MILTON'S PRAYER FOR HIS COUNTRY.

O, sir, I do now feel myself inwrapped on the sudden into those mazes and labyrinths of dreadful and hideous thoughts, that which way to get out, or which way to end, I know not, unless I turn mine eyes, and with your help lift up my hands to that eternal and propitious Throne, where nothing is readier than grace and refuge to the distress of mortal suppliants and it were a shame to leave these serious thoughts less piously than the heathen were wont to conclude their graver discourses.

Thou, therefore, that sittest in light and glory unapproachable, Parent of angels and men! next, thee I implore, omnipotent King, Redeemer of that lost remnant whose nature thou didst assume, ineffable and everlasting Love! And thou, the third subsistence of divine infinitude, illumining Spirit, the joy and solace of created things! one Tripersonal godhead! look upon this thy poor and almost spent and expiring church, leave her not thus a prey to these importunate wolves, that wait and think long till they devour thy tender flock; these wild boars that have broke into thy vineyard, and left the print of their polluting hoofs on the souls of thy servants. O let them not bring about their damned designs, that stand now at the entrance of the bottomless pit, expecting the watchword to open and let out those dreadful locusts and scorpions, to reinvolve us in that pitchy cloud ofinfernal darkness, where we shall never more see the sun of thy truth again, never hope for the cheerful dawn, never more hear the bird of morning sing. Be moved with pity at the afflicted state of this our shaken monarchy, that now lies labouring under her throes, and struggling against the grudges of more dreaded calamities.

O thou, that, after the impetuous rage of five bloody inundations, and the succeeding sword of intestine war, soaking the land in her own gore, didst pity the sad and ceaseless revolution of our swift and thick-coming sorrows; when we were quite breathless of thy free grace didst motion peace, and terms of covenant with us; and having first wellnigh freed us from antichristian thraldom, didst build up this Britannic empire to a glorious and enviable height, with all her daughter-islands about her; stay us in this felicity, let not the obstinacy of our half-obedience and will-worship bring forth that viper of sedition, that for these fourscore years hath been breeding to eat through the entrails of our peace; but let her cast her abortive spawn without the danger of this travailing and throbbing kingdom; that we may still remember in our solemn thanksgiv ings, how for us, the northern ocean to the frozen Thule was scattered with the proud shipwrecks of the Spanish armada, and the very maw of Hell ransacked; and made to give up her concealed destruction, ere she could vent it in that horrible and damned blast.

O how much more glorious will those former deliverances appear, when we shall know them not only to have saved us from greatest miseries past, but to have reserved us for greatest happiness to come? Hitherto thou hast freed us, and that not fully, from the unjust and tyrannous claim of thy foes, now unite us entirely, and appropriate us to thyself, tie us everlastingly in willing homage to the prerogative of thy eternal throne.

And now we know, O thou our most certain hope and defence, that thine enemies have been consulting all the sorceries of the great whore, and have joined their plots with that intelligencing tyrant that mischiefs the world with his mines of Ophir, and lies thristing to revenge his naval ruins that have larded our seas but let them all take counsel together, and let it come to nought let them decree, and do thou cancel it; let them gather themselves, and be scattered; let them embattle themselves, and be broken; let them embattle, and be broken, for thou art with us.

Then, amidst the hymns and halleluja hs of saints, some one may perhaps be heard offering at high strains in new and lofty measures, to sing and celebrate thy divine mercies and marvellous judgments in this land throughout all ages; whereby this great and warlike nation, instructed and inured to the fervent and continual practice of truth and righteousness, and casting far from her the rags of her old vices, may press on hard to that high and happy emulation to be found the soberest, wisest, and most Christian people at that day, when thou the eternal and shortly-expected King, shalt open the clouds to judge the several kingdoms of the world, and distributing national honours and rewards to religious and just commonwealths, shall put an end to all earthly tyrannies, proclaiming thy universal and mild monarchy through heaven and earth; where they undoubtedly, that by their labours, counsels, and prayers, have been earnest for the common good of religion and their country, shall receive above the inferiour orders of the blessed, the regal addition of principalities, legions, and thrones into their glorious titles, and in supereminence of beatific vision, progressing the dateless and irrevoluble circle of eternity, shall clasp inseparable hands with joy and bliss, in overmeasure for ever.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

The real names and addresses of correspondents required, though not for publication. The Editor does not undertake to return rejected communications.

