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 affeet 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 judgment.

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

attack Moses and the Patriarchs, and evade the doctrines and the precepts of Christ. They seem to forget or wish to ignore the fact that Judaism was never intended for the people of those last days. Many of the difficulties which they urge are perfectly childish, and require no explanation. I have given you a sample of some of them, and you can judge how feeble is the infidel's case.

I shall spend the few moments left to me in noticing what Mr. Barker said about sacrifices. He clearly wishes you to receive him as your infallible guide, for he tells you that God required the Jews not to sacrifice sheep, oxen, and goats. Now if he will show us the place, we shall give him a goat for his victory.

The Chairman thanked the audience for the order which had been observed, expressed his hope that it would continue throughout, and intimated that the debate was adjourned till the following night. The meeting then broke up a little after ten o'clock.

We find it impossible to give the whole of the second night's discussion in this Number, and rather than break it up, we reserve it for our next.

A MISERABLE PORTION.

Can man be satisfied with an earthly portion? What the depraved and sensualized soul of an infidel may be, I cannot tell; but such a heaven would never satisfy me. I could never stoop low enough to be a brute. I want to live for ever, and nothing can satisfy my soul but the hope of a heaven that is infinite and eternal. I could not thank the socialists for a heaven like theirs. If I had nothing better to look for than what infidel socialism offers, my soul would die within me, and I should curse the day that I was born. When I think of the wretched hopes and portion of the infidel, I am instantly reminded of the poor Prodigal in the Gospel, "He would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat; and no man gave unto him." I could as easily turn myself into a worm, as bring myself to be satisfied with the wretched provisions of infidelity; and there is not a soul on earth, however brutalized and sunk it may be, that could be contented with the socialist's heaven a single week.

But low and wretched as the socialist's portion is, it might still afford him some consolation, if he were sure of obtaining it: but even this poor consolation is denied him. He cannot enjoy the blessings of his system without a community, and there is no certainty that a community will ever be established. Every attempt hitherto has failed, and I see no prospect of better success for the future.

If a community should be established, no one must enter it till he has paid his share of the expense. Every one must raise fifty or sixty pounds before he can be admitted, and this cannot be raised in a day by a working man. Fourteen or fifteen pence a week is no trifling sum for a poor man to pay, and the prospect of keeping up the payment for twenty years, without any thing certain to look forward to, would be a poor sort of happiness to me. They may talk as they please about the faith of Christians, but socialists will need both faith and patience, and a great deal of self-denial too, before they can get into a paradise this way. They must have nothing till they have paid for it, and when they have paid the price, the long-hoped-for paradise may never come. And what is to become of those who die before the community is ready? Life is not long, and it is very uncertain. Death is a busy meddler; he makes sad havoc of the hopes and schemes of earthly men; and those who take your money, cannot secure you from his power. Death cannot be bribed, and if his cold hand should once lay hold on you, alas for your hopes! he will drag you

and your disappointed hopes together to the grave. But if you should live long enough to see a community finished, how long will you have to enjoy it? It would be a poor comfort just to enter the gates, and cast your eyes around you, then sink down into the earth. And socialism can give no security against such a disaster. But if you should be permitted to enter fully into your portion, and if your life should be lengthened ten or twenty years, would you be satisfied? Could you be comfortable to think of a ten or twenty years' heaven? To me the thought seems maddening. Either leave me to perish where I am, or give me a heaven that will endure.

And if you should be sick in the community, what will you have to comfort you? What will your beautiful gardens do for you then? Where will be your mirthful companions, and your unclean pleasures then? When you are shut up in the Physical Hospital, with none but unwilling nurses to attend you, and nothing but the melancholy walls to look upon, and fears of violent death before you, where will your heaven be then? You cannot look to God for comfort, for none but Atheists are to be admitted into communities. The past will yield no pleaures, and the future will be as dark as eternal night. You must bear the burden of affliction, and the fears and pangs of death, without one ray of comfort either from earth or heaven.

