ascertain the truth. Those who know how the Jews numbered things will easily perceive how the mistake took place. And all will see that they could not be the result of the unfaithfulness of translators, for they could not fail to see the errors, yet did not correct them, but rather than deviate from the text, they would wait for further light. Mr. Barker gave us some passages in reference to sacrifices, with the assertion, that they are contradictory. Now any oue who observes the common use of language, will easily perceive that they are quite consistent. How often do people say, That was not the thing I wanted, when they mean not the only thing. Now God could not be satisfied with sacrifice alone, he required obedience. He told them he could not accept their sacrifices, unless they were made from a principle that would lead them to fulfil all his other commands. Mr. Barker gave the same explanation once, does he show any good reason why he has abandoned it. Were he sincerely seeking your enlightenment, he would give you the answer without difficulty. Many of the cases which he has adduced, and which I shall not further notice in this speech, arise from ignorance of the power of language, and the rules and principles of interpretation. I beg especially now to call Mr. Barker's attention to the second proposition in the topic for debate. It is that "we have evidence in abundance of the human origin of the Bible." The authors and the age in which they lived should be perfectly familiar to him, to enable him to make this assertion with truth. But is it so? There was a meeting at Salem, U. S., at which Mr. B. presided, calling itself a Bible convention, to settle the question. The first resolution says, "The origin of the Bible is wrapped in darkness, we know neither when nor by whom the books were written." And Mr. B. in support of the resolution, says, "For myself this is strictly true; I know neither when the books were written nor by whom they were written." Not very promising, certainly. When ignorance is associated with modesty, it can be excused, but when it talks in tones of the utmost arrogance and dogmatism, it deserves the severest reprobation. When he talks so confidently of the human origin of the Bible, we would scarcely expect that he should know nothing about it. He may declare that analogy teaches us that all books are human in their origin; but this is a mere begging the question. He would need to show that there is nothing in these books which the men could not write of themselves. A man might now write like a Deist, and adopt bible principles; but we know the times, and remember whence he stole his feathers. If he should write like an English Infidel among Greek philosophers, it might be more extraordinary; but how will he account for men circumstanced as the prophets and apostles were, giving utterance to such truths as we find in the Bible. Does Mr. Barker know all history? He does not, and confesses that he cannot from history prove his assertion. Analogy equally fails him. No one thinks of denying that God wrote through human media. Paul's epistles bear the mark of his own intellect, so do the writings of Isaiah, and John but we are not in quest of the medium, but of the origin of these revelations. In respect of their medium there is certainly abundance of evidence that they were human. But this is no proof that the principles which they taught, and the acts which they announced were of human origin. The fact that human secretaries or penmen were employed is not opposed to the fact that the Holy Ghost guid ed their thoughts, and was the author of the principles which they teach. And even the occasional mistakes, and mis-spelling of such penmen, were they proved, would no more militate against the divine origin of the book than the mistakes of a letter which you indite, would prove that you are not the author of it. Mr. B. speaks of printer's blunders, this also has nothing to do with the origin of the book. Human transmission is not divine origin. The science of bibical criticism has settled the canon of scripture with the greatest precision; and the preservation of an immense number of early manuscripts, and versions has enabled diligent students to ascertain the truth. In the Salem speech, Mr. Barker parades the omission of a not from one of the commandments. But this has to do only with the question of transmission, not of origin. Neither Bacon nor Locke translated their works from Latin into English. In all of them there may be printer's mistakes, and of all of them there may be different versions, but who would think of saying that on this account it is impossible now to ascertain what Locke and Bacon wrote, and that we have no works with their aud thority. But it is alleged that the badness of the book is proof of human origin. This assertion may be evidence of bad moral taste, but admitting it to be true, what becomes of the boasted morality of human nature without a revelation? Mr. Barker's statement that there is proof of the human origin of the Bible supposes, 1st, that he is well acquainted with the authors and their times; 2nd,, that he can find a human book that will bear comparison