Our correspondents in different places will do us service by giving us prompt information of what goes on in their localities.

Owing to the large space occupied by the report of the discussion we are obliged to omit several articles of interest till next week. We shall somewhat condense the report of the third night, so as to have more space for other matter.

Wilson, Liverpool: Egomet: John Grey, Hexham : Silverwater, will be attended to. M. A. H. T. received. Will he favour us with his proper address?

The vice-president of the London Secular Society will see from our last number that "Barker's view of Socialism" had been set up with the date annexed, but that only a paragraph having been used for No. 5, the signature had been unintentionally omitted, while the remainder of the article is properly given under the heading, “A miserable Portion," in our last..

Where our friends in country places have difficulty in getting copies, if they can secure twenty-four subscribers, we shall send copies direct from the office, 50, Grainger Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, pre-paid by post.

A friend has suggested that twelve subscribers might have copies sent fortnightly by post. We should be happy to do this.

Communications and works for review to be addressed to the Editor, 50, Grainger Street,' Newcastle-on-Tyne, either direct, or through the publishers.

London: HOULSTON & STONEMAN, 65, Paternoster Row.

AND ALL BOOKSELLERS.

Hunter & Co., Printers, Grainger Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

THE DEFENDER:

a Weekly Magazine,

OF CHRISTIAN EXPOSITION AND ADVOCACY.

Who knows not that truth is strong, next to the Almighty; she needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious, those are the shifts and the defences that error uses against her power.-MILTON.

THE DISCUSSION AT HALIFAX BETWEEN THE

REV. BREWIN GRANT AND MR. JOSEPH BARKER, ON THE ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.

THIRD NIGHT.

The discussion on the Divine authority of the Bible, between Mr. Joseph Barker, the Secularist leader of Ohio, and the Rev. Brewin Grant, of Birmingham, was resumed on Wednesday, the 24th of January. The spacious room was crowded, and the disputants were listened to with marked attention by both parties, the friends of the Secularist or Infidel, and those of the supporter of the Bible. E. M. Wavill, Esq., occupied the chair.

MR. BARKER, in re-opening the discussion, said he would offer a word or two in explanation before proceeding with arguments. They did not wage war with the Bible, but only with the false notions respecting its divine origin and authority. They had no wish to prevent the Bible from being circulated and read: they only wished to bring people to read it as they did other old books,—not as

No. 8, Vol. 1.

a standard of virtue or a perfect rule of life, but as being made up of erroneous notions, virtues and vices, follies and absurdities, as well as of the bitter thoughts and feelings of the writers of the times when it was written. They spoke against the doctrine of the divine authority of the Bible, because they believed it to be not only false, but injurious,-injurious in many ways, to a powerful and incalculable extent. Their object in seeking to free men from this delusion, was to promote their intellectual and moral improvement, and the improvement and happiness of mankind at large. Whatever was good and true in the Bible, they respected and cherished: its laws, so far as they were right, they endeavoured to obey; its examples, so far as they were good, they endeavoured to imitate; and its teachings, so far as they were true, they received and inculcated. But they felt themselves under no obligation to receive the false and foolish, the contradictory and immoral, the licentious and blasphemous portions of the book. They treated the Bible as they did other books: they read it to see what it said, receiving the good and rejecting the evil; in short, they received the book as a help, as a servant, not as a master over them, and they used it accordingly; and, thus received and used, it did them all the good it could do to others, who foolishly regarded it as of divine authority. It might be well before they proceeded further, briefly to review the ground they had passed over, and to define their present position. They had shown that the Bible existed but in three forms, in translations, in printed Greek and Hebrew compilations, and in Greek and Hebrew manuscripts; and they had shown that in none of those forms was the Bible of divine authority. That the translations were not of divine authority Mr. Grant had acknowledged, and though he refused to admit the same with respect to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and compilations, it was not because truth did not urge him to the admission, as he knew that truth required his admission in that case as well as in the other. Here, then, the debate of the first two questions before them might close, for they had proved their points; but they chose to heap proof upon proof of that character, to show that the Bible was full of marks of its imperfect, human origin, in its errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions, in its representation of God as subject to human wants and weaknesses, and of his being guilty of the grossest partiality, the most flagrant injustice, the most horrible cruelty. Mr. Grant had tried to refute his, (Mr. B's) arguments against the divine authority of the Bible, but in every instance he had failed. Indeed, he had not been convicted of the slightest error. An attempt had been made to show that he was wrong with regard to the destruction of the Egyptian cattle, and also as to the extirpation of the Amalekites and Midianites, but what was the result? His opponent had simply convicted himself of ignorance of the passages on which he commented, or of wilful misrepresentation of his (Mr. B's) statements. Then, again, Mr. Grant carefully kept out of sight one part of each contradiction, when endeavouring to explain away

