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.

FIFTH NIGHT.

The discussion between Mr. Joseph Barker, now an advocate of infidelity, but formerly a minister in the Methodist New Connexion, and the Rev. Brewin Grant, of Birmingham, was resumed in the Odd Fellows' Hall, Halifax, on Tues day evening, 30th January. The attendance was very large, every part of the spacious room being literally crammed. In the absence of both gentlemen who had jointly undertaken the duty of presiding, Mr. Jennings, schoolmaster, was called to the chair. The subject of discussion was the origin of the Bible, Mr. Barker undertaking to prove the following proposition, and his opponent the opposite," That there is no evidence of the supernatural origin or Divine authority of the Bible; that there is evidence abundant of its human origin; and that the doctrine of its supernatural origin and Divine authority is injurious."

The CHAIRMAN said he had been induced to occupy the chair to-night, as circumstances had arisen to prevent either of the gentlemen who had undertaken that duty from being present. Coming after two such gentlemen as Mr. Stansfeld and Mr. Wavell, he was placed in an exceedingly difficult position; but he had only to request that to-night they would listen to the dicussion with

No. 10, Vol. 1.

that calmness and patience they had shown on previous occasions. If they did so, the duties of the chairman would be very easy. He would only remind them that no signs of approbation would be allowed, as they might see by the placards on the walls of the room.

Mr. BARKER, in re-opening the discussion, commenced by observing that he had shown that there was not only no evidence of the Divine authority of the Bible, but that there could be no such evidence. Having briefly recapitulated his former statements, he said he should proceed to show that many of the laws of the Bible were bad, that many of them were injurious, and that the best of them formed no perfect rule of life. He would also show that portions of the New Testament were as faulty as the faultiest portions of the Old Testament; and that nowhere was there presented to them a perfect example, or a perfect rule of virtue. First, however, he would answer a few questions put by his opponent. Mr. Grant had desired him to name any Christian sects which taught that God really existed in a human form, and that man was made in the shape of God. Well, that was the belief of the Swedenborgians and the Latter-Day Saints. Mr. Grant had challenged him to quote a passage in the Bible bidding him offer up sheep and oxen to God. Now if Mr. Grant could quote a passage from his (Mr. Barker's) writings, proving that he stated there was such a passage in the Bible, he could produce it. But there was no such passage i in his writings. The passage Mr. Grant read only argued that those who set forth the Bible as our guide, without distinction or exceptions of parts, as William Cooke did, made all its commands alike binding, and that in that case we had a twomouthed guide, a double-tongued directory, one binding us to offer goats, and the other ourselves as sacrifices to God. Mr. Grant contended that those forms of expression in the Bible, speaking of God as having a human form, did not imply any limitation. The fact of the matter, however, was that when those forms of expression prevailed, men thought God existed like a human being keeping up his bodily strength by eating and drinking, as they themselves did, The names of our days, Sunday, Monday, &c., were proofs that our ancestors with whom those names originated, believed in the sun and moon as Gods, and dedicated those days t to their worship. Then a person was called a lunatic, because he was supposed to be moon-struck; or a maniac, because he was supposed to be possessed of the spirit of a dead man, or to have been driven mad by the influence of the manes or departed spirits And so our theological terms proved that those with whom they originated believed God to be like man, and subject to the same limitations as man. That the early Bible writers believed in such a God was plain from the Bible, as it was from the writings of Old Greek and Latin Poets, that they or their ancestors believed in such gods also. The same principles of criticism that would enable Mr. Grant to prove the Bible representations of God consistent with truth, would enable them to do the same with regard to pagan representations of the deity. Mr. Barker then went on to observe that the first chapter of Genesis if properly translated, should commence "In the beginning the gods created the heavens and the earth," in accordance with the passage, "Let us make man in our own image;', and that the authors of the first part of that book were evidently believers in several gods. He then quoted from the writings of Cicero, the great Roman philosopher and statesman, to show that his notions of the duty of man were superior to those of any Bible worthy his opponent could mention. He also quoted from William Penn's book, "No Cross, No Crown", sketches of the lives of several pagan philosophers, presenting, in his (Mr. Barker's opinion, a favourable contrast to the wicked careers of the principal Bible characters, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, &c.

