are the foundation of the most oppressive and injurious despotisms on earth. No despotism is so crushing as priestly despotism, whether popish or protestant. No despotism is so cruel. The protestants themselves will acknowledge as much with regard to popish priestly despotism. We ourselves know as much with regard to protestant priestly despotism. Yet both have a firm foundation and unfailing pillars in the Bible.

6. The Bible sanctions polygamy and concubinage; or the practice of having many wives, and mistresses in addition. Abraham is said to have taken one of his female slaves as a wife, and had offspring by her; yet no fault is found with him for so doing; on the contrary, the Bible represents God as declaring, "Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." (Genesis 26:5.) Jacob had two wives, and had offspring by two of his female servants as well; yet the Bible records no rebuke against him on that account. David had several wives, yet Nathan represents God as saying that he had given him into his bosom the wives of his master Saul in addition; making God the pander to his licentiousness. The Bible says Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, a thousand in all; yet so far from calling him a fool or a sinner, it declares he was the wisest man that had ever lived, and, stronger still, the wisest man that ever should live. Let it be remembered, that the Bible not only mentions these abominations of Abraham and Jacob, David and Solomon, but justifies them. It says that David did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and turned not aside from following him in any thing, save in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. It blames him for seducing the wife of a living man; but justifies him in every thing else. So Solomon is blamed for marrying a foreign princess; but not for having two wives and one concubine for almost every day in the year.

7. Those patriarchs and princes did many other bad things. Abraham appears to have been a slaveholder and a slave-trader, a liar, a coward, a miserable husband, ready to let his wife be taken by another, to screen himself from danger. David was a liar, a traitor, a murderer. Solomon was a tyrant, a sensualist, a fool. Yet they are all held up for our admiration and imitation.

8. The Bible contains many partial laws; laws made for the benefit of one class, at the expense of other classes. It contains many indecent, foolish, and cruel laws, with respect to women. It contains cruel,

revengeful, bloody laws, with respect to men. It enjoins bloody and unnatural rites. It is horribly liberal in its threats of capital punishments. It is one of the bloodiest codes of laws in existence. It not only threatens death for many crimes, but for things which are, in truth, no crimes at all. The Bible also contains innumerable foolish laws, about priests, priestly garments, priestly ornaments, the tabernacle and the altar; about offerings, sacrifices, ceremonies. Some of these laws are not only foolish, but mischievous. In truth, no book on earth, that I am acquainted with, contains more foolish or more cruel laws, or inculcates grosser immoralities, or presents us with worse examples, than portions of the Bible.

The Bible also presents us with specimens of the most malignant and

revengeful prayers. I can imagine nothing more horrible in this way than some of the prayers ascribed to David. Take the following, from the 109th Psalm. David, according to his own account of the matter, has been slandered, and otherwise unjustly treated by some one, and the following is his prayer to God for him:

"Set thou a wicked man over him, and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned, and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the stranger spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him; neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off, and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him; as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones. Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually. Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the Lord, and of them that speak evil against my soul."

Nothing can exceed the bitterness, the cruelty, the murderous malignity and revengefulness of this prayer. David is not content with the torment and ruin of the person who had offended him, but must pray for all imaginable curses and calamities on his widowed wife, his fatherless children, and even the unborn offspring of his children.

"Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him; neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off, and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.”

Shall we charge such things as these on God? Men talk of blasphemy, but no blasphemy is greater than that of those who call such portions of the Bible as those to which we have called your attention, the word of God. (Time up. Slight applause when Mr. Barker took his seat.)

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.