And then no arrangements at all are made for admitting any into community but the healthy and the young. The sick, the old, the lame, and the deformed, and all who are too poor to pay the requisite contributions, are to be left to the miseries of the Old World. There is not a word of comfort in the Socialist's Bible for them. Those who need consolation the most are passed by, and left to sink beneath the weight of their woes, unpitied and unregarded. This is but a poor kind of charity.

And how long it will be before the infidel social system can come into efficient and general operation, you may judge from the reckoning of Robert Owen himself. Socialism cannot be generally established at all, he tells us, till the governments of the different countries are converted, and led to take the matter in hand. And it will be a very long time before this will take place. Governors are the last persons in the world to be converted to any new system; especially if it be a system that aims at pulling them down from their eminence, and bringing them to a level with the multitude. This is the last thing to be hoped for. To think of driving the five fundamental fallacies of socialism, and its twenty libels upon human nature into the heads of Kings and Queens, and Lords and Marquises,to think of persuading Victoria to lay aside her crown and royal state, and come to weed a garden, or tend a herd of cows,-to think of charming Lords and Dukes and Princes to give up their wealth and power, and all the splendours and indulgences of earthly greatness, and come to stand sentinel at the gates of a community, or drudge in vilest occupations, and that without one hope of glory in the world to come,-to expect such a wholesale and measureless revolution as this to be accomplished in a few years, is one of the wildest dreams of madness. And if the social system is never to be established till this can be done, Poor Socialism! Poor Socialism!

J. Barker in 1842.

Our Open Page.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

Northampton, January 19th.

DEAR SIR, I have been disappointed by the absence of the promised " open page" in The Defender and many of my friends, of an enquiring turn of mind, express the same feeling and say, also, that what appears in The Defender may be heard at Church.

The Defender having been advertised after a lecture and discussion, gave room for the expectation that a large portion of its space would be devoted to the refutation of the cavils of Infidels; and the prospectus encouraged the supposition. If, however, the absence of the " open page" is to be accounted for, by the fact that no Infidel has been hardy enough to avail himself of the opportunity, I trust that you will prove it by publishing an abstract, at least, of this letter, and a solution of the difficulty, I will presently lay before you, as you are anxious to meet any sensible objection that may be urged.

The difficulties I allude to, concern the authenticity of the Book of Genesis. As Moses died before the children of Israel entered the Promised Land, or any of them had taken the city of Laish, or the city of Leshem (Judges, XVIII chap. 29 ver., and Joshua, XIX chap., 47 ver.,) and changed the names of those cities, he could know of no such city as Dan. But the writer of Genesis says Abram pursued his enemies to Dan, and he also mentions Damascus. Therefore, the writer of the Book of Genesis could not be Moses, for Moses was dead long before the cities were taken.

The writer of the Book of Genesis says of some kings of Edom, that they reigned before any kings reigned in Israel. The writer of this book must have lived after some kings had reigned in Israel. But Moses died long before any such event occurred. These examples might easily be multiplied, and from other books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, &c., and prove that the books of the Bible are compilations by unknown hands of the works of unknown writers. Trusting that your publication may advance the cause of Truth,

I am yours, &c.,

SILVERWATER.

Market Street, Hyde, near Manchester, Jan. 22, 1855.

SIR, As you seem to me to be a truth-seeker, as well as a 'Defender'-I present you a truth from 'The Empire' respecting the formation of individual or general character. The Newspaper press occasionally makes known this truth to their readers, viz.-' That man's character is formed for him.'

The following statement, is taken from the Empire, signed 'Cato'; "God being incomprehensible, and conscience being an acquirement, inward experience may inferentially suggest but it cannot demonstrate or prove to others our knowledge of the will of incomprehensible Providence. The slightest reflection will suggest that our inward experience is influenced by external circumstances. It is, however, most completely elucidated by the consideration of the facility with which any number of children from among cannibals, or from among the higher grades in artificial society, may be presuaded to be of the same superstitious religion of their respective professors, be they Jew, Budist, Mahometan, or Christian. In many countries mental thraldom is the result of their theology. Mental thraldom is the foundation of hereditary bondage

or of taxation without representation."

YOURS TRULY,

WILLIS KNOWLES: