of the vilest acts. What was the effect of Noah's drunkenness? Not a warning to his sons not to take too much wine, but a curse upon Canaan. And the wickedness of Noah, as stated in the 9th chapter of Genesis, was not visited by any punishment by God, nor was he blamed for it. He then spoke of Abraham as a slave-holder and slave-breeder of Jacob as a most deceitful character from first to last, a man who had robbed his brother of his birth-right, and cheated his father of his last blessing; of Moses as a murderer and deceiver, though a favourite of God of Joshua as an extirpator of natious, and one who gloried in placing his feet on the necks of kings. Samson was said to have tied three hundred foxes tail to tail, in order to destroy them. That was not only improbable, but impossible, yet it was set down as a truth in the Bible. Then again, Samson was reported to have slain one thousand men with the jaw-bone of an ass, for no other reason than that he was thirsty. And after having lost his strength, he was represented as praying for a renewal of it, for no other purpose than to enable him to slay another multitude. Samuel, he considered, to be a better man than those he had named, yet he was addicted to many superstitions, and he was guilty of many inhuman deeds. He concluded with a sketch of the course of David, designating him a complete villain, less worthy than almost any other Scripture character of being "God's especial favourite."

MR. GRANT said that they would all understand that Mr. Barker's speech was no reply to that of his opponent. He commenced by affirming that there was no evidence of the Divine origin of the Bible, but that was mere assertion without proof. He had also asserted that no work written by any pagan philosopher contained less wisdom than did the Bible, without, however, giving them any proof. He spoke of Abraham as being represented in the Scriptures as an individual worthy to be imitated in what he did but again his argument was unsupported by any quotation. He condemned Noah for taking too much wine. In one of his works, he apologised for the drunkenness of Tom Paine, on the principle that it was then customary to get drunk. Mr. Barker was also wrong with regard to David. David was never intended as a pattern for mankind to follow; for it was not his private life, but his kingly character that was chronicled. In David, God said, he had found a man after his own heart, and, as such, he crowned him King over his people. But perhaps it might be desirable to make this a little plainer in order that Mr. Barker might understand it. Supposing a certain lord was in want of a gardener, and, in course of time, he met with one, exactly to his mind. People, however, said that the man was a great drunkard, and that the Bible denounced drunkenness. But the lord found the gardener to his mind, and so God found David to his mind. Mr. Grant then observed that all infidels were indebted to the Bible for their best ideas, as Tom Paine and Mr. Barker had been; the former, in his work, entitled the "Rights of man," and the latter, in his numerous books in favour of and against Christianity. Mr. Grant concluded by reading a long extract from "Christianity Triumphant,' one of Mr. Barker's theological works, delineating the condition of the people upon whom the light of the gospel had not yet shone, and showing how badly it contrasted with the condition of Christians.

Mr. BARKER observed that by the time they had got through their scripture readings, many of them would no doubt be inclined to think that the Bible was not the best, but the worst book that had ever been produced. The Christian part of the audience did not seem to be aware of the contents of the Bible-or, at least, of a great portion of the contents of the Bible, before this discussion commenced. Mr. Grant said Abraham was not spoken of in the Bible as an example to mankind, but the apostle Paul spoke of him as such, and as one who

had obtained a good report. What Mr. Grant had said about Paine was a foul slander, a wilful lie! He (Mr. B.) never attempted to excuse Paine's drunkenness, on the ground that to be drunk was more customary then, than now, or by saying he was more moderate than people generally at that time. (Mr. Grant here presented to Mr. Barker the book from which he quoted his statement as to the drunkenness of Paine, but Mr. Barker refused to look at it.) Mr. Grant had said they must view the character of David given in the Bible as that of a king only, but where was the passage in proof of that? To talk as Mr. Grant had talked about David was ridiculous, because if a man's moral character was not good, he was told he deserved to go, where devils were supposed to dwell. The Bible had been represented by Mr. Grant to be as far superior to other books as is man to the lower animals, but, before the discussion was over, he (Mr. B.) would prove it to be one of the worst books in existence. Mr. Barker continued his review of the life of king David, dwelling upon the battles in which he engaged at the head of his people, and his intrigues to possess himself of Uriah's wife, &c., and maintaining that he was a wicked and immoral man, unworthy of the friendship of good men, much less of being the favourite of God.

