Luke tells us that the centurion sent the elders of the Jews to Jesus, to ask that his servant should be healed; Matthew affirms that he went himself.

Matthew represents two possessed with devils, in the country of the Gergesenes, as accosting Jesus. Mark and Luke mention only one. And although they sought to escape the deep, and it appeared promised to them that they should, they ran violently down a steep bauk into the sea.

In Matthew we are told that the ruler's daughter was dead when he came and besought Jesus; in Mark and Luke she is represented as at the point of death.

Mr. GRANT:-Mr. Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen;-In this discussion it is necessary that we not only take up a few isolated passages, such as Mr. Barker has now given us, but that we indicate the nature of the answer proper to such objections, and lay down certain broad principles, and rules of interpretation by which these and similiar objections may be met. In many of the cases adduced he might have had the candour to tell you, that they might be explained, and how they have been explained in some instances by himself, and he might have taken the trouble to tell you why he now regards those explanations as unsatisfactory. If it is impossible to overtake them all tonight, there are few of them that will be over-looked in the course of this debate, and that will not have a greater or less share of our attention. It will be enough in this first speech to notice some of them as specimens, and show that the others can be disposed of.

At the outset it is important that we should get a broad view of the nature of the question, and I proceed at once to point out the method in which this discussion should be conducted In doing this I shall endeavour,

1. To show what is involved in the general topic, to explain what the opponent of the Bible has undertaken to prove.

2. Show the methods he adopts, how far they are legitimate as a mere method of objecting.

3. State the true case of the Bible, what we are to understand by its claims to divine origin, what we are not to understand by those claims, what is not and what is meant by its being of divine authority, and show it to be a sufficient authoritative moral and spiritual guide for mankind.

4. Notice the specific objections urged by the opponent of the Bible, against its divine origin and authority, which could have been done more easily if he had agreed to two reasonable propositions ;--1st, that this discussion should be carried on at intervals so as to allow time for consideration and reference to authorities; and 2ndly, that each should be provided as soon as possible with a report of his opponent's speeches, in order that no point of relevance or of importance should be omitted from the debate. Both of these have been refused by Mr. Barker for reasons which I shall not state, but which you will easily discover. Notwithstanding his refusal of the means for a more thorough investigation of the entire subject, I shall pay as much attention to the objections as they are stated as is necessary to give you an idea of their nature, and of the appropriate replies, reserving our fuller reply to our fifth line of defence, viz. ;

5th. A popular statement of the principles of Biblical interpretation, which will give us a ready and full solution of a whole host of the objections which are so carefully paraded against the book. If we cannot enter upon a full discussion of the laws of Biblical science, we shall at least give such rules and illustrations as will be of service in understanding the scope and meaning of the scriptures. These rules when applied to supposed difficulties, for a specific notice of which there may not be time, or which may be overlooked from Mr. Barker's refusal to allow a reference to our reported speeches, will clear them up to ordinary and unbiassed minds.

6th. State some of the great Bible principles, deducible consistently with those rules of interpretation, and show how in their own native greatness and

majesty, they outshine all human efforts, and by their superior light eclipse the pale stars of human philosophy, and bespeak their heavenly origin.

If not in this exact order, yet as consecutively as possible, we shall endeavour to examine the subject, and but for the clamours of those who regard platform discussions as the great test of truth we should have preferred the quiet retirement of a study in which to elaborate thoughts for the calm reflection of readers. We shall, however, adopt both methods, noticing some specimens of Infidel criticism as we proceed, and reading such arguments as will especially bear investigation when the printed repcrt of this discussion is in your hands.

his

In this discussion the opponent of the Bible has some great advantages. He has had long practice in debate; while I have had only two public dis cussions. He has often debated the subject; while I have never debated it before. He has had a deliberate opportunity of forming his own propositions, choosing the course he would pursue, and selecting and arranging his arguments or objections, while I have had no such opportunity. He has had the advantage of going over and over the same ground, and can utter familiar common-places, which have been repeated a hundred times to infidel meetings all over the country; while I would require time for careful research to do justice to the exposition of passages which I cannot know he will adduce When I last discussed with Mr. Holyoake, in Glasgow-three weeks beforehand I gave him an outline of the course I intended to pursue, with references to the passages of his works which I should adduce as proofs, so that he had every opportunity of preparing for his defence. No infidel dare do that with a Christian opponent.

Still with all these advantages on the other side, we do not fear the result of this discussion. We rely for the success of the Bible cause, on four considerations.

First. Truth and conscience are on the side of the Bible.

Second. People will see that plain, honest objections are clearly disposed of.

Third. The Bible opponent has to meet our statements in support of our position, and unbiassed minds will institute a balance between the two.

Fourth. He has not only to meet our statements, but to refute all the possible arguments for the divine origin and authority of the Bible. Suppose he could answer all that has been said in its favour, it is no evidence that he would be able to answer all that can be said. We hope that the debate will be read and re-read with careful thought and comparison, and we dread not the issue.

The topic of discussion itself is such that only one accustomed to reckless assertion instead of proof, would ever have chosen it. Let us look at the first part of it. Mr. Barker undertakes to prove, that there is no evidence of the Supernatural Origin, or Divine Authority of the Bible.' To this he has committed himself. Now, the only logical answer required, is that there is some evidence; and unless he could prove himself to be infallible and omniscient, he cannot satisfy any rational mind that there is none. That there is some evidence is plain from the fact that there have been, and are persons as wise and learned, as sincere and truth-loving as this gentleman, who have found evidence sufficient to warrant their faith. Whatever right he may have to say that he knows none, it is quite false to assert that there is no evidence. And he alone is responsible for the propositions. He has been taken with his own wording of the topic, and on his own terms throughout, for in no other way could this debate be had. He seems to think that extravagance of assertion will be a substitute for clearness and strength of proof. He has turned doubt into dogmatism. His own boldness has ensnared him, and he has placed himself in a dilemma from which he cannot escape. He is logically bound to adduce not only the explanations that have been given, but every possible explanation of the difficulties he

urges. He has to prove that the supposed evidences are no evidences at all. He has to notice and refute every form and degree of evidence adduced in this discussion; and not only this, but he has to prove that none more learned, or more wise than the Bible advocate cau bring forward any other or better evidence, and that it is impossible to find any such evidence. If a man asserts that a pair of spectacles exists nowhere, he must go every where to prove it; for if he does not they may be somewhere else that he has not been. So the Bible opponent cannot prove that there is no evidence for its divine origin and authority, unless he knows and has examined all evidence whatever. It is incumbent upon him to give the best answers to the difficulties he adduces, to refute those answers, and to prove that no better answers are possible. He would require to have read every book which has been written upon the subject, and to prove that no fact in any book furnishes any evidence on the point.

There are several questions to which we beg his early attention.

1. What would be evidence of the divine origin of a revelation ?

2. What arguments have been adduced for this case of the Bible?

3. What leading authors have yon read and refuted?

4. Have you refuted all you have written in defence of the Bible and of Bible Christianity?

5. By what arguments have you refuted what you previously wrote for the Bible.

6. How do you know there is no other evidence?

7. When, in arguing against the Bible, did you fully state the evidence in its favour?

8. If you cannot answer all these questions how can you prove that there is no evidence?

9. If you can answer, will you oblige us by doing so?

10. If you do not answer, how will you satisfy your own friends, or how can you expect them to have any further confidence in your word.

11. By no evidence, do you mean not sufficient evidence? if so, to whom?

12. To your satisfaction, was there not once enough, when you professed to believe?

13. When you believed the Bible to be of divine origin and authority, was it without any evidence?

14. If there was some evidence, then where has it gone?

15. If there was not enough to satisfy a rational, and unprejudiced individual, what shall we think of your intelligence and candour then?

If there was none, then for twenty years you believed the Bible without any evidence at all, and your opinion is worthless; if there was, then your present position is destroyed.

There was once enough to convince this inquirer, who would not allow any one to question his sincerity, honesty, and candour; if not, we have no reason for trusting him now. Can he assure us that he has attained omniscience and infallibility now. We must confess, 'I have been entirely deceived in my brightest days, and after earnest research and deliberate inquiry, I remained for long years the victim of deception, when I was a Methodist preacher, I thought and said that nothing could be stronger and clearer than the evidence, but I was all wrong.'

Now how shall we know that this gentleman is not the victim of deception still?

One of the propositions on which he has been lecturing all over the country, is, "The evidence of the supernatural origin and divine authority of the Bibleinternal, external, and collateral-shown to be no evidence whatever." To prove this he is bound to produce all the evidence external, internal, and collateral; and this would require more than a life-time. So vast and so constantly ac

cumulating is it, that it would require some new art of compression to give anything like an idea of it. The assertion is absurd. No one who understands anything of the subject can be influenced by it. When has he examined all the arguments for the Bible, aud when will he answer them? Will he state any one point in favour of the Bible as fairly and clearly as another would put it? And unless he does that with every particle of proof, and shows that it is no proof, he does not fulfil the logical requirement of his proposition. All that I have to do is to reply logically to that point and show he cannot prove it.

The topic of debate is not that I cannot find any evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, but that there is none. If I prove that there is some, no dependence can be placed upon the testimony of the opponent of the Bible. He may tell us that there is none to him, but this is nothing to us.

We cannot believe in his omniscience, and perfect acquaintance with all evidence, they may be private luxuries of his own, which he may enjoy as he pleases, but we shall only receive what he can prove to us by the ordinary rules of reason. Christianity is still triumphant though he has abandoned it, and will remain so though he would destroy its influence by caricaturing it. However much he may be convinced by some private revelation of his own, he can only expect to convince us by the laws of logic. For himself to know what he has put in his proposition he requires omniscience; and to satisfy us, must prove his infallibility. He would have us believe that his wisdom, unlike Solomon's, is reserved for the end of his life; but he gives us no proof. No sensible man will look up to him as the Pope of reason and of morals. Our Infidel is not a God as his proposition would lead us to suppose.

His assertion that there is no evidence, implies :--1. That he has a perfect acquaintance with all the possible explanations of supposed difficulties. 2. That he knows all these explanations to be failures. 3. That he has so perfect, and unprejudiced a view of all the difficulties, as not to overstrain or overstate them. 4. That he has so just a view as to decide oracularly against the whole. 5. That all the Christians who have spent their lives in the investigation of the history, the philosophy, the philology, and the criticism of those books are incompetent. 6. That all those who read the results of their elaborate and profound investigations, have no idea of what is evidence. 7. That those who study the Bible for their own satisfaction and guidance, have no idea of what is evidence. 8. That from the age of 16 to 40, Mr. Barker himself had no idea of what is evidence. 9. That all the Christian world, with all their philosophy, experience, and insight, for eighteen centuries have had no idea of what is evidence. 10. It supposes that human reason is worthless, and that all argument is thrown away on man's natural incapacity. 11. It supposes that against all these convictions and impressions founded upon research and moral experience, the ipse dixit of one man is proof. 12. It supposes that this ipse dixit is the true Bible of infidels. 13. That all the reason of Christians is mental weakness, and moral obliquity. 14. And, finally, it supposes that this one man absorbs all available intellect. The statement is an amazing assumption, and nothing but insane recklessness could lead him to make it.

He told us of the three forms in which Bibles exist, and asserted, that in none of them have we a divine revelation. His argument, if it deserves the name, would for ever prevent us from ascertaining the origin of any book. Who has seen the manuscripts of Homer, Virgil, Tacitus, or Thucydides? Who has the autograph of Locke, that he wrote the Essay on the Human Understanding? Or of Shakespeare, that he composed his plays? Must we throw away Plato's works, because we have them not in his handwriting, and because no one has ever seen them in that form. How conveniently thus might Mr. Barker get rid of all that he has ever written in defence of Christianity. He might defy us to show it in his own writing. In less than three years he might deny the written report of this discussion.

He told us that the first and second chapters of Genesis contradict each other. Now the first chapter gives the order of creation, the second does not profess to do so, but states other circumstances for other purposes. In the one case, we have the order of proceeding, in the other, some of the facts are stated in other relationships.

There is nothing contradictory in what is said about trees. In the second chapter, there is a general description of the chaotic state of the earth, ere trees were planted, and ere there was a man to till the ground.

He tells us there was a great length of time between the creation of man and woman. How does he know; and if he cannot say how long, why does he raise the objection? There is nothing in the narrative to produce such an impression. He tells us that in one passage it is said, that Abraham laughed, and in another Sarah. What then? Would there be anything contradictory, if, in giving a report of this debate, any one stated that Mr. Barker spoke, and it was afterwards stated that I spoke.

But the destruction of the cattle in Egypt is a great difficulty with my opponent. If he had read the context, he would have seen that it was the cattle of the field, that are spoken of. And it is quite clear that without having any great means of transport, immense numbers of cattle might be brought in from the field. But how could all the Amalakites be destroyed, and yet, shortly after, be found not only fighting but conquering? Would any one but Mr. Barker have difficulty in understanding it? We are at present at war with Russia. Suppose it said by one of our historians, that all the English were destroyed, would a future age fail to perceive the meaning of the statement, or imagine that England's resources and strength were so crippled that she could not again act as the defender of liberty.

Mr. Barker seeks to make a contradiction out of the account given of David's numbering the people, and asks how it could be both God and Satan that led him to act as he did? We all know how the same circumstance may be looked at in different lights, and may be differently described according to the point of view of the observer. There are three kinds of history:-profane history, which simply announces facts; scientific history, which shows events occurring on certain principles; and sacred history, indicating the superintendence of a great moral Governor over the affairs of men. In the case of Job, we have an illustration of this. His sons were all slain, but he recognizes the hand of God, and says, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord." The Bible is written with a recognition of this great fact, that there is "a providence in the affairs of men." It is not barely said that the sun rises and shines upon the evil and the good, but that God causes it. It is possible, thus, to give three different and yet harmonious accounts of things.

Covent Garden Market is filled with vegetables; one man says it is done by Divine providence, and thanks God for so abundant a supply; another says it is effected by the law of supply and demand; and a third, that it is done by the market gardener's waggon; but there is no contradiction. Nor is there any in the Bible accounts. There are other apparent difficulties adduced to night, to which this will be a satisfactory solution to all candid minds.

Much has been made of the different numbers in different accounts, but it might have been honest in Mr. Barker to have shown how easily they are accounted for in the transcription of the books. It can be proved, and has been proved, that these varieties have arisen from the errors of transcribers. Dr. Kennicott devoted much time to the collection of M.S.S., and has thrown satisfactory light upon this subject. We recommend him to Mr. Barker's attention. He tells us of the son who is represented as two years older than his father. Now in one case, the true age is represented as twenty two; and it is proved to be the mistake of a copyisit. There is an ancient version in which the number 22 is already in existence. We have only to compare one with another, to