(Mr. G.) had not heard any such proof given. Mr. Barker's argument was that we had the Bible only in three forms, and that none of these forms were from God; and his (Mr. G's.) answer was, that we had human books only in print, in certain forms which the writers did not write; and that therefore, according to his opponent's argument, we had no books of human authority. Mr. Barker said he would heap proof upon proof, but he meant assertion upon assertion. He had now altered his argument about Judah, and, in order to make it according to his own case, he put in the word notwithstanding. It was not, however, what he put in, but what he found in that they had to do with. He said that Paul perverted the passage quoted from Jeremiah. Mr. Barker perhaps judged of Paul from himself. He also declared that his (Mr. G's.) explanation of the passage, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,' was incorrect. Now man was to have dominion over the earth, as God had in nature; and the likeness was in the dominion. If Mr. Barker did not know that, every one else did, and he could not help the ignorance of his opponent. Mr. Barker commenced by saying that they should treat the Bible as fairly as they treated other books, but he could not afford to do so, because he would not believe the Bible as he did other books. He was hopelessly lost, as to the order in which the fowls of the air entered the ark. In the 6th chapter of Genesis, verse 19, Noah was ordered to take into the ark two of every living thing, male and female; and the particular case of seven pairs, given in the next chapter, was no contradiction. The first statement referred to all living things, of which, two of each sort,-not no more than two, but at least two of each sort;-were to be taken into the ark, whilst, according to the second statement, of all clean beasts there were to be seven twos. Two of every sort were to go into the ark to keep them alive, that was, to preserve their species, but binds them there must be two sevens clean beasts, male and female, for another purpose. Therefore, Mr. Barker's tirade on the contradiction of those passages remains a disgrace to the most ordinary capacity. And those which followed were equally gross and offensive to good taste as well as common sense, and he (Mr. G.) must glance at them in the same rapid manner in which they were advanced. Mr. Barker had made some extraordinary assertions about woman being oppressed under the law of Moses. Man's passions, he said, were allowed full play, but woman's were restrained; and perhaps women would not thank Mr. B. if he advocated equal leave for them. But it was a fact that men were not then free one offence was visited by death, whether committed by man or woman; and for slandering his wife, the elders of the city might chastise a man, and immerse him in an hundred shekels of silver. Again, Mr. Barker declared that women could not have property, but in the 27th chapter of Numbers we find a case of that sort, and it was perhaps adviseable that Mr. Barker should look at it some time, if he kept a Bible by him. He declared also that women were bound to follow Sarah in lying, that they were slaves to their husbands, that their husbands were tyrants. But all those were perversions of cases, which he (Mr. G.) would reserve for a subsequent occasion. God spoke to Samuel, said Mr. Barker, with the voice of man. How else should God have spoken to him? Could not He, who made the ear, and made the voice to speak to the ear,-could not He have any communication he pleased with man, notwithstanding the progress of civilization? Mr. Barker declaimed with equal ignorance on the partiality of the God of the Bible, but he would not refer to the partiality of the God of nature. Now God had said that the promised seed should bless all nations, and it was therefore for the Gentiles that the Jews were preserved in the knowledge of God, till the gospel came through them for us. Then again, God distinctly warned the Jews, if they sinned like those they were driving out, they would be punished in the same way. Afterwards, the Jews were driven out, and to this day they were a divided people, scattered over the whole world. Therefore, it was false to say that