MR. GRANT again wished to know where the scriptures taught that Abraham was an example to mankind. They might take Abraham's example of faith, but Christ was the only perfect example the Christians had. He then alluded to the morality of people not directly under the influence of religion, instancing the disgraceful conduct of Carlile in taking with him upon a platform an abandoned woman. If some Christian minister had taken such a character into the pulpit, Mr. Barker would not have kept such a fact silent, but he looked over that act, bad as it was, because it was the act of one of his friends. Referring to the Divine institution of marriage, Mr. Grant said, women had always held a high position wherever the Bible was received as a divine revelation, and that they were protected and respected under the laws of Moses, instead of being reduced to the condition of slaves, as Mr. Barker wished them to believe last evening.

MR. BARKER, in closing the evening's debate, said his opponent had yet failed to give them a single passage, in proof of the Divine origin of the Bible. As to Paine, Mr. Barker said what he had written respecting his drunkenness, was, that he appeared to be more moderate than his neighbours, and as to Carlile, that he did not know what his private character was, but he had never seen him in such company as that referred to by Mr. Grant. He again alluded to David and Solomon, quoting the 38th, 69th, and 109th Psalms, and other verses, as portions of scripture showing the wickedness of those kings.

The discussion was then adjourned until the following Tuesday.

A HAPPY CHANGE.

Liverpool, Jan. 31st, 1855.

Dear Sir, I wish with all my heart to congratulate you upon the launching of THE DEFENDER, upon the troubled waters of controversy, and I am sure it will be the means of guiding many a tempest-tossed mariner to a haven of rest. I have read the first four numbers, and I was so delighted with them, I purchased a few of each to present them to Infidels whom I know, and continually come in contact with. Many years ago I was myself a great infidel in heart, although I never turned against the Bible, and wholly rejected it as a divine revelation. But looking at it through the spectacles and creeds of other men,--my father amongst the rest-I well recollect, almost from a child turning from it with abs

horrence, thinking the God of the Bible must be a dreadful tyrant; and when I came to years, to leave my father's roof, I felt very thankful I had the chance of being my own master, not to have religion crammed down my throat. I went forward in every sin and crime, that almost could be mentioned. There never was a prodigal went to greater lengths in sin. To Manchester, London, Birmingham, Worcester, and many other places in England, I went, seeking happiness, but could not find substantial happiness, for there was always a sting at the root-a guilty conscience. I went on in this way for many years, till I lost my character, and health, and sustenance itself. At the last cast, I thought I would try to turn over a new leaf. I became a teetotaller; I reformed outwardly almost in every thing, where I had been wrong, I attended many meetings, lectures &c., but could not find true happiness in these, as the guilt of the past, and the dread of the future haunted me. I bless and thank my God, and shall have to do so to all eternity, at that time I got hold of a tract, which stated that God loved me in spite of all my sins, and that Christ had died for all my sins, and that the Holy Spirit was waiting to change my heart through the belief of these glorious truths. There was passage after passage from the Bible to prove them. This was a remarkable epoch in my history. I began to examine and search the Bible for myself, and soon found pardon, peace, and life in Christ, "who loved me and gave himself for me.' Since then, which is about 8 years ago, I have had much to encounter; many enemies to fight against, but in spite of all, I am as happy as the day is long. God has given me the honour to circulate His word, and to stand up in its defence,-against Infidelity, Popery, and all other systems which the Bible condemns, and if every minister in the world was to turn round like Barker to morrow, and try to preach the Bible out of the world, that would not shake my confidence in it for a moment; because it meets all the wants of my sinful soul-which nothing else can--and if, as the Infidel says, it is a delusion, I say it is a most happy delusion, when it makes a man happier, better, and usefuller, even if it takes him no farther than the grave. I often get a few words with these gentlemen, and I shall advise them all to take a glance

at THE DEFENDER.

I remain,

Dear Sir,

Yours respectfully,

W. J.

AN EVENING PRAYER.

I COME to Thee to-night

In my lone closet, where no eye can see,
And dare to crave an interview with Thee,
Father of love and light.

Softly the moonbeams shine

On the still branches of the shadowy trees,
While all sweet sounds of evening on the breeze
Steal through the slumbering vine.

