the 32nd verse, you 
 have these words : — “ As he spake these words, many believed 
 on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews who believed on 
 him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples 
 indeed.” If ye continue in my word, still holding the doctrines 
 I teach, and ready to obey the precepts I enjoin, then “ ye shall 
 know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” In John, 
 chapter 13, and verses 34 and 35, we have these words: — “ A new 
 commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I 
 have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all 
 men know that ye are my disciples” — How? If ye believe in 
 the Trinity ? No. If ye believe in satisfaction to divine jus- 
 tice ? No. If ye believe in adult immersion ? No. If ye 
 believe in total, hereditary depravity ? No. If ye believe in 
 eternal torments? No. “ By this shall all men know that ye 
 are my disciples, if ye have love one to another .” In the 15th 
 
 chapter of John, and the 8th verse, we have these words: — 
 <c Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit ; so 
 shall ye be my disciples.” In the first epistle of John, the 
 second chapter and the 5th verse, we have the same sign given: — • 
 “ But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God 
 perfected : hereby know we that we are in him.” In the same 
 epistle, 3rd chapter, from the 15th to the 19th verses, we have 
 the same sign or test of true discipleship : — “ Whosoever hateth 
 his brother is a murderer : — and ye know that no murderer hath 
 eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of 
 Christ, because he laid down his life for us : and we ought to 
 lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this 
 world’s good, and seetli his brother have need, and shutteth up 
 his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of 
 God in him. My little children, let us not love in word, neither 
 in tongue : but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know 
 that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before 
 him.” This view is in perfect accordance with what is taught 
 throughout the sacred writings generally. When James 
 gives us a description of pure and undefiled religion, he says it 
 is, — “ To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and 
 to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Paul, in his 
 epistle to the Galatians, at the 5th chapter, and 6th verse, tells 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 33 
 
 tflGHT.] 
 
 us what will avail under the Christian dispensation in the fol- 
 lowing words : — “Form Jesus Christ neither circumcision 
 availeth anything, nor uncircumcision ; but faith which worketh 
 by love.” In his 6th chap., about the 15th verse, he says : — “In 
 Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor un- 
 circumcision, but a new creature.” And he adds, “ as many as 
 walk according to this” simple, practical and comm on-sense “rule, 
 peace be on them.” In the first epistle to the Corinthians the 
 7th chapter, and 19fch verse, he gives the same principle in an- 
 other form : — “ Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is 
 nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” In 
 the first of these three passages, we have the root and spring of 
 true religion, a belief in Jesus as the Christ— “ faith working 
 by love.” In the second passage, w r e have the effect pro- 
 duced — becoming a “new creature;” that is, being brought 
 under the influence of the love of God and of mankind. In the 
 third passage we have the outward manifestations of that in- 
 ward change — “ keeping the commandments of God.” Those 
 commandments are, “Thou shall love the LordTliy God, with, 
 all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself ;” still making the 
 practice and the spirit of Christianity to consist in the love of 
 God and in love to our fellow-men, in perfect accordance 
 with the doctrines which Jesus Christ teaches. 
 
 In the 5th chapter of Matthew we are taught that those are 
 the children of God, who love their fellow-men as God loves 
 them. Beginning at the 43rd verse, we find these words : — 
 “ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love 
 your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that 
 hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and 
 persecute you ; that ye may be the children of your Father 
 which is in heaven: for he maketli his sun to rise on the evil 
 and on the good, and sendet.h rain on the just and on the unjust. 
 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye ? do 
 not even the Publicans the same? And if ye salute your 
 brethren only, what do ye more than others ? do not even the 
 Publicans so ? Be ye therefore perfect, or merciful, even as 
 your father which is in heaven is perfect, or merciful. 5 ’ Our 
 model, then, is our Father in heaven. In the 7th chapter, he 
 speaks thus, beginning at the 21st verse ; — “ Not every one that 
 saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of hea- 
 ven ; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in hea- 
 ven.” And “ therefore,” he says afterwards, “ whosoever 
 heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken 
 him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock : and 
 the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew, 
 and beat upon that house ; and it fell not : for it was founded 
 upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, 
 and doeth them not, shall he likened unto a foolish man, which 
 built his house upon the sand : and the rain descended, and the 
 
 b 3 
 
34 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [first 
 
 floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house ; and 
 it fell : and great was the fall of it.” Here Christ makes 
 man’s fitness for heaven to depend upon doing the will of his 
 Father in heaven. The individual who hears Christ’s sayings, 
 and does them, and thus hopes to obtain everlasting life, is repre- 
 sented as resting his hopes upon a firm and immutable founda- 
 tion. The man who hears, and does not obey, the orthodox 
 professor, who rests In forms or opinions, or feeling and excite- 
 ment, or rests entirely on the merits of Christ, lays them on 
 a sandy foundation ; and when the time of trial comes, his hopes 
 will be disappointed, and his expectations fail. in the 11th 
 chapter of Matthew, at the 28th and following verse, Christ 
 teaches people who labour and are heavy laden, to come unto 
 him, and he will give them rest. “ Take my yolce upon you,” 
 he says, “and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart : 
 and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” And in the 12th chap- 
 ter, at the close of the chapter, he teaches that all who do the 
 will of his Father in heaven are his brothers, his sisters, his 
 most intimate relations. “ While he yet talked to the people,” 
 to those who were learning, in order that they might know and 
 practice his instructions, “ while he yet talked to the people, 
 behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to 
 speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold thy mother 
 and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 
 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my, 
 mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his 
 hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my 
 brethren ! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which 
 is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” 
 
 To those passages we may add other passages in which Jesus 
 Christ pronounces blessings, not upon the Orthodox, not upon 
 the Papist or the Protestant, the Methodist or the Calvinist, 
 the Baptist or the Quaker, the Trinitarian or the Anti-Trinita- 
 rian, but on the men who yield obedience to his doctrine ; who 
 receive J esus as their teacher ; and who make it their study to 
 understand and to obey his precepts. A number of these pas- 
 sages I shall give you — for they are passages which are scarce 
 ever insisted upon, or held forth prominently by most of those 
 who profess to teach the Gospel. “ Blessed are the meek,” those 
 who thankfully receive the instructions of Christ, and humbly 
 strive to obey them. “ Blessed are the merciful,” those who pity 
 their unhappy fellow-men, and labour to promote their welfare — 
 who can regard with pity' even those who offend, and can forgive 
 their brethren their trespasses. “Blessed are the pure in heart,” 
 the men whose simple object is to please God. “Blessed are 
 the peacemakers : for they shall be called the children of God. 
 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake ; 
 for their’ s is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men 
 shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil 
 against you for my sake.” “ And blessed is he who shall not 
 
night.] 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 35 
 
 be offended in me.” In Matthew, the 24th chapter, and 46th 
 verse, he teaches and enforces the necessity of watchfulness and 
 constant obedience to duty, and the improvement of our talents 
 in serving God, and leading obedient lives : and he says, 
 
 “ Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall 
 find so doing.” In the 11th chapter of Luke and 27th verse, we 
 read that “ a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, 
 and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the 
 paps which thou hast sucked.” But Jesus says, — “ Yea, rather 
 blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep It.” 
 In Luke, 14th chapter and 12th verse, he teaches men that 
 when they made a feast they were not to call the rich, nor their 
 relations, who had need of nothing ; but the poor and the 
 maimed, the lame and the blind, who had nothing wherewith 
 to support them. And he adds, “ And thou shalt be blessed ; 
 for they cannot recompence thee : for thou shalt be recompensed 
 at the resurrection of the just.” In John, the 13th chapter, 
 Christ teaches us humility by washing his disciples’ feet. 
 And after having given us this example, and said to his disciples, 
 “ Know ye what I have done unto you?” he adds, at the 17th 
 verse, “ If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them,” 
 And James, when speaking against people who hear the word, 
 and do not obey it ; men who never correct their faults ; exhorts 
 and encourages men to be doers of the word, and not hearers 
 only, deceiving themselves ; saying they shall be blessed in their 
 deed. 
 
 Thus Christ and his apostles unite together, throughout the 
 whole ef the New Testament, to pronounce a blessing, not on 
 men whose opinions are orthodox, or who conform to prevailing 
 ceremonies, and the teachings of existing priesthoods, but on 
 those men who accept Jesus as their guide, their governor, and 
 their saviour ; and who, receiving God’s truth at his lips, cherish 
 it in their hearts ; who receive God’s law into their minds, and 
 reduce it to practice in their lives. 
 
 In accordance with this view of the question, we find that 
 Jesus Christ, when people came to ask what they should do to 
 inherit eternal life, naturally directs those who were not be- 
 lievers, to begin with the belief in him. “ What shall we do,” 
 said the Jews, “ that we might work the works of God ?” And 
 Jesus answered, “ This is the work of God, that ye believe on 
 him whom he hath sent.” But when persons did believe, and 
 said, “ Good teacher, what shall we do, that we may have 
 eternal life ?” Jesus directed them to keep the commandments 
 — “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
 thy neighbour as thyself.” And when the lawyer came tempt- 
 ing Christ, under profession of being one of his disciples, and 
 said, “ Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life ?” Jesus 
 gave him the same answer. “ He said unto him. What is wiifc- 
 ten in the law ? how readest thou? and he answering said, Thou 
 shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all 
 
36 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [first 
 
 thy soul, arid with all thy strength, and with all thy mind ; and 
 thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast 
 answered right ; this do, and thou shalt live.” He then gave 
 him the parable of the good Samaritan to illustrate what love 
 requires ; and after giving that beautiful exemplification of the 
 spirit of charity, he said, “ Go thou and do likewise.” And on 
 this simple condition Jesus promised him the eternal life which 
 he professed to seek. 
 
 We are told that we must believe in Christ, and have a right 
 faith, in order to he Christians. We agree to this ; hut the 
 question is. What is a right faith — a blew Testament faith? 
 What is that faith in Jesus which the New Testament requires 
 of us? Is it to trust in Christ’s merits? Is it to believe in the 
 Trinity ? — in the universality of hereditary depravity ?— in the 
 doctrine of satisfaction to justice by the death of Christ ? We 
 will not answer, No ; hut ask you to go to the New Testament 
 for yourselves, and look at the New Testament teachings on 
 these subjects; and so leave you to answer, Yes, or No, as 
 your own consciences shall prompt you to do. I shall refer you 
 to a few passages where the faith which is required of us is 
 spoken of ; and you shall see for yourselves whether a belief in 
 Jesus as the Christ is not the true New Testament faith ? Take 
 first, the 20tli chapter of John’s Gospel, ver. 30, 31. “And 
 many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disci- 
 ples, which are not written in this hook : but these are written, 
 that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God : 
 and that believing ye might have life through his name.” 
 Here you see the signs recorded in the New TestamenJ are re- 
 corded not to convince you of the truth of the Trinity — of three 
 co-equal, co-eternal persons in one Godhead; are not written 
 to prove the notion that Jesus is the supreme God, or God the 
 Son ; are not written to prove to us that Jesus was required to 
 give up his life in satisfaction to his Father’s justice ; but they 
 are written to convince us that Jesus is the Christ — the Messiah 
 — the person appointed and anointed by God to be the teacher 
 and Saviour of mankind. He who believes that Jesus was the 
 Christ, has the faith the New Testament was intended to pro- 
 duce ; for the signs therein recorded were written “ that ye 
 might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and 
 that, believing in this simple way, ye might have life through 
 his name.” We are told that we must receive every word 
 which God has spoken ; and that we must not attempt to evade 
 the force of God’s Avoid by philosophical speculation or hyper- 
 criticism. Well, then, heie are some plain words ; and they 
 tell us that the Gospel was written that Ave might believe that 
 Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing in this 
 simple, heterodox way, we might have life in his name. 
 
 We have another illustration of this point in the 8th chapter 
 of the Acts of the Apostles, where Ave read that Philip had been 
 directed to go and visit a eunuch on liis journey. He went, 
 
NIGHT.] MR BARKER. 37 
 
 and conversed with him about Jesus Christ, and the eunuch was 
 convinced of the truth of what Philip taught. He believed 
 in Jesus, and wished to be received by baptism into the number 
 of his disciples. “ And as they went on their way, they came 
 unto a certain water : and the eunuch said, See, here is water ; 
 what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou 
 belie vest with ail thine heart thou mayest.” Now mark wdiat 
 the eunuch says in reply. I wish you to pay particular atten- 
 tion to this case. I wish you to see exactly what kind of con- 
 fession it is that the eunuch makes ; what kind of faith it is, 
 that Philip regarded as sufficient. Well, then, what does the 
 eunuch say ? — <c The eunuch answered and said, I believe that 
 Jesus Christ is the Son of God or that Jesus is the Christ, 
 the Son of God. And what does Philip say in reply? We 
 know what some people would have said in our day, if the 
 eunuch had given them such an answer. They would have said, 
 “ Well, friend, that is all very good so far as it goes ; but it 
 does not go far enough. It is right that you should believe that 
 Jesus is the Christ ; but, mark you ! you must believe, too, 
 that he is the supreme God. And not only that, but that the 
 Holy Spirit, of which you have not yet heard, perhaps, is su- 
 preme God as well. You must believe that there are three co- 
 equal, co-eternal persons in the Godhead ; and unti^you believe 
 that, you are not prepared for baptism. Then, again, my friend, 
 are you convinced of your guilt and depravity, that youw r ere natu- 
 rally depraved, born totally corrupt, under the wrath of God, and 
 the guilt of Adam’s sin — utterly depraved— indisposed to all 
 that is good-— and irresistibly prone to all that is evil ? Do you 
 understand that the object of Christ’s death was to satisfy di- 
 vine justice — not merely to make people wise and good ? And 
 are you aware that the only ground on which God forgives men 
 is the satisfaction of his justice which he received by the death 
 of Christ : and that unless you trust in Christ’s merits alone for 
 acceptance and eternal life, you are doomed to eternal torments ? 
 Do you understand this ? You say you believe that Jesus Christ 
 is the Son of God : but that is only an intellectual assent to an 
 historical matter of fact. It is but a vague and common belief. 
 Even the Unitarians and heretics believe that. You are lost 
 if you believe nothing more.” That w r ould have been the way 
 in which the reply of the eunuch would have been met by many 
 now-a-days : and unless he had gone a few, aye, a thousand steps 
 farther than simple .Christianity would carry them, he must have 
 been shut out of the church : and it is well that those who keep 
 the keys of the church have not the keys of heaven, or he 
 would have been shut out of heaven as well. But what does 
 Philip say ? Poor Philip had been at no theological institution 
 — he had spent no long years at college — he had received no 
 Athanasian drilling. He lived before orthodoxy came up. He 
 understood nothing but simple Christianity, and he held it in 
 all its native purity, before it had been corrupted, perverted. 
 
38 
 
 HR. BARKER. 
 
 [first 
 
 disfigured, and all but destroyed by its professed teachers and 
 advocates. Poor Philip was as perfect a heretic as any man 
 need to be, according to prevailing notions ; and taking the 
 eunuch’s confession of faith to be good — never dreaming that it 
 was defective — they went both down into the water, and he bap- 
 tized him ; and when they came up, the eunuch was allowed to 
 go on his way rejoicing, under the impression that he had the 
 true faith, and was now a real Christian. What a pity that 
 this simple kind of faith, and this scriptural mode of conver- 
 sion, are not considered sufficient in our days. 
 
 In the 1st epistle of John, the 5th chapter, and the 1st verse, 
 we have another striking, plain, and direct testimony to the 
 correctness of this view of New Testament faith which I have 
 given you : — “ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ* 
 is born of God.” And in the 4th verse it is added, “ For 
 whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world, and 
 this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our 
 faith.” V Who is he that overcometh the world,” says John 
 in the 5th verse, “ but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son 
 of God?” Here you see that a belief that Jesus 66 is the 
 Christ” in the 1st verse, and a belief that Jesus “ is the Son of 
 God,” in the 5th, are one and the same thing. And that 
 cc faith,” in the 4th verse, is called “ our faith,” — The 
 faith of the Apostles and all the Christians, the faith by 
 which they were bom of God ; by which they were enabled to 
 overcome the world, and live in love to God and to their fellow- 
 men ; and by which they were prepared for everlasting life. 
 1 know a person may say, But will merely believing Jesus to 
 be the Christ, make men approved of God and happy ? I say. 
 No ; they must both believe and act according to their belief. 
 If I ask my opponent, Will merely confessing that Jesus came 
 in the flesh make men approved of God and happy ? I have 
 no doubt he would answer, No ; there must be a sincere and 
 consistent heart and life. Just so : and whosoever believeth that 
 Jesus is the Christ, if his faith be sincere, and if his faith be 
 joined with a consistent life, is born of God ; and the man who 
 continues to walk by this faith, will be everlastingly saved. 
 Here, then, are some most plain passages of Scripture, and 
 there is no question as to whether they are genuine or not, nor 
 any doubt of the correctness of the translation. It is said we 
 ought to pay great respect to the words of God, and to God’s 
 language. I agree in this sentiment. We ought, indeed, my 
 friends, to pay respect to the word, and to the language of God. 
 Here, then, we have a number of the plainest passages in the 
 whole Bible, expressly teaching, that the faith which is requir- 
 ed of men under the Christian dispensation, is not a belief in 
 the doctrines of false orthodoxy, but a simple belief that Jesus 
 is the Christ, the Son of God. Let men but pay regard to 
 these plain words of the sacred writers, and they will upset all 
 the false orthodoxy in the universe. 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 39 
 
 But these are not the only passages in which this view of 
 Christian faith is given* In the 16th chapter ot St. Matthew, 
 Peter gives his confession, “ Jesus said unto them, But whom 
 say ye that lam? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou 
 art the Christ, the son of the living God.” In the 4th chapter 
 of St. John we have an account of his conversation with the 
 woman of Samaria and her companions. Her simple belief 
 was, that Jesus was the Christ. Her words were, “ I know 
 that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ.” That was her 
 belief. And when she went into the city, she said, “ Come, 
 see a man which told me all things that ever I did : is not this 
 the Christ ?” Some of her neighbours followed her, and be- 
 lieved in Christ from what they saw and heard. They said 
 unto the woman, “ Now we believe, not because of thy say- 
 ing : for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is in- 
 deed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.” In the 11th 
 chapter of John, we find Martha’s confession of faith some- 
 what similar. She said unto Jesus, that if he had been there 
 her brother Lazarus had not died. She then added : — “ But I 
 know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God 
 will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her. Thy brother shall rise 
 again. Martha said unto him, I know that he shall rise again, 
 in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am 
 the resurrection and the life : he that believeth in me, though 
 he were dead, yet shall he live : and whosoever liveth and be- 
 lieveth in me shall never die. Believest thou this ? She saith 
 unto him, yea, Lord : I believe that thou art the Christ, the 
 Son of God, which should come into the world.” This is the 
 faith which Paul laboured to produce in preaching. See the 
 17th chapter of Acts, where you will find it stated, in the 2nd 
 and 3rd verses, that Paul, as his manner was, went into the 
 Jewish synagogue at Thessalonica, “and three Sabbath days 
 reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging 
 that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the 
 dead : and that this Jesus whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” 
 In the 18th chapter, and at the 5th verse, he is stated again to 
 have testified to the Jews that Jesus w T as Christ. And in the 
 same chapter, towards the close, Ap olios is represented as 
 preaching the same great doctrine, and aiming at its establish- 
 ment as the great truth which individuals must believe, in 
 order that men may become Christians, and enjoy Christian 
 privileges. It is said, he “ mightily convinced the Jews, and 
 that publicly, showing by the Scriptures, that Jesus was 
 Christ.” And this is what Paul testified to others. His grand 
 principle was, Repentance, or a change of mind, towards God, 
 and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 1 shall probably be told that though a belief that Jesus is 
 the Christ is the true faith, yet, the word Christ means more 
 than 1 suppose ; that it means being anointed to the work of 
 satisfying divine justice, and the like. That there may be no 
 
40 MR. BARKER. [FIRST 
 
 doubt on this question, I would refer you to Christ’s own 
 words on this subject. In the 4th chapter of Luke, and at the 
 16tli verse, we find these words : — “ And he came to Nazareth, 
 where he had been brought up ; and, as his custom was, he 
 went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for 
 to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the 
 prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found 
 the place where it was written, 4 The spirit of the Lord is upon 
 me, because he hath anointed me,’ ” — to do what ? To satisfy 
 divine justice ! No ; but “to preach the Gospel to the poor ; 
 he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliver- 
 ance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set 
 at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year 
 of the Lord.” And Jesus never gives any other account of his 
 anointment. He never says he was anointed to anything else. 
 He was anointed, then, as the great teacher, deliverer, guide, 
 and saviour of mankind. 
 
 I was about to give you my views on the atonement, recon- 
 ciliation, and the like ; but this I must defer, as my time is 
 passing on ; and shall briefly notice some of the tilings ad- 
 vanced by my opponent. 
 
 He says, a Christian is one who believes in the doctrines 
 which God has revealed in the Christian dispensation. Very 
 true. He is one who believes in Jesus as the Christ ; and as 
 Christ was the teacher of God’s words, of course he believes the 
 doctrines of Christ. 
 
 He says Christians are frequently called believers. Very true. 
 But their belief, or faith, is a simple belief that Jesus is the 
 Christ, the Son of God. 
 
 He says it is a belief in the Gospel. True. But what is 
 the Gospel? What is the Gospel that Paul preached ? Was 
 it modern orthodoxy ? Paul says, “ Moreover, brethren, I de- 
 clare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which 
 also ye have received, and 'wherein ye stand ; by which also ye 
 are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, 
 unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you, 
 first of all, that which I also received.” And what had he re- 
 ceived ? Three persons in one God ? or the Athanasian creed ? 
 Nay, but this : “How that Christ died for our sins according 
 to the Scriptures ; and that he was buried, and that he rose 
 again the third day according to the Scriptures ; and that he 
 was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ; after that, he was 
 seen of above five hundred brethren at once ; of whom the 
 greater part remain unto the present, but some are fallen 
 asleep."’ 
 
 He tells us, that faith should be joined with a humble, 
 teachable, truth-loving disposition. True. But the Christian 
 is only humble in this sense, that he submits to God only, not 
 to man. 
 
 He says, a man, previous to believing, is conscious of his 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 41 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 guilt. — I say, all are not guilty before they become Christians. 
 We read of many that were righteous when Christ came, who 
 needed no repentance. Of this class appear to have been the 
 eunuch that I have just read of ; and Cornelius a devout man, 
 whose prayers and alms had already come up with acceptance 
 before God ; together with many righteous Jews. 
 
 He says, unbelievers are proud, wise above what is written.- — 
 There are some believers , so called, who are not very humble, 
 and who are wise, if not above what is written, below what is 
 written. 
 
 He says, there are some who are either fatally deceived, or 
 are impostors ; and that they have pride of heart in unbelief. — 
 If there is any personal allusion in this, I pass it by, and simply 
 say, that some do not believe because they have not heard ; and 
 as Paul says, — “ How shall they believe in him of whom they 
 have not heard V 9 Some are unbelievers for want of better instruc- 
 tion, because they have none to teach them the simple truth as 
 taught by Christ. Some may not believe through strong, and 
 perhaps unavoidable prejudices ; as was the case with the dis- 
 ciples themselves, for example, in the first instance. 
 
 He says it was pride and perversity of heart that prevented 
 Paul so long from believing on Christ — Paul aoes not say so ; 
 but he does say it was ignorance ; and that he obtained mercy 
 because he did it in ignorance. He says he truly thought he 
 ought, in duty to God, to do many things against Christ. And 
 he also tells us that he lived in all good conscience up to that 
 time, serving God faithfully, and living according to his light. 
 And God appears to have revealed his Son to him, and chosen 
 him to be the teacher of the Gospel to the rest of the world, on 
 account of his previous fidelity as a Jew. He believed as soon 
 as evidence presented itself. 
 
 He says, a Christian does not reject any doctrines of Christ 
 because they are not important. — There are no doctrines of 
 Christ that are unimportant, and I never heard of a person 
 rejecting any doctrines of Christ, because they considered them 
 unimportant. But he says, some reject the miraculous concep- 
 tion, because it is an unimportant doctrine. I think not ; I 
 cannot believe it. I never heard of any one rejecting the doc- 
 trine on that account. 
 
 He says, a Christian receives all that God reveals. — True. 
 But he does not always receive men’s report of what God 
 reveals ; nor men’s interpretations of God’s revelation. 
 
 He says, a Christian does not reject doctrines because they 
 are mysterious.— True. A man always believes God to speak 
 what is true, of course, whether he understands what it means 
 or not. But nothing that is revealed is a mystery. Revelation 
 and mystery are opposites. A truth may be mysterious before 
 it is revealed ; but when a truth is once revealed, the mystery 
 is gone for ever. If it be called a mystery afterwards, it is 
 only called so in reference to what it had been. That which 
 
was a mystery, ceases to be a mystery after the revelation. 
 Mystery and revelation, I repeat, are opposites. 
 
 He says, a Christian does not think himself wiser than the 
 Bible.— -True. But some Christians have got a great deal of 
 wisdom that never had a place in any Bible that God ever had 
 any thing to do with. And though a Christian may not be 
 wiser than the Bible, he may think that he is wiser than some 
 translations and interpretations of the Bible. I would ask 
 William Cooke whether he does not think himself wiser than 
 some translators, and some interpreters? And if he sets me 
 that example, why should I not follow it? 
 
 He says, a Christian believes all that God declares in his 
 word, however incomprehensible. — True ; and all that he de- 
 clares in other wa} r s : but he does not believe all men’s versions 
 or interpretations of what God declares. 
 
 He says, the Gospel never professes that its revelations are 
 all plain.— I answer, yes ; revealed even to babes, though the 
 wise and prudent, the college-bred people, could not always 
 comprehend them. But some things, which were very plain, 
 were still hard to be understood in consequence of the strong 
 prejudices which were purposely drilled into them by the 
 Scribes and Pharisees, who locked the door of knowledge instead 
 of opening it ; and would neither enter themselves into the 
 temple of truth, nor suffer others to go in that were wishful to 
 enter. The things which the first disciples did not understand 
 were plain things ; such as Christ’s death and resurrection, and 
 the calling of the Gentiles. 
 
 He says, quoting Paul, “ Great is the mystery of godliness.” 
 But if he had read the passage through you would have seen 
 that the things referred to in the text are no mysteries now. 
 Although they are spoken of as mysterious, they are things 
 which a child cau understand. What are they? “ God was 
 manifest in the flesh,”-— a simple, rational, manifest truth ; 
 God who was manifest first through the natural world, was 
 ‘‘manifest in the flesh, in the man Christ Jesus, justified in the 
 spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on 
 in the world, received up into glory,” — there is not a mystery 
 about the whole. 
 
 He says, he who rejects what God reveals is under a carnal 
 mind, and cannot he a Christian.— True : if the subjects reject- 
 ed from belief are of God’s revelation. But sometimes people 
 reject in mistake ; or they reject that which itself springs from 
 a carnal mind- -a human invention. 
 
 There were many things spoken by my opponent, which did 
 not bear upon the point in discussion ; some were true, some 
 not true ; but none of them need special notice. I must now 
 proceed rapidly to notice other things which did bear a little 
 upon the question. 
 
 My opponent says, a Christian’s faith may not embrace every 
 doctrine of Christ, because all doctrines may not be known to 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 43 
 
 ^IGHT.] 
 
 the Christian; hut he embraces all that is known to he revealed 
 by God’s word; and, secondly, is prepared to receive all other 
 truths when they shall become known. — Very true. An excel- 
 lent principle. I wish it were universally believed and acted 
 upon by all professing Christians. We should have a much 
 better church, and more of the spirit of Christian charity, that 
 would prepare the way for the illumination and conversion of 
 the world. A love for truth, a belief of all that is known, a 
 desire to know all God’s truth, a readiness to receive it when it 
 is understood, obedience to all we know, and a readiness to obey 
 every other portion of God’s will as soon as understood, is every 
 thing ; and happy wiil it be for the world when Christians 
 shall properly understand and act on this principle. 
 
 He says, a heretic is not an infidel, but one who holds the 
 truth in part, and rejects it in part. But he told us that all 
 v r ere infidels or unbelievers who rejected any truth revealed by 
 God; and therefore a heretic, according to his own shovdng, is 
 an infidel. But the heretics mentioned in Scripture were all 
 bad men, self-convicted, sellers of their doctrine, carnal, deceit- 
 ful, followers of Balaam, loving the vrages of unrighteousness, 
 prophesying for a reward, men whose God v T as their belly, who 
 minded earthly things, whose glory was their shame. And these 
 persons, if not infidels, w r ere worse than infidels. In Galatians, 
 Paul sa}^s they are accursed. 
 
 He says, a Christian is to retain the faith which he first 
 receives. — True. But not ahvays the opinions which he first 
 receives. Else how should we get Papists to become Church of 
 England men, and how will you get Church of England men 
 to become dissenters. And how will you get Calvinists to 
 become Methodists, and how will you get the Wesleyan Metho- 
 dists to become New Connexionists, if men are never to change 
 their opinions. We ought all to hold fast our faith and profes- 
 sion without wavering; but w r e ought carefully to distinguish 
 between faith and opinion. 
 
 He says we are to hold fast the form of sound words. And 
 we say the same. But the apostle adds, even the words of our 
 Lord Jesus Chri t. Why did not my opponent quote the wdiole 
 sentence? Wh . did he leave out the very w T ords which were 
 necessary to explain the wdiole sentence. It is the w r ords of 
 Christ , then, that we are to hold fast. And what did those 
 words teach ? Trinity in unity ? Natural, total depravity ? No 
 such thing. I say, “ hold fast the form of sound w r ords,” but 
 let them be “the words of Jesus Christ.” 
 
 He says, the cause of heresy, according to Paul, "was contempt 
 of the Holy Scriptures. We say nav; but covetousness, licen- 
 tiousness, &c. 
 
 He says, Christian truth, as held by orthodox Christians, 
 supports people in affliction and death. We answer, the sup- 
 port afforded to the souls of people in sickness and death, is not 
 afforded by those orthodox notions which we oppose, but those 
 
44 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [first 
 
 great doctrines we acknowledge to be Christian truth. The 
 views which we hold and advocate have power to strengthen and 
 support the mind. In our own experience, and in that of many 
 others, we have proved that the simple doctrines of Christ, with- 
 out regarding the additions and corruptions of men, that the 
 simple Christian truth which we unfold, can enable people to 
 meet the fiercest opposition, to endure the bitterest persecution, 
 and to pass through the most exaggerated reproaches, with calm- 
 ness and cheerfulness. It can cheer them on the sick bed, it can 
 gladden the heart in the hour of dissolution, and even under 
 the most awful calamities to which man can be subjected. In 
 cases of accident when limb is torn from limb, it can still 
 support the soul in all its steadfastness, without help from any 
 of the forms of false and corrupt orthodoxy. (Loud hissing 
 and applause.) We had a proof of this very lately, where a 
 young man got entangled in some machinery, and had his 
 leg so torn to pieces that it had to be amputated close to 
 the body. The ligature afterwards broke; and he, after much 
 suffering, passed last night into his rest in heaven. While 
 he lay suffering, his heart was calm and peaceful, and joyous. 
 He was not only calm and contended, but glad and jo}mus, and 
 full of glory. “ Tell Joseph, 5 ’ he said, “ to come and see me, 
 if I am alive, for I would have him to see that the religion 
 which he has taught, and which I have professed and followed 
 in health, can support men under the most agonizing suffering, 
 and in the prospect of a painful death. 55 I contend therefore, that 
 what some are pleased to call heresy and blasphemy, but which I 
 call simple Christian truth as it is in Jesus, is able to support the 
 soul under the severest ills to which the human frame is liable. 
 
 My opponent says that some people declaim against excite- 
 ment. We do not. We believe that love is joined with feel- 
 ing : but the grand proof that man loves God is, when he keeps 
 his commandments. 
 
 He says, I deny that Christ came in the flesh ; and that I 
 therefore make God a liar, and am no Christian. It is a false- 
 hood. I do not deny that Christ came in the flesh ; 1 believe 
 it most firmly. 
 
 He says, Christ was born of a virgin. That I do not believe. 
 But that will be discussed in its own time. 
 
 He says, that Jesus was the Christ from his birth. There 
 is no such doctrine in the teachings of the Saviour. But 
 the subject will be considered at the proper time, and we shall 
 then see whether there is any sufficient testimony in support 
 of it. 
 
 He says, Christ v T as without sin, and that I deny it. It is a 
 falsehood. I do no such thing. -See “ Christian, 55 JNo. 19. 
 
 He says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 •was with God, and the Word was God, 55 and that therefore 
 Christ is God. I disbelieve this conclusion. The record is 
 simply this, that the Word was God, and that the Word dwelt. 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 45 
 
 in flesh ; hut not that Christ is God. I say he was a man in 
 whom the Godhead dwelt. 
 
 He says, Christ’s death was a propitiation or atonement for 
 our sins. I do not altogether deny that ; but I say that what 
 is true in the doctrine is, that he died to cleanse us from our 
 sins, and not to satisfy divine justice. 
 
 My great principle is, that he is a Christian who believes that 
 Jesus is the Christ, and yields obedience to his authority. He 
 opposes this ; and says no one is a Christian but he who be- 
 lieves that Christ is God the Son, is God himself. He also 
 proposes to prove by Scripture the Miraculous Conception of 
 Jesus. And I say that, taking the language of Scripture as our 
 guide, we shall prove that Jesus is the Son of man, the Son of 
 J oseph, the Son of the carpenter. And this I shall prove by 
 the testimony of Christ himself, which will continue when all 
 human traditions and inventions have passed away. 
 
 I have now finished my time, and my reply to William Cooke. 
 I conclude as I began by stating that I ask for nothing but a 
 patient hearing, and a calm and thorough consideration of the 
 statements that have been advanced. (Loud applause.) 
 
 After a pause* Mr. Barker rose and said, — The subject for 
 to-morrow night is the atonement — Reconciliation ; and then 
 after that, the Trinity. 
 
 END OF FIRST NIGHT’S DISCUSSION. 
 
46 
 
 SECOND NIGHT 
 
 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1845. 
 
 The Lecture Room was again crowded this evening. 
 
 Mr Cooke was first on the platform. He was received with 
 applause by his friends. 
 
 Mr. Barker followed shortly afterwards, and was received in 
 a similar manner. 
 
 The Rev. James Pringle again sat as umpire ; and Mr. Grant 
 and Dr. Lees as the chairmen of the disputants. 
 
 Mr. Grant first rose and said : — As it is now seven o’clock, I 
 beg leave to introduce Mr. Cooke again to the meeting to com- 
 mence the discussion, and to commence it at perfect liberty. 
 There was an announcement made last night, by Mr. Barker, 
 which was not in perfect order; but as it is now withdrawn, I 
 shall make no remark upon it. Mr. Cooke will now address 
 the meeting ; but before he commences, let me again entreat you 
 to act upon the same principle on which you acted last night. I 
 entreat you to refrain either from approbation or disapprobation; 
 but to let the discussion be carried on in all fairness ; and I again 
 request you to remember, that whatever the one party approves 
 of, the other will disapprove of, as a matter of course. There- 
 fore let peace and quiet be the order of the evening. 
 
 Mr Cooke then rose and was received with applause. He 
 said, Mr. Chairmen, I shall feel obliged if our friends, in passing 
 along the aisles, would be as quiet as possible. My voice is not 
 very strong ; and I desire to be distinctly heard by all the 
 audience. 
 
 My Christian Friends,— Before I proceed to continue the re- 
 marks which 1 was addressing to you last evening, I shall notice 
 some parts of Mr. Barker’s address, said to be in reply to mine. 
 The speech of Mr. Barker appears to have been made up chiefly 
 of admissions, of mistakes, and of sophisms. I say it was made 
 up partly of admissions. 
 
 In the first place, my definition of a Christian was admitted 
 by Mr. Barker, if X understood him aright, to be substantially 
 correct. And although by introducing the word “ disciple,” he 
 seemed wishful to confine its meaning as low as possible, yet he 
 soon appeared to forget himself, and, by the passages he quoted, 
 raised the word to its highest import, as being synonymous 
 with “sons of God,” with “true believers,” with “saints,” 
 and with those who are “ born of God,” thus admitting that I 
 was perfectly correct in determining that this discussion was 
 as to the question, what is a “ true Christian.” 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 47 
 
 [SECOND NIGHT. J 
 
 Mr. Barker also admitted the truth and the substantial cor- 
 rectness of some of those great principles of faith and of practice 
 to which I referred, which I laid down, and which I endeavoured 
 to substantiate, as essentially connected with the Christian. It 
 is true that he afterwards sought, by turns of wit, and by so- 
 phisms, to neutralize the admissions he had made : but, still, 
 those admissions are there ; and when this discussion shall ter- 
 minate, they will appear in print, and be read by a discerning- 
 public, who will be able to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, 
 and to recognise those great principles which I laid down as the 
 just criteria of the reasonings I adopted, and of the conclusions 
 to which I came : and I fear not the result. 
 
 Mr. Barker’s speech was made up partly, I say, of mistakes. 
 He said that I charged him with denying that Christ had come 
 in the flesh ; and he was very emphatic in stating, “ that is a 
 falsehood.” There was no need of all this emphasis ; for the 
 fact is, I did not make the charge upon Mr. Barker. I did 
 refer to the heresy— the ancient heresy, which existed in the 
 early days of Christendom, and which denied that Christ came in 
 the flesh. I conceived that I had some important reasons weigh- 
 ing Avith me to notice that subject ; and my reasons Avere the 
 following : In the first place, I did not know but Mr. Barker 
 might, ere this, have proceeded so far as to have adopted this 
 anti-christian delusion. Certainly, for the last three or four 
 years his changes have been so extensive and so rapid, that nei- 
 ther I nor a thousand more would have been at all surprised had 
 he, by this time, denied that Christ had come in the flesh ! 
 
 [The Chairmen of the tAvo gentlemen were here heard to be 
 in private conversation.] 
 
 Another reason is this : I conceived that the introduction of 
 that subject Avas materially connected with the principle involv- 
 ed in our discussion of Avhat is a Christian ; because it is well 
 known that there were, in an early era of Christianity, a sect, 
 calling themselves by the name of Christians, avIio did deny the 
 reality of the Saviour’s body— -aa t 1io did maintain that he Avas a 
 man in appearance only, and not in reality ; and it Avas to con- 
 front those speculators that the Apostle John speaks so emphati- 
 cally and so decisively with regard to the reality of our Saviour’s 
 body in the first chapter of his first epistle. 
 
 [The conversation between the tAvo Chairmen continued to 
 this moment, and Mr. Grant conveyed some intimation to the 
 speaker, Mr. Cooke proceeded.] 
 
 It is thought I had better not refer to what Mr. Barker might 
 possibly think. There will be no objection, I suppose, to my 
 referring to Avhat he has thought, and has published. It there- 
 fore became not unimportant or uninteresting to me to ascer- 
 tain, at the onset of the discussion, what was the judgment of 
 inspired men with regard to those speculators ; and we find that 
 judgment to be, not that they were Christians, although they 
 held the doctrine of the Messiahship of Christ, but that they 
 
48 MR. COOKE. [SECOND 
 
 were “ deceivers and anti-Christ. 5 ’ And then another reason is 
 this : I considered that there was no very remote resemblance in 
 some of Mr. Barker’s principles, to the views entertained, by 
 that sect to which I have referred. For example, both Mr. 
 Barker and the sect I refer to deny the divine authority of the two 
 first chapters in the gospel according to St. Luke. And though 
 there is a difference in this respect, that Mr. Barker does admit 
 the human nature of Christ, yet in order to establish the posi- 
 tion that Christ is the son of Joseph, he rejects the two chapters 
 to which I have referred ; and the sect to which I have referred 
 rejected these two chapters, not that they might establish the 
 doctrine that Christ was not miraculously conceived, but to 
 establish the doctrine that Christ was not conceived at all ; that 
 Christ had no real human nature, but that his body was a mere 
 phantom ! and then this ancient sect contended that they were 
 Christians as strongly as Mr. Barker or any of his adherents 
 contend for the title Christian. They professed to believe that 
 Jesus was the Messiah ; they professed to place themselves 
 under his instructions ; they professed that their faith worked 
 by love ; and some of them suffered death as martyrs, under the 
 Boman persecutions ; yet this sect, notwithstanding their pro- 
 fessions of Christianity — notwithstanding they professed to love 
 the Saviour— and notwithstanding their recognition of Jesus as 
 the Messiah, were denounced by the apostles, who lived in their 
 •days, as being anti-Christ and deceivers. Besides, the sect to 
 which I refer did not alter the gospel out of their avowed hatred 
 to it, but, as they said, out of love for the gospel. They de- 
 sired to make it more conformable to the prevailing system of 
 philosophy, and to render it more acceptable to mankind in 
 general. And it is a remarkable fact that these Gnostics were 
 almost, if not entirely, the only heretics who denied the 
 Miraculous Conception from the days of the apostles down to 
 the time of Joseph Priestley ; so that for about a thousand, or 
 from that to one thousand four hundred years, the earth was 
 not trodden by a man who held the name of Christian, and de- 
 nied the Miraculous Conception, until the time of Joseph Priest- 
 ley, that changeling — that learned but eccentric man, who, 
 while he denied the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception, de- 
 nied the existence of the human soul ! 
 
 The second mistake which Mr. Barker made is the following: 
 I stated that some persons reject a doctrine, and then allege 
 that it is unimportant. Mr. Barker thinks that had no appli- 
 cation to himself. Now in that I think he made a grievous 
 mistake ; for I find in the tract issued by him not long since, 
 entitled “the Miraculous Conception of Jesus Christ,” that the 
 doctrine is therein held to be unimportant. The following is 
 the passage : — “ It has been a great evil among Christians, that 
 much stress has been laid on points which have nothing to do 
 with the salvation of men, and the great doctrine of immortality. 
 It is presumed this has been the case with respect to the Miracu- 
 
KIGHT^| MR. COOKE. 49 
 
 lous conception of Christ. If it be a fact, it affects no other 
 subject in the gospel, it is of no importance in Christianity” 
 This is the instance to which I made reference when I uttered the 
 expression last evening— when I made the statement which Mr. 
 Barker has subsequently denied. Now I say that is a mistake ; 
 and that Mr. Barker, having issued the tract containing the 
 sentiment, and sent it out among the people without anything 
 like a sentence correcting this false statement, made by one 
 Richard Wright, is responsible for it : and I regard the senti- 
 ment as being bona fide his sentiment, the tract being sent out into 
 circulation by him as expressing the sentiments which he him- 
 self entertained. Forsooth, then, it follows that a doctrine, 
 however clearly stated— however positively asserted, is, because 
 it be deemed not important, to be rejected ! An old infidel 
 objection ! and as stale as iiifidelity itself. A thousand times re- 
 peated, and a thousand times refuted. Why, it is just such a 
 sophism as Lloyd Jones uttered, when, in debate with Mr. Bar- 
 ker, at Oldham, he said (and I have his words before me, used 
 in the discussion) it did not matter what sentiments people held 
 as to doctrine or general truths : if their conduct were only right, 
 that was all that was required. But the blessed God knows 
 infinitely better than Messrs. Lloyd Jones, Richard Wright, or 
 Joseph Barker, whether a right faith be important or not. With 
 a right faith God has connected his approbation and everlasting 
 life. With unbelief, God has connected his displeasure and 
 everlasting death : “ He that belie vetli shall be saved ; but he 
 that believeth not shall be damned. 7 ’ It has always been the 
 object of Satan to persuade men that there is no importance in 
 faith — in belief in God ; and so it has been, also, of his agents. 
 So long as Satan can keep men in unbelief, he keeps men from 
 God, from pardon, from happiness, from heaven; for faith is the 
 bond of union with God, and the instrument of his blessing. 
 
 But who, I would ask, gave to Mr. Barker a right and an au- 
 thority to release man from his obligation to believe in any part 
 of the word of God? Where are his credentials? Where the 
 proofs of his commission? This sophism will not sway the 
 judgment of a Christian audience. The sceptic and the semi- 
 infidel may drink it down with avidity, and present their con- 
 gratulations to Mr. Barker, or any one else, for his zealous en- 
 deavours to relieve them from the duty of submission to God’s 
 authority. But the sober, the reflecting, the pious, the faith- 
 ful part of the community, will reject the principle with disdain 
 and contempt. Men will see that whatever God reveals or de- 
 clares as a truth, they are bound to believe ; even as they are 
 bound to obey what God may command. The question lies in 
 a very narrow compass. Can Mr. Barker point to a single pas- 
 sage in God’s blessed word which gives a man the right to dis- 
 believe any portion of God’s word ? Can he bring a single ex- 
 ample or instance in which the Almighty has accepted an indi- 
 vidual into his favour, while wilfully rejecting any portion of 
 
 c 
 
50 
 
 MR. COOKE. [SEC0NI> 
 
 his revealed truth? He cannot — he cannot. I challenge the 
 instance to he produced. His boldness, therefore, in publish- 
 ing a statement like this— that a truth, being unimportant, may 
 be rejected, is, in my estimation, unwarrantable presumption— 
 most unwarrantable presumption ; yes ! and as irrational as it 
 is impious : and both the impiety and infidelity become the 
 more deeply aggravated by the clearness and the fulness with 
 which the doctrine stands declared in the book of God. There 
 it is!— -a wayfaring man though a fool need net err in its interpre- 
 tation. There it is-— and the same spirit which dictated the 
 truth has declared— He that believeth not God hath made 
 him a liar.” 
 
 There is another mistake. Yes, I will call it a mistake ; — 
 and that is in reference to Paul. I understood, last evening, 
 what I never understood before — what I never heard ad- 
 vanced before from any reasoner, or from any individual with 
 whom I w r as ever in discourse, — that God converted Paul as a 
 reward for his fidelity under the Jewish economy. Why, we 
 have heard the merits of the Saviour discarded, it is true ; but 
 here we have the merits of man acknowledged; the merits of a 
 man, too, unconverted; and the merits of a man, too, who com- 
 bined in his character the elements of pharisaical pride and of 
 bloody persecution. That Paul was punctilious and rigid in the 
 observance of Jewish rites and pharisaical customs, there can be 
 no doubt : but who ever knew of pharisaical pride and of pha- 
 risaical punctiliousness commending a man to God’s approval, 
 and, by merit, bringing down God’s favour as a matter of debt?. 
 And whoever heard of anindividual, whose career was like that of 
 Saul previous to conversion, represented as having been so 
 faithful as to deserve God’s approval and saving grace ? What 
 is that career, as exhibited by the faithful and graphic pen of 
 inspiration ? That he breathed out threatenings and slaughter, 
 haling men and women to prison, and seeking letters from the 
 High Priest to spread wider the ravages of death and of ruin. 
 And what is the picture he gives himself of his own state ? 
 That he w r as an injurious person, a persecutor — that he was a 
 bloody persecutor — that he was a blasphemer — that he was the 
 chief of sinners; and he exhibits himself as an example of mi- 
 raculous mercy in his call and conversion, and not as an in- 
 stance in whichGodhad just redeemed hisowncharacterbygiving 
 what was due, namely, his grace and his favour. Now 1 call 
 this a mistake. I will put that construction upon it. 1 think 
 that, from the perturbation of his mind or something else, Mr liar- 
 leer must not have been in a right state for expressing liis senti- 
 ments; and I will put it down as a mistake. (Hissing, cries of 
 
 order” from the Chairmen, and applause ; all of which sub- 
 sided, and were renewed.) 
 
 Mr. Grant:— This is very improper. It is a gross breach of 
 the terms on which you are admitted here. (Hear, hear.) Your 
 character requires non-interference. 
 
MR. COOKS. 
 
 51 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Dr. Lees: — Recollect that each party his appoints 1 his own 
 Chairman ; and that the Chairman for each party is competent 
 to say who is in order and who is out of order : and it is not the 
 business of the audience to perform the functions of Chairmen. 
 Now I trust the same spirit of quietness and impartiality that 
 was evinced last night, will characterize this and the succeed- 
 ing nights of the discussion. Truth does not need clamour. It 
 only wants a fair hearing on both sides ; and that must decide 
 the question. 
 
 Mr. Cooke:-- -I hope there will be no objection to give me 
 every minute of time that is lost by interruption. 
 
 Dr. Lees: — Two minutes. 
 
 Mr. Cooke:— Mr. Barker’s speech was made up, in the next 
 place, of sophisms, and I shall name them. 
 
 Sophism, No. 1. — With regard to the woman of Samaria. 
 Mr. Barker referred to the woman of Samaria as being a Chris- 
 tian; and, of course, a proper example to this assembly of what 
 a Christian is. But I ask, where is the evidence of the conver- 
 sion of the woman of Samaria? She heard the Saviour’s doc- 
 trine. She might believe theoretically that he was the Mes* 
 siah. She went into the neighbouring town— into Samaria, 
 and said, 64 Come and see a man which told me all things that 
 ever I did. Is not this the Christ?” But where is the evi- 
 dence of her Christian experience and her conversion to God ? 
 And, besides, if she had been converted to God, her case is not 
 an example in point. For how can a poor woman who heard 
 one gospel sermon— a few principles of the Christian religion- 
 only a few— be exhibited before a Christian audience as a fair 
 specimen of Christian faith, or Christian experience, or Chris- 
 tian practice ? 
 
 Sophism, No. 2.-— Mr. Barker referred to the twelve disciples 
 at Ephesus, Acts xix. 1-7: and he endeavoured to make the im- 
 pression that they were fair specimens of what Christians are; — 
 specimens of Christians in sentiment— specimens of Christians 
 in experience : and he tells us that they had never heard of the 
 Holy Ghost. But lie did not tell you— for it would not suit his 
 purpose, I suppose — that they were not disciples of Christ, hut 
 disciples of John. The y had not been baptized in the name of 
 Jesus; and it is evident, from their not having heard of the 
 Holy Ghost, that they could not have been instructed in the 
 principles of Christianity. But there is another view to take of 
 this case, which appears to make against Mr. Barker’s argument; 
 for, as 1 said last night, unbelief consisted not in the want of 
 information with regard to a doctrine, but in the rejection of a 
 doctrine : now when the Holy Ghost was made known to these 
 men, did they reject it? They believed it: and they were baptized 
 in the name of the Saviour, and they were filled with the Holy 
 Ghost ; and then, in their experience and in their conduct, they 
 became living witnesses of his personality and of his Godhead. 
 
 Sophism, No. 3. — A reference was made to the eunuch, in 
 
52 MR. COOKE. [SECOND 
 
 Acts 8, verse 27: and Mr. Barker appeared wishful to make the 
 impression that the eunuch believed nothing more than that 
 Jesus was the Messiah. But he did not tell us three things 
 which are very important to give us a correct aspect to that case. 
 He did not tell us that the eunuch was just returning from the 
 temple in Jerusalem, where he had been presenting oblations to 
 God, and thus recognized his consciousness of guilt, and his 
 need of a vicarious atonement for that guilt. He did not tell you, 
 either, that the eunuch was reading a certain part of Scripture 
 which had a very immediate connection with the object of his 
 visit to Jerusalem, and also a happy connection with the in- 
 structions of Philip. What was the eunuch reading? That 
 delightful portion of Scripture contained in the 53rd chapter of 
 Isaiah, where it is said that “ He was wounded for our trans- 
 gressions, and he was bruised for our iniquities, and his soul 
 was made an offering for sin ; that it pleased the Father to 
 bruise him, and that he, himself, put him to grief, and that he 
 maketh intercession for the transgressors.” And he did not 
 tell you another important truth, which I should have liked to 
 hear him tell, and which I must tell you, or I should not 
 discharge my duty, namely, that “ Philip preached Jesus unto 
 the eunuch .” And if Philip preached anything like Paul, he 
 would not leave out the propitiatory sacrifice ; for Paul says, in 
 the 15th chapter of his 1st epistle to the Corinthians, the 3rd 
 verse- ~“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also 
 received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the 
 Scriptures.” And I feel assured— -and I think no reasonable 
 man in this assembly will debate the matter for a moment, if he 
 give it a fair consideration — that when the passage was opened 
 before the eyes of Philip directly referring to the Redeemer’s 
 sacrifice, and in connection with the anxious enquiry of the eu- 
 nuch, whether it referred to the prophet himself or to another, 
 Philip would point him to that bleeding Lamb of whom the 
 prophet spoke, who was wounded for our trangressions and 
 bruised for our iniquities. And this accounts for the sequel — 
 explains the subsequent part of the history, that the eunuch 
 “ went on his way rejoicing.” And he might well rejoice w T hen 
 he saw the happy connection between the type and the anti-type 
 — between the victim in the temple, and the great sacrificial 
 victim, the Lord Jesus Christ, who bled for the world’s trans- 
 gressions. And when he heard the evangelist tell him the na- 
 ture, explain the character, and unfold the work of Christ, and 
 apply to Christ the direct prophecies contained in that chapter, 
 no wonder that his thirsty soul drank in the glad tidings, and 
 Ills bleeding heart received the balm that makes the wounded 
 whole; and that then he went on his way rejoicing ! 
 
 Sophism, No. 4. — Mr Barker introduced the subject of hu- 
 man depravity, and the subject of the Trinity : and 1 know not 
 sometimes whether to be amused or grieved at the way in which 
 he sought to disprove those doctrines, lie sought to disprove 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 53 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of human depravity, 
 Christ^ ^sacrifice, and saving faith in it — he sought to disprove 
 these doctrines, by referring to the preceptive parts of Scripture, 
 — to disprove the doctrinal by reference to the preceptive. He 
 might as well turn it the other way, and try to disprove the 
 preceptive part by referring to the doctrinal . He referred us, 
 forsooth, to our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, where he said, — - 
 “ Blessed are the meek : for they shall inherit the earth;” and 
 “ Blessed are the poor in spirit : for their’s is the kingdom of 
 heaven ;” and “ Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be 
 comforted ;” and so on. And because our Lord did not incul- 
 cate the Trinity, or his \icarious sacrifice, in connection with 
 these precepts bearing upon moral conduct, we are, forsooth, ta 
 draw the conclusion that these doctrines are not taught in the 
 New Testament. Because every doctrine is not taught in every 
 part of Scripture — because the doctrinal does not appear in the 
 preceptive portion, and the preceptive is not expressed in the 
 doctrinal, we are, it seems, to come to the philosophical conclu- 
 sion that those doctrines are not contained in the word of God ! 
 Now I should have thought it would have been the proper 
 course to take — at least I should have taken it — to have grap- 
 pled with the very passages which my opponent (had he held 
 them) had quoted as the basis of those doctrines. And X 
 would have investigated them, and searched and examined them 
 thoroughly, and endeavoured to have shown from them that his 
 positions were unfounded. X would not have gone to the pre- 
 ceptive parts of the New Testament for the purpose of attempt- 
 ing to disprove the doctrinal parts of the New Testament. 
 
 Sophism, ho. 5. — Mr. Barker very frequently referred to the 
 disciples of Christ as specimens of what a Christian is— speci- 
 mens in sentiment, specimens in experience. Why, he must 
 have known, I think, that the disciples, prior to the day of 
 Pentecost, were more like Jews than Christians. They were 
 under the common delusion of their countrymen with regard to* 
 a temporal king. See Luke, ch. 24, verse 21. They were am- 
 bitious of earthly honours ; they contended with each other for 
 earthly distinctions, and strove which among them should be 
 greatest. Luke, ch. 22, v. 24. Our lord could not mistake the 
 character of his followers; and he said respecting Peter that he 
 savoured the things of men, and not the things of God. See 
 Matthew, ch. 16, v. 23. And it is not a very great proof, I con- 
 ceive, of a Christian mind, to savour more of earth than heaven. 
 Again, they were foolish and unbelieving in their notions. 
 Hence our Lord rebuked them, and said,— 1 “ 0 fools, and slow 
 of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” Luke, 
 ch. 24, v. 25. In fact, they were not converted ; for our 
 Lord says to them,— “ Verily, verily, I say unto you,”— an af- 
 firmation indicating great solemnity, and investing the state- 
 ment with immense importance, — “ Verily, verily, I say unto 
 you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ve 
 
54 MR. COOKE. [SECOND 
 
 shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matt., ch. 18, 
 verse 8. I therefore, for one, should not have thought of refer- 
 ring to the views and experience of the disciples, prior to the 
 day of Pentecost, for fair specimens of the sentiments and expe- 
 rience of the true Christian. Another reason why we cannot 
 regard them as being proper specimens of the sentiments, the 
 views, the experience, and the practice of the Christian, is 
 this, that the Christian economy was not complete until the day 
 of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples. 
 It is only from that period that the sentiments and practice of the 
 Apostles are to be regarded as a representation of the Christian. 
 Our Lord had stated great truths, but their amplification and 
 full manifestation were referred to the period when the Holy 
 Spirit was given. Hence our Lord emphatically said, — “ I 
 have yet many tilings to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them 
 now. Ilowbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will 
 teach you all things,” and “ will guide you into all truth : for 
 he shall not speak of himself ; but whatsoever he shall hear, 
 that shall he speak : and he will show you things to come. He 
 shall glorify me : for he shall receive of mine, and shall show 
 it unto you.” And under the inspiration — the plenary inspira- 
 tion (for I like these good, old-fashioned words) — the plenary 
 inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they composed their epistles, — 
 they completed the canon of the Holy Scriptures ; and thus af- 
 forded the proper criterion by which to judge of Christian sen- 
 timent, of Christian experience, and of Christian practice. 
 
 Mr. Barker referred, I think it is— (1 have left my Testa- 
 ment behind me, but I sliaii perhaps be able to quote from 
 memory with sufficient accuracy) — lie referred to the 20th 
 chapter of John, and the 31st verse, where John says, “ These 
 things have I written that ye might believe that Jesus is the 
 Son of God.” True, but he did not say, that ye might believe 
 that Jesus is the ton of Joseph, He says, “these things have I 
 written unto you that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son 
 of God.” And he explains what he means by the words “ Son 
 of God” in the first two verses of bis Gospel,— “In the begin- 
 ning was the W ord, and the Word was with God, and the W ord 
 was God. All things were made by him, and without him was 
 not any thing made that was made.” But I shall have to dwell 
 on this hereafter. 
 
 Mr. Barker referred to John’s first epistle, 5th chapter, the 
 1st verse, where John says,-- “ Whosoever believeth that Jesus 
 is the Christ is born ot God.” And this w~as quoted to show 
 us that any one was a Christian who only believed in Jesus 
 as the Christ. Now in this, and all such passages, there is much 
 more implied than what is expressed. The meaning of an in- 
 spired writer, or of any writer, must be determined by the con- 
 text, and the general scope of the passage. A text must not be 
 severed from its connection, and presented in an isolated form ; 
 for on that plan a perverted ingenuity may make the Holy Bible 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 55 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 speak any sentiment which a depraved heart, or heretical 
 creed, may dictate, or man’s unholy passions suggest. It is this 
 method which Satan adopts in quoting Scripture. When the 
 arch fiend desires to deceive, he detaches a passage from the 
 context, and presents it in a form and meaning never intended 
 by the Holy Ghost. I would advise all persons, especially 
 those who quote for public instruction, not to imitate the foul 
 prince of darkness in quoting Scripture. Now let us just look 
 at this passage. It is a good passage. I love the passage. I 
 love every part of God’s word ; for I am sure all is consistent 
 with itself, and I believe consistent with what are sometimes 
 termed (in a way perhaps not very commendable) by some, 
 X( Orthodox notions.” However, I hold orthodox notions ; and 
 I conceive the passage is perfectly in harmony with those no- 
 tions. Hut let us analyse it. “ Whosoever believeth that Jesus 
 is the Christ is bom of God.” What, then, does it mean that 
 an individual may believe in any way, or in any manner, that 
 Jesus is the Christ, and yet be “born of God,” and be a true 
 Christian? No such thing. He must believe that Jesus 
 is the Christ according to the dictates of the Holy Scriptures. 
 I will furnish a few examples. “ Whosoever believeth that 
 Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Then, may a man reject 
 the truth that Christ came in the flesh, — as Marcion did, for he 
 denied that Jesus came in the flesh, — and yet be bom of God % 
 No; for though that great truth is not here expressed, it is implied, 
 and is elsewhere asserted with equal precision and authority. 
 Hence the Apostle says, that “ many deceivers are entered into 
 the world who confess not that Jesus is come in the flesh. This 
 is a deceiver and an anti-Christ.” So that it is quite as im- 
 portant to believe that Christ came in the flesh, as that Christ is 
 the Messiah, or that Jesus is the Christ. 
 
 Take another example. The passage says, — “ Whosoever be- 
 lieveth that J esus is the Christ is bom of God.” W ell, but may 
 he reject the doctrine that Christ is a propitiation for our sins'? 
 No ; for though that truth is not here formally expressed, it 
 is implied, and is elsewhere maintained with the same 
 distinctness and authority. See the 2nd chapter of St. 
 John’s 1st epistle, and the 2nd verse,— “ And he is the 
 propitiation for our sins , and not for our’s only, but also for 
 the sins of the whole world.” So that it is as essential for a 
 Christian to believe that Christ is a propitiation for sin, as for 
 him to believe that Jesus is the Christ. Take another example. 
 “ Whosoever believeth in Jesus Christ is born of God.” Well, 
 but may a man reject the truth of the resurrection of Christ'? 
 No ; for though that is not here expressed, it is implied. It is a 
 positive truth that must be believed, and is elsewhere maintain- 
 ed with the same distinctness and the same authority. Hence 
 Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, 10th chap., and 9th verse, 
 says, — “ If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, 
 and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from 
 
56 
 
 MR COOKE. 
 
 [[SECOND 
 
 the dead, thou shalt he saved.” Now here faith in the resur- 
 rection of Christ is made essential, and the faith required is 
 that of the heart ; and besides faith, there is confession with the 
 mouth. But in this passage Paul does not express the impor- 
 tant doctrine that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins. He is 
 speaking of his resurrection. Are we, then, at liberty to reject 
 this doctrine? No ; for though not here expressed, it is implied, 
 the same as it was in the passage from St. John ; and is else- 
 where maintained with the same positive authority. Witness 
 the 3rd chap, of Romans, verses 25 and 26 “ Whom God 
 
 hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, te 
 declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
 past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, at this 
 time his righteousness : that he might be just, and the justifier 
 of him which believeth in Jesus.” To declare , I say, “ at this 
 time.” Here Paul gives it emphasis, brings it out with dis- 
 tinctness, places it before his readers as being of high impor- 
 tance ; — “ To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that 
 he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in 
 Jesus.” So that it is as important, on the Apostle Paul’s prin- 
 ciple, to believe in the atonement of the Saviour, as it is impor- 
 tant to believe in the resorrection of the Saviour. Take another 
 example. In the passage I have referred to, there is no mention 
 made of the Ascension of the Saviour : but may that doctrine, 
 or fact, be denied, and a man yet be a Christian ? No ; for 
 though not expressed in any of those passages of Scripture 
 which I have referred to, it is implied, and is elsewhere assert- 
 ed with the same distinctness and authority. Hence, says our 
 Lord, in the 24th chap, of St. Luke, and 26th verse, — “ Ought 
 not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his 
 glory? And Paul says, that “ he ever liveth to make inter- 
 cession for us.” So that it is important, in believing Jesus to 
 be the Son of God, to have included in our faith all these great 
 doctrines — that he came in the flesh, that he is a propitiation for 
 our sins, that he rose from the dead, and that he ascended up to 
 heaven. All these are implied in that simple, brief statement, 
 “ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” 
 
 l\ow there is another doctrine — (for I might enlarge on 
 this point, but I shall take only one more)— which appears 
 to be still further remote from the conditions of salvation, 
 as expressed by St. John. I refer to the general resur- 
 rection of the dead. Now may a man disbelieve that 
 doctrine, and yet be a true Christian? No; for though 
 not expressed, it is implied in the brief passage which has been 
 referred to from St. John. Our Lord himself said, “ Marvel not 
 at this : for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in their 
 graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come 
 forth ; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life ; 
 and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.” 
 May this doctrine be discarded, and may a man be accepted, 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 57 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 because be merely believetli in our Lord and Saviour as the Mes- 
 siah? No. I have shown before that there were men in the 
 apostolic times who did believe in the Messiah, but yet rejected 
 the doctrine of the general resurrection of the dead — namely, 
 Hymenseus and Philetus, but what character does Paul give of 
 them ? Is it that they were true Christians? No. It is that 
 they “ had erred from the faith;” that “ they had made ship- 
 wreck of faith;” that “ their word doth eat as doth a canker/* 
 and “ had overthrown the faith of some.” And as for themselves, 
 they were expelled from the church of God, disowned as Chris- 
 tians, and branded as heretics. 
 
 Now these examples will explain the meaning of the brief 
 text to which reference has been made ; and I say that to 
 believe in Jesus as the Son of God, means to believe in him as 
 the Scriptures teach us to believe. It is, in fact, a brief and 
 compendious formulary, designed to express the reception of 
 Christ and his doctrine as taught by himself and his Apostles ; 
 because it is understood that he who receiveth Christ recerveth 
 his doctrine; and he who rejecteth Christ rejecteth his doctrine. 
 Thus we come to our former conclusion, “ He that believetli 
 not God hath made him a liar;” and thus down goes Mr. Barker’s 
 fundamental principle, “that every man is a Christian who 
 believetli that Jesus is the Christ.” No man can be a Christian 
 while he rejects any doctrines which God has clearly revealed 
 in his blessed word, even though he should believe in the Mes- 
 siah, and profess to place himself under his instructions. 
 
 I had noted down Sophism, No. 7. It referred to Mr. Barker’s 
 taking the liberty to dictate to me what I should speak about 
 to-night. I had accepted of his subject — I had accepted of his 
 plan — 1 had accepted of his time ; and I thought it was rather 
 going too far for him to dictate, the evening before, the course 
 I should take the following evening. As this has been disclaim- 
 ed, I shall not dwell upon it. However, I mean to take my 
 own course ; for I shall not spare that system of heresy which 
 I have referred to. I shall go deep down into the subject — I shall 
 draw the mantle off it — I shall employ these ten nights to the 
 utmost of my power in tearing that mantle to atoms, and in 
 dissecting the monster to its very core. 
 
 I maintained, last night, as a proposition from St. John, 
 that “ he that believetli not God hath made him a liar.” And 
 I said that Mr. Barker disbelieved some important truths, 
 "plainly stated — (and I confine myself to those truths— plainly 
 stated) — and, therefore, makes God a liar. I adverted, in the first 
 place, to the Miraculous Conception ; and I now proceed to 
 speak, this evening, where I left off last evening — on the subject 
 of the Miraculous Conception. 
 
 1 read to you an extract from one of Mr. Barker’s produc- 
 tions — from one of his tracts, where he tells us, plainly and 
 honestly, that Jesus, he believes, was the son of Joseph and 
 Mary, born in honourable wedlock, and such like. Well ! no 
 
 c 3 
 
58 //..jX'S MR COOKE. [second 
 
 doubt, when I read that article, many of you would think it 
 was sufficiently hold. Some might think it to he presumptuous. 
 But however hold it might be, the sentiment is not entitled to 
 very great respect for its antiquity . It is hut a new one . It is 
 very “green” at present. It needs summering and wintering 
 before it is worthy of being held in much respect. It may 
 have been held by him about twenty months ; but certainly 
 he held the other at least for twenty years. But he has 
 a right to change, if he change on good grounds. I don’t 
 dispute any man’s right to change ; yet surely it will be 
 thought very rational that a change should be made with deli- 
 beration, especially on an important subject— especially 
 when the public are to be taught — especially when the 
 youthful part of the population have to come in contact with 
 him. I say it is certainly rational to expect that, under such 
 circumstances, there should be great deliberation, should be pa- 
 tient thought, should be deep investigation, and should be lite- 
 rary research; and I should think that scores of volumes in 
 literary and biblical criticism should be waded through, before 
 doctrines like this, so plainly stated, should be discarded, and 
 held up as being the inventions of men. But how stands the 
 case ? If I may judge from Mr. Barker’s own words, the change 
 was the very reverse of this profound deliberation. In the 
 first place, he here tells his readers that he will lay before them 
 the considerations which induced him to lay aside the doctrine 
 of the Miraculous Conception. He then states that “the first 
 work which I read on this subject was by Richard Wright ;” 
 and he says he will lay before them the “ substance” of that 
 vrork ; and the substance extends to the enormous number of 
 twenty-two pages ! 
 
 I will avoid quoting from Richard Wright, but I am free to 
 animadvert upon the remarks of Mr. Barker. Mr. Barker says, 
 
 <4 Before I had finished reading this article, my belief in the 
 
 Miraculous Conception was shaken, if not entirely thrown down. 
 I saw clearlv, that the story of the Miraculous Conception was 
 inconsistent" with itself, as well as with the rest of the Gospel 
 history generally; and that the chapters in which the story was 
 recorded, were full of palpable and grievous errors.” Now he 
 saw this clearly — he saw this quite clearly. There was no ob- 
 scurity on this subject. It was as clear, 1 dare say, not merely as 
 the dawn of morn, but as noon-day. ITe saw clearly its incon- 
 sistencies and its contradictions. Aias! I think that the incon- 
 sistencies and the contradictions are not in the Gospel history. 
 But if not in the Gospel history, they must be somewhere else. 
 Well 1 but it may not be uninteresting to enquire what were 
 the sentiments which Mr. Barker entertained previously, — for 
 he has expressed them. I have availed myself of the opportu- 
 nity of reading rather extensively Mr. Barker’s publications ; 
 and I find in the very first volume of his Evangelical Reformer, 
 and the first page— the very first— standing in bold relief— those 
 
NIGHT.”! 
 
 MU. COOKE. 
 
 59 
 
 very subjects which are now discarded. It would take me too 
 Ion- to read them. I find in the second volume ot the same 
 work a reference made to this important subject, ana that m 
 rather a striking manner ; for the language is put up in large 
 capitals, not common ones— in large capitals— great letters banal 
 shall read you what is here stated “I believe also that Christ 
 was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, and 
 that he was rightly named EMMANUEL, which being inter- 
 preted is, G )D WITH US. I believe that Christ was 6 God 
 manifest in the flesh/ and that he was ‘ the image of the invi- 
 sible God/ ‘ the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express 
 imao-e of his person.’ ‘ It pleased the Father that in him 
 should all fulness dwell/ and 6 in him dwelt all the fulness of 
 the Godhead bodily.’ ‘ God was in Christ reconciling the world 
 to himself.’ ” Now I regard the sentiments here expressed as 
 being worthy of respect ; and I will tell you for what reasons. 
 
 In the first place, they were the sentiments he had held for the 
 last 20 years ; — they were sentiments which are expressed in 
 connection with a Very proper and respectful regard for the 
 Holy Scriptures. For he says,— “ On this and on all other re- 
 ligious subjects, I believe without scruple whatever the Scrip- 
 tures teach ; and I am not aware that I believe anything more* 
 
 I take the statements of Scripture in their plainest and most ob- 
 vious meaning. I dislike all forced interpretations of Scripture ; 
 and it is my wish in all cases to avoid them.” Blessed senti- 
 ments ! May they live in every heart ! He further says, — “I 
 think it wrong to use violence with the words of God, either to 
 force them to speak what they do not mean, or to keep them 
 from saying what they manifestly do mean.” Blessed senti- 
 ments ! again I say ; May they live in every heart ! He 
 adds, — “ And I have no doubt as to the genuineness of 
 those passages of Scripture which speak of Christ, nor 
 as to the goodness of the translation, nor as to the autho- 
 rity of the common readings. I take the Scriptures as 
 they are, and rest my belief upon their plain instructions ; 
 and I feel no doubt but that my faith is true and upright* 
 and approved of God.” Blessed sentiments ! I say once more; 
 May they live in every heart! Well, now, you see that the 
 views herein expressed are entitled to respect, because, first, 
 they were well-grounded, having been twenty years in his mind ; 
 and, in the second place, they are combined with a respectful 
 and proper deference for the authority of God’s word, being- 
 built upon it ; — not upon the reasonings of men, but upon the 
 plain, unsophisticated declarations of God’s blessed word. In 
 the third place, he tells us that he had not written these senti- 
 ments in haste ; for he says that since he read Baxter’s Direc- 
 tory, he read many hundred and perhaps thousands of vo- 
 lumes : and therefore his faith, assisted by so much reading, and 
 sustained by so much Scripture, must be entitled to our re- 
 spect. 
 
60 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [[second 
 
 Now , we find that lie has renounced the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion : the sentiments which had been held for about twenty years, 
 went in a short time— perhaps in forty minutes, on reading- Ri- 
 chard Wright’s publication ; and the sentiments produced by 
 reading a thou sand volumes, vanished onreadingabout twenty- -two 
 pages of Richard Wright’s tract? 1 do not know what may he Mi 
 Barker’s general mode of elaborating his sentiments prior to their 
 appearing in print ; but this is not the way, certainly, which I 
 should adopt to bring forward my sentiments. No ; I should 
 think it needful to add deep research and careful enquiry ; and 
 I would not fabricate some loose sentiment in morals and theo- 
 logy, and hastily put it forth, but would have my sentiments 
 thoroughly investigated, and searched and researched, endea- 
 vouring to build upon a foundation which could not be moved. 
 
 Well! but Mr. Barker has reasons for the change which he 
 has seen fit to adopt, with regard to the doctrine now under con- 
 sideration. And what are those reasons ? Is it alleged in the 
 tract which I have here— in the address which I have here — 
 that there is any obscurity, that there is any ambiguity in 
 the statement which declares the Miraculous Conception of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ? No. The passages are too clear— the pas- 
 sages are too express- The passages are too distinct, to admit of 
 either doubt or question being raised in reference to their mean- 
 ing. What, then, is the reason ? Why, Mr. Barker tells us 
 that they are interpolations. That they are interpolations ! 
 And how many passages or verses are there, which are said to be 
 interpolations? Not less than one hundred and fifty-seven ! 
 And if the genealogy of St. Matthew be included, there will be 
 full one hundred and seventy verses which are said to be inter- 
 polations ! Well ! but we have standards by which to examine 
 this subject. We have standards, which we have agreed to ap- 
 peal to on this subject ; and we must now have those standards 
 referred to. We must see whether they are interpolations or 
 whether they are not. If they are, Mr. Barker is right, and I 
 am wrong, if they are not interpolations, I am right, and Mr. 
 Barker is wrong. 
 
 What are the standards of reference which we have 
 agreed to adopt ? We have said that we shall establish our 
 positions by appealing to our own version, or to the received 
 text. I appeal to that received text. It is here ; and the 
 passages in question are every one contained in the received 
 text. But we are authorized to appeal from the received text 
 to the Greek text. I have the readings of Griesbach before me ; 
 and in all the readings of Griesbach these now disputed passages 
 are contained. It is also agreed that we may refer to Schulz. 
 I have Schulz before me ; and in Schulz the excepted passages 
 are every one contained. Dr. Schulz has gone further in his enqui- 
 ries on this subject than any one of his predecessors -I mean 
 with regard to the genuineness, not of these passages alone, but 
 of the whole of God’s word— the whole of the New Testament; 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 61 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 arid it rejoices me to have to state, that the more thoroughly 
 this subject has been enquired into, the more solid has become 
 the basis of our hopes, and the more luminous the proofs we 
 have of the genuineness of the word of God which is delivered un- 
 to us. There have been examined by Schulz nearly three hun- 
 dred manuscripts beyond what his predecessors had examined ; 
 and his examination is found to confirm the word of God ! 
 There have been not less than six hundred and seventy-four ma- 
 nuscripts examined by literary critics ; and the result of their 
 examination is to confirm every statement contained in those 
 passages which are excepted to. We have also agreed to refer 
 from the Greek text to the versions. I have the Syriac version 
 at home ; — a version formed, if not in apostolic times, yet cer- 
 tainly shortly afterwards. And in the Syriac version the ex- 
 cepted passages are found, every one of them. We have agreed 
 to refer to the Vulgate version — a version which is taken from 
 a Latin one, which must have been formed about the same 
 period as the Syriac — either in apostolic times, or shortly after 
 — from the old Itala version ; and in that the excepted passages 
 are every one of them found. And if the laws of the discussion 
 allowed me, I could appeal to the Arabic, the Persic, the Ethi- 
 opia, and to all the modern versions— the French, the Italian, 
 the German, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and all the one hun- 
 dred and sixty languages or versions into which the Holy Scrip- 
 tures have been rendered ; and these passages are found in them 
 all. There is not a manuscript in the world which is whole that 
 does not contain them. There is not a version in the world 
 which does not contain them. There is not a translation in the 
 world which does not contain them. Even in the Unitarian 
 version they are contained, though marked in italics to denote, 
 as they say, their being doubtful. But if ever a part of God’s 
 word was established by evidence, this part is established by 
 evidence. And if these versions and authorities are to have no 
 weight, why have we agreed to appeal to them? We liam 
 agreed to appeal to them ; and as they are unanimous in their 
 testimony, their authority is decisive. 
 
 But we have agreed to advert to the Fathers likewise. And 
 we have the same testimony from the Fathers. I have not time 
 to read many extracts from the Fathers : but I will refer to one 
 writer as being the most ancient, after the Apostles; namely, to 
 Ignatius. Now, when did Ignatius live? In the times of the 
 Apostles. And of what church was Ignatius bishop ? Of An- 
 tioch. And how long after Paul and Silas were sent forth as mis- 
 sionaries ? Only about twenty years. He was therefore bishop 
 of this church while at least some of the Apostles lived. And 
 what does Ignatius say ? I will read you a few brief passages 
 from him ; and my first extract is from his epistle to the Ephe- 
 sians, c. i., vol. II., p. 11. “ Ignatius to the church at Ephesus 
 
 —which was pre-ordained before the worlds, according to the 
 will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God.” The same 
 
62 MR. COOKE. [SECOND* 
 
 expression of u Jesus Christ our God” occurs in the title of his. 
 epistle to the Romans, and it clearly shows his sentiment re- 
 specting the Divinit} r of our Lord. Again, he says “ there is one 
 Physician, fleshly and spiritual, made and not made, God born 
 in the flesh, true life in death, both of* Mary and of God, first 
 capable of suffering and then incapable.” .Epistle to Ephesians,, 
 c. vii., p, 13. Now mark the expression — 44 born of Mary and 
 of God.” Quoting from Paul’s 1st epistle to the Corinthians,. 
 1st ch. and 20th verse, he says. — 44 Where is the wise ? Where 
 is the disputer ? Where is the boasting of them that are called 
 prudent ?” He adds, 44 Christ was conceived by Mary, of the 
 seed of David, but of the Holy Ghost.” c. xviii. p. 15. 
 
 In his next chapter he alludes to the star which guided the 
 wise men to Bethlehem ; and mentions the extraordinary cir- 
 cumstances which he conceived, either figuratively or literally, 
 to have attended its appearance. 44 Then,” he says — 44 All magic 
 art was destroyed, and every bond of iniquity was abolished ; 
 ignorance was put away, the old kingdom was destroyed when 
 God was manifested humanly.” c. xix. p. 16. We might quote 
 many others, but these must, for the present, suffice. It is suf- 
 ficient to say, that there is not one of the Anti-lNicene writers — 
 (and I refer to the Anti-Nicene writers, because our appeal is to 
 be confined to the first three centuries, and only for that reason; 
 if we come down lower, the testimony is only the louder, and 
 the more abundantly sustained) ; — there is not one of the 
 Anti-Nicene writers, from Barnabas to Lactantius, — that is, 
 from the first century to the fourth, who does not mention that 
 Christ was born of a Virgin. 
 
 Now, then, such is the positive evidence in favour of the genu- 
 ineness of the passages which are disputed by Mr. Barker. 
 Having gone through the received text, and the text of Gries- 
 bach and Schulz — having looked over Manuscripts, Versions, 
 and Fathers— -we may ask what is the testimony against this 
 weight of evidence ? It is the testimony of just one man , with 
 regard to the gospel of St. Luke. The testimony against Luke 
 of one man called Marcion ! We have Marcion referred to in the 
 tract published by Mr. Barker, where he has quoted from the 
 Unitarian Testament. On the 24th page of his tract, he says, 
 — 44 The first and second chapters of this G ospel were wanting in 
 the copies used by Marcion, a reputed heretic”— not real, only 
 reputed J—“ who flourished very early in the second century. 
 His Gospel was undoubtedly that of Luke, though he does not 
 mention the evangelist’s name : and he maintains its antiquity, 
 authenticity, and integrity. Marcion was one of those who, 
 being ashamed of the simplicity of the Gospel, blended it with 
 the wild speculations of an erroneous philosophy. But his cha- 
 racter was unimpeached even by his bitterest enemies, till it 
 was calumniated by Epiphanius, 200 years after his death. He 
 is accused by his enemies of mutilating and corrupting the 
 Scriptures. The falsehood of many of the charges alleged by 
 
NIGHT.] 
 
 MR COOKE. 
 
 63 
 
 Epiplianius is exposed by Dr. Lardner.” And then, to give 
 greater currency to the authority of Marcion, we are told, in 
 the Unitarian Testament from which this quotation is made, 
 that Marcion was a man of u integrity and learning” Great God I 
 What will not thine enemies say to impeach thy truth, and de- 
 ceive the souls of men % Marcion a man of integrity ! Mar- 
 cion merely a reputed heretic ! Marcion a learned man ! There 
 never was a greater falsehood uttered upon the wide earth than that 
 which asserts Marcion to he a man of integrity. Never was there 
 one. And I will prove this, before I have done, to the confu- 
 sion of those who have maintained it. Now, then, I wish I had 
 time fully to remove the veil ! My time is nearly expired, but 
 I will proceed as rapidly as I am able. I will now uplift the 
 veil, and take a view of the individual, who is here spoken of as 
 being a man of integrity, Marcion. Irenaeus speaks of him as 
 follows, in the 1st book and 27th ch. of his work : — “ Marcion, 
 of Pontus, successor of Cerdon, added to his doctrine with great 
 assurance, blaspheming him who is declared to be God, who, as 
 he says, appears to be the author of evil , delighting in war , in- 
 constant, and contrary to himself. But Jesus, he says, came 
 from the Father, who is superior to the God who made the 
 world. He came into Judea in the time of Pontius Pilate, go- 
 vernor under Tiberius Caesar. He appeared to them in the 
 form of a man, dissolving the law and the prophets, and all the 
 works of him that made the world. Moreover, he (Marcion) 
 mutilated the Gospel, according to Luke, striking out all 
 that relates to our Lord’s nativity, and taking away many other 
 things from our Lord’s discourses, especially where he speaks of 
 the creator of this world as his Father ; thus delivering to his 
 followers not the Gospel , hut a scrap of it. In like manner he 
 curtails the epistles of the Apostle Paul, taking away those pas- 
 sages where the Apostle plainly speaks of the creator of the 
 world as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also his quo- 
 tations from the prophetical writings, that foretel the coming of 
 the Lord. He held that the soul only will he saved ; as for the 
 body, it being taken from matter, it is with him incapable of 
 salvation. Besides all these blasphemies, he maintained that 
 Cain and the people of Sodom, and the Egyptians, and all the 
 nations in general, though they had lived in all manner of 
 wickedness, were saved by the Lord, when he descended into the 
 invisible world ; for they came to him, and he took them up in- 
 to his kingdom. But that Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and the 
 patriarchs, and the prophets, and other righteous men, who 
 walked with God, and pleased him, did not obtain salvation. 
 For, says he, they knew their God had been wont to tempt or 
 try them ; and they suspected that now a temptation was laid 
 in their way, therefore they would not come to J esus, nor be- 
 lieve in him : for which reason, as he says, their souls remained 
 in hell.” Such is the statement of Irenaeus, who lived in the 
 same age as Marcion. 
 
64 MR. COOKE. [SECOND 
 
 I believe my time is up within two or three minutes. 
 
 Dr. Lees s— Four minutes. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Then let me have your attention during those 
 few minutes; This Marcion denied that our Lord had' a real 
 body. Tertullian says that Marcion taught that Christ had the 
 appearance of a human body, though not in reality; he appear - 
 ed to have flesh, though he really had not. And that he might 
 deny Christ to have flesh, he denied also his nativity. — Tertul- 
 lian on the Flesh of Christ, ch. 1, 2, page 358. The same testimony 
 is borne by all the Fathers. Marcion maintained that there 
 were two Christs. He allowed that the prophets of the Creator had 
 promised a Saviourtothe Jewish nation, who should deliver them 
 out of the hands of their enemies and restore them to freedom ; 
 but he maintained that this was not the Son oi God. So this 
 man (says Tertullian) is for two Christs, one who appeared in 
 the time of Tiberius, for the salvation of all nations ; and ano- 
 ther, who is the restorer of the Jewish state, who is yet to come. 
 (Tertullian against Marcion. Book iv. ch. G, page *506.) Mar- 
 cion condemned marriage, and in some cases absolutely forbad 
 it. He considered not only the connubial state as less perfect, 
 but even sinful, impure, and odious in the eyes of his God, 
 whom he called a hater of marriage. (Tert. Book iv. ch. 11, 
 page 516.) Marcion rejected the Old Testament, because he 
 said it proceeded from the Creator of the world, who was, in his 
 estimation, void of goodness, and the author of all the sin and 
 misery which are in the world ! See Origen’s Dialogues against 
 Marcion, sect. 1, p. 14 ; sect. 2, pp. 54*57. And I have the 
 originals before me from which these quotations are taken. He 
 also mutilated the New Testament ; for his aversion to the Old 
 Testament was so great, that on this account he mutilated the 
 New Testament in numerous passages : rejecting all which re- 
 lated to the law and the prophets, or which were quoted from 
 them, as plainly foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ, or which 
 spoke of his Father as the Creator of the world. (Iren© us, p, 
 104.) He made the following alterations in the Gospel, or 
 wliat he calls 44 his Gospel,” for he did not acknowledge any 
 Gospel of Luke, or Matthew, or Mark, or John, but called it 
 The Gospel. It was, in fact, a thing made up of scraps ; partly 
 made up from Luke, and partly from his own invention. He 
 entirely omitted the first 5 verses of the 13th chapter. In the 
 28th verse of the same chapter, where it is written,— 44 When ye 
 shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God, 
 and you yourselves thrust out,” he so altered, added, and trans- 
 posed it as to make it read,— 44 When ye shall see all the just in 
 the kingdom of God, and you are yourselves rejected, and found 
 without", there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” I have 
 a whole list of similar spoliations of the Scriptures, which 
 time will not allow me to give you at present, but which I shall 
 recur to on a future evening. I would now simply ask, is this 
 an authority which can be placed against all the Fathers, against 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 all the version, and against the Greek texts to which I have 
 referred? — Mr' Cooke resumed his seat amidst considerable ap- 
 plause. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Gentlemen, in introducing Mr. Barker again to 
 your notice to-night, I trust that the same excellent conduct 
 which most of you have displayed hitherto will be still continu- 
 ed, and that you will give each gentleman a fair and candid 
 hearing. The subject, as the last speaker has said, is one of 
 great importance ; and if we are desirous to discover the 
 truth upon it, we must be exceedingly cool and collected. I 
 trust, therefore, that no marks of approval or disapproval 
 will be displayed, as the speakers continue ; but that undivided 
 attention will be given to the evidence, and to the evidence 
 alone, which each gentleman adduces in support of his opinions. 
 (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr. Barker : — Respected Chairman : My friends, — As I 
 stated last evening, so I state this ; all I wish is a patient and 
 an attentive hearing, and a calm consideration both of what I 
 may advance in favour of my own views, as well as my replies 
 to what my opponent advances in opposition to them. I have 
 the fullest confidence in the truth of the principles which I have 
 advocated and published to the world. I have the fullest con- 
 fidence that these principles, in proportion as they are under- 
 stood, and in proportion as the evidence on which they rest is 
 considered, will commend themselves to the judgments and to 
 the consciences of all truth-loving, well-disposed men. I have 
 no doubt that the errors of false Orthodoxy will fade away, and 
 that the simple truth of Jesus will make its way through the 
 church and the world ; and that by a pure, unadulterated Gos- 
 pel, “ the kingdoms of this world” will be brought to “ become 
 the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.” 
 
 I have, however, one point on which I think I ought to pre- 
 fer a complaint ; and it is, that the list of subjects which we 
 agreed to discuss has been set aside, and the order of the sub- 
 jects altogether inverted. I will just read you the list of 
 subjects which I furnished to William Cooke and his Commit- 
 tee, at their request, and which was acceded to by them with- 
 out objection : — 
 
 1. What Is a Christian ? 
 
 2. The doctrine of the Atonement, Reconciliation, Redemp- 
 
 tion. 
 
 3. The Trinity ; or three equal and eternal persons in one 
 
 God. 
 
 4. Original Sin ; Natural Depravity. 
 
 5. The doctrine of Future Punishments. 
 
 6. Conditions of Justification and Salvation. 
 
 7 . Grounds of Acceptance and Salvation. 
 
 8. The Design and use of the Sacred Writings. 
 
 9. The Constitution of the Church, or Conditions of Church 
 
 Fellowship, 
 
66 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [second 
 
 10. The Hired Ministry. 
 
 11. Any other doctrine Mr Cooke pleases: — the Sabbath; 
 Miraculous Conception ; pure and perfect Humanity of 
 Jesus ; Inspiration and Infallibility of the Scriptures ; 
 the Province of Reason in Religion ; Free Inquiry, or 
 the Right and Duty of each one exercising his own 
 Judgment in Religion, and acting according to his judg- 
 ment in all things. 
 
 I shall not, however, say further by way of complaint ; but 
 only state that it will be my purpose, after briefly replying to 
 what my opponent has advanced this evening, to proceed with 
 the subjects in the order they are set down on this list. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — They were not admitted. 
 
 Mr. Pringle (Umpire) : — I am appealed to on this occasion, 
 as Mr. Barker has preferred a complaint in reference to the 
 mode of proceeding, and the order of subjects to be discussed. 
 How I am instructed to say that the paper I hold in my hand is 
 a real and correct copy of the agreement, signed by both disput- 
 ants ; and no such order of subjects is contained in the paper 
 that I hold in my hand. Mr. Barker must, of course, refer to 
 some private understanding or arrangement with Mr. Cooke ; 
 but this list was not any part of what the Committee acceded to. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — Farther than the general terms. 
 
 Mr. Pringle : — Farther than the general terms, which I shall 
 read, if requisite. — I think it right that all persons should un- 
 derstand what is in this paper. The appeal in all cases must be 
 made to the paper. The whole meeting, and Mr. Barker, should 
 be put right on a point of fact ; and I think it due to fairness 
 and truth to make this statement. (Hear, hear, applause, and 
 hissing. ) 
 
 Mr. Barker : — I may state that this misunderstanding was 
 what I anticipated, and I was therefore wishful by all means to 
 prevent it before we commenced proceedings. I pressed my 
 Committee to ask what subjects were to be discussed, and the 
 order in which they would be taken : and this is the letter 
 which I received from the Secretary .of my Committee : — “ My 
 dear friend Barker, — You desire me to make some extracts 
 from the correspondence between your Committee and Mr. 
 Cooke’s. To the best of my understanding, the following is 
 what you require. I would first observe, as only one subject 
 is named in what is called 4 The digested Terms and Regula- 
 tions,’ Mr. Grant took upon himself to ask Mr. Cooke what 
 other subject he meant to introduce, when, as he stated, Mr. 
 Cooke laughed at him, and said that Mr. Barker had sent a list 
 of subjects, which would be discussed so far as opportunity 
 would permit. This was said in a meeting of the Joint-Com- 
 mittee.” I need not read further. I have no further com- 
 plaint to make, and will just proceed according to the order of 
 debate. 
 
 I have next to observe that the great principles which I laid 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 67 
 
 down last night, remain as they were left by me. Not one of 
 them has been overturned ; nor any of them, that I perceive, 
 even assailed. I stated that by a Christian was meant a disciple 
 of Christ ; and that a disciple meant a learner or scholar. A 
 disciple of Christ, is, therefore, a learner or scholar of Christ. 
 I said that this was all that the word “ Christian’’ implied ; 
 and nothing has been stated this evening to shake that defini- 
 tion. I noticed certain objections to this definition, grounded on 
 the supposed necessity of believing certain leading Orthodox 
 doctrines. I noticed the objection that in order to be a Chris- 
 tian a man must believe the doctrine of the Trinity, as set forth 
 by Trinitarians ; and proved that the Scriptures taught nothing 
 of the kind. I noticed the objection that a man could not be 
 a Christian unless he believed in the doctrine of satisfaction to 
 justice by the death of Christ ; and showed that this had no 
 place in the Scriptures. I noticed the objection that a man 
 could not be a Christian unless he believed in the doctrine of 
 natural, hereditary, total depravity ; and proved that the Scrip- 
 tures in no place contained any such doctrine, and, therefore, 
 that the objection w^as altogether unwarranted. 1 further no- 
 ticed the objection that no one could be a Christian unless he 
 was born again, and showed, that every one who believed in the 
 Messiah, and acted according to that faith, was born again, was 
 born of God. It was said that a man could not be a Christian 
 unless he depended tor acceptance on the merits of Christ alone: 
 1 showed that the Scriptures never mentioned such a thing as 
 the merits of Christ, and could not, therefore, require men to 
 trust in them. As to the other parts of my remarks, they ap- 
 pear to have commended themselves to the judgment of my op- 
 ponent, that they have not called forth anything like direct op- 
 position. He says, he did not charge me with denying that 
 Christ had come in the flesh. The published report, however, 
 will show whether I am correct on this point, or not. lie says, 
 my changes have been so great during the last few years, that he 
 would not have wandered if I had adopted the old heresy of the 
 Gnostics. It would be well to steer clear of personal matters, 
 according tu the rules ; but if my opponent brings forward evi- 
 dence in this discussion to show me that 1 am wrong, I will change 
 again, whether he revile me or commend me for the change. 
 He says that in order to establish the position that Jesus was 
 the Son of Joseph, I reject the two first chapters of Luke. I 
 say the charge is false. He says a great deal about the ancient 
 heretics; and as I happen to have at hand John Wesley’s re- 
 marks with respect to ancient heretics, and the conduct of the 
 so-called Orthodox towards them, I shall read a few sentences to 
 you. The first passage I find in the 213th page of the 9th vol. 
 of John Wesley’s works. It is in reference to Montanus. He says 
 — “ The bearing a faithful testimony against the general cor- 
 ruption of Christians, seems to have raised the outcry against 
 Aontanus ; and against Tertullian himself, when lie was 
 
60 MR. BARKER, [SECOND 
 
 convinced that the testimony of Montanus was true. As to the 
 heresies fathered upon Montanus, it is*not easy to find what they 
 were. I believe his grand heresy w r as, the maintaining that 
 without inward and outward holiness no man shall see the 
 Lord.” All the other charges against him were only brought 
 forward to give a colour to the Orthodox zeal with which they 
 persecuted him. Speaking about, the general corruption of 
 Christians, he states, — “ And if the state of the church in the 
 very first century was so bad, we cannot suppose it was any bet- 
 ter in the second. Undoubtedly it grew worse and worse, 
 Tertullian, one of the most eminent Christians of that age, has 
 given us an account of it in various parts of his writings r 
 whence we learn that real, internal religion, was hardly found • 
 nay, that not only the tempers of the Christians were exactly 
 the s'me with those of their heathen neighbours, (pride, pas- 
 sion, love of the world, reigning alike in both,) but their lives 
 and manners also.” 
 
 I am wishful to show you that the charges brought against 
 Marcion are to be received with suspicion as coming from 
 enemies, and from a party whose character it was, from the be- 
 ginning, first to make doctrines for themselves, and substitute 
 them for the doctrines of Christ, and then to abuse, persecute* 
 and murder those who would not swallow their foolish inven- 
 tions. And I shall give you John Wesley’s words; as you 
 might fancy, if I gave you my own, that I was only wishing 
 to cover myself. After speaking of the general corruption of 
 Christianity in the early ages, and having stated — 
 
 Ur. Lees, (who had been in consultation with the Umpire 
 and Mr. Grant) here made a communication to Mr. Barker. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — It is suggested that I should state that I 
 adopt this statement as my own. Without doubt, I do. 
 At the same time, I believe John Wesley might have gone 
 much farther, and what he wrote have been equally true. 
 After stating how soon iniquity began to work, and that the 
 early Christians were no better in their tempers, lives, and 
 manners than the heathen around them, he proceeds to state 
 that God still reserved to himself a few to bear a faithful tes- 
 timony against the general corruption. He says, at page 29 6, 
 — “ God always reserved a seed for himself, a few that wor- 
 shipped him in spirit and in truth. I have often doubted, whe- 
 ther these were not the very persons whom the rich and 
 honourable Christians, who will always have number as well 
 as power on their side, stigmatised, from time to time, with 
 the title of Heretics . Perhaps it was chiefly by this artifice of 
 the devil and his children, that the good which was in them, 
 being evil spoken of, they were prevented from being so exten- 
 sively useful as otherwise they might have been. Nay, I have- 
 doubted whether that Arch-heretic of the fifth century, Mon- 
 tanus, was not one of the holiest men in the second century. 
 Yea, I would not affirm that the Arch-heretic of the fifth 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 69 
 
 century [_Pelagius] (as plentifully as he has been bespattered for 
 many ages,) was not one of the holiest men of that age, not 
 excepting St. Augustine himself : (a wonderful saint ! as full of 
 pride, passion, bitterness, censoriousness, and as foul-mouthed 
 to all that contradicted him as George Fox himself.) I verily 
 believe the real heresy of Pelagius,” the man so terribly de- 
 nounced in our days, 44 was neither more nor less than this, the 
 holding that Christians may, by the grace of God, (not without 
 it ; that I take to be a mere slander) 4 go on to perfection or 
 in other words, 4 fulfil the law of Christ. 5 4 But St. Augustine 
 says’ — When Augustine’s passions were heated, his word is not 
 worth a rush. And here is the secret. St. Augustine was an- 
 gry at Pelagius. Hence he slandered and abused him (as his 
 manner was) without either fear or shame. And St. Augustine 
 was then in the Christian world what Aristotle was afterwards. 
 There needed no other proof of any assertion, than 4 ipse dixit 
 St. Augustine said it.” I have not the slightest doubt but 
 that the charges generally preferred against Marcion were much 
 of the same character. The same things have been said against 
 ail reformers, not only Luther, and Wesley, and Paul, but Je- 
 sus Christ himself. The most virtuous characters that ever 
 lived are not only called heretics, blasphemers, and infidels, but 
 they are spoken of as worse than infidels when they lift up 
 their voices against orthodox errors, and set themselves to reform 
 prevailing corruptions. It has been the custom of persecutors 
 in all ages, to use reformers as if they were bad men, and then, 
 to justify their cruelties, invent and propagate all kinds of 
 slander against them. After having made these statements, I 
 leave you to consider the weight of my opponent’s denuncia- 
 tions against Marcion. I shall briefly reply to what he has 
 advanced with reference to the Miraculous Conception ; and 
 state my views of the doctrine at full when the proper season 
 <mmes. 
 
 He says, the Gnostics were almost the only parties who de- 
 nied the Miraculous Conception. It is not true. He says none 
 denied it after that till Priestley did so. False again. John 
 Elwall, one who associated chiefly with the Society of Friends, 
 wrote a work against it before the time of Priestley. He says, 
 I rejected the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception because it 
 was unimportant. 1 say that is not true. 1 only regarded its 
 non-importance as one out of a many proofs that it was not a 
 doctrine of God’s revelation. lie says Lloyd Jones said that 
 it did not matter what sentiments a man held, if his life were 
 right ; and that this was like the sentiments 1 had laid down. 
 There is no resemblance between the two statements. I teach 
 that right sentiments are of great importance ; that they are the 
 spring of a light life. Lie says, who gave me authority to 
 release men from obligation to believe any part of the word of 
 •God. 1 never claimed any such authority. Fie says, whatever 
 God reveals as truth, we are bound to obey. True ; but we 
 
70 MR. BARKER. [SECOND 
 
 must judge what God has revealed. He says, can I prove that 
 any man ever obtained God’s favour whiie he wilfully rejected 
 any portion of God’s word? I answer no ; but it is weil that 
 he allows a man who rejects a portion of God’s word igno- 
 rantly may obtain God’s favour. Else, he would shut out of 
 heaven the Good Samaritan, who took the five books of Moses 
 only, while he rejected the prophets generally. He says, I 
 represented Paul as meriting God’s favour. I never made any 
 such statement ;• but I do believe that God rewards the im- 
 provement of one talent with the bestowment of another. He 
 says, God’s blessings are matters of free mercy. True : but 
 mercy has its rules, by which it regulates its bestowment of fa- 
 vours ; and one of its rules is, to bless those who improve the 
 blessings already received. 
 
 And now for my Sophisms. My opponent says, the woman 
 of Samaria was referred to by me as a Christian. That is a 
 mistake. I simply referred to the passage to show what kind 
 of faith it was that appeared in the New Testament. As to 
 whether she lived according to that faith, and so became a 
 Christian, I do not know. He says, can a woman who has 
 heard but one sermon be held forward as a specimen of Chris- 
 tian experience and character? Of course, she cannot. He 
 says, the disciples at Ephesus were disciples of John. It is no- 
 where said so : they are spoken of simply as disciples. He 
 says, they became living proofs of the Holy Ghost’s personality 
 and Godhead. It is better to give proofs than to make bare as- 
 sertions. He says, I did not tell them that the eunuch had 
 been at Jerusalem, acknowdedging his guilt, and his need of a 
 vicarious sacrifice. Indeed I did not. I must have been wise 
 above what is written if I had told you any such thing. He 
 says, the eunuch believed in Christ’s death tor our sins. He 
 might; but the confession of faith which he made was that he 
 believed Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and by this faith he 
 was saved. He alluded to types and anti-types. The common 
 orthodox doctrine of types appears to me to have no foundation 
 either in reason or Scripture. He says I attempted to disprove 
 the doctrine of Christ’s sacrifice. It is untrue. I only at- 
 tempted to disprove a false orthodox notion about the nature of 
 it, showing that it^was not designed to satisfy God’s justice, but 
 to redeem men from sin. He says, I attempted to disprove the 
 doctrine of the Trinity by referring to the preceptive parts of 
 Scripture. I did no such thing. Such talk is trifling, and 
 wrong. He says, I have laid down the principle that because 
 a doctrine is not taught in every part of Scripture, it is not 
 taught there at all. That is a mistake, like the former assertion. 
 He sa # ys, I referred to the disciples of Christ, as specimens of 
 what Christians should be in sentiment, &c. I did not. I re- 
 ferred to them only as instances, only as disciples. He says, 
 the disciples of Christ were very defective. 1 said so too, last 
 night. They were men of many defects, and yet they were 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 71 
 
 disciples of Christ. lie assumes, to-night, that they were not 
 in God’s favour. But Jesus Christ told them that their names 
 were written in heaven ; and that when he should come in his 
 glory they:, should judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Christ 
 said, “ I am the vine, ye are the branches and I have no 
 doubt when my opponent preaches from that text, he speaks 
 of those branches as representing true Christians. Other dis- 
 ciples were called carnal at Corinth, and said to walk as men : 
 yet at the same time Paul regarded them as disciples, and calls 
 them babes, babes in Christ. They were not full-grown spi- 
 ritual men, but a mixture of spiritual with carnal ; yet still 
 they were babes in Christ. He says, they were Christians, 
 though only babes. As to defects in knowledge, Paul to the 
 last said lie only knew in part. We may have many defects 
 both in knowledge, in temper, and in character ; yet, ac the 
 same time, if we believe in Christ, if we strive to understand 
 and to practice his doctrine, to drink in his spirit, to imitate 
 his example, to be as he was in this world, our defects will 
 never shut us out from the favour of God our Father, or ex- 
 clude us from the kingdom of heaven. My opponent referred 
 to the passage from John, and said, These things are written 
 that ye might believe that Jesus was the Son of God — not of 
 Joseph. True ; nor did I say that he was not the Son of God : 
 and yet it is to a certainty declared that he was the Son of Jo- 
 seph ; and both Matthew and Luke trace his pedigree up to 
 David, through Joseph as his father. Several other passages 
 speak of him as the son of man. He calls himself a good deal 
 oftener the son of man, than the Son of God ; and I don’t 
 know why we should reject some of the plainest testimonies of 
 the Saviour himself. 
 
 He says, I quoted the passage — “ Whosoever believeth that 
 Jesus is the Christ, is born of God,” to prove that every man 
 was a Christian who merely believes that Jesus is the Christ. I 
 did not. I quoted it to show what is th q faith by which men 
 are born of God. But I took especial pains to show that mere 
 belief would not save any man ; that no faith would save 
 man, unless he acted according to his faith. 
 
 He then wished to prove that the old heretics believed that 
 Jesus was the Christ, though they rejected certain doctrines : 
 and he gave you a passage from the new Testament, which said, 
 “ Many deceivers are gone out, who confess not that Jesus is 
 the Christ,” exactly upsetting his own statement ; and proving 
 that his notion, that the heretics believed Jesus to be the Christ, 
 is false. I showed you for what purposes Christ was declared 
 to be anointed — viz., anointed by God to preach the gospel to 
 the poor, and the like. 
 
 He says, a man must not only believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
 but he must believe it in the right sense. Of course ; and I 
 showed from Christ’s own words what the right sense is. 
 
 He says, a man must not only believe Jesus to be the Christ*, 
 
72 MR. BARKER. [SECOND 
 
 but must believe the resurrection, the atonement, &c. Of course 
 be must believe every doctrine as it is revealed to him. 
 
 He says, we must believe in the general resurrection. 
 True ; and in the happiness of heaven, and the punishment 
 of the wicked ; in the equality of all Christians ; and that 
 none should be called masters ; in the duty of washing each 
 other’s feet ; in the impropriety of making long prayers, and of 
 revelling with rich friends, instead of making feasts for the poor 
 and lame. We must believe in the duty of going into our clo- 
 sets to pray, instead of into the streets. We must believe in 
 every thing that Jesus and his apostles have taught in propor- 
 tion as it comes to be known to us ; and we should remember 
 that if we reject any such doctrine, after becoming known to us 
 as a revelation from God, we shall be shut out from God’s favour. 
 We must believe every thing God reveals to us, for if man wil- 
 fully reject the slightest point of what we know to be God’s 
 truth, we commit a sin against our own souls, against God, and 
 against the whole truth in the universe. 
 
 He says, Hymenseus and Philetus believed in Jesus as the 
 Christ, and yet denied the resurrection. But he gave no proof 
 of this. 
 
 He says, I have held the notion that the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion is not of Scripture authority for twenty months only, 
 while 1 held the contrary opinion twenty years. My answer is, 
 what then ? 
 
 He says, I should have read scores of volumes before I gave 
 it up. 1 say one plain testimony of God is worth more than a 
 thousand volumes. 
 
 He says, Richard Wright’s tract occupies only twenty-two 
 pages. What an argument ! J ohn’s Gospel is perhaps not 
 quite so large. 
 
 He says, that in my “ Reformer” you may see so and so. I 
 see but little in what was read from the “ Reformer” at variance 
 with what I now hold. 
 
 He says, these statements in the Evangelical Reformer are 
 worthy of respect. And yet Conference said they were de- 
 fective, and censured me for them ; and he was in the Con- 
 ference. 
 
 He says, that for twenty years I held opposite views in my 
 mind, and that my present views on the Miraculous Conception 
 are only twenty months old. I answer that Paul’s, Luther’s, 
 and Wesley’s good views, and all the views of orthodox men, 
 were at one period only twenty minutes old ; and yet they might 
 be as true as if they had been twenty generations old. 
 
 He proposed to state what my reasons were for rejecting 
 the Miraculous Conception. He, however, did not give them. 
 He should have taken them one by one, as they stand, and 
 answered them fairly. But he might have seen from the pas- 
 sages remaining behind, that in the tract he referred to, I only 
 stated one small portion of my reasons for rejecting the 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 73 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 doctrine. A vast amount of evidence I shall bring forward at the 
 proper time : and we shall see liovv he answers them, when I 
 coine to state my reasons. 
 
 lie says, Schulz examined nearly 300 manuscripts. But he 
 did not tell us the age of those manuscripts, nor the dangers to 
 which manuscripts are liable. 
 
 He referred to the epistles of Ignatius. I would ask, how 
 many of those epistles are known to be spurious, and how many 
 of the genuine ones to be interpolated ? One quotation lie gave 
 from Ignatius, “our God was conceived of Mary.” You may 
 know from that of what age they smelled. I wish to say that 
 I have read my opponent’s arguments, in his tract on ttie In- 
 carnation, and I shall examine them thoroughly, if spared, be- 
 fore the discussion closes. 
 
 He says, the evidence against his arguments is the testimony 
 of one man, Marcion. It is neither the testimony of one, nor of 
 a hundred men. It is a vast amount of evidence of various 
 kinds, which i am persuaded will so shake the belief of this doc- 
 trine in the minds of many orthodox people, that they will never 
 be able to hold firmly the fable again. (Laughter,) 
 
 He spoke of some men being God’s enemies, and charged them 
 with aiming at destroying men’s souls, because they differ from 
 him in opinion ; and he made what appeared a profane appeal 
 to our heavenly Father. It would be wise if men would learn 
 to he careful how they charge others with being God’s enemies, 
 and with aiming at destroying men’s souls. 
 
 He refers again to Marcion’s character. I have already re- 
 plied to those tales of Marcion’s enemies, and given John Wes- 
 ley’s opinion of the credit due to the slanders of orthodox perse- 
 cutors against those whom they chose to denounce, as heretics. 
 I may now add that the charges which have been made against 
 Luther, Wesley, Paul, and Christ, are still worse. The lies and 
 slanders of many of the advocates of orthodoxy of the present 
 day are unbounded. Their misrepresentations are without end. 
 
 1 have just one addition to make in reference to what con- 
 stitutes a disciple of Christ. It is from John Wesley, vol. 7, p. 
 321 ; his words are, “Nor does it in any wise appear, that the 
 disciples who came unto him were the twelve only. Ot iiaQ^rai 
 avrov , (his disciples,) without any force put upon the expression, 
 may be understood of all who desired to learn of him.” 
 
 1 would just refer to another passage, “ he that belie veth not 
 God, hath made him a liar.” In the 1st epistle of John, at the 
 5th chapter the 9th and following verses, we read, “ If we re- 
 ceive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater ; for this 
 is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. lie that 
 believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself : he 
 that believeth not God hath made him a liar ; because he be- 
 lieveth not the record that God gave of his Son.” Now what is 
 the record that God gave ? That Christ made satisfaction to 
 divin e justice? that there is a trinity of persons in one God? 
 
 D 
 
74 MR. BARKER. [SECOND 
 
 Hark you — “ And this is the record that God hath given to us 
 eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” Now, we have never 
 rejected this record. 
 
 I understand that the statement I made last night, respecting 
 Walter Balmer, has been called in question. I have here John 
 Mawson’s letter, written and sent to me shortly after the acci- 
 dent occurred. lie says, “Poor Walter Balmer met with a 
 frightful accident on Wednesday — he got entangled in the ma- 
 chinery at Coulthard’s factory, and had his leg up to the thigh 
 torn to pieces. It had to be amputated close to the body, I 
 was present during the operation. It was a dreadful sight. He 
 bore it well. When I went he was praising God for his good- 
 ness. He told me to tell Joseph to call and see him ; and that 
 true religion consisted in being good and doing good ; that 
 whatever William Cooke or any one else might say, the religion 
 he professed in health could support him under the most agoniz- 
 ing suffering, and in the prospect of a painful death. Such a 
 testimony, under such circumstances, is valuable, in the gra- 
 dual approach of death, the sensibilities become benumbed, and 
 we are lost to the acuteness of feeling we possess in health. But 
 here was a strong man, full of life, and health, and vigour, both 
 of body and mind, in a moment brought under the most agoniz- 
 ing suffering — to the point of separation from all that was dear 
 to him ; and we hear him speak as above, and further say, 6 I 
 never knew till nowfc he meaning of that verse of Paul’s/ 6 sor- 
 rowful, yet always rejoicing.’ The sight excited in my mind 
 the most painful sympathies. Still it was a privilege to witness 
 the power of religion — the triumph of Christian principle.” 
 That is the testimony of an eye-witness. Since then the sufferer 
 has left the world, and gone to his rest in heaven ; and he died, 
 as lie lived, in peace. 
 
 I now come to notice the second subject, the New Testament 
 .doctrine of the Atonement, &c. My hi st observation is, that the 
 word 6 atonement’ occurs but once in the whole New Testament. 
 The frequency with which the word is used by most professed 
 teachers of the gospel, might lead you to imagine that the New 
 Testament was full of it. Yet that is the fact ? In the whole 
 New Testament there is but one place where the word occurs ; 
 and that is in the Epistle to the Homans, 5tli chapter and 11th 
 verse: “And not only so, but we also joy in God, through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the 
 atonement.” 
 
 I Avould next observe that the word translated “ atonement,” 
 is, in the margin, rendered “ reconciliation.” The word “ recon- 
 ciliation is given by the translators as the most literal interpre- 
 tation.” I may also observe that John Wesley, in his translation 
 of the New Testament, adopts that rendering. Adam Clarke, 
 Dr. Conquest, and every orthodox and every hetrodox translator 
 that I have seen for some years, give the word “reconciliation” 
 instead of “atonement.” In no new translation of the New 
 
NIGHT.] MR BARKER* 75 
 
 Testament, therefore, that I have seen, is the word atonement 
 to be found at all, from the beginning to the end. 
 
 My next observation is, that the reconciliation here mentioned 
 could not be satisfaction to justice; for the apostle says “ by 
 whom we have now received the atonement,” or reconciliation. 
 If it had been a satisfaction to divine justice, God must have 
 received it ; but it was we who received it, not God. 
 
 I may further observe that this reconciliation is not the recon- 
 ciliation of God to man, but of man to God. It is not God that 
 is spoken of as man’s enemy, and needing to be reconciled to 
 us ; but it is man that is spoken of as God’s enemy ; it is man 
 that is represented as needing to be reconciled, and made friends 
 with God. Hence the apostle says in verse 10, “ If, when we 
 were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his 
 Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” 
 It has been the idea of some, that it was God that needed re- 
 conciliation ; that God was so terribly implacable, that his jus- 
 tice must be satisfied ; and that he must be reconciled before 
 man could be saved. This passage plainly shows that it was 
 man that needed reconciling, that it was man that was the ene- 
 my of God, and that wanted changing into the friend of God. 
 God was good enough from the beginning. He is all men’s 
 friend. And in the fullness of his love, he sought to bring man 
 from his carnality, which was enmity with God, and from his 
 bad ways of life, for man was at enmity with God through 
 wicked works ; and by the death of Christ to turn him into the 
 friend of God. Christ died then to reconcile men to God, by turn- 
 ing men from their iniquities. Just as a good man who has an 
 enemy tries to reconcile him, and to turn him into a friend, by 
 doing him good ; so does God try to bring men to become his 
 friends by showing his love to them. For as my opponent said, 
 “ We love him because he first loved us.” God manifests 
 his love to us, in order to win our hearts to himself: as the hymn 
 expresses it : — 
 
 “ He gave his Son my heart to win, 
 
 To buy me from the power of sin, 
 
 And make me love again.” 
 
 That is the reconciliation here mentioned. It is the same re- 
 conciliation that is mentioned in 2nd Corinthians, 5th chapter, 
 beginning at the 14th verse : “ The love of Christ constraineth 
 us ; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were 
 all dead : and that he died for all.” — What for? To satisfy jus- 
 tice? Hark you ! — “ That they which live should not hence- 
 forth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, 
 and rose again. Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new 
 creature : old things are passed away ; behold, all things are 
 become new. And ail things are made new by God, who hath 
 reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us 
 the ministry of reconciliation,” — that is, the work of reconcilia- 
 tion ; “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world 
 
7$ MR. BARKER. [SECOND 
 
 unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath 
 committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” Not imputing 
 their trespasses unto them ; for when men are reconciled to God, 
 made friends to God, he is no longer angry with them, he re- 
 ceives them graciously. The prodigal son was guilty of great 
 folly and sin ; but when he returned penitent, and craved for- 
 giveness, his father received him kindly. He did not demand 
 the restoration of the property wasted in profligacy, or satisfac- 
 tion for the injury or pain occasioned by his ingratitude, but 
 called to his servants to 64 bring hither the fatted calf,” and 
 make a feast, that he and his neighbours might rejoice; “for 
 this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was iost, and is 
 ♦found.” So with God our Father. God reconcileth “ the world 
 unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ; and hath 
 committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now, then, we 
 are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by 
 us ; we pray you in Christ’s stead, he ye reconciled to God. 
 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” 
 What for? To satisfy justice? No; the passage is all of a 
 piece, — “ That we might be made the righteousness of God in 
 -him” — that we might be made God’s righteous people through 
 him. Reconciliation is again mentioned in Paul’s Fpistle to the 
 Ephesians, the 2nd chapter, beginning at the 13th verse : “But 
 now in Jesus Christ, ye who sometimes were far off, are made 
 nigh by the blood of Christ.” His blood is shed, not to satisfy 
 God’s justice, but to bring us nigh to God. “lor he is our 
 peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the 
 middle wall of partition between us : having abolished in his 
 flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in 
 ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so 
 making peace ; and that he might reconcile both unto God in 
 one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” Here 
 was a double reconciliation. The Jews and Gentiles were at 
 variance with each other. The Jews treated the Gentiles as if 
 they were dogs, and hated the Samaritans, with whom they 
 would have no dealings. God knew that so long as men enter- 
 tained these feelings towards each other, they could never he 
 happy. He therefore wished to reconcile them, to make them 
 friends; to make of two opposing parties one new man, or one 
 new harmonious society. And while thus seeking to reconcile 
 men one to the other, he is anxious to reconcile both to God — 
 to induce them both to love God, and one another; and Jesus, 
 by thus uniting man to man, and all mankind to God, makes all 
 men happy; and both brings down the happiness of heaven to 
 earth, and lifts up earth towards heaven. The subject of recon- 
 ciliation is noticed again in the Epistle to the Coiossians, 1st 
 -chapter, beginning at the 20th verse: “And, having made 
 peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all 
 things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in 
 earth, or things in heaven.” That is, Jews or Gentiles. This 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 77 
 
 phrase is sometimes supposed, by orthodox people, to mean the 
 natural universe ; but it is impossible that this should be its 
 meaning here; for no one would contend that Christ gave his 
 life to reconcile the earth and skies to God. “ All things in 
 heaven and earth,” mean all mankind, Gentiles and Jews ; and 
 the object of Christ was to reconcile both unto God. 66 And 
 you, that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind 
 by wicked works” — -not because they were naturally depraved 
 — “ yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through 
 death, to present you holy, and unblameable, and unrep rovable, 
 in his sight: if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled* 
 and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which wa 
 have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is 
 under heaven; whereof I, Paul, am made a minister.” Here,, 
 again, we find there is nothing about reconciling God to man; ii 
 is all about reconciling man to God. 
 
 The subject of reconciliation is mentioned in two or three 
 other portions of Scripture. The meaning is not so plainly 
 given there as in the passages already quoted; but we have 
 reason to believe that the meaning is the same in those darken 
 passages, as in the plainer ones. And we ought not to make 
 use of dark passages to obscure clear ones; but of clear ones 
 to make plain the dark ones. And here you have a number 
 of very plain and clear passages, which any man free from 
 prejudice may understand, to enable you to interpret the darken 
 ones, and so enable you to see clearly what the New Testament 
 doctrine of reconciliation is. There is no mystery about it. It 
 is the simplest thing in the world. God, our Father, had a num- 
 ber of children who ran away from him, and became rebellious,, 
 and so fond of carnal pleasures, that they did not like to retain 
 God in their thoughts; and thus by their love of sinful pleasures, 
 they became his enemies. God saw that this would prove their 
 ruin ; and having no pleasure in the death of the wicked, he sends 
 his Son to reconcile them — to bring them from living to them- 
 selves, to live unto God ; to create them anew, that they might 
 live no longer after the flesh, but after the spirit ; that they 
 might thus have peace of mind. Christ died, then, to reconcile 
 men to each other, and to reconcile all unto God, that men 
 might be friends to each other, and to God ; that peace in word 
 and deed might prevail among all mankind, and glory to God 
 in the highest be promoted, and peace and purity and blessed-** 
 ness be diffused throughout all the earth. Such is the doctrine 
 of reconciliation as laid down in the New Testament. If you 
 want a clearer and more rational view of this doctrine, I am 
 sure I know not where to seek it. Compare the orthodox doc- 
 trine with this; the one is all darkness and clouds — the other is 
 bright and glorious as the day. When the defender of the or- 
 thodox doctrine attempts to explain his views, you lose him, 
 and. he loses you ; and after talking in the dark, he ends all by 
 telling you it is a mystery. It is not a mystery, but, as thn 
 
 d 2 
 
78 MR. BARKER. [SECOND 
 
 Apostle says, so plain that it commends itself to every man’s 
 conscience in the fear of God. 
 
 We come next to the doctrine of Redemption. There are also 
 some passages of Scripture which make this quite plain. Take, 
 for example, the second chapter of Titus, beginning at the 11th 
 verse: — “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath 
 appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and 
 worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in 
 this present world : looking for that blessed hope, and the glori- 
 ous appearing of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from 
 all iniquity , and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of 
 good works.” This is the redemption that is by Christ Jesus, 
 — redemption from all iniquity, — being redeemed from all im- 
 purity, and made a peculiar people, zealous of good works. In 
 the 1st Epistle of Peter, the 1st chapter, beginning at the 18th 
 verse, I find another passage of like import “ Forasmuch as 
 ye know, that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as 
 silver and gold”— Redeemed from what? “ From your rain 
 conversation,” that is, your foolish and wicked way of life, “ re- 
 ceived by tradition from your fathers ; but with the precious 
 blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” 
 There are some passages in which the word Redemption is not 
 so clearly explained as in those which I have given you ; but 
 don’t act on the common principle of men, who take one dark pas- 
 sage in order to make a dozen plain ones mysterious. Take the 
 plain ones, which you cannot help but understand ; and by the 
 help of the plain ones, make the dark ones clear. 1 may remark, 
 also, that even in the revelations, Jesus Christ is represented as 
 redeeming mankind, not from God, butfa? God “ hast redeem- 
 ed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, 
 and people, and nation.” 
 
 The next point in connection with the work of Christ, is that 
 of bearing our sins. Jesus Christ is said to have borne our sins 
 in his own body on the tree. And this passage was quoted by 
 my opponent, — “ Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away 
 the sins of tire world.” He intimated that we ought to believe 
 and to cherish this doctrine. We ought; but we should be 
 careful to understand it in its right sense. How did Christ 
 bear our sins? I think there is a passage in Matthew, the 8th 
 chapter, beginning at the 16th veise, which will explain thismat- 
 ter to you When the even was come, they brought unto him 
 many that were possessed with devils : and he cast out the spirits 
 with his word, and healed all that were sick : that it might beful- 
 filled which was spoken by Esaiastlie prophet,” in the chapter 
 that the eunuch was reading, and from which he got his notionsof 
 the object of Christ’s death; “Thatit might be fulfilled which was 
 spoken by Fsaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infir- 
 mities, and bare our sicknesses.” How did Jesus take our in- 
 firmities, and bear our sicknesses ? He cured people of them. He 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 79 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 made sick people whole. He made the body which was broken 
 with affliction, healthy and sound. That is, he bore away 
 people’s sicknesses — took them away . And why should not this 
 passage be allowed to explain the other passages, which speak of 
 bearing sins ? How does he bear our sins % He bears them away , 
 he takes them away . lie is the Lamb of God that taketh away 
 the sins of the world. He cures us of them, and thus bears 
 them away. He did not take men’s diseases on himself lite- 
 rally. He was not himself afflicted with all the poor people’s 
 diseases whom he cured. No more was he ever afflicted with 
 men’s sins literally. He bears them both away from us. He 
 cures men of their iniquities, and makes bad folk good ; just 
 as he cured sick people of their complaints. And, as he t4 took 
 our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses” by curing and removing 
 them ; so he bears our sins in the self-same sense, by curing us 
 of them, and making us good. 
 
 I have next to notice the doctrine of Propitiation. My opponent 
 quoted a passage repeatedly, where Christ is said to be set forth 
 as a propitiation. Most commentators translate this word mercy- 
 seat. The mercy-seat was the covering of the ark, over which the 
 divine glory manifested itself ; where the visible appearance of 
 God dwelt ; and where God gave forth his oracles to his people, 
 instructing and directing them. Jesus is set forth as a mercy- 
 seat in the same way. God dwells in Christ, — dwells in him 
 more gloriously than in the temple of Solomon. He is literally 
 a mercy seat. The fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, 
 and shone forth through him. We see in Jesus the image of 
 God, — God personified, — the character of his heavenly Father 
 unfolded. Through Jesus, God gives his oracles to his priests ; 
 not to one man here and there, who has made himself a priest, 
 but to every man. For all men arepriests under the Christian dis- 
 pensation. No man now has a right to regard himself as a priest, 
 more than the humblest of his brethren. Every one, there- 
 fore, is entitled to enter the holy of holies, the presence of 
 Jesus, to receive the oracles of God from him, and be con- 
 ducted by him to blessedness and heaven. Jesus, therefore, is 
 our mercy-seat and propitiation. But it is said, that Christ is 
 a propitiatory sacrifice, a sacrifice which makes God propitious, 
 secures his favour, and turns away his wrath. I have no objec- 
 tion to this explanation, rightly understood, for it is strictly 
 heterodox. I believe that Jesus Christ does turn away God’s 
 wrath, and makes him favourable, — that he does induce him to 
 look upon mankind with approbation. The simple question is, 
 how he does it ? I say he does it by redeeming men from sin, 
 and not by making satisfaction to justice. God is as much 
 against any sinner that continues in sin now, as he was before 
 Christ died. God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all 
 ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. But when men are 
 redeemed from sin by Christ’s death, God’s wrath is turned 
 away from them as a matter of course, for there is nothing left 
 
80 MR. BARKER. [SECOND 
 
 to provoke his wrath. When Christ has brought men from 
 iniquity, changed their hearts, and made them ze dous of good 
 works, God can do no other than love them. When men are 
 brought from ungodliness and sin, God’s wrath is gone ; it is 
 turned away whenever sin is vanquished. God always loved 
 the righteous, and he always will. He never was well pleased 
 with the wicked, and lie can never he. Christ never purchased 
 the favour of God for the wicked ; and he never needed to pur- 
 chase it for the good. He is our propitiation by turning us 
 from our iniquities, and by bringing us to holiness, so that God 
 may look on us with approbation ^nd receive us with delight. 
 
 Several passages speak of Christ’s blood as cleansing men 
 from sin, and purging their conscience from dead works, and 
 bringing them to serve the living God. These passages are all 
 in harmony with the views which we are unfolding. We are 
 sometimes represented as denying the efficacy of Christ’s blood. 
 We never denied any such thing. We only say, its efficacy is 
 directed, not to satisfy justice, but to cleanse men from sin, to 
 purge their souls, to make them good, and thus to make them 
 truly happy. VVe believe that the blood of Christ cleanseth 
 those who receive the Gospel, and obey it, from all sin. It has 
 been the means of redeeming millions from iniquity, and making 
 them a peculiar people zealous of good works. 
 
 In other passages of Scripture we are said to have the for- 
 giveness of sins through the blood of Christ ; and one passage 
 is often quoted which says, “ without shedding of blood there is 
 no remission.” These passages also are in agreement with our 
 views. We do obtain the forgiveness of sin through Christ’s 
 blood ; but does God ever forgive men while they continue in 
 sin? When men are redeemed from iniquity, their sins are 
 forgiven ; and as Christ’s blood brings men from sin to God, 
 men are said to have forgiveness through his blood. And we 
 believe that the words employed in reference to the law of 
 Moses, are, in general, applicable even now, that without shed- 
 ding of blood there is no remission. There is no remission of 
 sins, without redemption or deliverance from sin ; and as 
 Christ’s blood was necessary to bring men from sin, it was 
 necessary to the remission or forgiveness of sin. 
 
 It is frequently said in Scripture that Christ “died for us 
 and some argue from this form of expression, that he died as a 
 vicarious sacrifice, to satisfy divine justice. We are, however, 
 taught, that as Christ laid down his life for us, we ought also 
 to lay down our lives for the brethren. But are we exhorted 
 to lay them down as a vicarious sacrifice, to satisfy divine jus- 
 tice ? We are to lay down our lives for the brethren, as Christ 
 did for us, as a proof of our love for them, or to do them good. 
 Jesus laid down his life for mankind, as a proof of God’s love 
 to us, and for our good, that he might bring us to God, to holi- 
 ness, to heaven. If we say, that, because it is written that 
 Christ died for us, we are to believe that he died as our substi- 
 
81 
 
 NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 
 
 tute, and not simply for our good, to cure us of sin, we must go 
 further ; and because it is said that Christ died for our sins, we 
 we must conclude that he died in the stead of our sins, died that 
 they might never die. Whereas the truth is said that he died 
 to put our sins to death ; to destroy sin. It is also said that he 
 rose again for us ; but shall we say that he rose again as our 
 substitute? It is also said that he hath ascended into heaven, 
 for us. But not as our substitute, but that we may do the same 
 thing. W ho would like the idea that he lias gone to heaven in 
 our stead ? Nay, rather, would they not rather wish to believe 
 that, as he himself said, he has gone on purpose to prepare a 
 place for us ; and that he will come again and receive us unto 
 himself; that where he is, there we may be also. He is said to 
 have obtained eternal redemption for us. But does this mean 
 that Christ has got eternal happiness in our stead, and that we 
 can never have it? No, it means that he has obtained it, that 
 we may share it with him, and enjoy his glory for ever. 
 
 A passage is referred to, in Hebrews, i. 3, which speaks of 
 Christ having already purged our sins, and we are asked, how 
 could it be said that Christ had purged our sins so long ago, 
 if by purging men’s sins he meant curing people of their sins ; 
 making sinful persons holy? We are reminded by our oppo- 
 nents, that Christ has not yet purged men’s sins in our sense ; 
 that he has not yet made all men actually holy. We grant it. 
 Then how has he purged sin? We answer; it is said that 
 Jesus Christ hath abolished death, and brought life and 
 immortality to light. Hath he abolished death, literally ? Has 
 death already ceased to be ? Do not men still die ? Why, death 
 is the last enemy that shall be destroyed. How, then, has 
 Christ abolished that whose destruction lias to be so late. We 
 answer ; he has done that which shall end in the destruction of 
 death : lie has commenced operations for its final destruction. 
 So with sin. He has not yet purged men’s sins literally, any 
 more than he has literally abolished death ; but he has put in 
 operation those means, which have begun the work of purging 
 men’s sins, and those means will continue to exert such an in- 
 fluence on men, as will end in the entire purgation of iniquity, 
 and in the destruction of sin for ever and for ever. 
 
 It is said, 44 by Christ’s stripes we are healed ;” and does 
 not that prove the doctrine of satisfaction to justice? We say, 
 no ; it proves only what we are teaching, that we are healed by 
 Christ’s stripes. The orthodox say that God is satisfied by 
 Christ’s stripes ; whereas the heterodox, with the Scriptures, 
 say that by Christ’s stripes we are healed ; that our souls are 
 restored to holiness thereby, and that we are brought to live in 
 obedience to God. 
 
 It is said, that God laid on him the iniquities of us all ; and 
 we are asked, is not this a proof that he died as our substitute, as 
 a satisfaction to divine justice? I say, no. It proves no such thing. 
 As bearing our sins means bearing them away, or curing us of 
 
 d 3 
 
82 MR. BARKER. [SECOND 
 
 them ; so the corresponding figure, having our iniquities laid 
 upon him, means having the task put upon him of carrying our 
 iniquities away, of curing us of our sins. God appointed 
 Jesus to the work of bearing our sins away, of bringing us to 
 live unto God, to be pure and holy in his sight. 
 
 It is asked, on what ground, then, is it that God forgives a 
 man’s sins ? And it is contended that he could not forgive sin on 
 any other ground, than the merits of Christ’s death, or satisfaction 
 to divine justice. I answer, that for this doctrine there is not one 
 single plain passage in the whole bible. What I am now about 
 to offer, is the most tremendous heresy of all ; and yet I beg to 
 say, that I shall prove it by the plainest statements of several 
 passages of the Sacred Writings. The question is— On what 
 ground does God forgive sin ? on what account does he forgive 
 sin ? I answer, first, it is on account of his own mercy ; because 
 he delights' in mercy, because he abounds in goodness, because 
 it is pleasant to him to forgive and to bless mankind. But, 
 in the second place, he forgives men on the ground, or because 
 of their repentance and return to obedience. Joseph John 
 Gurney, a member of the Society of Friends, says in one of 
 his tracts, that the Scriptures teach that God forgives men on 
 condition of their repentance and return to obedience, hut not 
 because of their repentance and the like. Joseph John Gurney 
 could not have got further wrong, if it had been his study 
 to contradict the plainest testimony of scripture. The Scrip- 
 tures nowhere say that God does not forgive men on account of 
 their repentance ; but they do say that he does forgive them on 
 account or because of their repentance ; and I will give you the 
 passages. In the 18th chapter of Ezekiel, at the 27th and fol- 
 lowing verse, you will find,— “ Again, when the wicked man 
 turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and 
 doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.” 
 Aye, say they, when he does it, but not because he did it. So 
 say the orthodox to the heretics, so called. But what doth 
 God say, as if on purpose to prevent the orthodox objection,, 
 the next verse adds: “ Because he considereth, and turneth 
 away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he 
 shall surely live, he shall not die.” Again, on what ground 
 is it that God loves people ? Hark you ! “ For the Father 
 
 himsedf lovetli you, because ye have loved me, and have be- 
 lieved that I came out from God.” On what ground is it that 
 God hears and answers his people’s prayers ? People say, for 
 Christ’s sake, for what he has done and suffered ; on account of 
 his merits. Just hear what is said by the heretic John. See 
 the 3rd chapter of his first epistle, beginning at 20th verse : — 
 “ For if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our heart, 
 and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our hearts condemn us 
 not , then have we confidence towards God !” What a self- 
 righteous people ! I fancy I hear some say, to have confidence 
 in God because their hearts condemn them not. Do you not 
 
NIGHT. J Ml. BA.RX3! 83* 
 
 know that the heart is deceitful above all things ; and would 
 you take that as a ground of confidence towards God, because 
 your heart does not condemn you ? But the Apostle does not 
 regard those foolish objections. Nordo we. Such false applications 
 of these passages of Scripture, we leave to those who are 
 wiser than the apostles. The apostles entertained no such no- 
 tions. “ If our hearts condemn us not,” says John, “ than have 
 we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, w$ re- 
 ceive of him, because toe keep Ins coinnaridincnts, and do those 
 things that are phasing f in his sight .” ^ Again, on what 
 ground is it that God will give us a place in heaven at last ? 
 Oh, it is said, solely on the ground of Christ’s sacrifice and 
 merits ; and that from first to last we can have — 
 
 “ No plea beside, — 
 
 Lord I am lost, 
 
 Bat Christ has died,” 
 
 But Scripture teaches that God will have regard to our works, — » 
 that those who are received to heaven will be received to heaven 
 on account of their own faithfulness. In the 19th chapter of 
 Luke, and 16th verse, you will find these words : “ Then came 
 the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.” 
 That man improved Iris talent, he acted faithfully to God* 
 “ And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant : because 
 thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority 
 over ten cities.” “ And when the Son of man shall come in his 
 glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon 
 the throne of his glory : and before him shall be gathered ail 
 nations : and he shall separate them one from another, as a 
 shepherd dividetli his sheep from the goats : and he shall set 
 the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.” And 
 what will the king say to them on his right hand ? Hark yon? 
 I am now quoting from Matthew, chapter 25, beginning at the 
 24th verse : “ Then shall the king say unto them on his right 
 hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom 
 prepared for you from the foundation of the world ; for” — for 
 what? What was the ground on which they would be wel- 
 comed to heaven ? For trusting in Christ’s merits ? No. For 
 believing in the Trinity ? No. Because they were good Ca- 
 tholics? No. Because they were good Protestants? No. 
 Because they were good Methodists, or Calvinists, or Baptists,, 
 or Quakers ? No. But — “ For 1 was hungry, and ye gave me 
 meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink : I was a stranger, 
 and ye took me in.” In reference to the wicked that are bid 
 to depart under God’s curse — why are they bidden so to do ? 
 Because they did not believe in the Trinity ? Because they 
 did not rely solely on Christ’s merits? No ; but because they 
 were not faithful, obedient men. 66 For I was hungry, and ye 
 gave me no meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink : I 
 was a stranger, and ye took me not in.” They said, when did 
 they fail to do these things towards him? [and Jesus answers ; 
 
84 MR. BARKER. [SECOND 
 
 you did not show neglect to me in person. You had not an 
 opportunity of treating me ill in person. But I had brethren 
 that lived around you ; and you gave them no food or clothing; 
 ye did not help them : “and inasmuch as ye did it not to one 
 of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” And these shall 46 go 
 away unto everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life 
 eternal.” Thus the worst heresy I advocate is backed, from the 
 beginning to the end, by the plainest testimonies of God’s 
 word. 
 
 t£ But is there nothing in the Bible to prove the doctrine of 
 satisfaction to God’s justice?” Not a single passage. In the 
 55th chapter of Isaiah we have these words : “ Let the wicked 
 forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts : and 
 let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; 
 and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Aye, say 
 some, but God will not pardon without satisfaction. I answer: 
 men perhaps would not. An earthly king would not forgive, 
 perhaps, without satisfaction. But God is not an earthly king, 
 lie says, my ways are not your ways. I am kinder than you 
 are. I am no tyrannical, implacable monarch : I am a kind 
 and tender Father. I want you to be good, in order that you 
 may be happy, and that is all I want. When that is accom- 
 plished, I have all the satisfaction that I want. As the heavens 
 are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your 
 ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. The common 
 orthodox representations of God, place him b low man in kind- 
 ness and benevolence ; whereas the Scriptures represent him as 
 infinitely above men. Every drop of tenderness in the human 
 breast is derived from him. 
 
 It is said, But would it not be dangerous for a government 
 to forgive offenders on mere professions of repentance % We 
 answer, Yes ; but we have never said that God does forgive sin- 
 ners on the ground of mere professions of repentance, hut on 
 the ground of repentance itself, and a hearty return to obedi- 
 ence. Earthly governments might not be able to act on this 
 principle, because they cannot tell when men do repent ; they 
 cannot distinguish between repentance and false professions of 
 repentance. But it is otherwise with God. God can see the 
 heart, so that he can safely promise forgiveness on condition of 
 repentance. If earthly governments were to attempt to act on 
 this principle, they might forgive the thief or the murderer, 
 while their hearts were meditating fresh mischief ; and let them 
 loose upon society to commit fresh deeds of plunder or of death. 
 But God knoweth when true repentance takes place : and he 
 never forgives men on mere professions of repentance, hut on 
 the ground that they repent indeed, and are effectually reformed. 
 He will not receive any one hack into his favour until the heart 
 is changed by true repentance, working a change in life and 
 Conversation. 
 
 But we are told that justice requires satisfaction ; that it will 
 
MR BARKER. 
 
 85 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 not allow God to forgive an offender till satisfaction is received, 
 by some substitute bearing the punishment in the offender’s 
 place. We answer; God has no such justice as forbids him 
 to forgive without such satisfaction. God’s justice or righte- 
 ousness is mercy. It is always benevolent. It knows nothing 
 of the satisfaction of the duellest, which cam not be satiated with 
 any thing but blood. God’s justice or righteousness is a bene- 
 volent disposition, leading him to wish well to all his creation, 
 and prompting him to use every means consistent with man’s 
 entire freedom and responsibility, to bring him back to duty, to 
 happiness, and to heaven. 
 
 1 have thus unfolded, briefly, my views on the doctrines of 
 Atonement, Redemption, Propitiation, and the like. Judge 
 you, whether I have taught any thing at variance with Scrip- 
 ture. If 1 am a heretic, the Scriptures have made me a heretic. 
 Insinuations have been thrown out, as if I paid little respect to 
 the word of God. I respect it with all my heart. I ha\e stu- 
 died it from my childhood ; and the more I have studied it, the 
 more I have loved it. It has proved the greater blessing to 
 me, because I have never allowed orthodox prejudices and fol- 
 lies to prevent me from endeavouring to understand it in its 
 simple meaning, and to see its principles in their unparal- 
 leled and everlasting beauty. I respect every word that 
 God has spoken ; I reject no testimony of my heavenly 
 Father. 1 know he is true — as true as he is kind, I prize 
 every word of God more than gold ; and there is nothing 
 I would not sacrifice for the sake of God’s word. I have suf- 
 fered repeatedly the loss of all things earthly through respect 
 for that word— because I would not give it up in deference to 
 the inventions and traditions of men. But when some people 
 talk of giving up the word of God, they mean these very in- 
 ventions and traditions which are opposed to God’s word. I 
 do reject them ; and e very dream and creed of man I reject, unless 
 they are in strict accordance with the revelations of heaven. But 
 prove to me that any Methodist or Popish doctrine, or any 
 doctrine of the Gnostics, cr even of the abused and persecuted 
 Marcion, is in accordance with God’s word, and I shall receive 
 it with respect ; not because it is held by them, hut because of 
 its truth, which I love above all things next to charity and God. 
 And I love Jesus for this, among other things, because he came to 
 bear witness to the truth, to light up the universe with the light 
 of truth, and brush away the dust and cobw r ebs of oldsupersti- 
 tion and proud ignorance, and conduct people, by the truth, to 
 spiritual purity and freedom, and everlasting blessedness, I 
 love Jesus because he came to sanctify men by the truth, and, 
 by the pow r er of truth, to re-unite the human family to God 
 and to each other, and so make all things new. 
 
 So far from desiring to impair the authority of God’s 
 word, my great desire is to establish its authority through- 
 out the world. No one has paid greater respect to its 
 
86 ME. BARKER. [ SEC0N;D 
 
 revelations than I, Every principle which 1 have laid before 
 yon, is supported by its plainest testimonies ; by its whole 
 drift and tenour. And my opponent will never be able 
 to overturn those principles. He might as well think of over- 
 turning with his shoulders the everlasting mountains ; he 
 might as well think of shaking the firm pillars of the universe, 
 or of plucking from their orbs the sun, and moon, and stars, 
 as think of shaking or overturning those principles of truth 
 which I have been unfolding and advocating this evening. On 
 those plain principles of truth, revealed by Christ and re- 
 corded in the Sacred Writings, I wish all who listen to me to 
 ground their faith. By those plain teachings of the Scriptures, 
 I would have you to be guided in every thing. I ask you to 
 receive no testimony of mine. I ask you to try every thing I 
 say by the word of God. I wish you to test every doctrine, 
 both of mine and of my opponent's by that standard. I am 
 called a misleader and a deceiver. But I act towards you very 
 differently from deceivers generally. It is generally the cas, 
 when people wish to deceive others, that they endeavour to put 
 a fold upon their eyes. My object is to tear every fold away,, 
 to put men on their guard against deception, and to show people 
 the folly of superstitious reverence for human priests, and 
 intolerant sects, and man-made systems of theology. I never 
 said you were to fall asleep. I never whisper, Close your eyes, 
 and I will see for you. I saj^, keep awake. Prove all things. 
 Hold fast that which is good, and reject what you discover to 
 be evil. And men are following this advice. The maligned, 
 the persecuted doctrines of simple Christian truth are making 
 their way. They are winning adherents every day; and this 
 discussion has already increased their numbers, and it will 
 increase their number still more. 
 
 I am glad that we have at length been allowed to meet face 
 to face, and, at least to some extent, to discuss principles instead 
 of personalities. I am glad that 1 am permitted to answer for 
 myself. Convict me of teaching any doctrine at variance with 
 the doctrines of Christ, and I shall go aw r ay hanging down my 
 head in shame; and never appear again till I have made acknowl- 
 edgment of my error, and proved the sincerity of my repent- 
 ance. But so long as 1 know that w 7 hat I teach is taught in 
 the w'ord of God^ not in substance merely, but to the very 
 letter— so long as both the letter and the spirit of the word of 
 God are in my favour, can I be afraid of man ? Can I shrink 
 from the course I am pursuing, through fear of calumny and 
 slander? No. They may call me, as they called my master, 
 Beelzebub ; they may say of me, as they said of him, that I 
 have a devil, and am mad; they may heap upon me even worse 
 reproaches than they have done heretofore — and surely I have 
 been reproached enough — I shall still go forward, and still 
 account it an honour to be permitted to suffer reproach tor the 
 simple truth. I shall rejoice in the assurance, not only that 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 87 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 my doctrines will make their way into society, and commend 
 themselves to people, by the happy influence they exert upon 
 men’s hearts and lives, — I shall not only rest happy in this 
 confidence, but in the assurance also, that as God hath given 
 unto him that was the most slandered of human beings, a name 
 that is above every other name, and honour and glory above 
 all other honour and "lory; so he will, in his own proper time, 
 give me as much honour as will amply satisfy my heart, and as 
 much blessedness as my spirit can desire. 
 
 I have simply, then, to state, that I shall proceed with the 
 subjects as they are arranged upon the list. The next that i 
 shall request your attention to will be the Trinity, or three co- 
 equal persons in the Godhead. Of course it will be for William 
 Cooke to pursue his own course. I disclaim all idea of dictating 
 to him. 1 shall take my own course, and allow him to follow 
 his. I shall abide by the list of subjects which has been laid 
 down. If we can go through them in less than the number of 
 days allowed for this discussion, I shall be glad to take up the 
 Miraculous Conception. If not, I shall invite William Cooke 
 to continue the discussion, on purpose to go through that and 
 other subjects. Only, I will, at present, take the subjects in 
 the order in which they stand on the list agreed upon by the 
 United Committees. I shall, therefore, to-morrow evening, 
 after replying to William Cooke, proceed to the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. I shall not only reply to what he says on that subject; 
 but, if he state his views in a different way, I shall take his 
 pamphlet, and reply to it. And if I am spared, I trust not 
 only to notice his arguments, but to take his pretended quota- 
 tions and examine them in order, and to leave not a single one 
 of them tiil I have gone to the bottom of it. I shall examine 
 his references to Jonathan’s Targum, to Seneca, and others, and 
 prove them to be false. I shall prove, that he lias either forged 
 or falsified these quotations himself, or that he has carelessly 
 followed the blind guides that have gone before him. Which- 
 every way it is, I shall show those quotations of Jewish and 
 heathen writers to be false. I exhort you to weigh every 
 statement, to test every argument ; and when you have heard 
 all that can be said on both sides, judge for yourselves, with 
 free, untrammelled minds, what is true and what is not. Then^ 
 as you shall believe, act honestly according to your belief, 
 and may God succeed you. (Applause.) 
 
 END OF SECOND NIGHTS DISCUSSION, 
 
83 
 
 THIRD NIGHT. 
 
 THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1845. 
 
 There seemed no abatement in the interest taken in the 
 discus ion, nor any diminution of the numbers present this 
 evening. 
 
 Both disputants were applauded, on entering the room, by 
 their respective friends. 
 
 Mr. John JNichol, who was the originally-intended Umpire, 
 sat in that capacity this evening, in the absence of the Rev. 
 James Pringle. 
 
 The Chairmen were as before. 
 
 Mr. Grant, the Chairman for Mr. Cooke, first rose and said: 
 — As Chairman of the meeting on Mr. Cooke’s behalf, I consider 
 it my duty again to call the attention of this large and respect- 
 able meeting to the terms on which the parties have agreed to 
 conduct the discussion — terms which I consider to have been 
 seriously violated. I beg respectfully again to lay them before 
 you ; after which I shall point out in wliat I consider the vio- 
 lation to consist. The terms were agreed to and signed by both 
 parties on the 18th of June. The first is in the following 
 words: — 
 
 “ I. That the question be first discussed, What is a Chris- 
 tian V 9 W ith the principles of the Christian’s faith and prac- 
 tice in their order. And also — 1st. That in order to prevent 
 the discussion being perverted from its legitimate and avowed 
 objects, no statements shall be allowed to be made which 
 impugn either the infallible inspiration of the sacred writings, 
 or the divine authority of any book contained in the author- 
 ized version. 2nd. That the Holy Scriptures, including all the 
 books of the authorized version, with the Hebrew text of Van- 
 der Hooght, as the original of the Old Testament, and the 
 Textus Receptus, as the original of the New Testament, shall 
 be the only authoritative standard of appeal, with the follow- 
 ing qualifications, viz. : — Should either disputant quote any 
 passage excepted to by Kennicott or Boothroyd, in the Old 
 Testament ; or Griesbach or Schulz, in the New Testament, 
 such passage shall be considered fairly open to legitimate consi- 
 deration and criticism. 3rd. That ali quotations shall be made, 
 in the first instance, by chapter and verse, from the authorized 
 version : but each disputant shall have the right of reference 
 to the original texts and critics, as above, when the authorized 
 version is disputed. 4th. That the versions whose antiquity 
 and character have weight — say the Septuagint, the Syriac, the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 89 
 
 THIRD NIGHT.] 
 
 Latin Vulgate, and the Chaldee Paraphrases, with the Fathers 
 of the first three centuries, may be quoted in illustration; but 
 not, as the Scriptures above, for authorities. All quotations 
 from Versions and Fathers to be made by direct reference* 
 and the original text of each to be produced at the time, if 
 required. 5th. That Mr. Cooke engages to take the lead in the 
 discussions.” 
 
 ’.Now, I consider that agreement has been violated in two in- 
 stances. In the first place, at the close of the first evening, Mr. 
 Barker announced that he would take up the doctrine of the 
 Atonement on the following evening, by which he was com- 
 pletely taking the lead out of Mr. Cooke’s hands. That was 
 named, when I came to the meeting on the second night, to Mr. 
 Barker’s Chairman, and a sort of understanding was given that it 
 would not be done, but that Mr. Barker would follow Mr. 
 Cooke. When Mr. Cooke introduced the doctrine of the 
 miraculous conception, and fully proved the authenticity of the 
 documents — 
 
 Dr. Lees: — The Chairmen must utter no opinion as to what 
 has been proved, or what has not been proved. ( Bear, hear, 
 and applause.) 
 
 Mr. Grant: — Then I correct myself. Mr. Cooke took up the 
 subjectof the Miraculous Conception, and brought forward what 
 he considered to be abundant evidence of the authenticity of 
 the passages which he believes to affirm that doctrine. But Mr. 
 Barker, instead of meeting the question of the Miraculous Con- 
 ception, went away to the doctrine of the Atonement, completely 
 leaving the subject that Mr. Cooke had introduced. (Applause.) 
 I entreat you to observe the good order that you have hitherto 
 maintained. I am not here to complain ; but I request you, 
 most earnestly, on both sides, to understand that you are 
 pledged to non-interruption. All interruption causes a needless 
 waste of time. I say Mr. Barker went from the subject ; and, 
 in the second place, Mr. Barker introduced Wesley’s Works. 
 
 Dr. Lees: — I beg to call again to order. It was with the 
 permission of the Umpire that Mr. Barker made the quotations 
 from Wesley last night. That is settled. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Grant: — Then I submit this to the consideration of the 
 meeting. The understanding that prevailed then was, that* if 
 Mr. Barker made the sentiment in the book his own, he might 
 read it. Now Mr. Cooke might bring a library, upon that 
 principle. He might bring a dozen volumes, and say, “ I make 
 tile sentiments of the writers my own, and I shall stand 
 here and read what I like from them.” Now, can any man 
 fail to see the absurdity of this ? The common sense of every 
 man in the room must tell him that this is a violation of the 
 terms agreed upon ; and all I mean to say is, that it must not 
 be done again. If each party might bring a dozen volumes, and 
 say “ 1 make such and such sentiments my own,” they might 
 
90 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 [third 
 
 Tead on ad infinitum ; or at least till the time was out. But, 
 again, there was a list of subjects read last night ; and they 
 were stated to be subjects which had been agreed upon by the 
 joint committees. Now, in reference f o that list, I beg leave to 
 remark that it bears date the 8th of May. They were sent at 
 that time to Mr. Cooke’s committee ; and then they were 
 not acceded to in the order in which they were named. 
 They were considered to be substantially included in the 
 question — “What is a Christian? With the principles of 
 the Christian’s faith and practice in their order.” But they were 
 never admitted in the order now stated ; nor so understood to be 
 admitted by Mr. Cooke. The joint committee did not agree 
 further than to certain conditions on which the discussion should 
 be conducted. This was among several things named which 
 they thought they had little to do with, unless the parties did 
 not agree to them. None of us sat there as plenipotentiaries. 
 The joint committees had nothing to do with these things ; but 
 simply to make arrangements for a fair discussion. These are 
 points, in fact, with which they had nothing to do. Therefore 
 Mr Cooke has, according to the terms, the light of leading ; and 
 it is the duty of Mr. Barker to follow him, and not for Mr. 
 Cooke to be led wherever Mr. Barker chooses to take him. — 
 (Laughter.) I most distinctly state this to the meeting ; and I 
 appeal to Mr. Barker’s Chairman that the order of the discussion 
 be observed. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Gentlemen, when I consented to occupy the 
 chair on this very interesting occasion, it was as a truth-seeker, 
 anxious to hear impartially and candidly both sides on this 
 great question. I believe that the public were anxious to hear 
 the question fairly and freely discussed ; and I always under- 
 stood the question was,- -the fundamental doctrines of Christi- 
 anity. My first question to Mr. Barker’s Committee was, 
 Dave you agreed upon the propositions? — for I never heard of 
 a debate of this sort without the propositions being the first 
 thing taken into consideration. They said, Yes: a list had been 
 submitted to, and agreed to by, the other Committee. That 
 list of subjects I considered to be referred to when I read these 
 Rules. How do they commence? “ That the question be 
 first discussed, c What is a Christian ?’ With the principles of 
 the Christian’s faith and practice in their order.” In their 
 order. Now I fearlessly state, that it w T as always understood 
 by Mr. Barker’s Committee, and by Mr. Barker himself, and 
 certainly I understood, that the “ order” was the order of the 
 subjects in the document submitted to Mr. Cooke’s CommiUee. 
 No objection was made to them. They were substantially 
 admitted by Mr. Cooke’s Committee. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — No. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — I have here an extract of a letter from Mr. 
 Grant to Mr. Barker’s Committee, calling for specific proposi- 
 tions. It says, — “ Why do you not at once define your own 
 
KIGHT.*] INTRODUCTION". 91 
 
 subjects, and fix the times you wish to occupy ? You propose, 
 1st, 6 What is a Christian?’ That is accepted. Why not dis- 
 tinctly name your other subjects in like manner? — but that 
 you may have a loop-hole to creep out at. As your first sub- 
 ject necessarily comprises the belief of all the doctrines taught, 
 and all the duties required of such an one in the inspired writ- 
 ings, -it was naturally enough supposed — as you named no 
 others — that you probably considered them all embodied in 
 that comprehensive one. But if not, let us have them clear 
 and definite, and they shall have an attentive consideration.” 
 Now the following is the list which w r as submitted to Mr. 
 Grant and the other members of Mr. Cooke’s Committee : — 
 
 “ 1. What is a Christian? 
 
 2. The doctrines of the Atonement, Reconciliation, Re- 
 demption. 
 
 3. The Trinity ; or three equal and eternal persons in one 
 God. 
 
 4 C Original Sin ; Natural Depravity. 
 
 5. The doctrine of F uture Punishments. 
 
 6. Conditions of Justification and Salvation. 
 
 7. Grounds of Acceptance and Salvation. 
 
 8. The Design and Use of the Sacred Writings. 
 
 9. The Constitution of the Church, or Conditions of Church 
 Fellowship. 
 
 10. Any other doctrine Mr. Cooke pleases; — the Sabbath; 
 Miraculous Conception; pure and perfect Humanity of 
 Jesus; Inspiration and Infallibility of the Scriptures; 
 the province of Reason in Religion ; Free Enquiry, or 
 the right and duty of each one exercising his own Judg- 
 ment in Religion, and acting according to his Judgment 
 in all things.” 
 
 Now. gentlemen, I appeal to you whether, with this under- 
 standing before them, the Committee could come to any other 
 conclusion than that there were ten or eleven subjects clearly 
 marked out, wi.ii a provision that if, after fairly discussing, 
 them, there was time to spare, the other subjects should be 
 discussed during the remainder of the time? Mr. Barker came 
 here last night, prepared to discuss the Atonement, having dis- 
 cussed the question “ What is a Christian?” on the first night. 
 Last night he replied to the arguments brought against him; 
 and it is for you to say whether he did so satisfactorily or not. 
 He may say as much as lie likes in reply ; and then go on with 
 the other questions in their order. lie did so. Last night he 
 took up the Atonement; and to-night he will proceed to the 
 Trinity. Now is it fair that these great doctrines should be 
 evaded ? There is no evidence of any evasion on the part of 
 Mr. Barker. It is on the other side. (Loud applause, follow- 
 ed by hissing.) 
 
92 INTRODUCTION. [THIRD 
 
 Mr Grant: — In reply to all this, I have most distinctly to 
 state, that this order of discussing the subjects was never agreed 
 to : and if the parties had acted fairly, they would have 
 given my letter in reply, when it would have been found that 
 the order was never agreed to. 
 
 Mr Barker ; — Read it. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — I have it not. It is not the doctrines which 
 are disputed ; hut Mr. Barker’s taking the lead from Mr. Cooke, 
 after he had pledged himself to allow Mr. Cooke to precede. 
 That is the point. I do not stand here to oppose the discussion 
 of any doctrine ; hut simply the manner in which Mr. Barker 
 has taken upon himself to lead, contrary to his own engage- 
 ment-. That I hold to be in violation of the terms of the dis- 
 cussion. (Applause.) 
 
 Dr. Lees : — I have this question to put to your common sense, 
 in order that we may proceed to business. What is the mean- 
 ing of this statement — “ With the principles of the Christian’s 
 faith and practice in their order?” Do you think it likely that 
 Mr. Cooke will be allowed to select what he chooses? (Ap- 
 plause and disapprobation.) 
 
 Mr. Grant Here it is. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Here it is not. (Loud hissing and applause; with 
 cries of 66 Down, down.”) I do regret, 1 am sure, to see this 
 feeling manifested. I don’t look on this matter as if there were 
 two sides — two parties. Let us forget parties ; and let us look 
 further — let us look to the result to be obtained by fair and free 
 discussion. I do beg that the friends of Mr. Barker, and his 
 Committee, will at least not imitate the example which has 
 been set them ; but will, on the contrary, set a good example. 
 We can well afford any kind of manifestation from any party, 
 if we believe our principles to be the principles of truth. I 
 ask you what is the meaning of these repeated requests to 
 “name your subjects?” Mr. Grant says in another letter, — 
 “ Let us have your subjects clear and definite. Let us have 
 your principles defined.” The propositions are fixed upon; but 
 now, just when they come to be considered, the whole arrange- 
 ment of the business, and selection of the subjects, is to rest 
 with one alone. A most monstrous proposition! (Hissing, 
 laughter, and applause.) 
 
 Mr. Barker rose, but was met by cries of “ Down with him,” 
 and much confusion. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — I beg leave to introduce Mr. Cooke again to 
 the meeting. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — We do not wish that Mr. Barker should lead the 
 discussions. We wish that Mr. Cooke should speak first ; and 
 should select one of the subjects for the proper night. Let Mr. 
 Cooke do it, and lead the discussion. Let every thing be done 
 in order, as is here declared. Let the questions of the faith and 
 practice ot a Christian be discussed in their order. That is all 
 we ask. As to the misunderstanding which has occurred, I 
 
NIGHT.] INTRODUCTION. 93 
 
 much regret it. Will Mr. Cooke name, during the succeeding 
 evenings of the discussion, the specific subjects to which he will 
 allude ? If he will do that, Mr. Barker is prepared to meet 
 him. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — Yes. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Will he, on the present occasion, take some one of 
 these ten propositions? 
 
 Mr. Cooke. — I have one before me. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — What is it ? 
 
 Mr Cooke -The Miraculous Conception. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — But that is not in the order of the list. (Loud 
 groans, answered by applause.) 
 
 Mr. Barker again rose, but the noise was so great that he could 
 not proceed. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — Let us have quiet attention. Mr. Barker is 
 going to speak for a few minutes to a point of order ; and then 
 Mr. Cooke will proceed with the discussion. 
 
 Mr. Barker My friends, I wish simply to explain myself. 
 As you have heard, the correspondence between the com- 
 mittees had gone on to a certain point. All that was wanted, 
 in order to finish the arrangements, was a defined statement of 
 subjects to be discussed. James Grant wrote to my Committee 
 in these words Why do you not at once define your own 
 subjects, and fix the times you wish to occupy. You propose, 
 1st, 4 What is a Christian V That is accepted. Why not dis- 
 tinctly name your other subjects in like manner? but that you 
 may have a loop-hole to creep out at. As your first subject ne- 
 cessarily comprises the belief of all the doctrines taught, and all 
 the duties required of such an one in the inspired writings, it 
 was naturally enough supposed--as you named no others— that 
 you probably considered them all embodied in that comprehen- 
 sive one. 5 ’ Kow as I did not consider them all embodied in that 
 one, and as I thought it desirable that they should be taken up 
 seriatim , I sent this list, containing ten distinct subjects ; and 
 added that I would take up any other which Mr. Cooke pleased. 
 We heard no objection to this list whatever; and myself and 
 friends considered that the list was accepted. Mr. Grant said— 
 “ Let us have them clear and definite, and they shall have an 
 attentive consideration.” And we understood the meaning 
 of that was, that when they were considered they would state 
 their objections, if they had any. As we received none, we 
 conceived they had none ; and therefore considered the matter 
 settled. But, to be sure that there was no mistake, 1 pressed on 
 my friends to write and enquire. My friends did so ; and I 
 received this information from Mr. Guthrie, the Secretary of 
 my Committee : — “ You desired me to make some extracts from 
 the correspondence between your Committee and Mr Cooke’s. 
 To the best of my understanding, the following is what you re- 
 quired. 1 would first observe, as only one subject is named in what 
 are called ‘ The digested Terms and Regulations/ Mr. Grant took 
 
94 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 [third 
 
 upon himself to ask Mr. Cooke wliat other subjects he meant 
 to introduce ; when, as he states, Mr. Cooke laughed at him, 
 and said that Mr. Barker had sent a list of subjects which 
 would be discussed as far as opportunity would permit. This 
 was said in a meeting of the Joint Committees.” This was the 
 simple statement I acted and relied upon : and I wrote for that 
 after I left Newcastle, that there might he no mistake. The 
 printed rules did not include the list, and on my asking why? 
 I was told either that there was not room, or that the rules were 
 printed before the matter was thought of. But the printed 
 rules do say how the subjects are to be discussed, namely, “ in 
 their order and X had no idea but that those words referred 
 to the list of subjects which was sent in ; which Mr. Cooke’s 
 Committee promised to consider ; to which they made no ob- 
 jection ; and regarding which Mr. Cooke laughed at Mr Grant, 
 when asked what subjects he meant to introduce, and told him 
 I had sent the list in question. As to Mr. Cooke taking the 
 lead, 1 never understood that it meant more than that he was 
 to speak first the first evening, and I first the second evening. 
 (Hisses.) X found — X only wish to have a patient hearing — I 
 found, however, that the opposite Committee had a different 
 view of the matter. X then said, that rather than any obstacle 
 should he put in the way of the discussion, X would submit to 
 speak second every evening. At the same time, not a hint was 
 given of any order of subjects different from this list. Suppose 
 the printed regulations alone were followed, there would be 
 only one subject for discussion— -What is a Christian ? Mr. 
 Cooke has led on that subject ; but in leading on that subject 
 he introduced other doctrines. My plan was to state my own 
 views on my own subjects, which were handed to Mr. Cooke’s 
 Committee at their request, and not objected to by them ; and 
 which 1 think contain the principles of the Christian’s faith 
 and practice in their order. I might proceed on the understand- 
 ing that X am liberty to state all that X believe to he Christian 
 principles of practice and faith ; and to discuss them, as well as 
 to state what are not Christian duties. As this would be in 
 perfect order ; and, according to the list furnished to the Commit- 
 tee, I am, X say, entitled strictly to adhere to it. Nevertheless, 
 rather than the discussion should be dropped, I will, as I have 
 on all other subjects, give way ; and Mr. Cooke shall go where 
 he pleases, and I’ll follow him. ( Loud applause.) I may, 
 however, state that I have not taken the lead out of his hands ; 
 for by the printed regulations which we are to go by, there is 
 hut one question for discussion— What is a Christian, and what 
 are the Christian’s principles of faith and practice ? — and every 
 thing I have said bears directly on that one point. (Ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 Mr. Grant Well, then, after this long introduction I beg 
 to present Mr. Cooke to the notice of the meeting without fur- 
 ther loss of time. r 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 95 , 
 
 Mr. Cooke rose accordingly, and was received with much ap- 
 plause. He said : —My Christian Friends, — The cause in which 
 I am engaged is the cause of God. I feel that my individual 
 labour is hut a small item in the great subject which is before 
 us ; and I never in my life felt more calm in any duty which I 
 have had to perform : I never felt, at the same time, more in- 
 terested ; and I never felt more dependence upon God. I am 
 quite sure that I must be sustained by a power which is super- 
 human ; and that such power has been granted in answer to the 
 fervent prayers of a multitude of God's people. I feel that I 
 have interest in heaven. 1 feel confident that 1 have the Lord 
 on my side, and that the composure which I have hitherto 
 felt, and the degree of ability, whatever it may be, with 
 which I am enabled to discuss this great question, have been 
 given to me from above. I feel, to-night, just the same com- 
 posure as I ever have done. And I feel convinced that the 
 God in whom I trust, and whose cause 1 advocate, will help me 
 quite through. 
 
 I should have thought that after the very taunting challenges 
 which issued from time to time, from Mr. Barker, to any and 
 all ministers to come forward, there would not have been any 
 scruple with regard to the subjects of discussion. And I must 
 say that I have been the party who has given way. I have 
 been giving way from the beginning, first one topic and then 
 another topic : and I have given way so far as to pay part — I 
 believe one half- --of Mr. Barker’s expenses in coming here. 
 (Much laughter, and cries of 66 Order Dr. Lees apparently 
 objecting to the course of the speaker’s remarks.) If Mr. 
 BarkeF has been allowed to refer to the subject, why not I 
 refer to it ? 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Mr. Barker rose to order with the permission of 
 the Chairman ; and it had nothing to do with the debate. The 
 statements now uttered are not correct. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — 1 beg to say they are quite correct. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — My Committee state that Mr. Cooke pays the 
 half of one journey, and I have to take three. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — That bears me out that I have to pay your ex- 
 penses from Leeds to this town, according to your own account. 
 — My Christian Friends, Mr. Barker, last evening, made refer- 
 ence to my calling men enemies of God ; and suggested that I 
 should be very cautious in reference to applying that designa- 
 tion. I quite concur with him that I should be cautious : at 
 the same time, 1. think I am quite right in giving things their 
 proper names, provided I do this in a proper spirit. And I 
 think I have the example of the Apostle Paul and other holy 
 men to guide me in that practice. W hen Elymas the sorcerer was 
 seeking to turn the deputy from the faith, and to subvert the 
 Gospel, the Apostle Paul exclaimed,— 66 0 lull of all subtility and 
 all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteous- 
 ness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the- 
 
96 MR. COOKE. [third 
 
 Lord ?” I do think that Mr. Barker, while he gives me a cau- 
 tion to avoid the employment of terms of this kind, should 
 himself take care ever to avoid the employment of terms which 
 have the appearance of being harsh in reference to those who 
 sustain the important character of ministers of the ever-blessed 
 Gospel : and I shall therefore avail myself of the privilege, 
 which the rules give, of making a reference to some of his 
 writings, as expressive of some opinions he forms of Christian 
 ministers. In a tract" entitled “ Saving Faith ; or, the Way of 
 Salvation made plain,” he observes: — “ It is my firm conviction ; 
 and if 1 could do it, I would speak with a voice as loud as 
 thunder, and make it heard through the length and breadth of 
 the land ; it is my firm conviction that the more thoughtful 
 and intelligent among the hired preachers both in the Old Con- 
 nection and New, as well as in the Church of England, are 
 perjured men ; men who are conscious that many of the notions 
 which they are hired and pledged to preach are irrational, anti- 
 scriptural, absurd.” In a lower part of the page, he observes,— 
 “It is my conviction that when the Conferences of the Old Con- 
 nexion, the New Connexion, and the Primitive Methodist Con- 
 nexion shall read this tract — and they all will read it — that there 
 will not be found among them all, one single man that will 
 dare to come forward and meet me on this subject, in a lair and 
 honourable public discussion. It is my firm conviction, — I 
 have no more doubt of it than I have of m} r own existence, — 
 that those hosts of mighty men” — 
 
 Mr. Nippon: — I think you had better abstain from such 
 quotations, and allow the auditory to judge. I apprehend^ it 
 will be found inconvenient. t 
 
 Mr. Cooke' : — I made the quotation simply for the p Jrpose of 
 showing that while Mr. Barker takes upon himself to caution 
 me with regard to the employment of terms in reference to those 
 things to which I think them applicable, he himself employs 
 terms that are expressive of what I conceive to be far worse in 
 reference to the great body of ministers throughout the king- 
 dom— yes, throughout the world. 
 
 Dr. Lees.: — I beg leave to call attention to a point of order. 
 The quotation has not been applied during this discussion to 
 any minister. (Hear, hear, and applause.) 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — The printed regulations give me a right to 
 make use of Mr. Barker’s writings. [Cries, of “ No,” and 
 « Yes.”] 
 
 Dr. Lees •- — I beg leave to appeal to the Umpire. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — And I beg to submit the 6tli rule to the Um- 
 pire and to the meeting “ That the, discussion be on a Christian, 
 and his principles^only. But the writings and speeches — 
 published or delivered, of each disputant, to be freely, but 
 fairly, quoted and remarked on by each.” 
 
 Dr. Lees : — For what? 
 
 Mr. Grant : — For illustration. 
 
NIGHT MR. COOKE. 97 
 
 Dr. Lees : — I am willing to submit to the Umpire. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — I consider the office of Umpire is to decide on 
 questions not already decided upon. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — He must decide upon our interpretation of the 
 
 rules. 
 
 Mr. Nichol My opinion is, deciddtily, that the observa- 
 tions of Mr. Cooke did not go to bear upon any doctrine as laid 
 down by Mr. Barker in his argument ; but rather went to act re- 
 criminatively in reference to an observation which Mr. Barker 
 had made towards Mr. Cooke. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Are they in order \ 
 
 Mr. Nichol : — I cannot think so. 
 
 Mr. Cooke I have no object to serve but to give a full 
 and fair view of the principles of a Christian, as held by Mr. 
 Barker. I appeal, therefore, to his own writings . I don’t go 
 to Wesley, or to any other writer. I go to those writings 
 which are issued to the public as intended to guide the public 
 mind with regard to the principles of faith— as intended to show 
 the public, Who is a Christian.— -I appeal only to Mr. Barker’s 
 writings ; and I cannot see why I should be prevented from 
 appealing to them : but if I am prevented, I will submit to it ; 
 and at once proceed to subjects more immediately connected 
 with the discussion of the evening. 
 
 Mr. Nichol I do not prevent observations upon the doc- 
 trines as laid down by Mr. Barker. 
 
 Dr. Lees rose, but was received with loud cries of “ Sit 
 down.” 
 
 Mr. Grant : — Mr. Cooke has the meeting. Let Mr. Cooke 
 proceed. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — My Christian Friends, — I am to go on in my 
 own way, and I resume my extract from Mr. Barker’s pam- 
 phlet : — “ That these hosts of mighty men which shall assemble 
 in the various Methodist Conferences, this coming year, will 
 feel, and, by their conduct, will acknowledge, that with all 
 their pomp and lordliness” — ■ 
 
 Dr. Lees : — I rise to order. (Loud hissing, applause, and 
 cries of “ Down,” “Down.”) The Umpire has decided — 
 (“ Sit down,” “ Stand up,” and general confusion.) 
 
 Mr. Nichol : — I can assure you it is a painful position to be 
 placed in ; but I am bound to observe that this does not bear 
 upon the doctrines of Mr. Barker, but upon the practice of 
 Christian ministers. (Loud applause and disapprobation.) 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Did Mr. Barker’s observations bear upon doc- 
 trines? 
 
 Dr. Lees again arose, but could not obtain a hearing. He 
 said to Mr. Grant : — What is the use of having an umpire, if 
 his decision is not to be adhered to ? 
 
 Mr. Nichol: — It would be well if the meeting would main- 
 tain the same decorum as was observed during the two previous 
 discussions. It is impossible that the debate can go on except 
 e 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 98 
 
 [third 
 
 "by the disposition of all parties to give a fair hearing. (Hear, 
 hear, and applause.) 
 
 Mr. Cooke then proceeded : — I shall waive my right, for the 
 present, which I contend is given me in the printed terms ; and 
 proceed to the discussion. Last evening, I was dwelling upon 
 the subject of the Miraculous Conception ! and I shall therefore 
 take the opportunity of proceeding on that subject. At the 
 moment when my time expired, I was reading from the 
 Fathers, regarding the sentiments of Marcion. My time being 
 expired, I could not complete the quotations which I had to 
 make, and I now proceed with them. I therefore go to Mr. 
 Barker’s learned friend and brother, Marcion. (Partial hiss- 
 ing.) In the 28th verse of the 13th chapter of St. Luke, where 
 it is written, — “ When ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and 
 Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you 
 yourselves thrust out,” he so altered, added, and transposed it, 
 as to make it read, — “ When ye shall see all the just in the 
 kingdom of God, and you yourselves rejected, and found with- 
 out, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” W' 7 ill Mr. 
 Barker unite with his learned friend in the expunging of these 
 portions of the Holy Scriptures? He likewise omitted all the 
 remaining verses of this chapter. He expunged from his gos- 
 pel the parable of the Prodigal Son. In the 18tli chapter, he 
 left out the 31st, 32nd, and 33rd verses, in which our Lord said 
 that the things foretold by the prophets should be fulfilled in 
 his sufferings, death, and resurrection. Will Mr. Barker unite 
 with his learned friend in expunging these parts ? In the 20th 
 chapter, he omitted ten verses which relate to the parable of 
 the vineyard. He blotted out the 37th and 38th verses, which 
 contain a reference to Moses. In the 21st chapter, he expunged 
 the 18th, 21st, and 22nd verses, because, in the concluding sen- 
 tence, there is a reference to the Old Testament, in saying “ that 
 all things that are written may be fulfilled.” In the 24th 
 chapter, he omitted that part of the conversation of our Re- 
 deemer with the two disciples which related to the prophecies 
 of his sufferings. Will Mr. Barker unite with Marcion in ex- 
 punging these? But these are only a small portion of the al- 
 terations and mutilations he made in the Gospel, as stated by 
 Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, and others. He rejected the 
 Acts of the Apostles. He altered and corrupted the epistle to 
 the Galatians, and the two epistles to the Corinthians ; lie made 
 great erasures in the epistle to the Romans ; he cut away por- 
 tions from the two epistles to the Tliessalonians, and corrupted 
 considerable portions of what he retained. The epistle to the 
 Ephesians he altered. Colossians, Philemon, and Philippians, 
 it is said, he did not much alter. The remaining parts of the 
 Hew Testament he rejected altogether. I should wish Mr. 
 Barker to answer the question, whether he unites with his 
 learned friend Marcion in expunging all these portions of God’s 
 blessed word ? Now, then, I repeat the statement that Marcion 
 
99 
 
 NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. 
 
 * 
 
 is the only authority for the alteration and mutilation of the 
 Gospel of St. Luke, which mutilation is adopted by Mr. Barker. 
 Yes ! Marcion is the only authority : he who said that the 
 true God did not make the world — he who maintained that 
 there were two Christs — he who denied that our Lord had a 
 real body — he who denied the resurrection of the human body 
 — he who made these mutilations, interpolations, and corrup- 
 tions of the Gospel, is the individual who is held forward as an 
 UPRIGHT MAN; as a man whose character is UNIM- 
 PEACHED. It is this man who is set forth to be our guide in 
 determining what parts of the Gospel according to St. Luke are 
 to be received, and what parts rejected ! 
 
 The Ebionites have been referred to by Mr Barker. It is 
 said the Ebionites rejected the two first chapters of Mat- 
 thew. It therefore becomes important to enquire who the 
 Ebionites were, and what were their principles? Now the 
 Ebionites were a sect who in an early age departed from the 
 truth of God, if ever they had that truth at all ; and who 
 connected with their professed faith in the Messiah some of 
 the most monstrous doctrines. They maintained the per- 
 petual obligation of the Mosaic ritual. They contended for 
 the necessity of adherence to its observances as essential to sal- 
 vation. They denied the authority of the prophets, or most 
 of them. And they denounced the Apostle Paul as an apos- 
 tate from the law, and rejected his writings ! Now these are 
 the characters who are held forth as the authority for reject- 
 ing the two first chapters of the gospel according to St. Mat- 
 thew. But, then, these individuals were much divided among 
 themselves, even with regard to the Miraculous Conception. The 
 greater part of them, Lardner states, held that doctrine ; and only 
 a comparatively small number of them denied the doctrine. It 
 has been said that they had a copy of the Gospel of Matthew, 
 which did not contain the two first chapters. The fact is, that 
 they had a copy of the Gospel according to Matthew, if history 
 he correct, which was full and complete , containing the whole 
 of the Gospel according to St. Matthew. However, there were a 
 few of them, denying the Miraculous Conception, who had a 
 mutilated copy— who had expunged the two first chapters, for 
 the purpose of accommodating the Gospel to their corrupt prin - 
 ciples, and to make it conform to their sentiments. 
 
 I shall appeal to the authority of some ancient writers, as ex- 
 pressing the sentiments which the Ebionites held. Origen says 
 — “ There were two sorts of Ebionites, some of whom believed 
 Jesus to have been born of a virgin, as we do ; some who sup- 
 posed Jesus to have been born as other men are.” Origen speaks of 
 both sorts of these men as fond of Jewish observances. After- 
 wards, in the same book against Celsus, he says that “ both 
 sorts of the Ebionites, like the Encratites, rejected St. Paul’s 
 epistles; nor did they consider him a wise or good man.” (3rd 
 book, p. 127, Origen against Celsus.) Eusebius says — “ They 
 
100 MR. COOKE. L THIRD 
 
 are called by the ancients Ebionites, because they have but a 
 low opinion of Christ, thinking him to be a mere man, born of 
 Joseph and Mary, honoured for his advancement in virtue ; and 
 esteeming the ritual observances of the law necessary to be ob- 
 served by them, as if they could not be justified by faith in 
 Christ only. Others do not deny that Jesus was born of a vir- 
 gin by the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, they do not acknow- 
 ledge his pre-existence as God the \\ ord : and, like the others, 
 they are fond of the external observances of the law of Moses. 
 They also reject Paul’s epistles, and call him an apostate from 
 the law.” (Eus. Eccl. Hist., 3rd book, cli. 27, p. 99.) I have 
 other extracts, but I shall not refer to them at present. Now, 
 these are the characters who are referred to in the tract entitled 
 6( The Miraculous Conception,” as the authority for expunging 
 the two first chapters of Saint Matthe w, containing the doctrine 
 of the Miraculous Conception. 
 
 With regard to the Ebionites, I would observe, further, that 
 there is no doubt that these men were the descendants and fol- 
 lowers of those Judaizing teachers who assumed the Christian 
 name in the time of the Apostles, but who, instead of being 
 true Christians, were, as the Apostles designated them, enemies 
 to the cross of Christ, men who subverted the Gospel of the Sa- 
 viour. Now the resemblance between these false teachers and 
 the Ebionites referred to by Origen, &c., is remarkable and 
 striking. They held that it was perpetually obligatory to at- 
 tend to circumcision, and to keep the law of Moses. So did 
 their ancestors-— the Judaizing teachers. See the 15th chapter 
 'Of Acts, the 1st verse, — “ And certain men which came down 
 from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be cir- 
 cumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” They 
 refused to hold communion and intercourse with believing Gen- 
 tiles ; and thus they perpetuated that middle wall of partition 
 which it was the great object of the Gospel to throw down. So 
 did their ancestors. They rejected Paul, and so did their an- 
 cestors. Hence it was concerning these teachers of the law 
 that he wrote to the Galatians, — “ 1 marvel that ye are so soon 
 removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ 
 unto another Gospel : which is not another ; but there be some 
 that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.” 
 There is express mention made of false teachers of this class in 
 Paul’s epistle to Titus, 1st chapter, and 10th and 11th verses 
 “ For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, 
 specially they of the circumcision : whose mouths must be stop- 
 ped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they 
 ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” Now these are Mr. Barker’s 
 friends, and his only authority for rejecting the Gospel narrative 
 of the Miraculous Conception. It is the sentiment of Lardner, 
 that when heretics rejected any portion of the New Testament, 
 that rejection itself furnished an evidence of the divine author- 
 ity of the portion so rejected. And such must be the conclu- 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 101 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 sion of every rational mind who examines the evidence of our 
 common Christianity. 
 
 Now what are the arguments before us? I have laid before 
 you the objections to the authenticity of this portion of the 
 Scriptures, as furnished in the tract of Mr. Barker. You have 
 heard them stated to you again. He tells us of Marcion, who 
 rejected the two first chapters of Luke, and who is his only 
 authority for so doing. He tells us of the Ebionites, who re- 
 jected the two first chapters of Matthew. And these are his 
 only authorities. What have 1 maintained, on the other hand % 
 What is the positive evidence afforded you to controvert the false 
 assertions which my opponent has put forth in the tract to which 
 I have referred ? 1 have shown to you that these chapters are 
 
 not only contained in the received text, but in Griesbach and 
 Schulz, and in the Syriac version, in the Latin Yulgate, in 
 every ancient version, and in every modern version : and that 
 these excepted passages are quoted, not by Ignatius alone, but 
 by every Father from the time of the Apostles through the 
 various succeeding ages of the Christian Church. If, therefore, 
 the evidence of history and of literature can decide a question — 
 if any part of the book of God can be proved to be genuine, wt 
 have evidence of the authenticity of these portions equal to the 
 authenticity of any other portion; — the evidence regarding them 
 cannot possibly be undermined . 
 
 But Mr. Barker tells us, after all, that he cannot believe these 
 portions of Scripture to be genuine — cannot believe the evidence 
 which has been furnished. What, then, are we to reject the autho- 
 rity of the Holy Scriptures when it is sustained by the mighty 
 evidence which has been laid before you on the present occasion ? 
 Surely, we are not. You will perceive clearly that we have no 
 more right to reject or alter any portion of St. Luke, or any 
 portion of St. Matthew, to accommodate Mr. Barker or his 
 friends, than we have to alter the Gospel to accommodate it to 
 the spurious books of the Mormonites,or to the poetical ravings of 
 Johanna Southcote. Mo ! we will not comply with the request 
 of Mr. Barker to alter or expunge any portion of the Gospels 
 in deference to his learned friend and brother Marcion. No ! 
 he may pay that deference to him, if he pleases : he may adopt 
 him as his patron in learning, and as his teacher in theology : 
 he may put him forth, as he does in this tract, as having 
 authority to decide these matters : he may induce the unsus- 
 pecting to displace the authority of the Gospels in deference to 
 Marcion : — but the attempt will be resisted by the reflecting 
 portion of the community, and resisted, too, with all the deci- 
 sion, with all the abhorrence, and with all the contempt which 
 it justly deserves. Alter Luke’s Gospel, or Matthew’s, in con- 
 formity with the dictates of Marcion ! No, never, until we 
 have lost either our reason or our conscience. No, never, until 
 we have lost our love for the truth, or are incapable of discern- 
 ing it. No, never, until we have lost all capability of 
 
102 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [third 
 
 distinguishing between the ravings of a fanatic, and the sober 
 verities of the eternal word. If Mr. Barker can set aside the con- 
 viction of twenty years, sustained by the reading of a thousand 
 volumes, — if he can set aside this conviction, by reading a tract 
 of a few pages, or dipping into the notes of the Unitarian version 
 of the New Testament, the reflecting, the considerate, the prayer- 
 ful portion of the community — will not so insult their understand- 
 ings, nor the God who has conferred those understandings upon 
 them. Men may he deceived for a time : hut when they perceive 
 attempts from any man to rob them of the precious treasure of 
 God’s Holy Word, or to impose upon their understandings, no 
 matter who the man may be, they will repel it with one united 
 expression of stern and irresistible indignation. And collecting 
 together every ephemeral tract or publication which may deceive 
 them, they will consume them to ashes, and will scatter those 
 ashes to the four winds of heaven. ( Loud applause, and hissing, 
 with cries of “Order” from the Chairman.) Sunday school 
 teachers, who love the children that are committed to their care 
 — who are anxious to pour the fresh instruction o’er the mind, 
 and train the objects of their charge to love God, and to revere the 
 Holy Scriptures, will not allow them to be thus corrupted. 
 Fathers who love their offspring, and feel deeply their responsi- 
 bilities, will not allow them to he thus corrupted. Mothers 
 who love their offspring wdth the love which a mother’s heart 
 alone can know — who press their offspring to their bosom, and 
 manifest all the tender interest of a mother’s heart, in connec- 
 tion w T ith pious feeling, — will not allow their offspring to be 
 thus corrupted. They will put away from them every stray 
 leaf that may he calculated to deceive or corrupt, and the Bible 
 shall resume its place in their confidence, esteem, affection, and 
 practical regard. And like the devout and honoured Lois and 
 Unice, they will train their children up to revere the Holy 
 Scriptures, to obey their sacred mandates, and to embrace their 
 saving blessings. 
 
 It is a singular fact, which ought not to be lost sight of, that 
 while Mr. Barker’s present views contradict the views he has for- 
 merly expressed, and contradict all history, — all authentic and 
 proper history, — and contradict the Holy Scriptures, — it is a 
 remarkable fact that they sympathize with the sentiments 
 which are held by infidels. It is a remarkable fact that Lloyd 
 Jones, when debating with Mr. Barker at Oldham, advanced 
 objections against the Miraculous Conception such as are now 
 advanced by Mr. Barker : that is to say, he denied the doctrine, 
 and alleged that the doctrine is an objection to the Gospel of 
 the Saviour. Infidelity is a bad school to learn in, and it is a 
 very ominous indication that Mr. Barker appears here to discuss 
 against the truth with a Christian minister — (hissing and ap- 
 plause) — I believe in the very place where he once appeared 
 contending with infidels, to prove against them the very doc- 
 trines which he has since denied, and which he does still deny. 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 103 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 I sliould be glad for a happy change to take place. I should be 
 ■glad to hear his eloquent tongue again defend those scripture 
 principles ; and should rejoice to stand by as his right-hand 
 man, while employed in such an important work. 
 
 1 shall now proceed to answer a few of the objections ad- 
 vanced by Mr. Barker last evening. 
 
 Mr Barker speaks of his sacrifices ; but any sacrifices which 
 have been made by him are, I conceive, no evidence of the un- 
 soundness of my arguments, nor any evidence of the soundness 
 of his own. Besides, it should never be forgotten that men of 
 the most objectionable principles have frequently made sacri- 
 fices, as they call them, in support of their principles. Spinoza, 
 who employed his pen to undermine the foundations of religion, 
 made a sacrifice of about five hundred dollars annually, that he 
 might enjoy his corrupt principles in repose, and that he might 
 diffuse them through society. And Taj lor, also, who was a 
 clergyman of the Church of England, sacrificed his post, liis 
 salary, and his emoluments, that he might propagate infidelity. 
 
 I know not, therefore, why Mr. Barker should urge the sacri- 
 fices he has made, if he have made any ; for what have we to 
 do with that, in deciding the question before us ? 
 
 In reply to some of my observations, he said he had become 
 wiser ; and having become wiser, had found out reasons for 
 discarding some of the doctrines which are before us. He 
 may think that he has become wiser ; but that is certainly no 
 evidence of his being wiser. Cerinthus, who opposed the 
 Apostle John, thought himself wiser than the Apostle. Hyme- 
 naeus, Philetus, Ilermogenes, and Alexander thought they were 
 wiser than Paul. Elymas, who opposed the apostle’s ministry, 
 thought he was wiser than the apostle. And Tom Paine, who 
 was brought up in the principles of Christianity, thought he 
 had become wiser when he had found so much knowledge as 
 to put forth arguments against our common faith, to undermine 
 the foundation of the Christian religion. And so with regard 
 to Taylor. To become wiser, in my view, is to hold fast the 
 truth . To become wiser, is to act as Timothj r acted under the 
 exhortation of Paul ; namely, to hold fast the things which had 
 been committed to him, and to abide by the Holy Scriptures as 
 the great foundation and support of all liis principles. 
 
 Reference was made by Mr. Barker to Montanus, for the 
 purpose of upsetting my statement with regard to Marcion. We 
 were told that Montanus had been reputed a heretic ; but that 
 John Wesley had spoken well of him. Pray, what had that 
 to do with the subject? Marcion is not Montanus ; and Mon- 
 tanus is not Marcion. Montanus did not live in the same 
 generation as Marcion, but fifty years later. Nor did he hold 
 any peculiar notions in common with Marcion. Montanus did 
 not deny the passages of Scripture to which I have referred. 
 Montanus did not reject the Miraculous Conception. He did 
 not go about to corrupt the word of God. He hated the principles 
 
104 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [third 
 
 of Marcion. And it is remarkable that the authority I 
 have quoted, Tertullian, is the authority in favour of Montanus 
 and against Marcion. For what purpose, then, could we he refer- 
 red to Montanus ? Mr. Barker must have felt the extreme weak- 
 ness of his cause, when he had to quote John Wesley in favour 
 of Montanus ; as if because Montanus was a good man at one 
 period, Marcion, at another period, could not be a had one ! 
 
 Mr. Barker endeavoured to overturn another of my state- 
 ments in which I asserted that, from the time of the Ebionites 
 and Marcion until the period when Priestley turned author, there 
 was not one sect of Christians who held the notion against the 
 Miraculous Conception. He referred to El wall. Why El wall 
 was cotemporary with Joseph Priestley. He lived in the same 
 day. And Priestley speaks of having seen him. How ex- 
 tremely weak and hopeless must his cause he, when he is obliged 
 to adopt expedients of this kind ! 
 
 Then, again, Mr. Barker, in reply to my observations about 
 so small a work as Richard Wright’s (the substance of which 
 is given in twenty- two pages,) being sufficient to upset his 
 former conviction, compared the production of Richard Wright 
 with the work of the Apostle John; and said John’s Gospel 
 would not extend to more than about twenty-two pages. Mr. 
 Barker had not used formerly to compare such productions as 
 Richard Wright’s, — a weak, a trashy, a flimsy publication, full 
 of deception, — with the writings of the Apostles. He never did 
 that until he spoke of the Scriptures as a “ TWO-MOUTHED 
 GUIDE AND A DOUBLE-TONGUED DIRECTOR.” 
 
 He says Marcion has been calumniated. Let me ask him by 
 whom? I did not refer to the moral character of Marcion, 
 except so far as the corruption of the Word of God is concerned. 
 I did make statements with regard to his corruptions of the 
 Scriptures; but that is no calumny. It is the calumny which 
 all history furnishes — the calumny which Unitarian history 
 furnishes— the calumny, if it be such, which Lardner, in his 
 Credibility of the Gospel, furnishes ; and it is a true statement 
 which no art of man can possibly undermine. 
 
 He tells us, too, that he will bring forward such evidence as 
 will make Christians never believe again in the Miraculous 
 Conception, or never believe it soundly. I hope he does not 
 hold that out as a threatening. Others, before him, have threat- 
 ened what they would do. Voltaire threatened what he would 
 do. He said he would “ crush the wretch.” And Paine said 
 he had gone through the Scriptures like a woodman with an 
 axe in his hand, cutting down trees. But the Tree of Life still 
 grows and flourishes— (applause, and calls of “ Order;”)— and 
 shall bear fruit to perfection (applause), until its branches are 
 spread over the wide earth, and all nations shall sit beneath its 
 shade, and partake of its life-giving fruit. But if he can shake 
 the faith of the Christian in this doctrine, I say, let him do it. 
 I call upon him to do it. I want him to do his best on this 
 
NIOHT] 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 105 
 
 point ; because I feel satisfied that all he has to say will be so 
 met and controverted by myself, that instead of Christians never 
 believing the doctrine again, they will never doubt it more. 
 They will find it to be so well sustained — so perfectly establish- 
 ed, that doubt they cannot. They must believe. (Applause 
 and laughter.) 
 
 He says he does not reject God’s word. Well, I want him 
 to prove that he does not. I maintain that he does. That is 
 the point at issue ; and that is involved in the question, What 
 is a Christian ? And here I grapple with what he calls his 
 great principle. He says that any one is a Christian who merely 
 believes Jesus to be the Messiah, and who places himself under 
 his instruction. Against that, I maintain that no man is a 
 Christian who rejects the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception, 
 and those passages of Scripture by which the doctrine is taught 
 and sustained. Now let Mr. Barker grapple with this ; and if 
 lie wishes to prove that he does not disbelieve any portion of 
 God’s word, let him prove that this is no portion of God’s word. 
 
 Mr. Barker spoke about people not being hood-winked. I 
 would be the last to hood- wink any one. Who do hood-wink 
 people ? Do ive tie bandages about their eyes ? Do we close 
 the Holy Scriptures against you? Do we keep the key of 
 knowledge from you? Is not this the duty ive uniformly 
 teach— u Search the Scriptures?” We have always opened 
 before you the volume of truth. We do our utmost to promote 
 the cheapness of God’s word. Our object is to promote its free 
 and most extensive circulation. And we exhort .you to search 
 the Word of God,— only search it with a candid, Christian, 
 prayerful, teachable spirit. But though we do not hood- wink 
 people, people may hood-wink themselves. There are those 
 who love darkness rather than light. Let us take care that 
 while we do not hood-wink other people, neither do we blind- 
 fold ourselves. 
 
 With regard to the Atonement, I shall soon come to that. And 
 I am prepared to defend the Atonement — the vicarious sufferings 
 and death of our Saviour. If Mr. Barker be disposed, as he 
 appeared to be last night, to run away from the important 
 subject of the Miraculous Conception — a doctrine which stands 
 first and foremost in the Gospels— a doctrine, too, which is 
 included among those things which St. Luke says u are most 
 assuredly believed ” — I say, if Mr. Barker is disposed to run 
 away from that subject, I am not disposed to run away from 
 the subject of the Atonement. I am determined to defend that 
 important doctrine ; but not on one night merely. I do not take 
 so superficial a view of the subject as to be content with one 
 night’s discussion on the Atonement. I am not for merely 
 touching a subject, and then running away from it ; but, just as 
 I do with regard to the Miraculous Conception— as I bring it for- 
 ward to have it sifted, and thoroughly investigated, and as I have 
 endeavoured to bring my opponent forward to the enquiry, so 
 
 e 3 
 
106 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [third 
 
 shall I do with regard to the Atonement : and if he is disposed 
 to run away from that , I must bring him to it again, and have 
 the great subject thoroughly investigated. He must not he 
 allowed to run away from it under the pretext of introducing a 
 new subject every evening. 
 
 I shall answer one or two of the statements made by Mr. 
 13arker last evening on this subject ; and then, if I have time, I 
 shall enter more fully into the argument. 
 
 Mr. Barker said, if I understood him aright, that justice and 
 righteousness were mercy. Why, he might as well say that 
 night is day, and day night. He might as vrell assert that sweet is 
 bitter, and bitter sweet ; or that good is evil, and evil good. 
 Are we, then, to have the subject blinked by confounding 
 God’s attributes, and blending two or three into one ? Has not 
 God justice, as w r ell as love ? Indeed he has. I ask, was it 
 mercy which expelled the fallen angels from the heavens, when 
 they rebelled against God ; and which confines them in chains 
 of everlasting darkness unto the judgment of the great day ? 
 Was it mercy which expelled Adam from Paradise, when he 
 sinned against God ? Was it mercy which, punished a guilty 
 world by an universal deluge, and swept them away in one 
 common ruin? Was it mercy which visited the idolatrous 
 and unbelieving Egyptians, and put their first-born to death ? 
 Was it mercy which so repeatedly visited the tribes of Israel 
 with punishment for their sins ; and which visits us with judg- 
 ment in our own day ? It is love and benevolence which 
 shower upon us daily comforts and blessings ; but there is 
 justice as well as love— justice which will punish transgressors: 
 and the claims of justice must be respected, while the benefits 
 of love are conferred upon the good. 
 
 He tells us, God is love. Yes, his love is boundless and 
 everlasting. Yes, He is love ; or else he would not have borne 
 with our multitude of rebellions and transgressions against his 
 holy law, doing despite to his Holy Spirit. Yes, he is love ; or 
 his Son would never have come into the world, and died upon 
 the Cross. Yes, he is love ; and it is remarkable that the 
 displays of divine love— the greatest displays of divine love, are 
 uniformly placed in connection with the atoning sacrifice of the 
 Saviour’s death. Hence it is said, in the 3rd ch. of John, at 
 the 16th verse,— “ For God so loved the world, that he gave 
 his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
 not perish, but have everlasting life.” The Atonement, I am 
 prepared to prove, is included in that passage. Again, in the 
 1st epistle of John, 4 ch., and 9th and 10th verses, it is de^ 
 dared,— “ In this was manifested the love of God towards us, 
 because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, 
 that we might live through him. Herein is love; not that we 
 loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the 
 propitiation for our sins.” And, again, in Homans, 5th ch. and 
 7th and 8th verses,— “ For scarcely for a righteous man will 
 
MR. -COOKE. 
 
 107 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 one die : yet perad venture for a good man some would even 
 dare to die. But, God commendeth his love^ towards us, in 
 that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” . Thus, 
 then, we find that the love of God is placed in connection with 
 the Atonement— -with the great object of the Saviour s death. 
 The whole Church is described as celebrating the love of God 
 in connection with the Atonement,— - u Unto him that loved us, 
 and washed us from our sins in his own blood ; to him be 
 glory and dominion for ever and ever.” 
 
 Mr. Barker referred to the 3rd chapter of Romans, the 25th 
 and 26th verses. “ Whom God hath set forth to be a propitia- 
 tion through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for 
 the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance 
 of God ; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness : that 
 he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in 
 Jesus.” Now in this chapter the Apostle Paul clearly and 
 fully states the efficacy and the object of the Redeemer’s death, 
 as a propitiatory sacrifice. But, in the first place, as an intro- 
 duction to his argument, he dwells on the guilty and ruined state 
 of man. And I refer you to that portion of the chapter beginning 
 at the 9th verse : — “ What then ? Are we,” (that is, we Jews,) 
 “ better than they?” (that is, the Gentiles). “ No, in no wise : 
 for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they 
 are all under sin ; as it is written, There is none righteous, no 
 not one.” Then the Apostle observes, in a subsequent passage, 
 — “ Now we know that what things soever the law saith” — 
 that must be the moral law, not the ceremonial law, because the 
 Gentiles were not subject to the ceremonial law. The law re- 
 ferred to is that to which both Jews and Gentiles were subject, 
 and must, therefore, be the moral law ; — “Now we know that 
 what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under 
 the law : that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world 
 may become guilty before God.” Such is man’s condition. 
 “ Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be jus- 
 tified in his sight : for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But 
 now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, 
 being witnessed by the law and the prophets ; even the righte- 
 ousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and 
 upon all them that believe ; for there is no difference : for all 
 have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” All are in 
 a perishing state, and God regards all with equal compassion, 
 and provides mercy for all in his own appointed way. Now 
 what is that way ? “ Being justified freely by his grace 
 
 through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” And 
 what is that redemption ? “ Whom God hath set forth 
 
 to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to de- 
 clare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, 
 through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time 
 his righteousness.” The Apostle makes it emphatic. The sub- 
 ject is important ; and he wants to impress it deeply upon his 
 
108 MR. COOKE. [THIRD 
 
 readers : therefore he repeats the sentence : — “ To declare, I 
 say, at this time his righteousness : that he might be just, and 
 the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” Now, last night, 
 I heard something about plain passages. I ask, is this a plain 
 passage ? Can language be more plain and explicit than the 
 language of the passage which I have just read to you ? 
 
 Now, in this text, the Apostle clearly teaches that there is a 
 distinct character assigned to the Redeemer’s death, or the Re- 
 deemer’s 44 blood.” That character is a 'propitiation ( iXctarripiov .) 
 So then the character of Christ’s death is a propitiatory sa- 
 crifice. And this sacrifice is rendered to whom ? NOT TO 
 MAN, RUT TO GOD. And what for? What is the ob- 
 ject? That man maybe pardoned — that man may 44 receive 
 the remission of sins that are past.” That is the object. — 
 But why must pardon be granted in this mode, and this 
 alone ? because the moral perfections of the Deity — his jus- 
 tice and his righteousness, require it — “ that he might be 
 just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” 
 Thus the A pestle teaches that in order that the justice of 
 God, and the sinner’s pardon, might he made compatible, 
 a propitiation was required ; that in order that the righteous- 
 ness of God and the remission of sins that are past might be 
 harmonized together, a propitiation w as required ; and that pro- 
 pitiation is the blood of Christ. Now this implies, clearly 7 , the 
 following negative proposition ; namely, that without this pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice God’s justice and the sinner’s pardon could not 
 be harmonized ; that God’s righteousness and the sinner’s for- 
 giveness of sins which are past could not be reconciled, it im- 
 plies that pardon, without this propitiation, would involve a 
 compromise of the .character of God ; and that, therefore, the 
 justice of God — the righteousness of God, placed an eternal 
 harrier to the sinner’s pardon, without a propitiation. A pro* 
 pitiation there must he ; and this propitiation is declared to be 
 he blood of Christ. 
 
 God is not only the Father of men — That is an important re- 
 lation, and an endearing one, w hich we delight to contemplate — 
 But he is not only the Father of men : he is also the Sovereign 
 of the universe. And he is not only boundless in love, hut lie 
 is absolutely pure and holy. And holiness, in God, is not 
 merely the absence of sin, it is aversion to sin. As the pub- 
 lic Governor of the universe his justice required, and as a holy 
 and a righteous God his nature required, that sin should not he 
 pardoned without a propitiation, or atonement, being made for 
 man. That is the doctrine taught by the Apostle Paul. Pardon, 
 without an atonement — without the propitiatory blood being 
 shed, would annul the authority of the law 7 which man had 
 broken ; w ould interfere with the rectitude and stability of the 
 Divine government ; would throw down the guards of moral or- 
 der in the universe ; and would weaken or destroy many pow- 
 erful motives to obedience, to confidence, to reverence, and holi- 
 ness. 
 
ME. COOKE. 
 
 109 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Men may cavil as they please, and employ all the arts of so- 
 phistry to evade the plain meaning of God’s word, in endea- 
 vouring to establish their non-satisfaction theory ; but the words 
 of the Apostle will for ever confront them ; for his language 
 clearly implies that ilie righteousness and the justice of God 
 required a propitiation, and that without its being offered no 
 ^pardon could be granted to the transgressor. It affirms also 
 that that propitiation is the sacrifice of Christ. 
 
 I would here also remark, that the history of God’s moral go- 
 vernment, so far as it has been made known to man, illustrates 
 and confirmsthe views which are stated on this subject. We have 
 two classes of sinful and unhappy beings whose history and con- 
 dition have to some extent become known to us. We have one class 
 named men ; but there are fallen angels as well as fallen men. 
 Now for fallen men there is pardon, because there is a propitia- 
 tion. God can be just, and justify ungodly men, because there 
 is a propitiation. But for fallen angels there is no atonement, 
 and therefore no pardon : for they are said to be reserved in 
 chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day. 
 
 This doctrine derives confirmation from the meaning of the 
 the word “ propitiation .” In the Greek it is iXatrrrjpiov 
 (Bilasterion); which is rendered propitiation. It has been said 
 that the word sometimes means mercy-seat. I grant that it is 
 sometimes applied to the mercy-seat, but in a secondary sense, and 
 always in a secondary sense : for there is nothing in the Greek 
 wordrendered propitiation which radically containsany semblance 
 to the idea of the covering of the ark, or of a seat or throne. The 
 Greek word is derived from tXatr/cw, (Llilasko,) to propitiate , to 
 procure favour , to atone , to appease , to reconcile by sacrifice . 
 That is the ideal meaning of the term; and therefore, as a noun, 
 it means one who propitiates or turns aside displeasure : as an 
 adjective, it has the word Qvpa, Thuma, or sacrifice, understood. 
 When applied to* the mercy-seat it has the word sTnOrifjia 
 (Epitliema) understood — and literally means the propitiatory 
 covering. But as applied to Christ, its meaning corresponds to the 
 radical meaning of the term — to propitiate, to procure favour by 
 sacrifice. And it is to be remarked, that if we use the word 
 “ mercy-seat,” that term is not much further from the radical 
 meaning ; for the blood was sprinkled there, and the sprinkled 
 blood of the slaughtered victim made that the mercy-seat. 
 Without the blood being shed, the mercy-seat itself would be 
 the throne of judgment, and not of mercy ; and the mild glory 
 of the Shechinah would become “ a consuming fire” to the bold 
 intruder if he ventured there without blood. It was the blood 
 which did propitiate ; and that precious blood shed in our be- 
 half is the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now it is in har- 
 mony with this view r of the subject that our Lord is frequently 
 spoken of as “an offering ,” and a “sacrifice for sin” "You w T ill 
 remember that these terms w^ere applied to the victims under 
 the Jewish law ; and just as the ceremonial law had a reference 
 
no 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [[third 
 
 to the Gospel, so had those victims a reference to Jesus Christ. 
 They were the types ; he is the anti-type : they were figures ; 
 he is the truth : they were shadows ; he is the substance : 
 “for,” says John the Baptist, “the law was given by Moses, 
 hut grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” And St. Paul says 
 the law had “a shadow of good things to come.” There is an 
 essential connection between the law and the Gospel. What, in 
 fact, is the New Testament economy, but the expansion and 
 bright development of great principles but partially or obscure- 
 ly discovered in the preceding economy? It is the same stream 
 of mercy though widened and deepened in its course ; — the 
 beams of the same Sun of Righteousness, though risen from 
 grey-dawn to noon-day brightness. In the one, indeed, we 
 have the tree of life with its fruit in the bud — germs for future 
 development — the bold outline of the glorious dispensation 
 which was to come : we have the nebulae of that brightness 
 which was destined to expand into meridian splendour : we have, 
 in fact, the promise of that great and glorious dispensation 
 which was to follow, and which was completed on the appear- 
 ance of the Saviour, and in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 
 (Much applause.) Mr. Cooke concluded by observing that in 
 his next address he would point out the meaning of the word in 
 the Hebrew which was rendered Atonement, and continue his 
 remarks on that subject. 
 
 Dr. Lees then introduced Mr. Barker, and reminded the 
 meeting that applause only produced retaliation ; and both oc- 
 casioned a loss of time. 
 
 Mr. Barker Respected Chairmen : My Friends,— I have 
 not the least doubt but every subject connected with Christi- 
 anity will, in its turn, be thoroughly investigated. The spirit 
 of free inquiry is pervading the community. The minds of the 
 multitude have been roused and awakened ; and never will that 
 spirit* I am persuaded, be laid again. Those subjects which are 
 not investigated by one man, will be investigated by another. 
 However old opinions may be, they will still be tested. How- 
 ever venerable they may have been represented to be, and how- 
 ever venerable they may in truth be, they will still be brought to 
 the test of God’s word : men’s minds will not be satisfied with- 
 out a clear perception of the meaning of the doctrines, and a 
 clear apprehension of the reasons which ought to commend 
 them to their faith and their consciences. And it will be well 
 for people, under these circumstances, to prepare themselves to 
 hear their opinions called in question ; and to hear both sides' 
 of each question, with calmness and with candour. 
 
 I am wishful that the present discussion should be as profit- 
 able as possible ; and that, in order to this, it should be con- 
 fined to principles as much as possible, and that as little as pos- 
 sible should be said on anything else. I am wishful that every 
 subject proposed, on the list which has been frequently re- 
 ferred to, for discussion, should be discussed. And I am desir- 
 
NIGHT. 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 Ill 
 
 ous that if, during the ten nights, these several subjects cannot 
 he thoroughly gone through, other nights may be added ; and 
 the discussion be continued, with needful intervals, until we 
 have thoroughly investigated the whole. I am wishful too, 
 that what has been already advanced, should be borne in mind ; 
 and on that account I will briefly refer to the steps already 
 taken. 
 
 The first question was, What is a Christian ? It was an- 
 swered, that Christian is another name for disciple ; and that 
 disciple is an old Latin name for learner, or scholar. Every one 
 that received Christ as a teacher, and placed himself under his 
 instruction and government, with a view to learn in order to 
 practice Christ’s doctrine, was proved to be a Christian, a true 
 Christian. It was shown that there was no Scripture authority 
 for stating that a man cannot be a Christian unless he believes 
 in the Trinity, in natural, hereditary depravity, in satisfaction 
 to justice, and the like : but that the simple belief in Jesus as 
 the Messiah, and hearty submission of ourselves to his instruc- 
 tion and government, of itself, constitutes every man essentially 
 a true Christian ; and that the great duty of every such Chris- 
 tian is, as he acknowledges Christ as a teacher, to learn of him; 
 daily to drink in his doctrine and his spirit ; and to labour in 
 all things to be confirmed to him as his exemplar and his master. 
 We have noticed, further, the question of the Atonement, re- 
 demption, reconciliation, and the like. You will bear in mind, 
 I believe, the explanations and statements which I gave you on 
 those points. We showed that the word “ Atonement , 57 occurs 
 but once in the New Testament, in the common translation ; 
 that there it means reconciliation ; that the reconciliation men- 
 tioned in the New Testament, is the reconciliation of man to 
 God, and no# of God to man; that the word “ redemption” 
 means redemption from iniquity, from badness of heart, and 
 from wickedness of life ; that “ bearing our sins” means bearing 
 them away, curing people of their wickedness, making them 
 good ; that “ propitiation,” according* to the meaning of my 
 opponent, means turning God’s wrath away, but that this wrath 
 is turned away by Christ only so far as men are turned away 
 from sin ; that God’s wrath is still revealed against all unright- 
 eousness, and his favour procured for none except those who 
 depart from sin, and give themselves to holiness. We noticed 
 the fact that the blood of Christ is represented, not as satisfying 
 justice, but as cleansing men from sin ; that according to the 
 passage quoted from the Revelations, he is represented as hav- 
 ing 46 washed us from our sins in his own blood that forgive- 
 ness of sins is obtained through Christ’s death, because his death 
 redeems people from sin ; that when a man is redeemed from 
 sin, his past transgressions are forgotten, are forgiven, and no 
 longer imputed to him ; that Christ’s death saves us, but that 
 true salvation is salvation from sin, which is the only evil in the 
 universe, comparatively speaking, and the source of all those 
 other things, commonly called evils. 
 
112 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [third 
 
 We also showed, by many clear passages of scripture, that it 
 was not because of the sacrifice of Christ, not because God had 
 received satisfaction to justice, that he forgave sins, but because 
 men turned from their evil ways, and that the reason why God 
 heard his people’s prayers was, not because of what Christ had 
 done or suffered, but because they kept God’s commandments, 
 and did those things which were pleasing in his sight. That the 
 ground of man’s acceptance and salvation, from first to last, is 
 his own fidelity or obedience to God. 
 
 So far we have gone ; and I am not aware — (I wish to be 
 honest in all my statements) — I am not aware that a single state- 
 ment which I made last night, on these subjects, has been met; 
 I will not say refuted, but not even opposed. 
 
 We now come to notice another subject, viz., the doctrine of 
 the Miraculous Conception. My first observation on that point is, 
 that the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception is not, properly 
 speaking, an Unitarian doctrine, as the Unitarians differ among 
 themselves on that subject. Some of them believe it, while 
 others do not. I wish, also, before I proceed further on this 
 subject, briefly to notice a statement of my opponent, in refer- 
 ence to Joseph Priestley. While speaking of him as a change- 
 ling, as if he had been a changeling in an improper sense of the 
 word, my opponent also said that Dr. Priestley believed that 
 man had no soul. Every man’s opinions should be justly stated; 
 and whether Priestley was right or wrong, he ought to have liis 
 views correctly represented. Did Joseph Priestley, then, be- 
 lieve that when a man died he ceased to be ? Did he disbelieve 
 the doctrine of man’s immortality ? On the contrary, he be- 
 lieved that man himself was, according to Scripture language, a 
 “ living soul and that every man was made for immortality, 
 and that every man born into the world would li\* for ever and 
 ever. 
 
 On the subject of the Miraculous Conception, I have to notice, 
 in the first place, that what was advanced by my opponent, on 
 that subject, was what no one, that I am aware of, lias ever de- 
 nied ; viz., that the two chapters of Matthew and Luke in which 
 the story of the Miraculous Conception is given, are to be found 
 in all known manuscripts, and in all known versions of the 
 Scriptures, and are referred to generally by Christian Fathers. 
 You might suppose, from the labour bestowed upon this point, 
 that somebody had called that matter in question. I, however, 
 never heard of any mortal having called it in question up to 
 this moment. I never called it in question. On the contrary, 
 in the pamphlet to which reference has been made, it is expressly 
 acknowledged ; and it is entirely on other grounds that the doc- 
 trine of the Miraculous Conception is opposed in that pamphlet. 
 It appears to me, therefore, that all this labour has been spent 
 in vain, has been spent upon a point which no one disputed, 
 which no one denied. Now when the parties were agreed on 
 one point, the proper course was to leave that, and go to a point 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 11& 
 
 on which they differed. We were agreed that these chapter# 
 were not omitted from any known manuscript or version. Why 
 then dispute it ? But we differ on another point, viz., as to 
 whether these chapters ought to be in. It does not follow, that 
 because they are in all manuscripts with which we are acquaint- 
 ed, and in all versions of the New Testament at present existing,, 
 they therefore existed in the original Gospels of Matthew and 
 Luke. Here we differ. My opponent sa}^s they did exist in 
 the originals. I state that there appears to be no sufficient evi- 
 dence that they did exist in them ; but, on the contrary, there 
 is evidence to show that they did not exist in the original Gos- 
 pels. Here is a point for consideration and discussion : and that 
 point should have been clearly stated when the subject was 
 introduced, in order that no one might be prejudiced by a parade 
 of useless authorities, and that no time might be wasted in af- 
 firming what was not disputed. 
 
 As I stated last night, if my opponent had any intention to 
 reply to the tract on the Miraculous Conception, published by 
 Richard Wright — if he had really designed to reply to the argu- 
 ments brought forward in that tract, would it not have been 
 well to begin with, the beginning, and proceed regularly through 
 to the close, to examine each statement separately as it stood 
 from the beginning to the close ? To me that seems the course 
 which should have been pursued. That it was not pursued, 
 you are witnesses. 
 
 I shall now proceed to state some of my reasons, (for this is a 
 subject which cannot be discussed thoroughly in one night) for 
 rejecting the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception ; and at the 
 same time to notice some of the arguments brought forward in 
 its favour by my opponent. 
 
 My first argument is drawn from the two genealogies given 
 by Matthew and Luke, of Jesus Christ’s descent. Matthew 
 proposes to tell you in what line Jesus had descended from 
 Abraham, through David. How does he do this? “ Abraham 
 begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob,” and so it runs forward 
 to Joseph. It is the genealogy of Joseph that is given. It 
 is given to prove that Jesus descended from David : but if 
 Joseph was not his real father, it does no such thing. In 
 that case it should have been the genealogy of Mary. It is,, 
 however, the genealogy of Joseph; and if Joseph be not 
 Christ’s father, it has no more to do with Christ, than 
 Joseph had to do with him. It is much the same with Luke. 
 Luke traces the genealogy upwards. Whose genealogy ? Mary’s? 
 Of course it ought to have been Mary’s, if she was his only hu- 
 man parent. But it is no such thing. Leaving Mary altogether, 
 it takes Joseph’s genealogy,; and it takes Joseph up to David, 
 then to Abraham, then to Adam, and to God. All this would be 
 lost labour if Jesus was not the son of Joseph. Both genealogies, 
 therefore, flatly contradict the story of the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion ; or else neither has anything to do with Christ’s 
 
114 MR. BARKER. [THIRD 
 
 descent. We agree in receiving the genealogies. But we cannot 
 receive them without contradicting the story. And as the evi- 
 dence in favour of the genealogies is irresistible, I take the ge- 
 nealogies ; and I allow all that story which is inconsistent with 
 the genealogies to fall to the ground. One part must be received, 
 and the other rejected. I receive that which has most evidence 
 in its favour, which is, in fact, unquestioned : and I reject that 
 which has less evidence to support it, which has been question- 
 ed from the beginning of the Christian era. I know that some 
 people have pretended to explain this, and to assign a reason 
 why the genealogy of Joseph was given. One of the ancient 
 Fathers said it was to lead the Jews to believe that Jesus was 
 descended from David. In other words, he represents that a 
 pious fraud was committed, in order to gain the Jews over to 
 Jesus Christ, whom they would not have received if they had 
 been aware that he had not descended in the male line from 
 David, from whom their prophets said he was to descend. But 
 who can entertain such a thought as that ? I shall give the 
 explanations of the Fathers, at a future period, perhaps. And 
 you will find how the poor ancient Fathers, that at first re- 
 ceived this doctrine, were put to their wits’ end, and driven 
 almost out of their wits, to devise explanations, to reconcile 
 total impossibilities and flat contradictions. 
 
 My next observation is, that in the New Testament Jesus 
 Christ calls himself eighty-six times over the “ Son of Man.” 
 Was he the Son of Man % My opponent says, the words of 
 Scripture are the words of God ; and adds that the words em- 
 ployed were chosen by God on account of their fitness and ap- 
 propriateness to express the nature of the filings to which they 
 are applied. Will he tell me, then, what the Scriptures mean 
 by the expression “ Son of Man,” w hich Jesus far oftener uses 
 than the phrase “ Son of God The Son of Man means the 
 Son of Man. But if Jesus be not the son of Joseph, of what 
 man was he the son ? If he be not the son of man, and the 
 son of Joseph according to the two genealogies, there is no fit- 
 ness, no appropriateness in the phrase. My opponent says the 
 words of God are strictly appropriate to the things to wdiich 
 they are applied. Yet we must either believe that Jesus was 
 the son of man, or else reject eighty-six portions of Jesus’ own 
 testimony. But w r e cannot reject them. He is the truth. 
 What he said of himself was correct. He was the son of man. 
 
 I therefore take the story as given in the genealogies, and be- 
 lieve that Jesus w T as the son of Joseph. 
 
 Again, in the epistle to the Hebrews v’e are told that it be- 
 hoved Jesus to be made in all points like unto his brethren. 
 Of course he was made like unto his brethren ; and he called 
 us brethren : and he said on one occasion, “ I ascend unto my 
 Father, and your Father ; and to my God and your God.” He 
 calls us brethren ; and he is made in all points like unto us. 
 Then the story of the Miraculous Conception is not true. 
 
115 
 
 NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 
 
 Another argument is this — at least it is a fact which is wor- 
 thy of notice. Jesus Christ preached the Gospel, did he not? 
 He was anointed to preach the Gospel to the poor ; and he said 
 himself, referring to his own ministry, that the poor had the 
 Gospel preached to them. He said he declared to the people 
 the words that God had given him. Now, read Christ’s history 
 through — examine every discourse, and see if you can find the 
 slightest hint of any thing like the Miraculous Conception 1 
 There is not a word of it. And yet he preached the Gospel, 
 and directed his disciples to go and preach it unto all nations. 
 Then the Miraculous Conception is not a part of the Gospel. 
 If it had been part of the Gospel, it would have been given in 
 the discourses which Christ preached, containing the Gospel. 
 It is not there : there is not a word about it. I say, it forms no 
 part of the Gospel, then ; and this circumstance, of itself, is a 
 strong evidence against the genuineness of the story. . Mark 
 you ! if I merely stated that the story was never mentioned in 
 any part of the Scriptures, but the beginning ; my opponent 
 would say it was given there , that was enough ; that part was 
 plenty, and it need not he repeated. But it must be under- 
 stood that at the time Christ preached, the written Gospels were 
 not in existence. If Jesus, therefore, did not preach it, it was 
 not preached at all in those days. If he did not tell of his Mi- 
 raculous Conception, there were no means by which people 
 could know the doctrine. People, therefore, could not at that 
 time be Christians, on my opponent’s principle. He says no 
 one can be a Christian who does not believe the Miraculous 
 Conception. Jesus never preached any thing of the kind ; his 
 hearers, therefore, could not believe in it ; so that his hearers 
 could not be Christians or disciples. Here, then, is another ar- 
 gument against the doctrine. Christ never gave the slightest 
 hint on which the truth of it could be argued : and yet we are 
 to believe in the Miraculous Conception as part of the Gospel 
 of Christ. 
 
 I have another observation. The apostles, in their sermons, 
 after the day of Pentecost, maybe reasonably believed to have 
 preached the Gospel plainly and fully. Now I ask any man to 
 read the Ac;s of the Apostles through : to peruse the sermons 
 of Peter and Paul, and of the rest of the apostles, and the dis- 
 courses of Stephen and the other disciples. He will find ser- 
 mons addressed to Jews, and sermons addressed to Gentiles ; and 
 yet he will not find in all these sermons the slightest allusion 
 to any thing like the Miraculous Conception. We have this 
 account given by Paul of the Gospel which he preached to the 
 Corinthians : in 1 Cor. xv. 1 — 8. “ Moreover, brethren, I de- 
 
 clare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you, which 
 also ye have received, and wherein ye stand ; by which also 
 ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, 
 unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first 
 of all,” — my opponent told you that the first doctrine of all 
 
116 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [third 
 
 was the Miraculous Conception ; “ I delivered unto you first of 
 all that which I also received/’ — Why, Paul, what didst thou 
 receive ? — 44 And which also I received, how that Christ died 
 for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that he was buri- 
 ed, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scrip- 
 tures,” and so forth ; without a word of the Miraculous Con- 
 ception in the whole. Are we to be told that that is a funda- 
 mental doctrine of the Gospel, the first fundamental doctrine 
 of the Gospel, which was neither preached by Christ nor his 
 apostles? it may be said, no one denied the doctrine, and there- 
 fore it was not necessary to speak of it. But many must have 
 been ignorant of it, and therefore needed to be taught it. And 
 we have evidence that some did deny the doctrine, as soon as 
 we have evidence that any one taught it. The only reason that 
 can be assigned for their silence is, that nobody believed it. 
 
 My next observation is this* — We have a number of writ- 
 ings of the apostles — of Peter, and Paul, and James, and John, 
 addressed to the various churches ; and yet the Miraculous 
 Conception is not mentioned in any of those. It so happens, 
 that among those early churches were those wicked Ebion- 
 ites, and those wicked Gnostics, as my opponent represents 
 them, who denied, or did not believe, the Miraculous Conception. 
 It so happens, too, that the apostles in their writings reprove 
 and argue strongly against a number of errors and heresies. 
 Yet, curious enough, — though my opponent acknowledges 
 that from the beginning this error or heresy had crept into the 
 church of Jesus, — in the whole of these writings, while all 
 other errors were exposed, and all other heresies were rebuked 
 and condemned, there is never the slightest hint at any suck 
 heresy as disbelief of the Miraculous Conception. Now’ if we 
 had not evidence that some people did deny the doctrine, it 
 might be said the apostles never wrote against the heresy, be- 
 cause nobody denied the story. But it is acknowledged by our 
 opponents that there were parties wdio did deny it, and that they 
 were a set of very busy, troublesome people, who would pro- 
 pagate their opinions. There is therefore no cause whatever 
 for their silence — there is no accounting for it at all, except on 
 this principle, that the parties who denied the Miraculous Con- 
 ception in those days were of the same opinion w r ith the apos- 
 tles, and that none of them had been taught to receive it. 
 
 My opponent, in the tract which he published on this sub- 
 ject, says — 44 There are other places in the New Testament in 
 which the Miraculous Conception is taught besides the first two 
 chapters of Matthew and Luke;” and he quotes, as one, Gala- 
 tians, 4th chap., and 4th ver., 44 God sent forth his son, made 
 of a woman, made under the law,” to prove that Christ was 
 made of a woman only. But the passage says nothing about 
 Christ being made of a woman only. It says made of a wo- 
 man. It does not say "without a man : it says made of a wo- 
 man. (Hissing.) Well, but, say people, the word means that. 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 117 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 lie was the son of a woman. (Some further interruption.) My 
 dear friends, if what I say is untrue, it will be easily exposed. 
 You gave a fair and full hearing to what I am endeavouring to 
 refute. I only ask as silent and patient a hearing as you gave 
 to my opponent. Of course I cannot be severe with you, if 
 you are a little troublesome. There was a time when I should 
 have listened perhaps with as much pain as yourselves to the 
 sentiments I am stating ; and there may a time come when you 
 will speak on them with as much freedom as I do now. Just 
 listen patiently. 
 
 Dr. Lees reminded the parties who expressed their disap- 
 proval, that they were admitted on condition of non-inter- 
 ference, and they were bound to fulfil their engagement. 
 
 Mr. Barker: — If being made of a woman, or born of a 
 woman, implies the Miraculous Conception of Christ, 1 ask you, 
 or my opponent, what is to be made of such passages as these ? 
 — Job, chap. 14, ver. 1. — “ Man that is born of a woman, is of 
 few days,” &c. Job, chap. 15, ver. 14, — “ What is man that 
 he should be clean ? and he which is born of a woman, that he 
 should be righteous?” Job, chap. 25, ver. 4, — “How then can 
 man be just with God ? or how can he be clean that is born 
 of a woman?” Matt. chap. 11, ver. 11, — “ Verily I say unto 
 you, among those that are born of woman there hath not risen 
 a greater than John the Baptist : notwithstanding he that is 
 least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Lastly, if 
 “ born of a woman” must mean born without man ; “son of 
 man” will mean born without woman. 
 
 He then quotes from John, the 1st chap., and the 14th ver., 
 — “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” But 
 that point has never been disputed. I also say, as the apostle 
 teaches, that the Word was made flesh. The question is how? 
 By Miraculous Conception, or without it? The Word might 
 be made flesh in either way ; and the question is, in which 
 way was it ? There is not one word in the passage to tell 
 us. We all agree that the Word was made flesh. But the 
 question now is, was Jesus the son of Joseph? — w r as he the son 
 of man? 
 
 He next quotes Genesis, chap. 3, ver. 15, — “I will put en- 
 mity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and 
 her seed.” And because the Messiah is believed to be prophe- 
 cied of there, and spoken of as the seed of the woman, it is con- 
 cluded that the Miraculous Conception is implied. It is not 
 said that it is so stated ; but that it is so implied. 1 answer, 
 where is the proof that it w r as implied ? It never was said to 
 he so implied by Christ or any of his apostles. And the “seed 
 of the woman,” like being born of a woman, is only another 
 phrase for men — for any man. 
 
 Again, it is said that it was necessary that Christ should be 
 born of a woman, without a human father, in order to secure 
 him from natural depravity or original sin ; and my opponent 
 
118 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [THIRD 
 
 says, in the tract he has published on original sin, that Christ’s 
 Miraculous Conception proves the doctrine of Original Sin, be- 
 cause it rendered it necessary that he should be horn without a 
 human father. Now, in answer to this, I state, first, that the 
 doctrine of Natural Depravity is itself an anti-Scrip tural and an 
 anti-Christian doctrine ; and is not only not taught, but stands 
 in fearful contradiction to what is taught most plainly both by 
 Christ and his apostles. See Matthew, 19th chapter, verses 13 
 to 15. Some women brought children to Christ, and the disci- 
 ples rebuked them : but Jesus rebuked his disciples, and said, 
 “ Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me : 
 for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Now, is heaven made 
 up of persons totally depraved? Or is it made up of persons 
 stainless, sinless, pure ? We all know that unholy things are 
 not allowed to enter into heaven ; and that all who enter the 
 kingdom of heaven are free from sin. Yet Christ says, of little 
 children, “ Forbid them not to come unto me ; for of such is 
 the kingdom of heaven.” I am, of course, aware that this doc- 
 trine of Christ’s is not orthodox ; that it is contrary to the doc- 
 trines which are taught by the hired orthodox priests of the 
 present day : and I have no doubt if the orthodox priests of the 
 
 E resent day had heard the Saviour teaching such a doctrine, and 
 ad not known who he was, they would have been sadly put 
 about, and would have tried to silence him. I fancy I see them, 
 and hear them, as they remonstrate with him. “ Dear Friend,” 
 they would say, “ You are teaching religion before you have suf- 
 ficiently learned it. You surely cannot have gone through a 
 regular course of study. Are you not aware that those little 
 ones are totally depraved, — that all children are born into the 
 world with their nature entirely corrupt, in the image of the 
 devil and of the brute, under the guilt of Adam’s sin, and un- 
 der the wrath and curse of God? Yet you are teaching the 
 people that of such is the kingdom of heaven.” But 1 fancy I 
 see with what firmness and compassion he would have answered 
 them. He would have told them that though he had not been 
 at their colleges or theological institutions, nor received any in- 
 struction from the priesthoods of the day, >ethe still knew as 
 much about God and his truth, as they did ; that though he 
 had not been taught by man, he had the spirit of God, and had 
 been taught by Him, both what he should do and what lie 
 should say ; that though his doctrine was contrary to the doc- 
 trine of John Wesley, and Timothy Dwight, and to the doc- 
 trines taught in the colleges and theological institutions of the 
 orthodox sects, yet he knew it to be true, and he would have 
 still gone on to say : — “ Suffer little children to come unto me, 
 and forbid them not ; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 
 But if little children had been naturally depraved, the proper 
 way for Christ to have spoken of them, when he received them, 
 would have been this, “ Suffer little children to come unto me, 
 poor things \ for they are totally depraved, and under the 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 119 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 wrath and curse of God, and unless I cure them, they are liable 
 to eternal torments. Suffer the little children, then, to come 
 unto me, poor things ! that I may cure them, and fit them for 
 heaven.” That would have been the proper way. .But instead 
 of that he says just the contrary, “ Suffer little children, and 
 forbid them not, to come unto me : for o i such is the kingdom 
 of heaven.’’ 
 
 Again, in Matthew, chapter 18th, verse 3rd, Jesus Christ says 
 to his disciples, when they were contending who should be 
 greatest in the kingdom of heaven, “ Except ye be converted, 
 and become as — ” What? Now, pray, what are those crea- 
 tures into the likeness of which people are to be converted ? 
 “ Except ye be converted, and become as little children , ye 
 shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” What ! can lit- 
 tle children be totally depraved, and yet Jesus want people to 
 be converted and become Wee them ? If the doctrine of natural, 
 hereditary depravity be true, the proper language of Christ 
 would have been this, “ Except, little children become converted,. 
 they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” But instead of that, 
 without intimating that little children require to be converted 
 at all, the Redeemer says, “ Except ye upgrown people be con- 
 verted, and become as little children, ye cannot enter the king- 
 dom of heaven.” So far then from little children being re- 
 garded by Christ as radically, totally corrupt, he regarded them 
 as samples of that innocence and purity after which he required 
 others to be transformed. 
 
 Paul was as heterodox as his master. In the 14th chapter 
 of his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, at the 20th verse, are these 
 words: “ Brethren, be not children in understanding : howbeit 
 in malice or in wickedness be ye children, but in understand- 
 ing be men.” Well, now, if children are naturally depraved, 
 where would be the propriety of Paul exhorting Christians to 
 be like them in wickedness? If they are totally depraved — 
 if they are born in the image of the devil, and of the brute,, 
 which is the doctrine John Wesley teaches, where would be 
 the propriety of Paul saying, 64 In wickedness be children ?” 
 He would then be preaching up iniquity, and exhorting people 
 to be full of wickedness — to be totally depraved. But, no ; he 
 meant to recommend men to be spotless— free from sin ; and 
 his words are right, are beautiful : — 1 “ In malice, or wickedness,, 
 be ye children,” for children have no wickedness at all : “ but 
 in understanding be men,” for men have generally understand- 
 ing, and sometimes have a great deal. And Paul’s desire was, 
 that the Christians at Corinth should have no wickedness, but 
 abundance of knowledge. Adam Clarke has rendered the word 
 “ malice,” 6i wickedness .” But suppose we take the word to be 
 “ malice,” as it is in the common version, the doctrine will still 
 be the same. What is malice ? The opposite of love. And 
 what is love but true religion ? Malice, therefore, is the oppo- 
 site of true religion \ it is the opposite of love, which is the.: 
 
120 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [third 
 
 sum and substance of all religion. And, accordingly, Paul 
 says, “ In malice be ye children;” that is, have none at all. 
 
 And the Psalmist regarded little children in the same light. 
 In the 131st Psalm, the Psalmist says, “ Lord, my heart is not 
 haughty, nor mine eyes lofty : neither do I exercise myself in 
 great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have be- 
 haved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his 
 another: my soul is even as a weaned child.” So that still 
 there was no picture, no emblem of the beautiful in human 
 character, which exceeded, in the idea of this good servant of 
 God, that of a little “ weaned child.” I am, of course, aware 
 of the efforts made to extract the doctrine of natural depravity 
 from some other portions of the Psalms. These I may notice 
 at a future period. I shall now simply remark, that I find 
 not, in any of the Psalms, the slightest evidence in favour of 
 natural, total depravity. On the contrary, Christ and his 
 apostles stand uncontradicted in the glorious and cheering doc- 
 trine of man’s natural purity. The Psalms agree with them 
 that we are all made by God, and that when God makes any 
 thing, he makes it right ; and that as all little children are 
 God’s own work, it is with perfect propriety that Jesus says, 
 <s of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 
 
 "Well, then, if the doctrine of natural depravity is not true, 
 there was no necessity for Christ being miraculously conceived 
 in order to preserve him from natural depravity. But we 
 go further. Suppose the passages on which the doctrine of 
 natural depravity is grounded, to have the meaning which 
 the advocates of that doctrine give them, Christ’s being made 
 of a woman merely would not have preserved him from 
 natural depravity. You have heard the passage from Job, 
 
 “ How can he be clean that is bom of a woman V 9 If, then, 
 we are naturally depraved, our natural depravity comes, 
 according to Job, from being born of a woman, and not from 
 being the son of a man. ‘‘What is man that he should be 
 clean ? and he which is born of a woman that he should be 
 righteous ?” So that if there is any danger in being born at 
 all, it is in being born of a woman. And in order to prevent 
 this natural taint, and avoid this hereditary depravity, Jesus 
 must not have been born at all. But if we take Job, when he 
 uses the phrase, “ he that is born of a woman,” to mean simply, 
 men, all men, then the passages of Job may be understood 
 rationally ; but there is not the slightest foundation for the 
 doctrine of natural depravity, and of course there can be 
 nothing in the doctrine on which to rest the doctrine of the 
 Miraculous Conception. The idea that Christ must be born 
 without a human father, in order to escape natural depravity, 
 originated at a later period, when the dreams of men were taken 
 for revelation of heaven. Some people forbad marriage, and 
 said it was evil. They forgot that in marriage, and in the dis- 
 charge of marriage duties, every thing is holy and honourable 
 
121 
 
 NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 
 
 to good people ; that marriage was God’s first holy institution ; 
 and that his blessing, not his curse, rests upon tlie fruit of mar- 
 riage : or, if they remember these things, with frightful audacity 
 they went opposite to God’s will, as if they were wiser than he. 
 They spoke of marriage and its duties as sinful and polluted ; 
 and in cunnnexion with that doctrine, the doctrine of the 
 Miraculous Conception sprung up. These twins originated in 
 one and the same parent ; they were parts of the same unna- 
 tural and ungodly heresy. 
 
 It has been said it was meet that so great and important a 
 personage as Christ should be introduced into the world, not in 
 the ord.nary course of nature, but in a remarkable, miraculous 
 manner. 1 answer, that there appears no proof that being born 
 in such a way could either add to his honour, his holiness, or 
 his usefulness. Being born in a remarkable manner could not 
 affect a man’s character at all. A man’s character — a man’s 
 worth, must be the result of choice. It must be the result of 
 the improvement of his own talents, and of his own intellect, 
 and of the other gifts of God. And however a man is born, he 
 is neither more nor Jess honourable on account of his birth, be- 
 cause it is a thing with which he has nothing to do. It is man’s 
 own fidelity, or want of fidelity to God, and that alone, that 
 stamps Ins character with merit or demerit, and makes him 
 worthy of blame or approbation. 
 
 On the other hand, we are taught in Scripture that Jesus 
 Christ was to be our brother— one of us ; that he might be our 
 example, and that he might be tried as we are tried. It was 
 necessary, therefore, that he should be made in ail points like 
 as we are. I know some people add, sin excepted. That, how- 
 ever, is their own addition. The Scriptures have not that ad- 
 dition. There, it is said, without qualification, that Jesus 
 should be made in all things like unto his brethren. This pas- 
 sage, therefore, is of far more weight with us to prove to us 
 that Jesus was boru in the ordinary course of nature, tbau the 
 mere dreams or fancies of men, who say that so high and 
 respectable a personage ought to be introduced in a remarkable 
 a d extraordinary way into the world. 
 
 It is said, again, that the doctrine which sets aside the Mi- 
 raculous Conception, is at variance with the doctrine of Christ’s 
 Godiiead ; and that it we give up the story of the Miraculous 
 Conception, we must cease to regard Jesus as the supreme God. 
 Suppose that that was the case, we shall be able to show, I 
 trust, that there is no authority for believing that Jesus is the 
 supreme God ; that Jesus himself teaches that his and our 
 Father is the only true God : that there is but one God, and one 
 mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. So 
 that if, by giving up the story of the Miraculous Conception, 
 we should cause the doctrine of the supreme Godhead of Christ 
 to fall, What then? it would only be preparing the way, by 
 the rejection of one error, for the rejection of a second. At the 
 
122 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [thiri> 
 
 same time, if the doctrine of Christ’s Godhead he true, the 
 rejection of the Miraculous Conception need not. interfere with 
 it. God could be incarnated through the father as easily as 
 through the mother ; and the idea that he could not, is ridicu- 
 lous, not to say monstrous. 
 
 Again, Nathaniel and the Jews generally, and, for any thing 
 we can learn to the contrary, the whole of Christ’s disciples, 
 considered Jesus to be the Son of Joseph. They speak of him 
 as the son of Joseph ; and their error, if it was one, never ap- 
 pears to have been corrected by Christ. And how can we 
 account for tills, on the supposition that the doctrine of the 
 Miraculous Conception is a fundamental doctrine of the Gos- 
 pel ; the first fundamental? In the 1st chapter of John, 45th 
 verse, what says Philip to Nathaniel? “ We have found him, 
 of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus 
 of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” It may be said that Philip 
 had not yet learned his first lesson. Weil*, then, read the ac- 
 count of what passed between Christ and Nathaniel afterwards, 
 and see if you ever find Jesus teaching him as his first lesson, or 
 giving him the slightest hint, that in regarding him as the son 
 of Joseph, he would be doing wrong ? Isay you never find 
 that either Jesus or any one else taught him differently. Again, 
 in John, the 6th chapter, and the 42nd verse, some parties are 
 represented as saying, “is not this Jesus the son of Joseph, 
 whose father and mother we know?” Now here was a con- 
 venient opportunity, if those people were wrong, for Jesus cor- 
 recting them ; for it seems that the idea that Jesus was the son 
 of Joseph and Mary whom they knew, was a stumbling block 
 in the way of their receiving him. If the story of the Mira- 
 culous Conception had been true, the statement of the doctrine 
 on this occasion would have been the very thing to have re- 
 moved the stumbling block, and to have found a way into their 
 hearts for the reception of his doctrine? Yet not one single 
 hint is given of his doctrine ; not a hint is given that they were 
 wrong in supposing that Joseph and Mary were his father and 
 mother. Again, in Matt. chap. 13th, beginning at the 53rd 
 verse, we have the following words “ And it came to pass, 
 that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. 
 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them 
 in their synagogues, insomuch that they were astonished, and 
 said, W hence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty 
 works?” We may rest certain that he was known in his own 
 country to have been miraculously conceived, if any where, 
 where the story of the Miraculous Conception must have made 
 so much noise, if there had ever been such a thing known. But, 
 hark ye ' “ Is not this the carpenter 1 s son ? Is not ids mother 
 called. Mary ? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, 
 and Judas ? And his sister, are they not all with us ? W hence 
 then hath this man all these things ?” And what did Jesus 
 say ? Bid he say, I am not the son of the carpenter; why, then, 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 123 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 do ye call me so ? Nothing of the kind. Jesus said, “ A pro- 
 phet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his 
 own house.” But if he had been miraculously conceived, how 
 could lie he without honour in his own house ; and, pray, how 
 could his very brothers be among the men who did not believe 
 on him? If then Christ was not known to have been miracu- 
 lously conceived in his own neighbourhood, nor even in his own 
 house, among the members of liis own family, it is impossible 
 the stor^ should be true. 
 
 Again, in Cuke, chap. 4. ver. 15, we have the following 
 words : — “ And he came to Nazareth, where he had been 
 brought up : and, as his custom was, he went into the syna- 
 gogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there 
 was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And 
 ■when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was 
 written, The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath 
 anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor ; he hath sent 
 me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the cap- 
 tives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty 
 them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 
 And he closed the book, and gave it again to the minister, and 
 sat down. And the eves of all that were in the synagogue 
 were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This 
 day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears. And ail bare him 
 witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded 
 out of his mouth.” These were not enemies : they were 
 friends. But what was their notion ? 66 And they said, Is not 
 
 this Joseph’s son ?” Well, if Jesus did not instruct his ene- 
 mies that they were wrong, surely he would teach his friends. 
 What does lie say ? “ Ye will surely say unto me this proverb. 
 Physician heal thyself.” He seemed to think that there wasdan- 
 gerof their rejecting him, becausehe was the son of Joseph, though 
 they listened with affection and attention; and yet, instead of re- 
 lieving their minds, by teaching them my opponent’s great first 
 lesson, lie leaves them entirely in the dark on the subject. We 
 hear not a word, in this case, any more than in the former, of 
 Jesus attempting to correct their error, if it was an error. But 
 Jesus does not appear to have regarded it as an error. Neither 
 in this, nor in any other place, does he appear to have had the 
 least, idea that the people were wrong. In almost every place 
 the people ask, Is not this the son of Joseph? Ur, is not this 
 the son of the carpenter ? And in no case does the Saviour give 
 the slightest intimation that he was not. Nothing was known 
 of the Miraculous Conception among any of his hearers ; it was 
 not even known to his brethren : both friends and enemies were 
 ignorant of it ; and yet not a word was spoken on the subject by 
 Jesus : yet Jesus preached the Gospel. liow,then, can the Mira- 
 culous Conception be a part of the Gospel, — the first great fun- 
 damental principle of the Gospel? According to the accounts given 
 in the two first chapters of Matthew and Luke, the story should 
 
124 MR. BARKER. [THIRD 
 
 have been known every where, and yet we find no trace of it 
 any where. It is not even known to his brethren. The story 
 of the shepherds of Bethlehem, and the story of the wise men 
 of the east, are all forgotten. These things are utterly unac- 
 countable, on the supposition that the story as contained in the 
 suspected chapters was true. We naturally imagine that at 
 least the disciples, to whom it was granted to know the myste- 
 ries of the kingdom, would have known of the matter, if it had 
 been true ; or that the apostle John, at all events, the beloved 
 disciple, would surely know all about the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion. Vet neither John nor any of the other apostles ever 
 notice the subject. They all allow people to remain in igno- 
 rance of this first, great doctrine — the very doctrine without a 
 belief of which, on William Cooke’s principle, they could not 
 be Christians. 
 
 I come now to the two first chapters of Matthew, and the 
 two first of Luke : and without going to any Fathers, to any 
 versions, to any manuscripts, 1 will take the authorized version 
 alone, which I think contains evidence sufficient to show that 
 these chapters never formed part of the original Gospels of 
 Matthew and Luke. The first thing to be noticed in those 
 chapters is, that the genealogies of Christ are traced through 
 Joseph up to David; and that such genealogies are quite at 
 variance with the story of the Miraculous Conception. 1 have 
 noticed this before, and need not dwell upon it again. The 
 next part of the story represents Joseph, after he had found out 
 that his betrothed wife was with child, communing with him- 
 self what should be done ; and it is said, “Then Joseph her 
 husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a 
 public example, was minded to put her away privily.” Now, 
 mark you. Joseph was a just man, a just man according to 
 the law of Moses. Joseph was a just man; and of course would 
 be anxious to act according to the law of Moses, under which 
 he was placed ; and the law 7 of Moses was very plain and strict 
 with respect to a person’s duty in bis circumstances. It w T as to 
 this effect, that if a woman betrothed should he found to have 
 played the harlot, she should be publicly put away, brought 
 out to the door of her father’s house, and the people of her city 
 should stone her with stones till she died ; and the following 
 reason is assigned for this regulation ; that they might put 
 away evil from among them. Another form of the law is given 
 in the 22nd chap, of Deuteronomy, at the 23rd verse : — “ If a 
 damsel that is a virgin he betrothed unto an husband, and a 
 man find her in the city, and lie with her ; then ye shall bring 
 them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone 
 them with stones that they die ; the damsel, because she cried 
 not, being in the city ; and the man, because he hath humbled 
 bis neighbour’s wife : so thou shalt put away evil from among 
 you.” This was the law. And Joseph, as a just man, was 
 bound, according to the law, to bring forth his wife to be 
 
NIGH?.] ME. BARKER. 125 
 
 publicly put away. And yet in these chapters, we have it assigned 
 as a reason why he did not do so, not that he was not just, as 
 might have been expected, but that, being a just man, he did 
 not think proper to do what God had bidden, but went directly 
 against God’s law. This mistake is easily accounted for, it we 
 suppose the chapters to have been written by some ignorant 
 Gentile, who was not well acquainted with the law. But it is 
 impossible that Matthew, himself a Jew, and writing for Jews,, 
 can be supposed to have exhibited such ignorance of his own 
 law. 
 
 The next thing we come to is a prophecy. Joseph is relieved 
 from his perplexity by a dream, according to the story. Mary 
 herself does not appear to have mentioned the matter to him. 
 Though one would suppose that it would have been an easy 
 matter to have done so ; but Joseph must be told in a dream.. 
 He is told as follows : — 44 Joseph, thou son of David, tear not to 
 take unto thee Mary thy wife : for that which is conceived m 
 her is of the l ioly Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and 
 thou shalt call his name Jesus : for he shall save his people 
 from their sins. Now all this was. done, that it might be 
 fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 55 
 — Now mark the prophecy and mark the fulfilment. The pro- 
 phecy is this : — 44 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall 
 bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, 
 which being interpreted is, God with us.” That is, the prophet 
 says he shall be called Emmanuel, and therefore, says the angel, 
 he shall be called, not Emmanuel, but Jesus. He shall be 
 called Jesus, on purpose to fulfil the prophecy which says that 
 he shall be called Emmanuel, not Jesus. Now the inspired, 
 the well-instructed Evangelist of Christ could hardly have 
 made such a blunder; but it was quite natural in a half- 
 instructed heathen convert to do so. i may state further, that 
 the passage referred to is no prophecy of Christ at all, but 
 refers to a child born in the days of Ahaz. This will be plain 
 to any who will examine the passage, as it stands in the irTo- 
 phet. See the 7th chapter of Isaiah, at the 1st verse, — 44 And 
 it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son 
 of Uzziali, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and 
 Pekah the son of Remaiiah, king of Israel, went up towards 
 Jerusalem, to war against it.” God promises that he will 
 deliver Ahaz from his enemies, and after that, God asked Ahaz 
 to ask a sign; but Ahaz said, No; 44 1 will not ask, neither 
 will I tempt the Lord.” But though he thus declines asking 
 God for a sign, God is good enough to give him one ; and says, 
 <4 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign.” A sign, 
 something that Ahaz should see, something that should take 
 place in the time of Ahaz, some hundreds of years before Christ 
 was born. What was the sign to be ? 44 Behold, a virgin shall 
 
 conceive,” or, as Luther says, has conceived, 44 and shall bear a 
 son, and call ills name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall lia 
 
126 MR. BARKER. [THIRD 
 
 eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and dioose the good. 
 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose 
 the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both 
 her kings.” Now here you have the child born in the days of 
 the prophet himself ; he should eat butter and honey ; and be 
 called Emmanuel, or God with us, in token of God’s blessing 
 or prosperity. And before he learned to distinguish good from 
 evil, Aliaz was to be delivered from his enemies, and 44 the 
 land that he abhorred was to be forsaken of both her kings.” 
 There is not the least allusion to Christ ; the whole is fulfilled 
 in the days of Ahaz. 
 
 Again, in the next chapter, we have another prophecy referred 
 to — at least a passage quoted as a prophecy, but which is no such 
 thing. In the first place, we have the story of the flight into Egypt. 
 44 Joseph arose, arid took the young child and his mother by 
 night, and departed into Egypt : and was there until the death 
 of Herod.” And then comes the statement of the prophecy : — 
 44 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by 
 the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.” 
 Now let us refer to the prophet, and see whether what is here 
 quoted as a prophecy has any respect to Christ. See the 11th 
 chapter of Ilosea, at the 1st verse : — 64 When Israel was a child, 
 then 1 loved him, and called my son out of Egypt referring 
 simply to a fact in history — the calling of the people of Israel 
 out of Egypt. That a Gentile, half-instructed, should make 
 this mistake, is not to be wondered at ; but it seems impossible 
 that such a blunder should have been committed, supposing 
 this chapter to have been written by Matthew. We cannot 
 conceive how any one, influenced by a spirit of truth, and 
 possessed of information like his, could make such a blunder. 
 Then about the destruction of the innocent children — when we 
 read of the children being murdered, we have a third prophecy, 
 so called: 44 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jere- 
 my the prophet, saying, In Rama there was a voice heard, 
 lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weep- 
 ing for her children, and would not be comforted, because they 
 are not.” Now refer to Jeremiah, the 81st chapter, beginning 
 at the 15th verse, and you will see this also is a prophecy that 
 has no reference to the times of Christ : — 44 Thus saith the Lord ; 
 A voice was heard in Hamah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; 
 Rachel weeping for her children, refused to be comforted for her 
 children, because they were not. Thus saith the Lord : Refrain 
 thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears : for thy 
 works shall be rewarded, saith the Lord ; and they” — that is, 
 the children of Israel — 44 shall come again from the land of the 
 enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that 
 thy children shall come again to their border.” Rachel is 
 represented as weeping for the children of Israel, who had been 
 carried into captivity, not for the little children of Bethlehem, 
 hut for the children of Israel ; and yet the writer of these two 
 
ME. BARKER. 
 
 127 
 
 NIGHT,] 
 
 chapters takes the passage and makes it a prophecy of the mur- 
 der of the little innocent children of Bethlehem, by Herod. 
 We have yet another pretended prophecy in the 23rd verse of 
 this 2nd chapter of Matthew — u And he came and dwelt in a 
 city called Nazareth : that it might be fulfilled which w r as 
 spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” He 
 shall live in Nazareth that it may be fulfilled which is spoken 
 by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene. Now where is 
 that prediction to be found ? There is not such a prediction in 
 any of the prophets. 
 
 I know it is said that some of the prophecies have two mean- 
 ings. But the doctrine that the prophecies have two meanings, 
 one referring to the times when they were uttered, and another 
 referring to after -times, is a mere fiction, invented by theolo- 
 gians to impose upon the people, or to help them through their 
 difficulties. It is a doctrine, also, which is set aside by persons 
 of the best information, even among orthodox theologians 
 themselves. I refer you to Mr. Alexander’s work, in proof of 
 what I am saying. (An objection was made to Mr. Barker’s 
 quoting Mr. Alexander’s sentiments ; when Mr. Barker pro- 
 ceeded.) I shall not quote the work, then; but I shall give you 
 a sentence or two from Adam Clarke, on the prophecies re- 
 ferred to in these chapters. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — That is out of order. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — I am not going to give it in proof that the 
 doctrine is true; but simply to show, as my opponent says I 
 stand alone with Marcion only on my side, that there are some 
 points in which Adam Clarke is in my favour. I might as well 
 say that Mr Cooke is out of order in referring to any work — 
 
 Mr. Grant : — It is going out of the rules agreed upon by 
 both parties. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — Weil, then, not to waste time, allow' me 
 shortly to recapitulate. The prophecy, so called, in the 11th of 
 Hosea at the 1st verse, refers to the deliverance of the children 
 of Israel out of Egypt, and to that event only. It is a simple 
 reference to an historical fact, and no prophecy at all. The 
 alleged prophecy, u In Rama there was a voice heard, lamenta- 
 tion, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her 
 children,” &c., and which is taken from Jeremiah, the 31st 
 chapter and 15th verse, w r as originally spoken concerning the 
 captivity of the twelve tribes, and had no reference to the 
 slaughter of the innocent babes of Bethlehem ; and Adam 
 Clarke, I wished to state, is of the same judgment as myself, 
 that tiiey were not prophecies referring to Christ. And as to 
 Christ’s being called a Nazarene, to fulfil prophecy, I have 
 already told you, that such a prediction is not to be found in 
 any of the prophets. 
 
 Another fact which I would have you bear in mind, is this. 
 If the story of Luke, regarding the Miraculous Conception, was 
 true, Elisabeth, the mother of John, knew r all about it. And 
 
128 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [third 
 
 when Elisabeth and Mary met, the child, John, gave signs be- 
 fore his birth that he knew the i ord. And yet he did not know, 
 the Messiah when he came to him for baptism, until he saw the 
 spirit descending upon him. Yet, it appears the two mothers 
 lived for some time in the same house, and had the freest inter- 
 course with each other, 'i he story of the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion, therefore, cannot be true. 
 
 I may say, without exaggeration, that there are at least a 
 hundred other particulars,— curious facts, — connected with these 
 two chapters, that are of the like character with those already 
 noticed, all tending to prove the doubtful, suspicious, incredible 
 character of the chapters under consideration. But my time is 
 nearly gone, and I must hasten to a conclusion. 
 
 We have also, in the history of the early Fathers, a plain 
 account how the doctrine came up ; how the early Jewish 
 Christians did not believe in it; and how it originated among 
 the Gentile Christians. This, however, 1 must reserve for 
 another occasion. 
 
 I am sorry, that, having already occupied so much of your 
 attention, I have not an opportunity of replying to the state- 
 ments made by my opponent. 1 have, however, marked them 
 down : and to-morrow evening you shall have the reply at the 
 commencement of my remarks. 
 
 Reference was made by my opponent to Tom Paine, and to 
 Voltaire; and a number of insinuations were thrown out about 
 infidelity. You have heard him also lament that 1, who once 
 stood up in this place before an audience to defend Christianity 
 against infidels, should now stand before you in the same place 
 in opposition to a Christian minister. All I can say is, that I 
 never stood forth to advocate the doctrines of what is called or- 
 thodoxy against infidels, and that if I had the Christianity of 
 my opponent to advocate, I never could have stood against 
 them. (Hissing.) Look at my writings against infidelity — 
 look at my speeches against the opponents of Christianity, and 
 see if 1 ever undertook to advocate those doctrines against infi- 
 delity. 1 did no such thing. If 1 had undertaken to defend 
 them, I must have found infidelity too strong for me. But I 
 took care to take simple Christianity alone; Christianity in its 
 native purity, as Jesus taught and lived it; and the consequence 
 was, I triumphed, and infidelity was overthrown. It was in 
 consequence of advocating the Christianity which I now advo- 
 cate, free from the absurdities and inconsistencies which 1 now 
 oppose— a Christianity as different from false orthodoxy, as 
 from the principles of Tom Paine, that the infidels were unable 
 to stand against me. And on the other hand ; it was in conse- 
 quence of the orthodox preachers taking orthodox giound, and 
 attempting to defend the false doctrines of men against the in- 
 fidels, that infidelity gained the victory over them, and 
 that the cause of Christianity was almost uniformly injuied in 
 their hands. 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 129 
 
 EIGHT.] 
 
 My friends, we may lament the growth and spread of infi- 
 delity as we please : but so long as Christians are taught to be- 
 lieve in the Trinity, in satisfaction to justice, especially in na- 
 tural, hereditary depravity, and especially in natural depravity 
 joined with the doctrine of eternal torments, and the other aw- 
 ful points of Calvin’s theology, infidelity will continue to spread, 
 and nothing will be able to prevent it. And so long as the 
 advocates of Christianity attempt to defend those principles, in- 
 fidelity will triumph. Those principles hang round the neck 
 of Christianity like a millstone, and they must either be sepa- 
 rated from it, or they will sink it. But when we return to the 
 simplicity of Christ, and take the Gospel as he taught it, in ail 
 its native purity, and loveliness— -in its original and unspeak- 
 able brightness and glory, we shall commend ourselves and our 
 doctrines to the judgment and conscience of every honest mind, 
 to the confidence and esteem of every one that loves truth and 
 goodness, that loves God, and wishes well to mankind. Infide- 
 lity will then be shamed back into darkness, — Christianity, 
 clothed with the power which it exerted in its first appearance, 
 will go forth to purify and renovate all things ; its disciples, 
 filled with its pure, bright light, consistent in their lives, and 
 breathing the pure spirit of the religion of heaven, will fill the 
 earth with blessings ; corrupt institutions will decline and dis- 
 appear; and we shall see the day come, when hired priesthoods, 
 and intolerant sects, and general profligacy, and every form of 
 error and infidelity— [The remainder of the sentence, if utter- 
 ed, was drowned in the loud expressions of disapproval 
 which burst from the speaker’s opponents in the body of the 
 room.] 
 
 Mr. Niciiol This is only spending time unnecessarily. 
 
 Dr. Lses One minute has expired, and I shall claim it for 
 Mr. Barker. 
 
 Mr. Barker I say we shall see the day when hired priest- 
 hoods, and exclusive and intolerant sects [another burst of 
 hissing and groaning, with much confusion in the meeting gene- 
 rally.] 
 
 Mr. Grant (to Dr. Lees) : — What would you have said if 
 Mr. Cooke had used such language as that ? 
 
 [The meeting now began to exhibit speakers, who uttered a 
 variety of sentences, some audible, others quite undistinguish- 
 able amidst the noise ; and the gesticulations of some of the 
 parties evinced the excitement to which individuals on both 
 sides had wrought themselves. J 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Gentlemen, will you hear Mr. Barker, or 
 you dare not ? [Loud hissing, and other symptoms of disap- 
 proval.] 
 
 Mr. Barker : — And when, instead of the present state of 
 irreligion and general society— [Great uproar, and cries of 
 
 Dr. Lees : — I have a notice to give. [Hissing, and shouts 
 3 ? 3 
 
130 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [third 
 
 of “ sit down.”! Mr. Barker has yet five minutes of this time. 
 Those who are friends of truth will stay. Those who are 
 not, may leave the meeting ; and we will keep peace until 
 that time is expired. [strong expressions of disapproba- 
 tion.] 
 
 Mr. Banker : — My friends, allow me to proceed. When 
 we have pure Christianity, advocated by persons in a Christian 
 spirit, when the men who preach it shall think it is more bless- 
 ed to give than to receive, we may expect an end to he put to 
 those accusations which have so long been preferred by unbe- 
 lievers against the Gospel of Christ ; and true religion shall 
 bring glory to God in heaven, and spread peace and good-will 
 among mankind on earth. 
 
 I was asked by William Cooke whether I united with Mar- 
 cion in this, and that, and the other. I have to reply, that I 
 don’t believe his statements about Marcion ; and until he 
 brings me better evidence than that of the Fathers, who were 
 his enemies and persecutors, 1 must persist in disbelieving them. 
 I have myself seen sucii profligacy of sentiment among ortho- 
 dox persecutors, such malignity of feeling towards those who 
 differ from them, and such extravagant slanders sent forth by 
 them against Reformers of the present day, that I suspect every 
 thing which the orthodox intolerants of former ages say against 
 the Reformers of their days. I regard the slanders of the ortho- 
 dox of former times, and the slanders of the orthodox of the 
 present day, in the same light, — as one great mass of untruths. 
 1 am far from believing that Marcion was perfect, but I do not 
 believe the things which his enemies lay to his charge. I must 
 see Mareion’s Gospel itself, before 1 believe them. 
 
 But, in the second place, I never expressed an opinion, good 
 or bad, of Marcion ; and hence 1 am answerable for none ol his 
 sayings or doings. 
 
 In the third place, Wm. Cooke quotes, in his tracts on the 
 Trinity, incarnation, &c., from old Jewish and Pagan 
 writers, who are so terribly spoken against in the Scriptures ; 
 and wiih equal propriety might I say, 44 Mr. Cooke, do you unite 
 with those Pagans and Jews in the things laid to their charge by 
 Christ and his apostles?” Me would tell me, no; that he quotes 
 them only on one point ; that he expresses his agreement with 
 them only on one point ; and that he makes himself answerable 
 for them no further. Why, then, be so unreasonable or uncha- 
 ritable, as to make another answerable to an extent to which he 
 is not willing to be made answerable ? What Christ and the 
 apostles say of the persons he has quoted himself, is certainly 
 true ; what the Fathers say of Marcion, whom I have quoted, 
 is doubtful and suspicious. Again ; my opponent still persists 
 in personalities. Me speaks of Tom Paine, ISpinoza, R. Taylor, 
 and others, and insinuates that there is a resemblance between 
 my case and theirs. I can only say that I know of no such 
 resemblance, Tom Paine, I am told, was a profligate man. If 
 
MR. barker; 
 
 131 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 he was not, he has been wickedly slandered. My opponent 
 says Spinoza made sacrifices for infidelity. I answer, I am 
 not acquainted with the facts of the case ; so that I cannot con- 
 tradict his assertion ; but I must be allowed to doubt it, till I 
 receive some proof of its truth. But 1 wish personalities to be 
 avoided. 1 want everything to be avoided but the questions 
 which are before us for discussion. And 1 want you to be calm, 
 in order that you may, without distraction, hear everything that 
 is to be brought forward on both sides, and submit it to cool 
 judgments ; and in the fear of God, an l the love of truth and 
 righteousness, embrace whatever commends itself to your judg- 
 ments as true, and frame your lives accordingly. 
 
 I have yet a few moments to spare ; but these I shall give 
 up. 1 have no desire to pain any one’s feelings, or to irritate 
 any one’s mind. I would not willingly give pain to the mind 
 of a single individual. It is only a sense of duty which could 
 make me speak on such points as those I have spoken on to- 
 night. I knew that my views on those subjects would give pain 
 to many ; but truth has claims upon me above all other con- 
 siderations; and as an advocate of truth, I must speak my views 
 plainly, faithfully, and fully, on every subject that may come 
 before us, until these ten nights of discussion are brought to a 
 conclusion. (Much applause and hissing.) 
 
 Mr. Grant : — l beg to announce that Mr. Cooke will take 
 up, to-morrow night, the remarks which Mr. Barker has now 
 made. He will answer him on the Miraculous Conception, and 
 then go to the Atonement. 
 
 Mu. Cooke: — The notice is this; that I shall, in the first 
 place, answer Mr. Barker on the points regarding the Miracu- 
 lous Conception to which he referred this evening. I make the 
 announcement for this reason. I had said it was my intention 
 to follow on with the subject of the atonement, not knowing, 
 at that time, that Mr. Barker intended to proceed with the 
 Miraculous Conception : but as he has done so, and as I wish 
 to keep him to the point, and not to let him run away from it, 
 I shall first controvert his statements on that subject, and then 
 proceed to the Atonement. (Cheers.) 
 
 END OF THIRD NIGHT. 
 
132 
 
 FOURTH NIGHT. 
 
 FRIDAY, AUGUST 22, 1845. 
 
 The attendance was again numerous, and a little more of 
 party feeling appeared to pervade the audience, hut, still, not 
 so much as might have been expected from the demonstrations 
 of the preceding evening. Both disputants were warmly wel- 
 comed by their respective friends. 
 
 Mr. Grant and Dr. Lees again sat as Chairmen. Neither of 
 the gentlemen who had previously occupied the Umpire’s chair 
 was in attendance ; and it was agreed to proceed without that 
 seat being Ailed. 
 
 Mr Grant : — Christian Friends, — In introducing Mr. Cooke, 
 this evening, to the notice of the meeting, I have only one 
 simple remark to make ; that is, to appeal to your own good 
 sense and understanding to review the proceedings of the past 
 nights, from which I am sensible you will find that your best 
 course is to be silent. I believe I may pledge myself and the 
 entlemen on the platform that as we have endeavoured, we shall 
 endeavour to keep peace, so that we may have straightfoiward, 
 fair discussion. Only refrain from any remarks of approbation 
 or disapprobation, and all will go on well and smoothly. Mr. 
 Cooke will now adddress the meeting. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Mr. Chairmen, and Christian Friends, — With- 
 out any introductory remarks, 1 shall at once address myself to 
 the subject under our consideration. I listened, last evening, to 
 Mr Barker’s replies ; and of course I w aited for argument ; 
 but I found words plenty, without argument. I waited in or- 
 der to bear something like a substantial reason for his rejection 
 of the Incarnation or Miraculous Conception of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. But I did not bear any : at least no statement which 
 offered itself to my notice had the appearance of a reason or an 
 argument for his rejection of that very important doctrine — a 
 doctrine so manifestly taught in the Iloly Scriptures. It is 
 true that I had offered to my mind a specimen of what hu- 
 man ingenuity can do in furnishing plausible pretexts for setting 
 aside very plain and striking parts of God’s holy w r ord, and, 
 whether wittingly or not, presenting into the bands of the ene- 
 mies of our common Christianity, weapons whereby they may 
 assail that Christianity, and inflict upon it awful wounds. 
 Never in my life did I hear such quibbling, such paring down 
 of Scripture, such sophistry, and such evasion of the plainest 
 statements of God’s holy word. 
 
 Mr. Barker, after the plainest, the most unanimous testimony 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 133 
 
 FOURTH NIGHT.] 
 
 which history can afford — after the brightest and the most 
 overwhelming evidence, tells us that he does not believe in this 
 doctrine. W hy, Mr. Barker’s rule of judging contradicts all 
 the- principles of reasoning, and subverts ail rational evidence, 
 lie tells us that his creed is rational ; but, to establish it, he 
 subverts the common piinciples on which all mankind reason, 
 and on which he himself reasons on all other subjects — sub-' 
 jects not connected with religion. With regard to the Miracu- 
 lous Conception, he can decide without reason. According to my 
 view, he can decide against reason. He can disbelieve when the 
 most powerful reasons are presented. He can disbelieve against 
 an overwhelming amount of evidence, furnished by ail the 
 records of antiquity, and by the plain declarations of God’s un- 
 erring word. He can, however, believe with those 6 WHO 
 HATED GOD,’— with those WHO SPOKE OF ‘GOD AS A 
 MALIGNANT BEING!’ He can believe with those ‘ who 
 denied the law and the prophets, and rejected the Old Testament T 
 He can believe with those ‘ who rejected the authority of Paul , 
 and denounced him as an apostate from the law /’ lie can be- 
 lieve with those ‘ who held that there were TWO CHRISTS 
 who ‘denied THE REALITY OF THE SAVIO UR’S BODY 
 and ‘ who denied the resurrection of the human body V He can 
 believe with those whom all history convicts as the most notorious 
 falsifiers of the word of God, and who advocated licentious and 
 wicked practices l And yet he can call this rational ! Certain 
 I am that the sacrifice which he here makes — the sacrifice of 
 his reason at the shrine of error — is the highest homage he can 
 pay to the truth of those great principles which 1 appear to es- 
 tablish on this occasion. * And while lie is thus undermining or 
 throwing down the Temple of Reason, he is furnishing to me 
 solid arguments to enable me to rear higher the pyramid of 
 truth which shall last for ever. 
 
 But there is an important fact to which I desire to call the 
 attention of this assembly, and which has brought the discus- 
 sion, on this subject at least, to a crisis. I now refer to the 
 admissions which my opponent has made with regard to the 
 truth of those great principles which I have laid before the 
 assembly, and which I have applied in sustaining my argu- 
 ments. On the Wednesday evening, Mr. Barker admitted the 
 truth of those great principles which I maintained ; namely, 
 ‘that man is bound to believe what God reveals in his holy word f 
 and ‘ that no man can be a Christian if he reject what God re- 
 veals in his word* Last evening, he made another admission 
 —an admission which has now brought the matter to a crisis. 
 He has admitted that those Scriptures— those passages of Scrip- 
 ture which teach the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception are 
 recognized in that standard of authority to which we have mu- 
 tually agreed to appeal ; and which we call ‘ The standard’ — 
 which we call ‘ The authoritative standard’— and which we call 
 “ The only authoritative standard.” 
 
134 MR. COOKE. [fourth 
 
 This is very important ; and I beg your attention to it. We 
 do not come to this assembly without a standard. We have not 
 come here to debate whether we shall have a standard or not. 
 We have brought a standard with us. We have mutually 
 signed that standard ; and that will decide the subject with re- 
 gard to the Miraculous Conception. We have agreed,— 44 That 
 the Holy Scriptures, including all the books of the authorized 
 version, with the Hebrew text of Vander Mooght, as the origi- 
 nal of the Old Testament, and the Textus Keceptus, as the 
 original of the New Testament, shall be the only authoritative 
 standard of appeal, with the following qualifications.” Now, 
 mark these qualifications ! With the following qualifications,, 
 viz. 44 Should either disputant quote any passage excepted to 
 by Kennicott or Boothroyd, in the Old Testament; or Gries- 
 bach or Schulz, in the New Testament, such passage shall be 
 considered fairly open to legitimate consideration and criticism.” 
 But these passages are not excepted to by Griesbach, or by 
 Schulz, as my opponent himself has admitted. Consequently, 
 then, the standard is acknowledged, and by that standard the 
 case must be decided, and is, in fact, decided by my opponent’s^ 
 own acknowledgment. It is further seated, — 44 That ail quota- 
 tions shall be made, in the first instance, by chapter and verse, 
 from the authorized version : but each disputant shall have the 
 right of reference to the original texts and critics, as above.” 
 Who are those critics? Kennicott, Boothroyd, Griesbach, and 
 Schulz, 44 When the authorized version is disputed.” Fur- 
 ther,— 44 That the versions whose antiquity and character have 
 weight— -say the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Latin Vulgate, 
 and the Chaldee Paraphrases, with .the Fathers of the first 
 three centuries, may be quoted in illustration ; but not, as the 
 Scriptures above, for authorities .” The only authority, then, 
 is that text which Mr. Barker himself has acknowledged, con- 
 taining the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception, '['here is 
 no appeal from that standard. We cannot make any alteration. 
 We have mutually signed the document, and by that standard 
 the case must be determined. The moment Mr. Barker made 
 that admission the sword fell from his nerveless grasp. The 
 banner which he had uplifted began to coil and fall. I have 
 taken it up ; and I claim it. 1 take it up, I say, in the name 
 of truth. In the name of the Christian public I take it up ; 
 and I wave it in triumph ; the first subject before us, namely,, 
 the Miraculous Conception, being now decided. ( Much applause, 
 mingled with hissing and laughter.) 
 
 It is true that Mr. Barker alleges that there are difficulties in 
 the passages. But whatever difficulties there may be, they do. 
 not affect the question; they cannot undermine the authority 
 which we have agreed to acknowledge as our standard, and our 
 only standard. Besides, the difficulties themselves are of no 
 great moment ; and they belong altogether to a different de- 
 partment of biblical criticism— namely, to the interpretation of 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 135 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Scripture. The canon of Scripture, and the genuineness of the 
 sacred text, are to be determined by external evidence, but any 
 difficulties in a passage are to be explained by the common laws of 
 exegesis— and especially by comparing Scripture with Scripture. 
 There were difficulties in the writings of the Apostle Paul, 
 As Peter said, there were “ some things hard to be understood.” 
 But the fact of their being hard to be understood did not un- 
 settle their authenticity or inspiration. They were acknow- 
 ledged to be in the Scriptures, which were of divine and infal- 
 lible authority. If the difficulties before us were real— if the 
 difficulties were ten times the amount in magnitude and in, 
 number to what they are, those difficulties could not invalidate 
 that authority which we have mutually agreed to bow to, as 
 deciding the question before us. Th® question is not what is 
 my opinion, or what Mr. Buiker’s opinion is ; but what is the 
 declaration of the authority which we have taken and adopted 
 mutually as our standard ? 
 
 It is true that Mr. Barker still asserts that he does not believe the 
 doctrine. But Mr. Barker’s disbeliet does not affect the autho- 
 rity which we have agreed to acknowledge. The atheist may 
 affect to disbelieve that there is a God, but his unbelief does not 
 invalidate the proofs of God’s existence. The deist may affect 
 to disbelieve the truth of Christianity ; but his unbelief does 
 not undermine the validity of the evidence which sustains our 
 Christianity. A man may be so far the dupe of error and stu- 
 pidity, as to deny that two and two make lour ; but his stupi- 
 dity, in making that assertion, does not affect the mathematical 
 truth. An individual may hood-wink himself, and say he does 
 not believe that the sun shines at noon-day ; but his unbelief 
 cannot eclipse the glory of the bright orb of day. No ! And 
 Mr. Barker’s unbelief with regard to the doctrine before us ? 
 cannot set aside the authority by which we have agreed to de- 
 cide this question. The atheist’s unbelief is contradicted by the 
 works of creation around him— the evidences of wisdom, of de- 
 sign, of power, $nd of goodness. The deist is contradicted by 
 the bright blaze of evidence of the divine authority of our holy 
 religion. The man who denies that two and two make four, is 
 contradicted by that intuitive certainty which compels our assent 
 to that self-evident proposition. The individual who denies 
 that the sun shines at noon-day is contradicted by the evidence 
 of sight. And so Mr. Barker, though he may say he “ does not 
 believe ” is met and contradicted by the declarations of that 
 standard which we have mutually agreed and determined to 
 abide by. He acknowledges that the text is there— that it is in the 
 Greek testament, and not excepted to by Schulz or Griesbach; 
 that it is not omitted in any of the versions — (though no appeal 
 lies to them, as they have authority only for illustration) ; — 
 and therefore the evidence is decisive and overpowering ; and 
 Mr. Barker stands self-convicted of unbelief in the presence of 
 this assembly. (Applause and murmurs.) Mr. Barker's 
 
136 MR. COOKE. [FOURTH 
 
 unbelief may prove, and does prove, him to be an unbeliever! but it 
 cannot unsettle the authority to which we refer as our autho- 
 rity. And 1 would respectfully remind him of the important 
 and solemn declaration of J ohn, in which he says,— “ He that be- 
 lieveth not God hath made him a liar.” 
 
 But still I owe a duty to Mr. Barker, and to this assembly, 
 and to the Christian public at large. I have undertaken to an- 
 swer the objections, so far as time will allow— to answer the 
 objections which Mr. Barker alleged, during the last- evening, 
 in reply to my address. And 1 shall now apply myself to this 
 subject with all the ability which 1 may possess, f shall there- 
 fore take the opportunity of reading considerable portions, if not 
 the whole, of those passages which have been referred to ; and 
 I shall meet the objections which Mr. Barker has alleged against 
 the various passages which are therein contained. 
 
 Mr. Barker alleges, that the doctrine of the Miraculous Con- 
 ception is disproved by the account we have of the genealogy of 
 Christ. He alluded to the genealogies given by the Evangelists 
 as one proof that the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception is 
 not true. I shall therefore examine that objection in the first 
 place. In the 2nd verse of the 1st chapter of Matthew, I read 
 thus : — ’A/3 pacifi ey£vvr](TE tov ’laccai:. ’ lactate ds EyEvvrjaETOv ’lafcw/3. 
 
 0 lcacio[3 8e EyEvvyjtJE tov ’I ovdav rat rovg cideXfyovg avrov. In English, 
 
 * — u Abraham begat Isaac ; and Isaac begat Jacob ; and Jacob 
 begat Judas and his brethren.” Now here we have the active 
 form of the verb ( EyevvrjaE ) employed to indicate the connec- 
 tion between father and son. I pass over the various verses 
 where we have exactly the same word employed to denote the 
 connection between father and son, till I come to the 16th verse, 
 where I read ’la/cw/3 ds tyEvvrjGE tov ’Iwo^ tov avdpa M cipiag 
 
 rjQ tyswriOr] ’I rjcrovg o XsyopEvog XpiaroT. In English , — “ And 
 Jacob begat J oseph,” and what follows? That Joseph begat Jesus? 
 No. The phraseology is changed. “ And Jacob begat Joseph the 
 husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus. 99 Here, then, the 
 connection which subsists between father and son throughout 
 the whole genealogy is broken off the moment if comes to Joseph, 
 and a different form, the passive form of the verb is used, to 
 signify that Jesus was born, not from Joseph, but of Mary. 
 (Loud laughter.) Is this to be a demonstration of the feeling 
 of Mr. Barker’s friends? 
 
 Dr. Lees : — 1 beg you to be quiet, and not interrupt. 
 
 Mr Cooke : — Observe, too, that the pronoun “ whom 99 in the 
 English, is not capable of expressing definitively the idea indi- 
 cated by the original; because our pronoun “who," or “whom 99 
 has no change to denote gender, but the Greek pronoun has changes 
 to denote gender ; and the gender here denoted is not masculine , 
 but feminine; is no t plural, but singular. It is not e% ov , of or 
 from him; or avriov, of them; but °f ^ ier > meaning of 
 
 this woman, or of which woman, was born Jesus Christ. This is 
 decisive against the vaunted evidence — the* highest proof relied 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 137 
 
 on by Mr. Barker ; namely that the doctrine was disproved by 
 the genealogies. 
 
 I shall now refer to the genealogy in Luke; and we have evi- 
 dence here as clear on the subject, in the 3rd chapter of the 
 Gospel by St. Luke, I read:— -Kat civtoq r\v o ’Lrivovg cocrei ercop 
 TQiaKovTct apxo[.i£voQ cop o)c epojuZ&To vloq’ I cocr rjcj). In English, 44 And 
 Jesus himself began to be about thirty y ears of age, being”— What? 
 The son of Joseph. No, but 64 Being ( as was supposed ) the son 
 of Joseph.” 'Ihe term 44 supposed ” does not occur in any other 
 portion of the genealogy. We have, then, tire long catalogue 
 of the genealogy ; but the word supposed applies to the birth of 
 Christ alone. What does it signify ? Clearly that while others 
 were the natural descendants of the individuals here mentioned, 
 our Saviour was not a natural descendant ; but was only sup- 
 posed by men to be the son of Joseph. All the sophistry and 
 ingenuity in the world cannot make the passage speak any other 
 meaning. And this furnishes a princip'e by which to interpret 
 all those passages where Christ is said to be the son of Joseph 
 by men not acquainted with this doctrine. Philip was men- 
 tioned as speaking to Nathaniel of Jesus as the son of Joseph. 
 He speaks of Jesus as people commonly spoke of him. But Luke 
 and Matthew speak by inspiration; and their testimony is per- 
 fectly decisive. So that the genealogies themselves upset Mr. 
 Barker’s argument founded on the genealogies ; and prove just 
 the contrary to what he desired to establish last evening. 
 
 I proceed. At the 18th verse of the 1st chapter of Matthew, 
 we read as follows:— 44 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on 
 this wise : When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,, 
 before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy 
 Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not 
 willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her 
 away privily.” Mr. Barker referred to certain passages last even- 
 ing, as if they absolutely required a man to put away a woman 
 under the circumstances stated ; but then Joseph must have 
 known the actual amount of guilt in the case referred to ; and 
 it is evident that he did not understand the case. Therefore it 
 is no invalidation of his justice that he was minded to put her 
 away privily, in the circumstances under consideration. 44 But 
 while he thought on these things”-- -mark! he came to no decision 
 
 44 behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a 
 dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto 
 thee Mary thv wife : for that which is conceived in her is of 
 the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt 
 call his name Jesus : for he shall save his people from their 
 sins.” Mr. Barker maintains, in a tract which I have before 
 me, 44 Christian,” No. 19, that God did not know the character 
 of Jesus Christ beforehand ; that the Omniscient Deity, who 
 seeth the end from the beginning, did not know the character of 
 the Lord Jesus Christ. This passage contradicts him, and shows 
 that God did foreknow his character, and foreknew it with 
 
138 MR. COOKE. [FOURTH 
 
 absolute certainty ! God not know his character beforehand! 
 That is, God did not know whether Christ would be the Saviour 
 or a profligate ! God did not know whether J esus would be the 
 Christ, or the Judas who betrayed him ! God did not know 
 ■whether he would be the Saviour of men, or the guilty wretch 
 who smote him on the cheek ! God did not know whether he 
 would be the Saviour or the hardened individual who plunged 
 the spear to liis heart ! God did not know whether he 
 would be the Christ, or one of the malefactors-— one of the 
 thieves who dred by his side ! God did not know whe- 
 ther Christ would live in heaven, or burn in the flames of hell ! 
 Now this is the doctrine held by Mr. Barker with regard to our 
 adorable and ever-blessed Saviour, whose name is love, and on 
 whose precious blood we depend for pardon, and peace, and ever- 
 lasting life ! 
 
 I proceed. “ Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled 
 which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, behold a 
 virgin shall Toe with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they 
 shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God 
 with us.” Mr. Barker found fault with the writer of this pas- 
 sage as being ignorant . He found fault with him as being igno- 
 rant ; and said the event recorded was no fulfilment of prophecy. 
 But lie has already acknowledged that which decides the ques- 
 tion, which establishes the fact that these are the words of the 
 Evangelist. And 1 am prepared to show that there is here a 
 real fulfilment of prophecy ; but it requires it not, since it is 
 stamped by the authority of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Scrip- 
 tures being given by inspiration of God, and intended to be 
 adapted to all ages, and unfold the character and purposes of 
 God to all generations, are distinguished from all other books by 
 their fulness of meaning. The promises and predictions an- 
 nounced, and the events narrated, have, in numerous instances, 
 a twofold or a threefold application. As the institutions of the 
 Mosaic economy involved the germs of the Christian dispensa- 
 tion, and were typical of its richer blessings and more glorious 
 designs ; so the promises, predictions, and events of the Old 
 Testament, while applicable to earlier times, and received a 
 literal fulfilment in one dispensation, were applicable also to 
 later times, and contained germs of truth, to be evolved under 
 a brighter dispensation. For example, the promise of God that 
 the land of Canaan should be given to Abraham and his natural 
 seed, involved the promise of the heavenly Canaan to Abraham 
 and his spiritual seed ; and though the promise was truly ful- 
 filled in the first instance, it receives a higher fulfilment in the 
 everlasting happiness of the saints, when they enter “ that rest 
 which remains for the people of God.” See Hebrews, 4tli chap. 
 11th verse. Many of the Psalms which express the personal 
 conflicts and sufferings of David had a typical reference to Christ, 
 and their higher fulfilment is shown to have been realized in 
 the Saviour. Compare the 22nd and 16th Psalms with the 19th 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 139 
 
 chapter of John, and the 19th chapter of Acts. Many predic- 
 tions which relate to the glory of Solomon have a higher ac- 
 complishment in the extension and glory of the Saviour’s king- 
 dom, Compare the 132nd Psalm, 11th verse, and the 72nd 
 Psalm, with the 2nd chap, of Acts, verse 30 ; Luke 1st chap., 
 verses 32 and 33 ; and Rev., 5th and 19th chapters, and 5th, 
 6th, and 16th verses. Many predictions and events, also, which 
 were first fulfilled in the history of the Jewish people, had a 
 higher fulfilment in the history of our blessed Lord ; and oi this 
 class are the predictions quoted by the Evangelist. These we 
 have now to notice. 
 
 The first prophecy, c< that a virgin shall conceive and bring 
 forth a son,” is from the 7th chap, of Isaiah, verse 14. it was 
 fulfilled in the days of Ahaz, so far as was necessary to be a 
 sign to him ; but a higher-accomplishment was intended and 
 realized in the fulness of time, when the Virgin Mary conceived 
 and brought forth the Lord of life and glory. Then, as Jesus 
 was born of a virgin, and no other person , in the proper sense, 
 was born of a virgin, it follows that Christ was the person who 
 w r as personally chosen, and personally foretold. 
 
 Here is another prophecy : “ Now when Jesus was born in 
 Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, 
 there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, where 
 is he that is born King of the Jews? lor we have seen his star 
 in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the 
 king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with 
 him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes 
 of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should 
 be born? And they said unto him, in Bethlehem of Judea : for 
 thus it is written by the prophet, and thou Bethlehem in the 
 land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda : for 
 out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule my people 
 Israel.” Mr. Barker afhims, in the tract to which I before 
 referred, that our Lord 66 was not born in fulfilment of any pro- 
 phecy.” We have given an instance, by Isaiah, who predicted 
 that he should he born of a virgin ; and as he was the only one 
 horn of a virgin., of course it identifies him as the only possible 
 Saviour, and not as one out of many from whom God might 
 select any individual he most preferred. Here again is a pro- 
 phecy identifying Jesus as the Messiah, and foretelling the place 
 of his birth. 
 
 Now, it may appear to be of no importance to know the place 
 of the Saviour’s birth. But seeing that it had pleased God to 
 foretell the place of his nativity, it became essential that it 
 should take place there, and nowhere else. Now there were 
 two Bethlehems : one known as the Bethlehem of Judea ; the 
 other as the Bethlehem of Zebulon. It w’as, not in the latter 
 but in the former that the Saviour was born, according to the 
 prediction of the prophet. And mark the Providence of God ! 
 Joseph and Mary lived at Nazareth, a great distance from Beth- 
 
140 MR. COOKE. [FOURTH 
 
 lehem ; hut a decree of Augustus Caesar was issued at the time, 
 requiring the people to appear for registration. This required 
 Joseph and Mary to come to Bethlehem, the city of David, they 
 being of the lineage of David. And whilst there, waiting for 
 enrolment, the Saviour of the world was born. Thus the de- 
 cree issued by Augustus Caesar, issued at Home, became the oc- 
 casion of fulfilling God’s decree, as recorded by Micah. Mr. 
 Barker says Christ was not horn in fulfilment of any prophecy. 
 Here is another contradiction to that assertion. 
 