in any invidious sense God was partial to them. What would Mr. Barker say to this? Another perversion of the Bible! What could Mr. Barker imagine they were dreaming of, when he affirmed that God, though omnipotent, could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain? And who were to believe him, when, after his enmities had been exposed, he turned round and charged Paul with perverting the word of Jeremiah? According to the Bible a man might have seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, said Mr. Barker. But where was that justified in the Bible? He had made the assertion, but without giving any scriptural proofs. And what was he dreaming of when he said that God sent man from the garden of Eden, without promise, without hope? It was Mr. Barker that told them there was no hope, it was his doctrine that there was no hope, because God never withheld punishment. But if Mr. Barker was so reckless, could he expect them to believe him? Did he imagine that man was turned out of paradise without hope, and that therefore he could now make such assertions, and they could not examine them? And did he mean to say that the God of the Bible had had no care for mankind since Adam was expelled from paradise? They all knew this to be false, and if Mr. Barker did not, he ought to do. He (Mr. G.) might remind them here, that on the second evening of the discussion, after quoting the Divine determination-"Let us make man in our own image."-Mr. Barker said, "So you see there are several of them." And that was a coarse expression he used several times. But what would be thought of a man who said "So you see there are several of them," after having heard the Queen's speech delivered from the throne, because in that speech, the pronoun "we" was used, instead of the pronoun I? In Mr. Barker's discussion with Dr. Berg, he said "So far we have maintained our principle;" so that there were several Mr. Barkers. Then, was not this objection childish? But there were contradictions in the New Testament as to the persons who went to the sepulchre, said his opponent. Matthew said "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the sepulchre;" Mark, "and Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James;" Luke, "they" (meaning the women ;) and John, "Mary Magdalene." And where was the contradiction? Supposing four persons were writing of this discussion, and one said "Barker and the other disputant," and the other said "Barker and Grant," where would be the contradiction? Or, supposing one said "Mr. Stansfield presided" and the other said Mr. Wavill presided," where would be the contradiction? Only in the confusion of an Infidel's understanding! And the different statements of the Evangelists as to the time might be explained in the same way, Matthew saying, "As it began to dawn," Mark and Luke, "Very early in the morning," and John, "When it was yet dark." Mr. Barker was so confident in these matters, that he made use of the same declarations in his Berg discussion. Now Mr. Barker either knew these passages, or he did not; if he did not, who could trust so ignorant and confident a boaster? If he did, who could trust so unprincipled a fabricator? If a man should say Lord Raglan was seen in the field at Inkerman, and another should say he saw General Canrobert, would any one say these two accounts were of one commander only? Perhaps, Mr. Barker would have the hardihood to say so, for otherwise, he could not believe in what he had said of the Bible, but if he did say so, he was more ignorant than he (Mr. G.) took him to be. He hoped that Mr. Barker would hereafter bring forward something better than his old, poor, shuffles, for it was humiliating to have to answer them.

But

MR. BARKER observed that if Mr. Grant was not aware that there were whole sects who believed that God existed in the form of man-and he (Mr. B.) did not say with a human body-it was time he made himself more familiar with the different religious sects. If the God of nature did not do all he could for the welfare of his creatures, the God of nature was to blame, and he was not so good

as many a good man. Mr. Grant had attributed a good deal of ignorance to his opponent, but he might find a little nearer home, if he would look attentively for it. About the statements of the Evangelists, Mr. Grant had given them two misrepresentations; for there were not two that said "Early in the morning," and Mark did not say, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." In this way Mr. Grant in every place misquoted passages, and would do so unless they looked at their books, that they might be able to detect his error. They did not wish for women the license the Bible allowed for men : they only wished the same protection for women that the Bible gave for men. Mr. Grant wished to know where was the passage that allowed a man to have seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines; and the answer was-The passage which said that the wisest man who ever lived had that number. Without further commenting upon Mr. Grant's remarks, Mr. Barker gave several quotations from the Bible, and denounced it as a book containing much that was criminal, much that was inconsistent, and more that was bad than could be found in any other book of the same amount of matter.

