YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

GREAT DISCUSSION

ORIGIN, AUTHORITY, AND TENDENCY

BIBLE,

BETWEEN

REV. J. F. BERG, D.D., OF PHILADELPHIA,

JOSEPH BARKER, OF OHIO.

BOSTON:
J. B. YERRINTON & SON, PRINTERS.
1854.

ORIGIN OF THE DISCUSSION, &C.

In December last,^in compliance with a request from the Sunday Insti
tute, I began a course of lectures in Philadelphia, on the origin, authority
and influence of the Scriptures. The object of the lectures was to show
that the Bible is of human origin, that its teachings are not of divine
authority, and that the doctrine that the Bible is God's word is injurious
in its tendency.
When I sent the Sunday Institute a programme of my lectures, I
authorised the Secretary to announce, through the papers, that I was wil
ling to meet any clergyman, of good standing in any of the leading
churches, ia public discussion on the Bible question.
Mr. McCalla, a Presbyterian clergyman, who had previously held sev
eral public discussions on various subjects, accepted the offer, and
arrangements were made for a six nights' debate. Mr. McCalla, how
ever, after the first night, made no attempt to debate the question, but
employed his time in a manner which it would be difficult, and perhaps
useless, to describe. It may, however, be proper to say, that he sought,
by abuse, foul names, and other offensive arts, to turn the debate into a
quarrel or a fight. I, however, kept close to the question, which seemed
to embarrass my opponent, and the result was, that, on the fifth evening,
after trying to raise a mob, he withdrew from the contest.
The clergy, or a portion of the clergy, of Philadelphia, unwilling to
leave their cause in this plight, demanded that I should discuss the ques
tion with Dr. Berg, a minister in whom they had fuller confidence. Being
assured that Dr. Berg was a gentleman and a scholar, and that he was
the ablest debater the clergy of Philadelphia could boast, I agreed to
meet him, and the discussion was fixed for the 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th,
16th, 17th, 18th and 19th of January.
The report of the debate is before you — the best that I could give.
Dr. Berg agreed, before the debate, to supply me with corrected copies
of his speeches, that I might be able to publish the debate in full. I
wrote to him, when the discussion was over, requesting copies of his
speeches, and offering to pay him for them ; but I received no answer.
A day or two after, there appeared an advertisement in the papers, to
the effect, that the Christian Committee were about to publish an author
ised report of the debate. This Committee, however, never consulted
me — never asked for corrected copies of my speeches. Their advertise
ment, therefore, of an " authorised " report, must have been designed to
deceive. In this report, I have given my own speeches as correctly as I
could ; my opponent's are re-printed from the Register. The opinion of
many was, that the Editor of the Register did my opponent more than
justice ; and that his speeches were much improved by passing through

THE DISCUSSION.

his hands. All I can say is, that I have given the best report of the
Doctor's speeches I could get.
Though the Doctor did not prove himself so much of a gentleman as
I had been encouraged to expect, I was sorry he declined to continue the
discussion four nights longer, as we had not got more than half through
the question when the eighth night closed. I wished for an opportunity
of laying the whole subject before the public. Perhaps some other cler
gyman will take the matter in hand — one disposed and able to discuss
the subject thoroughly.
JOSEPH BARKER.

[From the Pennsylvania Freenaan.J
THE BIBLE DISCUSSION.
The discussion on the authority of the Bible, at Concert Hall, bet-ween
Rev. J. P. Berg, of this city, and Joseph Barker, of Ohio, closed on Thurs
day evening last, after a continuance of eight evenings. During the whole
time, the vast hall was crowded with an eager multitude — numbering from
2000 to 2500 persons — each paying an admittance of 12£ cents every evening,
and on some evenings it is said that hundreds went away, unable to ap
proach the door ; nor did the interest appear to. flag among the hearers to
the last.
Of the merits of the question or the argument, it does not come within the
scope of a strictly anti-slavery paper to speak, but we cannot forbear to notice
the contrast in the manner and bearing of the two debaters, and the two.
parties among the audience. Mr. Barker uniformly bore himself as a gen
tleman, courteously and respectfully toward his opponent, and with the
dignity becoming his position, and the solemnity and importance of the
question. We regret that we cannot say the same of Dr. Berg, who at times
seemed to forget the obligations of the gentleman in his zeal as a controver
sialist. He is an able and skillful debater, though less logical than Mr.
Barker, but he wasted his time and strength too often on personalities and
irrelevant matters. His personal inuendbes and epithets, his coarse witti
cisms, and a bearing that seemed to us more arrogant than Christian, may
have suited the vulgar and the intolerant among his party, but we believe
these things won him no respect from the calm and thinking portion of
the audience, while we know that they grieved and offended some intel
ligent and candid men who thoroughly agreed with his views. It is surely
time that all Christians and clergymen had learned that men whom they
regard as heretics and Infidels have not forfeited their claims to the respect
and courtesies of social life, by their errors of opinion, and that insolence
and arrogance, contemptuous sneers and impeachment of motives and char
acter, toward such men, are not effective means of grace for their enlighten
ment and conversion.
Among the audience, there was a large number of men, who also lost their
self-control in their dislike to Mr. Barker's views, and he was often inter
rupted, and sometimes checked in his argument, by hisses, groans, sneers,
vulgar cries, and clamor, though through all these annoyances and repeated
provocations, he maintained his wonted composure of manner and clearness of
thought. On -the other hand, Dr. Berg was heard with general quiet by his
opponents, and greeted with clamorous applause by his friends, who seemed
to constitute a large majority of the audience, and to feel that the triumph
of their cause, like the capture of Jericho of old, depended upon the amount
of noise made.

BIBLE DISCUSSION.

The long-expected discussion between Mr. Joseph Barker, of Ohio,
and the Rev. Dr. Berg, of Philadelphia, was commenced at Concert
Hall, in the city' of Philadelphia, on the evening of the 10th of January,
1854. The audience crowded the immense room to overflowing. Wm.
D. Baser, Esq., was chosen Chairman ; and Rev. John Chambers and
Mr. Thomas Illman, Moderators. At half past 7 o'clock, the Chairman
read the rules agreed on by the parties. The most important are as
follows : —
Mr. Barker rejects the Bible as a Divine Revelation.
Mr. Barker maintains that the doctrines, laws and institutions of the
Bible are of no superhuman authority.
The Topics. — 1. The internal evidence. 2. The external evidence.
3. The tendency of the Bible, when the book is received as of Divine
authority, Mr. Barker maintains to be injurious.
King James's Bible to be the standard, with liberty of appeal to the
original Hebrew and Greek.
The discussion to continue for eight evenings, with the understanding
that it may be extended, by mutual consent, for four evenings more.
Mr. Barker opens the discussion, and Dr. Berg rejoins on each eve
ning.
REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
Gentlemen Moderators, — Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would bespeak a calm and patient hearing, and, so far as it can be
granted, a due consideration of what I may advance.
Several persons in this city have endeavored to prejudice the minds of
the citizens against me. They have preferred against me a multitude of
charges. Those charges, so far as I have seen them, are all false, with
two exceptions. I am charged with having been born in England. This

6 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
is true. My defence is, I could not help it.' I am also charged with not
being a naturalized citizen. My excuse is, that the laws do not permit
me to be naturalized till after a longer residence than I can claim. My
opponent will not complain of me on account of my birth, as he was
himself born under the same government, and educated in the same
borough and parish as myself. It is with the authority and tendency of
the Bible that we have to do, and to these, I trust, we shall confine our
attention. Personalities would not become men met for the discussion
of so grave a question.
We are to consider,
First, the origin and authority of the Bible ; and,
Secondly, the tendency of its contents, when the book is regarded as of
divine anthority.
My opponent ought to have taken the lead, and allowed me to follow.
He should have produced his internal and external evidence of the
superhuman origin and divine authority of the Bible, and left me to
answer. This, however, he declined. I am, therefore, under the necessity
of leading. I am required to prove the negative. I shall not com
plain. My task will not be a hard one. We are assured no evidence
can be adduced, either internal or external, to prove the position of my
opponent ; while internal evidence, in abundance, is at hand to prove the
contrary. The doctrine held by my opponent, the common doctrine of the
Orthodox churches, is, that the Bible is the word of God, that its teach
ings are all divine. We believe that the Bible is the work of man, that
its teachings are purely human, and that we are at liberty to receive or
reject them, just as they may appear to us to be true and good, or false
and bad.
With your permission, we will state the grounds of our belief.
I. We know that books generally are the productions of men, and
it is natural to conclude that all books are so, the Bible included, till
proof is given to the contrary.
We know of no proof to the contrary. We can find neither internal,
nor external evidence that the Bible had any higher origin than other
books, or that it is entitled to any higher authority. We have examined
what has been brought forward as proof of the superhuman origin and
divine authority of the Bible, but have found it, as we think, wanting.
II. Even our opponents, who believe in the divine origin of the
Bible, do not believe in the divine origin of the books deemed sacred by
other people. They smile at the credulity of the Mohammedan, who
believes in the superhuman origin of the Koran ; they are even disposed
to scold the Latter-Day Saint, for believing in the superhuman origin of
the Book of Mormon.
They are sure the Turk and the Latter-Day Saint are in error. We
are as confident that our opponents themselves are in error. They have
hardly patience to read the arguments of Mohammedans and Mormon-
ites in behalf of their Bibles. We have read, to some extent, the argu
ments of all, and found them all equally unsatisfactory.
III. We have, as we think, proof that the Bible is not of divine
origin,— proof that it is of human origin.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 7
1. The Bible in common use is a translation, made by men as liable
to err as ourselves ; men who did err, grievously. The translation bears
marks of their liability to err on almost every page.
The Christian world bears witness to the imperfections of the transla
tion, by its demand for new and better translations. No sect is satisfied
with it. Many of the sects have made new translations.
2. The Greek and Hebrew scriptures, of which the translators profess
the common English Bible to be a translation, were compiled by men,
weak and erring like ourselves, and they, too, are acknowledged to bear
the marks of human imperfection and error.
3. The Greek and Hebrew Bibles were compiled from preexisting
manuscripts. Those manuscripts are human transcripts of still earlier
manuscripts, which were also human transcripts. Those manuscripts are
all imperfect. They differ from each other. The manuscripts of the New
Testament, alone, differ in more than 150,000 places.
4. The originals are lost — the manuscripts cannot, therefore, be
compared with them. No means remain of ascertaining which is least
corrupted. A perfect Bible, therefore, — a Bible thoroughly divine, —
a Bible free from error and uncertainty, is a thing no more to be hoped
for, even supposing such a Bible once existed. But there is no evidence
that such a book ever did exist. If, therefore, we had the originals, there
is no reason to believe that we should find them less imperfect, less
erroneous, than our common translations. But those are points on which
it is not necessary, at present, to dwell. The Bible referred to in the
rules for this debate is the common version. We have, therefore, to do
chiefly with the contents of the common version. These^contents furnish
internal evidance, evidence the most decisive, that the Bible, like other
books, is the work of erring and imperfect men. To this internal evidence
we call attention.
1. The form, the arrangement, the language, the style of the differ
ent portions of the Bible, are all manifestly human. The Grammar, the
Logic, the Rhetoric, the Poetry, all bear marks of human weakness.
We see nothing supernatural any where in the book, but human imper
fection and error we see every where.
But the moral, theological, and philosophical portions of the Bible-
have the principal claim on our attention, and on these we should chiefly
dwell. We can see no traces of any thing more than human in the-
morality, theology, or philosophy of tlie Bible ; but the plainest traces of
imperfect humanity.
Bishop Watson, in his letters to Thomas Paine, has these words : —
" An honest man, sincere in his endeavors to search out truth, in
reading the Bible, would examine, first, whether the Bible attributed to the
Supreme Being any attributes repugnant to holiness, truth, justice, good*
ness ; whether it represented him as subject to human infirmities."
— Bishop Watson, p. 114.
We have followed this course, and will now state the result. We find
that the Bible does represent God as subject to human infirmities, and
that it does attribute to him attributes repugnant to holiness, truth, justice,
and goodness.
1. It represents God as subject to human infirmities. It represents

8 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
him as having a body, subject to wants and weaknesses like those of our
own bodies. When he appears to Abraham, he appears, according to the
Bible, as three men. These three men, whom Abraham calls " Lord"
talk to Abraham. Abraham kills for them a calf, Sarah bakes them
bread, and they eat and drink. They wash their feet, soiled with their
journey, and sit down to rest themselves under a tree. God is also rep
resented as appearing to Jacob in the form of a man. He wrestles with
Jacob all night. Jacob is too strong for him. He wants to go, but
Jacob holds him fast. Jacob demands a blessing, and refuses to let go
his hold of the Deity, till he obtains it. God, unable to free himself from
Jacob's grasp, is forced, at length, to yield to his demand, and give him a
blessing. He accordingly changes Jacob's name to Israel, which means
the God-conqueror, — the man who vanquished God in a wrestling
match. In other parts of the book, God is represented as tired-and
exhausted, with the six days' work of creation, and as resting on the
seventh day. In Exodus 31 : 17, it is said that on the seventh day God
rested, and was refreshed. In Judges 1:19, God is represented as
unable to vanquish some of the inhabitants of Canaan, because they had
chariots of iron. " And the Lord was with Judah ; and he drove out the
inhabitants of the mountain ; but could not drive out the inhabitants of
the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
2. God is further represented in the Bible as limited in knowledge.
He did not know whether Abraham feared him or not, till he had tried
him by commanding him to offer his son as a burnt-offering. But
when Abrah'am had bound his son, and lifted up the knife to take his
life, God is represented as saying, " Now I know thou fearest me ; since
thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from mel He is also
represented as having to use similar means with the Israelities, to find out
how they were disposed towards him. In one place, he is said to try
them by false prophets and dreamers, to know whether they loved the
Lord their God with all their heart. (Deut. 13:3.) In another, he
is said to have led them forty years in the wilderness to prove them, to
know what was in their heart, and to find out whether they would keep
his commandments or not. (Deut. 8 : 2.) One passage represents him
as putting the rainbow in the clouds, to aid his memory, — that he might
look on it, and remember his engagement never again to destroy the
world by a flood.
3. Other passages of scripture represent God as both limited in
knowledge, and limited in his presence, — as dwelling somewhere aloft
and apart from mankind, — as receiving his information respecting the
doings of men through agents or messengers, in whom he could not put
confidence at all times, and as being obliged at times to come down and
see for himself how things were going on. In Genesis 11 :5, we read,,
"And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the
children of men builded." So with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah, we
read, Genesis 18:20-21 — " And the Lord said, because the cry of
Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I
will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according
to the cry of it, which is come unto me ; and if not, I will know." In
all these passages, God is supposed to be subject to the same or similar
limitations with ourselves.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 9
4. The Bible further represents God as changeable, as repenting of
his own doing. In one passage, we are told that it repented him that he
had made man, when he saw how badly he had turned out ; and in
another, that he repented of having made Saul king, for a similar reason.
In many passages he is represented as being disappointed in men, and as
repenting of the good he had promised them, or the evil with which he
had threatened them.
5. The Bible gives still darker representations of God. It presents him
to our view as subject, not only to innocent human weaknesses, but to
the most criminal and revolting vices. It represents him as partial in his
affections and dealings towards his children. He is charged with a kind
of partiality, which, in a human father, would be deemed most unreason
able and inexcusable. He is said to have loved Jacob and hated Esau,
before either of them was born, and before either of them had done
cither good or evil. Thus we read, Rom. 9 : 11-13 — " For the chil
dren being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that
the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works,
but of him that calleth ; it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the
younger : as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
Some tell us that the Hebrew word translated " hate," means only to
" love less." Suppose it does, it is still partiality to love one child
less than another, before the children are born, or have done any thing to
deserve peculiar love or hate. But the hatred here spoken of is some
thing more than a less degree of love ; it is positive ill-will, malignity,
real deadly hate. Hear how Malachi expresses it. Malachi 1 : 2-4 —
" I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved
us ? Was not Esau Jacob's brother ? saith the Lord : yet I loved Jacob,
and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the
dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished,
but we will return and build the desolate places ; thus saith the Lord of
hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down ; and they shall call them,
The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath
indignation for ever." More cruel or deadly hate, a fiercer or more
unrelenting cruelty, cannot be conceived. God is further represented as
caring more for the Israelites than for any other people. He is repre
sented as very much concerned for the health, the holiness and the hap
piness of Israel ; but as utterly careless what becomes of the rest of the
world. Hence, he is represented as telling the Jews, that they must not
eat the flesh of any animal that dieth of itself, but that they may give it
or self it to the stranger. They must not run the risk of poisoning them
selves, but they may poison as many others as they please. They are
not to take usury for money of one another, but they may take it of oth
ers. They are not to hold each other as bondmen or bondwomen for
more than six years at a lime ; nor are they to rule any of their brethren
when in bondage with rigor ; but they may hold the people of other
nations as bondmen for ever ; take them and use them as property, buy
them or sell them at pleasure ; rule over them with rigor, and hand
them down to their children as an inheritance for ever.
6. Other passages represent God as grossly unjust and implacably
revengeful. He is represented as punishing the innocent offspring for

10 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
the sins of the parents — as visiting the sins of idolators on their children,
to the third and fourth generation. The sons and grandsons of Saul, to
the number of seven, were hanged before the Lord, because Saul, many
years before, had done wrong to the Gibeonites. After this revolting
butchery, the Bible says the Lord was intreated for the land. 2 Sam.
21: 1 — 14. Because David did wrong in the case of Uriah, God is
represented as saying, " The sword shall never depart from thine house. '
The sinner himself is spared, but his innocent child dies for his sin.
Seventy sons of Ahab are beheaded for the sins of their parents. The
prophet of God is represented as commanding their destruction. 2 Kings
9 : 10. " The whole house of Ahab shall perish," saith the Lord, ac
cording to the prophet. God is represented as demanding the destruc
tion of whole nations, for sins committed by their forefathers many gen
erations before. He is represented as commanding Saul to destroy the
Amalekites — to destroy them utterly — for a sin, if sin it was, said to
have been committed by their ancestors, more than four hundred years
before. Hear the passage. It is in 1 Samuel, 15: 1-3 — " Samuel also
said unto Saul, the Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his peo
ple, over Israel : now, therefore, hearken thou unto the voice of the
words of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which
Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he
came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy
all that they have, and spare them not ; but slay both man and woman,
infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul went, it
is said, and slew the Amalekites. He utterly destroyed all the people
with the edge of the sword. He, however, spared Agag, the king,
and some of the cattle, and so angry is God at this, that he repents
of having made Saul king. Samuel takes Agag and hews him in pieces
before the Lord, to prevent his wrath from consuming them. These are
horrible and blasphemous stories. But they are not the worst. The
Bible represents God as cursing, and as dooming to pain and agony, to
servitude and death, whole races of his creatures, throughout all lands
and throughout all ages, for the sin of one individual. It represents him
as cursing all serpents, making them cursed above all cattle, dooming
them to go on their belly and eat dust, and putting enmity in men's
hearts towards them, because one solitary serpent tempted Eve. It rep
resents him as dooming all women, throughout all ages and all nations,
to great and multiplied pains and sorrows, and making them all subject
to the will of their husbands, because Eve did wrong, before any other
woman existed. It also represents God as cursing the earth for the sin
of one man ; causing it to bring forth thorns and thistles to annoy all
future generations ; dooming all mankind, throughout all lands and
throughout all ages, to eat of the ground in sorrow all the days of their
life ; to eat the herb of the field ; to eat their bread with the sweat of
their brow ; and lastly, to return to the dust. The thought is appalling.
Countless millions mercilessly doomed to daily and hopeless misery, and
then to death, for sins committed before any of them were born ! As if
this blasphemy were not enough, our Orthodox opponents assure us that
the death here threatened was the death of the soul as well as the body,
or the consignment of both to eternal torments in hell. The posterity

