so sweeping a mode of improving the picturesque. Besides, I suppose you make an exception in favour of yourself, otherwise the picturesque would vanish just when it was brought to perfection.-I am often inclined to say, with Paley, though I remember well having sometimes felt as you do,- It is a happy world after all.' I admit, however, that a buoyant, cheerful, habitual conviction of this will depend on the constitution of the mind, and even vary with the same mind in its different moods. But I am sure it may be a really happy world, whatever its sorrows, to any one who will view it as he ought."

"I wish you could teach me the art."

66 It is," said I, "to exercise the hope and faith of a Christian; humbly to regard this life-as what it is a scene of discipline and schooling:-a pilgrimage to a better. It is an old remedy, but it has been often tried; and to millions of our race has made this world more than tolerable, and death tranquil, nay, triumphant. Do you remember Schiller's 'Walk among the Linden Trees ?'"' "Perfectly well."

เ

เ

"Do you not remember how the two youths differ in their estimate of the beautiful in nature? Is it possible, says Edwin, you can thus turn from the cup of joy sparkling and overflowing as it is?'-Yes,' said Wollmar, when " one finds a spider in it; and why not? In your eyes, to be sure, Nature decks ❝herself out like a rosy-cheeked maiden on her bridal-day. To me she appears an old withered beldame, with sunken eyes, furrowed cheeks, and artificial ornaments in her hair. How she seems to admire herself in this her Sunday finery! 'But it is the same worn and ancient garment, put off and on some hundreds of 'thousands of times.' But how natural is the explanation of all given at the beautiful close of the dialogue! 'Here', said the jocund Edwin, 'I first met my Juliet'; and it was under these linden trees,' says Wollmar, 'that I lost my Laura.' It was their mood of mind, and not the outward world, that made all the difference. All nature, innocent thing! must consent to take her hue from it. You have, I fear, lost your Laura"-simply alluding to his early faith; or shall I suppose from your present mood, that you have just met with your Juliet ?" I spoke, of course, of his philosophy.

66

He was looking out of the window; but on my turning my gaze towards him, I saw such a look of peculiar anguish, that I felt I had inadvertently touched a terrible chord indeed. I turned the conversation hastily, by remarking (almost without thinking of what I said) on the beautiful contrast between the light blue of the sky and the green of the lawn and trees; and proceeded to remark on the degree in which the mere organic er sensational pleasures of vision formed an ingredient in the pleasurable associations of the complex "beautiful."

He gradually resumed conversation; and we discussed the subject of the "beautiful" for some time. Yet I know not how it was, nor can I trace the steps by which we deviated,-only that Rousseau's summerday dreams on the Lake of Bienne was a link in the chain,-we somehow soon found ourselves on the brink of the great controversy respecting the "Origin of evil." I have read many books on that subject," said I; "but I intend to read no more; and I should think you have had enough of them."

66

Why, yes," said he, laughing; "whatever philosophers may have thought of the origin of evil, it is a great aggravation of it to read their speculations. The best thing I know on the subject--and it exhausts it-is half a dozen lines in 'Robinson Crusoe.'"

"Robinson Crusoe!" said I.

"Certainly," he replied: "do you not remember that when he caught his man Friday, the intuitional consciousness'-the 'insight'--the 'inward revelation' of that worthy savage not being found quite so perfect as Mr. Parker would fancy, Robinson proceeds to indoctrinate him in the mysteries of theology? Friday is much puzzled, as many more learned savages have been before him, to find that the infinite power, wisdom, and goodness of God had made everything very good

and that good it would have continued had it not been for the opposition of the devil. Why God not kill debbil?' asks poor Friday. On which, says Robinson 'though I was a very old man, I found that I was but a young doctor in divinity.' Ah! if all doctors in divinity had been equally candid, the treatises on that dread subject would not have been quite so voluminous; for we close them all alike, with the unavailing question, 'Why God not kill debbil ?' "'

Observing his tendency to gravitate towards the abyss, I at last said to him, "I think, if I were you, having decided that there is no religious truth to be found, I should dismiss the subject from my thoughts altogether. Do as the Indian did, who struggled as long as he could to right his canoe when he found he was in the stream of Niagara; but finding his efforts unavailing, sat himself down with his arms folded, and went down the falls without stirring a muscle. Let us talk no more on the subject. Why should you perplex yourself, as you apparently do, about a thing so hopeless to be found out as truth? What is truth ?" said Pilate; and, as Bacon says, 'he would not wait for an answer.' It was a question to which, most probably, he, like you, thought no answer could be given. If I were you I should do the same. Why perplex yourself to no

purpose.

"I should answer," said he, "as Solon did when asked why he grieved for his son, seeing all grief was unavailing? 'It is for that very reason that I grieve,' was the reply. And in like manner I dwell on the impossibility of discovering truth because it is impossible."

I acknowledged that it was a sufficient reason, and that it went to account in some degree for a fact I had remarked in the few sceptics I had come acrossgenuine or otherwise,-that they seemed less capable of reposing in their professed convictions than any one else: it is of no avail, they say, to reason on such subjects; and yet they are perpetually reasoning! They will neither rest themselves nor let any one else rest. He confessed it, and said, "The state of mind is very much as you have described it; and you have described it so exactly, that I almost think you, my dear uncle, must know the heart of a sceptic, and have been one yourself some time or other!"

We wound up the morning, which was beautiful, by taking a ride in the course of which I was amused with an instance of the sensitiveness with which Harrington's cultivated mind recoiled from the grossness of vulgar and ignorant infidelity. We called at the cottage of a little farmer, a tenant of his, somewhat notorious both for profanity and sensuality. Presuming, I suppose, on his young landlord's suspected heterodoxy, and thinking perhaps to curry favour with him, he ventured (I know not what led to it) to indulge in some stupid joke about the leigon and the herd of swine. "Sir," said he, scratching his head, "the devil, I reckon, must have been a more clever fellow than I thought, to make two thousand hogs go down a steep place into the sea-it is hard enough even to make them go where they will, and almost impossible to make them go where they won't."

"The devil, my good friend," said Harrington very gravely, "is a very clever fellow, and I hope you do not for a moment intend to compare yourself with him. As to the supposed miracle, it would, no doubt, be hard to say which were most to be pitied, the devils in the swine, or the swine with the devils in them; but has it never struck you that the whole may be an allegorical representation of the miserable and destructive effects of the union of the two vices of sensuality and profanity? They also (if all tales be true) lead to a steep place, but I have never heard it ends in the water. Now," he continued, "I dare say you would laugh at the story which the Roman Catholics tell of St. Anthony'; namely, that "he preached to pigs !'-yet it has had a very sound allegorical interpreta tion; we are told that it meant merely that he preached to country farmers, which, you see, is no more than I have been doing.

It was one of the many things which made me a sceptic as to whether he was

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 say that they were nowhere, I should have been everywhere, but this would not be at all necessary if we had seen the spectacles destroyed.

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.

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. It 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