Page images
PDF
EPUB

one.

"Harrington," said I, "at times I find it impossible to believe that you doubt the truth of Christianity."

"Suppose I were to answer, that at times I doubt whether I doubt it or not, would not that be a thorough sceptic's answer ?" I admitted that it would be indeed.

Eclipse of Faith.

THE DISCUSSION AT HALIFAX BETWEEN THE

REV. BREWIN GRANT AND MR. JOSEPH BARKER, ON THE ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.

FIRST NIGHT.-CONCLUDING SPEECHES.

At the close of Mr. Grant's introductory speech, a few minutes were allowed to the audience to take breath; after which the discussion was resumed, the immense assemblage continuing to listen throughout with eager attention.

MR. BARKER;-Now that we have the prospect of a fair discussion, it will be well for both disputants to keep to the point.

Mr. Grant tells us that some of the cases of contradiction have been explained, and that I ought in candour to have given you those explanations. I know of no satisfactory explanations to those difficulties. Any explanations that I know are merely arbitrary, and would make the Bible mean anything.

He says that I have great advantages in discussing this question, from having lectured upon it, and discussed it previously. The advantages seem to be all on his side, for he has an opportunity of ascertaining my position and views, while his I have never heard of.

He said that my objections were not relevant to the subject; I leave you to judge whether they were or not.

He said he would not answer all the objections I advanced. He might have saved himself the trouble of telling us that; it is obvious enough.

He has talked a great deal about the necessity of my being omniscient and infallible, in order to prove my proposition. It is no more necessary than to be omniscient and infallible, in order to prove that Jack-the-Giant-Killer, and Goody-two-shoes are not of supernatural origin, and divine authority.

He says I should know all possible and supposable, as well as all actual evidence, and that I should know who are its authors, in order to prove the Bible to be of human origin; I require this no more, than I would to prove that the letters of Junius were of human origin, though I might be unable to discover the author.

He says if we were in search of a pair of spectacles, for me to be able to that they were nowhere, I should have been everywhere, but this would not be at all necessary if we had seen the spectacles destroyed.

say

He says that in order to prove my proposition, I should have read all the books that have been written, to prove that the Bible is of supernatural origin, and divine authority. I have read the principal ones and with great care, but i have found nothing deserving the name of evidence.

He says that the Bible is its own evidence, that it is its own witness. This is just what we believe. It contains evidence in abundance of its human and imperfect character. This we have partly shown, and will yet show more fully.

He asks if I did not once believe the Bible, and if I had not evidence then? Might not a Pagan priest ask a convert to Christianity, if he did not once believe upon evidence in Paganism, but no Christian would think this a good

argument. My former faith amounts to nothing, unless you would prevent research and progress altogether. Must a man never rectify the errors he has made. A man may believe some things very firmly, and yet see reason to change his mind. Not many months ago we all believed that Sebastopol was taken. The bells rung, the cannons fired, and there were universal rejoicings. No one seemed to doubt the intelligence. It was in every newspaper, and Emperors congratulated each other upon it. But it was all false, and nobody believes it now; yet according to Mr. Grant's logic, we ought to believe it now, because there once seemed evidence of its truth. It turned out that we were every one deceived, and we acknowledge it with wonder that we had ever been led astray. Would he repress the spirit of advancement? May we not be a little wiser today than we were yesterday? Mr. Grant's argument is nothing but special pleading. It may sometimes take a man forty years to discover the errors of his youth, but you would never think this a reason why those errors should be regarded as truths. Under the influence of early education you often find men believing things contradictory and absurd, which the intelligence of maturer years leads them to abandon. The argument which Mr. Grant uses against me, might be used with equal propriety, and force by Catholics, Mahommedans, and Pagans against those who have been converted to orthodoxy, from those faiths. The wonder is not in general that men remain the slaves of blind faith. When men are told, he that doubted is damned, that he that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him, and that the unbelieving shall be turned into the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; the wonder is that any man has courage and strength to emancipate himself.

It

Because we have no copy of Locke in his handwriting, we do not come to the conclusion that we have no works with his authority: but if the writings, purporting to be his, bore manifest and numerous marks of interpolation and change, and if all the copies had been altered so that no two of them agreed, we would be unable to tell which was Locke's, unless he came back and identified his own. But the cases are not at all parallel. Locke wrote after the age of printing; but for centuries a copy of the Bible could not be taken except in manuscript. was pretended to be discovered by priests, and was in their sole custody for many ages. These priests were not only interested, ignorant, incompetent, but they were avowed and systematic deceivers. Neither is Plato's case parallel. We do not know what Plato wrote. Some may have forged his name. We have none of Plato's acknowledged works with which to compare others, and say which are his, and which are not. Transcribers had not the same temptation to alter Plato; the books are not at all of the same character.

In reference to the first two chapters in Genesis, Mr. Grant told us that the first gives the order, while the second does not. Read the account for yourselves and you will perceive that both profess to give the order.

He avoided the point of what I said in reference to Abraham and Sarah. He says that the cattle were not all dead, but the passage says that all were killed.

He tries to explain away what is said of the destruction of the Amalekites; but it will not do, for the Bible says that "they left not any that breathed." He is not more successful in reference to the statement in one place of God's, and in another of Satan's tempting David to number the people. He says there are different kinds of history, according to the point of view in which events are regarded. Now professedly there is but one method of history in the Bibledivine history; and from its manifest errors and contradictions, we know the book to be an imposition, we know at least that it is not divine.

He told us that Kennicott explains the varieties and contradictions in figures. Kennicott does not, and no one else is able. It is not difficult to see how alterations are made. The copyist sees a contradiction in the statements, and alters them to avoid the contradiction.

In reference to sacrifices it is expressly said, that God did not speak to the fathers when he brought them out of Egypt; and it is impossible attentively to read the words of Micah, without perceiving that God would not be pleased. with their sacrifices at all, but wished them to become moral,-"to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly "with Himself. I have, no doubt, given the same explanation of these passages as Mr. Grant; but I took them on trust. I was ready to believe ministers and commentators. I have, however, become a little wiser. With the punishment of eternal destruction hanging over me, it is not wonderful that I received their explanations. But they do not satisfy me now; indeed, I know of no satisfactory answers. I am well acquainted with the sort of explanations they are in the habit of giving, but they are utterly worthless. There is not a vestige of proof that the Bible is of divine origin.

He says I cannot prove its human origin. But I do if I can prove that it is full of human errors and imperfections, and that it contains false views about almost every subject. This I have done sufficiently already, but will yet do it more fully.

Now he says that the principles of the book are the true question, that they are good, and therefore divine in their origin. I admit that some of its principles are good, but others are as manifestly bad, and could never proceed from a good and perfect God. Even if it came originally from him, of which we have no evidence, it contains so many variations and contradictions, that we have no means of ascertaining how much, or whether any, of the primary revelation has been left. A coat may be mended till not a shred of the original is left, and then it would be foolish to say that it is the product of the original author. When we are asked to account for the fact, that the Bible contains some great truths, we answer that humanity is partly good and partly bad, and so it is with the Bible.

MR. GRANT proceeded to close the debate of the evening:-Mr. Barker has a peculiar way of discussing. He never seems to think it incumbent upon him to give any proofs. He deals in dogmatism, and gives more assertions than reasons. It might not be so convenient for him pause and adduce the

evidence.

He does not deny there are explanations of the alleged contradictions which he brings forward; but he tells us they are arbritrary. Now you have only his word for this. He might have given you some specimens that you might judge for yourselves whether or not they are satisfactory; but he does not seem to care that you should be free-thinkers; he will do all the thinking for you.

He represented me as having said that I would not answer his objections. This was simply a misrepresentation. What I did say was I would give specimens of some of the alleged contradictions and show how they were explained while I would lay down great general principles, which give a solution of many apparent difficulties at once.

Instead of porving his position he talks of Jack-the-giant killer, and Goodytwo-shoes. Is he not Jack-the-giant-killer himself; but he does not very quickly despatch the giants; and when he fancies he has secured them, he finds they are upon him again as strong, and fresh as ever. He should learn that quibbles and evasions are not answers.

He says if we saw the spectacles destroyed we should know that they were nowhere to be found; but when did he see the evidence of the divine origin and authority of the Bible destroyed?

More than once he has told us that after all he has read he finds nothing worthy of the name of evidence, but, like his former faith, "this amounts to nothing." If we take Mr. Barker as our pope we may believe it, not unless.

Let him address himself to the fact that the Bible was written when the

mass of mankind were worshipping wood and stone, and sunk in the deepest debasement and sensuality, and that it contains truths infinitely more sublime and important than have ever been discovered by philosophy in its palmiest days, and he will no longer compare the Bible in its origin to the story books of children.

He says that I employ a deal of special pleading, but he does not show where, nor attempt to prove how.

He was deceived, it appears, by priests and parents, when he was a minister, how shall we know that he is not deceived by some one now.

We cannot, according to his argument, be sure that we have Locke's works unless he rose from the dead to tell us what is genuine and what not. And as we may not expect any such miracle to be wrought, there is not a copy of Locke in existence. How can we discover the writings of any ancient author whatever? As a plain, simple matter of fact, his argument destroys all literature, and introduces us again to the age of barbarism. But he tells us we have more authority for Locke than for the Bible, because Locke wrote since the invention of printing. But the art of printing, instead of correcting, is far more likely to perpetuate mistakes. You print a copy, and all the errors run through that edition. It is far otherwise if a thousand persons write copies; although there may be errors to a greater or less extent in each, you have an opportunity of comparing the transcripts, and of ascertaining with greater certainty the original. Mr. Barker told us that both the first and second chapters of Genesis give the order of creation. Now were it so, nothing could be easier than for him to prove it. He might have quoted the passage; and when he does not, it is evidence that he cannot.

He persists in saying all the cattle in Egypt died; although any one who reads the context of the passage, cannot fail to see that it was all the cattle in the field.

He is as positive in reference to the Amalekites. If an enemy had laid siege to any city in England, and it was said that all the English were slain, no one would imagine that it meant absolutely all the English in the world.

He says that divine history should have been written from God's point of view, and not from onrs. What, should God reveal truth to us as beings omniscient and infinite, and nct as human beings? It is much easier for him to make the assertion than to prove it. He says it is quite manifest that the writers of the Bible saw things in different lights. Who says the contrary? Does inspiration imply that those who write to us did not see things in human lights, and in such a way as to communicate to us the right ideas ?

In reference to the varieties of figures in different passages, he declares that neither Kennicott, nor any one else can prove that they were mere errors of transcription, and do not at all affcet the integrity of the text. But does his assertion disprove anything? Any one who doubts can for themselves examine the papers.

He says that Christians have been in the habit of altering versions to remove contradictions. If so; why did they not alter the figures in the cases which he has mentioned. The very fact that they have allowed the errors to remain, until further research, and greater learning had thrown light upon the matter is evidence of their moral honesty and trustworthiness.

Mr. Barker declares that we take those matters on trust; this is what he says he once did, and he seems to judge of others from himself. But let me tell him that we have quite as much right to think as he has; and that we shall think for ourselves, whether he will or not. He says he is wiser now than he was then. How do we know? Where is the evidence? Such assertions are wide of the mark. If we may judge from his foolish, one-sided answers, we shall not form a very high estimate of his wisdom.

He says that he has read many books on the divine origin of the Bible, but

has found no evidence whatever. Will he bring me one of those books; it would, indeed, be a curiosity. Critics, he says have given no satisfactory explanations of those points; if he has read their criticisms he must know better. To make such an assertion is proof of ignorance or something worse. It was not much better to give such an answer as he did to my argument, that if he had ever believed the Bible upon evidence, that evidence must still exist, and if he had believed it without evidence, no one could place any confidence in his judg

ment.

Having noticed some of this specific objections urged by my opponent I shall occupy the remainder of my time in describing more generally the infidel case of the Bible.

Mr. Barker, like his tutor Paine, attacks the Old Testament Scriptures. To them he makes almost constant appeal. Now if the Old Testament constituted the Bible there would be some honourableness, and fairness in the course pursued. They must know, however, that Judaism was simply the historical introduction to Christianity; and candour should lead them to direct their attention not to the system, which was merely preparatory, but to that which is the full development of the purpose of God in reference to humanity. But we may enquire whether they deal fairly by Judaism, whether they examine it in that light in which all real truth-seekers must examine it, and whether it was fitted for the world in its then circumstances. In order to see whether they form a proper estimate of its nature and value, we must ask them several questions.

1. Are they acquainted with the state of the world civil, social, political, moral, and spiritual when Judaism was given?

2. Have they a full knowledge of those circumstances in Jewish history which are selected for criticism?

3. Have they an insight into its collective and prospective uses in relation to mankind at large, as well as to the Jews as a people?

4. Do they not misrepresent the character of God as revealed in those Scriptures?

5. Can they show that the entire life, and all the actions of Old Testament saints are endorsed by the Bible.

6 Can they prove that it was in those respects in which they did wrong that they were approved of God, that Abraham was called a "friend of God" when he sinned, and so with David, Solomon and others?

7. The infidel never discovers, or never states the respects in which these men were accepted of God.

8. Having made the Bible give evidence of their sins, the infidel wickedly proceeds upon his ignorance, to assume that we may now follow the Old Testament saints in their failings, and be accepted of God.

9. They find our ten commandments in the sins of men under a former dispensation.

10. They do not stay to ask what is Christianity, or what does it teach, but manifestly seek to leave the impression that we are under laws which have long since been repealed.

11. They forget to give, as fair reasoners they ought to do, the perfect development of the religion of the Bible in Christianity.

12. And when they do glance at the New Testament, their grotesque mistakes in reference to its figurative language show clearly the spirit in which they

come.

Their attacking Judaism is a confession that they can only object to what is laid aside, for the gospel of God concerning his Son, who came to bless men, by turning them away from their iniquities; and it is only necessary to show what is the true relationship of the Old Testament to the New, in order for ever to silence their objections. Men will perceive how weak is their cause when they

« PreviousContinue »