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 11
of Ham are doomed to servitude through all the ages of time, for an
alleged offence of Ham. The rest of mankind are, of course, doomed
to slaveholding. The Israelites are destroyed with pestilence for the sin
of David, and even David is said to have been moved by God himself to
do the deed, for which the people were destroyed. This case of David
deserves to be given at length. It is one of the most astounding, revolt
ing and blasphemous stories in the whole Bible. You may find it in
2 Samuel, 24 : 1, 10 — " And again the anger of the Lord was kindled
against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number
Israel and Judah. And David's heart smote him after that he had num
bered the people. And David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly
in that I have done : and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the
iniquity of thy servant ; for I have done very foolishly." It seems
strange that his heart should smite him for doing as God prompted him
to do, and that he should charge himself with acting foolishly in yielding
to God's impulse. But perhaps he was not then aware that it was God
that bad made him do the deed. God probably kept his part in the mat
ter a secret. Still, the account has a horrible look. " However, when Da
vid was up in the morning, the word of the Lord came unto the prophet
Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and say unto David, thus saith the Lord,
I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto"-
thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall
seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land ? or wilt thou flee
three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee ? or that there
be three days' pestilence in thy land ? Now advise, and see what an
swer I shall return to him that sent me. And David said unto Gad, I am
in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the Lord, for his mer
cies are great ; and let me not fall into the hand of man. So the Lord
sent a pestilence upon Israel, from the morning even to the time ap
pointed : and there died of the people, from Dan even to Beer-sheba
seventy thousand men. And when the angel stretched out his hand upon
Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented him of the evil, and said to
the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough ; stay now thy hand.
And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing-place of Araunah the
Jebusite. And David spake unto the Lord, when he saw the angel that
smote the people, and said, Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wick
edly : but these sheep, what have they done ? Let thine hand, I pray
thee, be against me, and against my father's house." The story bewil
ders us with its horrors. The sinner is spared, while seventy thousand
innocents are destroyed ! The sinner, we say. But who is the sinner ?
Is it a sin to do as God prompts us to do ? The only sinner, according
to the story, is God himself. Both David and his slaughtered people
are victims to the unmerited anger of the great transgressor and de
stroyer. The blasphemy of the passage is truly horrible.
7. !f possible, the Bible represents God in still darker colors. It at
tributes to him the direst cruelties — the most savage and revolting butch
eries. Here is a story from Numbers 31 : 1-7, 9, 15-18 — " And the
Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Mid-
ianites : afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses
spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war,

12 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the •Lord of Midian.
Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye
send to the war. So there were delivered out of ihe thousands ot Israel,
a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war. And Moses
sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas me
son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the
trumpets to blow in his hand. And they warred against the Mioiamtes,
as the Lord commanded Moses ; and they slew all the males. An d t he
children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little
ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all
their goods. And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women
alive ? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel
of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor,
and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now,
therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman
that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women-children
that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for your
selves." And the helpless women and the innocent children, even to
the suckling born but yesterday, are all butchered. The exhausted
mother, with her new-born babe on her breast, are slaughtered together
without mercy ; and the young untarnished daughters are given to the
butchers of their fathers, their mothers, and their brothers. And neither
God nor his prophet sheds a tear, or utters a word of regret or sorrow.
And these the Bible represents as the doings of God !
In Joshua tenth and elventh, we have a long list of such horrors.
Joshua is represented as going forth under the command of God, and
slaying men and women, children and sucklings without number, utterly
destroying whole nations. His warriors put their feet on the necks of
vanquished kings, then Joshua smites them, and hangs them on five
trees. He slays the people with a very great slaughter. Even the sun
and moon are made to stand still, until he makes the ruin complete. He
takes city after city ; smites them with the edge of the sword ; utterly
destroying all the souls therein — letting none remain. The Lord, it is
said, delivered them into his hands. " So Joshua smote all the country
of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and
all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that
breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded." Then follows
another string of horrible tragedies ; whole nations, numbers of nations,
all slaughtered ; not one poor soul allowed to remain alive through
out their vast extent ; and all is fathered on God. And now come other,
longer, and more frightful lists of tragic and revolting deeds. Cities and
nations, kings and people, men and women, old and young, all swept
away. Not one is left to breathe. All, all are slaughtered, as the Lord
commanded Moses. " There was not a city that made peace with the
children of Israel save the Hivites," says the story. " Ah I that ex
plains the matter," says the believer. " Their destruction is chargeable
on themselves, if they would not make peace." What I must the women
and children perish, because the rulers and the warriors refuse to make
peace ? But hark ! the story adds : " Not a city made peace, for it was
of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 13
in battle, that he might destroy them utterly ; that they might have no
favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses."
No book can give the Deity a darker character than this. None can
throw out against him more atrocious blasphemies. Yet the book
abounds in such stories.
God is said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he might not let
the children of Israel go, but bring down on his people, the innocent as
well as the guilty, the most grievous plagues, including the destruction
of the first-born in every family in the land. Of course, we do not be
lieve those stories ; we regard them as false ; but the blasphemy is none
the less.
Then look at the story of the flood. God is represented as dooming
to destruction the whole human race, with the exception of a single fam
ily. True, the story tells us man was very corrupt ; but were all cor
rupt ? Were there no good men ? Were there no stainless women ?
No innocent children ? Were all so lost to virtue as to be past hope ?
Impossible ! But, supposing the degeneracy universal ; is utter and un
sparing destruction the only alternative ? And shall the whole race be
swept away without one word of pity, or one sign of sorrow or regret ?
It is thus the Bible represents the matter. The blasphemy could not be
greater. Nothing worse can be attributed to God, than what the Bible
attributes to him. Nothing worse can be conceived.
8. The Bible represents God as demanding or accepting human sac
rifices. It represents him as commanding Abraham to offer up his son
Isaac as a burnt-offering, though the sacrifice was not completed. In
2 Samuel 21 : 1 — 14, a sacrifice is demanded and made. The story is
as follows : " Then there was a famine in the days of David three
years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord. And the
Lord answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he
slew the Gibeonites. Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What
shall I do for you ? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that
ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord ? And the Gibeonites
said unto him, We will have no silver nor gold of Saul, nor of his
house ; neither for us sbalt thou kill any man in Israel. And he said,
What ye shall say, that will I do for you. And they answered the king,
The man that consumed us, and that devised against us that we should
be destroyed from remaining in any of the coasts of Israel, Let seven
men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto
the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, whom the Lord did choose. And the king
said, I will give them. But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of
Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the Lord's oath that was between
them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul. But the king took
the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Ahiah, whom she bare unto Saul,
Armoni and Mephibosheth ; and the five sons of Michael the daughter
of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meho
lathite. And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and
they hanged them in the hill before the Lord ; and they fell all seven to
gether, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in
the beginning of barley-harvest. And Rizpah the daughter of Ahiah took
sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of

14 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
harvest until water dropped upon them out of heaven, and suffered
neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the
field by night." And then we are told, (verse 14.) that, after that, God
was in'treated for the land. The horrible sacrifice of Jephtha, of his own
daughter, is mentioned without a word of blame.
Dr. Berg. — Will you please read the passage ?
Mr. Barker. — Certainly. My reason for not reading every passage
at full length is, to save time. You may find the account in Judges 11 :
29-40. It is not here said that the sacrifice was commanded, but no
intimation is given lhat Jephtha did wrong. The translators have beaded
the story, " Jephthd's Rashness ; " but the Bible itself contains no cen
sure at all.
9. Other portions of the Bible represent God as deceiving people. It
represents God as sending forth a lying spirit to deceive the prophets of
Ahab. The passage is as follows : 2 Chronicles, 18 : 18-22—" Again
he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord ; I saw the Lord sitting
upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand
and on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall entice Ahab king of
Israel, that he .may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ? And one spake
saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. Then
there came out a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will entice
him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will
go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the
Lord said, Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail ; go out
and do even so. Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying
spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil
against thee." In Deuteronomy 13 : 1-3, God is represented as employ
ing false prophets to try and prove his people, to see whether they love
him or not. In 2 Thessalonians, 2 : 9-12, God is represented as sending
men strong delusions ofthe devil — delusions, as we understand the pas
sage, consisting of signs and lying wonders. These delusions are sent
to cause the people to believe a lie, that they might be damned. Other
passages of similar meaning are to be found in the Scriptures.
The Bible, after giving these unworthy and blasphemous representa
tions of God, gives opposite representations of him. We have, in con
sequence, contradictory representations of God in the Bible. While one
set of passages speak of him as a man, with a body, others tell us he is
a spirit, without a body. While one class of passages represent him as
two, three, or many, and call him Gods, another class declare he is
but one. Some passages tell us that Abraham, Jacob, Moses, the elders
of Israel, Isaiah and others, saw God ; some of them, his face and form,
and Moses his back parts ; others tell us, no man hath seen God at any
time, and speak of him as the invisible, whom no man hath seen or
can see.

COMPARE

John 1 : 18.
1 Timothy 6 : 16.

Genesis 32 : 30.
Exodus 33 : 20.
Isaiah 6 : 1.
Some passages teach us that God is Almighty — that he can do what

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. ' 15
he pleases — that he fainteth not nor is weary; while others represent
him as overpowered, set fast, unable to accomplish his wishes and over
come difficulties, and as being tired with his labors, and taking rest.
COMPARE
Matthew 19 : 26.

Job 42 : 2.
Isaiah 40 : 28.

Genesis 32 : 28.
Judges 1 : 19.
Genesis 2 : 2.
Exodus 31 : 17.

Some passages te.ach us that God is every where — that he fills heaven
and earth — that no one can flee from his presence ; while others repre
sent him as limited in his presence — as having a local habitation some
where aloft, and as having to come down and take journeys, in order to
see how things are going on among his creatures.

COMPARE

Psalm 139:7-10.

Genesis 11 : 5-7.
" 18 : 20, 21.
Some passages teach us that God knows all things — that he searches
the hearts and tries the reins of the children of men, &c. ; while others
represent him as having to try and prove men, to find out what is in
their hearts.

Acts 1 : 24.
Psalm 139:2,3, 11, 12.

COMPARE

Deuteronomy 8 : 2.
13 : 3.
Genesis 22: 12.

Some passages represent God as unchangeable ; while others repre
sent him as changing often. One says, he is not man, that he should lie,
or the son of man, that he should repent ; while others represent him as
breaking his engagements and repenting frequently.

James 1 : 17.
Numbers 23 : 19.
Malachi 3 : 6.

Genesis 6 : 6.
1 Samuel 2 : 30.
Jonah 2 : 10.

Some passages assure us that God cannot lie ; while others represent
him as lying, if not in person, by proxy — sending out a lying spirit
to deceive and entice, and employing false prophets, great miracles, and
other strong delusions, to make men believe a lie.

COMPARE
Titus 1 : 2.
Hebrews 6 : 18.
Numbers 23 : 19.

1 Kings 22 : 20-23.
2 Thessalonians 2: 9-11.
Deuteronomy 13 : 1-3.

Many passages tell us that God is impartial — that he is no respecter
of persons ; while others represent him as loving one and hating another,
before either of Ihem is born; as making some for honor and others for
dishonor ; some for salvation and others for destruction ; as anxious for
the health, the purity, the prosperity of some, and as indifferent to, the
health, the virtue or happiness of others.

16

DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.

Romans 2 : 11.

COMPARE Genesis 25 : 23.

Job 34 : 19.

Malachi 1:1-4

Acts 10 : 34.

Romans 9 : 10-

2 Chronicles 19 : 7.

13.
There are numerous other passages, which represent God as specially
interested in the welfare of the Jews, but as having no concern for the
welfare of the Gentiles.
Some passages tell us that God is just — that he will do right — that he
will not condemn the righteous or justify the wicked — that the children
shall not be put to death for the sins of the fathers — that all his ways
are equal, just and right — that no man shall have ground to say, The
fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on
edge — that the soul that sinneth it shall die — that the son shall not
bear the iniquity of the father, nor the father the iniquity of the son,
but that every one shall receive according to his own doings. Other
passages, however, represent God as most unjust — tell us that God
visits the iniquities of the father on the children to the third and fourth
generation — represent him as destroying whole families for the sins of
the father — cuttiug off whole nations for the sins of their forefathers,
dead many generations before, and punishing whole races for the sins
of individuals. Great numbers of passages might be given in proof of
this. As specimens, COMPARE
Jeremiah 31 : 29, 30.
Ezekiel 18: 1-30.
Deuteronomy 32 : 4.
Job 34 : 10.
Psalms 92 : 15.
Genesis 18 : 25.
Proverbs 17 : 15.
Genesis 3: 14-19.
" 9 : 22-27.
2 Samuel, 24: 15-17.
Numbers 31 : 2.
1 Samuel, 15: 1-3,7,8.
Some passages tell us God is love — that he is good to all, and that
his tender mercies are over all his works — that he would have all to be
saved — that he is the Father of all, and would not that any of his chil
dren should perish ; while other passages represent him as fierce and
cruel — jealous, partial and revengeful — telling us that he makes the
wicked for the day of wrath — raises up some for destruction — hating
men before they are born — forbidding his people to seek the peace or
prosperity of surrounding nations for ever.
COMPARE
John 4 : 16.
Deuteronomy 23 : 6
Psalms 106 : 1.
Ezra 9 : 12.
107 : 7.
Exodus 20 : 5.
119:68.
Deuteronomy 4 : 24
145 : 9.
9:3.
Proverbs 16 : 4.
Some passages represent God as commanding the sacrifice of ani
mals — speak of the burning flesh as a sweet savor to God ; while other
REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 17
passages declare, that God has no pleasure in sacrifices — that he never
commanded them — that all that God requires is, justice, mercy and
humility. COMPARE
Genesis 8:21.

Leviticus 1 : 9.
Exodus 12 : 1.
Leviticus 4 : 5, 6.

Jeremiah 7 : 21-23.
Micah 6:6-8.
Psalms 51 : 16.
" 50:9-13.
Isaiah 66 : 3.

One passage forbids human sacrifices, while others represent God as
requiring them. COMPARE
Deuteronomy 12 : 31. | 2 Samuel 21:1- 14.
One passage tells us that God tempteth no man, while other passages
tell us that God tempted Abraham to offer his son as a burnt-offering ;
and tempted David to number Israel ; and hardened the hearts of Pha
raoh and the Canaanites, that they might do wrong and be destroyed.

James 1 : 13.

COMPARE

Genesis 22 : 1.
2 Samuel, 24 : 1.

Such contradictoiy representations of God and of his will abound in
the Bible. God is represented as giving contradictory commands, teach
ing contradictory doctrines. AU these contradictory representations are
proofs that the Bible is the work of imperfect and erring men.
Again : the Bible teaches bad morality. It sanctions despotism and
tyranny of every kind.
1. It sanctions political despotism. It tells us- that there is no power
but of God ; that the powers that be are ordained of God. It commands
every soul to be subject to rulers, to submit to them, to obey them, to
submit to every ordinance of man, and threatens with damnation all who
resist them. It thus makes binding on men all the commands and laws
of earthly rulers, however unjust, however cruel, however unnatural.
We must do nothing that they forbid, however good, or however bind
ing; and leave undone nothing that they command, however bad,
however injurious, however revolting. To enforce obedience to rulers,
the Bible utters the grossest, the most outrageous falsehoods. It says
that rulers are not a terror to good works ; when we see that every gov
ernment on earth endeavors to deter men from good works, our own not
excepted. It says rulers are a terror to evil works, when we know that
governments not only often tolerate evil works in others, such as kidnap
ping, slaveholding, injustice, cruelty, debauchery, but frequently practice
them themselves on the largest scale. " Do that which is good," says
the Bible, " and thou shalt have praise of the same ; " when we know
that governments regularly reproach and persecute those who do good,
call them conspirators, rebels, and traitors ; while it bestows its praises
on the enemies of freedom, the betrayers of the people, the oppressors
of the weak, the plunderers of the poor. Falser or more immoral doc
trines on the subject of governments, it is hardly possible to conceive.

18 v DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
2. The Bible favors slaveholding, the greatest crime of which a man
can be guilty, — a crime including every crime. It represents God as
dooming one third of our race to the curse of slavery, in the person and
posterity of Ham. It represents God's favorites, such as Abraham and
Jacob, as slaveholders. It represents God as allowing his favorite people
to enslave one another for six years at a time, and as permitting or com
manding them to buy bondmen and bondmaids of the nations around
them, and to hold them in bondage for ever ; to hold them as a possession,
as property, and to hand them down to their posterity 'as an inheritance
for ever. Even the New Testament does not denounce slaveholding as
a sin, or slaveholders as sinners. It speaks of believing masters, or
slaveholders, and commands servants to obey their masters in all things.
It commands them to obey even bad masters. And we know what hor
rible commands masters often give to their servants, hoth to male and
female. The thought i's horrible.
3. The Bible favors conjugal despotism. It makes the husband lord,
and the wife a subject or slave. To woman it says, " Thy desire shall
be subject to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." It teaches that
woman was made for man, not man for woman. Men may buy and sell
women. They may have two, ten or a thousand wives at a time, and
concubines or mistresses in addition. Wives are commanded in the
Bible to obey their husbands, to be in all subjection to them, to be subject
to their husbands in all things. Even Christian wives are commanded
to be subject to pagan, unconverted husbands. They are commanded
to obey them, even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. The
intelligent and virtuous woman is to obey her ignorant or depraved
husband ! As Sarah obeyed Abraham, when he told her to equivocate or
lie, to conceal her relationship to him , so Christian women are com
manded to obey the commands of their husbands, and are encouraged to
do so by the promise that they shall then be regarded as Sarah's daugh
ters. Paul gives us the most grovelling ideas of the end or uses of
marriage. He knows but of one motive to justify a man in marriage ;
which is presented in the words, " It is better to marry than to  ."
Woman's affections or interests, woman's wants or rights, are never hinted
at. The Bible writers had not learned to care for woman. They had
not learned her nature. They did not know her worth.
4. The Bible favors parental cruelty. It teaches parents to trust to
the rod as the great educator. It encourages the most cruel use of the
rod. ", Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child ; but the rod of
correction shall drive it far from him." " Correct thy son while there is
hope ; and let not thy soul spare for his crying.'''' These cruel lessons
are attributed to the wisest of men.
5. The Bible favors priestly rule — one of the greatest curses that
ever plagued humanity. It commands Christians to obey those that have
the rule over them, and submit themselves. (Hebrews 13: 17.) Even
Jesus is represented as commanding his disciples to obey the scribes and
pharisees. Matthew 23:1-3 — "Then spake Jesus to the multitude
and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses' seat-
all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do ; but
do not ye after their works, for they say, and do not." These passages

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 1
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. AVe 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.
JDavid 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. Abra
ham 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 i$s 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

20 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
revengeful prayers. lean 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 him
self 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 malig
nity 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 con-
tfnually 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 fol
lowing 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-

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 21
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 main
tained 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. I offer
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 un
derstand this idea of assimilations of the worshipper to the thing worship
ped. 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.

22 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
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 transfer
ring 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 attri
butes 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 com
munity 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 proposi
tion, applying it to each commandment.] If my opponent should ask
me if he would steal, I would answer, " No; for, by a happy incon
sistency, 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 pandemo
nium, where none but devils could inhabit. (Loud and long-continued
applause.)

