PHILOSOPHY FOUND WANTING.

Rousseau is a melancholy example of the impotence of philosophy. He was surrounded with admiration. He was hailed as the amiable enthusiast, whose every impulse was benevolence, and whose was the voice of an impressive eloquence that could never die. But, O philosophy! how poor and how impotent thy pretensions! Rousseau was unhappy. Pursue him to his solitude, and you will witness the most affecting of all spectacles-the apostle of independence, with a heart consumed by a thousand disquietudes, and a countenance shrouded in the blackness of despair. Yes, there was a misery within which haunted him, a wound which philosophy could not cure-the voice of a tormenting spirit which robbed him of his peace, and stirred up in his agitated bosom the wild war of turbulence and disorder. True, he had his moments of rapture, but it was like a glare of lightning in the midst of a waste howling wilderness; it was a tumultuous enthusiasm which left behind it a deeper and a deadlier melancholy; it was a frenzy of the soul, which soon left him to the undivided dominion of agony and despair. The ill-regulated mind of Rousseau was the victim of a thousand infirmities which all the wisdom of philosophy could not heal-a gloomy and suspicious temper-a restless anxiety which any trifle could alarm, and every idle whisper could agitate and distress-an unhappy imagination, which conceived that every friend looked upon him with an altered countenance-a diseased sensibility which preyed upon his comfort, and cut short the weary remainder of his days. The admirers of eloquence visit his tomb, and hail him as the child of nature and of enthusiasm. The best lesson they can carry away is, that the triumphs of genius can never compensate for the loss of tranquility; that the sobriety of prudence is better than the splendour of original talent; that the noblest gifts which reason can bestow are contentment and common sense-a mind that can maintain its vivacity amid the cares and disappointments of the worlda home where every eye beams kindness, and every heart is animated with that sacred confidence which feels no fear and harbours no suspicion.

Chalmers.

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The real names and addresses of correspondents required, though not for publication.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.

There are several letters from correspondents in type, which we find it impossible to insert in the present number.

For the same reason we are prevented from answering Mr. John Finch, and showing who are the liars.

"Wilson", Liverpool, received.

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.

SECOND NIGHT.

The discussion was resumed in the Odd Fellows' Hall, on Tuesday the 23rd of January. The spacious room was equally crowded as on the previous occasions and the interest had not in the least abated. On the first night, the discussion was continued on the street by several parties, to a very late hour. For more than thirty minutes we stood, on the snow-covered road, amid a crowd

of

eager debaters, and listened with curiosity to their strange arguments. It was quite clear that many of them had failed to understand the real gist of the questions at issue. At some future period we may give a few specimens of the logic of those who defended Mr. Barker. The culminating argument of one of his great admirers, when required to give proof of an assertion he made, was, 'It must be so, because Mr. Barker said it.' On the Bible side we heard statements which did little credit to the intelligence or research of those who No. 7, Vol. 1.

made them. If, however, such discussions did no more good than excite the spirit of calm and earnest enquiry, on all sides, they might not altogether be in vain. At the appointed hour, R. Stansfeld, Esq., again occupied the chair, and in a few appropriate remarks introduced Mr. Grant, as the first speaker, to address the meeting for half an hour.