 I resume, at the 7th verse of this 2nd chapter. “ Then He- 
 rod, wiien he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them 
 diligently at what time the star appeared, and he sent th m to 
 Bethlehem, and said, go and search diligently for the young 
 child ; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that 
 3 may come and worship him also. When they had heard the 
 king they departed ; and, lo, the star which they saw in the east, 
 went before them, till it came and stood over where the young 
 child was. When they saw the star the} 7 rejoiced with exceed- 
 ing great joy. And when they were come into the house, 
 they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell 
 down and worshipped him : and when they had opened their 
 treasures, they presented unto him gifts ; gold, and frankincense, 
 and myrrh. And being warned of God in a dream, that they 
 should not return to Herod, they departed into their own coun- 
 try another way.” Here again is an interposition of Provi- 
 dence in regard to the Messiah ; and plainly shows that Jesus 
 was recognized as the Christ “ before God had tried him” “And 
 when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appear- 
 eth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young 
 child and his mother, and flee unto Kgypt, and be thou there 
 until 1 bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child 
 to destroy him.” Here is another interposition of Providence, 
 which identifies him as the Christ “before (*od had tried him ” 
 “ W hen hearose, he took the young child and hismother by night, 
 and departed into Kgypt : and was thereuntil the death of Herod: 
 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord, by the 
 prophet, Out of Kgypt have I called my son.” This prophecy 
 referred originally to the calling of the ancient Israelites from 
 the land of bondage ; but it received a h gher accomplishment. 
 That event was the type of the Saviour’s sojourn in kgypt ; and 
 it received a higher accomplishment when God called liis own 
 Son, the Lord Jesus, out of Kgypt. “ Then Herod, when he 
 saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceedingly wroth, 
 and sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, 
 and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, ac- 
 cording to the time which he had diligently enquired of the 
 wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jere- 
 my the prophet, saying, in Kama was there a voice heard, 
 lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping 
 for her children, and would not be comforted, because they were 
 
MU. COOKE, 
 
 2f!GHT.] 
 
 141 
 
 not.” Mr. Barker objects to this, as not being a proper fulfil- 
 ment of prophecy ; but the authority of the Evangelist is of 
 ’more weight than the authority of Mr. Barker. The evangelist 
 states it was a fulfilment of prophecy. This prediction, expressed 
 with so much beauty and pathos, was fulfilled in part when the 
 Jews were so greatly destroyed and wasted in captivity ; hut it 
 had a still m re remarkable accomplishment when the mothers 
 of Bethlehem lifted up their voices in one simultaneous cry of 
 distress and anguish over their murdered infants ; for never be- 
 fore was there such a concentration of maternal woe : and had 
 a sculptor desired to commemorate the tragical event, no design 
 could so graphically set it forth as the pathetic image of the pro- 
 phet : — “Rachael weeping for her children, and refusing to be 
 comforted, because they are not.” 
 
 The 19th verse : — “ But when Herod was dead, behold, an 
 angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 
 saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go 
 into the land of Israel : for they are dead which sought the 
 young child’s life.” Here is another interposition of Providence, 
 which recognizes Jesus as the Christ “ before God had tried him” 
 
 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and 
 came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Ar- 
 chelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he 
 was afra'd to go thither, notwithstanding being warned of God 
 n a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee : and he 
 came and dwelt in a city called ^azareth : that it might be ful- 
 filled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a 
 Nazarene.” Mr. Barker objects to this as not being a fulfil- 
 ment of prophecy : alleging that there is no such prophecy in 
 the Holy Scriptures. But, observe, it is not stated as being the 
 language of a prophet , but being what the “ prophets ” had said 
 — what they had said in import. It is not a reference to any 
 particular prophet, in. the singular; but to the prophets in the 
 plural. We are, therefore, not referred to any specific 
 passage, but to a general fact, to which all the prophets 
 concur in bearing their general testimony, namely, that “Christ 
 should be called a Nazarene .” IN ow, though no prophet speaks 
 of his residing at Nazareth, they all speak of his being called a 
 Nazarene. The word Nazarene , like the word Galilean , with 
 the Jews, was an epithet for a person mean, low, despised, and 
 contemptible; and the repute of JNazareth may be seen from 
 the words of the mild Nathaniel, when he asked in surprise, 
 “ can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” The prophets 
 foretold that our Lord, notwithstanding his supreme dignity and 
 glory, should be despised and rejected of men-— accounted mean 
 and contemptible ; and the Saviour was sent to reside at the 
 contemptible place of Nazareth, that he might have a name of 
 infamy put upon him. Thus, then, the testimony of the pro- 
 phets was fulfilled. Christ was despised on jnany accounts, and 
 the place of his abode was one occasion of the contumely put 
 
142 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [FOURTH 
 
 ■upon him. As expressive of contempt, he was called “ Jesus of 
 N&zareth and his disciples, for the same reason, were desig- 
 nated “ the sect of the Nazarenes.” The words of the Evange- 
 list, therefore, are not false, but strictly true ; and the assertion 
 that we find no such thing foretold by any prophet is proved to 
 be founded upon ignorance, or presumptuous impiety. 
 
 I now refer to the Gospel according to St. Luke, beginning at 
 the 1st verse. Mr. Barker stated that the doctrine of the Mira- 
 culous Conception was not believed by Christians in the early 
 age. So 1 understood him to state. What states the 1st chap- 
 ter of St. Luke ? Just attend to these words: — “Forasmuch 
 as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration 
 of those things which are most surely believed” — most surely 
 believed , observe you — “ among us, even as they delivered them 
 unto us. which from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and mi- 
 nisters of the word ; it seemed good to me also, having had per- 
 fect understanding of all things from the very first, to write un- 
 to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest 
 KNOW THE CERTAINTY OF THOSE THINGS, where- 
 in thou hast been instructed.” Here, then, we find St. Luke 
 , speaking of things which were most certainly believed ; and among' 
 the first facts which he records we find the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion stated. 
 
 “ There was in the days of Herod, the King of Judaea, 
 a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: 
 and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was 
 Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking 
 in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 
 And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and 
 they both were now well stricken in years. And it came to 
 pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the 
 order of his course, according to the custom of the priest’s office, 
 his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the 
 Lord. And the whole multitude of the people were praying 
 without at the time of incense. And there appeared unto him 
 an angel of the Lord Handing on the right side of the altar of 
 incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and 
 fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Za- 
 charias : lor thy prayer is heard ; and thy wife Elisabeth shall 
 bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou 
 shalt have joy and gladness ; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 
 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink 
 neither wine nor strong drink ; and he shall be filled with the 
 Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And many of the 
 children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he 
 shall go before him” — go before HIM who is here called the 
 LORD, the GOD of the people : — “And he shall go before him 
 in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fa- 
 thers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the 
 * just ; to make ready a people prepared for the LORD.” Here 
 
NIGHT.] 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 143 
 
 is another recognition of Christ as the true Messiah ; and that 
 “ before God had tried him” “And Zacharias said unto the an- 
 gel, Whereby shall I know this? for 1 am an old man, and my 
 wife well stricken in years. And the angel answering, said un- 
 to him, 1 am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God ; and 
 am sent to speak unto thee, and to show thee these glad tidings. 
 And, behold, thou shaft be dumb, and not able to speak, until 
 the day that these things shall be performed, because thou be- 
 lievest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.. 
 And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tar- 
 ried so long in the temple. And when he came out, he could 
 not speak unto them : and they perceived that he had seen a 
 vision in the temple : for he beckoned unto them, and remained 
 speechless. And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his 
 ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. 
 And after those days his wife Hlisabeth conceived, and hid her- 
 self five months, saying, Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in 
 the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach, 
 among men. And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was- 
 sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a 
 virgin espoused to a man whose name \>as Joseph, of the house 
 of David ; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel 
 came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured,, 
 the Lord is with thee : blessed art thou among women. And 
 when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in 
 her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the 
 angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found fa- 
 vour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, 
 and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus, lie shall 
 he great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the 
 Lord God shall give unto him the throne of liis father David 
 and be shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever ; and of his 
 kingdom there shall be no end.” Here, then, w 7 as a prediction 
 with regard to our Saviour which received a literal accomplish- 
 ment, and which further contradicts the statement of Mr. Bar- 
 ker that “ Christ was not born in fulfilment of any 'prophecy .” 
 
 The 39th verse : — 66 And Mary arose in those days, ana went 
 into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judaea ; and enter- 
 ed into the house oi Zacharias, and saluted Hlisabttli. And it 
 came to pass that, when blisabeth heard the salutation ol Mary, 
 the babe leaped in her womb ; and Flisabeth was filled with 
 the Holy Ghost : and she spake out with a loud voice, and said. 
 Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy 
 womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord 
 should come to me ? For lo, as soon as the voice of thy saluta- 
 tion sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 
 And blessed is she that believed : for there shall be a perform-? 
 ance of those things which were told her from the Lord.” 
 Here is another recognition, under the influence of the Holy 
 Ghost, of Christ being the true Messiah, “ And Mary said^ 
 
144 MR. COOKE. [[FOURTH 
 
 My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in 
 God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his 
 handmaiden : for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall 
 called me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great 
 things ; and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them tbit 
 fear him from generation to generation. He hath showed 
 strength with his arm ; he hath scattered the proud in the ima- 
 gination of their hearts, lie ha h put down the mighty from 
 their seats, and exalted them of low degree. Me hath filled 
 the hungry with good things ; and the rich he hath sent empty 
 away, lie hath hoipen his servant Israel, in remembrance of 
 his mercy ; as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his 
 seed for ever. And Mary abode with her about three months 
 and returned to her own house.” 
 
 I introduce this quotation for this purpose. Mr. Barker repre- 
 sented that it was an argument against the Miraculous Conception 
 that John did not know Jesus when he baptized him, although 
 the two mothers had lived together in the same house. How 
 long did they live together ? THREE MONTHS : and those 
 three months before either John or Jesus Christ was horn : and prav 
 howcould they, under these circumstances, knoweach other? what 
 chance wasthereof the two becomingacquainted with each other ? 
 Subsequently, we find that the families were separated : and as 
 Zacharias and Elizabeth were both stricken in years, they 
 would, very probably, both be dead long before either John the 
 Baptist or the Saviour advanced to maturity. Then as John 
 the Baptist lived in the desert, and Christ at Nazareth, there 
 was no human probability of John becoming personally ac- 
 quainted with the Saviour. r .lt was no doubt ordered by the 
 good providence of God, that John should not know Jsus until 
 a voice from heaven announced him as God’s beloved Son, in 
 whom he was well pleased ; and thus, without the world hav- 
 ing the possibility of supposing that there was any collusion be- 
 tween their testimony, it was ordained that the testimony should, 
 come direct from the voice of the Father himself. 
 
 John having been born, we read, further, at the 59th verse, — 
 
 « And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to cir- 
 cumcise the child ; and they called him Zacharias, after the 
 name of his father. And his mother answered and said, Not so ; 
 but he shall be called John. And they said unto her, There is 
 none of thy kindred that is called by this name. And they 
 made signs to his father, how he would have him called. And 
 he asked fora writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is 
 John. And they marvelled all. And his mouth was opened 
 immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised 
 God. And fear ( came on all that dwelt round about them : 
 and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill 
 country of Judaea. And all they that heard them laid them 
 up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be ! 
 .And the hand of the Lord was with him. And his father 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 145 
 
 XIGHT.] 
 
 Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 
 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; for he hath visited and re- 
 deemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for 
 us in the house of his servant David ; as he spake by the mouth 
 of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began : 
 that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand . 
 of all that hate us ; to perform the mercy promised to our fa- 
 thers, and to remember his holy covenant ; that oath which 
 he sware to our father Abraham, that he would grant unto us, 
 that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might 
 serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, 
 all the days of our life. ?> Here is another recognition by Za- 
 charias, under the influence of the H oly Ghost ; — the recogni- 
 tion that Christ is the “ horn of salvation” — is that very person 
 predicted by the ancient prophets as the Saviour of the world. 
 This was personal , and applicable to Christ Jesus, and to him 
 alone . <c And, thou, child, shall be called the prophet of the 
 Highest : for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord.” Christ 
 is the Highest— Christ was the Highest, before whose face John 
 should go. “ Before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways ; 
 to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission 
 of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God ; whereby 
 the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them 
 that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our 
 feet into the way of peace. And the child grew, and waxed 
 strong in spirit, and was in the deserts”— in Nazareth— “ was 
 in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.” And 
 these historical facts explain the reason, again, why John did 
 not know the Saviour. There was no intercourse between him 
 and the Redeemer until God did manifest him by a voice from 
 the parted sky. 
 
 Then, in the next place, we have the decree of Augustus, to 
 which I have referred before, and need not repeat it. I proceed 
 with the 6th verse of the 2nd chapter ' “ And so it was, that, 
 while they were there, ’’—that is, at Bethlehem,—' “ the days 
 were accomplished that she”— namely, Mary— u should be deli- 
 vered. And she brought forth her hist-born son, and wrapped 
 him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger ; because 
 there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the 
 same country shepherds abiding in the held, keeping watch over 
 their hock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came up- 
 on them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them ; 
 and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear 
 not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which 
 shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city 
 of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” Again attested 
 to.be Christ the Lord, “before God had tried him and in what 
 follows you have the testimony of heaven with regard to Christ 
 being the person who was to be the Saviour of a sinful world. 
 4f And this shall be a sign unto you ; Ye shall find the babe 
 
146 MR. COOKE. [fourth 
 
 wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And sudden- 
 ly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host 
 praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on 
 earth peace, good will toward men.” 
 
 Our Saviour came to his own, but his own received him not. 
 There was no joy in the palace of Herod on our Lord’s arrival 
 in this world ; but there was joy in heaven among the angels of 
 God. Angels have ever taken a lively interest with regard to 
 the affairs of our world. At the birth of our earth, it is said 
 the morning stars sang together, and the sons of God shouted 
 for joy. And, during succeeding dispensations, we often behold 
 them hastening with ready wing on errands of mercy and love to 
 mankind. But the things of redemption are those in which the}?' 
 are especially interested, and into which they especially desire to 
 look. The cherubims are represented as inclining their faces 
 over the mercy-seat, as if actually engaged in pondering over 
 the sublime mysteries therein contained— as if employed in 
 bending their energies and their intellect to pry into the myste- 
 ries of redeeming love ; because there they find fresh develop- 
 ments of the divine character, and new discoveries in the eco- 
 nomy of providence and of grace. Thus are they furnished 
 with more powerful and stimulating motives to praise, to admi- 
 ration, to love, and joy. The sublime wonders of redeeming 
 love continually unfolding new glories to their exalted minds, 
 excite them to nobler songs of praise : and, behold, on this 
 important occasion of the Redeemer’s birth, they come to our 
 world to express their joy, and call upon mankind to enter into 
 the general joy which ought to be felt on an occasion like this#. 
 !Now mark the interest of angels!— an interest intimating that 
 the event was one of immense importance. 1 don’t rvonder 
 at all that those who reject the Divinity of the Saviour should 
 be anxious to do away with the passages which declare the Mi- 
 raculous Conception, and give those wondrous narratives which 
 are connected with that event. If a man deny the divinity of 
 the Saviour, there is no sympathy betwixt his creed and the 
 ■wondrous scenes which are there exhibited. I\o ! there is a 
 glory around the subject for which his mind is not prepared, 
 and with which his views have no harmony, and can possess na 
 sympathy. If men are hood- winked for a time, they canrot 
 bear the light of the sun. ’Tis too bright for them. And if men 
 immure themselves in the gloomy caverns of unbelief, among the 
 bats and night-birds of error, they are not prepared to walk 
 amid the day-spring and the glory that shine around the man- 
 ger and the cross. They cannot listen with pleasure when 
 prophets strike their lyre, and tune it to a Saviour’s praise#. 
 They cannot listen with pleasure even to the songs of angels, 
 nor sympathize with the bursts of joy they exhibited on this oc- 
 casion. There is no harmony in all this with the doctrine of 
 the Saviour being a mere man. But recognise the Divinity of 
 the Saviour, and the Miraculous Conception is in harmony with 
 
fourth] MR COOKE* 147 
 
 it, — the jov of the angels is in harmony with it— the worship 
 of the shepherds is in harmony with it'— the worship of the 
 wise men is in harmony with it ; and in harmony with it, too, 
 will be the worship which the whole Church of God will one 
 day unitedly render to the Saviour in Heaven— in that bright 
 world where no obscurity can dim the vision, where no preju- 
 dice can warp the judgment, where no corrupt usage can vitiate 
 the heart, but where spirits pure and bright will dwell in the 
 noontide splendour of the divine presence, and, far from error, 
 and prejudice, and sin, will unite to praise God and the Lamb 
 for ever and for ever. ( Applause.) 
 
 I will notice a few other of Mr. Barker’s objections, stated 
 last evening. Mr. Barker asserted that the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion was not a part of the Gospel— was not a part of the Gospel! 
 And he alleged that the Saviour did not preach the doctrine— 
 did not make known the fact in his ministry. It is important 
 to observe that the Saviour was generally reserved with regard to 
 that which glorified himself ; for it was more the object of his 
 ministry, to glorify his Father than to glorify himself, that, sub- 
 sequently, his father might glorify him. But his own ministry did 
 not complete the gospel dispensation, for he said to his disciples 
 that he had many things to say unto them, which they were not 
 prepared to bear at that time ; but the Holy Ghost would reveal 
 them after. the day of Pentecost : and it was under the guidance, 
 the infallible guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that 
 Matthew and Luke penned their records; and the attestation, 
 or the inspiration , rather, of the Holy Spirit gives the same 
 authority to the teachings of the Evangelists that the Saviour’s 
 own statements have, which he announced personally upon the 
 earth. We regard the dispensation of the Saviour and the dis- 
 pensation of the Spirit as both uniting to complete the glorious 
 revelation contained in the New Testament. 
 
 But now let us notice the objection, that the Incarnation, or 
 the Miraculous Conception, is not a part of the gospel, because it 
 is not contained in the gospels of the other two Evangelists — 
 namely, John and Mark. I am not admitting that the doctrine 
 is not maintained there : I am only supposing it now, for argu- 
 ment’s sake. Why, this is reasoning upon the principle that 
 though a doctrine be clearly taught in some parts of Scripture, 
 yet if be not taught in every part of scripture, it is not a part of 
 that truth which we are to believe. Dr. Franklin says — 
 “ When you have a good principle, go through with it?” and if 
 you want to test a bad one, I would say, 66 go through with it” 
 Apply thisreasoning tootherfacts inscripture. The resurrection of 
 our Saviour is an important doctrine, giving a bright evidence of 
 the truth of Christianity, and also a bright manifestation of the 
 divine acceptance of the Redeemer’s sacrifice. But though this 
 doctrine is asserted with all distinctness and authority in the 
 Evangelists, there are several Epistles in which the doctrine is 
 not stated : so then, on Mr. Barker’s principle, it is not a part 
 
148 MR. COOKE. [^FOURTH 
 
 of the gospel, and we are not under any obligation to believe it. 
 Wonderful logic, and still more wonderful theology ! The Re- 
 deemer’s ascension to heaven, though asserted by two of the 
 Evangelists — namely, by Mark and by Luke— is not affirmed as a 
 fact having takenpiace either by Matthewor John: so that although 
 it is asserted by two Evangelists, yet not having been asserted 
 by the other two, it is, on Mr. Barker’s principle, no part of the 
 Gospel, and may be rejected. Wonderful logic, and still more 
 wonderful theology ! The general resurrection of the dead is 
 asserted in many parts of Scripture, hut is omitted in the Epis- 
 tles of James and Jude, and many other books of Scripture — 
 therefore, on Mr. Barker’s principle, it is no part of revelation, 
 and must be rejected,, Wonderful logic, and still more wonder- 
 ful theology ! On this principle, we might discard many of the 
 important truths of Christianity. But we will not adopt that 
 kind of reasoning. We know that every part of Scripture is of 
 God. It was never the design of the Almighty that every sa- 
 cred writer should record the same facts, and represent in the 
 same way the same doctrines ; for that would have increased 
 the Bible into a library. We should have had as many volumes 
 as there were writers ; and, wonderful to say ! the same facts 
 and the same doctrines repeated in each of them. God has 
 chosen a better plan — one more adapted to man’s requirements, 
 and to his own glory. He has caused some writers to state one 
 part of truth, and some another part ; and the whole forms a 
 blessed harmony, and a fulness, adapted to enlighten the under- 
 standing, to form the morals, to mould the character, and to 
 furnish us with all that is requisite to lead us unto all truth. 
 
 And then, again, to maintain that because St. Mark com- 
 mences his Gospel with the ministry of John the Bajjtist, no 
 event prior to that period forms a part of the Gospel, is a very 
 grievous fallacy ; for each Evangelist begins his record in a dif- 
 ferent way. Mark begins with the ministry of John the Bap- 
 tist ; Matthew with a genealogy extending as far as Abraham ; 
 but Luke’s genealogy extends as far as Adam ; while John be- 
 gins with the creation of the world, asserting the existence and 
 glory of the Saviour, prior to the creation. But all are equally to 
 be believed, although they commence their statements in a dif- 
 ferent form and with different events. The existence of God, 
 and the creation of the world, are a part of their testimony, and 
 a part of the Gospel, as well as the teachings, the sufferings, the 
 death, and the resurrection of the Saviour, and they are all equally 
 to be believed on the testimony of God ; for it is written “ He 
 that believeth not God hath made him a liar.” 
 
 Besides, to talk about the Gospel beginning with the ministry 
 of John the Baptist appears absurd. Mr. Barker should know, 
 and once did know, that the Gospel began in Paradise. Ere 
 man left the sacred enclosure— ere man was banished from the 
 fertile and luxuriant spot, he received the Gospel in the first 
 promise of the Saviour, that the “ seed of the woman should 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 149 
 
 bruise the serpent’s head.” Abraham had the Gospel preached 
 to him, as the Apostle says. “ The scriptures foreseeing that 
 God would justify the heathen through faith preached before 
 the Gospel unto Abraham, saying,— In thee shall all nations be 
 blessed.” Gal. iii. 8. And in Hebrews iv. 2, it is said the 
 Gospel was preached to the Israelites For unto us was the 
 Gospel preached as well as unto them.” Thus Jesus is “ the 
 Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.” Yes! 
 in those remote ages, before the Sun of Righteousness had risen, 
 the day-star of promise shot forth its mild and hopeful beams to 
 be the guide of patriarchs, prophets, and righteous men, and the 
 precursor of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is 64 The light of the 
 Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.” 
 
 Mr. Barker made a statement to the effect that Christianity 
 could not triumph effectually over infidels, while such doctrines 
 as the Miraculous Conception were held. Why, having admit- 
 ted that these doctrines are contained in the Scriptures referred 
 to, and that those Scriptures are contained in the standard wo 
 have mutually agreed to abide by, I wonder at a statement like 
 that. Does not God know best what is adapted to illuminate 
 the understanding ; to regenerate the heart ; to promote the re- 
 generation and blessedness of the human family ; to triumph, 
 over infidelity and every form of error \ Undoubtedly he does. 
 And facts, too, are against Mr. Barker; for it was whilst he 
 held this doctrine of the Miraculous Conception, and while he 
 was defending it in his writings, that he discussed with infidels, 
 and was instrumental in putting them down. And it was never 
 until he gave up this doctrine that the infidels or socialist began 
 to praise him ! The facts, then, I say, are against him. 
 
 I have here a lengthy article, contained in one of Mr. Barker’s 
 publications ; but I have not time to use it. It is contained in 
 the 1st volume of his Evangelical Reformer. It is a beautiful 
 article, having that very passage about the joy of the angels on 
 the arrival of the Saviour, and the duty of man to participate 
 in the joy, and lift up the voice of thanksgiving to Almighty 
 God. Besides, the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception has 
 been connected with the Gospel from the commencement : and 
 is therefore associated with all the triumphs it has achieved. 
 Yes ! it was connected with it when the Apostles preached the 
 Gospel in Greece, that focus of learning and centre of philo- 
 sophical glory ; where there were the Lyceum and the groves 
 of literature ; and where lived Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates, 
 and the most eminently-gifted men that have poured forth the 
 light of human philosophy : and the Gospel triumphed over and 
 exploded the systems of Aristotle and the Stoics, and converted 
 multitudes there, in the very seat of a carnal, a worldly, and a 
 superstitious philosophy. The triumphs of the cross were won in 
 a multitude of cases in these parts. It was the same Gospel 
 which triumphed at Rome — that nation where tributary counj* 
 tries poured in streams of wealth — where ambition for military 
 
 Gr 2 
 
150 MR. COOKE. [FOURTH 
 
 glory burned in every bosom — and where was the Pantheon, 
 crowded with deities. It triumphed there ; and converted the 
 proud orator into a minister of grace ; and the fierce soldier 
 into a champion for the cross, it swept away the gods that 
 filled the Pantheon, and Christian churches rose up in the place 
 of idol-temples. It has triumphed, in connection with this doc- 
 trine, not only over civilised , but over savage man. Did not 
 Mr. Barker frequently and properly, when contending against 
 Socialists, refer to the triumphs of the cross in the South Sea is- 
 lands ? Did he not introduce the name of Williams, that mi- 
 nister of the living God, who poured forth his blood on the 
 shores of Eromanga in the midst of the triumphs he had won in 
 the islands of the Pacific ? and did not he introduce his tri- 
 umphs by preaching the same Gospel which contains the doc- 
 trine of the Miraculous Conception ? And has not Moffat, also, 
 been an honoured instrument, in the hands of God, of spreading 
 the same Gospel in the central parts of Africa? And have not 
 the Moravian missionaries accomplished similar results in Green- 
 land and Labrador ; and in the burning climes of the West In- 
 dies and various parts of Africa ? Undoubtedly they have. And 
 the negroes in the West Indies, whom some regard as not having 
 the nature of man — as not having a human soul — as not capable 
 of being raised in the scale of society— have felt the power of the 
 Gospel ; and multitudes, bright with intellect, and refined by 
 pious sentiment, and transformed into God’s image, are living 
 monuments of the power of divine truth ; and show that, in 
 connection with this doctrine, it triumphs over depravity in every 
 form, whether associated with the savage, or united Avith 
 the sage. And as for infidels, it has conquered them. Who- 
 ever heard of the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception being 
 taken away from Scripture to convert an infidel ? Whoever 
 knew an instance in which one w 7 as converted by that means? 
 I never heard of one. What ! mutilate the Scriptures to pander 
 to the pride of infidels ! W hat ! take the scissors, and cut away a 
 portion of God’s eternal truth, in accommodation to man? What! 
 must the creature dictate to the Creator how he must conform 
 his Avord, before he can condescend to accept liis blessings? That 
 is not the way to triumph over men. Cut away any portion of 
 God’s Avoid, and Ave cut the sinew s of our right arm : we sepa- 
 rate ourselves from God’s blessing, and from the promised in- 
 fluences of the Boly Spirit, it is not by altering the Gospel 
 to accommodate it to human prejudice, pride, or passion, whe- 
 ther in reference to ancient Gnostics or modern philosophers— 
 it is not by this means we are to triumph, but by standing up 
 for the Avoid of the living God, and by preaching that word 
 with a bold front, and Avith courage and zeal, combined with 
 implicit reliance upon the support of that God avIio has said 
 that his servantsshall not lahourin vain, nor spend their strength 
 for nought. 
 
 In conclusion, I Avould just recapitulate a few facts. Mr. 
 
NIGHT.] 
 
 MR. BARKER, 
 
 151 
 
 Barker has conceded the' import ant principle, that a man cannot 
 be a Christian if he knowingly reject any portion of God’s re- 
 vealed word ; that is, if he disbelieve it when evidence is placed 
 sufficiently before him. And he has conceded that the authori- 
 ties which we have mutually agreed to stand or fall by do con- 
 tain those portions of the Word of God in which the doctrine 
 of the Miraculous Conception is taught. Mr. Barker does not 
 question the meaning of the words— Mr. Barker does not at- 
 tempt to put a different construction upon those passages which 
 teach the doctrine itself, however much he may endeavour to 
 put another construction upon other passages in the context. 
 The texts themselves which we say teach the doctrine, he ac- 
 knowledges do teach it. Therefore , having confessed , in the first 
 instance , that no man is a Christian who rejects any portion of the 
 word of God ; and having confessed , secondly , that these parts are 
 according to our standard , the word of God , it follows- - -irresist- 
 ibly follows , as a conclusion which is inevitable— which he cannot 
 avoid— which no one can avoid, according to the agreement re- 
 gulating this discussion, THAT HE IS it EJECTING GOD'S 
 WORD, AND THEREFORE HE STANDS SELF-CON- 
 VICTED AS NOT BEING A CHRISTIAN. (Much ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Our friend Mr. Cooke has promised to announce 
 the subjects on which he will speak during the next week, time, 
 of course, permitting. They will be, we understand, first, the 
 Atonement ; second, the Deity of Jesus Christ ; third, the 
 Personality and Godhead of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Not, perhaps, in that way. I do not mean to 
 confine myself. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Gentlemen, we have proceeded very pleasantly in 
 the discussion to-night, so far ; and I trust it will be conducted 
 in the same orderly manner to the conclusion. We all see the 
 benefit of listening patiently to the gentlemen who are prepared 
 to instruct us upon these important subjects. As truth-seekers 
 and truth-lovers, I trust that the same attention which you 
 have rendered to Mr. Cooke, will he rendered to Mr. Barker ; 
 whom I have now the pleasure of again introducing to your 
 notice. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — Respected Chairmen : my Friends, — As 
 this will be the last evening’s discussion during the present 
 week, I wish to notice two or three things which escaped my 
 memory on former occasions. In a quotation which I gave 
 from John Wesley, George Fox is spoken of as foul-mouthed, 
 as being as foul-mouthed as St. Augustine. I did not wish to 
 sanction that statement of John Wesley. George Fox was 
 very strong in his expressions against a hired ministry and various 
 orthodox doctrines ; but I cannot regard him as deserving to be 
 called a foul-mouthed man. 
 
 Another is, — when I referred to the passage, “ God was ma- 
 
152 MR. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 infest in the flesh,” I perhaps spoke in such a way as to lead 
 some to suppose that I believed “ God manifest in the flesh.” 
 to be the true reading of that passage. I may, however, ob- 
 serve, that I consider Griesbach’s amendment good, and that 
 u God” ought not to be placed there, — that, as Sir Isaac Newton 
 has demonstrated, it has been placed there by other hands than 
 the writer of the epistle to Timothy. 
 
 A word on expenses ; a subject on which, I believe, I have 
 been misrepresented. 1 have briefly to state, that as this dis- 
 cussion did not take place during my residence in Newcastle, I 
 proposed that it should either be in Leeds, and Mr. Cooke have 
 his expenses paid ; or here , and I have my travelling expenses 
 paid, not by Mr Cooke, but out of the general fund. This was 
 objected to by Mr. Cooke. I was told he said, No. He would 
 not go to Leeds ; nor would he agree to the payment of my ex- 
 penses. He would agree to the expenses of but one journey 
 being paid. I, therefore, had to come here ; but only one-half 
 of the expense of one of my three journeys has to be paid by 
 my opponent ; the rest of my expenses have all to be paid out 
 of my own ticket money. Nevertheless, as I had given way in 
 every other thing, rather than the discussion should not take 
 place, I agreed to bear five -sixths of the expense of my coming 
 here also. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — I have never heard of the proposition for 
 Mr. Cooke to go to Leeds, and have his expenses paid. (Hear, 
 hear. ) 
 
 Mr. Barker : — I have simply to state, that I made the pro- 
 position to my own committee, supposing they would lay it 
 before the proper parties. (Laughter.) If the committee neg- 
 lected this part of their business, the fault was theirs, not 
 mine. (Renewed laughter and hissing.) 
 
 Hr. Lees : — This is not common decency, let alone order. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — Why don’t you respect yourselves more? 
 
 Mr. Barker : — I proceed. Mr. Cooke quoted from the first 
 chapter of Galatians, — If any man preach any other Gospel 
 unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Some 
 individuals did preach another gospel. Some of the Jews 
 preached circumcision as necessary to salvation. They taught, 
 that unless a man did something more than believe and obey 
 the gospel, he could not be saved ; and it was to those that the 
 apostle refers when he says, “ Let them be accursed,” or excom- 
 municated. Yet, this passage is applied to such as myself, as 
 if I preached a new gospel. Now, 1 do no such thing. I preach 
 the old gospel, and no other. I preach neither circumcision nor 
 uncircumcision — neither orthodoxy nor heterodoxy, as necessa- 
 ry to salvation ; but faith that worketh by love. It is the ad- 
 vocates of orthodoxy that preach another gospel. These par- 
 ties do not scruple to tell us, that we shall be damned unless 
 we receive the doctrines of orthodoxy, which are not only 
 
153 
 
 JTIGrHT.] MEi BARKER. 
 
 not taught in the gospel, but which are subversive of the gospel 
 of Christ. My opponent, then, is the heretic ; it is to such as 
 himself that the words of the apostle belong. 
 
 Again ; we are told by my opponent, that we cannot be 
 Christians unless we believe the Miraculous Conception. 
 Mark’s gospel, however, appears to have been written with 
 the intention of making people Christians, and I suppose it 
 would make them Christians if they believed and obeyed it; 
 and yet he begins nis gospel with John’s ministry, and 
 says nothing about the Miraculous Conception. John also 
 tells us, that his gospel was written that people might 
 be made Christians thereby; yet he tells us that the things re- 
 corded therein were written that we might believe that Jesus is 
 the Christ, the Son of God, and that those who believed this 
 might have life, through his name. It was written to make 
 people Christians, and he seems to have considered it sufficient 
 for that purpose; and yet he takes no notice of the Miraculous 
 Conception. I therefore conclude that my opponent is wrong ; 
 — that the Gospels are either defective, or he is in great error. 
 If he is right, the Gospels are defective. If the two Gospels to 
 which I have referred are complete, and sufficient to make peo- 
 ple Christians, my opponent is in error. 
 
 I shall now briefly notice the arguments I laid before } r ou 
 last night, and state which were answered, and which were not ; 
 and I shall also notice the answers given to those which were 
 supposed to be answered. 
 
 The first was, not that the genealogies of Matthew and Luke 
 disproved the Miraculous Conception, but that the flat contra - 
 diction between them and the story of the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion disproved it. The genealogy traces Jesus through Joseph 
 up to Abraham; that is to say, Joseph is the only parent men- 
 tioned in the line with David; and if Joseph was not the father 
 of Jesus, the genealogy is not the genealogy of Jesus. But we 
 believe the genealogy is correct. The Miraculous Conception 
 is opposed to it ; and it is the contradiction between the two 
 that is the argument demonstrating the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion to be false. 
 
 Again ; the second argument was, that Jesus calls himself 
 eighty-six times the Son of man. We had no argument to 
 disprove this. In fact, it was never noticed. And yet, if he 
 was the son of man, of what man was he the son ? The son of 
 Joseph, the Gospel says; and no other man do the Gospels ever 
 call his father. 
 
 Thirdly, I argued that Christ w r as made in all points like 
 unto his brethren. That also passed unnoticed. 
 
 Fourthly, we observed that Christ never once said that he 
 was miraculously conceived, — that he never referred to any such 
 thing. My opponent states that he did not come to glorify 
 himself, but the Father. But we know he said he was the 
 Messiah; he said he was the Son of God; and, according to some 
 
 Or 3 
 
154 MR. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 of the reasonings of my opponent, he even said he was God 
 himself. If this was not doing more to glorify himself, that 
 simply declaring that he was born without an earthly parent 
 would have been, judge ye. 
 
 Again, the apostles, in their sermons after the day of Pente- 
 cost, never, according to the reports we have of their sermons, 
 named this subject. Nov/ my opponent said, the Holy Ghost 
 was to reveal to them the things which Christ had not revealed r 
 hut there is no indication that he ever repealed the Miraculous 
 Conception. If he did, the apostles never preached it ; or if 
 they preached it, the New Testament gives no account of the 
 fact. 
 
 I further observed, as my sixth argument, that the apostles 
 never name it in their writings. This has not been accounted 
 for. While the apostles opposed other heresies of the Gnostics, 
 they never opposed any such heresy as the denial of the Mira- 
 culous Conception. Hence, I conclude that all real Christians 
 denied that doctrine. If it had been true, the apostles would 
 have taken care to oppose its denial. 
 
 The seventh thing referred to was Galatians, chap. 4, ver. 4, 
 <s God sent forth his Son, made of a woman.” I showed that this 
 was no argument in favour of the Miraculous Conception. My 
 opponent dropped this subject also, altogether. 
 
 I referred to John, 1st chapter, and 14th verse, — “ The Word 
 was made flesh,” and showed it to be no argument. The same 
 with this, my opponent gave it up. 
 
 Again, as to the passage in Genesis, chap. 3, verse 15, where 
 God says he will put enmity between the serpent and the seed 
 of the woman, my remarks on that point seem to have been 
 considered conclusive. They remain unanswered. 
 
 I noticed the assertion that it was necessary that Christ 
 should be born of a woman, without the man, to avoid natural 
 depravity. My remarks seem to have been conclusive on this 
 point also. They were not answered. 
 
 Eleventh. It had been said that it was meet that so great a 
 personage should be bom in this miraculous manner. I said, 
 being born in such a way could neither add to his honour, his 
 holiness, nor his usefulness. My remarks on this subject also 
 passed unnoticed. 
 
 Twelfth. The objection that the denial of the Miraculous 
 Conception was a denial of the divinity of Christ, was also 
 noticed. This notice was also considered conclusive, it seems. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 I said, Nathaniel and the Jews considered Jesus to be the 
 son of Joseph, and that they were never corrected by Jesus, 
 when they spoke of him as being the son of Joseph. This 
 was •partly replied to ; but no account was given of the strange 
 fact that Jesus never corrected their error, if it was an error, but 
 allowed them to remain in their error to the last. 
 
 I then referred to the evidence furnished by the two chapters 
 
mGHT.] MR. BARKER. 155 
 
 themselves. The first thing I noticed was, the contradiction 
 between the genealogies and the story of the Miraculous Con- 
 ception. That argument was evaded, or misunderstood. 
 
 The next was the prophecies ; 1. That Jesus was called 
 Jesus in order to fulfil a prophecy which said he should 
 called Emmanuel . I showed that that prophecy was fulfilled in 
 the days of Ahaz. My opponent, however, says that prophecies 
 may he twice or thrice fulfilled. This is a mere fiction of 
 theologians. It is a dream maintained by orthodoxy against 
 common sense and plain Scripture. X have further to observe, 
 that if we admit the passage, — “ Behold a virgin shall bring 
 forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel,” to have 
 had a double meaning and a double fulfilment, it will prove too 
 much for orthodoxy : it will prove that there have been two 
 Miraculous Conceptions ; that there have been two virgins thus 
 conceiving and bearing children ; that there have been two Em- 
 manuels, one born several hundreds of years before J esus ; and 
 if the name Emmanuel, which means God with us, proves the 
 person who bears it to be God himself, then the person born in 
 the days of Isaiah would be proved to be God. 
 
 As to Rachel weeping for her children, we have shown that 
 this prophecy referred to the captivity of the children of Israel ; 
 and we have no proof that the prophecy, as delivered by Jere* 
 miah, had two meanings. 
 
 The next was about the flight into Egypt, which I showed 
 was no prophecy at all. But my opponent talked of “ type and 
 anti-type.” I would never use the word “ type” unless I 
 stated what I meant by it. I believe the common doctrine of 
 types and anti- types is a mere dream of ignorant, bigotted 
 theologians. And when once my opponent comes to explain 
 what he means by the words lie uses, and attempts to give 
 Scripture proof of the correctness of his definition, you will see 
 the truth of my remark. 
 
 Then comes the last prophecy , — “ He shall be called a 
 Nazarene.” My opponent says that this is said to have been 
 spoken by the prophets generally, and not by any particular 
 prophet. That only makes the matter worse. If it was spoken 
 by a number of prophets, why not adduce one prophet out of 
 them all in whose prophecies it may be found. The truth is, 
 not one of them says so. The explanation given to this passage^ 
 was the most unaccountable and the most pitiful explanation, 
 that I ever heard in all my days. (Loud hissing.) 
 
 Mr. Grant : — Order ! Respect yourselves. You are pledged 
 to non-interruption. 
 
 Mr. Barker -I shall now briefly mention a few other facts 
 in connexion with the Miraculous Conception ; then notice the 
 two speeches of my opponent, and then bring the business of 
 the evening to a close. 
 
 In the first place, in these two chapters we have a strange ac- 
 count of Herod’s cruelty in murdering all the children of Beth- 
 
ME. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 lehem of two years old and under— an event, one of the most 
 awful and barbarous that can be imagined— an event which one 
 can scarcely conceive it possible would escape being noticed by 
 historians,— an event one might have expected to find stated and 
 reprobated in almost every historical work which referred to 
 the time. And yet in no historical work is there any reference 
 to this remarkable and barbarous deed, not even in the w T orks of 
 Josephus himself. 
 
 Another fact is this. History shows that Herod was dead 
 two years before Christ w r as born. I know that my opponent 
 has endeavoured to explain this, by telling us that Herod and 
 another reigned together. I have examined his argument on 
 this point, but I could see no force in it. It still remains a 
 fact, that Herod died two years before the birth of Christ. 
 
 The next thing is the taxing which is mentioned. Of that 
 w r e have no notice in history. Lardner tries to find some proof 
 of the truth of this account of the taxing ; but he labours in 
 vain : and it is given up b}^ the ablest critics as a point not to be 
 established. 
 
 Again ; Mary and Joseph are represented as having gone to- 
 gether to be taxed, though only betrothed, and not yet united 
 as man and wife. Judge w hether that is according to the 
 custom of the Jew T s, or even consistent with decency. 
 
 Again ; it is said, in the 3rd chapter, after the return from 
 Egypt, — “ In those days came John the Baptist preaching in 
 the wilderness,” &c. By the 'words “in those days” must be 
 meant the time last referred to: and yet the time last referred 
 to was abont twenty- eight or thirty years before. 
 
 Again ; the story of the w ise men appears to be at variance 
 with every thing that Scripture teaches. It is curious that the 
 w'ord translated “ w-ise men” occurs hut once or twice in the 
 whole New Testament besides ; and in both cases it is translated 
 
 sorcerers” or “conjurors.” Here the translators give them a 
 better name, in order to save appearances. It is, however, the 
 fact, that they w r ere sorcerers, all intercourse with whom God 
 expressly forbad, and ordered them to be put to death ; — and 
 yet sorcerers are the parties on whom God is made to bestow 
 liis especial favour, and whom he chooses to lead to the Saviour 
 in a miraculous way ; whom God prefers, in short, to all the 
 faithful men that had served him as their Father and God, 
 whether among the Gentiles or the Jew^s. 
 
 Again; have yon never wondered that, if this story were 
 true, the wise men were never heard of afterwards? And that 
 after what they had seen, and after they had made known the 
 birth of this wondrous personage, there should appear to he no 
 effects left ; that the w hole should disappear at once so sudden- 
 ly, and never he seen or heard of more. 
 
 The story of the shepherds, also, taken in connection with the 
 rest of the Gospel, is to me an additional argument that the 
 story of the Miraculous Conception is not true. 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 157 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Then, again, you have read that when it was rumoured that 
 Jesus was born, Herod was troubled, and all Jerusalem with 
 him. How that Herod should be troubled when he heard that 
 a king of the Jews was born, is capable of being understood ; 
 but why ali Jerusalem should be troubled with him, I cannot 
 possibly imagine. For those who had been looking for Christ 
 as their great deliverer from the Roman yoke— for ali Jerusa- 
 lem, by whom the birth of the Messiah was so anxiously de- 
 sired, and so ardently hoped for, to be troubled at the news of 
 his birth, would be a mystery and a -wonder indeed. 
 
 Again. Reference was made by my opponent to the Gospel 
 of Mark ; and he stated that to suppose that the ministry of 
 John the Baptist was the beginning of the Gospel, because it 
 does not mention any thing prior to it, was unreasonable, and 
 not to be allowed. And he also said, that the Gospel was 
 preached in Paradise ; and after that to Abraham, and to Israel, 
 long before John’s appearance. He intimated, too, that I my- 
 self had held that view. 1 never held any such view. I be- 
 lieve a Gospel, or glad tidings, was preached to Abraham, and 
 also to the Jews ; but not the Gospel, not the same glad tidings 
 which constitute the Gospel of Christ. A Gospel, or some glad 
 tidings, was preached to Abraham, to Israel, &c. ; but not the 
 Gospel that was preached by Christ. But, now, hear Mark ; 
 and hear whether he considers the baptism of John to be the 
 beginning of the Gospel, or not. My opponent says that I reject 
 the word of God. But he rejects eighty -six portions of Christ’s 
 own testimony ; all these portions where Christ is called “ the 
 Son of man and he must also reject the plain testimony of 
 Mark, or acknowledge that the Miraculous Conception is not the 
 beginning of the Gospel. For what does Mark say ? “ The be- 
 
 ginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” And 
 what follows? The Miraculous Conception ? Ray, But, “ as 
 it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger be- 
 fore thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. ’ Thus 
 Mark describes the beginning of the Gospel to be the ministry 
 of John. 
 
 There are a few more facts which I wish to lay before you on 
 this subject. The early Christians, though they held different 
 opinions on the subject of the Miraculous Conception, never 
 quarrelled with each other about it, nor denied each other to be 
 Christians on account of differences of opinion on that point. 
 How these, many suppose, were the best days of Christianity ; 
 and yet, in those days, those who denied the doctrine of the 
 Miraculous Conception were allowed to be Christians. Justin 
 Martyr, though he believed the Miraculous Conception himself, 
 left others at liberty to deny it ; and acknowledged that they 
 might be good Christians without believing that doctrine. Dr. 
 Watts took much the same view, as you will see, if you examine 
 his works. If I should read his words, they would tell me that 
 I was out of order — that by the rules I am prohibited from 
 
158 MR. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 quoting him. I shall therefore state Dr. Watts’s opinion, with- 
 out quoting his exact words. He said, Jesus was not called the 
 Son of God chiefly in reference to his Miraculous Conception, 
 and that a belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, without an 
 earthly father, is not made a condition of salvation any where 
 in the New Testament. He says, it was in a higher and more 
 important sense that the term u Son of God,” was used ; and 
 he proceeds to show that the Miraculous Conception was of lit- 
 tle moment ; and that difference of opinion on that subject 
 would never shut people out of the kingdom of heaven. In 
 that opinion Di. Watts does not stand alone. Others, and 
 those among the wisest and the best of men, have held the same 
 opinion. My opponent, in holding that the Miraculous Con- 
 ception is a fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, differs from 
 those who stand amongst the highest of the advocates and 
 teachers of Christianity. 
 
 Again, the miracle of the Miraculous Conception, if it were 
 a fact, differs from all or almost all other facts recorded in the 
 Gospel. In reference to the other miracles they could say, These 
 things were not done in a corner. They could say nothing 
 else of this. 
 
 Again ; Luke professes to teach only those things which had 
 been previously delivered by others who, from the beginning, had 
 been eye-witnesses of the facts, and ministers of the word. 
 But no one could be an eye-witness of the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion, nor had any minister of the word delivered that doctrine. 
 Again ; the beginning , of which Luke speaks, and at which he 
 proposes to begin his history, is the beginning of Christ’s pub- 
 lic ministry. Luke, therefore, could not have proposed to give 
 a history of the Miraculous Conception. 
 
 Again ; God generally tells us the reason of all his great 
 measures — as of Christ’s death, and resurrection, and the like. 
 But throughout the whole of the Scriptures there is not the 
 slightest reason assigned for any such event as the Miraculous 
 Conception ; nor is it ever said that there was any reason, nor 
 is any use made of it. If it be true, it does not appear to have 
 answered any end whatever. I cannot regard the story, there- 
 fore, as part of the Gospel — as part of the revelation of heaven. 
 
 If such a story had been really disclosed by the first adhe- 
 rents of Christ, it would have been likely to have had no good 
 influence upon the Christian cause ; but would rather have 
 exerted a very unfavourable influence, unless thoroughly proved, 
 both upon Christ’s reputation and upon his mother’s, as well as 
 upon the cause of Christianity. Yet no intimation is given in 
 the Gospel that it was even once asserted by Christ. 
 
 Again ; if Christ had been miraculously conceived, and was 
 known by his parents to have been so conceived, and known 
 by them also to be the Messiah, and even the supreme God, 
 can we imagine that they would have lived with him on those 
 terms on which they and his brethren appear to have lived 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 159 
 
 with him ? and that they would have kept him in subjection, 
 and brought him up to the trade of a carpenter? — -for Jesus is 
 not only said to be the son of a carpenter, but is expressly 
 stated to have worked at the trade of a carpenter, himself. 
 Now, the idea of the Messiah, or of the supreme God, as my 
 opponent contends he was, being thus employed, and having 
 thus lived with his parents, and having been thus treated by 
 them, is to me, not to say beyond comprehension, but utterly 
 beyond any thing like reason or credibility. 
 
 Again ; if the Miraculous Conception be true, where is the 
 history of the twenty-eight years of Christ’s life which passed 
 from the time he was two years of age, up to the time that he 
 was thirty ; W e have, it is true, in Luke, one single reference 
 to him during that interval, when twelve years old ; but 
 where is all the rest of his history ? That story is, however, 
 to my mind, an additional proof that the story of the Mira- 
 culous Conception is untrue, — and that the two chapters in 
 which the story is contained, are not genuine. If Jesus was 
 born, as my opponent states, and was what he states, it is 
 unaccountable that no other event should be narrated for the 
 whole of that interval, from two to thirty years of age, when he 
 came forth as the public teacher and Saviour of mankind. 
 
 As soon as we find the doctrine of the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion plainly and generally taught by the advocates of Chris- 
 tianity, we also find numerous reasons assigned for the supposed 
 fact of the Miraculous Conception. There were abundance of 
 reasons assigned for the Miraculous Conception by the Fathers 
 who taught it ; but they are of such a character, that they 
 will not appear to be very rational or weighty. 1 will give 
 you a few of their reasons, that you may see for yourselves 
 what credit is due to the doctrines or inventions of those 
 early orthodox dreamers. Justin Martyr says, 44 Christ was 
 born of a virgin, because Eve was a virgin when she con- 
 ceived the Logos, or Word, of the serpent.” But how did 
 Justin Martyr know that Eve was a virgin when she sinned ? 
 Cyril of Jerusalem gives the same account. 44 As death came 
 by the virgin Eve, so it was necessary that life should come 
 by a virgin.” Who told him that death came by a virgin ? 
 — that Eve was a virgin when she sinned ? It is a dream — 
 a fancy. But if it had been so, where is the reasonableness, 
 of the reason? Ambrose tells us, — 44 Christ was born of a 
 virgin, because Adam was made of the virgin earth.” Many 
 of their reasons are too ridiculous, and others are too indeli- 
 cate, to be given ; and, generally speaking, their writings on 
 this subject contain such a mass of folly and abomination, 
 under the name of orthodox theology, that no man who reads 
 them will ever be in danger of being imposed on by my 
 opponent’s pompous parade of their names again. (Hear, hear, 
 applause, and disapprobation.) I give you these quotations, 
 from the Fathers, because the Fathers are often referred to as 
 
ICO MR. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 wonderfully wise men, and their authority spoken of as very 
 weighty. If you will only take the trouble of reading their 
 writings, or the writings of hut one or two of them, you will 
 find them to have been in many respects among the most igno- 
 rant of men. And if you will read the history of those Fathers 
 you will find among them some of the most wicked men the 
 church ever saw. Maximus Turinensis gives the same reason? 
 for the Miraculous Conception as Ambrose. lie also compares 
 Mary to the pure manna, in which worms were bred. ’ Others 
 state that Christ was born of a virgin, in order that he might 
 be free from the stain of original sin. There are endless more 
 such like things. I would take the trouble to read some of them, 
 if allowed. But 1 am unwilling to cause confusion by doing 
 any thing which might be objected to by the opposing parties. 
 
 I have, however, further to observe, that all the Fathers 
 who speak of the Miraculous Conception, agree that it was not 
 made public in the life time of Christ ; and all agree, farther, 
 that it would have had a bad effect if it had been made public 
 during his life ; — that it would have injured his own credit and 
 character, and done irreparable injury to the reputation of his 
 mother. They also say, that if the devil had got to know of it, 
 he would have frustrated the great object of Christ’s mission. 
 And they state that it was to conceal the matter from the devil, 
 that Mary had a nominal husband. For it is said by those 
 fathers that the devil knew that Christ was to be born of a 
 virgin, and that he therefore kept a sharp look out, observing 
 all the virgins, to see which brought forth a child, but that in 
 order to cheat the devil, Mary had a husband assigned to her, 
 that she might pass for a married woman ; so that Satan turned 
 away his attention from Mary, and Jesus got into the world 
 without the devil’s knowledge. (Loud hissing and other dis- 
 cordant cries.) 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Mr. Barker is only mentioning what the Fathers 
 state. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — They are the sentiments of those very wise 
 and good men that my opponent has contrasted vrith Marcion, 
 as so very much superior to him ; of those very men who were 
 the great slanderers of Marcion — of those men who took upon 
 themselves to say who were heretics and who were not, who 
 were heterodox and who were not. They are the sentiments of 
 those very men who invented Orthodox Trinitarianism, natural 
 depravity, eternal life in torments, and so forth ; and who 
 invented, or first advocated the story of the Miraculous Con- 
 ception. 
 
 I beg again to state, that it does not appear that the doctrine 
 of the Miraculous Conception, supposing it to have been a true 
 one, was at all generally known during Christ’s ministry ; and 
 I say this is only to be accounted for on the principle that it is 
 not true. Zacharias and Elisabeth knew the fact, if it was a 
 fact. Simeon and Anna knew it, according to Luke ; and Luke 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER* 161 
 
 further tells us that Anna “ spake of him to all them that 
 looked for redemption in Jerusalem.” Then surely many of 
 those would speak of it t6 others. All would not be silent. 
 And when Jesus lived among them, it would be impossible for 
 him to live in secrecy ; and the story must have got abroad. 
 And after all Jerusalem was troubled at the birth — after Herod, 
 and the chief priests and scribes, had assembled to consult about 
 it, — and after Anna had spoken of him to all them that looked 
 for redemption in Jerusalem, to suppose that the' character of 
 Jesus remained still unknown, and that the matter of the Mi- 
 raculous Conception was still a secret, is a supposition beyond 
 all reason, and those who maintain it must be prepared to 
 believe any mystery, or flat contradiction whatever. 
 
 Again ; it is certain, also, that the story of the Miraculous 
 Conception was not believed by the great body of Jewish 
 Christians in the age subsequent to the apostles, any more than 
 in the apostolic age itself. This we have upon testimony that 
 cannot be controverted — the testimony of those very Fathers on 
 which my opponent rests his own case. 
 
 Again ; if the story really had been communicated to the 
 early Jewish Christians, with any reasonable evidence of its* 
 truth, there cannot be imagined any reason why they should 
 not have believed it. It was nothing to their interest to deny 
 the doctrine. They could get nothing by denying it. On the 
 other hand, they would naturally wish to have their master as 
 highly thought of as possible. And if the story was creditable 
 to their master, they were more likely to believe it with little 
 evidence, than to reject it with great evidence. And yet they 
 did reject it. They rejected the compliment which was intended 
 to be thus paid to their master on the fullest evidence, and 
 clung to a doctrine of an opposite character, without any evi- 
 dence, according to my opponent’s notion. 
 
 Again ; supposing the doctrine to be true, they must, if they 
 had refused to believe it, have been rebuked by the apostles*. 
 Yet they were not. The apostles, who rebuke and condemn 
 other heretics, never censure those who believed Jesus to be the 
 son of Joseph. It is also another fact, that the Gnostics did not 
 believe in it. There notions of Christ were of such a kind, that 
 if they really had heard any such doctrine as that of the Mira- 
 culous Conception, it was the very thing to commend itself to 
 their minds, and become an article of their faith. And yet they 
 did not hold it. A proof they never heard of it. 
 
 That very many of the Jewish Christians, who were gene- 
 rally called Ebionites, did not believe the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion, is proved by the unanimous testimony of all who speak of 
 them even up to the latest period. Justyn Martyr and Irenaeus 
 give no hint of any of them believing it. Origen says that all the 
 Jewish Christians went by the name of Ebionites ; and he is 
 the first who informs us that any of them believed in the Mi- 
 raculous Conception. Eusebius speaks of no Jewish Christians 
 
162 MR. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 but what were called Ebionites; and describes them as, in general 
 disbelieving the Miraculous Conception. The Ebionites, or, 
 early Jewish Christians, had learned men among them ; and 
 one of them, named Symmachus, who translated the Scriptures, 
 and whose translation of the Scriptures is quoted with the high- 
 est respect by Origen, Eusebius, and the ancients generally, de- 
 fended this particular opinion of the Ebionites. 
 
 Another fact is, that the Miraculous Conception is never once 
 made use of by any sacred writer for any practical purpose. It 
 is never used as a motive to obedience, or as a dissuasive from 
 sin. Indeed it is never mentioned by Christ or his apostles ; 
 and could not, therefore, be made use of as a doctrine of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 There are some that would aslc, But how could these passages 
 get into the Gospels, if they w r ere not written by Matthew and Luke 
 I answ r er, that in those days nothing was, in fact, much more easy 
 than for passages to creep into the wri tings of the apostles and 
 evangelists, which were no part of the original works. Inter- 
 polations and forgeries have been common in all ages of the 
 Christian era. They began at an early period and were made 
 use of very freely by many. It was a principle laid down by 
 some of the early Fathers, and advocated by a number of those 
 very Fathers who slandered Marcion, that it was right and 
 virtuous to lie for the sake of the gospel, or in order to convert 
 men’s souls, and to save them from being damned by heretical 
 opinions. This doctrine, says Moshiem in his Church History, 
 was not only avowed, but acted upon, and justified as a means 
 of salvation. And as I have said, it w T as comparatively easy for 
 persons to forge writings, or to interpolate and corrupt the writ- 
 ings of others, in those days. At that period, the}^ had no 
 printing presses. When one of the evangelists wrote a book, it 
 would be given into the hands of one man. He was the only 
 person who could possess it. On reading it over, and finding 
 something he did not understand, but which, seemed to be ex- 
 plained to him afterwards, it w r ould be natural for him to write 
 down the explanation on the edge or margin. He would then 
 probably lend it to another ; and his neighbour might be desir- 
 ous to copy it before he returned it, and would write it out for 
 that purpose. It was also customary for a man who had omit- 
 ted a few words, when writing a or copying a book, to put them 
 also in the margin. Thus the copy would present the explana- 
 tion made by the first reader, and the omissions of the copyist, 
 both in the margin ; and the next transcriber would not know 
 the difference, and would copy the whole. What is more likely 
 than such a process, and what more natural as a consequence, 
 than that books would become interpolated or corrupted, even 
 where there was no other intention than to do right. No man 
 ever copied a long letter without leaving out something. ( Laugh- 
 ter, and intimations of dissent.) I believe it is impossible 
 to copy a long letter without a blunder; much less a large book. 
 
NIGHT.] »MR. BARKER. 163 
 
 I would recommend any one of those persons who think othere 
 wise, to try, and to bring me his copy to look at it ; and if h- 
 can copy a long letter, as long as one of the Gospels, or a hook 
 one half as big as the Mew Testament without a blunder, I shall 
 change my opinion on this subject, and say no more in refer- 
 ence to interpolations. Well, in the way I have named, changes 
 were constantly taking place in the sacred writings'. Every 
 single copy had to be made with the pen, and every one would 
 have its own peculiar errors, besides the errors of previous 
 transcribers. Hence it is, that out of more than three hundred 
 manuscripts of the New Testament writings now in existence, 
 no two of them agree. The person who may choose to ex- 
 amine them, will find variations of letters, words, and phrases 
 without end. In some places they have too much, in others 
 too little, and in others they have the right quantity, but the 
 wrong w r ords. I know what is said by orthodox people, that 
 those various readings do not affect the great doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity. Now it so happens, that if the doctrines which are 
 called the great fundamental doctrines of Christianity by the 
 orthodox, are important, it is in reference to those very doc- 
 trines that all the principal forgeries have been made. The 
 principal forgeries detected, are all Trinitarian forgeries. N ot 
 one Anti-Trinitarian forgery has been discerned, that I am 
 aware of. (Hissing). 
 
 It is a fact, that even in the books of our ow T n days, these 
 corruptions, interpolations, and omissions are constantly taking 
 place. Bunyan published two parts of the Pilgrim’s Progress : 
 but a third part was added by somebody else, even in Bunyan’ s 
 life-time. Bunyan denied being the author of this third part, 
 and even published his disownment of the forgery in print ; yet 
 we generally find the third part making a portion of the work, 
 and it is commonly supposed to be part of the genuine work. 
 Take Wesley’s works as another instance. I have an old edi- 
 tion of Wesley’s works, and I have frequently had opportunities 
 of comparing my edition, with later editions of his works, and 
 I find that the Conference, or the editors and publishers of those 
 works, are constantly making alterations in them. In one of 
 Wesley’s works, in my edition, there is an excellent passage 
 about the right of private judgment and liberty of conscience ; 
 — the right of every man to judge for himself what is good and 
 true, and the right of every man to believe according to the 
 evidence presented to his mind, and to act according to his 
 judgment, without regard to the authority of any man, or set 
 of men, upon earth. That passage is left out of the editions of 
 his works printed now. Other parts of his works have had 
 things put in and left out of them in the same way. And it we 
 compare the several editions of some of his works, we find that 
 mutilations, interpolations, and corruptions have been going on 
 from an early period after John Wesley’s death. You will 
 also find volumes bearing the name ot Shakspeare,and pretending 
 
164 ME. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 to .be his works, containing tragic plays which were never 
 written by him, and which do not bear the slightest mark of his 
 genius. And yet nineteen out of twenty believe them to be 
 the genuine works of that great dramatic poet. It is the same 
 with some of William Law’s works. Take his “ Serious Call,’ 7 
 for instance. I read it lately in one edition ; and, at the end,, 
 found what was called an “ After-thought,” forming a whole 
 chapter. I suspected this 66 After-thought,” so called, was no- 
 part of the original work, so I got another edition ; but the 
 “ After-thought” was not in it. I found it had been added by 
 another hand, as I had thought. A short time after this, I was 
 reading another work of Win. Law’s, on Christian Perfection, 
 and after I had got through the Introduction, there came this 
 self-same “ After-thought” again at the very beginning of the 
 work ; yet this after-thought seemed out of place in both the 
 works. And now, if such things can take place in our day, 
 when hundreds, and thousands, and scores of thousands of co- 
 pies are dispersed every where, — when reading is so common, — 
 when books are so numerous, when thousands upon thousands 
 are printed at a time from the same type or plates, and there- 
 fore all alike ; how much more easily could these things take 
 place at an earlier period, before printing was invented, and 
 when every single book had to be copied by the hand of man? 
 I say nothing is more easy to be accounted for than the fact that 
 the writings of the evangelists and apostles have been subject to 
 corruptions, to omissions, to additions. My opponent himself 
 will tell you, if you ask him, that there have been forgeries in- 
 serted in the sacred writings, and that there are forgeries in this 
 very book. He knows that of all the manuscripts to which he 
 refers, there are not two alike ; and that such is the case with 
 the versions also. 
 
 Some people may say, Well, but if we once begin to leave 
 any thing out of the Scriptures as we have them, we may then 
 leave out another passage, and another, and we shall not know 
 ■where it may end. I answer ; make what you please of that 
 argument, it is still a fact that some things must be left out. My 
 opponent himself leaves out one passage, and why may I not 
 leave out another, when I have equally good reason. We must 
 be guided in matters of this kind by the reason which God has 
 given us — by the facts furnished by ecclesiastical history — by 
 an examination and consideration of all the writings which we 
 have at our command, whether manuscripts or versions, whe- 
 ther the writings of the Fathers, so called, or of heterodox au- 
 thors. 
 
 I may also observe, that at a very early period a great many 
 Gospels were written, besides the true ones. It seems from 
 Luke’s Gospel that a great many true ones were written ; but 
 many of them must have perished, lor only four are left. But 
 in addition to the genuine Gospels, there were many which were 
 false. There was the gospel of Nicodemus, the gospel of the 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 165 
 
 Infancy, and many others. There were also other forgeries 
 which were attributed to the apostles, such as the apostolical 
 constitutions, the apostles’ creed, the apostolical epistles, &c. 
 In the early ages of Christianity, this kind of work was 
 dreadfully prevalent. Alterations in the Gospels ; leaving out ; 
 putting in ; mixing the Gospels together ; adding prefaces and 
 conclusions ; altering words ; appending hits of explanations 
 in one copy, and making them part of the Gospel in the next 
 — These were common and daily practices in those days ; and 
 such was the treatment to which the Scriptures were liable for 
 many generations. Thus parts of spurious gospels got mixed 
 with the true ; or the supposed deficiencies of the true ones 
 were made up from hearsay or tradition. And thus the chap- 
 ters about the Miraculous Conception w r hicli have been so often 
 noticed might be added. Amidst so much confusion, while 
 some introduced errors into the apostolical writings uninten- 
 tionally, and while others forged passages on purpose to deceive, 
 or wrote books for interest, people could not always be aware 
 ■which were parts of the true Gospels, and which were addi- 
 tions. My opponent talked of the canon of Scriptures being 
 established. But this was above two hundred years after the 
 apostolic age, and then the genuine and the spurious were diffi- 
 cult of distinction. And the councils, which fixed the canon, 
 or decided which books were Scripture and which not, were not 
 infallible. Many of those who composed those councils were 
 both ignorant and wicked. And the councils differed in their 
 decisions. Some councils rejected portions which others re- 
 ceived ; and others received what preceding councils had re- 
 jected. And the same council would adopt books at one time, 
 and reject them at another. Later on, things grew — 
 
 Dr. Lees: — My attention has been called, by Mr. Grant, to 
 one of the rules which refers to the inspiration of the books of 
 Scripture. That inspiration Mr. Barker has not undertaken at 
 present to deny — I mean the inspiration of any of the books 
 of the acknowledged version. He is treating of certain portions 
 of St. Matthew and St. Luke ; and I presume I am requested 
 to state whether they are not portions of the real Gospels. Is 
 that the object of the request % 
 
 Mr. Grant : — That is not the object of the request. Mr. 
 Barker is not confining himself to those passages. Mr. Barker 
 is violating the rule which says, — “ That in order to prevent 
 the discussion from being perverted from its legitimate and 
 avowed objects, no statement shall be allowed to be made, which 
 impugns the infallible inspiration of the sacred writings.” ISow 
 if the book be so full of faults, it cannot be the volume of di- 
 vine inspiration. And I appeal to you, not to violate, but to 
 support the rule. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Mr. Barker] is not impugning the infallible in- 
 spiration of the sacred writings. He is only pointing out what 
 he does not believe to form part of those writings. The 
 
166 MR. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 doctrine of the Miraculous Conception being asserted, lie is requir- 
 ed, if he disbelieve it, to show that it does not form part of the 
 real Gospel. [“ No, no.”"] 
 
 Mr. Barker : — If I. am not to be allowed to call in question 
 the genuineness of these two chapters— If I am not allowed to 
 give my reasons for disbelieving these chapters, why did you 
 introduce the subject of the Miraculous Conception lor discus- 
 sion at all ! (Applause and hissing.) I have only to say, that 
 if it was the intention of my opponent, and of his committee, 
 by the rules which they drew up, to prevent my calling in ques- 
 tion the genuineness of these two chapters, while it was still 
 their intention to force on the discussion of the Miraculous 
 Conception, they have acted a most crafty and vile— -(Loud ap- 
 plause and equally loud disapprobation, which prevented the 
 sentence from being completed.) 
 
 Mr. Grant : — If Mr. Barker has no objection— 
 
 [Mr. G. was interrupted with some remark privately made 
 by Dr. Lees, and the two Chairmen debated together fora while 
 —the want of an Umpire being now apparent."] 
 
 Mr. Barker The rule says, that no statement is to be 
 made which impugns the infallible inspiration of the sacred 
 writings. All I am doing is to endeavour to show you which is 
 part of the inspired volume, and which is not. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — I have another question to ask of Mr. Cooke and 
 Mr. Grant. If the position is to be maintained that every por- 
 tion of the Scriptures, and of course the portion in dispute, is 
 to be taken as the Word of God, there is an end of the matter. 
 (Hear, hear.) But if it be not meant to exclude all question 
 of the genuineness of particular portions, I again ask, why they 
 do not permit the discussion to go on ? 
 
 Mr. Cooke: — I am called upon to answer Mr. Barker’s 
 Chairman. (Much noise and confusion.) I want nothing to 
 be done, but our abiding by the regulations which we have 
 both signed. And these regulations are positive in this 
 respect, that the genuineness of no text which is not excepted 
 to by Griesbach or Schulz in the New l estan ent is to be open 
 to discussion. And if these two chapters are not excepted to by 
 either of these authorities, there is an end of the discussion on 
 that point. The rule says, — “ That the Holy Scriptures, 
 including all the books of the authorised version, with the 
 Hebrew text of Yander Hooght, as the original of the Old 
 Testament ; and the Textus iieceptus, as the original of the 
 New Testament, shall be the only authoritative standard of 
 appeal.” We must have some standard of appeal ; and we 
 have here stated what it is to be, — “ with the following qua- 
 lifications, viz. Should either disputant quote any passage 
 excepted to by Kennicott or Booth royd, in the Old Testament, 
 or Griesbach or Schulz in the New Testament, such passage 
 shall be considered fairly open to discussion.” Now I have 
 not quoted any passage in the chapters referred to, which is 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 16 ? 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 excepted to either by Griesbach or Schulz ; and I only want 
 Mr. Barker likewise to abide by the regulations which he has 
 signed, and put forth to the public, as being the only authori- 
 tative standard of appeal, by which I stand or fall in every part 
 of this discussion, if we judge of other parts of Scripture by 
 that standard, we must judge of this part by the same standard* 
 Mr. Barker has acknowledged the genuineness of the two chap- 
 ters by signing the regulations. 
 
 Mr. Barker. — If my opponent understands the regulations in 
 that sense — (uproar) — if he understood that I had, by sign- 
 ing the regulations, already acknowledged the truth and 
 genuineness of the story of the Miraculous Conception, the 
 business was settled before the discussion commenced ; and 
 why did he not leave this doctrine alone and go to the 
 Trinity ? But, no ; he has from the beginning laboured to 
 avoid the discussion of every subject of great importance. 
 (Loud uproar.) 1 say that if Mr. Cooke understood the 
 regulations at the beginning, in the sense in which he has 
 now stated he understands them — if, when he forced on the 
 discussion of the Miraculous Conception, contrary to the list 
 of doctrines agreed upon, he understood that I was shut out, 
 by the regulations, from stating the grounds on which 1 rejected 
 the doctrine, I must say, that he has been acting the part of 
 nothing but a downright cheat in all this affair. (Boisterous 
 hissing, answered by applause and cheers.) But after all, my 
 friends, rather than the discussion should be brought to a prema- 
 ture close, I’ll allow the trick to succeed ; and as they dare not 
 allow the subject to be discussed, I’ll pass on to other subjects. 
 (Loud cheers, and shouts of disapprobation.) 
 
 Mr. Grant: — We insist on it as a matter of right. Mr. Bar- 
 ker can go on if he pleases ; because 1 am perfectly confident 
 that he is damaging his own cause. Let him go on. 
 
 Dr. Lees: — You dare not. 
 
 Mr. Grant: — Keep yourselves quiet, and let us proceed with 
 the discussion. 
 
 Dr. Lees: — I have another question to put to Mr. Grant and. 
 Mr. Cooke. What subject do you intend to discuss next ? 
 
 Mr. Grant:— W e will discuss the subject on fair grounds.. 
 
 Mr.BARKER: — I wish to reply to the two speeches of William' 
 Cooke, and then— 
 
 Mr. Cooke rose amidst applause, followed by cries of “ Sit 
 down, Cooke , 99 and these succeeded by alternate cheers and 
 hissing from each party ; changing, yet blending, in singular 
 confusion. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — Respect yourselves, I again beg of you. If' 
 others do wrong, do you right. 
 
 Dr. Lees : — Allow Mr. Cooke to proceed. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — I have given in a list of subjects at the request 
 of Mr. Barker. I have flinched from no subject. I want to^ 
 have one standard of appeal for the whole. And if we are to. 
 
168 MR. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 have any subject discussed by the regulations made here, we 
 must have this subject discussed according to those regulations. 
 And (said Mr. C. with much emphasis) understanding it to be 
 thus, I claim the victory. [Loud cheers, hissing, hooting, and 
 great excitement. These manifestations of feeling were dis- 
 played again and again ; and the entire scene, as looked upon 
 and listened to from the platform, was one not often witnessed.”] 
 
 Mr. Barker rose, and was received with cheering by his 
 friends, and groans, hissing, and a cry of “ Get away to Leeds,” 
 by the opposing portion of the audience. He was at 
 length heard to say, — I wish to proceed with my remarks, and 
 nothing more. 
 
 Mr. Cooke:— I shall not notice any thing further that you 
 say regarding the Miraculous Conception, because you have 
 acknowledged that you are beaten. (Loud laughter, cheers, 
 cries of “ Order,” from the chairmen, and renewed general 
 excitement.) 
 
 Mr. Barker called the meeting to order, and then proceeded, 
 
 ■ — My friends- -(much confusion still prevailed)— My friends, 
 I wish to say that I will allow Mr. Cooke to have the victory 
 which he claims ; and I shall be content, perfectly content, 
 if you will bear in mind— (as I know you will, as long as you 
 live)— how he has got it! (Applause and hissing.) 
 
 Dr. Lees here requested Mr. Charles Larkin, (who stood 
 immediately in front of the platform, but at the highest, or 
 back part of the room,) to come forward and take the Umpire’s 
 chair. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — I hope Mr. Larkin will come forward.— 
 Though r he differs from me in opinion on these points, I have 
 confidence in his judgment and honesty, and I shall trust him 
 with my whole heart as the umpire of this meeting. I requested 
 him to be my chairman, because he differed from me in opinion, 
 in order that there might be no appearance of partiality on my 
 side. If this point be decided, and if the committees will en- 
 deavour to keep order, I shall proceed with my address to the 
 meeting. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — The*matter is quite agreed on, and there is 
 nothing to refer. Mr. Barker may proceed. 
 
 Dr. Lees On the Miraculous Conception ? 
 
 Mr. Grant -Yes. 
 
 Mr. Larkin, in compliance with repeated solicitations, now 
 came forward. After a brief consultation with the chairmen, 
 he said,— Gentlemen, I have great pleasure in announcing that, 
 without the interposition of any third party, it has been agreed 
 that the discussion shall go forward, and that Mr. Barker shall 
 be allowed to pursue the course of argument that he has al- 
 ready adopted. 
 
 Mr. Cooke:— No, not the same course of argument. 
 
 [AUTHENTIC REPORT.] 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER, 169 
 
 Mr, Larkin, (in surprise, and in an under tone, to the Chair- 
 men,) — How is it, then? 
 
 9 Dr. Lees : — Mr Grant says so. 
 
 Mr. Cooke (also in a voice almost confined to the platform), 
 —The principle is evaded.. I abide by the principle-nothing 
 else. I will not compromise the principle. I will not compro- 
 mise the regulations. I have signed them, and 1 will abide by 
 them. I will discuss on this principle, and in no other way — 
 One rule for all. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — I had forty minutes to speak when I was in- 
 terrupted. I hope they will be allowed me. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — The discussion must close at a quarter past ten 
 according to the rules. 
 
 Mr. Barker : W.hM^Vbr the rule may be, an exception 
 should be made in *e like this. Am I first to be interrupt- 
 ed, and then to be #ld that I am not to have the time allo wed 
 me, which is -consumed by unreasonable objections ? 
 
 Mr. Grant : — It is the fault of your own friends. 
 
 Dr. Lees (after a brief pause),— The forty minutes will be 
 allowed. 
 
 Mr. Barker then went on I wa,s about to continue my 
 remarks on the story of the Miraculous Conception, in accord- 
 ance with the decision of the Chairmen. It is now, however 
 insisted on by my opponent, in opposition to the Chairmen and 
 the Umpire, that 1 shall not, after all, be allowed to proceed 
 with the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception. Of course I 
 shall dismiss it ; only stating, that I consider it now acknow- 
 ledged, by the course adopted by my opponent, that he consi- 
 ders the doctrine held by him will not bear examination. ( Hiss- 
 ing and cheers.) v 
 
 Mr. Grant If Mr. Barker goes on in these terms, the in- 
 terruption may he continued till next week. 
 
 Mr. Barker:— I now leave the matter entirely, and proceed 
 to reply to Mr: Cooke. I refer once more to the slanders' aeainst 
 Marcion ; and I say, that no one acquainted with the artsprac- 
 tised by the opponents of freedom and of reform in all ages will 
 be at any loss to account for the slanders that have been uttered 
 respecting Marcion, Montanus, or any other reputed heretics of 
 preceding ages, 1 may, however, observe, that I have never myself 
 expressed an opinion of Marcion, either one way or the other. 
 I have never so much as named him in my writings, though his 
 name occurs in a tract written by another author which I re- 
 printed. Ail the pains spent, therefore, upon Marcion, in repeat- 
 ing the slanders of his enemies, is lost labour, so far as I am 
 ■concerned. I do not believe that the opinions of Marcion were 
 all correct, or that his conduct was altogether blameless • but 
 while I should be sorry to be answerable for his defects I 
 
 should be equally as sorry to detract from his merits. " , 
 
 In the next place, my opponent says that the Ebionites were 
 an early sect who departed from the faith, and adhered to the 
 
170 MR. BARKER. [^FOURTH 
 
 law of Moses. I answer, all the early Jewish Christians were 
 zealous of the law. See Acts, chapter 21, verse 20, “ And 
 when they heard it, they glorified, the Lord, and said unto Paiir, 
 thou seest, brother, how many thousands or myriads of Jews 
 there are which believe ; and they are all zealous of the law.” 
 The Ebionites did not depart from the faith ; they clung to the 
 Jewish law, but they were still believers. 
 
 It is said that the Ebionites were opposed to St. Paul, and 
 called him a heretic. If this was true, it might easily be ac- 
 counted for on the principle that they had been informed that. 
 Paul taught the Jews to forsake Moses, and said that they ought 
 not to circumcise their children, *\c. See Acts, xxi. 21. This 
 was said of Paul, but it was a slander against him. Paul ciid 
 not require them togiveupthelaw, hut only opposed theirmaking 
 it binding on others. If the Jewish Christians did not feel 
 comfortable in reference to Paul’s conduct, it is accounted for 
 by their being imposed upon by this slander against him. 
 This is an explanation which throws light on tile whole 
 affair. 
 
 It is also said that they rejected the two first chapters of 
 Matthew. Perhaps I am not allowed to notice this opinion *any 
 further. All I say, therefore, is, that they did not reject two- 
 chapters of Matthew, but only opposed t lie addition of two 
 chapters to Matthew’s Gospel. It is further said, that they 
 rejected Paul’s epistles, if they did so, it may be accounted 
 for by the slanders against Paul, already noticed ; but I ques- 
 tion the fact. 
 
 Next come some observations about the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion ; but I suppose 1 must not notice them. Let me just ask, 
 however, what inducement the Jewish Christians could have to 
 deny the Miraculous Conception, if it had ever been taught 
 them? And why were they never reproved for rejecting it, 
 if the apostles thought it true and essential to Christianity ? 
 
 I was asked, if people are to reject any portion of the Gospel 
 at my request? 1 say, Ao. I would not for the world have 
 people to reject any portion of the Gospel. But I have made 
 no such request — 1 have no such desire. I do, however, feel at 
 liberty to assist my fellow-men in investigating the genuineness 
 of passages of Scripture, and the truth of doctrines. 1 say to 
 all, If you choose to consider any subject, do so, and regulate 
 your sentiments by evidence. 
 
 My opponent said, in reference to myself, that a conviction 
 of twenty years’ standing, sustained by reading a thousand 
 volumes, had given way in twenty minutes. I would ask, W by 
 talk so perversely ? I have never given occasion for any such 
 statements. 
 
 He says, my sentiments sympathize with those of Infidels. 
 So do his, and all men’s, in some particulars. If infidels happen 
 to he right in some points, are we to go wrong, for fear of agree- 
 ing with them. 
 
MR BARKER. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 171 
 
 Reference was made to Spinoza, and the like, making sacri- 
 fices for infidelity. I am not acquainted with the facts of the 
 case, and therefore I can neither receive nor deny the statement 
 of my opponent. I may add, that there may have been honest 
 unbelievers for aught I know, where Christianity was presented 
 to men’s minds in such corrupt and irrational forms as the sys- 
 tems of orthodox sectarian theology. 
 
 He says many men have thought themselves to grow wiser, 
 when they did not. I answer, What then % 
 
 He says, Montanas was not like Marcion. I answer, No one 
 said he was. 
 
 He says, when John Wesley speaks in favour of Montanas, 
 he says nothing in favour of Marcion. Very true. But you will 
 find that he speaks of heretics generally, and states his belief 
 that they were the best men, and the reformers of the times in 
 which they lived ; and that they were abused and slandered by 
 their orthodox opponents, to prevent their doing good. 
 
 He says, Elvvali lived at the same time with Priestley. Now 
 Priestley was a young man when he read El wall’s tract. My 
 opponent is in error, therefore, in stating that down to the time 
 of Priestley, no one called the Miraculous Conception in ques- 
 tion. Elvvali lived and wrote against it before Priestley. Priest- 
 ley, then, was not the first that disbelieved it, from the days of 
 the apostles. 
 
 He says, I compared the production of Richard Wright with 
 John’s Gospel, i did no such thing. The meaning of what I 
 said was, that if we were to estimate the worth of a book by 
 its length-— if we were to go by the rule laid down by my oppo- 
 nent, then John’s Gospel would be worth no more than Richard 
 Wright’s tract. 
 
 No man is a Christian who rejects the doctrine of the Mira- 
 culous Conception, it was said : but no proof was given. 
 
 A great many personal matters were introduced by my oppo- 
 nent. These I pass by. 
 
 I now come to what my opponent said in reply to my remarks 
 on the Atonement. He says I denied God’s justice. I did no 
 such thing, I only stated that there was no such justice 
 ascribed to God, in Scripture, as would not allow him to for- 
 give a repenting, returning sinner, without orthodox satisfac- 
 tion. 
 
 It was said that righteousness did not mean mercy-— benefi- 
 cence. It so happens, however, that this is one of the common- 
 est meanings given to it in the sacred writers both o the Old 
 and New Testament; and it is also one of the princi al mean- 
 ings given to it by every Lexicon, Greek or Hebre w, tint I 
 have had an opportunity of consulting. And that the word 
 righteousness, in the New Testament, does mean a benevolent or 
 merciful disposition, or kind deeds, such as naturally flow from a 
 merciful disposition, may be proved most fully. See Matthew, 
 6th chapter, and 1st verse : — “ Take heed that ye do not your 
 
172 MR. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 alms before men, to be seen of them.’’ What do “ alms’’ mean ? 
 Deeds of mercy. And yet the word in the original is DiJcaiosune , 
 the word elsewhere translated “ righteousness and the word 
 righteousness is put in the margin as the literal rendering. 
 In Acts, 10th chapter, verse 34th, Peter says, “ Of a truth I 
 perceive that God is no respecter of persons : but in every na- 
 tion he that feareth.him, and worketh righteousness, is accept- 
 ed with him.” He says this in reference to Cornelius. And 
 how is the righteousness of Cornelius described ? “ A devout 
 
 man, and one that feared God with all his house, and which 
 gave much alms to the people.” This “ much alms ” was his 
 righteousness. I will give you a passage or two out of the 
 Psalms, and see if the word righteousness means orthodox 
 justice, that cannot be satisfied without blood. “ Remember 
 me in thy righteousness.” Did David mean, remember me in 
 tliy strict unbending justice ? “ Deliver me in thy righteous- 
 
 ness.” Did David mean, Deliver me in thy strict justice? 
 “ And I will sing aloud of thy righteousness that is, I will 
 sing aloud of thy mercy, goodness, and beneficence. “ The 
 mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting, upon them 
 that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children.” 
 Is it stern, inflexible justice, or is it mercy that God keeps for 
 his people, and for thousands of generations of them that love 
 him ? 1 have examined Robinson’s Greek Lexicon, and find 
 
 that he defines diJcaios “ righteous being as one should be , in- 
 cluding the idea of mild , clement , kind, JUikaiosune , he says, 
 means “ righteousness including kindness, benignity , charity ; 
 also alms — that is, deeds of mercy. Liglitfoot on Matthew, 6th 
 chapter, 1st verse, says, the word righteousness, without doubt, 
 means alms — that alms was the common meaning of the word 
 in the days of Christ among the common people : and that 
 when Christ said, “ Do not your righteousness before men,” it 
 could be understood in no other sense by the Jews than that 
 of aims. Adam Clarke’s statement is exactly the same. Adam 
 Clarke gives the word righteousness the same meaning in vari- 
 ous other places. 
 
 The passage in Romans, 3rd chapter and 25th verse, was 
 quoted and dwelt upon by my opponent, as a passage teaching 
 the doctrine of satisfaction to justice. 1 have examined Adam 
 Clarke on this passage; and his translation is, “ to declare his 
 mercy.” The phrase, “ Whom God hath sent forth to be a 
 propitiation,” Adam Clark renders, “ Whom God hath set forth to 
 be a mercy-seat .” True, my opponent says that this is only the 
 secondary meaning of the word. I find, however, on referring 
 to Robinson, an orthodox lexicographer, that mercy-seat is not 
 a secondary meaning of the word, but the primary, or first 
 meaning. Adam Clarke translates “righteousness,” mercy; 
 and in this passage John Wesley did the same. In the 26th 
 verse* “ To declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness,” is 
 translated, by Adam Clarke, thus, “ to declare his infinite 
 
MR. BARKER, 
 
 173 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 mercy.” And the words rendered, “ that he might he just,” 
 and “ the justifier,” are but two other forms of the same word. 
 The originals are, Dikaias , Dikaiosune , Dikaiounta , ail of them 
 but different forms of the same word ; and all of them express- 
 ing the same general idea. And the whole passage, translated 
 according to the meaning given to the words by these authori- 
 ties, and according, in fact, to the general use of the word in the 
 Scriptures, is, — Whom God hath set forth as a mercy-seat, 
 through faith in his blood, to declare his mercy for the forgive- 
 ness of sins committed in times past, during the forbearance of 
 God; to declare, 1 say, at this time his mercy, that he might be 
 merciful, and the bestower of mercy, even on the ungodly, or 
 the Gentile, that believeth in Christ. The whole passage, 
 therefore, is in favour of the sentiments which I have laid down 
 on the subject of the atonement, and in direct contradiction to 
 the satisfaction theory advocated by my opponent. 
 
 It was said the priest had to approach the mercy-seat with 
 blood, or God was angry, and that the mercy-seat itself was a 
 seat of wrath, if not thus approached. Now, without further 
 explanation, what a view does this statement give of our Hea- 
 venly Father, the great Giver of life, and the Friend of all man- 
 kind ! That he cannot be approached even on the mercy -seat 
 without blood ! That he is angry if not appeased by being 
 approached with blood ! Leave the matter there, and we have 
 one of the most awful, and incorrect, and unnatural representa- 
 tions of God’s character that can be imagined. But explain 
 the blood properly, and then the matter will be seen to be in 
 accordance with his character as a God of love. What blood 
 was it that was sprinkled? and what was its meaning or de- 
 sign ? The blood that was sprinkled was the blood of the sin 
 offering. This sacrifice was called sin in the original ; not sin- 
 offering, but sin p because it represented sin. The slaying of this 
 offering called sin , represented the death of sin ; and sprinkling 
 the blood before the mercy-seat, was a testimony on the part of 
 the people, that they had put their sins to death, and that they 
 were resolved to live to God ; and when this was done, the 
 priest was at liberty to draw nigh. So with us. We must, 
 figuratively speaking, draw near to God with the blood of 
 Christ sprinkled on us ; that is, we must be free from sin ; 
 Christ’s blood w~as shed on purpose to cleanse us from sin ; and 
 when we are thus cleansed, we may draw near to God with con- 
 fidence. This is beautiful, worthy of God, and consistent with 
 all that is said in Scripture about religion, justice, mercy, and 
 humility being all that God lequires. Regarded in this light, 
 the system is simple, and God is exhibited as kind, as every 
 way good, merciful, and gracious; and promising men every 
 blessing, not on the ground of satisfaction to his justice, butaa 
 the reward of their obedience. 
 
 -But my opponent says, this is not the doctrine of the Atone- 
 ment. Why does he not tell us what he means by Atonement? 
 
 h 2 
 
174 MR. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 and then we cantjudge whether the passages which he quotes, 
 prove it or not. 
 
 He says, we read that “God so loved the world, that he 
 gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believetli in him, 
 should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “ Herein is love, 
 not that we loved God, but that God loved us, and sent his Son 
 to be a propitiation for our sins.” And he says, the Atonement 
 is taught in these passages. I answer, The only Atonement 
 taught in those Scriptures is, not that Jesus was given as a 
 sacrifice to satisfy God’s justice, but to turn away his wrath by 
 redeeming us from sin, which provokes his wrath ; for then, 
 only, does it turn away God’s wrath from men, when it turns 
 away men from sin. 
 
 Be says that in Revelations, Christ is described as “ He that 
 loved us, and washed us ficm our sins in his own blood.” But 
 even here, lie is not said to die to satisfy divine justice ; but to 
 wash us from our sins, that w 7 e might be fit subjects for God’s 
 approbation. 
 
 It was said, that without Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice, God 
 w ould not forgive the sinner. Suppose 1 acknowledge this, still 
 the meaning would be, that he could not redeem us fiorn ini- 
 quity w ithout it. God could not be just if he justified people 
 on any other account but the redemption w hich is by Christ 
 Jesus ; or, in other w’ords, if he justified them on any other 
 account but their being redeemed or freed from all iniquity. 
 
 He said, for fallen man theie w r as pardon, because of the 
 Atonement that Christ’s satisfaction had made ; but for fallen 
 angels there was no atonement made for them. According to 
 this principle, God is partial. hie is kinder to men than to 
 angels. But where is the proof of this? i know that this is 
 part of the common theory : but, as you have heard my oppo- 
 nent say, some men are w ise above w hat is written. W here is 
 it written that God is kinder to men than to angels? Where is 
 it written that he never tried to bring the angels back to obe- 
 clience ? W here is it w ritten that though they only sinned 
 once, they were passed by and left for ever without any 
 hope of pardon ? r lhere is nothing about any 7 such thing in 
 the Scriptures. Something of the kind may be found in Mil- 
 ton’s Paradise Lost ; and many people mistake the fictions of 
 the poet for the revelations of Scripture. 
 
 It was said that propitiation means to appease ; to procure 
 acceptance. True; but is God’s wrath appeased towards any 
 but those who are redeemed from sin ? 
 
 I now come to this evening’s speech. My opponent said, you 
 had heard no valid argument from me. Was that the reason 
 why he did not reply to such as 1 had advanced ? It is best 
 when a man thinks an opponent has not employed good argu- 
 ments, to prove that they are not good. It is best not to pass 
 them over unnoticed, but to answer them ; because if he pass 
 them over unnoticed, people aie apt to think, that he does so. 
 
175 
 
 NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 
 
 not because, as he says, they are not good arguments, hut be- 
 cause lie feels they are so good, that they cannot be refuted. 
 (Hissing.) 
 
 He said, I gave several reasons for rejecting portions of God’s 
 word. iNever. 1 only stated facts proving that certain things, 
 regarded as such, were no part ' oi God’s word. 
 
 lie says, I believe against evidence. I answer, I have my 
 own opinion on that subject. What interest could 1 have in 
 going in opposition to evidence ? It would be ntedless forme 
 to state that 1 consider all the evidence to be on my side, 
 and that there is no evidence, in my judgment, on the other 
 side. What other people consider is another matter. I don’t 
 enquire into it. I only say, consider what proof is brought 
 forward on both sides ; weigh it well ; and judge with the evi- 
 dence before your minds. 
 
 lie says, 1 can believe with the enemies of God. So can he. 
 He quotes the Gentiles, who were considered enemies of God, 
 in favour of his doctrine of the Trinity. He also quotes the 
 old Jews, who are described in Scripture as children of the 
 devil ; hypocrites ; serpents ; a generation of vipers ; men who 
 compassed sea and land to make one proselyte, and when they 
 had made him, made him two-fold more the child of hell than 
 themselves ; men who are described by Christ as whited sepul- 
 chres, which appeared beautiful outward, but within were 
 filled with rottenness and dead men’s bones ; men who devour- 
 ed widows’ houses, and for a pretence made long prayers. 
 These are the very Scribes and Pharisees whom my opponent 
 brings forward to support the Trinity; and then he charges me 
 with believing with the enemies of God ! 
 
 Dr. Lees (speaking, apparently, in reference to some commu- 
 nication from Mr. Cooke’s Chairman): — They granted the 40 
 minutes, and now withdraw it. (Some confusion.) 
 
 Mr. Barker : — Do not fall into fresh disturbance. Allow me 
 my time. My opponent says, I acknowledge that man is bound 
 to believe what God reveals to him in any way. — True : but 
 a man must judge what God has revealed, and not let another 
 assume authority over his judgment or conscience, and judge 
 for him. I am not bound to believe every thing that he calls 
 God’s revelations. Besides, 1 do not consider any thing is re- 
 vealed to an individual, until it is revealed — made plain — to his 
 own mind ; until he sees that it is God’s word — until it is made 
 clear to him. A man is not to be charged with wilful rejection, 
 of God’s word, until he rejects something which he is obliged to 
 acknowledge in his own mind to be God’s word. 
 
 He talked a great deal about the standard of appeal, &c. 
 Does it not seem that he wishes to get out of the discussion of 
 the Miraculous Conception by a quibble — a shuffle. I appeal 
 to no authorities on this question, but the authorities mention- 
 ed in the regulations. But there is internal evidence of manu- 
 scripts, versions, and such like, by which we may judge of the 
 
176 MR. BARKER. [FOURTH 
 
 genuineness of the readings. In referring to manuscripts, we 
 have to consider what ought to be in, as well as what is in, &c. 
 Sbme passages that are in manuscripts and versions may still 
 be proved spurious, by the fact that they are written with 
 different ink, and in a different handwriting from the rest of 
 the manuscript ; and others may he proved spurious by their 
 flat contradiction to what goes before and after, &c. And 
 this is the case with the passages about the Miraculous Con- 
 ception. 
 
 He says, I found a number of difficulties in the passages 
 which he quoted. I answer, not one. Every thing was plain 
 to me on my principle. 
 
 He says, some things in those chapters are hard to be under- 
 stood.— Not at all. The matters are perfectly plain, only they 
 are at variance with the Gospels, and therefore not true. 
 
 He says, I do not believe God’s word. Well, now God’s 
 word says Jesus is the Son of man, and the son of Joseph. 
 Does he believe it? 
 
 He quoted from the Greek text to show you that Jesus was not 
 said to be the son of Joseph in the genealogies, and turned it 
 round to make it read “of whom was begotten Jesus.” The 
 question is, he says, by whom was he begotten? And then lie 
 tells us the genealogy does not say— The whole is a mere 
 quibble. Why is Joseph’s genealogy given, if not to show 
 that he was the father of Jesus? 
 
 He says, I contended that the Miraculous Conception was 
 disproved by the genealogy. No ; but by the contradiction 
 between the genealogy and the story of the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion. I repeat, the genealogy was not Christ’s, unless Joseph 
 was his father. But as my opponent has brought the discus- 
 sion of this question to a close, i suppose I must pass by with- 
 out further notice what other remarks he made on the Miracu- 
 lous Conception. 
 
 He introduced some remarks on the question of foreknow- 
 ledge. Why did he do that, when the subject was not under 
 discussion? If he wishes to discuss my view’s on tiiat subject, 
 why not ask me to meet him ? I shall state them if I have 
 time, and ask him to meet me ; and we shall see if he be so 
 forward to introduce them then. 
 
 He says, the prophecies have two or three meanings. As I 
 have said, that is a mere fiction of man’s invention ; and it 
 would prove too much for orthodoxy. It would prove that 
 there was a Miraculous Conception and an Emmanuel, in Isaiah’s 
 time ; that Christ was no more than was a predecessor. 
 
 He says, I maintain that Christ w r as not born in fulfilment 
 of any prophecy. I never either maintained or stated any such 
 view. (Laughter.) I am sorry people will not allow their 
 own judgments to guide them, and that they allow themselves 
 to be led by the remarks f my opponent. I said I did not be- 
 lieve the prophecies referred to J esus as an individual ; but to 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 177 
 
 2flGHT.] 
 
 such a person as should he chosen for the Christ, and that 
 they were fulfilled in Jesus as the Christ . I expressly stated 
 this. 
 
 My opponent made frequent reference to the article in the 
 19th Christian. Why did he chose to dwell on that article, 
 seeing it was not a subject for discussion? I shall state my 
 views on that article at length, if time permit, and see what 
 reply Wm. Cooke will make. 
 
 I don’t see there is any other subject which he noticed except 
 the Miraculous Conception, and his remarks on that subject I 
 am not to be allowed to answer, it seems. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Grant : — I wonder you don’t respect yourselves more. 
 
 Mr. Sark hr : — The question was asked, Does not God know 
 best what is calculated to convert infidels? Yes ; but that has 
 nothing to do with the question. 
 
 My opponent says the Gospel has triumphed in the South 
 Sea Islands, &c. I answer, that all my reading about missions 
 convinces me that orthodoxy, or such doctrines as the Trinity, 
 natural depravity, eternal torments, satisfaction to justice, and 
 the like, are among the greatest obstacles to the spread of 
 Christianity among the nations generally. Just read llammo- 
 hon Roy’s works, and examine his account of the conduct of 
 orthodox missionaries in India, in dealing with the simple Gospel 
 of Christ, and with those who sought to propagate it, and you 
 will find that whatever success they may have had in converting the 
 heathen, there is every reason to believe it would have been in- 
 calculably greater if, instead of preaching their own incredible, 
 unintelligible notions, they had preached the simple unadulte- 
 rated doctrine of Jesus Christ. 
 
 I shall make a few further remarks on the Atonement. It is 
 said that God’s justice cannot forgive without satisfaction. I 
 answer, the Scriptures no where say so. We are told that God 
 said to Adam, 66 The day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt 
 surely die and that if God had forgiven the transgressor 
 without satisfaction, he would have violated his truth. I 
 answer, God would have violated his truth quite as much, 
 if he had forgiven the transgressor with a satisfaction. For 
 God said (i The day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely 
 die.” He did not say somebody else should die to make 
 satisfaction. And if on account of repentance we exclude 
 forgiveness, we must exclude forgiveness on account of sa- 
 tisfaction also. But a regard to God’s veracity does not 
 require us to believe that he could not forgive the transgressor 
 on his repentance. God’s promises and threatenings are all 
 conditional. Even when conditions are not expressed, they 
 are implied. This is explained most clearly in Ezek. 18. There 
 God tells us that God’s plan of speaking is as follows : — When 
 Isay to the wicked man, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; 
 if he turn from his evil ways, he shalt not die, but live. And 
 when I say to the righteous man, 0 righteous man, thou shalt 
 
 h 3 
 
178 MR. BARKER. [^FOURTH 
 
 surely live : yet if lie turn from his righteousness, and commit 
 iniquity, shall he then live ? INo ; he shall surely die. Would it, 
 then, have been a breach of his word, if God had forgiven Adam, 
 on account of his repentance ? We sa # y, nay, according to God’s 
 own account of his own plan of proceeding in such matters. 
 According to God’s explanation of the matter, his plan is this ; 
 — when he promises blessings to the righteous, his meaning is, 
 that he will bless them if they continue obedient ; and when he 
 threatens punishment to the wicked, his meaning is, that he 
 will punish them if they continue wicked. 
 
 This is God’s plan of speaking in reference to nations, as well 
 as individuals. See Jeremiah, chap. 18, beginning at the 2nd 
 verse :-~ 44 Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there 
 1 will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the 
 potter’s house, and, behold he wrought a work on the wheels. 
 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hands 
 of the potter : so he made it again another vessel, as seemed 
 good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord 
 came to me, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as 
 this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the 
 potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At 
 what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning 
 a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it ; if 
 that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their 
 evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 
 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and 
 concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it ; if it do evil in 
 my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the 
 good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Thus giving 
 you a principle hv which you may understand all predictions 
 of blessing and of cursing --namely, that all are conditional; 
 that if God forgives a sinner when he repents, he does not break 
 his word ; and that if he punishes a righteous man when he 
 turns to an opposite course, he does not break his promise 
 there. 
 
 Again, it is said, the doctrine of satisfaction is necessary to 
 discountenance sin. I answer, Sin is best discountenanced 
 when it is cured ; and that is God’s plan of discountenancing 
 sin. He discountenances sin most effectually, by seeking to 
 cure men of sin by Jesus Christ. 
 
 There is a passage often quoted, which speaks of God, for 
 Christ’s sake, forgiving men. This passage is mistranslated. 
 The preposition in the original is 44 en” and the meaning is, 
 that God forgives men 44 by” Christ, or 44 through ” Christ, and 
 not for the sake of Christ. 
 
 Again ; Christ is said to he our advocate with God. But it 
 ought to he understood, that in other parts of Scripture the 
 word here rendered 44 advocate ” is translated u comforter .” And 
 this is its proper meaning. This is its meaning when applied 
 to Christ. It teaches us, not that Christ’s work is to plead our 
 
JVIR. BARKER* 
 
 179 
 
 [night. 
 
 cause with God, but to comfort, to strengthen, to encourage us, 
 when we renounce all sin, to expect forgiveness and God’s 
 mercy. His work is to encourage or strengthen our minds, and 
 give us confidence to approach God by declaring and proving to 
 us that God is love. 
 
 Christ, it is said, maketh intercession for us. I answer ; in 
 Horn. 8th chapter, 86th verse, the spirit also is said to make in- 
 tercession for us ; but if you read the passage through you will 
 find that the meaning is, not that it prays to God our Father for 
 us, but, as the passage says, “ Likewise the spirit also helpeth 
 our infirmities,” or weaknesses ; that is, strengthens us. in the 
 same way Christ makes intercession for us ; he helps, and com- 
 forts, and strengthens us. He does not pray to the Father for 
 us ; he had no need ; for, as he says himself, “the Father him- 
 self loveth us,” and therefore needs no such entreaty. 
 
 Christ also is called the mediator. And he is the mediator. 
 Moses was the mediator of the old covenant, the medium or 
 means through which God has made known his will to the 
 Jews. So Christ is the mediator of the New dispensation, the 
 medium or means through which God chose to convey the 
 knowledge of his will, and the blessings of salvation to mankind. 
 
 Several other passages confirm this view, namely, that the ob~ 
 ject of Christ’s death was to make men happy by making them 
 good, by making them wise. See Acts iii. 26, — “ Unto you, 
 first God, having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you- 
 by turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” “ Hus, 
 bands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the churcht 
 and gave himself for it ; that he might sanctify and cleanse it 
 with the washing of water by the word, that he might present i 
 to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any 
 such thing ; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” 
 — Eph. v. 25 — 27. See also 1 John iii. 6, — “ For this purpose 
 the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the 
 works of the devil that is, destroy sin, and make people 
 abound in love to God, and love to one another. 
 
 It may be asked, Did not Christ come to save men ? he did. 
 Without doubt he came to save sinners ; but they can never be 
 saved until they are made saints. Saving sinners by making 
 them cease from sin — by bringing them to God, by making 
 them truly good, is saving them indeed. 
 
 Christ is also called a physician ; he is set forth as coming to 
 heal men’s souls ; to cure men of their spiritual diseases, or of 
 their sinful dispositions and ways, and so to bring them to com- 
 fort, and peace, and joy. 
 
 Again ; he speaks of himself as coming to seek and to save 
 that which was lost. Men are compared to sheep that have 
 wandered from their shepherd and their pasture, and lost them- 
 selves, and Christ is represented as going to seek and to save 
 them ; as going to bring back the lost sheep. 
 
 My time is nearly expired. I leave these remarks with you. 
 
180 MR. BARKER. [FOURTH NIGHT. 
 
 1 liave confidence in tlie truth, and 1 have confidence in your 
 understandings. I am persuaded that truth will make its way; 
 that it will sweep away all clouds of dust that are thrown 
 around it, to hide it from your eyes, and will reveal itself to 
 your souls in all its purity and glory. I feel persuaded that 
 you will remember the sentiments which have been laid before 
 you, and the arguments by which they have been supported, 
 and this is all I desire. I am fully persuaded, that if you take 
 this simple course, you will throw down old false orthodoxy for 
 ever, and establish truth and righteousness and joy in its place 
 through all the earth. 
 
 END OF FOURTH NIGHT’S DISCUSSION. 
 
181 
 
 FIFTH NIGHT. 
 
 TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Cooke arrived first this evening, and was received with, 
 repeated rounds of applause by his friends. Mr. Barker was 
 also applauded, but by no means so vehemently. 
 
 Dr. Lees not having returned with Mr. Barker from Leeds, 
 Mr. Gilmore took the chair on behalf of that gentleman. 
 
 A difficulty occurred in the choice of an Umpire. Some 
 individuals named by Mr. Barker’s friends were objected to by 
 Mr. Grant ; who was reminded that Mr. Pringle was not ob- 
 jected to by the other side. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — 1 should like both sides to be satisfied in the 
 choice of Umpire ; and if Mr. Cooke’s friends object to any in- 
 dividual, thinking him not likely to be impartial, I consider 
 they are perfectly justified in so doing. It is no argument that 
 because Mr. Barker allowed Mr. Pringle, — who is presumed to 
 be on the other side, — to sit as Umpire, the other party should 
 follow his example. I trust that an individual will be selected 
 who, if possible, will be impartial. (Applause), 
 
 Mr. Grant : — I wish any gentleman would take the Chair 
 that is impartial. But I don’t think that friend there (allud- 
 ing to a gentleman who had expressed his readiness to take the 
 Chair) can plead impartiality. 
 
 Further attempts were made to nominate an individual who 
 it was considered would be impartial, but unsuccessfully. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — It may perhaps be set down to my craft, by 
 Mr. Barker’s friends, that no umpire is present ; but they 
 are as much bound to get an umpire as I am. I have done 
 ten times more to procure umpires than they have done. 
 (Hissing and applause.) I waited on Mr. Larkin to-day, and 
 procured his promise to be here this evening, if possible. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — I do hope the audience will not interfere in 
 these matters ; but allow them to be settled by the Chairmen 
 and the Committees. Perhaps the most impartial man connect- 
 ed with myself is John Galloway. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — No, we will not take him. Is Mr. Wilcke 
 present % [No answer.] All that I request of Mr. Barker is 
 that he will keep to the rules which have been signed, and I shall 
 do everything in my power to procure for him as candid and as 
 impartial a hearing as for Mr. Cooke. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — The mere fact that I have signed the rules is 
 as great a promise as I can give that I shall abide by them. 
 
182 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 FIFTH 
 
 Hitherto, I consider, I have abided by the rules ; and I have no 
 idea of. departing from them. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — Allow me to request Mr. Cooke to proceed. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore I only took this Chair on condition that 
 there should be an umpire. It is a breach of the agreement to 
 go on without one. 1 cannot consent to go on without that very 
 necessary individual. I have no idea that he will have much 
 trouble in deciding between two Christian men ; but it was ori- 
 ginally foreseen that an umpire would be necessary ; and cer- 
 tainly the proceedings have not rendered it less necessary than 
 before. 
 
 Mr. Grant suggested Mr. Joseph Reed Wilson; but he was 
 declined by Mr. Barker’s Committee. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — When we meet here, it is left to the Chairmen 
 to appoint an umpire ; but there is no law to compel us to 
 appoint, if vre cannot get one. I can only assure you that if 
 you will take your Chair, I will assist you all I can to get on 
 with the business. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — Perhaps the Reporter would consent to sit as 
 umpire. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore — I shall be glad if Mr. Selkirk will do so. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — Will the Reporter be so good as to take the 
 situation. 
 
 Mr. Selkirk : — I have no particular objection ; but I only do 
 so for the sake of proceeding with the business. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Grant:— Then without further preliminary, I beg to 
 introduce Mr. Cooke to the meeting. 
 
 Mr. Cooke: — Mr. Chairman, and Christian Friends, — It is 
 desirable, as we proceed in this discussion, to mark our present 
 position, respectively. On the first and second evenings, Mr. 
 Barker admitted the truth of some great principles which I 
 laid down, and established, as essential to the Christian’s faith 
 and character ; and in acknowledging the truth of those great 
 principles, did, as I conceive it will be found, in the estimation 
 of every candid mind, overturn his own fundamental principle as 
 to what constitutes a Christian. On the third evening, Mr. 
 Barker acknowledged that the passages which teach the Mira- 
 culous Conception, and which are contained in the first and 
 second chapters of Matthew and Luke, were recognized as genu- 
 ine in those standard authorities to which we had agreed to 
 submit : and, in admitting these chapters to be genuine, of course 
 admitted that the Miraculous Conception taught therein is a 
 doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 Before I proceed to notice some of the objections which Mr. 
 Barker advanced on this subject, on Friday evening last, I must 
 direct your attention, for a very short period, to some of the 
 consequences which manifestly result from the admissions which 
 Mr. barker made on that occasion ; consequences, in my view, 
 involving a complete refutation of some other objectionable sen- 
 timents that are put forth by Mr. Barker in the 19th number 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 183 
 
 NIGHT. 1 
 
 of the Christian, and which I have before read in the hearing 
 of this assembly. 
 
 Mr. Barker maintains in that number, that 44 Christ was not 
 foretold as an individual ;” or that his birth was not the fulfil- 
 ment of prophecy. I will read you his statement: — 44 1 do not 
 believe that Jesus was foretold as an individual, or that Jesus 
 was bom in fulfilment of any prophecy. To me it seems 
 that what was foretold was a Prophet, like unto Moses, a Teacher, 
 a King, a Saviour ; and that the prophecies respecting the Mes- 
 siah would be fulfilled by the appointment of any suitable good 
 man to the work of teaching, reforming, and saving mankind.’* 
 Now I contend, that in the chapters which are admitted to be 
 genuine, these sentiments are refuted, and refuted by not less 
 than fourteen prophecies which are contained in the chapters 
 referred to. Therefore Mr. Barker must either renounce that 
 sentiment, or he must stand self -convicted as maintaining a 
 sentiment contradicted by the plain declarations of God’s 
 word. 
 
 Then he says, Jesus was not the Christ when born ; nor was it 
 fixed that he should be the Christ until God had tried him. He 
 says, — 44 1 do not believe that he was the Christ when he was 
 born, nor do I believe that it was fixed that lie should be the 
 Christ till after lie had proved himself, by his devoted piety, a 
 suitable person for the work of the Messiahship.” That senti- 
 ment is contradicted by not less than thirty instances of distinct 
 recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, in the chapters to which I 
 have referred. In those chapters he is expressly called 44 The 
 Christ ” — 44 The Lord’s Christ ”— 44 The Saviour”— i6 The Sa- 
 viour which is Christ the Lord 44 The Son of God ” — 44 The Son 
 of the Highest ” — 44 The Holy .One ”— 44 The Horn of salvation” 
 
 64 The consolation of Israel”— * 44 A Light to lighten the Gentiles, 
 and the Glory of his people Israel”— and 44 The Emmanuel , God 
 with us.” And he is recognized, too, not only by the Wise 
 men who came inquiring after him, but he is recognized by the 
 Shepherds ; recognized by the devout Zacharias and Elisabeth, 
 44 filled with the Holy Ghost;” recognized by the pious Simeon; 
 recognized by the prophetess Anna ; and recognized by holy 
 Angels, a multitude of whom came at his birth and carolled over 
 the plains of Bethlehem, 44 Glory to God in the highest, and on 
 earth peace, goodwill toward men.” Therefore Mr. Barker 
 must, in conceding the chapters in question, renounce the 
 heterodox sentiment which he maintains that Jesus was not 
 the Christ ; or else he must stand self-convicted as maintaining 
 an erroneous , a heterodox sentiment , and in flat contradiction to 
 God’s own word ! 
 
 Mr. Barker maintains another sentiment intimately allied 
 with the former ; namely, that God did not foreknow the 
 character of Christ. He states, — 44 Of course I do not believe 
 that God foreknew what the character of Jesus would be before 
 he was tried.” That statement is contradicted by the evidence 
 
184 MR. COOKE. [FIFTH 
 
 already adduced that Christ was predicted, and many prophecies 
 fulfilled in his person ; and that he was recognized as the 
 Messiah in not less than thirty instances “ before God had tried 
 him.” All the instances I refer to are comprised between the 
 period of the angel’s announcement and the two years of the 
 .Redeemer’s infancy, and are recorded in the two chapters of St. 
 Matthew and St. Luke. 
 
 Mr Barker also maintains the sentiment that Christ “ became 
 a truly pious young man;” which, in my view, involves a 
 most pernicious doctrine. Became a truly pious young man ! 
 If I speak of a man becoming rich, of course I imply there was 
 a period when he was not rich. If I speak of a man becoming 
 pious, of course I imply that there was a time when he was not 
 pious. And when the statement appears in Mr Barker’s tract 
 that Jesus, the Lord of light and glory — that blessed Being, on 
 whom the hopes of man for eternal life depend — became a truly 
 pious young man, what is meant hut that there was a period 
 when he was not pious? and if not pious, consequently he was a 
 sinner : and if a sinner, look at the consequences involved — 
 consequences which must make a good man shudder and tremble 
 to contemplate. If Christ was a sinner , then at one period he 
 must have been under the displeasure of God ! If a sinner , he 
 must, at one period, have been under the curse of the broken 
 latv : for it is written, — “ Cursed is every one that continueth 
 not in all things which are written in the hook of the law to do 
 them.” (Gal. iii., 10.) But “no man who speaketh by the 
 Spirit calleth Jesus accursed.” If a sinner , he was subject to 
 death as a penalty arising from his violation of God’s law ; and 
 consequently his death was not voluntary : for though we may 
 admit that the kind of death Christ suffered might be voluntary, 
 yet since he was subject to death as a penalty for his own trans- 
 gression, he was of course compelled to die as a sinner ; and 
 therefore his death could not, in the highest sense, be 
 voluntary. “ The wages of sin is death ; ” and if our Lord 
 sinned, he was subject to the penalty of death. (Rom. 
 vi., 23.) And if our Lord was a sinner, too, on earth, 
 he must have been exposed to hell ! He must have been 
 liable to the flames of the bottomless pit ! Such are the terrible 
 consequences resulting from the sentiments contained in the 
 pages of the tract, part of which I have read to you this even- 
 ing. And this result — this sentiment, which makes Jesus a 
 sinner, leaves the world without a Saviour ! Mr. Barker, there- 
 fore, must reject that sentiment, or he stands convicted, by the 
 testimony in the chapters referred to, of denying the plainest 
 statements of Scripture-— and flatly contradicting the declara- 
 tion of God by the angel Gabriel, saying, “that HOLY 
 THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
 God.” 
 
 I shall next call your attention to the replies which Mr. 
 Barker made, last Friday evening, to my arguments. 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 185 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Mr. Barker was hind enough , when admitting the fact that 
 victory was on the side of the sentiments which I held, to re- 
 mind you that— (or rather to ask you to observe)— I had 
 obtained the victory. My friends, I wish you to observe how I 
 obtained the victory. I wish you never to forget how the vic- 
 tory was obtained. Obtained ! Not by appealing to your pas- 
 sions, but to your judgments— -not by reading letters , or reciting 
 anecdotes , but by appealing to God’s own word. Obtained, by- 
 appealing also to the testimony" of the Fathers,— -not to build 
 upon them a single principle of my argument, but merely to 
 refute the lies, the corruptions, the false doctrines, and the 
 blasphemies held forth by Marcion, whose name had been 
 obtruded upon the public as having authority to induce men to 
 reject the authenticity of the two first chapters in the gospel 
 according to Luke. That was the way in which I obtained the 
 victory— (laughter, hissing, and applause) ; — and I wish you 
 never to forget it. (Applause and disapprobation.) 
 
 Mr. Grant Do be quiet. I have pointed out time after 
 time the advantage of quietness. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Well ! but I feel no undue elevation. I know 
 the victory is not mine. It would be a very sorry victory 
 were it mine, as an individual. But it is the victory of the 
 cause of truth, and of our common Christianity. And it is 
 nothing more than what I expected to result from the 
 straightforward handling of God’s word, and the bringing for- 
 ward of those plain statements of divine truth which stand sa 
 bright and conspicuous in the pages of the eternal word. I 
 do feel some regret, however, that Mr. Barker, having conceded 
 the point in question, should have persevered in raising clouds 
 of smoke and dust about the subject ; and in bringing forward 
 a variety of objections to uphold the very doctrine which had 
 just been given up. I regret it for this reason,— because it 
 prevents us from advancing forward in the discussion to those 
 other important subjects, a list of which has been handed to 
 him already. However, I must follow Mr. Barker’s objections ; 
 and 1 must endeavour to chastise the presumption which ad- 
 vances objections inimical, as I conceive, to the cause of truth, 
 and involving some of the grossest absurdities. 
 
 How did Mr. Barker, then, proceed? Thus. First, to under- 
 mine the credit of the Fathers. Secondly, to employ his sagacity 
 in collecting together objections, contradictions, and inconsisten- 
 cies, so called by himself, in reference to the Gospel narratives 
 of the Miraculous Conception. Thirdly, by a direct attach upon 
 the integrity of the sacred volume in general. And it is to these 
 that 1 must now address myself with ail the energy that God 
 may condescend to impart unto me. 
 
 I say Mr. Barker applied himself to undermine the credit of . 
 the Fathers. That, 1 conceive, was extremely foolish, and use- 
 less too ? for he was the person who insisted upon an appeal be- 
 ing made to the Fathers. William Cooke did not want to 
 
186 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [fufth 
 
 appeal to the Fathers, hut to the Grandfathers — the inspired 
 Apostles who wrote the sacred pages. William Cooke wanted 
 to appeal to the plain letter of God’s word, inspired by the 
 Holy Spirit, and consequently alone decisive ; and not to ap- 
 peal to any men fallible like himself. Will this assembly be- 
 lieve that Mr . Barker was the person who insisted, in his cor- 
 respondence with myself and the Committee, upon an appeal 
 being made to the Fathers? And 1 had to consent to it as a 
 condition absolutely required , in order that we might meet to-, 
 gether in public on the present occasion. How does it look, now, 
 after having challenged an appeal to the Fathers — after having 
 required that appeal — how does it now appear, when he seeks 
 to undermine the very credit which he had advanced, and which 
 he had spoken of as one source of truth ? The fox iiked the 
 grapes. They appeared beautiful. But he could not reach 
 them ; and they were thenceforth sour. (Hissing and ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 Mr Grant : — Nothing can be more improper than these in- 
 terruptions. 
 
 Mr Cooke -Allow me to proceed. Keep yourselves in good 
 humour. (Missing.) Listen patiently. You shall have the 
 honest truth, without any mixture of sophistry. (Applause 
 and disapprobation.) 
 
 Mr Gilmore 1 do fancy that if either party— I do not say 
 both— but if* one party would sit perfectly quiet, it would be 
 an example that would be worthy of imitation. Those that be- 
 lieve they have the truth on their side, need not utter a 
 single word in its defence. Those only who cannot believe that 
 they have any truth to support them need evince symptoms 
 either of approbation or of disapprobation. I trust you will bo 
 quiet, and hear the important truths which are delivered. ( Hear, 
 hear, and applause.) 
 
 Mr. Cooke -I must claim the time which has been lost by 
 this interruption. I want nothing but lair -play. A fair field, 
 and no favour. 
 
 In the next place, I observe that it was exceedingly foolish to 
 attempt to undermine the credit of the Fathers, because 1 never 
 built a single principle upon the Fathers. I used them only for the 
 purpose of contradicting the lying Marcion and the Lbionites 
 who had corrupted God’s word, and whose names were put forth 
 to the public as authorities to induce men to reject the two first 
 chapters of the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. 
 Moreover, it appears extremely idle for Mr. Barker to under- 
 mine the credit of the Lathers ; for with a singular and charac- 
 teristic inconsistency he speedily endeavours to press those very 
 Fathers, with all their faults, into his own favour. But, in 
 using them, he damages his own cause by taking care neither to 
 introduce page, nor chapter , nor section of any Father whose 
 name he mentioned, or whose sentiments lie put forth. This is 
 a violation of the laws of this discussion, and one which I have 
 
NIGHT.] 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 187 
 
 carefully avoided from the beginning until now. Besides, he 
 damages his own cause, too, in the judgment of every reflecting 
 and intelligent man acquainted with the subject, by introduc- 
 ing statements, as from the Fathers, 'which do not exist in any of 
 the ponder os folios of the Fathers . Be alleged that the 
 early Christians never quarrelled with each other on the 
 ground of the Miraculous Conception ; and he introduced 
 the testimony of Justin Martyr to corroborate that state- 
 ment. As if Justin Martyr had sanctioned as true and good 
 Christians those who denied the Miraculous Conception ! The 
 fact is just otherwise. Justin Martyr maintains that sentiment 
 as essential in all his writings. .And irenseus unites with Jus- 
 tin Martyr in maintaining that sentiment. Both Irenseus and 
 Justin Martyr speak of those as heretics, who denied the Mira- 
 culous Conception. I can conjecture where Mr. Barker has 
 got his sentiment. I suppose he has borrowed it from Dr. 
 Priestley, who, as well as Belsham and Lindsay, has maintained 
 this sentiment, and pretended to quote the Fathers in proof of 
 it : but Dr. Burton has clearly convicted them of falsehood ; 
 and I am prepared to show you not less than about forty hare - 
 faced , impudent falsehoods uttered by those writers in reference 
 to the opinions of the Fathers, both with regard to the Miracu- 
 lous Conception and the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Mr. Barker told you that Marcion was slandered. I ask 
 him, where? I do not ask him for a volume , nor a page ; but I 
 ask him for just one line , authenticated by any Father, in the 
 centuries referred to, showing that Marcion has been slandered 
 with regard to what 1 advanced on his corrupting the word of 
 God, and the erroneous sentiments, he maintained respecting the 
 nature of the Deity, the resurrection of the body, and the non- 
 existence of the Redeemer’s body. Now I ask him to bring 
 for ward, not a volume , nor a page, but just one line , well-authen- 
 ticated, to prove that Marcion has been slandered in those sen- 
 timents. 
 
 The Miraculous Conception, Mr. Barker told us, originated 
 with those who decried marriage. Why, it stands revealed in 
 the pages of the New Testament; it is recorded distinctly by 
 Matthew and Luke ; and I have yet to learn that they have de- 
 cried marriage. Moreover, Ignatius, who lived in apostolic 
 times, holds the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception ; and it 
 stands prominent in his writings. Besides, later facts contra- 
 dict M r. Barker’s statement. W ho were they that denounced mar- 
 riage? They wereMarcion, and those who held the Gnostic heresy. 
 Who were they that denied the Miraculous Conception? The 
 same authors. Who were those that defended marriage against 
 Marcion? They were the Fathers 1 have quoted. Who were 
 those that held the Miraculous Conception ? The same Fathers ; 
 those who defended marriage against the Gnostic heretics, Mar- 
 cion and his followers. * It wouid be well for Mr. Barker to 
 study the Fathers, carefully, before he ventures again to intro- 
 duce their authority on subjects like the present. 
 
188 MR COOKE. [fifth 
 
 He tells ns that multitudes of Christians at first denied the 
 Miraculous Conception. At first! I confront him with the 
 testimony of St. Luke, who, at the commencement of his Gos- 
 pel, speaks to Theophilus of those things which he asserts 
 “ were most assuredly believed.’ 7 Observe the emphasis — 
 believed; assuredly believed; most assuredly believed. And 
 among those things thus “ most assuredly believed,” the Mira- 
 culous Conception stands as either the first or the second fact 
 recorded. 
 
 He speaks about piety residing with a few. But it will he a 
 singular circumstance indeed if Mr. Barker should be found 
 able to make it appear that those few were the individuals 
 who hated God , and who described him as a malig- 
 nant being ; that those few witli whom piety dwelt 
 were those who renounced the law and the prophets , and 
 the whole of the Old Testament ; that those pious few were the 
 individuals who rejected Paul as an apostate from the law , and 
 discarded the authority of his writings ; that those favoured few 
 were the men luho held that Christ had no real body , and that 
 there were two Christs; and who denied the resurrection of the 
 human body at the last day. If these were 66 the few” with 
 whom piety dwelt — who were the sanctuary or temple of the 
 Lord, and heathens all beside, it is high time that we had ex- 
 changed. the authority of Peter for that of Simon Magus : of 
 Paul for that of Ely mas the sorcerer ; of John for that of 
 Cerinthus : or that we adopted the spurious writings of Mar- 
 cion, and gave the apostolic epistles to the wind ! 
 
 He tells us that Symmachus was a learned man. So that it 
 appears, at last, that out of all the Ebionites who, he would 
 have us believe, existed in early days, they had just one learned 
 man. And that is the result of his investigations! But suppose 
 they had, does it follow that Symmachus denied the Miraculous 
 Conception \ The major part of the Ebionites, if Dr. Lardner 
 he correct, held the Miraculous Conception. The minority , 
 only, rejected it. And it devolves on Mr. Barker, if he wish to 
 have the authority of Symmachus on his side, to show that 
 that writer was one who denied the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Barker notices it as a very strange thing indeed that we 
 have nothing said in the epistles against those who denied the 
 Miraculous Conception. jNot strange at ail ; for there were 
 none such in those days. The writings of the Apostles grap- 
 pled with existing errors : and though there are other errors, 
 and grievous errors, now, men had not advanced so far, in those 
 days, as to deny a truth so plainly stated, and so abundantly 
 confirmed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But the progress of 
 error is downward in man’s unregenerate nature; and “evil 
 men and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being 
 deceived.” And having begun, as the corrupt Jews, in their 
 heresy, did, to undermine the writings of Paul, even while he 
 lived, they went down lower and lower still, and proceeded to 
 
KIGHT] 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 189 
 
 those monstrous extravagancies which appear in their history 
 in the following centuries. 
 
 Mr. Barker's next course is to make a regular attack upon 
 the Holy Scriptures. I regretted this at the time. It is an 
 offence against the rules of this discussion ; and I am sure it 
 was most repulsive to every pious mind. But though I was 
 pained, I was not surprised. I was partly prepared for it ; for, 
 in a tract which is before me, Mr. Barker had already taught 
 his readers to believe that the Holy Scriptures are t4 a two - 
 mouthed guide and a double ■ tongued director , leading men contrary 
 ways .” Let it go forth to the world that Mr. Barker has 
 designated the Scriptures as “ a two-mouthed guide, and as a 
 double-tongued director ;” and then they will have a reason for 
 that which made them wonder at the time— namely, his attack 
 upon those Holy Scriptures which are the guide of our lives, 
 the consolation of our hearts, and the firm foundation of our 
 hopes. 
 
 The attack which Mr. Barker made against the Holy Scriptures 
 was two-fold. And it must be repelled. First, he racked his inge- 
 nuity to find out a case, or rather to make a case , of contradiction, 
 and absurdity, and inconsistency, in connection with the Gospel 
 narrative of the Miraculous Conception. Why should he do 
 that? Tom Paine had done it well before him. And so had 
 Robert Taylor ; and so had Lloyd Jones and others, with equal 
 vigour if not with equal ingenuity. Mr. Barker sneered at the 
 name Emmanuel ; and spoke of it being pitiful to apply that 
 name to our adorable Redeemer. In days gone past, Mr. Bar- 
 ker did not sneer at the blessed name Emmanuel, that is, when 
 he used to speak of the Scriptures being the sole rule of his 
 faith and practice ; at the time when he said that he 44 disliked 
 all forced interpretations of the holy volume.” When he de- 
 clared that he relied upon the natural and the most obvious 
 meaning of the sacred passages, he did not then denounce the name 
 Emmanuel ; but spoke of it, in a volume which I have here, 
 and in a paragraph which I read to you the first evening — 
 spoke of it as a name (printing it in large capitals, so that I 
 have no doubt he then loved it) — spoke of it as a name which 
 was “ rightly applied to the Saviour.” And it is rightly applied . 
 The Evangelist has taken pains to interpret the meaning of the 
 name. It comes from three Hebrew words — DP with, 13 us, htf 
 God, namely, “ GOD WITH US.” Or, as we have it in Greek, 
 — Med’ r]jiMv 0 0£oc, 44 God with us.” 44 The” emphatically, 
 44 THE GOD WITH US.” Yes! he is God ; possessing every 
 attribute, assuming every title, and exercising every preroga- 
 tive of Deity, he is emphatically styled the brightness of his 
 Father’s glory, and the express image of his person : and as- 
 sociating his Divinity with a tabernacle of clay, became 44 God 
 with us ;” 44 bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh ;” our near 
 kinsman, with whom the right of redemption lay ; God with 
 man. And he is still 44 God with us” With us in the means of 
 
190 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [fifth 
 
 grace. 44 Wheresoever two or three of you are gathered to- 
 gether in mv name,” said the Saviour, 44 there am 1 in the 
 midst of you.” With us, to afford strength and consolation in 
 every hour of trial ; speaking, in answer to our prayers, — 44 My 
 grace is sufficient for thee : for my strength is made perfect in 
 weakness.” With us, present with his faithful ministers to the 
 end of time. 44 Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gos- 
 pel to every creature ;” and 44 Lo, I am with you always, even 
 unto the end of the world.” With us, living in our hearts ; 
 44 Christ in you, the hope of glory : whom we preach.” 44 Me 
 that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that 
 loveth me : and lie that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, 
 and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. And we 
 will come unto him, and make our abode with him,” — 44 God 
 with us.” It was not till Mr. Banker had spoken of the Scrip- 
 tures as 44 a two-mouthed guide and a double-tongued director,” 
 that he ever sneered at the name — the precious name, Em- 
 manuel. 
 
 Mr. Barker also sneered at the application of prophecy to our 
 Saviour — those prophecies referred to in the two first chapters of 
 Matthew and Luke ; where it is said that Christ was 4 born of 
 a virgin’ in fulfilment of prophecy ; where it speaks of him as 
 being 4 called out of Egypt where it speaks, too, of the 
 4 murder of the infants in Bethlehem and where it speaks 
 of the reproaches our Saviour had to undergo in being 
 called a Aazarene, in fulfilment of prophetic testimony. 
 He sneered at these. But Ft me tell him that they were 
 applied to Jesus by an authority which he has himself acknow- 
 ledged to be divine; by that authority to which we have mutually 
 agreed to submit, namely, the Greek text sustained by the cri- 
 tics Gries bach* and Schulz : and, 1 may add, which text is sus- 
 tained by the credit and authority of aL the manuscripts and 
 versions contained in the wide world. I am sorry in my heart 
 that Mr. Barker should thus sneer at the application of prophe- 
 cy Christ — sorry that he should characterise these prophecies, 
 as he did the last evening on which we met, as fictions, and 
 speak of them as pitiful. There is no need to pity the Evan- 
 gelists : and he that pities them, in their inspiration, is in dan- 
 ger of putting contempt upon God their author. 
 
 Mr. Barker also drew an objection to the truth from the ac- 
 count which we have of the taxing, in Luke’s Gospel, cli. 2, 
 verses 1 and 2 : — 44 And it came to pass in those da;ys, that there 
 went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world 
 should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyre- 
 nius was governor of Syria.)” There is no discrepancy here : 
 for the passage does not clearly imply that Cyrenius was go- 
 vernor of Syria contemporary with the birth of our Saviour. 
 Lardner, an Unitarian author, renders it that 4 *it was the first 
 enrolment of Cyrenius, afterwards governor of Syria making 
 ‘‘governor of Syria” a mere appellation. Campbell, with 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 191 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 more propriety, renders the passage, — this first registration took 
 effect when Cyrenius was president of Syria. And l thus give 
 yon the testimony of two divines who are opposed to each other 
 in their creed — Lardner being an Unitarian critic, and a very 
 learned man ; and Campbell one of the orthodox school. 1 have 
 done this to show the impartiality which I wish to exercise in 
 giving an interpretation of the passage in question. But sup- 
 pose there was a discrepancy, what does it amount to? Who 
 that has read the histories of Herodotus, of Thucydides, of Ze- 
 nophon, of Strabo, of Diodorus, of Tacitus, of Livy, of Sallust, 
 and of others, both ancient and modern historians, has not 
 found a multitude of instances in which there are discrepancies 
 as to times, and places, and events ! I say, suppose we have a 
 discrepancy, then, between the testimony of St. Luke and that 
 of profane historians, is it an evidence of faith to adopt the pro- 
 fane writers’ testimony, and to reject that which we know to be 
 inspired. Is it not, rather, the proper character of faith to pause, 
 and weigh, and wait for evidence ; and never, never reject what 
 God has revealed or stated in his word, but with the Apostle, 
 reckon 64 God to be true, though every man be a liar ? 99 
 
 Another objection to the account of our Lord’s incarnation, 
 derived from an alleged discrepancy in chronology, is that 
 urged by Mr. Barker on Friday evening. The birth of our Sa- 
 viour is set forth by Matthew as taking place while Herod was 
 king of Judaea : and Luke states that Jesus was about 30 years 
 of age when Tiberius, the Roman emperor, was in the loth 
 year of his reign. This, it is s.iid, involves a discrepancy ; for 
 from the death of Herod to the 13th year of the reign of Tibe- 
 rius, there was a period of about 32 years : and that objection is 
 held forth to invalidate the testimony of the Kvangelists respect- 
 ing the incarnation. So that it turns out— admitting this to be a 
 real discrepancy for the first momentof the argument— that after 
 a lapse of eighteen hundred years, there is a discrepancy of about 
 two y ars in respect to the event referred to : and that discre- 
 pancy of two years between the testimony of an inspired 
 Evangelist, and the testimony, or what Mr. Barker states to be 
 the testimony, of profane authors, is in his view quite sufficient 
 to upset the authority of the Gospel narrative of the incarna- 
 tion ! 1 would ask, is that the true property of faith in God’s 
 
 holy word ? But it so happens, alter all, that there is no dis- 
 crepancy. It so happens that we have the concurrent testimony 
 of profane writers corroborating the testimony of Luke. Tacitus 
 says, 46 Filius , Collega imperii , consors tribunitice pot> statis,adsumi- 
 tur ” — Annal. i. 3. Bisson (in Jaw) was adopted his colleague in 
 the government, his associate in the tribunitian power. Now this 
 completely takes away the difficulty. Tiberius reigned jointly 
 with Augustus Caesar two or three years before he reigned; 
 alone, feupposing, therefore, that the Evangelist Luke includ- 
 ed this period as a part of the fifteen years’ reign of Tiberius, 
 the discrepancy vanishes at once ; and" that which Mr. Barker 
 
192 mr. Cooke. [_fifth 
 
 urges to invalidate the testimony of the sacred historian, when 
 examined, presents a collateral evidence in support of its truth. 
 It is one of those minute instances where there is at first an 
 apparent discrepancy ; but in which we find, on further exami- 
 nation, that there is, in reality a most striking and convincing 
 historical evidence of the truth of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 The Evangelist tells us, that when Herod heard that wise 
 men were come from the East, saying, “ Where is he that is 
 born king of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the East, 
 and come to worship him,” he, that is Herod, was 
 troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And Mr. Barker, with 
 apparent exultation, advanced that as a proof that the Miracu- 
 lous Conception was a fiction. Herod was troubled ! Was it 
 unnatural in a fierce, despotic, tyrannical, cruel, jealous mo- 
 narch to he troubled, when he heard that one called 44 King of 
 the Jews” was born ? Or was it unnatural that all Jerusalem 
 should be troubled with him?— not because Christ was born, 
 but when they knew his disposition — Herod’s disposition — so 
 characterized by cruelty and by jealousy : and when they 
 knew his character for indiscriminate slaughter, and were ap- 
 prehensive that they themselves might become the next victims 
 of his jealous ire, was it unnatural that they should be troubled 
 at the same time? — especially when we remember that neither 
 Herod nor the mass of the people understood the spiritual ob- 
 jects of the Saviour’s coming. The result proves that their 
 fears were not misplaced. I now refer to the murder of the 
 infants of Bethlehem. Mr. Barker adverted to this as one of 
 those events which prove a contradiction to the testimony of 
 the Evangelists with regard to the Miraculous Conception. He 
 tells you that the murder of the infants is not corroborated by 
 any historian. Really there is something remarkable in Mr. 
 talker’s mode of arguing. He tells you that even when his- 
 torians have corroborated the testimony of the Evangelists in 
 some events, yet if there be a small discrepancy, we are to re- 
 ject the testimony which is divine, and accept that which is 
 human. But here, where there is no testimony at all, but, as 
 he says, perfect silence, we are to regard that silence as sufficient 
 to overturn the credit of the Evangelists. This is reasoning with 
 a vengeance ! 
 
 Where others toil with philosophic force, 
 
 His nimble nonsense takes a shorter course. 
 
 Flings at your head conviction in the lump, 
 
 And gains remote conclusions at a jump. 
 
 (Laughter and applause.) Well ! but cannot we account, think 
 you, for this silence ? Josephus, he says, is silent. But he is 
 silent with regard to a multitude of events as well as this. Ro- 
 man historians, he tells us, are silent. Ro wonder if they are. 
 Bethlehem at that time was a reduced village, not containing 
 more than a thousand population, including the surrounding 
 country. The massacre was not indiscriminate. It extended 
 
NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. 193 
 
 only to the male children ; and those only of a certain age. 
 And thus the slaughter could not have been so extensive as at 
 first sight might be supposed. Herod, too, died shortly after 
 the event ; and the whole transaction might soon pass into obli- 
 vion : hut God thought fit to record it as important in marking 
 the commencement of persecution against his beloved Son, who 
 came into the world to bleed and to die for our salvation. It is 
 therefore not at all an improbable event that the Roman his- 
 torians should have overlooked a transaction like this, occurring 
 in an obscure village fifteen hundred miles distant from Rome; 
 and I believe there was no Roman historian existing at the time 
 the transaction took place. 
 
 But there is another enquiry, far more important. It is this. 
 Does the murder not correspond with Herod’s known disposition 
 and character? It does. What does Macrobius say, in his 
 Saturnalia ? He says, — Melius est Herodis porcum esse quam 
 filium. Abstinebat quippe 15 erodes a porcis : a filiorum ceede 
 non abstinebat. Macrob. 2. Satur. c. 4. “ Better to be Herod’s 
 
 hog, than his son; because while he spares his hogs, he murders 
 his own children.” Does it not, then, correspond with the dis- 
 position and character of Herod ? And I may ask, is there not 
 here a recognition of the event referred to? And then, if this 
 he admitted, history is not altogether silent in reference to the 
 event in question. 
 
 Another objection of Mr. Barker’s was this, that the wise 
 men who came to worship Jesus are called M ayoi, Magi, in the 
 Greek; and he tells us that the word means “ sorcerers.” He 
 should have told you that that was one meaning of the word. 
 And the other is that which we have it rendered in the translation, 
 “wise men.” Who were the Mayoi among the Persians? Men 
 devoted to literature — devoted to religion, so far as they under- 
 stood it : men to uhose care was committed the education of the 
 principal children of the empire. And thus the term Mayoi 
 became a kind of general designation, including both the class 
 of men called sorcerers, and those who had nothing to do with 
 magic arts. Just as our own w T ords, u wise woman,” in English, 
 may mean witch; or the same terms may mean “a woman of 
 intelligence, of sagacity, and of prudence.” There is no evi- 
 dence, then, that these wise men were sorcerers because they 
 were called Magi. Certain it is that whatever they had been, 
 they were not sorcerers now . They were worshippers of the 
 
 true God — men who came to enquire for the Saviour — men who 
 found and worshipped that Saviour — men who presented to him 
 their choicest gifts — men who were watched over by a gracious 
 Providence, directed in their movements by Providence, and 
 made objects of peculiar regard, — they were not sorcerers: and, 
 indeed, if they had been once sorcerers, that is no reason for 
 their not being permitted to worship Jesus. Simon Magus, the 
 sorcerer, was admitted a member of the church of Samaria, and 
 never was ejected from that church until it was found that he 
 
194 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [fieth 
 
 continued in the “gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.” 
 Heartily welcome to Jesus, and His salvation, were publicans 
 and sinners, and men with curious books, and who practised 
 evil deeds, when they gave up their abominations — when they 
 complied with the gracious terms of salvation. 
 
 Another objection of Mr. Barker’s is this, that Jesus followed 
 the business of a carpenter. A most singular objection for Mr. 
 Barker to make ! He would have you believe, sometimes, that 
 “ college-bred priests’* are of all men the most injurious to 
 society ; and now it turns out that he can reproach Christ for 
 following an honest occupation. (“ Hear, hear,’ 5 hissing, and 
 applause.) Silence, my friends. Give me a fair hearing, — 1 
 want nothing more. Give me your candid judgment, — I want 
 nothing more. K ever before d*id I know that it was discredit- 
 able to follow a lawful occupation. Did not Jesus stoop down 
 to man’s condition ? and is not that condition to earn his bread 
 by the sweat of his brow ? Is it not one part of the conse- 
 quences entailed upon man by the Fall? And was it not be- 
 coming in him, who became in all things like unto his brethren, 
 to submit to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow ; and thus 
 to sanctify and honour the occupations by which men obtain 
 their daily bread ? I am sure Mr. Barker must have been at 
 his wit’s end for an objection when he could bring forward this, 
 -—that the Lord Jesus, in his human nature, submitted* to the 
 occupation of a carpenter. He submitted to something lower 
 than even this. He submitted so far as to receive alms and 
 support from those to whom he ministered ; and said, “ The 
 foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests ; but the 
 son of man hath not where to lay his head.” He “ made him- 
 self of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, 
 and was made in the likeness of men.” Glory be to his blessed 
 name ! 
 
 But Mr. Barker tells us, as another reason why you should 
 reject the Miraculous Conception, that you hear nothing* of 
 Jesus for 28 years. So then it follows, that however well au- 
 thenticated may be the account of his birth, and of his ministry 
 at a certain age, and of his death and resurrection, you are not 
 to believe the Miraculous Conception unless you have the whole 
 of his history before you ! You may believe the circumstances 
 of his death — you may believe his resurrection, without having 
 that history ; but you are not, on any account whatever, to 
 believe the Miraculous Conception, unless you have the whole 
 of his history before you. Wonderful logic; and still more 
 wonderful theology ! But, then, it is false. We have some- 
 thing recorded of Christ between the period of his infancy and 
 his public ministry. We are told that he grew in wisdom and 
 in stature, and in favour with God and with men. We are 
 told that at twelve years of age he went to the temple, and 
 there gave tokens of wisdom and devotedness to his Father’s 
 will. But Mr. Barker will not believe that. And would he 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 195 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 believe the whole narrative, think you, if it recorded every 
 event in the history of the Saviour? If he rejects the first fact, 
 would he believe the rest ? 
 
 He tells us, as another reason why we should reject the 
 Miraculous Conception, that Anna the prophetess spoke to all 
 about her of the Saviour’s Miraculous Conception ; and that 
 afterwards we hear no more about him. It is false. Anna did 
 not speak to the people about our Lord’s Miraculous Concep- 
 tion. She spoke to them not a word about it, that I can find ; 
 but spoke of him as being the Redeemer of mankind. 
 
 Mr. Barker alleges as another argument why we ought to re- 
 ject the Miraculous Conception, and to take our scissors and 
 cut away the two first chapters of the gospels of Matthew and 
 of Luke, that “■ God has not given us a reason for it.” So that 
 we are never to believe in the great and eternal Jehovah until 
 he explains to the creature of a day every reason for his con- 
 duct ! Did God explain to Adam the reason why he was for- 
 bid to eat of the tree of knowledge? Did God explain to 
 Abraham the reason why he called upon him to sacrifice his 
 son ? Did Abraham wait for a reason before he went forward 
 to obey ? And, besides, if God had given a reason, it is more 
 than probable that Mr. Barker would never have believed it. If 
 he reject the fact as a fiction, he might easily treat the reason 
 as being a poetical fable. But, then, the pious mind can see a 
 reason — an important reason, why the shrine in which the God- 
 head dwelt should be miraculously conceived — can see important 
 reasons why the humanity of the glorious Redeemer should be- 
 come incarnate in this miraculous and mysterious manner. 
 But God never panders to human pride. And unbelievers 
 would not submit to God’s authority, whatever reasons he 
 might condescend to give for his conduct. 
 
 Another reason why we are to reject the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion is this, that the Saviour’s brethren, as Mr. Barker says, did 
 not believe on him. So, then, because they did not believe 
 on him, we are to imitate their conduct, and reject the Miracu- 
 lous Conception ! Just the argument, in principle, which the 
 infidel Gibbon puts forth, by insinuation, in his Decline and 
 Fall of the Roman Empire, where he insinuates, with the 
 characteristic subtlety of his specious mind, that it is strange 
 that the Jews should reject the Saviour, and the Gentiles em- 
 brace him ; intimating that there is no good reason for the 
 Gentiles accepting him, since his own countrymen, who saw his 
 miracles, rejected him. But there is no evidence that his 
 brethren did know of his Miraculous Conception : and if they 
 did know, there is no rational ground for supposing that would 
 be a sufficient reason to prevent them from rejecting him. They 
 saw his miracles — they beheld the wonders that sprung from his 
 touch, or fiat, or command — they beheld the dead rise at his 
 bidding, and five thousand people fed with five barley loaves 
 and a few fishes — and they knew that devils acknowledged his 
 
198 MR. COOKE. LfiFTHJ 
 
 Divinity ; but though he presented before their eyes these- 
 stupendous manifestations of his power and of his glory, they 
 still continued in hardness and unbelief. How, then, was it 
 likely that the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception would 
 neutralize an unbelief that could not be subdued by all the 
 wonders they beheld around them? 
 
 Further ; Mr. Barker gives us some criticisms. I shall have 
 occasion to notice some of his criticisms. He tells us that 
 William Cooke denies the Scriptures in something like about 
 eighty instances, where Christ calls himself “ the son of man.” 
 Because he is called the son of man ; Mr. Barker argues that he 
 could not be miraculously conceived. If Mr. Barker be a 
 scholar, he ought to know that the word “man” in English; 
 the word DIX, .4 dam, in Hebrew; the word aj'0pw7roe,anthropos, 
 in Greek ; and the word 66 homo” in Latin, are all expressive 
 of the female as well as of the male part of the human race. 
 (Applause, and calls to “Order.”) I refer you, in the first 
 instance, to the first chapter of Genesis, and 27th verse : and here 
 you find the Hebrew word Adam , comprehending both 
 
 genders . “ So God created man [tHX] in his own image, in the 
 image of God created he him; male and female created he them” 
 Here the word & 1 N covers both genders, the male and the female 
 * — the man and the woman . And the Apostle Paul, when writing 
 to the Corinthians, 1st epis.,llth ch., 8th verse, says,— “ For the 
 man is not of the woman ; but the woman of the man. Neither 
 was the man created for the woman ; but the woman for the man.” 
 The fact is, that the w T ord man comprehends both ; and hence, 
 in Jewish genealogies, the woman loses her individual descent 
 when she is the wife of the man ; she loses her descent, 
 politically considered, and is merged in the person of the man: 
 and hence you find in the genealogies that it is only the male 
 line that are adopted and made public in the registers ; — I 
 mean to say, the male is the only line in which the genealogy 
 is traced. But now for the eighty-six instances in which he says 
 William Cooke has denied the Holy Scriptures in maintaining 
 that Christ, according to the Evangelists, was born of the Virgin 
 Mary, and not the natural progeny of Joseph. Have I denied 
 the idoly Scriptures? Mr. Barker ought to have known that 
 there are two Greek words to express the human kind. The 
 one is Avrjp, Aner, which does refer to the male part of the 
 human race almost exclusively : the other is, Av6pw7rog , An- 
 thropos, which comprehends female as well as male. If Mr. 
 Barker will refer to Schleusner, or Groves, or Greenfield, he 
 will find AvQpdJTto^ put in the common gender, for both male and, 
 female: and it is a remarkable circumstance that in all the 
 eighty-six cases Mr. Barker has referred to, there is not one in 
 which the word Avrjp, which means man properly, is employ- 
 ed ; but in every instance it is the word Arttpionog, which 
 means both man and woman. (Applause.) It is not viog 
 avdpog, the son of man ; but viog avOpunov, the son of a human 
 
"NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. 197 
 
 being ; simply characterizing our Lord’s human nature , simply 
 implying that he was human— partaking of the flesh and blood 
 of our common nature. 
 
 I had to notice, on a former evening, that Mr. Barker, while 
 attacking the Holy Scriptures— while endeavouring to unsettle 
 their authority — while talking about the absurdity which arises 
 from various readings, and all that kind of thing, was himself 
 ignorant of the gender of a Greek pronoun that he professed 
 to instruct and reform the whole world by his criticisms, yet he 
 was ignorant of the gender of a Greek pronoun ; or, if not igno- 
 rant, he concealed the truth from his hearers, and built upon 
 that concealment a false proposition ! 
 
 I have now to refer to another criticism, which is contained, 
 I believe, in the 4th chapter and 4th verse of the epistle to the 
 Galatians. I’ll refer to it, if my time is not going too fast. 
 
 Mr. Grant: — You have rather better than a quarter of an 
 hour, between a quarter of an hour and twenty minutes. 
 
 Mr Cooke: — Very well. The apostle says — 44 But when the 
 fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a 
 woman, made under the law.” Made of a woman. Now Mr. 
 Barker, with his critical wit, his ingenuity, and modesty too, 
 which few will imitate, spoke of the manner in which a man is 
 made ; and asked you, is a man made of a woman without a man? 
 Let me tell you that in the passage referred to the preposition is 
 one which does not here indicate agency, but implies the passive- 
 ness of the mother of the Saviour. It is not vizo, by ; it is not 
 tv, by ; it is not diet, by or through, all denoting agency ; but it 
 is sk ywaucog , from , or out of the woman . And thus, then, Christ 
 was made of, or from the woman, being conceived by the Holy 
 Ghost. All beautifully and critically harmonizing with the 
 declaration of the evangelists, that the human nature of Christ 
 was conceived by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Mr. Barker, last evening, referred to a variety of passages ; 
 and, because I had not time to notice them then, said, with an 
 air of triumph, 44 I suppose my arguments are admitted by my 
 opponent.” Well, let us see. He referred to the 3rd chapter 
 of Genesis, and the 15th verse, where Christ is said to be the 
 seed of the woman ; and, forsooth, because he is called the seed 
 not of the man but of the woman, I am to admit that as a proof 
 that Joseph was his father! In Galatians, 4th ch. and 4th 
 verse — the passage I before referred to — he is said to be made 
 not from man but from a woman ; and I am to admit, from that, 
 that he is the son of J oseph! He referred to the words “ being made 
 flesh,” in the 1st chapter of John, verse 14 ; and I will read you 
 that passage. It is a very important one, and should not be 
 hastily passed by. Now mark the proof that Christ was the 
 son of of Joseph ! 44 In the beginning was the Word, and the 
 
 word was with God, and the Word was God.” The son of 
 Joseph ! 44 The same was in the beginning with God. All 
 
 things were made by him ; and without him was not any thing 
 
198 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [fifth 
 
 made that was made.” The son of Joseph ! And at the 14th 
 verse we read that this “ Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
 among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the .only be- 
 gotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth ;” and that is a 
 proof that he was the son of Joseph, and that the Miraculous 
 Conception is a fiction ! Such reasoning as that I never had to 
 combat before in my days. 
 
 Well ! but Mr. Barker proceeded, in the next place, to make 
 a regular attack upon the Holy Scriptures — a regular attack 
 upon God’s blessed word. He spoke of mutilations and inter- 
 polations ; and in fact, from what he said, a person might be led 
 to believe that there was no certainty at all with regard to the 
 text of the Holy Scriptures. INow these are the facts that con- 
 tradict Mr. Barker. As to the alleged negligence with regard 
 to the transcribing of the Holy Scriptures, the accuracy and, the 
 diligence of the Jews were proverbial; and the accuracy and 
 diligence of the Christians were proverbial. It is true that in 
 cases where individuals copied for themselves , there would be, 
 sometimes, negligence : but when copies were made for liturgi- 
 cal purposes, to be used in churches, they were made and exa- 
 mined with scrupulous care. Men called scribes, or librarii, 
 •were employed on purpose for this important work ; and after 
 they had executed their task, the volume was submitted to the 
 rigid scrutiny of a number of authorities, employed or appointed 
 by the church to examine the whole ; and if errors were found, 
 the volume was discarded, and another copy had to be produc- 
 ed- Mr. Barker knows that there was immense care taken to 
 preserve the Holy Scriptures from corruption. And when mis- 
 takes had occurred among the various copies, there were exami- 
 nations made by pious and talented individuals, who watched 
 over the truth, and w^ere anxious for its preservation and its pro- 
 pagation down to after-ages. Even the paragraphs, the verses, 
 the sentences, the words, and the very letters which compose 
 the Holy Scriptures were frequently numbered as an indication 
 of the care which was exercised to preserve them from corrup- 
 tion. 
 
 But let me just state one or two things before my time ex- 
 pires. Dr. Kennicoit— andletthose men speak and be heard who 
 have paid attention to this subject- -let not the rambling and 
 careless remarks of any individual, on a subject so intimately 
 connected w ith our faith, be regarded, but let the language of 
 those who hare devoted their lives to the subject be regarded Dr. 
 Kennicott devoted 80 years to the examination of Hebrew ma- 
 nuscripts ; and at the end of that time expressed something 
 like regret that Ms labour was lost, because he had found out no 
 important variations after all his researches . But a pious friend, 
 who heard him, consoled him by saying, u Doctor, your labour 
 is not lost ; for it results in this great fact, that your labour has 
 tended to show the preservation and the incorruptness of the 
 volume on which our hopes are placed.” Dr. Gricsbach 
 
MR, COOKE. 
 
 199 
 
 NIGHT!.] 
 
 examined manuscripts laboriously. After him, Schulz, who is a 
 very great authority, devoted his time and his energies to the 
 same work. Schulz is one of our standard authorities. And what 
 is the result of their toil ? What is the result of their explore- 
 ments of the archives of nations? What is the result ot their 
 sifting investigations ? Why, the result is , that the received text 
 has become increasingly authenticated and established by the labours 
 cf these men ; and that some passages (as I shall have occasion to 
 show you when I come to speak about Christ’s divinity), ivhick 
 had been marled as doubtful , have been restored to their proper 
 places in the sacred text, and their authority established on a solid 
 foundation! 
 
 1 might refer you, but I have not time, to the testimony even 
 of the Unitarian Testament — I mean the Testament which has 
 been translated by them — in which there is a declaration as to 
 the genuineness of the whole of the sacred text, with the excep- 
 tion of a few minor matters. And, if you please, you can read 
 that testimony at your leisure. I am grieved at my heart that 
 Mr. Barker should make an attack against the integrity ot the 
 sacred volume. I have heard of those who, when unable to 
 combat the physical powers of their enemies, have sought their 
 destruction by poisoning their fountains and springs. I have 
 heard of others who with their axes have hewn down the palm 
 trees in Egypt on which the inhabitants subsisted. And the 
 attack of Mr. Barker against the integrity of the Scriptures 
 appears to me to approximate to attempts like these, and should 
 be repudiated by every lover of truth, and by every one who 
 has a regard for the Christian revelation as taught in the New 
 Testament. I should have expected from him, as a professing 
 Christian, language calculated, rather, to quell doubts, to 
 silence fears, to inspire confidence, and to invigorate men’s 
 hopes with regard to the bright realities that are spread before 
 us in the Gospel revelation. 
 
 I could quote from several of Mr. Barker’s former publica- 
 tions, showing that in better days Mr. Barker held the integrity 
 of the sacred volume. And 1 will refer you to a passage or two. 
 When debating with Lloyd Jones, who urged against Mr. Bar- 
 ker the Miraculous Conception — the very doctrine in debate, 
 and with regard to which Mr. Barker how tries to invent as 
 many contradictions as he possibly can, — he then observed, at 
 the 44th page, — “ It has been twice insinuated that there are 
 discrepancies in the New Testament. There are no such things 
 as discrepancies in the Gospel from beginning to end. That is 
 not the subject for discussion this evening ; but I am prepared 
 to prove the statement at a proper time, — that the New Testa- 
 ment contains no discrepancies ; but that its teachings, from 
 end to end, are all in perfect agreement.” And if ^ou refer to a 
 subsequent page, the 116th, Mr. Barker again says, — “ I should 
 like all present, to read the New Testament for themselves. 
 What Lloyd Jones has said, that he has confined himself to 
 
200 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [fifth 
 
 what was done by Christians, or as he ought to have expressed 
 it, by parties who called themselves Christians, is true. He has 
 done just so : all his arguments refer to that one point : he has 
 not stated a word about Christianity as taught in the New Tes- 
 tament, though we agreed to make that book our only standard. 
 
 I may say, that had I only known Christianity from what he 
 has stated of it, or had I only studied it as I found it imper- 
 fectly exhibited in the character or writings of some profess- 
 ing Christians, I, too, could not have loved it. Or if I had only read 
 what infidels have said about it, instead of reading the Scrip- 
 tures themselves, I too might have yielded to infidelity. Indeed 
 there was a time when I looked at Christianity as it is misre- 
 presented by infidels and false pretenders to Christianity, and I 
 had almost turned infidel myself ; but, thank God, I went to 
 the fountain head ; I read the JNew Testament; I looked on 
 Christianity as unfolded there, in the examples and doctrines of 
 its first teachers, and I found it to be — what I still find it to be 
 
 the Truth,” in large capitals. “ THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 HAS TRUTH WITHOUT ANY MIXTURE OF ERROR 
 Fori ITS CONTENTS.” 
 
 That statement is correct ; and I am grieved that Mr. Barker 
 should subsequently tell us, or rather ask us a question, in 
 the following language : — “ And can this two-mouthed guide,” 
 referring to the Bible, “ and double-tongued director, that would 
 lead me east and west at the same time, be an infallible guide V 9 
 And again he says, — “ If when you say that the Scriptures are 
 an infallible guide you mean that they are an infallible guide in 
 this sense merely, that those who make a proper use of them, 
 and act according to the light they receive from them, as well 
 as according to the light they receive from other sources, will 
 infallibly be saved, you are right.” Then Mr. Barker goes on to 
 affirm to his readers that the writings of Plato, of Mahomet, 
 and of Cicero, are infallible guides in this sense— thus placing 
 the writings of heathen philosophers, -—of Plato, Cicero, and the 
 impostor Mahomet himself \ on a par with the Holy Scriptures, 
 so far as their being an infallible guide is concerned ! 
 
 I know that good will result from this discussion. I know 
 that now the public will be made aware of what Mr Barker’s 
 sentiments really are. The public will know what Mr. Bar- 
 ker wishes, with respect to the Holy Scriptures. The public 
 will now be able to judge of Mr. Barker’s reforms. The public 
 will see that he could get on w T ell enough, if it were not that this 
 holy book stood in his w T ay. If Mr. Barker could but cut out 
 these two chapters, and cut out what else he pleases, so that the 
 Bible might speak every thing according to his liking, he w T ould 
 probably be content. But while this blessed book retains its 
 authority— while it is held and viewed by men with reverence, 
 with awe, and with confidence, as the inspired word of God— as 
 the infallible word of God, Mr. Barker’s system cannot prevail. 
 As his denial of the Miraculous Conception has failed, so must 
 
NIGHT.] 
 
 MS. BARKER. 
 
 201 
 
 his other dogmas, equally unfounded, fail in their turn ; and 
 orthodoxy, denounced as it may be by him, and hated as it may 
 be by him, shall, after all, flourish, and expand, and diffuse its 
 triumphs ; and Christians shall yet see deluded men return to 
 right feeling and to confidence in God’s word, and develope, in 
 their conduct, a practical demonstration of the divine reality 
 and power of pure and unadulterated religion. Yes ! Christianity 
 shall flourish in spite of ail its enemies, and God shall be glori- 
 fied. (Loud applause.) 
 
 Mr. Grant : — I beg leave to say, that I have received a note 
 from Mr. Larkin’s son, apologizing for his absence on account 
 of an unavoidable professional engagement. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — I trust, gentlemen, that you will give to 
 Mr. Barker the same fair and patient hearing, that you have 
 given to Mr. Cooke. It adds greatly to the character of the 
 meeting, when there is peace and quietness. I think that, 
 under the influence of Christianity, we should all show an 
 example of candour, — we should all be desirous to know the 
 truth ; and I trust no man will lay a stumbling-block in the 
 way of truth, but let us all hear what may be advanced on 
 both sides of the question. Mr. Barker will now address the 
 meeting. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — Respected Chairmen : my Friends, — I am 
 glad that my opponent has at last come to something like argu- 
 ment ; that he has at least attempted to meet some of the argu- 
 ments which I brought forward on the subject of the Miracu- 
 lous Conception : and though he has passed over the principal 
 arguments, and dwelt upon the other arguments not as given 
 by me, but as he appears to have misunderstood or misrepre- 
 sented them, and though the others which he did meet are not 
 of the first importance, yet I still feel glad that something like 
 an attempt has been made to argue the subject before this 
 audience. I feel persuaded that when both sides of any ques- 
 tion are brought before an audience possessed of common un- 
 derstanding, and in any measure free from prejudice, truth 
 must be unfolded to their minds, and good must be the result. 
 I am, however, sorry that the subject on which the whole of 
 the force has been spent, has not been any of the subjects 
 which were given in by my opponent, on the list, as the sub- 
 jects to be discussed on the present evening. I am sorry that 
 a subject of the least importance — a subject not in the list of 
 subjects for discussion, should still be thrust forward, even after 
 I am debarred from discussing it ; and that you should be left 
 in the dark as to my opponent’s views on other matters of the 
 highest importance, and of a more practical character. 
 
 I shall, however, briefly notice what my opponen has ad- 
 vanced on the present occasion ; and then proceed to the sub- 
 jects announced by Mr. Cooke himself as. the subjects for dis- 
 cussion this evening. 
 
 It was my intention to have made some remarks in reference 
 i 3 
 
MR. BARKER, 
 
 FIFTH 
 
 KSfrT 5 
 
 to the regulations drawn up for this debate ; and in reply to a 
 charge which has been brought against me of breaking through 
 those regulations. I have to state that the regulations which I 
 have signed, have been respected by me as far as I understood 
 them ; and that I have not wilfully, in any point, deviated 
 from their requirements. While, on the contrary, 1 assert, that 
 my opponent has broken them less or more at every meeting; 
 for while they completely prohibit ail reference to personal 
 matters, every one must have observed that, in every speech he 
 has made, personal matters have formed the subject of a consi- 
 derable portion of my opponent’s remarks. 
 
 Again, when I have attempted to quote from John Wesley, 
 from dictionaries, and from other authors, illustrating and con- 
 firming the views I have given on certain passages of Scripture, 
 or matters of history, or on points of philology, I have been 
 interrupted, as if I were breaking the regulations of the meet- 
 ing. Now I mean to state that the regulations forbid no refer- 
 ence to any dictionary or lexicon, nor to any work of history, 
 theology, or philology, except in one case, and that is when it 
 is disputed whether a passage be or be not a part of the original 
 text of the sacred writings. In other cases, the regulations 
 give my opponents no authority to interrupt me as they have 
 so often clone. And in reference to the excepted cases, to which 
 the regulations refer, I have never appealed to any authorities, 
 hut those named in the list contained in the regulations. 
 
 It was, however, supposed, that I ought not to have said a 
 word against the genuineness of those chapters, to which refer- 
 ence has been so frequently made, because 1 had acknowledged 
 that they were found in all the manuscripts, and in all the 
 versions, with which we are acquainted as being at present in 
 existence. But, then, it ought to be understood, that the ques- 
 tion as to whether a passage be in all the manuscripts and ver- 
 sions, and the question as to whether it ought to be there, are 
 two quite different questions. I had acknowledged that the 
 chapters which contained this account, were in the versions and 
 in the manuscripts. 1 had, however, abundance of proof, from 
 the manuscripts and from the versions themselves, as well as 
 from other sources, that those passages ought not to be there. 
 If I w 7 ere asked whether the word “ God,” in the first epistle 
 to Timothy, forming part of the passage — “ God was manifest 
 in the flesh,” were in the Alexandrian manuscript, I should 
 say, Yes. If the question was, w’hether the word God ought to 
 he there, I should appeal to the manuscript, not only to ascer- 
 tain whether the word w 7 as there or not, but to ascertain 
 whether there w 7 ere not marks or evidences in the manuscript 
 to show that it ought not to be there. In order to this, I should 
 ask, how 7 does the w 7 ord stand in reference to the context ? In 
 what ink is it written ? In what hand-writing is it found ? 
 Many orthodox theologians have said that the w 7 ord Theos is in 
 the manuscript, and so it is ; but there is proof even in the 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 203 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 manuscript itself that it is a forgery. Mr. John Scott Porter, 
 of Belfast, examined the Alexandrian manuscript in the British 
 Museum, and he states that there is the word Theos in the 
 manuscript. But he also states that it is manifestly written in 
 a different ink, at a different time, and in a different hand- 
 writing from the rest of the manuscript ; so that, though It be 
 there, the difference of ink and hand- writing show that it ought 
 not to be there. So in reference to the common version ; I say 
 these chapters are in the common version, as well as in all 
 manuscripts and in all other versions with which we are now 
 acquainted ; but I also say, that the common version gives 
 abundant evidence that they ought not to be there, because 
 they contradict the context, both that going before, and that- 
 following them, and are at variance with the New Testament 
 generally. In the line of argument, therefore, which I chose 
 to pursue, I was in order, and ought not to have been inter- 
 rupted. 
 
 My opponent says that I confessed these chapters were part 
 of God’s word — I did no such thing. 
 
 He says, I acknowledged some truths which overturned my 
 principles — I fancy not. He mentioned none. I am persuaded 
 that the principles which I have advocated are true; and no 
 one truth can overthrow another. 
 
 He says, I acknowledged the chapters about the Miraculous 
 Conception to be in all the manuscripts and versions ; and there- 
 fore I admitted the doctrine, — I did no such thing. As I have 
 shown, to acknowledge that the chapters are in the manuscripts 
 and versions, and to acknowledge that they are genuine, are 
 two quite different things. 
 
 He refers, then, to the article in the nineteenth “ Christian,” 
 and speaks about the prophecies respecting Christ as an indi- 
 vidual. He says, the chapters referred to contain proofs that 
 Jesus was foretold as an individual, and that he was the Christ 
 from his birth. The chapters, however, have been already 
 proved to be spurious — (hissing and laughter, followed by ap- 
 plause) — and they are, therefore, of no weight or authority. 
 Either these chapters, or the Gospels generally, must be reject- 
 ed ; and as we cannot reject the Gospels, as the Gospels have 
 all the evidence that we had a right to expect in favour of such 
 documents, we must reject the disputed chapters. 
 
 He says, God foreknew Christ’s character. I answer, The 
 Scriptures no where say so. 
 
 He refers to my statement that Christ became a pious young 
 man, which supposes that he once was not pious ; and he says, 
 that if he was not pious once, then he was a sinner. I answer, 
 that no child is a sinner at its birth ; and yet, no new-born 
 child can be called pious. Every child is bom free from sin, 
 but yet he is not born pious, though he is born with such a 
 nature that he may become so as he grows up. Christ was 
 made in all points like unto his brethren ; and what, therefore, 
 
204 MR. BARKER. L FIFTH 
 
 is applicable to children generally, in this case, is equally ap- 
 plicable to Christ. 
 
 He speaks about the terrible consequences resulting from my 
 views. But what are the consequences resulting from his ? If 
 Christ was not made like unto his brethren, — if his character 
 was fixed from his birth, then he was not a free agent ; and if 
 Christ was not a free agent, he was not an accountable being. 
 In that case, he would have no virtue. He did as he did be- 
 cause he could do no other ; and no credit is to be given to him 
 for what he was or what he did. On this supposition, his trials 
 were a mere gham, and his temptations were not real. He w r as 
 not subject to the same failings and trials to which we are sub- 
 ject. Therefore, he could not be our exemplar. He could not 
 feel as w 7 e feel ; nor was he subject to our infirmities and weak- 
 nesses. He could not sympathise w T ith us, because he could not 
 fail, though tempted : and therefore he could not he our exem- 
 plar, and if he could not he our example, he could not he our 
 Saviour. How easily we may draw terrible consequences from 
 principles, if we let our imaginations run loose. The conse- 
 quences, how r ever, that I have stated to result from my oppo- 
 nent’s views, are real ; while those which my opponent has 
 stated to result from my views, are merely fanciful; for God, 
 of course, could bestow upon his Son, though exactly like his 
 brethren in nature, whatever was necessary to make him a per- 
 fect Saviour, both for time and for eternity. And we know 
 from the plainest testimony of the apostle Peter, that Jesus was 
 not a Saviour, or the Messiah, by birth, but by God’s appoint- 
 ment after ; for he tells us, that God exalted Christ, whom 
 the Jew T s slew, to he a Prince and a Saviour ; and that the 
 same Jesus whom the Jews crucified, God had made both 
 Lord and Christ. And the same doctrine is taught by the 
 other Apostles. 
 
 He says, he obtained some victory, and obtained it by good 
 means. I was not aw T are myself that he had obtained a vic- 
 tory ; and I must acknowledge that what he calls “ a victory,” 
 I w^ould not have for all the wnrld. If I had gained such a, 
 victory, I should never be able to look up again. 
 
 He stated that he would meet my objections against the ge- 
 nuineness of the chapters in connection with the story of the 
 Miraculous Conception. You will remember some of my ob- 
 jections ; and I will name a few of them again, and you will 
 see whether he has met them or not. My first objection was, 
 that the genealogies traced Jesus through Joseph up to David ; 
 and that if Joseph was not the father of Jesus, then the ge- 
 nealogies w r ere of no use ; and could only be intended, as some 
 of the Lathers said, to cheat the Jews. Has my opponent an- 
 swered that objection ? The two genealogies give the descent 
 of Jesus through Joseph; hut if the story of the Miraculous 
 Conception he true, Jesus did not descend through Joseph ; and 
 the genealogies are of no use. Another was, respecting Joseph 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 205 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 being stated to have proposed to put away his wife in a way con- 
 trary to the law, because he was a just man, and respected the 
 jaw. Another was, the passage where Jesus is said to have 
 been called Jesus , in fulfilment of a prophecy. But the pro- 
 phet referred to stated that the individual of whom he spake 
 was to be called, not Jesus, but Emmanuel . Another was, that 
 the prophecy concerning a virgin conceiving and bearing a son 
 referred to a person born in the days of Ahaz ; that the person 
 referred to was born in those days ; and that, therefore, it could 
 not refer to Jesus, or, if it did, that two persons were born of a 
 virgin — that two were called Emmanuel — and that Jesus, even 
 by my opponent, is thus placed on a level with the promised son, 
 to be born in the reign of Ahaz. Another objection which I 
 made, was drawn from the prophecy concerning the destruction 
 of the children — Rachel weeping for her children, as represented 
 by Jeremiah. We showed that the children referred to by the 
 prophet, were the children of Israel; not the babes of Bethle- 
 hem, but the children of Israel generally ; the people of Israel ; 
 — that the prophecy, consequently, as it is called, had no refe- 
 rence to the innocent babes slaughtered by Herod, and was 
 therefore thus applied by mistake. Another was, the pretended 
 prophecy — “ Out of Egypt have I called my son.” This, we 
 showed, had reference simply to a matter of fact, that God had 
 called the Jews out of Egypt, and was therefore applied to Je- 
 sus by mistake. The party so applying it could not be the well- 
 instructed Matthew, the Evangelist. Another was, the passage 
 about being called a Nazarene ; and another was, the inconsist- 
 ency between the concluding verse of the second chapter, and 
 the following one, the third, which commences with the minis- 
 try of John the Baptist. “ In those days,” i. e. in the days 
 just before mentioned, “came John the Baptist,” &c. The 
 days mentioned before are the days of our Saviour’s infancy. 
 In chapter 2nd, last verse, he is a babe : in the third chapter, 
 he has arrived at manhood. And yet the words are “ in those 
 days,” the days of his infancy, which are immediately pre- 
 ceding. He is thus spoken of as a babe, and reaches his man- 
 hood at one time ; thus leaving twenty-eight years altogether 
 unaccounted for. 
 
 Another argument brought forward against the Miraculous 
 Conception was this, that Jesus, who preached the Gospel, 
 never once named it. No such doctrine is to be found in any 
 of his discourses. Another was, that Mark gives no account 
 of the Miraculous Conception, and yet he says — “ The begin- 
 ning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” “ As it is written in the 
 prophets,” — and then he proceeds with an account of John the 
 Baptist, and makes that the beginning of the Gospel of Christ. 
 Another argument w r as, that none of the apostles had been 
 taught the doctrine; that in all their discourses, whether to 
 Jews or Gentiles, and in all their waitings, too, there is not to 
 be found one single hint at what my opponent states is not only 
 
206 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [fifth 
 
 a truth, hut the first, and fundamental, and essential doctrine 
 of the Gospel. We also observed, that when Paul tells us what 
 Gospel he received from Jesus, we find no Miraculous Concep- 
 tion mentioned in it ; and that when he tells us what Gospel 
 he preached to the Corinthians, which he says would save them 
 if they held it fast, and acted according to it, there is no allu- 
 sion to the Miraculous Conception. Thus we find, from first 
 to last, in the discourses of Christ and his apostles, and in the 
 writings of the apostles to the churches and to one another, 
 an entire absence of all allusion to any such doctrine as the 
 Miraculous Conception ; and yet we are called upon not only 
 to believe it true, but to believe that it forms the first essential 
 doctrine of Christianity. These are some of the arguments 
 which I brought forward ; which my opponent has not met ; 
 and which, so far as I am aware, he has not even noticed. Ano- 
 ther argument was, that Jesus is called the son of Joseph — 
 that he was regarded as such by Nathaniel and the Jews gene- 
 rally — that J esus never corrected their error, if it was one ; and 
 that though his being Joseph’s son was brought forward by 
 some of them as an objection to him and his iViessiahship, he 
 never once attempted to correct the error, and so relieve them 
 from their difficulty, and bring them to receive the truth. 
 
 My opponent thinks he has found a good solution of the dif- 
 ficulty arising from the fact that Jesus is generally spoken of 
 as the Son of man . How much more consistent would it have 
 been to have taken the simple explanation of the matter given 
 in the genealogies, which tell us that Joseph was a descendant 
 of David, and gives' Joseph as the father of Jesus ? Here is 
 a solution which common sense can understand ; and which 
 requires no learning, no laboured ingenuity to recommend it to 
 our minds. 
 
 He says, it was I that proposed to appeal to the Fathers. I 
 never proposed to appeal to them as an authority on any doc- 
 trine ; but simply wished that we might both be at liberty to 
 get any light which they could shed upon the genuineness or 
 spuriousness of any passage contained in the common version 
 of the New Testament. I only wanted each to have liberty to 
 appeal to them, as we appeal to dictionaries, grammars, histo- 
 ries, and the like, on all points to which their testimony might 
 be of service. On matters of character, they are of no autho- 
 rity against those who are opposed to them. On matters of 
 doctrine they are no authorities. The Fathers generally abound 
 in follies and absurdities ; and sometimes in things worse than 
 absurdities. Yet there is not a single Father whose works may 
 not be of use, if appealed to in a proper manner, and for a pro- 
 per purpose, — the purpose which 1 have just named. 
 
 He says, I did not give page, work, &c., when I referred to 
 the Fathers. The page, work, &c., are at the service of any 
 individual who wants them. (Laughter.) 
 
 He says, I attributed sentiments to the F athers which are not 
 
MR. barker; 
 
 207 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 to be found in their works. He gave, however, no proof of this. 
 I may add, that I shall lay the passages of the Fathers to which 
 I referred before you in another form, and you shall judge 
 for yourselves. 
 
 He says, Dr. Burton convicted Priestley and Belsham of a 
 number of barefaced lies. It would have been well if he had 
 produced the lies. 
 
 He says, the Gnostics were the parties who denounced mar- 
 riage. He knows they were not the only parties who did 
 so. Vast multitudes denounced it. At first but a few de- 
 nounced it, but in time the heresy may be said to have become 
 general. At first many only considered marriage less holy than 
 abstinence, but allowing that marriage was not sinful ; but 
 people gradually became more corrupt in their views, and mar- 
 riage was spoken against as evil, until at length certain 
 classes were forbidden to marry, and abstinence from mar- 
 riage was recommended even to other people generally. The 
 doctrine prevailed very early, that though marriage was good, 
 virginity was better ; and this doctrine, carried to the extreme, 
 at length made marriage bad, virginity essential, and entire se- 
 clusion from the world requisite, if people were determined to 
 make sure of everlasting life. So far was this error from being 
 confined to the Gnostics. 
 
 He says, there were none who denied the Miraculous Con- 
 ception in the time of the Apostles. I answer, there is no evi- 
 dence that any believed it. Many were ignorant of it, at least 
 in the times of the apostles. And it is certain that Christ and 
 his apostles never say a word to remove this ignorance. We 
 have it also recorded in history that it was disbelieved by the 
 early Jews. The Ebionites and Nazarenes, for whom Matthew, 
 it is supposed, wrote his Gospel, rejected the Miraculous Con- 
 ception as a fable, and refused to have the two first chapters in- 
 serted in his Gospel. It is also a historical fact that his Gospel, 
 which was written in Hebrew, and which the Hebrew Chris- 
 tians possessed, had not those chapters in : and there is further 
 evidence that the original was likewise without them. He him- 
 self also told us, that the Gnostics and the Ebionites denied the 
 doctrine ; yet they lived in the time of the apostles. 
 
 H e says, I made an attack on the Scriptures, and taught my 
 readers that they were a two-mouthed guide and a double- 
 tongued director. I say it is false. I merely endeavoured to 
 assist men in judging for themselves what is Scripture and what 
 is not ; to assist them in distinguishing between what ignorant 
 or wicked men have added to the Scriptures, and the Scriptures 
 themselves. And the individuals who labour to free the Scrip- 
 tures from those additions, and to restore them to their original 
 purity, are the best friends of the Scriptures. When Dr. Ken- 
 nicott, to whom my opponent has referred, examined them with 
 so much care, for this object, was he making an attack upon 
 them ? Does not my opponent speak of his having done great 
 
208 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [fifth 
 
 service to the cause of Christian truth ? Just in the way every 
 man who, in a prudent manner — for the honour of God, and the 
 welfare of mankind — follows in Dr. Kennicott’s steps, and la- 
 bours to promote the purity of the Gospel, is doing service to 
 the cause of truth. Let him find a passage in my works in which 
 1 attack the Scriptures, and I will abandon all pretensions to the 
 Christian name. 
 
 He says, I sneered at the name Emmanuel, and spoke of it 
 as pitiful that it should be applied to Christ. The statement is 
 a most awful slander. 
 
 He says, I once talked of taking the Scriptures in their natu- 
 ral meaning. I take them in their natural, obvious meaning 
 still. No man takes the Scriptures in their plain and obvious 
 meaning more than I do ; few so much. I have done so during 
 the present discussion, when laying before you my views on the 
 atonement, the nature of faith, and the like ; and you have had 
 abundant evidence that I have not advanced a singleL point which 
 I have not substantiated by plain, straightforward, unperverted, 
 unforced declarations of Christ and of his apostles. 
 
 He repeats that I sneered at the prophecies applied to Christ. 
 
 I sneered at nothing ; but I did show that some of the passages 
 quoted in what are called the first and second chapters of Mat- 
 thew, were no prophecies at all, and that others which were 
 prophecies, referred to other matters, and not to J esus Christ. 
 
 lie says, there is no need to pity the evangelists. True ; but 
 we must, however, either reject the chapters containing the 
 story of the Miraculous Conception, or reject the evangelists. 
 The evangelists must be pitied, unless we reject those chapters, 
 for the evangelists must stand forth as men for contradicting 
 themselves, if we allow these chapters to formjpart of their writ- 
 ings. 
 
 He says, Lardner labours to account for the story of the tax- 
 ing. So he does, but hel abours in vain. 
 
 He says, if we have a discrepancy between Luke an inspired 
 writer, and a profane historian, we must believe Luke. True ; 
 but Luke is not the author of those statements which contradict 
 the testimony of other historians. 
 
 My opponent brought forward a quotation from Tacitus, to 
 remove the difficulty about the time of Herod’s death. It does 
 not, however, remove the difficulty. It leaves the matter where 
 it was. 
 
 He says, with reference to Herod being troubled, and all Je- 
 rusalem with him, that it was not unnatural that all should be 
 troubled, Herod was so bad a man. But the Jews were ex- 
 pecting their Messiah to deliver them from Herod. It was, 
 therefore, most unnatural that they should be troubled. They 
 anticipated deliverance from Herod, and glory at the hands of 
 the new king, and the thought that their deliverer was already 
 come, must have swelled their breasts with unutterable joy, and 
 brought them forth to welcome him, and place themselves un- 
 der his authority. 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 209 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 He speaks of my gaining remote conclusions at a jump. — You 
 have, however, seen me take some forty or fifty steady steps, 
 one after another ; and you have seen that it was by these 
 straightforward and numerous steps, that I came to the con- 
 clusion, which has commended itself to the judgment of num- 
 bers, that the two disputed chapters were not the production of 
 an inspired evangelist. 
 
 fie says, the word magoi may mean wise men, just as well as 
 magicians. It is never used in that sense in the New Testament : 
 its only meaning in the New Testament is that of sorcerers. I 
 will just give you all the passages in which the word, or its re- 
 latives, occur. Acts viii. 11, mageia ; that is the name of the 
 art. The translation is, “ bewitched them with sorceries 
 Acts viii. 9, mageuo ; that is the verb, here translated, “ using 
 sorcery .” In Matthew, 2nd chapter, magio , the noun, is used 
 four times, and is translated, “ wise men” The same word is 
 also used in Acts xiii. 6, where it is said, “ They found a cer- 
 tain sorcerer and in the 8th verse, it is applied to Elymas, — ■ 
 u But Elymas, the magos , sorcerer ,” &c. whom Paul calls a 
 “ child of the devil,” and “ an enemy of all righteousness.” I 
 wonder my opponent did not- choose to apply it to myself as 
 well. (Laughter.) Thus the translators have uniformly trans- 
 lated the word sorcerer or sorcerers , when their theological no- 
 tions did not tempt them to do otherwise, and only once have 
 they translated the word by softer terms, where their notions in- 
 terfered to mislead them. 
 
 But he says, perhaps those sorcerers were converted. If he 
 choses to build upon a “ perhaps,” let him do so. Only take you 
 care when^o^ build on a perhaps, to m^ke your own “perhaps.” 
 
 He says, I brought forward the fact of Jesus being a carpenter 
 as if it were a discredit to Jesus. I did not; but simply 
 brought it forward to show, that it was altogether improbable 
 and out of character, to suppose that one who was believed to 
 have been miraculously conceived, who was known to be the 
 Messiah, and to be God over all, should have been held in sub- 
 jection by earthly parents, and employed by them as a carpente 7 *’ 
 And if there be parents in the universe that could hold in sub- 
 jection the God over all, blessed for evermore, and employ him 
 as a carpenter, let me see those parents. 
 
 He represented me as saying, that we should reject the M r - 
 raculous Conception, because we have not the twenty-eight 
 years of the history of Christ from his childhood to his public 
 ministry. I brought forward that fact simply to prove the dis- 
 crepancy between the two chapters containing the Miraculous 
 Conception, and the rest of the Gospel. 
 
 Another reason, my opponent said, that I brought foi ward for 
 rejecting the Miraculous Conception was, that Anna spake of it. 
 I never brought that forward as a reason against it ; but merely 
 to show, that if the fact existed, it had been publicly spoken of, 
 and must have been generally known. 
 
210 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [fifth 
 
 He says — Did God explain to Adam the reason why he for- 
 bad him to use the tree ? Most certainly, he did. He told him 
 u the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” 
 
 He says — Did God explain to Abraham the reason for calling 
 upon him to offer up his son ? Most certainly. He told him it 
 was to try him ; and when he had tried him, he said, “ Now I 
 know that thou fearest me,” &c., and added, that he would now 
 bestow on him the blessings he had previously promised to be- 
 stow. 
 
 He says, if God had given a reason, perhaps Mr. Barker 
 would not have believed it. And he who utters that insinua- 
 tion, calls himself a Christian minister ! Of course such things 
 admit no answer. 
 
 He says, there is no evidence that Christ’s brethren were 
 aware of his Miraculous Conception. True ; there is no inti- 
 mation that they had ever heard of it. That might have been 
 brought forward by myself as additional proof that the story 
 is not true. 
 
 He said something about my being ignorant of a Greek pro- 
 noun ; but as I did not understand what he referred to, 1 can 
 make no reply, and of course I must pass the matter over. 
 (Loud laughter.) 
 
 His references to Genesis iii. and to John i. 14, were all mis- 
 representations of what I stated ; as all who heard my state- 
 smen! will remember. 
 
 He says, I made a regular attack on God’s holy word. The 
 statement is a gross slander. 
 
 He says, the accuracy of the Christians in transcribing the 
 Scriptures was proverbial. I answer, there are not two manu- 
 scripts in existence alikfc ; nor two versions. There, are upwards 
 of a million various readings. Many corruptions, too, have 
 been detected ; and all those corruptions on the Trinitarian or 
 orthodox side — those corruptions bearing exclusively, I might 
 say, but most assuredly generally, on the great fundamental 
 points of orthodox belief. (Disapprobation.) At the same 
 # time, the Scriptures are sufficiently correct for all important 
 purposes : and where there are corruptions, ,we still have the 
 means of correcting those errors ; and of restoring the Scrip- 
 tures, in a great measure, to their original purity. 
 
 >w He made a quotation from one of my speeches, in the discus- 
 sion with Lloyd Jones, about my views on Christianity ; where 
 I state, in substance, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his 
 apostles was every way worthy of God, and calculated to bless 
 mankind. Such are my views still. But the Miraculous Con- 
 ception, the trinity, satisfaction to justice, natural depravity, 
 and eternal torments, form no part of Christianity, as taught by 
 Christ and his apostles. 
 
 If my opponent will now lend me the pamphlet from which 
 he professes to quote my sentiments about the Scriptures, and 
 refer me to the passage in which the words, u a two-mouthed 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 211 
 
 guide, and a double-tongued director,” are used, I shall be much 
 obliged to him. 
 
 Mr. Cooke: — With pleasure. 
 
 Mr. Barker: — 1 will read you the passage. In this passage, 
 
 I am referring to the notion of my opponent, that the Bible, 
 the books of the Old and New Testament, all together are one 
 infallible guide to truth and holiness. The words are these, 
 and you shall judge whether he fairly represented their 
 meaning : — 
 
 “You say the Bible is an infallible guide. Now the Bible 
 means the whole of the books from Genesis to Revelations. 
 But those books lead contrary ways. I take your infallible 
 guide and open it, and my eye falls on the words — An eye for 
 an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and life for life. Shall I follow 
 it? While I am pondering this injunction, I open the book 
 again, and it says, — It was said, by them of old time, An eye 
 for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth ; but I say unto you, resist 
 not evil : but whosoever shall smite thee on one cheek, turn to 
 him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, 
 and take away thy cloak, let him have thy coat also : and. if 
 any one shall compel thee to go with him a mile, go with him 
 two. Is this all one guide ? And can this two-mouthed guide, 
 this double-tongued director, that would lead me east and west 
 at the same time, be an infallible guide? Again ; I open the 
 book once more, and it says, Swear. I open it again, and it 
 says, Swear NOT at all, but let your Yea be Yea, and your Nay, 
 Nay. I open it again, and it says, If you do not like your wife, 
 divorce her, but give her a writing of the divorcement, that she 
 may be able to show it, and so be at liberty to marry again. I 
 open it again, and it says, It hath been said, whosoever shall put 
 away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement : but 
 I say unto you, that whosoever putteth away his wile, saving 
 for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery 
 and so forth. (Applause, and calls to “ order.”) You seel 
 have here drawn a contrast between the Old Testament and the 
 New, between the law of Moses, and the law of Christ, to show 
 how opposite they are to each other, and to show the folly of 
 my opponent representing those opposite laws as one and the 
 same infallible guide. Now if, after this partial quotation, and 
 wicked misrepresentation of my meaning, you can ever trust a 
 man that shall pretend to give an account of my sentiments, 
 from my books, without looking — (Loud applause) — at 
 my books for yourselves, you will deserve to be deceived. 
 (Loud hissing and applause.) I challenge either my opponent, 
 or all the orthodox priests in the world, to prove that the law 
 of Moses and the law of Jesus are the same. I challenge all 
 the orthodox party in the world to prove that the law of Jesus 
 is not better than the law of Moses, and of course different 
 from it ; or to show that the law of Moses is not annulled and 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 212 
 
 [firth 
 
 thrown down, and the law of Christ established in its stead, to 
 he our rule for ever and ever. 
 
 My opponent says, the Bible stands in my way, and in the 
 way of my principles. Does the Bible stand in the way of 
 my views on the atonement, redemption, faith, &c. Does it 
 not teach them most clearly and constantly ? There is some- 
 thing else that stands in the way of those principles ; but I 
 have no doubt that whether the whole Bible helps me or 
 not, the New Testament will assist me ; and that in spite of 
 all hindrances in the way — (and they are neither few nor 
 slight) — of those principles which I advocate, they will make 
 their way, and will, when known, commend themselves to 
 the minds of men, and continue to spread and triumph until 
 they have overturned every false system of man’s invention 
 in the universe, and left nothing but the truth as it is in 
 Jesus to occupy the hearts, and to bless the lives, of man- 
 kind. 
 
 And now, friends, I shall proceed with the subject which 
 my opponent declared he would introduce on the present 
 occasion : and that is, the doctrine of the Trinity ; or the 
 divinity of Christ, which is one part of that doctrine. I did 
 state, that if my opponent did not enter at large into the sub- 
 ject, I should choose rather to take his views as contained in liis 
 pamphlet on the subject, than the limited, curtailed statements 
 which he might give in his speech before this meeting. As he 
 has not chosen to give his views on the Trinity at length, I shall 
 take his views as laid down in his pamphlet, But I shall first 
 state my own views : and in so doing, I must be perfectly in 
 order, even according to my opponents ; for, according to them, 
 there is but one question, namely — What is a Christian? and 
 what are the principles of a .Christian’s faith and practice ? for 
 the whole discussion. 
 
 My first remark, then, is this, that there is no such word 
 as “ Trinity,” to be found in the whole of the sacred Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 My second remark, is this, that there are no such phrases as 
 “ three persons in one God,” 44 Trinity in Unity,” 44 Unity in 
 Trinity,” or a 44 Triune God,” in the Scriptures. 
 
 [Some communication passed from Mr. Grant to Mr. Gilmore, 
 and was intimated to Mr. Barker ; who continued.] 
 
 Mr. Grant says I ought to go on with the atonement. I have 
 demonstrated ail my views on the atonement ; and why repeat 
 what 1 have already stated, and what has never been replied to % 
 If my opponent had answered me, I should have gone on : but 
 I have nothing to reply to. Therefore, 1 shall go on with the 
 subjects I have named, and which were introduced even at 
 the beginning,— the subjects which I myself introduced in the 
 first lecture. 
 
 On looking over Mr. Cooke’s tract, 1 find such words and 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 213 
 
 phrases as, Trinity ; one essence, but divided into three per- 
 sons ; a real distinction in the Godhead ; Trinity in Unity, 
 and Unity in Trinity ; and a threefold personality ; the Triune 
 God ; three persons in one substance ; holy Trinity, and 
 the like. I can only say that none of these words or phrases 
 are to be found in the Scriptures. They are all made by men ; 
 and they are all both unscriptural and barbarous, and unmean- 
 ing too. 
 
 Again, the word “persons” is never applied to God in the 
 Scriptures ; nor is the word “person” applied to God more 
 than once, and that is in lieb. 1st chapter, 3rd verse, which 
 is a mistranslation. It is when Christ is called “ the bright- 
 ness of his Bather’s glory, and the express image of his per- 
 son.” The word rendered “ person” is hypostasis — a word 
 which means nature or substance, and is never used to signify 
 46 person.” 
 
 Again, God is never, in Scripture, called two or three ; but 
 the Scriptures do expressly declare that there is One God and 
 but One God ; that that One God is only One, and not Three. 
 He is called the Holy One, the Mighty One ; but he is never 
 called the Holy Three, or the Mighty Three. 
 
 It might be said, that it is of no moment whether we use 
 Scripture words or not, in stating our doctrine. To me, how- 
 ever, it appears of the utmost moment ; and when it serves 
 my opponent’s turn, he himself can speak in the same way. 
 On one occasion, he quoted the words of Paul, where he exhorts 
 Timothy to hold fast the form of sound words. It is true he 
 left out what followed ; which was just that part of the pas- 
 sage on the meaning of which the whole depended, the part 
 which says, “ even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 
 Still, I suppose he will acknowledge the goodness of the advice 
 Now if we are to hold fast the words of Jesus Christ in speak- 
 ing of the God whom he came to reveal, my opponent must be 
 altogether wrong in taking, in their stead, those barbarous, 
 latinized words, which have neither common sense nor Sciipture 
 to recommend them. 
 
 Another remark is, that as the word “ Trinity,” or the 
 words “ Three persons in one God,” are not in the Bible, no 
 one can prove that the doctrine of the Trinity is there : for the 
 doctrine itself is acknowledged to be unintelligible — is ac- 
 knowledged to be an incomprehensible mystery, even by its 
 advocates themselves. No one can explain what Three persons 
 in one God means, as the Orthodox use these words. So that 
 no one can know what it is they seek for in any passages of 
 Scripture, when they are directed to seek for the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. I may use the word “ Atonement,” which is not now 
 found in any of the later versions of the New Testament, as 
 the name of a Scripture doctrine. Should any one say, There 
 is no such word as atonement in the New Testament, I might 
 reply ; True, the word is not there, but the thing signified by 
 
214 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [fifth 
 
 the word is there. But how am I to prove that the thing is 
 there? I answer, by explaining the word, and showing what 
 it means, and then going to the Scriptures to find if the same 
 thing of which I have given the meaning is not in the Scrip- 
 tures. I explain “ Atonement” to mean reconciliation — the 
 reconciliation of man to God. I goto the Scriptures, and I find 
 the doctrine of reconciliation plainly stated. So that of course 
 I prove that though the word “ Atonement” is not in the later 
 versions, the thing , reconciliation, which is what I mean by the 
 word, is there, by finding passages where the reconciliation is 
 taught in the plainest and most intelligible terms. But my 
 opponents not only cannot find the words Trinity, and Three 
 persons in one God, in the Scriptures, but they cannot tell you 
 what they mean by Trinity — they cannot tell you what 
 they themselves mean by three persons in one God. So 
 that you cannot get hold of the meanitig of the words, in order 
 to enable you to go and see whether the thing be in the Scrip- 
 tures or not. And as you have no idea what it is that you are 
 to seek for, how can you tell when you have found it, or found 
 a passage that contains it ? Unless, therefore, you find the very 
 words , — such as Trinity, or Three persons in one God, or Trin- 
 ity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, — you cannot find the doc- 
 trine ; for the doctrine itself is unintelligible, inexplicable. 
 
 Again, my opponent has, in his tract, attempted to give an 
 explanation of the words Three persons in one God, in some 
 obscure form. Ke says it is three real , not nominal , distinc- 
 tions in the Deity. But he tells us, at the same time, that what 
 kind of distinctions they are, he cannot explain. So that he 
 only explains one dark word by another. He only exchanges 
 one bit of a cloud for another, and leaves the darkness still 
 visible and impenetrable. And the new words are quite as un- 
 scriptural as the old ones. There is nothing said in Scripture 
 about three distinctions in the Godhead. 
 
 Again, the word “ person” in ordinary language, means an 
 individual being, and “three persons” mean three individual 
 beings. Now the same word, if it have any meaning at all that 
 can be understood, will have the same signification when ap- 
 plied to the Divine Being : and three divine persons will be 
 three divine beings, and three divine beings will be three Gods. 
 So that the doctrine, if it be anything at ail, is, that there are 
 three Gods in one God ; and if the word person is not used in 
 its common signification, if it be used in an unknown, unintel- 
 ligible signification, then the doctrine of the Trinity will mean 
 three nobody knows what. (Hissing.) 
 
 My opponent, however, contends that his doctrine of the 
 Trinity has been held and taught by heathen writers ; by the 
 ancient Jewish writers previous to Christ’s birth ; as well as by 
 the early Christians generally. These, his statements, I am 
 wishful very briefly to notice ; more especially as they will 
 show the credit that is due to Mr. Cooke’s professed quotations 
 
MR* BARKER. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 215 
 
 from those ancient Pagans, and those ancient Jewish and 
 Christian writers. 
 
 He tells us, in the first place, that the doctrine of a Trinity 
 in the Godhead was held by heathen nations in every part of 
 the world, and in all ages : and he professes to quote a number 
 of authors in support of that statement. Now it might be 
 enough for us to answer, — that if all the ancient heathens had 
 held the doctrine of the Trinity, it would furnish no proof of 
 its truth ; for we know that the heathen nations generally are 
 charged by Paul, from the beginning, with the crime of 
 corrupting the truth of God and turning it into a lie. They are 
 charged not onty with having multiplied gods without end, but 
 with having lost the knowledge of the true God : and they are 
 represented by the apostle as being atheists, or, as it is trans- 
 lated, — as being without God, as well as without hope in the 
 world. 
 
 Hut, in the second place, the statement of my opponent is 
 not true. I have read ancient Pagan writers, both Greeks and 
 Homans ; and I never found any thing like the orthodox doc- 
 trine of the Trinity in any of those ancient heathen writers. 
 We know that Plato had a Trinity of his own ; but it was not 
 the Christian Trinity — that is to say, the Orthodox Trinity.. 
 It was a Trinity that was very likely the father of the Ortho- 
 dox trinity ; but the father is still unlike the child. The child 
 has grown into a monster a thousand times more hideous than 
 its original parent ever was. 
 
 One of the quotations which nay opponent professes to give 
 is from Seneca in his work to H el via. I won’t read it to you 
 in Latin; but my opponent may, if he pleases. (Laughter.) 
 Seneca is telling his friend that the affairs of the Universe are 
 admirably well ordered — that they are ordered in such a way, 
 that those things which are most valuable are the most secure ; 
 and those of our possessions or enjoyments which are the most 
 uncertain, are those which are of least importance, — that how- 
 ever people may slander and injure us, there are two great 
 blessings, our common nature as men, and our own virtue or 
 goodness, which our persecutors can never take from us. And 
 then he proceeds to say, — “ It has been ordered, believe me, by 
 Him, whoever he was, who formed the universe, whether the 
 Almighty God himself, or the incorporeal reason, the artificer 
 of all great works, or the divine spirit diffused through all 
 things, the least as well as the greatest, or fate and the immut- 
 able series of cohering causes, it has been ordered, I say, that 
 nothing but our most worthless possessions shall be in the 
 power of another. A most admirable arrangement !” I ask, 
 Where is the Trinity here ? Seneca simply refers to a number 
 of different notions which prevailed about the origin or maker 
 of the world ; and says, which ever notion be true, whoever 
 the maker of the world might be, he had ordered things well. 
 He does not, -himself profess to believe either in one or other of 
 
216 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [fifth 
 
 these notions, hut brings forward four or five notions held by 
 different parties, and simply says, which ever notion be true — 
 whether the world was made by God, as some contend, or rea- 
 son, or some divine spirit diffused through all, or fate, — which- 
 ever it was, the world was well made. As you may see, Seneca 
 mentions four or five supposed authors of the world, not three; 
 but my opponent, by stopping his quotation in the middle of 
 the sentence, and giving part of the sentence as if it were the 
 whole, has completely misrepresented the author’s meaning. 
 But as for the Trinity, there is not the slightest vestige of it to 
 be found in the passage. And yet Wm. Cooke is the individual 
 who professes to speak of other people misquoting ! 
 
 Again ; he tells us that no fact is more clear, or more fully 
 attested, than that the ancient Jews believed in the Trinity. I 
 reply, that assertion is quite opposite to the truth. In the first 
 place, the Jews themselves state that the doctrine is not taught 
 in the writings of their forefathers. And in the second place, 
 even" orthodox divines have declared that the ancient Jews never 
 could find the doctrine of the Trinity in the Scriptures. Bishop 
 Beveridge himself, and other orthodox writers, attest the same 
 truth— -that the Jews never made it, never could make it, an arti- 
 cle of faith. But assuming that the Jewish writers really had held 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, what would the testimony be worth? 
 Jesus Christ has given an account of the character of those an- 
 cient Jewish teachers, and it may not be amiss to remind you 
 of Christ’s words. I shall not imitate my opponent, who, when 
 he pretended to give you the character of Marcion, quoted only 
 the testimony of those orthodox fathers who were his perse- 
 cutors and slanderers, and who, on such matters, were unwor- 
 thy of the slightest credit .: I shall quote from Jesus Christ, 
 whose testimony my opponent will not call in question. He 
 tells you that the ancient Jewish Babbies were men who sub- 
 stituted their own traditions for the doctrines of God; persons 
 who got hold of the keys of knowledge, or of the kingdom of 
 heaven, but w ould neither go in themselves, nor suffer those 
 who w ere entering to go in ; blind leaders of the blind ; men 
 who devoured widows’ houses, and for a pretence made long 
 prayers ; a race of serpents ; a generation of vipers ; wolves in 
 sheep’s clothing ; w hited sepulchres, fair without, but within 
 full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness ; full of hy- 
 pocrisy and iniquity ; liars, deceivers, and murderers. They 
 w ere, in fact, the very men w ho w ere the chief slanderers and 
 persecutors of Christ ; the men that called him a madman and 
 a devil, that charged him with blasphemy, that condemned him 
 on perjured testimony, and then crucified him. This is the 
 character of the old J ews, to w hose testimony my opponent 
 refers in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 My opponent professes to give a quotation from the Targum 
 of Jonathan, on Isaiah 6th chapter and 3rd verse, where it is 
 said “ one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 217 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Lord of Hosts.” He tells us that the comment of Jonathan on 
 these words, is, when literally translated, as follows : “ Holy, 
 that is the Father ; holy, that is the Son ; holy, that is the 
 Spirit.” I happen to have an exact transcript of Jonathan’s 
 comment on this passage ; and it so happens that in the whole 
 passage there is not the slightest hint at a trinity ; there is nei- 
 ther the Chaldee word for Father, nor the word for Son, nor 
 the word for Spirit. There is neither Ab , which is the word 
 for Father ; nor Ben or Bar , which is the word for Son ; nor 
 Ruach^ which is the word for Spirit ; and if my opponent will 
 bring forward Jonathan’s Targura, and let the matter be decid- 
 ed by competent witnesses, their testimony shall decide the 
 point; and if he does not bring forward that Targum he will 
 stand convicted of a false or forged quotation from Jonathan ; — ■ 
 he will be convicted of either having attempted to impose upon 
 his readers by falsely quoting a work, which, as it is out of the 
 reach of people generally, they had not the means of examining; 
 or else ol carelessly following the orthodox falsifiers which went 
 before him. 
 
 Again ; I have in my hand a work by Rammohun Roy, a 
 convert from llindooism, a Bramin himself, and afterwards a 
 Rajah. He was converted by reading the Scriptures, without 
 human additions or perversions. He was not, however, con- 
 verted to orthodox notions of religion, but to simple Christian- 
 ity. After his conversion, he began to instruct his countrymen 
 in Christianity, lie published first the precepts of Jesus, and 
 then he began by advocating simple Anti-Trinitarian Chris- 
 tianity : and the missionaries, Dr. Marshman and others, im- 
 mediately commenced slandering and opposing him. At page 
 299, he gives the commentary of Jonathan ; and renders it 
 thus “ lioly in the most high heavens, the place of his glory ; 
 holy upon earth, the work of his power ; holy for ever, and 
 ever, aud ever ;” — There is neither Father, Son, nor Holy 
 Ghost in the whole. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 1 have examined some of my opponent’s pretended quotations 
 from the Christian Fathers, by which he attempts to prove that 
 the early Christians, from the beginning, held the doctrine of 
 the trinity ; and 1 find them of a similar character with those 
 he has given from Pagan authors, and from ancient Jewish 
 writers. lie knows that few people have access to those wri- 
 ters, or he would not so frequently refer to them. Of course it 
 is natural for a man, when plain Scripture will not hear him 
 out, to have recourse to Fathers and Rabbies. My opponent 
 leaves the daylight and goes into a dark room where there is 
 plenty of dust, hut no light ; and there attempts by his busy 
 meddling, to make people outside imagine that he is achieving 
 some mighty exploit, while all the while he is merely making a 
 dust. I don’t wonder at my opponent plunging amidst the 
 darkness of the ancient Pagans, and more ancient Jews, and the 
 mysteries and absurdities of the ancient Fathers, and attempting 
 
 K 
 
218 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [fifth 
 
 to lead away people by displays of pretended learning, for 
 tliere is no plain testimony in Scripture in favour of his views. 
 There is not a passage in the whole of the sacred volume that 
 expressly teaches his doctrines ; because the plain testimony of 
 Scripture will not bear him out. While the plain testimony of 
 Scripture not only bears me out in every thing I state, but it 
 speaks so expressly in favour of the views I advocate, and uses 
 so constantly the same words which I use, that if the Bible had 
 been written on purpose to back my principles, it could not 
 have done so more effectually. (Applause and hissing.) 1 say, 
 on every subject which I have introduced to your notice, the 
 sacred writings are so plainly, so clearly, so distinctly, so con- 
 stantly in favour of the principles 1 advocate, that if they had 
 been written on purpose to defend the principles I have unfold- 
 ed, they could not have done it more completely, they could not 
 have been more perfectly adapted to my purpose. 
 
 But my opponent goes a step further. He proceeds, after he 
 has quoted from Pagans, and Jews, and Fathers, to pay a little 
 respect to the Scriptures, and to propose to come to their testi- 
 mony. And I shall now briefly notice what he considers his 
 Scripture arguments. 
 
 The first argument which he brings forward is, that in the 
 Old Testament the name of God — the name most commonly 
 used for God, is a plural name. The word is Aleim , as he gives 
 it ; or, as it is generally given, Elohim ; and he tells us that 
 the application of this name to God, proves that there are three 
 persons in one God. He says the Hebrew language is peculiar- 
 ly expressive, and that its names of objects are not arbitrary 
 signs, but significant of their nature and properties , or of some 
 remarkable circumstance designed to be preserved in memory ; 
 —that, accordingly, the names of God were expressive of him- 
 self ; and were chosen by him to express his nature, and impart 
 instruction. And he adds, that there must be a fitness ^impro- 
 priety in the names applied to God ; they must be appropriate 
 to his nature , and necessary to explain it. "What are the princi- 
 pal names of God in Hebrew? He answers, Jehovah and Elo- 
 him .. Elohim is the plural of El. But El means God. It is 
 generally translated God. But if Elohim be the plural of God , 
 then it means Gods, And it is a fact, that in the original the 
 words translated, “ And God made man,” are “ And Gods made 
 man.” If, then, we take the words literally, we must suppose 
 that Gods made man.” And it is not merely in a few instances 
 that Elohim is used ; it is used almost constantly. The word 
 used for God in the original Hebrew is nearly always in the 
 plural form, and, when literally translated, it is Gods. Now 
 my opponent says the Hebrew language is peculiarly expressive , 
 and that the names that God chooses to give himself must be fit 
 and appropriate , and must express his nature ; but the very 
 name which my opponent says he has chosen, is Elohim , Gods ; 
 which would proYe, on my opponent’s principle, that there are 
 
219 
 
 NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 
 
 several Gods, not three — for the number is not limited, but Gods, 
 which may embrace a multiplicity of Gods. He also tells us 
 that the word translated “ Creator ” is plural. It is ; and there- 
 fore the literal translation of a well-known passage would be — 
 
 “ Remember now thy Creators in the days of thy youth.’’ 
 Thus the Hebrew language, which is alwa}^ so peculiarly ex- 
 pressive, and the names given in which are always so appropri- 
 ate in describing nature and properties, proves, on my oppo- 
 nent’s principle, that there are more Mahers than one — more 
 Gods than one ; — that we may have Makers and Gods without 
 any limit, and without end. 
 
 Now it so happens that all the arguments of my opponent are 
 of the same kind. If they prove any thing, they prove, not that 
 there are three persons, but three Gods, or rather a great multi- 
 tude of Gods. But are there three Gods ? My opponent will 
 say, Nay. The very word, then, which, according to William 
 Cooke, is so expressive of God’s character, is not to be translat- 
 ed literally. My opponent is obliged to renounce his principle. 
 God is one. The word which in the Hebrew means Gods , is 
 constantly translated God. It means God. All the Orthodox 
 Trinitarian translators go upon that principle, not one ventur- 
 ing to translate Eloliim in the plural, as it is in the original. 
 The word occurs a thousand times in the Scriptures, and yet, 
 when applied to God, it is invariably translated by the singular 
 name God, and not Gods . When, however, the same word is 
 applied to heathen deities, it is always translated in the plural 
 — as “ the gods of the heathen yet the word is the very same 
 in the Hebrew, whether applied to the heathen gods, or to the 
 true God, Jehovah. You may ask, how, then, is it that a plural 
 word is thus used in the singular sense ? I answer, how is it 
 that so many plural names in our own language have lost their 
 singular ; as wages, means, sheep, and a number of others that 
 we have in the plural, but not in the singular ? Take the word 
 “news” for instance; how is it that its singular is lost*? The 
 reason is, that the things to which these words refer, are gene- 
 rally or always seen in companies. The singular, therefore, 
 falls gradually out of use ; the plural alone remains : and we 
 come at length to use the plural noun with the singular verb, 
 even where we only mean a single thing. It was much the 
 same in reference to the word God. All nations that believed 
 in a Deity at all, believed in several gods ; and when speaking 
 of divine powers, they always used the plural noun — their Gods. 
 No nation that ever had a god at all, thought of being content 
 with one. Hence the singular name was almost lost ; and the 
 plural name alone remained. This was the case when God 
 called Abraham to teach him the knowledge of the one true 
 God. He did not change the name for God, but uses the com- 
 mon name, Elohim , Gods . But while he uses the common 
 name, he puts the children of Israel upon their guard against 
 misunderstanding him, and imagining that he was several % ods, 
 
220 MR. BARKER. >i £FIFTH 
 
 like the Rods of the nations, saying, “ Hear, O Israel, JEHO-- 
 VAH, yohr gods, is ONE Jehovah.” And if you look through 
 the Old Testament you will frequently lind the singular, Jeho- 
 yah, joined to the plural, Eiohim , Gods. They joined the sin- 
 gular verb also with the plural noun, as my opponent says ; and 
 this appears to have been done on purpose to prevent the idea 
 that there were several gods, and to teach them that Jehovah is 
 God alone, and beside him, or with him, there is no other God. 
 
 I ought to observe, that the Almighty might wish to retain 
 the name Eiohim, because it comes from a word which signifies 
 powerful, strong, mighty. He might think, that unless he claimed 
 that title, and exhibited himself as possessing what the heathens 
 considered the chief attribute of their gods, power, and that to a 
 far greater extent than the heathen gods were supposed to possess it, 
 the Israelites would not be likely to rest under his protection. He 
 therefore chose to continue the plural name, Ehhim , which cus- 
 tom had deprived of its singular form, and which was given by 
 surrounding nations to their multitudes of gods ; but he took 
 care to tell them that He, who now used that name, was the sole, 
 solitary God, was the Most High over all the earth. Here, then, 
 we have in the original the plural noun Gods, applied to Jeho- 
 vah ; and we have shown that if it proves anything, it proves, 
 not three persons , but a multiplicity of Gods. But we have 
 shown that it proves no sucli thing. It only proves that Jeho- 
 vah is the only strong and mighty God ; and that compared with 
 his, there is no power, or might, or strength in existence. 
 
 To show that the argument in favour of the Trinity, drawn 
 from the use of the plural word, Eiohim, has no force, and ought 
 not to be relied upon, I might adduce, in further proof, that the 
 translators of the Bible have always given the name in the sin- 
 gular number whenever it refers to the true God ; and that they 
 have never given it in the plural but when it refers to false 
 deities. 
 
 I think we need no other proof. In all the versions in the 
 universe the word is translated in like manner ; — not Gods but 
 God ; not as & plural hut a singular name. 
 
 There is, however, this further proof. In the JSejuo Testament 
 we find no other than the word 1'heos for God in the singular. 
 It is never in the plural at all. Neither the Latin word Eeus, 
 God, in the Vulgate, nor the Greek word Theos, God, do we 
 ever find used in the plural number throughout the whole New 
 Testament. And we are also expressly taught, that, as in the 
 Old Testament among the Jews, so in the New Testament 
 among the Christians, there is but one God, and his name is 
 only one. 
 
 There are a number of other arguments of Mr. Cooke’s which 
 might be noticed ; but I would rather not make his speech and 
 my reply at the same time. 
 
 My opponent seemed very wishful to avoid the question of 
 the Trinity, or three persons in one God, — to pass it by— and to 
 
XIGHT,] MR. BANKER. tA 221 
 
 come to what he appears to think the most defensible part of the 
 doctrine, the deity of Jesus Christ. And as tiiis was one of the 
 points announced by my opponent for discussion this evening, I 
 shall briefly give a few particulars of my views on this subject, 
 and Mr. Cooke may repiy when he thinks best. 
 
 Well, then, in reference to Christ, what do the Scriptures teach? 
 Now mark, if I do not give the plain, simple, natural meaning 
 of every passage I quote. 
 
 1. In Lieb. ii. 17, we are told that Christ was “made in all 
 things like unto his brethren.” But his brethren are not made 
 up of a complete God and a perfect man in one person. 
 
 2. In the 4th chapter of the same epistle, verse 15, it is said, 
 Christ was “ tempted in all points like as we are.” But God 
 cannot be tempted as we are : nor can a person who is made 
 up of perfect God and perfect man united, be tempted as we 
 are. 
 
 3. It is also said, in the same place, that Christ was “ touched 
 with the feeling of our infirmities,” or weaknesses. But God 
 cannot have our infirmities, nor can he feel them as we feel 
 them ; nor can a being made up of perfect God and perfect 
 man. 
 
 4. Again ; Jesus is called a man . He is called a man re- 
 peatedly. See John viii. 40, — “ But now ye seek to kill me, 
 a man that hath told y ou the truth, which I have heard of God.” 
 Isaiah viii. 3, — “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sor- 
 rows, and acquainted with giief.” John the Baptist said,— “ After 
 me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he was before 
 me.” Speaking of Christ’s miracles, we are told by Matthew, 
 — 1 “ But when the multitudes saw it they marvelled, and glori- 
 fied God, which had given such power unto men” And in Acts 
 ii. 22, the apostle Peter says, — “ Ye men of Israel, hear these 
 words ; Jesus of IN azareth, a man approved of God among you 
 by miracles,” § c. But what is a man ? is it a being made up 
 of an angel and a man ? Or of a man and a perfect God ? Such 
 a being would not be a man. It would be as improper to call 
 such a being a man, as to call God himself a man. 
 
 5. Again ; Jesus is called “ the son of man” about eighty-four 
 times ; a name Which both expresses his manhood and his de- 
 scent from man. It expresses his simple, pure, and perfect 
 manhood, and his descent from man, if the principle of interpre- 
 tation laid down by my opponent be just. 
 
 6. Again; Christ is said to be the (( sent of God,” or the 
 messenger of God. John viii. 42, — “ Neither came I of myself, 
 but he” — that is, the Father— sent me.” John xvii. 18, — ■ 
 “As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent 
 them into the w*orld.” And numerous other places. But 
 God could not be sent into the w T ould ; nor could God send 
 God. 
 
 7. Again ; he is said to be raised up by God. Acts xiii. 23, 
 —“Of this man’s seed hath God, according to his promise, 
 
 K 2 
 
222 MR. BARKER. [FIFTH 
 
 raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.” But God could not raise 
 up God . 
 
 8. Christ is also said to have been sanctified , or set apart by 
 God and sent into the world. John x. 86,-—“ Him whom the 
 Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world.” But how 
 could God sanctify, or separate God ? How could God sanc- 
 tify himself? 
 
 9. He is said to have been anointed by God. Acts x. 38,— 
 “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit, and 
 with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that 
 were oppressed with the devil ; for God teas with him.” It does 
 not say — for he /was God. And, again, Heb. i. 9.—“ Thou 
 hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity ; therefore God, 
 even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above 
 thy fellows.” 
 
 10. Christ is called the “ Son of God.” But it is impossible 
 that he who is the Son of God should be the true God himself. 
 If son refer to his nature, it expresses his derivation from God, 
 and therefore his dependence on God for his existence : and if 
 it express his office , power, and dignity, it still implies that he 
 had them all from God. 
 
 11. Again ; Christ tells us that he came in the name or au- 
 thority of God, and not in his own name. John v. 41,— “I am 
 come in my Father’s name.” But why come in the name of 
 another, if he himself was God? Why come in the name of 
 another, if his own authority was the authority of God— -abso- 
 lute— -supreme ? 
 
 12. Christ tells us that he received his doctrines from the Fa- 
 ther. John vii. 16, — “ My doctrine is not mine but his that 
 sent me.” But if he were God as truly as the Father, what 
 need could he have to receive his doctrine from another ? 
 
 13. Again ; Christ said he was taught his doctrine by his Fa- 
 ther. John viii. 28,--“ As my Father hath taught me, I speak 
 these things.” But God could need no teaching. And if you 
 say he speaks here of his human nature, still his human nature 
 could need no instruction from the Father, if there was one 
 equal to the Father, God the Son, within him. 
 
 11. Again, he says, John xiv. 24,—“ The word which ye hear 
 is not mine, but the Father’s that sent me.” And John xvii. 
 8,—“ I have given unto them the words which thou gavest 
 me.” Now, why receive words and doctrine from any other 
 person in the Godhead, if he himself was a person in the God- 
 head, and equal to the others? 
 
 15. Christ wrought his miracles by the power of God, and not by 
 his ora power. Matt. xii. 28.— “If I cast out devils by ^ the 
 spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.” In 
 Luke xi. 20,—“ If I with the finger of God cast out devils,” 
 &c. Hence the works which lie did are said to be his 
 Father's, and to be done by him : John xiv. 10,---“ The words 
 that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself ; and the Father 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 223 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 that dwelleth in me, he doth the works” And Acts ii. 22,— 
 “ Jesus of Nazareth, a man proved to be of God among you, by 
 miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him .” This 
 is not the language to be used of a God. If he were God, why 
 need God to help him ? If it was his human nature that needed 
 help, why not have help from his divine nature ? What better 
 was he for being God the Son, if he could do nothing without 
 the help of God the Father. 
 
 16. Christ had all his power and authority from the Father. 
 Matt, xxviii. 18 , — u All power” — authority — “is given unto me 
 in heaven and in earth.” Acts x. 88, — God anointed Jesus of 
 Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” authority. 
 But what need could he have of authority from the Father, 
 if he was God himfilf, and had equal authority with the 
 Father ? 
 
 17. Christ had everything from God. John iii. 35,— “ The 
 Father lovetli the Son, and hath given all things into bis hands.” 
 Matt. xi. 27, — “ All things are delivered unto me of my 
 Father.” But if he had been God , God the Son , he could have 
 received nothing : he must have had all things from the begin* 
 ning. And if it was his human nature that received all, 
 still there was no need for his human nature to receive any 
 thing from the Father , when it was united with God the Son , 
 equal to the Father. 
 
 18. Again; Christ received his power or authority to lay 
 down his life and take it up again from the Father. John x. 
 17, 18, — “ Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay 
 down my life, that I may take it up again. No man taketh it 
 from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power (autho- 
 rity,) to lay it down, and I have power (authority,) to take it 
 up again. This commandment, (commission or authority,) 
 have I received of my Father.” 
 
 19. Again, it was from God the Father that he received the 
 commission to judge and bless men. John v. 26, 27, — “ As the 
 Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have 
 life in himself ; and hath given him authority to execute judg- 
 ment. also, because he is the Son of man.” 
 
 20. Christ acknowledges his inferiority to the Father. John 
 x. 29, — “ My Father, who gave them me, is greater than all.” 
 John xiv. 28, — u My Father is greater than /.” 
 
 21. Paul also declares, that as the “ head of every man is 
 Christ , so the head of Christ is God.” 1 Cor. xi. 3, — “ But I 
 would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ ; 
 and the head of the woman is the man ; and the head of 
 Christ is God.” He also says, 1 Cor. iii. 23, — “ Ye are Christ’s; 
 and Christ is God’s.” 
 
 22. Hence the Father had the original disposal of places in 
 his kingdom. Matt. xX. 23, — “ To sit on my right hand, and on 
 my left, is not mine to give, except to them for whom it is pre- 
 pared of my Father.” 
 
224 ME. BARKER. [FIFTH 
 
 23. .Again, Christ is said to receive his kingdom , his high 
 name, his Lordship , &c., from God; and that as the reward of 
 his obedience or fidelity. Acts ii. 26,— “ God hath made that 
 same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 
 Acts v. 30,— -“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom 
 ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his 
 right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour.” Phil. ii. 9—11. 
 Because he was lowly, disinterested, full of love,-— because 
 when lie was in the form of God, and clothed with God’s autho- 
 rity, he made not use of his greatness for selfish purposes, but 
 humbled himself, and took on himself the form of a servant, 
 and “ became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; 
 therefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a 
 name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus 
 every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in 
 earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should 
 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the 
 Father.” Heb. i. 9. 
 
 24. Christ received power to forgive sins from God. Matt, 
 ix. 1—8,—“ And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and 
 came into his own city. And, behold, they brought to him a 
 man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their 
 faith said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer; thy 
 sins be forgiven thee. And, behold, certain of the scribes said 
 within themselves, This man blasphemeth. And Jesus know- 
 ing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 
 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; or to 
 say, Arise and walk ? But that ye may know that the Son of 
 man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saitli he to the 
 sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine 
 house. And he arose, and departed to his house. But when 
 the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified GOD , which 
 had G1 V EE such power unto MEN.” My opponent endeavours 
 to prove that Christ must have been God, as he forgave sin. 
 But this would prove that the apostles also were Gods, for they 
 received the same power. John xx. 21 — 23, — ' “ Then said 
 Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you : as my Father hath 
 sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he 
 breathed on them, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy 
 Ghost; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: 
 and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” 
 
 26. Again, the God that was in Christ , was God the Father , not 
 God the Aon. John xiv. 8—11, — “ Philip saitli unto him, Lord, 
 show us the Father, and it sutficeth us. Jesus said unto him. 
 Have 1 been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not 
 known me, Philip? he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father; 
 and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest 
 thou not that 1 am in the Father, and the Father in me ? the 
 words that 1 speak unto you, I speak not of myself : and the 
 Father that dwelleth in me, he doetli the works.” It was not 
 
KTOHT.p Mil,, J3ARKER. | f j / j } 225 
 
 God the Son,, then, that dwelt in Jesus, hut God) the (Father, 
 the only God there is. , f , . / , : 
 
 27. Again, the Word that was made flesh was God the 
 Father; the true. God, that made the world ; s not God the Son* 
 John i. 1. — “ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 was with God, and the Word was God;” — the true God, 
 the One God, the only God there is; not God the Son. By that 
 one God all things were made; and that one God became flesh; 
 he dwelt in Jesus, and he manifested himself through him. 
 Hence Christ is called the image of God, because God showed 
 himself through him — made himself visible to men’s minds 
 through him. 
 
 27. Again, Christ taught that there is but one true God; and 
 that that true God is God tiie Father. John xvii. 3 , — “ This 
 is life eternal, 0 Father, that they know thee the ONLY 
 TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” 
 
 28. Jesus always prayed to the Father. He taught us also 
 tPpray to the Father, and he never taught us to pray to any 
 one else. Matt. vi. 9, — “ After this manner, therefore, pray 
 ye : Our Father which art in heaven.” He never told us to 
 pray to himself, but on the contrary, he commanded us not to 
 pray to himself. Referring to the time when he should go away, 
 he said, “ In that day ye shall ash me nothing;” but whatso- 
 ever ye shall ask the Father in my name , he will give it you” 
 — John xvi. 23. 
 
 29. It has been said that calling upon the name of Christ 
 means prayer to Christ. This, however, is not the case. It 
 means surnaming themselves by his name; taking his name on 
 them as members of his church, or as under his authority. 
 
 30. Many passages have been brought forward to prove the 
 pre-existence of Christ; and some fancy that they can prove 
 his deity by his pre-existence. There are, however, many who 
 believe in his pre-existence, who do not believe in his deity. 
 B I would further add, that there is no proof of Christ’s pre- 
 existence. There is as clear proof that Christ died from the 
 foundation of the world— that God promised us eternal life in 
 Christ before the foundation of the world, — as that Christ lived 
 before the foundation. 
 
 31. Again ; where Christ is said to have come down from 
 heaven , to be in heaven, &c., it is as “the son of man f and not as 
 Cod the Son, It is also said that John was sent from God, But 
 the meaning is, not that he existed with God, and came into the 
 world from another place, but that God commissioned him. So 
 God sent his Son, and commissioned him. And Christ says, — 
 “ As my Father sent me , so send I you;” that is, sent them 
 on a divine commission to preach, and teach, and bless man- 
 kind. 
 
 32. Again; in II eb. 1. 9, Christ is said to have been taken 
 from his fellows. “ Thy God hath anointed thee with the 
 oil of gladness above thy fellows.” He had fellows, equals; 
 
 k 3 
 
226 MR. BARKER. [FIFTH NIGHT. 
 
 but God raised him above his equals, on account of his pecu- 
 liar piety. 
 
 I shall examine at a future period the statements that Christ 
 created the heaven and earth — that he performed the same 
 works of creation that the Father did ; and I shall be able to 
 show yon, by ample evidence, that the creation in which Jesus 
 Christ was the agent, w T as the spiritual creation — the making of 
 all things new. 
 
 I am told that my time has just expired. I have no wish 
 to overrun the time. I thank you for your patient hearing ; 
 and trust you will remember what I have said, and see, 
 when the time comes, whether my opponent answers me. — 
 (Applause.) 
 
 END OF FIFTH NIGHT’S DISCUSSION. 
 
227 
 
 -uosq Bid 1 . • ' - . ■ - • 
 
 fellilQ fsift ■:}? 
 
 9£I1B8 9(B .i->9Xin0n9<J &n hr> 
 
 Qvt yidB 9*1 ILfillS i. 1)11.6 « OhJ T9i»-UiT 
 
 SIXTH NIGHT. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1845. 
 
 After welcoming Messrs. Cooke and Barker this evening in 
 the usual manner, the audience continued retorting cheer for 
 cheer— now for “ Cooke” and now for “ Barker” — for some 
 minutes. 
 
 Mr. Grant Let me entreat of you to he orderly. You 
 only excite your minds, and unfit yourselves for patient hear- 
 ing afterwards. 
 
 The time having arrived, 
 
 Mr. Grant enquired,— Is Mr. Larkin present? [No answer.] 
 I again waited on Mr. Larkin to-day, and he promised that, if 
 possible, he would come. We shall have to be obliged to the Re- 
 porter to sit as umpire again, if he pleases : and as the time is now 
 come for the discussion to be resumed, I shall, without further 
 preliminary, once more introduce Mr. Cooke to the meeting ; 
 but I again entreat each and every one of you, on both sides of 
 the house, to maintain silence and pay every attention. By that 
 means, you will not only hear, but see both sides of the house, 
 and form your own conclusions far better than by diverting 
 your attention, and getting excited and away from the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 Mr. Cookg -Mr. Chairman : my Christian Friends, — For 
 the sixth time I appear before you to advocate those sacred 
 principles on which we base our confidence for the favour of 
 God and everlasting life ; and, if possible, with a growing con- 
 fidence in their scriptural certainty, and in their ultimate tri- 
 umph. The last evening that I addressed you, I took the 
 liberty of making a quotation from one of Mr. Barker’s works 
 in reference to the Holy Scriptures ; which quotation express- 
 ed the sentiments that Mr. Barker held respecting the Scrip- 
 tures. He thought good to call in question the truth of my 
 representation ; and, to contradict it, extended the quotation to 
 some few sentences : but you were witnesses that the continu- 
 ance of the quotation only tended to confirm my representation, 
 and to show that Mr. Barker does hold that “ The Bible is a two- 
 mouthed quide and a double-tongued director .” 
 
 I shall take the liberty allowed me by the rules of this dis- 
 cussion, to make another short quotation from the same work ; 
 and Mr. Barker is at liberty, if he pleases, to extend the quota- 
 tion when he rises to address yon. He says,— The differ- 
 ences between the different books of the Bible are endless; an 
 
228 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [sixth 
 
 will you pretend that when those clashing and contradicting 
 hooks happen to he all hound up”— mark the word 44 happen!” 
 — 44 hound up together in one large volume, that they instantly 
 become a consistent and an infallible guide ? Here are fifty or 
 a hundred hooks, one leading you one way, another a contrary 
 way, and several of them leading you no way at all ; yet, these 
 hooks, when the bookbinder and printer agree to put them all 
 together, are to make one everlasting and infallible guide. Do 
 you really believe such nonsense ? But it is needless to ask 
 you such questions. Pretend what you may, you do not be- 
 lieve it, unless your ignorance be greater than I have hitherto 
 supposed it to be. But, again. You say the Bible is an infal- 
 lible guide. What does it infallibly guide men to ? Do you 
 say, 4 to oneness of opinion?’ The whole world cries, No. 4 To 
 oneness of practice ?’ Our knowledge and our eyesight cry, 
 No. To what then? I suppose you will answer, 4 It guides 
 all who use it properly to God raid to heaven.’ Very true ; 
 hut if that he all, we have many infallible Guides. There are 
 a thousand tilings of which you may say, that if people make 
 a right use of them they v\ 7 ili guide men to God and to heaven. 
 Afflictions, desertions, oppressions, will do that. And tradition, 
 and the preaching of a popish priest, and the voice of instruc- 
 tion w r hich issues from the sun, the stars, the earth, the elements, 
 the changing seasons, and the heart of man, will do the same. 
 And the works of Channing, or Priestley, or Wesley, or Tay- 
 lor, or Bunyan, or Barrow, will do the same. And the writings 
 of Mahomet, or Cicero, or Plato, would do the same.” 
 
 So that it turns out X have not misrepresented Mr. Barker’s 
 sentiments. It appears, still, that the Bible is a two-mouthed 
 guide and a double-tongued director ; — that its contradictions 
 and inconsistencies are endless. And the works of Channing, 
 the Socinian ; and of Priestley, who, as X before said, so say X 
 again, held that man had no soul ; and the writings of Maho- 
 met, all these are placed upon a level with the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, as it regards their being an infallible guide. Mahomet, 
 forsooth ! the fidse prophet of the east. Mahomet ! who pro- 
 pagated his lying sentiments with fire and sword. Mahomet ! 
 who offered eternal life to those who murdered human beings 
 in propagating his creed. Mahomet ! whose appropriate em- 
 blem is the locust rising amid the smoke of the bottomless pit. 
 Mahomet ! who held out the charms and sensualities of a beastly 
 paradise to gratify his votaries. Mahomet ! whose followers 
 execrate the name of Christian. Mahomet ! whose l£oran, as 
 every one knows, is a forgery— -an insult against heaven, a 
 wholesale corrupter of the human race, and destroyer of im- 
 mortal souls Mahomet’s ICoran is placed side by side with 
 your Bible as being equally worthy as an infallible guide. 
 Why not have completed the list with Bolingbroke, Shaftesbury, 
 Voltaire, and Tom Paine, and other infidels whose principles 
 are propagated to corrupt the sentiments and debase the morals 
 of mankind? 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 229 
 
 NIGHT. J 
 
 Last evening, Mr. Barker sought to contradict a statement 
 which I made, to the effect that God did not in every instance 
 give an account of himself to man, nor explain the reason of 
 ali his positive precepts and injunctions. He has told us that 
 God did explain to Adam the reason why he forbad him to use 
 the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Read the account in the 
 2nd chapter of Genesis, at the 16th and 17th verses, and you 
 will find that though God did give to Adam a motive for obedi- 
 ence, he did not explain to him the reason of the prohibition. 
 Look, also, at the record of Abraham’s trial, the other case re- 
 ferred to by Mr. Barker in contradiction to my statement. He 
 said the reason God assigned to Abraham was, that he desired 
 to try him. God assigned no reason to Abraham for the com- 
 mand to sacrifice his son. And Abraham asked for no reason. 
 Abraham went forward to obey the command of God ; and yet 
 held fast the promise which God had made to him. 
 
 Mr. Barker, last evening, furnished some fine specimens of 
 his ability to weave a web of sophistry ; but every discerning 
 mind will see through its flimsy texture. For example, he re- 
 iterated a variety of his leading objections to the incarnation ; 
 brought them up again objections which I had exploded to 
 atoms, as this assembly knows. (Hissing, applause, and cries 
 of “ Order.” The hissing being renewed—) 
 
 Mr. Grant rose and said : — What will you benefit by this? 
 — [Cries °* “ The Atonement.”] 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — I trust you will give Mr. Cooke a patient 
 hearing. — [Cries of “ Question.” “ Let him keep to the 
 point,” &c.] 
 
 Mr. Grant : — You are forfeiting your pledges. It is not 
 your place to dictate to the platform. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore:— I trust you will give Mr. Cooke the very 
 best hearing. I liaye asked Mr. Grant to announce the subject. 
 He says, Mr. Cooke will take his own way. That is perfectly 
 fair ; and Mr. Barker has the same liberty as Mr. Cooke. 
 
 Mr. Grant Mr. Barker claims that liberty. 
 
 Mr. Cooke.— There are three minutes gone, which I must be 
 allowed. Mr. Barker pretended to assail the important doctrine 
 of our Lord’s divinity. And how did he do that ? Why, just by 
 establishing three great principles which all Trinitarians main- 
 tain. He proved the real humanity of Christ to overthrow the 
 doctrine of his divinity ! He proved the mediatorial character 
 of Christ ; and he proved the official subordination of Christ, 
 —-doctrines which are held and revered by every Trinitarian. 
 But I must notice the object which Mr. Barker "had, in intro- 
 ducing these doctrines. His object wns to invalidate the doc- 
 trine of our Lord’s divinity. I shall meet his arguments, on the 
 present occasion, chiefly by confronting them with his own re- 
 corded statements on this subject. And having done that, I 
 shall refer to the doctrine of the atonement of the Saviour’s 
 death. 
 
230 MR. COOKE. plitli 
 
 You will remember that Mr. Barker asserted, with a good 
 deal of confidence, that the Holy Scriptures might, for any 
 thing they contain to the contrary, have been framed to express 
 the Barkerian heresy. (Laughter.) I will not say nanism, 
 nor Socinianisnt ; for surely Socinus and Arius, Lardner and 
 Wakefield, and a multitude of other Unitarian writers, would 
 have blushed to avow the absurdities which are maintained by 
 Mr. Barker ; but he did say that the Scriptures flight have 
 been framed on purpose to express what I call the Barkerian 
 heresy. Marvellous, indeed ! if that be the case, that neither 
 Barker nor Barkerianism should make their appearance in the 
 world until the 19th century! Well, but he says the Scrip- 
 tures might have been formed for this purpose. Ought to have 
 been formed, I suppose he meant, and that such was his opi - 
 nion. But let us now examine the subject. 
 
 He told us, yesternight, that the Bible teaches plainly that 
 there is no Trinity ; that Christ did not create the world ; that 
 Christ is not God ; that Christ is a simple man ; that Christ did 
 not exist prior to his birth. Now + ruth is one , though error is 
 undefined and unlimited. The Bible is the same from one 
 year to another. Man may change, but the truth of God 
 abideth for ever. Of course, what truths the Bible taught a few 
 years ago, it teaches now. I ask, then, did the Bible teach the 
 Trinity a few years ago ? Let us see what Mr. Barker says : 
 — “ On the Trinity I would say that the Scriptures uniformly 
 speak of the Father as God, of the Son as God, and of the Holy 
 Ghost as God.” These are Mr. Barker’s own words, lie fur- 
 ther states, “ And they (the Scriptures) uniformly speak of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as three persons.” That is Mr. Bar- 
 ker’s declaration in the year 1833. Here, then, is his own testi- 
 mony that, eleven years ago, the Bible did teach that the Father 
 is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Ghost. is God : and 
 that the same Bible, in speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, uniformly speaks of them as we speak of three persons. 
 If this be true, as Mr. Barker states— and true it is— -the Bible 
 has not changed since then, but maintains the same sentiments 
 now that it did then, AND THEREFORE THE TRINITY 
 IS A SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE. 
 
 Did the Bible uniformly teach the divinity of Christ? Let 
 Mr. Barker himself speak on this subject, in the Evangelical 
 Reformer, page 97, Mr. Barker gives his belief in reference to 
 the person of Jesus Christ : — “ On this, as on all other religious 
 subjects, I believe without scruple whatever the Scriptures 
 teach, and I am not aware that. I believe any thing more. And 
 I take the statements of Scripture in their plainest and most 
 obvious meaning. I dislike all forced interpretations of Scrip- 
 ture, and it is my wish in ail cases to avoid them. I think it 
 wrong to use violence with the words of God, either to force 
 them to speak what they do not mean, or to keep them from 
 saying what the} 7 " manifestly do mean. And I have no doubt as 
 
NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. 231 
 
 to the genuineness of those passages of Scripture which speak of 
 Christ, nor as to the goodness of the translation, nor as to the 
 authority of the common readings. I take the Scriptures as 
 they are, and rest my belief upon their plain instructions ; and 
 1 feel no doubt but that my faith is true and upright, and ap- 
 proved of God. I believe that the Evangelist John is speaking 
 of Christ in the first chapter of his Gospel, and I receive the 
 words of John in their obvious meaning, according to our com- 
 mon translation : — 6 in the beginning was the Word, and the 
 Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was 
 in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and 
 without him was not any thing made that was made, in him was 
 life, and the life was the light of men. That was the true 
 light, which lighteneth every man coming into the world. He 
 was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the 
 world knew him not. And the Word was made flesh, and 
 dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only 
 begotten of the Fathei^fuli of grace and truth.’ 1 believe also 
 that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, bora of the Vir- 
 gin Mary, and that lie was rightly named EMM AN U EL, which 
 being interpreted is GOD WITH US. I believe that Christ 
 was 6 God manifest in the flesh,’ that he was 4 the image of the 
 invisible God,’ ‘the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the 
 express image of his person.’ ‘It pleased the Father that in 
 him should all fulness dwell,’ and * in him dwelt all the fulness 
 of the Godhead bodily.’ ‘ God was in Christ reconciling the 
 world to himself.’ ‘ Christ knew men’s thoughts ; he knew all 
 men, and needed not that any should testily of man, for he 
 knew what was in man.’ All power was given unto Christ 
 both in heaven and in earth, lie controlled the elements with 
 a word. He healed the sick, he gave limbs to the maimed, he 
 cast out devils, he raised the dead, he walked on the sea, he 
 stilled the winds, he calmed the waves, he shook the earth, belaid 
 down Iiis life, and he took it up again, he went up into heaven, 
 and there he sitteth at the right hand of the majesty on high. 
 He is head over all things to his church. All udgrnent is com- 
 mitted unto his hands, and God will judge the world in righte- 
 ousness by him. Tie is the Mediator between God and man, 
 and through him it is that all blessings are communicated to the 
 church. He sent down the floly Ghost upon the church, and gave 
 its various gifts unto men, for the perfecting of the church, for the 
 work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. 
 He promised to be with his disciplos wherever they might be.” 
 Now, there is the attribute of omnipresence. “ And wherever 
 two or three should meet together in ills name, he promised to 
 be in the midst of them ; all which things are proofs to me of 
 the Godhead of Jesus Christ. Christ himself also taught, that 
 he came down from heaven, and that he was before Abraham 
 was.” Now, there is the pre-existence of the Saviour. “ That 
 he was in the bosom of the Father, that he had seen God as no 
 
232 
 
 MR. COOKE, 
 
 [SIXTH 
 
 man had soen him* and that he had glory with the Father be- 
 fore the world was. He also taught that he could do nothing 
 of himself, (so inseparably was he united with the Father, as I 
 understand him,) but that what he saw the Father do, that did 
 he; and that whatsoever things the Father did, those also did 
 the Son. 4 The Father worketh hitherto, 5 says he, ‘and I 
 work. As the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickenetli 
 them, even so the Son quickenetli whom he will. For the 
 Father jiidgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto 
 the Son ; that all men should honour the Son, even as they 
 honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth 
 not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say 
 unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall 
 hear the voice of the Son of God ; and they that hear shall 
 live. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given 
 to the Son to have life in himself ; and hath given him autho- 
 rity to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 3 
 On another occasion he said — ‘As the Father knowetli me, even 
 so know I the Father. My Father is greater than all. 1 and 
 my Father are one. 3 Then the Jews took up stones to stone 
 him, because (as they said to him) ‘that thou being a man, 
 makest thyself God. 3 Jesus answered them, ‘ Is it not written 
 in your law, I said, ye are gods ? If he called them gods unto 
 whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be 
 broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and 
 sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the 
 Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me 
 not. But if I do, though you believe me not, believe the works: 
 that ye may know, and believe that the Father is in me, and I 
 in him. 3 ‘ He that believeth on me, 3 says he again, ‘ believeth 
 not on me, but on him that sent me. And he who seetli me, 
 seetli him that sent me. 3 ‘ If ye had known me, 3 said he to his 
 disciples, ‘ye should have known my Father also, and from 
 henceforth ye know him and have seen him. Philip saithunto 
 him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufhceth us. Jesus saitli 
 unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou 
 not known me, Philip ? He that hath seen me hath seen the 
 Father; Belie vest thou not that I am in the Father, and the 
 Father in me ? The words that I speak Unto you I speak not 
 of myself; and the Father that dwelleth in me, he doetli the 
 works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in 
 me; or else believe me for the very works 3 sake. 3 ‘ All tilings 
 that the Father hath are mine. I came forth from the Father, 
 and am come into the world; again I leave the world, and go to 
 the Father. 3 Christ taught that he was greater than Jonas, and 
 greater than Solomon; greater than John, and greater than the 
 Prophets. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews places him 
 above the Prophets and above the Angels, above Moses and above 
 Aaron. He says that God hath appointed him heir of all things, 
 and that by him God made the worlds, 33 
 
NIGHT. 
 
 MB. COOKE. 
 
 233 
 
 Mr. Barker goes on to say — “The following passages place 
 the Divinity ot the Saviour in a very affecting light: — 6 Ye 
 know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was 
 rich, yet for your sakes he became poor ; that ye through his 
 poverty might be rich.’ ” There we have an assertion — a quo- 
 tation asserting the pre-existence, and dignity, and glory of the 
 Saviour. Mr. Barker further observes, “ 6 If there be, therefore, 
 any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellow- 
 ship of the spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, 
 that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one ac- 
 cord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vain- 
 glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better 
 than themselves. Look not every one on his own things, but 
 every man also on the things of others. Let that mind be in 
 you which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of 
 God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God : yet made 
 himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a 
 servant, and was made in the likeness of men ; and being found 
 in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
 unto death, even the death of the Cross. 3 ” 
 
 Again, Mr. Barker says, — “In these quotations, my views of 
 the divinity of Christ are fully unfolded. They teach all that 
 I believe on that subject, and I believe all that they teach. 
 Those passages and others of a like nature have been familiar to 
 my mind for years, and they always seemed to me to give the 
 fullest demonstration of the Godhead of Jesus Christ, flow any 
 one could believe Christ a mere man, and yet profess to believe 
 those passages, ^has always seemed to me a mystery; and I still 
 think that those who hold the mere humanity of Jesus Christ, 
 must renounce the New Testament, or be very ignorant of its 
 teachings.” (Laughter.) 
 
 It is true Mr. Barker has changed his views since that period, 
 1838, but the truth has not changed along with him. JNor has 
 any passage of the Bible changed in accommodation to Mr. 
 Barker’s wanderings. If the pre-existence and Godhead of the 
 Saviour, as there maintained by him, were then taught in the 
 •plainest passages and terms , so are they now. If in 1838 a man 
 must either admit the deity of Christ, or reject the Scriptures, 
 so must he now. And it is a remarkable fact that Mr . Barker's 
 denial of this doctrine , and his invalidation of the divine authority 
 of the Holy ; Scriptures , were events which transpired, almost , if 
 not entirely , tog tt her. 
 
 But let us hear Mr. Barker again, at a later period. Time 
 makes no alteration in truth ; but since men are influenced 
 more by what is near than by what is distant, we will come to 
 a later period. Let us, then, hear him in the year 1811. I 
 shall now refer to a sermon which Mr. Barker published at the 
 time that he occupied Salem chapel ; a sermon preached shortly 
 after he obtained possession of that place; and a sermon pub- 
 lished for a reason expressed in a note at the end of the discourse, 
 
234 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [SIXTH 
 
 as follows : — “ The preceding discourse, lately preached in 
 Newcastle and Gateshead by one of the Editors of this periodi- 
 cal may serve’ 5 — as what? — “as an answer to those who ask, 
 What are the sentiments of the Editors with respect to the 
 Divinity of Christ, and the Doctrine of the Atonement.” To 
 express the sentiments not merely of an Editor, but “ of the 
 Editors one of whom was the Rev. Mr. Trotter, whose senti- 
 ments with regard to the Holy Trinity and the Atonement are 
 too well known to this respectable assembly to be for one mo- 
 ment questioned. Now this sermon was to give forth to the 
 public a real exhibition of the views of the Editors with regard 
 to the important subjects there mentioned. It was to show” 
 men that they believed in the pre-existence of Christ, as distinct 
 from the Father^ to show" men that the Saviour w r as truly and 
 properly God; that the creation of the Universe was by Christ; 
 that the duty of loving Christ with supreme affection was the 
 same as the duty of loving the Father; and that the duty of men 
 and of angels to worship Christ w r as commanded by the Scrip- 
 tures. JN'ow listen whether or not these sentiments are main- 
 tained in the sermon which I have before me. The sermon is 
 entitled “ Love to Christ ;” and the text is the 21st chapter of 
 John, from the 35th to the 17th verse. 
 
 The preacher observes “ Two things are taught us in the 
 text, first, that it is our duty to love Jesus Christ ; and, secondly, 
 that if we do love Jesus Christ, we ought to show our love by 
 feeding his lambs, and feeding his sheep. 1. We are taught by 
 the text, in the first place, that it is our duty to love Jesus 
 Christ. The same lesson is taught us in several other passages 
 of the New Testament. In Matt, x., 37, 38, the Saviour says, 
 6 He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not w'orthy 
 of me ; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not 
 worthy of me. 5 The Apostle, in Eph. vi., 24, speaks of all 
 true Christians as ‘ those who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sin- 
 cerity. 5 So the Apostle Peter, in 1 Pet. i., 8, after speaking of 
 the glory and sufferings of Christ, says, 6 Whom having not seen 
 ye love ; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, 
 ye rejoice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory. 5 And on 
 one occasion, 1 Cor. xvi., 22, the Apostle used these solemn 
 words, 6 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be 
 anathema maranatha. 5 The sacred Scriptures not only teach 
 us that it is our duty to love Jesus Christ, but present to our 
 minds the claims which he has upon our love. Christ is set 
 forth in the Scriptures as every way worthy of our love, and as 
 worthy of the highest love that w-e can render. 55 
 
 The Scriptures sa}", “ Thou shaft love the Lord thy God with 
 all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and 
 with all thy strength ; 55 and here this highest love which the human 
 mind can render is stated to be due to Christ. The preacher pro- 
 ceeds,— -“ Christ is entitled to our love in the first place, on ac- 
 count of the excellence and glory of his character ; and, in the 
 
NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. 235 
 
 second place, on account of what he has done for us, and the in- 
 estimable blesssings which he has bestowed on us. 
 
 “ 1. Christ is entitled to our love, in the first place, on account of 
 the excellence and glory of his character. Christ is set forth in the 
 sacred Scriptures as the loveliest of all beings. Many noble and 
 lovely characters are presented to our view in sacred history, 
 but Christ is exalted above them all. Abraham was a noble 
 character, and worthy to be remembered with affection and 
 admiration by all the saints of God. At the call of God he 
 left his father’s house and his native land, and became a pilgrim 
 in a strange land. Such was his confidence in the promise of God, 
 and such his obedience to the divine commands, that he was 
 called the Father of the Faithful, and the friend of Gocl. Yet 
 Christ, when conversing with the Jews, gave them to under- 
 stand that he was greater than their father Abraham, and that 
 belore Abraham was, he was.” Another declaration, this, that 
 Christ had a pre-existence- --lived before Abraham “ Moses 
 was a still greater character than Abraham, and he was employ- 
 ed by God in the accomplishment of the liighest and most ho- 
 nourable undertakings that earth had ever witnessed ; but even 
 Moses was inferior to Chiist. Moses was faithful as a servant, 
 says the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, but Christ as a 
 Son : and he further intimates that Christ is worthy of a greater 
 honour than Moses, as lie that buildetli a house is worthy of 
 greater honour than the house itself.” 
 
 lie then shows that Christ is greater than Jonah, greater 
 than Solomon, and greater than David ; that though he ac- 
 ledged himself David’s son, yet he claimed the honour of being 
 “DAVID’S LORD :” and that in the book of Revelations 
 Christ is called not only the offspring, but “the ROOT of Da- 
 vid,” and the bright and morning star. He proceeds “ One 
 of the noblest characters mentioned in the Old Testament was 
 Elijah. He lived at a time of general apostacy ; when both the 
 people and the priests had renounced the worship of Jehovah for 
 the worship of idols. Instead of going with the multitude, he 
 became the more zealous for the Lord of Hosts, and he carried 
 his reproofs and warnings even into the palace of the King.” 
 
 Rut Mr. Barker maintains that Christ is greater than Elijah: 
 -—“Elijah is spoken of as a servant and an attendant on Christ; 
 and it is plainly intimated that thegreatest honour that God could 
 confer on him was, to appoint him to be the Herald, the Fore- 
 runner of Jesus. In the Few Testament we meet with still 
 greater ones than those that we have mentioned hitherto. 
 Christ tells us that John was more than a prophet, and that 
 among them that are born of women, there hath not risen a 
 greater than John the Baptist. Yet John considered himself 
 as nothing in comparison of Christ : he declared that he was 
 not worthy to stoop down and unloose the shoes of the Redeemer: 
 he regarded it as an honour too great for him to be employed 
 as one of his humblest servants.” 
 
[sixth 
 
 Then Mr. Barker goes on to show that Christ is greater than the 
 Apostles; and proceeds as follows 44 But the Scriptures do not 
 allow us to stop here. There are beings of a higher order than men ; 
 Angels that excel in strength, that inhabit the world unseen, and 
 that rejoice in the full purity and blessedness of heaven. 
 But Christ is placed even above the angels. The angels are 
 dignified and faithful ministers, but Christ is a Son : the angels 
 are honourable and loyal subjects, but Christ is a King : the 
 angels are among the first of creatures, but Christ is The Creator 
 and upholder of all things : 4 The brightness of his Father’s 
 glory, and the express image of his person. And when he 
 bringeth his only begotten into the world, he saith, And let all 
 the Angels of God worship him.’ There is, therefore, no one 
 either in earth or in heaven that can be likened unto Christ. 
 He stands alone : he has 4 a name above every name a glory 
 above every glory ; a loveliness beyond all other loveliness : and 
 it is appointed 6 that at the name of Jesus every knee should 
 bow. both of things in heaven and things on earth, and that 
 every tongue should confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God 
 the Father.’ Whatever, therefore, is lovely in the highest, the 
 holiest, the wisest, the mightiest, and the most honoured and fa- 
 voured of creatures, whether in earth or in heaven, is to be 
 found in Christ in fuller measures : and whatever may be the 
 claims of the high and holy and glorified spirits of heaven to 
 our admiration and affection, the claims of the Saviour are still 
 higher.” Mr. Barker observes — 44 But the sacred Sciiptures 
 carry our views of the greatness and glory of the Saviour 
 still higher. They surround him with the glories of the 
 Godhead, and set him forth as having the same claims 
 upon our affection and homage as God himself. It is, in fact, 
 the doctrine of the sacred Scriptures that Christ is God : that 
 ChrLt and God are one. Yes, it is the doctrine of the New Testa- 
 ment, that while Christ was truly man, he was, nevertheless, 
 truly God. The man Jesus Christ was the tabernacle in 
 which the Godhead dwelt. The words of the Evangelist John 
 on this subject are so decisive and plain , that no ingenuity of 
 man can explain them away . 4 In the beginning was the word.’ ” — 
 We shall see whether Mr. Barker tries to explain them away. 
 And then you will remember this expression, that the words of 
 John on this subject 64 are so decisive and plain, that no inge- 
 nuity of man can explain them away.” I proceed with his 
 sermon 44 6 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made 
 by him, and without him was not any thing made that was 
 made.’ ” 
 
 And so Mr. Barker goes on to quote the whole passage : — 
 “In the person of Jesus Christ, therefore, the Godhead and 
 Manhood were united : Christ was 4 Emmanuel.’ ”- -Thus Christ 
 is Emmanuel here, though the name is not allowed to him in 
 the present day 44 4 Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is 
 
 236 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
NIGHT.] MR. COOKE." 237 
 
 God with us.’ He was 4 God manifest in the flesh.’ 4 In him 
 dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’ The Redeemer 
 himself knew that this was his character. He spoke in such a 
 manner to the Jews as to leave them under the impression that 
 he made himself equal with God. And on another occasion, he 
 told them plainly; 4 I am in the Father, and the Father is in 
 me : 1 and the Father are one.’ He told people, that the words 
 which he spoke, were the words of God : and that the works 
 which he wrought, were the works of God. This doctrine of 
 the divinity of Christ,-— the doctrine that while Christ was man, 
 he carried in his humanity the fulness of the Godhead,— that 
 his humanity was the tabernacle in which the Godhead resided, 
 and through which it shone forth and revealed its glory, is the 
 doctrine of the whole New Testament.” 
 
 Mr. Barker goes on to observe,— 44 Our obligations therefore 
 to revere and love the Saviour are the same as our obligations 
 to revere and love God himself. It is accordingly appointed 
 that all men should honour the Son, 6 even as they honour the 
 Father.’ God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name 
 above every name ; and it is ordained, that 4 at the name of 
 Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and of things 
 in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every tongue 
 should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God 
 the Father.’ The saints of heaven are represented as singing, 
 
 6 Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his 
 own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and 
 his Father: to him be glory arid dominion for ever and ever. 
 Amen.’ 6 And l beheld,’ says John, ‘and 1 heard the voice of 
 many angels round about the throne and the living creatures 
 and the elders : and the number of them was ten thousand 
 times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands : .saying with a 
 loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb’ ’’—not the Son of Joseph — 
 <£ 4 worthy is the Lamb tiiat was slain to receive power, and 
 riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and 
 blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the 
 earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all 
 that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and 
 glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, 
 and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the four living 
 creatures eaid, Amen. And the four and- twenty elders fell 
 down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.’ It is 
 in Christ that we see the character of God revealed in all the 
 fulness of its glory ; and it is only in proportion as we love 
 Christ, that we can be said truly to love the Fattier. His love- 
 liness is the loveliness of God himself.” 
 
 There is another passage which refers to the creation of the 
 world ; and which is so decisive and plain, “that” as Mr. Bar- 
 ker says, 44 no ingenuity of man can explain it away” He goes 
 on to affirm : — 44 But Christ has still further claims upon our 
 love, in virtue of what he has done for us. We are, in fact, 
 
832 mr. cooke. [sixth 
 
 indebted to him for every thing we enjoy. We are told in the 
 Scriptures that he made the world ; that all things were made 
 by him, and that without him was not any thing made that 
 was made. We are therefore indebted to him for our very 
 being, and for all our daily blessings. The light of the sun, 
 the fresh air of heaven, the herbs and flowers, the blossoms and 
 the fruits, the clouds, the mists, the showers, the woods, the 
 streams, our rest by night, our joys by day, our life and friends, 
 all that sustains and all that sweetens life, all are his gifts ; all 
 come as messengers of his love, and claim for him the affection- 
 ate and grateful homage of our souls.” 
 
 And then we have another passage on the mediatorial charac- 
 ter of Christ, which I must pass by for the present ; and 
 another speaking decisively of Christ as the High Priest who 
 died for our sins, and made atonement for us. And he gives us 
 a sweet hymn to Christ, which I must read to you : — 
 
 (e Thy mighty name salvation is, 
 
 And keeps my happy soul above; 
 
 Comfort it brings, and power, and peace, 
 
 And joy, and everlasting love : 
 
 To me, with thy dear name are given, 
 
 Pardon, and holiness, and heaven.” 
 
 I wonder whether this is in Mr. Barker’s new hymn-book ? 
 
 “ Jesus, my all and all thou art; 
 
 My rest in toil, my ease in pain: 
 
 The medicine of my broken heart ; 
 
 In war my peace ; in loss my gain ; 
 
 My smile beneath the tyrant’s frown; 
 
 In shame, my glory and my crown. 
 
 In want, my plentiful supply ; 
 
 In weakness, my almighty power; 
 
 In bonds, my perfect liberty; 
 
 My light in Satan’s darkest hour; 
 
 In grief, my joy unspeakable; 
 
 My life in death, my heaven in hell.” 
 
 He adds, — “ The heart that can look on such glory, and on 
 such perfection of moral beauty and grandeur, as are found in 
 Christ, and that can contemplate such riches of grace and bless- 
 ing as he has procured for them by his sufferings and death, 
 without being melted into gratitude and love, must be harder 
 than a rock.” And so think I. 
 
 But we ha\e Mr. Barker’s sentiments at a still later period, tie 
 says, “Our belief in the divinity of Christ, the Atonement, the 
 influence of the Holy Spirit, &c., are so well known, that we 
 do not expect that any Unitarian will apply for admission into 
 our churches. If a Unitarian were admitted amongst us una- 
 wares” — mark that “ unawares l” — “he would be so frequently 
 and so constantly referred to the plain and decisive teachings) 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 239 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 the New Testament on those subjects — he would he surrounded 
 with such abundance of clear, convincing light on the Divinity 
 of Christ, and the doctrine of the Atonement, &c., that he 
 would, if sincerely desirous of knowing the truth, he speedily 
 converted.” And he concludes thus,™ 64 But let all act on our 
 plan, and Unitarian errors will perish speedily.” So that so 
 late as October, 1841, the pre-existence and glory of Christ be- 
 fore all worlds were true, according to the Scriptures : the dis- 
 tinction between the Father and the Son before all worlds was 
 a true doctrine, according to the Scriptures ; the creation of 
 the natural universe by Christ was a true doctrine, according 
 to the Holy Scriptures : the doctrine of Atonement for our sins 
 by his sacred death was a true doctrine, according to the Scrip- 
 tures : the doctrine that Christ as our CREATOR as well as 
 our Redeemer, is entitled to supreme affection, was a true doc- 
 trine, according to Mr. Barker : the doctrine, too, that Christ 
 was to be worshipped by all the bright intelligences who surround 
 the throne of God , including angels and, men— beings of the highest 
 order , was a doctrine of the Scriptures , so late as October, 1841. 
 The doctrine of the Trinity, too, was so manifestly true, a few 
 years back, that the Scriptures uniformly speak of the Father as 
 God, of the Son as God, and of the Holy Ghost as God. And 
 when speaking of the Father, Son, and Hoty Ghost, they 
 uniformly — not now and then — not by inferential reasoning— not 
 by some doubtful intimation— but they UNIFORMLY speak of 
 them as we speak of three persons. These are the sentiments 
 of Mr. Barker. All this, then, was true — plainly true , perma- 
 nently true, conspicuously true . All those truths were taught by 
 the plainest passages-— passages so plain, that “ no ingenuity of 
 man,” not even Mr. Barker’s ingenuity, “ could explain them 
 away they were so brightly conspicuous, so palpably plain, 
 so published, as with a sunbeam ; standing out in such bold 
 and prominent relief, that he who rejected those truths, must 
 reject the New Testament ! Surely what was true then, is true 
 now. What was so plainly taught then, is as plainly taught 
 now. And though Mr. Barker has changed, the Bible has not 
 changed, and never will change. If, then, Mr. Barker rejects 
 these truths, it follows, on his own showing, that he rejects the 
 New Testament ; and he who rejects the New Testament is an 
 unbeliever 1 
 
 Now, I’ll present Mr. Barker with this, his own testimony, as to 
 the fact that our doctrines are not unscriptural, that they are in 
 the highest sense scriptural, and that they are sustained by the 
 plainest passages in God’s word, which no ingenuity of man can 
 set aside ; and if Mr. Barker be a man, then his ingenuity can- 
 not set them aside. He says they are so plain, that should even 
 a poor Unitarian get into a church holding these scriptural 
 doctrines, the flood of convincing light around him would 
 soon dissipate his errors ; and he must, if sincere, be converted 
 to the truth. 
 
240 MR. COOKE. [SIXTH 
 
 I shall now address myself to the important subject of the 
 Atonement. But think not tli^t I have done with tlie Divinity, 
 of Christ. I have a mass of overwhelming evidence — (hissing, 
 applause, and calls for “ order”)— which will shiver into ten 
 thousand fragments all the silly sophisms which were brought 
 forward last evening to disprove the Divinity of Christ. But let 
 Mr. Barker first cut his way , if he can , through his own arguments 9 
 and prove that ivhat the Scriptures taught then so clearly , they do 
 not teach note! 
 
 With regard to the Atonement of our Saviour, — I regret that 
 Mr. Barker’s windings to and fro should have thrown me so 
 much in the rear in my observations on this doctrine. I com- 
 menced this subject two or three evenings ago ; but he intro- 
 duced so much irrelevant and foolish matter, that I had to fol- 
 low and explode his sophisms. (Hissing.) 
 
 Mr. Grant:— It is exceedingly unbecoming to behave in this 
 manner. You are pledged to non-interruption; but you care 
 nothing for pledges, it appears. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore:— Keep perfect order. Any man who does not 
 keep order, infringes on the rights and liberties of those who are 
 more peaceable. Your card pledges you to order ; and if you 
 desire to know the truth, you will best hear it by keeping peace 
 and quietness. Those who believe in the power of truth, and 
 not in the force of clamour, will peaceably sit quiet. (Hear, 
 hear.) 
 
 Mr. Cooke: — I shall first advert again to the important pas- 
 sage contained in the 3rd chapter of Paul to the Romans, at the 
 25th and 2Gth verses,— a passage which Mr. Barker himself has 
 introduced ; and I deemed it proper to demolish his sophisms, 
 and to unfold the true meaning of this passage. Y Whom God 
 hhtli set forth” — so that it. is not a human doctrine, but divine 
 in its origm— “ Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation 
 through faith in his blood, to declare Ins righteousness for the 
 remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 
 to declare, I say, at this time, liis righteousness : that he might 
 be just, and the justiher of him which believeth in Jesus.” I 
 have observed before, that the apostle here emphatically states 
 the object of the Redeemer’s death. The shedding of his blood 
 was to make a propitiation ; and that propitiation was not made 
 to man but to God . Then, we have already seen that the object 
 of that propitiation was that man might’ he pardoned ; that he 
 might receive “ remission of sins w hich are past and that the 
 necessity for pardon being communicated through this medium 
 existed in the moral perfections of Jehovah ; his justice requir- 
 ing it, “ that he might be just, and the justifier of him w ho be • . 
 lievetli in Jesus :” plainly implying, that without this propitia- 
 tory sacrifice, God’s justice and the sinner’s pardon could not 
 be harmonized. God’s justice and the sinner’s forgiveness would 
 be incompatible ; and thus the justice of the Almighty would 
 have presented an eternal harrier to the sinner’s pardon, with- 
 out the propitiatory sacrifice. 
 
HR. COOKE. 
 
 241 
 
 tflGHT.] 
 
 I now advert to other proofs. You will remember that I stated 
 there was a connection existing between the ceremonial law and 
 the gospel — between the typical priesthood, and the victims 
 offered under that economy ; and the priestly character of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ ; and I shall now refer to Scripture testimony 
 with regard to the priestly character of our blessed Saviour. 
 
 I refer you to the seventh chapter of Saint Paul’s 
 epistle to the Hebrews, beginning at the 19th verse — “ For 
 the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a 
 better hope did ; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 
 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made Priest, 
 (for those Priests were made without an oath ; but this 
 with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and 
 will not repent, Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of 
 Melehisedec :) by so much was Jesus made a surety of a better 
 testament. And they truly were many Priests, because they 
 were not suffered to continue by reason of death : but this 
 man , because he” — the word “ man” is not in the original : it 
 is supplied by the translators. But this Person , or Being , “ be- 
 cause he continueth for ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 
 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that 
 come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make interces- 
 sion for them. F or such an High Priest became us, who is 
 holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made 
 higher than the heavens ; who needeth not daily, as those High 
 Priests, to offer sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the 
 people’s : for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For 
 the law maketh men High Priests which have infirmity : but 
 the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, 
 who is consecrated for evermore.” And in the 9th chapter we 
 have the same connection existing between the ceremonial law 
 and the Gospel of Christ — betwixt the priesthood under the law, 
 and the true and effectual priesthood of our Saviour. “Then 
 verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, 
 and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made ; the 
 first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shew- 
 bread ; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second vail 
 the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all ; which had the 
 golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about 
 with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and 
 Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant ; and 
 over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat, of 
 which we cannot now speak particularly. Now when these 
 things were thus ordained, the Priests went always into the first 
 tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the 
 second went the High Priest alone once every year, not without 
 blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the 
 people : the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the 
 holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first 
 tabernacle was yet standing : which was a figure for the time 
 
242 
 
 MR COOKE. 
 
 ^SIXTH 
 
 then 'present'* — mark the phraseology ! — “ in which were offer- 
 ed both gifts and sacrifices, that- could not make him that did 
 the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience ; which stood 
 only in meats and drinks, and clivers washings, and carnal 
 ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 
 But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, 
 by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, 
 that is to say, not of this building ; neither by the blood of 
 goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into 
 the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For 
 if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer 
 sprinkling the unclean, sanctifietli to the purifying of the flesh; 
 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the 
 Eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your 
 conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” 
 
 Then, in the same chapter, we read at the 19th verse , — u For 
 when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people accord- 
 ing to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with 
 water, and scarlet wool, and hvsop, and sprinkled both the 
 book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testa- 
 ment which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover, he 
 prinklecl with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of 
 the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged 
 with blood ; and without shedding of blood is no remission . It 
 ■was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the 
 heavens should be purified with these ; but the heavenly things 
 themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not 
 entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the 
 figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the 
 presence of God for us : nor yet that he should offer himself 
 often, as the High Priest cntereth into the holy place every 
 year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered 
 since the foundation of the world :'But now once in the end of 
 the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of 
 himself. And as it is appointed ui\to men once to die, but after 
 this the judgment : so Christ was once offered to bear the sins 
 of many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the 
 second time without sin unto salvation.” 
 
 Such, then, is the clear and distinct reference existing betwixt 
 the type and anti- type. Christ is our High Priest, and as our High 
 Priest he hath something to offer: for “ every Priest taken from 
 among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that 
 he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin.” What did the Ke- 
 deemer offer? 11 is own glorious body. He was both the 
 Priest and the victim too ; and he offered himself a sacrifice for 
 our sins. I observed that this sacrifice was a holy one. In the- 
 High Priest was required a ceremonial purity ; but Christ had 
 a real purity ; for he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and 
 separate from sinners. And having no sin of his own, he was 
 liable to no penalty, he was subject to no curse, and was thus 
 
NIGHT] 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 243 
 
 distinguished from all merely human beings, and offered himself 
 to God as the Lamb without blemish and without spot. 
 
 IJis death, too, I remarked, was voluntary ; for being under 
 no obligation from the law to suffer on his own account, nor 
 compelled, by any necessity of his nature, to suffer for others, 
 his great undertaking was voluntary, and sprang from his own 
 free and spontaneous benevolence, agreeably with the words of 
 Scripture, — “ Lo, I come as it is written of me in the volume 
 of the book, to do thy will, 0 God.” lie had the power to lay 
 down his life, and he had power to take it up again. 
 
 This sacrifice, too, was one of transcendent Dignity, as Mr. 
 Barker has most clearly shown in those passages I have read in 
 your hearing this evening. A Being of supreme Dignity and 
 Glory, existing before all worlds ; forming the world by the 
 word of his power, and yet united with a nature like our own. 
 
 This great High Priest offered himself to God for the special 
 purpose of making atonement for sin. Hear the words of the 
 Saviour, — “ The Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, 
 but to minister, and to lay down his life a ransom for many.” 
 “ I give my flesh for the life of the world.” Hear the language 
 of prophecy, marking the same design and object of our Sa- 
 viour’s death. “ He was wounded for our transgressions, he 
 was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace 
 was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” And the 
 same intention with regard to the Father is expressed : — “It 
 hath pleased the Father to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief 
 — he hath made his Son an offering for sin.” The prophet 
 Daniel foretold that“ Messiah should be cut off, but not for him- 
 self,” but to make reconciliation for iniquity.” So distinct 
 and so specific are the Scriptures in assigning an appropriate 
 object to the Redeemer’s death ; and that object is the Atone- 
 ment, exhibited so plainly in the numerous passages I have read 
 over in your hearing. 
 
 That object, too, stands conspicuous in the terms employed to 
 express the design of the Saviour’s death. And here I shall re- 
 fer to the Hebrew terms used in the Old Testament with regard 
 to the victims offered under the law. As there is a connection 
 existing between the type and the anti-type, so the object of the 
 Saviour’s death stands revealed in the terms applied to both 
 type and anti-type. 
 
 The Old Testament, you are aware, was written in the He- 
 brew language : the New Testament in the Greek. We can- 
 not, therefore, have Hebrew terms introduced into the Greek 
 Testament : but it has pleased Providence that we should have 
 a medium by which we can most accurately determine what is 
 the meaning of the Hebrew terms ; for it is a fact that about 287 
 years prior to the coming of our Lord, the Hebrew text was 
 translated into Greek, and that translation is called the Septua- 
 gint ; and this Septuagint has come down to our times ; a copy 
 of it lies before me. Therefore we can easily ascertain 
 
244 MR. COOKE. [_SIXTH 
 
 what sense the Jews, wlio translated the Hebrew Scriptures 
 into Greek, have assigned to the terms in Hebrew ; and thus 
 we can compare the terms in the Septuagint with the terms 
 employed in the New Testament. 
 
 In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word “ to alone” is 
 Kaphar, It is translated in the Septuagint by the word iXckjkuj, 
 Bilasko, or fi-iXarau), Exilasko. Now we have the very same 
 term employed in the New Testament with regard to the object 
 of our .Redeemer’s death. But I shall first give you a few fami- 
 liar instances, which will render every English reader familiar 
 with the meaning of the words employed. I say the word 'liD, 
 Kaphar , as a Hebrew verb, signifies to atone , to appease , to 
 pacify 9 to p r t oci,re favour. Now take a few examples, — Genesis 
 xxxii. 20, Jacob had incurred the displeasure of his brother 
 Esau, He is afraid to meet him. He sends a present to him, 
 and assigns his motive for doing so ; for, Jacob says, “ I will 
 appease him with the present that goeth before me, and after- 
 wards I Vvill see his face : peradventure he will accept of me.” 
 Here the word Kaphar , is rendered to appease , and in the 
 
 Greek it is ttiiXcujKU), Exilasko. 
 
 Take another example. In Proverbs, xvi., 14, it is said, — 
 a The wrath of a king is as a messenger of death : but a wise 
 man will pacify it.” Here the word 'iSS, Kaphar , is rendered to 
 pacify, to turn aside displeasure. And in the Septuagint it is 
 'again e^iXacncoj, 
 
 Take another example. In the 16th ch. of Ezekiel, and 63rd 
 verse, it is written, — “ That thou mayest remember, and be con- 
 founded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy 
 shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast 
 done, saith the Lord God.” Here the same Hebrew word again is 
 rendered 46 pacified ,” to turn away displeasure ; and it is the same 
 in the Septuagint. 
 
 Now look at this w r ord employed in a ceremonial sense ; and 
 I refer you to the 16tli ch. of the book of Numbers, and the 
 44th verse. Here we find that the people of Israel had mur- 
 mured against God — had incurred his righteous displeasure ; 
 and the plague had broken out amongst them, but Moses com- 
 manded Aaron to put on incense to make atonement for the 
 people. 66 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Get you up 
 from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in 
 a moment. And they fell upon their faces. And Moses said 
 unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the 
 altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, 
 and make an atonement for them :” — (the word is ’iso, Ka- 
 phar) ; — 44 for there is wrath gone out from the Lord ; the plague 
 is begun. And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into 
 the midst of the congregation ; and, behold, the plague was begun 
 among the people : and he put on incense, and made an atone- 
 ment for the people. And he stood between the dead and the 
 
NIGHT. [ MR. COOKE. 245 
 
 living ; and the plague was stayed.” Look at the condition of 
 the people. They were perishing under Divine displeasure, 
 Aaron puts on incense to make atonement, and the plague is 
 stayed. Now the Hebrew word Kaphar , to atone, is 
 
 e^iXacTKo), in the Greek ; and we find that very same term em- 
 ployed in the New Testament with regard to the. object of the 
 Redeemer’s death. Hence in Heb. ih, 17, it is said, — “ That he 
 might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining 
 to God, to make reconciliation ( iXacncecrOai , Hilaskesthai) for the 
 sins of the people.” In not less than eighty-nine instances is 
 the word Kaphar , employed in this sense in the Old Testa- 
 ment ; and its correspondent term in the New Testament, from 
 the Septuagint, or agreeing with the Septuagint, is l\aa7ca>, Hi- 
 lasko. And the case itself presents a striking parallel. We 
 have offended God. We are subject to his displeasure. We are 
 liable to eternal death. But our great High Priest has put on 
 incense — has offered his precious life as a sweet-smelling savour, 
 to turn aside the shafts of justice, and to procure for guilty 
 rebels the blessings of pardon and everlasting life. 
 
 Such is the meaning of the word as a verb. And what is the 
 word as a noun ? The Hebrew word is Kopher, rendered 
 atonement . And in the Greek it is rendered 1 XaajjLog, II il asm os, 
 aud££i\rt'7 / uoc, Exilasmos, atonement : and we have the same word, 
 as a noun, transferred to the New Testament, and applied to our 
 blessed Saviour in reference to his sacrificial death. Take the 
 following passage, in John ii,, 1, 2, — “ And if any man sin, we 
 have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous : 
 and he is the propitiation (iXa^/xog, Hilasmos) for our sins : and 
 not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” 
 And in the 4th ch. and 10th verse, — “ Herein is love, not that 
 we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the 
 propitiation (cXcitr/iog, Hilasmos) for our sins. 
 
 It has been remarked by Mr. Barker that the word atonement 
 never occurs in the New Testament except once, when the ori- 
 ginal is KaTaXXayrj , Katallage ; and that it ought to be, and is 
 now rendered, reconciliation , Admit that it may be rendered 
 reconciliation, and what follows? That the word atonementis not 
 contained in the New Testament ? No such thing. It is con- 
 tained in the New Testament, only concealed under the veil of our 
 English translation. ( Hissing.) He knows very well, or ought 
 to know, (if he does not know, it is a proof of his incompetency 
 to enter upon this argument — if he does know, it is a proof of a 
 want of ingenuousness in not confessing it, and in building upon 
 the concealment a false proposition) ; he ought to know, that in 
 the Septuagint the word atonement is iXacrfiog Hilasmos; and 
 he ought to know that the word, when transferred to the New 
 Testament, and applied to our Saviour, must have the same 
 meaning ; and in the passages I have quoted the word rendered 
 propitiation is iXa<7fiog —“THE ATONEMENT FOR THE 
 SENS OF THE WORLD.” 
 
 l 2 
 
246 MR. COOKE. [sixth 
 
 Further, to illustrate the subject of the Redeemer’s death, I shall 
 refer also to the victims which were slain in sacrifice. Those victims 
 are numerous, and of various kinds. There were, for example, the 
 two lambs, daily slain and offered in sacrifice as a morning and 
 evening sacrifice. Here is the type. Christ, as the anti-type, is 
 said to be “ the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of 
 the world.” And the same character which our Saviour bears 
 on earth, he sustains in heaven. The Apostle John htheld him, 
 in the midst of the throne, in the same appropriate character, 
 “as a Lamb that had been slain.” Amidst his glory, the em- 
 blems of his passion were visible. There were the tokens, of 
 his death ; there was the deep and fatal gash; the death-wound 
 was obvious, indicating recent slaughter. 
 
 It is remarkable that sometimes our Lord is said to be “ the 
 Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” to denote, not only 
 the original design of Christ to die for sin, but to denote that the 
 efficacy of his death reaches backward through past ages to the 
 period wlTen man first fell by transgression. Lut here he is 
 described as the “Lamb that had been slain,” the marks of his 
 death being obvious to denote the freshness and abiding virtue 
 of the Saviour’s passion at present, and through all future ages 
 down to the end of time. What the Redeemer was when he 
 hung upon the cross, he now appears in heaven- -a sacrificial 
 victim. His wounds seem fresh ; and the validity and efficacy 
 of his passion are the same now as when he hung upon the ac- 
 cursed tree. Ilis atonement once made, its efficacy remains for 
 ever. 
 
 And then, we have in this emblem, too, an indication of his 
 resurrection, for the Lamb stood in the midst of the throne. 
 Though it had been slain, and bore the marks of death upon it, 
 it stood erect, to indicate our Lord’s triumphant resurrection ; 
 and that though, as a man, he died, by the power of his God- 
 head he rose. He burst the barriers of death. He trampled 
 upon sin, and death, and hell. The seal melted, the stone re- 
 tired before the brightness of his rising Majesty, and he ascend- 
 ed on high into the heaven of heavens, and took his place at the 
 right hand of God, where he ever livetli to make intercession 
 for us. He is the Iamb of God that taketh away the sins of the 
 w T orld. (Applause.) 
 
 Take another example — the pascal lamb . Read the 12th 
 chapter of the book of Exodus. You will find, there, that a 
 lamb had to be slain ; its blood had to be sprinkled on the lin- 
 tel and side posts of the door ; and that blood propitiated or 
 saved from death : for the destroying angel, when he beheld 
 that blood, passed over the houses of the Israelites, and they 
 were left in safety, under the protection of the covenant into 
 which they had entered with God by the sacrificial blood. 
 Here was the type. Christ, as the anti -type, is emphatically 
 said to be “ Our passover — sacrificed for us. Therefore let us 
 keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of 
 
NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. 247 
 
 malice and wickedness ; but with the unleavened bread of sin'- 
 cerity and truth.”- (1 Cor., v. 7.) 
 
 Take another example. On the da}’' of atonement, held an- 
 nually, there were several victims appointed. One was the 
 “ scape- goat” This animal was led to the door of the taberna- 
 cle, and there the hands of the priest were laid upon its head, 
 and the sins of the people were solemnly confessed over it ; and 
 after that interesting ceremony, the animal was led away unto 
 a land uninhabited, as the original expresses it, bearing the ini- 
 quities of the people. Here was a typical transfer of the guilt of 
 the criminal to the innocent victim. Now here was the type. 
 Christ, as the anti-type, is said to have 44 once suffered to bear 
 the sins of many it is said that 44 he bare our sins in his own 
 body on the tree and to make the parallel more complete and 
 emphatic in language, the prophet says, — 44 All we like sheep 
 have gone astray, and have turned every one his own way.” 
 But 44 THE LORD HATH LAID ON HIM THE INI- 
 QUITY OF US ALL.” 
 
 On the same day of atonement, there were other victims offer- 
 ed. There were the bullock, and the ram, and the goat. These 
 were presented in sacrifice ; and after having been slaughtered, 
 their blood was solemnly taken by the High Priest into the 
 holy of holies, and sprinkled upon the mercy-seat, to propitiate , 
 to atone ; and then the Priest might appear without danger — 
 might go with boldness into the holy of holies into the presence 
 of God. Here was the type. Christ, the anti-type, is said to 
 have 44 entered once into the holy place not made with hands, by 
 his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Nor 
 yet that he should have offered himself often, as those high 
 priests who entered the holy place once every year with blood 
 of others ; for then must he often have suffered since the found- 
 ation of the world : but now once in the end of the world hath 
 he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Thus 
 we have, then, the most intimate connection between the type 
 and the anti-type — the object of the victim under the law, and 
 the object ascribed to our blessed Saviour’s passion and death up- 
 on the cross. 
 
 It has been said that confession and repentance, combined 
 with obedience, are of themselves sufficient ; and that the ob- 
 ject of our Lord’s death is merely to act upon the mind by a 
 kind of moral influence, to produce repentance and a turning to 
 God. But how happens it that, in the appointment of the 
 type, there were required not only confession, and repentance, 
 and amendment, but even when ail these were present there was 
 an absolute requirement of the shedding of the victim’s blood 
 before pardon could be procured ? I will refer you to a passage 
 or two which clearly unfold the doctrine. Lev., 6 ch., from the 
 1st to the 7th verse. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — Your time is up, sir. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — I am sorry for that ; but I must finish my ar- 
 gument another night. (Applause.) 
 
248 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [[sixth 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — I trust, gentlemen, that you will be per- 
 fectly orderly while Mr. Barker addresses you. The question 
 is of too serious a nature to admit of the meeting being disturb- 
 ed during its consideration. We had better all of us hear un- 
 interruptedly, and then we shall be best able to judge on which 
 side the truth lies. 
 
 Mr. Grant : — 1 request you will give the same attention to 
 Mr. Barker that you have given to Mr. Cooke. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — Respected Chairmen : my Friends, — Before I 
 proceed with my reply to my opponent, I must make one or 
 two remarks in reference to what took place yesterday evening. 
 My opponent brought forward a strong argument to show that 
 Jesus was the son of Joseph. The audience did not appear to 
 see its force, but seemed rather to consider it a weighty argu- 
 ment in favour of my opponent’s view of the case. The argu- 
 ment of my opponent was, that Adam in Hebrew, anthropos , in 
 Greek, and homo in Latin, meant not only man, but woman 
 also ; and that therefore Jesus might be called the son of man, 
 and yet be the son of a woman. He said Adam meant both 
 man and woman ; and quoted Genesis, — 44 And God made man 
 in his own image ; that is, male and female made he them,” — to 
 prove that maie and female were both included in the term 
 Adam , or man; observing, that in Greek and Latin the same 
 rule was observed with regard to anthropos and homo . If what 
 he stated be true, what follows? Simply this, that if anthropos 
 means both man and woman , Jesus Christ was the son both of 
 man and woman. It proves that Jesus was like other men. 
 Be was the son of man, — of man and of woman too, like his 
 brethren. 
 
 As my opponent has so frequently misrepresented my own 
 •writings, by giving you partial and false quotations, I think it 
 only right that he should be desired by his own chairman, 
 when he reads a portion of a passage from my writings, to read 
 the passage through. If we take the sacred Scriptures, and 
 quote only one small part of a passage, we may make every 
 book in the Bible contradict itself a thousand times, and every 
 sacred author contradict the plainest truths of religion. Just so 
 with respect to any lium an writing. The sentiments of any in- 
 dividual, by this mode of quotation, may be made to appear just 
 opposite to what they are. When a man uses no other words 
 but the words that are found in a book, he may imagine that 
 he steers clear of falsifying, though he misrepresent the writer’s 
 sense : but I may observe, that the worst falsifications of all, 
 are those in which men make use of truth for the purpose of de- 
 ceiving ; and, while taking a portion only of what is said, en- 
 deavour to make the impression, on the minds of those who 
 hear, that the sense of the whole has been given. My opponent 
 made several statements in reference to my views of the sacred 
 Scriptures, last night ; and professed to quote my sentiments 
 from a work of my own. I have only to say, that 1 shall feel 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 249 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 exceedingly obliged indeed if lie will read through what I have 
 written from the beginning to the end, in reply to his notions 
 about the infallible guideship of the Bible, and afford you an 
 opportunity of seeing my views, as I have stated them. And I 
 feel persuaded, that when once he has read the article through, 
 he will find more work to answer it, than would occupy him 
 from this time forth to 1870. (Laughter, hissing, and ap- 
 plause.) 
 
 He mentioned a passage where I state that the differences be- 
 tween the different books of the Bible are endless. Now, I say, 
 let any individual take up Matthew’s Gospel, containing Christ’s 
 discourses, and hear what Jesus says upon the way to a state of 
 everlasting happiness ; and then take up Exodus, Numbers, or 
 Leviticus, and compare the two together ; and if he does not 
 find that the differences are endless, then let him blame me for 
 having made the statement. Every body knows, that while one 
 book tells us to be circumcised, the other says, even to the Jews 
 themselves, “ circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is 
 nothing, but faith that worketh by love.” While one directs 
 you to worship in this mountain, another tells you that you 
 shall worship neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, 
 but that the “ true worshippers shall worship the Father in 
 spirit and in truth ; for the Father seeketli such to worship 
 him.” And for a person to take the Jewish Scriptures, which 
 in many of their requirements are thus flatly contradictory to 
 the Christian Scriptures, and to put them with the Christian 
 Scriptures into one book, and speak of them as forming one 
 guide , is a most monstrous proceeding : and no individual, who 
 did not calculate, to a fearful extent, upon the ignorance and 
 blindness of those he addresses, could ever attempt to treat them 
 as one guide, and to say that the Old Testament and the New 
 are one in their instructions. If the Old Testament had been 
 perfect, says the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, no other 
 would have been brought in ; but it was not perfect. Both in 
 its laws and in its worship, in its priesthood and in its precepts, 
 in its promises and in its threatenings, the law of Moses differs 
 widely from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. — Things promised in 
 the Old Testament as blessings, are spoken of as things to make 
 people weep and lament in the New Testament : for while one 
 speaks of men being blessed who have a long life and a good 
 name, the Redeemer tells us that “ blessed are those who are 
 persecuted, and those who are reviled, and have all manner of 
 evil spoken of them, for his sake.” Just let my opponent read, 
 this article through ; it is No. 5, of “ Truth and Reform against 
 the World f It is one of seven letters to William Cooke, in 
 answer to his attacks on Joseph Barker. Let him read No. 5 
 through ; and if he can answer it, let him do so : if he cannot , 
 let my hearers learn the difference between truth as stated by a 
 writer himself, in his own books, and truth as misrepresented 
 by an individual for evil purposes. 
 
 l 3 
 
250 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [sixth 
 
 r My opponent, this evening, has read two or three extracts 
 from documents and writings of my own. He Has not, how- 
 ever, in one single instance , given the whole of the articles from 
 which he read. He quoted one about the trinity. lie left out 
 a sentence, at the close, to this effect : — “ But what mode of 
 existence in the divine Being it is that gives rise to this mode of 
 Speaking, I know not; it is a mystery.?? Yet on these very 
 words which he omitted, the sense of the whole document de- 
 pended. He quoted this document to prove that I professed to 
 believe in the common doctrine of the trinity when admitted 
 into the New Connexion ministry. The document, however, 
 when read entire, proves that I did not profess to believe in the 
 trinity of persons in the Godhead ; that I was careful in what I 
 said to keep within the language of Scripture. And I steadily 
 refused to profess to believe a trinity, or three persons. I was 
 content with professing what was taught in the simple language 
 of Scripture, and I was unwilling to carry my hearers or read- 
 ers further. 
 
 My opponent read a portion of an article in the Evangelical 
 Reformer. He, however, in that article, also, left out bits, here 
 and there, that did not suit his purpose. (Hissing.) 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — This interruption ill befits the calm dignity 
 of persons who are persuaded they are right. Mr. Cooke has 
 had a fair hearing — [“No he has not,” said some one") ; — why 
 not give Mr. Barker the same ? 
 
 Mr. Barker : — If my opponent had not a fair hearing, it was 
 contrary to my wish ; for my desire is that he should have a 
 perfectly fair hearing. Hear the following, — it is something of 
 what is omitted from the article which my opponent professed 
 to read. You will find that he gave but one side of my views. 
 
 “ Having stated so fully what I do believe respecting the 
 divinity of Christ, it may he requisite that I should say some- 
 thing about what I do not believe. W liters on religion have 
 seldom been content with teaching what the Scriptures teach 
 on this subject. They have started questions which the Scrip- 
 tures do not meddle with, and have given answers which the 
 Scriptures do not warrant. The Scripture theory seems to have 
 been too simple and practical for many of them, and they have 
 laid it by, and formed another theory, full of perplexities and 
 mysteries, contradicting the plainest and most certain dictates 
 of man’s mind. With writers of this description, I disclaim all 
 connexion. I cannot enter into their foolish and daring ques- 
 tions ; I cannot receive their ill-favoured and unfounded systems. 
 If a question be asked me respecting the person of Christ, my an- 
 swer is, What saitli the Scripture % If the Scripture furnishesan 
 answer, it is right ; if it does not, who is he that will speak, when 
 the voice of God is silent ? But all have not modesty. There are, 
 therefore, many things taught respecting the person of Christ, by 
 religious writers, which I am unable to believe. I HO NOT 
 BELIEVE THE A THAN A SIAN CREED: I no rot 
 
ME. BARKER. 
 
 251 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 believe in the separate c substances’ or c beings’ of Richard 
 Watson. I have no faith in Watson’s eternal filiation ; nor do 
 I altogether agree with Adam Clarke on that subject. And as 
 I keep to Scripture in my doctrine on those matters, so do I 
 think it best to keep to Scripture words . When I have my 
 choice, I always prefer the words of God to the words of man. 
 I think it best in language as well as in doctrine , to follow the 
 great apostle, and know nothing but Jesus Christ. Hence I ne- 
 ver use the word Trinity, and I never apply to God the word 
 Person , or Persons . And though I believe that the Holy Spi- 
 rit is God, as I believe that Christ is God, yet I dare not apply 
 to them, without good and sufficient reason, any names of man’s 
 invention. I dare not speak unadvisedly on such matters ; 
 and my conscience obliges me therefore to keep close to the man- 
 ner of the Saviour and of his holy and inspired apostles. All 
 that I know of God, I learned from Scripture language, and all 
 I have to teach I can teach in Scripture language. 1 have now 
 a work before me by Baxter, one of the greatest of men, a not- 
 able lover of truth, and a man of great modesty, too : yet he 
 proposes questions which I could not propose, and employs 
 words which 1 dare not employ. He talks of a trinity of 
 c principles,' of i essentialities /of 6 primalities, 9 and of 4 persons ? 
 lie asks what relation there is among the Divine persons ; — » 
 liow the principles or divine virtues differ among themselves ; 
 and on all those questions he gives endless quotations of mys- 
 terious, discordant, blind, and rash sentences from schoolmen 
 and fathers, and modern divines ; but I lind not a word of Christ 
 among them all. Christ knew better than to meddle with such 
 things : he was too well acquainted with men’s capacities and 
 necessities to lead us into those dark and barren regions. It 
 would have been well if all who have called themselves the fol- 
 io wers of Christ, had been his followers indeed. It would have 
 saved the minds of pious people from many distressing per- 
 plexities, and preserved religion from much abuse and calumny. 
 
 “ If some should think that my views do not go far enough, 
 let them show me a warrant from Scripture, and I will go far- 
 ther. I will go any where, if God will lead the way ; but I 
 dare trust no other guide. I dare not rest on man in the things 
 of God. Man is not my Saviour ; man will not be my judge. 
 4 To the law and to the testimony ; if any speak not according 
 to them, it is because there is no light in them.’ 4 If any man. 
 speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.’ ” (Applause.) 
 
 Such is the conclusion of this article. And Conference voted 
 the article defective and unsatisfactory. It seems that it would 
 give satisfaction now. But it is too iate. Thank Heaven ! I 
 have got led a few steps further still since then. (Laughter and 
 applause.) 
 
 He made something to do about my having stated that if all 
 that my opponent meant by describing the Bible to be an infal- 
 lible guide was, that it would lead those who used it properly to 
 
252 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [sixth 
 
 happiness and to heaven, then the works of Chaim in g, Wesley, 
 Barrow, and the like, were infallible guides in that sense. 
 Some seem to think these sentiments not quite right ; but the 
 Beclemer tells us, that whatever light a man has, if he follow it 
 faithfully, it will lead him unto heaven. The Kedeemer teaches 
 us that the man who improves his talent, will, though it be but 
 one, secure more ; and that his lord will say unto him, “ Well 
 done, good and faithful servant : thou has been faithful over a 
 few things, I will make thee ruler over many things ; enter 
 thou into the joy of thy lord.” 
 
 I will, however, now go a step further, if it be so ; and say, 
 that if a man be left without any book at ail, and have only his 
 own nature for his guide, if he do by nature the things written 
 in the law, he being a law unto himself, God will look upon 
 him with approbation, and receive him into his kingdom. I 
 will go still further than this, and say, that any one like Corne- 
 lius, who may even not have heard of Jesus or of Christianity, 
 and who is still in pagan, comparative darkness, will, if he fear 
 God and work righteousness according to the light he has, be ac- 
 cepted of God ; and that in every nation he that fearetli him, 
 and worketh righteousness — whether under the Old or the New 
 Testament — whether under the law of Moses or the law of 
 Christ, is accepted ; for God is not only just, but kind and mer- 
 ciful to all his works. 
 
 My opponent said, this evening, it was strange that Barker 
 and Barkerianism did not appear till the 19th century. But of 
 course every thing has a time when it makes its first appear- 
 ance, and many good things have not appeared till rather late 
 on. Thus the law of Moses did not appear till the world was 
 more than two thousand years old. Christ did not appear until 
 the world was more than four thousand years old. And the 
 New Connexion did not appear until it was nearly six thou- 
 sand years old. (Loud applause and hissing.) Luther himself 
 did not appear until the 15th century. John Wesley did not 
 appear until the 18th century. It would be a curious fact in- 
 deed if a thing were to be considered wrong, because it did not 
 make its appearance sooner than it happened to do. 
 
 He gave us several other quotations from other writings of 
 mine. What the quotations proved, I cannot tell. They only 
 seemed to me to prove that it was possible for a man in four, 
 and especially in a dozen years, to grow a little wiser than lie 
 was before. 
 
 lie quoted my views on the divinity of Christ from a sermon 
 in the Investigator . Those views, unless they are not quite so 
 easily understood as I think they are, he might have seen, came 
 near my present sentiments ; namely, that Jesus was a proper 
 man, but that he was the tabernacle in which God dwelt, and 
 therefore was called Emmanuel, <c God with us.” Mark you, I 
 never state in that sermon that there are three Gods, or divine 
 persons, or that God the Hon dwelt in Christ, [from the 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 253 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 beginning to the end I teach that there is just one God ; and that 
 that one God, even the Father, dwelt in Jesus. Jesus was 
 therefore the tabernacle in which God dwelt, and through 
 which he manifested himself to the world. I did, however, at 
 that time, consider that the fact of God dwelling in Christ, 
 made it proper to call Christ himself God. I do not think so 
 now. My views have changed. (Laughter.) I now believe 
 that the truth revealed in the sacred oracles is, that there is one 
 only whom we ought to speak of as the true God. Jesus 
 Christ never claimed the honour of being God ; but expressly 
 declares, — u This is life eternal, to know thee , the Father, to be 
 the only true God ; and to know me to be the messenger whom 
 thou hast sent.” 
 
 He says, that Christ was Emmanuel then, but now he must 
 not bear that name. I answer : it is a name I give to Jesus 
 still, — and which appears to me to express his character truly. 
 He is indeed “ God with us.” The fulness of the Godhead 
 dwelt in him ; and the Godhead is revealed through him. There 
 is nothing in this at variance with the doctrine of the pure hu- 
 manity of Christ. 
 
 lie says, I then believed in the pre-existence of Christ, and 
 that he was God. I have shown you in what sense I their be* 
 iieved Christ to be God. But does my opponent mean to prove 
 that men must never grow wiser'? That they must be as wise 
 when children, as when men ? That Peter, and Paul, and Lu- 
 ther, and Wesley, and Penn, when they rose from the midst of 
 Judaism, or modern false theology, into purer and brighter light, 
 did wrong ; that when they changed the rudiments of the law, 
 or the inventions of men, for the pure Gospel of Christ, they 
 forsook the truth ? I should be ashamed, if I were my oppo- 
 nent, to pursue such a course of observation, especially alter X 
 had pledged myself to abstain from personalities, and to discuss 
 only principles. Still, if this is the best course he can find, he 
 must be allowed to go on in it : but X cannot follow him. I 
 must proceed with principles. 
 
 He referred to the song, Worthy is the Lamb, 5 ’ &c. ; and 
 said, “ not the son of Joseph .” But X suppose he acknow- 
 ledges that Jesus is the son of Mary; and to be the son of 
 Mary could be no way more honourable to Jesus than to be the 
 son of Joseph. 
 
 He referred to the New Hymn Book, and read a hymn, and 
 intimated that I should not regard it in the same light now. I 
 answer, I look upon the hymn with great pleasure. It has one 
 fault — that of being addressed to Christ, instead of to that Di- 
 vine Being to whom Jesus himself always prayed. It is ad- 
 dressed to Jesus, contrary to Christ’s doctrine, that under all 
 circumstances w r e should pray to the Father. Christ said, — 
 “ In that day ye shall ask me nothing ; but whatsoever ye shall 
 ask the Father , in my name , he will give it unto you.” 
 
 One passage that he read over contained a reference to 
 
254 MR. BARKER. [SIXTH 
 
 Unitarians. The impression which seemed designed to b e made by 
 my opponent was, that the churches with which I and W. 
 Trotter were united, were formed on the principle of excluding 
 Unitarians. If my opponent had read the whole of the “ In- 
 vestigator,” he would have seen a number of articles on the 
 right of private judgment, by that same W. Trotter, whom he 
 now lauds, though he was expelled along with me. W. Trot- 
 ter, in those articles, pleads expressly for the admission of 
 Unitarians and Socinians into the church, if they believed 
 in Jesus as the Messiah, and manifested a sincere determination 
 to study and to do God’s will. These w r ere the principles on 
 which we ourselves were united. At the same time, I confess 
 that at that period I regarded Unitarians as very seriously in 
 error. Unitarians and Unitarianism had been so slandered by 
 all the parties among whom we had moved, that it w r as impos- 
 sible to steer clear of prejudice. Hence I was prejudiced both 
 against the system and against the men. I had never been in 
 the company of Unitarians during all my life ; and I had never 
 heard of them except as the greatest sinners on the face of the 
 earth. I heard them regularly doomed to eternal damnation. 
 The principal persons with whom I associated, said it w r as im- 
 possible that they could be sincere, and that it was, therefore, 
 impossible that they could be saved ; though I never joined 
 with those who said so. I, however, for a long time, regarded 
 them as a kind of infidels. I considered that they did not 
 sufficiently respect the sacred Scriptures ; and believed they 
 were far away from truth. At length, I became acquainted 
 with one of them, — Franklin Howarth, of Bury, a minister ; 
 and I found him one of the loveliest characters I had ever 
 known, — one of the greatest lovers of truth, and one of the 
 warmest lovers of mankind, — one of the most laborious men I 
 ever met with in the cause of temperance and human improve- 
 ment. I found him a modest, humble man, ready to sacrifice 
 even his life for the cause of God. I also became acquainted 
 with another Unitarian minister, Philip Carpenter, son of Dr. 
 Carpenter, of Bristol — a worthy, Christ-like, good young man. 
 This led me into the company of others, and 1 became, to some 
 extent, acquainted both with the men and with the system. I 
 now saw that they had been wickedly slandered. I had always 
 heard them spoken of as men who were either enemies to Christ, 
 or ignorant of Christ’s religion, or as individuals who set at 
 nought divine authority, and as so bad, that one did not know 
 what manner of dreadful characters they were. I soon found 
 that these statements, made by hired and interested individuals, 
 were false ; — that Unitarians did not reject the Scriptures; — 
 that they respected them ; — that the liberty they sought was 
 simply the liberty of judging for themselves as to their meaning, 
 and of applying the Scriptures to all the purposes of the Chris- 
 tian life, for themselves. I therefore changed my views of 
 Unitarians, and of Unitarianism itself : and though I cannot be 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 255 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 a Unitarian, as Unitarianism is presented to my mind at pre- 
 sent, yet still I must declare that they are, so far as I have 
 known them, the best body of Christians I have met with ; — • 
 that they are remarkable for intelligence, for love of truth, for 
 virtue, for philanthropy,— for every thing like God and Jesus 
 Christ ; and that they will not only bear a comparison with 
 professing Christians of other denominations, so tar as I am 
 acquainted with them ; but that they are, in fact, far superior 
 to them generally in these respects. This testimony I am glad 
 to have an opportunity of giving on behalf of this most abused 
 —this most unjustly and wickedly slandered and persecuted 
 people of God, 
 
 i come, now, to what my opponent said on the subject of 
 Atonement; and I must confess that I am sorry there is so 
 little for me to answer. (Laughter.) I am sure there are 
 parties present who tvould make out a better case in favour of 
 some kind of satisfaction to justice, than has been made out by 
 my opponent. However, such as it is, I shall just notice it, 
 and pass along. 
 
 He says, the object of Christ’s blood was to be a propitiation. 
 True : but was it to propitiate God by satisfying Ms justice : or 
 by redeeming men from sin ? 
 
 lie says, God’s justice and the sinner’s pardon could not be 
 harmonized. I proved that God’s justice, in Scripture language, 
 generally meant mercy. Eut even suppose it to mean justice 
 in the orthodox theological sense, what does the passage in 
 Homans prove ? Simply this, that so long as people are wicked, 
 God’s justice will reward them according to their works? but 
 when men become good, and are brought to love and obey God, 
 God’s justice itself can forgive them then. Christ’s death was 
 needed to enable justice to forgive men, because it was needed 
 to bring men from bad works to good works- -to bring them 
 from dead works to serve the living God ; and that when Christ’s 
 blood had clone this, God’s justice forgave them, and God’s 
 righteousness accepted them. 
 
 He spoke of type and anti-type. I wish he would explain 
 Ills meaning, and give ns his theory of types and anti-types. 
 
 He referred to the 7th and 9th chapters of Hebrews, showing 
 that the High Priest entered the holy of holies with blood. 
 But the very thing he quoted was to this effect ; that as the 
 blood of bulls and goats was to sanctify and purify the flesh, so 
 the blood of Christ was not to satisfy God’s justice, but to 
 'purify and sanctify our minds that we might serve the living 
 God. And that is the doctrine I have all along taught. If the 
 blood of bulls sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how 
 much more must the blood of Christ purge your conscience 
 from dead works to serve the living God? 
 
 The blood of the New Testament, or New Will, is mentioned; 
 that is, the blood by which the New Will is sealed, made valid, 
 powerful ; not blood by which God’s justice is satisfied. 
 
256 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [sixth 
 
 Another passage was quoted, confirming the same view; 
 “ Once in the end of the world Christ hath appeared to put 
 away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” lie has, you see, put 
 away sin , not satisfied justice. 
 
 He says, Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. 
 True ; to bear away their sins. As he bore sickness away from 
 men, by curing them of it, so Christ died to bear away men’s 
 sins, to redeem them from all iniquity, to purify them, and 
 make them a peculiar people, zealous in all good works. 
 
 He says, Christ offered himself to make an atonement for sin. 
 The New Testament does not say he ever did. But if it did, 
 what would it mean? That he died in order to reconcile men 
 unto God, and make both one. But this cannot be done, except 
 so far as they are redeemed from iniquity. 
 
 He says, Christ gave his life a ransom for many. True. But 
 for what purpose? To redeem them from iniquity. 
 
 He says, it pleased the Father to bruise him. * True. But 
 for what end ? That he might redeem us from all iniquity, and 
 bring us to God. 
 
 He says, the Messiah was cut off, not for himself, but to 
 make an end of sin, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. 
 The very doctrine 1 had taught. 
 
 He says, the word Kopher , in the Hebrew, means atonement, 
 and that the same word rendered into Greek, Ilasco , means to 
 appease. All right. But when is God appeased? Is he ap- 
 peased towards any man who is still living in sin? Or is it 
 then that he is appeased, when men are redeemed — brought 
 from sin ? God is angry with men on account of sin ; and he is 
 appeased towards men when they are redeemed from sin. This 
 is the constant doctrine of the Scriptures respecting the end of 
 Christ’s death or sacrifice. 
 
 He says, Moses made atonement with incense. Then it seems 
 atonement can be made without blood. In truth, forgiveness 
 can be obtained from God at any time when men offer the sacri- 
 fice of a broken and a contrite heart. A broken and a contrite 
 heart, 0 God, thou never wilt despise. 
 
 He says, Christ made reconciliation for the sins of the people. 
 True : but how ? Hid he effect reconciliation between God and 
 those men who still remained in sin ? Are not many still 
 alienated from God by their sins— by their wicked works ? Is 
 any individual brought to a state of reconciliation with God 
 until he is delivered from sin, and brought to act righteously ? 
 The whole epistle shows that Christ makes reconciliation by 
 purging men — by sanctifying us from dead works , to serve the 
 living and true God. 
 
 He says the word “ atonement” is, in the New Testament, 
 only concealed under the veil of the English translation. So it 
 seems my opponent himself has found out that the common 
 translation is not quite correct, and that one of the most impor- 
 tant of Christian doctrines is hid in the common version, under 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 257 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 the veil of a false translation. But how is it in the new trans- 
 lations? Neither John Wesley nor Dr. Conquest put it in in 
 Romans. Whether they have put it in in any other part, I 
 cannot 'positively say. But if it is there, let any one show it 
 me ; and let us see if any orthodox translator has taken away 
 the veil from the doctrines of the Atonement. 
 
 He says that Christ is a lamb that taketh away the sin of the 
 world. True : he takes it away , as already repeatedly explain- 
 ed ; literally and truly takes it away. 
 
 He says, Christ is compared to the pascal lamb whose 
 blood saved the Israelites from death. True, again ; but 
 the pascal lamb did not save them by satisfying divine jus- 
 tice ; satisfaction to God’s justice was in no way concerned 
 with the passover. 
 
 He referred to the scape-goat ; and said that the sins of the 
 people were confessed over it ; that it was led away into a land 
 uninhabited, bearing away the sins of the people. Just so. But 
 here, also, there is nothing done to satisfy God’s justice. The 
 goat bore the sins away. So Christ bears our sins away truly ; 
 he redeems us from all iniquity. 
 
 He spoke of the blood shed on the day of atonement, and 
 sprinkled on the mercy-seat, &c* That has been already ex- 
 plained. I observed that the sacrifice was called sin, and repre- 
 sented the putting of sin to death : and when the blood was 
 shed and sprinkled before God, it was received by God as a 
 declaration on the part of the people, that they had put their 
 sins to death, and were resolved to sin no more, and God accept- 
 ed them on that account. This is all in harmony with the views 
 we have laid down. 
 
 He says, it had been said that confession, repentance, and 
 obedience were sufficient ; and . that Christ’s death was to 
 bring us to these ; but, lie adds, how was it that, besides 
 these, the shedding of the victim’s blood was requisite before, 
 pardon could be granted. We answer, See the Psalms of 
 David : — “ Thou desirest not sacrifice ; else would 1 give it : 
 thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God 
 are a broken spirit : a broken and a contrite heart, O God, 
 thou wilt not despise.” If David speaks true, God did not 
 care for the outward sacrifice. He forgave sins out of respect 
 to the inward sacrifice, if that sacrifice was an humble, peni- 
 tent heart. 
 
 I have gone through my opponent’s remarks; and I now come 
 to the doctrine of the Trinity. 
 
 My opponent stated that this doctrine had been held by all 
 heathen nations, in all ages. I showed that this would be no 
 proof of its truth, if it were so ; but that in fact it was not so ; 
 and that his quotations were false. I gave you one from Seneca 
 as a specimen. I thought he would have tried to explain it, 
 and tell you how it was that he mis-quoted that author ; but he 
 did not. 
 
258 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [SIXTH 
 
 He then said the doctrine of the Trinity was held by the 
 ancient Jews. That, however, was proved to be false ; and it 
 was also shown that if it had been proved to be true, it would 
 have been no argument to prove the truth of the doctrine. But 
 I showed that the quotation which he pretended was from 
 Rabbi Jonathan, was a false one. He stated that it was, — 
 “ Holy, that is the Father ; Holy, that is the Son ; Holy, that 
 is the Holy Ghost.” I gave you a copy of Jonathan’s com- 
 ment ; and I told you that there was neither Father, Son, nor 
 Holy Ghost in the whole. I gave you for that statement, the 
 authority of Rammohun Roy, one of the cleverest scholars that 
 ever lived. [Some confusion was here evinced on the platform 
 and in the meeting.] I should be glad to have a little order, 
 (which the Chairmen used their exertions to effect.) We did, 
 however, wish to have still better authority, that there might be 
 no mistake ; and we accordingly wrote to Rabbi Raphail, one 
 of the first Hebrew scholars of the day. [More confusion on 
 the platform.] It would be well if the committees would set an 
 example of orderly behaviour to others. I have heard many 
 complaints of my opponent’s committee, and if those com- 
 plaints are true, I do hope they will change their conduct, 
 and maintain order. (Hear, hear.) I say we wrote to Rabbi 
 Raphail. We wrote to ask for a transcript from Jonathan’s 
 Targum, and he has sent us it, and gives us a literal trans- 
 lation of it. I shall read it, and then Mr. Cooke may examine 
 it, if he pleases, to see if it be correct. The translation is 
 this : — “ Holy in his heaven on high, the exalted house of 
 his presence. Holy on earth, the work of his power. Holy 
 for ever, and for ever, and ever.” That is the translation 
 which the Rabbi gives us. His note accompanying it is as 
 follows : — ■ 
 
 “ My dear Sir! — In a hurried reply to your favour, I beg 
 to say, NO rabbi ever held the doctrine of the Trinity, or of 
 three persons in the Godhead. The passage in Isaiah, from the 
 version of Jonathan, I give at foot, with a literal translation, 
 for the accuracy of which I vouch. 
 
 You will pardon the extreme briefness of this note, as I 
 am on the point of leaving town for Ireland. 
 
 “ Your’s very respectfully, 
 
 “ M. G. Raphael.” 
 
 “ Birmingham, 25, 8, 45.” 
 
 Now I expected that my opponent would have given us some 
 account of the way in which he was led to make this false quo- 
 tation ; and either acknowledge that the error was wilful, or 
 that he was led into it by the authority of some orthodox guide 
 that had preceded him. But on this point, also, he has chosen 
 to be silent. I make no appeal to your passions on this sub- 
 ject. I wish not to excite any improper feelings towards my 
 opponent. I wish you not to be excited. But these are curious 
 
259 
 
 NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 
 
 facts. I have no doubt you will remember them, and form 
 your own judgment with respect to the party who employs such 
 means in defence of what he calls the essential doctrines of 
 Christianity. The reason I mention the matter is, that you 
 may know what credit — what weight to give to other quota- 
 tions from books with which you are not acquainted, and to 
 other statements which are made in reference to authors to 
 which you have not- access. I mention those things that you 
 may be on your guard, and not follow a man thoughtlessly into 
 the dark, when you find that he has already lost his way so 
 sadly in the dark himself. 
 
 1 will now notice another argument which my opponent 
 brings forward in proof of the Trinity. He says the Jews had 
 a name of twelve letters, which they substituted for Jehovah ; 
 and that Gaiatinus states that this twelve-lettered name 
 is, literally, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I answer, 1st, this 
 statement is made by Serle, the same person who gives the false 
 and forged comment of Kabbi Jonathan. 2nd, i learn from 
 Rammohun Hoy, one of the best of scholars, one of the clever- 
 est and most upright of men, first, that Gaiatinus only believed 
 that these twelve letters were Father, Son, and Holy spirit. 
 Second, that Serle himself expressed doubts as to the source from 
 which Gaiatinus had obtained his information. Third, that the 
 construction of his sentence of twelve letters is conformable to 
 the European style of writing, but is quite foreign to the 
 Hebrew idiom ; proving it to be a European invention. Fourth, 
 that Maimonides, the original authority of Serle, owns that 
 these twelve letters were the first letters of twelve other names , 
 and not three complete words in themselves. 
 
 Other arguments apparently borrowed by my opponent 
 from Serle, are exposed by Rammoliun Roy in the same effectual 
 way. 
 
 My opponent next tells us that the early Fathers held the 
 doctrine of the Trinity. I answer, 1. They did not hold the 
 doctrine which is now called the doctrine of the Trinity, nor 
 any thing like it. But 2, If they did , it would not prove it 
 Scriptural. 3. The earliest Fathers of all do not mention either 
 the Trinity, or the Godhead of Christ. The oldest creed, called 
 the Apostles’ creed, does not teach it ; nor do the writings of the 
 earliest Fathers. 4. Many of the works referred to by orthodox 
 writers in proof that the early Christians held the doctrine of 
 the Trinity are forgeries ; others are sadly corrupted ; and the 
 quotations generally made from them are any thing but fair 
 representations of their meaning. I have examined several 
 of those pretended quotations ; and they are as partial, as gar- 
 bled, and altogether as false as my opponent’s pretended quota- 
 tions from my own writings. 
 
 He tells us, again, that heathen writers have recorded the 
 fact that the early Christians worshipped a Trinity in Unity. 
 I would like to know which Heathen writers have recorded 
 
260 MR. BARKER. [SIXTH 
 
 this fact ? I have never met with any such writers. Let my 
 opponent produce them. 
 
 He says, the Trinity is maintained by almost the entire mass 
 of professing Christians. I answer, so is the infallibility of the 
 Church of Home ; the duty of laymen to submit to their 
 priests ; and the propriety of praying to the Virgin Mary. For 
 the Protestants are but a handful compared with the Catholics 
 and the Eastern cl lurches ; and a few ages back, they were 
 fewer still. Three hundred and fifty years ago, the priests were 
 not allowed to marry ; and even to this day the great majority 
 regard the marriage of a priest as an intolerant abomination. So 
 that a number of persons believing in a doctrine is no proof of 
 its truth. I further observe, that the doctrine of the Trinity is 
 not held by so many people as my opponent fancies. Silence is 
 not consent. Multitudes do not think of it. When they do 
 think, they 7 " generally differ in opinion ; then doubt, then dis- 
 believe. 
 
 he says, the great body of the Church are united and har- 
 monious on the Trinity. Not so ; they are very far from 
 being united and harmonious on this subject. The differences 
 of opinion among the Trinitarians on the subject of the 
 Trinity are endless. 1 shall give you a few specimens. One 
 of the first statements of the doctrine is the Nicene Creed. It 
 says Christ was begotten according to his divine nature, 
 before all worlds ; teaching the doctrine of the eternal son- 
 ship, See. But neither Moses Stuart nor Dr. Wardlaw 
 agree in this. Adam Clarke calls it eternal nonsense, or a 
 contradiction in terms. I will give you Adam Clarke’s 
 opinion. It is from his Notes on Luke i The eternal 
 sonship I reject, for the following reasons 1st. I have not 
 been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures 
 concerning it. 2ndiy. If Christ be the Son of God as to his 
 divine nature, then he cannot be eternal : for son implies a 
 father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in 
 time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of 
 generation: and generation implies a time in which it was 
 effected, and time also antecedent to such generation. 3rdly. 
 If Christ be the Son of God, as to his divine nature, then the 
 Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him. 
 4thly. Again, if this divine nature were begotten of the Father, 
 then it must be in time; i. e. there was a period in which it did 
 not exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and 
 robs him at once of his Godhead. 5thly. To say that he was 
 begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd ; and the 
 phrase 6 eternal son,’ is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity 
 is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference 
 to time. Son supposes time, generation, and father; and 
 time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the 
 conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is abso- 
 lutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and oppo- 
 site ideas.” 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 261 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 The next form of the trinitarian doctrine is the Athanasian 
 Creed. With that creed some of you are acquainted. I will 
 read you, however, a small portion of it. “ The true Catholic 
 faith is this : — That we worship one God in Trinity, and 
 Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor divid- 
 ing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, 
 another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. Yet these 
 three persons are all said to be one God. The Father is said to 
 have begotten the Son, yet the Son is of the same age with the 
 Father. Neither of them was before or after the other. The 
 Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son; yet he, 
 too, is of the same age with them.” In fact, the creed concludes 
 thus, — “And in this Trinity none is afore or after other, none 
 is greater or less than another; but the whole three persons are 
 co-eternal together, and co-equal.” This creed is not only dis- 
 approved of by Wardlaw and Stuart, but also by John Wesley, 
 who rejects it as incorrect and mischievous, and says all expla- 
 nations of the Trinity are wrong. And he adds, that he 
 imagines that no well-informed man would attempt to give any 
 explanation of the doctrine at all. 
 
 Again ; Dr. W. Sherlock states that the Trinity is three se- 
 parate minds, as distinct from each other as Peter, James, and 
 John. He says, — “ It is plain the persons are perfectly distinct , 
 for they are three distinct and infinite minds, and therefore three 
 distinct persons; for a person is an intelligent being; and to say 
 there are three divine persons , and not three distinct infinite 
 minds , is both heresy and nonsense.- — Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost, are as really distinct persons as Peter, James, and 
 John.” Dr. South gives the following summary of Sherlock’s 
 opinions upon the Trinity : “ In his discourses upon the Tri- 
 
 nity, he calls the three persons in the Godhead three minds , 
 three spirits , three substances , essences , and natures. To these 
 expressions he adds, in his last bock, three seifs , three ids, three 
 singu ars, three sames , three wholes , one absolute divinity, with 
 two internal processions,” &c. 
 
 We have next the doctrine of Dr. Wallis, who opposed Sher- 
 lock, and got him condemned. lie says, — “To find out the 
 true sense of the word person, as applied to the Trinity, we are 
 to consider what was the true sense of the wor & persona in ap- 
 proved Latin authors. It did not signify the state , quality , or 
 condition of a man, as he stands related to other men” Then he 
 proceeds to say that David was, at the same time, the son of 
 Jesse , the father of Solomon , and the King of Israel; thus pre- 
 senting three characters, and this is what he means by three 
 persons. And then he adds, — “ Now, if three persons, in the 
 proper sense of the word person, may be one man; what hinders 
 but that three divine persons, in a sense metaphorical, may be 
 one God. And what hinders but that the same God, distin- 
 guished according to these three considerations — those of Father, 
 or Creator; Son, or Redeemer; and Holy Ghost, or Sanctifier, 
 
262 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [sixth 
 
 ■ — may fitly be said to be three persons ? Or, if the word 'person 
 do not please, three somewhat# , that are but one God.’ 7 And thus 
 he makes the Trinity into what lias been very properly and 
 shrewedly designated, “ Unitarianism in a mist.” 
 
 We have then the view of Leibnitz, who says the three 
 persons are three re r ations in the divine substance, but not 
 absolute substances. Still they are three substances, hut not as 
 absolute substances separately , as they are all together. 
 
 Toellner says; they are three eternal and really different ac- 
 tions , with three really different substrata ; he also calls them 
 three distinct energies , three distinct substances. 
 
 S. T. Coleridge says; “God is the absolute will: It is his 
 name and the meaning of it. It is the Hypostasis. As be- 
 getting his own Alterity, the Jehovah, the Manifested-— he is 
 the Father : but the Love and the Life— the Spirit — proceeds 
 from both.” 
 
 Of course I am not expecting you to understand those ex- 
 planations; I am not expecting you to understand any one of 
 them; but only showing that the whole Christian world happens 
 not to be united on the subject of the Trinity. 
 
 Another definition given by Archbishop Whately, as a quo- 
 tation from a Protestant Author, is as follows “ Theology 
 teaches that there is in God one Essence, two Processions, three 
 Persons, four Relations, five Notions, and the Circumincession, 
 which the Greeks call Perichoresis.” The Archbishop rejects 
 the definition, and adopts the theory of three Relations, similar 
 to Wallis. Tillotson calls the Trinity three Differences; Bur- 
 net, three Diversities; Seeker, three Subsistences ; others, three 
 Postures ; Le Clerc thought them to be three Cogitations; and 
 William Cooke thinks they are three Distinctions , but what 
 kind of distinctions he says he cannot tell. 
 
 There are multitudes of other definitions, as unscriptural and 
 unintelligible as these. 
 
 As we have shown, Wesley disapproves of all explications of 
 the subject. He tells us that all we have to believe is the text 
 which says that “there are three that bear record in heaven, 
 the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost : and these three 
 are one.” We are just to believe in these words without any 
 explanation; for he says,— “I do not know that any well-judging 
 man would attempt to explain them at all.” Yet he says we 
 are not required to believe any mysteries. However, this is his 
 Trinity. Now it turns out that the passage in 1st John is a 
 forgery; so that John Y/esley’s Trinity is gone. 
 
 My opponent tells us that the notion of a Trinity is veiy an- 
 cient. I answer, infidelity and sin are more ancient still. 
 
 H e says, the Trinity has always been connected with the 
 Divine blessing, with rich experience, perfect development of 
 Christian character, abundant usefulness, and triumphant 
 deaths. Now, 1 ask, with what was it connected during the 
 dark ages ? 1 answer, mystery and abomination went hand in 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 263 
 
 hand. With what is it connected now in Italy, Spain, and 
 South America, &c.; and with what is it connected in the ortho- 
 dox sects of Britain and North America ? With intolerance, 
 divisions, and persecutions,-— with priestcraft, tyranny, and 
 slavery; with man-stealing, and slave-breeding, and slave-deal- 
 ing; with covetousness, oppression, and drunkenness; with lying 
 and slandering; with forging lies and hypocrisy; with robbery 
 and murder; with adultery and fornication; with rapes and 
 sodomy; with beastiality and incest; with wholesale and hor- 
 rible profligacy, and with all abominations. And the priests 
 the advocates of those mysteries, are the WORST, the MOST 
 PROFLIGATE, the MOST FILTHY, and the MOST ABAN- 
 DONED OF ALL. (Loud hissing and groaning, answered by 
 applause.) I have no wish to excite strong feeling, if I could help 
 it; but when individuals talk as if rich Christian experience, 
 abundant usefulness, the perfect development of the Christian 
 character, and the like, were to be found in connection with a 
 belief of the Trinity only, I think I have a right to point 
 out with what other characteristics it is associated. ( Hissing and 
 various remarks made in the body of the meeting.) 
 
 Mr. Gilmore You speak as men that are afraid of the 
 truth. 
 
 Mr. Grant Nothing can be more indecorus ; and what is 
 another thing, nothing more unwise. 
 
 Mr. Barker When I speak thus of the priests of ortho- 
 doxy, I speak not at random. I know them. I utter what I 
 have seen and proved* 
 
 I will tell you what the Trinity has been connected with 
 elsewhere. It has been connected with the 1NQUISLTION, 
 with its cruelties and tortures, with its robberies and mur- 
 ders, with its darkness and terrors, with its groans, and sighs, 
 and deaths. 
 
 It has been connected with the murder of the Huguenots and 
 with St, Bartholomew’s day : with the diabolical persecutions 
 of the poor hetrodox Waldenses and xAlbigenses : with the Holy 
 Alliance, and the enslavement of Europe: with our national griev- 
 ances, and with the cruel, unrighteous, and exterminating wars of 
 the government. It has been connected with the abominations of 
 our colleges and universities, those sinks of iniquity, those most 
 profligate and licentious of all places. It has been connected 
 with Easter-dues and church-rates ; with lordly bishops and 
 enormous salaries, and idle lives : with Irish oppression, and 
 Rathcormac slaughters : with a million of idle priests who live 
 on the hard-earned pence of the poor, and refuse to work for 
 their bread ; who “ devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence 
 make long prayers.” (Boisterous hissing and applause, with 
 numerous questions and short observations, apparently addressed 
 to the speaker.) 
 
 Mr. Grant Gentlemen, I beg to express it as my own 
 opinion that you will do best quietly to hear Mr. Barker. Let 
 
264 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 £sixth 
 
 him stand in his own proper colours, and on his own responsi- 
 bility ; and you can form your own judgment. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — I trust you will take Mr. Grant's advice. 
 Mr. Barker desires nothing but to stand in his own proper 
 colours ; and I trust you will give him leave to show them. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Barker: — Mr. Cooke says he desires to make you under- 
 stand my principles, to lay them all before you. i desire to 
 help him. Be will never be able to do it alone ; I therefore 
 trust you will allow ltfe to aid his efforts or to do it for him. 
 (Laughter and applause.) I know there are truly religious 
 people in the various denominations of orthodox professors. I 
 cannot doubt but that there are many men of truly Christian 
 feeling, and godly tempers, and holy lives both among Catho- 
 lics and Protesants, and Calvinists and Methodists, as well as 
 among othersects. I know this. I am acquainted with many such. 
 I know, too, that there are mixed up with the orthodox sys- 
 tem great quantities of truth, calculated to exert a good influence 
 upon the heart and mind. But those persons that are good, and 
 holy, and useful in connection with the orthodox system, and 
 with orthodox exclusive sects, are not good, and holy, and reli- 
 gious through a belief in the trinity, or in consequence of such 
 belief, but in spite of it. As Wesley observes, “not one in 
 twenty, perhaps, of those who become religious, ever tliinlcs 
 of the Trinity at first.” When they do begin to think, they 
 generally either disbelieve the doctrine, or become intolerant 
 and malignant. The good that is in them is to be traced to 
 those better principles which they hold in connection with false 
 orthodoxy. The natural tendency of orthodoxy, apart from 
 those great truths which the hetrodox, so-called, are acustomed 
 to unfold, is to destroy man’s freedom, and to impoverish and 
 pervert, to enslave and to destroy men’s souls. 
 
 My opponent says, where the Trinity is denied, there is a 
 moral blight : Unitarianism is cold, insipid, and unblest. I 
 answer, it is not always cold : it is not always insipid ; and if, 
 by “ unblest,” my opponent means unblest with success when, 
 properly advocated, he is greatly in error. And if by unblest 
 he means that it does not exert a godly influence on men’s hearts 
 and lives, when allowed full operation among the masses of 
 mankind, then the statement is a great falsehood. Socinus is 
 represented as one of the most exemplary of his age, and asswr- 
 passing his age both in goodness and understanding. I never 
 heard any thing to the discredit of Serve t us, who was persecuted 
 to death by Calvin for his anti-trinitarianism. Newton and 
 Locke were called Unitarians by the orthodox ; yet they were 
 noble characters. If they were not Unitarians, then their Trini- 
 tarian opponents most wickedly slandered and belied them. 
 The chief reformers in America— the most active non-resistant- 
 ants and abolitionists — are chiefly anti-trinitarian. Wm. Penn 
 and his fellow-labourers in the cause of truth and freedom, and 
 
MR BARKER. 
 
 265 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 of universal improvement, were the same. The Arians of Ire- 
 land, so far as i am acquainted with them, are among the most 
 kind-hearted and generous, the most pure and lovely, the most 
 beneficent and Christ-like of the human race. The Unitarians 
 of England are amongst the best specimens of sanctified huma- 
 nity with which I have become acquainted here. I know, of 
 course, they have their failings. 'They have allowed orthodox 
 intolerance and overbearing almost to alarm them, and make 
 them think the world is not yet ripe for their sentiments. 
 They have not done all they should have done for rousing, en- 
 larging, and enlightening the public mind, and exposing the 
 errors and abominations of false orthodoxy. But taking them 
 in other respects, they are a people truly worthy of the Chris- 
 tian name ; and Christianity may well receive honour from the 
 character of many of them. The first movement in the Teetotal 
 cause, and almost the first movement in the cause of temperance, 
 was made by Joseph Livesey, of Preston ; and his labours in the 
 cause of temperance and human improvement, generally, have been 
 unceasing and abundant. 11 e is the friend of freedom and improve- 
 ment in all forms ; and he sighs and toils devoutly for the re- 
 generation of the human family. And he is an anti-trinitarian, 
 and an anti-sectarian. The chief opponents of war, of capital 
 punishment, of restrictions upon commerce, and all such-like 
 abominations, are to be found among Unitarians. Unitarianism, 
 therefore— -though it is a name I never liked, and with which I 
 could not be identified— is not cold, insipid, and unblest. Moral 
 barrenness and spiritual sterility, are not inseparable from anti- 
 trinitarian principles. 
 
 I come now to some further arguments which my opponent 
 has made use of in favour of the Trinity. His first argument is 
 drawn from the fact that in the Hebrew writings Cod is ge- 
 nerally called Aleim, or Elohim. This word means “ Gods,” 
 as I have already stated ; so that if we are to accept the principles 
 which my opponent lays down about the Hebrew language,— 
 the names of which, he sa^s, were correct descriptions of the 
 nature of the things to which they were applied, — Jehovah is 
 not one God, but several; and my opponent ought to believe 
 and teach, not three inexplicable, unintelligible distinctions in 
 one God, but three or several Gods in one Jehovah. Now if the 
 language of God be fit and proper,— if it be expressive of God’s 
 nature, and necessary for our instruction, why does iie not use 
 it ? V\ hy not speak of God as God himself speaks ? Why not, 
 instead of saying God, always say Gods? And why not, instead 
 of telling his young friends to remember their Creator, or their 
 Maker, teach them to remember their Creators and A/atcers, ac- 
 cording to the original Hebrew; which are the words which 
 my opponent says God himself chose on purpose to express his 
 nature, and which he also says are distinctly proper. And why 
 use the words Persons, or Distinctions , or Personalities ? God 
 has employed no such words. God uses the word Gods : and 
 
266 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [sixth 
 
 why exchange God’s fit and proper words, for words of mem’s 
 invention, which you yourselves acknowledge to be not quite fit 
 and proper; to be inadequate to express the idea of the i rinity? 
 Such 'conduct is the extreme of inconsistency. It is an insult, 
 in fact, to God. 
 
 Again, if we take the word Elohim as the plural for God, and 
 proceed on the principles laid down by my Opponent, that, as it 
 is a name of God’s own choosing, it must exactly express God’s 
 character or nature, then we are brought at once to heathenism. 
 The word Elohim , Gods, is the same word which is applied in the 
 Old Testament to the gods of the Gentiles. It is applied to 
 them about two hundred times ; and in every instance, 1 believe, 
 it is translated gods, and in every instance it is correctly so trans 
 lated. My opponent’s principle thus brings us to a level with 
 the Heathens, the nations of many gods. He may say that the 
 gods of the Gentiles were not true gods ; hut this stiil leaves us 
 with a number of true Gods, instead of one. The Old Testament, 
 if seems, does not teach us that Elohim , or the true Gods, are one 
 el, or one God. That would do away with Polytheism, or a 
 multitude of Gods ; but it would also entirely do away with the 
 Trinity. The Old Testament does, indeed, say that Elohim , the 
 Gods, are but one Jehovah , or essence ; but still it teaches us 
 there are man yGods, on Wm. Cooke’s principle. And I am told 
 by Rammohun Roy, that the Uindoossay the same of their thirty, 
 or three hundred millions of gods ; they say they are all one in 
 essence, or nature, though not in person. According, then, to 
 my opponent’s principle, we are to believe in several gods ; for 
 God’s own chosen words express that idea, if we take the words 
 as they stand. 
 
 Again ; the word 44 persons’’ when applied to God, if it means 
 any thing, means Gods. It is used instead of Elohim , I suppose; 
 but Elohim means Gods ; and if 44 persons” is employed in its 
 place, it will mean the same as Elohim , Gods. If the words 
 44 divine persons” do not mean Gods, they are mere gibberish, 
 and mean nothing at all. The doctrine of the Trinity, there- 
 fore, becomes three Gods in one Jehovah ; and all my opponent’s 
 arguments prove the existence of three Gods if they prove any 
 thing at all. He proves, first, that the Father is God, and all 
 agree to it ; he proves, second, that the Son is God ; true God ; 
 very God of very God; yet a separate person from the Father. 
 That is two Gods, lie proves, third, that the Efoly Spirit is 
 God, true God, proceeding from the other two persons or Gods, 
 and yet, though true God, a really distinct and separate person 
 from the other two persons proved to be God, and tiiis is three 
 Gods. 
 
 But, again ; my opponent even proves that there are not 
 only three Gods, but three Jehovahs. He says the Father is 
 Jehovah ; that is one. He says the Son is Jehovah, yet a se- 
 parate or distinct person from the Father; that is two Jehovahs. 
 And lie says the Holy Ghost is Jehovah, yet separate or distinct 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 267 
 
 from the other persons which are each Jehovah ; and that is 
 three Jehovahs. 
 
 It is plain, therefore, if there be several in Jehovah they are 
 several Gods ; and that if we are resolved to speak of a plurality 
 in the Godhead at all, we must, to speak scripturally, and in 
 accordance with the principles laid down by my opponent, 
 speak of several Gods in one Jehovah, and not of three distinc- 
 tions in one God. 
 
 But, then, here arises a difficulty, God is the author of 
 the hew Testament, as well as the Old; and in the New Tes- 
 tament all the names of God are singular : there is not a plural 
 name among them. Jesus and the apostles all say God, not 
 Gods ; Father , not Fathers . Here the two Testaments clash. 
 One almost always says Gods; the other, always, God* They 
 cannot both express exactly the same thing, if my opponent’s 
 principles are good for any thing. Yet they must both be 
 equally fit and proper, on his principles. What shall we say to 
 this? We are obliged, of course, to tumble my opponent’s 
 principles overboard, and declare his criticisms and rules of in- 
 terpretation to be a bundle of orthodox folly. The word Flo - 
 him does not prove a plurality of Gods : then it proves no 
 plurality at all. 
 
 What, then, is the truth of the case ? We answer, the word 
 Elohim when applied to the true God, Jehovah , is to be taken as 
 a singular noun only ; as expressing simply one . We will 
 prove that this is its proper meaning. 
 
 First ; it has always been translated by the singular name, 
 God, in all versions, whether made by ti initarians, or others. 
 The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the modern versions, all trans- 
 late the word, not Gods , but God . ISow if God used the plural, 
 Gods , to express his nature , or some plurality or other, all the 
 translations of the Scriptures in the world have thwarted God ; 
 — have frustrated his purpose, — have used words that conceal 
 this idea of plurality from people’s minds. 
 
 Second ; my opponent himself is guilty of doing the same, — 
 He does not use God’s own plural name in speaking of God : 
 lie uses the singular , both in reading the Scriptures, and in 
 preaching and writing; thus helping to conceal God’s reve- 
 lations in this respect. 
 
 Third ; Jesus and his apostles regarded the word as singular 
 when applied to God ; and in all the discourses of Christ, and 
 in all the writings of his aposties, the singular nairfe is employed. 
 
 Fourth ; both Christ and his apostles declare most solemnly 
 that there is only one God ; — not only that there is but one 
 Jehovah , but that there is but one God. 
 
 Fifth ; neither Christ nor his apostles ever tell us that though 
 there is but one God , yet there are several persons. They allow 
 the old plural name Elohim , Gods , to fall to the ground in the 
 new and brighter dispensation, and put no other plural name 
 in its place. 
 
263 
 
 MU. BARKER. 
 
 [sixth 
 
 Sixth ; many trinitarian authors, Loth Roman Catholics and 
 Protestants, have declared it to he foolish to attempt to prove 
 the trinity from the use of the plural Elohim in the Old Testa- 
 ment. 1 will give you the statements of a few of them on that 
 subject : — 
 
 Tostat says, — a The second principal authority which the 
 Master of sentences adduces for a plurality of persons is Gen. i., 
 .3, e In the beginning God created/ where, in the original, the 
 noun Elohim is put in the plural, and the verb in the singular ; 
 the former signifying a plurality of subsistences ; and the latter, 
 unity of nature', lint this cannot be maintained, lor the plural 
 is here used for the singular. It is evident, that the noun is to 
 he taken improprie , as otherwise it would indicate many Gods , 
 as many men. Those err egregiously wilt) would prove a 
 plurality of divine persons from such passages ; for the change 
 of number does not arise from any mystery, hut from an idiom; 
 such changes being made from the usage of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage.” 
 
 Bixius Senensis observes,— ec With the exception of Peter of 
 Lombardy, and Paul of Burgos, there has not been, amongst 
 the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew writers, one commentator 
 worthy of imitation who has explained the word Elohim of the 
 trinity.” 
 
 Turrien remarks,— “ A certain catholic and learned writer is 
 of opinion, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are Gods, 
 because in the Old Testament the name of the Almighty is al- 
 ways expressed in the plural number; as Elohim , which he 
 thinks ought to be rendered Gods. The doctrine itself I do not 
 impugn, but, convinced by other means, I acknowledge not this 
 argument to be solid.” 
 
 Cardinal Cajetan says, — “ It is not on account of the mys- 
 tery of divine persons, but because the signification of Elohim Ts 
 singular, that Moses joins this noun with the verb 6 created’ in 
 the singular number.” 
 
 Cardinal Bellarmine says,-—' “ To prove the doctrine of the 
 trinity, many allege, that Scripture joins the plural name of 
 God with a singular verb : as Llohim Bara , 6 In principio crcavit 
 JDii d as much as to say, Gods creates ; but I do not think that 
 the argument is at all solid, since, according to the usage of 
 Scripture, the names of illustrious persons are put in the plural 
 number, though the verbs retain their singular form -a usage 
 which tve Italians partly imitate, when, in addressing any emi- 
 nent individual, we say, not ‘thou/ but ‘you.’ Lest this, how- 
 ever, should be deemed to savour of Rabbinism, to which 
 I am greatly opposed, 1 shall adduce for my opinion the reasons 
 by which 1 have been convinced : — 1. In Scripture the same 
 phraseology is adopted in speaking of men, or of false deities ; 
 as, Bdxod. xx., 3. ‘ Thou shalt not have strange Gods.’ lit. 4 Non 
 ' erit tibi-dii aim ’ Gen. xxix, 9, ‘ lie put his hand under the 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 269 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 thigh of Abraham his lord in Hebrew adordm , c of his lords f 
 and so Exod. xxi., 4, 2. If such words have a plural significa- 
 tion, it would be proper to say that there are many true Gods ; 
 for who could blame us if we followed the Scriptures in this 
 matter? And I ask, why should it be allowable in Hebrew to 
 call the divine persons Deos , Gods , but not in Latin? If you 
 reply that in the Old Testament the name of God is put in the 
 plural number only when joined with a singular verb, I answer, 
 that is not true ; for we read in 2 Sam. vii., 23, 6 What nation 
 is there upon earth, as thy people Israel, whom God went to 
 redeem?’ in Hebrew, iverunt DU. And in other passages you 
 will find many similar examples. Why, then, is it lawful in 
 the Hebrew to say, of the Divine persons, iverunt DU , and not 
 also in the Latin? Certainly for no other reason than this, that 
 the Hebrews were accustomed to employ a plural noun with a 
 singular signification ; whereas the writers in the Latin tongue 
 have no such usage.— 3. Neither Jerome nor the translators of 
 the Septuagint version ever rendered the word Etohim in the 
 plural number [when applied to the Divine Being], which 
 proves that, in those passages, such nouns have not a plural, but 
 a singular, signification. — 4. If this Hebrew word have a plural 
 meaning wherever it is found in the plural number, there 
 would be a most evident and very common contradiction in the 
 language of the Bible ; for we often read that there is only one 
 God, and yet as frequently [according to this criticism] that 
 there are Gods. But it is incredible that the Deity should, by 
 these obvious contradictions, harass his people, and afford an 
 occasion of blasphemy to their adversaries.” 
 
 Perevia, Petavius, Calmet, Dr. Geddes, write much to the 
 same purpose ; tut it is not needful to quote them. Among 
 Protestant commentators who take the like view, I find Calving 
 Mercer, Daneau, Drusius, Grotius, L. Cappel, Ley, South, L im- 
 ho re h, Le Clerc, Dawson, Dr. Campbell, and a number of others, 
 whose names I need not enumerate. Thus we have a long 
 string of most respectable authorities, both among Roman Ca- 
 tholics and Protestants, by whom it is considered to be a 
 folly to attempt to build the trinity upon the simple fact 
 that God, in the original Hebrew, is called Eiohim , literally 
 Gods. 
 
 It is plain, therefore, 1. That if Eiohim implies a trinity of 
 any thing, it implies a trinity of Gods. And 2. I may add, 
 that if it implies a trinity in Jehovah, the same word implies a 
 trinity in Moses , in Ashtaroth, in Dagon, in Chemosh, in the 
 golden calf, &c., for it is applied to them all : and similar words, 
 such as Adonim, Baalim, &c., will imply a trinity in Abraham 
 and other single men. 
 
 Again ; my opponent’s principle about the Hebrew lan- 
 guage is not correct ; nor his idea about the words employed by 
 the sacred writers. They do not use words always according to 
 m 2 
 
270 MR, BARKER. [SIXTH 
 
 the strict rules of grammar, or the realities of science ; they 
 use such words as men were used to ; and men could under- 
 stand no other words. Hence they talk of the sun rising, 
 setting, standing still, going hack, and going down ; they speak 
 of the walls of cities reaching up to heaven, and of lands that 
 eat up their inhabitants ; they speak of God’s hands, and eyes, 
 of his face, his feet, his bowels, &c. ; they speak of his eyes 
 running to and fro in the earth ; and we must believe all these 
 things literally, if my opponen t’s principle of interpretation be 
 admitted. And there are a million of such absurdities, all of 
 which you must believe, if you adopt my opponent’s princi- 
 ples, as contained in his tract on the Trinity. And on just the 
 same principle, the English might prove from French writers, 
 that some people in France have no entrails, that others have 
 five times the quantity of common men ; and that to have 
 abundance of entrails is a Christian duty. So in reference to 
 our own language. If we act upon the same principles, a fo- 
 reigner reading English works, would conclude that we believed 
 that dead men’s souls got into living men’s bodies and drove 
 them mad ; that others are driven mad by a stroke of the 
 moon, and others by black bile. For the word maniac , literal- 
 ly, means one possessed by manes , or the souls of the dead ; and 
 the English word 66 lunatic ,” from Luna , means moon-struck 
 person ; and 44 melancholy ” means the black cholic ; and so on. 
 
 Another argument employed by my opponent to prove the 
 Trinity is drawn from such passages as these : — 44 Let us make 
 man 44 let us go down 64 Who will go for us?’ But this 
 argument must share the fate of its predecessor. 1. If there 
 he several somethings in God, it is several Gods , as we have seen; 
 but several Gods there are not. 2. If Elohim , Gods , could be 
 used for one God, we can easily understand how 44 we” and 
 44 us” can be used for one God. Is it more improper for one 
 God to say 44 us or 44 we” than it is for him to call himself 
 Eohim , 44 Gods.” 3. If God, speaking of himself, says 44 we” 
 and 44 us” and if the words are designed by God to indicate a 
 Trinity, and are strictly proper, as Mr. Cooke says, then we 
 ought, in speaking of God, to follow this Scriptural, this He- 
 brew, this Divine example ; and say, 44 you,” to God, not thou 
 when we speak to God, and 44 them,” not him, and 44 they,” 
 not he, when we speak of God, or the Gods, to others. Yet my op- 
 ponent won’t follow those Scripture examples on wbichhe builds 
 his argument. When he talks to God, he says 44 thouf as if lie 
 believed God one when he prays to him ; and when he speaks 
 of God, he says 44 he,” and 44 him not they, and them : thus 
 veiling the truth which God sought to reveal, on Win. Cooke’s 
 principle, from the minds of the people. I say our orthodox 
 opponents will not speak as the Hebrew Scriptures speak ; they 
 will not imitate God. They will be wiser than God. JNow if 
 their principle is not good enough to regulate their own way 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 271 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 of speaking*, they need never expect it to influence our way of 
 thinking . If they can we wiser than God, we can be wiser than 
 they. 4. Again ; the Mahometans, who are all anti trinitarians 
 —as you might have guessed from the abuse which is generally 
 thrown upon them — use the same kind of language of God. — 
 God is represented in the Koran as saying, 44 We” and 44 us” 
 just as if they believed in several Gods. Whereas they are 
 strict anti-trinitarians. 5. bammohun Roy has shown this to 
 be a common way of speaking throughout all the nations of 
 the east. This way of speaking is common, in fact, in all lan- 
 guages. Even in Yorkshire, if you get hold of a little child, 
 and teaze it, it will say, 44 let us alone.” And if you have 
 something that it would like to have, it will say, 44 give us a 
 bit.” And a man will often say the same. Rut does the child 
 believe itself a trinity ? The same form t>f expression is fre- 
 quently used by us ; we constantly say, 44 we” and 44 us” for 
 44 /” and 44 me” The argument, therefore, for the Trinity, 
 founded on this form of speech, is deservedly rejected, even by 
 sensible trinitarians. I will give you a few specimens of their 
 way of speaking on this point, out of Wilson's Concessions of 
 Trinitarians : — 
 
 Speaking of the passage, 44 God said, let us make man,” Lu- 
 ther observes, — 44 With how much confidence [foolish confi- 
 dence] did Augustine treat of these words, 4 Let us make man/ 
 as an assertion of the Trinity ; since this doctrine cannot be 
 proved from the passage. 5 ’ • 
 
 Mercer says, — 44 Because God speaks in the plural number, 
 our friends apply it to the Trinity, as if the Father addressed 
 the Son by whom he made all things. This opinion, indeed, I 
 would not condemn, but prefer attributing the phraseology 
 under consideration to the usage of the Hebrew and other lan- 
 guages ; namely, that God is introduced as speaking, and men- 
 tion made of him, according to the manner of men. Hence at 
 one time he speaks of himself in the plural number, and at an- 
 other in the singular, as, 4 I will make a help meet for him/ 
 Gen. chap, ii., 18 ; and, 4 Let us go down, and confound them 
 
 on the tower of Babel/ chap, xi., 7 He therefore says, 
 
 4 Let us make/ according to human speech, and not as if he re- 
 quired any assistance in the work of creation. For as these 
 matters were written by men, God could not lie represented as 
 speaking, except agreeably to human conceptions ; nor could 
 language be otherwise properly attributed to him. It behoves 
 us to press the Jews with clearer passages in favour of the doc- 
 trine of the Trinity.” 
 
 Then we have a number of other testimonies, which it is not 
 necessary for me to read. 
 
 My time, it seems, is nearly up. 
 
 I shall proceed with the Trinity as opportunity offers. If 
 my opponent goes on with the Atonement to-morrow evening. 
 
272 MR. BARKER. [SIXTH NIGHT. 
 
 I will answer him, and then proceed with the different doctrines 
 on the list without taking further notice of the course he may 
 think fit to pursue ; my desire being to lay tho§e subjects be- 
 fore you, with as much clearness as possible ; to go forward 
 until I have laid down my views on all those points fairly and 
 fully before you. (Applause.) 
 
 END OF SIXTH NIGHT S DISCUSSION. 
 
273 
 
 SEVENTH NIGHT. 
 
 FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 1845. 
 
 Mr. Barker was first on the platform this evening. He was 
 received with gentle applause. 
 
 On Mr. Cooke’s arrival, the plaudits were loud and long con- 
 tinued. This gave rise to a cry of “ One for Barker which 
 was responded to, though still without any of the warmth mani- 
 fested by his opponent’s friends. 
 
 At seven o’clock, Mr. Grant rose and said : — The time has 
 now come when the discussion should begin, and, as on former 
 occasions, all that I have to request of you now is again to re- 
 flect and turn over in your minds the great advantage resulting 
 to all parties from calm, silent attention and observation. If I 
 could, by any thing I could do, repress every mark of approba- 
 tion or of disapprobation, I would do it. I entreat you by all 
 means to keep calm while the parties are speaking. Any in« 
 terruption coming from you can be of no service whatsoever. I 
 beg to impress this upon your minds ; and I now introduce Mr. 
 Cooke to the meeting. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Mr. Chairman : my Christian Friends, — Mr. 
 Barker proposed, at first, the question — What is a Christian ; 
 and what are his principles ? — which he was bound to prove 
 from the Holy Scriptures. But instead of that he lias brought 
 forward all the stale objections of unbelievers and avowed infi- 
 dels, to prove that he is a Christian ! 
 
 Mr. Barker evidently has no wish that I should answer and 
 refute his cavils ; for as soon as he has fired off his infidel artil- 
 lery, he runs away to another subject in order to prevent my 
 replies. Bu.t I am not quite so foolish as to follow his wander- 
 ings till I see fit to do so. The lead in the discussion, you will 
 remember, is mine. Mr. Barker forgets, or is ignorant of the 
 fact, that a child can ask questions which its parent cannot 
 answer ; that a fool may do the same to a philosopher ; and that 
 an infidel may offer more objections to divine truth in five mi- 
 nutes than can be effectually refuted in five hours. 
 
 Mr. Barker said that Christ and the Scriptures teach that 
 whatever light a man may have, if he follow it, it will lead him 
 to heaven. True ; but utterly foreign to Mr. Barker’s case ; 
 who has an abundance of light that he will not follow. Christ 
 also said, “ This is the condemnation, that light is come into the 
 world, but men love darkness rather than light, because their 
 deeds are evil.” 
 
 Mr. Barker asserted that the Passover had no reference to 
 God’s justice. Was the destruction of the first-born, and of 
 
 m 3 
 
274 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [seventh 
 
 Pharaoh and his host afterwards, a display of God’s mercy ? If 
 not, the Passover has to do with God’s justice ; and the blood 
 that protected the Israelites from the sword of the destroying 
 angel, was blood which propitiated and saved from displeasure. 
 
 Mr. Barker referred at great length to the differences exist- 
 ing amongst ministers and Christians of every denomination 
 with regard to the important subject of the Trinity ; as if that 
 variety of sentiment with regard to the mode of the Divine ex- 
 istence invalidated the doctrine itself. But this is a silly so- 
 phism. He ought to know, and this assembly will know, that 
 the names he brought forward, multitudinous as they were, 
 present a striking evidence of the fact that the Trinity is 
 taught in the Holy Scriptures ; for the names he adduced were 
 the names of men who held the doctrine, though they differ in 
 the ways they choose to represent their views of that doctrine. 
 The different terms, however, in which men have expressed 
 their views on the doctrine of the Trinity, do not in the least 
 invalidate the question itself, as a scriptural one, hut establish 
 it. 
 
 Mr. Barker has connected the Trinity with all the abomina- 
 tions that disgrace depraved humanity, and in language and 
 manner that must have disgusted every reflecting mind. But 
 after all lias proved just as much connection between them as 
 he can prove between the innocence and holiness of Christ, and 
 the abandoned wickedness of the Jews and of those who mur- 
 dered the Saviour. 
 
 Mr. Barker argued at great length to prove that justice meant 
 mercy. Let ns take a few examples. The Greek word for jus- 
 tice is <h/c? 7 , dike ; and it occurs in the following passages ; — 
 Acts xxv. 15, — “ Festus declared Paul’s case unto the king, 
 saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix, about 
 whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the el- 
 ders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against 
 him” Did they desire to have mercy against him '{ 
 
 Take another example. Acts xxviii. 3, 4, — “ And when 
 Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, 
 there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 
 And when the barbarians saw the venemous beast hang on his 
 hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a mur- 
 derer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suf- 
 fereth not to live.” The word is dike, here rendered 
 
 66 vengeance Does vengeance mean mercy ? 
 
 Take another example. 2 Thes. i., 6, 7, 8, 9, — “ Seeing it is 
 a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them 
 that trouble you was it “mercy” to recompense tribulation? 
 — “ and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord 
 Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in 
 flaming fire talcing vengeance on them that know not God, and 
 that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ : who shall 
 he punished —who shall receive justice— “ with everlasting de- 
 
NIGHT. 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 275 
 
 struetion from tlio presence of the Lord, and from the glory of 
 his power/’ The word rendered “punished” is cikyj, who shall 
 receive justice. I ask, is it mercy that is here represented as pun- 
 ishing men with everlasting destruction ? 
 
 The word dncciiog is an adjective ; and the following are ex - 
 amples of its meaning. Matt, xx., beginning at the 3rd verse— 
 “ And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing 
 idle in the market-place, and said unto them, Go ye also in- 
 to the vineyard ; and whatsoever is right I will give you : and 
 they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and 
 ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he 
 went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, 
 Why stand ye here all the day idle ? They say unto him, Be- 
 cause no man hath hired us. He saith unto them. Go ye also 
 into the vineyard ; and whatsoever is right , that shall ye re- 
 ceive.” The word “ right” is here ducaioc, just. This refers, 
 you perceive, to the wages which a master gives to his servant. 
 Is it merciful to give the servant his w^ages ? There are, it is 
 true, some who confound mercy with justice. It appears Mr. 
 Barker does. I have heard of some who, when they pay their 
 workmen’s wages for their hard labour, call that wages “charity ” 
 or mercy : but the honest labourer does not call it “ charity ” 
 or mercy ; aiid he will not admit that it is mercy, or “ charity .” 
 He calls it “justice and so will all mankind who have not lost 
 either their reason or their moral principle ! 
 
 The word ducaiojg is an adverb ; and the following is an ex- 
 ample of its meaning. Luke xxiii. 39, 40, 41,—' “ And one of 
 the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying ; 
 If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other an- 
 swering rebuked him, saying, Dost thou not fear God, 
 seeing thou art in the same condemnation ? And we indeed 
 justly — ouzaib)g—“ for we receive the due reward of our deeds ; 
 but this man hath done nothing amiss.” Does the word duccuMg 
 mean merciful ? Was the expiring thief when suffering for his 
 crimes against the laws of his country — suffering and expiring 
 because of mercy ? 
 
 Take another example. Micah vi., 8, — “ He hath shewed 
 thee, O man, what is good ; and what doth the Lord require of 
 thee but to do justly ,” — ducatojg — “and to love mercy,” — here 
 justice and mercy are placed in palpable contra-distinction — 
 “and to walk humbly with thy God?” 
 
 The reasoning of Mr. Barker would go to prove that there is 
 no such thing as justice in existence no justice in man 
 — no justice in human governments — no justice in God. 
 Such reasoning is trifling in the extreme, and scarcely 
 deserves a reply. However, just to expose his weakness and 
 folly, in confounding God’s justice with his mercy, take the fol- 
 lowing passages : — 
 
 Genesis xviii., 25, — “ That be far from thee to do after this 
 manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked : and that the 
 
276 MR. COOKE. [seventh 
 
 righteous should be as the wicked, that he far from thee : Shall 
 not the judge of all the earth do right ?” 
 
 Deut. xxxii., 4, — “ He is the Rock, his work is perfect : for 
 all his ways are judgment : a God of truth and without ini- 
 quity, just and right is he.” 
 
 Job xxiv., 12, and following verses, — “Yea, surely God will 
 not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment. 
 Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath dis- 
 posed the whole world ? If he set his heart upon man, if he 
 gather unto himself his spirit and his breath ; all flesh shall 
 perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. If now 
 thou hast understanding, hear this : hearken to the voice of my 
 "words. Shall even he that liateth right govern ? and wilt thou 
 condemn him that is most just?’’ 
 
 Psalm Ixxxix., 14, — “ Justice and judgment are the habitation 
 of thy throne : mercy and truth shall go before thy face.” 
 
 Zephaniah iii., 5, — “ Th q just Lord is in the midst thereof ; he 
 will not do iniquity : every morning doth he bring his judg- 
 ment to light, he faileth not ; hut the unjust knoweth no 
 shame.” 
 
 Rev. xv., 3, — “And they sing the song of Moses the servant 
 of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvel- 
 lous are thy works, Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy 
 ways, thou King of Saints.” 
 
 Rev. xix., 2, — “ For true and righteous are his judgments : 
 for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth 
 with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants 
 at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia.. And her smoke 
 rose up for ever and ever.” 
 
 Kothing can more clearly prove the distinction between jus- 
 tice and mercy, and nothing more completely overthrow Mr. 
 Barker’s argument. 
 
 While Mr. Barker would exclude justice from the Divine na- 
 ture, his mode of arguing excludes equity from the Divine 
 government. He makes sin a trifle; and the Divine go- 
 vernment distinguished by the indulgence of a weak-minded 
 parent ; not the holy and equitable administration of a righte- 
 ous Judge. The claims of law and justice, on his scheme, are 
 disregarded and set aside ; and man is left to infer that sin is 
 not so serious an evil as is represented ; but that either God's 
 law is too stringent to be just, or his tlireatenings too severe to 
 be inflicted. 
 
 In the face of this evidence, what becomes of Mr. Barker’s at- 
 tempt to reconcile Romans iii., 26, to his theory? What be- 
 comes of his attempt to show T that dacaiog, just, means eXteivog, 
 merciful ? His representation, too, of Dr. Clarke’s interpreta- 
 tion of this passage is partial and false. I will read you Dr. 
 Clarke’s own words on verse 26 : — 1 “ To manifest note, his infinite 
 mercy ; and to manifest it in such a way that he might still ap- 
 pear to be the JUST God, and yet the JU STlFIER,the pardoner 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 277 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 of him who belie veth in Jesus. Here we learn that God designed 
 to give the most evident displays both of his justice and mercy. 
 Of his justice , in requiring a sacrifice , and absolutely refusing 
 to give salvation to a lost world in any other way ; and of his 
 mercy , in providing the sacrifice which justice required. Thus, 
 because Jesus w T as an atonement, a ransom price, for the sin of 
 the world, therefore God can, consistently with his justice, par-* 
 don every soul that belie veth in Jesus. This is the full disco- 
 very of God’s righteousness ; of his wonderful method of mag- 
 nifying his law, and making it honourable, of showing the infi- 
 nite purity of his justice , and of saving a lost world.” 
 
 Thus Dr. Clarke translates Sacaiog, just, not merciful. After 
 this exposure of Mr. Barker’s misrepresentation, will any one 
 believe him again ? (Hissing and laughter.) 
 
 While Mr. Barker’s theory of non-satisfaction excludes jus- 
 tice from God’s nature and administration, it excludes also all 
 efficacy from the sacrifice of Christ. For who was the victim? 
 A pious young man, he tells us. And, forsooth, this pious 
 young man is represented as the “ Lamb of God that taketh 
 away the sins of the world.” What was his character? On© 
 who “ became a truly pious young man.” Dr. Priestley and 
 Mr. Belsham distinctly state it to be their view that Christ was 
 not only peccable, but chargeable with ignorance and with sin ; 
 —if not with gross immorality, yet with violations of the mo- 
 ral law of God. This, then, was the victim who died for the 
 world’s transgressions ! And what did he render in sacrifice? 
 His life, Mr. Barker will say ; but, then, a life which he could 
 not retain ; a life which he had previously forfeited by sin ; for 
 “ the wages of sin is death.” Christ’s death was, therefore, no 
 sacrifice at all, properly so called : no more than the death of 
 Paul, or Stephen, or James, or any man who dies in the cause 
 of God as a martyr. It was no more an expression of Christ’s 
 love to man than the death of an Apostle. It was no more ex- 
 pressive of dignity— it was no more expressive of the intensity 
 of his own love— and therefore, on Mr. Barker’s theory, no more 
 calculated to bring men to God, than the death of any other 
 martyr. It was no more an expression of God’s love to man than 
 what he exhibits in giving any >human being to die as a martyr 
 to the cause of truth. For what was there peculiar or trans- 
 cendant in God giving up a young man to die ? He had given 
 up others before — and has given up others since. WJiat is 
 there, then, I ask, peculiar in the giving of Christ as a sacrifice ? 
 
 The death of Christ, therefore, on Mr. Barker’s principle, is 
 totally inadequate to save men. The cause does not correspond 
 to the effect. It cannot exert that moral influence which Mr* 
 Barker assigns to it. I put it to the common sense of man- 
 kind ; what special reasons can you see in the death of this 
 young man, inducing you to hate sin and love God, which 
 you do not see in the death of Paul, or Peter, or James, 
 or any of the Apostles of our Lord, or in a thousand good 
 
273 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [seventh 
 
 men who have died in the cause of truth ? Divesting the 
 Saviour of his proper character as Emmanuel, as the WORD, 
 the eternal WORD, who was in the beginning with God, and 
 by whom all things were made — who made the world in which 
 we live, and, as Mr. Barker told you, in my quotation last 
 night, made the universe and made angels ; — divesting Christ of 
 his proper character, as Emmanuel, “ God with us,” we have 
 even less moral reasons in his death for hating sin, and turning 
 to God, than we have in the death of many others. Christ 
 laboured in the ministry only three years ; he never left his 
 own country to labour for the welfare of others ; and his bodily 
 sufferings, which continued only about six hours, could not be 
 more intense than numbers have experienced. The Saviour 
 expired before the malefactors who hung by his side. 
 
 But look at Christ in his proper character, and the plan of 
 mercy is consistent and harmonious. Admit the victim to be 
 Him whom the Scriptures represent, Emmanuel, and there is 
 harmony in the scheme. Admit his nature to be holy, and his 
 obedience perfect ; that he was holy, harmless, undefiled, sepa- 
 rate from sinners, and offered himself without spot to God, and 
 there is harmony in the system. Admit that the life he laid 
 down was what he had a legal right to retain, and that out of 
 love to us he voluntarily laid it down as a sacrifice, and here 
 you have a cause adequate to the effect ; here you have a sacri- 
 fice of infinite worth and importance, adequate to redeem and 
 to save. And here, too, you have such a display of love as the 
 Scriptures constantly exhibit. The Holy Scriptures exhaust 
 the powers of language in describing the immensity of that love 
 which is exhibited in the sacrifice of Christ. They say, “ God 
 so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” They 
 declare, “ Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he 
 loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins ; 
 and not for oui’s only, but for the sins of the whole world.” 
 They declare, “God spared not liis own Son, hut freely deli- 
 vered him up for us all.” They speak of this exhibition of 
 Divine mercy as outstripping every thing which the human 
 mind could contemplate, and presenting reasons for banishing 
 every doubt of the divine goodness, and as furnishing an argu- 
 ment for unbounded confidence that “ he will freely give us all 
 things.” And if the Saviour was the Son of God, and if his 
 death was a proper atonement for the sins of the world, there is 
 propriety and force in these descriptions. The high-wrought 
 style, the glowing fervour, the admiration and wonder are natu- 
 ral — are adapted to so sublime a subject ; and instead of sur- 
 passing, fall short of its full sublimity. 
 
 The Holy Scriptures constantly distinguish the death of 
 Christ, in its character, in its objects, and in its efficacy, from 
 the death of any martyr, however holy, or devoted, or useful. 
 At an early age of the church, spme sealed the truth with their 
 blood. Righteous Abel fell a victim to his brother's. malice 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 279 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 because of his fidelity to God. His own works were good, and 
 his brother’s evil ; and when we read about the blood of Abel 
 speaking, what did it speak for ? For vengeance. “ The voice 
 of thy brother’s blood crieih unto me from the ground.” The 
 blood*of Christ speaks ; but does it speak the same language as 
 the blood of Abel. It speaks better things than the blood of 
 Abel, righteous as he was. It pleads for mercy, and in behalf 
 of his very enemies. Mark this distinction. James was slain 
 with the sword for the honour of his God. Stephen was stoned 
 to death, and prayed for his murderers with his expiring breath. 
 Paul knew very well that he would have to die a martyr. Yet 
 the blood of these men is never said to be precious — is never 
 said to propitiate — is never said to be sprinkled upon men’s 
 consciences— to purge them from dead works— is never said to 
 justify the soul— to give peace with God— -to cleanse from sin. 
 No, never. Yet Mr. Barker’s theory, which makes the Saviour 
 a man only, and his death merely that of a martyr, ascribes to 
 their death just the same kind of efficacy or influence as it does 
 to the blood of Christ. How is it, then, that their death 
 is nev^pr once mentioned in Scripture as saving men’s souls? 
 Clearly because Mr. Barker’s theory is not the system of the 
 New Testament, hut is another gospel, which God does not 
 own, and which has no resemblance to the pure Gospel of 
 Christ. 
 
 If tire object of Christ’s death was merely to seal the truth 
 with his blood, and to exert a moral influence upon the heart of 
 man, the death of the Apostles would, of course, have the same 
 effect. But it is a remarkable fact that in the Holy Scriptures 
 the death of our Lord, and the death of the Apostles, are placed 
 in contrast , or such a difference is marked between them that 
 their object cannot be the same. The Apostle, in 1 Cor. xv., I 
 to 3* says, “ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel 
 which I preached nnto you, which also ye have received, and 
 wherein ye stand ; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in 
 memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in 
 vain.” — Mark! — “For I delivered unto you first of all that 
 which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according 
 to the Scriptures,” Now there is here an object ascribed to 
 Christ’s cfeath which can belong to no other person . — Christ died 
 or their sins. This the Apostle published to them u first of all,”' 
 But when the same Apostle is reproving the same people for 
 their strifes and divisions, and glorying in man, he asks, Was 
 Paul crucified for you ? No : but Paul knew that he would 
 have to die for the truth ; and he knew that others had died for 
 the truth. Yet that implied no such efficacy in their death. 
 The Corinthians, therefore, were not to glory in Paul, or in any 
 man, but in Christ who had died for them : and the object of 
 his death as a sacrifice for their sins was the reason Why they 
 were to glory in him and not to glory in man. Christ was their 
 Saviour, and no one else. 
 
280 MR. COOKE. [SEVENTH 
 
 The death of the saints, when they expire as martyrs, has an 
 influence, it is true,— -an influence not only upon the heart of 
 man, but upon the administration of God’s moral government ; 
 that is, it appeals to his justice, and calls for vengeance upon 
 the enemies of God. The souls described as being under the 
 altar— -not upon it, for the altar is the place where the great 
 sacrifice of Christ alone must be,— the souls under the altar — the 
 souls of those who had died for the truth, are described as cry- 
 ing,— How long, 0 Lord ! holy and true, dost thou not judge 
 and avenge our blood on them that dwell upon the earth. 5 * 
 That is the specific influence which the blood of martyrs has. 
 It appeals to heaven for vengeance upon the guilty. But the 
 blood of the slaughtered Lamb does not cry for vengeance , even 
 upon the Saviour’s enemies, but for salvation— the salvation of 
 the worst of men— the salvation of those who imbrued their 
 hands in his most precious blood. Here is the difference, then, 
 betwixt the blood of martyrs and the blood of Jesus Christ. 
 The one calls for vengeance; the other propitiates: it turns aside 
 vengeance, and procures favour and everlasting life. 
 
 In connection with Mr. Barker’s doctrine that Christ’s death 
 saves the human race by exerting a moral influence upon their 
 hearts, we may consider the happiness of those who die in in- 
 fancy. I hold the salvation and eternal happiness of all those 
 who die in infancy. I rejoice in the thought that millions of 
 them are in heaven. But Mr. Barker cannot, on his ‘principle, 
 unite with the Scriptures in ascribing their eternal salvation to 
 Christ. The New Testament tells me that all the blessings of 
 salvation come to human beings through Christ. It tells us 
 that the wages of sin is death ; and facts around us show that 
 even infants suffer a temporal death, not in consequence of any 
 sin of their own, but as the result of Adam’s defection and 
 apostacy. No other cause can be assigned. The word 
 of God emphatically sa 3 ^s, “ The wages of sin is death. 55 
 Here, then, they are cut off from life through the sin of ano- 
 ther. But the same Apostle tells me that the gift of God is 
 eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Now I would ask, how can the salvation and eternal happi- 
 ness of infants be through our Lord Jesus Christ if his death 
 had no efficacy affecting the moral administration of God % If 
 his death exert only a moral influence upon the human heart 
 I ask how can infants be said to be saved through a Saviour's 
 death f Infants never heard of the Saviour— never knew of the 
 Saviour. The tender displays of his compassion and love can 
 exert no influence on their minds. His teachings and his ex- 
 ample can effect no change in their hearts. For in this world 
 they never knew that Christ existed. Yet they are said to be 
 saved through Christ, and through him alone. How, I ask, can 
 they be saved through Christ at all, if his death only saves souls 
 by exerting a moral influence upon them ? The fact is this, — 
 they all are saved through Christ. There is no passage to 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 281 
 
 NIGHT. J 
 
 heaven but through Christ. The whole volume of Scripture 
 declares that doctrine. And if children are not saved through 
 the moral influence of a Saviour’s death, they must be saved by 
 virtue of an expiatory influence, or efficacy in the Redeemer’s 
 death, procuring for them the blessing of everlasting life. And 
 if the death of Christ procures for infants everlasting glory, and 
 a joyful resurrection, it procures the same blessings for all men. * 
 And if it procure those blessings, it must procure all other 
 blessings : and if it procure ali other blessings, there must be an 
 efficacy in it, not merely to affect t)ie human heart, but an effi- 
 cac}^ affecting the moral administration of the Deity ; and pre- 
 senting such reasons as render it just and righteous with God, 
 to open the kingdom of heaven to our spirits, and admit them 
 to everlasting bliss. 
 
 Reconciliation is a subject on which Mr. Barker has dwelt at 
 length ; and he has endeavoured to show that it means only sub- 
 duing man’s enmity, and thus bringing him to G©d. But here 
 he has sadly failed. If man’s enmity alone had to be subdued. 
 
 I have already shown that the death of a “ pious young man” 
 is by no means adequate to do it. But if this were the object 
 of Christ’s death, and nothing more, then, surely, the sacrifice 
 should have been offered to man . To him should the propitia- 
 tion be presented, and not to God. But the whole volume of 
 Scripture goes to show that the sacrifice is presented for man, 
 not to him ; is presented to God , and to God alone. This* 
 striking fact, of itself, completely overthrows Mr. Barker’s 
 theory. 
 
 I have shown you how reconciliation was made in the case of 
 Aaron putting on incense. When the plague was making its 
 ravages —when wrath had gone forth from the presence of the 
 Lord against the guilty murmurers, Aaron put on incense, and 
 made atonement for them, and the plague was stayed. And I 
 showed you, at the same time, that the same effect is ascribed to 
 the Saviour’s death, where precisely the same word is used, 
 namely, iXcutkoj, as in Heb. ii., 17, — “ That he might be a merci- 
 ful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make 
 reconciliation for the sins of the people.” 
 
 Mr. Barker objects to the case adduced, alleging that in this in- 
 stance no blood was shed. I reply, N o time was allowed for blood 
 to be, shed— for a victim to be offered. Aaron was commanded to 
 make haste ; to put on incense quickly ; and to go between the 
 living and the dead and make atonement for them. But be it 
 remembered that Aaron was God’s anointed high priest, and 
 was the type of Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest ; and that 
 the offering of incense was typical of our blessed Saviour’s in- 
 tercession before the throne of God: and that intercession, com- 
 bined with his death, is available for us, procuring for us the 
 blessings of salvation. “ He ever liveth to make intercession 
 for us.” 
 
 But I will furnish other instances, wherein the victim was 
 
MR COOKE. [SEVENTH 
 
 slam and offered Lev. viii., 14, 15,-“ And lie brought the 
 bullock for the sin offering : and Aaron and his sons laid their 
 hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin offering. And 
 he slew it ; and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the 
 horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified the 
 altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanc- 
 tified it to make reconciliation upon it,” Here was a sin offer- 
 ing. j he victim was slain, the blood sprinkled, and the effect 
 is to make “ reconciliation” — the same word elsewhere in a mul- 
 titude of cases is rendered to make atonement . See also Lev. vi.,30, 
 — “And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into 
 the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy 
 place, shall be eaten : it shall be burnt in the fire.” 
 
 JNow let us see how this same word, is used in the same 
 sense when applied to our blessed Lord. Daniel ix., 24. “ Se- 
 
 venty weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy 
 city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and 
 to make reconciliation for iniquity .” 
 
 'Hiu^, then, to reconcile is to atone —to propitiate, not man, but 
 that Holy Being against whom our sins have been committed, 
 and this was accomplished by a substitutionary victim. Now, 
 observe how this effect of reconciliation is ascribed to the Sa- 
 viour’s death in the New Testament. Rom. v., beginning at the 
 6th verse,— “For when we were yet without strength, in due 
 time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous 
 man will one die : yet perad venture for a good man some would 
 even dare to die.” Here is substitution— one life given for ano- 
 ther. “ But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, 
 while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” This is substitu- 
 tion— the Saviour dying in our stead. “ Much more, then, being 
 now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through 
 him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God 
 by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall 
 be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God 
 through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received 
 the atonement;” or, as we have it in the margin, the “reconci- 
 liation.” Now in this passage the death of Christ is t \vz procur- 
 ing cause of a state of reconciliation betwixt God and man. 
 How? By a moral influence proceeding from the Saviour’s 
 death, and acting upon the human heart? No ! For the sa- 
 crifice is offered, not to man, to remove his displeasure ; but to 
 God for man,— in man’s behalf, and in man’s sead . And be- 
 lieving in Christ as our atoning sacrifice, we are justified — we 
 are saved from wrath ; not our wrath against God, but the 
 wrath of God against us, and which our sins justly deserve. 
 Thus we receive the atonement — the reconciliation which Christ 
 has procured for us : we receive, and rejoice in God’s pardoning 
 love. 
 
 The same great doctrine is taught in the following passage, 2 
 Cor. v., beginning at verse 18, — “ And all things are of God, 
 
NIGHT. 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 233 
 
 who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christy an (Hiath given 
 to us the ministry of reconciliation ; to wit, that God was in 
 Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their 
 trespasses unto them ; and hath committed unto us tlm word of 
 reconciliation. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as 
 though God did beseech you by us : we pray you in Christ’s 
 stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be 
 sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we might be made the righte- 
 ousness of God in him.” 
 
 it ere man is besought to be reconciled to God : but the em- 
 bassy is based upon the great fact that God is waiting to be 
 reconciled to man, because Christ has already laid down his life 
 as a sacrifice to God in our behalf. Just observe the connection 
 betwixt the embassy of the apostle, and the great fact or the 
 Atonement :— u Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as 
 though God did beseech you by us : we pray you in Christ’s 
 stead, be ye reconciled to God.” Why? what is the founda- 
 tion of this entreaty? What is the basis of our hope? 
 What is the world’s reason for expecting mercy from God? 
 The next verse declares it: C4 Fur he hath made him (even 
 Christ) to he sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we might be 
 made the righteousness of God in him.” 
 
 In all these cases, then, reconciliation takes place through 
 Christ having presented his sacrifice to God as an appeasement. 
 And, from the passages adduced, it is evident that the doctrine 
 of reconciliation and the doctrine of the Atonement , as applying 
 to God, are one and the same : and the reconciliation of man to 
 God is the result of the provisions already made, by Christ hav- 
 ing made atonement for man. 
 
 Mr. Barker observed that the offerings under the law were 
 called afiapTici, sin . So they are, as an abbreviated form ot ex- 
 pression, rfieaning a sin-offering . However, to get rid ot the 
 Atonement, he observed that the victim called sin was slain ; 
 thus showing, he says, that we are to slay our sins. But he 
 forgot to state that the victim slain was presented to God . So 
 then, according to Mr. Barker’s interpretation, we are to pre- 
 sent our SINS as an offering to God. What a sacrifice is this I 
 Man to present his sms and abominations as an offering to God ; 
 and this to be an odour and a sweet smeil---a sacrifice well- 
 pleasing to God ! The idea is monstrous ? On a former even- 
 ing we had the merits of Christ discarded in toto , and the merits 
 of man substituted ; the merits, too, of an unconverted man— a 
 proud Pharisee and a bloody persecutor ; but now we have the 
 sin itself abstracted from the man, and presented to God as a 
 sacrifice. What a loathsome offering! What a monstrous 
 doctrine ! 
 
 Mr. Barker quoted a passage from the 51st Psalm, where it is 
 said, “ Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it ; thou 
 delightest not in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a 
 broken spirit,” and so on. But this is not to be regarded as a 
 
284 me. COOKE. [seventh 
 
 denial of the acceptability of sacrifices* or a release from the duty 
 of presenting them. There was here a special case. David had 
 been guilty of murder, for which no sacrifice was appointed. It was 
 a sin not only against God, but a capital crime against the civil 
 law : and as it was not designed that the ceremonial law should 
 frustrate the endsof civil government, no sacrifice was appointed 
 for murder. The law must take its course. But the ordinary 
 sacrifices ivere well-pleasing to God, when offered with suita- 
 ble dispositions. They were of divine appointment ; and God 
 is pleased with his own appointments. David continued* to offer 
 them all his life ; and prepared to build the temple where they 
 were to be offered in after-ages. And it is worthy of notice, 
 that this very same Psalm concludes with a recognition of sacri- 
 fices, the duty of presenting them, and the fact that God would 
 be well pleased with them “ Do good in thy good pleasure 
 unto Zion : build thou the walls of Jerusalem. Then shalt thou 
 be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offer- 
 ing and whole burnt-offering : then shall they offer bullocks 
 upon thine altar.” Psalm li. , 89. 
 
 The fact is, that one duty cannot supersede another, when 
 we have ability to perform it. As sacrifices cannot be a substi- 
 tute for penitence and good works, s> repentance and good 
 works cannot be a substitute for sacrifice. Hence we find both 
 were required. When the people under the Jewish law had 
 performed both confession and restitution, still sacrifices were 
 indispensable to their pardon. Lev. vi., 1-7, — “ And the Lord 
 spake unto Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass 
 against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was 
 delivered him to keep ; or in fellowship, or in a tiling taken away 
 by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour ; or hath found 
 that which was lost, and lieth concerning it. and sweareth 
 falsely ; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein: 
 then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he 
 shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing 
 which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered 
 him to keep, or the lost tiling which he found, or all that 
 about which he hath sworn falsely ; he shall even restore it in 
 the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give 
 unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offer- 
 ing. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, a 
 ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation for 
 a trespass offering unto the priest : and the priest shall make an 
 atonement for him before the Lord : and it shall be forgiven him 
 for any thing of ail that he hath done in trespassing therein.” 
 
 We take another passage, which refers to any sm against God. 
 Humb. v., 5-8, — “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak 
 unto the children of Israel, When a man or woman shall com- 
 mit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against the Lord, 
 and that person be guilty ; then they shall confess their sin which 
 they have done : and lie shall recompense his trespass with the 
 
JVIGHT.] 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 285 
 
 principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and 
 give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed. But if 
 the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let 
 the trespass he recompensed unto the i ord, even to the priest ; 
 beside the ram of the atonement, whereby an atonement shall be 
 made for him.” 
 
 Now here there were confession , restitution , and good works ; 
 yet there was no pardon without shedding of blood. After all, 
 the ram must be slain, and atonement MUST be made for the 
 transgressor. J nst the same words are used here as are applied 
 to Christ in the New Testament. | Both are called the iXa<jg.og, 
 the propitiation or atonement ; and the act of the sacrificer 
 iXatriceaQcu, that of making appeasement or reconciliation. The 
 Same principle in the divine economy still obtains. Sin is not to be 
 pardoned without a propitiation — 44 without the shedding of 
 blood is no remission.” Hence the apostle tells us, That Jfod 
 hath set Christ forth as a propitiation, that he might be just and 
 yet the justifier of him that belie vetli in Jesus : which implies 
 that he cannot be just and pardon sin without a propitiation, 
 being- offered. The apostle reiterates the sentence that without 
 shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. But Christ in- 
 forms us that his blood was shed in order that we might have 
 this remission ; for he plainly says, 44 This cup is the iNew Tes- 
 tament in my blood which is shed for the remission of sins.” 
 Matt, xxvi., 28. 
 
 Hence it is, that under the Gospel neither repentance, resti- 
 tution, nor good works are sufficient of themselves. There, 
 must be also faith in the Saviour’s blood. For, 64 we are justi- 
 fied by his blood”—- 44 we have redemption through his blood, the 
 forgiveness of sins.” Rom. v., 9; Ivphes. i., 7; Col. i. 14. Faith 
 in the death of Christ connects the soul with the objects of that 
 death; and then the conscience becomes purged from dead 
 works, and being justified by faith we have peace with God 
 through our .Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. v. i. 
 
 The vicarious character of the Saviour’s death |is spoken of 
 under other representations, lie is not only our iXavgoG, that 
 is, our propitiatory sacrifice , our atonement, the Lamb of God, 
 and our sin offering, but lie is also our Ransom . This word is 
 often applied to the Saviour. We, find this word both in the 
 Old and New Testament. The word in Hebrew, is commonly 
 *1313, the same word as is elsewhere, rendered atonement; and, 
 indeed, it has the same meaning, in the Septuagint it is ren- 
 dered by Xurpov ; and in the New Testament this same word 
 Xvrpov, and avriXvTpov, are applied to Christ as our ransom. But 
 the Scriptures are the best interpreters of themselves. I like 
 to compare Scripture with Scripture— to allow the word of God 
 to speak for itself. Just follow me then, and we shall soon see 
 that the word ransom conveys the same vicarious meaning as 
 the word atonement, and propitiation. 
 
 As God had saved the Israelites from death when the Egyp* 
 
286 MR. COOKE. [seventh 
 
 tians were destroyed, he requires a sum of money to be paid by 
 each above twenty years as a ransom price for his life, and as an 
 atonement. Exod. xxx., 11— 15,— “And the Lord spake unto 
 Moses, saying, When thou takest the sum of the children of 
 Israel, after their number, then shall they give every man a 
 ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; 
 that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest 
 them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them 
 that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanc- 
 tuary: (a shekel is twenty" gerahs :) an half shekel shall be the 
 offering of the Lord. Every one that passeth among them that 
 are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an 
 offering unto the Lord. The rich shall not give more, and the 
 poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an 
 offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.” 
 There can be no mistake about the meaning of the word “ ran- 
 som" in this passage, nor the object for which the ransom was 
 paid. It was an offering to save from death by the plague; and 
 from the payment of this ransom no one of age was exempt. 
 
 "W e pass to another part of Scripture, where, again, a sum of 
 money was appointed as a “ ransom ,” a commutation, to deliver 
 from death. If an ox had gored a person, so that he died, the 
 owner’s life was liable to be taken away; but, under certain 
 circumstances, he might ransom his life by a sum of money 
 being paid instead. “ If there be laid on him a sum of money, 
 then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid 
 upon him.” Thus the word is used in the Book of Job, xxxvi., 
 18. Speaking of God’s displeasure against sin, it is said,— 
 “ Because there is wrath, beware lest he take thee away with 
 his stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee.” Again, 
 speaking of God’s goodness to man, it is said, “ Then he is gra- 
 cious unto him, and saith. Deliver him from going down to the 
 pit. I have found a ransom for him.” Job xxiii., 24. 
 
 God has found a ransom, and a great one. lie has laid help 
 upon one mighty to save— Jesus Christ the righteous, l ie is our 
 ransom; for he himself declared, that “he came not to be 
 ministered unto, but to minister, and to lay down i lis life a 
 ransom, (Xvrpov,) for many. Matt, xx., 23; Mask x., 45. 
 When lie bled upon the cross, he became, as the Apostle 
 says, a ransom, (ctvnXvroov,) for all, to be testified in due 
 time. 
 
 Since Christ, then, tells us that he had laid down his life as 
 our ransom, we understand what those passages mean which 
 speak of Christ redeeming us with his precious blood. “ Foras- 
 much as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible 
 things, such as silver and gold, from your vain conversation, re- 
 ceived by tradition from your fathers, but with the preciou 
 blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without 
 spot.” 1 Peter i., 18, 19. “Feed the flock of God which he 
 hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts xx., 28. “ For ye 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 287 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 are not your own, ye are bought with a price.” The whole 
 church of God says, “ Thou art worthy, for thou hast redeemed 
 us to God by thy blood.” Rev. v. But unbelievers are those 
 “ who bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that 
 bought them, and who thus bring upon themselves swift destruc- 
 tion.” 2 Peter ih, 1. 
 
 Many objections are sometimes alleged against the term 
 Satisfaction to justice; but without foundation, if Christ’s 
 death be an atonement for sin, it is undoubtedly such a satis- 
 faction as renders it compatible with justice for God to pardon 
 sin; and without which, as the Apostle states or implies, he 
 could not pardon sin compatibly with justice. IN or is the term 
 “satisfaction” unscriptural, any more than the doctrine. Hence 
 we read, in the book of Numbers xxxv., 30—33,—“ Whoso 
 killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the 
 mouth of witnesses : but one witness shall not testify against 
 any person to cause him to die. Moreover ye shall take no 
 satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: 
 but he shall be surely put to death. And ye shall take no 
 satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he 
 should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the 
 priest. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are : for 
 blood it defiieth the land : and the land cannot be cleansed of 
 the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed 
 it.” And though here the term in Hebrew is and in Greek 
 Xvrpov , yet the context clearly shows that “ satisfaction 9 is the 
 thing meant. Although for murder no satisfaction could be 
 made, yet for other sins satisfaction might be made, that is, an 
 atonement might be offered. 
 
 Since, then, the doctrine of “satisfaction” is thus admitted to 
 be scriptural, there can be no objection to t\\e phraseology. But 
 if the sacrifices of the law could not make “ satisfaction” for the 
 murderer, and cleanse him from sin, the blood of our Lord can; 
 for “the biood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin:” therefore 
 it makes satisfaction for all sin. However, in the* death of 
 Christ, there is satisfaction made, not to justice merely, but to 
 wisdom, to holiness, to the Divine government, and to love it- 
 self. it presents reasons why ail the attributes of Deity can 
 concur in the bestowment of pardon to “ him that believe Ji in 
 Jesus.” Roman iii., 26. 
 
 The idea of “ satisfaction ,” or substitution, is so clearly taught, 
 that Christ is said to have “ become a curse for usf that we 
 might be delivered from the curse of sin. Having broken 
 God’s Jaw, we had come under its curse ; for it is written, 
 “ Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which 
 are written in the book of the law to do them.” But, says the 
 Apostle, “ Christ hath redeemed us from the curse ol the law, 
 being made a curse for us ; for it is written, Cursed is every 
 one that hangeth on a tree.” Gal. iii. 10. 
 
 JMovv the “ law ” here alluded to is evidently not the ceremonial 
 
288 
 
 ME# COOKE. [SEVENTH 
 
 law, for two reasons. First. Because the curses referred 
 to are in Deut. xxi., 23 ; and xxvi., 26, and these refer to the 
 moral law. And, secondly, because Gentiles, never having been 
 under the ceremonial law, could never be under its curse. But 
 all men are under the curse of the moral law, because “all 
 have sinned.” But Christ delivers from all the curses of sin. 
 This is owing to his death, which satisfies divine justice in our 
 behalf. 
 
 It is in harmony with this doctrine, that in many parts of 
 the New Testament, Christ is set forth as having died “ for us” 
 — suffered “ for us The prepositions used in such cases are 
 avn and wrrep. And though they sometimes mean “ on account 
 of” “ for the sale of” they also mean “ instead of;” and 
 clearly imply substitution . Take a few examples, such, in the 
 first place, as are unconnected with the controversy. We begin 
 with avn , anti. Matt. xi. 22. Archelaus is said to have reigned 
 avri rov 7 rarpog clvtov , instead of Herod his father. 
 
 Luke xi., 11. — “ If his son ask a fish, will lie” /.nj avn tyOvog 
 0 (Jhv 87 ridu)(rei 9 “ will he for (instead of) a fish give him a ser- 
 pent. “ An eye for an eye— a tooth for a tooth.” Does not 
 avn , in these examples, clearly imply substitution? So when 
 Christ is said to have become a ransom ( avn ttoWojv) for many, 
 it is as evident as language can make a subject evident that the 
 vicarious nature of bis sacrifice is intended. Take a few ex- 
 amples for the other preposition virsp. The Apostle Paul, writ- 
 ing to his beloved Philemon, and speaking of his servant Onesi- 
 mus, says, “Whom 1 would have retained with me, that in thy 
 stead ( v 7 T£p rov ) he might have ministered unto me.” Is not 
 substitution here intended. The service of Onesimus for the 
 service of Philemon? In 2 Cor. v , 20, he says, “ Now then 
 we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you 
 by us ; we pray you in Christ's stead (a7r sp %jotoroa) be ye re- 
 conciled to God.” Here is substitution; and if substitution be 
 intended here, it is equally intended in the very next sentence, 
 where the same preposition is used : — “ For he hath made him 
 to be sin for us A in Rom. xvi., 3, Paul, adverting with grati- 
 tude to the devotedness of Priscilla and Aquila, whom he calls 
 his helpers in Christ, says, u Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my 
 helpers in Christ Jesus : who have laid down their own necks 
 (v 7 Tsp rrjg ^vxvc fioa) for my life.” What does this mean but 
 substitution that they had on some occasion voluntarily of- 
 fered their own lives to save the Apostle’s life. And such is the 
 substitution of the Saviour’s life, who died that we might live. 
 Such is the substitution intended when the Apostle affirms of 
 Our glorious Redeemer that he “suffered for us that “ lie died 
 for the ungodly ; that He tasted death for every mau ; that 
 Christ Jems died the just for the unjust, that he might bring 
 us to God, being put to death in the flesh.” “Who his own self 
 bare our sins in Ill's own body on the tree.” 1 Peter iv. 18 ; 
 n. 24. 
 
MR. COOKE 
 
 289 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Hence it is that all the blessings of grace, salvation, and eter- 
 nal life come to us through Jesus Christ. Through him we are 
 pardoned. “ Be it known unto you, therefore, men and breth- 
 ren, that th ough this man is preached unto you the forgive- 
 ness of sins.” Acts xiii., 38. “ Being justified freely by his 
 
 grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Korn, 
 iii., 20. “ in whom we have redemption in his biood, even the 
 
 forgiveness of sins.” Eph. i., 7. through him we have peace. 
 “ Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. By whom also we have access by faith, into 
 this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory 
 of God.” Rom. v., 1, 2. Through him we have joy. “ And 
 not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ.” Rom. v., 11. All this is beautifully consistent. Since 
 he procures our pardon, it is of course through him we receive 
 our pardon, our peace, and our joy. 
 
 Through him, too, we have the privilege of approaching God 
 at all times, and on all occasions. Hence the Saviour himself 
 taught, in John xiv., 13, — “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my 
 name , that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the 
 son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name , I wiildo it.” Chap. 
 
 xv. , 16th verse,™ “ Ye have not chosen me, but 1 have chosen 
 you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, 
 and that your fruit should remain : that whatsoever ye shall 
 ask of the Father in my name , he may give it to you.” Chap. 
 
 xvi. , 23, 24,—“ Verily, verily”— -a double affirmative— a solemn 
 form of words— “I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the 
 Father in my name , he will give it you. Hitherto have ye ask- 
 ed nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy 
 may be full.” 
 
 Thus they were commanded to pray in the Saviour's name . 
 And as he is our propitiatory sacrifice, whose blood has sprink- 
 led the mercy-seat, and rendered it accessible ; and since he 
 is our great High Priest, who ever liveth to make intercession 
 for us, we see the important reason why we are to pray in his 
 name. It is a name in which the Father is ever well pleased : 
 and though our name is unworthy, his blessed name is ever 
 worthy and ever available. And hence it is that the name of 
 Christ is the only name in which we are to pray. Prophets 
 and Apostles, however holy, however exalted, are never to he 
 employed us in prayer, as reasons why God should bless us. 
 There is no name but that of Jesus through which we can have 
 access to God ; for, says Jesus, “ I am the way, the truth, and 
 the life : no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 
 xiv., 6. “ Other foundation can no man lay than that is 
 laid : which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. iii., 11, “ is' either is 
 there salvation in any other : for there is none other name un- 
 der heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” 
 Acts iv., 12. 
 
 It is through the undertaking of Christ that the dead are to 
 N 
 
290 MR. COOKE. [SEVENTH 
 
 be raised. 44 For since by man came death, by man came also 
 the resurrection of the dead.” “ For as in Adam all die, 
 even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” But how is it that 
 we are to be made alive by Christ? Not merely because he 
 taught the doctrine of a future life— not merely because he 
 himself lias risen from the dead,-— for others had been raised 
 from the dead before the Saviour’s resurrection,— but because his 
 death has procured our life ; because he has opened the kingdom 
 of heaven to all believers ; and because his death does away 
 with the original curse of sin, and procures for the world a glo- 
 rious resurrection,— a glorious resurrection to be given to all 
 them that believe in him. 
 
 It is also through Christ that we have eternal life given unto 
 ■us. 44 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace 
 reign through righteousness unto eternal life.”— How ? Not 
 through the divine clemency merely, but 44 by Jesus C hrist our 
 Lord” Lomansv., 21. Christ is its procuring cause, and 
 therefore there must be an efficacy in that death which 
 procures eternal life for man. lie has not merely taught it. 
 JN'ot merely has he ascended to heaven as a kind of pledge of our 
 immortal life, but he has procure I it by the shedding <f liis pre- 
 cious blood. Now the Atonement explains all this ; and this is 
 further illustrated by the circumstance to which 1 before allud- 
 ed in reference to the eternal happiness of those who die in 
 infancy. 
 
 This doctrine explains the reason also why our Lord’s death is 
 so constantly exhibited to the view of men-— why he is con- 
 stantly set forth as a Saviour . 44 For this is a faithful saying, 
 
 and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the 
 world to save sinners; of whom,” says the Apostle, “lain 
 chief.” lie 44 is the Saviour of all men, but especially of those 
 that believe.” lie died to save all men, but those who believe 
 in him for themselves are especially and personally saved. His 
 name signifies that he is a Saviour, and was given to him for 
 this reason. 44 Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he 
 shall save his people from their sins.” For this reason men 
 are expressly commanded to believe in him ; and their 
 faith is to* have express reference to his blood— bis 
 death, his sacrificial character. If men are commanded 
 to behold him, they must behold him as “The Lambof God which 
 taketli away the sins of the world.” If they are required to have 
 faith, it must be 4 faith’ in his blood as a propitiation. Now, 
 there is reason and consistency in all this ; because it is 4 his 
 blood which justifies’ — 4 his blood which purges the conscience’ — 
 
 4 his blood which cleanseth from all sin’. 
 
 This faith evidently includes dependence , trust, a committing 
 of the whole soul’s interest into his bands, as our Mediator and 
 Saviour. II nee the Apostle says, “I know in whom I have 
 trusted (({j 7 rt 7 noTtvciKa) ; and am persuaded that he is able to 
 keep that which I Lave commit. ed unto him until that day.” 
 
night. 
 
 MR. COOKE* 
 
 291 
 
 Thus, believing in Christ is a solemn committing of the soul to 
 him as an ail sufficient Saviour. It is confidence in his willing- 
 ness and his ability to save even to the uttermost all that come 
 unto God by him. And observe, a man is no longer justified 
 than while he continues to believe. For 44 the just shall live 
 by faith ; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no 
 pleasure in him.” No matter what his works may be — his alms- 
 giving to the poor, and his labours — if he cease to believe in the 
 Saviour’s death, he is dead while he seems to live, — he is a 
 decayed branch. Such is the connection between faith and 
 salvation. gC He that believeth shall be saved, but he that 
 believeth not shall be damned.” 
 
 Since, then, we are told that there is no salvation by the law 
 of works ; since Christ is exhibited as our 44 Saviour” and our 
 44 only Saviour since he is set forth as our 44 Propitiation” 
 our 44 Ransom” our 44 Mediator ;” since he is the sole 44 Pro- 
 curer” of pardon, of peace, of holiness, and of heaven ; since 
 through him alone we have access to the Father ; since by his 
 death we are delivered from damnation ; since by him we ob- 
 tain every blessing of the covenant, and, finally, everlasting life. 
 there is an efficacy in his death ; and there can be no wonder 
 that an efficacy is everywhere ascribed to his name , his blood, his 
 death. No wonder at the consolation it gave, the joy it inspired, 
 the triumphs it afforded, — no wonder that the Apostles gloried 
 in the cross, and accounted his reproach anTionour, — no wonder 
 that men were overpowered with a sense of their mighty and 
 overwhelming obligations, — no wonder that words were found 
 inadequate to express his love, and the comprehensive grasp of 
 the human intellect too confined and too feeble to conceive his 
 worth, — no wonder that inspired writers heap term upon term, 
 and epithet upon epithet, and figure upon figure, — no wonder 
 that they search through nature and art for figures of the vast, 
 the sublime, the rich, and the wonderful, to help the labouring 
 mind to utter its sense of obligation to Christ for the shedding 
 of his blood as the ransom of our souls from everlasting death, 
 — no wonder that, long ere he appeared, the prophetic bards 
 dwelt upon his atoning death, and struck their harps to sweeter 
 notes and louder numbers when they suiig of the sufferings of 
 Christ and the glory that should follow, — no wonder that John 
 the Baptist, standing, as he did, between the two dispensations, 
 the Old and the New, should direct the enquiring eye to Jesus, 
 should turn his attention from all but Jesus, — no wonder that the 
 Apostles resolved to know nothing amongst men but Jesus, and 
 him crucified, — no wonder that the whole church on earth cele- 
 brates the efficacy of his blood, and ascribes all her salvation 
 unto him ,-- 44 unto him that loved us, and washed us from our 
 sins in his own blood, — to him be glory and dominion for ever and 
 ever,” — no wonder that the whole church in heaven celebrates 
 the same efficacy of the Saviour’s blood, and sings of the same 
 obligations, 44 Tliou art worthy, for thou was slain, and hast 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 292 
 
 [sEtVEtfZH 
 
 redeemed us to God. by thy blood out of every kindred, and 
 tongue, and people, and nation,” — no wonder that the angels 
 become bred with the delightful theme, and unite in the peal- 
 ing anthem to him who died for the world’s salvation,— no 
 wonder that their mighty minds are interested, and their noblest 
 powers are exerted in pondering over that blessed and glorious 
 theme,— no wonder that they unite in the pealing anthem that 
 bursts forth from every tongue and fills the arch of heaven, and 
 proclaim “ Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto 
 him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever 
 and ever.” He is worthy of it. (Loud applause.) He is God 
 as weli as man — man as well as God, the two natures combined 
 in one person. Bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh— lift- 
 ing man up to heaven and bringing Deity down to earth-— obey- 
 ing the law which man had ungratefully violated— honouring 
 its righteous claims— vindicating its divine authority ; and yet 
 preparing the way for the out-going of boundless mercy, that 
 the guilty might be forgiven, that the lost might be saved, that 
 the trembling penitent might hear the glad sound of mercy, 
 that the sceptre of forgiveness might be touched, that this world 
 of sinners might be brought to embrace the divine benevolence 
 secured to them by J esus Christ the Righteous, and ultimately 
 be raised to eternal bliss. 
 
 <{ Were the whole realms of nature mine, 
 
 “ That were a present far too small; 
 
 <c Love so amazing, so divine, 
 
 “ Demands my soul, my life, my all.” 
 
 [Loud applause and cheering. Throughout this speech, indeed, 
 the expressions of approbation, on the part of Mr. Cooke’s 
 friends, were frequent and enthusiastic ; and towards the close 
 the feeling became intense, and the speaker was interrupted by 
 irrepressible tokens of a desire to applaud, which finally found 
 vent, when he resumed his seat, in long-continued and lepeated 
 cheering.] 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — I now ask you to give the same patient and 
 uninterrupted hearing to Mr. Barker that you have given to Mr. 
 Cooke. To that request no just man can object. And no indi- 
 vidual present, I presume, who can lay any claim to a love of 
 fair-play, will interrupt Mr. Barker after the very honest, and 
 considerate, and peaceable hearing which Mr. Cooke has had 
 at your hands. 1 do trust that you will he perfectly orderly 
 and peaceable. Mr. Barker will now address the meeting. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — Respected Chairmen : my Friends, — i have 
 listened w ith greater pleasure to my opponent’s speech this even- 
 ing than to any former speech which he has delivered. His 
 remarks have been directed to one of the great questions under 
 consideration ; and, with one or two exceptions, (which cer- 
 tainly were no beauties— no ornaments to the speech,) he has 
 steered clear of personal insinuations and abuse, lie lias, indeed, 
 
NldHT.^] MR. BARKER i 293 
 
 done something like justice to his side of the question ; and I 
 am exceedingly glad that you should have, at last, something 
 like the best that can be said on that side of the question ; and 
 the best that I can sav on the other side. 
 
 There are some things he has uttered in which I can unite 
 with him. Jesus is worthy to receive more affection and thanks 
 than we are able to give. He deserves the most ardent love: 
 he deserves the most devout submission. We never can respect 
 him too highly ; we never can thank him too devoutly; we 
 never can be too faithful to his cause — too careful to obey his 
 precepts — and too close in imitating his example. 
 
 A great many things which my opponent has stated this 
 evening are true, if they be taken in a proper scriptural sense. 
 The whole, however, does not appear to me to be in strict ac- 
 cordance with Scripture ; and I shall point out those things 
 which seem at variance with the revelatioris of heaven, that you 
 may have an opportunity of avoiding error, and of having truth 
 without any mixture or adulteration. 
 
 As to what he stated about my having abundance of light 
 which I would not follow, i shall make no remark on it further 
 than to say, that as it is a point which of course he cannot 
 prove , it is also a point which it would be foolish in me to at- 
 tempt to answer. 
 
 He stated that the different views which people took of the 
 trinity did not disprove the doctrine. I did not bring them 
 forward for that purpose, but simply in reply to his statement 
 that Christians generally were united and harmonious in their 
 views on that subject. 
 
 He seemed disposed to make the impression that I had stated 
 that “justice” in every case ipeant “mercy.” I have made no 
 such statement; but simply stated that “ righteousness” in ge- 
 neral, when applied to God , meant mercy ; and always meant 
 such a disposition as was in harmony with mercy, and not op- 
 posed to mercy. And in proof of the correctness of my defini- 
 tion of God’s righteousness, I gave you bpth the authorities of 
 lexicographers and of commentators, apd .a number of plain 
 quotations from various parts of the Old and New Testament, 
 in which no other signification could be given to the word but 
 that of mercy, love, or beneficence. And pay opponent lias not 
 called in question my statements, nor has he called in question 
 the correctness of the quotations I made, or of the interpre- 
 tations which I gave to them. 
 
 He refers to another word dike; but that is a word which, in 
 the New Testament, is never once translated either justice or 
 righteousness. 
 
 He tells us that dikaios in some cases* means giving people 
 their wages — what is their right. I answer, jt is invariably the 
 case that all God’s rewards are mercies — are the offspring of 
 benevolence ; so that the very disposition which leads him to 
 reward people, is still his mercy, his love. 
 
 N 2 
 
294 ' MR. BARKER. [[SEVENTH 
 
 He quoted the passage, “do justly, and love mercy,” with a 
 view, it seemed to me, to prove that justice and mercy stood 
 opposite to each other. The truth, however, is, that the pas- 
 sage does not prove any such opposition. Justice is a lower 
 order of mercy — that which keeps people from doing wrong to 
 other people; while mercy is a higher order of charity, prompt- 
 ing us not only to do them no wrong , but to do them good as we 
 have opportunity. 
 
 He says that my view of Christ’s sacrifice makes sin a trifle. 
 How can that be, when I state that the great object for w hich 
 Christ made his sacrifice was to redeem men/rom sin, to destroy 
 sin, and to make men holy, zealous of good works? 
 
 He says that I would make God’s government the govern- 
 ment of a weak-minded parent. I answer ; can there be any 
 weakness in God? Is there any danger that while God is in- 
 finite in wisdom, his goodness should ever go to an extreme? 
 The government of God is the government of a parent, never- 
 theless, not of a weak-minded one, but of one whose wisdom 
 and understanding are infinite. 
 
 But what does the satisfaction theory make of sin? The 
 common doctrine of satisfaction tells you that though you do 
 sin, another can bear the punishment, and that you may escape: 
 —that though you do sin, the guilt, or the punishment, can be 
 transferred to some one else ; so that you shall never suffer the 
 penalty. This contradicts justice altogether. And what does 
 this theory make of God’s truth? The threatening is, 44 In the 
 day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” It turns 
 out, however, that when he eats, he does not die, but another 
 dies in his stead. If this is not calculated to make sin look 
 trifling, and lead people to regard it as a matter of little moment, 
 so long as they can cast themselves with their sins upon another, 
 and be accepted in consideration of his satisfaction to God’s 
 justice, I know not what can make it look trifling. And 
 what does it make God’s government look like? A govern- 
 ment that can pass by the offender and yet punish the innocent, 
 is worse than no government. But if we make God’s govern- 
 ment to aim at reducing every rebel into order, at destroying 
 sin throughout its wide dominions, and at bringing all people 
 to holiness and righteousness, so that they may love God and 
 love mankind, it is respectable beyond measure : it is both 
 worthy of God, and it is just such a government as every 
 wise and well-disposed man would wish to be placed under. 
 
 He stated that 1 had given Adam Clarke’s views defectively. 
 The statement, however, which he made, did not prove that. I 
 gave Adam Clarke’s views most correctly, as his own quotation 
 proved. Adam Clarke, however, was inconsistent enough, 
 after translating the word dikaiosune , 44 righteousness mercy, 
 to translate dikaios, righteous , and dikaiounta, justifier, the same 
 word only in different forms, into pistice, something opposite to 
 mercy. 1 wish to preserve to the word one consistent meaning 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 295 
 
 throughout the verse, and say,— •“ to declare his mercy, that 
 God might be merciful, and the bestower of mercy on him that 
 belie vet h on Jesus.” If the word means mercy in one part of the 
 verse, as A. Clarke and others say, it must mean mercy through- 
 out the verse. 
 
 He says my theory excludes all efficacy from the sacrifice of 
 Christ. I answer ; is it not efficacy enough if it redeem men 
 from sin? Is not sin the only evil in the universe ? Is there 
 any thing else that either displeases God, or hinders man’s wel- 
 fare ? And if the blood of Christ cleansetli from all sin, it 
 surely is efficacy enough. If a man expect Christ’s blood to 
 get him to heaven, without making him good, I deny such effi- 
 cacy, and I have reason for so doing. Jesus never meant to 
 bless people in any other way, than by turning them away from 
 their iniquities. 
 
 He asked— under my theory, who was the victim ? And he 
 answered, 44 a pious young man.” Now does he believe that 
 any thing else but a pious young man was the victim ? His 
 view is, of course, that that young man was God, as well as 
 man. But does he really think that the Godhead was the vic- 
 tim ?— -that the Godhead died ?— that the eternal God expired, 
 as Wesley tells us, hanging on the accursed tree ? I imagine 
 he will not venture to say that. It follows, then, that even on 
 his own principle, it was only the man Jesus Christ who died. 
 The Godhead, then, did not die, and therefore there was nothing 
 left but the man Christ Jesus to die, so that in each case the 
 victim is the same. 
 
 He referred to Belsham and Priestley ; and stated that they 
 taught that Christ was ignorant and sinful too. _ That they 
 taught that Christ was ignorant on some points, 1 can easily 
 believe ; for Jesus himself said, — 44 Of that day and that hour 
 knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, nei- 
 ther the Son, but the Father only." But that they stated that 
 Jesus Christ was sinful , (I cannot deny, but) I shall never be- 
 lieve it until the passages are given me in their writings. The 
 same charge has been preferred by the same parti/ against my- 
 self. 1 know it to he a falsehood when brought against me ; 
 and it may be no better when preferred against Belsham and 
 Priestley. 
 
 He says, there is no greater proof of Christ' s love to man, 
 than of the apostles' love to man, on my theory. Well ; and 
 suppose there was not. Are not both the apostles and all 
 Christ’s followers commanded to give the very same proof of 
 love to the brethren, that Christ gave ? Does not Jesus exhort 
 us to love others, as he loved us ? Does he not also exhort us 
 to give t ;e same proof of love, by laying down our lives for 
 them, as he laid down his life for us ? Is there any tiling un- 
 scriptural or irrational here. 
 
 lie says, what love was it in God to give up a pious young 
 man to suffering ? I answer, that a pious young man is God’s 
 
296 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [seventh 
 
 own image ; that a pious young man is one of the greatest, 
 loftiest, and most venerable beings in God’s infinite universe. 
 Man is said in Scripture to be made but a little lower than the 
 angels, or, as the original has it, a little lower than God. Man 
 is next to God, according to Scripture teaching. And how God 
 could give up any thing greater, richer, better, worthier, than 
 a pious young man, 1 cannot imagine. Does my opponent be- 
 lieve that God gave something more than a pious young man to 
 suffer and die ? Does he believe that God the Father gave the 
 Son to death ? It' he does believe it, it is a faith which he has 
 never yet ventured to profess ; and a faith, too, which few in- 
 dividuals who think, and who read the Scriptures, will be dis- 
 posed to share. Could God the Father give God the Son to 
 death ? And if he could not, there was nothing but the man 
 Jesus Christ to devote to death. 
 
 He says, admit the victim to be Emmanuel, and understand 
 him to be God, and there is harmony in the scheme. I repeat 
 it, God cannot be a victim ; and I add, that if it is no infidelity, 
 it is a kind of blasphemy to say that he could be a victim. 
 
 He says, God’s love is great on his theory. I answer, not a 
 whit greater than it is on the Scripture theory, which we have 
 laid before you. hay, it seems to me, in one particular at least, 
 to be less ; for where is the love of God, after all, if he takes no 
 part of the suffering, but appoints another to bear all the suffering, 
 and does not give to man a single blessing till that other has bought 
 it of him, by satisfying his justice with blood — never bestows a 
 pardon even on a repenting and returning sinner, till it has been 
 purchased by a satisfaction rendered to divine justice? Here 
 love is lost. 1 know they say they believe in God’s love ; and 
 I believe they do : but they join their belief with such awful 
 errors, that tile influence of God’s love is lost, and the bright dis- 
 plays and manifestations of his goodness are obscured and clouded. 
 
 lie says the blood of Christ speaketh better things than the 
 blood of Abel. True. It discloses and reveals God’s eternal, 
 unbought, and universal love, which Abel’s did not. 
 
 He says the blood of Paul is not said to be precious, and the 
 like. The truth is, the Scriptures say that precious in the sight 
 of the Lord is the death of all his sainis, and even our faith is 
 termed precious. 
 
 He says, if Christ only saves men by turning them from their 
 iniquities, then the labours and sufferings of others might do the 
 same. And we have reason to be thankful that God allows us 
 to be partakers with him in the grand scheme of enlightening 
 and regenerating the world, in stimulating men to duty, and 
 bringing them to God. And if any “err from the truth, and 
 one convert him ; let him know that he which converteth the 
 sinner from the error of his way, does save a soul from death, 
 and shall hide,” or cover, or cure, and so atone for, “a multi- 
 tude of sins.” lie who thus converts a sinner, saves him ; he 
 brings a man from sin to God, and brings sin itself to an end. 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 29/ 
 
 He says, if Christ’s blood is merely the seal of truth, and ex- 
 erts a moral influence on men’s souls only, it would not differ 
 from the blood of others, &c. Now, we never stated that these 
 two were the sole ends of Christ’s death. In my tract on the 
 Atonement, No. 5, page 8, I give the folio wing as the reasons 
 why Christ died : — 
 
 “ 1. To fulfil prophecy. 2. To redeem men from sin. 3. 
 To make men holy ; to strengthen men to fulfil the righteous- 
 ness of God’s law. 4. To reconcile men to God. 5. To abolish 
 the old law. 6. To put in force and ratify the new law. 7. To 
 set us an example of perfect obedience to God, and of perfect 
 love to man. 8. That he might rise from the dead. 9. That 
 he might learn obedience, and be made perfect through suffer- 
 ing. 10. That he might be touched with the feelings of our in- 
 firmities, and be able to sympathize with his people in their 
 sufferings. 11. That he might commend God’s love to us. 12, 
 That he might go away and send the Spirit. 13. To unite 
 Jews and Gentiles together, and join them all to God. 14. To 
 destroy the devil, who had the power over death. 15. To de- 
 liver us from the power of death. 1G. To enter into glory as 
 our forerunner, and take possession of the eternal inheritance 
 for us.” 
 
 These are the ends which we state Christ’s death was design- 
 ed to answer, and which we prove, from the whole tenor of the 
 New Testament, to have been accomplished by his death. 
 
 My opponent says, Christ died for our sins. So say we ; but 
 for what end ? To redeem us from our sins, and to bring sin to 
 a perpetual end. 
 
 He intimates that Christ alone died for man, in the proper 
 sense of the words. Yet he must remember that the apostle ex- 
 horts us to lay down our lives for the brethren, as Christ laid 
 down his life for us. 
 
 He says, the blood of martyrs calls for vengeance ; and quot- 
 ed a passage from Revelations to prove his statement. 1 answer, 
 the blood of Stephen called for mercy. The blood of truly 
 Christian martyrs has inviriahly called for mercy. And he who 
 could represent it as calling for vengeance, did not understand 
 the difference between the old and the new dispensations. 
 
 He says infants are saved, but only through Christ. Now 
 what a character to give of God, to represent him as being un- 
 able to take his own little infants into his bosom, which he made 
 with his own hands, and in his own innocence, unless blood 
 was shed for them ; and that blood, not the blood of man, but 
 of God ! 
 
 Again he says, how could infants be save# through Christ’s 
 death, unless he made satisfaction, and the like. Now those 
 who say that infants are saved through Christ’s death, are wise 
 above what is written. The Scriptures nowhere say so. 
 
 He says, there is no passage to heaven but through Christ. 
 Now I grant that the Scriptures teach that those to whom 
 
 n 3 
 
298 MR. BARKER. (.SEVENTH 
 
 Christ came cannot obtain salvation but by Christ, by obedience 
 to his doctrine and precepts. But they never say, nor even in- 
 timate, that, they who never heard of Christ must be saved 
 through him : and they who teach that doctrine, teach it with- 
 out divine authority. 
 
 He says, I failed to show that reconciliation is subduing 
 man’s enmity. I will direct you to the passages which speak 
 on reconciliation, and you may judge for yourselves whether I 
 could fail in this particular, so long as I read the passages cor- 
 rectly. 
 
 The first passage was Romans v., 10, — “ For if, when we were 
 enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, 
 much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” 
 Who are the enemies? Men. How are they enemies? By 
 wicked works, by carnality of mind. How are they reconciled ? 
 By Christ’s death. But if their carnality and wicked works 
 were their enmity, then Christ’s death reconciles men by subdu- 
 ing their enmity, by making them no longer enemies to God* 
 
 The next passage was 2 Cor. v., beginning at the 14th verse, 
 — “For the love of Christ const raineth us; because we thus 
 judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead : and that he 
 died for all” — to what purpose ? — “ that they which live should 
 not henceforth live unto themselves, hut unto him which died 
 for them, and ruse again.” “ Therefore if any man be in Christ,” 
 if the end of Christ’s death he answered in him, “lie is a new 
 creature;” he no longer lives to himself; he lives to God. “ Old 
 things are passed away; behold all tilings are become new.” 
 His fleshly character, which was enmity to God, which was not 
 subject to God’s law, is gone, and a spiritual character is re- 
 ceived. The man is free from his enmity, and becomes subject 
 to God’s law. “ And all things are of God, who hath reconc iled 
 us to himself b} 7 Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry 
 of reconciliation ; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the 
 world unto himself ; not imputing their trespasses unto them ; 
 and hath committed unto us the woid of reconciliation. Row 
 then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech 
 you by us : we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to 
 God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, or a sin-offering, 
 who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness, or 
 the righteous people of God in him.” Now this is a reconcilia- 
 tion which had not as yet actually taken place. The apostles 
 had to beseech men to be reconciled to God. In what 
 sense was it that the apostle wished men to he reconciled to 
 God? The a^pstle, of course, saw men living in wickedness, 
 living to the flesh: he saw that by their carnality and wicked 
 works they were at enmity with God : and he besought them 
 to be reconciled unto him ; that is, to deny themselves, to mor- 
 tify the flesh, to cleanse themselves from all the filthiness of 
 flesh and spirit, and live to God; and if that reconciliation be 
 not a subduing, or a destroying of carnality, and effecting a 
 
NIGHT.] , MR* BARKER. 2Jb 
 
 complete change of character, words have no meaning, and the 
 Scriptures would be of no use. 
 
 Another passage on reconciliation, which we quoted, is in 
 Ephesians, where you find two reconciliations are mentioned; 
 1st, the reconciliation of Gentiles to Jews, and of Jews to Gen- 
 tiles, and 2nd, the reconciliation of both to God. Was not that 
 reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles a destroying ot their 
 enmity to each other % And is not the reconciliation between 
 man and God spoken of as of the same character ? — -as destroy- 
 ing man's enmity, occasioned by wickedness, and bringing him 
 to be a friend to God. 
 
 I need not spend more words upon this point. The most 
 plain, simple, unforced language of Scripture commends it to 
 our judgment. 
 
 My opponent said, Aaron was a type of Christ. How often 
 have 1 asked him what he means by this language, and to show 
 from Scripture that there are any such types as theologians talk 
 of ; — to prove from Scripture that the theological doctrine about 
 types and anti-types is true. 
 
 He mentioned the bullock being offered for a sin-offering. 
 We have noticed the meaning of the sin-offering before, and 
 need not repeat our observations. 
 
 He says, reconciliation is to appease God. Suppose this to he 
 the case, still the question is, When is God appeased 'l He is 
 appeased towards no man before that man is delivered from sin; 
 but he is appeased the very moment that the man is brought 
 from sin. And does not Christ’s death, therefore, appease God, 
 when it delivers men from sin, which is the only thing that ever 
 provoked God’s wrath. 
 
 He says, Christ died for us; and that this is substitution. 
 Well, and when we die for our brethren, that is substitution : 
 and if substitution means, simply, that one dies instead of an- 
 other, for his good, we have no objection to such Scriptural 
 substitution, lint the orthodox doctrine of substitution is, that 
 Christ bore away the penalty of our sins, and obeyed the re- 
 quire riients of the law, as our substitute, and this is the sub- 
 stitution which we oppose. Let it be understood that Christ 
 died for us in order that we might be delivered from sin, 
 and so live to God, and thus obtain eternal life with him 
 in heaven, and we have no objection to subscribe to the 
 doctrine. 
 
 He says, Christ’s sacrifice is the procuring cause of a state of 
 reconciliation. Suppose it is, the question is, How does Christ’s 
 sacrifice procure that state of reconciliation ? How does it bring 
 man into a state of friendship with God ? Is it not by deliver- 
 ing him from sin, which God hates, and bringing him to holi- 
 ness, which God loves ? 
 
 He says, Christ’s death is the ground of our trust in God’s 
 mercy. I answer, It is the ground of my trust in God’s mercy; 
 that is to say, Jesus Christ, by his death, has given me such 
 
300 ME* BARKER. [SEVENTH 
 
 demonstrations of God’s gocdnessto the world, that I cannot help 
 but trust in that mercy as long as I keep God’s commandments, 
 and do the things that are pleasing in his sight. But may I 
 trust in God’s mercy while 1 live in sin? That would be 
 presumption. .And they that trust in Christ’s death as a 
 substitute for holiness, and think that God will accept such 
 trust instead of their obedience, are trusting to something 
 w T orse than a broken reed — to something more unstable than 
 the sand. 
 
 He says, according to my views we are to present our sins 
 to God as a sacrifice. He knows I meant no such thing as 
 the sense he put upon my words. I meant that we were 
 to sacrifice them in the sense of giving them up ; — not offer 
 them as a sacrifice literaliy. And we do in truth, in one re- 
 spect, make a sacrifice for God, when we give up our sins. 
 Our sins have their pleasures; and we do make a sacrifice for 
 God’s sake, when we give up the pleasures of sin rather than 
 displease our Heaveniy Father, is there any thing offensive 
 in that ? 
 
 He says, that ordinary sacrifices were pleasing to God ; and 
 that sacrifices generally were appointed by God. I will read 
 you a passage or two on this subject, and you shall judge for 
 yourselves. 
 
 One of the first passages which I shall give you is from the 
 40th Psalm, beginning at the 6th veise. After acknowledging 
 his obligations to God for his goodness, he says, — “Sacrifice and 
 offering thou didst not desire ; mine ears hast thou opened : 
 burnt* offering and sin-offering hast thou not required. Then 
 said I, Lo, I come : in the volume of the book it is written of 
 me, I delight to do thy will, O my God : yea, thy law r iswdthin 
 my heart.” The Psalmist knew that God did not require sacri- 
 fice and burnt offering, and he therefore makes no promise 
 to present them. He knew that God required that he should 
 hearken to the law', and do God’s will; and this he engages 
 to do. 
 
 I refer you, next, to the 50th Psalm, beginning at the 7th 
 verse : — 44 Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and 
 I w T ill testify against thee : I am God, even thy God. 1 will 
 not reprove thee, or argue with thee for thy sacrifices or thy 
 burnt-offerings, to be continually before me. I w ill take no 
 bullock out of thy house, nor lie-goats out of thy folds. For 
 every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand 
 hills. I know r all the fowds of the mountains : and the wild 
 beasts of the field are mine. If I w r ere hungry, I w’ould not 
 tell thee; for the w orld is mine, and the fulness thereof. Will 
 I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats ? Offer unto 
 God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the Most High : ‘obey 
 God’s w ill as thou hast promised to do :’ and call upon me in 
 the day of trouble : I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify 
 me. But unto the wicked man God saith, What hast thou to 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 301 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my cove- 
 nant in thy mouth ? Seeing- thou hatest instruction, and castest 
 my words behind thee. When you sawest a thief, then thou 
 consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. 
 Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. 
 Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest 
 thine own mother’s son. These things hast thou done, and I 
 kept silence : thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an 
 one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order 
 before thine eyes. Is T ow consider this, ye that forget God, lest 
 I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver. Whoso 
 offereth praise glorifieth me : and to him that ordereth his con- 
 versation or behaviour aright will I show the salvation of God.” 
 
 You have had a passage quoted from the 51st Psalm, — 44 Thou 
 desirest not sacrifice ; else would I give it : thou delightest not 
 in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit :‘a 
 broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” 
 And my opponent told us that at the very conclusion of this 
 verse the Psalmist says, — 44 Then shalt thou be pleased with the 
 sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt-offering and whole burnt- 
 offering : then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.” 
 TS T ow let us go to Adam Clarke, who was no heretic ; and we 
 shall find that the conclusion of this Psalm, which is at vari- 
 ance with the body of the Psalm, never belonged to the Psalm 
 originally ; but has been appended — is an addition to it, and 
 was not written by the Psalmist himself. 
 
 I will refer you now to the prophecies of Isaiah. In the 1st 
 chapter, God expressly tells them that he is weary of their 
 sacrifices and their offerings, and that he will not hear when 
 they pray to him, and then lie proceeds to say, — 44 Your hands 
 are full of blood,” which is the reason he will not hear them. 
 
 And what are they to do, in order to be accepted ? lie says, 
 
 44 Wash you, make you clean ; put away the evil of your doings 
 before mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; learn to do well ; seek 
 judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for 
 the widow. Come now and let us reason together, saith the 
 Lord : though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as 
 snow.” It was mercy he required, not sacrifice. 
 
 The prophet is still stronger in his expressions about sacri- 
 fices, in the 66th chapter, from the 1st to the 3rd verse : — 
 44 Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the 
 earth is my footstool : where is the house that ye build unto 
 me? and where is the place of my rest?” For God cared 
 not for temples raised with hands any more than he cared for 
 sacrifices, though he allowed them, from the childishness and 
 hardness of their hearts, or the intractableness of their disposi- 
 tion. 44 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all 
 those things have been, saith the Lord : but to this man will I 
 look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and 
 trembleth at my word. He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a 
 
302 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 SEVENTH 
 
 man ; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog^s neck ; 
 he that offereth an oblation, as if lie offered swine’s blood ; he 
 that burnetii incense, as if he blessed an idol.” It is well that 
 the prophet said this, and not I. ( Hear, hear.) 
 
 I refer you next to Jeremiah, the 7th chapter, beginning 
 at the 21st verse : — “ Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God 
 of Israel; Put your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices^ and 
 eat flesh : that is, make a meal of them. For I spake not 
 unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I 
 brought them out of the land of Fgypt, concerning burnt- 
 offerings or sacrifices : but this one thing commanded I them, 
 saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall 
 be my people : and walk ye in all the ways that I have com- 
 manded you, that it may be well unto you.” And if the peo- 
 ple had hearkened unto this simple law, no sacrifices would 
 ever have been inflicted upon them. “ But,” the next verse 
 adds, “ they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked 
 in the counsels and in the imaginations of their evil heart, and 
 went backward”--- as my opponent seems to wish me to go 
 (laughter)— “ and not forward” in the way of reform. They 
 went backward, and walked in the counsels of their evil heart 
 from the laws of true righteousness, wishing for sacrifices and 
 ceremonies. So he gave them laws which were not good- 
 statutes in which he had no pleasure. Sacrifices were not 
 things which he commanded at first, but which he allowed, 
 from their hardness of heart, though contrary to his will ; but 
 as they would have them, so he now gave them regulations for 
 the management of sacrifices, though he himself had not origin- 
 ally ordained or appointed them. 
 
 Lastly, I shall give you a short quotation from Micah, 6th 
 chapter, beginning at the 6th verse. The question is asked, 
 66 Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself 
 before the high God ? shall I come before him with burnt- 
 offerings, with calves of a year old ? Will the Lord be pleased 
 with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil ? 
 shall I give my first-born for my transgressions, the fruit of my 
 body for the sin of my soul ?” Some people say, No, it is 
 another sacrifice that is wanted : it is the blood that gives 
 infinite satisfaction that you must bring or plead. They fre- 
 quently ask the prophet’s question, but when they have asked 
 the question, they always take care to leave out the prophet’s 
 answer, and to give you one of their own. I, however, will 
 give you the prophet’s answer : What is it then wherewith I 
 shall come before God? The answer is,— “ Lie hath showed 
 thee, 0 man, what is good ; and what doth the Lord require of 
 thee, but” — but what ? To trust in the merits of our Saviour, 
 say the orthodox. But the heterodox answer of the prophet is 
 To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy 
 God?” 
 
 b durst not have given you these views of sacrifice, os my 
 
NIGHT*] MR. BARKER. 303 
 
 own views. You would not have endured them, if I had 
 given them as my own : but I can venture to give you them 
 as the Psalmist’s and the prophet’s views ; and* I hope that 
 you will pay some respect to them . (Loud applause, and disap- 
 probation.) 
 
 My opponent says, Christ’s blood was shed for the remis- 
 sion of sins. I answer, true ; but was it designed to pro- 
 cure remission for any one except so far as it cleansed the 
 man himself from his sins? We say Christ’s blood was shed 
 for the remission of sins, because it was shed to redeem men 
 from all sin : and when men are redeemed from sin : — when 
 they are led to give up their sins, their sins are all forgiven ; 
 when men cease to do evil, and learn to do well— when they 
 turn from their evil ways in sincerity of heart, God always 
 blots out their transgressions. 
 
 He says, Christ gave himself as our ransom. Here also we 
 are agreed. But why did he give himself as our ransom? — 
 or, in other words, what is it that, by giving himself as a 
 ransom, he seeks to redeem us from? We answer, from all 
 iniquity ; and to purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous 
 of good works. 
 
 lie quoted the passage, feed the flock of God, which he 
 hath purchased with his own blood. 'Now Griesbach reads 
 it, feed the flock of the Lord , that is of Christ , which he hath 
 purchased with his own blood. And this is the true read- 
 ing. God has no blood ; and he cannot, therefore, shed that 
 blood. Jesus had blood, and could shed it ; and he bought us 
 with it. 
 
 lie says, Christ’s blood renders it compatible with God’s jus- 
 tice to forgive sin. I answer, it does not render it compatible 
 with God’s justice to forgive sin, so long as men continue to sin ; 
 and it never was incompatible with God’s justice to pardon sin 
 when men ceased to commit it. He who asserts that it was so 
 is wise above what is written. 
 
 He says, Christ’s death satisfied not only God’s justice, but 
 his wisdom, holiness, mercy, and the like. I am glad to see 
 the old stern orthodox theory of satisfaction crumbling to 
 pieces. The black cloud is fading away before the rising sun ; 
 and I have no doubt it will fade and fade away till the bright 
 light of revelation alone shall remain. But this I have to say, 
 that if this be what is meant by Christ’s death being a satis- 
 faction, namely, that it was satisfactory , that it was a sacrifice 
 pleasing to God — we believe in satisfaction : but we believe 
 that our sacrifices are satisfactions in the same way, for they 
 are said to be pleasing or satisfactory to God. “ To do good, 
 and to communicate, forget not ; for with such sacrifices God is 
 well pleased he is well satisfied. 
 
 He says, Christ became a curse for us. Does he mean 
 hat Christ was under God's curse— under God’s displeasure? 
 If so, he holds a notion which the Scriptures never contained. 
 
30 4 MR. BARKER. [SEVENTH 
 
 The Scriptures say he was under God’s blessing ; that the 
 Father loved him always, because he always did the things 
 which pleased him : and never was Jesus further from being 
 under God’s curse than when he died for our sins upon the 
 cross. {Still he was under a curse ; but the same passage 
 which tells us that he became a curse, tells us what that 
 curse was ; namely, that he was under the anathema of the 
 Jewish law ; hence, the apostle tells us — “ Christ hath redeemed 
 us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” How 
 was he made a curse for us ? Well, says Paul, “ for it is writ- 
 ten, cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” The law of 
 Moses considered all that hanged on a tree accursed, or ex- 
 communicated ; — not under God’s curse, hut under the anathema 
 — the excommunicative sentence of the Jewish law. And why 
 did Christ thus become a curse? Why did he submit to the 
 curse or excommunicative sentence of the Jewish law? Of 
 course, that he might be a Gentile— -a heathen man ; and die for 
 Gentiles as well as Jews. Hence the next verse says — That 
 the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through 
 Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the promise of the spirit 
 through faith.” There is no orthodox curse or satisfaction 
 here. 
 
 But my opponont says, it was not the ceremonial law that 
 Paul referred to in this passage, because the Gentiles were not 
 under that law. This is a curious reason. The Jews tried to 
 bring the Gentiles under it, and that was reason sufficient why 
 Paul should preach against it, and declare that by the deeds of 
 the law should no flesh living be justified before God. Not the 
 ceremonial law, is it? Was not circumcision part of the cere- 
 monial law ? And yet this is what Paul speaks of most fre- 
 quently ; telling us that circumcision is nothing, and uncircum- 
 cision is nothing, but faith which worketh by love — ciicumcision 
 is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but a new creature — 
 circumcision is nothing and un circumcision is nothing, but 
 keeping the commandments of God. 
 
 He pleads again for substitution. I say again, that if by sub- 
 stitution he means that Christ simply died in order to prevent 
 us from dying through our sins, we receive such substitution. 
 But if he means that he died as a substitute for us, as though 
 he were answerable for our sins, and we no longer answerable 
 for them, such substitution is anti-christian, irrational, and 
 licentious. 
 
 He says we are to ask in Christ’s name for blessings ; and he 
 intimated that when we are directed to ask in Christ’s name for 
 blessings, we are taught that it is on account of Christ that the 
 blessings are given ; that Christ is the reason , or that Christ’s 
 death is the reason why God answers our prayers. Now, I an- 
 swer, in the first place, that we are commanded to do all in the 
 name of the Lord Jesus. Whether we eat, or drink, or whatso- 
 ever we do, we are to do all in his name. There is nothing in 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 305 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 the expression, asking in the name of Jesus, favourable to 
 the views of my opponent, when the words are rightly inter- 
 preted. As to what is the reason why God hears our prayers, 
 and grants us blessings, the Scriptures give us the fullest infor- 
 mation ; they leave us neither in doubt nor in darkness on the 
 subject. And as I quoted the passage on this subject before, I 
 wonder that my opponent should so strangely overlook it or 
 forget it. I will read it again. It is in 1st John, chapter iii., 
 beginning at the 20th verse:— “ If our heart condemn us, God 
 is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if 
 our heart condemn us not , then have we confidence towards God; 
 and whatsoever we ask we receive of him” — why 1— “ because 
 we keep his commandments , and do those things that are pleasing 
 in his sight” It is impossible that any thing should be plainer 
 than this. I may further observe that to pray in the name of 
 Jesus, is to pray in obedience to his command, in subjection to 
 his authority ; and to do things in the name of Jesus, is to do 
 things as the servants of Jesus, in obedience to his will ; and to 
 call upon the name of Jesus, is to surname ourselves by Jesus, 
 to take upon ourselves his name, or to avow ourselves his sub- 
 jects, and to live in obedience to his authority. 
 
 He referred us to Acts iv., 12, in order to prove that no one 
 can be saved except on account of Christ. I will read you the 
 whole passage, and you shall judge for yourselves what is its 
 meaning. Peter and John had cured a lame man. They had 
 healed him ; and the original word for healing is the same word 
 that is used for saving . Saving , healing , making sound , are all 
 one word in the original. The apostles were brought before the ma- 
 gistrates, and tried, and sentence of condemnation was delivered 
 againstthem;andwhen they were brought before the High Priest 
 again, they wereset in the midst. The High Priest asked, “By what 
 power, or by what name,” — showing that by power is meant 
 authority — “ have ye done this?” “Then Peter, filled with 
 the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and 
 elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deeds done 
 to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole,” or sound, 
 or saved ; 44 be it known unto you all, and to all the people of 
 Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye 
 crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth 
 this man stand here before you whole,” or sound. “ This is 
 the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is be- 
 come the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation” — or 
 healing — 46 in any other : for there is none other name under 
 heaven given among men, whereby men can be saved,” or healed. 
 And this passage is brought forward to show that none can go 
 to heaven except through Christ. Because Peter told people 
 that there was no other authority by which lame people could 
 be made whole, we are to believe that there is no way by which 
 men’s souls can be saved but through Christ’s death. 
 
 He says, Christ is a Saviour. So he is ; and we rejoice in it. 
 
306 MR. BARKER. [SEVENTH 
 
 He gave you the passage which I should have quoted, only it 
 happened, though good in itself, to be part of those two chapters 
 which we have proved to be spurious ones. — 44 Thou shalt call 
 his name Jesus,” or Saviour, 44 for he shall save his people from 
 their sins.” And we want no better salvation. If there had 
 heen no tin, there would have needed no salvation. And when 
 all men are saved from sin, we shall have as much salvation as 
 we need. Purity and blessedness would be restored to our 
 w T orld together. Salvation from sin would make earth heaven. 
 It would bring down the happiness of heaven to earth, and lift 
 up earth to heaven. 
 
 He says, our faith is to have peculiar reference to Christ’s 
 hlood. I answer, there is but one passage in the whole jNew 
 Testament where faith in Christ’s blood is mentioned, which is 
 Romans iii., 27 ; and Griesbach gives the common reading of 
 this passage as doubtful. He says some have simply dia tepis- 
 tios , or through faith , omitting en to ciutouaimati ; and he says 
 again, others have it, dia pisteoos ; and marks it as equal, or to 
 be preferred to the com j<on reading, so that in no case are we 
 said to be saved through faith in his blood. But if we were, 
 what then ? We are told many times that we are saved through 
 faith in Christ’s resurrection and Messiahship, and by faith in 
 him that raised up Christ from the dead. Thus the apostle says, 
 44 If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and 
 shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the 
 dead, thou shalt be saved.” And again ; 44 Whosoever be- 
 lieveth that Jesus is the Christ (or Messiah) is born of God.” 
 It is true every one that belie veth that Jesus is the Christ does 
 believe in his blood, or his death, aS well as his resurrection : 
 but it is not on account of believing in his death, or in his re- 
 surrection, that God saves us ; but because we believe that 
 Jesus is the Messiah ; and because faith, working by love, 
 makes us new creatures — makes us keep the commandments 
 of God. 
 
 I have now gone through my opponent’s remarks* I shall 
 not go through my own former remarks ; but just mention the 
 heads of my argument, and ask you to ask yourselves whether 
 he has upset one single position that I took up. 
 
 I told you that atonement was reconciliation ; that reconcili- 
 ation was the reconciliation of man to God ; that redemption 
 was redemption from iniquity ; that bearing sins was bearing 
 sins away, curing people of them ; that the word propitiation 
 meant the mercy-seat ; that there was another meaning of the 
 word, namely, propitiatory sacrifice ; that Christ’s death was 
 a propitiatory saciifice, as it turns away God’s wrath, by re- 
 deeming men from sin which provokes God’s wrath. I stated 
 that the blood of Christ cleanseth from sin ; that we are redeem- 
 ed from sin by Christ’s death : and thus I proceeded, resting 
 every particular, from first to last, on the broad, the plain, and 
 firm testimony of the oracles of truth. 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 307 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 I have now a few remarks to make on other subjects. 
 
 My opponent has frequently used the word “ infidel and 
 applied it to myself. We might employ our time better than 
 in quarrelling- about names, yet it is needful to he on our guard 
 against being misled bywords. Let us see, then, how far the 
 word infidel is applicable to me. The word infidel is a Latin 
 tvoj'd, meaning an unbeliever. An unbeliever is opposite to a 
 believer ; that is, opposite to a Christian believer. But a 
 Christian believer, as 1 have proved, is one that believes in Jesus 
 as the Messiah. Kovv / believe in Jesus as the Messiah. I am 
 therefore a believer — a Christian believer. But a believer is 
 the opposite of infidel. I cannot, therefore, be an infidel, in the 
 Christian sense of the word. 
 
 Again ; the words “ blasphemy,” and “ blasphemer,” have 
 been frequently used by my opponent, and applied to me. 
 Blasphemy is speaking evil against God ; a blasphemer is 
 one who speaks evil against God. But have I spoken 
 evil of God? Have I said one word against God? Have I 
 not, on the contrary, pleaded God’s cause ; and endeavoured to 
 clear his character from the dark imputations which a false and 
 frightful orthodoxy would cast upon it? Have 1 not laboured 
 to prove that God is love ; and that under the impulse of love 
 he gave his son ; and that, for his own mercy’s sake, and our 
 obedience, and not for the sake of satisfaction made to him by 
 blood, he forgives our transgressions, and takes his returning 
 children to his embraces? 
 
 We have been charged with denying Christ’s sacrifice. 
 But we deny nothing of the kind. We only say that its 
 object was to redeem men from sin, and not to satisfy God’s 
 justice. 
 
 W e have been charged with denying the Lord that bought 
 us. JS'ow we neither deny the Lord that bought us, nor do we 
 deny the fact that he bought us. We acknowledge both ; and 
 that with juy. We simply deny the false notions which others 
 hold respecting Christ, and endeavour to bring them to limit 
 their views of Christ and his work by the revelation which God 
 has granted to us. 
 
 He says, we reject God’s word. We do nothing of the kind. 
 We just take the same liberty that William Cooke does,' to 
 judge for ourselves what is God’s word ; and, when we have 
 ascertained that, to judge for ourselves what God’s word means . 
 My opponent rejects a dozen or a score of books which by 
 nine-tenths of professing Christians are received as God’s word. 
 The Koman Catholics, therefore, have the same right to charge 
 him with denying God’s word, that he has to charge any other 
 pei son with so doing ; and surely if William Cooke can reject 
 a dozen or a score of books which are considered to possess 
 divine authority by nearly the whole Christian, or professedly 
 Christian world, what right has he to stand up and find fault 
 with another, because he happens to go a little further than 
 himself? 
 
308 MR. BARKER. [SEVENTH 1 
 
 Now, if one were disposed to quarrel, I might say to him 
 that lie adds to God’s word. For. every passage that I reject 
 and which he does not reject, he holds and calls God’s word, 
 while I believe it to be no such thing. Thus, if we were dis- 
 posed to quarrel, we might quarrel for ever. Every time that 
 lie says (and he has said it often enough) that I am accursed 
 because i reject God’s word, I might say, if I had the same or- 
 thodox spirit, 44 Not so ; it is you that are accursed, for you 
 add to God’s word.” 
 
 Another point which I wish to notice is, the conditions of 
 salvation. This is a subject of the greatest importance, and I 
 am wishful that all who hear should have correct or scriptural 
 views on the subject. What are the conditions of salvation 
 then? I answer, to those who are not favoured with Moses 
 and the prophets, or with the revelations of Christ, this is the 
 condition of salvation, 44 To believe that God is, and that he is 
 a re warder of them that diligently seek him.” If a man be- 
 lieves 44 that God is, and that he is a rewarder of them that di- 
 ligently seek him and if, under the influence of that faith, 
 he diligently seek God, he is accepted. Whoever fears God, 
 and works righteousness, whether he has heard of Moses and of 
 Christ, or not, is accepted of God. But what are the conditions 
 of salvation to us who have the Christian revelation ? I an- 
 swer, first, that we believe in Christ. All agree that we are 
 justified or saved by faith. I answer, second, that we are saved 
 by faith 44 without the ivories of the lawT 44 By the works of 
 the law shall no flesh living be justified.” I answer, third, that 
 we are not saved by faith alone , notwithstanding; for James 
 tells us, that faith alone is dead ; will profit us nothing : and he 
 says expressly that we are justified by works—* not the works of 
 the law, of course, but still by works, and not by faith only. 
 And the apostle Paul tells us, that if a man have all faith, so 
 that he could remove mountains, and have not charity, it would 
 profit him nothing. And accordingly he adds, now abideth 
 faith, hope, and charity, these three ; but the greatest of the 
 three is charity . We therefore state that a man is saved by 
 faith and works ; not the works of the laiv 9 but the works of 
 th e.Gospel : for if a man did all the works of the law, and did 
 not obey the precepts of the Gospel, it would profit him no- 
 thing. And this is the doctrine of the whole New Testament. 
 44 Whosoever heareth those sayings of mine / 2 saith Christ, 
 44 and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which 
 built his house upon a rock. And every one that heareth these 
 sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a 
 foolish man, which built his house upon the sand.” It is there- 
 fore by faith and obedience to Christ that we are saved. 
 
 The next question is. What is the faith by which a Christian 
 is saved? We have shown that faith in Christ’s blood is only 
 mentioned once in the New Testament ; and that the passage 
 jn which it occurs is cloubtful— is g iven as doubtful by Griosbach 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 309 
 
 KIGHT.] 
 
 himself. We have shown, farther, that the faith which 
 is required of man, under the Christian dispensation, is a belief 
 that Jesus is the Christ , the Aiessiah, the person anointed by 
 God to preach, and to teach, to save, to rule, and to bless man- 
 kind. Every one, therefore, who believes this, has the New 
 Testament faith. 
 
 The next question is, When does this faith save us ? I an- 
 swer, when we act according to it ; when that faith woiks by 
 love ; when it makes us new creatures ; when it brings us to 
 keep the commandments of God. Every man, therefore, who 
 believes that Jesus is the Christ, has true Testament faith ; and 
 every one that has that faith, be he drunkard, thief, liar, or 
 what not, if he will give up his sins, and turn to God — if he 
 wiil surrender himself to Jesus, to obey God’s will as Christ 
 hath taught it, shall be saved that moment, lie needs no long- 
 protracted meeting, with a thousand loud voices lilted up to 
 persuade God to have mercy upon him. It is sufficient that he 
 gives up his sins and turns to God, and asks for pardon, God 
 will pardon him, and he has nothing to do but to go on his way 
 obedient and rejoicing. So plain is the way of salvation, as 
 Jesus taught it. So different is New Testament instruction from 
 orthodox bewilderment on this subject. 
 
 I come, now, to ask what is the sum of practical religion ? 
 For I should not feel easy, if, after seven nights’ debate, it 
 should be found that we had not called attention to our own 
 practice, our own business, and our own great interests. — What, 
 then, is the sum of true religion ? I answer, it is to love God 
 with all our hearts, and always to try to please him : it is to love 
 our neighbours as ourselves, and to labour to do them good — to 
 do good unto all , as we have opportunity. This is the simple 
 religion of Christ. This was the religion which Jesus Christ 
 himself practised . And it was by the practice of this religion 
 that he obtained his Father’s special approbation. It was by 
 fidelity in the practice of this religion, as the writer of the 
 epistle to the Hebrews declares, that he obtained such distin- 
 guished honours ; it was because he loved righteousness , or bene- 
 ficence, and hated iniquity , that God chose him to be the Mes- 
 siah, anointed him, took him out from among his fellows, and 
 made him the honoured instrument of instructing, regenerating, 
 and saving the world. That was Christ’s religion. He loved his 
 Father, and alwaysdid the thing that pleased him. It was his meat 
 and drink to do hisFather’swill. He loved mankind, and he went 
 about doing them good. He did not go up and down preaching 
 against and denouncing those who happened not to hold correct 
 opinions — bringing down fire from heaven on those who could 
 not exactly see so far as himself, and sending poor Samaritans 
 to hell because they took only the five books of Moses, while 
 the Jews took the prophets as well. No ; he went about teach- 
 ing people the true Gospel, not orthodoxy. He exhibited the 
 charity of the Gospel in his own example. Doing good was the 
 
310 MR. BARKER. [SEVENTH 
 
 business of his life. He did good to all, always varying his 
 benefits as their several circumstances required. To some he 
 gave food, to some health, to some instruction ; and he regard- 
 ed all with goodwill, he treated all with kindness. He was 
 especially wishful to impart instruction ; and he laboured most 
 zealously and constantly to save men’s souls. And he had no 
 respect of persons. The Samaritan was as dear to him as the 
 Jew, if he possessed a kind heart, and a pious disposition. And 
 he more than once took occasion to set forth Samaritans, who 
 had distinguished themselves in a striking manner for their 
 piety or charity, as examples to the Jews. He repeatedly held 
 forth Samaritans as giving them an example which they ought 
 to imitate. He went about doing good, not only to people’s 
 bodies, but to people’s minds. And his efforts were unwearied. 
 He exercised the utmost patience and forbearance towards his 
 disciples; and he never delighted in denouncing judgments. 
 When he did choose to thunder, his thunders were directed, not 
 against the poor, common people, that could not give up their 
 minds to be governed by men’s traditions, but against the Rab- 
 bies, who occupied the chief seats in the chapels, and doomed 
 men to damnation, because they would not adopt their tradi- 
 tions. buck was the religion of Christ. And if we are religi- 
 ous after Christ’s fashion, we may depend upon it we shall be 
 religious indeed, and religious to good purpose. 
 
 This religion is God’s own nature in man; and the religious 
 man is God’s own image ; for God is love. Hence the apostle 
 says, “ He that dwells in love, dwells in God, and God in him, 
 for God is love.” Religious men are partakers of the divine 
 nature. They are Christ’s in a way ; and John calls them so, 
 for he teaches that they are all God’s anointed ones. They are 
 Emmanuels, too ; for God'is in them : and wherever good peo- 
 ple are, there is God, for God is always wich them ; and when 
 we are good, God is with us. Thus all good men are partakers 
 of the divine nature. When the spirit or disposition of Jesus is 
 in them, they have the spirit of God within them. While they 
 live in love ; while they respect the principles and rules which 
 Christ’s Gospel lays down, and regukte their lives accordingly, 
 they are declared by Christ to be children of God, and heirs of 
 eternal blessedness. 
 
 Again ; love to God, and love to man, are the sum and sub- 
 stance of all God’s laws which have been given to the world 
 since the world began. Hearken what the Redeemer says, — 
 “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with 
 all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is tile first and great 
 commandment. And the second is like unto it, namely, Thou 
 shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two command- 
 ments hang ALL the law and the prophets.” There is no- 
 thing more in the Law and the Prophets than this ; or at least 
 nothing else but what is designed to promote this, to awaken 
 and cherish in people love to God and man. Hear him again : 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 311 
 
 NIGHT. - ] 
 
 “ As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to 
 them; for THIS IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS.” 
 Love to God and love to man, then, — this simple kind of reli- 
 gion, is the end of all the religious institutions of Heaven, and 
 of all God’s revelations. Every book that God has written, 
 every oracle that God has uttered, has no other object than, by 
 enlightening the mind, to make people kind and godlike, good 
 and holy. 
 
 Again ; the end of all Christ’s labours, and the object and 
 design of Christ’s death, was simply to redeem men from ini- 
 quity, to make them zealous of good works, and thus transform 
 them into the image of God. Then, and then only, are we re- 
 deemed by Christ, when we are delivered from sin, and made 
 like God, like Christ, full of love to all our fellow-men. 
 
 Again ; ?l\\ faith is just so far useful to us as it works by love, 
 and improves the heart, and leads us to keep God’s loving com- 
 mandments. This is the end and design of faith, to produce 
 charity ; and faith is of no avail unless it does produce charity : 
 and even when faith has produced charity, the child is worth 
 more than the parent, for, as the apostle says, 64 iNow abideth 
 faith, hope, charity, these three, but the greatest of these is 
 charity.” Faith, knowledge, all are to be subservient to charity. 
 
 Ail opinions are of no worth except so far as they are found 
 to produce this kind of religion. The views of Trinitarians and 
 anti-Trinitarians, Catholics and Protestants, Quakers and Me- 
 thodists, Calvinists and Baptists — are all of no service except so 
 far as they exercise a benevolent influence on the heart and life, 
 changing people into God’s image, and leading them to follow 
 Christ’s benevolent example. 
 
 False opinions require to be opposed on this ground, that 
 they are inimical to the growth of charity. The only ground 
 on which we can justify ourselves in spending our strength to 
 oppose such doctrines as the trinity, satisfaction to justice, trust- 
 ing for acceptance in the merits of Christ, natural depravity, 
 and the endless mysteries and abominations of false theology, is, 
 that these false doctrines interfere with man’s spiritual freedom, 
 with the growth of knowledge and holy affections, with the de- 
 velopment of God’s image within the soul. They have a ten- 
 dency to enslave people, to torment them, to bewilder them, to 
 make them ill-tempered, dissatisfied with themselves and with 
 every body else ; they have a tendency to corrupt, to pervert, 
 and almost to destroy men’s nature. And as these false doc- 
 trines have such a tendency to corrupt the soul, and to make 
 men bitter, intolerant, slanderous, malignant, murderous, we 
 are bound by charity itself to seek their utter overthrow. Those 
 doctrines ought to be opposed as among men’s greatest enemies, 
 because they are enemies to the growth and prevalence of cha- 
 rity, of true Christianity. And as a friend to my opponent, — 
 who I fear does not act very much as a friend towards me, — I 
 would gladly get him to commit the same fault that he blames 
 
312 MR. BARKER. [^SEVENTH 
 
 so terribly in me; viz., to make such good use of the next 
 twelve years, as to change as much in his opinions on these 
 subjects, as I have clone in the twelve years that are past. 
 (Laughter, hissing, and applause.) 
 
 This kind of religion, this ardent and devoted love to man is 
 the grand proof of our discipleship. “ By this,” says Christ, 
 “ shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love 
 one to another.” <c Hereby, we know,” says John, “ that we 
 have passed from death unto life, because we” — trust in Christ’s 
 merits, is it ? No : but — “ because we love the brethren .” 
 
 Love and doing good is the condition of eternal life. “ They 
 that have done good,” saith Christ, u shall rise to the resurrec- 
 tion of eternal life ; and they that have done evil to the resur- 
 rection of damnation.” “ When the Son of man shall come in 
 his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit 
 upon the throne of his glory : and before him shall be gathered 
 all nations : and he shall separate them one from another, as a 
 shepherd separates his sheep from the goats ; and he shall set 
 the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then 
 shall the king say unto them on his right hand, Come ye bless- 
 ed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from 
 the foundation of the world : for 1 was hungry, and ye gave me 
 meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink : 1 w T as a stranger, 
 and ye took me in : naked, and ye clothed me : I was in pri- 
 son, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer 
 him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry and fed thee, or 
 thirsty and gave thee drink, and so on. And Jesus shall an- 
 swer, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these 
 my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” It was because they 
 exhibited a loving heart, because they were charitable and be- 
 nevolent to all their brethren, that they were approved and 
 welcomed into heaven ; while those of a contrary, or uncharit- 
 able disposition, are sent to punishment. 
 
 This has always been true religion. To love our fellow-men, 
 to do men good, to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly 
 with our God, was the religion enjoined on the patriarchs, and 
 on the ancient Jews. To inculcate this religion has been the 
 object of all God’s dispensations from the beginning of the 
 world to the present time. 
 
 Debates are of no use, but as they tend to promote this kind 
 of religion. 
 
 This debate will be so far useful, as it tends to let folks see 
 that there is no end to men’s wranglings about orthodox 
 mysteries, and the inventions of men ; that the whole of true 
 religion and men’s welfare are summed up in love to God and 
 in love to mankind ; that to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, as 
 God’s Son, and to place ourselves in hearty submission to 
 Christ’s instruction and authority, that we may learn and do 
 God’s will, is every thing. And unless this debate answer 
 these purposes, it is time and labour lost. I have done my 
 
MR. BARKER* 
 
 FIGHT.] 
 
 313 
 
 best to make it answer them. I trust you will all ponder what 
 you now hear — that } r ou will compare it with the Scriptures — ■ 
 and then judge whether the whole end of the Bible is not, as 
 we have said, to make people good in their hearts, and good, 
 and holy, and God-like in their lives, and I shall be satisfied. 
 Let men attend to this, and make it their whole object to be 
 good and do good, and they will be saved indeed. Let us attend 
 to this, and we shall continually grow wiser, and better, more 
 free, and more God-like; and we shall grow more useful, and 
 more happy too. This simple religion is man’s all ; it is man’s 
 glory, — it is man’s perfection, — it is man’s safety, — it is man’s 
 happiness, — it is man’s heaven. 
 
 1 was about to notice a little at large the subject of natural 
 depravity, but time is passing. I will, however, notice briefly 
 five or six particulars. 
 
 1. It is sometimes asked, if man is not naturally depraved, 
 where does sin come from ? I answer, if Adam was not natu- 
 rally depraved, where did his sin come from ? If angels were 
 not naturally depraved, where did their sin come from ? And 
 if Christians , those who are created anew are not still depraved, 
 where do their sins come from? I would answer as John 
 Wesley answered, and as any man of sense would answer; man 
 is capable of sin, because he was made in the image of God, or, 
 in other words, made a free agent. Man was put upon his trial, 
 and thus made capable of godlike virtue. Man could not be 
 made free and capable of virtue, without being so made that it 
 should be possible for man to sin. Destroy man’s freedom, 
 and man’s sin will be prevented of course, but his capacity of 
 virtue will be destroyed also. 
 
 2. I ask, if all sin be the necessary, the unavoidable result of 
 natural depravity, and if that natural depravity comes with us 
 into the world — if it be part of our nature when we are made, 
 who is to blame for our sin ? I am not to blame for any sin 
 which I could not help. I am to blame for nothing that is bad, 
 but what I myself could have avoided, and no man is to be 
 condemned for doing anything but that which he could have 
 neglected to do. The doctrine that all sin is the necessary 
 result of man’s nature, throws the blame of all transgression 
 upon God. If I am born with a bad nature, it is my Maker’s 
 fault, not mine. God made me, as well as he made Adam. 
 Thus I am commanded to remember my Creator, my Maker, 
 /was as truly made by God as Adam and Eve were. And if I 
 was made with a bad nature, it is not my fault. But if I was 
 not made with a bad nature, but with a good nature — if I was, 
 like every thing else that God makes, made just right, — and if 
 I go wrong after that, it is my own fault, and not my Maker’s. 
 In truth, every man that is made, is made in the image of God. 
 God is love; and love is the very essence of every child born 
 into the world: not love in perfection, but still love, love in the 
 germ. And if this germ be cultivated, it grows and spreads 
 
314 MR. BARKER [^SEVENTH 
 
 until man becomes the bright image of his Maker — the image 
 of the God of love himself. 
 
 3. Jesus was born in God’s image ; and yet he was made in 
 all points like unto his brethren . 
 
 4. To say that any man could be made by God with a bad 
 nature, is not only false and unfounded, but is blasphemy against 
 
 God. 
 
 5. But are we not naturally prone to evil? it is asked. We 
 answer, Yes ; and to good also. God has made us of flesh and 
 spirit, and placed us in a condition of trial, as he did Adam and 
 Eve. There was a natural proneness in Eve to desire the 
 pleasant-looking fruit, and she took it, and we have seen the 
 effects. There is a similar proneness in us. We naturally 
 desire pleasure, and pleasure is frequently joined with sin, 
 hence the temptation to choose sin. But we may also choose 
 that which is good and godlike; and we are urged to do so by 
 God, and warned not to sin. We are flesh and spirit. The 
 flesh is God’s creature as well as the spirit, yet they frequently 
 draw contrary ways. The flesh and the spirit are left to contend 
 against each other, in order that man may be tried, and so be 
 capable of virtue; for if there were no trial, there would be no 
 virtue, no moral or religious worth, or worthiness. And it is 
 thus that God has provided for the possibility of virtue, and 
 for our gradual and constant approximation towards himself in 
 goodness; — it is thus that he has made it possible for us to 
 reach a height of spiritual excellence and blessedness which we 
 could not otherwise have reached, and obtain a degree of glory 
 we could not otherwise have shared. Thus God is right in all 
 his works; and in making us, as well as in redeeming us, he is 
 found to act as our father and our friend. 
 
 1 wish to present religion to you in its native beauty, as it 
 came from the hands of its great and good author. Apart from 
 man’s inventions — free from the absurdities of false theology, 
 it is the loveliest thing in the universe. But, mixed with men’s 
 dreams — corrupted by men’s traditions and inventions, it be- 
 comes one of the most hideous, and frightful, and unsightly 
 things that man’s e\ es can gaze upon. 'i he religion of Christ, 
 as he taught it, is a beautiful and a glorious creation ; as lovely 
 and pure as God himself. But religion, as it has been marred 
 and remodelled — as it has been corrupted and perverted by (I 
 will say) hireling priests — (hissing and applause) — religion as 
 it has been corrupted and perverted by people whose inteiest it 
 was to keep persons in the dark, that they might always have 
 them dependent upon them — (loud hissing, answered by ap- 
 plause not less boisterous.) 
 
 Mr. Gilmore: — Why, gentlemen, one would really suppose 
 you were all priests. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Backer: — 1 say religion, as it has been corrupted and 
 perverted by people who choose to teach things they ought not, 
 for filthy lucre’s sake ^hissing), is neither worthy of that God 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 315 
 
 from whom it originally came, nor adapted to promote tlie im- 
 provement and happiness of those men for whom it was origin- 
 ally given. My whole object, during this discussion, has been 
 to separate the religion of heaven from man’s inventions and 
 additions; to present it to you in the same form in which Jesus 
 exhibited it, that you might fall in love with it, that you 
 might prize it in your hearts, that it might purify and elevate 
 your affections, that you might make it the guide of your lives, 
 and the consolation of your souls ; that you might prove it to 
 be your support in death, and a source of infinite blessedness 
 throughout eternity. 
 
 That is my wish ; and it is the worst wish I have to my op- 
 ponent — to my greatest enemy upon earth. And with this good 
 wish, that you may all know the truth as Jesus taught it, love 
 it as it deserves, and obey it as it requires, I wish you good by 
 till next week. (Much applause.) 
 
 END OE SEVENTH NIGHT’S DISCUSSION, 
 
316 
 
 EIGHTH NIGHT. 
 
 TUESDAY, SEPT. 2, 1845. 
 
 The preliminary proceedings this evening were of the usual 
 character. Both the disputants were received with applause, — 
 Mr. Cooke with several rounds. At seven o’clock, 
 
 Mr. Grant rose and said : — Christian Friends, — I once more 
 have the pleasure to introduce Mr. Cooke to your notice ; and 
 in doing so, have only again to impress upon your own minds 
 the result of your own observation and experience, that quiet- 
 ness on all sides will be most conducive to your own comfort, 
 and give you the best opportunity of both seeing and hearing 
 what is going forward. JLet me therefore entreat you to be 
 silent and peaceable, and to give no interruption to either party. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Mr. Chairman : and Christian Friends, — Mr. 
 Barker, in his last address, imputed to me sentiments which I 
 feel it to be a public duty solemnly and most earnestly to dis- 
 claim. He stated that I rejected some parts of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. I feel bound to repel that statement with all the deci- 
 sion, and I may say, with all the indignation, too, which my 
 nature is capable of feeling. 1 receive the whole Scriptures as 
 the word of God. It is true that I endeavour to employ a can- 
 did and an enlightened criticism to understand “ what is the 
 mind of the Spirit but in reference to the whole Scriptures, I 
 hold that they have “ God for their author, Salvation for their 
 end, and Truth, without any mixture of error, for their matter.” 
 
 In reference to the Scriptures, too, Mr. Barker sought to pro- 
 duce the impression that there is but a shade of difference be- 
 twixt his sentiments and my own. It becomes a public duty 
 in me to declare this to be an untruth also. The difference be- 
 twixt our sentiments on the Scriptures, as well as on most 
 other religious subjects, is almost as great as possible. I have 
 no wish to misrepresent Mr. Barker’s sentiments ; but with the 
 following declarations in his writings I have no sympathy at 
 all : — 
 
 In the 29th number of the Christian, I find the following 
 statement : — “It is also true, that many books that are not in the 
 Protestant Old Testament, but which are in the Old Testaments 
 of the Roman Catholics, are thus divinely inspired, and may 
 profitably be used in instructing, reproving, and correcting men, 
 and in training them to righteousness. The same is true of the 
 writings of what is called the New Testament. There can be 
 no doubt but that the greater part, if not almost the whole of 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 317 
 
 EIGHTH NIGHT.] 
 
 those writings, were the works of truthful, holy, godly persons ; 
 nor can there be a doubt as to the general tendency of those 
 writings to promote the spread of truth and righteousness 
 among mankind. The same may be said of some of the writ- 
 ings of what are called the Fathers, and of many of the works 
 of others that have lived in later times, or that are living now. 
 Those writings are not perfect. There is not a perfect writing 
 in the universe, perhaps, of any size, whether original or trans- 
 lated ; and we have no good reason to suppose that there ever 
 was such a writing. Still, there are multitudes of writings 
 written by inspiration of God, or coming from that light and 
 love within the souls of the writers, which are the life of God, 
 or God himself, in man. And multitudes of such writings have 
 perished from the earth. And multitudes more of such writ- 
 ings may perish. And still greater multitudes of writings thus 
 inspired will be produced in times to come. And through their in- 
 fluence, light and love will be diffused still more and more among 
 the sons of men, till the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the 
 earth as the waters cover the great deep. The notion that the 
 Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible is the word 
 
 of God, is not true I regard the Gospels and the Acts as 
 
 records of the life and doctrine of the most remarkable of our 
 race, and as a record of the commencement of the most interest- 
 ing and important revolution which God has ever undertaken 
 to accomplish among the children of men. I regard Jesus, 
 whose character and doctrines are therein portrayed, as a great, 
 good man, and proved to be beloved of God both by wonderful 
 powers granted to him during his life, and by his resurrection 
 from the dead. I regard them as giving to me a clear and cer- 
 tain revelation both of what kind of character is most pleasing 
 to God, and of what kind of principles are calculated to pro- 
 duce such a character, as well as of what kind of treatment such 
 a character may look for from God. I regard most of the other 
 writings of the New Testament as records of the effects pro- 
 duced on the prejudiced and carnal minds of different persons 
 ■who received Christ’s doctrine, and honestly endeavoured to 
 understand, to practice, and to preach it. i regard them also 
 in other interesting lights, and I consider them, in many re- 
 spects, or on many accounts, as the most interesting and valu- 
 able of all the writings in existence. Still, I regard none of 
 them as perfect. I regard none of them as wholly divine. I 
 do not believe that they ever were perfect ; and I am thorough- 
 ly assured they are not perfect now.” 
 
 I have given this quotation much more lengthily than was 
 necessary, in order to avoid the appearance of any thing at all 
 like misrepresentation. In the 6th number of the Christian I 
 find the following sentiment : — “ God never designed that our 
 rule, or law, or master, should be outside us ; he intended that 
 the light which each of us should follow, should be within. 
 The Scriptures were designed to be the means of increasing the 
 
 o 2 
 
318 MR. COOKE. [EIGHTH 
 
 light within, and not to he a rule or law outside. And gifted 
 men were designed, not to be lords, or masters, or judges ; but 
 instructors and helpers only. Neither Apostles, nor prophets, 
 nor pastors, have authority to rule either our faith or our con- 
 sciences ; their commission is to assist us in acquiring light that 
 we may the more wisely rule ourselves.” To which sentiment 
 I decidedly object ; and maintain that the writings of Apostles 
 and prophets have authority to rule both our faith and our con- 
 science, for they were penned by the Holy Ghost. In an ac- 
 count which Mr. Barker published of his tour to London, and 
 his visit to several churches in that metropolis, I find the fol- 
 lowing statement. Speaking of a certain denomination, he says, 
 — 66 They regard the doctrine and example of the Apostles as of 
 equal or similar authority with the doctrine and example of 
 Christ ; some of us do not. On the contrary, we are inclined 
 to believe that, on matters of doctrine and Church government, 
 the doctrine and example of the Apostles are of no authority at 
 all, except so far as they are in accordance with the doctrine of 
 Christ.” 
 
 Now these statements, which, in my view, appear to reduce 
 inspiration to common sense, — which, with regard to infalli- 
 bility, place the writings of ordinary men on a par with the 
 writings of the Apostles and prophets,-- -which suppose a con- 
 tradiction to exist between the teachings of the Epistles and the 
 Gospels, between the doctrine taught by Christ, and the doc- 
 trine taught by the Apostles, — and which tell us that neither 
 prophets nor Apostles have authority to rule either our faith or 
 our consciences, — these statements are as opposed to my senti- 
 ments as falsehood is to truth, as the hour of midnight is to 
 noon-day. I have no sympathy with them. I regard them as 
 most fatal and pernicious errors. It was therefore ungenerous 
 and untrue in Mr. Baiker to represent that my belief in the 
 Holy Scriptures approaches to his own sentiments on that sub- 
 ject. If I have misunderstood Mr. Barker’s sentiments, I shall 
 be glad to be set right ; or if he now renounces them, I shall 
 rejoice to hear his recantation. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Barker expressed a wish that I might make as many 
 changes within the next tw r elve years, as he has made during 
 the last twelve years. I will not say that such a wish arises 
 from a malignant temper ; but I am sure it is the worst wish 
 that Mr. Barker ever uttered for me, and the w r orst he can utter 
 ifor any human being. Better far that my tongue should rest 
 n everlasting silence — better that the cold grave should speedily 
 receive all that is mortal of me, than that 1 should ever follow 
 such a career. The wish of Paul for Timothy w 7 as not that he 
 might be perpetually changing — continually fluctuating in his 
 religious sentiments, but that he might continue in the things 
 which he had learned, know ing ot w hom he had learned them ; 
 and that he might abide by the Holy Scriptures. The advice of 
 Paul to the Tliessalonians was not that they might be varying 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 319 
 
 with every wind of doctrine, hut that they might, while proving 
 all things, “ hold fast that which is good.” And the advice of 
 the wisest man is, that we should “ not meddle with them that 
 are given to change, for their calamity shall arise suddenly, and 
 who knoweth the end of them both?” Mr. Barker should 
 have known that the chief and most prominent characteristic 
 of those who have erred from the faith is that very habit of 
 mind which he wishes me to adopt— that of perpetually 
 changing. Hence such are called “ unstable souls,” “ clouds 
 without water,” like the unsettled and tumultuous waves, 
 “ driven to and fro with every wind of doctrine;” “ever 
 learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” 
 While, on the other hand, the description of the Christian is, 
 that “ he holds fast the form oi sound words” — that “ he holds 
 fast the profession of his faith, steadfast, without wavering”— 
 that “ he is rooted, grounded, settled in the faith”— -that “he 
 is steadfast and unmoveable-— and that he keeps the faith until 
 death.” 
 
 But suppose I did change, as Mr. Barker wishes me— sup- 
 pose I did forsake the steady pole-star of truth, and follow an 
 ignis fatuus , leading me into bogs and quagmires of error — 
 suppose 1 did fluctuate in my sentiments, and call east, west; 
 and west, east ; and north', south ; and south, north,-— sup- 
 pose that I did abandon the realities of noon-day, and give 
 myself up to the fictions and the visions of midnight ima- 
 ginations— suppose 1 did designate that to be true now , which, 
 a short time ago, I held to be contradictory to the plainest 
 teachings of Scripture— -suppose I did deny doctrines now 9 
 which a while ago, I said the Scriptures so plainly taught that 
 no ingenuity of man could explain them away. To what purpose? 
 People would know that what was so clear and bright in the 
 Scriptures a few years ago, could not be obscure now; that a 
 doctrine true a few years ago was equally true now . Suppose I 
 did revolutionize all my religious sentiments, and tell the world 
 that I have changed, and am changing, and shall still change, 
 and that it was impossible to conjecture what 1 might be in the 
 end. What then? People would know that the Bible did not 
 change in accommodation to my fluctuations : and they might 
 retort upon me, as I might reply to Mr. Barker, “ Why, man, 
 the Bible must become like an almanack to be suited to your 
 views; adapted only to one season; and a new one would be re- 
 quired every year.” Men may change, but the word of the 
 Lord abideth for ever : and my wish is not to wander from it, 
 but to stand firm upon the everlasting rock, and change not, ex- 
 cept in holiness and love, until I am exalted to that bright 
 w T orld where change is impossible, and where we shall be for 
 ever with the Lord. And the worst wish I wish Mr. Barker 
 is, that he may go back to the right path-- and then stand firm 
 by the faith until his days are finished, and his spirit is raised 
 to heaven. 
 
320 MR. COOKE. [EIGHTH 
 
 I shall now proceed to notice some of Mr. Barker’s objections 
 alleged against the Atonement. 
 
 I quoted passages from John xiv., xv., and xvi., where Christ 
 commands his disciples to pray in his name. I understood my 
 opponent to say, in reply, Christ meant that the disciples must 
 call themselves by his name, and that whatever they did must 
 be done under his authority. A mere evasion of the truth. 
 There is, in those passages, no allusion either to their calling 
 themselves by his name, or doing any thing on his authority. 
 The duty enjoined is prayer , ashing God for blessings; and this 
 prayer is to be offered to the Father in the name of the Son. 
 
 Now this fact is to be viewed in connection with the fact that 
 every blessing of salvation is said to be bestowed through Jesus 
 Christ, and through him only; for “ there is none other name 
 under heaven whereby we can be saved. No man cometh unto 
 the Father but by him” There must, therefore, be an efficacy 
 in his name; and here is the ground why it must be used in 
 prayer. The atonement explains this. Christ died for us and 
 intercedes for us. We are therefore to plead his blessed name, 
 in all our supplications. A man may pray in his own name until 
 his tongue cleave to the roof of his mouth, but he will never re- 
 ceive : but let him ask what he will in the name of Jesus, and it 
 hall be given unto him. 
 
 Mr. Barker referred to Micah, vi. 8, — “ Do justly, love mercy, 
 and walk humbly with thy God.” And he observed that there 
 is no atonement or satisfaction here. This is another instance 
 of the sophistry so frequently employed by him, in pitching 
 the preceptive parts of Scripture against the doctrinal . It is suffi- 
 cient to reply that this passage, and all such like, are equally 
 against his own theory; for he insists upon belief in the Mes- 
 siah as essential to salvation, yet here is no mention either of 
 the Messiah or of faith. 
 
 His reference to the parable of the Prodigal is equally fatal 
 to himself; for here is no more mention of faith in the Messiah 
 than there is of the atonement. The parable, indeed, was not 
 designed to teach the whole system of salvation, but to teach us 
 the misery of sin, the necessity of repentance, and the compas- 
 sion of God to all who seek his mercy. 
 
 His allusion to men’s reception at the day of judgment is 
 equally wide of the mark; for here is no mention made of faith 
 n.the Messiah. All such one-sided quotations serve but to show 
 the weakness of his cause, a cause which compels him to have a 
 recourse to such measures. 
 
 I showed that Christ is our substitute in himself having be- 
 come a curse for us, in order to deliver us from the curses of 
 the law. Gal. iii., 10—13. My opponent, in despite of the 
 clearest evidence, will have it that the allusion is to the curses 
 of the ceremonial 1a.w. Again, I reply that the Gentiles were 
 never under that law; and therefore are not subject to any of its 
 penalties. And again I reply that the reference is most emplia- 
 
SJIGrHT] 
 
 321 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 tically and specially to the curses pronounced in Deut. xxvn., 
 14—25. I have them all before me; but I request the audi- 
 ence to refer to them at their leisure. They will find that 
 twelve curses are pronounced upon the wicked ; and they all 
 have reference to moral actions, not ceremonial precepts : and 
 the catalogue concludes, in the Septuagint, with the very words 
 quoted by the Apostle, — 44 Cursed be every one that continueth 
 not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do 
 them.” 
 
 Thus, then, Christ did die as a substitute — endured a curse 
 himself, that both Jews and Gentiles might be delivered from 
 all the curses or penalties of the violated law-— endured death 
 upon the cross that we might not endure everlasting death. 
 
 To invalidate the arguments derived from the connection ex- 
 isting between the office of the Jewish priesthood, and the real 
 and effectual priesthood of our blessed Lord ; and between the 
 victims under the law, and the great sacrifice of Christ, my op- 
 ponent alleges some passages from Isaiah v., Is. Ixvi., and Jere- 
 miah vii. 
 
 I reply, first, that sacrifices were ordained of God himself; 
 were made obligatory as religious duties ; and, as such, were 
 acceptable to God. There are a thousand proof s of this in the 
 Bible, — read the whole of the Pentateuch,— -and any attempt to 
 set such proofs aside is pitiful in the extreme, and proclaims 
 aloud the weakness of a cause which requires such attempts. 
 The passages adduced by Mr. Barker only show that such cere- 
 monies were not to be made a substitute for holy affections and 
 practical obedience ; — that when the form of religion is substi- 
 tuted for the power, that form becomes itself an abomination to 
 the Lord. For example, why was it said, in Isaiah lxvi., 3,---« 
 44 He that killeth an ox, is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth 
 a lamb, as if he cut off* a dog’s neck; he that offeretli an oblation, 
 as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he 
 blessed an idol.” Why was this uttered ? I reply, as a rebuke 
 to hypocrisy, as the next clause clearly explains 44 Yea, they 
 have chosen their own ways, and tlieir soul delighteth in their 
 abominations.” 
 
 Why does God exclaim against the sacrifices of the Jewish 
 nation in Jeremiah vii. ? Now you see I keep to those passages 
 which my opponent quoted. Why does God exclaim— 
 
 A Voice : — What do you make of the sin offering ? ( 44 IIear, 
 hear,” 44 Order.”) 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — No man who is a friend to disorder, can be 
 a friend to free discussion. 1 cannot account any individual 
 a friend to truth who interrupts this peaceable and quiet meet- 
 ing. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — I must repeat the statement, for the purpose 
 of preserving the connection. Why does God exclaim against 
 the sacrifices of the Jewish nation in Jeremiah vii.? Just be- 
 
 o 3 
 
322 MR. COOIvE |_EIGHTH 
 
 cause of the hypocrisy of the Jewish people. Read the 30th 
 and 31st verses, and you will soon see this to he manifest 
 “For the children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith 
 the Lord : they have set their abominations in the house which 
 is called by my name, to pollute it. And they have built the 
 high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hin- 
 nom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the tire ; which 
 I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.” Surely 
 here is a sufficient cause for the rebuke. 
 
 Why does God denounce the sacrifices of the Jews in Isaiah, 
 1st chapter? For the same reason. He says, “Your hands 
 are full of blood.” “ The faithful city had become an harlot ; 
 and righteousness had given place to deceit and murder.” It 
 is worthy of notice that in the same passage, the same denunci- 
 ation uttered against their sacrifices is also uttered against their 
 'prayers, “ And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide 
 mine eyes from you : yea, when ye make many prayers, I will 
 not hear : your hands are full of blood.” 
 
 When Mr. Barker quoted these passages, he remarked that 
 he durst not give his own view T s, because they would be reject- 
 ed ; and therefore he gave you the language of the prophets 
 themselves. But he should remember that it is as great a sin 
 to misrepresent the meaning of the Scriptures, though expressed 
 in their own language, as it is to deny it in Ms own. To pervert 
 the Scriptures is as bad as to reject them. 
 
 When sacrifices were offered to God with right affections, 
 they were always acceptable. God himself declared they were 
 a sweet-smelling savour, and well pleasing to him. “ Then 
 shall the Lord be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, 
 with burnt offering, and whole burnt offering.” My opponent 
 says that Dr. Clarke thinks that this passage does not belong to 
 the 51st Psalm. You would no doubt imagine, from wliat Mr. 
 Barker stated, that the passage was considered spurious by Dr. 
 Clarke. No such thing. The Doctor merely thought it was a 
 separate Psalm. But the Doctor is wrong in this notion. The 
 passage is in the Hebrew Bible as it stands in ours. It is also 
 in the Septuagint, the Yulgate, the Syriac, the Chaldee Para- 
 phrases, and in all the versions. You will, 1 am sure, receive 
 this information with surprise. 
 
 My opponent quoted Psalm xl., 6, where it is written, “Sa- 
 crifice and offering thou didst not desire.” This passage is 
 connected with a prophecy of the Saviour’s sacrifice. Let us 
 read the whole : — “ Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire : 
 mine ears hast thou opened.” The opening of the ears is a 
 metaphorical expression for obedience ; and here it has re- 
 ference to Christ’s obedience. “Mine ears hast thou open- 
 ed : burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not requir- 
 ed. Then said 1,” — that is Christ — “Lo, I come : in the 
 volume of the hook it is written of me, 1 delight to do 
 
NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. 323 
 
 thy will, 0 my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” The 
 phrase, “ Lo, I come,” refers to the blessed Saviour ; and the 
 object of his coming was to fulfil the design of the ancient 
 sacrifice, by offering up himself. And the text is thus applied 
 by the Apostle to our Lord. Hear the words of the Apostle, 
 quoting this very passage. Heb. x., 4 — 10: — “For it is not 
 possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away 
 sins.” They were to be merely types, lor a time. The efficacy 
 did not consist in them but in the great sacrifice which they 
 represented ; and for that reason, God did not desire that they 
 should be perpetuated, and looked upon them with only quali- 
 fied approbation. “ Wherefore when he cometh into the world, 
 he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body 
 hast thou prepared me : in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin 
 thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the 
 volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, 0 
 God.” To accomplish his purposes. “ Above, when he said. 
 Sacrifice and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldst 
 not, neither hadst pleasure therein ; which are offered by the 
 law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He 
 taketh away the first that he may establish the second.” Ob- 
 serve! “ He taketh away the first that he may establish the second .” 
 “ By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of 
 the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” 
 
 Thus, then, when the Psalmist says, Sacrifices and burnt 
 offerings thou wouldst not, it is not intended that God had 
 never ordained them, or that God did not approve of them, but 
 he would not have them to be perpetually continued : for the 
 Psalmist was speaking in prophetic anticipation of another 
 sacrifice, infinitely better, and compared to which they were as no- 
 thing. St. Paul’s application of this passage to Christ completely 
 overturns my opponent’s argument, and shows, on the Apostle’s 
 authority, both the design of the institution of the ancient 
 sacrifices, their immediate reference to Christ, and the true pro- 
 pitiatory object of the Redeemer’s death. Those -victims were 
 offered to God, as an atonement, typically ; Christ’s precious 
 life was offered to God as the real and effectual atonement for 
 the world’s transgressions. 
 
 My opponent asks me to explain what a type is. I tell him, 
 here is an illustration in the very words of inspiration. And if 
 he require any further information, I refer him to the 8th, 9th, 
 and 10th chapters of the same epistle. 
 
 Mr. Barker speaks of the sacrificial institutions as being 
 merely tolerated by God, and belonging only to a barbarous age. 
 How strange, if they were only tolerated by God, that under - 
 the Christian economy it should so constantly be shown that 
 they had Christ for their object and end ! How strange, if 
 they were only tolerated , that just in proportion to the degree, 
 of light which the Apostles had, they should the more clearly 
 
324 MR. COOKE. [eighth 
 
 see the reference between the type and the anti-type ! How 
 strange, if these sacrifices were only tolerated , that it was when 
 the Apostles were earthly-minded and carnal that they understood 
 not the design of the Mosaic institutions! but it was when 
 their views were the most refined and the most enlarged — it 
 -was when they were filled with the Holy Ghost that they spoke 
 the most distinctly and emphatically of the reference between 
 the type and the anti-type. It w r as under the plenary inspira- 
 tion of the Spirit — it was when they were most highly qualified 
 and miraculously gifted by God himself to reveal and expound 
 his truth, and unfold the intention of God’s dispensations, — it 
 was then that we find them using the very terms which had 
 originally been employed under the Leviticai institution; calling 
 Christ our 7 rpocrtyopa, that is, our Oblation or our Offering; call- 
 ing him our Ovcna, that is, the slaughtered Victim ; calling him 
 our Xvrpov, that is, our Hansom ; calling him our airokvTpujGig, 
 that is, our Redemption ; calling him our iXaGfiog, that is, our 
 Propitiation; — thus transferring from the type the very terms 
 employed under that economy, and apply ing them to the Saviour 
 as fulfilled, as accomplished in him, as the great victim for the 
 world’s transgressions. 
 
 My opponent still refers to Romans iii., 26; and after all the 
 proofs 1 have advanced to show that the word just means just 9 
 he will have it that it means merciful. Although it is as evident 
 as that two and two make four, yet it may be as well to show 
 that, even on his own rendering, the passage still teaches the 
 orthodox doctrine of the atonement, and can have no meaning 
 on ar^ other principle. Let us read it with Mr. Barker’s inter- 
 pretation. Rom. iii., 24 — 26, — “ Being justified freely by his 
 grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom 
 God hath sent forth to be a propitiation through faith in his 
 blood, to declare his righteousness (his mercy) for the remission 
 of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare, 
 I say, at this time his righteousness (his mercy) : that he 
 might be just (merciful) apd the justifier of him which believeth 
 in Jesus.” It is manifest that this is a sense that the passage 
 will not bear. But suppose it could, the doctrine of atonement 
 is still there; for it is maintained that God could not be merci- 
 ful to the sinner, nor exercise that mercy to him, without the 
 propitiator 'y sacrifice of Christ. So then, after ail, there was a 
 barrier to man’s salvation ; and that barrier must exist in the 
 Divine Government : for the sacrifice was offered to God , and 
 not to man. It follows, then, that the atonement is irresistibly 
 maintained in this passage, — adopt which interpretation you 
 please. At the same time, I will not yield Mr. Barker’s inter- 
 pretation to be correct, for it is a palpable violation of the 
 critical construction and common sense meaning of the passage. 
 
 My opponent strove to make the impression that the words 
 dia T 7 ]g vncTtug, through faith, were not genuine ; and he quoted 
 
MR, COOKE. 
 
 325 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 the authority of Griesbach. I can scarcely divest myself of the 
 impression that he knew better. Now how stands the case ? Are 
 the words in the received text ? Yes. In the Vulgate? Yes. 
 In the Syraic? Yes. In the Ethiopic ? Yes. In the Arabic? 
 Yes. In Griesbach? Yes. And the words are marked by 
 Griesbach as genuine, in his judgment. Schulz examined about 
 300 additional manuscripts, beyond what his predecessors had 
 done ; and he has left the words undisputed. If Mr. Barker 
 desires his cause to succeed, he should not have recourse to such 
 flimsy pretexts or evasions. 
 
 My opponent admits that Christ died for us in some sense as 
 a substitute ; but seeks to neutralize the admission by stating 
 that we are to lay down our lives tor the brethren. True ; but 
 never is the laying down of our lives for the brethren spoken of 
 as a <c propitiation ” for sin. Never is it said that the blood of 
 Paul, or of Stephen, or of James, or of Peter, or the blood of a 
 myriad martyrs, could cleanse us from sin. If he wish to make 
 these cases parallel to Christ, let him show that the Scriptures 
 assign the same efficacy to one as the other, and then his point 
 will be established, but never till then. 
 
 My opponent admits that Christ “ bears our sins;” but 
 neutralizes that admission, by contending that he bears our sins 
 away , by curing them ; just as he bore away bodiiy diseases. 
 It is true that Christ is a physician to heal : but he is equally our 
 High Priest . Now, it was not the office of the Jewish High 
 Priest to heal, but to atone , by the sacrifice of life. The way in 
 which Christ bears away our sins cannot be mistaken, if we look 
 at the manner in which the typical victims bore away the sins 
 of the guilty. How did the scape -goat bear away sin ? By the 
 guilt of the culprit being ceremonially transferred to the inno- 
 cent victim. The hands of the High Priest being laid upon the 
 victim, the sins of the people were confessed over it, and the 
 animal was driven away to a land uninhabited. Christ is the 
 Lamb of God which taketli away the sins of the world. How 
 did the Lamb bear away sin ? By being slain and offered in 
 sacrifice. So Christ was wounded for our transgressions ; and 
 he still appears in the midst of the throne as a Lamb that had 
 been slain. “ This is so plain, that no ingenuity of man can ex- 
 plain it away.” 
 
 My opponent is perpetually confounding the reconciliation of 
 God to man, with the reconciliation of man to God ; but both 
 are perfectly distinct in their own nature, and are brought about 
 by different means. The reconciliation of man to God is the 
 subduing of his natural enmity— the enmity of the carnal mind. 
 But this is the work of regeneration, wrought by the Holy 
 Spirit, through the instrumentality of the gospel ministry. 
 But the reconciliation of God to man is not the removing of any 
 enmity of disposition from the mind of God ; for such does not 
 exist ; but the removing of a legal barrier to the exercise of 
 
326 MR. COOKE. [eighth 
 
 pardon : and this is accomplished by the sacrificial death of the 
 Saviour. Hence the sacrifice of Christ is presented, not to the 
 rebel , hut for him ; not for the sovereign, but to him , against 
 whom man has rebelled. Christ offered himself to God for us ; 
 just as the High Priest offered victims to God to save the life 
 of the transgressor ; and just as Aaron put on incense to save 
 thepeople from death, so Christ, our great High Priest, presented 
 himself on the altar of the cross, and has entered the holy 
 place to make intercession for us. Since, then, the legal obstacle 
 is removed, and God can both be just and the justifier of him 
 that belie veth in Jesus, the rebel is invited to return to his 
 allegiance — to give up his rebellion— to be reconciled to God— 
 to touch the sceptre of mercy, and live. Hence says the apostle 
 — “.Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God 
 did beseech you by us : we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye 
 reconciled to God.” But, then, this embassy to man — this en- 
 treaty to man to be reconciled to God, is grounded upon 
 the fact that God, through the intervention of the Saviour’s 
 death, is ready to be reconciled to man. Hence the very next 
 verse states this as the reason and foundation of the embassy ; 
 
 “ For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin ; that 
 we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” I entreat 
 Mr. Barker and his friends to weigh this argument ; and instead 
 of taking the suggestions of carnal reason, or vain philosophy, 
 for their guide, to receive in simplicity the declaration of God to 
 man. Without this sacrifice, there could be no reconciliation, 
 and there could be no remission of sin. 
 
 My opponent has frequently alleged that none are saved 
 except those who forsake their sins. We need not, surely, be 
 reminded of this. We know full well that men are saved on 
 condition of their repenting of sin, and believing in Christ ; 
 but this was stated at the commencement of the discussion. 
 God makes provision for men’s welfare in the economy of Pro- 
 vidence ; but, then, men have to employ their own energies in 
 the use of proper means. Christ has made provision for our 
 salvation ; but its blessings are tendered to us on certain con- 
 ditions — “repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord 
 Jesus Christ.” He is the Saviour of all men, but especially of 
 them that believe. His death has placed all men inasalvable state, 
 and procured for all the aid of the Holy Spirit ; but such only 
 can be actually saved as comply with gospel requirements. Nor 
 does this take off from the efficacy of Christ’s death, but simply 
 shows the way in which that death can be made available to 
 man. Christ has done that for us which we could never have 
 done for ourselves. He has taken away the legal barrier to our 
 pardon, and made it consistent with the claims of God’s law,, 
 and honourable to God’s character, to pardon sin. The Lord i 
 well-pleased for his righteousness’ sake, he hath magnified the 
 law and made it honourable. But this plan of mercy is not to 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 327 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 supersede man’s obedience, but to promote and secure it. The 
 apostle has anticipated the objection of Mr. Barker ; and an- 
 swered it. “ What then ? Do we make void the law through 
 faith, God forbid. Yea, we establish the law.” And hence it 
 is that the gospel of Christ, through the atonement, presents to 
 man the most powerful obligations to holiness and obedience. For 
 while it inspires confidence, it checks presumption ; while it re- 
 moves guilt from the conscience, it quickens and instructs the 
 conscience ; while it cancels the sentence of death, and the curse 
 of the law, it inspires respect for all the obligations and require- 
 ments of the law ; and while it exhibits God as a benevolent 
 Father, it presents him before us also as a righteous Magistrate, 
 of unspotted holiness and inflexible justice. It draws our affec- 
 tion towards him, but chastens it by inspiring humility, reve- 
 rence, and awe. It speaks to the conscience, and says, be holy 
 for God is holy. It speaks to the affections, and says, be lov- 
 ing for God is love. It thus lays the true and only foundation 
 for obedience ; and inspires in man’s bosom the highest motives 
 to gratitude, to reverence, to obedience, to holiness, to keep- 
 ing all the commandments of God. 
 
 While the atonement thus draws forth man’s affections to the 
 Deity, and prompts him to all holy obedience, it excludes even 
 the occasion of boasting. It gives the whole glory to the Sa- 
 viour ; and places man in his right position at the feet of Jesus. 
 It strips him of all self-righteousness ; stops the mouth of the 
 proud Pharisee; and asks, Where is boasting? It is excluded. 
 By what law? Of works? Nay ; bat by the law of faith ; 
 and that faith is in the blood which propitiates. To man it 
 secures all the benefit, to God it ascribes all the praise. 
 
 The atonement upholds the claims of God’s holy law — ex- 
 hibits its sanctity — maintains its authority — enforces its pre- 
 cepts — and imperatively urges obedience to its requirements. 
 When do we see that law so much honoured as when, to pre- 
 vent its righteous claims being set at nought and despised, they 
 are met by the sufferings and death of the innocent, the holy, 
 the immaculate Lamb of God ? 
 
 Mr. Barker referred to the sufferings of Christ ; and to show 
 that others suffered as much as Christ ; quoted the passage in 
 which our Lord says to the sons of Zebedee, “ Ye shall indeed 
 drink of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism with which I 
 am baptized.” Although this certainly referred to the sufferings 
 which the disciples would be called to endure, yet it furnishes 
 no evidence whatever that their sufferings would be equal in 
 degree or intensity to the sufferings of our Lord, or that they 
 would be endured for the same objects. The sufferings of mar- 
 tyrs were external ; those of the Saviour were chiefly internal 
 and mental: and the awful intensity of our Lord’s sufferings 
 can be accounted for on no other principle than that on which 
 the Scriptures represent him to our view— namely, a vi* 
 
328 MR. COOKE. Leighth 
 
 carious victim. Look at the expiring moments of martyrs. 
 Look what joy has lit up their countenance ! Listen what 
 sounds seraphic have escaped from their lips ! Attend to the 
 notes of triumph which they have uttered, while the rising 
 flame was feeding on their blood ; and they exclaim — 44 None hut 
 Christ ! None hut Christ !” But what a contrast you see in the 
 dying moments of our blessed Saviour! Look at him — prostrate 
 on the earth, covered w r ith the sweat of his own blood ! 
 Hear the groans which escape from him, and break upon the 
 silence of the midnight hour ! Hear him utter the lamenta- 
 tion, — 44 My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death V 9 
 And hear him, too, when expiring, say — 44 My God ! my God ! 
 why hast thou forsaken me V 9 Now t what was the cause of the 
 Saviour’s intense and awful agony ? What made him groan in 
 agony ? What made him utter such deep and affecting excla- 
 mations ? Was it personal guilt? He had none. Was it in 
 the fear of ordinary death? His moral courage forbade it. 
 Was it the hand of external violence? He was alone in the 
 garden prostrate on the ground. No one was near him. What, 
 then, fetched those deep and awful sighs ? What made the 
 blood to be propelled through the pores of his skin, and fall 
 upon the earth in mighty drops? The atonement explains it. 
 Though he had no guilt of his own, he was made accountable 
 for our transgressions — he groaned under our guilt. His 
 righteous soul was made an offering for sin. It pleased the 
 Father to bruise him — he hath put him to grief. 
 
 My opponent alleges that it is incompatible with the divine 
 character that the innocent should suffer for the guilty. But 
 this objection lies equally against his own theory ; for he ad- 
 mits that God allowed Jesus Christ to endure a death which he 
 did not deserve ; and whether that death was suffered in order 
 to subdue man’s hostility and enmity, or to atone for man’s 
 sins, it 'matters not as to the principle. In either case we have 
 the innocent suffering for the guilty, — a principle, too, which 
 obtains throughout the whole of providence, as well as re- 
 demption. Nor do the Scriptures attempt to veil the principle. 
 It stands out in clear and prominent relief. Christ’s personal 
 innocence and vicarious suffering are constantly placed together 
 in the Scriptures, and insisted upon with great emphasis ; and 
 the former contributes to give acceptability and efficiency to the 
 latter. Look at the following passages : — 2 Cor. v., 21 — 44 For 
 he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin.” 2 Peter 
 iii., 18,— 44 Christ also hath once suffered for sins ; the just for 
 the unjust 99 His innocence is here contrasted with the object 
 for which he died, and contrasted, too, with the characters for 
 whom he died. As our High Priest, he was holy, harmless, 
 undefiled, separate from sinners ; — was innocent, and therefore 
 was under no legal obligation to die on his own account ; yet 
 he died for others — offered up himself to God on our behalf. 
 
NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. 329 
 
 As a Lamb he was without spot. Here was innocence. Yet he 
 suffered ; for he was led like a Lamb to the slaughter— he was 
 wounded for our transgressions— -he was bruised for our ini- 
 quities. He was God’s dear Son— his beloved Son. Here was 
 personal innocence and divine approval. Yet it pleased the Fa- 
 ther to bruise him. He hath put him to grief. Why \ Be- 
 cause his soul was made an offering for sin. He was God’s 
 beloved Son, in whom the Father was well pleased. Yet, amid 
 the agonies of death, he cried out, “ My God, my God, why 
 hast thou forsaken me ?” In all these passages, we have the in- 
 nocent suffering for the guilty. 
 
 Such are the facts the Scriptures lay before us ; and the same 
 volume explains the reason. Messiah was cut off, but not for 
 himself, but to make reconciliation for iniquity. The atone- 
 ment explains the whole, and shows the Scriptures to be full of 
 consistency and harmony. 
 
 But, says my opponent, what a representation of God, to ex- 
 hibit him as requiring the death of his own dear Son before he 
 would pardon. I reply, this is a misrepresentation of the case. 
 It is not that God delights in the sufferings of any, but in the 
 salvation and happiness of man. The cause which required the 
 atonement exists in the evil of sin, not in any implacable dis- 
 position in the bosom of Deity. It was his love for man, joined 
 with his aversion to sin, which rendered the atonement ne- 
 cessary. The reasons which compel him to maintain his au- 
 thority. do not terminate in himself. If he treats offenders 
 with severity, it is for our sake, and for the sake of the moral 
 order of the universe, to which sin, if encouraged by a negligent 
 administration, would be the source of endless disorder and 
 misery. And if the granting of pardon should be strongly, and 
 even severely guarded, so that no less a satisfaction could be ac- 
 cepted than the death of God’s own Son, we are to refer this, 
 as the Apostle Paul does, to the moral necessity of the case , aris- 
 ing out of the claims of the law, and the general welfare of 
 accountable creatures liable to the deep evil of sin ; and not to 
 any reluctance on the part of our Maker to forgive — much less 
 to any thing vindictive in his nature. It was because God is 
 love — boundless love ; and because God is just — inflexibly just; 
 because he is at once our Father, and the Governor of the Uni- 
 verse, that an atonement was required and made for mankind. 
 And this, so far from impugning the Divine character, exhibits 
 it in the fairest and the brightest lustre. It declares his righteous- 
 ness, and it declares his mercy too. In fact, redemption is a mirror 
 which exhibits the divine perfections to the human understand- 
 ing in the most pure and perfect effulgence ; for it shows us 
 God in the face of Jesus Christ ; and his face is the only me- 
 dium in which we can behold God’s character aright. If we 
 behold the Divine character through the medium of nature, 
 that medium is obscure, and the image becomes distorted. If 
 
330 MR. COOKE. [EIGHTH 
 
 we look at Him through the law, we behold him surrounded with 
 the blackness and the lightnings of Sinai, clothed in a majesty 
 so terrible that we turn pale with consternation, and flee, in dis- 
 may, from the spectacle. But if we look at him through the 
 medium of the Atonement, we behold his character bright and 
 full orbed. VV e behold him as he is. We see wisdom, power, 
 compassion, justice, and mercy, blending their rays like the 
 colours ot the rainbow, and exhibiting the divine character in 
 the brightest lustre and the most perfect excellence. Here it is 
 that mercy and trutn meet together, and righteousness and peace 
 kiss each other. 
 
 I have thus answered all the objections of any moment which 
 Mr. Barker has urged against the doctrine of the Atonement : 
 and with equal ease might a thousand other objections be 
 answered. I have also adduced to you, as far as my limited 
 time would admit, positive proofs from the Holy Scriptures of 
 the truth of this doctrine. I have shown you that the Scrip- 
 tures declare that Christ’s expiation was necessary, in order to 
 harmonize the claims of justice with the purposes of mercy. 
 And I have shown to you that the Scriptures assign to his 
 death that expiatory efficacy in every variety of phraseology and 
 representation ; — in his character as our Great High Priest, 
 first offering his own body as a sacrifice ; and, secondly, pre- 
 senting in the Holy Place the fragrant incense of his own in- 
 tercession : in his character as the Anti-type of the victims of- 
 fered under the Jewish law : in his character as our Redeemer, 
 paying the \vrpov, or redemption price of his precious life : in 
 his character as our Reconciler propitiating offended justice, and 
 procuring peace and pardon for rebellious man : in his charac- 
 ter as our Mediator — as the only medium of man’s approach to 
 God in prayer, and the only medium through which all the 
 blessings of grace and glory are to be bestowed. In every form, in- 
 deed, which the most instructive figures and the plainest state- 
 ments — in which the most striking antitheses and the most 
 minute comparisons — in which the brightest prophecies and the 
 most abundant promises — in which the richest experience of 
 saints on earth, and the triumphs of glorified spirits in heaven, 
 can set forth this blessed doctrine, it is set forth in the Ploly 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Mr. Barker may still reject the doctrine ; but at this I am 
 not surprised. Alter he has rejected the Miraculous Concep- 
 tion, against the clearest and most abundant evidence ; and after 
 he can compare the Scriptures with the Koran of Mahomet, 1 
 cannot feel surprised at his rejecting the Atonement. 
 
 1 shall now call the attention of the meeting to another sub- 
 ject, namely, the JDeity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 
 Mr. Barker maintains that Christ was only “ a pious young 
 manf The difference between a pious young man, and the 
 ever-blessed God, our Saviour, is not one that is trifling and in- 
 
NIGHT, j ME. COOKE. 331 
 
 significant. It is infinite . If, then, the Scriptures be at all 
 adapted to instruct mankind, it will of course follow that at 
 least they speak so plain as to make this difference sufficiently 
 obvious. We know the properties of a man, from conscious- 
 ness and observation ; and we know the characteristics of God, 
 from the Scriptures. But our blessed Saviour is God and man 
 united. We maintain his real humanity, as well as his real 
 Godhead : and this fact it is important to remember. It is 
 therefore quite irrelevant in my opponent to allege that Christ 
 had the properties of man, because I admit this to be true, and 
 it can be no objection to my arguments at all. I am not called 
 upon to deny the Redeemer’s manhood in order to establish his 
 Godhead, for I admit them both. The onus , therefore, devolves 
 upon my opponent to prove that he was nothing more than 
 man. 1 allege that he was more ; and, in the first place, 1 shall 
 attempt to prove it by his pre- existence. 
 
 It is the nature of man to be born ; but not to exist before 
 he is born. I therefore assert the pre-existence of Christ as the 
 first proof of his Deity. The Scriptures plainly teach that the 
 glorious Being denominated our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 
 existed in his Divine nature prior to the era of his appearance 
 in our world as the Redeemer of mankind. This doctrine Mr. 
 Barker unequivocally denies, as you will perceive from the ex- 
 tract which I have laid before you from his 1. )th Christian. My 
 opponent, however, will admit that his opinion is but a recent 
 one ; for he held and taught the contrary but a short time ago, 
 as is manifest in the quotations from his writings, which you 
 have already heard. 
 
 Now in disproof of Mr. Barker’s sentiment, I adduce the 
 following passages. 
 
 1. In John i., 30, our blessed Lord is declared to have been 
 before John the Baptist. “ This is he of whom I said, After 
 me cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he was 
 before me.” This is one of the passages which Mr. Barker, in 
 the second volume of his Reformer, brings forward in proof of 
 our Lord’s pre-existence ; and it undoubtedly establishes the 
 doctrine. That John is here speaking of priority of Christ’s 
 existence, and not alluding to priority of office, is quite mani- 
 fest. Christ was not before John in the ministry, for John was 
 sent before him. Christ came after him. He was not before 
 him, either, in the age of his human nature ; for John was born 
 six months before the Saviour. Yet John declares he was be- 
 fore him. But how? Because, as the Evangelist says, he was 
 in the beginning with God. 
 
 2. Christ was also before Abraham. Addressing the Jews, 
 he says, — “ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and 
 he saw it and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou 
 art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus 
 said unto them, Before Abraham w T as, 1 am. Then they took 
 
332 MR. COOKE. [EIGHTH 
 
 up stones to cast at him.” Nothing can more plainly declare 
 the pre-existence of Christ : and this is another of those very 
 plain passages which Mr. Barker formerly quoted to prove this 
 doctrine. But the doctrine, it seems, was no more wel- 
 come to the Jewish unbelievers of that day, than to British 
 unbelievers of the present time. They took up stones to cast 
 at him. 
 
 3. St. Paul, contrasting our Lord with Adam, says, — “ The 
 first man is of the earth, earthy ; the second man is the Lord 
 from heaven.” (1 Cor. xv., 47). That is, he came down 
 from heaven. Our Lord himself also expressly asserts that he 
 came down from heaven. See John xvi., 28-31 , — “ I came 
 forth from the F ather, and am come into the world : again, I 
 leave the world, and go to the Father.” His ascension to his 
 Father u T as real, not figurative. So his descent from heaven 
 was real, not figurative. His “ disciples said unto him,. 
 Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.” It is 
 a thing to be understood in its plain, literal acceptation. “ Now 
 are w~e sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that 
 any man should ask thee : by this we believe that thou earnest 
 forth from God. Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?” 
 Mr. Barker sought to pervert this passage by speaking of the 
 disciples being sent into the world. But to make the case pa- 
 rallel, he should have shown that the disciples were with the 
 Father before they existed in the world ; that they were with 
 the Father in glory before the foundation of the w r orld. No- 
 thing less than this can make the cases parallel, and justify Mr. 
 Barker in employing the interpretation he did. I think Mr. 
 Barker must now admit that this declaration of Christ “is so 
 plain that no ingenuity of man can explain it away” 
 
 Take another passage. John xvii., 4, 5, — “1 have glorified 
 thee on the earth : I have finished the work which thou gavest 
 me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own 
 self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world 
 was.” It was on the earth that he glorified the Father ; and 
 this is contrasted with the glory which he had in heaven with 
 the Father before the world was.” This proves his pre-ex- 
 stence. 
 
 The same glorious truth is maintained in the 24th verse, — 
 <c Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be 
 with me where I am ; that they may behold my glory, which 
 thou hast given me : for thou lovedst me from the foundation 
 of the world.” Mr. Barker may say that this has a prophetic 
 reference — that the Father loved him prophetically. But, then, 
 to establish that point he must make it appear that Christ w T as 
 with the Father prophetically before he assumed our nature, 
 and came into the world. 
 
 The same proofs are presented in those passages which speak 
 of Christ coming in the flesh. Bom. ix., 5,— u "W hose are the 
 
MK. COOKE. 
 
 333 
 
 3TIGHT.] 
 
 fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who 
 is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen” I put it to the 
 common sense — to the unsophisticated judgment of this audi- 
 ence, whether such a passage does not imply the existence of 
 Christ before he appeared in the flesh. I would ask them, if 
 Christ had no pre-existence— if he were the son of Joseph and 
 Mary, could he come in any other way than in the flesh ? Why, 
 then, should the Apostle thus distinguish the Saviour % He did 
 not speak thus of Abraham, nor of any other being ; nor is the 
 language adapted to any being but one who existed prior to his 
 coming in the flesh. 
 
 \ To the same class of proofs belong the passages which speak 
 of his taking upon him our nature. Heb. ii., 14-16, — “ Foras- 
 much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he 
 also himself likewise took part of the same : that through death 
 he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the 
 devil ; and deliver them who through fear of death were all 
 their life-time subject to bondage. For verily he took not on 
 him the nature of angels”— the word nature is not in the 
 original, but is evidently implied;- For verily he took not on 
 him the nature of angels ; but he took on him the seed of 
 Abraham.” Every being must exist prior to his doing any 
 thing. Christ is here spoken of as taking on him, not the na- 
 ture of angels, but the seed of Abraham . He must, therefore, 
 have existed before he took on him the seed of Abraham. 
 
 St. Paul says, — “ Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became 
 poor, that ye through his povertyjmight be rich.” 2. Cor. viii., 
 9. I ask, when was Jesus rich ? He was born in a stable. He 
 worked at the trade of a carpenter. He lived on alms during 
 his ministry. And he was heard to say, “ The foxes have holes, 
 and the birds of the air have nests ; but the son of man hath 
 not where to lay his head.” I ask, then, when was Jesus rich, 
 if he were not rich in his pre-existent glory ? Moses was rich 
 from his connection with the throne of Egypt. Moses did make 
 a real sacrifice when he preferred the reproach of Christ to all 
 the treasures of Egypt. We can understand the sacrifice there. 
 We can understand how Moses was rich, but, for the sake of 
 the Israelites and God’s cause, became poor. But I ask, when 
 was Jesus rich — according to the flesh % IS ever was he rich on 
 earth. He was rich in his pre-existing Divinity and glory, but 
 took upon him the state and condition of poverty that he might 
 honour that condition ; and he never rose above poverty during 
 the whole of his ministry. He never made any* sacrifice of 
 wordly riches for man’s salvation. 
 
 St. Paul exhorts believers to be humble and disinterested, and 
 sets before them the example of Christ. Phil, ii., 4-8.-—“ Look 
 not every man on his own things, but every man also on the 
 things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in 
 
334 MR. COOKE. [^EIGHTH 
 
 Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not 
 robbery to be equal with God : but made himself of no reputa- 
 tion, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made 
 in the likeness of men : and being found in fashion as a man, he 
 humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even ’the 
 death of the cross/’ in reference to this passage I ask no more < t 
 present than these four questions, if Christ had no existence 
 prior to his birth, — 
 
 1st. When was he in the form of God ? 
 
 2nd. When was it that he did not think it robbery, or usurpa- 
 tion, to be equal with God ? 
 
 3rd. If the son of Joseph, and only “a pious young man” 
 when was it a mark of extraordinary humility lor him to be 
 found in the fashion of a man ? 
 
 And lastly, what other fashion or likeness could he be found 
 in than that of a man if he was a man only, and had no exist- 
 ence prior to his birth ? 
 
 Our blessed Lord is called the Word of God. Rev. xix., 11, 
 13,-.-“ And i saw Heaven opened, and, behold, a white 
 horse ; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, 
 and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes 
 were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns : and 
 he had a name written, that no man knew but he himself : and 
 he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and his name is 
 called the word of God.” ’0 \oyo£ rov 06oa. This, then* is the 
 appellation given to Christ personal y. in the 1st ch. of John’s 
 Gospel, this same glorious Being, called ’O Xoyog, the Word, is 
 said to have existed in the beginning, with God, prior to all 
 creation. And in the 14thverse.it is declared that he was made 
 flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we beheld his glory, as of the 
 only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” 
 
 Now what is the sum of the passages before us ? 
 
 1. That Christ came in the fhsh. 
 
 2. That he took upon him, not the nature of angels, but the 
 seed of Abraham. 
 
 3. That he was rich, yet for our sakeslie became poor. 
 
 4. That the Father loved him belore the foundation of the 
 
 world. 
 
 5. That he existed with the Father, and had a glory with him 
 before the foundation of the world. 
 
 p 6. That he came forth from the Father, and returned to 
 the Father, to inherit the glory which he had before the world 
 was. 
 
 7. That prior to his becoming man, he existed in the form of 
 God, and thought it not usurpation to be equal with God. 
 
 8. That he voluntarily became flesh, and dwelt amongst men . 
 
 9. That this taking upon him our nature, and becoming 
 man, was an act of amazing condescension and humility. It was 
 a stoop of his majesty ; it was a waiving of his light ; it, was 
 amazing condescension and humility . Will Mr. Barker ex- 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 335 
 
 plain these facts in harmony with his doctrine that Christ had 
 no existence before he was born , and in harmony with the pas- 
 sages before us ? Let it be remembered, too, that these are the 
 passages, for the most part, which Mr. Barker himself has 
 quoted in proof of our Lord’s pre-existence and glory ; — the 
 passages which he says “ no ingenuity of man can explain away f y 
 . — the passages which so clearly teach the Redeemer’s Godhead, 
 that he says it is his conviction that a man must either admit 
 from them the Divinity or Godhead of Christ ; or else deny the 
 New Testament altogether. Mr. Barker may explain them 
 away if he pleases ; but then he stands self-convicted of mang- 
 ling and perverting the word of God. He may reject this doc- 
 trine, as he has done the Miraculous Conception, but then it is 
 iiot for want of evidence, but in spite of the clearest evidence 
 •which the word of God can afford. 
 
 I shall call your attention to some further proofs with regard 
 to the Godhead of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Mr. Barker affirms that Christ is merely “ a pious young man” 
 The Scriptures contradict this by asserting that he is GOD. 
 John i, 3, 2. — “ In the beginning was the Word, and the 
 Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was 
 in the beginning with God.” Heb. i. 8, — “But unto the Son 
 he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” l ie is also 
 called “LORD AlN'D GOD.” Thomas, convinced of the truth 
 of our Lord’s resurrection, applied to him these divine titles. 
 John xx., 28, — “ And Thomas said unto him, My Lord and my 
 God.” The angel Gabriel designates him LORD GOD. Luke 
 i., 1G, 17, — “ And many of the children of Israel shall he” — that 
 is, John the Baptist — “turn to the Lord their God. And he 
 hall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias.” It was 
 Christ before whom John went as his herald ; and here that 
 glorious personage is denominated “ the Lord God” 
 
 Mr. Barker calls Christ “ a pious young man but the pro- 
 phet Isaiah designates him ODR GOD. And though the term 
 God may be said to be a communicable title, never is the term 
 “Our Lord” or “our God” made a communicable title to 
 any creature in existence. “ The voice of him that crieth. 
 Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the 
 desert a highway ’for our God.” Isa. iv., 8. That this 
 prophecy applies to Christ we know not only from the ge- 
 neral facts recorded in the Gospel, but also from inspired autho- 
 rity ; for St. Luke expressly applies it to our Lord : — “As it is 
 written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, 
 The voice of one crying in the wilderness. Prepare ye the way 
 of the Lord, make his paths straight.” Luke iii., 4. 
 
 Mr. Barker says that Christ is merely “ a pious young man ” 
 but the Evangelist and the prophets say that he is GOD WITH 
 US. Matt, i., 22, 23,— “ And they shall call his name Emma- 
 nuel, which being interpreted is God with us” Before Mr.- 
 
336 MR. BARKER. [EIGHTH 
 
 Barker had learned to sneer at the Evangelists, he said that 
 Christ was rightly called God with us. 
 
 Mr. Barker says that Christ is only “ a pious young man” 
 But the prophet says he is the MIGHTY GOD. Isa. ix., 6, — 
 “ Unto ns a child is born, unto us a son is given : and the go- 
 vernment shall be upon his shoulder : and his name shall be 
 called Wonderful, Counseller, The Mighty God, The everlasting 
 Father, The Prince of Peace.” Here we have a recognition of 
 the two natures of Christ. In his human nature he is the child 
 horn ; in his divine nature he is The Mighty God; in the two 
 natures combined he is Emmanuel— God with us. 
 
 In harmony with this divine title he is called the GREAT 
 GOD. Titus ii., 13, — “Looking for that blessed hope, and 
 the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ.” Now my reasons for applying this to Christ are the 
 following. Reference is here made to the day of judgment, and 
 a reference is made to him who shall appear as our judge on 
 that occasion. The appearance of the Father is never recog- 
 nized throughout the Holy Scriptures ; but the appearance of 
 the Son is always recognized : — “ Looking for that blessed hope, 
 and the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ.” And Mr. Barker ought to know that the render- 
 ing of the word *cai, even , in cases ot this kind, is one which is 
 supported by the Syntax of the Greek language-— by the idiom 
 of the language ; and the principle is recognized in numerous 
 passages which are applied to the Father himself. 
 
 Mr. Barker says that Christ is only “ a pious young man;” 
 but the Apostle "declares, most emphatically, that he is THE 
 TRUE GOD. “ And we know that the Son of God is come, 
 and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him 
 that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Je- 
 sus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” And the 
 Apostle adds immediately : — “ Little children, keep yourselves 
 from idols.” So that it was no idolatry to call Christ the true 
 Goa . 
 
 My time is now expired. I shall proceed with a catalogue of 
 texts the next evening that I have the pleasure to address you. 
 In the meantime, weigh what you have heard well in your 
 minds • and let your candid and your honest judgment decide, 
 in the tear of God. ( Much applause.) 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — I hope you will be perfectly orderly during 
 the address of Mr. Barker. There is nothing, you may depend 
 upon it, so dignified as silence ; and nothing so sublime in any 
 community as peace and good order. I ask no better opportu- 
 nity for Mr. Barker to address you, than that which Mr. Cooke 
 has just had at your hands. I need, therefore, only ask you to 
 be perfectly orderly ; and Mr. Barker will now address the 
 meeting. 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 337 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Mr. Barker : — Respected Chairmen : my Friends, — I feel 
 thankful that I have another opportunity of addressing you on 
 this interesting and important occasion. My only desire is the 
 spread of Christian truth and righteousness ; and I have not the 
 least doubt but that that end will, to some extent at least, be 
 promoted by the discussion to which you are now attending. I 
 have not myself so much anxiety with respect to the particular 
 opinions which you may form, as I have that you should all 
 seek after truth as the great end, and obey its requirements as 
 the great business of your lives ; that you should first endea- 
 vour to discover the truth, and then labour, as truth is unfolded 
 to your minds, to reduce it thoroughly to practice ; and that it 
 should be your study and endeavour to know the whole of what 
 God has revealed to you by Jesus Christ, that you may become 
 every thing which God desires you to be, and do every thing 
 which God would have you to do. I have no personal quarrel 
 with my. opponent ; nor would I willingly wound the feelings 
 of any individual whom I address by the remarks which I 
 make. My sole desire is to supply those materials which may 
 be serviceable to you in forming a judgment as to what is, and 
 as to what is not, the truth which Jesus taught. I am wishful 
 that the whole of the time granted to each disputant should be 
 well employed ; that not a single word should be devoted to 
 personal matters, or to any other matters not connected with 
 the discussion. I am wishful that as much information should 
 be furnished to you on both sides as it is possible for myself and 
 my opponent to afford ; and that, with that information before 
 you, you should judge for yourselves honestly, what is true and 
 what is false ; prove all things and holdfast that which is good. 
 If 1 should utter anything which may r appear shocking to your 
 minds, it is neither out of irreverence to God or his truth, nor 
 out of disrespect to you, or want of regard to your feelings. It 
 is simply because I think it best to speak exactly as I think on 
 these matters ; and to present truth to your minds as it is pre- 
 sented by God to my own. 
 
 Before 1 proceed to notice the remarks of my opponent this 
 evening, I will add one or two observations with respect to the 
 satisfaction theory. 
 
 My first is, that my opponent has not yet explained the sa- 
 tisfaction theory. 
 
 My second is, that he has not given you one single straight- 
 forward passage where any such theory is mentioned in the sa- 
 cred writings. He has not given you one passage which tells 
 you that God cannot forgive sinners, if they repent and return 
 to obedience, unless satisfaction be made to justice. He has 
 not given you one passage to show that there was any legal 
 barrier in the way of reconciliation in existence. He has not 
 given a single passage to prove that there is any barrier at all 
 in the way of the bestowment of forgiveness, if men repent of 
 their sins, and turn from wickedness to God. The sacred writ* 
 
 p 
 
338 MR. BARKER. [^EIGHTH 
 
 ings, however, abound with plain testimonies to the fact that sin 
 alone separates between God and men, and hides good things 
 from men ; and that no sooner doth the wicked man turn away 
 from his wickedness, and do that which is right, than God for- 
 gives him : and they expressly declare that God forgives him— 
 not because of any satisfaction received to his justice, but be- 
 cause of his considering and turning from his evil ways — be- 
 cause of his repentance and return to obedience. God lias ex- 
 pressly declared he will forgive men on this account. 
 
 Another remark which I would make is this, that if the Al- 
 mighty required satisfaction to his justice, then Christ , who is 
 himself the Almighty, on my opponent’s theory, rvould require 
 satisfaction to his justice. Jesus, of course, being God equally 
 with the Father, would be as just as God is. Jesus would, 
 therefore, as the second person in the Trinity, require exactly 
 the same satisfaction that his Father did ; for he and his Fa- 
 ther, on my opponent’s theory, are equally God, and are equal- 
 ly or alike just. 
 
 Again ; if my opponent’s theory be correct, when Jesus 
 died, God the Son died, and the Father also must have suffered 
 and died in like manner. (Hissing — u Order.”) For if the 
 Father and the Son are one God, it was impossible that one part 
 of the one God should suffer, and the other part of the one 
 God not suffer. If men in a community suffer and sympathize 
 with each other, how much more must the different persons in 
 the Godhead, who are all one God , suffer with each other. 
 
 We have, therefore, this insurmountable difficulty in the way 
 of the satisfaction theory. Christ must be satisfied as w r ell as 
 the Father ; and the Holy Ghost must be satisfied as w r ell as 
 both the others; and if one person in the divine nature become 
 a victim, then, as God is not divided— as his substance is one, 
 the whole must have formed the victim. And if the immortal 
 God could die at all — (and John Wesley declares a hundred 
 times that he did die) — then the whole God w 7 ould have died, 
 and the universe must have perished. I say it is impossible 
 that a theory which involves such infinite impossibilities — such 
 ridiculous extravagancies and absurdities, can be true or scrip- 
 tural. 
 
 I have been asked, if the influence of Christ’s death w 7 as to 
 operate on men, how is it that nothing is said of the death of 
 the apostles exerting an influence on men’s habits and charac- 
 ters? I answer, because Christ is the first, the leader in the 
 w 7 ork of man’s redemption. JS T ow nothing is more common 
 than to attribute an event to one, which is effected by num- 
 bers ; as in the case of a captain and his forces. The victories 
 gained by the troops in the last continental wars, for example, 
 w 7 ere gained by the soldiers as truly as by their generals. Yet, 
 to w hom were they attributed ? .Not to the common soldiers, 
 but to the captain or the general. It was the general alone who 
 was said to have gained the victory. Jesus is the captain of 
 
MR. BARKER, 
 
 339 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 our salvation. Pie is the head — the leader of his troops ; all 
 else are hut servants— common soldiers. And though they 
 were fellow-workers with Jesus, yet, as Jesus was the first and 
 the greatest in the work, it is right that every thing done by 
 his apostles and followers acting under him, and by his aid, 
 should be spoken of as done by Jesus himself^ as the head, the 
 captain, and the Lord of all. 
 
 I now come to my opponent’s speech, delivered tills even- 
 ing. 
 
 He says that I stated that he rejected some parts of the Holy 
 Scriptures. I only stated that he rejected what the greater 
 part of professing Christians regard as portions of the sacred 
 Scriptures. 
 
 He says I wished to make it understood that his views on the 
 Scriptures were like my own. I answer, only in this ; that as 
 /reject some tilings which others consider Scripture, so he re- 
 jects some things which they also consider Scripture ; and that 
 on this point we both are one. And I argue thus, it* he reject 
 from a dozen to a score books from the Old Testament, some of 
 which were certainly, in my judgment, inspired, and which are 
 deservedly esteemed as such by the Roman Catholic church, 
 why should he make such loud complaints if I reject a few 
 more passages than he does ? 
 
 He gave you a quotation from the 19th Christian , respecting 
 my views of the sacred writings, &c., in which I confess I 
 could see nothing wrong. Every thing in the extract seemed 
 sound, and good, and true ; and I fancy if he had given the 
 whole of the passage, it might have appeared to better advantage 
 still. 
 
 He referred to my statement that there are no writings per- 
 fect. Now, he knows there are not. He may differ from me 
 as to whether the sacred writings were perfect in the beginning: 
 but the fact is, the original copies of the sacred writings are 
 lost ; they are not in existence ; they have perished from the 
 earth. The oldest existing manuscripts are only transcripts 
 made by fallible, imperfect men, from other transcripts made in 
 the same manner ; and every transcript had its errors, and it is 
 a fact that we have not a perfect copy or a perfect manuscript 
 of any portion of the New Testament in existence. So that 
 even if the originals were perfect, it would be of no advantage 
 to us, because we have them not : they were lost at an early 
 period, and we have nothing but imperfect transcripts in their 
 place. At the same time, though imperfect, they are sufficient 
 for us ; they are every way adapted to awaken our minds, to 
 fill us with reverence for divine truth, with admiration of the 
 beauty of Christianity, and to furnish us with the means of 
 constantly growing in knowledge and true holiness. 
 
 He objected to my sentiment that the light we are to follow 
 is within. Why, all the light which is not within us is dark- 
 ness itself. What is the light that illumines the unseen orbs of 
 
340 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [EIGHTH • 
 
 heaven to us ? Nothing but darkness. So all the light in the 
 Bible is no light to me, till’ I get it into my own mind. It is 
 when a man understands what is written in the Scriptures, that 
 he begins to be guided by it ; and even then he guides himself 
 not by what is in the Bible , but by so much of it as he gets into 
 his own mind ; he guides himself by that part of Bible teach- 
 ings, and that pait only, which he believes and understands in 
 his own mind. 
 
 Be found fault with my statement, that the apostles had not 
 authority to rule our faith. But what could he have to find 
 fault w ith in that ? St. Paul did not claim any such authority. 
 He says, “ Not for that we have dominion over your faith” — as 
 lords— 4, but are helpers of your joy.” The apostles disclaimed 
 authorit y themselves ; and were content with the apparently 
 humble, but, in fact, the high and honourable work of help- 
 ing the understanding, and contributing to the joy of the 
 disciples. 
 
 Be says, I place the writings of ordinary men on a level with 
 those of the apostles. I do no such thing. It is the writings 
 of extraordinary men only that I speak of in the extracts which 
 he read ; the works of men whom God has illumined, whom 
 God has sanctified, and whom God has liberally blessed with 
 his ow n spirit. 
 
 Be speaks of me as perpetually fluctuating in my sentiments. 
 Now, there is not a man on earth, perhaps, who has fluctuated 
 less than I have. (Laughter.) Whether my opponent under- 
 stands the word “ fluctuating, ” or not, I cannot tell : but fluc- 
 tuate g means going backwards and forwards, like the flowing 
 and ebbing wave of the sea. /, therefore, have never fluctuated 
 from the beginning, i have constantly moved forward in a 
 direct line. On what single subject have 1 moved backward 
 and forward like the restless wave? 1 considered drinking was 
 .a bad practice, and I became a total abstainer: have I gone 
 back in that f I saw war was a mighty evil, and I became a 
 peace man ; and I have never gone back from the peace prin- 
 ciple. I saw the doctrine of the trinity was an unscriptural 
 absurdity, and rejected it ; and I leave my opponent to judge 
 whether I have gone back in that. Satisfaction to justice I 
 considered to be a doctrine which had no foundation in Scrip- 
 ture ; 1 therefore rejected it; and when did I take it up again? 
 I saw that the doctrine of natural hereditary depravity was 
 false : 1 believed it to be one of the most absurd, unscriptural, 
 and blasphemous doctrines in existence, — one of the most awful 
 and horrid sentiments that ever found its way into the human 
 mind. I gave it up. 1 remembered, that when Christ took 
 the little children in his arms, and blessed them, he said, “ of 
 such is the kingdom of heaven.” I saw, that if Christ had 
 believed the natural depravity doctrine, he should have said, 
 u Suffer the little children, poor things, to come unto me ; for 
 of such are the regions of hell.” And I gave up the doctrine. 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 341 
 
 And so with respect to the doctrine of eternal torments, trusting 
 for acceptance in Christ’s merits, and the like : but I have never 
 gone back to those doctrines. I give up still what I think bad, 
 and hold fast only what I think good : but I do not fluctuate. 
 
 I move right onward. My course has been straight forward 
 from the first. My path has been like the shining light, be- 
 coming brighter and brighter, and will end, I trust, in the 
 perfect day. It would be much better if my opponent, instead 
 of talking about me changing my sentiments, would prove that 
 any of the sentiments which I have given up are true and 
 scriptural ; or that any of the sentiments which I now advocate 
 are unscriptural and false. 
 
 Several of the things which I stated last night, my opponent 
 appears not to have understood. When I spoke of praying in 
 Christ's name, I said it meant praying as his disciples -as hi* 
 servants: and that when we are commanded to do every thing 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus, as he tells us to pray in his 
 name, it can mean nothing more than doing every thing out of 
 regard to Christ's authority — in obedience to Christ's instructions - 
 He tells us, that blessings are bestowed upon us through. 
 Christ. Very true. So say I. But for blessings to be bestow- 
 ed upon us through Christ, and to be bestowed on us for th$ 
 sake of Christ, are two quite different things. God, when we 
 pray, bestows his blessings upon us through Christ ; but he does 
 not bestow them on us on account of Christ ; it is on account of 
 our own obedience. God certainly bestows his blessings in 
 fulfilment of Jesus’ own words, — “ Whatsoever ye shall ask the 
 Father in my name, he will give it unto you,” but this must 
 still be on condition that we keep God’s commandments, and 
 “ always do those things which are pleasing in his sight.” 
 
 He tells us, that Christ intercedes for us. But we ask does 
 Christ intercede for us in the way of praying for us, and be- 
 seeching God to bless us ? We reply, nay. Else what did he 
 mean, when he said, “ 1 say not unto you, that I will prog the 
 Father for you : for the Father himself loveth you, because ye 
 have loved me, and have believed that I came forth from Cod.” 
 Jesus Christ told them he would not pray for them, — that there 
 was no necessity for him to do so, — that God needed no interces- 
 sion, because he himself loved them, and was disposed to bless 
 mankind of his own accord. In the 8th chapter of Romans, it 
 is said that the spirit maketh intercession for us, but it is im- 
 mediately added, that he does this, not by praying for us, but by 
 helping our infirmities . And just as the spirit intercedes, or 
 interposes for us, by helping our weaknesses , so Jesus intercede* 
 or interposes for us, by giving us encouragement and confidence to 
 draw near to God . 
 
 He referred to my quotation of Mieah, of the parable of the 
 Prodigal Son, and the like, in such a way as to show either 
 that he did not understand, or did not well remember, the 
 object for which I quoted them. I made the quotation from 
 
 v 2 
 
342 MR. BARKER. [EIGHTH 
 
 JVLieali to show, simply, that what God required was not sacri- 
 fices, or satisfactions in blood, but simply that men should do 
 justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God. And I 
 referred to the parable of the Prodigal Son, to show that when 
 Jesus would illustrate God’s character, and the way in which 
 lie acts towards his rebellious creatures, he teaches us that he 
 asks from his returning children no satisfaction, but a willing- 
 ness to submit to his authority, and future obedience to their 
 Father’s w ill. 
 
 He says, that sacrifices — the ancient sacrifices, were accepted 
 of God, when accompanied by right dispositions. I answer, 
 that right dispositions w^ere always accepted of God, whether 
 joined with sacrifices or not. 
 
 He says, the passages I quoted only prove that God did not 
 like sacrifices when made a substitute for holiness. I answer, 
 the passages themselves make no such statement. They speak 
 of sacrifices, without any qualification whatever, as things 
 which God did not like,— as things which God did not at all 
 esteem. I will read you one or two of the passages over again. 
 That in the 51st Psalm is this : — “ Thou desirest not sacrifice ; 
 else would I give it : thou deliglitest not in burnt- offering. 
 The sacrifices of God are a broken spiiit : a broken and a con- 
 trite heart, 0 God, thou wilt not despise.” I will read you the 
 passage from the 7th chap, of Jeremiah again. u Tlius saith 
 the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel ; put your burnt-offerings 
 unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. For I spake not unto your 
 fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them 
 out of the land of Israel, concerning burnt-offerings or sacri- 
 fices ; but this one thing” — this one thing, not two ; he did not 
 command sacrifice, and something else along with it ; — “ But 
 this one thing commanded I them, saying, obey my voice, and 
 I will be your God, and ye shall be my people ; and walk ye 
 in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be 
 ■well unto you.” And here the matter would have rested, if 
 the children of Israel had been disposed to yield that moral 
 obedience to God which he required. “But they hearkened 
 not,” says the prophet, “ nor inclined their ear, but walked in 
 the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and 
 went backward, and not forward.” And therefore God makes 
 use of sacrifices— accommodates them w ith sacrifices, with a 
 viev T to instruct them, and prepare them for receiving the 
 principles of true religion, and training them to obedience ; — of 
 course determined to abolish them altogether as scon as they 
 were prepared to render unto him a better seivice, a hearty 
 and a faithful obedience to the great law of love. So with 
 respect to the passage in Micah. There is no such qualifying 
 clause as that to which my opponent refers. The question is 
 asked,— “ Wherewith shall 1 come before the l ord, and how 
 myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with 
 burnt- offerings, with calves of a y ear old ?” &e. The answer. 
 
KIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 343 
 
 according to my opponent, should be, “Yes, do; but don’t 
 come with these alone.” But, what is the answer? “Will 
 the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thou- 
 sands of rivers of oil ? Shall I give my first-born for my trans- 
 gression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? lie hath 
 showed thee, 0 man, what is good ; and what doth the Lord 
 require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to 
 walk humbly with thy God.” Then sacrifices were not good ; 
 they were not required. 
 
 But he says that sacrifices are pleasing to God when offered 
 with righteous dispositions. I answer, certainly. Like a kind 
 Father, God accepts any thing from his children that is meant 
 to be expressive of gratitude and love. So Jesus regarded with 
 affection the woman who broke the box of ointment, and poured 
 it on his head ; and who washed his feet with tears, and wiped 
 them with her hair. Though in this service there was nothing 
 that was really for the benefit of Jesus— though one of the 
 things done was an actual waste of the precious ointment, as 
 the disciples thought, so that they expressed themselves in 
 murmurings,— what does Jesus say? He says, “ Let her alone; 
 she hath done a good work ; she hath done what she could” 
 And because she had done what she could , lie accepted it as a 
 good work ; and declared that wherever the Gospel should be 
 preached in the whole world, that thing which she had done 
 should be mentioned to her praise. So it is ; when a man aims 
 at pleasing God, God is always pleased with him. He takes 
 the will for the deed : and though the deed itself amount to 
 nothing, or be actually defective and wrong in itself, so long as 
 it is offered with a pure intention, God is pleased with the 
 offering on account of the good motive from which it comes. 
 
 My opponent quoted a passage out of Hebrews, where it is 
 said that we are sanctified by God’s will through Christ. Yes, 
 by God’s will, or New Testament . The Gospel, the doctrine of 
 Christ, is sealed by Christ’s blood , — it is proved to be true , and 
 made valid , strong , powerful , energetic , through his death ; and 
 thus rendered the means of our sanctification, and by this means 
 also of our forgiveness. 
 
 He professed to give me an explanation of his views of what 
 is a type, and what is an anti-type, referring me to two passages 
 of Scripture. Now those two passages give no explanation of 
 the subject at all ; and the orthodox theory of types and anti- 
 types still remains an unscriptural invention of theologians. 
 
 He refers me to Romans iii., 26 : and sa}^, that on my prin- 
 ciple God could not be merciful without the propitiation. Let 
 any individual read the epistle through, and he will find that the 
 great dispute was this, — Have the Gentiles a right to receive 
 Christian privileges and blessings on the simple condition of 
 faith in Jesus, and obedience to his Gospel ? Some of the Jews 
 said that Jehovah was the God of the Jews only, not of the 
 Gentiles ; and that, therefore, the Gentiles had nothing at all 
 
344 MR. BARKER. [EIGHTH 
 
 to do with the blessings of the Messiah. Paul disproves this ; 
 and shows God to be the God of the Gentiles as well as of the 
 Jews. There were others of the Jews who said that though 
 God was the God of the Gentiles, they could not share in 
 Christian privileges unless they were circumcised, and obeyed 
 the law of Moses. Paul says, 44 Yes, they may. Circumcision 
 is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but faith which 
 worketh by love.” 44 Oh,” said the Jews, 44 but it is not just 
 in God” — it is not right in him, 44 to take the children’s bread, 
 and give it unto dogs.” 44 It is not right in him to treat us, 
 who have kept the law, in the same way as those who have not 
 kept it. There ought to be a difference.” 44 No,” says Paul, 
 44 there ought to be no difference at all. You had the law, but 
 you have not kept it. Your own prophets prove it. The Gen- 
 tiles, it is true, transgressed also the law under which they were 
 placed : but that makes you no better than they. You are 
 therefore on a level ; and God has a right to say — he is at per- 
 fect liberty to sa} r , that he will treat you all as parties placed in 
 the same condition; and that as he accepts the Jew through 
 faith, he will accept the Gentile through faith too. If God had 
 chosen to bestow his blessing according to the law of Moses, we 
 grant you that it "would not have been right for God to have 
 placed the obedient Jew and the Gentile on a level. But he 
 does not. He chooses to bestow T his blessings through Christ. 
 He chooses to give them to all who are redeemed by Christ 
 from sin. And therefore he is perfectly justified. Indeed it is 
 an entirely new T plan on which God has chosen to bestow his 
 blessings. He has chosen to make Jesus the medium of convey- 
 ing his blessings, and has fixed to justify us all through tire re- 
 demption that is by Christ Jesus. God, therefore, as he has set 
 aside the old law, can be just and merciful too, and the justifier 
 or benefactor of every one that believeth on Jesus.” Thus the 
 passage simply shows that God has a right to treat Jews and 
 Gentiles on the same terms, that he could consistently bless the 
 believing Gentiles as well as Jews. And hence the conclusion 
 is , — 44 Where, then, is boasting that is, the boasting of the 
 J ews over the Gentiles. It is done away by the law of faith : 
 and the result or conclusion is, (not that God will not forgive 
 without satisfaction to justice, but will forgive on account of 
 having received a satisfaction ; but) that he will justify the cir- 
 cumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith too, 
 —that God is the God of the Gentiles as well as of the 
 Jews , and will be merciful to all that come to him through 
 Christ. 
 
 He spoke as if I wished to make the impression that Gries- 
 bach left out the words en to autou animati , as not genuine from 
 his text. But I did not ; I simply stated that he had given 
 the passage as doubtful. And this is the fact. He refers to a 
 number of manuscripts that leave it out. Though he himself 
 puts it in his own text, he says many leave it out : thereby 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 345 
 
 showing that the passage is disputed, and, therefore, doubtful. 
 And any one who chooses to refer to Griesbach, may satisfy 
 himself of the truth of this statement. 
 
 He says the office of a Jewish High Priest was to atone, not 
 to cleanse. But the two chapters which he read out of the 
 Hebrews show that it was the office of a priest to cleanse. If 
 you look at them, you will find that the whole object of the 
 sacrifices there referred to was to cleanse, to purify: and Christ’s 
 sacrifice also is spoken of in those chapters as cleansing men’s 
 souls from dead works, as the old sacrifices cleansed the bodies of 
 the offerers from ceremonial pollution. 
 
 He says, I confound the reconciliation of man to God, and the 
 reconciliation of God to man. I do no such tiling. There is 
 but one reconciliation between God and man, and that is the re- 
 conciliation of man to God. We have no mention of recon- 
 ciling God to man. God is never reconciled to sin ; nor 
 can he look with approval upon any mail till he is redeem- 
 ed from sin. 
 
 He speaks again of Christ removing a legal barrier to for- 
 giveness. But there is no mention of any such thing n the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 He says the invitation to man to be reconciled to God is 
 grounded on Christ’s Sacrifice. True. Christ’s sacrifice shows 
 that men were unreasonable in sinning against God, — that God 
 is love ; — it also shows that men have no reason for being afraid 
 that God will reject them if they return to obedience. The 
 sacrifice was a proof that God was love ; and that they had no 
 reason to fear he would reject them, and it was therefore very 
 properly made the ground of the exhortation to men to be re- 
 conciled to God. 
 
 He says Christ’s death has placed all men in a solvable 
 state. I answer, the Scriptures never speak in that way. There 
 is not a word to intimate that men were ever in any other than 
 a solvable state, if they gave up their sins, and returned 
 to God. 
 
 He says the Gospel presents the most powerful inducements 
 to obedience. Very true, as Christ taught it. But the Gospel 
 as perverted by false orthodox y does not present the same mo- 
 tives. According to that system, God can accept as a substitute 
 for man’s obedience the sufferings of another; according to that 
 system people may still be accepted, though disobedient, if they 
 trust in Christ’s merits; so that people may live as they please. 
 
 I was conversing with a preacher once, who acknowledged that 
 he did not do his best, and said if he had no other expectation 
 of mercy, than what was grounded on a consciousness of his own 
 faithfulness, he could have no hope of salvation at all. His 
 hope was, that though he did not do his best, yet Christ had 
 atoned for him : and he trusted in Christ’s merits . On the con- 
 trary, I confessed that I could not expect to be admitted to 
 heaven unless I did my best . It is the same still. I could never 
 
 p 3 
 
346 MR. BARKER. [EIGHTH 
 
 expect God either to hear my prayers, or receive me to heaven, 
 unless I kept his commandments. I have no trust in any one's 
 merits . The Scriptures do not warrant any such trust. I trust 
 simply in what God says, that he is good, and that if 1 endea- 
 vour to do his will, he will receive me into everlasting blessed- 
 ness in heaven. And the tendency of this belief to promote 
 obedience is most manifest. Perhaps some of you may have 
 heard of a conversation which took place in this town, between 
 a friend who is present, and another- — an orthodox person. The 
 friend who is present was replying to some charges from the 
 orthodox party, and contending that Christ’s sacrifice availed 
 nothing if it did not make people good, and he contended that 
 those who were counted heterodox were as good people as others, 
 if not much better. And he referred to some individuals— such 
 as Penn, C banning, Priestley, and the like, who were all good 
 men, notwithstanding their heterodox notions. The orthodox; 
 individual replied, “ Aye, poor things, they had need be good ; 
 they had nothing else to trust to.” (Laughter.) Plainly in- 
 timating that there was not so much need for her to be good, as 
 she had something else to trust to. She trusted in the merits of 
 Christ, and rolled her sinful soul on the atoning blood. The 
 influence of such a doctrine is to make people q\iite careless 
 whether they be wise and good or not. There are multitudes 
 at this hour, who are wasting their lives to no purpose what- 
 ever, under the influence of this doctrine, comforting them- 
 selves, meanwhile, by trusting in the goodness and the righte- 
 ousness of another. I had been preaching on this subject in a 
 certain place some time ago, showing that the doctrine of trust- 
 ing in Christ’s merits was unscriptural ; that there was no such 
 thing as the merits of Christ in the whole Bible. A man was 
 present who had been a professor of religion some twenty or 
 thirty years; and what was the effect of this doctrine? He said, 
 surely it was time for him to begin to look about him, and to 
 think of living better, if he was to answer for himself. [Cries 
 of “ Question,” “ Question.”] 
 
 Mr. Grant : — You have no right to speak. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore I should take it to be too near the question 
 for any person that is interrupting the speaker. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — The man never had heard, and was astonish- 
 ed when he did hear, that there was not a word in the Bible 
 about trusting to Christ’s merits. Says he, “ These are sad 
 tidings. 1 have been trusting in Christ’s merits for twenty-five 
 or thirty years; and now it seems there is no such thing to trust 
 to. It is time I was looking about me, and beginning to mend, 
 if I am to fare according to my own works.” And this is the 
 natural influence of the doctrine. There are thousands of care- 
 less professing Christians who are selfish, ill-tempered, unjust, 
 unfaithful as shop-keepers, not scrupling to break and cheat 
 their creditors, because they are trusting to something else, and 
 not to their own obedience. (Hissing.) Men sin by day, and 
 
*111. BARKER. 
 
 347 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 trust in Christ’s merits at night they think all is right while 
 they cast their sinful souls on him, though they neglect what is 
 required of themselves. 
 
 Reference was made to the words of Isaiah , — <e He shall 
 magnify the law and make it honourable.” This passage has 
 no reference to Christ; and God’s law is made most honour” 
 able when it is so unfolded as to win man’s hearty obedience. 
 
 He referred to the passage where Christ told the disciples that 
 they should be baptized with the baptism that he was baptized 
 with, and drink of the cup that he drank of ; and he said that 
 that passage did not show that the sufferings of those men should 
 be equal to his own. Now you shall hear the passage. H« 
 asked them the question , — 1 “ Are ye able to drink of the cup 
 that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that 
 I am baptized with V 9 What does this mean, but to ask them 
 if they could bear the same lot he had to bear ? They say. 
 Yes, we are able. And he says,— 1 “ Ye shall indeed drink of my 
 cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;, 
 but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, 
 except to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” if the 
 same be not equal , if the same be not equal to equal , I know not 
 what the words mean. 
 
 He referred to the sufferings of martyrs : and said, that they 
 were external , but that Christ's sufferings were internal . 'I'll is 
 is proof enough to me that he knows nothing of what a martyr’s 
 sufferings are . The external sufferings of a martyr are light 
 and trivial compared with the internal sufferings which he has to 
 endure ; and if my opponent should ever be called upon to share 
 the martyr’s lot — if he should ever be called upon to try what it 
 is either to live or die a martyr, he will find it out. 
 
 He says, look at the deaths of martyrs ; how joyful and noble 
 they are ! Why, it seems that in addition to not having been a 
 martyr, he has not even read attentively the martyrs’ lives, or 
 else he would have found that they frequently suffered most fear- 
 fully in their souls ; and that Cranmer, though lie at last mus- 
 tered courage to die, did, on his first trial, suffer so much in his 
 soul, that he recanted the doctrines which he had before main- 
 tained. If my opponent would read the History of the Refor- 
 mation, and consult the story of Luther in particular, he would 
 there find that others suffered grievously in spirit, and had fear- 
 ful mental agony, as well as the Saviour. And if he were to 
 read the hymns of John Wesley, he would find that he even 
 prays to be baptized with the same mental agony which Christ 
 suffered, plainly understanding it to be no more "than what his 
 followers might share. 
 
 He says, the greatness of Christ’s sufferingscannotbe accounted 
 for on any other principle but that they were a satisfaction to 
 justice, and that Jesus groaned beneath the weight of our sins. 
 I answer, the greatness of Christ’s sufferings cannot be explained 
 at all on that principle. The principle is, that Christ’s suffer- 
 
348 
 
 MX!. BARKER. 
 
 [eighth 
 
 ings, if lie had been only a man, could not have satisfied divine 
 justice at all ; but in consequence of his Godhead being united 
 Avith his manhood, the sufferings of Christ were infinitely meri- 
 torious, and could satisfy divine justice. But, mark you ; 
 if the union of the Godhead with the manhood would 
 make Christ’s sufferings infinitely meritorious, the very same 
 thing would have made the slightest pang imaginable infinitely 
 meritorious. The principle laid down by my opponent is, that 
 every thing is infinite that is done by an infinite being . So that 
 it was not necessary at all, on this principle, that Christ should 
 suffer so much. Ail that Avas necessary was one p ain-— one pang , 
 however slight ; for it Avas not the greatness of the suffering , but 
 the unity of divinity with manhood which made it infinitely me- 
 ritorious. But on our theory the greatness of Christ’s sufferings 
 may be accounted for. Bis disciples were to drink the same cup, 
 and to be baptized with the same baptism. They needed an 
 example therefore. They needed a proof, too, that man, in his 
 greatest trials, could still be supported and comforted by God ; 
 that the heaviest trials could be borne consistent Avith perfect 
 virtue ; that the greatest sufferings that can be endured are still 
 overruled for good, and turned to happy account for the sufferer. 
 Christ’s sufferings ansAvered these ends. Bis sufferings were 
 also needful to enable him to sympathize with his people, that 
 he might be prepared to succour them. On our principle there 
 are many reasons for the greatness of Christ’s sufferings ; on the 
 orthodox theory, there is no reason at all. 
 
 He says, Christ Avas made accountable for our sins by GocL 
 If my opponent understood what he said, he must have felt that 
 he Avas uttering an awful blasphemy. God makesno man account- 
 able for another man’s sins. There are only two ways in which 
 this could be done, — either through mistake ; or aa itli the know- 
 ledge that it Avas & false imputation. Now, God can never make 
 another person accountable through mistake . He cannot make 
 a mistake. Therefore he must, on my opponent’s theory, have 
 done it knowingly , and imputed our sins to Christ when he 
 knew they were not his. lie must have been guilty of what a 
 common serf, or a half-civilized man, Avould not have been 
 guilty of. 
 
 H e says, Christ endured a death he did not deserve. Ijtnswer, 
 Do we never suffer any tiling but what Ave deserve? Do we not 
 see, rather, that those avIio deserve least suffering, generally 
 get most ? Did not the apostle say,— “ If in this life only we 
 have hope in Christ, Ave are of all men most miserable.” Were 
 not the apostles generally among the greatest of sufferers? God’s 
 plan is, that as suff ering has a tendency to make people perfect, 
 even as Jesus himself was made perfect through suffering, men 
 who are faithful to a little light shall have a little extra suffer- 
 ing, that they may he strengthened in faith and virtue thereby; 
 and he continues to give his faithful ones more and more suffer- 
 ing, in order that they may he more and more partakers of his 
 holiness. 
 
MR. BARKER, 
 
 349 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 There is a passage in Romans which I have never read to you, 
 but which unfolds very strikingly the end for which Jesus Christ 
 was made a sin offering. It is in the 8th chapter, 3rd and 4th 
 verses, — “ For what the law could not do in that it was weak 
 through the flesh, God hath done, by sending his own Son in the 
 likeness ofsinful flesh, and, making him a sin-offering, condemned 
 sin in the flesh : that the righteousness of the law might be fulfil- 
 led in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.” 
 Christ is thus said to be made a sin-offering, not that God might 
 be satisfied, but that we might be made strong to do our duty, 
 and to fulfil the righteousness of the law. 
 
 Christ died the just for the unjust, we are told. Yes ; but 
 why did not my opponent read the after-part of the verse, 
 which says it was to “ bring us to God,” not to satisfy God's 
 justice? 
 
 The end for which Christ was sent b\^ God is beautifully 
 illustrated in the parable of the husbandmen. The owner of 
 the vineyard sent his servants first, to seek for fruit ; but the 
 husbandmen took them and beat and stoned them. He sent 
 others ; but they treated them in the same way. Last of all, he 
 sent his Son, and says, “ Surely they will reverence my Son.” 
 But he was taken and treated in the same manner by these 
 rebellious and ungrateful men. Such is Christ's own represen- 
 tation of the object for which he was sent, namely, to bring 
 men to render to God his due. Not the slightest intimation is 
 given that Christ was sent for any thing else but to get fruit — to 
 bring men to love and serve God, which is God’s due. 
 
 There are two or three other parables which present God's 
 character in a striking way, and unfold the principles on which 
 he acts towards sinners. One is the parable of the king who 
 had a great debtor, who owed him ten thousand talents. The 
 king calls lor the money : the man says he cannot pay ; but 
 falling down, he beseeches him to have patience with him, and 
 promises to do his best to pay him all. The king, moved, with 
 compassion, forgives him all. The man goes out, and meets 
 a fellow-servant who owes him a hundred penc . lie demands 
 the hundred pence. The fellow-servant beseeches him, saying, 
 have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. lie will not. 
 He casts him into prison. And because the man who had so 
 much forgiven him, did not forgive his brother, the forgiveness 
 is withdrawn, and he is cast into prison. But here, also, it ap- 
 pears, God did not ask for satisfaction. All he asked for was a 
 disposition to pay when able, and then the whole debt was 
 frankly forgiven. 
 
 Another parable which Jesus spake to represent God's cha- 
 racter and his conduct towards repenting sinners, is that of the 
 Prodigal Son. The son had sinned against his father. The 
 father was grieved at his conduct, but when the son returned 
 penitent to the father’s house, what was the conduct of the 
 father? Did he say, I cannot take you back until the money 
 
350 MR. BARKER. [EIGHTH 
 
 you have wasted is restored ; or until some one make satisfac- 
 tion for the pain I have suffered in consequence of your extra- 
 vagance and ill conduct ? No ; his penitence is satisfaction 
 sufficient. The father falls upon his neck and kisses him, and 
 freely forgives him all. 
 
 Another parable is that of the barren fig-tree. “ Cut it down,” 
 says one ; “ why cumbers it the ground ?” But another says, 
 “ Spare it another year, till I shall dig about it, and dung it, 
 and if it bear fruit, well , and if not, then, after that, thou shalt 
 cut it down.” He does not say that he will make satisfaction 
 for its fruitlessness, — that he will find another tree that will 
 hear fruit for it ; but he says, “ I will dig about it and manure 
 it ; and if it bear FRUIT, well; if not , then, after that , thou 
 shalt cut it down.” 
 
 I might go through the whole New Testament, and find in 
 almost every passage and parable, fresh proofs of the principles 
 I advocate ; fresh proofs that all God wants of man is a good 
 heart and a good life ; that when people bring these sacrifices 
 he is always well pleased ; that all other sacrifices are nothing 
 thought of by God ; that the sacrifice of Christ himself is no - 
 thing, except in so far as it reclaims men from sin, restores them 
 to holiness, and thus brings them to happiness, to heaven, and 
 to God. 
 
 J I again call your attention to the fact that my opponent has 
 not given a single plain, straightforward passage of Scripture, 
 teaching any thing like the doctrine of satisfaction to justice, 
 or any of those principles entering into the theory of that 
 doctrine. 
 
 Their theory, he says, is necessary to discountenance sin. But 
 it does the contrary, it provides a substitute for the sinner. Ours 
 makes the destruction of sin every thing : and tells us that our 
 sins will lie at our own door, and will not be imputed to another 
 — that every man must stand or fall by his own deeds— that the 
 soul that sinneth shall die. 
 
 He says, the Gospel shows us God in the face of Christ. 
 Yes: and I wish people would learn to study God’s character 
 in Christ. When we see what Jesus was, we know what God 
 is : for Jesus is God’s image or resemblance. But when did 
 Jesus ask for satisfaction ? What was there like that stern un- 
 bending justice, or that implacable spirit about him, whicli is 
 ascribed by orthodox doctrines to God ? Jesus was the image of 
 love; and if he was the image of God , then God is love, and the 
 doctrine of satisfaction to justice is a fiction. 
 
 He says, God’s character is all blackness in the law. I reply, 
 Nay ; the law proclaims God to be merciful and gracious, slow 
 to anger, abounding in goodness and mercy, pardoning iniquity, 
 transgression, and sin. We are also taught in the Old Testa- 
 ment, that “ God is good to all, and that his tender mercies are 
 over all his works.” 
 
 He says, Christ’s propitiation is necessary to harmonize the 
 
RIGHT*] MR. BARKER. 351 
 
 claims of justice with the exercise of mercy. I answer, we have 
 not a hint , in the Scriptures, that the claims of justice and the 
 exercise of mercy were ever at variance. These things are all 
 dreams of theologians. 
 
 He says, I rejected the Miraculous Conception against the 
 clearest evidence. If I have not given you the clearest evidence 
 that it is a human fiction, I, of course, leave the matter. But 
 that doctrine, I imagine, is overthrown for ever, without the 
 chance of my opponent being able to restore it to its former po- 
 sition again. 
 
 lie says, I placed the Scriptures on a level with the Koran. 
 The statement is a slander. I simply stated that if, by an in- 
 fallible guide, was merely meant something which, if we used 
 it to the best of our ability, would secure to us God’s favour and 
 affection, then it followed that any books which God might 
 grant to man would be infallible guides, for they would do the 
 same ; for God only requires of a person a faithful improvement 
 of the light and talent he possesses. 
 
 My opponent then came to Christ’s divinity ; but as he pro- 
 ceeded but partially into the subject, I shall again go to his own 
 writings. I have already given you some of his arguments in 
 support of the doctrine of the Trinity, and my replies thereto. 
 I have examined his pretended quotations from Pagan writers, 
 and from Jewish writers, and shown that they were falsehoods 
 and forgeries. I have shown that there are no such words to be 
 found in Jonathan’s Targum as he mentioned ; and that there is 
 not the slightest hint of a Trinity to be found in Seneca. I have 
 also examined some of the passages of Scripture from which he 
 endeavoured to show evidence to support the doctrine of the Tri- 
 nity. I now proceed to others. 
 
 In one place, my opponent seeks to prove the Trinity from 
 Numbers vi., 24, — “ Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee : Je- 
 hovah make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto 
 thee : Jehovah lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee 
 peace.” Because Jehovah is thrice mentioned, he supposes there 
 are three persons who are each Jehovah. But if this passage 
 prove three anythings , it will prove three Jehovahs, It will 
 prove more than a Trinity of Gods, it will prove a Trinity of 
 Jehovahs. If the language be strictly proper , as my opponent 
 understands propriety, then there are Jehovah first, Jehovah 
 second, and Jehovah third, all separate persons. This will make 
 nine Gods ; for Jehovah has been already proved to be Elokim 9 
 Gods, that is three Gods at least, and three Jehovahs will be 
 nine Gods. In reality, however, the passage proves nothing 
 more than this, — that there were three forms of blessing, with 
 which the priest was directed to bless the children of Israel. It 
 says not one word — it giveS not the least hint of any Trinity. 
 And the whole Bible proves there is only one Jehovah, and 
 only one God. Again ; if you look at Wilson’s Concessions, 
 you will find that even Trinitarians themselves reject this argu- 
 
352 MR. BARKER. [l^GHTH 
 
 inent, and acknowledge that it is dangerous to rest the doctrine 
 upon such slender proofs. 
 
 -Again ; he attempts to prove the Trinity from the words. 
 Holy of Holies ; or, as he renders it, Holy place of the Holy 
 Ones . But if three he holy ones in the Godhead, they are, ac- 
 cording to the Old Testament, Holy Gods, not mere distinctions, 
 • — they are so many Gods in one Jehovah, not so many persons 
 in one God. But we have proved there is hut one God. 
 God is expressly declared to he the holy One , not the holy 
 Ones ; the high and lofty One , not the high and lofty Ones i sup- 
 posing the texts to he correctly translated ; and these passages 
 also which declare God to he one are perfectly plain ; and we 
 must not use obscure phrases to darken plain ones, hut plain 
 declarations to explain dark ones. 
 
 My opponent next employs Isa. xlix., 1G,— ' “And. now the 
 Lord Jehovah and his spirit hath sent me.” But this passage 
 also, if it prove three anything s, will prove three Gods ; for 
 wherever God is spoken of as more than one, it is as Elohim , 
 Gods, not as unintelligible distinctions ; and my opponent says 
 this language of the Hebrew Scriptures is STRICTLY PRO- 
 PER — the very language which God himself has chosen as best 
 adapted to express his nature. If so, his natui e is Gods. But 
 the meaning of the passage is simply this, — God hath sent me, 
 Isaiah, by his spirit. 
 
 He also brings forward Isa. vi., 8 — 10, as a proof of the Tri- 
 nity, — “ Whom shall I send, and who will go for us, &e. V 9 
 And he refers to John xii c , 41, and Acts xxviii., 25, to prove' 
 that the Son of God and the Holy Ghost, two quite distinct 
 persons from God the Father, were present with the Father 
 when he said — u Whom shall I send, and who will go for 
 us V 9 But if my opponent is resolved to have three somethings 
 in the Godhead, he must have the three unfolded in the Scrip- 
 tures themselves, namely, Elohim , Gods , and not three inde- 
 scribable, unintelligible distinctions. There must be three Gods 
 if his principle be true. He must remember his words, that 
 God knows better than man in what wa y his nature can be best 
 declared or revealed. He must not make himself wiser than God, 
 by putting his .own unmeaning w r ords in the place of God’s most 
 strict and proper words. If my opponent will not have Jeho- 
 vah’s three Gods, he must excuse us if w r e refuse to have his 
 three unintelligible distinctions. But this passage, also, is given 
 up by many learned Trinitarians, who have found fault w T ith 
 their brethren for their attempts to build the doctrine on such 
 an insecure/oundation. And the quotations from J ohn xii., 41, 
 and Acts xxviii., 25, do not prove that any one was present with 
 the one Jehovah when he spake these words ; and I repeat, that 
 many Trinitarians regard the attemptHo prove the Trinity from 
 these and similar passages as very foolish. 
 
 My opponent next goes to the Few Testament, in search of 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 353 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 arguments for the Trinity, but without success. The first pas- 
 sage which he quotes is from the account of Christ’s baptism, 
 When the spirit descended on Christ in a bodily shape, like a 
 dove, and a voice from heaven proclaimed, “ This is my beloved 
 Son, in whom 1 am well pleased.” Now there is not a word nor 
 a hint about the Trinity in this whole passage. To teach the 
 Trinity, it should have said, or at least hinted, that Christ was 
 God, that the Holy Ghost was God, and the Father God ; and 
 that these are three separate and distinct persons, and yet are 
 one God. But it says not a word, nor gives the least hint, of 
 any of these things. Christ is represented simply as a man, 
 appointed by God to be the Messiah : the Holy Spirit descends 
 as God’s anointing, or as a visible testimony to Christ’s Mes- 
 siahship ; and the only GOD that appears in the scene is God 
 the Father, who pronounces Jesus to be his beloved Son. 
 
 His next argument is 2 Cor. xiii., 14, — “ The grace of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the 
 Holy Ghost, be with you all.” But here, again, there is not 
 the slightest hint about a Trinity of persons. The passage does 
 not say, The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God the 
 Son ; the love of God, who is God the Father ; and the com- 
 munion of the Holy Ghost, who is God the Holy Spirit ; but, 
 “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God ,” as 
 if the second mentioned were the only God there is. The pas- 
 sage mentions only one God. To be orthodox, it should have 
 been, The blessing of God the Father, God the Son, and God 
 the Holy Sprit, three persons in one God, &c. Instead of that, 
 neither Jesus nor the Holy Ghost is mentioned as God. One , 
 only, is called God . The simple meaning of the passage is this : 
 the apostle wishes that the Corinthians might cherish in their 
 souls the same grace or charity as Jesus cherished in his soul ; 
 that the love of God, — such love to one another as God had 
 towards them, might dwell in them — that God’s own spirit 
 might dwell in them, prompting then! to benevolent labours ; 
 and that the gifts of the spirit might be showered upon them 
 richly, to qualify them for their benevolent labours. In ano- 
 ther passage Paul says, “ My love be with you all.” But we 
 cannot suppose that he prays to his own love as God. Such 
 passages simply express the apostle’s good wishes ; and are 
 equivalent to such expressions as, The best blessings of heaven 
 be with you ; the blessings of time, and the blessings of eternity 
 be with you. 
 
 These are the only arguments that my opponent gives in his 
 tracts in support of the Trinity, and it is plain that they prove 
 no such doctrine. 
 
 He next attempts to prove the deity of Christ ; but before 
 I follow him in his argumentations on that point, I am wishful 
 to give you some further proofs that God is not three persons, or 
 three Gods, but simply one . We have seen that the only plu- 
 rality hinted at in the Scriptures is a plurality of Gods; so 
 
354 MR. BARKER. [EIGHTH 
 
 that if they did teach three anything's, they would teach three 
 Gods. Now — 
 
 If the Scriptures plainly teach that there is not a plurality of 
 Gods, but only one God, the theory of the Trinity will be en- 
 tirely demolished. What, then, do the Scriptures say ? 
 
 My opponent says, — 44 God being* the author of the sacred 
 records, and having given them to man for such important pur- 
 poses, it must be admitted that he has expressed himself in appro- 
 priate language-— in language the best fitted to convey suitable 
 ideas of himself, and of all the truths he has graciously reveal- 
 ed. It will follow, then, as a general principle,” says he, that 
 the obvious meaning of the Scriptures is the true one ; that as 
 they are addressed to the common understanding of mankind, 
 that interpretation which a plain honest enquirer gathers from 
 the surface of the sacred text, is the one which God intended to 
 convey.” See page 73 of his tracts. He adds, — 44 This rule 
 will especially apply to those parts of the sacred Scriptures 
 which teach us the nature of Godf &c. 
 
 Let us, then, come to the Scriptures under the influence of 
 these principles, and see what is their obvious sense, which 
 strikes at once the common understanding of mankind. What 
 is the language of Scripture ? Hark you. 
 
 “ Jehovah our God is ONE Jehovah.” 44 Hear, 0 Israel, the 
 Lord our God is ONE Jehovah.” 46 There is ONE God, and 
 one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 
 u Other nations may have gods many, and lords many ; but to 
 us there is but ONE God, the FATHER, and one Lord Jesus 
 Christ.” 
 
 This is the simple doctrine which runs through the Bible. 
 God generally uses singular pronouns when he speaks of him- 
 self, giving still proof that he is ONE. He says, 44 /, even /, 
 am he.” He is addressed by others in the singular number, in 
 the Bible. It is 44 thou,” not 44 you,” which the sacred writers 
 use when speaking to God. It is not the holy three , or mighty 
 three , that they call him ; but the holy ONE, the mighty ONE, 
 the high and lofty ONE, and so forth. Take any book in 
 Scripture, and read it for the purpose of seeing what is the ob- 
 vious sense of their language when speaking of God, and you 
 shall find that God is uniformly spoken of as ONE. Take 
 Genesis, and you will read, 44 In the beginning God created the 
 heaven and the earth.” 44 God created man in his own image, 
 in the image of God created he him ; male and female created 
 he them.” It is One God. Take the New Testament, and be- 
 gin with the Evangelists ; there is still just One God. 44 God so 
 loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that who- 
 soever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting 
 life.” 44 God is rich in mercy to all that call upon him” 
 44 God who is of great mercy according to the abundant love 
 wherewith he hath called us.” 44 The grace of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and the love of God be with you.” 44 There is One God, 
 one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.” And so on. 
 
NIGHT."] MU. BARKER. 355 
 
 Take the whole Bible, or any separate hook, and its obvious 
 meaning is that there is hut one God, and no other God hut one ; 
 that that one God is one, not three ; and that that one God is 
 the FATHER, not Jesus Christ — the Father of Jesus Christ, 
 and of all mankind. And again; who is the true God? 
 Hearken to Jesus. When some person called him “good mas- 
 ter/’ he said, “ Why callest thou me good ? there is none good 
 but One , that is God.” On another occasion he said, “ Father, 
 I have finished the work which thou gavestme to do.” “ FA- 
 THER, this is life eternal, to know thee, THE OKLY TRUE 
 GOD, and Jesu& Christ, whom thou hast sent.” 
 
 Again, facts prove that the obvious meaning of the Scrip- 
 tures is opposed to Trinitarianism. 1 refer first to the case of 
 Rammohun Roy, a Hindoo, a Brahmin, who became a Chris- 
 tian from reading the Scriptures. What does he assert? He 
 tells us that the impression that there was but One God, or that 
 God was One , was the one impression in reference to the Divine 
 Being, which the Scriptures made upon his mind, and by the 
 help of the same Scriptures he was enabled to overturn the pre- 
 tended arguments of the missionaries when they began to oppose 
 him, and to advocate, in opposition to him, their Trinitarian 
 views. 
 
 I, myself, had orthodoxy taught me after I began to be reli- 
 gious, and to some extent 1 believed it. And I was freed from 
 it by laying aside unscriptural terms, and coming to the plain, 
 obvious meaning of the Scriptures. I believe there are num- 
 bers in this place who would give their simple testimony to the 
 same effect, if allowed. And there are numbers more that 
 would be led to give their testimony to there being only one 
 God, if they allowed themselves to draw their opinions solely 
 from the Scriptures. Were people to read the Bible, without 
 having their minds prejudiced by any knowledge of an ortho- 
 dox catechism, or creed, or prayer book, what is the impression 
 that would be made upon their minds by reading the Scrip- 
 tures? That there are three persons in the Godhead, all equal 
 and united, but still separate and distinct? No. The impres- 
 sion, I am persuaded, would be, that there is only just One 
 God, and that that One God sent Jesus, his Son, to teach and 
 bless mankind. 
 
 John "Wesley himself tells us, in one of his sermons, that 
 perhaps not one in twenty converted persons at first thinks any 
 thing about these things. The truth is, people generally, when 
 they begin to be religious, think of only Cine God. They af- 
 terwards begin to think of the matter- — with what assistances I 
 need not mention, and then they begin to think of a trinity. 
 John Wesley does indeed say that the trinity is implied in all 
 they say. But of course, men tMnk it is implied in every thing 
 they hear, when they have once got it into their heads. But it 
 is nevertheless true, that people, when first they are converted, 
 think only of One God ; and if priests would leave them alone, 
 they would never think of any more. 
 
356 MR. BARKER. [EIGHTH 
 
 ^ The trinity, then, is got from other sources, not the plain ob- 
 vious sense of the Scriptures. It is made up of a mixture of 
 the doctrine of many gods, and the doctrine of One God, — a 
 mixing of Paganism and Christianity. 
 
 Again ; it is further proved that the obvious sense of Scrip- 
 ture cannot teach a trinity ; for 
 
 1. It never uses the word, nor any words like it. The only 
 word that it uses, that is supposed to indicate a trinity, is Elo - 
 him ; and that is Gods. But even my opponent, though lie 
 says that God’s words are always right, appropriate, used on 
 purpose to express his nature, and should be taken in their ob- 
 vious sense and meaning, won’t have that word so taken. 
 
 2. The Scriptures never tell us that there is any such mys^ 
 tery as the trinity in the Godhead, which cannot be revealed. 
 
 3. Supposing the orthodox doctrine to be the true one, the 
 Scriptures must be wrong, for the Scriptures are not orthodox. 
 
 1. To be orthodox, they ought to use such phrases as God 
 the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, as well as God the Father. 
 And yet they never do anything of the kind. 
 
 2. To be orthodox, they should call Christ and the Holy 
 Ghost God, as often and as plainly as the Father. But what is 
 the fact? The Father is called God one thousand three hun- 
 dred and twenty-six times; the Son, even according to ortho- 
 dox interpreters themselves, only thirteen times ; heathen dei- 
 ties, eleven times ; heroes, five times ; messengers, twice, &c. 
 And the thirteen times that Jesus is supposed to be called God, 
 when examined, dw Indies down to one or two ; and in those 
 one or two the word is applied, not in the highest sense, but in 
 the same sense as it is applied to Solomon . 
 
 3. To be orthodox, they ought to call Christ the God-man, 
 or the man -God. And yet they simply called him a man. 
 
 4. To be orthodox, they should state that Christ has two 
 natures — that he possesses the properties of God united with 
 the properties of man ; that he says some things as God, and 
 some as man ; and that he does some things as God, and some 
 as man. And yet the Scriptures never give the slightest hint 
 about his two natures ; nor ever once tell us that he speaks 
 and does some things as man, and some things as God. 
 
 5. In order that the Scriptures might be orthodox, they 
 ought not to say that the Father was incarnate ; that the Fa- 
 ther dwelt in the man Christ Jesus : they ought to say that the 
 Father remained in heaven, and that it was God the Son that 
 became incarnate, and dwelt in Christ, and taught the doc- 
 trines, and did the works. Whereas the Scriptures always 
 speak of the Father as dwelling in Christ ; and never give us 
 a hint that another person, called God the Sen , dwelt in him. 
 So that the Scriptures, if they prove any form of the Godhead 
 of Christ, prove the Swedenborgian doctrine, that Christ is the 
 only God ; and not the orthodox theory of three Gods or per- 
 sons. They tell us that there is but one God, and, they tells us 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 357 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 tliat that one God dwelt in Jesus. And supposing Christ was 
 God, it only proves that Jesus was the only God, and not that 
 there are three persons in one God. 
 
 6. To be orthodox, the Scriptures should represent Christ as 
 strong enough, and wise enough, in consequence of God the Son 
 dwelling in him, to teach right doctrine, and to do wonderful 
 works of himself. And yet the Scriptures always represent 
 -Christ as unable to do any thing of himself. They teach us, 
 that he derived his wisdom, his power, his wonderful works 
 and his doctrine, all from the Father . They speak of him as if 
 he had no strength of himself, as if he must have God the Fa- 
 ther both to teach him his doctrine, to form for him his plans, 
 and do the works. 
 
 7. To be orthodox, they should contain as many directions 
 
 to pray to the trinity, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, 
 as to the Father ; and they should contain as many examples of 
 prayer to the trinity, to Christ, and to the Holy Ghost, as to 
 the Father. But they do no such thing. J esus simply say s 
 we are to pray to the Father . “ When ye pray, say, Our Fa- 
 
 ther,” &c. He never tells us to pray to himself \ or to the Holy 
 Spirit, or to the trinity. And he never prayed to the Holy 
 Ghost, or paid Adoration to the trinity himself. I say he never 
 tells us to pray to himself ; but he did once say, 64 In that day 
 ye shall ask me nothing but 44 whatsoever ye shall ask the 
 Father in my name, he will give it you.” He forbade prayer, 
 therefore, to himself : lie never commanded it to be offered to 
 the Holy Ghost: he always prayed, and always taught us to 
 pray to the Father, and yet my opponent would attempt to 
 make the Scriptures, forsooth, teach orthodoxy ! 
 
 8. Again ; to be orthodox, the Scriptures should never speak 
 of Christ as a man , without some qualification . My opponent 
 dare not call Christ a man, and leave it there. Tie thinks that 
 such a way of speaking would wrong Jesus. He will have him 
 to be man as to one part of his nature only. — He therefore calls 
 him man-God, and God-man. But is that Scripture language ? 
 Nay ; the Scriptures speak of him as a man constantly, and 
 that without any qualification whatever : 44 There is one medi- 
 ator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 
 
 9. To be orthodox, the Scriptures, when they speak of Christ 
 as inferior to the Father, ought to qualify the words, and say 
 that he is inferior to the Father only in one of his natures, or in 
 liis official capacity. But they do not. They declare his infe- 
 riority without qualification ; they speak of him as absolutely 
 dependent upon God for everything. They never give a hint 
 that he is equal with God. I am aware that one or two pas- 
 sages are quoted as if they proved this : but when they come 
 to be examined, they are found to prove equality in authority 
 only, just as an ambassador is for the time being equal in autho- 
 rity or power with the prince by whom he is employed. Eu t the 
 Scriptures also teach us that Christ’s authority was derived from 
 God, — that he had it not of himself, but from his Father. 
 
358 MR. BARKER. [^EIGHTH 
 
 10. Again; to be orthodox, the Scriptures should never speak 
 of Jesus Christ as being ignorant of any thing, without telliiig 
 us that this ignorance referred simply to part of himself only. 
 But instead of that they represent him as saying, without 
 any such qualification, 46 Of that day and hour knoweth no 
 man ; no, not the angels in heaven ; nor the Son ; but the Fa- 
 ther only «” 
 
 11. To he orthodox, the Scriptures ought, when they use the 
 word God, to apply it equally to the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Ghost. The word God should not he used in such a way as if 
 only one of three persons in the Godhead was God. They 
 ought never to use the word of one only, as if it belonged to 
 him alone, or as if there was hut one alone, who is God. Yet 
 they do do this, quite commonly. They say, “ The grace of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of 
 the Holy Ghost, be with you.” “ God , and our Lord Jesus 
 Christ.” 44 One God, one Lord,” &c. 
 
 12. Again ; to be orthodox, when Christ is said to have been 
 sent from Heaven , to be in Heaven , &c., it should not be as the 
 Son of man 9 but as God the Son . Yet, 44 God the Son is a 
 name that is never once applied to him ; while he is regularly 
 called the Son of man, when spoken of as coming from God, 
 from Heaven, &c. 
 
 [Some confusion here occurred, by parties endeavouring to 
 leave the room, and the calls made upon them to stop, and allow 
 the discussion to proceed.] 
 
 Mr. Gilmore Let them retire. They have as much right 
 to go out, if they wish it, as Mr Barker has to goon. He shall 
 have his time. I will take care of that. Take care of your 
 part of the business, and keep quietness. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — 13. To be orthodox, the New Testament 
 should have Theoi , Gods , answering to Elohim , Gods , in the 
 Old Testament. But it has no such thing. It always uses 
 2heos 9 God . In short, the whole Bible is heterodox; audit 
 would require making entirely over again, to be made to agree 
 and harmonize with the writings of the orthodox Trinitarians. 
 
 There are yet other proofs that the trinity is not true. 1. if 
 Trinitarianism be an essential doctrine, it should have been 
 clearly, expressly revealed ; whereas my opponent declares it is 
 not clearly revealed, but only partly revealed ; and he speaks of 
 it as stiil a mystery . 
 
 2. Again ; essential doctrines should not be left to be inferred 
 by the laborious and uncertain exercise of reason , according to 
 our opponent’s principles ; yet it is by the laborious and mis- 
 directed use of reason alone that the doctrine of the trinity is 
 inferred. It is nowhere plainly taught. It has to be inferred 
 from dark insinuations. It is all reason ; though reason badly 
 employed. 
 
 3. Again ; all revelations of Christian truth should, accord- 
 ing to Christ and Paul, be intelligible ; be such that they may 
 be understood, and commend themselves to people’s judgments. 
 
MR. BARKER, 
 
 359 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 But it is acknowledged by our opponents themselves, that the 
 doctrine of the trinity is not intelligible : and it is plain that 
 it is not even understood by our opponents, or they would ex- 
 plain it. 
 
 4. The doctrine of the trinity is flatly opposed to our reason, 
 the only power which God has given us by ■which to judge of 
 the truth of doctrines. Three persons, three divine beings, 
 three Gods in one God, is a flat contradiction — an absolute im- 
 possibility ; and one might as well believe any falsehood, as be- 
 lieve a falsehood— a doctrine like that. 
 
 5. Again ; all doctrines taught in Scripture can be expressed 
 in Scripture words , according to my opponent’s own account. 
 But the doctrine of the trinity cannot be expressed in Scripture 
 words. Its advocates have been obliged to invent a new word, 
 which neither God nor man had ever heard of before. 
 
 6. Again ; the mere fact that such a multitude of new words 
 and phrases have had to be invented to describe the doctrine 
 of the trinity, looks suspicious ; and it is a proof that the 
 doctrine, falsely so called, is a creation of men’s — an ugly pro- 
 duction of priests or idle philosophers. The custom of darkening 
 counsel by words without knowledge, is three thousand years 
 old. And whenever we find people inventing words which' they 
 cannot explain, in order to express a doctrine, we may always 
 rest assured that there is some plain truth which they want to 
 make mysterious ; or some falsehood which they want us to take 
 as truth, under the name of a mystery. 
 
 7. Again ; the words trinity , three persons in one God , triune 
 God , and the like, have always been objected to, or acknow- 
 ledged to be objectionable, even by numerous Trinitarians. 
 But once let all these objectionable words go, and the doctrine 
 will go too ; and men will be prepared to understand Scripture 
 truth, as a matter of course ; they will see it without a veil, and 
 acknowledge only one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 8. Again ; Christ never preached a trinity, nor did he ever 
 preach his own Godhead, or the Godhead of the Holy Ghost ; 
 yet he preached the Gospel . The truth, therefore, is, that the 
 trinity forms no part of the Gospel. 
 
 9. The apostle Paul never preached a trinity ; yet he also 
 preached the Gospel, and preached it as Christ taught it to 
 him ; which is another proof that the trinity is no part of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 10. A departure from the doctrine of the trinity, or from the 
 doctrine of the Godhead of Christ, is never foretold as one of 
 the heresies that would accompany the apostacy. — And yet the 
 denial of these doctrines did prevail to a great extent. 
 
 1 1 . The apostles never wrote against the denial of the trinity, 
 or of the supreme Godhead of Christ, as they wrote against 
 other ancient heresies ; so that it cannot have been regarded by 
 them as a heresy. 
 
 12. The Scriptures never teach us to be on our guard against 
 
860 MR. BARKER. | EIGHTH 
 
 misunderstanding tlie trinity — never guard us against the error 
 of supposingfthe three persons to be three Gods. — And yet such 
 a caution would have been essential, if they had taught such a 
 doctrine as the trinity. Trinitarians find it exceedingly neces- 
 sary to guard people on this head. And after all their guard- 
 ing, most of those who believe in the trinity, believe in three 
 Gods. I have met with orthodox persons who have acknow- 
 ledged that they could not understand the difference between 
 three persons, and three Gods ; and I have met with a number 
 of orthodox persons at different times, who said they did believe 
 in three Gods. I am persuaded that those who think of the 
 matter, and who do believe in the trinity, think of three Gods ; 
 and that they cannot think of less. 
 
 13. The doctrines that Jesus is the Christ , the Messiah , and 
 that we should love one another , and do good, are taught and in- 
 culcated, time after time, in the plainest words imaginable, and 
 urged in every variety of form. How, then, can we believe 
 that other essential principles are left wrapt up in the dark, to 
 be groped after and guessed at without one plain passage to 
 guide us? If we believed that the doctrine of the trinity was 
 equally fundamental with these doctrines, we should expect to 
 find it plainly stated at least once— nay, inculcated a hundred 
 times. Yet it is not once stated. It is not, therefore, any part 
 of the Gospel. 
 
 I come now to my opponent’s arguments for the Divinity of 
 Christ, contained in the same tracts. 
 
 He says Christ is called God in John L, 1, — <£ In the begin- 
 ning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
 Word was God.” I answer, there is no proof whatever that 
 the “ Word,” there, refers to Jesus Christ. On the contrary, 
 there is the fullest proof that it refers to God the Father. The 
 word literally means reason, or wisdom . The apostle is speaking 
 against a trinity. A trinity doctrine, borrowed from Plato, be- 
 gan early to creep in among the professors of Christianity. The 
 doctrine was, that while there was one God, who kept aloof from 
 creation, in mysterious concealment, there was another God, or 
 divine being, called the logos, who was employed by the first 
 God, who was not with him in his concealment, but separate 
 from God, nearer to men, and that he was, nevertheless, a God, 
 though not the true God, but was created by God. Against 
 this pre vailing notion John seems to have been writing, when 
 he tells us, that in the beginning was the logos, or the reason, 
 and that it existed with God ; and that it was never created, as 
 some fancied, but was with him from the beginning, not occu- 
 pying a different place, or having a different nature ; that it was 
 God — God’s mind, wisdom, or reason, and not a different per- 
 son ; and that this wisdom of God, which was God, the one 
 God, became flesh, not literally, for the Godhead cannot be 
 turned into flesh and blood. (Disapprobation.) My oppo- 
 nent himself will not tell you that God became flesh literally ; 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 361 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 even he, as well as the ancient Trinitarians, would tell you, 
 that to believe that the Godhead was literally turned into flesh, 
 would be a great heresy. The meaning is, as the latter part 
 of the text shows, that God dwelt in flesh, tabernacled in the 
 man Christ Jesus , and manifested his glory to mankind through 
 him. 
 
 Another passage he quoted is Heb. i., 8, — 44 Thy throne, 0 
 God, is for ever and ever : a sceptre of righteousness is the 
 sceptre of thy kingdom.” Now just read the next verse, and 
 see whether Jesus is called there the true God : — 44 Thou hast 
 loved righteousness, and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even thy 
 God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fel- 
 lows” Here Jesus is said to have fellows , or equals. God takes 
 him from among his equals, and anoints him with the oil of 
 gladness above them. What for? Because he loved righteous - 
 ness , and hated iniquity. A nd yet this is the being whom we 
 are taught by my opponent to believe is the true God. I ob- 
 serve, farther, that the quotation in the 8th verse is from the 
 45th Psalm, where the words are addressed to Solomon, and 
 mean simply, 44 Thy throne, 0 Prince , is for ever and ever : a 
 sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” Jesus 
 is here addressed as God ; but, as we have seen, 44 God ” is ap- 
 plied to princes , sons of princes, and others, and is repeate ly 
 used in the Old Testament in this sense. 1 may also observe, 
 that the passage has been read 44 God is thy throne,” by 
 some. 
 
 The next passage is John xx ,28, where Thomas says, — “ My 
 Lord and my God.” Now, 1. Thomas does not say that he 
 considered Jesus to be God. That is a mere inference of theo- 
 logians. 2. Christ’s Godhead was not the tiling in question. 
 The only point in question was, whether Christ had been raised 
 from the dead. 3. Christ never proposed to prove that he was 
 God, but only that he had risen. Hence it was that he said, 
 44 Reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side, &c., and be 
 not faithless, but believing.” And this evidence — namely, 
 placing his hand to the side of Jesus, &c., convinced Thomas, 
 it was the very kind of evidence to prove Christ’s resurrection, but 
 not his Godhead . How could the feeling of flesh and bones 
 convince Thomas that Jesus was God? It convinced him that 
 he was a real person, not a spirit ; and that he was a man, and 
 had been raised from the dead. And that was all Thomas wanted 
 to be convinced of. lienee Je^us says, 44 Because thou hast seen 
 thou hast believed,” — not his Godhead, but his resurrection. 
 4. Thomas’s words, 44 My Lord and my God,” are in truth an 
 exclamation of surprise, according to the invariable custom 
 of eastern nations. Rammohun Roy? an Asiatic, says this 
 mode of exclamation is universal among the Jews, and Arabs, 
 and people in the east generally. 44 My Lord ! and my God! 
 this is indeed the fact. It is indeed the Saviour.” And thus 
 
 Q 
 
362 MR. BARKER. [EIGHTH 
 
 explained and understood, the meaning' of the whole account is 
 rational and consistent. 
 
 My opponent’s next proof is, that Christ is called Emmanuel. 
 I answer ; supposing that he was called Emmanuel, the person 
 horn in Isaiah's time was called Emmanuel aiso, even according 
 to Wm. Cooke’s own showing, so that this could be no proof 
 that Christ was God, but only that God was with him. 
 
 He then quotes the words, 44 God was manifest in the flesh.” 
 To this we reply, in the first place, that the reading is spu- 
 rious : but, secondly, if it were not so, it would not prove that 
 Christ was God, hut only that God was manifested through him; 
 just as he was manifested to the world before, through his works, 
 only more fully and clearly ; and as he is manifested in all good 
 men,- who have the same spirit of love and benevolence, and who 
 live to do good to mankind. 
 
 lie says, the fact that Jehovah should condescend to veil his 
 glory in human flesh, is the great mystery . 1 reply, Jehovah 
 never did veil his glory in flesh ; he revealed it — or unveiled it. 
 It was not to hide himself that he came into the flesh, but to 
 manifest himself. And thus revealing his glory through Jesus 
 Christ is no mystery at all to us. 
 
 The next passage quoted, is Isaiah xl., 3, — 44 Prepare ye the 
 way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for 
 our God and this passage, says my opponent, is applied to 
 Christ, proving him to be our God. Now to prepare the way 
 for Jehovah, and to prepare the way for his representative, or 
 son, are one and the same tiling. It does not therefore follow, 
 that because the way of Christ is the way of God, that Christ 
 is God. That which is done for God’s prophets, or messen- 
 gers, or people, is frequently represented as done for God ; but 
 we do not conclude from that, that all God’s prophets or 
 messengers are God himself. These are frail proofs indeed, 
 for Trinitarian doctrines to rest upon. [“Your time is up,” 
 was here twice or thrice asserted in the meeting, followed by 
 calls 64 to order.”"] 
 
 lie refers to another passage in Isaiah, stating that a child 
 W'ould he born, which should be called 44 the mighty God.” 
 I reply, 1 . the name translated mighty God , means mighty 
 Prince, oy Prince Devine. The same name is given to one of 
 the princes of the angels, Gabriel. Gabriel , and el Gabur , 
 are the same words, only differently placed ; hut his having 
 that name, does not prove Gabriel to be the true God. it is 
 common in Scripture to give such names to creatures. They 
 are names given to people, not as descriptive of their own cha- 
 racter, hut of the relation m which they stand to God. Elijah 
 means, my God Jehovah ; not that he was God Jehovah. 2. 
 The woriis, everlasting Father, are interpreted by some eminent 
 critics, Father of the everlasting age, or the durable age. But 
 3. theie is no proof that this passage refers to Christ at all. It 
 
MR. barker: 
 
 363 
 
 night.] 
 
 is applied by some, both Trinitarians and others, to TTezekiah ; 
 and is proved to belong to him by Rammohun Hoy and others. 
 4. The idea that a child which was to be born, could be 
 the mighty God, is preposterous lie could be called so, like 
 Gabriel: but the child could not be God. [About this 
 time Mr. Grant intimated, in an under tone, that Mr. Bar- 
 ker’s time was up. lie was probably not heard, for Mr. B. 
 proceeded.] 
 
 My opponent says Paul designates our Lord 44 The great 
 God.” Quoting the passage, 44 Looking for that blessed hope,, 
 and the glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ and contending that the title, 44 The Great 
 God,” refers to Christ, he says that I know that a certain rule 
 in Greek grammar requires this inteipretation. 1 answer, no 
 such thing. 1 know the contrary . The rule of Greek gram- 
 mar, to which he refers, does not require the translation which 
 he gives ; but, on the contrary, requires the present translation. 
 The rule to which he refers has various exceptions, and one 
 of these exceptions is to this effect, that where attributives ar 
 of such a nature, as to render it manifestly incompatible for 
 both to belong to the same thing, — where the application of the 
 rule would involve a contradiction in terms, the article is not re- 
 quired. And any individual may see that the propertiesof God and 
 man, Creator and creature, are incompatible, and that it is im- 
 possible that the man jesus Christ could be the great god. My 
 opponent tells you, that Je^us had both the properties of man 
 and God. how it is true that every good man has some proper- 
 ties of God, such as benevolence, and wisdom. But to say that 
 any man has all the properties of God and man, is a monstrous 
 assertion. One property of God is eternity ; a property of man 
 is, that he is not eternal. God knows all things ; man only 
 some things : and one single being cannot possess these opposite 
 properties — cannot be universally wise, and at the same time 
 partially ignorant. 
 
 He refers to 1 John, verses 19, 20, to prove that Jesus is 
 the true God. The passage proves the contrary. I will read 
 the pa>sage. John says, — 44 YVe know that we are of God, 
 and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And we know that 
 the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, 
 that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that 
 is true, in or by his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, 
 and eternal life.” 
 
 [The speaker was here interrupted by remarks of 44 Time’s 
 up,” from Mr. Cooke, (who spoke privately to his chairman,) 
 Mr. Grant, and others ; which were answered by applause on 
 the part of his friends. The meeting forthwith became 
 noisy ; and gave rise to the interference of Mr. Barker’s chair- 
 man.] 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — Just permit me, for one moment. I think 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 364 
 
 [eighth 
 
 it quite wrong in any individual, or in any number of indi- 
 vidual?, so to interrupt the peace of the meeting, without first 
 ascertaining whether Mr. Barker has had his time by some legal 
 decision. (Interruption.) If I am placed in this chair, to see 
 justice done between the parties, 1 do expect that, at the least, 
 I shall be allowed to stand upon my own defence, and be allow- 
 ed a hearing before you condemn me. 1 do declare that Mr. 
 Barker had between four and five minutes to speak when he 
 was interrupted, i say this distinctly ; and I say, further, that 
 Mr. Barker had not consumed his time by a minute and a half, 
 when Mr. Grant interrupted him, after receiving an intimation 
 from Mr. Cooke. It is the worst of all examples to have any 
 such manifestations on the platform, because they preclude the 
 meeting from giving due attention to the other party. 
 
 Mr. Grant -I beg to speak in my own defence. I regret 
 that any difference should have arisen between myself and Mr. 
 Barker’s chairman, whose conduct, upon the whole— [Cries of 
 “ Speak up.”] I again say, 1 am exceedingly sorry that any such 
 trifling difference should have occurred bet ween myself and Mr. 
 Barker’s chairman, whose conduct 1 have generally approved 
 of ; but I must give it as my decided opinion that Mr. Barker’s 
 time was up when I first interposed, which was before Mr. 
 Cooke spoke to me. I followed the watch before me ; and I 
 declare that I have acted distinctly and honourably by both 
 parties. ( applause ; and cries of 66 JNo “ Cooke told you 
 “ Cooke had no business with it.”) 
 
 Mr. Barker 1 also followed my watch, and I know my 
 time is not up ; and I shall feel bound to speak until I have 
 concluded it. My friends — (Interruption.) If 1 stay till 12 
 o’clock, I shall consider it my duty to have my time up. (Loud 
 applause and hissing.) The time is not a matter of much mo- 
 ment ; but under present circumstances 1 shall claim it. 1 have 
 a few words more to say, before I conclude. 1 . John could not 
 call Jesus the true God, without contradicting Christ ; for Jesus 
 says the Father is the only true God. “And this is life eternal,” 
 sa} 7 s he, “that they might know thee to be the only true God, 
 and Jesus to be the Christ,” the messenger o\ the only true God,— 
 “ Whom thou hast sent.” 2. The passage admits of a far 
 different and more consistent interpretation. Its meaning is, 
 that he is the true God whom Jesus Christ revealed ; and it is 
 thus interpreted even by eminent Trinitarians. 
 
 My opponent referred to Romans ix., 5, to prove that Christ 
 is God over all. But the more probable reading is, “God who 
 is over all, be blessed for ever representing Jesus who, as con- 
 cerning the flesh, descended from David, as a separate being 
 from God, who is over all, blessed for ever. Hence some com- 
 mentators stop after the words “as concerning the flesh Christ 
 came,” and make what follows an entirely new sentence. 
 
 He says Jesus is called Jehovah our righteousness. I answer, 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. 365 
 
 Elijah is called Jehovah ray God ; and in Jeremiah xxxiii , 16, 
 Jerusalem is called “ Jehovah our righteousness.” 
 
 He says, Christ is called Lord, which means Jehovah. But 
 God is said to have made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Did 
 he make him J.hovahl Paul says, “ One Lord,” and “ one 
 God , even the Father.” Is Christ Jehovah, and yet the 
 Father alone God? Or is there a Jehovah distinct from God 
 the Father ? 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — Time is now up, Sir. 
 
 Mr. Barker : I leave these remarks with you. (Applause 
 and hissing.) 
 
 Reporter’s Note : — As the impression appeared to be general among 
 Mr. Barker’s frie ds, (and to be also the occasion of much excitement,) 
 that Mr. Grant did not intimtte his opinion that time was up before Mr. 
 Cooke spoke to him, it may not be improper for the Reporter, — particu- 
 larly as lie was sitting as umpire, though not appealed to on the point,-— to 
 state distinctly, that Mr Grant did give the intimation a minute or two 
 before Mr. Cooke addressed him, apparently reminding Mr Grant of what 
 he had already stated. The Reporter ne j d scarcely add that the remark 
 “ time’s up,” was one to which he was peculiarly attentive. The differ- 
 ence between the chairmen, as to time, appeared to arise from Mr. Gilmore 
 making allowances for the intervals of interruption which occurred while 
 Mr. Barker was speaking — a right which both disputants repeatedly claim- 
 ed to exercise. 
 
 END OF EIGHTH NIGHT’S DISCUSSION. 
 
366 
 
 NINTH NIGHT. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1845. 
 
 The disputants were welcomed as usual; and at seven o’clock 
 business commenced by 
 
 Mr. Grant observing, — Christian Friends: I now rise once 
 more to call your attention to the subject about to be consider- 
 ed, and to present Mr. Cooke again to your notice : and in 
 doing so, I would again urge upon you the great advantage of 
 quietness. All the noise that took place last night, near the 
 close of the discussion, was the result of a difference of opinion 
 asto the minutes of time lost by the interruptions you made. 
 Now let your experience tell upon this subject ; and let me be- 
 seech your attention and quietude. Without iurther remark, 
 I now introduce Mr. Cooke to your notice. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Mr. Chairman, and Christian Friends, — Before 
 I proceed with my positive evidence in favour of the Divinity of 
 our blessed Lord and Saviour, 1 must notice some ol the remarks 
 made by my ^opponent ; and i shall endeavour to take them as 
 orderly as possible. 
 
 There still appears to be some misunderstanding with regard 
 to the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. I adverted to this 
 topic last evening, and requested Mr. Barker to state his views 
 fully and candidly: and 1 also expressed the pleasure which I 
 should feel in listening to a full statement of his views with re- 
 gard to the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. He told you 
 that he believed they were divinely inspired; but then it ap- 
 pears to me that he attaches his own peculiar meaning to the 
 term inspiration. r l hat inspiration he still reduces to “ common 
 sense” And as for the Bible being an infallible guide, he places 
 the writings of Priestley and Mahomet by its side, as being also 
 infallible guides. 
 
 Now, what is the sentiment of Dr. Priestley with regard to the 
 inspiration of the Holy Scriptures? Attend to the fallovVing 
 statement: — “Not that I consider the books of Sciipture as 
 inspired , and, on that account, entitled to this high degree of 
 respect, but as authentic records of the dispensations of God to 
 mankind, with every particular of which we cannot be too well 
 acquainted.” 
 
 In this paragraph the Doctor states plainly he docs not con- 
 sider the books of Scripture inspired. He further observes, — 
 “ If you wish to know what, in my opinion, a Christian is 
 bound to believe with respect to the Scriptures, I answer, that 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 367 
 
 NINTH NIGHT.] 
 
 the hooks which are universally received as authentic , are to he 
 considered as faithful recoids of past transactions, and, especi- 
 ally, the account of the intercourse which the Divine Being has 
 kept up with mankind from the beginning of the world to the 
 time of our Saviour and his apostles. No Christian is answer- 
 able for more than this. The writers of the books of Scripture 
 were men , and therefore fallible; but all that we have to do with 
 them is in the character of historians and ivitnesses of what they 
 heard and saw. Of course their credibility is to be estimated, 
 like that of otherhistorians,” observe the phrase, ‘‘estimated like 
 other historians,” “ viz. from the circumstances in which they 
 wrote, as with respect to their opportunities of knowing the 
 truth of what they relate, and the biasses to which they might 
 be subject. Like all other historians, they were liable to mis- 
 takes with respect to tilings of small moment, because they 
 might not give sufficient attention to them ; and with respect 
 to their reasoning , we are fully at liberty to judge of it, as well 
 as that of any other men, by a due consideration of the proposi- 
 tions they advance, and the arguments they allege. For it by 
 no means follows, because a man has had communications with 
 the Deity for certain purposes, and he may be depended upon 
 with respect to his account of those communications, that he is, 
 in other respects, more wise and knowing than other men.” 
 
 “ You say,” says Dr. Priestley, in his Letters to 3 )r. Price, “that 
 I do not allovvof scriptural authority: but indeed, my friend, you 
 should have expressed yourself with more caution. No man can 
 pay a higher regard to proper scriptural authority, than I do ; 
 but neither 1, nor, I presume, yourself, believe implicitly every 
 thing that is advanced by any writer in the Old or New Testa- 
 ment. I believe all the writers, without exception, to have been 
 men of the greatest probity, and to have been well informed of 
 every thing of consequence, of which they treat ; but, at the 
 same time, 1 believe them to have been men, and consequently 
 fallible , and liable to mistake with respect to things to which 
 they had not given much attention, or concerning which they 
 had not the means of exact information; which 1 take to be 
 the case with respect to the account that Moses has given of the 
 creation, and the fall of man.” 
 
 He also observes, — “ That the books of Scripture were writ- 
 ten by particular divine inspiration, is a thing to which the 
 writers themselves made no pretensions. It is a notion desti- 
 tute of ail proof, and that has done great injury to the evidence 
 of Christianity.” 
 
 Now these are the sentiments of Dr. Priestley. You per- 
 ceive he believes the writers w re fallible men like other histo- 
 rians, liable to mistake themselves, and therefore liable to lead 
 others into mistakes, with regard to the sacred things they re- 
 cord ; and that they are not to be believed in every matter 
 which they relate for our instruction. Now these sentiments 
 are placed side by side with the sacred volume, so far as regards 
 their being an infallible guide ! 
 
368 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 And with regard to Mahomet ; Mr. Barker places the writ- 
 ings of Mahomet also, along with Priestley’s, in company with 
 the Holy Scriptures. Now the following are some of the senti- 
 ments of Mahomet. I quote from page 71 of the Koran, with 
 regard to Fighting: — “ Fight,” says Mahomet, “therefore, for the 
 religion of God, and oblige not any to what is difficult, except 
 thyself: however, excite the faithful to war; perhaps God will 
 restrain the courage of the unbelievers, for God is stronger than 
 they, and more able to punish.” 
 
 And again Mahomet observes, with regard to war, — “ Let 
 them therefore light for the religion of God; who part with the 
 present life in exchange for that which is to come ; for whoso- 
 ever fighteth for the religion of God, whether he be slain or be 
 victorious, we will surely give him a great reward. And what 
 ails you, that ye light not for God’s true religion, and in defence 
 of the weak among men, women, and children ? who say, O 
 Lord ! bring us forth from this city, whose inhabitants are 
 wicked ; grant us from before thee a protector, and grant us 
 from belore thee a defender. They who believe, light for the 
 religion of God; but they who believe not, light for the religion 
 of Taghut. b ight, therefore, against the friends of Satan, for 
 the stratagem of Satan is weak.” 
 
 Mahomet, again, refers to the licence which he gives with re- 
 gard to having a plurality of wives ; and in speaking on that 
 subject he lias the following statement : — “ And if ye fear that 
 ye shall not act with equity towards orphans of the female sex, 
 take in marriage of such other women as please you, two, or 
 three, or four, and not more.” 
 
 And it appears that Mahomet teaches that wives may be put 
 away whenever the husband pleases : — “ And if ye hate them, 
 it may happen that ye may hate a thing wherein God hath 
 placed much good. If ye be desirous to exchange a wife for 
 another wife, and ye have already^ given one of them a talent, 
 take not away any thing therefrom : will ye take it by slander- 
 ing her, and doing her manifest injustice 1” 
 
 Again, the impostor gives a licence for men to take away the 
 wives of other men:— “Ye are also forbidden to take to wife free 
 women who are married, except those women whom your right 
 hand shall possess as slaves, 't his is ordained you from God.” 
 
 These are the sentiments, then, of Mahomet, which I cast my 
 eye upon without looking particularly for them. And you may 
 now judge what may be Mr. Barker s views with regard to the 
 Holy Scriptures, and their inspiration, when he can place these 
 abominable, these detestable, these corrupt, and monstrous 
 statements and teachings side by side with the teachings of 
 Jesus Christ and of his holy Apostles. 
 
 Now these things a Christian audience ought to know, that 
 they may rightly estimate the weight which Mr. Barker 
 attaches to the authority of Scripture. Therefore I would say 
 to this audience, at every pa-sage Mr. Barker quotes, carry 
 in your mind the following facts: — 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 369 
 
 JfXGHT.] 
 
 1. That Mahomet and Priestley are placed side by side by 
 Mr. Barker with the Holy Scriptures, as far as it relates to their 
 being “ an infallible guide.” 
 
 2. That inspiration is reduced by him to “ common sense” 
 
 3. That he says neither Apostles nor prophets have any 
 authority to rule either our faith or our conscience.” 
 
 4. That he supposes contradictions to exist betwixt the teach- 
 ings of Christ and his apostles. 
 
 5. At every passage he quotes to contradict the Deity of Christ, 
 the Miraculous Conception, or any other subject before us, re- 
 member that not long ago he adduced or quoted the same pas- 
 sages i a proof of those doctrines. 
 
 6. Remember, too, that when he did believe those doctrines, 
 he professed a reverence for the sacred Scriptures ; but now he 
 rejects them, he gives the Bible the bad names I have read to 
 you from his own writings. 
 
 7. Remember that when he held those doctrines, he took the 
 Scriptures in their plainest and most obvious sense.’ Now he 
 rejects them, you. are witnesses to the perversions of Scrip- 
 ture which have come before you, from him, during this dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 8. Remember that when he held the doctrines in question, he 
 received the whole Scriptures. Now he rejects these doctrines, 
 he denies large portions which are authenticated by the very 
 standard he had agreed to submit to as decisive. 
 
 9. Remember, too, that as Mr. Barker is changing still, and 
 tells us he does not know what lie shall be in the end, it may 
 be that ere six months pass away, he may quote the same Scrip- 
 tures in proof of the very doctrines he now seeks to undermine . 
 
 10. And remember, also, that he placed the authority of Mar- 
 cion, the most notorious corrupter of the oracles of God that 
 ever appeared upon the face of the earth, in opposition to the 
 whole testimony of history, and in opposition to the whole of 
 the evidence which the writings of the Fathers present to us from 
 the time of the apostles down to the latest ages. 
 
 Now, at every passage which my opponent quotes, just re- 
 member these facts as you pass along. Let them pass through 
 your own minds while he is quoting them, and they will help 
 you to estimate the worth and importance of his interpreta- 
 tions. 
 
 I shall now notice some of Mr. Barker’s observations with 
 regard to doctrine. 
 
 In the first place, I remark that Mr. Barker said I de- 
 nied that Aaron cleansed or purified the people. That is untrue. 
 
 I said that Aaron did not lay his hand on the scape-goat and 
 offer sacrifices lor healing men’s diseases , but to atone for sin. 
 
 He said I never adduced a single passage to show that there 
 was a legal barrier in the way of pardon. That is untrue . I 
 adduced a multitude of passages. 
 
 He said, God always accepted of good affections, whether 
 
 q 3 
 
370 
 
 MR COOKE. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 men attended to sacrifices or not. That , also, is untrue . I refer- 
 red him to Numbers, 5th chapter, and Lev. Gth, where it is 
 shown that even when there were present restitution, repentance, 
 and return to obedience, still sacnlice was imperatively required, 
 and pardon could not be obtained without the performance of the 
 prescribed duty. 
 
 Mr. Barker said that Christ became a propitiation for our sins, 
 that the Gentiles might be put upon an equal footing with the 
 Jews. So, then, Christ died to stop the grumbling of the Jews. 
 AY hat a dignified object, indeed ! 
 
 lie referred to the parable of the husbandmen, the insolvent 
 debtor, and the prodigal, as unfolding the way of salvation. 
 Those parables are forcible illustrations of practical duties ; of 
 the misery of sin ; of God’s willingness to save men : bur they 
 were never designed to unfold the whole gospel, as there is no- 
 thing said in any of them about Christ as the Messiah, any more 
 than of the atonement, or of faith. The apostles preached the 
 gospel to men under the direction of the Holy Ghost ; but they 
 did not repeat those parables as unfolding the whole plan of 
 salvation. 'Ihey preached Jesus as a vicarious sacrifice. Paul 
 was not a whit behind the chief of the apostles ; and he says, 
 writing to the Corinthians, “ For I declared unto you , first of ell , 
 that which 1 also received, how that Christ died for our sins, 
 according to the Scriptures.” 
 
 Mr. Barker says that Griesbach represented the words rrjg 
 vriGTEtog, in Bom. iii., 25, as doubtful. I have shown you 
 that both Griesbach ana Schulz, our own standard, have 
 determined the words to be genuine. What will Mr. Bar- 
 ker say next? And if there be any gentleman present who 
 is anxious to examine both Griesbach and Schulz, 1 have the 
 tw ? o testaments before me, and he is at liberty to enter upon the 
 examination ; and he will find my statement to be correct, 
 
 Mr. Barker said that the martyrs, especially the apostles James 
 and John, the sons of Zebedee, participated with Christ in the 
 intense agony he endured ; and that their sufferings w r ere equal 
 to those of Chiist. lie intimated that I did not understand any 
 thing about martyrs ; that I had not read their history, else I 
 should have known that their sufferings were not external chiefly 
 but internal ; comparing them with the sufferings of Christ. 
 Why, just look at Daniel in the lion’s den ! Look at the faith- 
 ful Hebrew s in the furnace, and listen to their loud acclama- 
 tions and triumphant notes of praise 1 Look at Peter, calmly 
 slumbering between the two keepers of the prison, though lie 
 expected the next day to be brought to execution! Look at 
 Paul, when the gleaming axe was in sight, and he w r as expect- 
 ing speedy martyrdom, and hear his exultation, u 1 have fought 
 a good fight, 1 have finished my course, 1 have kept the faith : 
 henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, 
 which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: 
 and not to me only* but unto all them also thatlove his appearing.” 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 371 
 
 EIGHT.] 
 
 And compare these triumphs in the prospect of martyrdom, 
 with the agony, the groans, the bloody sweat, and the dying 
 wailings of the Son of God ! 
 
 Mr. Barker says the atonement cannot he true, because Christ’s 
 own justice would require satisfaction. But the justice of 
 Christ was the justice of the Father. Christ and the Father 
 are one. Therefore, in satisfying the justice of his Father, he 
 satisfied and honoured his own justice, and that of the Holy 
 Spirit too. (Laughter.) 
 
 My opponent quoted Romans viii., 1-4. That quotation just 
 established the orthodox views of the atonement. For when the 
 condemned sinner exclaims, “ 0 wretched man that I am, who 
 shall deliver me from this body of sin and death,” what is the 
 answer which salutes his ear? “Jesus Christ our Lord,” “who 
 gave himself a ransom for all.” And thus there is “ no con- 
 demnation to them which are in Christ Jesus ;” who have im- 
 bibed the glad tidings ; who have believed in the propitiatory 
 sacrifice, and obtained peace with God. To such there is no 
 condemnation. And having received the glad tidings of mercy in 
 their heart, and having experienced the precious, pardoning love 
 of God, that love enkindles their love to God. They love the Sa- 
 viour with supreme affection ; with all their heart, with all 
 their soul, with ail their mind, and with all their strength: and 
 this love becomes the fulfilling of the law ; and thus, instead 
 of making void the law, their faith establishes the law. Hav- 
 ing first received the atonement, or reconciliation, they become 
 the subjects of a new principle, which nerves the soul for 
 obedience, and makes the will of God their element and de- 
 light. 
 
 My opponent, with a tenacity peculiar to himself — a tenacity 
 which none can imitate, — still insists that God never approved 
 of sacrifices. I would just ask him the following questions: — 
 
 1. Does God approve of what lie positively commands and 
 enjoins ? If so, not less than one thousand times has God posi- 
 tively enjoined them in the books of the Pentateuch. 
 
 2. Does God approve of what he declares himself well pleased 
 with? If he does, in multitudes of instances he declares him- 
 self well pleased with sacrifices. 
 
 3. Does God approve of those duties which he absolutely re- 
 quires, while he threatens punishment and death upon those 
 who neglect them ? If he does, then he approves of sacrifices ; 
 for in numerous instances death was denounced upon those who 
 neglected to attend to them. 
 
 4. Does God approve of that respecting which he gave the 
 most signal manifestations of divine approval? If he does, he 
 must approve of sacrifices ; for, in answer to the sacrifices pre- 
 sented, we read of fire being sent down from heaven to con- 
 sume them : and when the temple and tabernacle were open 
 for his service, for the purpose of offering sacrifice, the places 
 were filled with glory, and the priests were not able to stand 
 to minister before the Lord, for the brightness of the glory. 
 
372 
 
 ME. COOKE. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 Finally, did God approve of those institutions which he had 
 intentionally appointed to shadow forth his own Son’s sacrifice, 
 and which are said to receive their accomplishment in him.? 
 If so, he approved of the victims appointed by himself under 
 the law. 
 
 My opponent says, sacrificial institutions were tolerated only 
 until men were willing to obey. Facts are all against him. In 
 the days of David, and in the early part of Solomon’s reign, 
 and in the period when the tribes of Israel returned from the 
 Babylonish captivity, we have the palmy days of Israel’s obe- 
 dience ; yet then, when men were most willing to obey, sacri- 
 fices were the most 'punctually observed. It was in the days of 
 Jewish degeneracy and disobedience that the service of the tem- 
 ple was neglected. And at last, when sacrifices were done away, 
 It was not at a period when the people were most disposed to 
 obey, but when the Jewish nation was the most deeply sunk in 
 corruption, and ripe, by their iniquities, for the most terrible 
 destruction that ever fell upon a nation. No ! the reason of 
 doing away with sacrifices was rot the improved obedience of 
 the Jewish people, but the death of Christ . It was when he 
 uttered his dying groan on the cross ; it was the very moment 
 when he exclaimed, It is finished ! and gave up the ghost, that 
 the temple’s veil was rent asunder by the invisible hand of Je- 
 hovah ; thus showing that now the end of the Jewish economy 
 was answered— that the sons of Aaron might fold up their 
 robes and retire, for their work was done. The reason for 
 doing away with the ancient institution is explained in one 
 word of Scripture, — “ Christ is the end of the law for righteous- 
 ness to every one that believeth.” 
 
 I shall now answer some of the objections which Mr. Barker 
 urged against the Divinity of Christ. 
 
 I would call upon you to observe how very carefully and how 
 very wisely Mr. Barker omitted to notice all the passages I 
 adduced respecting the pre-existence of the Saviour. We shall, 
 see whether he does the same this evening. If he notice them, 
 you will hear in mind that he told yon before they so plainly 
 taught the doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence and Divinity that 
 no ingenuity of man could explain them away. We shall see 
 what ingenuity he employs ; and I hope you will mark well 
 the ingenuity. Look carefully after it. Just remember his 
 own plain statement throughout the whole of his quoting and 
 interpreting this evening. 
 
 My opponent quoted John i., 1, 2, — “ In the beginning was 
 the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
 God. The same was in the beginning with God.” As he had 
 previously said, w hen he took the Scriptures in their plain and 
 obvious meaning, that he regarded this passage, this important 
 passage, as applying to Christ, I was wondering what he would 
 make of it now , under his new dispensation ; and it turned out 
 just as I had expected — -just as he had himself predicted-— that 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 373 
 
 night.] 
 
 « no ingenuity of man could explain it away.” However unsound 
 as a divine, my opponent proved a true prophet in this instance. 
 33ut let us just, look at his interpretation. He says the Apostle 
 wrote to contradict the Platonic notion that there were persons 
 in the Godhead. But if this was John’s intention, the language 
 he employs just establishes the doctrine of persons in the God- 
 head. For what does the Apostle say ? jNot, as my opponent 
 would assert, and would have taught John to say, had lie been 
 by him, namely, that there is no person but the Father, and 
 that the Father alone is the creator of the world ; — but John 
 says just the contrary ; for he asserts that from the beginning 
 there was another person called the Logos, or Word ; and that 
 THIS WORD WAS WITH GOD ; and that THIS WORD 
 WAS GOD ; and that the world toa.smade by him ; — just esta- 
 blishing the very doctrine which Mr. Barker says John was 
 labouring to overthrow. 
 
 This is the first absurdity on this text. Mr. Barker tries to 
 make it appear that the Logos- was merely an attribute, or the 
 reason of God. Let us test this interpretation. Now, open 
 your Bibles, and follow me, and I will read it as Mr. Barker 
 wishes. 44 in the beginning was the Reason , and the Reason 
 was with God.” That is, one of God’s attributes, forsooth, 
 was with him ! 44 And th q Reason was God. The same Reason 
 
 was in the beginning with God.” Why, we should have 
 thought that God’s reason was with him in the beginning if 
 John had never told us ! Then he goes on : — 44 All things were 
 made by him, by Reason : and without him, Reason, was not 
 anything made that was made. In him, Reason, was life ; and 
 the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in dark- 
 ness ; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man 
 sent from God whose name was J ohn. The same came for a wit- 
 ness, to bear witness of the Light.” John, you know, was a light 
 — a burning and a shining light ; but he had to bear witness to a 
 brighter light, — one emphatically called the 64 True Light.” 
 44 This was the true Light, which lighteth every man that 
 cometh into the world. He was in the world,” Reason was ; 
 44 and the world was made by him, and the world knew him 
 not. Lie came unto his own, and his own received him not. 
 But as many as received him,” that is, Reason ; 44 to them gave 
 he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on 
 his name:” on the name of Reason; 44 which were born, not of 
 blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
 of God. And the Word” — that is, Reason — 44 was made flesh, 
 and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory", the glory as of the 
 only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.” Reason 
 begotten of the Father ! One of God’s attributes begotten of 
 himself! And this, 44 the only begotten.” What profound 
 logic! 44 John bare witness of him,” of Reason; 44 and cried, 
 saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after 
 me” — Reason — 44 is preferred before me: for he was before me. 
 
374 
 
 HR. COOKE. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 And of his fulness” — fulness of Reason ! — “have all we receiv- 
 ed, and grace for grace.” But mark the next passage. “ For 
 the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus 
 Christ.” So that Reason, after all, was Jesus Christ ! 
 
 Come, now, Fll read the passage with the common sense 
 view of it, without this “ ingenuity.” Follow me again, if you 
 please. Here you find Christ designated by his own special 
 title, the Word, or Logos. See Rev. xix., 13, — “And he was 
 clothed with a vesture dipped in blood, and his name is called 
 the Word of God.” He is also called “ The Light ;” “ The true 
 Light “ the only begotten Son of God, in the bosom of the 
 Father.” I resume reading from John: — “In the beginning 
 was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
 God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things 
 were made by him ;” that is, by the Son ; “ and without him 
 was not any thing made that was made. In him,” — that is, 
 the Lord of light and glory — “ was life ; and the life was the 
 light of men. And the light shineth in darkness ; and the dark- 
 ness comprehended it not.” The Light is the Saviour.. Lie 
 says of himself, in another passage, —“ I am the light of the 
 ■world : he that folio weth me shall not walk in darkness, but 
 shall have the light of life.” “ There was a man sent from 
 God, whose name Avas John. The same came for a witness, to 
 bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might 
 believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness 
 of that Light.” John took care never to take glory to himself. 
 John would honour Jesus. John loved the Saviour. He kept 
 close to his own sacred office as the humble herald or forerunner 
 of the Lord of light and glory. “ That was the true Light, 
 which light eth every man that cometh into the world.” You 
 will remember our Lord himself said that he came forth from 
 the Father into the world, and again left it, and went to the 
 Father. “ He was in the world, and the world was made by 
 him, and the world knew him not.” Some people say it Avas 
 merely the spiritual world he made ; that it Avas the Christian 
 economy he founded. Why, the text says, it was the very 
 same world he made that knew him not. “ But as many as 
 received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of 
 God, even to them that believe on his name.” Believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. “ Which were 
 born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will 
 of man, but of God. And the Word Avas made flesh, and dwelt 
 among us.” Agreeably to what Paul says, that he Avas in the 
 form of God, and thought it not robbery, or usurpation, to be 
 equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, and took 
 upon him the form of a servant, and Avas made in the likeness 
 of men. “ The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and 
 we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the 
 Father), full of grace and truth.” 
 
 And so I might proceed. But I am anxious to get forward 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 375 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 with a great deal of important matter that I have to lay before 
 you. Thus, throughout the whole passage, the glorious Logos 
 is a person, not an attribute ; and receives the names which in 
 various other parts of scripture are appropriated to him The 
 Word ; Light ; the true Light ; the only begotten of the 
 Father ; the Son, who is in the bosom of the Father ; and so 
 on. You have seen the glaring absurdity of my opponent’s 
 perversion. 
 
 My opponent refers to John xvi., 3, where our Lord says, — 
 44 And this is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and 
 Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” The term Jesus Christ 
 refers to the human nature of the Saviour, which of course 
 must be acknowledged by men, or they never can be saved. 
 The term God includes the Son, as well as the Father ; for 
 Christ and his Father are one ; and he that hath seen the Son 
 hath seen the Father also. The passage only shows the inti- 
 mate/essential, and eternal union between the Father and the 
 Son ; for 44 he is in the Father, and the Father in him.” And 
 St. John says, 44 he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath 
 both the Father and the Son. (2 John, 0.) But whoso denieth 
 the Son, the same hath not the Father. Let that therefore 
 abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If 
 that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in 
 you, ye shall also continue in the Son, and in the Father. If 
 there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive 
 him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.” 
 
 The term 44 true God”— -the term which I am referring to, 
 as quoted by Mr. Barker, — is applicable to Christ as well as to 
 the Father. See 1 John v., 20,— 44 And we know that the Son 
 of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we 
 may know him that is true.’’ But who is he that is true ? His 
 son, Jesus Christ. 44 And we are in him that is true, even in 
 his son Jesus Christ. THIS IS THE TRUE GOD, AND 
 ETERNAL LIFE.” Here Jesus Christ is distinguished by 
 two titles-— one is, The True God; the other is, Eternal Life . 
 That the pronoun 44 This ” refers to the antecedent 44 Jesus 
 Christ ,” is clearly established both by the laws of grammar, and 
 the sense ; for Jesus Christ is the conspicuous object of the 
 whole passage. The title of 44 Eternal Life” confirms this decision ; 
 for this same title is given to Christ by St. John in a preceding 
 passage. 44 That which was from the beginning, which we have 
 heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have look- 
 ed upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life ; for 
 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, 
 and show unto you that eternal life which was with the 
 Father, and was manifested unto us.” i., 12. Can any thing be 
 more clear than the application of the name Eternal Life to 
 Christ in this passage \ It is he who was with the Father, but 
 who was manifested unto them, whom the Apostles had seen , 
 and whom they had handled , who is here styled 44 Eternal Life .” 
 
376 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 And who was this hut Christ? Thus previously identified, 
 there is no question as to whom the Apostle refers in the sub- 
 sequent passage, when he employs the same designation. The 
 conclusion, therefore, is inevitable; Jesus Christ is called “the 
 tru e God, and eternal Life.” 
 
 My opponent alleges that Christ had fellows ; and that there- 
 fore he cannot be God. He might as well assert that he is man, 
 as man, and therefore cannot be God. That Christ in his 
 human nature had fellows, we at once admit ; for, else, how 
 could he have been made in all things like unto his brethren. 
 But even in reference to his Divine nature, he is spoken of as 
 the Almighty’s fellow. See Zech. xiii., 7,—-“ Awake, 0 sword, 
 against my shepherd, and against the man that is my Fellow, 
 saith the Lord of Hosts: smite the Shepherd, and the sheep 
 shall be scattered.” This accords with the passage which says 
 that he was 64 in the form of God, and equal with God.” 
 Phil. ii. 
 
 My opponent says that the prophecy in Isaiah, 44 Unto us a 
 child is born,” &c. refers to Hezekiah. Now mark this ! It is 
 a monstrous absurdity ; and not only unsupported by any au- 
 thority, but totally opposed to both common sense and Scrip- 
 ture. Let us read the entire passage, and see how it comports 
 with Hezekiah, or any mere man 44 For unto us a child is 
 born, unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon 
 his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Coun- 
 sellor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of 
 Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall 
 be no end ; upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, 
 to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice 
 from henceforth even for ever.” This he applies to Hezekiah ! 
 44 The mighty God is that applicable to Hezekiah? 4 The 
 everlasting Father is that applicable to a creature of a day ? 
 44 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no 
 end is that applicable to Hezekiah? Why, in one hundred 
 years after this prophecy the throne of Hezekiah was overturn- 
 ed, and liis kingdom destroyed ; and there has never been an 
 independent monarch upon the throne from that day to this, a 
 period of above two thousand years! And, vet it is declared 
 of 44 the increase of liis government and his peace there shall 
 be no end !” 
 
 But there is something very happy in Mr! Barker’s absurdi- 
 ties ; for his blunders overturn his arguments, and sap the 
 very foundation of his theory. The mighty God, lie says, means 
 Gabriel. Before, it meant Hezekiah ; then, the next moment, 
 it means Gabriel. But was Hezekiah the angel Gabriel ; or 
 was Gabriel the man Hezekiah? He reasons away about 
 identity when debating the persons in the Godhead ; but he can 
 sacrifice identity, as well as all logic, philosophy, and common 
 sense, to suit his theory. The passage may mean Gabriel* or 
 Hezekiah, or any person else, if we will only keep Christ out 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 377 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 of the way. But the person here spoken of was to he horn. 
 Was Gabriel ever horn? Was David the father of Gabriel? 
 Did Gabriel ever sit upon the throne of David? What mon- 
 strous absurdities ! which need only to be mentioned to be ex- 
 ploded into a thousand fragments. 
 
 Besides, the word is not Gabriel. It is quite a different word. 
 The word Gabriel is formed in a different way. 1 he one is 
 Gabriel ; but the word in the text is 6 A1 
 
 Gabor/ But since the passage will not apply to Hezekiah, or to 
 Gabriel, let us see if it will apply to our blessed Lord. 44 Unto 
 us a child is born.” Thank God ! he was born, and of the vir- 
 gin too. 44 Unto us a Son is given.” Blessed be God ! he was 
 given. 44 And the government shall be upon his shoulder.” 
 Yes I he is raised to the right hand of God, in imperial majesty, 
 as the mediatorial governor of the earth. 44 And he shail be 
 called Wonderful, Counseller, The Mighty God, The everlasting 
 Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his govern- 
 ment and peace there shall be no end.” He shall reign until all 
 the ends of the earth shall see his salvation, and the kings of 
 Sheba shall offer gifts, yea all kings shall bow down before him, 
 and all nations shall serve him ; for he must reign until he has 
 put ail enemies under his feet : and his glory is everlasting. 
 
 My opponent says that the Scriptures teach the inferiority of 
 Christ. We know, that. In his human nature, he is inferior. 
 In his official character, he assumed an inferior capacity, for he 
 became Mediator. But inferiority of office does not imply in- 
 feriority of nature. The Prime Minister of this realm has an 
 inferior office to her Majesty ; but has he an inferior nature ? 
 Mr. Barker has an inferior office to her Majesty ; but does he 
 think he is inferior in nature to her Majesty ? An ambassador 
 has an inferior office to the sovereign ; but has he an inferior 
 nature ? Judge ye. 
 
 My opponent quotes the passage where the Saviour says, 
 44 My Father is greater than 1.” Yes, greater in glory, because 
 Christ had then laid aside his glory, and, as the Apostle says, 
 had then 44 made himself of no reputation.” The context explains 
 the meaning. Christ says, 44 If ye loved me, ye would rejoice be- 
 cause 1 said I go to my Father, for my Father is greater than 
 1.” The ground for their joy explains the whole. Christ was 
 then in his humbled and inferior state, for us. Ilis Father, 
 therefore, was greater than he in glory. But the Redeemer 
 was about to leave the world, and enter into his glory — 44 the 
 glory which he had with the Father before the world was,” 
 when he thought it no usurpation to be equal with God. On 
 this account, therefore, the apostles, if they loved him, ought to 
 rejoice ; — his Father being greater than he, in his present con- 
 dition ; and he about to be exalted to his throne. Therefore, if 
 they loved him, they ought to rejoice at his going to his Father. 
 
 My opponent says that Christ could not be God because he 
 did not know the period of the day of judgment. But if this 
 
378 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 argument he valid, it would, on Mr. Barker’s principle, — 
 Mark ! his own principle, one of his own precious truths in the 
 10th Christian, — it would, on his own principle, undeify the 
 Father ; for there Mr. Barker affirms that God does not know 
 contingent actions. He says the Father did not know whether 
 Jesus would be the Christ or a profligate; and that God the 
 Father no more foreknows the character of any man than his 
 own parents do. But the word means, not only to know, 
 but also to make known . See 1 Cor. ii., 2. The passage before 
 us may mean that it was not the province of the Redeemer’s 
 ministry, nor of the ministry of angels, to make known that 
 event ; but the Father would make it known by his providence 
 in the event itself. Or the passage may mean that the Divine 
 nature or Godhead , implied in the term Father , had not re- 
 vealed it unto the human nature of the man Christ Jesus. 
 Nor is this any more opposed to the true Godhead of Christ 
 than the fact that he is said to have grown in wisdom, and in 
 stature, and in favour with God and man. The circumstance 
 simply proves that he was man as well as God. 
 
 My opponent says that Christ was made Lord as well as 
 Christ. 1 call attention to the word 44 made ;" because the in- 
 ference of Mr Barker is that if he were made Lord, he could not 
 be essentially Lord in himself. True, his human nature teas 
 exalted to the authority of Lordship. That is what we main- 
 tain. , But in reference to his Divine nature, he was called Je- 
 hovah many ages before he appeared in the flesh, as we shall 
 shortly see. And therefore he was not. made Lord in that sense, 
 but was essentially Lord and God. 
 
 I shall now proceed with the continuation of my positive 
 proofs of the Godhead of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Mr. Barker states that Christ is only 44 a pious young man 
 but the Apostle Paul calls him “the Blessed God and 64 God 
 over all," Rom. ix,, 5; — “Whose are the fathers, and of whom 
 as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God, 
 blessed for evermore.” Now, mark ; first here is a distinction 
 of his human nature, 44 he came in the flesh secondly, here 
 is a recognition of his Godhead in the two titles, 44 The blessed 
 God and 44 God over all," 
 
 Mr. Barker states that Christ is only “a pious young man," 
 The Apostle Peter says that he is 44 Lord of all," Acts x., 36, 
 — 44 Preaching peace by Jesus Christ : (he is Lord of all.)” St. 
 Paul calls him 44 Lord over all," 44 For the same Lord over all, 
 is rich unto all that call upon him.” Rom. x., 12. The same 
 Apostle calls him “The Lord of Glory.” 44 Which none of the 
 princes of this world knew : for had they known it they would 
 not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” 1 Cor. ii., 8. 
 
 3n the same exalted sense, he is called “ King of Kings , and 
 Lord of Lords,” Rev. xvii., 14; xix. 18, 16, — 44 The Lamb 
 shall overcome them, for he is Lord of Lords, and King of 
 Kings. His name is the Word of God; and he hath on his 
 
NIGHT.] 
 
 MR. COOKE, 
 
 379 
 
 vesture, and on Ills thigh a name written, King of Kings and 
 Lord of Lords.” In Acts xx., 28, he is called God. “ Feed the 
 church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” 
 1 am aware there is a variety in the reading of this passage ; 
 snmp rpiirlincr u flhnrrdi of the Ford;” others reading, “ The 
 
 others, “ The church of 
 
 God, as m the received text. But Schulz, whose book 
 is before me, and who is a more weighty authority than 
 Giiesbach, retains the received reading. The Vulgate has it 
 “the Chuicli of God;” the Arabic, “the Church of the 
 Lord God.” The received text is very probably correct, as it 
 comports with the phraseology of Scripture. Mow, mark! 
 the phrase “ Church of God,” occurs in eleven passages : but the 
 phrase “ Church of the Lord,” occurs nowhere in the Mew 
 Testament. These are weighty reasons for the received reading 
 being genuine. 
 
 In 1 Timothy, iii., 1G, Christ is called God . “ And without 
 
 controversy great is the mystery of godliness : God was mani- 
 fest in the flesh.” I know there is a various reading in Gries- 
 bach ; but the received text is admitted by Schulz ; and i am 
 prepared to prove it genuine, when Mr. Barker states his rea- 
 sons for excepting it. 
 
 Mr. Barker saj s that Christ is only “ a pious young man 
 but the Scriptures declare that he is Jehovah. In Zech. xii., 
 10, thus speaks Jehovah : — “ And I will pour out upon the 
 house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the 
 spirit of grace and of supplications : and they shall look upon 
 ME whom they have pierced.” St. John seems to have had his 
 eye upon this prophecy when, speaking of our Lord, he says, 
 “ Behold, he cometh with clouds ; and every eye shall see him, 
 and they also which pierced him : and all kindreds of the earth 
 shall wail because of him.” It was Christ who was pierced; 
 and the prophet calls him Jehovah. 
 
 Numerous passages in the Old Testament , where Jehovah is 
 spoken of, \ are quoted in the /• ew Testament , and expressly applied 
 to our Saviour. Fsalm ixviii., — “ Thou hast ascended on high, 
 thou hast led captivity captive : thou hast received gifts for 
 men ; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord God might 
 dwell among them,” that JEHOVAH God might dwell 
 among them. “Blessed be the Lord,” blessed be JEHO- 
 VAH, “ who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our 
 salvation.” Mow, in this passage, he who ascended on high, and 
 led captivity captive, is called JEHOVAH ; but this passage is 
 applied to Christ by St. Paul. Hence he says, in Eph. iv., be- 
 ginning at the 8th verse, — “ Wherefore he saith, when he 
 ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts 
 unto men. (Mow that he ascended, what is it but that lie also 
 descended first unto the lower parts of the earth? He that 
 descended is the same also that ascended up far above all 
 heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some. 
 
380 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and 
 some, pastors and teachers.” This so clearly speaks of the 
 burial and resurrection of Christ as to defy all perverted inge- 
 nuity to give it another meaning. Blit he who is thus described 
 is called Jehovah God. Yet Mr, Barker says he is only a 
 pious young man ! Y~ou have, therefore, only to take your 
 choice which you will believe, — Mr. Barker, or the Apostle 
 Paul and the Psalmist David. 
 
 In ! lebrewsi., 10, the same Apostle quotes a passage from the 
 102nd Psalm, and applies it to Christ, saying, “Thou Lord in the 
 beginning has laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens 
 are the work of thine hands but in the Psalm from which 
 this is quoted, this Glorious Being is denominated Jehovah not 
 less than eight times. Thus proving that Christ laid the foun- 
 dation of the earth, and created the heavens. 11 e is also described 
 as Jehovah ; and none but Jehovah could lay the foundation of 
 the heavens and the earth. It is a work which Deity every 
 where challenges as his own work. 
 
 Christ is also called Jehovah of Hosts. The Apostle Paul, in 
 his first epistle, 2nd chapter, 8th verse, speaks of Christ as “ a 
 stone of stumbling and a rock of offence,” but this is a quota- 
 tion from Isaiah viii., 14, where this stone of stumbling is said 
 to be Jehovah of Hosts. “ Sanctify Jehovah of Hosts himself, 
 and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he 
 shall be for a sanctuary ; but for a stone of stumbling, and for 
 a rock of offence.” Seven times is the sacred name of Jehovah 
 used in this chapter ; and the melancholy history of the Jew- 
 ish nation shows us in what respect Jehovah Christ was a 
 stumbling block to them, and presents a fulfilment of this pro- 
 phecy awfully true to the very letter. 
 
 Isaiah beheld the glory of Jehovah Christ in his pre-existent 
 state. Now just bear in mind what our blessed Saviour said, — 
 “ Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be 
 with me where I am ; that they may behold my glory, which 
 thou hast given me : for tiiou lovedst me before the foundation 
 of the world ;” and, of course, before all succeeding ages. See, 
 then, his glory. Just look at the opened heaven described by 
 the prophet, and gaze upon the Son of God ! “In the year 
 that king Uzziah died 1 saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, 
 high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it 
 stood the seraphims : each one had six wings ; with twain he 
 covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with 
 twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, 
 holy, holy, is Jehovah of Hosts : the whole earth is full of his 
 glory.” But how do we know that this Glorious Being was 
 Christ? (Slight interruption.) Let me have attention. How 
 do we know that this was Christ ? The Apostle John is our 
 authority. John, quoting from this very prophecy respecting 
 the blindness of the Jews in rejecting the Saviour, says. 
 “ These things said Esaias when he saw his glory, and spake of 
 
NIGHT.] 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 331 
 
 him.” John xii., 40, 41. But he whom prophets and apostles call 
 Jehovah of Hosts, Mr. Barker asserts 64 is only the son of 
 Joseph” — a pious young man. You have therefore to choose 
 whether you will believe Mr. Barker, or the word of God. 
 
 What, then, is the evidence before us? That Christ is called 
 God ; our God ; the Lord God ; God with us ; the true God ; 
 the great God ; the mighty God ; The Almighty ; Jehovah ; 
 Jehovah God ; Jehovah of Hosts. All these titles are given 
 to Christ, whom Mr. Barker asserts to be the son of Joseph, a 
 pious young man. If those titles belong to a pious young man, 
 
 I would ask Mr. Barker to tell me what are the distinctive titles 
 which characterize the Deity of the Father? 
 
 1 now come to the attributes of Deity, showing that they also 
 are ascribed to the Saviour. 
 
 Eternity is ascribed to our blessed Lord . Mr. Barker says Christ 
 “is onty a pious young man;” but inia passage already quoted, 
 (Isaiah, ix , 6,) he is called 44 the everlasting Father,” or 44 the 
 Father of Eternity.” Mr. Barker, like the Jews who took up 
 stones to cast at him, sa} r s that he was not fifty years old, although 
 Christ himself declares lie “was before Abraham;” and Micah de- 
 clares that 44 his goings forth had been from of old, even from the 
 days of eternity .” The Apostle Paul says that 44 he was before 
 all things.” Col. i., 17. St. John declares that 44 he was in the 
 beginning with God,” that is, with the Father, in The beginning , 
 that undefined and undefinable duration, before all creation; 
 before there was a flaming seraph or a crawling worm ; before 
 there was either a revolving world or a solitary atom ; when 
 universal nature was a universal blank ; — in the beginning, 
 Christ was with the Father, having the same undefined and 
 everlasting existence as the Father. He was with the Father 
 from eternity. The Father never was, but the Son was with 
 him. 44 in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was 
 with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the be- 
 ginning with God.” 
 
 Christ is Omnipotent . In a passage already quoted, he is 
 called the 44 Mighty God ;” and his mighty acts in creation, 
 providence, and redemption, display his Almightiness ; showing 
 him to be o tt avroicparwp, the Almighty. 
 
 Our blessed Lord is Omniscient . The searching of the heart is 
 pecu iarly declaratory of omniscience. St. John ii., 25, says, he 
 4,4 needed not that any should testify of man : for he knew what 
 was in man.” St. Peter, appealing to him as the heart-searching 
 Jehovah, says, — 44 Lord, thou knowest ail things; thou know- 
 csfe that I love thee.” John xxi., 17. Our Lord himself, de- 
 scribing the fallen state of the several churches, challenges to 
 himself the prerogative of searching the heart and the reins. 
 44 And all the churches shall know that I am he which search- 
 eth the reins and hearts.” Rev. ii., 23. The searching of the 
 human heart is challenged by Jehovah as his own prerogative. 
 Jeremiah xvii., 10. 64 1 Jehovah search the heart, I try the 
 
 reins, even to give every man according to his ways.” 
 
382 
 
 MR COOKE. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 Our Lard is declared Immutable. The heavens are the work 
 of his hands, and they change, but he changes not ! Hebrews 
 i., 10—12, “ Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the founda- 
 tion of the earth : and the heavens are the works of thine 
 hands. They shall perish ; but thou remainest : and they all 
 shall wax old as doth a garment ; and as a vesture shalt thou 
 fold them up, and they shall be changed : but thou art the same, 
 and thy years shall not change.” Thus, then, nature may 
 change ; the everlasting hills may crumble into ruin ; rocks of 
 adamant may perish ; earth may pass away ; and the heavens 
 be rolled together as a parchment scroll. But Jesus never 
 changes — never did change — never will change. Yet Mr. Bar- 
 ker speaks of him as a young man whose character was doubt- 
 ful — whose perseverance in piety was once uncertain. Thus it 
 is that Mr. Barker and the Scriptures are in perpetual collision. 
 If we must embrace his sentiments, we must reject the Scrip- 
 tures : if we hold to the Scriptures, we must repudiate ins sen- 
 timents. 
 
 Our Lord is Omnipresent. He declared to his disciples, for 
 their encouragement, “ Lo, I am with y«>u alway, even unto the 
 end of the world.” Matt, xxviii , 20. For the encouragement 
 of his worshippers, he has said, “For where two or three are 
 gathered together in my name, there am 1 in the midst of them.” 
 Matt, xviii., 20. Is that appropriate language for men ly a pious 
 young man? 1 s that appropriatelanguage for a worm of earth, like 
 myself and Mr. Barker? imagine congregations of worshippers 
 in various parts of the world. Imagine thousands of God’s peo- 
 ple privately in their closets — imagine them in every possible 
 circumstance of privacy, of retirement, or assembling and em- 
 ployed in public worship, — imagine them unbosoming their 
 cares, spreading forth their wants, urging their fervent suppli- 
 cations ; and yet Christ assuming the prerogative of being 
 wherever his people are — of listening to every sigh, of attending 
 to every want, of reading every doubt, and of dispensing to 
 every soul according to his need the precise blessing which his 
 circumstances may require, and his desires may crave. Thus 
 Mr. Barker’s views and the Scriptures are in opposition again. 
 The attributes we have now mentioned are the attributes of 
 Deity alone. They are not communicable to a creature. They 
 can belong to none but God. They are perfections which dis- 
 tinguish God from all other beings in the universe ; and since 
 they are ascribed to Jesus Christ, they prove his Godhead be- 
 yond dispute. To ascribe these attributes to merely a piousyoung 
 man, is to be guilty of the grossest absurdity. Yet this absur- 
 dity runs through the whole of my opponent’s system. I am 
 sorry to make tiiese remarks, hut the truth requires me to make 
 them ; and I must place falsehood in contrast with the word of 
 God. 
 
 1 he ivorks of God are ascribed to our blessed Saviour. lie 
 created all worlds. John i., 3, “ All things were made by him ; 
 and without him was not any thing made that was made.” 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 383 
 
 K1GHT.] 
 
 Now, observe, the fact is stated both positively and negatively . 
 In the first place, positively, — 44 All things were made by him 
 in the second place, negatively, — 46 And without him was not 
 any thing made that was made.” And if you refer to the 10th 
 verse, you will find it was this very world in which we live that 
 Christ made. 44 He was in the world, and the world was made 
 by him, and the world knew him not.” In lieb. i., 10, we have 
 the same work ascribed to him. 44 Thou, Lord, in the begin- 
 ning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens are 
 the works of thine hands.” See also CoL i., 10, — 44 For by him 
 were ail things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, 
 visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or 
 principalities, or powers : all things were eueated by him, and 
 for him : and lie is before all things, and by him all things con- 
 sist.” The Apostle might have anticipated the objections of 
 unbelievers, and therefore has heaped term upon term, and em- 
 ployed a circumlocutory form of expression, which includes all 
 varieties of existence in heaven and in earth — visible and invi- 
 sible. What can there be beside ? In the face of this evidence, 
 Mr. Barker maintains that 44 Christ is on J y a pious young man” 
 So that we are compelled, on his principle, either to maintain 
 that cr ation is no creation, or ascribe this glorious work to a 
 pious young man, who had no existence until about eighteen 
 hundred years ago, after the world had been formed four thou- 
 sand years. Thus Mr. Barker’s system of theology, and the 
 Apostle’s authority, are in direct collision again. And 1 would 
 here state that Dr. Priestley, whom Mr. Barker eulog zes to hea- 
 ven in his publications — Dr. Priestley, who e writings Mr. 
 Barker places side by side with the infallible and eternal word 
 of God,— -this Dr. Priestley has asserted that 64 though an in- 
 spired Apostle had taught that Chri-t created the world, we are 
 under no obligation to believe him” ! ! ! 
 
 The preservation of the Universe is ascribed to the Redeemer ; 
 for it is said, Heb.i.,3, that 44 he upholdeth ali things by the word 
 of bis power.” And in a passage which 1 before quoted, it is 
 said that by 44 him all things consist,” (rvveorrjicE, are held toge- 
 ther, as by a hand of omnipotence— -as if his mighty hand grasp- 
 ed the universe, and held it together ; preserving it in undecay- 
 ing perpetuity till his own purposes shall be accomplished, 
 
 1 obs rve, too, that Jesus pardons sin. While in the flesh he 
 exercised this prerogative. Who forgave the sins of the poor 
 man sick of the palsy ? Jesus. W ho pardoned the woman out 
 of whom he cast seven devils? Jesus. Who told the murmur- 
 ing Scribes and the narrow-minded Pharisees, that the Son of 
 man had power on earth to forgive sms, and, to silence their 
 complaints, and establish his prerogative, wrought a miracle in 
 their presence ? Jesus thus showing that the prerogative he 
 assumed was inalienable to his own nature. And the same pre- 
 rogative he now employs in heaven. Hence the Apostle says. 
 Col. iii., 13,— 44 Forgiving one another, if any man have aquar- 
 
384 MR. COOKE. [NINTH 
 
 rel against any : even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” 
 Mr. Barker’s version would strip the passage of all dignity, and 
 of all force. “ Forgiving one another, even as the pious young 
 man hath forgiven you.” But if Christ be only a pious .young 
 man, it devolves upon Mr. Barker to show when we ever sinned 
 against him; and what it is that he has to forgive us any 
 more than Paul, or Peter, or any pious man who lived in ages 
 gone by. 
 
 Another work of Christ is that of raising the dead at the last 
 da?/. r i hat this is the work of Deity is manifest from the 
 following passage “ 1 hat we should not trust in ourselves 
 but in God which raiseth the dtad.” 2 Cor. i., 9. So 
 this work is the prerogative of Christ, who is God. On 
 the day of judgment he will proclaim the summons, and, 
 behold, “all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and 
 shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrec- 
 tion of life ; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrec- 
 tion of damnation.” John v. 28, 29. The reconstruction of 
 the body into its constituent elements after its dissolution, and 
 its multifarious combinations with other substances, is a work 
 at least equal to creation itself, and necessarily implies the 
 exertion of an omnipotent agent : and the Scriptures expressly 
 refer it to such an agency, — “ According to the working of his 
 mighty power.” lie, therefore, who declares himself the “ Re- 
 surrection and the Life,” declares himself to be truly and pro- 
 perly God. 
 
 Our blessed Lord is to judge the world , and appoint unto men and 
 devils their everlasting desting. 2 Cor. v., 10, — “For we must 
 all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,” and so on. “ The 
 Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto 
 the Son.” Yet John, in giving a prophetic description of the 
 awful day of judgment, says, — “And I saw the dead, small 
 and great, stand before God.” But the Father judg( th no man ; 
 and "yet it is God that judgeth the world, so that it is most evi- 
 dent that Christ, who is our judge, is God. Thus Mr. Barker 
 and the Scriptures are in collision again. Indeed the 
 nature of this solemn and dignified office shows that it is most 
 preposteious to suppose it could be performed by one “ who is 
 merely a pious young man.” It implies not only a perfect 
 knowledge of the divine law, but a most perfect knowledge 
 of the character of every human being, with every event 
 in the history of our wo: Id, and all the secret springs of human 
 conduct, and ail the involved and complicated modes of human 
 sentiment and action which have transpiied in the myriads of 
 our race for many thousands of years. Such attributes exist not 
 in the mind of a pious young man, but in the Deity alone. 
 
 The Scriptures represent our blessed Lord as The proper object 
 of worship. On this 1 remark, first, the Scriptures expressly 
 and peremptorily forbid worship to any being but God. It is 
 written, — “ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only 
 
night.] 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 385 
 
 shalt thou serve.” Matt, iv., 10. Secondly, worship to any 
 creature is pronounced idolatry, and is a sin against which the 
 heaviest threatenings are denounced, and on account of which 
 the heaviest judgments have been inflicted. Thirdly, good men 
 have always trembled at the idea of receiving even the sem- 
 blance of religious homage. When Cornelius fell down before 
 Peter, the Apostle took him up and said, Stand up, for I myself 
 also am a man. Acts x., 25, 26. Barnabas and Paul, when at 
 Lystra, were about to be worshipped by the high priest of 
 Jupiter, who 44 brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and 
 would have done sacrifice with the people ; but when the 
 Apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they rent their clothes, 
 and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying. Sirs, why 
 do ye these things? we also are men of like passions with you, 
 and preaeh unto you, that ye should turn from these vanities 
 unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the 
 sea, and all things that are therein.” So that none but the 
 Creator is to be worshipped ; and worshipped because he is the 
 Creator. Even angels are not to be worshipped. When St. 
 John, overpowered by the bright angelic foim of the celestial 
 messenger who stood before him, fell at his feet to do him ho- 
 mage, the angel immediately interrupted him, saying, 44 See 
 thou do it not. Worship God.” Rev. xxii., 8, 9. Yet this 
 sacred book, which so strictly forbids creature worship as idola- 
 try, and so sacredly guards the divine prerogative, expressly 
 commands the worship of the Saviour, and furnishes a multi- 
 tude of instances in which he is worshipped. Our Lord him- 
 self has declared, (John v., 23) 44 That all men should honour 
 the bon, even as they honour the Father.” Row the honour 
 which in a peculiar sense belongs to God is Divine Worsli p : 
 Yet here we are required to honour the Son even as we honour 
 tile Father. 
 
 Let us now take a few examples of worship. I pass by a 
 multitude of instances which I iiave not time now to call your 
 attention to. 
 
 Tlie dying thief said, — 44 Lord, remember me when thou 
 comest into thy kingdom.” Here was a prayer for salvation : 
 and the dying Saviour answered the prayer and said, 44 Verily, 
 I say unto thee. To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” 
 Supposing the dying thief had been in error in this, the baviour 
 would have corrected him, and not allowed him to pass into 
 eternity in an act of idolatry. But so far from repelling him, 
 Jesus immediately answered, and promised the very LnesAn 
 which the dying tlnef asked. See Luke xxiii., 42, 43. 
 
 The martyr btephen performed a two-lold act of worship. 
 He prayed for his enemies, “Lord, lay not this sin to their 
 charge.” And he prayed to Christ to receive his spirit. Acts 
 vii., 59, 60, — 44 And they stoned Stephen, invoking and saying, 
 Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeied down, and cried 
 with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And 
 
386 MR. BARKER. [NINTH 
 
 when he had said this, he fell asleep.” It should be remarked, 
 too, that this solemn prayer was offered by Stephen when he 
 was full of the Holy Ghost. Quaere — Is Mr. Barker full of the 
 Holy Ghost when he denounces this doctrine, and calls the Sa- 
 viour merely a pious young man ? Or is he full of the spirit of 
 unbelief and delusion ? Choose ye whom ye will believe — the 
 dying martyr, or Mr. Barker ; who tells you he is always 
 changing, and cannot tell what he shall be in the end. 
 
 I regret that I have not time to complete the whole ; but I 
 have a mass of evidence yet to lay before you on this subject. 
 (Loud Applause.) 
 
 Mr Gilmore ; — Gentlemen, I should like it to be put upon 
 record that, on the present occasion, Mr. Cooke has not met 
 with the slightest interruption. ( Hear, hear. ) Not the slightest 
 interruption has been given to Mr. Cooke ; and all I ask, as 
 Chairman for Mr. Barker, is, that ye shall do to him likewise. 
 I have received a letter— or, rather, it was laid for me on the 
 table- -which the writer requests me to read to the meeting. 
 (Interruption, in the shape of brief remarks, from the body of 
 the meeting.) Gentlemen, Mr. Barker's friends have manifested 
 the utmost charity and forbearance ; and I do trust that you 
 will not allow yourselves to come beneath that standard. The 
 letter is in the following terms : — 
 
 Sir,-— It would be well to drop a hint to gentlemen on the 
 right hand of Mr. Cooke, impressing upon them the necessity 
 of maintaining something like the same silence and good order 
 during the time Mr. Barker is speaking, as is [are] kept by 
 them during the time Mr. Cooke is addressing the meeting. The 
 manner in which they acted last night, as well as previous, 
 nights, during the time Mr. Barker was replying to Mr. Cooke, 
 is very much to be regretted; and evidenced to me that though 
 they knew the truth, they were wishful to prevent the audi- 
 ence from hearing and judging on the merits.— (Loud hissing, 
 and various observations, among which were the following 
 u We want Mr. Barker to keep to the point.” “ And those gen- 
 tlemen near Mr. Barker to give over laughing.”) 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — Just permit me one moment. The letter is 
 a reflection upon the Chairmen. 
 
 Several Voices : — Name, name. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore: — The name is, “A Wesleyan Methodist.” 
 (Laughter, applause, and loud cries of “ Name.”) I cannot name 
 mope. I know nothing where it has come from. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Allow me to speak to a point of order. (Loud 
 opposition, followed by cheering and hissing.) 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — Just allow me. 
 
 Numerous Voices : — No, no; name name. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — Allow me to speak to a point of order. * I do 
 trust you will give me five minutes, at least, of the time allow- 
 ed between the two speeches. Now I do say that I have been 
 reflected upon by many individuals in this meeting, for not 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 387 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 naming it to certain gentlemen upon the platform, that they 
 ought to set a better example to the audience. 1 don’t say 
 which side they allude to : but I say I have been reflected upon 
 for not speaking to those individuals, and desiring them to keep 
 silence. 
 
 A Voice : — You had better hold your tongue. [Cries of 
 c( Put him out.’’] 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — All I ask is, gentlemen, — and I put it 
 plainly to you — whether to Mr. Scott, or to any other English- 
 man, Christian, or Inhdel, in this assembly, — that each dis- 
 putant should be fairly heard ; and that you, who of course, 
 each of you, believe one party to be wrong, ought in common 
 charity, and if you have any Christianity at alb— (Hissing, 
 cheers, and cries of 44 Hear, hear.”) That if (renewed hissing) 
 —I speak upon a point of order; and as a Chairman of the 
 meeting I do say that the utmost charity ought to prevail. 
 All I ask is, that you will hear both sides ; and that you 
 will not reflect upon a Chairman for not doing that which 
 he cannot perform. I cannot keep all parties quiet. I can- 
 not interrupt the speaker, when he is speaking, to speak to 
 individuals ; and it is too bad for a Chairman to be reflected on 
 when he is perfectly innocent and helpness as regards the 
 conduct he is charged with, and for which he is animadverted 
 upon. I simply wish to clear myself. I took this chair most 
 willingly, to see fair-play ; and all I want is a fair hearing, and 
 that what we cannot prevent, should be charitably dealt with. 
 (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Grant I join with Mr. Gilmore in deprecating inter- 
 ruption. It is highly discreditable to the meeting, to have such 
 confusion in it. (Interruption, by some remarks from a person 
 standing up towards the door.) It is a disgrace to any man to 
 interrupt the proceedings. You have no right to speak. (To 
 the interrupting party.) 
 
 A Voice (Mr. Scott’s, it is presumed) -Why did he men- 
 tion my name, then % 
 
 Mr. Grant : — I insist upon it that you have no right to speak. 
 Pray keep order, and let the discussion proceed. 
 
 Mr. Barker My friends, before I commence, I have just 
 one favour to ask ; and it is, that while I wait one minute, ail 
 who don’t w T ant to stay, or think they cannot stay, will leave 
 the room. [Laughter, and applause. No movement was made 
 to the door; and Mr. Barker proceeded.] 
 
 Respected Chairmen : My Friends,— I once more appear be- 
 fore you to plead the cause of truth and Christian freedom; to 
 unfold and to advocate the religion of Jesus Christ, separated 
 from those additions which men have made to it, tending to ob- 
 scure, to pervert, and to destroy it. I ask only for a hearing. 
 Give me that, and deny me what else you think proper. Give 
 me a hearing; and when I have done, reject my sentiments, 
 attack my reputation, and, if you please, use violence against 
 
388 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 me, T will bear it all; I will bear either proud, abusive words, 
 or bard blows, only give me a patient and a candid hearing. I 
 am fully persuaded of the truth of those principles which I 
 advocate ; and I am fully persuaded of the falsehood of those 
 doctrines called orthodox, which 1 am endeavouring to oppose 
 and to overthrow. 1 have the fullest confidence in the truth 
 and soundness of those arguments which 1 have brought be- 
 fore you ; and I have equal confidence that the arguments 
 brought forward on the opposite side are false, and will be 
 obliged to give way before the power of simple Christian truth. 
 At the same time, I am perfectly well aware that others may 
 have perhaps as strong a confidence in the arguments advanced 
 on their side; and I do not quarrel with any man for having a 
 firm persuasion of the -truth of sentiments opposite to my own. 
 I respect every man’s judgment; and 1 like every man to think 
 for himself, and to hold his opinions as tenaciously as he pleases, 
 until he gets fresh light. While, however, you take the liberty 
 to express your convictions, allow me the liberty to express 
 my own ; and here, in your presence, to endeavour to do 
 them justice in quietness and in order, and I shall be 
 content. 
 
 We have already examined a number of arguments of my 
 opponent in support of the doctrine of the trinity, and have 
 found them unsound. We have found that the arguments 
 given in his various tracts prove, if they prove any trinity at all, 
 a trinity ot Gods, and even a trinity of Jehovahs. 
 
 We have also shown that the whole tenor of Scripture proves 
 that there is not a trinity of Gods, but only one God ; and that 
 that one true God is the Father, the Father of Jesus, and the 
 Father of mankind. 
 
 We have shown, further, that the Bible is, throughout, 
 utterly heterodox ; and that to make it orthodox, it would have 
 to be torn in pieces, and made entirely over again. 
 
 We have shown that Jesus was a man,- --a man made in 
 all points hke his brethren ; and therefore not made in any 
 point different from them, much less in every point different 
 from them. 
 
 We have given a number of other proofs that the trinity is 
 no doctrine of Scripture ; and that neither the words in which 
 it is generally expressed are to be found there, nor the thing 
 which those words ai e intended to express. 
 
 We have shown already, in answer to my opponent, that 
 Jesus is not called God, except in one, or, at the utmost, in two 
 instances ; and that in those instances he is called God, not in 
 the sense in which the Father is called by that name, but in the 
 same sense in which Solomon was called God, and in which 
 judges and magistrates were called Gods. 
 
 \Ve have shown that the name Emmanuel, even supposing it 
 to he given to Christ, does not prove Jesus to be God, any more 
 tba \ it proves the person born in the days of Isaiah, to be God, 
 bceause the name was given to him. 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 339 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 We have shown that the passage,' “God manifest in the 
 flesh,” does not prove Christ to be God, even supposing it to be 
 genuine; but we have the fullest evidence tiiat it is spurious. 
 If genuine, it proves no more than that God was manifest in, or 
 through , Jesus Christ. 
 
 We have shown that Jesus is not called Jehovah , — that he is 
 called Lord , only in an inferior sense; and that when he is 
 called Lord, he is expressly distinguished from God; as, “There 
 is one faith, one Lord, one God, and Lather of ad, who is 
 above all.” Here we h ive a Lord distinguished from the one 
 God; and that one God is declared to be above all, as well as 
 through and in all. 
 
 We have shown that Jesus, after his crucifixion, was made 
 Lord and Christ by God, and exalted , after his death, to be the 
 Prince and the Saviour by his Father; and that it was God 
 that chose him from among his “fellows” because he was pious, 
 because he loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, and that God 
 gave him a name above every name, and placed him as a Prince, 
 or king, upon the throne of his spiritual kingdom, on account 
 of his obedience and fidelity. 
 
 We have shown that if Jesus be called the Lord our Righte- 
 ousness, it would still not prove him to be God, or J -hovah ; 
 because Jerusalem, in the 33rd chapter and 16th verse of Je- 
 remiah, is also called the Lord our Righteousness ; and be- 
 cause names in which the word Jehovah and the word God are 
 mixed up, are constantly given to men in the sacred writings. 
 We observed that the name of hlijah means, my God Jehovah: 
 and then the names of many other O.d Testament persons have 
 similar significations. The application, therefore, of God’s 
 name to men, no more proves that those men were God, than 
 the application of the name Josiiua to other men, proves that 
 those men are Jesus of Nazareth. — Such application of God’s 
 names to men is a common thing in Scripture, and it is nothing 
 more than what might be looked for in the case of Jesus, even 
 supposing those names had been actually given to him. 
 
 i now proceed to notice the passages brought forward by my 
 opponent yesterday evening. He wished you to take notice whe- 
 ther I answered them or not. 1 hope you will take notice, and 
 also pay particular attention to the answers 1 may give, that you 
 may see whether they are conclusive or not. 
 
 He wished to prove Christ’s Godhead from his pre-existence,, 
 Now suppose Christ did exist before he came into the world, 
 that would not prove his Godhead. Multitudes believe that he 
 pre-existed, and even that the world was made by him; and yet 
 they do not believe in his Godhead. It is the opinion of Arians, 
 generally, that he was the first-born of every creature, and that 
 all other creatures were made by him. But even if that were 
 true, it would not prove him God. We say, however, that the 
 Scripmres do not teach his pre-existence, as we shali now pro- 
 ceed to show. 
 
390 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 The first passage which my opponent brought forward to 
 prove the pre-existence of Christ, is John i., 15, where it is 
 said, 44 He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for (or 
 because,) he was before me.” And at verse 80, — 44 This is he 
 of whom I said, After me cometh a man who is preferred before 
 me; for he was before me.” I observe, in the first place, that 
 it was a man that was before John, not a second person in the 
 Godhead; so that if the passage proves the pre-existence of 
 Christ at all, it will prove the pre-existence of his humanity. I 
 observe, secondly, that as Christ was not before John as a man 
 in point of time, the word before must have reference, not to 
 time, but to quality; not to existence , but to character . And this 
 is the sense given to it in Barker’s Bible, translated in 1599. 
 There the reading is, 44 He was preferred before me, because he 
 was better than I.” The translators of 1607, and 1614, gave it 
 in the margin, 44 more excellent than I.” Calvin, Marlorat, and 
 Morus, gave it the same rendering. Erasmus, Salmeron, Bucer, 
 Gro tius. Ley, Le Clerc, and others, though orthodox, interpret 
 the phrase Protos mou , of excellence . 3. This interpretation 
 
 agrees with Hebrews L, 9, — 44 Thou hast loved righteousness, 
 and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anoint- 
 ed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Here God 
 is expressly said to have chosen Christ because of his superior 
 piety. 4. This interpretation also agrees with what John 
 said, when Christ came to be baptized of him in Jordan. 
 When he came, John did not know him, only as a pious young 
 man . He did not know him as the Christ , as he himself says, 
 until the spirit descended upon him, after his baptism ; but he 
 did not know him previously, as a man. — Hence, when became 
 to be baptized, what does John say ? 44 I have need to be bap- 
 
 tized of thee , and comest thou to me?” What could make 
 John say that, but a knowledge of his distinguished excellence, 
 and remarkable fidelity and virtue ? John knew him as a re- 
 markably pious person, though, as he says, in John i. 31, he 
 knew him not as the Christ, till the descent of the Spirit point- 
 ed him out. The passage, therefore, proves, simply, that Jesus 
 was more excellent than John; that he was chosen by God to be 
 the Messiah on account of his moral or religious excellence ; 
 that he was preferred to John, because he was before him in 
 goodness, better , more excellent than John. 
 
 The next passage given by my opponent was, 44 Before Abra- 
 ham was, I am.” Now I answer, 1. that Grotius, J. C. W T o3f, 
 Rosenmuller, Schleusner, Le Clerc, Bishop Pearce, and 
 Hr. Pye Smith, all translate the words, 44 Before Abraham was, 
 I wasP My opponent attempted to prove from the passage, 
 that Jesus was the 44 1 am,” — the Jehovah. Now the great au- 
 thorities I have named, who are all on his own side, declare that 
 any attempt to found a valid argument for the Godhead of 
 Christ on this passage, would be rain, Grotius understands 
 the words thus : 44 Jesus was before Abraham was, in the divine 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 391 
 
 night.] 
 
 decree or purpose .” And this harmonizes with what goes be- 
 fore ; Abraham rejoiced, or desired to see my day, and he saw — 
 foresaw it : and was glad : for before Abraham, I was, — 1 vvas 
 in the divine purpose ; it w^as arranged that the Messiah should 
 come. It was God’s plan or purpose, before Abraham’s time, to 
 introduce the Messiah into the world. And it should be. re- 
 marked that God is frequently represented as speaking of things 
 that are sure to come, as though they were. He said, in refer- 
 ence to Abraham himself, while he lived, “ I have made thee a 
 father of many nations,” because he purposed to do so. He 
 called the things that were not, as though they were. And so in 
 the other cases. 
 
 The next passage quoted by "my opponent, was from 1 Cor. 
 xv., 47, — “ The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the second 
 man is the Lord from Heaven.” Adam Clarke states that he 
 does not consider this passage to refer to Christ at all, but sim- 
 ply to the difference between man as he descends into the 
 grave, earthy ; and man as raised again, restored, and made 
 heavenly. Still, whether it refer to Christ or not, it is a man 
 that is from heaven, or heavenly ; and not a second person in 
 the trinity. Again ; supposing the words to refer to Christ, 
 they appear to refer to a future coming from heaven to raise the 
 dead, and not to any past coming. And they agree with the 
 passages with which they are connected when understood in 
 this sense, for the apostle is speaking throughout the chapter of 
 Christ’s coming to raise the dead. Again ; the words “ the 
 Lord are marked doubtful by Griesbach ; and the Vulgate did 
 not adopt the reading o Kurios , the Lord ; but o ouranious , that 
 is, the heavenly one. Adam Clarke also, as already stated, re- 
 jects the common reading ; and many others do the same. 
 Macknight explains the passage thus, — “The second man, 
 even the Lord who will come from heaven to raise us.” This 
 passage, therefore, is no proof of Christ’s pre-existence. 
 
 The fourth passage quoted by my opponent was, John xvi., 
 28,— “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the 
 world ; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” Now 
 this is a mode of speaking which is applied to others as well as 
 Christ. John, for instance, is said to have been sent from God, 
 and he must, therefore, have come from God. Again ; Jesus 
 says, (John xvii., 18,) referring to his disciples, “ As thou hast 
 sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the 
 world.” Either Christ was on earth when first sent into the 
 world, or else Christ’s disciples must have existed in heaven 
 before they were sent into the world : for he makes their being 
 sent into the world, and his own, to be alike. If the apostles 
 could be said to be sent into the world, though they bad no pre- 
 existence before they were born, Christ also might be said to 
 have been sent into the world, though he had not existed be- 
 fore his birth. Rosenmuller says, EoerJcesthai para ton Theou , 
 to come out from God, here signifies to be a divine messenger, to 
 
392 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 be sent of God. Grotius. Le Clerc, Beausobre, Doddridge, and 
 others, explain it of Christ’s divine mission. I i is going into 
 the world is, of course, explained to mean his showing himself 
 to the world, by his words and works. Here, also, there is no 
 proof of pre-existence. 
 
 John xvii., 5, is the next passage quoted by my opponent, 
 where Jesus Christ asks the Father to glorify him with the 
 glory he had with the Father before the world was. This 
 passage wiil be noticed afterwards ; but I shall make one or 
 two observations upon it at present. 1. The interpretations of 
 Le Clerc, hosenmuller, Bishop Parker, and other Trinitarian 
 expositors may be found on page 377 in Wilson’s Trinitarian. 
 Concessions, a work which it would be well for every one to 
 read. 
 
 The following is the opinion of Le Clerc : “ As the glory of 
 Christ's humanity is here treated of, and not the divine nature, 
 which can neither lose nor acquire glory in heaven, it cannot be 
 /doubted that our Lord means to speak of God’s design, before 
 the creation of the world, to raise him some day to glory.” 
 That is the opinion of Le Clerc. The opinion of Rosenmuller 
 is as follows “ This is commonly understood of that glory 
 which Christ, according to his divine nature, had before the 
 foundation of the world.” In opposition, however, to this in- 
 terpretation, it seems that the glory which God conferred on 
 Christ is said by Christ himself, verse 22, to be the same as that 
 which he, in turn, confen\ d on his friends. For he says, “ The 
 glory which thou gavest me I have given them ; that they may 
 be one, even as we are one.” 
 
 Bishop Parker’s opinion is as follows : — “ Methinks Grotius’s 
 sense is very easy and natural, viz., that the glory he had with 
 his Father before the world began, was only in the intendment 
 of the divine decree, as 1 Peter i., 20 ; Rev. xiii. 8, he is said to 
 be a 4 Lamb slain from the foundation of the world f not that he 
 was really slaughtered, but he was then marked out in the divine 
 deer e to be a sacrifice for mankind ; it being a proverbial form 
 of speech among the Jews to express matters of great moment 
 only resolved upon in the divine decree, as if they were really 
 existing. Thus they say the Messias is ancienter than the sun, 
 and the Mosaic law older than the w >rld ; not as if they appre- 
 hend them really so, but only to express their absolute useful- 
 ness and necessity. how, Scriptures are not to be interpreted 
 in an exact and strictly literal sense, but in a familiar manner, 
 suitable to the idiom and manner of speaking used in the age 
 and place in which they were written.” Augustine and Beda 
 understand this passage of Christ’s human nature having been 
 predestined to glory before the world was ; as the Lamb is said, 
 in J<ev. xiii., 8, to have been 64 slain from the foundation of the 
 world.” 
 
 Again ; God is said to have “chosen us in Christ before the 
 foundation of the world f Fph. i., 4. But does my opponent 
 
MR. BARKER* 
 
 393 
 
 UTIG HT.] 
 
 believe that God literally chose us before the foundation of the 
 world, or simply intended to choose us Gentiles as well as Jews? 
 Again ; the phrase, “ before the foundation of the world ,” appears 
 to have been used among the Jews of Christ’s time fco signify 
 before the establishment of the Christian age or dispensation. 
 And if we attach that meaning to the phrase, it will be found to 
 make several passages clear and consistent, which otherwise 
 must appear dark and unnatural. Again ; my opponent will 
 acknowledge that, even on the orthodox theory, nothing of Christ 
 could literally exist before the foundation of the world, except 
 the Godhead . But the Godhead that dwelt in Jesus was God 
 the Father , not a second person, God the Son ; and it is certain 
 that God the Father could neither lay aside his glory, nor ask 
 himself for it back again. Besides, if it had been God the Son, 
 the Son could never lay aside the glory of -the Godhead . He 
 could no more change than the Father. And if he had laid it 
 aside, there was no necessity for him to ask the Father for it 
 back ; because, on the orthodox theory, he was equal with the 
 Father, and might take it as his own. The notion, therefore, 
 that Christ referred to the glory of the Godhead is preposterous. 
 But if he referred to the human nature, then it must be ac- 
 knowledged that Jesus Christ could have no glory with the Fa- 
 ther before the world began, except in the divine purpose or 
 intention . But Christ might, as man, have glory designed him 
 before the foundation of the world, or before the commence- 
 ment of the Christian dispensation, and, having finished his 
 work, might ask the Father to grant him the glory which he 
 had designed to give him as the reward of his fidelity. 
 
 The next passage brought forward by my opponent to prove 
 the pre-existence of Christ, is Romans ix., 5, — “ Of whom, as 
 concerning the flesh, Christ came.” I observe, 1. That here the 
 apostle distinguishes between Christ according to the flesh , or 
 natural descent, and Christ according to his call and mission as 
 the Messiah . In Cor. x., 1 8, we read of Israel after the flesh ; 
 not that the apostle supposed Israel had two natures, one divine, 
 and the other human, one existing before the other, but that he 
 viewed the Israelites as existing in two capacities ; first, as de- 
 scendants of Jacob, and then as holy people in their relation to God. 
 So also in Romans iv., 1, Paul speaks of what Abraham, after the 
 flesh , or pertaining to the flesh , had found ; not that he thought 
 Abraham had two natures , one divine and the other human, one 
 born in time, the other existing before time. He simply dis- 
 tinguishes between what Abraham had found according to 
 natural descent , as distinguished from what he found or received 
 from God, in consequence of his intimate relation to God , or in 
 consequence of his faith and obedience. In Romans ix., 8, the 
 apostle speaks of his brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh ; 
 but he does not mean that any of his brethren had two natures* 
 one divine and the other human, but that his brethren stood in 
 two relations to him, some being simply Jews, or his brethren 
 
394 MR. BARKER. ] NINTH 
 
 according to the flesh, others being Christians and fellow-disciples 
 of Christ, his spiritual brethren, or his brethren according to 
 the spirit . So that this expression, “ according to the flesh, 7 ’ 
 so far from proving Christ to have had two natures, simply 
 proves, that as others had two relations, one according to the 
 flesh, and the other a spiritual relation to God, or their Chris- 
 tian brethren, so Jesus had two relations, one as a Jew , and the 
 other as the Messiah , or anointed of God, the Saviour of the 
 world. There are other similar forms of expression applied to 
 persons in Scripture, all pointing out a distinction — not between 
 their Godhead and manhood, but between men as mere men, or 
 men in their natural state or relationships, and men as regene- 
 rated, or as called by God to some high privilege or work. 
 
 The next passage I have to notice is in Hebrews, ii., 36, — 
 <c For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels, but 
 he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.” In the margin this 
 passage is given thus, “ took not hold of angels, but took hold 
 of the seed of Abraham.” The words “him” and “the nature 
 of” are not in the original, and have no right to be in the trans- 
 lation. And the meaning of the passage is simply this, that 
 Christ did not take hold of angels to help them or deliver 
 them ; but that he was appointed to help men , not angels. There 
 is no allusion in the passage to a state of pre-existence, or to 
 any change of nature on the part of Christ. And this is the 
 opinion of many eminent Trinitarians, as may be seen in Wil- 
 son’s Trinitarian Concessions. If you will attend a moment to 
 these Concessions, I will give you the opinion of several learned 
 Trinitarians. The following is Dr. Gell’s account of the word 
 nature : — “ The word nature , which ye read here, is neither in 
 the Greek, vulgar Latin, Syriac, or Arabic texts ; nor in the 
 high or low Dutch, nor French, nor Italian, nor Spanish trans- 
 lations, no, nor in any of our old English translations, either 
 printed or manuscript.” The following is Ernesti’s opinion : — 
 “ Some recent interpreters have rendered this epilambanetia , he 
 brings assistance to , he protects; and have, by so doing, almost in- 
 curred the suspicion of heresy, from the supposed novelty of 
 their interpretation. "Whereas, if we consult the Greek com- 
 mentators, we shall find that this was the ancient interpreta- 
 tion of the whole Greek church ; and that our common reading 
 is a novelty , borrowed from the Latin interpreters, who, taking 
 the etymological rendering of the Vulgate, assumit , in its Latin 
 sense, have supposed it to refer to the incarnation.” Charles 
 H. Terrot says, “ All modern interpreters, of any scholarship , 
 understand the text as Ernesti does ; and the rendering, he took 
 on him the nature , is one of the GROSSEST errors in our 
 authorised version.” The word epilambanetai is rendered or in- 
 terpreted, he takes hold of helps , succours , or in a corresponding 
 manner, by Arius, Montanus, Father Simon, and Calmet, Le 
 Clerc, Whitby, Doddridge, Macknight, Rosenmuller, Dr. J. P. 
 Smith, Dr. Bloomfield, Professor Stuart, Dr. Robinson, and 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 395 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 others too numerous to mention. So that this passage, also, is 
 found to have no reference to the incarnation, or to Christ’s pre- 
 existence. 
 
 My opponent says, every being must exist before he does 
 any thing, or has any thing done unto him. I. answer ; this 
 would prove the pre-existence of John, of Cyrus, and of others. 
 Cyrus was called God’s anointed, or is said to have been ap- 
 pointed by God to reign, before he existed ; and John, it is 
 said, was sent from God. It would also prove that Jesus exist- 
 ed as a man , before he came into the world ; else how could he 
 be slain before he came \ For the Scriptures speak of him as 
 slain from the foundation of the world. My opponent says a 
 person must exist before any thing is done to him. Well, then, 
 Christ must have existed in the body before the foundation of 
 the world. These little criticisms of my opponent are great 
 absurdities. 
 
 We have next a quotation from 2 Cor. viii., 9, “ Ye know 
 
 the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, 
 yet for our sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty 
 might be rich.” Now, in the first place, the original does not 
 indicate a state of pre-existence, or a change from one state of 
 existence to another, at all. The true rendering, according to 
 Erasmus, Stephens, Castalio, Bengelius, Rosenmuller, and 
 others, all Trinitarians, is this — “ Ye know the grace, or bene- 
 volence, of our Lord Jesus Christ, that being rich, he lived in 
 poverty” — not became poor. As if he had first been rich, and 
 then changed his state for one of poverty ; but he was rich, and 
 yet lived in poverty, at the same time ; was rich in all spiritual 
 gifts and privileges, and yet, for the good of others, lived in 
 poverty. And this is the interpretation of most eminent critics, 
 even among Trinitarians themselves. The following are the £ 
 interpretations of Le Clerc, Grotius, and Michaelis. 1. Le Clerc : 
 “Being rich: the master of all, God his Father having given 
 him all power in heaven and earth.” 2. Grotius : “ Though lie 
 possessed the power of doing miracles, and also of raising the 
 dead, yet he bore such an humble character that he had not 
 even where to lay his head.” 3. Michaelis: “The eternal 
 divine nature is not here the subject of discourse, but Jesus as 
 a man.” My opponent says that when the Scriptures say Jesus 
 Christ , they mean the human nature ; and yet it is Jesus Christ 
 of whom the apostle is speaking in the text under consideration. 
 
 He is therefore speaking of Christ in his human nature when he 
 says that he was rich, and yet choose to be poor at the same 
 time ; — rich in all spiritual giftsand blessings, yet choosing to be 
 poor for the sake of enriching others; for the sake of promoting the 
 welfare, the salvation of others. I may further observe on this 
 passage, that the Godhead could not become poor. It is a natural 
 impossibility for the Godhead to become poor in any sense. The 
 Godhead could not suffer , whether it dwelt in the heart of one 
 man, or in the hearts of a thousand men. Suppose the Godhead to 
 
396 MR. BARKER. [NINTH 
 
 dwell in a thousand men, and suppose all those thousand men 
 to he living and dying martyrs, still the Godhead could not suf- 
 fer. God cannot suffer either from pain or poverty, from agony 
 or death. The word eptolceuse , living in poverty, is only appli- 
 cable to the human nature, therefore. 
 
 My opponent asks, But when was Christ rich according to 
 the flesh? And I shall ask another question, When did Christ 
 suffer and die in order to make other people rich according to 
 the flesh ? He suffered and died that w r e might he rich ; but 
 did he suffer and die that we might have plenty of money ? 
 Nay ; the word rich has other meanings besides having plenty 
 of money. When applied to Christ, it means something else 
 than having plenty of money. The meaning of the text is this, 
 Jesus was rich in all spiritual blessings ; and yet he chose all 
 the hardships of poverty, that we might be made rich like him. 
 He lived in earthly poverty, though spiritually rich, that we 
 might be made spiritually rich through him. 
 
 The next passage is Phil, ii., 5 — 11, — “Let this mind be in 
 you which was also in Christ Jesus : who, being in the form 
 of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God : but made 
 himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a ser- 
 vant, and was made in the likeness of men : and being found in 
 fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient 
 unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God hath 
 highly exalted him, and given him a name wdiich is above every 
 name : that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
 things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
 earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
 is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” Now this is precisely 
 the same sentiment as is contained in the passage last read to 
 ^ you, and already considered. It is the same sentiment, but 
 expressed in different words. There is no reference to pre- 
 existence, or to change from one state of existence to another, in 
 the passage. All that is said in the passage, is spoken of Jesus 
 as a man, and refers to what Christ did as a man in the eyes of 
 men, as their example ; and is referred to as something which 
 people had the opportunity of looking at, and which all were 
 bound to imitate. He was, while a man, in the form er image 
 of God. Hence, Jesus says to Philip, when he said, “Show 
 us the Father,” “ have 1 been so long time with you, and yet 
 hast thou not known me, Philip ? Be that hath seen me, hath 
 seen the Father.” The Father was in Christ ; and Jesus w 7 as 
 the image of the Father, the image of God ; he was so true an 
 outshining or manifestation of God’s character, that they who 
 had seen him had seen the Father himself, so far as he could be 
 seen. Again ; Jesus was not only the image of God’s character ; 
 he had also divine authority. All power was given to him in 
 heaven and in earth. It was given to him as a man. lie was, 
 therefore, in this respect, equal with God. And because God 
 had committed all judgment or authority into his hands, it was 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 397 
 
 KIGHT^ 
 
 appointed that he should receive the same honour or respect as 
 God himself : just as the plenipotentiary of a king has equal 
 authority in his master’s absence, and as his representative ; and 
 is to receive the same honour and respect as are shown to his 
 master. Be says, “ Ye call me Master and Lord : and ye say 
 well, for so I am.” I am appointed to be so. I am the pleni- 
 potentiary, the fully empowered messenger of God. Yet being- 
 in the form of God, he did, at the same time, take and bear the 
 form of a servant, and was , (not was made) and was in the like- 
 ness of men, of a common, serving man. “ You call me Master 
 and Lord : and ye say well.” 1 will, however, show you that 
 X can also be a servant ; and he took a towel, and girded him- 
 self, and washed his disciples’ feet, like a servant, like a slave ; 
 for this was the work of slaves. And he said, “If I 
 then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet ; ye also 
 ought to wash one another’s feet.” Again ; he was Lord and 
 Master, and yet he says, “ The Son of man came not to be 
 ministered unto” — not to be served as a Prince — ■“ but to minis- 
 ter ;’ a that is to serve ; and even to serve to the extent of 
 laying down his life for men. Thus J esus was in the form 
 of God and in the form of a servant at the same time. 
 He was God’s representative, appointed Lord of all ; yet 
 he humbled himself, that he might teach us humility. 
 And tills humiliation, or condescension, exhibited in the eyes of 
 his disciples, the apostle refers to as our example, and exhorts us 
 to have the same mind that was in Jesus, and to exhibit the 
 same disinterested charity and humility. It is a man that is in 
 the form of God, and that is a servant of all men notwithstand- 
 ing ; that is God’s representative, and yet humbles himself to 
 death, and who is highly exalted by God on this account. 
 
 My opponent gave me four questions in reference to this 
 passage : I will answer him by giving him eight in return. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 1. If Christ w T as God, why does not the passage call him 
 God ? 
 
 2. If Christ was God, why does it speak of one only as 
 God, and the other as being only in the form or image of 
 God ? 
 
 3. If Christ w T as God, why does it not say, God the Son, 
 being equal to God the Father, appeared as man and died? 
 
 4. How could God the Son die on a cross ? Yet the person 
 here mentioned did die ; the very person who was in the image, 
 in the form of God. 
 
 5. How could God the Father exalt God the Son, when God 
 the Son himself was equal to the Father, and equally exalted 
 from the first ? 
 
 6. Why should God the Son be indebted to God the Father 
 for a high name, or for his great authority, if he was equal to 
 God the Father? 
 
 7. Why are we to call Christ Lord only, and the Father God ? 
 Why not call Jesus God, if he be so ? 
 
398 MR. BARKER. [NINTH 
 
 8. Why are we to call Christ, Lord, to the glory of God the 
 Father , if he himself be equal to God the Father, and has his 
 mediatorial honours in addition to the Father’s ? 
 
 Let my opponent answer these eight questions, and he will 
 have answered his own four questions twice over. (Laughter.) 
 
 Again ; about thinking it no robbery to be equal with God. 
 The meaning is, that he used not his authority, or power, as 
 his own ; he used it not as spoil, or for selfish purposes. He 
 cared not for it ; but was willing to sacrifice all, that he might 
 be the servant, the benefactor, the Saviour of mankind. 
 Such is the meaning of this important passage. There is not 
 the least proof either of Christ’s divinity or pre-existence in the 
 whole. 
 
 I may add, that the meaning I have given to this passage, is 
 the meaning given to these words by many Trinitarian writers, 
 some of whom I will just quote. The following is from Le Glerc: 
 — “ Above all, it is worthy of remark, that as humility and obedi- 
 ence are here the subject of discourse, we ought to understand 
 what St. Paul says of Christ’s humanity ; for his divine nature, 
 being the same as that of the Father, is not susceptible of 
 humility and obedience. These are excellencies, not of the 
 Creator , but of created beings.” The following is John Calvin’s: 
 — “ The form of God here signifies majesty. I acknowledge, 
 indeed, that Paul does not make mention of Christ’s divine 
 essence.” 
 
 James Heerbrand says:— 1 “ From this place, indeed, the Fa- 
 thers used to prove the Divinity of Christ, but the form of God 
 is not God himself.” 
 
 JEgidius Hunnius says : — “ To be constituted in the form of 
 God is much less than to be God himself.” 
 
 Grotius says : — “ Morphe , form, in sacred Scripture, signifies, 
 not what is internal and hidden , but that which meetsfhe eye ; as 
 the extraordinary power of Christ in curing diseases, casting 
 out demons, raising the dead, and controlling the elements— 
 works which are truly divine ; so that Moses was, on that ac- 
 count, called the God of Pharaoh, though he did not perform 
 such mighty works.” 
 
 Le Clerc says : — “ Jesus Christ, as a man, appeared, in cer- 
 tain respects, more like God than man ; inasmuch as he com- 
 manded all nature with absolute authority, and performed 
 unparalleled miracles. This the apostle terms the form , that 
 is, the resemblance, of God ; a sense in which the same word 
 is used in verse 7, and in Mark xvi. 12.” 
 
 Beausobre says “ The Port-royal translators boldly, but 
 unfaithfully, render morphe , la forme et la nature , ( the form and 
 nature ). Nothing agrees better with this passage than what 
 the evangelist says, 6 Knowing that the Father had given all 
 things into his hands,’ ( this is the form of God ) 6 he laid aside 
 his garments, poured water into a basin, took a towel, and 
 girded himself, and began to wash his disciples’ feet,’ (this is the 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 399 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 form of a slave J, John xiii., 5. Compare also what Christ says, 
 
 * He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,’ Johnxiv., 9; and 
 St. John, 6 We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten 
 of the Father,’ &c., chap. i. 14. Morphe , form , is synonymous 
 with eidos and Eikon, image, figure. Let a single example be 
 produced in which the expression en morphe einai [to be in llie 
 form of] signifies to have the essence of a thing.” 
 
 The following, also, are given by Wilson as the translations 
 or interpretations of the phrase—' “ Thought it not robbery to 
 be equal with God.” “ Did not covet to appear as God.”-— 
 Whitby , “ Was not fond, or tenacious, of appearing as God ; 
 did not eagerly insist to be equal with God.” — Sherlock. “ Was 
 not tenacious of this equality with God, did not consider it as a 
 thing to be eagerly grasped.” — Principal Hill . “ Did not think 
 equality with God a thing to be seized with violence .” — $. T, 
 Coleridge , “ He regarded not the being equal with God as a 
 
 thing to be eagerly coveted.” — Professor Stuart , “ Did not 
 
 esteem it an object to be caught at to be on a parity with God.” 
 — Dr, J, P, Smith, In other words, he prized and used his 
 great powers as a means of usefulness only. And Erasmus says: 
 — “ The whole passage, therefore, seems to me to be most vio- 
 lently misapplied to the nature of Christ ; since Paul is treating 
 only of his appearance as manifested to us.” The following is 
 from Professor Stuart : — “ Our common version seems to render 
 nugatory, or at least irrelevant, a part of the apostle’s reasoning 
 in the passage. He is enforcing the principle of Christian 
 humility upon the Philippians. But how was it any proof or 
 example of humility, that he did not think it robbery to be equal 
 toith God,” 
 
 All this shows that even Trinitarians themselves consider 
 these expressions brought forward by my opponent to prove 
 Christ’s pre-existence or Godhead as applicable to Jesus in the 
 form in which he appeared on earth of God’s image, form, or 
 representative, and as having no reference to the divine or 
 hidden essence of the Deity, which is God himself, and not the 
 form of God. 
 
 These were the only passages my opponent gave in proof of 
 Christ’s pre-existence ; and we have seen that every one of 
 them can be explained most naturally, and most harmoniously 
 both with common sense and the rest of Scripture, on the prin- 
 ciple that Christ did not pre-exist. We have seen that none 
 of them teach that he existed at all previous to his appearance 
 upon earth. 
 
 My opponent says I teach that Jesus was only a pious young 
 man. How often has he uttered that statement ! and yet nei- 
 ther in my writings nor in my discourses did I ever teach any 
 such thing. I have taught that he was a pious young man ; 
 but not that he was merely a pious young man, or always re- 
 mained so ; because God chose him to be his representative, 
 God honoured him above all mankind, and made him Lord and 
 
400 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 Christ ; gave him a name above every name, and appointed 
 that every one should call him Lord to the glory of God the 
 Father that made him so. I cannot believe that these oft- 
 repeated sneers and slanders can help the cause of my opponent. 
 
 He says I sneer at the evangelists. Now I do nothing of the 
 kind. I sneer at nothing. I do not even sneer at my opponent’s 
 blunders. (Laughter.) 
 
 He says I explain passages away. I say I explain nothing 
 away ; I simply wish to drive away the mists of false ortho- 
 doxy, that the passages may explain themselves. I merely 
 brush off the dust of mock-learning and false orthodoxy, and 
 let you see simple truth in a common sense form, so that com- 
 mon minds may be able to understand it. And I do trust that 
 others also will employ the besom to sweep away the filth and 
 rubbish of false orthodoxy altogether, so that the Gospel may 
 stand revealed in all its natuial beauty and glory, and commend 
 itself to every man’s understanding and conscience as truth from 
 the God of heaven. 
 
 I shall now notice a few further arguments of my opponent. 
 
 He says, in his tracts, that Christ is called the first and the 
 last. Now Christ may be first and last as the author and 
 finisher of the Christian system, without being first and last in 
 reference to his nature ; without being God. 
 
 My opponent says, Christ is called the Almighty in Revelations; 
 but if he looks at the passage, though the book be spurious, 
 (hissing,) he will find that the Father only is called Almighty. 
 Even in Revelations the word Almighty is applied only to God, 
 not Christ. 
 
 He says, Eternity is ascribed to Christ ; and quotes the pas- 
 sages, “ Before Abraham was, I am and “ Now, 0 Father, 
 glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had 
 with thee before the world was.” John xvii., 5. The passage 
 about Abraham we have answered, and shown that it referred 
 simply to the existence of Christ in the divine purpose. But if 
 Christ /za^beenbefore Abraham literally, it would not have proved 
 that he was eternal. At the utmost, it wnuld only prove the 
 Arian theory that Christ existed before he was born. The 
 passage from J ohn has also been partially explained ; but I 
 shall give you a few further statements on that point. 1 . In 
 Titus i., 1, God is said to have promised us eternal life in Christ 
 before the world began. Could God promise to us eternal life 
 before we existed ? He could in purpose, but not in reality . In 
 reference to such passages as this, my opponent is obliged to 
 take this interpretation, namely, that what is said to be done , 
 is understood to be only intended to be done when the time 
 should come. Now let "him show why that principle of inter- 
 pretation should not beapplied to the passage before us? 2. Was it 
 Christ’s human nature that had glory before the world began ? 
 My opponent says, No. Was it his divine nature ? My oppo- 
 nent says, Yes. But the divine nature could never change nor 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 401 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 ]ay aside any glory. And if it did come and dwell in man, so far 
 from concealing , it would be only unfolding ari l manifesting its 
 glory, and so farftom laying aside or sacrificing its glory, it would 
 be gamin gmore. It would retain all it had, and get the additional 
 glory of coming to seek and save lost man. 3. Again ; on the 
 orthodox theory, the divine nature of Christ was equal to the 
 Father, and could therefore claim or take back its own glory as 
 a right , it it were possible to lay it aside, without asking for it 
 again from the Father. But, again, the divine nature that ex- 
 isted in Christ, 1 have shown was God the Father , and not a 
 seco? 2 ^divineperson,Godthe Son. My opponent hasnotexplained 
 that matter. I further observe, that others are spoken of among 
 the Jews as pre-existent, as well as Jesus. See John ix., in re- 
 ference to the man that was born blind. .Christ’s disciples 
 asked him, saying, 44 Master, who did sin? This man or his 
 parents, that he was born blind ?” They supposed that he had 
 existed before he was born, and might have sinned before he 
 was born, and that when he was born, he was born blind in 
 consequence of the ein committed before he was born. And 
 Christ did not atten pt to correct the error. 
 
 [At this moment mere was so much confusion in a portion of 
 the meeting, arising from parties leaving their seats to retire, 
 that the speaker could not proceed.] 
 
 Mr. Barker : — I shall be obliged to sit down until these 
 people retire. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — [don’t go, friends, I have about 500 tracts to 
 give you. ( Laughter and applause. ) 
 
 Mr. Bark Git : — If you do intend to go, it will be best to go 
 at once. You can have the tracts to morrow night as you come 
 in ; and I shall have a thousand to give along with them. ( Re- 
 newed laughter and plaudits.) 1 feel it my duty to rest until 
 I can be heard in silence. Justice to truth requires it. (Cries 
 of 46 Go on.”) I am persuaded there are many persons on both 
 sides who wish to hear both sides ; and it is desirable that they 
 should have the privilege of hearing me in quietness, as well 
 as that I should have the pleasure of speaking to a quiet audi- 
 ence. 
 
 [When quietness was restored, Mr. Barker proceeded.] 
 
 I was speaking about the notion of the disciples that the man 
 who was born blind, existed before he was born, and might 
 have sinned in'his pre-existent state. Now' Jesus never cor- 
 rected his disciples. He simply said, 44 Neither hath this man 
 sinned, nor his parents, that lie was born blind : but that the 
 works of God should be made manifest in him.” Again ; John 
 the Baptist, it is said, was sent from God, and must, on my op- 
 ponent’s interpretation, have existed with God before he was 
 sent. As 1 have already shown, in John xvii., 18, Jesus says, 
 — 44 As thou hast sent me into the world, so have L also sent 
 them into the world.” The apostles and Jesus are thus put on 
 the same footing with respect to pre-existence. Yet my oppo- 
 
402 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 nent does not believe in the pre-existence of Christ’s disciples. 
 F orms of expression abound in the sacred writings seeming to 
 imply pre-existence, and are used, not of Christ only, but of 
 all men ; but it would be folly to interpret them literally. Si- 
 milar forms of expression are used even now in our own lan- 
 guage. John Wesley, for instance, says, in reference to him- 
 self, 
 
 From Jehovah 1 came ; 
 
 For his glory I am, 
 
 And to him I will singing return. 
 
 Did John Wesley come from Jehovah literally? No. He 
 would not have said so. But he used scriptural words in their 
 true scriptural sense, to signify that he had his existence from 
 Jehovah, as well as his mission to preach. Again, in reference 
 to his followers, he says, 
 
 With my pastoral crook, 
 
 I came over this brook, — 
 
 And, behold, I am spread into hands. 
 
 Who, I ask in amaze, 
 
 Hath begotten me these, 
 
 And I ask from what quarter they came ? 
 
 My full heart it replies, 
 
 'j'hey are horn from the shies , 
 
 And gives glory to God and the Lamb. 
 
 So that all John Wesley’s disciples and converts came from the 
 same quarter as himself, from the skies. Again ; my opponent 
 must have read, I suppose, John Wesley’s sermons ; and yet 
 John Wesley, in one of his sermons, speaks of all men as being 
 sent down into the world by God on purpose to do his will, 
 and, when they have done it, as going back to heaven to re- 
 ceive the reward of their faithfulness. And this, in fact, is a 
 common form of expression with orthodox persons : they con- 
 stantly speak of people coming from God, or being sent into the 
 world by God, and never think there is any mystery in such 
 expressions, so long as their orthodox notions do not cross their 
 minds, and rob them of their common sense. When false or- 
 thodoxy is out of a man’s thoughts, he talks common sense ; 
 he uses such expressions in a common-sense way, and thinks 
 no more about it : but wdien it suits his purpose, — when a poor 
 heretic comes in his road, he throws his common sense away, 
 and gives the expression a different interpretation. Agair ; the 
 glory which Christ had, was given him by his Father. John 
 xvii., 22, — “ The glory which thou gavest me.” But how one 
 person in the Godhead could give glory to another, is a question 
 which my opponent has not answered. Again ; this same 
 glory Christ gave to his disciples. John xvi., 22, — “ The glory 
 which thou gavest me , I have given them, that they may be one 
 as we are.” But how could he give the glory of the Godhead 
 to his disciples ? Again ; I have already shown that God calls 
 
MR, BARKER. 
 
 403 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 things that are not , but are fixed to be, as though they were . 
 He intends them to happen, and speaks as if they had happen- 
 ed. Hence, he says of Abraham, even while he lived, — cc / 
 have made thee a father of many nations .” 
 
 My opponent says, Christ is immutable and unchangeable ; 
 and he quoted one passage which says, “ Jesus Christ the same 
 yesterday, and to-day, and for ever. 7 ’ I answer, this passage 
 may refer to his religion, as distinguished from the religion of 
 Moses, which changed, or passed away. Or, 2. It may refer to 
 himself, as distinguished from the Jewish priests, who died, and 
 were succeeded by others. Christ lives on for ever, and hath 
 an unchangeable priesthood. 3, Many Trinitarians interpret 
 the passage to mean his doctrine. Vatable says, — “ The word 
 Christ seems here to be put for the Christian doctrine and reli- 
 gion.” And this is the interpretation of Baxter, Father Simon, 
 Le Clerc, and J. G. Rosenmuller, who properly observes that 
 Christ very frequently denotes the Christian religion. This 
 religion does not change. But if it applied to Christ’s person 
 or humanity, the text would not be true, for that was con- 
 stantly changing. Christ lived, died, rose again ; he wept, re- 
 joiced, S$ c. And even his divinity must have changed if it 
 literally became flesh, as my opponent says : and from a hint 
 he gave, he seems to believe that it was literally turned into 
 flesh. On my opponent’s principle, therefore, Christ change- 
 able : on our principle of interpretation, applying it to his re- 
 ligion and his moral character, Christ is the same yesterday, 
 to-day, and for ever. And this interpretation agrees best with 
 the context ; for the writer immediately adds, “ Be not carried 
 about with divers and strange doctrines ; for it is well for the 
 heart to be established with grace, or in charity.” That is, 
 your religion does not change, therefore see that you do not 
 change. 
 
 He sa} r s. Omnipotence is ascribed to Christ ; and quotes the 
 passage, “ Able to subdue all things unto himself.” 1 answer, 
 first, the word Almighty is never applied to Jesus, but only to 
 God the Father. Second, whatever Christ’s power might be, 
 Jesus tells us he had it from God. Bagot says, that it is only 
 exousia , or authority , that Jesus received from God, and not dy- 
 namis , real power, or ability. It is, however, a fact, that in 
 Acts x., 38, it is said that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with 
 the holy spirit and dunamei , power , strength , ability. And in 
 the same epistle from which my opponent took his proof, we 
 are expressly told, that Christ received both his high name, 
 and his lordship, his dominion, from God, as the reward of his 
 piety, and that God gave him his power on purpose that all 
 things might be subdued unto himself, and “ that every knee 
 should bow to him, whether in heaven or in earth.” He 
 had therefore all his power from God, both strength and au- 
 thority . 
 
 My opponent says, J esus is Omnipresent ; but the passages 
 
404 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 he quoted prove no such thing as that Jesus is literally present 
 in all places. Jesus is present in power and authority in the 
 assemblies of his people, hut there is no proof that he is lite- 
 rally present in all Christian assemblies. In Scripture, per- 
 sons are spoken of as being present, when their authority, their 
 writings, their influence, or their spirit is present. Jesus i.iin- 
 self represents Abraham as saying, of the Jews of his own 
 time, “ They have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear 
 them.” Did that mean that they had Moses and the prophets 
 literally present with them? No ; it simply meant that they 
 were present and spoke by their writings and by their influ- 
 ence. Again ; Paul, in 1 Cor., tells us that he himself was 
 sometimes present in spirit where he was absent in body. In the 
 oth chapter, v. 3, he says, — For I verily, as absent in body, but 
 present in spirit , have judged already, as though 1 were present, 
 concerning him that hath so done this deed,, in the name of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and.my spirit, 
 with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ , to deliver such an one 
 unto Satan,” Now here Paul tells us how Christ was present, 
 and how he himself was present also. Christ was present in power 
 and authority : Paul was present in spirit ; but neither was 
 present personally, essentially, literally. 
 
 Again ; suppose that Jesus was literally present in every 
 part of the world, and that his knowledge extended to every 
 meeting of his people on earth, and to every person standing in 
 every corner of the globe ; would that prove him omnipresent ? 
 This world is but a speck compared with the vast universe. 
 Travel but a short distance comparatively, and you iose sight of 
 it. It is but as a drop of a bucket, or as nothing in the eyes of 
 the Lord. And is it not possible for God to add to our present 
 power of looking round us, and seeing what is passing in dif- 
 ferent places ? it is impossible to say what additions may be 
 made to our knowledge or powers of action and vision in another 
 world. The wisest know but in part here. We know not 
 what we shall be able to do hereafter. God, who has made us 
 already so immeasurably greater than the invisible animals 
 which float in the water we drink, is able to make us great and 
 wise enough to superintend the affairs of a world. The change 
 necessary to qualify a man for overlooking and superintending 
 the affairs of such a world as this, would not be greater perhaps 
 that what would be necessary to raise some of God’s creatures 
 to an equality with us in our present state. Even on earth, 
 w r e can now, by means of the electric telegraph, hold commu- 
 nication with people though a thousand miles apart, without 
 losing a second. Our power of motion, too, is rapidly increas- 
 ing ; and let things go on as they now are, and man will be 
 able, so to speak, to fill the earth, and grasp in his soul the af- 
 fairs of the whole world. Jiut in heaven, we know not what 
 powers of knowledge, or what extensive fields of observation 
 will be opened to those who enter into the joy of their Lord. 
 
NIGHT.] MR. BARKER. ^ UQ 
 
 Every one of God’s faithful servants may have authority over 
 ten spiritual kingdoms given him. If, therefore, Christ were 
 present in every part of this world, it would prove nothing but 
 that God had given him a wider sphere of influence and bene- 
 ficent action, and qualified him for the task. And he will give 
 us also a similar sphere of useful action, if we live to do good on 
 earth; and he will qualify us for the task likewise, if we are 
 faithful. 
 
 lie says, that Jesus has Omniscience, or knew all tilings. I 
 answer, l. In 1 John ii., 20 — 27, Christians are said to know 
 all things. 44 Ye have an unction from the Holy One,” says 
 John; “and ye Jcnow all things .” And again, 44 The same 
 anointing teacheth you of all things.” But then we know 
 we must limit the words to all things useful for us, or to all 
 things pertaining to Christian truth and duty ; and so we must 
 limit the words, when used in reference to Christ, to those 
 things referred to in the context. We must go farther, and 
 even see whether he knew ail those things of himself, or whe- 
 ther his knowledge was not derived from God ? And it is cer- 
 tain that Christ did not know all things. But let him have the 
 privilege of speaking for himself. Hear him. 44 But of that 
 day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which 
 are in heaven, neither the Aow, but the Father only.” My op- 
 po lent says the word ndo means to make known; and he refers to 
 I Cor. ii., 2, — 44 1 determined not to know any thing among you, 
 save Jesus Christ, and him crucified,” to prove that the word 
 is sometimes used in this sense, Now, there is not a passage in 
 the whole A e vv Testament where the word is used in the sense 
 of making known . 'That in Corinthians is not a passage in 
 point. Paul meant, 44 1 am determined to set no value on any 
 thing, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” lie would make 
 no use of what he calls the excellency of words or voisdom 9 nor 
 would he trust to any thing as a means of good, but the simple, 
 unadorned, and unadulterated doctrine of Christ the crucihed. 
 That was Paul’s meaning. Nor can the word eido be inter- 
 preted to make known in the passage under consideration. Let 
 us see what kind of sense the interpretation of my opponent 
 will make, on this principle. 44 Of that day and that hour 
 knoweth no man ;” that is, no man maketh it known. Did they 
 ever think any man did make it known? 44 Of that day and 
 hour knoweth no man, no not the ang Is which are in heaven,” 
 —-that is, according to my opponent’s interpretation, the angels 
 in heaven do not make known that day. But did any one ever 
 think they did make it known? — 44 Nor the Son,” that is, the 
 Son doth not make it known — did the disciples ever think the 
 Son had made it known? Did they not know that he had not 
 made it known? It was because he had not made it knoven, 
 that they asked him the question about it. 44 Of that day and 
 hour knoweth no man — but the Father only ;” that is, accord- 
 ing to my opponent’s interpretation, the Father only maketh it 
 
406 MR. BARKER. [NINTH 
 
 known. But did the Father make it known? He did no such 
 thing. He kept it secret. Torture the passage as you will, it 
 still refuses to speak orthodoxly. It still declares the ignorance 
 of Christ in reference to that day. Let the Scriptures be al- 
 lowed to speak plain out, and don’t twist the poor passages to 
 pieces in that way. It is strange that men can have the face 
 thus to torture the Scriptures, especially at the same time that 
 I am charged by them with perverting them. But, lastly, 
 whatever knowledge Jesus had, he had it from the Father. 
 The Father gave him the spirit of wisdom and understanding ; 
 so that his wisdom, however great it might be, did not prove him 
 to be God. 
 
 Jesus Christ, on another occasion, disclaimed the title of 
 “ good.” A man came and said to him, “ Good Master, what 
 shall I do that I may have eternal life? And Jesus said unto 
 him, Why callest thou me good ? there is none good but one, 
 that is, God.” — Mark x., 17, IB. And then he answers his 
 question, “ keep the commandments.” Here he claims for God 
 a kind of goodness which no creature can possess. He teaches 
 that God was good in a sense, in which he himself was not good, 
 thus giving proof that he was not God. My opponent says, 
 referring to the argument founded on this passage, that we first 
 rob Christ of his divinity, and then want to rob him of his 
 goodness, insinuating that we would deny Christ’s goodness as 
 a man , or as the Messiah. So my opponent speaks in his tract. 
 Now he hiew that we had never robbed Christ of his goodness 
 as a creature , but only taught that he was not good in the same 
 sense as God . There is a sense in which God is good, in which 
 Jesus was not good, and in which Jesus requires him alone 
 to be addressed as the good One. It is no more a robbing of 
 Christ of his proper goodness to say, “ there is none good but 
 one, that is, God,” than it is robbing him of his proper holiness 
 to say, “ That God alone is holy” And when we ascribe im- 
 mortality to God alone, as when the Scriptures say that God 
 only hath immortality, we do not mean that God will only live for 
 ever, but that he inherits eternity, in a sense in which no one 
 else can inherit it. It is truly mournful to see men thus mis- 
 representing the sentiments of their opponents. I wish my 
 opponent would do justice to truth, and justice to his oppo- 
 nents. 
 
 He says the w T ork of creation is ascribed to Christ ; and 
 quotes John i., 1 — 4, — “ In the beginning was the Word,” &c., 
 and 66 all things were made by him.” Now, 1. We have shown 
 that “ The Word,” in John i., does not refer to Christ, but to 
 the wisdom of God, which w T as with him, and was consulted in 
 all he did. My opponent tried hard to make this interpretation 
 look ridiculous ; but, after all, lie found it hard work. He 
 chose to confound the wisdom of God as it exists in God, with 
 its manifestation in Jesus Christ. Still, after all, the passage 
 could hardly be made to sound ridiculous. But how would 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 407 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 the passage sound if interpreted on my opponent’s principle ? 
 Let us suppose the word God to mean God the Father, and see 
 how it will read. “ In the beginning was the second person in 
 the trinity, and the second person in the trinity was with God 
 the Father, and the second person in 'the trinity was God the 
 Father, or the first person in the trinity, even when he was the 
 second person in the trinity, or God the Son.” It won’t fit. 
 (Laughter.) Try it again, taking the word God to mean both 
 the Father and the Holy Spirit, it will then read thus : — <c In 
 the beginning was the second person in the trinity, and the 
 second person in the trinity was with the third and first per- 
 sons in the trinity, and the second person in the trinity was the 
 third and first persons in the trinity.” It won’t do ; it will not 
 make sense on the present Trinitarian principle. 
 
 He quoted Hebrews i., 10,—“ Thou, Lord, in the beginning 
 hast laid the foundations of the earth,” in proof of Christ’s 
 Godhead. But he has given no proof, nor will he ever be able 
 to give any proof, that this refers to Christ. The former words 
 are addressed to the Son ; — “ But unto the Son he saith, Thy" 
 throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever ; a sceptre of righteousness 
 is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, 
 and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed 
 thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” But when 
 Jesus is addressed as God, it is in the sense of a Prince, as one 
 chosen to be a Prince. The apostle then turns to Jehovah, and 
 says, — “ Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations 
 of the earth ; and the heavens are the work of tliine hands ; they 
 shall perish ; but thou remainest ; and they shall ail wax old as 
 doth a garment ; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and 
 they shall be changed : but thou art the same, and thy years 
 shall not fail.” 
 
 My opponent also quoted Col. i., 15,— “ For by him were all 
 things created,” &c. This does refer to Christ: but the creation 
 spoken of is not the first, literal, universal creation ; but the 
 new creation, the spiritual creation. My opponent says, that 
 when Paul says, “all things in heaven and in earth ” were 
 created by Christ, he leaves nothing out ; and argues thence, that 
 he must have literally made all things. Now in the 20th verse, 
 you ha\e these words : — “ And, having made peace though the 
 blood of his cross, by him to reconcile ALL THINGS unto 
 himself; by him, I say, WHETHER THEY BE THINGS 
 IN EARTH OR THINGS IN HEAYEIn.” Now if all 
 things in earth and in heaven, mean literally all things in ex- 
 istence, then the mountains, rivers and trees ; the sun, the moon, 
 the stars ; fish, birds, and beasts, and so on, were all reconciled 
 to God by Jesus Christ ; for he tells us that when Paul says, 
 “ all things in heaven and in earth,” — all things are included. 
 Now, does my opponent mean to say, that God, by giving 
 Christ to death, meant to reconcile unto himself the mountains, 
 the trees, the rivers, the sun, the moon, and the stars ; the 
 
408 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 birds, the fishes, and the beasts, &c. ? (Hissing.) I am sure 
 the truth of this is irresistible, or you would not thus hiss. 
 (Renewed hissing.) I cannot but take it as an indication that 
 you think my argument never can be answered. (Much dis- 
 approbation and applause.) 
 
 Mr. Grant : — silence ! Silence ! 
 
 Mr. Barker : — My chairman will take note of time. 
 
 A Voice : — Tell no lies then. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — We will not leave you to judge. 
 
 Mr. Barker : — I repeat, that I apply these words of Paul 
 in Col. i., 16, &c., to a spiritual creation. And 1 shall give 
 you some of my reasons why 1 regard the words in this 
 light. First, there is the wording of the passage itself. It 
 does not say that Jesus creates the heavens , and the earthy the 
 sea , and aU that in them is; but it says all things in heaven, 
 and in earth, whether they be thrones , dominions, principalities, 
 powers , or authorities ; words plainly referring to social institu- 
 tions, to men, and not to the natural universe. The words 
 employed by Scripture in describing the natural creation are of 
 quite a different kind. And then, 2, the apostle adds, that 
 Christ reconciled all things unto God ; whether they be things 
 in earth , or things, in haven ; showing that he refers, through- 
 out the whole, to men and not to things ; and that he is speak- 
 ing of a spiritual creation, not a natural one. Again ; the 
 phrase “all things in heaven and in earth” is a form of expres- 
 sion which the apostle plainly applies to Jews and Gentiles. 
 The Jews are represented as sitting in heavenly places, and the 
 Gentiles as sitting in earthly places ; one expression pointing 
 out the high privileges of the Jews ; the other, referring to the 
 downcast, abject state of the Gentiles. And if we understand 
 Paul, in these words, to refer to Gentiles and Jews, and to be 
 speaking of their new creation, the whole is very plain and 
 simple. Christ has created society afresh. He has made Jew 
 and Gentile into one new' creation, by changing their character, 
 by reconciling them to each other, and uniting and reconciling 
 both to God. Again ; the Apostle says, All things in heaven 
 or in earth, whether they be thrones, ov dominions, or princi- 
 palities, or powers , [or authorities ~ ) JNow, thrones, powers, 
 principalities, &e., are words naturally enough applied to social 
 arrangements, or to the arrangements of a kingdom ; but they 
 are not proper words to be applied to sun, moon, stars, rivers, 
 mountains, fields, and forests. Again ; as w r e have seen, all 
 things in heaven and in earth are said to be reconciled to God. 
 Ihis can have reference only to men, for w T e are plainly taught 
 that it w ? as men whom Christ came to reconcile to God. In 
 Eph. i., 10, there is a similar phrase, where it is said, “God 
 chose by Christ to gather t getlier all things in one, both which 
 are in heaven, and which are on earth that is, gather together 
 Jews and Gentiles in one. £ee also Phil, ii., 10, where it is 
 said that every knee should bow to Christ, of things in heaven 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 409 
 
 night.] 
 
 and tilings in earth ; and every tongue should confess that 
 Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” 
 Does this mean the knees and tongues of rivers , mountains , 
 trees ; of sun, and moon , and stars , and the like? Or simply, 
 tongues and knees of all the inhabitants of the earth ? The 
 words refer, not to things , but persons . The phrase means that 
 Jews and Gentiles are to bow their knees to Christ, or confess 
 him as their appointed king. Again ; we know that Christ did 
 spoil old principalities , and authorities , and powers — that is, the 
 whole Jewish system of institutions and authorities. And it 
 was natural enough for Paul, while speaking of Christ, and 
 telling us that he took these old principalities, &c., away, to 
 tell us that he created or established new principalities and 
 powers — a new spiritual economy — a new' kingdom, with all its 
 necessary institutions and arrangements. 
 
 But I may be reminded of the word cc created .” I answ T er, 
 this is a word which is frequently used in reference to spiritual 
 things ; as in Epli. ii., 10— -15, where Christ is expressly said 
 to have created a new society out of two which formerly ex- 
 isted. 44 For we,” — the united church, — 44 are his workman- 
 ship, created in Jesus Christ unto good works*,” &c. 44 Now, 
 
 in Christ Jesus ye v r ho sometimes were far off are made nigh 
 by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made 
 both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition 
 between us ; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the 
 law of commandments contained in ordinances ; for to make, to 
 create in himself of twain, one new man, so making peace.” 
 The word which is here translated to make , is ktise , create , and 
 is rendered create in other parts of the passage. When Paul 
 says that Christ died to make out of twain one new man, the 
 reading in the original is, that he might create out of two one 
 new man ; the word rendered make, being the. very same word 
 that is used in Col. i., 16. The whole passage, as well as the 
 parallel passages, ail show that the creation referred to is the 
 spiritual creation of men, the renovation of society. And the 
 words have been so understood by the most eminent critics, 
 even among Trinitarians. Procopius Gazaeus interprets the 
 word created thus : 44 That is, renovated and restored to their 
 pristine state” Grotius says, fc4 From its previous connection, 
 it is more proper to interpret the word Ektisehe here, as signify- 
 ing constituted or modelled, or that a new state of things was intro- 
 duced,” And Dr. Bloomfield says, on Eph. ii., 10, — 44 The 
 best ancient and modern commentators are agreed, that by the 
 words poiema and ktisis must be understood, not the natural 
 and original creation, as men, but the figurative and spiritual 
 creation, as Christians,” This agrees with Heb. iii. 6, where 
 Christ is represented as building his own house ; 44 whose house 
 are we, if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope 
 firm unto the end.” It was the spiritual universe, therefore, 
 that Jesus created ; and he created that universe, or kingdom, 
 by a power that God had given him. s 
 
410 MR. BARKER. [NINTH 
 
 He says, Christ had the power to pardon sin, and that that 
 power belongs only to God. I answer, read Matt, ix., 1— 8, 
 and you will see that God is spoken of as giving that power unto 
 men . Christ had had brought to him a paralytic person to bo 
 cured, and he said to the man, “ Son, be of good cheer ; thy 
 sins be forgiven thee.” Certain of the scribes then charged 
 him with blasphemy; on which Jesus said, “That ye may 
 know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins 
 (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, take up thy bed, 
 and go into thine house. And he arose and departed to his 
 house. When the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glori- 
 fied God, which had given such power unto men” Jesus meant 
 them to understand that God gave him the power.— And if you 
 look at John xx., 22, 23, you will find that the same power 
 "was given by Christ to his apostles. “ And when he had said 
 this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted 
 unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” 
 So that other men, it seems, can forgive sins by God’s authori- 
 ty ; and it was by God’s authority that Christ forgave them. 
 
 It is said that Jesus will raise the dead at the last day, and 
 this is brought forward to prove his Godhead. But others 
 have raised the dead as well as Jesus. Both prophets and 
 apostles have raised the dead : but are they, therefore, God ? 
 Again; Christ received the power to raise the dead from his 
 Father. So that the possession of that power only proves that 
 God was with him, not that Jesus was God. Look at John v., 
 22 — 36 . 
 
 My opponent says, the work of preserving the universe is 
 ascribed to Christ. 1 answer, only the spiritual universe; and 
 the power to preserve it is derived from God. 
 
 He says, Christ was appointed to judge the world. I answer, 
 Christ said his disciples should judge the twelve tribes of Israel. 
 Matt, xix., 28. Paul says the saints shall judge the world, — 
 I Cor. vi., 2 ; and that they shall judge angels; verse 3. Again; 
 the judgment of the world is given into Christ’s hands by God, 
 his Father. “The Father hath committed all judgment unto 
 the Son.” Again ; it is not the Godhead, or divinity, in Christ 
 that is appointed to judge ; but, as the apostle says, God has 
 appointed a day to judge the world in righteousness by that 
 man whom he hath appointed. It is the man , then, who shall 
 judge the world. And Jesus himself says that all power is 
 given unto him to judge because he is the son of man , not be- 
 cause he is God the Son. God the Father could not give power 
 or authority to Christ if he were God the Son. Being equal 
 with the Father, he must already have had it. Be could only 
 give it to the man Christ Jesus ; and the power to judge the 
 world is accordingly placed in the hands of the man Christ Jesus. 
 
 He says divine worship is ascribed to Christ, and he especi- 
 ally quotes the words that, We are to honour the Son as we 
 
NIGHT. 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 411 
 
 honour the Father. I answer, look at the passage, and you 
 will see that so far from proving Christ’s Godhead, it proves 
 the contrary. It simply shows that the Father had given all 
 judgment unto the Son, and that all men were to honour him 
 on that account , as they would have honoured the Father, whose 
 representative he was. W e are to honour him, not because he 
 is God, but because God hath appointed him to be our judge. 
 We are to honour him as the Father’s representative, as the 
 Father’s plenipotentiary, as the Father’s messenger; not be- 
 cause he is God, but because God hath appointed him to be our 
 ruler; hath committed all judgment into his hands. And we 
 honour him best when we do as he bids us, and believe what 
 he says to us. And he bids us, when we pray, to say, 44 Our 
 Father, 5 ’ &e. 
 
 My opponent speaks of persons calling upon the name of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, as a proof that Christians, in early times, 
 prayed to Christ. But in almost every passage in the New 
 Testament where the phrase calling upon an individual is men- 
 tioned, the meaning is sur naming* See Matt, x., 3. 44 Leb- 
 
 haeus, whose surname was,” or who was called upon, 44 Thad- 
 deus.” Calling upon Christ’s name means calling ourselves, or 
 regarding ourselves as Christ’s servants or disciples. 44 Calling 
 upon;” See Acts ix., 14, where Saul is said to have had autho- 
 rity from the chief priests 44 to bind all that call on thy name:” 
 the meaning is, all who professed themselves Christ’s followers. 
 Acts i., 33, 4 * Barsabas, who was surname.d Justus.” The 
 word here and elsewhere translated surnarned , is the same that 
 is translated in other places calling upon. To call on Christ’s 
 name, means to surname ourselves by Jesus Christ ; or to 
 become his servants ; to take upon ourselves his name, or to 
 receive him as our Master ; and to determine to live in obedi- 
 ence to his authority — not to pray to him. 
 
 He says, Stephen called upon Christ in prayer. I answer, if 
 Stephen prayed to Christ as God, he did wrong: he disobeyed 
 Christ’s precepts and commands ; for Christ told us to pray to 
 the Father, and he always prayed to the Father himself. He 
 not only said, 44 And when ye pray, say, Our Father,” but he 
 expressly forbade us to pray to himself . He said, 44 In that day 
 ye shall ask ME NOTHING,” but 44 whatsoever ye shall ask 
 the Father in my name, he will give it you.” But Stephen 
 did not break Christ’s commandment. He saw Jesus and ad- 
 dressed his request to him as present, a thing which we our- 
 selves should all do, if we saw him. If he was before us, in 
 our presence, we should take delight in laying our state before 
 him, and in asking from him whatever favour he might be 
 empowered by God to grant. But to pray to Christ is forbidden. 
 Christ always prayed himself to the Father : and he is our 
 example. 
 
 My opponent quotes the passage, 44 the grace of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the 
 
412 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [ninth 
 
 Holy Ghost, be with you all,” as a prayer to Christ. In 1 Cor. 
 xvi. 23, 24, Paul says, cc The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be 
 with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus.” Does 
 Paul pra 3 r to himself, or to his own love, then ? Or are we to 
 take the words simply as a wish that both his own love and the 
 love of Christ might be with them 1 
 
 Be says the saints in heaven worship the Lamb. But it is 
 as a Jamb , and not as God . They only worship him as we 
 ourselves shall be glad to do, when we are permitted to enter 
 his presence. And we have no doubt but we shall be permit- 
 ted to dwell in his presence, if we are faithful. Even if our 
 opinions were erroneous, we have no idea that he would ex- 
 clude us from heaven for errors which w r e could not avoid. He 
 who took the good Samaritan, and set him up as an example 
 for the orthodox Jews to follow, will not turn out poor here- 
 tics, if we love him and love our brethren. We say it is in his 
 human nature, as the Lamb , that saints extol and bless him : 
 but is the word Lamb a name for God ? 
 
 He says that saints trust in him. So do we. We trust in 
 him as God’s messenger, as God’s anointed, as God’s appointed 
 Mediator or representative, and as the instrument of all good 
 from God. 
 
 He tells us that Christ was one with God. So he was ; but 
 not God himself. In John xvii. 11 and 22, Christ prays that 
 all who believe on him might be one, even as he and the Fa- 
 ther were one. Christ may be one with the Father without 
 being God, just as all Christians may be one, without being 
 one man. Jesus and God may be one, without being one God 
 —one in purpose , in work, in operation . 
 
 Another passage he gave us was that which says, “ The ful- 
 ness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily.” I answer, so 
 it did, and it may dwell in us ; for it is a fact that Paul prays 
 that the Ephesians might be tilled with all the fulness of God. 
 
 My opponent said the Jews believed that Christ stated him- 
 self to be equal w T ith God. I answer ; Christ said he w r as so in 
 authority , but never in essence , in nature . But it is asked, Did 
 not the Jews say that he called himself God ? I answer, Yes, 
 they did, and they told a lie in saying so. Jesus did not tell 
 them that he was God ; but he says, “ It is written in your 
 law, 6 1 said ye are Gods,’ and if those to whom God sent his 
 word are called Gods, why find fault with me, by whom the 
 word is sent, who only said I am the Son of God.” If he had 
 told them that he was God, it would have been a quibble to 
 have given such an answ r er as this. If he had called himself 
 God, and then spoken as he does speak in this passage, he would 
 be chargeable with shrinking from the truth, and trying to get 
 out of a difficulty not creditably. But no such imputation rests 
 upo i him. I believe him to have been a truly pious young 
 man, and incapable of the hypocrisy and dissimulation thus 
 urged against him. 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 413 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 My opponent says, that Christ had two natures ; and that 
 what he says and knows in one nature, he does not say or 
 know in the other. Now if Jesus had two natures, and talked 
 on this principle to his disciples, he ought to have told them, 
 and given them a list of the things which he said, telling them 
 which were spoken by him as a man, and which were spoken 
 by him as God, or in his divine nature. And unless he did 
 tell them that he had two natures, and give them such a list, 
 he would leave them liable to infinite error. My opponent 
 may say, Yes, hut the apostles were infallible. But my oppo- 
 nent also says we are not infallible. So that we must he left at 
 complete random without such a list, and may mistake without 
 end. Besides, some parts of the very same sentence must be 
 understood as applying only to human nature, while other parts 
 must be understood as applying to the divine nature, according 
 to the orthodox mode of interpreting Christ’s words. _ We 
 should therefore be always at a loss, and never able to decide in 
 reference to Christ’s sayings, to which nature they referred, or 
 how they were to he understood. Christ’s words and Christ’s 
 history would, on the theory that he talked in two natures, be 
 calculated only to bewilder and mislead men. 
 
 Besides, to represent Christ as saying that he did not Jcnow a 
 thing, while at the same time he did know it, or to represent 
 him as saying that he could do nothing of himself, while he 
 knew that he was truly God, and could do all things of himself,, 
 is to represent him as a wilful deceiver. Suppose 1 were found 
 to be very ungrateful to my parents, and, when reproached for 
 my ingratitude, should say, in order to excuse myself, that I 
 did not Jcnow my parents, and that it should turn out that I really 
 did know them as to my spiritual nature, but that my meaning 
 was, that my great toe did not know them, should I not be con- 
 demned at once as a hypocrite, as a wilful liar ? Yet this is 
 the light in which my opponent’s theory places Jesus Christ. 
 Jesus is represented as saying he can do nothing of himself, and 
 as praying to his Father for help ; his hearers suppose what he 
 says to be true, when, behold, it turns out to be all false, — that 
 Christ was truly God, equal to his Father, and that he only 
 meant that one small part of himself could do nothing of itself, 
 while the other part could do all things. It is impossible but 
 his hearers should feel in such a case that they had been gross- 
 ly imposed upon. Yet Jesus is represented by my opponent as 
 acting in this manner. I say, then, that the distinction of two 
 natures in Christ is a priestly invention, and is a gross libel on 
 Christ, and is deserving only of rejection and reprobation. 
 
 I have a number of other arguments on this subject, which I 
 shall endeavour to notice to-morrow evening ; when I shall 
 also reply to my opponent’s remarks of to-night. 
 
 There are two other subjects on the list, which I intended to 
 have entered into at some length. One is the doctrine of eter- 
 nal life in torments. No such doctrine is to be found in the 
 
 s 2 
 
414 MR. BARKER. [NINTH NIGHT 
 
 Scriptures. There is not a passage in the Bible that teaches 
 such a doctrine. It is an awful fiction ; and it is a dreadful re- 
 flection against God. It is not only untrue, but blasphemous. 
 
 I say, first, that in no part of the Scriptures is it stated that 
 the wicked shall live for ever, and be eternally tormented. 
 
 Second, the contrary is stated, that the wicked shall die . 
 
 Third, this doctrine, that the wicked shall die, is the doctrine 
 that has been taught by God from the beginning. 
 
 1. It was taughtby God to Adam, in Paradise. The threat- 
 ening was, “ The day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sure- 
 ly” — what ? be eternally tormented ? No. But, “ thou shalt 
 surely die” 
 
 2. The same doctrine was taught by Moses to Israel. Be- 
 hold, says he, I have set before you life — and what ? eternal 
 torments? No ; but life and death . 
 
 3. The same doctrine was taught by David in the Psalms. 
 His language was, The wicked shall — live in eternal torments ? 
 No. The wicked shall perish . Thine enemies shall perish . 
 All they that are far from thee shall perish. Psalm xxxvii., 
 20 ; xcii., 9 ; Ixxiii., 27. 
 
 4. It was the same doctrine that was taught by Solomon. 
 “ There is a way,” says he, “ that seemetli right unto man, but 
 the end thereof is death . All that hate wisdom, love death” 
 
 5. The doctrine of Ezekiel was the same. “ The soul that 
 sinneth shall die” “ Turn ye from your evil ways : why will 
 ye die ?” 
 
 6. It was taught by Malachi. “ For, behold, the day cometh, 
 that shall bum as an oven ; and all the proud, yea, and all that 
 do wickedly, shall be stubble : and the day that cometh shall 
 burn them up , saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them 
 neither ROOT nor BRANCH.” 
 
 7. Next came John the Baptist. What says he? “Whose 
 fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and 
 gather his wheat into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff 
 with unquenchable fire.” 
 
 8. Jesus taught the same great doctrine. He tells us of sin 
 leading to destruction . He speaks of God destroying body and 
 soul in hell. He speaks of our perishing ; losing our souls, our 
 lives, or being, and the like : but he never says any thing about 
 eternal torments. 
 
 9. Paul teaches the same doctrine. He says, the wages of 
 sin is death . If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. If ye live 
 after the flesh, ye shall reap corruption. The end of these things 
 is death. The wicked shall be punished with everlasting de- 
 struction. 
 
 10. In the epistle to the Hebrews it is said that that which 
 bringeth forth thorns and briers is to be burned , that God is a 
 consuming fire, and that his fiery indignation shall devour the 
 adversaries. 
 
 Mr. Barker was here informed that his time was up. lie 
 immediately ceased, and the meeting separated. 
 
 END OF NINTH NIGHT’S DISCUSSION. 
 
415 
 
 TENTH NIGHT. 
 
 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 1845. 
 
 The excitement consequent on the discussion had now reach- 
 ed its acme. Very shortly after the door was opened, the lecture- 
 room was occupied in every part ; and as fresh parties arrived, 
 the process of condensation proceeded, until every seat and spot 
 were filled. Indications of a zealous spirit were manifested on 
 both sides; and it was evident that a very little misunderstanding 
 would have produced very great confusion. The applause was 
 loud and oft-repeated, not only on the arrival of the disputants, 
 but when prominent individuals, friends to either gentleman, 
 made their appearance. 
 
 At a few minutes before 7, Mr. Gilmore rose and enquired if 
 Mr. Henry Lyne was in the room. The gentleman named 
 replied in the affirmative ; on which Mr. G. asked him if he 
 had any objection to take the Umpire’s chair that evening? Mr. 
 Lyne said he had not. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore then enquired of Mr. Grant if he had any ob- 
 jection to Mr. H. Lyne, (whom he described as a New Je- 
 rusalemite, and independent of both parties,) sitting as umpire. 
 
 Mr. Grant said he knew nothing about Mr. II. Lyne. What 
 ailed Mr. Gilmore at the present umpire ? He was not disposed 
 to make any change. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore said they had no objection to the Reporter 
 whatever. But as it was apprehended questions would arise as 
 to time, and as the Reporter manifestly could not attend to that, 
 it was thought desirable to have a gentleman in the chair who 
 could do so. 
 
 Mr. Grant enquired whether the Reporter could undertake 
 to decide any dispute regarding time ? 
 
 The Reporter said he could not ; but he would suggest that 
 any difficulty of that kind might be got over by neither party 
 being too particular or jealous about a few minutes of time. 
 
 Mr. Cooke observed, that if they changed now, they might get 
 an umpire who was not acquainted with the rules of the dis- 
 cussion. He could not at all consent to the umpireship being 
 changed ; for he had full confidence in the Reporter. 
 
 Mr. Barker said the only reason for making the suggestion 
 was to avoid disputation as to time. 
 
 Mr. Grant then rose to introduce Mr. Cooke for the last time, 
 and said, — Christian Friends : I have the pleasure once more to 
 request your attention, while I very briefly introduce Mr. 
 Cooke to your notice. All that I have to impress upon your 
 
416 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [tenth 
 
 minds is, — what I have often told you before, and what y ou ^ 
 own experience must fully have confirmed, — that on all sides ot 
 the house quietness is best. And the more quietly you com- 
 port y ourselves, the better you will be enabled to judge fairly 
 between the disputants, and to weigh the merits of the case m 
 your own minds. With these brief recommendations, I now 
 beg to introduce Mr. Cooke again to your notice. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr. Cooke then rose and was received with applause of con- 
 siderable duration. He said, — Mr. Chairman : Christian 
 Friends, — I feel very happy in the opportunity of addressing 
 you once more on the important subject which has been brought 
 under our consideration. Last evening, when Mr. Barker 
 found that he could not answer my arguments from Scripture, 
 he took another course ; that of raking together the conflicting 
 views of fallible men. You will perceive the drift of this. As 
 he could not undermine my proofs, he thought he would throw 
 dust into your eyes, to prevent you from seeing the truth, 
 clearly ; and thus raise doubts in your minds about the truth 
 in general — not only about the doctrines in question, but about 
 Scriptural truth in general. This was very apparent when, in 
 positive violation of the rules of this discussion, my opponent 
 sought to undermine the authority of the Book of Revelation. 
 He had previously signed a document, pledging himself not to 
 utter a sentiment impugning the divine authority of any Book 
 contained in the authorized version : yet, in violation of that 
 J3ledge, which ought, to have the sanctity of an oath, he asserted 
 that the Book of Revelation is spurious. It is thus, however, 
 that his disregard for his own solemn pledge, and his disbelief of 
 the Bible, both become manifest together. Desperate, in his 
 own estimation, must his cause be, when he can have recourse 
 to measures which thus involve a violation ot moral principle. 
 If the design of this discussion had been to investigate the au- 
 thenticity of the sacred books, I should have defended their 
 genuineness : but neither the object of the > discussion, nor my 
 limited time, will admit of this. 
 
 Respecting the quotations which Mr. Barker adduced last 
 evening from various writers, I observe, first, that the quota- 
 tions are not all from Trinitarian writers, but some of them are 
 from Arian authors. Secondly, that those said to be given from 
 Trinitarian writers are of no authority in this discussion ; be- 
 cause they form not the standard to which we have mutually 
 agreed to appeal. Thirdly, the quotations given by my oppo- 
 nent are not to be relied upon ; for it is the practice of Wilson, 
 his Unitarian authority, to give the sentiments of commenta- 
 tors, not in their own words, but in his own language ; and 
 often to present them in a garbled aspect. Again ; the words ot 
 an author, when given, are often given unfairly — detached from 
 their proper connection ; and sometimes they are given falsely, 
 and made t > speak sentiments which the authors themselves 
 never held. 
 
MK. COOKE. 
 
 417 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Lest I should not have time for the principal body of my ad- 
 dress, I shall waive a reference to these authors for the present : 
 though I have them before me, and, if my time should admit, I 
 shall point out the falsehood of the quotations which have been 
 given. And I would here remark that I have before me not less 
 than THIRTY-EIGHT falsehoods and awful perversions of 
 truth, selected from the writings of Priestley, Belsham, and 
 Lindsay, in reference to the subjects which have been under our 
 discussion ; especially in reference to the sentiments of the Fa- 
 thers respecting the person of Christ. And I shall be willing 
 for any competent gentleman to examine them after this discus- 
 sion is over. And perhaps I may take t^e opportunity of pub- 
 lishing them. 
 
 MR. BARKER HAS ALSO BEEN GUILTY OF 
 GROSSLY MISREPRESENTING MY SENTIMENTS. 
 He stated that I had misquoted Seneca in his letter to Id el via. 
 But the fact is, that the very quotation he gave establishes the 
 correctness of my statement. The only difference is, that Mr. 
 Barker extended the quotation, and made it include a passage 
 which savours of materialism. So far as I quoted the passage, 
 it is correct ; and that Seneca was not a materialist, his writings 
 afford abundant evidence. 
 
 HE HAS ALSO GROSSLY MISREPRESENTED ME IN 
 REFERENCE TO JONATHAN’S TARGUM. I have borne 
 the insult offered on previous occasions, but now I shall reply. I 
 did not say that Jonathan said, on Isaiah the 6th, Holy — that is 
 the Father ; Holy — that is the Son ; Holy — that is the Holy 
 Ghost. I said that Rabbi Simeon Ben Jochai gave this expo- 
 sition ; and this Mr. Barker lias never denied, much less dis- 
 proved : and therefore he might have saved himself the trou- 
 ble of writing to a Jewish Rabbi, who, I suppose, rejects 
 both the Divinity and Messiahship of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 As to J onathan applying the title of Jehovah to Christ, I remark 
 that he most plainly does so in more instances than one. And 
 I am prepared to take any gentleman of competent knowledge 
 along with me to my house, and show him passages where 
 J onathan in his Targum does refer the term J ehovah to the 
 Messiah — the Lord Jesus Christ. (Loud cheering.) 
 
 I proceed to notice some of Mr. Barker’s objections, advanced 
 last evening. 
 
 In reference to the passage in 1 Tim. iii., 16, — “ Great is the 
 mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,” Mr. Barker 
 asserts that Qeog, is spurious, and that Griesbach has it og , Wl\o 
 was manifested. I answer, first, that the evidence in favour of 
 the genuineness of Qeog , decidedly preponderates. Dr. Thoiuch 
 from Germany, examined the Alexandrian manuscript in the 
 British Museum ; and is decidedly of opinion that the common 
 reading is genuine. Dr. Schulz, a better authority than Gries- 
 bach, and one of our own standards, preserves the reading of 
 Qeog. But if we adopt og , as the reading, the meaning is 
 
418 MR. COOKE. [[tenth 
 
 exactly the same — (and I desire to call attention to the fact) — for 
 the relative pronoun masculine og, who , must have an antece- 
 dent, and that antecedent can be no other noun but Qsog ; for 
 neither in gender nor sense can the pronoun refer to any other. 
 It cannot agree to tv<jsf3eui , godliness , for that is feminine ; it 
 cannot refer to the word yvornpiov, mystery , for that is neuter ; 
 it cannot refer to the word aXr]0sia , truth , for that is feminine ; 
 it cannot refer to the word e^pano/xa, ground , or foundation , for 
 that is neuter, and, besides, it would make no sense of the pas- 
 sage : it cannot refer to the word arvXog, 'pillar , for the same 
 reason; and it cannot refer to the word etocXiicaa , church , for this 
 is feminine ; and the sense also forbids it : but with the word 
 0£oc, it has a perfect concord, both in gender and in sense. 
 The philology and divinity here completely harmonize, and give 
 propriety, spirit, and vigour to the apostle’s statement, — that 
 great is the mystery of godliness, “ God was manifest in the 
 flesh for what is so great a mystery as the incarnation of the 
 Lord of light and glory ? This is the doctrine of the passage, 
 and accords with the teaching of John, “In the beginning was 
 the Word, and the W ord was with God, and the Word was God.” 
 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we 
 beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, 
 full of grace and truth.” 
 
 Mr. Barker laboured hard to make it appear that Christ was 
 the author of a spiritual but not of a natural creation: but, hard 
 as he toiled, he failed; for, in the first place, he omitted to notice 
 the passage in John i., 3 — 10, as he no doubt felt it conveni- 
 ent to do so. Secondly, in quoting Col. i., 16, he left out the 
 words visible and invisible ,” which, of course, include all possi- 
 ble creatures. Thirdly, he told an untruth when he referred to 
 Heb. i., 8, asserting that it did not apply to Christ ; but you 
 shall hear the passage, and judge for yourselves: — “ But unto 
 the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.” Who 
 is addressed there ? Christ the Son. “ A sceptre of righteousness 
 is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, 
 and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even thy God, hath 
 anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” And 
 then we have the copulative conjunction kcu connecting the 
 following verse with the preceding, — “ And thou, Lord, in the 
 beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens 
 are the works of thine hands.” Fourthly, 1 reply that Mr. Bar- 
 ker, by a singular felicity of argument, included Jews and Gen- 
 tiles in his spiritual creation.. Now as there are no human beings 
 but Jews and Gentiles, it, of course, follows, on his own showing, 
 that Christ created all men . This is what the apostle John main- 
 tains, when he says, “ He was in the world, and the world was 
 made by him, and the world knew him not.” Just ask your- 
 selves what world was it that knew him not? Mankind knew 
 him not. It was the world he was in, OUR W ORLD, that knew 
 him not, though the Saviour made it. Need I tell you that my 
 
NIGHT. J MR. COOKE. 419 
 
 opponent has singularly failed in his attempt to prove that Christr 
 did not create the visible universe ? 
 
 My opponent says that the church is called “ Jehovah our 
 Righteousness.” But this, Mr. Barker knows, is a mistake. He 
 can criticise when it suits his purpose ; but when it better suits 
 his purpose, he can let criticism alone, and take the common 
 reading. The reference is to Jeremiah xxxiii., 15, 16,—“ In 
 those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righte- 
 ousness” — mark the phrase !— ' “to grow up unto David ; and 
 HE”— mark! — “ He shall execute judgment and righteousness 
 in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and J erusalem 
 shall dwell safely : and this is the name wherewith she shall be 
 called, The Lord our righteousness.” There is something sin- 
 gular in our translation having the phrase “this is the nam 
 wherewith she shall be called but the seeming difficulty van" 
 ishes before an enlightened criticism ; for, first, the reference i s 
 not to the church, but to the Righteous Branch proceeding from 
 David. This must be Christ, for this is one of his titles ; and 
 he is called the son of David according to the flesh : and he is 
 Jehovah our righteousness according to his Divine nature. But 
 these titles cannot belong to the church ; for she is neither the 
 Branch of righteousness, nor the Son of David, nor Jehovah our 
 righteousness. But I ask, how comes it to pass that we read in 
 our version or translation, “ she shall be called the Lord our 
 righteousness”? It is easily explained. The Hebrew 
 pronoun rendered she differs very little in its form from the pro- 
 noun rendered He. The only difference is a small stroke ; and 
 this must have been omitted by a transcriber of some ancient 
 copy. Of this there is satisfactory evidence ; for it is HE, and 
 not she, in the Chaldee paraphrase, and in the Syriac, and Vul- 
 gate, and Septuagint versions ; and Dr. Kennicott, in searching 
 ancient manuscripts, found a various reading, which conforms 
 to all the versions I have named, and makes it HE, and not she y 
 and thus conforms to the sense of the passage. Here, then, the 
 passage, we see, ought to read that HE, the Righteous Branch, 
 that HE who proceeds from David, HE shall be called the Lord 
 our righteousness. So that the argument about the church being 
 called the Lord our righteousness falls to the ground. 
 
 All this evidence is supported by a parallel passage from the 
 same prophet, when speaking of the same Glorious Personage, 
 Christ, and applying to him the same titles. Jeremiah xxiii., 
 5, 6, — “ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise 
 unto David a Righteous Branch,” --the same term— “and a 
 King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and 
 justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Is- 
 rael shall dwell safely : and this is HIS name whereby HE shall 
 be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” And 
 thus Scripture sheds light upon Scripture ; and the word of God 
 becomes its own commentator. This is so plain and conclusive 
 that “ no ingenuity of man can explain it away.” Thus Christ 
 
420 
 
 ME. COOKE. 
 
 TENTH 
 
 is called Jehovah our Righteousness; yet Mr. Barker asserts that 
 he was simply a pious young man. (Laughter, and calls to 
 “ order.”) 
 
 My opponent says that to call upon the name of Christ is to 
 call ourselves by his name. It so happens, however, that there 
 is no evidence that the New Testament disciples ever did call 
 themselves by Christ’s name. They were called “ Christians;” 
 but the appellation appears to have been given to them by their 
 enemies, as a term of reproach. But suppose they did call 
 themselves by the Saviour’s name, there is no evidence that 
 they ever called themselves by his name in prayer. We have 
 many examples of prayer, but not one in which they used 
 prayer for that purpose. The dying thief prayed. Was it to 
 call himself by the name of Christ ? No ; but to obtain salva- 
 tion. “ Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” 
 The dying Stephen prayed. Was it to surname himself by 
 Christ’s name? No ; but to implore pardon for bis enemies ; 
 and to commit his departing spirit into the hands of the Saviour 
 in whom he trusted. 
 
 The Apostles prayed to Christ in a variety of forms. They 
 prayed to him for blessings temporal, and blessings spiritual ; 
 and you shall have a few of their expressions. 
 
 When Paul was tried with the affliction, figuratively called 
 “ a thorn in the flesh,” he besought the Lord thrice for deliver- 
 ance, and received from him the gracious answer, “ My grace 
 is sufficient for thee, for my strength is perfect in weakness.” 
 And the Apostle adds, “ Most gladly, then, will I glory in my 
 infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” Was 
 it “ a pious young man ” whose grace was sufficient for him, and 
 wdiose strength was made perfect in his weakness? Or did the 
 Apostle pray to Christ that he might be surnamed by him ? 
 Judge ye. 
 
 St. Paul, writing to Timothy, uses the following prayer. 1 
 Tim. i., 2, — “ Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father 
 and from Jesus Christ our Lord.” Now, what are the blessings 
 which are here sought ? Does the Apostle ask for the blessings 
 that he might be surnamed by Christ’s name ? No, he asks for 
 mercy ; he asks for grace ; he asks for peace. And these three 
 blessings comprehend all spiritual blessings;— mercy, to pardon ; 
 grace, to sanctify ; and peace, as the happy result of these im- 
 portant blessings. From whom does the Apostle seek these 
 blessings? He sought them from God, even our Father, and 
 from our Lord Jesus Christ. And how does he seek them? 
 He sought them by an act of worship — by prayer to the Father 
 and to Christ. Yet Mr. Barker tells us that “ Christ is jjast a 
 pious young man.” So, then, we have a pious young man 
 associated with the Almighty Father as an object of prayer, 
 and as a source of mercy, of grace, and peace ! 
 
 In the Epistles alone, we have about twenty-eight instances 
 in which our Lord is thus solemnly addressed. The New 
 
NIOHT 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 421 
 
 Testament Saints prayed to Christ, the Lord, for both temporal 
 and spiritual blessings. Hear the Apostle Paul : — “ Now God 
 himself, and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our 
 way unto you, and the Lord make you all abound in love one 
 toward another, and toward all men, even as we do towards 
 you : to the end that he may establish your hearts unblameable 
 in holiness before God, even our Father.” Now here, you 
 perceive, Christ is distinguished from the Father as actually 
 conferring these blessings. “To the end that HE may establish 
 your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our 
 Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, with all saints.” 
 1 Thes. iii., 11 — 13. What are the blessings sought for in this 
 prayer? First, divine direction ; secondly, abundance of love ; 
 thirdly, stability ; and fourthly, holiness. And these blessings 
 are sought from Christ, in connection with the Father. 
 
 In this prayer, the Father is put before the Son ; but in the 
 following prayer the Lord Jesus is placed before the Father. 
 Now, listen “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, 
 even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us ever- 
 lasting consolation, and good hope through grace, comfort your 
 hearts, and establish you in every good word and work.” Thess. 
 ii., 16, 17. Thus Christ was united with the Father as the 
 great object of prayer, as the fountain of blessing, and the 
 bestower of all grace ; therefore, if by prayer the Apostles 
 worshipped the Father, they equally worshipped and honoured 
 the Son. Yet in spite of these plain passages, Mr. Barker still 
 asserts that “ Jesus is just a simple pious young man.” A 
 pious young man is no lit object of prayer and devotion. Such 
 prerogatives belong to none but God. But the Apostles prayed 
 to Christ for all sorts of blessings. Therefore Jesus Christ is 
 God. 
 
 The Apostles not only prayed to our Saviour, hut they give 
 him the most exalted praise which their tongues could utter, or 
 their pen could frame. Listen. “ But grow in grace and in the 
 knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom be 
 glory both now and for ever.” 2 Pet. iii., 18. Again And 
 the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will pre- 
 serve me unto his heavenly kingdom : TO WHOM BE GLO- 
 RY BOTH NOW AND FOR EVER.” 2 Tim. iv., 18. The 
 whole church is described as giving him glory in the loftiest 
 strains of praise. “ UNTO HIM THAT HATH LOVED US, 
 AND WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN 
 BLOOD, TO HIM BE GLORY *AND DOMINION FOR 
 EVER AND EVER.” Rev. i., 6. The angels are higher than 
 men. Amongst them there are revealed the highest intelligences 
 that exist. And yet all these are commanded to worship the 
 Saviour. “ And when he bringeth in the first- begotten into 
 the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” 
 Heb. L, 8. The angels had worshipped him ages prior to his 
 incarnation. The angels worshipped him as exhibited in Isaiah’s 
 
422 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [tenth 
 
 prophetic vision. But now Christ assumes a new character. 
 Now he appears incarnate; now he is in the world in his human 
 nature; and in that character a new commandment is given to 
 angels to worship him. And thus, when, at the time, at the 
 period referred to, at our Lord’s incarnation, “ when he bring- 
 eth his first-begotten into the world, he saith, AND LET 
 ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” How 
 oddly Mr. Barker’s theology sounds, — And let all the angels in 
 heaven worship this pious young man ! Let Gabriel bow before 
 him. Let Raphael, and Michael, and all the bright hosts of heaven, 
 seraphs, and cherubim, and the loftiest intelligences, join in 
 worshipping “ a pious young man !” The notion is ridiculous 
 — absolutely ridiculous, and impious as well as absurd, and 
 derogatory to that Saviour whom we love, and to that truth 
 which we revere. And you will remember that the command, 
 Let all the angels of God worship him, is given by that Being 
 who hath said, “ Thou shalt worship the Lord thy Gocl , and him 
 only shalt thou serve.” 
 
 But our adorable Redeemer is worshipped by all orders of 
 beings in heaven— by the whole church, and by all the hierarchy 
 of heaven. Revelation has drawn aside the veil that separates 
 eternity from time, and shows us the shining hosts around the 
 throne. We can take up the telescope of faith, and look upon 
 the bright myriads who surround the throne of God. We can 
 see their state, and behold their employments, and hear their 
 pealing anthems. Let us, then, look into the bright regions 
 which are exhibited to our view. 
 
 [Some interruption was here occasioned by an individual in 
 the body of the room, and there were several cries of “ Put him 
 out.”] 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — Order, order. Respect yourselves. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Don’t be rash with the poor man. Let him 
 alone ; and 1 will read him a portion of God’s blessed word. 
 Rev. v., beginning at the 6th verse : — 44 And I beheld, and, lo, 
 in the midst of the throne and of the four living ones, and in 
 the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having 
 seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God 
 sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book 
 out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne, and when 
 he had taken the book, the four living ones and four and twenty 
 elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them 
 harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of 
 saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to 
 take the book, and to open the seals thereof : for thou wast slain, 
 and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kin- 
 dred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us 
 unto our God kings and priests : and we shall reign on the earth. 
 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about 
 the throne, and the living ones, and the elders : and the number 
 of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of 
 
NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. 423 
 
 thousands; saying, with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that 
 was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, 
 and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which 
 is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as 
 are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Bless- 
 ing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sit- 
 teth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever. 
 And the four livingones said, Amen” Now, just contemplate the 
 scene for one moment. This praise is loud and earnest. They 
 sound his praise with a loud voice. The Apostle heard them : 
 and the sound was like the noise of many waters, and the voice 
 of mighty thunderings round about the throne. It was unani- 
 mous. There were multitudes, defying calculation. Yet there 
 was not one discordant tongue — not one silent voice — not one 
 cold or reluctant heart ; but with united ardour and harmony 
 they worship God and the Lamb. And this praise, too, com- 
 prehends the exercise of all holy intelligences. There *u*e the 
 living ones, the cherubim, the seraphim, the highest intelli- 
 gences, perhaps, that God has formed ; and they give him glory. 
 And there is the whole church, represented by the twenty-four 
 elders — the Jewish and Christian churches united; and they 
 give him glory. And there is the multitude of angels, which 
 no man can number; thousands upon thousands in number ; 
 and they unite in a pealing anthem of rapturous praise. And 
 then, as if heaven itself were too confined to contain the swell- 
 ing chorus, the wave of triumph and of gladness extends to 
 earth, and earth itself takes up the sound, until it is echoed 
 back to heaven, and finished by the loud Amen uttered by the 
 living ones which bow before the throne. Can we so pervert our 
 common sense in the face of this palpable and obvious evidence 
 — can we so pervert our common sense as to trifle with these 
 plain statements of God’s word — can we so pervert our common 
 sense, or the judgment which God has given unto, us, as to 
 maintain that these representations apply only to a man, only 
 to a pious young man, who exercised his ministry for three 
 years, and then finished his career by dying upon the cross ; 
 multitudes having laboured ten times the period of the Saviour, 
 and having died a death which, bodily considered, was equally 
 excruciating and even more protracted? The idea is mon- 
 strous 1 ' 
 
 I now come to the Personality and Godhead of the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 I maintain, first, with regard to liis personality, that the 
 Holy Spirit is not a periphrasis for the Father himself ; for he is 
 distinguished from the Father, as I shall presently show you. 
 I would just now remark that the formulary of baptism 
 teaches this distinction, “ Go ye and teach all nations, baptiz- 
 ing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost.” Now, as the distinction here between the 
 
424 MR. COOKE L te NTH 
 
 Father and the Son is real, so is the distinction between .the 
 Father and the Holy Ghost real. 
 
 The Holy Ghost is not an attribute, or an influence ; for all 
 the attributes of a Person , and the modes of action peculiar to 
 a conscious, intelligent agent, are ascribed to the Blessed Spirit. 
 He is said to speak, to be pleased, to be vexed, to be grieved. 
 He is set forth as knowing, willing, moving, striving, helping, 
 interceding, comforting, leading, guiding. He is said to be 
 blasphemed— -to be sinned against ; and sin against the Holy 
 Ghost is the most grievous sin which men can commit, and one 
 never to be forgiven. If language can express personality— if 
 actions and states of being can indicate a conscious, intelligent 
 agent, we have it undoubtedly presented here in almost every 
 variety of form. And the attempt to resolve such varied re- 
 presentations into mere figures of speech, is equally unworthy 
 the scholar and the Christian. It can only be regarded as a 
 licentious and reckless endeavour to sustain a system at the ex- 
 pense of all candour and all just regard to the credit and autho- 
 rity of the sacred volume. 
 
 While the Scriptures plainly teach the Spirit’s personality, 
 they as plainly teach his Godhead. The names of God are 
 ascribed to Him . 
 
 HE IS CALLED GOD. Ananias lied to the Holy Ghost ; 
 and when Peter detected his hypocrisy, and charged his sin upon 
 him, he said, 44 Why Ifath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the 
 Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land ? 
 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own ? and after it was sold, 
 was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this 
 thing in thine heart ? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto 
 GOD.” And addressing Sapphira, he said unto her, 44 How is 
 it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord ?” 
 Acts v. 
 
 He is also called LORD. 44 Now the Lord is that Spirit : 
 and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Cor. 
 iii., 17. 
 
 He is also called JEHOVAH, JEHOVAH GOD, THE GOD 
 OF ISRAEL, JEHOVAH GOD OF HOSTS. In Acts i., 
 Peter says, — 44 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs 
 have been fulfilled which the Holy Ghost” — mark the phrase ! 
 — 44 which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake con- 
 cerning Judas:” 44 for it is written in the book of Psalms”— 
 Now what did the Holy Ghost say? — 44 Let his habitation be 
 desolate, and let no man dwell therein : and his bishopric (or 
 office) let another take.” This prediction is taken from Psalms 
 69 and 109 : and the Glorious Being with whom the Psalmist is 
 there described as having religious intercourse, is designated 
 44 God” 44 Jehovah” 44 the God of Israel” 44 Jehovah God” 
 44 Jehovah God of Hosts;” and while David speaks by the Holy 
 Ghost, receiving divine communications from him, qualifying 
 him to foretell future events, he renders unto him — the H qIj/ G host , 
 
MR, COOKE. 
 
 425 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 prayer, thanksgiving, adoration, praise, and every form of reli- 
 gious homage ; and as if his own efforts were insufficient to set 
 forth all his glory, he calls upon “ the heavens, the earth, the 
 sea, and all nature, to unite in lauding his glorious name” 
 Thus, then, the names of God are ascribed to the Holy Spirit, 
 and he is worshipped. 
 
 I must now proceed to the Trinity. I havenottime to expatiate 
 as I wish to do upon all the attributes of the Holy Spirit, sepa- 
 rately. I have had so much to do in following my opponent, 
 to answer objections over and over again, that time for the de- 
 partment to which I particularly wished to turn attention this 
 evening is taken away. I shall therefore at once call your at- 
 tention to the Holy Trinity. 
 
 You will remember that when Mr. Barker first introduced 
 this subject, he brought before you a great list of names, whom 
 he represented both as holding a variety of sentiments, and as 
 contradicting each other with regard to their views on the Holy 
 Trinity. Now, if contradictory opinions could disprove a truth 
 either in philosophy or religion, then we might soon disprove 
 every fact in philosophy, as well as every doctrine in religion. 
 
 I will just give you an example or two. There is Mr. Bar- 
 ker’s great favourite in theology, Priestley, who denies that men 
 have any souls . Well ! he is one authority; and I give him cre- 
 dit for plain-speaking. Then we have David Hume as another 
 authority, and he denies that man has any body . (Loud laugh- 
 ter.) Now, put these two together, and you prove there is not 
 such a thing in existence as a human being. Now, Mr Barker’s 
 reasoning is just of this character to disprove the Trinity. He 
 brings one to prove a sentiment and the other to disprove it; 
 and because one contradicts the other, the doctrine of the Tri- 
 nity is not a true one ! (Hissing.) 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : — Order, order. 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — I proceed. The names which Mr. Barker has 
 quoted to disprove the Trinity, rather seem to confirm the doc- 
 trine than to overturn it : for the variety of sentiment which 
 he states, is. only as to the mode of representing the Trinity, 
 and not against the doctrine itself as being a true doctrine. 
 The evidence adduced, then, so far from undermining, tends 
 rather, so far as human authority can go, to establish the doc- 
 trine. 
 
 Now, in adverting to the Holy Trinity, I shall not attempt to 
 explain the doctrine as to the mode of the divine existence. It 
 is sufficient for me if I defend the doctrine as being revealed to 
 us in the Holy Scriptures. But, just as an introduction, I will 
 quote a sentiment from Mr. Barker, which, on a very interest- 
 ing and solemn occasion, lie expressed in writing. And having 
 expressed it thus solemnly, it may be regarded as having some 
 weight — at least as much weight as any of the authorities to 
 which he has before referred. He says, — “ ON THE TRI- 
 NITY, 1 WOULD SAY, THAT THE SCRIPTURES 
 
426 MR. COOKE. [TENTH 
 
 UNIFORMLY SPEAK OF THE FATHER AS GOD, 
 OF TEE SON AS GOD, AND OF THE HOLY GHOST 
 AS GOD; AND THEY UNIFORMLY SPEAK OF THE 
 FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST, AS WE SPEAK 
 OF THREE PERSONS. But what mode of existence in the 
 Divinity it is that gives rise to this manner of speaking, I know 
 not— it is a mystery.” So that Mr. Barker did, at that period, 
 regard the Scriptures not only as speaking, but as uniformly 
 speaking, of the three persons in the Godhead as we speak of 
 three persons. This is strictly true, as we shall soon abundant- 
 ly show. 
 
 I have already proved, from the Holy Scriptures, the proper 
 Divinity or Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Person- 
 ality and Godhead of the Holy Ghost. I trust those proofs 
 have been so clear and conclusive as to place the important doc- 
 trines in question upon a solid foundation, and to command 
 your rational assent. I have now only to build upon a founda- 
 tion already laid, and to carry out the argument on principles 
 already established : for as the Divinity of the Father is admit- 
 ted by all ; and as the Godhead of Christ, and the Personality « 
 and Godhead of the Holy Ghost, are proved, it will necessarily 
 follow that there is a Trinity of persons in the Godhead ; or 
 that the Deity is revealed to us in a Three-fold distinction of 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 1 shall now adduce scriptural 
 probfs from both the Old and New Testament to establish the 
 Trinity in Unity, 
 
 I remark, then, first, that the proper Nouns and Pronouns 
 applied to God imply a Trinity in Unity. 
 
 Secondly, that the attributes and perfections ascribed to. God 
 are such as are possessed and exercised by a Trinity in Unity. 
 
 Thirdly, that the works of God are the operations of a Trinity 
 in Unity. 
 
 Fourthly, that the worship of God, both by angels in heaven 
 and men on earth, is worship ascribed to a Trinity in Unity. 
 
 I remark, then, first, that we shall show that the proper 
 Nouns and Pronouns applied to God, are such as indicate a Tri- 
 nity in Unity. The two principal names applied to the Deity, 
 in the Old Testament, are the following — God, and Lord ; and 
 these in the Hebrew are D'nbx Aleim , and mrP Jehovah . 
 The word GOD is plural in Hebrew, but the word Jehovah , is 
 singular. Now, why is the one plural? Simply to implyf a 
 plurality of persons. Why is the other singular ? Simply to 
 express the Unity of the Divine Essence, and to guard against 
 polytheism. 
 
 Very often these two names occur together ; and in such pas- 
 sages, the Trinity of persons and the Unity of the Divine essence, 
 are clearly placed before us in one view. Now, just take an 
 example. Deut. vi., 3—5. Hear, therefore, O Israel, and ob- 
 serve to do it ; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may 
 increase mightily, as the Lord God (Jehovah Aleim) of thy 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 427 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 Fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk 
 and honey. Hear, O Israel : the Lord our God ( Jehovah our 
 Aleim ) is one Lord (Jehovah) : and thou shalt love the Lord 
 thy God ( Jehovah thy Aleim ) with all thine heart, and with all 
 thy soul, and with all thy might.” Now, in all these cases, the 
 word God is in the plural number. We only refer to this 
 chapter as an example. There is scarcely a page in the Bible 
 where the same name, in the plural number, does not occur. 
 In fact, in almost every instance where the word God occurs in 
 our translation, that name is Aleim in the Hebrew ; indicating 
 a plurality of persons : and yet this plural noun is construed, 
 commonly, with a verb, in the singular and represented by pro- 
 nouns in the singular, to indicate the Unity of the divine essence. 
 
 Mr. Barker asks me 'why do we not conform to the Hebrew, 
 and say Gods, not God? My answer is, for this obvious 
 reason— THE NOUN IS CONSTRUED WITH VERBS 
 AND PRONOUNS IN THE SINGULAR. When those 
 verbs or pronouns are plural, they are given in the plural in 
 our translation ! 
 
 The word Jehovah is always singular. Its meaning implies 
 the essence of God. It denotes existence in the radical mean- 
 ing of the term. It means the Self-Existent and Eternal One. 
 It is applied to each person — the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit ; and its singular form indicates the perfect and 
 eternal Unity of the divine essence. And to impress the Unity 
 of God’s essence upon our minds as a fundamental doctrine of 
 revealed religion, it is proclaimed, “ Hear, O Israel, the Jehovah 
 thy God — Jehovah thy Aleim, — is one Jehovah.” The same 
 important truths run through the whole Scriptures. 
 
 While the name God, though plural, is commonly con- 
 strued with pronouns and verbs in the singular, on a few im- 
 portant occasions it is construed in the plural, to denote the Tri- 
 nity. Let us take a few passages. Gen. i., 26,— a And God 
 said, let US make man in OUR image, and after OUR like- 
 ness.” Not my image, and my likeness, in the singular, but our 
 image, and our likeness, in the plural. Take another passage, Gen. 
 iii., 22, — “ And Jehovah God said, the man is become as one of 
 US.” Take another passage, applicable to both names of God. 
 Gen. xi., 6, 7, — “ And the Lord said, Let US go down and there 
 confound (Heb. let us confound ) their language.” Observe the 
 phrase, let us go down. We need not multiply passages. These 
 are sufficient. They clearly indicate a plurality of persons, and 
 no sophistry, however ingenious, can explain away their mean- 
 ing. 
 
 We have said that the word Jehovah has always a singular 
 form. It is so, as expressive of the Unity of the Divine essence ; 
 but, at the same time, that name is often applied To more than 
 one person. I shall refer you to a very important passage in 
 the 6th chapter of Isaiah, where the name Jehovah of Hosts 
 is evidently applied to Three persons. To give full effect 
 
428 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 to this passage, I must read as far as the 11th verse of 
 the 6th chapter of the prophecies of Isaiah : — “ In the year 
 that king IJzziah died, I saw also the Lord sitting upon a 
 throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the tem- 
 ple. Above it stood the seraphims : each one had six wings ; 
 with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his 
 feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, 
 and said. Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of Hosts : the whole 
 earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at 
 the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with 
 smoke. Then said I, Woe is me ! for I am undone ; because 
 I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a peo- 
 ple of unclean lips : for mine eyes have seen the King, JEHO- 
 VAH OF HOSTS. Then flew one of the seraphims untome, 
 having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the 
 tongs from off the altar : and he laid it upon my mouth, and 
 said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips ; and thine iniquity is 
 taken away, and thy sin purged. Also I heard the voice of 
 the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for US? 
 Then said I, here am i : send me. And he said, Go, and tell 
 this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not ; and see ye 
 indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, 
 and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they see 
 with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with 
 their heart, and convert, and be healed.” It is highly import- 
 ant to observe that although the name Jehovah is in the sin- 
 gular form, it is represented by a pronoun in the plural , as in 
 the 8th verse, “ who will go for US ?” Now, who are the US 
 meant in this passage ? Unquestionably, the Father , the fV ord , 
 and the Holy Ghost . That there was here a representation of 
 
 the Father, needs no proof, as it is no matter of dispute ; all 
 Unitarians acknowledging that “Jehovah of hosts” is his appro- 
 priate designation. That there was here also the presence of the 
 Son and the Holy Ghost I have to prove ; and I will make 
 it evident to you from divine authority. 
 
 That there was here the presence of the Son we learn from 
 the Apostle John, who, speaking of Christ in chap, xii., 41st 
 verse, says, “ These things said Esaias, when he saw HIS 
 GLORY," and spake of him.” He saw Christ’s glory, and spake 
 of him. So there was here the presence of the Son. That there 
 was here the presence also of the Holy Ghost, is manifest from 
 Acts xxviii., 25, 27, where the prophecy uttered in this vision 
 is said to be spoken by the Holy Ghost. Now, attend unto the 
 words of Haul — “ Well spake,” — who? “Well spake the 
 HOLY GHOST by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, say- 
 ing, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and 
 shall not understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not per- 
 ceive.” Thus, then, the Triune God — the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost, constitute the Jehovah of hosts exhibited in this 
 sublime vision of the prophet. Now, you will observe that 
 
NIGHT.] 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 429 
 
 this is not mere conjecture. The interpretation is that of in- 
 spiration itself. The Scriptures of eternal truth ; the infallible 
 testimony of God’s word, establish the fact. It is on this au- 
 thority, then, that we say the Three Divine Persons of the Godhead 
 are here represented. 
 
 Thus we see the reason why the plural pronoun is used, 
 “ who will go for US?” It is in harmony with this doctrine, 
 and affords an additional illustration of its force and propriety, 
 that the seraphims, while veiling their faces with their wings, 
 repeat the word “ Holy” thrice in their lofty adorations — Holy, 
 holy, holy is the Jehovah of Hosts. The exclamation Hoi 'y is 
 thrice repeated — in harmony with the doctrine of the Divine 
 Three, in whose presence they stand, whose glory they dwell in, 
 and whose lofty praises they celebrate. I shall have occasion 
 to advert to this passage again, and may therefore leave it for 
 the present. 
 
 Secondly ; I remark that the attributes and 'perfections of God 
 are those of a Trinity in Unity . 
 
 1. THE TRINITY IN UNITY IS ETERNAL. Of the 
 Father it is said, “ From everlasting to everlasting thou art 
 God.” Of the Divine Word it is said, “ He is the Alpha and 
 the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last 
 that “he was in the beginning with God and that “his goings 
 forth have been from the days of eternity.” And of the Holy 
 Ghost it is said that “ Christ through the Eternal Spirit offered 
 himself without spot a sacrifice to God.” — Psalm 1c., 2; Rev. i,, 
 3; Heb. ix., 14, &c. 
 
 2. The power of God is the power of the TRINITY IN 
 UNITY. Speaking of the Father, the Apostle says that he 
 was “ appointed a minister of the Gospel by the grace of God 
 given untohim by the effectual working of God 9 s power 99 Speak- 
 ing of the Son, he saith, “Most gladly will I gloryin mine infir- 
 mities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.” And, speak- 
 ing of the Holy Ghost, he said that “signs and wonders were 
 wrought by the power of the Spirit of God 99 Eph. iii., 7 ; 2 
 Cor. xii., 9 ; Rom. xv., 19. 
 
 3. The Omnipresence of God is the omnipresence of the TRI- 
 NITY IN UNITY. “ Do not I fill heaven and earth, saith 
 Jehovah.” Of Christ it is said, that “ he filleth all in all.” To 
 Moses, God said, “ In all places where I record my name, I 
 will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.” Christ said, as- 
 serting the same attribute, “For where two or three are ga- 
 thered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” 
 Of the Holy Ghost the Psalmist said, “ Whither shall I go 
 from thy Spirit ? or whither shall 1 flee from thy presence V 9 
 And again, the Holy Spirit, to denote his omnipresence, is said 
 to dwell in the hearts of God’s people. And thus, then, the 
 omnipresence of the Deity is the omnipresence of the Trinity in 
 Unity. Jer. xxiii., 24 ; Eph. i., 23; Exod. xx., 24 ; Matt, 
 xviii., 20 ; Ps. cxxxix., 7. 
 
430 
 
 MR. COOKE. 
 
 [tenth 
 
 4. The holiness of God is the holiness of the TRINITY 
 IN UNITY. 44 Who would not fear thee, 0 Jehovah, and 
 glorify thy name, for thou only art holy ?” Of Christ it is 
 said, that he is 44 the Holy one.” “But ye denied the holy one, 
 and desired a murderer to be released unto you.” The Spirit 
 is emphatically called 44 the Holy Ghost.” 44 Ye have an unction 
 from the Holy One.” And of the whole Trinity the cherubim 
 and seraphim exclaim, 44 Holy, holy, holy, is J ehovah of Hosts.” 
 Acts iii., 14 ; 1 John ii., 20. 
 
 5. Truth , as an attribute or perfection of God , is the attribute 
 of the TRINITY IN UNITY. Of the Father it is said, by 
 Christ, 44 He that sent me is True” Of the Divine Word it is 
 declared, 44 These things saith he that is Holy, he that is True , he 
 that hath the key of David.” Of the Holy Ghost it is said, 
 44 It is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is 
 Truth.” Thus, then, the Truth of God is the truth of the Trinity 
 n Unity. Rev. iii., 7 ; 1 John v., 6. 
 
 6. The Omniscience of God is the omniscience of the TRINITY 
 IN UNITY. Of the Father it is said that 44 he searcheth the 
 heart.” Christ also declares, 44 All the churches shall know that 
 I am he which searcheth the reins and the hearts.” Of the Holy 
 Ghost it is said, that 44 the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the 
 deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a 
 man, save the spirit of man, which is in him ? even so the 
 things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” Rev. 
 ii., 23 ; 1 Cor. ii., 10, 11. Here is an appeal to our own con- 
 sciousness. As a man knows his own thoughts, affections, and 
 emotions, and as no one else can know them but himself ; so 
 the Holy Ghost, penetrating the profound depths of the God- 
 head, comprehends ail the counsels, understands all the pur- 
 poses, and is conversant with all the emotions that stir in the 
 mind of the Deity throughout the ages of eternity. 
 
 7. The benevolence of God is the benevolence of the TRINITY 
 IN UNITY. 44 The Lord is good,” says the Psalmist. 44 He 
 is a stronghold in the day of trouble.” And it is said, 44 God 
 so loved the world,” &c. Of the Son, also, it is said, that 44 Christ 
 loved the church, and gave himself for it ; that he might 
 sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,” 
 and so on. And of the Holy Ghost it is said, by the Psalmist, 
 Thy spirit is Good (benevolent) ; lead me in the land of up- 
 rightness. And Nehemiah, enumerating God’s great benefits 
 to the ancient Israelites, says, 44 Thou gavest them thy Goon 
 Spirit, or thy benevolent Spirit.” Now, here you have it proved 
 that the goodness of God is the goodness of the Trinity in Unity. 
 Ps. cxliii., 10. Neh. ix., 20. 
 
 Thus, then, the attributes of Eternity, of Omnipotence, of 
 Omniscience, of Omnipresence, with the Moral Perfections of 
 Truth, of Love, of 1 1 oliness, in their infinity of extent, are the 
 attributes of a Trinity in Unity. All the perfections which 
 belong to the Father, belong also to the Son and to the Holy 
 
MR. COOKE. 
 
 431 
 
 night.] 
 
 Spirit ; which proves as clearly as language and facts can prove, 
 that in the Godhead there are three persons ; and that in es- 
 sence and perfections these three are one. 
 
 Thirdly, I remark, that the Works of God are also the ope- 
 rations of the Trinity in Unity. 
 
 1. Creation . The creation of the world is ascribed to the 
 DIVINE THREE. Of God, it is said, “ that the heavens 
 and the earth are the work of his hand.” Of Christ, it is said, 
 that “by him all things were made, visible or invisible.” And 
 of the Holy Ghost, it is said, “the Spirit of God moved upon 
 the face of the waters,” arranging, distributing the conflicting 
 elements, impregnating them with their first principles, and 
 disposing them into that order and harmony which resulted in 
 the beauty and Glory of the universe. And again, it is said by 
 Job, “ by his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens.” John i., 3 ; 
 Gen. i., 2 ; Job xxvi., 13 . Thus creation is ascribed to each ; 
 and yet these Three are One ; for in the first verse of the Bible 
 it is said, “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the 
 earth.” And the noun, though plural, is construed with a sin- 
 gular verb and pronoun. 
 
 2. The creation of man , the most noble and important work 
 of God on earth, is ascribed to the DIVINE THREE. Of the 
 Father, it is said, that “ Jehovah God formed man out of the 
 dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of 
 life.” Of Christ, it is said, that “ by him all things were made, 
 whether visible or invisible ;” which of course comprehends 
 man . And of the Holy Ghost, it is said, by Job, “ The Spirit 
 of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath 
 given me life.” Gen. i. ; Job xxxiii., 4. 
 
 Viewing man thus as the work of the Trinity, of Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost, we clearly see the reason and force of the lan- 
 guage, “ And God said, let US make man in OUR image, and 
 in OUR likeness,” &c. Gen. i., 26. And in this view we 
 see why man is called upon to remember his Creators . Eccles. 
 xii., 1, — “ Remember now thy thy Creators, in the 
 
 days of thy youth.” In the language of Scripture there is 
 always a propriety and force which is seen by diiigent and care- 
 ful examination. See the force, the beauty, and the propriety 
 of Scripture language in these instances. 
 
 3 . The 'preservation of all things is the work of the TRIUNE 
 GOD. Providence is everywhere ascribed to the Father. So 
 it is to the Son ; for “ he upholdeth all things by the word of 
 his own power,” and “by him all things consist.” So the same 
 work is ascribed to the Holy Spirit; for, says*the Psalmist, “ Thou 
 sendest forth thy Spirit, and they are created, and thou renewest 
 the face of the earth” II eb. i., 2 ; Col. i., 16 ; Ps. civ., 30 . 
 
 4 . The TRINITY IN UNITY raised the body of Christ 
 from the dead . Of the Father, it is said, “God hath both raised 
 up the Lord, and will raise up us by his own power.” The 
 same is asserted by Christ. “ Destroy this temple, and in three; 
 
432 MR. COOKE. • [TENTH 
 
 days 1 will raise it up.” “ I have power to lay down my life, 
 and I have power to take it up again.” And the same great 
 work is ascribed to the Spirit. “ Christ was put to death in the 
 flesh, but quickened by The Spirit .” 
 
 5. The raising of all mankind is the work of the TRINITY 
 IN UNITY. Of the Father, it is said, “ that he raiseth up the 
 dead, and quickeneth whom he will.” Christ declareth, “Even 
 so the son quickeneth whom he will;” and “ all that are in 
 their graves shall hear his voice, and come forth.” The same 
 work is ascribed to the Holy Ghost. “ For it is the Spirit that 
 quickeneth.” “For if the Spirit of him that raised up Christ 
 from the dead dwell in y ou. He that raised up Christ from the 
 dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that 
 dwelleth in you.” John v., 21, 28. Rom. viii., 11. 
 
 6. The Inspiration of Prophets and Apostles is ascribed to the 
 TRINITY IN UNITY. “All Scripture is given by inspi- 
 ration of God.” To Christ the same act is ascribed. For 
 “the prophets searched what or what manner of time the Spirit 
 of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified be- 
 forehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should fol- 
 low.” The same inspiration is directly ascribed to the Holy 
 Ghost. “ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of 
 man ; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy 
 Ghost.” 2 Tim. iii., 16 ; 1 Pet. i., 10, 11; 2 Pet. i., 21. 
 
 7. In like manner to give commission and authority to Ministers 
 of the Gospel is ascribed to the TRINITY IN UNITY. In 
 reference to the Father, says Paul, “ Our sufficiency is of God ; 
 who hath made us able ministers of the New Testament.” The 
 same act is ascribed to the Son ; for, says Paul, of Jesus Christ, 
 “ he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry.” To 
 the Spirit, the same commission and authority are ascribed. 
 “Take heed, therefore, to the flock of God over which the 
 Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” 2 Cor. iii., 5 ; 1 Tim. 
 I., 12 ; Acts xx., 27. 
 
 8. To dwell in the hearts of God's people is ascribed to the 
 TRINITY. “ I will walk in you, and dwell in you, and be a 
 Father unto you, saith the Lord God.” The same is affirmed of 
 the Son. “ For know ye not that Christ is in you, except ye 
 be reprobates?” And “ Christ in you the hope of glory,” is the 
 common privilege of God’s people. The same is affirmed of the 
 Spirit. “ For know ye not that your bodies are the temple of the 
 Holy Ghost , which is in yon?” Thus the Triune God dwells 
 in the heirs of Glory ; sealing their adoption, witnessing their 
 acceptance, and preparing them for heaven. 2 Cor. vi., 16, xiii., 
 
 5 ; Col. i., 27 ; 1 Cor. vi., 19. 
 
 9. Holy fellowship , or communion , is a privilege conferred upon 
 all Christians , and it is a privilege granted by the whole TRI- 
 NITY. “ For truly our fellowship is with the Father , and,” it 
 is immediately added, “ with his Son, Jesus Christ.” And the 
 
NIGHT.] MR. COOKE. 433 
 
 Apostle prays, “ The communion of the Holy Ghost be with you 
 all, Amen.” 1 John i., 3; 2 Cor. 13, 14. 
 
 10. The work of Sanctification is ascribed to the TRINITY IN 
 UNITY. “ Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, to them that 
 are sanctified by God the Father.” Of Christ, it is said, “ He 
 that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified, are all of one ; for 
 which cause he is not ashamed to cali them brethren.” Again, 
 
 “ Ye are washed and sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
 and by the Spirit of our God.” Jude 1; Heb. ii., 11; Cor. vi., 11. 
 
 Such are the united acts of the Godhead — the Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost ; — To create the universe ; to form mankind ; 
 to preserve all things ; to raise the dead body of Christ, and 
 all mankind at the last day — a work equal to creation itself ; 
 to inspire prophets to foretell things to come; to commission and 
 authorise Apostles and Ministers; to dwell in the hearts of 
 God’s people ; to hold fellowship with the saints ; and to sane- 
 tify us throughout body, soul, and spirit ; — such, and a hundred 
 other acts, had we time to go through them, — all actions peculiar 
 to God — actions which none but God could perform, are ascribed 
 to each person in the ever-BLESSLD AND GLORIOUS 
 TRINITY — FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST. 
 
 In the fourth place , the Divine Worship ascribed to God, is 
 ascribed to THE TRINITY IN UNITY. I have adduced pas- 
 sages before to prove that worship is ascribed to Christ and the 
 Holy Spirit. I shall now adduce some in which the most 
 solemn form of worship is ascribed conjointly to the Divine 
 Three. This worship is rendered by the Hosts of Lleaven. We 
 refer, in the first place, to the 6th of Isaiah. We have before 
 shown that the word Jehovah, which occurs several times in 
 that chapter, though singular in form, refers to a plurality of 
 persons. By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we have 
 shown that there is a clear and distinct reference to the Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost ; and that on this account we see the 
 propriety of the plural pronoun US being employed — “ Who 
 will go for U S?” verse 8. The presence of the TRINITY being 
 thus established, it will follow that the sublime adoration pre- 
 sented by the seraphim, must be ascribed to EACLI with equal 
 reverence and awe : and hence the threefold repetition in the 
 language they employ, “ Holy, Holy, LIolv, is the Jehovah of 
 Hosts ;” — that is, Holy is the Father, Holy is the Son, and 
 Holy is the Divine Spirit ; equally Holy, eternally blessed, and 
 alike to be adored, and praised, and exalted by all the creatures 
 He has made! 
 
 It is remarkable, that in a similar vision which St. John had 
 of the heavenly world, he had a similar display of the Divine 
 Glory ; he beheld the same description of exalted spirits before 
 the eternal throne, and heard exactly the same language of three- 
 fold adoration employed, ‘‘Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty 
 ---Rev. iv., 8. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost had been pre- 
 viously mentioned in this very passage ; and therefore there can 
 
 T 
 
434 
 
 Mr. COOKE. 
 
 TENTH 
 
 be no doubt but that this triple ascription of praise was 
 Tendered to the Triune God. There is no possibility of avoiding 
 this argument, but by proving that there was not the presence 
 of the Son and the Spirit, as well as the Father. Such is the 
 worship of heaven. 
 
 Worship is likewise equally rendered by the church to the 
 TRIUNE GOD. We have an indication of this under the Old 
 Testament dispensation. Although the Jewish economy is a 
 dark and obscure one compared with the brightness of the 
 Christian dispensation ; and although we are not to expect the 
 same clear and complete discoveries of God in the Old Testa- 
 ment as in the New ; yet the doctrine of the Trinity was in- 
 timated, as we have shown, by the plural name given to God, 
 Aleim , constructed with verbs and pronouns in the singular : 
 and the spiritually -minded Jews recognized the doctrine thus 
 implied. In the three-fold form of the Benediction which the 
 High Priest was authorized to pronounce, this doctrine clearly 
 appears to be recognized. Numbers vi., 24-25, — 
 
 “ JEHOV A U bless thee, and keep thee ; 
 
 JEHOVAH make his face shine upon thee, and be gra- 
 cious unto thee ; 
 
 JEHOVAH lift up his countenance upon thee, and give 
 thee peace.” 
 
 Here the term Jehovah is thrice repeated ; and though we 
 have not the names of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost men- 
 tioned, we have a blessing recognized as proceeding from each, 
 corresponding beautifully and harmoniously with the solemn 
 form of benediction employed by the Apostle ; namely, 
 
 “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 
 And the love of God, 
 
 And the communion of the Holy Spirit 
 
 Here, then, we have a three-fold form of benediction 
 in the old economy, and a three-fold form in the new eco- 
 nomy. In the original form, we have not the appellation 
 Father, Son, and Spirit mentioned ; but in the new economy, 
 we have the whole three mentioned, and spiritual blessings are 
 sought from each by prayer. Now, here is the reason why we 
 find that there is no longer a plural noun employed, that is, in 
 the New Testament, because the plural noun is done away in 
 the brighter manifestation of FATHER, SON, and HOLY 
 SPIRIT. 
 
 And then, in the form of baptism, also, we have this recog- 
 nition of the Triune God. Hence the command, “ Go ye 
 and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name — 
 not names, but NAME — 
 
 OF THE FATHER, 
 
 AND OF THE SON, 
 
 AND OF THE HOLY GHOST” 
 
 And what is baptism but a solemn covenant of man with God, 
 the object of his worship 1 And this covenant, observe, is to be 
 
 be with you ail. 
 Amen.” 
 
NIGHT. J MR. COOKE. 435 
 
 entered into not with the Father only, hut also with the Son 
 and Holy Ghost, THREE IN ONE. 
 
 Since, then, the word of God declares that there is hut One 
 God ; and since the same word as expressly teaches us that 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are invested with the names and 
 attributes of Deity, to whom, equally, ail the works of God are 
 ascribed, to whom all homage is ascribed, WE HAVE A 
 PERFECT DEMONSTRATION THAT THE HOLY 
 SCRIPTURES TEACH THE IMPORTANT DOCTRINE 
 OF THE HOLY TRINITY— THREE IN ONE, AND 
 ONE IN THREE. 
 
 This is a doctrine, too, which has ever had connected with it 
 the blessing of the Almighty. And though many aspersions 
 have been cast upon orthodoxy during this discussion, we re- 
 joice in the fact that specimens of Christianity the brightest, 
 and the fairest, and the loveliest, and the most useful that 
 ever adorned human nature, or ever shed forth their evidence of 
 the reality, the power, and excellence of Christianity, have 
 been connected with this doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Had 
 time permitted, I might have referred to Wesley, who spent 
 his existence and his property in doing good to the souls and 
 bodies of men ; to the seraphic Fletcher, who spent his days in 
 arduous labour and his nights in wrestling prayer ; to Brain- 
 ard, who carried salvation to the wandering Indians; to the 
 martyr Williams, to Moffat, and a host of others, ail of whose 
 labours were undertaken under the influence of this doctrine. 
 In short, look over the pages of history, sacred and profane, 
 ancient and modern, and you will have exhibited a decree of 
 moral and religious excellency, never outstripped- --never 
 equalled, in connection with the glorious doctrine of theTrinitv. 
 (Loud applause.) 
 
 Mr. Gilmore Gentlemen, — I trust that you will be per- 
 fectly in order while Mr. Barker addresses the meeting. This 
 discussion is drawing fast to a close : and not only will the two 
 disputants, and the subject about which they are disputing, form 
 the subjects of grave consideration, but the friends of each indivi- 
 dual, who are perhaps considered the friends of the principles of 
 each, willalso be the subject of grave consideration, perhaps when 
 you and I are no more. I say, therefore, that the two parties, on 
 either side, ought to maintain a character for consistency ; and 
 enter into some sort of compact to show the most charity and 
 the most good will towards all men : for I believe that to be 
 the real test, after all, whatever opinions may be in dispute. 
 The real test of the Christian character, by which the influences 
 of its principles upon individuals are manifested, is bound up 
 and associated with the word charity. Now I do trust you 
 will be quiet while our friend Mr. Barker is addressing us, after 
 the very quiet manner in which Mr. Cooke has been allowed to 
 proceed. 
 
436 
 
 MR. BARKER, 
 
 [ TENTH 
 
 Mr. Barker .—Respected Chairmen ; My Friends,— I shall make no further pre- 
 face to the address I am about to deliver, than to repeat my old request that I may 
 be favoured with a patient and calm hearing. Hear me, and ponder the statements 
 and arguments which I may lay before you, and I shall be perfectly contented. 
 
 When my time expired last night, I was making some allusion to the doctrine of 
 Eternal Torments. I have but iittle further to add on that subject ; but I wish to 
 add what I have to say before proceeding further. 
 
 I have observed that the doctrine of eternal torments is no where taught in 
 Scripture, and that the doctrine of future punishment that is taught in Scripture is 
 the doctrine of death— destruction. I had gone through the Old Testament, and no- 
 ticed the words of Christ and Paul, and was proceeding with the writer of the epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews, who states that those who do not bring forth good fruits rhould 
 be burned , and devoured by fiery indignation ; and he speaks of God coming forth to 
 punish as a consuming fire. 
 
 The doctrine of James i* the same. <s Let him know that he which converteth a 
 sinner from the error of his ways shall save a soul from death;” not from eternal 
 torments, but from death. 
 
 Peter taught the same. He says the wicked shall perish; shall be destroyed , shall 
 utterly perish And the simple meaning of the word perish, is to go out of existence. 
 
 The doctrine of John is the same. He speaks of the end of the wicked as death, 
 and the end of the righteous alone as life. 
 
 I will further briefly observe, 1. that the doctrine of eternal life in torments is at 
 variance wkh the character of God, as revealed in his own word. “ God is love;” and 
 God is the Father of all m nkind. Now, if we had not been taught otherwise from 
 infancy, it would seem utterly impossible that a God of love should consign his 
 children to eternal life in torments. There is not even a good man in the world 
 that would punish another man with eternal torments. There is not even a bad 
 man in the world that would punish another man with eternal torments. The worst 
 man in existence, the most malignant man that ever existed upon earth, if he were 
 appointed to torment bis greatest enemy, would relent before the year’s end; and 
 much more would he relent, if appointed to torment his own children. He would 
 relent before the week’s end ; much less would he be able to continue the work of 
 torture throughout eternity. And shall we believe that God is less kind than man ? 
 That God is less kind than the worst of men ? No ! Let us rather believe that 
 God is kinder than the best of men; and that the benevolence of the kindest heart 
 is but as a drop from the benevolence of God, which is the infinite and eternal ocean. 
 
 2. The doctrine of eternal torments is not necesssary to make people good. The 
 best men will be found among those who reject the doctrine of eternal torments. In- 
 deed, the best men will generally be found to deny the doctrine of destruction, and 
 to believe in the final, universal restoration of mankind. The great influence that 
 purifies and ennobles, that improves and perfects man is, the doctrine of God’s fa- 
 therly love. Love in us is the sum of religion; and it is the powerful influence of 
 a knowledge of God’s love to us that awakens love in us. It is the doctrine of 
 God’s infinite, eternal, and unmerited love that awakens true piety in the breast, 
 and that cherishes, and strengthens, and perfects it, when once awakened there. 
 
 3. Some tell us that if we do away with the doctrine of eternal torments, we 
 
 weaken the power of the Gospel. I answer, the Govpel never had the doctrine of 
 eternal torments in it; and we had bett leave it as Chrisi himself left it. God 
 knows best what doctrines are best adapted to do good. And (>od knows best 
 what amount of terror is best for man; and that amount which God has sought 
 to inspire is the utmost to which we ought to go. The Gospel is right as God has 
 given it, and if we attempt to alter it, we shall only mar it. Excessive terror tends 
 to destroy piety, and not promote it ; and win n it does not destroy, it spoils it, and 
 causes it to degenerate rather into superstition and servility, than to bear its proper 
 character of a child-like confidence and love to God, and love and beneficence to 
 man. _ 
 
 4. Again ; the doctrine of eternal torments does more harm by causing unbelief, 
 than it could ever do good by awakening extreme terror in the minds of men. 
 Threaten a punishment to man which he cannot believe to be reasonable, just, or 
 true, and you take away fear altogether. The man becomes a sceptic, an unbe- 
 liever ; and the greater the terror, the less is his fear of it. But threaten a punish- 
 ment. which he may reasonably expect a good God will inflict, and the man receives 
 and believes it; and the firm belief of less fearful threatenings, and the constant 
 expectation of smaller punishment, will exercise a greater influence on his heart 
 and life, than the unscriptural intimation of a greater, improbable, or impossible 
 punishment. 
 
 5. Multitudes are not only led to disbelieve that future punishment wi 1 consist 
 of eternal torments, but to reject the whole of that religion of which they are told 
 the doctrine of eternal toiments forms a part. 1 have met with numerous instances 
 of persons who had become infidels, and in searching for the cause of their infidelity, 
 I have found it to originate in ihe absurd and unscriptural doctrines of false ortho- 
 doxy, and frequently in this irrational and awful doctrine of damnation to eternal 
 life in torments. 
 
 6‘. 'J his doctrine, too, tends to enslave the mind, and to prevent its free exercise, 
 and full and harmonious development. The man that is under the influence of a 
 sincere belief of the doctrine of eternal life in torments— the man that believes that 
 he ai d others are exposed to eternal life in exciuciating misery scarcely can be. 
 
MR. barker: 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 437 
 
 free. The bare idea that he is liable to such horrors, paralyses his who.e soul, and 
 so chains him down that he scarce dare think at all. And if he use the little iree- 
 dom he has, it is then next to impossible that he can heartily, cordially believe this 
 doctrine. 7. This doctrine is. at the same time, one of the grand instruments by 
 which wicked and interested men have in all ages gained and kept dominion over the 
 souls of their brethren. It is something which makes the wicked, the interested,, 
 feel strong when they can threaten people with eternal life in torments. Their 
 power is weakened when they can only threaten what God threatens. If we de- 
 sire, therefore, to pu'.l down priestcraft, one of the greatest evils in the universe, 
 and set free the spirits of our fellow-men, we ought to begin by teaching the doc- 
 rine of future punishment as God himself has taught it. . 
 
 8. But we are referred to the passage where Jesus says, “ Their worm dieth not, 
 and the fire is not quenched and we are asked, Do not these words prove the doc- 
 trine of eternal torments? We answer, No; they prove the contrary. These 
 words are quoted from Isaiah, the last chapter, and last verse. Alter having 
 spoken of certain wars, and of a terrible slaughter, he proceeds to say that while 
 the dead ca cases are lying on the plain, they who worsh p God “ shall go forth, and 
 look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me, (that is, Jeho- 
 vah) ; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched ; and they 
 shall be an abhorring unto all flesh .” Now a worm feeding upon a carcase, it it die 
 not, devours the flesh ; and theJJrc, if it be not quenched consumes, the remainder 
 of the bodies,— entirely consumes them, and thus causes an utter destruction. 
 These forms of expression, therefore, were employed by Jesus to express, and were 
 most fit and proper to express, in a clear and forcible manner, not eternal life in 
 torments, but the certainty that the punishment to be inflicted on the wicked would 
 operate upon them as the worm does upon a carcase, devouring all that can be de- 
 voured, and as the fire operates upon that which is left, namely, consuming it, burn- 
 ing it up, and would effect, what Jesus elsewhere threatens, a complete destruction 
 both of body and soul in hell. 
 
 9. We are aware that the Gospel tells us that the wicked shall go away into ever- 
 lasting punishment ; but this is perfectly agreeable to the doctrine we preach. We 
 believe that the punishment of the wicked will be truly everlasting, endless. Those 
 who believe in final restoration tell us that the word translated everlasting is fre- 
 quently applied in Scripture to things that are not everlasting, that cannot be ever- 
 lasting, and it is certain that this is the case ; hence we read of everlasting hills, and 
 the like. We, however, are not driven to this resource. We simply have to say 
 that we believe literally in everlasting punishment ; we believe that the wicked 
 will be punished eternally ; but we teach that their punishment will be everlast ng 
 death ; we believe, as the apostle declares, that they will be punished, not with 
 eternal life in torment, but with eternal destruction a destruction which shall 
 never be reversed,— a death which shall never be succeeded by restoration to life. 
 
 10. Some people tell us, that eternal destruction is no punishment whatever, and 
 
 that many men will not dread the loss of existence at all. 1 will, however, give you 
 the idea of John Angel James: —“Annihilation,” says he, “ is bad enough. How 
 terrible to anticipate the loss of thought, of being, of consciousness for ever !’ And, 
 without doubt, it is terrible enough. At the same time, it is not so terrible to many 
 as it would be, if their minds were not perverted or disabled by the principles of 
 false orthodoxy. Life would be more highly valued, and destruction would be more, 
 dreaded, but for the influence of this horrid and unscriptural doctrine of eternal 
 torments. If man is to value existence, he must believe that he has his existence 
 from God on good or favourable terms. But the man who exists on the terms, that 
 he is every moment liable to eternal torments, cannot believe this ; hence he cannot 
 properly feel his existence to be a great, inestimable blessing. He is in clanger ra- 
 ther of regarding his existence as a curse. He is in danger of wishing that God 
 liad not made him ; and under the influence of this false doctrine, human life is 
 sometimes such a burden, that men wish in agony that they had never been born. 
 But let a man know, that existence is given to him on the most reasonable and ad- 
 vantageous terms,— let him know that his existence comes from a good God; that 
 lie is placed on earth ^n purpose that he may he happy,— that he is formed with & 
 perfect nature free from all sin,— tliat his nature is as perfect, as free from stain 
 or faultiness, as the nature of Adam was when he was created ; let him under- 
 stand that he was formed for the highest and most God-like ends ; that he was de- 
 signed, and that his nature is calculated for endless improvement in piety, in know- 
 ledge, in all spiritual and divine excellence, and for rich, and vast, and everlasting 
 blessedness. Let him believe that he is in the hands of a benevolent God,— that the 
 universe in which he lives is governed by unerring wisdom, and eternal, boundless 
 love,— let him believe that God is the Father of the whole race of men,— that he 
 wishes all to be wise, and good, and happy, — that he has no pleasure in the death 
 or misery of any,— that even suffering itself is designed for men’s improvement and 
 welfare,- that God will do his best for all mankind, and Lhat when he has done all he 
 can, consistently with their freedom, to secure their everlasting welfare, and failed, 
 he will still do the next best thing, and take away that being, which, while given 
 for a blessing, has been turned into a curse,— I say, let a man look on God in this 
 light, and regard the arrangements of this infinite universe as one vast system of 
 means designed by God to secure his present happiness, and everlasting improve- 
 ment and blessedness, and he will prize his existence most highly, and destruction 
 will be regarded as a tremendous curse, and will be contemplated with unutterable, 
 horror. t 2 
 
438 
 
 MR. BARKER. 
 
 [tenth 
 
 Many have now learned to prize existence, since they have seen through the errors 
 oi laise orthodoxy, and received the doctrine of Jesus in its simplicity : they now 
 +n S 11 / 1 ? 1 ? e ^ stence , as an infinite benefit, for which t< ey can never be sufficiently 
 i anKlul to God. They prize it above all thought, and they would rather suffer the 
 *° ss friends, and of temporary freedom, — would rather suffer reproach and 
 treachery, and all the agony of cruel martyrdom, than for a moment run the risk of 
 being shut out from the happiness of immortal life. 
 
 1 shall say no more on this'subject. 
 
 -• w f. s wishful to notice the question of a hired ministry, but I shall not enter into 
 it further than to say that it is anti-scriptural and unnecessary ; that a hired minis- 
 try is very generally hurtful— hurtful to ministers, hurtful to religion, hurtful to '.he 
 church, mimical to freedom, tending to prevent the development and culture of 
 men s minds ; that it tends to perpetuate en or, supe. stition, and mystery,— to 
 prevent religion from being understood, and from being seen in its prop; r charac- 
 ter ; and thus gives strength to the cause of infide i r y r . It furnishes one of the worst 
 examples to society : ii hangs a millstone round the neck of Christianity, and would 
 ”Ut * 01 ' i. n } m o r fal vigour. A hired ministry is generally remarkable for 
 selfishness and ambition, the flattery of the rich, the neglect of the poor, and for in- 
 tolerance and tyranny; and by causing those vices to be ascribed to Christianity 
 its tendency isto bring it into disrepute, and everlasting contempt and neglect, 
 
 I hey who wish to see my views on this subject stated nme at la> ge, may And} them 
 n m ypublications. laughter, and applause.) 
 
 now come to my opponent’s speech delivered last night. 
 
 He referred to the sentiments of Priestley. For those I am net answerable ; and 
 I refer to them only to say, that I was sorry my opponent should have read one pas- 
 sage from Priestley in such a Avay as to cause it to convey a false idea of its mean- 
 ing,— an idea opposite to what he writer himself intended. Though parties may 
 be imposed upon by such means for a time, such injustice is sure to come to light, 
 and to meet, ultimately, with its reward 
 
 H e |ays, I eulogize Priestley to the skies. I am not aware that I ever did any 
 such thing. Stil , Priestley deserves to be eulogized, and eulogized highly; and 
 I acknowledge that the more I know of him arid of his works, the more do I 
 esteem and love him. He was a great and a good man ; a person of unspotted 
 purity and strict integrity : a man of extensive learning and of great industry. 
 He was an ardent lover of truth, and risked both his reputation ai d his life for 
 its sake. He defended the cause of Christ against infideliiy with great abi ity 
 and with great success. For his labours in endeavouring to free Christianity 
 from the inventions of bad and foolish men, and from the corruptions of dark 
 and degenerate ages, he deserves to be had in grateful and in everlasting remem- 
 brance He was fallible ; and it would be strange indeed if he had not, in pub- 
 lishing perhaps a hundred volumes, fallen into semewhat about thirty errors cr 
 mistakes: but he was a great and glorious character notwithstanding. 1 cannot 
 place him on a level with Changing. Channing has no equal under heaven. 
 His was the brightest spirit that God lias granted to mankind the privilege to 
 behold in these latter days. He was full of light, and full of life, and full of 
 love, the very image and likeness of the Saviour. Ii is life was governed by the 
 same beneficent spirit that pervades his writings, and liis efforts were uniformly 
 directed to promote the freedom, the improvement, and the welfare of mankind. 
 I cannot place Priest’ey on a level with Channing. Channing, I say, has no equal 
 with whom I am acquainted. At the same time, I cannot but have a high opi- 
 nion of Priestley; and no unprejudiced and candid mind, I fancy, can lead his 
 writings, and pursue the story of his pure, and useful, and Christian life, and 
 of liis calm and triumphant death, without pitying the man that can take pleasure 
 in abusing and slandering his reputation. 
 
 My opponent lepeated his false statement respecting my views of the sacred 
 writings, stating that I placed them side by side with the writings of Mahomet, 
 Priestley, and the like. Now lie has read the tracts to which he refers; and he 
 knows that the representations which he gave of their contents were laise : lie 
 knows it, and cannot but know it. 1 have only 10 say, in reply to what my op- 
 ponent so frequently said on this subject, that if lie did not trust for accept- 
 ance w r ith G( d in the merits or righteousness of another, instead of trusting to 
 his own good conduct for acceptance. I cannot but think he would endeavour to 
 be a little more righteous in liis own behaviour. (Hear, hear, order, order.) 
 
 He gave us s< me qu< tatiens— (interruption.) My friends, I use no carnal wea- 
 pons. (Interruption.) 
 
 Mr. Gilmork I do think you are treating Mr. Cooke’s chairman with great 
 disrespect. Every attention was paid to the oilier side. 
 
 Mr. Barker:— I use r.o carnal weapons. I simply speak plain truth, and if you 
 do net choose to receive it, alter all, it need do y< u no barm. (Further interrup- 
 tion, arising from remarks made by one or two individuals in I lie throng.) 
 
 Mr. Gi ant :•*- Silence, silence. No one can speak without creating confusion. 
 
 Mr. Ccokb Silence, 1 beg of you. 
 
 Mr. Bark* r My opponent gave us some quotations from the Koran of Ma- 
 homet. \\ hile he read them, 1 was struck with the resemblance which some of 
 them bore to some portions oi the Old Testament; and I could not help thinking 
 that Mahomet would have been a better man, and a greater refonner, if he liad 
 not been bewildered with the same false notion of my opponent, that tho beggarly 
 
MR. BARKER, 
 
 439 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 elements of the old law of Moses were an infallible and everlasting guld^ to righte- 
 ousness. If he had distinguished properly between the imperfect law of Moses 
 and the perfect law of Christ,— if he had taken the doctrines of Christ as his sole, 
 infallible guide, — if he hid distinguished between the writings of Moses, which 
 were set aside because imperfect, and the doctrines of Ch 1st, as they will remain 
 for ever, Mahomet would not have resembled my opponent so much in error as lie 
 seems to have done. 
 
 He brought up poor Marcion again, and would still make me answerable for his 
 sentiments and failings; though I Pave never, either in writing or in speaking, so 
 much as mentioned his name, n r quoted him as an authority in any thing. The only 
 pamphlet lever printed in which his name occurs i that on the Miracul us Concep- 
 tion (loud laughter) ; and that pamphlet is not my production, it is simply a repiibli- 
 cation i another man’s writings, for those sentiments I am not answerable. (Much 
 app'ause, and hi sing.) 
 
 Mr. Grant: —You are exceedingly silly, every one of you. 
 
 Mr. Bark or:— My opponent spoke as if I had referred :o certain parables as con- 
 taining and unfolding the whole p an of salvation; whereas he must have k own, if 
 he had paid the s ightest attention, that I did no such thing. 
 
 He referred agai . to the sufferings of martyrs; but it was only to give fresh proof 
 that he knows nothing of a martyr’s life or ieelings, and that he has especia !y yet to 
 learn the true character and history of that most god-like of all martyrs, Jesus of 
 Nazareth, the Saviour of mankind. 
 
 He says Christ’s justice did need satisfaction, as well as his Father’s and 
 the H ly Ghost’s; and -hat Christ sa-nsfied his own justice, as we 1 as the jus- 
 tice of the Fa her ^nd of the Holy Ghost. Now this was a somewhat re- 
 markable acknowledgment. But it requires anoth.r acknowledgment before it 
 c n be complete; and it is this, namely, that as the Father and the Holy 
 Ghost ate the self-same God as the Son, and as that suffering which is borne 
 by one person in the Godhead must be borne by all, he should tell us, further, that 
 the Father also suffered and satisfied the Son, that he satisfied the justice of the 
 Holy Ghost, and that he satisfied h s own justice besides : and, likewise, that the 
 Holy Ghost suffered and d ed, and satisfied his own justice, and the jusiice of the 
 Son, and the justice of the Father; -in shirt, he should tellu that they all died, 
 and thus satisfied each his own justice and he justice of the other two. hen 
 this acknowledgment is made, the -beery will be then about complete, a; d they 
 who like it, may take it, and make the best of it. I confess, it I h id not Wit- 
 nessed the fact, if I had not myself heard him make the acknowledgment, I should 
 have found it hard work to believe it possible that any orthodox teacher could 
 have made such an acknowledgment -could have committed himself so far. 
 
 He asked a question or two in reference to , sacrifices ; such as — Dees God approve 
 of what he positively enjoins? &c. I will answer my opponent by a few other-ques- 
 tions in return. 
 
 1a Does ( ;od approve of those things in which he says he takes no pleasure? 
 
 2. Docs he approve uf thos- things which he declares me all the sime to him as 
 slaying a man, cutting off a dog’s neck, offering swine’s blood, or blessing an idol ? 
 
 8. Does he approve of those things which the prophets, so far from urging people 
 to practise them, declare to be a weariness and a grief to God? 
 
 4. Does God approve of those things, or c utd lie ever enjoin those things (in any 
 Other way than that in which he enjoined divorce and polygamy) of winch the 
 Psalmist says, ‘ ‘ Sacrifice ami offering th »u didst not d sir . ; bu nt-o during a d sin- 
 offering hast thou nut required. 1 will not argue with ihen for thy sacrifices and 
 burnt offerings; 1 wi.l take no bu! ock out of thy house, nor lie-goats out of thy 
 folds.” “ Thou desirest n t sacririce, else would I give it : th udelightc tn t iu 
 buint-offerings. The sacrifices of the Lord are a broken spirit; a broken and a 
 cont itehea t, O God, thou wiitnot despise.” 
 
 Lastly. Can God desire sacrifices and burnt-offerings, when he declares that all 
 he r quires and all that he considers good, is, to do justly, love mercy, and to walk 
 humbly with our God? 
 
 My opponent seems to think Gcd must have approved of sacrifices, as he gave them, 
 or gave laws respecting them. But in this he errs. God never upp oved of the 
 Israelites having a king; yet he gave (hem one. Tie gave them one in his anger, 
 because they would not obey him without a king. So he never approved of sacri- 
 fices: but lie allowed them. He even gave to the Jews precepts respecting the way 
 of offering sacrifices, because something of the kind they appeared resolved to have, 
 and be would therefore make the system as harmless as possible, and even employ 
 it for purposes of instruction ai d piety. He wanted them to be content wi.li the 
 single moral law ; but instead of going forward to purity and perfection under that 
 law, they went backward. Therefore, as he gave them the law of divorce, on account 
 of the hardne s of their hearts, so he gave them sacrifices, to preserve them from 
 worse practices. He gam them, though he never loved them. He gave them in 
 anger, at that intractableness and hardness of heart which made the Jews deter- 
 mined to have something of the kind. 
 
 My opponent seems not to understand the drift and object of the Old Testament 
 writings: he seem to think their drift and object were to prepare people for trusting 
 in some satisfaction t© be offered to divine jusiice by the sufferings of Christ. He 
 may, perhaps, be willing to learn a lesson on this subject— (laughter)— from Jesus 
 Christ. (Hear, hear, and applause.) I will just give him a few of Christ’s words on 
 
440 
 
 MR. BARKER, 
 
 [tenth 
 
 this subject. The Old Testament is divided into the law and the prophets. Now, 
 what does Jesus say is the substance and drift of these writings ? Hearken. “As 
 ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them : for THIS is the 
 Law and the Prophets.” And when one came and asked which was the greatest 
 commandment, Jesus said unto him, “ Thou sha't love the Lord thy God with all 
 thy heart, and with all thy sou’, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great 
 commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shaltlove thy neighbour as 
 thyself. On these TWO commanpmentshang all the Law and the Prophets.” 
 My opponent would have said — “ Dear me ! that is a very defective explanation of 
 the matter. The object of the law was to teach satisfaction to justice, and to pre- 
 pare us for trusting in the merits of the Saviour that was toc^me.” Jesus, however, 
 taught differently, and if he were to come back again, he would rebuke those men 
 who talk so loudly about the law and the prophets containing allusions to his suffer- 
 ings, and to his satisfying divine justice, and the like; and would tell them afresh 
 that the object, the design, and the drift of the whole of the law and the prophets 
 was to make men love God with all their heart, and sou', and mind, and strength, and 
 to love their neighbours as themselves. True, the law was intended to bring men to 
 Christ; but not to bring them to trust in his merits. There is not a word about the 
 merits of Christ in the whole Bible. The law was designed to bring us to Christ 
 in a far different sense. It was designed, as a schoolmaster, to teach men the rude 
 elements of religion, during their spiritual childhood, and thus gradually fit them for 
 the higher, purer, better instructions of Jesus, who came to create our hearts 
 entirely anew, to make us truly spiritual and divine, to teach us to worship the Father 
 in spirit and in truth, to lead truly religious lives, to love the brethren, to delight in 
 doing good, to live peaceable, loving, benevolent lives. The law was designed to 
 bring us to Christ, of course ; not to bring us to trust for acceptance in his sacrifice, 
 but to prepare us for his simple and spiritual religion, consisting in the love of truth, 
 the love of goodness, the love of God, and the love of mankind. 
 
 My opponent says, it was when Christ died that God ceased to regard sacrifices. 
 Then Christ must have died before the days of Micali, Isaiah, and David ; for he had 
 ceased to regard and resp;ct them before their times, if he ever loved or respected 
 hem at all. 
 
 My opponent, referring to a passage in John xvii., 3.— “ This is life eternal, to know 
 thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” said that “ Jesus 
 Christ”— the title Jesus Christ,— referred to the human nature Very true ; but then 
 if Jesus Christ meant the human nature, where was the human nature before God 
 the Father sent it ? “ Je?us Christ, the man, the human nature , whom thou hast 
 
 sent.” This does away with the argument for pre-existence which was grounded on 
 a similar passage. Again ; if Jesus Christ means the human nature, then, according 
 to his arguing, the human nature is the true God ; for he says that in 1 John, v., 
 2>, Jesus Christ— that is, the human nature— is ca'led the true God and eternal life. 
 We have therefore the human nature made into the true God ! But this agrees 
 exactly with what he quotes from Revelations; for when the heavenly creatures 
 and all the hosts worship Jesus, how is it that they worship him ? As God ? No ; 
 but as man. Jt is in his human nature that they worship him. They worship him 
 as the Lamb that was slain. They ascribe to the man Jesus Christ, to the human 
 nature that died andappeared there, as having been slain, al those praisesand bless- 
 ings which his obedience unto death for our sakes so richly deserved. 
 
 I will, however, refer you to Wilson’s Concessions again, and see what is said by 
 Trinitarian writers about the passage in 1 John, v., ‘20. 
 
 The following is Calvin’s opinion “ When, without the conjunction, the apostle 
 says, that we arc in him that is true, in his Son, he seems to express the means of 
 our union with God ; as if he had said that we are in God by Christ.” 
 
 My opponent says that Wilson sometimesgives the sentimentsof the authors he quotes 
 i [different words. What does he mean ? Some of the authors whom Wilson quotes 
 wrote in Latin, and their words had therefore to be translated into'English. Wilson, 
 when he takes a Latin sentence from a book, often translates it into English. This 
 is what my opponent grounds his charge upon. A nd does my opponent believe that 
 this is wrong ? Does not my opponent do the same when he quotes the Scriptures ? 
 He does not give you the words used by the sacred writers, but others instead. They 
 used Hebrew and Greek. What does my opponent d >, when he quotes those writings 
 which were originally written in Hebrew and Greek ? Does be read every passage 
 in the same Hebrew and Greek words which the sacred writers used ? No such 
 thing. He quotes the English translations. True, he gives you enough of Hebrew 
 and Greek; for he gives you Hebrew and Greek even where the English is the same 
 in sense. But does he not, nevertheless, do what Wilson does? Does he not fre- 
 quently translate the Hebrew and Greek into English? Of course he does, and 
 xve do not blame him for it. It would be better if he would speak more English, 
 and less either of Greek or Hebrew. ( Laughter. 
 
 Erasmus, Archbishop Tillotson, Waterland, Adam Clarke, and others, interpret 
 m here, by, through, or by means of. Dr. Bloomfield interprets the words thus : — 
 “ We are in union with the true God, ly means of his son Jesus Christ.” 
 
 Erasmus says “ The Father is the true God and eternal life, the Fountainof all.” 
 
 Grotius says:— “ This is the true God ; namely, He, and none else, whom Jesus 
 hath declared to be the object of worship. The pronoun outos, this, notunfrequcntly 
 relates to a remote antecedent ; as in Acts vii. , Id ; x., 6.” 
 
 Itosenmuller says:—>“ This (with whom we are united by liis Son) is the true God, 
 
MR. BARKER, 
 
 441 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 and the Author of eternal happiness. Not on!y the Photinians, but also many of 
 the orthodox , refer these words (ontos estin dionios) this is the true God and eternal 
 life , not to the proximate, but to the more remote antecedent, namely, to God the Fa- 
 ther ; and rightly, for in the beginning of the verse, the Father is distinguished from 
 the Son.” 
 
 My opponent referred to Zechariah, “ Awake, O sword, against the man that is 
 my fellow,” to prove Jesus to be Jehovah, and Jeh -vah’s fellow. But the text 
 says, against the man that is my fellow, not against the God, or divine person. 
 
 He says, the notion that Isaiah ix.= 6, 7, refers to Hezekiah is not supported by 
 any authority. I answer, it is supported both by Trinitarian and Anti-Tri iitarian 
 authority, and that of the most creditable character. In Wilson’s Concessions, page 
 191), you will find the following authorities : — 
 
 Grotius “ Unto us a Son is given. Will be given. Hezekiah , who was very 
 unlike his father Ahaz. This passage is acknowledged not only by Christians, but 
 by the Chaldee interpreter, to relate in the same manner, but in a more excellent 
 sense, to the Messiah.” 
 
 White : — “ The government shall he upon his shoulder. That is, he ("king Heze- 
 kiahj shall reign in ‘ B the throne of David,’ as the metaphor signifies, and as the 
 prophet more fully explains himself in the following verse, which cannot be literally 
 true of our Saviour, whose kingdom was no of this wor d, as David’s was; but, in a 
 second and sublimer sense, the expression denotes that power which God devolved on 
 his Son, of governing his spiritual kingdom, the church.” 
 
 The following, also, is White’s:— (i His name shall be called Wonderful , that is, 
 according to the Hebrew idiom, he shall he wonderful ; which Hezekiah was in an 
 eminent manner, as well upon the account of his personal qualifications and endow- 
 ments, as for the miracles of God wrought in his behalf.” 
 
 And again “If we read the word ( Councillor ) single, and apply it to Hezekiah, 
 it may signify one who. in all difficult emergencies, had recourse to the advice of his 
 counsellors ; app ied to our Saviour, one who made known to mankind the whole 
 counsel of God.” 
 
 Rammohun Roy has entered into the subject at length, and proved most fully 
 that Hezekiah is the person referred to. He has given Hezeltiah’s history in con- 
 nection with the passage, and proved to the satisfaction of many, and, in my judg- 
 ment, beyond all doubt, that the prophecy has no relation to Christ whatever, but 
 refers simply to Hezekiah and the Jewish nation. 
 
 My opponent says, I told you that the text referred to Gabriel. He must know 
 that I did no such thing. What I said was that Al Gahur, the words translated in 
 the text mighty God, were the same words which formed the name of the Arch- 
 angel, Gabriel. One is El- Gahur, God Mighty ; the other Gahur- Al, Mighty God: 
 I did this to show that the application of such a name [ Al- Gahur'] to a child, did 
 not prove that child to be the true God. 
 
 He says, Christ’s inferiority to the Father was an inferiority of office only. I 
 answer, 1. The Scriptures do not teach any such thing. 2. Christ’s office was not 
 inferior to the Father’s, if Christ was God. If any thing, it was superior, on account 
 of his Messiahship being added to his other offices which he must have held as God, 
 offices equal to the Father’s. But, 3. Christ’s office is always spoken of as an honour 
 conferred upon Christ by God, on account of his piety. Christ’s office is called his 
 exaltation, not his humiliation. So far, therefore, from his office indicating inferi- 
 ority, it constitutes, in fact, his superiority to his fellows, his brethren ; but he 
 still remains God’s servant, inferior to God ; and his office as Lord, is an office that 
 at last is to be relinquished, that God may be all in all. 
 
 He says, Christ was inferior in glory to the Father, only because he had laid aside 
 his glory, to become incarnate. But, first, God could not lay aside any glory ; nor 
 could his glory be concealed by his incarnation. On the contrary, it would rather 
 be more revealed, unfolded, manifested, and increased as well. Secondly, if God 
 the Father and God the Son were one inseparable and undivided God, the Father 
 was as much incarnated as the Son. And I further answer, that it was the Father 
 who was incarnate and dwelt in the man Christ Jesus ; and that we never get the 
 slightest hint of any second person in the trinity dwelling in Christ Jesus. 
 
 My opponent charged me with saying that God does not know the character of 
 any man. Here, also, he was stating what he must have known to be false. He 
 knows that I say exactly the contrary,— that God knows the characters of all men— 
 that lie knows all things that either are or have been, and foreknows all that is 
 certain to come to pass. [Some remark was here made in opposition to the speaker. 
 It was followed by the observation— “.It’s only Crozcr .”] 
 
 Mr. Gilmore : —1 am certain it can be no respectable man. 
 
 fCries of— “ Turn him out,” &c.] 
 
 Mr. Barker He will perhaps be quiet now. He only speaks occasionally ; and 
 you know who it is. (Laughter ; in the midst of which the individual continued to 
 make observations.) 
 
 Mr. Grant No one can speak there without creating noise. I don’t care who 
 it be ; he has no right to speak : nor can he do it without creating confusion. 
 
 Mr. Barker (order being restored) proceeded My opponent, to make a certain 
 impression on the meeting, has frequently referred to my views on fore-knowledge. 
 Now what is it that my opponent teaches on this subject ? He professes to believe 
 that God knows, before children are born, whether they will be good or bad; 
 whether they will go to heaven or hell ; and that God makes millions of children, 
 and sends them into the world, and professes to love them, and to wish them well. 
 
442 MR. BARKER. [TENTH 
 
 while, all the time, he knows, before he makes them, that they will live in sin as 
 long ns they slop on earth, and go to dwell in everlasting torments when they go 
 hence. Now I say, if I believed such a doctrine, I would never preach again. Such 
 hdetrines appear to me more horrible than infidelity itself. I say that men are free ; 
 that their actions are not fixed and pre-determined ; and that it is naturally, phy- 
 sically impossible for that to be certainly fore-known, which is not itself certain and 
 fixed. My reasons for holding these views are given in my 17th and 18th “ Chris- 
 tians; ’ and if my opponent will only examine those reasons, and then tell me that 
 he feels prepared to refute them, I shall have no objection to meet him in discussion 
 on that point. 
 
 My opponent says it was Christ’s human nature that was made Lord : his divine 
 nature, was Lord before. I answer, 1. This is no doctrine of Christ ; but a mere 
 invention of orthodoxy, to help her in her trials. 2. That it was Christ’s human 
 nature which was made Lord, there can be no doubt: but that his divine nature 
 was Lord before, or that he had any nature different from the human nature, except 
 that God the Father dwelt in him, the Scriptures do not teach. 
 
 My opponent says, Christ was the Lord of Glory, and therefore must be God. I 
 answer, the Lord of Glory was crucified and slain ; and if my opponent’s interpreta- 
 tion be correct —if the Lord of Glory means Jehovah God, then Jehovah God was 
 crucified and slain. 
 
 He says that God purchased the church with his own blood; that God the Son 
 was pierced by the sword of his Father’s justice ; that Jehovah God descended or 
 was buried, and ascended, or was raised from the dead, &c. I answer, all such 
 statements are refuted by their own absurdity, and by their utter want of all 
 Scriptural confirmation 
 
 He told us that the same things are said to be done by Christ in the New Testa- 
 ment, which are said to be done by God in the Old Testament ; and that, therefore, 
 Clnist must be God. Now I answer, that that way of arguing would prove the 
 Godhead of Moses, of Adam, of the apostles, and of all Christians in the world. 
 Both God and Moses are said to have done the same thing— both God and Moses are 
 said to have brought Israel out of Egyi t ; and therefore I might argue thus: God 
 brought Israel out of Egypt ; but we find that it was Moses that brought them out 
 
 Egypt; therefore Moses must be God. It is said that God led Israel in the 
 wilderness: look again, and you will see that it was Moses that led them in the 
 wilderness; therefore, on my opponent’s theory, Moses must be God. Again ; the 
 children of Israe 1 are called the people both of God and of Moses; and Moses is him- 
 self spoken of as the Lord their God. See Exod. xv., 26, where it is said that Moses 
 “ made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them, and said. 
 If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that 
 which is light in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his 
 statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the 
 Egyptians ; for I am the Lord that healeth thee. y But was Moses Jehovah ? We 
 know that he was not Yet the very same arguments which prove Jesus Christ to 
 be God, would prove Moses to be God likewise. The proof is the same, and the 
 absurdity is about t qua’. The arguments of my opponent are but laboured folly. 
 We, therefore, still believe in the existence of but one God, and that one God the 
 Father. 
 
 Again ; the Godhead of Adam is proved in the same way. In Matt. xix. 4, 5, we 
 read,— “ He who made them in 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.” Now it is certain that he who made both 
 male and female was God. But go to Gen. ii. 23, 24, and you. will find that the 
 same word-* are attributed to Adam : — “ Ai d Adam said, This is now bone of my 
 bones, and flesh of my fle.di ; she shall be called Woman, because she was t ken out 
 of Man. Therefore sha 1 a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave 
 unto his wife ; and they shall be one fle?h.” Thus the very words which Je us says 
 were uttered by God, Moses says were uttered by Adam. Adam, therefore, must 
 be God. If any one say, Adam could not be God, I should have only to reply as the 
 orthodox do. it is a mystery: and thus explain the matter, by acknowledging it 
 could not be explained. In the same manner we might prove the Godhead of Paul, 
 of the apostles generally, of the prophets, and of all God’s people. It is a matter of 
 no great moment, and time 'will not allow me to do it, or 1 might have shown that 
 it is quite common for things which are attributed to God in one passage, to be 
 attributed to men or angels in other passages. T 
 
 My opponent quoted Isaiah vi., 3, and John xii., 41, to prove Christ Jehovah. 
 As he rested the whole upon coi jecture and mere verbal criticism, I will give you 
 some Trinitarian criticisms in reply. When c Jticisms are brought forward rounded 
 simply on human authority, it is right that such things should be met by other 
 human authority, which is, to say the least, as respectable as any authority quoted 
 on the opposite side. , .. T T . - 
 
 The following are the observations of the celebrated Lc Clerc I saw Jehovah, 
 ■namely, God, under a human form, as he was seen by Bam 1, chap, vu., J.— t am 
 aware that some explain this of the Son of God, because the evangelist John (chap, 
 xii. 41, preferring to the 5th verse, as if it pertained to Christ, says, agreeably to the 
 manuscripts in common use, ‘ These things said Esaias, when lie saw hfs glory, j 
 But some manuscripts and versions, instead of autou , ‘ his f read toil i/*cew, ana 
 ou Thcou autou , ‘ of God ,’ and * of his God whence it may be suspected that nen, 
 
MR. BARKER, 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 443 
 
 as in other places, the comihon reading is a fraud of pious transcribers. Truth, 
 however, needs no such artifice.” 
 
 Tostat, in reference to the three repetitions of the word Holy, says,— The triple 
 use of the word holy does not intimate a plurality of divine persons, but only that 
 praise was frequently repeated.” 
 
 My opponent says Christ was before all things. I answer, the apostle p’ain’y 
 means not in point of time, but rank /—placed before, or placed above all things by 
 God, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence. 
 
 He says, Christ searches the heart, and that searching the heart is indicative of 
 Omniscience. I answer, prophets and apostles have done the same. There is the 
 instance of Ananias and Sapphira, whose thoughts and falsehoods were known to 
 the apostles ; and God can give the same power t any individual. 
 
 I shall now briefly notice the spe.cli of my opponent to-night. 
 
 He says some of the quotations given by Wilson, are from Arian writers. I feel 
 persuaded that this is a slander ; but, if he will give me a proof of what he says, I 
 will receive it. 
 
 ; He sought to make an impression that Wilson was not ft faithful transcriber of 
 people’s sentiment?. I know Mr Wilson ; and I believe there is not a more honest 
 and faithful man in existence. 
 
 He says he can show thirty-eight falsehoods in Priestley’s and Belsham’s writ- 
 ings. What a mass to collect from a hundred different works! 
 
 He says the quotation from Seneca, so far as it was given by him, was correct. I 
 answer, it was not; but if it was, is it right, in quoting an author, to give part of 
 a sentence, then stop in the middle, and make the writer speak the opposite of 
 what he means? Yet this is what my opponent has done with Seneca. 
 
 He says he^did not quote from Jonathan’s Targum, but from Rabbi Simeon . 
 Let him then produce the Targum of Simeon, that it may be seen whether the 
 words are there or not. I believe it will be found that the words are no more in 
 Simeon than in Jonathan. 
 
 He says, “ God manifest in the flesh” is the true reading. 1 answer, 1, it does 
 not affect the question ; but if you just read the passage through, you will see that it is 
 impossible to be God of whom the words are spoken : — “ Justified in the Spirit , 
 seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up 
 into Glory’’ The idea that God was received up into glory! 
 
 He referred to Hebrews i., 10, “ And thou, Lord,” &c. From what he said, you 
 might suppose that he gave some proof that it referred to Christ. He said, “ And 
 thou, Lord, the Son whereas “ the Son” is not to be found in the passage ; he 
 put the words in himself. 
 
 He says, Christ must have created all men if he created Gentiles and Jews. I 
 answer, Christ created them anew— made them a new people. 
 
 He says, “ Jehovah our righteousness,’' in the passage in Jeremiah, does not 
 mean Jerusalem. Fie says the original Hebrew is wrong; that the transcribers 
 have altered it. He is obliged, you see, to confess that there have been such 
 things as faults of the transcribers. Rammohun Roy, however, gives abundant 
 proof that it does mean Jerusalem. In all these matters, however, you can nei- 
 ther rest upon the testimony of t?>y opponent, nor on mine ; but you must exa- 
 mine the authorities on the question for yourselves, if you wish to be fully satis- 
 fied ; and especially you must learn the lesson of abiding by plain passages of 
 Scripture, and not allowing one tingle dark criticism to obscure the light of a 
 whole revelation. 2. There is no proof that in either of those passages “ the Lord 
 our Righteousness” is meant to refer to Christ ; and if it did, it would be no proof 
 of liis Godhead. Elijah is called Jehovah my God, and Daniel means God my Judge. 
 
 He says, there is no evidence that the early Christians called themselves by 
 Christ’s name. I answer, first, we never said they did do so literally, but only in 
 the sense of calling or avowing themselves his disciples or servants; aslssael is 
 said to be called by the name of Jehovah. To be called by Christ’s name, or to 
 call on Christ’s name, means to call themselves Christ’s disciples, Christ’s subjects. 
 They did not, of course, call themselves Jesuits, which means Jesusites ; but 
 they were known as the followers, the disciples of Jesus. 
 
 He tells us still, that prayer was offered to Christ as God. I reply, then, it was 
 offered in direct opposition to Christ’s direction. Christ told us, 1, to whom we 
 were to pray : When ye pray, say, “ Qnr Father,” &c. He told us, 2, to whom we 
 were not to pray : “ In that day ye shall ask nie nothing.” 3. He set us the ex- 
 ample how to pray ; and he always prayed to the Father, never to the trinity, to 
 the Spirit, nor to himself. 4. The apostles always prayed to God alone: “ Making 
 mention of you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord ‘Jesus Christ, the Father 
 of glory, may give you,” &c, They always direct us to pray to the Father : “ By 
 prayer and supplication, making known your requests unto God.” These plain 
 passages prove most clearly, that Jesus is not to be prayed to as God. 
 
 He gave us the passage, To whom be glory for ever and ever.” So say I; to 
 him be glory or honour for ever and ever; but not prayer. 
 
 He also gave the passage, “ To him that loved us be power and dominion.” I 
 give them to Christ, and am glad that both are placed in his hands. 
 
 Angels are commanded to worship Christ, observes my opponent. But I. The 
 
444 MR. BARKER. [TENTH 
 
 original is, Worship him all ye Gods, or magistrates and rulers. Look at the 
 Psalm, and you will find that the words do not refer to Christ. 2. But suppose 
 They do, the angels or heavenly messengers are only commanded to give Jesus his 
 due, and acknowledge him as Lord over all, as appointed by God to rule and 
 judge all men. 
 
 He referred to Revelations. But there it is the Lamb that teas slain that is to 
 receive blessing, and honour, and power — not God the Soil. The song is one in 
 which myself and all who think with me will gladly join, when admitted to the 
 Saviour’s presence. We believe that Jesus is worthy to receive honour, and 
 blessing, and dominion, and power, and we can ascribe them to him as those in 
 * Revelations are represented as doing, without ascribing to him the honour due only 
 to God. The passage makes a complete distinction between God and Jesus. It 
 does not say God the Father, God the Son, &c., but God and the Lamb. 2. The 
 whole of this worship is given to Jesus as a Lamb, a creature. The Lamb repre- 
 sents his human nature. The Lamb slain, or the man crucified, is he to 
 whom blessing and honftur were given, and they were given to him in consequence 
 of his having been slain, or of his having been faithful or obedient unto death, 
 even the death of the cross. It was because of his obedience that he was exalted 
 by God to be a Prince and a Saviour. 
 
 My opponent says, can any one believe all this to be applied to a pious young 
 man who died on the cross'? I answer, 1. The passage does expressly apply it to 
 a pious young man who was crucified, for it says it was to the Lamb that was 
 slain. The word lamb is indicative of piety, and we know it was a man only that 
 was slain. 2. In Phil, ii , and Heb. i., we have the same account of Christ’s ex- 
 altation. It is there said that God hath highly exalted him (exalted his humanity, 
 of course,) and appointed that every knee shall bow to him, and every tongue con- 
 fess that he is Lord, because he humbled himself, and was obedient to death, even 
 the death of the cross; or, in other words, on account of his peculiar piety. And, 
 again, because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; or, in other words, be- 
 cause he was a pious young man, faithful above his fellows, God anointed him 
 with the oil of gladness above his fellows ; raised him to giory, and made him 
 Lord of all. * 
 
 He then came to the Spirit. He said the Spirit was said to be grieved, pleased, 
 and the like. I answer, 1. So the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, the hills, 
 the streams, the trees of the forest, are represented as rejoicing, mourning, lan- 
 guishing, shouting, clapping their hands, and so on; and all therefore must be re- 
 garded, if we take the Scriptures literally, as persons. The same argument that 
 would prove the Holy Ghost a person, would prove all these things persons. 2. The 
 Spirit, however, is called the finger of God, the power of God. Thus Christ says,. 
 “ If I with the finger of God cast out devils;” which words are given by other 
 Evangelists, “ If I by the poiver of God;” &c. “ If I by the Spirit of God cast 
 out devils,” which shows that the Spirit of God is but another expression for 
 his power; that the Spirit of God means literally the power, and figuratively the 
 finger of God. The Spirit is also spoken of as a gift or gifts, as an anointing, 
 and in one place it is used as another name for good things generally. 3. Still the 
 Spirit of God is, without doubt, a name sometimes given to God; and that very 
 properly, because God is a Spirit, and a Holy Spirit too. But there is still but 
 one God. 
 
 My opponent came next to what he calls the Holy Trinity. He spoke of my 
 references to the contradictory notions of Trinitarians as if they were not fair. 
 They were perfectly fair. I simply brought them forward as proof that all Chris- 
 tians were not united and harmonious on the subject of the Trinity. 
 
 He said, I once believed in a Trinity. Very true ; but even then I would only 
 use just such expressions as were used in Scripture; and by laying aside all un- 
 meaning and unscriptural words, 1 was soon led to see the folly of the doctrine 
 itself, and to receive the simple truth. 
 
 He spoke of plural nouns and pronouns ; and mentioned Elohim as being the 
 plural term employed by God to imply a trinity of persons. I thought he would 
 never have referred to that matter again. What is the plural of God, but Gods? 
 He tells you that God always uses words which are the fittest to express 
 the truth. Now God says he is Elohim, “ Gods but my opponent says nay, not 
 Gods, but “ persons ” is the proper word. According to his own principle, per- 
 sons is an improper word. And why, l ask, discard God’s own proper word, Gods; 
 and introduce his oivn improper ones, persons and distinctions? He rejects 
 God’s own Trinity, Gods ; and surely he should not blame us, if we reject his 
 man-made Trinity. 
 
 He says, the plural noun, Elohim, is used to indicate a trinity of persons. I 
 answer, 1. Where are the proofs? There are none. 2. I have explained how it 
 came to pass that the name of God is used in the plural, and construed with singu- 
 lar verbs and pronouns; I have shown that it is a peculiarity of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage, arising from the universal prevalence of Polytheism, or the worship of many 
 
MR. BARKER. 
 
 445 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 gods, at the time Jehovah revealed himself to Moses,— and that similar peculiar- 
 ities likewise exist in our own language. 3. I ask, is the word Elohim ever trans- 
 lated as a plural name when it refers to Jehovah ? Does my opponent translate 
 or read it in the plural? No; though the word Elohim is Gods in the original, it 
 s always translated God. 4. In the New Testament, however, which should be a 
 clearer and more perfect revelation, no plural name is used for God at all. Here, 
 my opponent’s light which is to guide us to the trinity, instead of brightening, 
 goes out. It is no longer Gods, but God . The form of expression which my oppo- 
 nent says God used purposely as an indication of the trinity, is here given up. It 
 is not the plural, T/ieoi, but the siugular, Theos, throughout the whole New Tes- 
 tament. In the glimmering dawn or twilight of Judaism, we have Gods ; but 
 when w'e come to the noontide blaze of the New Testament, that light expires, and 
 the dark indication of a trinity is completely lost. 5. My opponent, as I have said, 
 w'on’t call Elohim , Gods , because it is joined with verbs and pronouns in the sin- 
 gular. But it is called so in the Scriptures ; and why not follow his infallible 
 guide ? If he will not follow God’s words, never let him think it strange if others 
 will not adopt his words and phrases. 6. It is a fact, too, that the Vulgate, the 
 Persic, the Arabic, the Syriac, and the Septuagint, all give the singular name, God, 
 as the proper translation of Elohim. 7. The word in the plural number, Elohim , 
 is applied to Moses . “ I have made thee Elohim to Pharoah,” said God. Had 
 
 God made Moses into a trinity ? We know' he had not. 8. We have also seen that the 
 argument is abandoned by learned Trinitarians; and that the wiser part of Trinita- 
 rian writers find fault with others for risking the doctrine of the trinity, by resting 
 it on such a foundation. 
 
 My opponent refers you to the question, Who will go for us? as a proof of the 
 trinity. But what folly ! Do not we constantly say you to one individual ? But I 
 have given you the testimony of Trinitarians upon this point also, and may there- 
 fore pass it by without further notice. 
 
 He said, Hume denied the existence of man’s body. Why, Bishop Berkley, a 
 Trinitarian, denied the material universe. Trinitarians, orthodox people, can be as 
 foolish and extravagant as infidels themselves. Indeed, Trinitarianism prepares 
 people for infidel extravagancies. If a man brings himself to believe in the Tri2 
 nity, which is a fiat contradiction, he may bring himself to believe anything. 
 And when his mind re-acts, he may cease to believe both in man’s body and soul, 
 and become a sceptic altogether, as many have done. 
 
 He says, the power of Christ is the power of God. True ; he received his power 
 from God, and therefore it is his power. 
 
 He says, Christ fiileth all in all. This has no reference to omnipresence, but 
 simply means filling his people with all spiritual blessings. 
 
 He says, Christ dwells in our hearts. True; and when we have his spirit and 
 Jtis truth within us, he does dwell there. 
 
 He says, Christ is “ the holy one.” I answer, David is called God’s holy one 
 too: and God’s anointed aiso. Yet he is not God. And Christians are called 
 saints, which means holy ones, yet they are not God. 
 
 He says, Clnist is true 1 answer, those who can take these as sufficient argu- 
 ments in proof of such a monstrous doctrine as the trinity, must have minds pecu- 
 liarly constituted. When I did believe in a trinity, I saw no force in such argu- 
 ments as those; and I fancy few present will see any force in them. 
 
 He said, Christ was good. I say, Christ informed the young man that there was 
 only one good, and that that was not himself, that it was God. Christ disclaims 
 that kind of goodness which he attributes to God. 
 
 He says, the attributes of holiness, benevolence, &c., are attributed to Christ in 
 their fullest extent. I answer, the Scriptures never say so. It is an assertion 
 without proof. 
 
 He says, by his Spirit God hath garnished the heavens. Yes, and it is also said 
 that he does things by his hand, his fingers , his word, his mouth, & c. “The 
 mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” “ The hand of the Lord hath done it,” &c* 
 But shall we therefore say that God’s hand and mouth, &c., are separate persons? 
 
 He says, it is “ remember thy Creators” in the original. It is so. God is called 
 Gods, Creators, &c. : and Abraham is called Lords in the original ; but was there 
 a trinity of lords in Abraham? If the Scriptures are an infallible guide, why does 
 not he say Creators Gods, &c. 
 
 He says, Christ had power to lay dowm his life, and to take it up again. But 
 Christ tells us he had this power from the Father. Why not read the whole passage? 
 
 As to raising the dead, Christ has that power also from the Father. These argu- 
 ments have been answered already. 
 
 My opponent said, God will raise us by his Spirit. True ; by his power ; the 
 thing signified by his spirit. So Christ expresses it ; If I, by the spirit, or power , 
 or finger of God cast out devils, &c. 
 
 He says, the same things are affirmed of God as of Christ. I answer, the same 
 things are affirmed of the saints as of God. It is said that what is done to saints, 
 is done to Clnist, is done to God. 
 
.446 MR. BARKER. [/TENTH 
 
 He says, Christ dwells in oar hearts. So Christians dwell in each other’s hearts. 
 “Ye are in oar hearts,” says Paul. 
 
 He referred to Numbers vi. where he says the name Jehovah is thrice repeated. 
 1 have shown that if that proves any trinity at all, it proves a trinity of Jehovahs. 
 It proves three persons, in the same sense as Peter, James, and John ; three persons, 
 three beings, three Gods. This kind of trinity agrees with the literal rendering of 
 Elohim, Gods. All Scripture language, if it proves any trinity at all, proves three 
 Gods or three Jehovahs, and my opponent contends that Scripture words are words 
 of God’s own choosing, aud must be strictly proper. Why, then, does my opponent 
 not use Scripture language, and admit at once that there are three Gods, that 
 there are three Gods in one Jehovah,— not three unintelligible distinctions in one 
 God 1 
 
 He says, the same things are often affirmed of Christ as are affirmed of God, I 
 answer, so they are of the saints generally. What is said to he done to Christians, is 
 said to be done to God or to Christ. 
 
 He says, the blessing of God rests on Trinitarians. Does it noton others ? And 
 does not something else often rest on Trinitarians ? But we have replied to these 
 remarks already. 
 
 He mentions Wesley, Fletcher, &c. I mention Newton, Locke, Penn, and Chan- 
 ning, and a host of martyrs and philanthropists. 
 
 I shall now give you a few more proofs, from the plain words of Christ and his 
 apostles, that the Father alone is the True God. 
 
 Jesus says, 1. The Lord our God is one Lord, 2, Why callest thou me good ? 
 there is none good but one. that is, God. 3. This is iife eternal to know thee. 
 Father, the only true God; and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. 4. My Father 
 is greater than I. 5. My Father is greater than all. 6. When ye pray, say “ O ur 
 Father.” 7. The spirit of Jehovah is upon me, because he hath anointed me to 
 preach the gospel. 8. 1 d > nothing of myself ', the Father which is in me, he 
 doeth the works. 9. The Father taught me what I should say. 10, Christ prayed 
 to the Father. 11. He forbad people to pray to himself. 12. He had all his power 
 and authority from the Father. 13. Became not in his own name or authority, 
 but the Father’s. 14. He had his authority to forgive sins from the Father. 15. 
 It was the Father that dwelt in him ; not a second person, or God the Son. 16. He did 
 not do his own will, but the Father’s. 17. He did not come to do work of his own, 
 but the work of the Father. 18. Jesus Christ never claimed equality with God, 
 except in point of authority, and that authority he taught he had from the Father. 19. 
 Jesus never called himself God, though he proved that he might have done so with- 
 out claiming any higher title than had been given to former men of God. 20. The 
 aommoii name which Christ used when speaking of himself was, a man , or the 
 Son of man. 21. He said he did not know the day and hour of his own future 
 coming. 22. He called God his God and our God, his Father and our Father. 
 23. He never said hejiad two natures. 24, When tried and condemned, he was not 
 charged with calling himself God. 25. He said he and the Father were one ; but 
 he prayed that all who believed on him might be one in the same way. 
 
 The apostles teach the same thing. 1. Peter, in answer to Christ’s question, 
 “ Whom say ye that I am V’ simply declared him to be the Christ, the Son of God. 
 2. Others call him a prophet, mighty in word and in deed before God and all the 
 people 3. The apostles call him Jesus of Nazareth, a man proved to be of God 
 by miracle*, and wonders, and signs whicb God did by him. 4. They say lie is 
 exalted by God to be a Prince aud a Saviour. 5. That he is made by God both 
 Lord and Christ. 6. That he was anointed by God with the Holy Ghost and 
 with power. 7. They call him a prophet raised up from among his brethren by 
 God. 8. They also call him the holy child, or servant of God. 9. The end of 
 their preaching was to prove that Jesus was, not God, but the Christ, the Son of 
 God. 10. They expressly declare (hat there is none other God but one. To us, 
 they say, there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, ( made Lord 
 by God.) 11. They declare that there is one Lord, one faith, one God and Father of 
 all, who is above all. 12. Further, that there is one God, and one Mediator between 
 God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 13. They say the head of every man is Christ, 
 and the head of Christ ii God. 14. They say that as we are Christ’s, so Christ is God's. 
 15. They say that Christ is God’s image, the visible image of the invisible God. 16. 
 That the Father is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ. 17. That Christ is a man. 18. 
 That it is God who puts all things under Christ’s feet. 19. That when the end 
 comes, Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, and be sub- 
 ject to the Father, that God may be all in all. 20. John’s Gospel was written that 
 we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; not God himself. 
 21. The apostles prayed to the Father only. 22. They constantly distinguish 
 between God, and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, making one alone God. 23. 
 They teach that Jesus was raised above his fellows on account of his piety. 24. 
 They ascribe the creation of the universe to God the Father only, not to Christ. 
 25. The creation they ascribe to Christ is the new, the spiritual creation: and 
 
MR. BARKER, 
 
 NIGHT.] 
 
 447 
 
 this, they teach us, he effected by the power and authority of God. 26. They say 
 it is the man Christ Jesus by whom God hath resolved to judge the world. 
 
 1 shall now. briefly recapitulate what has been proved during the debate. 
 
 We have shown, 1. That Christian is another name for disciple of Christ; that 
 disciple means learner, or scholar; and that the word Christian me:ms a learner, a 
 scholar, of Christ. 
 
 2. That every one is a Christian who chooses Christ as his teacher and guide, in 
 order to learn his lessons, and reduce them to practice. 
 
 3. That a man may be a disciple of Christ, or a Christian, without believing in 
 the Trinity, satisfaction to justice, natural depravity, eternal torments, and with- 
 out trusting m the merits of Christ. 
 
 4. That the mark of discipleship is love, not orthodox opinions. 
 
 5. That the words “ Let him be accursed,” in Gal. i., are levelled against those 
 who make conditions of salvation, besides faith working by love, as the orthodox do. 
 
 6. That the word Atonement means reconciliation. 
 
 7. That the redemption effected by Christ is redemption from iniquity. 
 
 8. That bearing sins means curing people of them, taking them away. 
 
 9. That propitiation means in one place, a propitiatory sacrifice, a sacrifice which 
 turns away God’s wrath; and that Christ’s sacrifice propitiates God, or turns away 
 God’s wrath, by making men good. 
 
 10. That in another case, propitiation means mercy-seat , or the place where God 
 reveals himself, the point where God chooses to meet meu, and converse with them, 
 as he does through Jesus Christ. 
 
 11. That we obtain forgiveness of sins through Christ, not because Christ has of- 
 fered any satisfaction to justice, but because Christ cleanseth us from our sins, and 
 makes us holy, fit objects of forgiveness. 
 
 12. That when it is said Christ died for our sins, the meaning is that he died to 
 destroy sin. 
 
 13. That salvation by Christ means deliverance from sin. 
 
 14. That by Christ’s stripes we are healed , our souls made holy; not God’s jus- 
 tice satisfied 
 
 15. That by the phrase, “ God laid on him the iniquities of us all,” is meant that 
 God appointed him to the task of curing men of sin, of redeeming us from our 
 iniquities. 
 
 16. That where it is said that Christ is our advocate , it means that he is our 
 comforter. 
 
 17. That his interceding for us means the strengthening of men, not pleading 
 with God for them. 
 
 18. That his being a Mediator means simply that he is the medium or the means 
 through whom God is pleased to teach and bless mankind. 
 
 19. We have shown that there is no proof that Christ’s sufferings were greater 
 than those of any other persons, but that there is proof to the contrary, 
 
 20. We have also shown, that Christ never said God could not forgive the sins of 
 repenting and returning men without satisfaction to justice. 
 
 21. That G^d is never said to bestow forgiveness for Christ’s sake, except in one 
 passage, and that that passage is wrong translated. 
 
 22. That the doctrine of satisfaction is not necessary to discountenance sin, and 
 has no tendency to discountenance sin, but to encourage it. 
 
 23. That our views are the most effective to discountenance sin, by teaching that 
 freedom from sin is the only thing that can secure for us the blessing of God, and 
 make us happy, and that Christ, died on purpose to redeem men from sin. 
 
 24. We have shown that God’s truth did not require that satisfaction should be 
 made to justice. 
 
 25. That when Christ became a curse for us, the meaning is not that he was 
 under God's curse, hut under the curse of the Mosaic law; was excommunicated 
 because he was hanged on a tree. 
 
 26. VYe were told that the mercy-seat had to be approached with blood; but we 
 showed that the blood required was not required as a satisfaction to justice, but as 
 a declaration of the people’s determination to renounce all sin, — that it was that 
 determination on the part of man to give up all sin, which prepared him for ap- 
 proaching the mercy-seat of God with confidence. 
 
 27. We showed that the grounds of men's forgiveness, acceptance, and eternal 
 welfare, are their repentance, obedience, fidelity, and not the merits of Christ. 
 
 28. We have shown, further, that in the Scriptures there is no mention made of 
 satisfaction to justice. 
 
 29. That there is no mention made of any legal barrier to the forgiveness of 
 those who return to obedience. 
 
 [The meeting was at this time disorderly, and had not been in a deliberative mood 
 for some time.] 
 
 Mr. Gilmore:— I protest against these interruptions— not only against the inter- 
 ruption of that gentleman, but of others. The language of that gentleman is un- 
 c ailed for. I do trust the meeting will be quiet, andgive Mr. Barker a fair hearing. 
 
448 
 
 MR. BARKER. |_TEj\ t tH 
 
 Mr. Barker Orthodoxy must be a very tickle thing in a man’s soul. (Laugh- 
 ter and hissing.) 
 
 Mr. Grant : You see you are only wasting time, and promoting disorder. How 
 much better would it be to let Mr. Barker proceed without the slightest interruption ? 
 
 Mr. Barker 1 have 11£ minutes, and I wish to occupy them well. 
 
 30. My opponent gave no explanation of the theory of satisfaction. He found it 
 in darkness, and he left it in the dark. 
 
 31. The Scriptures say nothing about Christ’s dying to make the exercise of mercy 
 compatible with the claims of justice. 
 
 32. My opponent has given us no explanation of the orthodox doctrine of types 
 and anti types. It still remains a mystery— and a fiction too. 
 
 33. My opponent’s notion about Christ’s satisfying his own justice and God’s jus* 
 tice at the same time you will not soon forget. 
 
 34. As to the Miraculous Conception, my opponent proved what nobody ever call- 
 ed in question,— that the story is in the manuscripts and versions. It was; however, 
 proved by us that it ought not to be there, that the story was a forgery. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Grant:— Will you be silent, and show some respect for yourselves? 
 
 Mr. Cooke : — Silence. 
 
 Mr. Barker: — 35. We have proved that if the storv be true, the genealogies are 
 false and useless, -that they contradict the story, and that one or the other must 
 be false. 
 
 36. That the suspicious account which is given of Joseph’s conduct, strikes at the 
 credibility of the story. 
 
 37. We have shown that Christ is the son of man , or, as my opponent says, of 
 man and woman, for, as he says, o ouis ton anthropou means the son of man as 
 well as woman. So that, even on his own showing, Christ is the son of man as well as 
 woman. 
 
 38. We have shown that Christ w as made in all points like unto his brethren. 
 
 39. We have shown that Christ, though he was anointed to preach the gospel, ne- 
 ver preached the Miraculous Conception, and that, therefore, the Miraculous Con- 
 ception could be no part of the gospel. 
 
 40. That the apostles never preached it, nor ever named it in their writings, 
 though they preached and wrote the gospel. 
 
 41. That Philip and the Jews, both enemies and friends, all regarded Jesus asthe 
 son of Joseph,— the son of the carpenter; and spake of him as such, and that 
 Christ never corrected the error. 
 
 42. That the chapters themselves, which relate the story, contain evidences of 
 being forgeries— of being unworthy of credit. 1. They are at variance with the 
 whole gospel besides. 2. They are at variance with themselves, one part contra- 
 dicting the other. 3. There are several gross errors in quoting as prophecies of 
 Christ’s passages which were no such thing: thus, 4. It is said Christ was called 
 Jesus because it was foretold he should be called Emmanuel. 5. The words refer 
 to a person. who was born in the days of Isaiah, and not to Jesus. 6. The prophecy 
 about Rachel weeping for her children, refers to a former captivity of the children 
 of Israel, not to the destruction of the infants at Bethlehem. 7. That the passage 
 which says, “ Out of Egypt have I called my son,” is a simple historical reference 
 to the deliverance of the children of Israel from the Egyptians, and was no pro- 
 phecy at all, much less a prophecy of Christ. 8. That the passage about Christ 
 being called a Nazarene is nowhere contained in the prophets, that there is no such 
 prophecy in the whole Bible. 
 
 43. I -have referred to many other proofs of the spuriousness of those chapters, 
 and might refer to a hundred other circumstances, about Herod, the sorcerers, the 
 taxing, the shepherds, the journey to Bethlehem, &c., all inconsistent with the no* 
 tion that the story is true, but which cannot be repeated now. 
 
 44. The principal of these arguments my opponent never attempted to answer, 
 much less did he overthrow them. Those which he did try to meet were only a 
 ew of the smaller ones of little moment (and even here he failed to prove his point. 
 
 45. I was proving by other arguments that the chapters were spurious; but my 
 opponent could bear no more, and I was interrupted, and forbidden to proceed. 
 He claimed the victory. He claimed it because he was completely beaten. Those, 
 however, who wish to see the subject more thoroughly discussed, and carried toler- 
 ably out, may read Priestley’s work upon it, which 1 have re-published since the 
 commencement of this discussion. You may there also see those extracts from the 
 Fathers, about the Miraculous Conception, which I was forbidden to read. 
 
 46. I noticed my opponent’s arguments for the Miraculous Conception drawn 
 from the passages which speak of him being made of a woman ; of the seed of the 
 woman; from the Word being made flesh; and from the doctrine of human de- 
 pravity ; and found that there was no weight in them whatever. 
 
 47. I then came to the Trinity ; and showed that there w'as no such word as 
 Trinity in the Scriptures ; nor any Trinitarian phrases, such as Triune God, &c. 
 
 48. I show ed that the word persons was never applied to God in Scripture ; 
 that the word person occurs only once in reference to God, and that there it is a 
 mistranslation. 
 
MR. BARKER, 
 
 449 
 
 NIGHT."] 
 
 49. I showed that the Scriptures declare that there is but one God ; that that 
 one God is one, and not three; and that the Father, and the Father only, was that 
 one true God. 
 
 50. I showed that the doctrine , so called, of the Trinity, is not eapable of being 
 explained or understood, so that no one can say it is to be found lAid down in the 
 Scriptures in other words. It cannot be found in t \\q plain passages, because it is unin- 
 telligible ; and cannot, therefore, be in the plain passages. And it cannot be found, 
 in dark or unintelligible passages ; for no one can tell what there is in passages 
 that cannot be understood. 
 
 51. I showed that there is nothing in the Scriptures about three distinctions in the 
 Godhead, — that this is a new invention,— that three persons, if the word persons be 
 used in its intelligible sense, means three beings; and that, when applied to God, 
 it must mean three Gods;— but that three Gods in one is an impossibility. [ also 
 showed, that three persons in an unknown sense are three nothings. 
 
 52. We then answered my opponent’s arguments. These were, 1. That all the 
 Gentiles held it; 2. That the ancient Jews held it. 
 
 We showed the contrary. We threw down his argument built upon the use of the 
 word j Elohim, Gods. That he has endeavoured to lift up again, but it will not 
 stand. We also threw down his arguments raised on Numbers vi. ; Isa, vi. ; and 
 Matt. iii. ; and these he has abandoned to their fate. 
 
 53. We then came to the divinity of Christ ; and gave about forty proofs that, 
 according to the Scriptures, Christ could not be God. These proofs my opponent 
 has never met. I asked him a number of questions to bring out the truth ; and my 
 opponent answered, “A fool can ask questions which a philosopher cannot 
 answer ;” the meaning of which was, that the plain questions 1 asked him could 
 not be answered, without utterly upsetting the orthodox theory. [Shouts of 
 “ time’s up.”] 
 
 Mr. Grant :— You know nothing about it. You have prevented the time from 
 being up. It is not up. 
 
 Mr. Gilmore: — You will surely take time from your own chairman'. Is he not 
 qualified to keep the time without your interference ? 
 
 Mr. Barker 54. We then gave further proofs of the strict unity of God, show- 
 ing that the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and their plain .and obvious meaning, 
 show that there is just one God, and that that one God is the Father. 
 
 55. We showed, that to render the Scriptures orthodox, they would have to be 
 made entirely anew again, on quite new principles. 
 
 56. We then followed our opponent through all his endless arguments for 
 Christ’s Godhead, and found them unsound— we examined every one, exposing 
 and refuting the whole. 
 
 57. We next examined all his passages for Christ's pre-existence, and showed that 
 not one of them proved any thing of the kind. And here rests the question of the 
 Trinity. 
 
 58. On one evening, we noticed and refuted a number of false charges preferred 
 against us, and stated our views on the conditions of salvation, true religion* &c* 
 To my remarks on these subjects, my opponent has never made any reply. 
 
 59. We gave our views of natural depravity, proving it unscriptural and blasphe- 
 mous, and showing that children are born free from sin. We should have liked to 
 have gone at length into other arguments on that subject, though our opponent has 
 not touched a single one of those we did advance. 
 
 60. He has not explained his owu doctrine, either of a trinity of persons or dis- 
 tinctions, or of the two natures of Christ, or of the Godhead and distinct person- 
 ality of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 61. He has not touched on the great question as to the grounds of acceptance ; he 
 has not explained, much less proved, his views on types and anti-types; nor has he 
 noticed the question respecting the nature of future punishments. He has not 
 brought forward one plain passage to prove any single principle he lias pleaded 
 for, except the Miraculous Conception ; and those passages we have proved to 
 be spurious. 
 
 62. His plan has generally been to take one or two dark passages; to make them 
 darker by mock learning ; and then, by the darkness thus collected and created, 
 strive to obscure the plain portions of Scripture, and so perplex and bewilder his 
 hearers. 
 
 63. Then he has never delivered one address without breaking the regulations to 
 which he had pledged himself, by introducing personal matters. Many of his 
 personal charges, such as those respecting my views on the Scriptures, were most 
 extravagant and awful falsehoods ; while many of his mis-statements of my views 
 and arguments were so strange and preposterous, that we cannot account for them 
 in any way creditable either to his head or his heart. (Hissing and applause.) 
 
 And now I leave the matter in your hands. I am glad that we have had this 
 discussion— I am glad that I have been allowed to speak, and that you generally 
 have been disposed to hear me. I leave it with perfect satisfaction. I know it 
 will do good. (“ Never,” said some one.) I entered upon it under a sense of 
 
450 
 
 MR. BARKER, 
 
 [tenth NIGHT 
 
 duty; and my spirit is at rest as to results. I am persuaded that truth has been 
 unfolded, and that error has received a deadly blow. (Great uproar, and remarks 
 about time, &c., shouted in a variety of different tones.) 
 
 Mr. Grant:— T he time is not up. And this is the way to prevent its being up, 
 Mr. Barker: — 1 have three minutes yet. 
 
 A Voice— No, thou hasn’t. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Barker :— Why, what are you afraid of? 
 
 My Friends; I have spoken with great plainness, I admit, during the debate, 
 because I believed it to be my duty to do so. l have spoken, however, 
 without any ill-will to my opponent, or to his friends. I have never willingly 
 hurt any one’s feelings, though I know that I must necessarily and unavoidably hurt 
 the feelings of some. I blame no person for differing from me, nor for feeling 
 strongly on the subjects that have been under debate. I can easily account for 
 that strength of feeling manifesting itself while I was speaking. I should have felt 
 similarly myself at one time, under similar addresses. Still, 1 believe that God and 
 truth required this plain, free speaking; and with nothing but kindness, both for 
 my opponent and for you, I have used this freedom. 1 have spoken what 1 deem- 
 ed to be the truth, without disguise or reservation, trusting in its power and in its 
 certain triumph. And now I leave the matter in your hands, and in the hands of 
 God. I have confidence in the power of truth, and I am confident that it will make 
 its way. I have confidence in your judgments too ; I am sure that many of you 
 cannot help but distinguish between truth and error ; between declamation and 
 sound argument ; between plain Scripture and common sense, and mystery and in 
 consistency. I have confidence in the power of the Scriptures; in their ability to 
 teach men heavenly truths, to dispel the mists of false orthodoxy, to throw down 
 the inventions of men, and to build up the truths as taught by Jesus, to spread 
 freedom and purity through the world, and establish solid, practical goodness 
 among all the inhabitants of the earth. I have confidence in the God of truth, and 
 I feel persuaded that if men advocate it faithfully, he will never leave them, but 
 cause them ill every conflict to come off victorious. 
 
 I now wish you farewell. My earnest desire is that you may come to know the 
 truth in all its purity and fulness ; that you may enjoy the blessings of the Gospel 
 in all their richness ; that you may be as much like Jesus as it is possible for men 
 to be, — that, iiving in happiness, in purity, in truth, in charity, and in all goodness, 
 upon earth, you may be prepared for that future happy state which God, through 
 Jesus Christ, has provided for all his faithful followers. — Again I say— farewell. 
 Success to truth and freedom, and everlasting prosperity to righteousness and 
 charity. (Loud cheers and disapprobation.) 
 
 After a brief pause, Mr. Barker again rose, and attempted to address the audience, 
 but the confusion that prevailed rendered it for some time impossible for him to 
 obtain a hearing. He observed, at length,- All 1 want to say, is, that as all the 
 subjects have not been gone through, I should like, if my opponent lias no objec- 
 tion, to continue the discussion until the whole are gone through, as soon as wc 
 have had time to publish the present proceedings. (Hear, hear, and applause.) If 
 my opponent wish to go through the remaining subjects on the list, I shall he glad 
 to hear from him as soon as this discussion is published ; and we can go through 
 the whole. 
 
 Mr. Grant :— As soon as Mr. Barker shows that he has kept to the terms of dis- 
 cussion that he entered into, and which we have followed out in this discussion, he 
 shall have as much as he pleases. (Cheers and laughter.') 
 
 Mr. Barker : — My opponent never kept the terms of discussion in a single speech. 
 (Counter-cheers.) 
 
 Mr. Cooke :— When Mr. Barker has answered one half of the arguments I have 
 already given him, I will meet him again. (Loud cheers.) 
 
 Mr. Barker :— i’ll meet Mr. Cooke again, if he pleases, though he has not 
 answered a quarter of my arguments.— (Laughter, and much cheering.) 
 
 Thus ended the proceedings. 
 
 END OF THE DISCUSSION. 
 
 I, BLACKWELL AND CO., PRINTERS, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.' 
 
NOTE. 
 
 The Reporter avails himself of a reserved privilege to print 
 a single observation with the published proceedings . When 
 the MS. of their earlier speeches was returned to him by 
 Messrs. Cooke and Barker , he found that both gentlemen had 
 marked a number of ivords to be printed in Italics and ca- 
 pital letters. Those marks he struck out , on the principle 
 that this was a Report of the discussions , and that a Re- 
 porter can properly know nothing of Italics , fyc., by way of 
 distinguishing emphatic ivords or sentences. On further re- 
 flection , however , he considered it was only fair that the dis- 
 putants should enjoy this additional means of making their 
 arguments clearly understood ; and he consented to each 
 party using his own discretion in this respect , on the condi- 
 tion that he should have an opportunity of stating that with 
 such Italics and capitcds he has had nothing whatever to do. 
 
 I deem it just to record my testimony to the skill and in- 
 tegrity of Mr. Selkirk , the reporter. On reviewing the 
 manuscript of my speeches from his hands, I was astonished 
 at their accuracy. 
 
 W. COOKE. 
 
THE WHOLE DISCUSSION is now ready, and sold at Is. 8d. 
 
 W. Cooke intends to issue, in a few days, a tract of 24 pages, price one 
 penny, as a Companion to the Discussion, which the purchaser may bind 
 up with the Discussion. Its object is to notice some passages of Scripture, 
 to put forth an exposure of a number of gross perversions and false quot- 
 ations of the sentiments of various writers, &c., &c. This Exposure was 
 prepared and ready for delivery during the Discussion, but want of time 
 prevented its delivery. 
 
 Other Works published by the same author , Price Qd. each . 
 CHRIST’S UNIVERSAL REIGN. 
 
 The DOCTRINES of CALVINISTIC REPROBATION and ELEC- 
 TION, Examined and Refuted. 
 
 A COURSE OF STUDY, adapted to Junior Ministers and Local 
 Preachers. 
 
 TEETOTALISM purified from unsound and dangerous opinions, and 
 placed upon a Rational and Scriptural Foundation. 
 
 SERIES OF THEOLOGICAL TRACTS, 24 pages, Price 2d, each. 
 
 No. 1.— The PROVINCE OF REASON ON SUBJECTS OF DI- 
 VINE REVELATION. 
 
 No. 2.— The INSPIRATION AND DIVINE AUTHORITY OF 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 
 
 No. 3, 4, 5, 6.— On the HOLY TRINITY. 
 
 No. 7. — On the INCARNATION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST 
 
 N®. 8.— The ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN, AND HUMAN DE- 
 PRAVITY. 
 
 No. 9 t — On the ATONEMENT, will shortly be Published. 
 
 The whole Series of Tracts will extend to a volume of about 450 pages, 
 embracing the several doctrines of the Christian system, and will, in fu- 
 ture, be issued at the rate of about two tracts per month. 
 
 Shortly to be Published , 
 
 A DISCOURSE ON THE OBLIGATION AND SANCTITY OF 
 THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH, 24 pages, Price one Penny. 
 
 REPORT OF THE PUBLIC MEETING IN NEWCASTLE, HELD 
 ON THE PRESENTATION OF A TESTIMONIAL TO REV. W. 
 COOKE, 24 pages, one Penny. 
 

 

 . 
 
 

 * 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 I