MR. BARKER: In this discussion we cannot depend upon authorities, be they great or little. The less we reverence names, and the more we reverence truth, the more we shall be erlightened and happy.

It is admitted that the gospels differ from each other, that each evangelist gives his own view of the facts. If he grants this, he grants all we have coptended for on that head.

Comparing manuscripts with each other, it is found that there are 150,000 readings. It can never be ascertained how many various readings there are. These gospels contradicted each other from the beginning. The original discrepancies were probably as numerous as those which we find in the transations. We have no means of knowing how many alterations have been made. In one copy the whole of the Lord's prayer is omitted.

In Matt. 20. 30., we have a story about two blind men. Mark and Luke mention only one. We have discordant accounts in reference to Judas. In one place we are told that he went and hanged himself, in another that he burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out. In one account we read that both thieves reviled Jesus, and in another, only one. We have different stories of the resurrection. In one, Mary Magdalene appears to have gone alone; in another the mother of James is said to have been with her. By one we are told that they went at the rising of the sun; by another, when it was yet dark. One account represents them as having seen an angel sitting upon the stone, and telling them that Jesus had risen; another says that they saw two men standing. John gives a different version from them all. It was predicted by Christ himself that he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The account in the gospel represents him as having been only one day and two nights in the grave.

The Bible representation of the character of God is an argument often brought forward in support of its divine origin. The argument is bad, but suppose it proved, then the song of Solomon, and the book of Esther could never be proved to be a supernatural revelation, because the name of God is not so much as mentioned.

The Bible representations of God are enough of themselves to stamp it as human in its origin. God is spoken of as existing in the form or shape of man. Eli's voice must have been like God's, for Samuel mistook God's voice for Eli's. Adam and Eve heard the Lord's voice, walking in the garden. To Abraham he appeared in the shape of three men. And when Abraham interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah, he does not seem to know how many righteous men are in the city. Afterwards, it is said that he went his way. He is spoken of as having a local habitation somewhere above us. At the confusion of tongues we are informed that he came down to see the city and tower. He is represented as making experiments to ascertain Abraham's piety, and afterwards as saying, "Now I know that thou fearest God," as if he did not know before. In Deut., we are told that he permits false prophets, as workers of signs, to humble and prove them, and know what was in their heart. God left Hezekiah to try him; and know what was in his heart, II Chron. 32. 31. In other passages he is represented as ignorant of matters until he has made experiments; as a being who searches and tries men's hearts.

Other passages speak of him as limited in power. The men who wrote the Bible undoubtedly believed that he was not all powerful. The Lord, we are told, was with Judah and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. God is spoken of as nearly powerless to check evil. Finding men wicked and disobedient, he repents that he ever made them, and condemns them to wholesale destruction. Never is he represented as accomplishing his objects. He selects from among the nations of the earth a favorite family, but it turns

out no better than others. The family that he preserves from the general deluge does him no honour. As men again increased, he confounds their tongues. They are scattered but not mended! He threatens to destroy those whom he has brought out of Egypt, but is prevented by Moses, from a regard to consequences. Full of disappointment and vexation, he says, "Let me alone that I may destroy them." His anger "burns to the lowest hell," He will heap mischief upon them." "I said, I will scatter them to the four corners of the earth, and make them indure the wrath of the enemy. And yet he is represented as having done all that he could for them. He had the making of man himself, and declared all to be very good! Passages are to be found in abundance recounting the wildest freaks, the utmost weakness, the fiercest passions, and the most revolting vices.

God is represented as being partial in his affections. He loves Jacob and hates Esau before either of them was born, that his purpose might stand. Mr. Barker here referred to Genesis 25., and read most of Romans 9.) Is there not sufficient evidence of the partiality and favouritism of God in this chapter? The potter has power over the clay, and makes one vessel to honour and another to dishonour. And so throughout the Old Testament, God is represented as caring more for the health, the holiness, and the happiness of the Jews than that of any other people whatever.

Mr. GRANT:-The most horrible thing in the catalogue which Mr. Barker has given us, is his horrible ignorance. If he will read Jeremiah he will under stand the parable about the potter, and see that it is by voluntary disobedience that the clay is marred in God's hand. Because God fails in moral ends has it therefore to be said that he is limited in power. As the moral governor of the universe, God has done all for man that could be done consistently with

moral rule.

The passage which Mr. B. quoted from Judges 1. 19., may serve as a specimen of his mistakes or misrepresentations. He makes it out that God could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley. The passage says no such thing, and any one who reads it attentively will see that it is so. He (Judah) drove out the inhabitants of the mountains, but could not-that is, Judah could not-drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Mr. Barker says that the expression, "Let us make man in our own image", -must be taken in its literal sense. But philosophically speaking, there is no literal sense. Letters have no meaning. The meaning of words must be determined from their conventional use and their connection. Examine the context of this passage and you will find that the image refers to the dominion given to man over nature-the sovereignty and superiority which is the great charter of our liberties.