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 23

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 noth
ing 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 de
sirable 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 U>
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 teach
ings 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 mani
fest towards those who call in question yours 1 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 lo
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 influ
ence in the production of the Bible, as to secure it from error or mis
take. (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 and1
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-

24 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
limited in power and wisdom ; as circumscribed in his presence, and
changeable in his character.
We showed, next,
2. That the Bible represents God as inexcusably partial, as grossly
unjust, and as fearfully cruel.
We showed, further, that it represented God as commanding or accept
ing human sacrifices ; as using deceit, and as holding up for our admi
ration and imitation, defective and immoral characters.
We next showed, that the Bible gives contradictory representations of
God. We then pointed out several portions of the Bible wbich sanction the
grossest immoralities, such as despotism, slaveholding, polygamy, con
cubinage, and the wildest, fiercest, and most implacable revenge.
The audience would observe, that my opponent made no attempt to
answer my remarks, but spent the whole of his time in talking of other
matters, many of which had nothing to do with the question under dis
cussion. We shall briefly notice the Doctor's speech, and then proceed with our
argument. 1. The Doctor first charged me with not speaking to the point. This
you can answer for yourselves. The point was, the internal evidence of
the divine inspiration of the Bible. I showed that the internal evidence
proved the Bible of purely human origin.
2. He next gave me some thirty or forty foul names, and threw out
» number of unseemly insinuations ; those, of course, require no answer
from any one. Perhaps the Doctor, on second thought, may think it
.advisable not to follow this course for the future. He surely does not
texpect that we shall follow his example.
3. He next quoted the words of George the Fourth, (perhaps he meant
George the Third,) who is reported to have said, " The Bible needs no
.apology.'^ But the word of a defunct English monarch will not decide
the question here.
My opponent says that our views are subversive of all virtue, of all
law and order— that the triumph of our principles would extinguish the
light of the world, rob men of their only consolation, either in life or
death, sink the nations in barbarism, &c.
To all his remarks of this kind, we answer,
1. That they belong to the second question for debate — the tendency of
ihe Bible. Here they are out of place. We are now discussing the
vrigin of the book.
2. When such remarks are made, they should be backed by arn-ument.
Such statements have not much force, till they are proved. '
The Doctor said something about Socialism; but as there are fifty or
a hundred things, widely different from each other, that go under that
name, and as the Doctor did not tell us to which of them he alluded it
would be foolish to attempt an answer. Besides, the subject under con
sideration is the Bible, not Socialism. I have said nothing about Social
ism, of any kind.
The Doctor's remarks about the Sunday Institute, the members of that
Institute have answered. The opinion of the members of that Institute

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 25
appears to have been, that the disgraceful course pursued by Mr. McCalla,
and the alleged uncharitableness of Mr. Chambers, were quite consistent
with portions of the Bible. For myself, I know of nothing, either good
or bad, which some portion of the Bible will not justify.
Dr. Berg says, that I myself know full well, that there is not a hope nor
a consolation, worth the name, except what springs from faith in Christ.
The truth is, I know the contrary. And see what a horrible reflection
the Doctor's statement throws on God. Nine tenths of the world have
not heard of Christ. According to my opponent, then, God has left nine
tenths of his children without a hope or a consolation worth enjoying.
Suppose a man should charge my opponent with such cruelty to his chil
dren as he charges on God, how would he feel? No blasphemy can
exceed the blasphemy implied in my opponent's defence of the Bible.
Something was said about the deaths of unbelievers and Christians. I
answer, I have seen Christians die full of horror ; I never saw an unbe
liever die so. I have seen unbelievers very peaceful and composed on
their death-beds. What is there to alarm the unbeliever as he approaches
death, if he has lived a virtuous and a useful life ? He fears no hell ;
he believes in no great malignant devil ; and the God in whom he be
lieves has nothing of hate, or rage, or revenge, in his character.
Many of those called Infidels, believe in a rational and blissful futurity
for all, and express a much fuller assurance of a happy immortality than
Christians can boast ; and none of them are haunted by the thoughts of
malignant devils, or tortured with the dread of endless torments.
I have found many of those who are called unbelievers, to be both the
best and the happiest people I have ever met with.
The Doctor says, we wish you to put out your eyes. The truth is, we
would not have you even to keep them closed. We wish you to use
them more and better than ever you have done. We would, especially,
have you to keep them open to-night, that you may see who runs away
from the question.
The Doctor thinks we have no faith. The truth is, we have more
than when we believed the whole Bible, and of a better and happier kind,
too. To believe the Bible, you must disbelieve Nature, whose revelations
are infinite.
But Infidelity is nothing but a great negation, the Doctor says. But
the Doctor forgets, that though we disbelieve the falsehoods and follies
of antiquity, we have all the positive truth that others can boast, whether
it be in the Bible or out of it.
Dr. Berg disbelieves the book of Mormon. The Mormonite tells him,
Your Infidelity is a great negation. The Doctor answers, " Is there
nothing in the universe to be believed and known, but your hideous and
hateful fables ? " Just such is our answer to the Doctor. Is there nothing
to be believed or known but the false and foolish stories of the Bible ?
Is the universe of truth shut up in an old book ?
I am asked, How can I know what is right or wrong without the
Bible ? I answer,
1. No one can tell what is right and wrong by reference to the Bible.
The Bible is no standard of good and evil, truth and falsehood, as I shall

26 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
show at the proper lime. Are believers in the Bible more agreed as to
what is true and false, good and evil, than other people ? Not at all.
2. The Bible does, nevertheless, teach, that men may of themselves
judge what is right— that men have the law of right written on their
hearts, and that Nature itself teaches what is right and wrong. Besides,
would a good God leave nineteen twentieths of his children without the
means of knowing good from evil ? He has done so, if none can know
good from evil but those who have the Bible.
3. How is the Pagan to know that your Bible is true and good ? By
the purity of its morals and the excellency of its doctrines, the Doctor
says. This is the internal evidence, he says. But this supposes the
Pagan to have some rule of judging — some test or touchstone of truth
and error, right and wrong, independent of the Bible. The Doctor
refutes himself, when he talks of internal evidence. Nay, more, he
refutes himself when he talks even of external evidence, as we expect to
show by and by. A man must know what is true and good, before he
can judge whether the Bible is true and good. The appeal to internal
evidence supposes mien to have this knowledge.
Mr. Berg thinks we are indebted to the Bible for all we know of God
and morality above the ancient heathen. He might as well say we are
indebted to the Bible for all we know of steam and electricity above the
ancients. He forgets or overlooks the great law of progress, which per
vades the universe, bearing all things onward. Geology reveals to us the
fact that the earth, and the vegetable and animal worlds, have been grad
ually advancing, ceaselessly improving, for millions of ages past.
We find, as we turn over the leaves of the far backward history of our
globe, that all that is fair and beautiful, sprightly and happy, in the veg
etable and animal worlds, has sprung from lifeless matter, and is the re
sult of slow but ever-progressing developments. At first, the earth had
not even a moss or a fern that she could boast. In course of ages, she
abounds in them ; succeeding ages give birth to higher forms of vegeta
ble life. At length, the waters and the marshes swarm with humble
forms of animal existences. Another round of ages sweeps them all
away, and higher and more perfect forms appear and take their places.
And thus the earth and all her tribes advance. Higher orders of being
succeed lower orders. The higher give place to higher still. Each
age, or circle of ages, makes the earth more beautiful, and covers it with
lovelier forms of plants and trees and flowers, and crowds its rivers and
its oceans, its mountains and its vallies, with more beauteous and more
perfect forms of life.
The progress of the earth and animated nature is a type of the pro
gress of our race. Man has progressed from the beginning. Each
stage of his existence has unfolded more and more his intellectual and
moral faculties, and given birth to new Bibles and new institutions ; just
as each stage of the earth's progress has given birth to new races of veg
etables and animals. And still, the race moves on, and God's great
universe unfolds to him in slow but sure succession its wondrous secrets,
and thus raises him perpetually in knowledge and in virtue. And man,
as he advances, gives birth to better bpoks and better forms of life.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 27
Dr. Berg says a revelation is necessary. We grant it. Maity reve
lations are necessary to the perfection and happiness of our race, and
fresh revelations are daily presenting themselves ; and more are daily
needed. But no supernatural revelation is necessary ; the natural ones
are sufficient.
But see, says the Doctor, how dark and depraved those portions of the
world are, where the Bible is unknown. We reply, See how dark and
depraved those portions of the world have always been, that have had the
Bible. Begin with the Jews ; they had the Bible first. What says the
prophet Isaiah of the Jews. Were they better than the Gentiles ? The
prophet thought not. He compares them to the people of Sodom and
Gomorrah. Hear his words : " Ab ! sinful nation ; a people laden with iniquity,
a race of evil-doers, children that are corrupters. Your hands are full
of blood." Isaiah 1:23 — "Thy princes are rebellious, and com
panions of thieves ; every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards ;
they judge not the fatherless, neither does the cause of the widow come
unto them." Isaiah 9 : 17 — "Every one is a hypocrite and an evil
doer, and every mouth speaketh folly."
" But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out ofthe
way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swal
lowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in visjpn,
they stumble in judgment. For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that
there is no place clean." (Isaiah 28 : 7, 8.)
'* His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they
cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to^slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs
which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand; they
all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter. Come ye, say
they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to-morrow
shall be as this day, and much more abundant." (Isaiah 56 : 10-12.)
" But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags ;
and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."
(Isaiah 64 : 6. )
Such is the testimony of Isaiah respecting the people who first had the
Bible. The other prophets give us no better accounts of them. They rep
resent them as liars, cheats, thieves, adulterers, oppressors, murderers.
They represent the priests as more decehfel, dishonest, unprincipled,
drunken and filthy than the rest of the people.
Then listen to the' testimony of Jesus respecting these same people,
the Bible people of his day, especially the Orthodox professors and their
clergymen. " Ye are of your father the devil ; and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode
not in the truth, because there is* no truth in him. He is a liar, and the
father of lies ; and ye are like him. The deeds of your father ye do."
John 8 : 41-44. " All their works they do to be seen of men."
" But wo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom
of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that
are entering to go in. Wo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye de
vour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers.; therefore ye shall receive
the greater damnation. Wo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye com-

28 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
pass sea'and land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him two
fold more the child of hell than yourselves. Wo unto you, scribes and Pha use es,
hypocrites ! for ye pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the
weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith; theee ought ye to have
done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat
and swallow a camel. Wo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make
clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion
and excess. Wo unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye are like unto
whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within lull or
dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear right
eous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.^ Ye serpents, ye
generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? " (Matthew 16 :
13-15,23-25,27,28,33.) Such is the character Jesus is represented as giving of the Bible be
lievers and Bible expounders of his day. He speaks more favorably of
the heretical Samaritans, and even of the unbelieving Sadducees he
makes no such complaints as those which he utters against the great be
lievers. Hear what Paul says of the Bible people of his day : —
" They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there
is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their
tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips. Whose mouth
is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction
and misery are in their ways. And the way of peace have they not known." (Bo-
mans 3 : 12-17.)
It would be hard to paint a blacker character.
It was these same Bible believers and Bible advocates, that were the
great persecutors of the prophets and reformers of their day. They
said all manner of evil against the teachers of truth and the friends of
humanity. They scourged them in the synagogues or public meeting
houses — they persecuted them from city to city — some they crucified
and some they stoned. They built monuments for the prophets of earlier
days, who had long been dead ; but the living prophets of their own
days they hated, and slandered, and killed. These Bible men and cler
gymen it was that slandered and persecuted Jesus. They called him a
Sabbath-breaker and a blasphemer ; they represented him as an enemy
to the government, and as a sower of sedition. They insinuated that he
was undermining their institutions and endangering their nation. They
went still further. They went even further than my opponent has gone .
with regard to me. They did not think it enough to call him a child of
the devil — they called him a devil outright; they even called him Beel
zebub, the prince of devils.
In the history ofthe world, there are<en hundred years that are known
as the dark ages. They were the ages when the Bible men reigned
supreme — when the church and the priesthood had things all iheir own
way — when heresy and unbelief were unknown. Even the Bible itself
was at length imprisoned in those days. For the Bible has not power to
preserve itself, when left without aid from without, much less to save
the world. We are indebted to heretics and unbelievers, for the preser
vation of the Bible itself. Let the world be given over into the hands of
believers in the Bible again, and the old dark ages would return.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 29
There is one institution, which, in deceit and cruelty, surpasses all
other institutions ; an institution, the mention of whose name calls forth
a world of horrors, and which has long been a proverb for every excess
of tyranny and fraud, of infernal craft and heartless butchery — it is the
Inquisition. This accursed and inhuman institution originated with be
lievers in the Bible. It is cherished by the majority of Bible believers
to the present day. Its infernal principle and murderous spirit are cher
ished, even among the Protestants. The Methodist Conference is the In
quisition in the earlier stages of its development.
Within the last few years, nearly two millions of human beings have
been starved to death in one small country — Ireland. They were
starved to death by the Bible-believing priesthood and the Bible-believing
government of England.
In one man's reign, no less than seventy-two thousand men were hung
on the gallows in England ; most of them, on the charge of being vaga
bonds merely. It was in the reign of Henry the Eighth, the defender
of the faith, and the leader of the English reformation, and head of the
English church.
The most revolting and inhuman form of despotism and tyranny, the
cruelest form of oppression and wrong now dishonoring the earth and
cursing humanity, is to be found in a land of Bibles, and flourishing un
der the care and culture ofthe Bible-believing church and clergy — it is
American slavery.
The Doctor speaks of the French Revolution. That is a large sub
ject, and would require some time for its discussion. A world of false
hoods have been fabricated and put in circulation respecting it. The
revolutionists have been fearfully slandered, and the Doctor appears to
have been imposed upon by the slanderers. 1 wish we had time to do
justice to this subject. In the after part of this debate, I expect to prove
three things.
1. That the Bible-believing monarchs, aristocrats and priests who pre
ceded the revolution, were more cruel and more profligate than the
revolutionists. 2. That the horrors of the French Eevolution were owing more to
the crimes and cruelties of believers in the Bible, than to any crimes or
cruelties of unbelievers.
3. That the great French Revolution was an incalculable blessing to
France — that it swept away many unjust and inhuman laws; reformed
or entirely abolished many corrupt and injurious institutions ; gave a great
impulse to intellectual culture ; promoted the moral elevation ofthe peo
ple ; weakened the power of the priesthood ; destroyed the hereditary
aristocracy, and, to a great extent, broke up the accursed land monop
oly ; distributed much ofthe land among the industrious classes; in
creased the wealth ofthe country five fold ; and, what is more, promoted
its more equitable distribution among the masses. I expect to prove.
that, since that revolution, the French have been better governed, better
clothed, and better fed. All these things, and many more, I shall, if
time permit, prove from Orthodox historians and statesmen themselves.
The Doctor speaks as if the ancient Greeks and Romans had no cor
rect ideas of right and wrong. He surely cannot have read many of

30 discussion on the bible.
their writings. They appear to me to have had better ideas of right
and wrong than many ofthe ancient believers in the Bible. In reading
the early history of Jtome, I was frequently struck with the just and
noble sentiments, both of the Roman people and some of the Roman
rulers. Even the Doctor seems to have been struck at times with the
grandeur of the Roman soul, for, in a lecture of his, I find the following:
" I love that noble saying ofthe old Roman, ' I dare not say aught that
is false ; and I am not afraid to say any thing that is true."1 " This is
but a fair sample of their noble sayings. I could give you a thousand
such. Dr. Berg speaks of miracles as a proof of the supernatural origin and
divine authority of the Bible. Will he tell us,
1. What a miracle is ?
2. How a miracle can be known from other events ?
3. How miracles can prove a book to be divine ?
4. Will he prove that the Bible stories of miracles are true ? Our
conviction is, that he can do none of these things.
The Doctor also speaks of the fulfilment of prophecy as a proof of
the divine origin of the Bible. But
1. No fulfilment of prophecies can prove the Bible to be divine. The
utmost that the fulfilment of a prophecy could prove would be, the pos
session of a supernatural gift by the prophet. But it would not prove
even this.
2. No prophecies can be pointed out in the Bible, that can be proved
to have been fulfilled. We know what Newton, and Keith, and others,
have attempted ; and we also know how they have failed.
3. We can point lo many prophecies in the Bible that have not been
fulfilled, and that never can be fulfilled now. The time for their fulfil
ment is past. And one such prophecy in the Bible proves the book not
to be wholly divine.
My opponent talked a great deal about the family institution. He
seems to think we are opposed to it. We are just the contrary. We
regard the family institution, in its true and natural form, as the source
of unspeakable bliss, and the friend of every virtue. We esteem it
more highly, we enjoy its blessings more perfectly, than when we be
lieved in the divine authority of the Bible.
But what does my opponent mean by the family institution ? He
talks as if there were but one family institution, or but one way in which
a family may be organized ; whereas there are several. In some cases,
the family consists of one wife and several husbands ; at other times, it
consists of one husband and several wives. In other cases, it consists of
one husband, several wives, and a number of mistresses — it may be,
seven hundred wives and three hundred mistresses. Then, again, it
sometimes takes the form of a large slave-trading and slave-breeding
establishment, in which one man, with one or a number of wives, makes
use of his female slaves as wives or mistresses, thus multiplying bis mar
ketable human goods from his own loins. In other cases, the family
institution consists of one husband and one wife-, but the husband and
wife are brother and sister, or other blood relations. Again it consists
of one husband and one wife, the husband lord, and the wife subject or

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 31
slave, bound to obey her husband in all things, however vile and igno
rant he may be. There is yet one other form of the family institution,
formed by the union of one man and one woman, not blood relations,
but one in soul, loving each other with pure and ardent love. There is
no authority, no subjection. Neither husband nor wife is master ; neither
husband nor wife is slave. Both are equal. They are companions,
friends, lovers ; both ready to serve, both happy to serve in love ; but
neither rude or brutal enough to command. Their children are objects
of their united love, and sources of most delicious enjoyment. The
family is a school, where truth and love are taught, and all the forms
of virtuous excellence, and all the arts of life and blessedness are taught
by living and ever-present examples. To which of these forms of the
family institution did my opponent refer ? It is the last that we love.
This we regard as divine. We know nothing diviner. But this is not
the family institution to which my opponent referred. The forms ofthe
family institution to which he referred, were those presented in the Bible ;
and those are all vicious and unnatural. Take the families of those
whom the Bible represents as God's favorites — as the wisest and the
best of men. Begin with that of Abraham. Here, we have one hus
band, two wives, two kinds of children, and a multitude of slaves, either
bought with money or bred in his house. The first wife is the hus
band's half sister ; his second, is one of his slaves. The children quar
rel, and the wives quarrel ; and the result is, the younger wife, the
female slave, and her child, are turned out of doors, to wander in the wil
derness, exposed to all the horrors of starvation. Take Jacob's form of
the family institution next. Here, we have one husband and four wives.
Two of the wives are sisters — they are the husband's cousins. He
bought them of his uncle, for seven years' service each. He loves one
of them, but hates the other. It is not known whether either of them
loves him. A woman's love or taste was not consulted in Bible times.
The other two wives are the husband's slaves. Here, too, the wives and
their children quarrel ; and the elder sons at length take one of the
younger ones, and sell him into slavery. The wives are disputing about
their husband's favors, and buying and selling his company. We have,
next, the case of David. How many wives he had, we are not told ; but
after being informed that he had taken a number, we are told that God
gave him a number more, even all the wives of his master and father-in-
law Saul. His house is the scene of incest, rape, strife, rebellion and
murder. Next comes the case of Solomon. Here, we have seven hundred wives
and three hundred mistresses — a thousand in all. We may guess what
kind of household comfort the husband had, from the low opinion he ex
presses of woman, and the miserable views he gives of life. " One man
among a thousand I have found," he says, " but a woman among ten
thousand I have not found. All is vanity and vexation of spirit." These
are the forms of the family institution we are to accept as divine, if we
take the Bible as divinely inspired. The Bible gives us no example of a
true, a natural, a virtuous form ofthe family institution. We have found
the true family order, but we are not indebted to the Bible for the dis
covery, but to Nature only. We have found it in spite of the Bible. It

32 discussion on the bible.
is the Bible-believers, then, that are the enemies of the true, the natural,
the virtuous, the happy family institution. The man who praises the
Bible forms of the family institution, praises, though he may not intend
it, the grossest forms of vice. (Time up.)