MR. GRANT: It is important that we should briefly review the ground over which we have passed, and see where we are. The proposition which Mr. Barker has undertaken to prove shows more haste than judgment. It is almost inconceivable that he has adopted it after due consideration; and yet it cannot be otherwise. He says that there is no evidence of the divine origin of the Bible: and we have shown that in order to prove this he must not only be omniscient, and infallible; but be able to demonstrate that omniscience and infallibility to others. It is vain that he tries to turn away the point of the argument by talking about Jack-the-giant-killer, and Goody-two-shoes. If for twenty years he had made them the subject of study, had believed, and advocated, and propagated them, not even his own friends could trust him now. For if he could once believe, and advocate, and propagate that which had no possible evidence, he may do it again; or he may reject that which is supported by the clearest and strongest evidence. Comparisons so undignified and unbefitting can never benefit his cause, but, after the excitement of the moment has passed away, will recoil upon his positiou and show his friends its weakness. The way in which he now speaks is consistent neither with truth, conviction, nor with previous assertions; and neither his talk about Goody-two-shoes nor his dreams of lying giants will save him from exposure. It is easy for him to tell us that he was ignorant and foolish when he advocated Christianity, but we cannot take his word for it that he is wiser now. If he meets his former arguments with such assertions we have an equal riglit to meet his present ones in the same manner. He attributes his former faith to the influence of parents and priests, and yet when he held it, he said it was from personal and careful examination; and was not very slow to call the priests some names. For twelve years he professed to defend the Bible against priest craft, not to believe on account of the testimony of ministers, against whom he often spoke, and most of all against those of the denomination to which he belonged. His statements at least are altogether contradictory; and though he may put the best face upon it that he can, no one will believe that the evidence in which he once professed to glory, disappeared when he became an infidel.

Mr. Barker tells us that if we saw the spectacles destroyed we should know that they were nowhere. But if they were destroyed, they must have existed. But evidence can never be so destroyed as to prove that there is none. The arguments by which you would destroy confidence in the divine origin of the Bible, would suffice to destroy all confidence in human productions. All literature is destroyed with the Bible, and man is thrown back upon barbarism. Mr. Barker says that we cannot have God's revelation, because we have not the original manuscripts; on his own confession, then, we have not and cannot have the works of Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Virgil, Livy, Cicero, inasmuch as we have not the original manuscripts of those writers. His theory would make all works unsafe; and would make it impossible to discover the author of any production. He must quote no authorities on this platform, till the authors to which he would refer come back to tell us which are theirs, and which are not. He would walk into your libraries, and tell you that all those books, which you have ascribed to certain great minds, are not of their authority. On the faith of books, he says that things which he has never seen have been destroyed, and yet his argument would destroy all confidence in books whatever. He would not admit that Kennicott had explained the apparent discrepancies in figures by

the comparison of versions. Now it is well known that Kennicott compared with the utmost attention and care the different versions, and has shown upon what principles the accounts are harmonized; nor will Mr. Barker's denial alter the case.

It was to have been desired that this had been a dignified contest; but my opponent seems anxious to avoid great principles, and by his refusal to allow that the reporter should give each of usa copy of each night's speeches, it is impossible to push into so short a space, an answer to all the passages adduced. He says that I have an advantage in knowing his objections to the Bible; but how should I know which of them he would use. I shall now review and take a farewell of his list of contradictions. In his quotations there is an extraordinary want of accuracy, or of honesty. He continues to assert that both the first and second chapters in Genesis profess to give the order of creation. Now were it so, nothing could be easier for him than to give the place. The first gives the order day by day. In the second we have the record of additional circumstances for other ends. On a point on which only one of them speaks there can be no contradiction; although it is such cases that have been urged. When Mr. Barker said that the second chapter professes to give an account of the order as much as the first, he stated what was not true, and what he must have known not to be true. He told us that there was evidently a long time before woman was created, and when we asked how long, he said that we might feel sure that a mountain had lifted its head for ages without our being able to tell how long. But he puts a mountain into the Bible, and no other body can see it. The mountain has been in labour and you see what it has brought forth. Mr. Barker was plain, positive, and emphatic in telling us that we have ǎ contradictory account of the origin of trees; but I don't know that any body can see a contradictory account there but himself. The first gives only a general description of what God did. In the second we see how and wherefore some of the processes occurred. The fifth verse gives a general description of the earth before any thing grew. It was empty and void. Such is the legitimate force of the fifth verse. "Every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew;" as their was no rain, and no man to till the ground. The earth was without herbs, and plants, in a chaotic, and unfurnished condition. This is the view taken by Rosenmuller and Schuman, who wrote without knowing they would answer Mr. Barker. In our English translation it is sufficiently plain. No herb had yet germinated, and there was not a man to till the ground. Such was the description of the uninhabited condition of the world before the creation of plants and of man. There was no man to till the ground till God formed one; and the second chapter gives a more detailed account of his creation and especially of the creation of a help meet for him. What Mr. Barker calls contradictions are clearly references to different times. It is not the blunder of the Bible but of Mr. Barker. In so short a time as is allowed to me it may not be possible to go fully into every objection; but the manifest incompetence or unfairness displayed in this one is enough to destroy the arguments of any man. Let him prove 1. that both chapters profess to give the order of creation; 2. that man was created a long time before woman; and 3. that the account of trees not being planted is a description of the state of things after the six days, and not before. Unless he does this, his assertions will not satisfy even his own friends,