All words in any book must be taken in what sense, of which the book itself is generally the sufficient interpretation. When our translators rendered the Bible into English, the word" conversation" meant conduct, and no one but a bungler or a deceiver, would insist upon our reading it in its present sense. The obvious meaning of words in the Bible use renders inexcusable those who pervert it. Any student of the Bible is aware that "know" often means to tell. When Paul said 'I am determined to know nothing among you but Jesus and him crucified means clearly "I am determined to declare nothing but this." In this sense the word is often used in reference to God, not that he found it out for himself, but showed it to others. The same rule of interpretation has to be applied to passages in which God is said to have tempted man. There is no interference with human agency. Providential government is a rule through agencies, and in harmony with law, and the Bible recognises and records the divine superintendence.

"

The passages in which God is represented as localized in his dwelling, are in fitness to the limitation of human facnlties, and the localization of human ideas; and no one, not even Mr. Barker himself, has been misled by them. Any appropiate impression of a great truth upon the mind does not come from shadowy ideas, and vague description, and to produce a right impression the description must appeal to our affections, confidence, and hope. "I go," said Jesus to his sorrowing disciples, " to prepare a place for you and will come again and receive you to myself." He knew what was in man and left it to those philosophers who are jealous of every material view, to term heaven a state not a place of being. He spoke words for the market-place, the wayside, and the fire-side. He spoke to the hunian heart; and although such language may be perverted, it is yet the most affecting and consoling. It injures no one. It misleads no one. It deceives no one. A child can understand it. On the same principle Mr. Barker would object to the verdict which a jury sometimes brings in-" Died by the visitation of God, as he objects to the account of God's interview with Abraham; but his rules of criticism, are not standards either for himself, or for any body else. The language which he deprecates is easily understood. We say that a man has low views of the character of God. We talk of a lofty view of a truth, without thinking of measuring it by the yard-wand. A man may be high without a ladder; and condescension is not going down hill. We say a man is above a certain line of conduct. To "bow the heavens and come down is just giving localities to the mind of man for its ideas. Nigh and far off are terms often applied to man's condition. A man may be puffed up, without being swelled to any larger size. God complains that the people drew near with their mouth, but in their hearts they were far from him, but Mr. Barker would argue, I suppose, that the heart could not be very far off if the mouth was there. We say that a man is cold and distant, when not a yard off. We use the terms up and down when in fact there is neither; when that which we call up, the antipodes are at this moment calling down. But the language does not deceive. Did those passages which Mr. B. quotes lead the Jews into a belief that God had a body? Mr. B's. objections are a disgrace to the 19th century. Has he never himself talked of free-thinkers enjoying fellowship before the altar of intellectual and spiritual freedom, and worshipping in the temple of liberty? Now does he wish us to understand that they all go together into a large temple, that they sit down together, that they approach an altar, and see a God or Godess called Liberty.

MR. BARKER:-The passage in reference to the potter and the clay from Jeremiah, Paul entirely perverts, and plainly teaches that God treats man according to his own arbitrary pleasure. Before the children had done good or evil, he loved the one and hated the other.

What Mr. Grant said about the sense of words would be as successful in explaining away all that is bad in any book as in the Bible, and in making as good philosophy and Christianity out of any ordinary work on such a subject as ont of the Bible. He has not at all refuted the objections which I have named. I have no donbt that Mr Grant could write a far better book on morality philosophy, if not on theology, than that; but that is not what he has to do. He has to defend the Bible, and prove it to be a perfect book from beginning to end.

In my last speech I was showing that the Bible represents God as partial. He favours man at the expense of woman. Man is allowed to have wives and concubines to the number of 700 or 300, but we do not hear of a woman having more than one husband. Man is allowed a choice, woman is not. Jacob served for Rachel, and when Laban deceived him and gave him Leah instead, he served other seven years for Rachel. But neither was asked whether they

would have Jacob as their husband.

In no case is woman treated as a free and independent being. If a man does not like his wife, he can get a bill of divorcement and put her away, but this is not allowed to the wife. Man is allowed to apply tests to ascertain his wife's faithfulness, but this is not permitted to the wife, even if her suspicions are ever so well founded. If a man take a wife, and an evil name be brought upon her, and the tokens of her virginity be not found, they have to stone her with stones. No such demand is made of man's purity. God requires of woman an atonement for the birth of a child : if a male, she is unclean for seven days, if a female, for fourteen. If a man has made a vow he can nullify it, but a woman cannot. Woman has no equality given her. Every-thing belongs to the fathers, the husbands, the brothers. Wives are commanded by an apostle fo submit themselves to their own husbands. They have to be obedient to bad as well as good ones. If you look at the third of 1st Peter, you will find Sarah set up as an example that Christians have to follow. "As Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord; whose daughters ye are." Her husband commanded her to say that she was his sister; and this is an example to Christian women! Woman was an underling. "I would have you know," says Paul, "that man is the lord of the woman.' "The woman, according to them, was made for the man. He enjoins that woman should keep silence in the church, and ask their husbands at home; because Adam was formed, then Eve.

Worse than all, the Bible represents God as cruel. In some passages he is represented as doing deeds that would ruin the whole human family. There are acts ascribed to him that are calculated to amazge and horrify us. lf those who read the book only thought, their souls would be shaken as with an earthquake. We are told that he is our Father and example, and yet for one fault he dooms his own offspring to death without reprieve. The account is full of blasphemy. The law is of God's making, and when he makes it he knows what man will do. He creates man and places him in temptation; what follows? Adam and Eve eat the fruit. He calls them to account. It is true that he does not at once execute the threatened punishment, but he threatens a number of evils and death at last. And for one single transgression they are banished from Eden, and cherubims are set to guard the way, that man may not return. He drives his own offspring away without one ray of hope.

Upon the whole the audience conducted themselves with great decorum. A few times there was a strong manifestation of feelling, which, however, was speedily repressed. There appeared a stronger inclination than on the previous night, to leave the matter to the disputants. After a few words from the chair man, the debate was adjourned to the following evening, and the meeting.quietly separated.

SILVERWATER'S DIFFICULTIES.

THE EDITOR TO SILVERWATER.

Dear Sir, I was a little surprised that none of our "free-thinking" friends had availed themselves of our " open page," up to the receipt of your communication. This is the only explanation we have of the fact that our open page did not appear till our last number. They were, perhaps, planting their batteries, and waiting to open fire.

If your friends, of an enquiring turn of mind will tell us their difficulties we shall do all we can to explain them. If we do not meet their case, they are to

blame in not stating it. Let not your friends, however, despise what "may be heard at church", for I have met with Secularists and Secularist leaders so ignorant of scripture and of Christian doctrine that an intelligent boy in one of our Bible classes could teach them much which they ought to know. If they wish to know both sides, we would advise them to go a little more frequently to church, and to remember that truth is none the less valuable that it costs them nothing.

Such difficulties as you mention would not affect the authenticity of any other historical document. If during the lapse of two or three hundred years, the names of certain towns in England were changed, you might expect the alteration in the new editions of Hume's History of England for the period, but no fair critic would deny, on that account, the authenticity of Hume's History. So Moses might be the writer of the book of Genesis, even though some transcriber's marginal reading, giving the modern name of Laish or Leshem, should be substituted in the text for the original name. Nor can the mention of Damascus, as far as I can see, affect the question.

But you find the mention in Genesis of kings reigning in Edom, before any kings reigned in Israel." This is surely, a non sequitur. The passage does not say that the writer knew that kings reigned in Israel. It simply intimates the fact that there were kings in Edom, when as yet there were none over the Israelites. But if you think otherwise, was not the writer, if Moses, an inspired prophet.

Yours respectfully,

THE EDITOR.

ON THE FORMATION OF CHARACTER.

MR. WILLIS KNOWLES.
Sir,

It is very convenient for you to take it for granted, that what you have presented to me is a truth; it would be rather more difficult to prove it. I thought that "free-thinkers' did not care for authorities, but you seem to value them much. Only before you attempted to lead any to believe that 'The Empire' endorses the dogma,-"That man's charaeter is formed for him,' you should have ascertained for us and told us, whether 'Cato' is not one of those correspondents for whose communications the editor does not hold himself responsible. It would not be very honest for any one to quote your note, which was inserted in last week's number, and insinuate that I believed your assertion, which I hold to be a pernicious and deadly error.

'Cato' does not say that a man's character is formed for him, what he does say is a part-truth, that " our inward experience is influenced by external circumstances."

Every man's consciousness testifies that if he will, he can resist the influence of circumstances, emancipate himself from the bondage of custom, and make himself master of his destiny. Both 'Cato' and you would require to account for the fact that thousands of men have abandoned the superstitious religions of their fore-fathers.

If, however, you wish to have the question fully discussed, the pages of The Defender are open to any of your leaders, whom you can induce to write upon it. The extract you have sent requires no further notice, as it is only assertion without proof.

Yours truly,