REMARKS ' OF REV. DR. BERG.
(General and long-continued applause.) I feel under obligations
to my opponent to present the positive side of the argument for the
Divine origin of the Bible ; but I will notice his objections. These
do not come regularly. His first speech contains propositions under
both topics of this debate. You will excuse me the episode, before I
proceed to establish a few propositions bearing on the question. While
my opponent was speaking of the attributes of Jehovah, I was forcibly
reminded of the passage in Job — "Canst thou by searching find out
God ? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection ? It is as high
as heaven* what canst thou do ? as deep as hell ; what canst thou know ?
The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea."
We can appreciate the motives of God only so far as they are revealed.
The imperfect understanding of man cannot conceive God. His ways
are not as our ways. They are as high above them as heaven is above
the earth. Before any objection to the acts of Jehovah can be consid
ered valid, the mind of the objector must embrace the vast range of the
universe ; he must be as wise as Jehovah himself. W'lat shall we
think of the man, who, with feeble intellect, presumes to sit in judgment
on God ? It is said by the wise man, that if a man judge a matter with
out first hearing it, it is a shame to him. One thing is certain, that when
God created the world, he never took counsel of my opponent. (Laughter,
slight applause, and a few hisses.) History shows that all the revela
tions of God to man have been progressive, developing themselves as the
human mind was able to comprehend and act upon them. It took four
thousand years to prepare the world for the introduction of Christianity.
The system was foreshadowed by types full of portentous meaning. A
code of laws was granted, imperfect, it is true, but enough to secure the
Jews civil and religious privileges vastly superior to any enjoyed by
contemporaneous nations. Moral truth was revealed as fast as men were
prepared to receive it. Christ said to his disciples that he had many
things to say to them, but they could not hear them at that time. Men
may be prevented from accepting the truth by their passions, or from
understanding it by their imperfect social organization. As time rolled
on, God became more intelligible to his people ; always, however,
accommodating his language to human weakness. If the ancient Scrip
tures spoke of God as having a body, it did no harm to the Jews, for it
was revealed to them that God is a spirit. They made no mistake, were
led into no error. Even my opponent, dark as his mind is, never was
misled by this language. He would repudiate any such construction of
the whole of those books. Their excellence was great. They taught
that eternity was real, that there were higher and lower spheres of being,
that heaven was the development of the greatest glory to which man

REMABKS OF DR. BERG. 33
can be raised, and hell the realization of the greatest misery to which he
can be sunk.
Our present state is a pupilage for something higher and better, just as
the Jewish system was. We can regard this book as the progressive
Revelation. It should be taken and interpreted as a whole. The imper
fect language, adapted to human weakness, of one part, may be perfected
in another. If my opponent finds in the Old Testament that David is
represented as being tempted of God, and that this is better expressed in
the New, candor requires him to make the correction. In James 1 : 14,
we read — " Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God,
for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man ; "
and the apostle adds the significant words — " But every man is tempted
when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."
That the Bible, as a whole, is a progressive revelation, is an answer to
many of the insulated objections urged by Mr. Barker in his first speech ;
but I will answer them more in detail. What shall we say, however, of
his mode of reasoning? It is laborious, certainly, but of a purely
mechanical character. We look in vain for any thing in it^broad and
philosophical. We find in it assertion upon assertion devoid of founda
tion, and lacking every other attribute except unparalleled effrontery.
(Vehement applause, and hisses.) ' Does my opponent believe in a God?
If so, what are his attributes ? What is he ? I asked him this before,
and he omitted to answer. He omits to answer the very questions upon
which the gist of the matter turns. Is his God one of perfection?
Whence does he derive his ideas of God ? From the works of Nature ?
Let him explain them by reference to Nature, if he can.
My opponent says that the God of the Bible is unjust and cruel.
May God, in his infinite mercy, open his eyes to the light ! The
slaughter of the Canaanites, with their women and children, would have
been cruel, if there had been-no divine command. But God is sover
eign, and could thus testify his inflexible determination to punish their
vileness. Holiness may require severity for its justification. A God all
mercy would be an unjust God.
I said, last night, that my opponent would be driven to take his stand
among the bogs of atheism. Let us see where his principal argument
would lead him. Is this world, with its varied events, controlled by a
superintending Providence, or is it not ?
How is it with the ten thousand human beings who recently fell before
the pestilence in a Southern city ? What will you say of that popula
tion, decimated by the hand of the destroying angel, of the people living
on the borders of the Mississippi river, who were cut off, and the women
and innocent children taken from this earth, not by a momentary pang,
but by the slow process of a frightful disease ? Will he lift toward
Heaven his daring hand, and say that God is cruel ? Even now the
public mind is agitated by the painful rumor that a vessel has gone down
at sea, with hundreds of human beings, of all ages, on board. If she
has, will my opponent lift his bold face and cry — God is unjust? But
we Christians will bow before the dispensation of Providence, and say
his ways are on the sea, and his path on deep waters.
The ordinary operations of Providence offer a more stupendous diffi-

34 discussion on the bible.
culty than the case cited by my opponent. Men die. Why do they die ?
Why is there upon them the incurable taint of mortality ? Can Infidel
ity solve the problem ? The daily deaths on the face of the earth are
fifty million, daily illustrations ofthe truth announced in the Bible : " He
cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down ; he fleeth also as a shadow,
and continueth not." All die — men, women, and little children. Will
my opponent stand by the fresh graves of the dead, and say : " Oh
God ! thou art cruel I " Let him. We will rather pray : " Lord, so
teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wis
dom." He may ask, in reference to these natural phenomena, was the
flood necessary ? We answer : Behold a flood which sweeps away
generation after generation ; besides, geology proves the truth of the
Deluge. My opponent spoke of Jehovah as repenting, though immutability is
one of the divine attributes. I might make a stand here on philogical
ground, but I waive that. No child could mistake the meaning; none
but an Infidel, an Infidel driven to desperation, would make of this a
contradiction. So, again, when God is represented as resting after labor,
being refreshed, depending on human action, coming down to Babel, and
visiting Sodom — all this is owing to the use of human language, in its
ordinary acceptation.
He represents Jehovah as encouraging immorality, because some of
his favorites were guilty of bad acts. I must pronounce this a blasphe
mous slander. This is strong language, but it is merited. Did God re
gard these acts with favor ? Are we not told that he punished them ?
How, then, will my opponent dare to say that God encourages immoral
ity? (Cheers and a few hisses.)
The punishment of David, Abraham, and others, is recorded. They
were God's favorites, not because they were without sin, but because
they were habitually devoted to his service.
He represents God as partial, because He had a chosen people ; and
the Bible as contradictory, because it says He is no respecter of persons.
In one sense, God is impartial, treating all alike. In another, He is a
sovereign, dispensing favors as seems good to him. He dispenses health
and sickness, wealth and poverty, high and lowly station. He judges
king and peasant by the same law, and assigns to master and slave the
same mortality. He gives to whom he pleases, station, power, and the
emolument of grace. He is the only Eternal, Invisible, and Wise God.
Glory and dominion to him for ever. Amen. (Slight applause.)
My opponent represents Jehovah as accepting human sacrifices on his
altars. Is this so? I would be justified in using strong language here,
but I will be as moderate as the case will allow. He cites Abraham's
intended sacrifice of Isaac. It is true, God ordered Abraham to sacrifice
his son on Mt. Moriah, but when he was about to do it, we read that the
angel called to him, and said : " Lay not thine hand upon the lad,
neither do thou any thing unto him ; for now I know that thou fearest
God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me."
This important statement was omitted by my opponent. God pro
posed to try the faith of Abraham. Did He not know ? Surely, he did.
But the trial was needed for Abraham's profit, and for an example to

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 35
the Church for all succeeding generations. Jehovah required human
sacrifices ! Yes, Mr. Barker, He requires you and me to offer ourselves
as living sacrifices to His service. But He is no Moloch. If God had
permitted Abraham to complete the sacrifice, He had a right to do that,
or any thing else his sovereign wisdom might demand.
My opponent represents the God of the Bible as practising deceit, as
sending strong delusions, and lying spirits. The doctrine that God
abandons men who will not repent, is true. They harden their hearts,
and He gives them over to believe lies. [Dr. Berg was justifying the
doctrine of judicial blindness, when his time expired. He sat down, re
marking, that as he had been indebted, last evening, to the courtesy of
Mr. Barker for a few minutes more, he would now repay the debt.]
(Long and loud applause.)

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
I am glad my opponent has thought proper to attempt to answer some
of my arguments of last night. The full strength of those arguments
would not be so clearly seen, if no attempt were made to refute them.
You see now the amount of what my opponent has to bring against them,
and can judge what it is worth.
He says that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, not for
his own information, but for the benefit of Abraham, and to make him
an example to the Church. It is easy for the doctor to say this, but how
will he prove it ? The Bible, which the doctor says is his only guide,
says just the contrary. The reason it gives for the trial comes out in
the words attributed to God : " Lay not thine hand upon the lad ; for
now I know that thou fearest God, .seeing thou hast not withheld thy son,
thine only son, from me." No words could more plainly indicate that,
before this trial of Abraham, God was in doubt with regard to him ; but
that Abraham's readiness to kill his son, his only son, had fully satisfied
him that he feared him. To put something else in the place of this
account of the .matter, is to alter the Bible, not to prove it divine. No
doubt, the Doctor could put something in the place of these objectionable
passages which would not be so foolish or revolting, but his business is
not to make a new Bible, but to prove the one we have divine.
In the parallel passage in Deuteronomy 8 : 2, the same reason is given :
"And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee
these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to
know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldst keep his command
ments, or no." Nothing could more plainly intimate that God did not
previously know what was in their heart.
The passage on which I laid most stress as proving the charge that
God is represented in the Bible as demanding human sacrifices, was
2 Samuel, 21:1- 14. This passage should have been noticed first ; yet
the Doctor has passed it entirely by. Did he feel that an attempt to
explain the passage would make the matter worse ? This passage
deserves particular notice. It is one of the strangest and most revolting

36 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
in the Bible. " Then there was a famine in the days of David three
years, year after year ; and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord
answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the
Gibeonites." Here we are taught, first, that God sent a three years'
famine, to afflict and destroy an innocent people, because a king, long
since dead, had, during his lifetime, been cruel to another people. The
idea is most ridiculous and monstrous. It is as if a father should starve
his younger children to death, because an older child had previously
beaten and killed a number of his brothers and sisters. But this is not
the worst. God keeps on punishing the innocent with famine, on account
of the cruelty of Saul to the Gibeonites, till David delivers over to the
Gibeonites seven innocent sons and grandsons of Saul, and till the Gib
eonites hang those innocents before the Lord. The Bible tells us that,
after this, God was intreated for the land ! A more foolish, a more
horrible, a more immoral, or a more blasphemous story, it seems hardly
possible to conceive.
My opponent asks, Can we, by searching, find out God ? Can
we learn his character and attributes from Nature ? The Bible says
we can. In the first chapter of Romans, we are told, that "that
which may be known of God is manifest to them ; (that is, the Gentiles,)
for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him,
(his unseen attributes,) from the creation of the world, are clearly seen,
being understood or revealed by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and God-head ; so that they are without excuse." Rom.
1 : 17, 18. We think, with Paul, that what may or what can be known of
God, — all that can be known of God, — is made known to us by Nature;
that the things seen, reveal all that can be revealed of things unseen ;
that as we see the hidden nature of a tree by its fruit, and the inner
nature of the man by his deeds, so do we see the otherwise invisible
attributes of the Deity by his works.
The Doctor says God's ways are not as our ways. It is well they are
not, if the ways of God are such as the portions of the Bible which we
read last night represent them. But they are not. Those portions of
the Bible belie God. They blaspheme him. Still, the ways of many men
are too much like the horrible ways falsely attributed to God in the
Bible. Men who regard those bloody and revengeful slaughters as God's
' works, often become bloody and revengeful themselves.
The Doctor says we must be as wise as God himself, our minds must
embrace the vast range of the universe, before we are qualified to judge
God's doings.
Dr. Berg. — My opponent misrepresents me.
Mr. Barker. — I thought I quoted his words. Will the Doctor please
state what he did say ?
Dr. Berg. — I said, that in order to be able to appreciate the motives
which govern the conduct of God, we must have all his wisdom.
Mr. Barker. — So I understood him. But is it so? To appreciate
the motives of a person, we only need, in general, to know his acts. As
a general rule, the act reveals the motive, as the fruit reveals the tree.
To know what character the writers of the Bible attributed to God, we

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 37
need only to know what deeds they ascribe to him. But the Bible pro
fesses to tell us God's motives as well as to acquaint us with his acts.
Thus, in 1 Samuel, 15:2, 3, we are told that God's motive for destroying
the Amalekites was revenge, — vengeance for a crime committed four
hundred and fifty years before the poor creatures were born. " Thus
saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel,
how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and
spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox
and sheep, camel and ass." The Doctor's talk about hidden motives is
out of place. The horrid deed and the mad and miserable motive are
both stated : and the representation that God could do such a deed, from
such a motive, is horrible blasphemy. The same revolting motive is
assigned in Numbers 31 : 12, for the wholesale, cold-blooded and unspar
ing butchery of the innocent women and children of Midian. " The
Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the
Midianites." My opponent talks of blasphemers. The greatest blas
phemers are those who charge God with being the author of such blas
phemous, misrepresentations of himself and his doings.
The Doctor says 1 placed Mormonism on a level with Christianity.
I did not. I simply referred to Mormonism to make plain the folly of
my opponent's remarks about unbelief being nothing but a great negation.
He tries to account for God's speaking of himself as subject to human
weakness, by telling us that God reveals truth, as men are prepared to
receive it. But the passages we have been noticing do not reveal truth.
They conceal it. They teach error. Suppose a Turk or a Pagan should
make such excuses for the blasphemous representations of God found in
their Bibles ? You would scorn them. Yet they would do for Paganism
as well as Judaism. The truth is, men are always better prepared for
true representations of God than false ones. Such representations of
God as those we have noticed, do not prepare men for true representa
tions. They blind men. When received as divine revelations, they act
as a veil to hide from men the truth for ever. The best way to prepare
men for receiving the truth, is to tell them it. If they cannot bear the
whole, tell them a part ; but never teach them falsehoods. God especi
ally could have no reason for speaking falsely, if he can make men'
understand him at pleasure.
My opponent says God speaks of himself as having a human body to
make truth plainer. What truth ? The truth that he has no body ?
Strange reasoning this. You tell a man God is like a man, — eats, drinks,
rests and refreshes himself like a man, to make it plainer that he is not
like a man, and that he does none of these things! And men can be
imposed on by such reasoning. It is mournful. We repeat, the tendency
of these false representations of God, when received as God's word, is
to perpetuate error, to make it immortal. They blinded the Jews.
Moses is the veil on their hearts to this day, which hinders so many of
them from seeing the truth. The writings attributed to him are as a veil
on the minds of Christians, too. The false representations of creation
and the universe given in those books, prevent men from seeing the truths
unfolded by Geology and Astronomy. While men receive these childish.

38 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
and blasphemous fables as God's revelations, their minds are disa
bled,— and all the revelations of truth presented by God's great universe
are lost on them. They grope in darkness at noonday. A darkness
like the fabled darkness of Egypt covers them ; while the rest of men
rejoice in a world of light.
My opponent intimates that before we can be fitted to judge the Bible
representations of God, we must take in the whole range of history and
of God's moral government of the world. That is to say, before we can
learn any thing from the Bible, we must know ten times more than the
Bible can ever teach us, and even ten times more than all the men that
ever lived. A wonderful book, that is unable to teach us any thing, till
me have learned every thing without its help.
My opponent says, that the spiritual character of God is revealed in
the same book in which he is spoken of as a man. We ask, Where ?
He refers to the prophets. But the prophets did not write in the days
of Moses, nor for nearly a thousand years after. Besides, if God could
give true revelations as to his spiritual character in the same book, why
did he give any other ?
My opponent says, that though the Old Testament represents God as
tempting David, James says God tempteth no man, and that I ought to
accept this correction. I cannot receive both. They contradict each
other. If I take James's statement, who says God tempteth no man, I
must reject the other, which says he tempted David.
My opponent called me a few more bad names, but these I pass over.
He says Nature does not reveal a merciful God. The Bible, however,
says the contrary. He says I represent God as cruel and partial. I
do not. I only say that the Bible so represents him.
He says God destroyed children by thousands to show his hatred to sin.
The Bible account is that he did it from an old grudge against their an
cestors, which he had cherished more than four hundred years.
The Doctor asks if the world is controlled by a superintending Provi
dence or not? If so, why do thousands perish by agues, plagues, &c?
We answer; we believe in no Providence that interferes with the laws of
the universe. We believe those laws to be fixed and unchangeable.
We believe that diseases are governed by general laws. We do not
attribute them to any special interference of God. We know whence
diseases spring. We can see their natural causes. We have power to
prevent them by removing the causes. Agues and chill fevers come
from swamps and stagnant waters, and — (Here the speaker was inter
rupted by a violent explosion of hisses, derision, and shouts.)
Dr. Berg. — I beg my friends not to interrupt the speaker, but to lis-
lcn in silence to what he may say.
Mr. Barker. — Is it possible that Americans can doubt whether
swamps, stagnant water, and the like, are the causes of ague ? The
English know it, who have had less to suffer from ague. They have rid
whole districts of ague, by draining the marshes. All diseases have
natural causes. Typhus originates in filth, impure air, and irregular
habits. Yellow fevers, plagues and cholera have similar origins. They
take their rise among the decaying carcases of a battle-field ; the nox-

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 39
ious exhalations from the putrefying, unburied dead, infect the living.
The disease then spreads with fearful rapidity. It rides on the wings of
the wind. The ships transport it across the ocean. The filth and pro
fligacy of sea- ports encourage its spread. The vessels carry it up the
rivers into the interior. If men would attend to these things, they might
secure themselves from those terrible plagues. If the minds and resour
ces of mankind had been wisely employed, they might have healed the
whole earth before this. We may heal it still. If we will study the
laws of Nature, — if we will open our eyes to the truth revealed by Nature,
instead of losing our minds amid the dreams of antiquity, we may make
the earth as healthy as we wish, and almost double the length of life.
If you think God causes diseases by some special act of providence,
you will look to God to cure it. Instead of using natural remedies, you
will trust to prayer or fasting, and the disease will continue its ravages.,
The idea seems monstrous. A man drinks intoxicating drinks, and the
consequence is, that next day he has the headache. Does God send him
that headache ? Is prayer the remedy for it ? He drinks more freely,
and delirium tremens follows. To attribute the disease to God's special
providence, or to recommend prayer as a cure, is folly. Drink caused
them. Let the man give up his intoxicating drink, and the disease will
cease to trouble him. And so with dyspepsia and other diseases. Let
men study the laws of their physical, mental and moral being, and their
relations to external nature, instead of looking for all saving truth in
ancient, antiquated documents, and he will be infinitely wiser and better,
and incalculably healthier and happier.
The Doctor refers to a supposed shipwreck, and asks, shall I call God
cruel for causing it ? No. We shall look for the cause of such disas
ters in human oversight or want of care, not in God.
The Doctor says, when he looks on the ravages of fevers and the like,
he will say, " So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our
hearts unto wisdom." We, too, would say, " let us apply our hearts unto
wisdom ;" but we would add, " let us drain our swamps ; let us clear.our
forests ; let us prevent wars ; let us keep clean our persons, our dwellings,
our towns and cities ; let us promote the spread of science, and so pre
vent such evils."
My opponent says God destroyed the Amalekites for their vileness and
sins. How does he know ? The Bible does not say so. It says he
destroyed them for an offence committed by some of their forefathers,
between four and five hundred years before they were born.
He asks our views again, about Providence. We answer, the laws of
the universe are, in our view, fixed and unchanging. We never expect
God to alter them. Instead of asking God to interfere with them, we
try to find them out, and conform to them.
My opponent says the earth bears traces of the deluge of Noah.
Geologists say otherwise. Even Professor Hitchcock, a theological geolo
gist, and Dr. Pye Smith, and others, declare that the earth bears no trace
of such a flood as that described in Genesis. They say the earth bears
traces of several partial deluges; but they add, that they all took place
innumerable ages before the appearance of man on the earth.
He says the language of the Bible is accommodated to human modes

40 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
of thought and expression. So it is. There is nothing either in the
thoughts or expression to mark it as divine. And when a thing looks
human, why not regard it as human. The writers of the Bible used
human language, because they had no other language. They express
human thoughts, because they had no other thoughts. They give us the
best and the highesl\thoughts they had. They believed God was like a
man, and they spoke of him accordingly. They believed that God could
not work six days straight ahead, without being tired ; and they said so.
Their ignorance colored all they said, whether about God, creation, or
history. To suppose that God would talk to man, and yet utter neither
truer thoughts nor better language than ignorant men, seems monstrous.
Why not leave the work to men, unless he could do it better ?
The Doctor says, that when God is said to rest, the evil effect of such
language is obviated by other expressions, which teach us that the ever
lasting fainteth not, neither is weary. The true explanation would be to
say, that the later Bible writers had worthier views of God than the
earlier ones, and, therefore, spoke of him more truly. But the Doctor
is greatly mistaken if he thinks a foolish passage is proved to be all
right, because another passage contradicts it. The Doctor's rule of inter-"
pr-etation, if acknowledged, would enable a person to explain away the
contradictions, errors and immoralities of every book on earth. His
plan amounts, in fact, to setting the Bible language aside, and putting his
own in its place. It is making the Bible over again. We have no
doubt the Doctor could easily make a truer and better book, but that is
not his business at present. His business is to prove the divinity of the
present Bible.
The Doctor says I represent God as encouraging immorality. I do
not. I only say the Bible represents God as doing so.
The Doctor asks, in reference to the polygamy, &c, of God's favorites,
" Did not his law forbid them, and his providence punish them ?" We
answer, " No." The law says, " Thou shalt not commit adultery ;" but
it does not define adultery. It does not say that to have many wives and
concubines is adultery. So far from the Bible representing God as
punishing Abraham, or David, it represents God as justifying them in all
the abominations I have named. The Bible expressly says, that Abra
ham kept God's voice, his statutes, his judgment, and his laws. Of
David it says, that he did wrong in nothing but in the case of Uriah the
Hittite. His polygamy, his deceit, his treachery, are nowhere blamed.
They are all justified. Solomon with his thousand wives and mistresses,
is pronounced the wisest man that ever lived. The law plainly did not
regard any thing as adultery, except the seduction of a married woman
while her husband was living. A strange law that could allow a man to
have seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, and yet per
mit him to be regarded as a man'of purity.
The Doctor says I charge the Bible with representing God as partial
because he chose one people from among the rest. This was not all.
I stated that it represented God as loving Jacob and hating Esau, before
either of them was born, or had done either good or evil. He says God
is always partial, — that he gives to one man health, to another sickness ;
to one wealth, to another poverty; to one rank and high station, to