MR. GRANT thought Mr. Barker had already found it much easier to make assertions than to prove them. Mr. Barker had said that Mr. Grant ought to know the sects that believed God to exist in the form of a man, but he did not venture to name those sects, and it seemed that he did not want Mr. Grant to be acquainted with them. Mr. Barker had also said that ignorance was very near to him (Mr. G.) and he was sure it was. He would now endeavour to correct his opponent with regard to Solomon: there was no passage in the Bible that called the man with seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines the wisest man; for Solomon had not that number of wives and concubines until thirty years after he was called the wisest man in the Bible. He would defy Mr. Barker to find a passage that justified his erroneous assertion about that King. If Mr. Barker would accept his challenge, he would show that Mr. Barker had falsificd King Solomon, and that he was a thorough falsifier of the Bible. He would just reply to one case brought forward by Mr. Barker in his last speech. God was charged with cherishing anger against the Amalekites for four hundred years, and with visiting not only the offenders, but their innocent offspring with his vengeance. Now Mr. Barker was merely repeating his speeches at the Berg discussion, and he (Mr. G.) would answer them all straight off, if Mr. Barker would tell him which speeches he intended to repeat. The destruction of the Amalekites, considered by Mr. Barker as so great an act of cruelty, was not simply the consequence of an attack by their forefathers upon the Israelites in their passage to Canaan, but rather the consequence of their following in the steps of their forefathers, in their repeated attempt to destroy the liberties and lives of the Jews. Mr. G. then referred to other portions of the Bible, quoted by Mr. Barker as contradictions, and explained away the apparent disagreements.

MR. BARKER said the scriptural expression, "Let us make man," did not prove that there were several Gods, if taken in connection with other portions of the Bible. But Trinitarians contended that plurality was there indicated, and they put in the word persons. Then as to Solomon, nothing wrong was said of him in the Bible, until in his old age he took to himself certain foreign wives, and there was nothing in the book disapproving of his conduct, in having so many wives and concubines. He then went on to observe that five-sixths of the Bible was immoral, and concluded by reiterating his former statement as to the Amalekites.

MR. GRANT, in concluding the discussion, demanded of Mr Barker proof of his assertion, that the Bible said a man might have seven hundred wives and

three hundred concubines. Mr. Grant contended that nowhere in the scriptures was the conduct of Solomon justified in that respect. He concluded by request ing Mr. Barker not to deal out so many rash dogmatic assertions, not to endeavour to bite the heel of Christianity, but to aim a blow, if he could, at the head, by bringing forward some arguments worth replying to.

The discussion was then adjourned till Friday evening.

MR. COOPER AT NEWCASTLE TRYING TO REVIVE THE DYING EMBERS OF SECULARISM.

Out of curiosity, I was induced to find out the Chartist Hall the other evening for the purpose of listening to this "believed to be" talented advocate of Secularism. Will you allow me to give your readers a brief description of the place, the lecturer, the audience, and the lecture?

The Chartist Hall is situated in Nun Street, and is gained by proceeding up one flight of dirty stairs, from one of the entrances to the Butcher Market. When gained, I found it to be guarded by a stout, sturdy son of Secularism, whose demand, after all was very modest, "Only twopence admission, Sir." At the door was a book-stall supplied with the various three-halfpenny or two-penny periodicals, which form the literature of the Secular Society, the most prominent of which was the "Investigator," edited by the Priest of the evening, Mr. Cooper. On entering, I found about 40 people seated upon forms, most of them with their hats on, listening with indifference to the lecturer, who was placed on a slightly elevated pulpit, his head just appearing above the book-board, reading to them a lecture, which he himself said was on an unpopular subject, and which the audience plainly affirmed, by the cold reception it met with throughout, was not at all the kind of thing they expected, either in matter or delivery. The lecturer is a little man with spectacles, and a rather well cultivated hirsute appendage, which he wears entirely below his mouth. He seems to think a great deal of himself, and flattered himself more than once that he had very easily indeed answered every argument of Paley's, as well as the various arguments promulgated of late by Dr. Alexander and others. He tried occasionally to be witty, but only once succeeded in drawing forth a smile from the motley group before him. The audience was composed of the lowest of the working classes, with a very few exceptions; and I speak honestly when I say that you would not have found ten who would at the close of the lecture have been able to have stated fairly one argument advanced against the divine authority of the New Testament; indeed, so listlessly did they all seem to listen, that you would have thought the lecturer was reading to them a dissertation in Latin, and I positively declare that there was one man who seemed to enjoy a sound sleep the whole of the time. Applause, there was none. I suppose it must not be allowed lest it should awake those who pay their twopence for a good nap. The lecture was all that could be wished by the most extreme infidel, it was pronounced to be extremely fair by the lecturer himself, and indeed it seemed to me to be on the whole impartial, after the Irish fashion. It was fairly proved that the New Testament was all a sham, that it was not written by the men whose names it bears, but by some others, he did not tell us who! It was also proved that it was not written at the time at which it claims to have been