Thou gav'st the calm repose

That rests on all-the air, the bird, the flower,
The human spirit in its weary hour-

Now at the bright day's close.

"Tis Nature's time for prayer;

The silent praises of the glorious sky,
And the earth's orisons profound and high,
To Heaven their breathings bear.

With them my soul would bend,
In humble reverence at Thy holy throne,
Trusting the merits of Thy Son alone,
Thy sceptre to extend.

If I this day have striven

With Thy blest Spirit, or have bowed the knee,
To aught of earth in weak idolatry,
I pray to be forgiven.

If in my heart has been

An unforgiving thought, or word, or look,
Though deep the malice which I scarce could brook,
Wash me from this dark sin.

Nor for myself alone,

Would I these blessings of Thy love implore,
But for each penitent the wide earth o'er,
Whom thou hast called Thine own.

And for my heart's best friends,

Whose steadfast kindness o'er my painful years,
Has watched to soothe affliction's griefs and tears,
My warmest prayer ascends.

Should o'er their path decline

The light of gladness, or of hope or health,
Be Thou their solace and their joy and wealth,
As they have long been mine.

And One-O Father, guide

The youthful traveller in the dangerous hour;
Save him from evil and temptation's power,
And keep him near Thy side.
Watch o'er his couch to-night,

And draw him sweetly by the cords of love
To blest communion with Thee, far above
Earth's withering cares and blight.

And now, O Father, take

The heart I cast with humble faith on Thee,
And cleanse its depths from each impurity,
For my Redeemer's sake.

E. L. E.

WHO ARE THE LIARS?

It is unspeakably painful to us to ask this question, but our duty to one of the most honourable and candid of our correspondents compels. In our first number, "Observer" gave an account of "Infidel Lecturers in Liverpool," in which Mr. Joseph Barker occupied a prominent place. A copy of that number was sent to Mr. Barker, and the only reply, which he has attempted to make, is that inserted on our 54th page;—" What liars the Christians exe! How many, and how big lies they have crammed into a couple of pages!" Now had Mr. B. said this in reference to any article, we had written, we might have allowed it to pass for what it is worth, but we cannot allow such an onslaught on the character of a gentleman of well-known integrity, and truthfulness, to pass unrepelled; nor can we allow Mr. Barker to leave this country without challenging him to prove his allegations. Our pages are open to him, and if he does not avail himself of the opportunity, he will be convicted both of cowardice and falsehood. He must not expect the working classes of England to give him their confidence, if he refuses or neglects to support his assertions by a solitary fact; and he may carry with him across the Atlantic, a character for rampant tirade and unscrupulous vilification, which will not prolong his rapidly dying influence in the sister land.

Where now is the boasted courtesy of infidels? They have set themselves up as examples of gentlemanly behaviour towards their opponents. Is this a specimen? Mr. Barker tells the people, that he is a better man now, than when he was a Christian; is this one of the evidences of improvement? The Secularists make loud professions of recognising the sincerity of their opponents, what will they say to language so rude and unbecoming as this? If we condemn their unbelief, or have the slightest doubt of their conscientiousness, we are intolerant, and persecuting; what are they when they brand Christians as liars? What will his ' dear friend' Holyoake, when in one of his courteous and gentle moods, say to him? He once said, "Mr. Barker stands before the world as a Reformer. I shall be happy to recognize him in that character so soon as he shall assume its first attribute-the employment of just language. He imputes falsehoods with remorseless facility. Reluctantly I do it, but I must profess myself not a believer in Mr. Barker's 'devotion to truth and right'

What shall we think of that 'energy in doing good' which erects à gratuitous and an atrocious inference into a grave and positive accusation of fact? Is it not rather devotion' to recklessness than to "truth and right."? The thoughtful among free-thinkers will exclaim with the Reasoner, "New Joseph Barker is old Joseph Barker," and will "hesitate as to the importance they shall attach to words proceeding from such lawless lips."-Vol IV. pp. 155-161. Although the Reasoner may not use such language now, there is evidence that there is no change in the lawlessness, the virulence, the recklessness, and the ferocity of the language which he uses in reference to his opponents.

When he says, 'what liars the Christians are,' he perhaps judges them according to the standard of his own consciousness, when he professed to be a Christian. His own confessions may help us to a right conclusion.