صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

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.

[blocks in formation]

THE DISCUSSION AT HALIFAX BETWEEN THE

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

SEVENTH NIGHT.

There was a great decrease in the attendance to-night, many of the seats in the orchestra and front of the body of the hall being vacant. Mr. Jennings occupied the chair.

Mr. BARKER said that Mr. Grant had told them that Emanuel Swedenborg did not get his idea that God existed in a human form from the Bible. But that was more than Mr. Grant could know. The doctrine was there, and no consistent believer in the Bible ought to reject it. One word more with regard to paganism. He no more believed in the perfection of paganism than in that of Judaism or Christianity. In pagan books we had imperfections, indecencies, and in them there was no perfect example, and no perfect rule of morals: but in pagan books we had sentiments beautiful and lofty, most humane, pure and benevolent, and many noble examples. We had pagan writings, which in some respects excelled all the best portions of the Bible, but all were imperfect and none were to be taken as absolute authorities. The proper way to use them, then, was to take the good and leave the bad. He kept himself free, receiving no book as his authority, but believing in progress. În many things we were far a-head of the ancients, but we were daily getting further a-head. Infinite

No. 13, Vol. 1.

progress had been made in the past, and we had the prospect of infinite progress before us in the future. To charge the secularists with hating the Bible, was foolish; it was only the notion of its Divine authority they hated. As Mr. Grant said, when Cicero spoke of the people, he did not mean all the population. The Romans did not admit conquered people to all the rights of citizenship at once, but they gradually kept extending such rights to them. Of course Roman advocates of democracy could not proclaim their just and liberal laws and get them into operation in one day. But that the English, French, and other nations had got their ideas of government from Rome, was certain. He observed that many of the statements in "Christianity Triumphant," were roneous, and quoted from and commented upon that work, in order to prove that such was the case. Then followed a long string of quotations from Leviti cus and other books of Moses, of laws which Mr. Barker considered both unjust and cruel, because they gave power to the Israelites to carry on slavery in its worst form, and to visit with the punishment of death comparatively minor offences that would have been better dealt with by less severe penalties.

er

Mr. GRANT said he believed there was no set of laws so good as were the laws of Moses, for the Jews under the circumstances in which they were placed. Mr. Barker perpetually transferred his notions from Judaism to the Bible, as though Judaism meant the Bible, whereas the laws of the Jews were national laws for a people under particular circumstances, and were not imposed on other people in the world. Mr. Barker declared that there were many good any things in heathen books, but that they were all imperfect. He, however, had used them to answer his (Mr. G's) first positive argument for the Bible-that in the first two chapters of Genesis there were better, higher, holier, nobler principles than were to be found in any other books in the world; and that the very circumstance of the Bible teaching such principles as were not taught nor attained to by any human writer, was proof that it came from a supernatural source. Mr. Barker, instead of disproving it, or finding anything equal to it first quoted and then bungled heathen writers. In Cicero could not be found those principles of liberty laid down in the first chapter of Genesis. Mr. B. admitted that Cicero only meant a few when referring to the people; therefore his (Mr. G's) statement was true, that Tom Paine could not get his "Rights of Man" from anywhere but the Bible. Mr. Barker attempted to answer some quotations from "Christianity Triumphant," but instead of answering those statements, he answered statements chosen himself. All the quotations he (Mr. G.) took, he took himself, and he wanted Mr. Barker to answer them. Mr. Grant quoting from "The Christian," one of Mr. Barker's works, showed that Mr. Barker, from his seventeeth to his fortieth year, regarded the Bible as a standard of truth and duty, of right and wrong; and during that time he studied it attentively and carefully, so that there was scarcely any passage on any great subject, which had not been frequently pondered in his mind. In the same work, Mr. Barker also stated that the nations where the Bible was accepted and most read and studied, were the wisest, best, and happiest nations. These quotations Mr. Grant followed up by others from Mr. Barker's tracts on true religion. There he said the laws of Moses were generally divided into three kinds-the moral law of the ten commandments, the political law, and the ceremonial law. Referring to the character of those laws, Mr. Barker said that regard for the poor and friendless ran through them; that a master was forbidden, in the most solemn nanner, to deprive the hireling of his wages, or put him to inconvenience by neglecting to pay him at the proper time; and that the laws as to slavery were so strict, that it was with great difficulty it could be continued, and it appeared to have died away uuder the rule of Moses. Mr. Grant then

put Mr. Barker into the Bible and showed his charges.