Mr. GRANT said his opponent declared he had proved that the Bible could

all

not be divine. Now, he was to do that, but he had not done so. They would see whether the Bible spoke of man as righteous, and held up to their admiration and imitation those who were guilty of the greatest crimes and vices. Mr. Barker had endeavoured to explain a few usages of words, but he had better understand them before he talked about them. He had said that maniac had its derivations from manes, but it came from a Greek word signifying to rage. He had also begun to translate the Bible, and in the first chapter of Genesis, verse 1st, he made God into gods; but he must allow other people to translate, and any body who understood it would laugh at him. Therefore, he would allow him that. Mr. Barker then came to his Grecian and Roman philosophers, and he gave a few isolated statements, some beautiful and others bad. He quoted Cicero to show that they should be just, and give every one his due. But what did he mean by free? Did he mean the freeing of his own slaves? or did he mean the abandoning of his own wife? Mr. Barker had given them three or four great warriors, Artaxerxes, Alexander the great, and others; but, supposing their deeds had been recorded in the Bible, instead of being good men they would have been great butchers. But because they were out of the Bible he could admire the magnanimity of men, whose whole work was to trample down nations! Their business now was to enquire how far were general amongst those men. In his "Christianity triumphant," Mr. Barker, said that, according to Thucydides, thousands of Lacedæmonian slaves about the streets of Sparta had been promised their freedom, but they had been cruelly destroyed. Then again, Mr. Barker said the laws of Sparta allowed men to murder their slaves, and that such horrible barbarities were looked upon as common things, and scarcely censured by the philosophical moralists. Mr. Barker also said in the same book that it was a maxim of Plato, that no friendship could exist between the master and his slave; and that he (Mr Barker.) did not know an instance, in which the philosophers or moralists undertook to free the slaves. And if Mr. Barker could not recollect it then, could he recollect it now? Mr. Grant continued to quote from the same work, in reference to the gladiatorial murders allowed to pass without reproof by the greatest of the pagan philosophers and moralists, and the shameful laws relating to women! Now Mr. Barker had neither proved that the principles he (Mr. Grant) had laid down as to the 1st and 2nd chapters of Genesis, were not sustained by Christianity, nor that they were to be found in any book of human production. Last night he escaped from Bible principles by turning off to pursue his history of Bible characters. Mr. Barker had said that those characters were approved of and put up for imitation, but he had failed to adduce any case proving his assertion. And if this was so, his whole tirade on Bible history was a mere waste of time in reciting facts as much for our warning as they were for our imitation. The career of Abraham was given in the Bible, not that we should copy what was bad in his life, but that we might imitate him in his faithfulness to God, and in his good works. We were not to follow him in lying, though Mr. Barker affirmed that we were, because all liars were threatened with eternal punishment in the New Testament. Mr. Grant then observed that it was David in his, official, public, royal capacity, not David in his moral character, that was spoken of in the Kings and Chronicles. Every one knew that a man might be a good sove, reign in reference to public laws, a good tradesman in carrying on business wisely, although he had private failings of the grossest kind. For instance, who would say that Nelson was not a good admiral, because he preferred living with a lady that was not his wife? Who would say that the principles of his patriot

ism

thee the principles of his virtue? And the same principle would apply to

of King Solomon. He quoted from Mr. Barker's discussion with Dr. Berg, the language of the former affirming that the lives of the Old Testament saints were given that they might be copied by Christians, unfit as they were to

be examples to mankind, and maintained that his opponent was not justified in using that language.

MR. BARKER replied to the principle upon which Mr. Grant explained the conduct of David, Solomon, and others, observing that he could not find in the Bible a passage distinguishing one set of actions for the prophets and patriarchs, and another for us. In their bloodiest deeds they were represented as acting under the command of God; in telling lies they were acting under the command of God, as was the case with Samuel when he went, under a false pretence, to anoint David. Abraham was said to have obeyed the voice of God, to have kept his statutes, his judgments and his laws; and therefore God's laws did not forbid lying, incest, bigamy, and all the other abominations of which Abraham was guilty. After repeating his former scandalous assertions respecting Abraham, Jacob, and other Bible worthies, Mr. Barker again quoted from Cicero, in further proof of the moral worth of that great philosopher, and from Peun, the cases of several pagan women, whose lives he maintained, were far more blameless than the lives of Sarah, Rebecca, and other prominent female characters in the Old Testament.