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 41
another a humble position. For ourselves, we do not regard all these
things as the gifts of God. We think men have a great deal to do in
making themselves healthy or unhealthy, rich or poor, high or low. It
would be better to teach men to trace their povery or want of health to
their indolence, their ignorance, their want of economy, or to the igno
rance, the selfishness, and unjustice of others, and urge them to try to
cure them, than to teach them to throw the blame of all their sufferings
on God. The tendency of tracing all our sufferings directly to God is
most injurious.
He says God is partial in the endowments of his grace. We know
the Orthodox theology so represents him ; but we think such representa
tions blasphemous.
He says I told you that God demands human sacrifices. I only said
the Bible represents God as demanding them.
Having now disposed of the remarks of my opponent, I return to the
subject on which I was speaking when I closed my last speech. I was
speaking of the family institution. I showed that we had had to learn
the true form of the family institution from Nature, — that the Bible forms
of the family institution, which my opponent so foolishly and thought
lessly applauded, are vicious, unnatural, revolting. You cannot praise
the true family institution, without condemning the Bible forms of that
institution. The Doctor says worshippers become like to the Gods they worship.
This is not always the case, as we could easily show. There is, how
ever, some truth in it. Men ought, therefore, .to be careful which of the
Bible Gods they worship ; for some of them are most cruel, unjust and
revengeful. No doubt, much of the cruelty and savage malignity we see
in professing Christians, may be traced to their worship of a revengeful
and malignant God.
The Doctor thinks the ten commandments is a standard of virtue. It
is no such thing. It neither forbids all that is evil, nor commands all
that is good. Nor does it define the evils that it does forbid, or the good
that it commands. It is wholly vague. It says, " Thou shalt not com
mit adultery ; " but, as I have shown, it does not define adultery. It
does not say whether polygamy and concubinage are adultery or not.
Nor does the law name fornication or other forms of uncleanness.
Again, the law says, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy
God in vain ; " but it tells us not what it is to take the name of God in
vain. It leaves all uncertain. Besides, other portions of the Bible rep
resent God as commanding what the ten commandments are supposed to
forbid. The commandment says, " Thou shalt not kill ; " yet other pas-
sages represent God as commanding his people to kill thousands and
even tens of thousands of innocent persons at a time. The law says, " Re
member the seventh day to keep it holy. On it, thou shalt do no man
ner of work," &c. What does this law require ? That the seventh day
shall be kept as a Sabbath? Why, then, is it not kept? " We substitute
the first day for the seventh," say they. And will you thus publicly ac
knowledge your law to be so variable, so unfixed ? But do you keep the
first day ? Do you really do no manner of work on that day ? Do you
kindle no fires, cook no food, take no journeys ? " We do not keep it

42 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
with Jewish strictness," is the answer. The truth is, they differ end
lessly about the way in which it ought to be kept ; the day which ought
to be kept ; the time when the day begins and ends. Every one modi
fies the law to suit his views or his convenience. The law is just what
its interpreters choose to make it. It is just what every one chooses to
make it. It is so with all the other commands. They fix nothing ; they
define nothing. They leave men's notions all afloat.
The Doctor says, that Infidel morality is a nose of wax, which can be
shaped to any one's liking. Supposing it to be so, we are no worse off
than believers in the BTble. We have shown that the Bible rules of mo
rality, even the best of them, have no fixed meaning, but may be inter
preted jn ten, a hundred, or a thousand different ways. The law respect
ing the Sabbath is interpreted in an endless variety of ways. It is next
to impossible, if not quite impossible, to find two who interpret and apply
it alike. It is so on other matters. Not only have we hundreds of sects,
all differing in their views of truth and duty, but endless differences
among members and ministers of the same sect. The truth is, it is im
possible to give a law in writing, which shall serve as a perfect rule of
life to all ; or which shall serve as a standard of right and wrong to all
men. Men are differently made, and require different laws. That which
is duty to one man, is not always duty to another. The only law which
can exactly fit the case of any individual, is the law written on his own
nature. Every different man is a law to himself. His own peculiar
make is his law. We can neither eat, nor drink, nor work alike. We
cannot fill the same situations ; we cannot pursue the same objects. Our
duties differ as much as our persons. Our laws are as various as our
organizations. To know our law, we must know ourselves. To do our
duty, we must obey ourselvesj we must obey our own best thoughts and
our own best feelings and affections. When we do so, we are virtuous. If,
when we do so, we break written laws, it is the written laws that are wrong.
We make no pretensions to a written law, binding on all, enjoining on
every one his whole duty. There is no such law. There can be no such
law. But we have all the law we need. The Doctor asks, Would God give
the bird a law to direct it at the proper season in its flight to other climes,
and leave man, his noblest creature, without a law ? We answer, If
the Bible be man's only law, he has done so with regard to the greater
part of men. Not one in ten has the Bible. If, therefore, God has given
them no law within them, he has left them lawless. He has dealt with
them less kindly than with the birds. But we have a law within us — a
sufficient law, which guides us as surely to virtue and to blessedness, as
the instinct of the bird directs it on the wing. Let men be taught to
read, and brought to obey, the law within, instead of being eternally per
plexed and bewildered by a reference to old contradictory laws, and
they will become truly virtuous and happy. To obtain a perfect rule of
life in my opponent's way, is a hopeless task. You must first have a per
fect book, to begin with ; and there is no evidence that ever such a book
existed. You must next have assurance that the book has never been
altered or corrupted — that it has always been infallibly copied, infallibly
printed, and infallibly translated. And these are all 'impossible things,
without innumerable miracles. And we have proof that no such mira-

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 43
cles have ever been wrought. Take an Orthodox Protestant, who wishes
to get a perfect rule of faith and practice in the shape of a book. He
asks, 1. Did God ever give such a book? There is no proof that he ever
did. There is proof to the contrary.
2. If he did, how large was it? How many parts were there? To
whom did he give it ? Did he give it all at one time ? If not, at how
many times ? In how many places ? By how many persons ? What
were the names of the persons by whom he gave it ? What proof have
we that they all understood what God told them ? That they wrote it
down correctly ? Are their writings now in being ? There are no writ
ings in existence, supposed by Christians to have come from Heaven,
more than about a thousand years old ; and God is not supposed to have
written any books for seventeen hundred years past. We have nothing,
therefore, but second-hand copies. Are they correct copies ? No ; they
differ from each other. There are more various readings than words.
Which are most correct ? It cannot be told. Where are those books ?
Five thousand miles away. Have we no copies of them ? No. Noth
ing like them ? Yes. Exactly ? No. We have several compilatjons,
but no two alike. They are in Greek and Hebrew. Have we no trans
lations ? Yes ; many. Are they correct ? There are no correct transla
tions. The translations differ in hundreds of thousands of places. Which
are best? No one knows. You must take the one in common use. Is
it easy to be understood ? Some say, yes ; others, no. Some say, cer
tain parts may be understood ; other parts not. Facts show that men
cannot agree in interpreting any parts. Are there no infallible interpre
ters ? None. Are we sure we have got the right books ? No. That
the books we have, have come down to us unaltered ? No. Are we
sure of nothing? Nothing.
Suppose it were granted that the common English translation were
really God's word, would the Protestant have an infallible guide ? By
no means. He would still be at a loss for the true meaning. He reads,
" He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none." Must he
never keep more than one coat, then, so long as there is any one who
has none ? You must understand, says the priest, that some things in the
Bible are of temporary obligation only, while others are of permanent
obligation. Some things are binding on certain classes, not on all. Some
are of local obligation ; 6thers, of universal obligation. Then, some
things are binding in their spirit and substance, but not in their letter
and forms. Besides, some things are figurative ; others, literal. And
there are many different forms of figures, and many different rules for
interpreting them. Then, many things have to be modified. Things
spoken absolutely, are to be modified, qualified, limited. So with exam
ples. They are to be imitated with discretion. We may aim at the
same end as our pattern did ; but not use the same means. We may
cherish the same spirit, but not follow the same way of life. You must
have the spirit of God to guide you, and the ministers of Christ to aid
you. Then many commands are general ; but they require special ap
plication, according to times, circumstances and persons. And you are
not yourself infallible- Indeed, your heart is deceitful above all things,

44 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
and desperately wicked. And whoso trusteth in his own heart, or Iean-
eth to his own understanding, is a fool. And this is the way you supply
the poor Protestant with his infallible rule of life. You place him in the
midst of a world of uncertainty. You torture him almost to death with
perplexity and fear, that you may compel him to place himself under
priestly guidance, and leave himself at the priest's disposal.
But would a good God give a law to the worm or the bird, and not to
man ?
We answer, No. And this proves that the Bible is not God s law ;
that the law of God to man, like the law of God to the w.orm, and to
the bird, is within him. It is certain the Bible has been given to very
few. You must either acknowledge, therefore, that God has left the
great majority of his creatures without law, or given them a law apart
from the Bible.
But there is enough of the Bible plain, it is said. Take the teachings of
Jesus. Well ; take the teachings of Jesus. They are not plain. Nor
are they always good when they are plain. Take the Sermon on the
Mount. The first sentence is, " Blessed are the poor in spirit." What is
it to be poor in spirit ? To be indifferent to riches ; to be willing to be poor;
to be content in poverty ; says one. Nothing of the kind, says another.
It means, to have a low opinion of our own talents and virtues ; to feel
that we are foolish and wicked. No such thing, says a third. It means
literally poor. The words in spirit are an interpolation. In the par
allel passage in Luke, the words are, Blessed are the poor. And they
are accompanied with the words, Wo unto you that are rich. Are,
then, the poor really blessed ? Blessed above all others ? Are all the
poor entitled to the kingdom of heaven ? The text, thus interpreted, says
so. But what is it to be poor? When may a man be called poor?
How poor must a man be to make him thus blessed ? The Sermon on
the Mount does not say. We are yet in great uncertainty. The next
sentence is, Blessed are they that mourn. What is it to mourn ? To
weep, to lament, to cry out in sorrow, to feel and to express great grief.
And are all who mourn, blessed ? You mistake, says the^ priest; the
meaning is, " Blessed are they that mourn for their sins." Does the
Bible say so ? No. Why, then, do you say so ? It seems as if this
should be the meaning. And so you put your own ideas in the place of
Christ's, do you ? If Christ had meant mourning for sins, could he not
have said it ? Would he not have said it ? But so it is ; the Bible fixes
nothing. Critics, translators, interpreters, fix all. And they fix them in
a thousand different ways. Even the best parts of the Bible are no in
fallible guide ; no guide at all, apart from our own good sense. Even
those who pretend to take it as their guide, just force into the words their
own ideas, before they follow them. They tell their guide which way
to go, before they will follow him. Their guide says, " Take no thought
for to-morrow, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, or what ye
shall put on." But will they follow him ? Not they. They will take
out the sense from his words, and put in another sense of their own, and
then follow him. That is, they will take their own course, and make
their guide follow them. [Calls of lime up.]

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 45
REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.

(General and long-continued applause.) — I hope my opponent will
be able to settle his controversy with his Moderator. (Laughter.) All
that he has said in regard to the character of the God of the Bible, is
but another testimony to the truth of the Scripture, that the things of God
are not naturally discerned. He has brought up a string of alleged con
tradictions in biblical language, which he could himself reconcile, if he
was not as blind as a bat in an ivy-bush, or at noon-day. Any child who
has received a Sunday-school education could explain them to him, could
make them as plain as the nose upon his face, or upon mine. What has
he done in his objections to the Bible account of the Creation and the
Deluge ? He has given us assertion upon assertion, but not a grain of
proof. He tells us that the Bible account is wrong, but >does not show
us how it is so. What is his version of these matters ? Come, Mr.
Barker, give us a little of your philosophy, and then set these things
straight. (General applause.) We have his word that the Bible account
is not to be relied upon. But does his saying so make it so ? Can his
unsupported assertions invalidate the testimony of that sacred book ? I
protest against his course in this matter. Mr. Barker appears here to
make almost innumerable assertions. He comes with strings of report
ers to put them down, and, next morning, they appear in the papers,
conveying the impression that I have not answered them. Why, it
would take ten men to follow him up in all his arguments. I do not
know in advance what they will be ; it is impossible for me to take notes
of them ; I cannot write quick enough to put them down on paper. His
arguments to prove the Scriptures are the works of men, are worthy of
the rotten cause he supports. One does not know sometimes how to
make them out.
My opponent cavils at the character of Jehovah. He does not think
it consistent with mercy that He should give men over to strong delu
sions, that they may believe a lie. This judicial blindness is part of the
penalty imposed by Jehovah upon sin. When men harden their hearts,
and wilfully reject the truth, they are abandoned to their own weakness
and passsions, given up of God, until they are at last suddenly cut off in
their rebellion against Him. This is the usual method of Jehovah with
man. When his people will not walk in His way*, they are left by him
to a state of judicial blindness. This is a truth in his moral government.
Let those who are disposed to reject his law take it to heart, and think a
great deal over it. I said last night, that, before the close of this debate,
my opponent would be driven to take refuge in the bogs of Athe*ism.
That remark has been justified by what we have heard to-night. My
opponent says, that the God of the Bible is unjust, if he leaves men to
fall into error. Nay, who art thou, O man ! that repliest against God ?
The Bible teaches that men are dependent upon divine protection and
guidance, but, that if men will utterly rebel against God, and harden
their hearts against him, he will leave them to themselves. He says to
the incorrigible sinner, Depart ! and he departs. He proclaims wo to

46 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
them that reject His law, and will not listen to His counsels. Then it is
that evil spirits take possession of the tenement abandoned by the Holy
Ghost. Then it is, that Satan, ever lying in wait, seeking whom he may
devour, gains the mastery of the human soul. Its citadel is dismantled,
its walls are broken down, its gates unhinged, and it becomes the strong
hold of the devil. In this sense, is God said to send strong delusions,
that men may believe a lie. In this manner does man unseat God from
the throne of his heart, to become subject only to Satan. Is not he un
just to himself? Is not the character of God vindicated ? Every prin
ciple of His government may not be received of man ; every one may
not be perfectly plain to human reason ; but every one is right, not only
for those who are saved, but those who perish also.
My opponent cited the Bible account of Jephtha's vow as one in which
the character of God is defamed. I will read it. It is so clear, that I
was not at all surprised that my opponent, notwithstanding his habitual
coolness, exhibited signs of impatience when I asked him to read it.
" And Jephtha vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail
deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then shall it be that whatsoever
cometh forth of the doors of mj house to meet me, when I return in peace from the
children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-
offering. So Jephtha passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them ;
nad the Lord delivered them into his hands. And he smote them from Aroer, even
till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plane of the vineyards,
with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the
children of Israel. And Jephtha came to Mizpeh unto his house, and behold his
daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances : and she was his only
child ; beside her, he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass when ha
saw her, he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter ! thou hast brought me
very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me : for I have opened my mouth
unto the Lord, and I cannot go back. And she said unto him, My father, if thou
hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do unto me according to that which hath
proceeded out of thy mouth ; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee
of thine enemies, even ofthe children of Ammon. And she said unto her father, Let
this thing be done for me : let me alone for two months, that I may go up and down
upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. And he said,
Go. And he sent her away for two months ; and she went with her companions,
and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And it came to pass, at the end
of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his
vow which he had vowed : and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel
that the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephtha the
Gileadite four days in a year." Judges 11 : 30-40.
My opponent adduced this as an instance where God had demanded a
human sacrifice.
Mr. Barker. — No; I adduced two other instances where the Bible
represents God as doing that; and I adduced the case of Jephtha as an
instance of human sacrifice narrated in the Bible, without any expression
of blame.
Dr. Berg. — Jephtha alone was responsible for his act. Pie himself
was the guilty agent, and without the sanction, expressed or implied, of
Jehovah. To make the vow was a crime ; and it was a greater crime to
fulfil it. Jephtha knew the law, and he knew that it forbade the sacrifice
of a human being as a burnt-offering ; he knew that beasts were the pre-

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 47
scribed victims ; he could not have made a mistake upon this subject.
God had expressly forbidden human sacrifices. My opponent must bear
that paint in mind. The anger of Jehovah was directed against the Gen
tile nations in the vicinity of the Jews, because they passed their chil
dren through the fire to Moloch. How, then, could it be supposed that
he would sanction similar practices among his chosen people ?
And here allow me to suggest as to whether the language of this nar
ration is not figurative. May it not mean only that Jephtha's daughter
was set apart to the service of Jehovah ? The nuns of the Romish
Church are often said to be " buried alive." I have, in my time, said
many hard things against that Church. I have probably said of their
veiled and cloistered nuns, that they are " buried alive," but I certainly
did not mean that the earth was heaped upon them, and that they were
suffocated before the breath was out of their bodies. We read that Jeph
tha's daughter bewailed her virginity, and that her companions bewailed
it with her upon the mountains. And, afterwards, the daughters of Israel
mourned for the same reason. All- these statements are without mean
ing, if she was offered for a burnt-sacrifice.
My opponent spoke feelingly of the curse pronounced on the serpent.
He thought this reptile had been dealt with too severely. Now, he may
be a better judge of snakes than I am, (laughter,) but it strikes me that
the universal abhorrence with which that reptile has ever been regarded
by our race, is one of the strongest collateral proofs of the truth of that
part of the Bible.
Though I would greatly prefer making positive progress in the argu
ment of the question, I will proceed to notice other objections made to
the Bible by my opponent. He charges that sacred book with encour
aging polygamy. I do not deny that polygamy was practised in ancient
times, and that there is a faithful record of the facts in the Bible. Shall
its sanction be inferred from this ? Solomon had many wives, but no
Christian ever thought he was doing right in this. Let my opponent lay
his finger upon the text in the Word of God that sanctions polygamy.
Where is it said that a man may have two, three, four, or eight wives ?
The argument is poor that infers the approbation of the Bible, because
it says men did what tMty ought not to have done. Its teachings are
pure on this subject. How many wives had Adam ? One. How many
had Noah ? One. And how many had Noah's sons ? One a-piece. If
you would know what the Bible teaches on this subject, consult the New
Testament. The Savior has settled this whole matter. Let my oppo
nent read what he says, and it will save him a mint of trouble : — " Have
ye not read that he which made them at the beginning, made them male
and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and they twain shall be one flesh." Matthew 19 : 4, 5.
There is not a single passage which can be interpreted as an appro
bation of a plurality of wives. Moses, because of the hardness of their
hearts, had permitted certain things ; but from the beginning, we are told
by the Savior, it was not so. In not a solitary instance can it be shown
that God commanded his people to practice polygamy, or commended
it. The moral government of God is progressive. In his wisdom, he
has permitted some facts to develop themselves, probably in order that

48 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
men might see and know the full evils resulting from them. He may
have allowed the existence of polygamy, that men might see it to be the
evil it is.
In his remarks upon the Sabbath, my opponent has made a glorious
blunder. He thinks the Sabbath a Jewish institution ! No ; the Sabbath
was not made for any nation or people, but for the whole world. It is
coeval with humanity itself. The Savior says that the Sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the Sabbath. It was intended for Jew and
for Gentile. It was consecrated, in order that God might establish an
institution that would bless man for all future ages ; that there might be
some cessation of the busy turmoil of life ; that the weary laborer might
repose his jaded frame, and enjoy the refining and elevating influences
of the family relation, and the ennobling ones of worship ; that one day
out of seven might be devoted to rest ; that there might be here on earth
a type of the everlasting rest that remains for the people of God.
[The above passage, as delivered, was one of elaborate rhetorical
finish and beauty, most imperfectly rendered in our meagre sketch. It
elicited long and enthusiastic plaudits.]
My opponent speaks of Heaven. That word is not in the Infidel
vocabulary. Where did he get it? What right has he, as an Infidel, to
speak of Heaven ? He, perhaps, forgets that he is no longer a Metho
dist minister. (Laughter and applause.)
It is singular, that what I said about the ever-present agency of Provi
dence in the affairs of this world, should have driven my opponent into
the dreary regions of atheism. He discards a particular superintending
Providence, and represents this world as governed by laws that change
not. But did these laws make themselves ? Did they make the world ?
Are they entirely independent of God ? Do they need no one to super
intend their operations ? Will he pretend that God lives insulated from
the creatures of his hands, from the world he made ? What abominable
folly of atheism. (General applause.) In what he said of plagues, did
he not avow his unblushing atheism ? (Enthusiastic applause.) And the
marshes? (Renewed applause.) Agues come from marshes, do they?
But who fixed the law which makes agues come from marshes ? (Ap
plause.) My opponent's reasoning reminds fee of the heathen, who,
being asked on what the world stood, replied, " On a tortoise." But on
what does the tortoise stand ? " On another tortoise." With Mr.
Barker, too, there are tortoises all the way down. (Vehement and vocif
erous applause.)