The Rev. Dr. BERG was introduced by Rev. Dr. Chambers, and was received with loud applause and cheers, spite of the previous request of the Chairman, that there should be no demonstration of feeling. He said, I am sorry that I interrupted Mr. Barker, although I would have been justified by the rules. Mr. Barker did not once touch the first proposition under discussion. He wasted his first hour. The Doctor here went into an argument, in defence of religious controversy. He said that Christ had once engaged in a controversy with Satan for forty days, and why should he not engage in one with an infidel-commonly believed to be a child of Satan? There were two proverbs in the Bible, which Mr. Barker might say were contradictory: Answer a fool accord

ing to his folly, and, Answer not a fool according to his folly. It might be said that he was giving notoriety to an Infidel. But it might be well sometimes to place a crown of notoriety on the head of an Infidel, that, like the cap and bells on the head of the court fool, it might announce the quality of the wearer wherever he went. Why should Mr. Barker, even if he could not believe for himself, wish to take away from others their only hope and consolation, their comfort in the hour of death? Some men live as Infidels, but there are few who die as such.

Mr. Barker rejects the Bible because he thinks it full of contradictions. He brings up the old arguments, disproved a thousand times. Infidels think better of the Bible than they will allow. I saw an advertisement in the Ledger, by a member of the Sunday Institute, who proposed to discuss whether Rev. Mr. McCalla, in his late debate, consistently maintained the character of a Christian divine and polemic. Why didn't they ask whether a man was a consistent atheist, socialist, or member of the Sunday Institute? They were constrained to render obeisance to the virtue of the Bible, to its high moral tone. They were a little of the faith of the devil, who believes and trembles. Mr. Barker challenges me to answer. I am here to do so. Depending first upon the grace of the God of Christians and the prayers of all good men, I hope to show that his boastings are idle as the wind, and wild as its ravings.

We pity a blind man; we regard him with tenderness; we will not abandon him. But when a blind man labors to persuade us to put out our eyes, that we may be like him, we laugh at the futility of the attempt. A man without faith is blind. Faith is the eye of the soul.

The debate commences on the first point. It has not been touched. Mr. Barker rejects the Bible as of divine authority. I must prove, 1st, the necessity of a Divine revelation. If Mr. Barker rejects the Bible, he is bound to produce a rule of right, a moral touchstone, in its place. He is bound to reconcile us to the loss of what we hold most dear. With what will he do it? Has he nothing of superhuman authority? If not, his only stand is among the bogs of stupid, drivelling atheism; and, before two weeks, we will drive him to take his stand there. Loffer three facts in support of the necessity of a Divine revelation.

1. The very instinct of the human conscience leads men to recognise the existence of a Supreme Being. Go where you will, every race manifests this.

2. The character of the worshipper always becomes assimilated to that of the being he worships. In every act of worship, there is a tendency to a nearer approach to the standard. The Egyptians worshipped beasts, worms, reptiles, leeks and onions; and it is shown in their character. Some of the ancients worshipped Venus; their wor ship was obscene. Others worshipped Bacchus; they went into orgies of the most disgusting character. Those who worshipped Odin and Thor were vindictive and fierce. The worshippers of the goddess Khiva are murderers, robbers and prostitutes. In China, the priests of Buddha understand this idea of assimilations of the worshipper to the thing worshipped. They say, "Think of Buddha, and you will become like Buddha." Now, then, the question is, Are there any resources in the human mind to prevent this degradation? This brings us to the third fact.

3. No effort of the human mind has resulted in emancipating the race from idolatry.

The first objects of worship were the planets. From these, men fell to beasts and reptiles; and then to idols of wood and stone. Much is said of the humanizing effects of art and science; but the experience of the Greeks and Romans contradicts this. Their worship was vile and obscene; so much so, that the earth fairly reeked with the fumes of hell. Philosophers tried to identify these gods with virtue, to explain them as myths. It was the age of incipient atheism. One either despised the gods, or plunged into excess. Cicero says that men, instead of transferring to themselves the sense of God, transferred their senses to the gods. How can the stream rise higher than the fountain ? Men will be what their gods are.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a man could originate the idea of a pure God-how could he persuade the people of the existence of such a Being? He could do nothing but make atheists. Two things are indispensable. 1. A pure object of worship must be found. 2. A pure Being being revealed, the manifestations of his character and attributes must be attended with such power as to convince.