dictions as to the order in which the fowls of the air entered the ark Contra

In reference to the passage in Judges 1, verse 19, about God and Judah, Mr. Grant had said that the pronoun he did not refer to God, but to Judah. Now he (Mr. B.) did not say it referred to God, nor was it necessary to the force of his argument that he should say so. Supposing they took that pronoun to refer to Judah, the passage still represented God as limited in his power. "And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but (notwithstanding that God was with him) could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." It was perhaps unnecessary. that he should refer again to the potter and the clay, for all who read the passage carefully, would see that Paul perverted it, quoting it from Jeremiah, to very opposite of what the prophet intended, Jeremiah argued acording to the Unitarian doctrine, that men were rewarded or punished according to their works; but Paul, the principal writer in the New Testament, incul

cated the blasphemous doctrines of Calvinism. He would now refer to the passage, stating that God made man in his own image. Mr. Grant argued that, that passage did not teach that God made man after his own shape and form. This was not exactly trifling-it deserved, perhaps, another name. To say that God did not make man in his own likeness, indicated recklessness of assertion really inexcusable. As they had already shown, the earlier portions of the Bible invariably represented God as appearing in the image or likeness of man. Indeed, so plain was this, that many Christians of the oid sects believed the teaching that God existed in the shape or form of man. And was there anything incredi ble in the supposition, that the earlier Jews believed their God to have a form and likeness of man? The earlier nations generally entertained similar ideas as to their Gods, but to reduce Judaism to a level with Paganism, was to Mr. Grant terrible, Yes, that was dreadful, and the Bible showed that Judaism did not rise above the level of certain forms of Paganism in that respect. Mr. Grant had spoken of the form of verdict-" Died by the visitation of God," arguing that from such verdicts they did not infer that God moved from place to place to visit people. But did Paul prove that the writers of the Bible did not suppose God to move from place to place to visit people in a visible form? Supposing a jury were impounded to enquire into the death of certain parties consumed by fire in a burning town, as were the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomor rah. From the evidence given, they found that God was seen standing at the door of Abraham Greenwood's house about noon. He was seen by Abraham Greenwood, who prevailed on him to come into the garden and seat himself under a tree. There he rested himself and washed his feet, and afterwards he was seen at table, dining of some veal and newly baked bread, prepared by Sarah Greenwood, Abraham's wife, whilst God rested himself in the garden. After dinner, God had a long talk with the Greenwoods, and he promised Sarah that she should have a child. Then he told Abraham he was on his way to Skipton to inquire into certain reports he had heard as to the wickedness of the people, and that, unless he found things better than had been represented, he should burn the town and all the people. Afterwards the Lord went in the direction of Skipton, taking with him Abraham to show him the way. They held a conversation together, and, after leaving off talking with Abraham, God proceeded alone towards Skipton, where he was subsequently seen by a number of people throwing burning brimstone balls into the houses and amongst the people, so that the town and all its inhabitants were consumed. Now the calamities of such a visit of God would compel the jury to return a verdict of "Died by the visitation of God." And how would that verdict be understood? That God actually went to Skipton, and that the death of the inhabitants was the result of this visit and this was the manner in which the Bible spoke of God. Mr. B. then adverted to the "stories" of the earlier Bible writers as being very improbable, instance the case of Cain and the flood, and arguing that it was not likely that God would threaten with seven-fold vengeance those who should slay the former, and that the latter was not much like the act of a loving father. He also alluded to the destruction of the Midianites, given in the 31st chapter of Numbers; and to that of Sihon and his people, given in the 2nd chapter of Deuteronomy, as instances of the wholesale deeds of cruelty attributed to God in the earlier parts of the Bible; and concluded by quoting and commenting upon portions of the book of Moses, to show that women were greatly oppressed under the Mosaic economy.

MR. GRANT said his opponent had given them to understand that he had proved his points, and that he (Mr. G.) had proved nothing. But they would leave that to those who might read the discussion, after it had been printed., What proof had Mr. Barker given that there was no book of divine origin? He