THIRD EVENING.
[Notwithstanding the inclemency of the evening, the audience was al
most, if not quite, as crowded as on the preceding evenings.]
Mr. Illman, Moderator on the side of Mr. Barker. — I wish to secure
for Mr. Barker, this evening, a candid and impartial hearing ; and for

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 49
that end, make the request to the persons present, to abstain from all
manifestations of applause. There is no person, I think, who deliber
ately wishes to be in error. For my own part, I wish to know the exact
truth. I am an old man, and am fast hastening to that period when I
shall have to appear before the final Judge ; and I wish to say, then,
that on this most important of all subjects, I have endeavored to arrive at
none but correct conclusions.
REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
Mr. Barker took the stand. (Applause by a considerable number,
and hisses by a few, apparently to obtain silence.) I think the request
a reasonable one that there should be no expressions of strong feelings
on either side. I am sure that those who favor my views will comply
with it, in order that the discussion may proceed in order and quiet ;
and I am sure that the friends present, on the other side, will receive
with respect a similar request from Dr. Berg.
I will proceed at once to the remarks made by my opponent in his
last speeech.
The Doctor thinks that those passages which are quoted to prove that
the Bible represents God as using deceit, only teach that God leaves
those who wilfully reject the truth to themselves, and to the lusts of their
own hearts. Let us read the passages, and see whether this is true : —
"If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a
sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee,
saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve
them ; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of
dreams : for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your
God with all your heart, and with all your soul." Deut. 13 : 1 - 3.
There is nothing about judicial blindness : nothing about the people
whom God tries by these delusions having previously forsaken the truth.
Just the contrary. They are supposed to be steadfast in their adherence
to God and his worship. And nothing is said about God leaving these
people to themselves. He employs dreamers and prophets, &c, to try
their spiritual strength, and to satisfy himself as to whether they are
incorruptible or not.
The next passage is as follows : —
*' And he said, Hear thou, therefore, the word ofthe Lord : I saw the Lord sitting
on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him, on his right hand and
on his left. And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up
and fall at Ramoth Gilead ? And one said on this manner, and another said on that
manner. And then came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord and said, I will
persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith ? And he said, I will go
forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said,
Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also ; go forth and do so. Now, therefore,
behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all those thy prophets, and
the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." 1 Kings, 22 : 19 - 23.
Here God gives a direct command to a lying spirit to go forth and de
ceive Ahab. Ahab, it is true, is represented as being a bad man ; but
there is nothing said about leaving him to himself. God positively

50 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
deceives him, by causing a lying spirit to prophesy falsely through his
prophets. I will now read from 2 Thess., 2 :9: —
" Whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying
wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because
they receive not tho love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for. this cause,
God shall send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie ; that they all
might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
In this last passage, the parties deceived are said to have rejected the
truth, and to have had pleasure in unrighteousness : but even in this
case, God does not leave the sinners to themselves. He sends them
strong delusions. He works, or causes others to work, miracles, to de
ceive them. He gives to falsehood all the supposed accompaniments
and proofs of truth. He is represented as busily employing his positive
agency to deceive. Thus are all my opponent's theories exploded. Not
one of them will bear to be tested. Thus do all his efforts to protect the
scriptures fail.
The Doctor says Jephtha's daughter was not offered as a burnt offering.
He, however, gives us no proof of his statement. The passage he read
contradicted him. Let us read the passage again : —
" And Jephtha vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said : If thou shalt without fail
deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be that whatsoever
cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the
children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt-
offering." Further on in the same chapter, we read as follows : —
*' And it came to pass, at the end of two months, that she returned unto her
father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed."
Now, if Jephtha did not offer up his daughter as a burnt-offering, the
Bible says what is not true : for it says he rowed to do so, and that he
did with her according to his vow. If he did offer her up a burnt-offer-
ng, as the Bible says, our original charge is proved.
But why, then, asks the Doctor, should she lament her virginity? We
answer, Is it not as great a calamity to die childless as to live childless?
She had the double calamity of childlessness and a premature violent
death. But the Doctor says she could not be offered as a burnt- offering,
Ifecause the law forbids human sacrifices. W7e answer, the law forbids
people to put to death the children for the sins of their fathers, (Deut.
24, 16 ;) yet we have a number of passages which represent God as
destroying children for the sins of their fathers, and as commanding his
people to do the same. So the law forbids the children of Israel to lie
one to another ; yet David lies to Achish, and is justified by the Bible in
so doing. The truth is, the Bible abounds in contradictions. There is
scarcely a sin which it forbids, which it does not, in other places, repre
sent God himself as committing, or as commanding his people to com
mit. The Doctor says, if I will show him a passage which represents God

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 51
as commanding a person to have seven hundred wives and three hundred
concubines, he will then allow that the Bible is an immoral book ; but
not till then. But the Doctor would not require such proof of the im
morality of any other hook. He would not require such proof before he
would allow the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or a Roman Catholic book
to be immoral. Suppose the Doctor should meet with a novel that should
give its hero seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, that
should find no fault with him for having so many wives and concubines,
but should hold him forth as a first rate man ; should praise bis wis
dom, and declare that he was the wisest man that ever lived, or that
ever should live ; would not the Doctor pronounce such a novel an im
moral book? Suppose a novel should represent its hero as a gambler, a
thief and a murderer, without giving the slightest hint that he did wrong
in gambling, stealing and murdering ; suppose it should praise him as
the wisest man that had ever lived, though it did not recommend people to
gamble, steal and commit murder, in so many words, would the Doctor
hesitate to pronounce the book immoral ? Not a moment. Suppose
some Infidel work should praise some Infidel highly, at the same time
stating that he had only seven wives and three mistresses, without recom
mending men generally to have so many ; would he say, " I will not
allow the work to be an immoral book, till it can be shown that it com
mands men to have seven wives and three mistresses each ? " Judge ye.
The Bible could not have more thoroughly sanctioned polygamy and con
cubinage, if it had commanded them ever so plainly. If it tells us that one
man who had several wives kept God's commandments, — that God gave
another man several wives after he had made a collection of wives for
himself, — that this man, with his two lots of wives, turned not aside from
following God in any thing, but did that which was right in God's sight in
all things, save when he seduced the wife of a living man, and killed the
husband lo conceal his guilt ; — and if, finally, it tells us that the man who
had the greatest number of wives and mistresses of all, was the wisest of
them all, and the wisest that ever should be, it gives a sanction to im
morality that nothing can exceed. No express command of vice can be
more immoral than this.
The Doctor says that polygamy was permitted by Moses on account
of the hardness of the people's hearts ; and he quoted part of the passage
in Matt. 19 : 8, as proof. Now, the passage has no reference whatever
to polygamy, but only to divorce. To prove this, I will read the pas
sage : — " He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your
hearts, suffered you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it
was not so." It is no where said that God, or even Moses, permitted
polygamy and concubinage, for the hardness of their hearts.
The Doctor next says, that God permitted polygamy to exist, so that
its evils might develop themselves, and be made manifest in the quarrels
of families ; that men might see it to be the evil it is. This is a tremen
dous explanation. It makes the character of God worse than the Bible
does. It makes bad worse. But where did the Doctor get his wonder
ful information ? From the Bible ? No. Can he then find out God's
secret motives by his own unaided intellect ? He told us such a thing
was impossible; that man could not pry into his motives; that they
are high as heaven, and deep as hell.

52 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
He asks me where I got the word " heaven "— thinking I had forgot
I had been a Methodist preacher. I answer, that I know of no nation or
country under heaven where the word is not known ; no language that
does not contain it, or an equivalent word.
The Doctor asks — Who fixed the law which makes agues come from
marshes ? and that some one must have done it. All we said was, that,
in our view, the laws of Nature are fixed ; that health and disease are
the results of the operation of unchanging laws. This was the doctrine
which the friends of my opponent scouted and derided. Yet nothing
can be more true. We see that drunkenness causes headache, lowness
ofspirit, delirium tremens ; that marshes and stagnant waters cause agues ;
that gluttony causes apoplexy ; that putrefying flesh and other substances
cause fevers and pestilence. And so with other diseases. They are all
governed by natural laws, and not by special interpositions of Providence.
The more enlightened see this, and hence they are beginning, when
cholera approaches a city, to cleanse the streets, to keep the atmosphere
pure, and to warn the people to be temperate in their habits, as a better
means of preventing or checking its ravages, than fasting and humilia
tion. The Doctor contends that our principles have an immoral tendency.
We, however, think just the contrary. If the Bible were a book of un
mixed truth and wisdom, — if il were proved to be the law of God, — if there
were no other law binding on man, outside the Bible, the Doctor's charge
might be true: but such is not the case. The Bible is not a mass of
unmixed truth and righteousness : it is a monstrous jumble of truth and
error, good and evil. It is not the law of God : so that in denying its
authority, we do not question the authority of God. Nor do we reject
the Bible as a whole : we only reject those parts of it which are false
and bad, indecent and immoral. Those parts that are true and good, we
retain. We have, besides, all the teachings of our own natures, and all
the revelations of the universe at large. We have, also, all the lessons
that experience, observation, and history can teach. We have, in short,
all the truth and all the laws of God's great universe binding on us.
Freedom from Bible authority leaves us at liberty to" obey the law of
God as it is written on our own nature. And we have no doctrine of in
dulgences : no promise of impunity in sin. We believe that whatever
we sow, we must reap ; that we must bear the natural penalty of every
sin we commit. We believe that every sin is punished, — punished now
— punished in proportion to its magnitude, and that there are no excep
tions. We believe in no means of escaping punishment when sin has
been committed. We do not believe that sin is ever forgiven ; that the
punishment affixed to it can ever be remitted. Man must endure the
natural results of his sins, without any abatement. If a man will drink
intoxicating drinks, he must suffer headache, depression of mind, and all
the other effects of his sin. If he indulges in licentiousness, the result
must be the injury or ruin of his physical system, the debasement of his
moral nature, the loss of intellectual power, and unfitness for the duties
and enjoyments of married and social life. If he be unjust and cruel, he
must be hated, cursed, and perhaps destroyed. If he sin but once, the
punishment will not be so great, and a return to duty will soon abate
and almost undo the evil effects of the sin : but something has been lost

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 53
for ever. If sin be persisted in, the evil is increased, and ruin follows.
We believe in no endurance of the punishment of sin by proxy, nor in any
substitutionary righteousness. We have no idea that the evil effects of
a vicious life can be evaded by a death-bed repentance, or by faith in
another's merits, or the cloak of another's righteousness. If we believed
that we might sow thistles and reap wheat, that we might leave our own
garden to run wild, and yet be supplied with flowers and fruits from a
neighbor's garden, the temptation to indolence might be too strong for us.
But we believe that we must reap exactly what we sow, that our lot must
be determined by our own character, that as we act so must we fare
through every period of our existence. As easily might we make a
world, or change the laws of the world now in being, as escape the re
wards of our own doings. No doctrine can be more opposed to sin than
this. No doctrine can present stronger motives to virtue.
It is very different with our opponents. I have no wish to be offensive ;
but truth compels me to say, that no views can be more immoral than
many of those which are held by the generality of believers in the
divine authority of the Bible. Look at the license given to sensuality
by the Bible itself: seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines.
A house full of slaves, with liberty to use the female portion as wives or
concubines. But this is little. Look at the doctrines held by believers
in the divine authority -of the Bible. Take the Catholic doctrine of
priestly absolution and indulgences. For money and penance, or for
money alone, a man can obtain, not only absolution from sins past, but
liberty to commit still further sins. This is bad enough. But Protestant
ism has something worse. The doctrine of Orthodox Protestants is, that
a man may sin his whole life through, and yet escape the punishment
of sin, and get safe to eternal blessedness and glory, by repentance and!
faith in the hour of death ; that the drunkard, the gambler, the thief,.
the kidnapper, the slaveholder, the murderer, may follow their horrible-
courses through a long life, and yet escape the punishment due to their
misdeeds, through faith in the sufferings and righteousness of another:.
that " While the lamp holds out to burn,
The vilest sinner may return."
They teach that sin may be forgiven, all sin, except the blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, which they are careful to tell people none can
now commit. They even teach, that the more sins a man gets forgiven;
the more he will love God ; that the greater the sinner, the more glori
ous the saint. They teach that no man is saved by works ; that men are
saved by faith alone, by reliance on the atoning death and meritorious
righteousness of another. Thus men are encouraged to believe that they
may sow the seed of sin all their life, and yet, by faith in another, reap
a harvest of eternal blessedness. A more licentious doctrine cannot be
conceived. Yet it is preached in every Orthodox pulpit, and mingled im
all their prayers and hymns. I attended a service in this city, one Sun
day, and the following hymn was read by the minister and sung by the-
congregation : — " Lord, thy imputed righteousness
My beauty is, my glorious dress,.

54 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
Mid flaming worlds in this arrayed,
With joy shall I lift up my head.
" When from the dust of death I rise,
To claim my mansion in the skies,
Even then, this shall be all my plea,
Jesus has lived and died for me.
" Bold shall I stand in that great day,
For who aught to my charge shall say ?
While through his blood absolved I am
From sin's tremendous guilt and shame."
Here we have an indulgence long and large as life, without money
and without price. It is bad enough to have indigencies of limited ex
tent, offered for money ; buttohave an unlimited indulgence proclaimed,
without money and without price ; to be told that Jesus has made a full
atonement for all the sins of those who believe in him — sins past, present
and to come, and has purchased all the blessedness and glories of heaven,
to bestow as a free gift on all who trust in his blood and merits ; to be
told that a man may live a whole life in the vilest practices, " yet while the
lamp of life continues burning, his sins may all be pardoned, and his
soul enriched with all the treasures of glory, through faith alone," is the
most awful and infinite encouragement to every kind of sin that can
possibly be conceived. Yet this is the Orthodox Gospel. Wre do not
charge the whole on the Bible ; but it is the doctrine of our opponents;
and there is much in the Bible in favor of it. And these are the men to
charge our doctrines with a licentious tendency !
People feel the doctrines of Orthodoxy tb be immoral. It is the im
morality ofthe doctrines that makes so many cling to them. It is here
they find consolation. The doctrine makes them easy. It enables them
to sin with less anxiety. The opposite doctrine does not yield such en
couragement in sin. It troubles sinners. It makes them uneasy in their
sins. It tends to drive them from their sins. I can illustrate this by an
anecdote or two. I had been preaching once, to show that all would fare
according to their deeds ; that the Orthodox doctrine of the atonement
was a false doctrine ; that trust in Christ's merits was a delusion ; that
there were no such merits to trust in. A man who heard me, as he
went away, said to a friend of mine, " That is a serious doctrine. Here I
have been trusting in the merits of Christ for fifteen years, and now it
seems there is no such thing to trust in. If every one is to receive ac
cording to his deeds, it is time for me to look about me."
In a debate between a friend of mine and an Orthodox person, my
friend contended that persons who held our views were as good, as pure,
•as kind, as charitable 'as other people, if not better. " Yes," said the
advocate of Orthodoxy, " they had need be good ; they have nothing else
to trust to." Nothing could be more natural or more true. The Ortho
dox were not under any necessity to be gqod : they had something else
to trust to. The heretics were obliged to be good ; as they had no hope of
sinning with impunity. It is the advocates of the divine authority of the
Bible, then, who are preaching licentious doctrines; who are undermining
the foundations of morality, and scattering every where the seeds of vice.
We .oppose their immoral teachings. We preach eternal renovating

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 55
truth, and inculcate obedience to the unchanging laws of Nature and of
God. A few more words with regard to the rule of Scripture interpretation
insisted on by my opponent, and so generally adopted by advocates of
the superhuman origin of the Bible. When we quote passages which
represent God as subject to human imperfections and vices, or which
give false representations of creation, &c, they try to get over the diffi
culty by saying, that God, in writing the Bible, used human language in
its current acceptation at the time the book was written ; that he did
this condescendingly, to accommodate himself to human weakness. The
meaning of all this is, when put into plainer words, that God, in writing
the Bible, wrote just as a man of those times would have written, if he
had had the Bible to write ; that he used the same style, the same words,
and expressed himself agreeably to the notions generally held on the
subjects on which he wrote. The people, for instance, of those days,
believed God to be like a man, and spoke of him as such ; and God,
when he wrote the Bible, spoke of himself in the same way. He spoke of
himself as a man, or as subject to human imperfections. v Though he
knew the people were wrong in their notions of him, he did not tell them
so ; but spoke as if he thought them right. In other words, God gave
his own high sanction to their erroneous ideas and forms of expression.
To unprejudiced men, the fact, that a book was written just in the style
and after the manner of an ignorant man, would be considered proof that
it was written by an ignorant man. This is the way we judge with re
gard to other books ; and why should we not judge thus with regard to -
the Bible ? Besides, where is your internal evidence of the divine origin
of the Bible, if you allow that it is written in the style and after the man
ner of men ? Again, it is a reflection, a blasphemous reflection, on God,
to say that when he speaks or writes, he speaks or writes like ignorant,
erring men : that instead of speaking what he knows, he speaks what his
ignorant creatures think : that when he knows the truth, he yet speaks of
himself erroneously.
We' are told, God would not be understood, if he spoke of things as
they really are. But where is the proof? He cannot be understood
when he speaks of things as they are not. He had better not be under
stood, than be understood to speak falsely. The worst that could follow
in case he spoke of things truly, would be to be misunderstood : and that
would be no worse than to be understood as teaching error and falsehood.
Besides, why speak on a subject at all, if he could not speak on it truly ?
And why not leave all the writing to men, if men were unable to under
stand any higher or more truthful kind of writing ? Why should God
write at all, unless he could write in a better style than men ? And if the
Bible, or the earlier portions of the Bible, are not written in a style su
perior to that of man's style, why suppose it to have'been written by any
being superior to man ?
Allow the use of your rule of interpretation to the Mohammedan, and
it will enable him to explain away all the errors and inconsistencies of
the Koran. You say, the Koran represents God as cruel. " God chose
so to represent himself," answers the Mohammedan, " in condescension
to human weakness." " The Koran allows polygamy," you add. " God

56 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
did not give the best laws to our fathers, but the best they were willing
or able to receive," adds the Mohammedan. " The Koran gives a false
account of creation," you add. " God used the language of the times in
which he wrote, in its current acceptation ; he could not bring up men's
ideas to the truth, so he let himself down to their ideas, in condescension
to human weakness," replies the Mohammedan. And what can you
answer ? You have given him weapons, and he conquers you with
them. So with the Mormonite. Allow him the use of your rule of interpre
tation, and he will succeed quite as well in defending the superhuman
origin of his Book, as you can in defending the superhuman origin of
the Bible. Your rule would serve the purpose of the Persian, the Hindoo,
the Chinese, just as well. You say to the Hindoo, " Your sacred books
speak as if there were thirty rnillio'ns of Gods." " True," answers the
Bramhim ; " when God wrote the book, our forefathers believed in thirty
millions of Gods ; and he generously condescended to adapt his language
to our forefathers' ideas. They could not have understood him, if he
had spoken of himself according to strict truth ; so he spoke of himself
according to the prevailing errors." "But your sacred books give a
very ridiculous and unpbilosophical account of the creation of the world."
" Very true. God wrote the books in a childish and unphilosophical age.
Pie found it would be impossible to bring people to think of things in ac
cordance with strict philosophical truth ; so he spoke of them in accord
ance with the prevailing ideas and representations, till men should find
out the truth for themselves, and so be able to put into his words a higher
meaning." We repeat, if God should write a book on the .principle sup
posed, the tendency would be to perpetuate error, — to close men's eyes
against the truth when revealed by Nature. The tendency of the Bible,
when believed to be of divine authority, is, to prejudice men against the
revelations of Nature, or the discoveries of science. This must always be
the tendency of such a way of speaking by public teachers. The use of
unphilosophical language in common conversation may do no harm ;
but the use of such language, by a teacher or writer, when he undertakes
to be your instructor, to impart to you the knowledge of God, of his works
and of his will, the case is very different. Suppose your missionaries to
China, to adopt the rule which you say God adopted in writing the Bible.
They adapt their instructions to the low and childish notions of the
Chinese. The Chinese believe in the divinity of images of wood and
stone. The missionaries know they are in error, but doubt whether they
are capable of being brought at once to understand the truth. So they adapt
their discourses and tracts to the prevailing ideas and ways of speaking.
They speak of the stone and wooden images, as the Chinese speak of
them. They speak ofthe customs, manners, laws and religious ceremonies,
as the Chinese speak of those things. They pretend all the time to be re
vealing the character and will of God. What would be the result ? The
people would be strengthened in their false belief, and encouraged in
their foolish ways. If the missionaries should at length say, " All this
while we have, in great condescension to your weakness, been adapting
our way of speaking to your ignorance ; but now it is time to speak of
-.things as they really are; — your Gods are idols ; they are powerless;

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 57
your worship isa lie ; your customs are foolish and vicious; you must
change and reform ;" the Chinese would justly charge the missionaries
with fraud. The missionaries would lose their reputation ; they would
no longer be trusted. The Chinese might say, " If you have cheated us
once, how know we but you are cheating us again ? If you used a
lie at first, out of condescension to us, you may be using one now,
out of regard to yourselves."
And, indeed, if we allow that God has once used false representations
of things, how shall we know that he ever uses any thing else ? Your
principle destroys itself. It overturns the very foundations of your sys
tem. Yet to such refuges of lies as this, men will flee, rather than give
up their foolish systems. But the truth advances and sweeps such
refuges away.
A few words more on the cases of Abraham and David. My oppo
nent says, the immoralities of David and Abraham are not sanctioned or
justified by the Bible. Let us see what the Bible says on this subject.
I read from 1 Kings, 15 : 5 : —
" Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned
not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only
in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."
Now, here every act of David is approved, except one. We will now
see what some of the acts of David were. I read from 1 Sam., 21 : —
" And David arose, and fled that day, for fear of Saul, and went to Achish, the
king of Gath. And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David, the king
of the land > Did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul has
slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands ? And David laid up these words
in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish, the king of Gath. And he changed
his behavior before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on
the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard. Then said Achish
unto his servants, So, ye see the man is mad — Wherefore, then, have ye brought
him to me .' "
Now, the law says, Lie not one to another ; but David here is repre
sented as lying, if not in words, in deeds. He deceives his host and
friend. Again we read, 1 Sam., 27 : 5 : —
"And David said unto Achish, If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let them
give me a place in some town in the country, that I may dwell there ; for why
should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee : Then Achish gave him "
Ziklag that day, wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the Kings of Judah, unto this
day. And the time that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a full
year and four months. And David and his men went up and invaded the Geshu-
sites, and the Gezarites, and the Amalekites ; for those nations were of old the
inhabitants of the land -as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt. And
David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive; and took away the
sheep, and the. oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel, and returned
and came to Achish. And Achish said, Whither have ye made a road to-day ?
And David said, against the south of Judah, and against the south of the
Jerahmeelit.es, and against the south of the Kenites. And David saved neither
man nor woman alive to bring tidings to Gath, saying, lest they should tell on us,
saying so did David, and so will be ihis manner, all the while he dwelleth in the
pountry of the Philistines. And Achish believed David, saying : He hath made hia
people Israel bitterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant for ever."