He

MR. GRANT observed that his opponent said that Cicero told them that the rights of citizens should be equal. He meant the rights of aristocrats should be equal, not those of others, who were not citizens—the slaves and the populace. If Mr. Barker could not understand that, he had better read a little more. (Mr. G.) had already shown that the books of the Kings and Chronicles did not judge of the private characters of kings and rulers, but only of them in royal and official capacity. He then observed that there was a moral foundation for the ceremonial laws, and that, therefore, though honouring kings for supporting the religion of the Bible, they condemned immorality in kings and in the people at large. The morality of Judaism was to be understood mainly in the prophets, though in the civil laws of the Jews there were better regulations of morality and justice, than ever existed in any heathen nations, and in many respects, better than any to be found in the nations of the civilised world at the present day. He then entered into an elaborate argument explanatory of these princi*ples, and concluded by giving a long list of texts in support of what he had advanced.

MR. BARKER said his opponent had given them an elaborate proof of what he (Mr. Barker) had stated over and over again, namely, that the prophets taught a doctrine directly contrary to that taught in the historical writings of the Bible, from which he previously quoted. Mr. Grant's elaborate proof, therefore, was altogether uncalled for. He proved what had never been denied, and failed to prove the point he should have endeavoured to prove-that in those historical books said to be written by God, the bad characters, who lied, stole, murdered, and concealed their murders by the greatest villainy and the grossest frauds, who married vast numbers of wives, and had numerous concubines, and, in addition, were guilty of all conceivable abominations-that these parties were ever once blamed for their immoral conduct, except in the case of David, after he had married the wife of Uriah. Mr. Barker likewise stated that most of the foul deeds recorded in the Bible, were represented as having been perpetrated by command of God; and argued that such a jumble of inconsistencies and contradictions as the Bible was proved to be, could not have come from one enlightened man, or a number of enlightened men, much less from an all wise God.

Mr. GRANT in concluding this evening's discussion, remarked that the prophets taught a doctrine supplementary to that of the book of Kings, and the

book of Chronicles, instead of a contradictory doctrine, as Mr. Barker answered his (Mr. Grant's) arguments and clear statements, and impregnable principles, by calling it an elaborate proof. Now he meant it to be an elaborate proof, and Mr. Barker ought to have given an elaborate refutation. But he could nothis whole system was annihilated by that elaborate proof. Mr. Grant then quoted from Christianity Triumphant," Mr. Barker's former opinions as to the adaptability of Christianity to regenerate the world. In that work Mr. Barker said he did not undertake to prove that Christianity would cure the evils of society, whether men reduced it into practice or not, nor did he undertake to prove that the mere profession of Christianity would make men good and happy; but that, if it were reduced to practice amongst mankind it would cure the evils of society and make mankind happy. Mr. Grant quoted other extracts from Mr. Barker's writings, and exposed his inconsistency, particularly in his declaration that his "Christianity triumphant" was written under the influence of priests.

The discussion was adjourned till Wednesday evening.

THE BIBLE THE CHILDREN'S FRIEND.
By Joseph Barker in 1848.

DEAR CHILDREN,

Your teachers want you to learn to read, that you may be able to read your Bibles; and I hope you will please your teachers, by learning as fast as you can. There is no book like the Bible, and they are poorly off that cannot read it. The Bible is the Book of God, and he has written it to make us good and happy. We owe a great deal to the Bible, more than some of you would think. If it had not been for the Bible we should have had no Chapels nor Sunday Schools; we should have had no houses very likely to live in, nor any clothes to wear. Before the Bible came into England, the people here were savages; and in those countries where they have no Bibles, they are savages yet; and if it had not been for God giving us the Bible, all the world would have been miserable savages together. And CHILDREN have as much reason to be thankful to God for the Bible, as any body; for it has always proved itself the friend of Children.

Before the Bible was brought hither, they used to worship false gods in this country, and kill and offer little children to them in sacrifice: but the Bible has taught us to worship the God of Heaven, and to keep our little children alive. In some places they throw their little children into a great water, where there are sharks and alligators; and the helpless babes are torn to pieces by those savage monsters and in other places they throw them out into the fields, if any thing be the matter with them, and leave them to weep and die; but where people are taught to read and obey the Bible, they never treat their little ones so. In some countries most of the people are slaves, and there children are brought up to be used worse than brutes. Sometimes the poor little things are torn_from_their mothers and sold, and sometimes their mothers are worked or flogged to death. But there are no slaves in England; the Bible has done away with slavery here. If a little slave were to jump into a ship and come to England, he would be free directly; and if all the people that like to have men slaves were come to fetch him, the laws would not let them touch him here.

There would then be no drunken fathers, nor any extravagant and careless mothers. All children would be sent to school, or else taught to read or write at home; and none would be hurt with hard work, and none would be short of meat. If all persons were to read their Bibles, and do as their Bibles tell them;