All this we Christians claim we have in the Bible. Such a testimony we have in its miracles, in the fulfilment of its prophecies, in the purity of its morality, excellence of its institutions, and in the experience of the inner life of the believer. Ask Mr. Barker whence he obtained his ideas of a God?-what object he proposed in the creation? Mr. B. is indebted to the book he discards. Mr. Barker says he receives the good, and rejects the bad. Whence had he this superior discrimination? Either the Bible is a revelation or a fraud; there is no alternative. It professes to be from God. Oh, wise men! bring forth your light. Whence did it shine? Was it in Robespierre's time, when a prostitute was worshipped as the Goddess of Liberty? Even the Indians would blush to be with men who have no souls. [Loud applause. Dr. Berg stopped a moment to give the Irishman's advice: "Be asy; and if you can't be asy, be as asy as you can."] You speak of charity-where are your charitable Infidels? Their association with a Christian community has made them what they are. Once, in the history of the world, Infidel charity was permitted by God to display itself. People call the epoch "The Reign of Terror." Its emblem was the guillotine. If the Bible is not superhuman, then it is of no vital authority. It is valid only on the ground that Might makes Right. If men are to govern, there is anarchy, for one man has as good a right as another, and force is tyranny. If the Decalogue is of human origin, there is no wrong in violating it. [The Doctor here went into a development of this proposition, applying it to each commandment.] If my opponent should ask me if he would steal, I would answer, "No; for, by a happy inconsistency, your life is better than your doctrine." Under this theory, an act is a crime only because it violates a human law. Then the Fejees or Patagonians can prescribe what is right, and morality is a nose of wax. It would introduce anarchy and tyranny, and make earth a pandemonium, where none but devils could inhabit. (Loud and long-continued applause.)

SECOND EVENING.

Mr. THOMAS ILLMAN, Moderator.

Mr. BARKER will commence the

discussion.

Mr. BARKER took his place at the stand. (Applause and hisses.)

Rev. Mr. CHAMBERS.-It is requested that all marks of approbation, or the contrary, shall be dispensed with this evening.

Mr. THOMAS ILLMAN joined in the request of the other Moderator.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.

I trust that the meeting will conduct itself with decorum that the audience will pay attention to what both speakers may say, and that no one will attempt to place any obstruction in the way of the free and full discussion of the important question under consideration. I ask for nothing more for myself but a patient hearing, and this, I trust, will be granted. If what I have to say be true, it is best that you should hear me, for it may make you wiser and better; and if it be false, it is still desirable you should hear me, that you may be prepared to set me right.. And even if the statement of my views should shock you, it would be well to bear the trial patiently. You send missionaries to distant nations, who take the liberty to call in question the truth of their religions, and the superhuman origin of their sacred books; and this is as shocking to the people of those nations, as my remarks can be to you. Yet, you think the people of those countries would do well to listen to the teachings of your missionaries. Would it not be as well for you to listen to mine? Can you ask from Pagans more forbearance towards those who call in question their views, than you yourselves are prepared to manifest towards those who call in question yours? Let me add, that, though I feel bound to speak with great plainness and freedom, I shall pay as much respect to the feelings of those who differ from me, as a regard to truth and duty will allow.

The subject of debate is,

First, The divine inspiration of the Bible.

Secondly, The tendency of the contents of the Bible, when the book is received as the word of God.

Divine inspiration is explained to mean such a degree of divine influence in the production of the Bible, as to secure it from error or mistake. (Horne 1, p. 2.)

We have shown that the Bible is not thus inspired; that every Bible in existence abounds in errors; that our translations, our Greek and Hebrew Bibles, and our ancient manuscripts as well, are alike in this respect; that none of them bear any marks of a superhuman origin, but that proofs of their human origin are visible on every page.

Among other proofs, we presented the following:

1. That the Bible represents God as subject to human infirmities; as