58 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
Here is a frightful mixture of lying, treachery and cruelty. I say
nothing hereof his many wives, and other sins. The deeds before us
are enough. Here is a man who feigns himself mad, to impose on a
friend and benefactor, — who sheds the blood of his friend's people like
water, — who murders every living soul, lest any should be left to make
known his treachery and cruelty, — who takes advantage of his friend's
generosity and confidence, to perpetrate the most atrocious crimes, and
multiply, from time to time, the very basest deeds. Yet the Bible, which
records these horrid crimes and infamous deeds, assures us, " that David
did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside
from any thing he commanded him, all the days of his life, save only in
the matter of Uriah the Hittite."
So with regard to Abraham. Though he had already a wife, be takes
one of his female slaves as a wife, and has offspring by her. He turns
out his slave wife and her child into the wilderness. He buys slaves and
breeds slaves. He teaches his wife.- to deceive, to screen him from
danger. He stands by, and allows his wife to be taken and carried off
by another, "without even venturing to say that she was his wife ; satisfied
to get off without personal violence : I cannot describe such conduct.
Yet the Bible, that tells these dirty and disgraceful stories, represents God
as saying, " Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my com
mandments, my statutes and my laws." Gen. 26 : 5. I cannot conceive
what kind of a book it must be, to sanction immorality, if the Bible does
not sanction it.
I will now briefly recur to the Bible accounts of creation. The Bible not
only contradicts the revelations of Astronomy, Meteorology and Geology,
in its account of creation, but contradicts itself. It gives contradictory ac-
'counts ofthe origin of day and night. In Genesis 1 : 3-5, we read : —
" And God said, Let there be light : and there was light. And God saw the light,
that it was good : and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the
light Day, and the darkness he called Night : and the evening and the morning were
the first day."
Here, then, we have light created, the light separated from the dark
ness, and day and night distinguished. We have then an account of
three days and nights, three evenings and mornings. Then comes the
following as the work of the fourth day, Genesis 1 : 14- 19 : —
" And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day
from the night ; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth : and it was so. And God made two great lights ; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set
them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the
day, and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness : and God saw it
was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
Here the whole work of making day and night, separating the light
from the darkness, giving light to earth, &c, which had been done three
days before, is done again. We have first light, and day and night, and
morning and evening, without sun, moon, or stars ; then sun, moon, and
stars are made to give us these things, after we have already had them
three days.

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 59
We have also contradictory accounts of the creation of man. In the
first chapter, God is represented as creating the lower animals first, and
man. and woman after ; while in the second chapter, God is represented
as making man first, the lower animals next, and woman last of all, an
indefinite period after. The passages are as follows. Gen. 1 : 24-28 : —
" And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle,
and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after its kind : and it was so. And God
made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle nft.er their kind, and every
thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness : and let them have
dominion over the fish ofthe sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
and over ail the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him ; male and
female created he them. And God-blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruit
ful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it : and have dominion over
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that
moveth upon the earth."
Read next, Genesis 2 : 7, 8, 15, 18-22. Here man is represented as
formed first, as placed in the garden of Eden alone : as living some time
alone : a time of indefinite length. God at length says, " It is not good
for man to be alone : " and he makes the lower animals, and brings them
all to Adam, to see what he would call them, in hopes, as it would seem,
that Adam may find a suitable and satisfactory companion in some of
them. But for Adam, there was found no helpmeet for him. It is now,
after a lapse of time not measured, that God makes woman.
It should be observed, that the account in the second chapter of Gene
sis, beginning at the fourth verse, differs in many other particulars from
the account given in the first chapter. In the second account, no mention
is made o? six days : nothing is said of God resting. God is spoken of
under a different name ; «. different account is given of the origin of vege
tables and plants, &c. ; all going to show that the accounts are by two
different authors.

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.

[As the gentleman rose from his seat, there was a burst of applause ;
when he reached the stand, there was a second one, more general and
enthusiastic. A few sounds of h'sh.]
My opponent compels me, by his present mode of argument, to lay
aside the more calm discussion, which I would greatly prefer, from pre
pared notes, and to resort to extemporaneous refutation. I much regret
that the preliminary arrangements of this discussion have been forgotten
by my opponent, and tbat he introduces subjects entirely foreign to the
topic "in hand. The. consequence of this is, that the form of the discus
sion is not regular ; and that wherever he has wandered, I have been
compelled to ask your indulgence in following him. I am glad that he
did not repeat his charge against me, that I did not answer his objec
tions. I have answered them as fast as I could talk ; and he knows full

60 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
well, that it requires far less time to make an objection, than to answer
it. I find, too, that his frequently-refuted arguments are again and again
presented. Before I go further, I would respectfully remind my oppo
nent that I have asked him several questions, which he has not yet answered.
I would now repeat them, and again request an answer, whenever it may
suit his convenience to give it, and not one moment before. I ask
him —
1. What is the name of the Supreme Being he worships ?
2. What are the attributes of that Supreme Being ?
3. How are these attributes revealed to him ? How does he know
these attributes belong to Him, when he does not know His name ? He
said that he had seen Infidels die without fear, because they believed in a
God of love, free from malignity. This is true of Christians; their God
is one of infinite compassion and love, and they go to him with the con
fidence with which they would to a father. My opponent says that the
heathen know the attributes of the Supreme Being from his works, and
that Paul affirms that His eternal power and love are known from
Nature. These do not, however, include all the attributes of Jehovah.
Now, I would like to know how the others were revealed to them ; and I
beg him to answer me, unless he is unable to tell.
My opponent discards the idea, that there is nothing besides laws for
the government of the universe ; he admits that there is something back
of malaria, for the production of disease. This is certainly an advance
towards the Orthodox faith. (General applause and laughter.) I am glad
he is coming over, and that this discussion is doing him some good. But
his views are not yet Orthodox. He admits that there is something back
of marshes ; that there are not only fixed laws, but a law-giver, who
superintends and controls their operation. If he says that God fixes the
laws, and then leaves their operations to take care of themselves, he is
in the bog of atheism. (Slight applause and cries of h'sh.) I find my
self under the necessity of correcting a few personal mistakes, for which
my opponent is, perhaps, not to blame in one respect, but in another.
A report published in some of the papers makes him say, that we were
born and educated in the same borough.
Mr. Barker. — I did not say that.
Dr. Berg. — What did you say ?
Mr. Barker. — I said that we were born under the same government,
and that you were educated in the same parish in which I was born.
Dr. Berg. — I will state the way in which Mr. Barker became pos
sessed of his information. In the preliminary arrangement for this dis
cussion, Mr. Barker complained, that in a former debate, my friend, Mr.
McCalla, had used his foreign origin to excite prejudice against him. I
then said that I had crossed the water, too. But though there is this in
common between us, there are some striking differences between us. I
crossed when I was a ohild of 13 years of age ; I received my educa
tion in this country, and have been here twenty-eight years ; and though
I love its institutions, my opponent is no worse in my estimation, though
he is from a foreign land. I shall ever look with love towards the land

REMARKS of dr. berg. 61
where cluster my associations of school and childhood. But I would
remark, that there is this difference between us: — I did not come to
preach disorder and sedition ; nor to upset the government and institu
tions of the country ; nor to insist upon topics which — (murmurs of dis
approbation, hisses, cries of question, and go on, bravos, and some
applause ; it was a minute or two before order was restored.)
Allow me, my friends, to finish my sentence, and do not take up my
time with applause. In alluding to this topic, I disclaim all intention to
excite any feeling of angry hostility against Mr. Barker. My only
object was, to prevent the introduction into this debate of a topic wholly
foreign to it, and which I have understood, from several sources, my
opponent was resolved to force into it. I wished to forestal this, by
stating the chief differences between us. I think that when a foreigner
enjoys the benefit of our institutions, he should not interfere with them ;
that modesty requires him to leave their reform to those who are better
entitled to discuss them. My opponent objects to the Scriptures, that the
original MSS. are lost ; and that there are diversities in the copies. I
would ask him, what work of antiquity is not open to precisely the same
objections ? Is not the original MS. of Homer's Iliad lost ? - Are there
not diversities in the copies preserved ? , Would he reject it on that
account, and say that there is no such book ? and that the story of Homer
is entitled to no credit ? Virgil's jEneid is in precisely the same case.
And would he refuse to receive the Commentaries of Caesar, because the
original MS. is lost, and there are different readings ? And let us come
to modern times.
If I present you Shakspeare's plays, do you think of this ? How
about the original manuscripts ? Well, where are they ? Have they
not been copied and re-copied ? I do not pretend to deny, that in a
work, the transcripts of which have been handed down from century to
century, there are occasional interpolations. It is admitted that these
exist in the Bible ; but my opponent can make nothing of this. The
tendency of his argument is to prove that there is no Bible ; and it bears
as severely on his side, as on mine. We have the highest judicial au
thority in Europe and the United States for saying that it is settled as
law, that the best evidence is where substantial agreement is accom
panied with circumstantial variety. The variations in Shakspeare are
the best proofs of the former existence of an original, and thus is my
opponent's argument on this point scattered to the winds. (Slight ap
plause, a few hisses, and cries of h'sh.)
My opponent says that I called him some thirty or forty foul names.
If I did, I am sorry for it. But I have no recollection of doing so.
What I did, I may do again, for when this blessed book lays down a
principle, I accept it as true. If it says that certain expressions are
blasphemy, and a man uses them, he is a blasphemer, and I can't help
it. If it says that persons who act in a certain way are children of the
devil, and I call them by that name, I can't help it. All that I can say
is, that if ray opponent feels that the cap fits him, he can wear it.
My opponent has cited the denunciation by Christ of the Pharisees as
applicable to ministers and professors of the Gospel, and quotes Isaiah
to prove that the Jews were more vile than the Gentiles. Can this be a
charge upon the Bible ?

62 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
Does the prophet not utter his denunciations against those who refuse
the Gospel ? Does not Christ speak of the Scribes and Pharisees as his
enemies? To the enemies of the Bible, then, do these passages refer.
(Slight applause.) To them belongs the appellation of hypocrites ; to
them pertains the denunciation of Christ. Of them it is said, Ye ser
pents, how shall ye escape the damnation of hell ? (General applause.)
Again, he says that the Bible reflects upon the character of God, by rep
resenting salvation as withheld from nine tenths of the human family.
My answer is, that all the gifts of God are gifts of grace ; that men are
by nature sinners, and have no claim, whatever, upon the justice of God ;
and that all his good acts towards hiscreatures are of undeserved favor.
And let me tell him, that all the signs of the times indicate that the
period spoken of in the Bible is approaching, when the light of the Gos
pel shall chase away all the clouds of error, when such a scene as this
shall not be witnessed, and when a man shall not need to say to his
neighbor, Know the Lord, for all shall know him, from the least to the
greatest. God speed that glorious day, when Infidels shall cast their
gods of darkness to the moles and to the bats !
My friend paid me a compliment, last evening, which it gives me great
happiness to reciprocate. It is said, that to quote from a man is the
highest compliment possible. He brought to your notice a sentiment
utlered in a lecture of mine, which had found its way to him. I have
something here (the Doctor held up a book) which he may recognise: —
" But there are other facts which deserve observation. Many of the best men
with whom I have had the happiness to be acquainted, have been great readers and
great lovers of the Bible. Whether it was their attention to Bible teachings that
made them good, or their goodness that led them te delight in Bible principles and
influences, the result is equally in favor of the Bible. If the Bible made them
good, then the Bible must be good in its tendency ; and if it was their goodness that
led them to delight in the Bible, there is an affinity between the Bible and goodness ;
they harmonize ; therefore, the Bible must be good in its character.
"I have further to observe, that I never knew a bad, unprincipled man, a false
and selfish man, a proud, a filthy, and malignant man, that did delight in the
Bible. I have invariably found such characters despisers, neglecters or haters of
the Bible. I have known many profligate Infidels, and they were all haters of the
Bible. I have known many profligate priests, and they were the same. Whether
men be Infidels or priests, if they are selfish, deceitful, proud or malignant, they are
equally haters of the Bible. There is this difference: the profligate Infidel gene
rally lets his hatred of the Bible appear, while the profligate priest labors to conceal
his hatred of the Bible, that he may live and grow rich, by pretending to teach
its principles. But even Infidels themselves pretend to love and revere the Bible
sometimes, when its suits their interests ; and even priests allow their dread and
their hatred of the Bible to appear at times. But, whether they conceal or avow
their hatred of the Bible, the profligate, the bad, whether priests or Infidels, will
still be found to be despisers or haters of the Bible.
" I have had considerable acquaintance, both with Infidels and priests, so that I
have had good opportunities of learning the truth on this subject. I have espe
cially had good opportunities of learning the truth with respect to priests. And
I feel bound to declare, first, that I have, in general, found them either the most
ignorant, or the most wicked and malignant of men. Some of them are exceed
ingly ignorant ; tliey study nothing ; tliey know nothing ; they care for nothing,,
but just going through the drudgery required of them by their pay-masters, and
securing their living."
My opponent has also undertaken to laud the French Revolution.

remarks of dr. berg. 63
Let us see what that Revolution was. I will read you a passage in refer
ence to it, from Scott's Life of Napoleon : —
[The Doctor here read from Scott, a passage descriptive of the horrors practised
at Lyons, Nantes, and other cities of France, where large numbers of nfen were
bound together, or shut up in the holds of ships, and sunk in the stream, and the
sacrifice was called republican baptism ; and when a man and woman were tied
together and thrown into a river, and the murder was called a republican marriage.]
My opponent said that he loved the family institution, where there is
one wife and one husband living together in love for the term of their
natural life; but is it not true, that when you deny the Divine authority
of marriage, you strike a blow at the very foundation of that institution?
If it has no other basis than the human law, then has it no dependence
or stability. Men devise law for themselves, and can change it to suit
themselves ; what laws they make, they can unmake ; what they enact,
they can annul ; and unless there is a sanction higher and greater ^than
any human authority, there is no stability whatever for this institution.
But I will read you another passage from Scott. [The Doctor had com
menced reading, when his time expired. As he took his seat, there was
long applause.]

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.

Scott was a Scotch Tory ; a reviler ofthe old Covenanters, who fought
so nobly for their freedom, and a bigoted enemy of all reformers,
whether political, civil, or religious. He was a miserable worshipper of
rank and titles ; a hater of republican democracy, and his writings are in
harmony with his antediluvian notions. His remarks on the French Rev
olution are in keeping with his Tory feelings and prejudices. They will
not weigh a feather with those acquainted with his character, and friendly
to the cause of freedom. Even Alison, though a son of a Church of
England clergyman, and himself very much of a Tory, supplies an
answer to the random abuse of Scott. He observes, that the occasional
excesses ofthe French revolutionists were , no more than the natural
results of the tyranny and oppression to which they had been so long
subjected. Their rulers had used them like brutes, and had rendered
them brutal ; and when they broke their chains arid found themselves
free, they acted like brutes. "The fault of their excesses belonged to the
tyrants who had goaded and tortured them to madness. Use men as
men, says Alison, and they will be men and act like men. Use them as
brutes, and you make them brutes ; and when left for awhile to them
selves, they will act like brutes. Hence the historian wishes rulers to
learn to treat men with justice and humanity while under restraint, that
they may be fitted for freedom when the day of their enfranchisement
arrives. Allow men freedom of thought and freedom of speech ; — favor
free discussion ; — respect each other's right ; — despise no man ; — treat
all with respect and candor ; — and you will thus develop in all the higher
and nobler faculties, increase in all the power of wise self-government,

64 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
and prepare the way for full and universal freedom, without violence,
convulsions and blood. . ,
But let me add, that the bloody deeds of the French revolutionists
shrink jnto insignificance when compared with the cruelties and butch
eries of preceding governments, under the Bible-believing kings, and
priests, and aristocrats. Nor is this all. The revolutionists are not
always to be made answerable for the excesses in which they took a
part. They were not so much the actors, as the tools of others, who craft
ily and cruelly employed them for their own selfish purposes. The insur
rections, the cruelties of the French, were often organized by the agents
of other governments, employed and paid for the purpose, with a view
to bring the Revolution and the reformers of France into disgrace, and
so prepare the way for the restoration of priestly and monarchical ty
ranny. It must be remembered that the despots of Europe were banded
together against the French reformers, and bent on crushing the cause of
freedom. They not only employed their fleets and armies, in open war
fare, but swarms of spies and secret incendiaries, whom they supplied
with gold, and sent into every part of France, to devise mischief, to sug
gest the formation of plots, to spread false rumors, create panics, and,
in the terror and confusion, prompt the poor creatures whom they had
deluded to mad and bloody deeds. They succeeded too well. They
undermined, by their infernal craft, the glorious cause which had tri
umphed over the united forces of Europe in open and honorable war
fare. The same dishonorable arts were employed by the tyrants of Europe
after the revolution of 1848. The despots did not send their armies into
the field to force on the French their deposed and banished monarch, but
they sent forth secret enemies, and distributed gold to encourage conspira
cies, intrigues, and criminal excesses, and thus bring the cause of republi
can freedom into disrepute, and prepare the way for the reestablishment of
despotism. No man who loves his fellow-man, and longs to see the
nations of the earth free and happy, should apologize for the priesthoods
and despotisms of Europe, or blindly take up and circulate the slanders
they have fabricated against the oppressed and plundered masses. Scott
joined himself to the tyrants, who were banded against the liberties of
Europe and the rights of humanity, and my opponent has joined him
self to Scott. (Applause.)
The Doctor says I forget or overlook the rules of the debate. I do
neither. I both bear them in mind, and keep to them with the greatest
care. The subject of debate is the origin and authority of the Bible. I
have undertaken to prove that the Bible is of human origin, and, conse
quently, of no authority. I have been proving this by internal evidence ;
by the style and contents of the book. I have shown — I am still show
ing — that the contents ofthe book, whether theological, moral, historical
or philosophical, are such as to show, that its origin must have been
human. If I have ever turned aside from the question, it has been to
follow my opponent.
My opponent wishes me, when it shall be convenient to myself, to tell
him the name of the God I worship — what are his attributes, and how
those attributes wero revealed to rae. I will comply with his request, I