roman

He is equally dogmatic and equally at fault in reference to the account given of the destruction of the cattle of Egypt. Any ore who reads it attentively will see that the Egyptians were warned to take their cattle home, and throughout it is implied that at no time were the whole cattle in the field. He surely knows that the expressions "all," and "all the world," are often used in a general and hyperbolical sense.

But this is evaded in reference to the Amalekites, by saying that the women and children were also destroyed. Yet there is no difficulty to any honest mind. England is at war with Russia. The allied armies of France and England have laid siege to Sebastopol. Suppose they were successful, and it was said that all the Russians, men, women, and children, were put to the edge of the sword, who would conclude that the entire Russian nation had been destroyed? And so with any city, town, or station of the Amalekites. His objections of this nature are endless and frivolous; and it would be a mere waste of time to do more than expose specimens of them. They are trifling objections, which can occupy only frivolous and shallow minds.

The

The matter

If my opponent would only study the common style of Scripture, or even of conversational language he would have no difficulty in reconciling what is said about sacrifices. He says that God did not want sacrifices at all. Bible says nothing of the kind and means nothing of the kind. has been already explained to him by Mr. Sargeant of Sheffield. God wanted sacrifices as the proof of obedience, but he did not want the sacrifices without the obedience. A woman is neglected by her husband and in the fulness of her grief she says, 'It is not the maintenance I want-I wish to see him the man that once he was.' Yet subsequently she summons him before a magistrate for want of maintenance; but no one misunderstands her language or blames her for inconsistency.

You

David, we are told in one chapter is spoken of as a mighty man of valour, and in the following one he is described as a stripling just brought from his father's sheep-fold. We very much think that the man must be soft in the forehead who sees any real discrepancy there. The writer never pretends to give the history chronologically. The entire fifty-eight verses of the 17th chap. of 1st Samuel, relate to Saul's wars with the Philistines, and it was perfectly natural in that connection, to introduce David as a great warrior; and afterwards to give some account of his youth and of his introduction to Saul. take up a biography of the late Sir Robert Peel, and in an early part of the volume you find it stated that a certain gentleman was his private secretary. In a subsequent part of the volume he gives a detailed account of the circumstances under which Sir Robert became acquainted with his secretary, and it is stated that he saw a boy named Cathcart, who attracted his attention. No one, however, would suppose that he was first the valuable secretary and then the boy. Now the two accounts which the Bible opponent quotes refer to two different periods of David's life. There is no difficulty in finding out the chronological order. If you examine, you will find the fact to be these:1. David is quite a youth tending his father's flock. 2. His combat with a lion is his first introduction to public notice. 3. His combat with Goliath is his first military exploit, when he had not yet been Saul's armour-bearer. Afterwards he becomes one of Saul's favourites.

:

Mr. Barker's statement that we have contradictory reasons why David did not build the temple is quite untrue, and is another specimen of dishonest criticism. He says that the first reason assigned was that God had not a house and did not wish one. If you read 1st. Chron. 17., you will be able to judge. In that very chapter, it is predicted that Solomon would build the temple. In 1st. Kings 5. 5., David is said to have been prevented by wars, and we find that the previous prediction was fulfilled. And the third account in 1st. Chron. 22., is in perfect harmony with the others. During his reign the kingdom was not in a settled state, and his wars seemed necessary to put it on a secure foundation from the attacks of enemies. Not till then could the temple be built : for both king and people must be free from that cause of calamities and judgments in order successfully to prosecute the work.

But contradictions we are told are found in the account of the number of