written, but at some other time, he thought 2 or 300 years after that time! The parties who said that it was written by those whose names it bears, did not say so, and if they had said so, it was proved that they were not reliable persons, they having adopted the dogma that you may fairly lie for the good of the church! It was further proved that Christianity was a complete sham-of course it could not be otherwise when the Bible was proved to be no Bible—that it had been the cause of degrading mankind, that their intellects had been weakened by it, and that it was time to cast it off.

Having proved all this and a great deal more, the lecturer went on to say that he thought mankind had been befooled, bechurched, and Priest-ridden enough, and that it was now time that they were elevated to that high and glorious position, which by nature they were intended to occupy! He thought that working men had not read so much as they ought to have done on this subject, and yet he thought that more than the majority perfectly agreed with all that he said! The chairman, too, said that the views to which his friend had given utterance would he found, in a more elaborate form, in the "Investigator," edited by Mr. Cooper, and sold for the small charge of twopence, and he would recommend them all to purchase it; they could have it at the door as they retired.

Now, would it not have just been as well if this more elaborate "Investigator" had been purchased with the twopence, paid for admission, and Mr. Cooper, with his less elaborate paper which he read, had stayed at home. I further think that the charge of being priest-ridden comes with very bad grace from Mr. C. Is he not just in the place of the Priest to the Secularists? There he was, elevated above them, dressed like a gentleman; and worse, you could neither hear nor see him unless you paid your twopence at the door; which is not the case with Priests, so called, for at what chapel door do you find a charge made for admission, excepting only at the Secularists' chapel? But he proved that the New Testament and Christianity are shams, and then he charged a large amount of evil to the doings of Christianity!

Now, Sir, I submit that he overreached himself, for if there be no Christianity, then how can he charge Christianity with anything. And if men were so good by nature, how did it happen that these natural men, these Secularists of the first or second century, did not continue so, instead of writing books which are all lies, and saying that they were written by men who were disciples of Christ, when they were not, and attempting to concoct a system which they call Christianity, which is a something having especial reference to the future life and the soul, when they had no cognizance, nor could have, of any other life than the present;-I say, how is it that they did not continue Secularists still, Secularists they must have been, they were not Spiritualists, how could they? They were in that high and glorious position, in which nature had placed them, how could they leave it and write falsehoods? I suppose it must have been a freak of nature who had induced them just to put together a nice little scheme for the purpose of testing Secularists for the next 1600 years, and of seeing whether or not they would speedily shew its absurdity, as the others had manufactured it. Taking the views which Secularists of the present day do of all systems, I think they might very justly name them, "Nature's recreations in mental and moral philosophy." For with these views what after all can we call Christianism, Catholicism, Mahometanism, Hindooism, Buddhism, Secularism, and every other ism, but just nature's genius giving utterance to its capabilities for invention, and if there is no God or if it be very doubtful that there is, then on their views, may we not just as well belong to one ism as another ? or perhaps it would be well just to give them all a turn, and see which corresponds best with the remains of our "holy and glorious nature" which Nature meant us to have kept, but which has in part departed from us!

EGOMET.