with the Bible; 3rd., that he can prove that the human mind unaided is capable of discovering such truths as the Bible reveals; 4th, he should remember that errors of transcrip tion, and of printing have to do with the transmission, but not with the origin of the book. The third part of Mr. Barker's proposition is that the belief of the supernatural origin and divine authority of the Bible is injurious in its tendency. He ought to state the injuries it inflicts. He must prove that any evils he may mention, follow as a logical necessity, and do not simply result from misunder standing. If we only judge from the curious specimens of alleged contradictions, we may not form a very high opinion of the strength of mind of those who reject the Bible, and their candour in examining moral evidence. The injuries that flow from a fanatical disposition must not be placed to the account of the Bible. Thousands who do believe after calm reflection, sustain no injury whatever from their faith; while views which many profess to take from that book are the offspring of their own perverted imagination. The opponent of the Bible has to begin with an impossibility, to prove that there is no evidence of the divine origin and authority of the Bible, and in this to show that reason itself is a failure, since it for twenty four years deceived him in the belief that there was abundant evidence of its divine origin; and still deludes thousands who have greater pretensions, though they make less. Having proved this impossibility by destroying the validity of the human understanding; he has secondly, to prove that the first inquiry was unnecessary, because it is abundantly settled by the second; and he has to prove his third proposition, the mischief resulting from the doctrine, by discovering the connection both of cause and effect, and the logical sequence between certain evils, and the poctrine of the divine authority of the Bible. He has twelve questions to answer respecting one view, and fourteen suppositions to justify respecting another; five points to attend to respecting his second. He will be good enough to give proofs instead of assertions. The concluding speeches of the first night, with the report of second night's debate in our next, LIVE WHILE YOU LIVE. "Live while you live," the Epicure would say T'enjoy the pleasures of the passing day. "Live while you live," the Christian preacher cries, And spend for God each moment as it flies; Lord, in my mind let both united be, I live in pleasure while I live to thee. Doddrigde. The Rev. J. H. Rutherford delivered two lectures here last week to large and very attentive audiences, on "The Enemies of the Bible," and "Infidel objections to Christianity." As usual he invited discussion at the close, but no person was found to stand forward and reply to what was advanced in the Lectures. Although there is an Infidel Society in town, and discussion was invited on the placards, and although one of the stupid objections which Infidels make to Christian ministers is that they dare not allow free discussion at the close of their Lectures, and notwithstanding there were several Infidels present, to my own personal knowledge, not one of them dare come forward to defend their principles, I suppose for this simple reason, that they had none to defend. Surely the Free Protestant Association, as they call their last attempt to deceive the Liverpool public, has either ceased to exist, or it has ceased to act and the members of it are content to remain passive. But, by the way, perhaps we can account for the silence of the Society by, supposing that their head man, Mr. John Finch, is preparing to usher in and enjoy the promised " 14th of May millenium." This may account for it, for they seem to say, by their only public efforts, "Without him they can do nothing." He seems to be their "all in all" and the only man they can show publicly though if they were to believe what Joseph Barker said in his better days, I donbt very much if they would allow him to be their representative any longer. I should like to to tell the readers of the Defender what Mr. Barker did say (and very truly) only 1 am afraid it would so completely drive Mr. Finch out of temper that he would perhaps call us something worse, if he could, than "liars," and our productions worse than "lying articles." But it has been very repeatedly said, "How quiet the Free Protestants are since that Monster Meeting we had," which was noticed in the first number of the Defender. My own humble opinion of it is that they were so completely silenced that they can do nothing now but turn round and call us liars." However I think the conduct of the Infidels at Liverpool, in not embracing the opportunity for free discussion, at the close of the Lecture delivered by Mr. Rutherford, proves that either they have no principles to defend, or if they have that they are thoroughly ashamed of them and therefore cannot come forward like men and true Protestants to defend them. 28th July 1855. BARKER'S VIEWS OF SOCIALISM. OBSERVER. The utmost that the socialists promise is animal indulgence. They promise men less labour, and plenty of meat and drink: and they tell us that, in course of time, they will be able to improve the breed of human beings, and to bring the earth into so high a cultivation, that it shall resemble one great paradise. Men and women also are to be entirely free, to revel in sensuality without restraint. Such is the list of blessings promised by socialism. Man is treated throughout as a mere brute, and every thing that'is promised him is limited to the short and uncertain period of the present life. Not a word is said about the soul, or a future state, about God, or heaven, except to teach us that these are things not to be thought about in socialist communities. Efforts are to be made to sink all thoughts and ideas of a better world into utter forgetfulness, and extinguish for ever the light of revelation. All our sympathies with the unseen world are to be mercilessly crushed; our hopes of immortality are to be cut off; the thoughts which were accustomed to wander through eternity are to be chained down, and our souls, with all their boundless powers and insatiable longings after higher and eternal blessings, are to be shut up and imprisoned within the dark and narrow limits of earth and time. IMPROVE THE TIME. Thy life is frail; conserve it. Next to thy soul, care for thy body; A whole and acceptable offering. To escape the sufferings of the present. Do it manfully, with all thy strength. It may bring new sorrows, But these shall only work thy good. If thy heart-trust is in Him Who never fails. Reclining on His arm, To thine enemy bid no defiance. Rather seek them out, and train thy soul To sympathy, like that which dimmed the Saviour's eye. Thy life is short; improve it. Fill it up with holy thoughts and noble deeds; Care not that men cast out thy name with scorn. Live for God, work for thy race; And though now unknown and outcast, Thy influence will not die, but will be felt By unborn myriads, who will praise Their God in thee, and spread it far and wide. Abjure all frothiness of soul. Be real; be earnest; be a man. The measure of thy life is deeds not days. RELIGION BY PROXY. There is not any burden, that some would gladlier post off to another, than the charge and care of their religion. There be, who knows not that there be, of protestants and professors, who live and die in as errant and implicit faith, as any lay papist of Loretto. A wealthy man addicted to his pleasure and to his profits, finds religion to be a traffic so entangled, and of so many piddling accounts, that of all mysteries, he cannot keep a stock going upon that trade. What should he do? Fain he would have the name to be religious, fain he would bear up with his neighbours in that. What does he therefore, but resolves to give over toiling, and to find himself out some factor, to whose care and credit he may commit the whole managing of his religious affairs; some divine of note and estimation that must be. To him he adheres; resigns the whole warehouse of his religion, with all the locks and keys into his custody; and indeed makes the very person of that man his religion; esteems his associating with him a sufficient evidence and commendatory of his own piety. So that a man may say his religion is now no more within himself, but is become a dividual moveable, and goes and comes near him, according as that good man frequents the house. He entertains him, gives him gifts, feasts him, lodges him; his religion comes home at night, prays, is liberally supped, and sumptuously laid to sleep; rises, is saluted, and after the malmsey, or some well-spiced bruage, is better breakfasted than he whose morning appetite would have gladly fed on green figs between Bethany and Jerusalem; his religion walks abroad at eight, and leaves his kind entertainer in his shop trading all day without his religion. MILTON. NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS. The real names and addresses of correspondents required, though not for publication. The Editor does not undertake to return rejected communications. Our correspondents in different places will do us service by giving us prompt information of what goes on in their localities. "A leap in the dark," by E. received with thanks. Several articles under consideration. "Silverwater," shall appear. Also the reply to a "Progressive Revelation." W. K. Hyde, shall be attended to. Till within a few days, no one seems to have had any desire to take advantage of our Open Page." We shall ever be pleased to hear the opposite side, and shall endeavour to keep as much room for it as possible. CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDIST FUND. Collected by Mrs. Telfer, Sunderland, 20s. Where our friends in country places have difficulty in getting copies, if they can secure twenty-four subscribers, we shall send copies direct from the office, 50, Grainger Street Newcastle-upon-Tyne, pre-paid by post. Communications and works for review to be addressed to the Editor, 50, Grainger Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne, either direct, or through the publishers. London HOULSTON & STONEMAN, 65, Paternoster Row. AND ALL BOOKSELLERS. Hunter & Co., Printers, Grainger Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne. |