witness-box, examined him as a witness against the evidence to be insufficient to substantiate his

Mr. BARKER said that in scarcely one single instance Mr. Grant represented him truthfully. He stated that he (Mr. B.) said he could produce a thousand pagans who believed in one God, whereas his assertion was that he could quote a thousand passages from pagan authority, teaching the doctrine of the unity of God. He used to think his character had been formed to a great extent by the Bible, but whilst he believed that some portions of the Bible had a good effect upon him, still others had a bad effect. While using the Bible he did not know what it would be to live without considering that book as of divine origin. Now, however, he could say that he had lived for some years as an unbeliever, and he could confidently assert that during that time he had been happier than ever he was before. The Bible laws as to slavery, gave one people possession of another for ever, and could that be tolerated, whatever might be said in its justification? He did not consider the Bible as a book totally bad: it could hardly be expected that amongst so much none would be good; and as in California gold was found among the rocks, so were found gems amongst the continent of mud of the old Testament. All was not truth; much was error He then quoted laws from the Old Testament, and contended that those laws were binding upon Christians of the present day, as they were ordered to do what those who sat in the seat of Moses bade them. It was blasphemous for Christians to attribute such laws to God; for could it be supposed that a perfect being would order such unjust punishments as those of putting men to death for comparatively trivial offences? Mr. Grant had boasted much of the ten commandments but there was not one word said against slavery, and they left men, as to their duty, in doubt on a thousand points of vast importance. Then, the directions about the tabernacle, the animals to be used for food and those not to be so used, were equally bad and indicative of human origin. He concluded by remarking that amongst the Jewish laws, some were not very faulty but none were so good as to give us reasons to think they had come from God.

Mr. GRANT said it seemed to him very weak on the part of his opponent to go into the medical, sanitary, and other regulations of the Israelites, instead of examining their laws to see what was the condition of the people, and whether those laws were or were not suited to that condition. Mr. Barker still blundered on the ignorant assumption that those laws were binding upon Christians, arguing that we ought to eat this thing and not that, as those laws commanded, though he was told that the kingdom of God came not by eating or drinking, and that Peter was instructed to call nothing common or unclean. Mr. Grant then proceeded with his general argument in reference to the Bible. Mr, Barker had found fault with him for stating that he could produce one thousand instances of pagans who believed in the unity of God. At all events he said he could give a thousand quotations, and if he quoted a thousand authors he suppposed he would quote a thousand cases. He then noticed Mr. Barker's falsifications of the meaning of the passages of the New Testament writings wuoted by him as prophecies that had been falsified. The Jews said Mr. Grant, had been punished for their wickedness by God, as it was predicted that they would be punished, and as a man would punish his wife should she prove unfaithful to him. He then pointed out some of the beauties of the Bible, and argued that there was no book that gave loftier ideas of the Divine Being.

Mr. BARKER said it was unnecessary for him to repeat the passages from the gospels given last night. Mr. Grant's explanation, however, had not removed

the difficulty, for all those things were done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, &c. He was fully aware that Christians did not believe them to be prophecies, but they did until infidels had exposed the fraud so fully that they could not do it longer. He then observed that Professor Norton, Mr. Grant's favourite author, was a man that did not believe in the divine authority of the gospels or of the Old Testament, and quoted from "Stewart's canon of the Old Testament," Norton's opinion that the Pentateuch could never have been written by Moses, because it contained accounts of events which did not happen till after his time, and that the books of Joshua and Judges contained extravagant fables and false prodigies. This was Mr. Grant's reliable authority. If Mr. Grant believed Norton to be such, he was of his (Mr. B's) opinion; and if he did not he cheated them.

Mr. GRANT concluded the debate. He said he took Norton as a critic upon the safe and certain transmissions of the gospels to us, because he gave historical proofs and reasons, and because in what he wrote he showed he had given reasons, and because in what he wrote he showed he had given careful research to the subject. Mr. Barker quoted Norton's opinion of the books of Moses, not of the gospels, and those opinions were not of the origin of those books, but of their contents, and were perhaps the same as his opinions of the contents of the gospels. Mr. Grant commented at some length on the unfairness which his opponent had shown, in censuring the acts of Bible characters. He concluded by another allusion to the case of Solomon, showing that his wisdom in governing was given him by God in answer to his prayer, and arguing that he was represented as the wisest man only in his kingly capacity, and without any reference to his moral character.

DIFFERENT DISPENSATIONS-UNCHANGEABLENESS OF GOD.

It is often objected by infidels ;-"If God was the author both of the Jewish religion and the Christian religion, and if the Christian religion be different from the Jewish,-if God commanded something to the Jews, which he forbids to Christians, God must be changeable."

Ans. The religion of Christ differs very considerably from the religion of the Jews, and yet God might be the author of both without being changeable. God is the author both of the sun and moon, and the sun and moon differ widely from one another, and yet it does not follow that God is changeable. He made the sun and moon for different purposes: the sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the night, and they are both well adapted to their purposes. So with the religion of the Jews, and the religion of Christ. The religion of the Jews was like the moon, or like the morning star, adapted exactly to its place and time; but not adapted for the whole world, or for all times. The religion of Christ is the sun, intended to bring in the full light of day, and adapted to all ages, and to all climes.

2. Again, the different dispensations of religion which God, at different ages of the world, has given to mankind, appear to me a proof of his unchangeableness. A Being that is unchangeable, must vary his conduct according as times and circumstances vary. If a doctor be unchangeably skilful, and unchangeably desirous to cure his patient, he will vary his prescriptions as the disease of his patient varies. The same skill and the same desire to cure his patient, which made him at first give purging medicines, will cause him, when the fever or inflammation is past, to prescribe strengthening and refreshing medicines. The very same unchanging skill, and the same unchanging care for his

patient, which led him, at first, to direct him to lie quiet in bed, will cause him, when his patient is recovering, to order him to go out, and exercise himself a little in the fresh air. So with a father: if he hath an unchanging affection for his son, he will vary his conduct towards him according to his years. At first, he will suffer him to hang upon his mother's breast, and feed upon that milk which God has provided for him; but when the boy grows stronger, he must have other food. At first, the father carries him in his arms, but afterwards he holds him by the hand and lets him walk, and in course of time allows him to run at large, supported and guided only by himself. As he grows stronger, his father employs him, first in easy labours, then in harder; one while he sends him to school, and then again he puts him apprentice; and last of all, he sets him free from his youthful servitude, and allows him to take his place with men. So it is with the schoolmaster: if he be a skilful and faithful teacher, and unchanging in his skill and fidelity, he will change his course of proceeding towards his children continually. He will first drill the scholar in the alphabet, then he may give him a "Reading made Easy," then a spelling-book, and as the scholar advances in years and learning, he will continue to change his lessons and his books. A very ignorant person might exclaim, as he looks on these things, "What changeable people these are; they do not keep to the same thing a single day." But a person of understanding would perceive that what the foolish man regarded as a proof of changeableness was, in truth, a proof that the parties remained the same. Just so with respect to God. God is a physician, mankind are his patients. God loves mankind, and desires their spiritual health; he knows exactly what is needful for our cure, from first to last, and in his love and knowledge he is unchangeable. What sort of conduct, then, are we to look for from him? Are we to expect that he will give his patients the same unvarying medicine from first to last, without any respect to the health of his patients? If he should do that, it would be a proof either that he had lost his skill, or that he no longer wished to cure his patients. In a word, it would be a proof that he had changed, and that either his views or his affections were very different from what they had been before. If we have understanding, we shall expect to see God altering his prescriptions, as the changing state of man's health requires; and this perpetual change in his treatment of afflicted humanity, we shall regard as a proof that in his wisdom and in his love of the human family, the Great Physician is unchangeable. God is a parent, we are his children, and God is unchangeably attached to his children, and invariably seeks their highest happiness. What course shall we expect his unchanging wisdom and goodness to pursue? Will he treat mankind in one unvarying way from first to last? By no means. While the human race is in its infancy, he will exercise their feeble powers with childlike labours, giving them little tasks and easy ones, such as their childish state requires. Thus did God deal with the the first generations of men; he laid few burdens upon them, and those but light ones. The laws he gave to the Patriarchs were very few and far from strict, but they were as many and as strict as in those rude and infant ages could be of service to mankind. It was necessary that some laws should be given thus early, and it was necessary that those laws should not be many or severe, and the kindness and wisdom of our Father appointed it so. But after a number of generations had passed away, men became intellectually, and morally stronger; they were capable of greater exercises, and they needed them; and God, always the same affectionate Father, gave them more work. He gave the law by Moses, and accompanied the law with fuller revelations of his character and providence. Under this new dispensation the human family rose still higher, and gathered more inward strength, and became prepared for greater and better things; and it was then that God, in the same unchanged and unchangeable wisdom and benevolence, abolished former systems, and gave a full and

« السابقةمتابعة »