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 65
will tell him all I think about God, and discuss with him my thoughts, if
he wishes it. The proper time will be, when we have closed the present
, discussion. (Applause, cries of good, hisses, shouts, derision.) Eight
nights will be few enough for the discussion of the Bible — too few, un
less my opponent makes more way ; it would be foolish, therefore, to
take in hand another discussion at present. (Immense explosion of
shouts, bravos, hisses, sounds of hush. Mr. Barker took his seat, not
being able to make himself longer heard. Mr. Chambers and Dr. Berg
requested the meeting to keep order, that the discussion might proceed.)
My opponent asks me how I learn the attributes of God. I answer,
if the Bible be true, the character of God is revealed by bis works. In
the passage in Romans 1 : 19, 20, already quoted, itis stated, that " that
which may be known of God," which plainly means all that is knowable
of God, " is manifest to the heathen, for God hath showed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him, (his unseen powers or perfections, without
any exception, for no exceptions are made,) from the creation of the
world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead." Hence it is added, that the Gen
tiles were without excuse ; which could not have been the case, unless
the Gentiles had had the means of knowing God adequately. Besides,
the word Godhead, which is the English word corresponding to the
Latin word Deity, means " God" generally — all that is included in the
word God. The meaning of the passage plainly is, that all that can be
known of God, in any way whatever, can be learned from Nature — that
God is clearly and fully revealed — as clearly and fully revealed as is
necessary or possible, by Nature — that the Gentiles, therefore, who have
no Bibles, no supernatural teachers, are without excuse, if they do not
love God, thank him, serve him, and live good lives. The same doc
trine is taught in the Psalms, as well as in other portions of the Bible.
And if God is not revealed by his works, we know not how he can be
revealed. As my opponent has repeatedly introduced the subject, I hope I may be
allowed a few words with regard to my views and feelings, my aims and
my behavior, in relation to the institutions of this country. My opponent
says there is this difference between him and me, that he came to the
country much earlier than I, and that I came to sow sedition in the coun
try, and to overthrow the institutions, the benefits of which I am enjoy
ing. I beg to say, that, since my arrival in this country, I have never
uttered a word against any of its institutions, unless slavery be one of
our national institutions, which is not allowed, I believe, by Americans
generally. Slavery is generally spoken of as a State or local institution.
In all cases, I have spoken of the institutions of the country in the high
est terms ; and I have spoken of them only what I thought and felt.
The republican and democratic principles on which the government is
based, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and in the pre
amble to the Constitution, and the forms and institutions of the country,
so far as they harmonize with those principles, I admire and reverence.
I have said a thousand times, that I consider the United States of Amer
ica ahead of every other country on the face of the earth. I say so
again. In the only public meeting that I have attended in this city, an

66 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
anti-slavery meeting, I expressed these views. I enumerated several
particulars in which I considered this country had left the rest of the
nations behind — in which this country had set the nations of the earth
an example which it would be well for them to follow. I have even in
curred the censure of some of my friends, for the length to which 1 have
gone in my praise of this country. I have done no more since I came
to this country, than I did when I lived in England, as my writings show. .
As I have said, I have spoken against no institution ; I have shown no
hatred or horror of any institution ; I have shown no wish to abolish any
institution existing in the country, with the exception of slavery. And
I have shown no wish to introduce even that subject into the present dis
cussion, except so far as it is mixed up with the question with regard to
the divine inspiration of the Bible. I have undertaken to prove that the
Bible sanctions the worst forms of immorality and crime. I know no
grosser immorality, I know no greater crime, than slaveholding. Slave-
holding is every crime, and every form of immorality, in one. Yet slave-
holding, I undertake to prove, is sanctioned by the Bible. This, I am
bound to do. So far as such remarks may tend to undermine slavery in
the Southern States of this country, I may be said to be undermining an
institution that has a place in the country. But this is not seeking to
destroy the institutions, the benefits of which I am enjoying. Does the
Doctor mean to say that I am enjoying the benefits of Slavery ?
Dr. Berg. — I did not say that. *
Mr. Barker. — But Slavery is the only institution I have shown any
wish to destroy. This, I should like to see destroyed. I have chosen
America as my home, and as the home of my children. We wish to be
able to boast of our country, not in some or in many respects only, but
in all respects. We wish the broad principles of freedom and right, pro
claimed in the Declaration of Independence, to pervade every depart
ment of government, to modify every law, to animate every bosom
through every part of the Union. We wish the country of our choice,
which excels all other countries in so many things, to excel in all. The
sun has his spots, they say, which abate, to some extent, his splendor, and
those we must bear with, for we cannot remove them ; but we wish the
stars of this great republic to have no spots to dim their brightness, or to
abate the splendor of their beams. We wish the beauty and glory of
our example to be perfect, that it may win the admiration of every land,
and provoke to emulation every nation and government on earth.
In England, I spoke and wrote so plainly and strongly against the
monarchy, aristocracy, and state priesthood of the country, and in favor
of republicanism and democracy, as to earn for myself a government
prosecution, and a place, for a time, in an English dungeon. (Applause
and cries of question.) I have no desire to dwell on these matters ; but,
when attempts are made, in a debate like this, to excite the feelings of
the audience against me, by erroneous representations of my views and
feelings, it is my duty, when the opportunity is afforded, to put the mat
ter in its true light.
The Doctor asks, if I would reject Homer's Iliad, because there hap
pened to be a number of various readings in the manuscripts of the

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 67
work, and because the original copy was lost ? I answer, No. I would
not reject it : nor would 1 reject the Bible on any such account. But, if
some idolator of the old Grecian bard should tell me, " This work of
Homer's is divinely inspired; it is perfect; there is neither error nor
mistake in it," I should reject his notion. The book I would acccept as
an imperfect relic of ancient Grecian literature, and make the best of
it ; but the doctrine of its absolute perfection and divine authority, I
would reject. So with the Bible. It is represented to me as a perfect
book — as the word of God — as of divine authority. I reply, there is
not a copy of the work in existence, which is not acknowledged to be
imperfect. The versions, the Greek and Hebrew texts, and the manu
scripts, differ from each other in hundreds of thousands, if not in millions
of places. The originals are lost, so that we have no means of correcting
the books, or of learning which of them comes nearest to the originals.
Not one of them, therefore, is of any authority. Besides, the best of
your versions abounds in contradictions, immoralities, and blasphemies.
Your doctrine, therefore, of the divine authority of the book, is a delu
sion. It is thus we reason, and we see not how our argument can be
answered. The Doctor asks how I can tell, whether the passages on which I
ground my objections to the divine authority of the Bible are not interpo
lations. I answer, I cannot tell. Some of them probably are ; others
probably are not. But if they are interpolations, the book is partly
human, and the doctrine of my opponent falls to the ground. If they
are not interpolations, the book encourages the grossest immoralities and
utters the grossest blasphemies, and can never have been more than the
work of erring men.
The Doctor talks of substantial agreement and circumstantial varia
tions, and tells us, that when these meet in a book, they form the best
proof that the book is true. But the book before us contains substantial
variations, and, in some cases, no agreement at all. It contains flat con
tradictions ; — contradictions in doctrine, contradictions in morals, contra
dictions in history. It countenances, besides, the grossest immoralities,
and throws the most blasphemous reflections on God. (Hisses.)
The Doctor calls me a blasphemer. He is at liberty to call me so, if
he please ; but I am at liberty to deny and refute the charge, I suppose.
We repeat, then, that blasphemy is speaking evil of God. This we have
never done. We are not blasphemers, then. It is the Bible that speaks
evil of God. It is the Bible, then, that blasphemes. The Bible repre
sents God as partial, cruel, unjust, revengeful. It represents him as
encouraging the grossest licentiousness, the most atrocious butcheries,
the most revolting cruelties. Not only, therefore, are some of the
authors of the Bible chargeable with blasphemy, but those who repre
sent the Bible as God's book. To charge God with writing such horri
ble blasphemies respecting himself, is one of the greatest blasphemies
that can be uttered. We defend the character of God against such blas
phemous representations. We deny that he encouraged or commanded
the horrid deeds which the Bible charges on him. We deny that he
wrote the Bible. We deny that he is answerable for its blasphemies and
immoralities. (Applause and hisses.)

68 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
The Doctor charges me with saying that the Bible made the Jews cor
rupt. 1 did not say so. I simply said, that the Jews were corrupt, though
they had the Bible. The Doctor had said, " See how dark and depraved
the people are who have not the Bible." The Doctor argued, that the
Bible made men wiser and better. I showed, both from observation and
history, and from the Bible itself, that it did not — that the grossest licen
tiousness and the thickest darkness often accompanied the Bible.
The Doctor says, that all God's gifts are gifts of grace — of unde
served favor. He, thinks God has a right to be partial. The 'Doctor is
welcome to his opinion. But the question is, Is it just to punish the
innocent, and to allow the guilty to escape ? Could it be just in God to
kill seventy thousand innocent men, women and children, for the sin of
one man, and that one man moved to commit the sin by God ? Could it
be just or kind in God, to allow a whole race of men to become morally
corrupt, and liable to eternal torments in hell, which is the Doctor's in
terpretation of the Bible doctrine, for one man's sin ; or even to inflict
pain and death on all, for one man's sin ? We think such things are ex
cesses of injustice and cruelty. We see no grace about them.
My opponent thinks the day is coming, when Christianity shall cover
the whole earth. We think otherwise. Dr. Campbell, of England,
author of a work on lay agency, and Stephen Colwell, of your own city,
author of New Themes, say, that Christianity does not keep pace with
the increase of population. Mr. Colwell thinks Christianity never did
conquer a very large portion of the earth, and some of her conquests
she has lost. The general complaint among Christians is, that Infidelity is
gaining ground. Time will show which cause is triumphing. All we
have to say on the point is, " Give both sides liberty. Let both declare
their views, plainly and freely, and let the mightiest triumph ; and I shall
be content."
In a former speech, I said that I had seen Christians die full of horror,
and that I had found among those called unbelievers some of the best
and happiest of mankind. Let me not, however, be understood as con
tending that there are no good Christians, or that Christians never die happy.
I have known among believers in the Bible, some of the best and kind
est people with whom I have had the happiness to meet. That they
were kind and good in consequence of their belief in the Bible, I do not
believe. Some of them would probably have been better, and they
would certainly have been kinder and more agreeable, if they had not
believed the whole Bible. But that Christians are sometimes good, and
that some of them die happy, we have no doubt.
As to the quotation which my opponent made from one of my early
writings, I wish to say : At the time I wrote that passage, I had very
erroneous and unworthy ideas of unbelievers. I was incapable of doing
unbelievers justice. I regarded them as secret enemies of truth and vir
tue ; of God and man. 1 had been taught from my childhood, that none
could doubt or disbelieve the Divine authority of the Bible, but men of
bad, depraved hearts ; that the only cause of unbelief was inward
depravity. I was taught that every unbeliever must of necessity be a
bad, immoral man ; that if he was not an open and avowed profligate,
it was because he did not find it convenient to be so ; that he always

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 69
teas a profligate, whether he appeared so or not. This doctrine was
inculcated on me not only by my parents and Sunday School teachers,
but by every preacher I heard, and by every book I read. I believed it,
as a matter of course. I had not information enough to awaken within
me a doubt of its truth. This dark and deadly error kept hold of me
and blinded me for years after I had come to years of manhood. When
I could not but see the appearance of virtue and philanthropy about an
unbeliever, I regarded it as a cloak to cover his depravity. The more
virtuous and exemplary an unbeliever appeared, the more depraved I
believed him to be inwardly ; the more beautiful and perfect his charac
ter appeared, the more consummate I deemed his hypocrisy. I spoke of
them and wrote of them accordingly. I could do no other. But preju
dice at last gave way. The deceitfulness and dishonesty of leading
believers, and distinguished writers in defence of the Bible and Ortho
dox forms of theology, destroyed my faith in them. My opinions were
consequently modified. New discoveries of priestly fraud, forced upon me
by reading, observation and experience, modified my opinions still more.
I saw, at length, how my youthful mind had been abused. I inquired
into the grounds of my early faith, and found that it rested on a false
foundation. I renounced my errors as, fast as I detected them. I re«
traded the calumnies I had uttered or printed against those who had dif
fered from me. I retracted the words which were read by my oppo.
nent. I wrote them in my ignorance. They are false. The revela
tions of time, the lessons of experience, the voice of my own conscious
ness, the oracles of the eternal God, uttered and echoed from every part
of his great universe, no longer permit me to doubt, but that among the
despised, and hated, and persecuted Infidels, as they are falsely called, are
to be found the purest and the best, the bravest and the noblest of men, the
devoutest worshippers of truth, the truest friends of humanity, the most
enlightened philosophers, and the most devoted philanthropists, that the
world can boast. (Applause.)
The Doctor says I deny the Divine authority of the family institution,
and that my principles tend to undermine its purity. This is not true. I
said the trueand natural form ofthe family institution was of Divine origin,
as much as any thing in the universe, and that it had the Divine authority of
our nature in its favor. I stated, too, what this true form of the family
institution was, and showed how it differed from the various unnatural
and vicious forms of the family institution presented in the Bible. The
forms of the family institution which we oppose are those which consist,
1. Of one husband and several wives. 2. One husband, several wives,
and a number of mistresses. 3. One husband and one wife, the wife a
blood relation, as in the case of Abraham and Sarah, and their slaves.
4. One husband and one wife, the wife a slave and the husband
her lord and master. 5. One husband and one wife united without
mutual affection, the wife subject, and the husband lord. These Bible
forms of the family institution are what we denounce as unnatural,
wicked and mischievous.
I would now notice several errors of the Bible of a different kind.
And, first, as we have before observed, the Bible gives different, and, in
some particulars, contradictory accounts of the creation. It also gives

70 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
different and contradictory accounts of the flood, of Abraham, &c. ; ac
counts so exceedingly different, both in style and matter, as to prove that
the book of Genesis is a compilation, or a jumbling together, of parts of
two different and discordant documents.
We have a number of falsehoods in the account of the first transgres
sion, and the curses pronounced on the offenders. My opponent thinks
that the account of the curse pronounced on the serpent receives col
lateral proof from the universal horror with which the serpent is
regarded. But we have yet to learn that a peculiar horror of the ser
pent is universal. We know it is not. Children rightly brought up have
no such horror of serpents, much less have they any peculiar enmity
against them. But, supposing the Bible account to be true, could it be
just in God to subject every serpent on earth, through every age, to the
peculiar hatred or enmity of mankind, for the sin of one individual
serpent ?
But a peculiar enmity of men against serpents, is not the whole of the
curse pronounced by God, according to the Bible, upon, that race of
animals. We will read the passage. " And the Lord God said unto
the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cat
tle, and above every beast of the field ; upon thy belly shalt thou go,
and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity
between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed ; it
shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Genesis 3:
14, 15.
The curses here pronounced upon the serpent are manifold, but not
one of them can be proved to have been really inflicted. Where is the
proof that the serpent is cursed above all cattle ? True, it goes on its
belly, but it is not the only living thing that does so. And where is the
proof that its going on its belly is a curse ? Where is the proof that its pe
culiar kind of locomotion is not an advantage ? Its motions are quick and
graceful, and its power to move so near to the ground, and under cover
of the grass, is a great advantage, — is a means of great security. The
passage adds, "Dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." Does the
serpent eat dust ? Does it eat more dust than other animals ? Does it
eat as much ? Where is the proof? There is none. There is proof
to the contrary. Serpents live on insects, birds, and other living things.
But they eat dust along with their meat. Do they do so more than other
animals ? Not so much.
And where is the proof that serpents have any peculiar enmity to
man ? Where is the proof that they have any peculiar anxiety to bruise
or wound man's heel ? There is none. There is proof to the contrary.
The serpent is glad to keep out of man's way. It never shows any
peculiar desire to injure man.
Take next the curse pronounced on woman. " Unto the woman he
said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception ; in sorrow
thou shalt bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3: 16. Is the sorrow of woman
much greater than that of all other females ? Is the sorrow or the pain
referred to, a curse ? Is it not necessary to the mother's safety, as well
as to the safety of her offspring ? Is woman in all cases subject to her

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 71
husband ? Is man in all cases lord ? Among the savage and brutal, it
is thus, and among the slaves to old traditions it is generally thus. But
among the enlightened, the cultivated, the refined, it is not thus. But
suppose women were universally in subjection, would it be right to charge
their degradation on God, and to represent God as inflicting it unjustly, on
account of a sin that none of them could possibly help, — a sin committed
before any of them were born ? The thing is monstrous.
The sentence on Adam is as follows : —
" And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,
and hast eaten ofthe tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it :
cursed is the ground for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy
life ; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee : and thou shalt eat the
herb ofthe field : in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto
the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return."
We ask, 1. Is the ground cursed ? Does it bear any marks of hav
ing fallen from a better or more perfect state, to a lower or a worse ?
Just the contrary. The history of the earth, as revealed by geology.
tells us that the earth has ever been improving. It is improving still.
2. Do men eat of the ground with sorrow all the days of their life?
Do not many eat the produce of the earth, the fruits of their labor, in
cheerfulness and joy ? The men that eat of the fruits of the earth with
sorrow all their days are very few. They would be fewer still, there
would be none at all, if it were not for the gloomy and horrible doctrines
of superstition. The enlightened and virtuous enjoy all things. Their life
is, often, a perpetual feast. There is nothing to hinder all from enjoy
ing life, but the prevalence of a false theology and a false morality.
3. The earth bears thorns and thistles, but where is the proof that
they are a curse ? There is none. There is proof that they are bless
ings. But, curses or blessings, where is the proof that the earth never
bore them before the sin of Adam ? Nowhere. There is proof that the
earth bore thorns and thistles long before man came into being on earth.
4. Do all eat bread with the sweat of their brow ? No. Is it a
curse to labor till we sweat, for our bread ? It is not. It is a blessing.
Labor generally is a blessing, in moderation. And there is no necessity
for immoderate labor, arising from any thing amiss in the earth. There
is no such curse on the ground, as to make it necessary for men to
labor more than two or three hours a day, if things were rightly man
aged. 5. What proof can our theologians give that death is a curse ? What
proof can they give that death originated in the first man's sin ? What
proof can be given that a good or just God could inflict death as a. pun
ishment on every human being, for the sin of one, — a sin committed
before any of them were born ? None. Both the philosophy and the
theology of the Bible are bad. They are both false and blasphemous.
They are childish and foolish in the extreme. It is sorrowful to think
that they should so long have held men's minds in bondage.
The story of the deluge next invites our attention. This story tells
us, that the" wickedness of man was so great, that God repented that he
had made man, and resolved to destroy the whole race, both old and

72 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
young, the men of grey hairs and the new-born babes of yesterday, with
all the birds and beasts and creeping things, except one small family of
men, and pairs and seven pairs of other living things. God fixes on a
flood as the means of destruction. The family of Noah, which he de
termined to preserve, and the pairs or seven pairs of inferior things, he
proposes to save in an ark. The ark is to be 150 yards long, 25 wide,
and 15 high. It is to be divided into three stories. It is to have one
door and one window. The window is to be a cubit, or a half a yard
square. Both window and door are to be kept closed. In this ark,
Noah was to accommodate, first, himself and his family, with provisions
for from one to two years ; second, seven pairs of all kinds of birds,
seven pairs of all clean beasts, and pairs of all unclean beasts and of all
creeping things, with food for all to serve them more than a year. Noah
is to collect all these animals and take them into the ark. He is next to
gather food for them all, and store that in the ark. This would
require him to visit all countries, and gather the animals and the supplies
of food for them from all. He and his family, besides attending to
themselves and one another, would have to feed and water all these
creatures, and clean after them, and keep all orderly and sweet. The
number of animals would be above a million and a half, according to the
estimates of modern naturalists. How Noah and his family could attend
to them all, in their dark abodes, and obtain a supply of fresh air through
one small window in the roof, and that kept shut, and how he would be
able to keep all clean and sweet, judge ye. The story can be regarded
as no other than an enormous fable. ( Time up. Mr. Barker took his
seat, the audience maintaining silence.)

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.

If I did injustice to my opponent in mentioning the difference be
tween us, I am sorry for it. I am glad to find he loves the institutions of
this country. ^ I am glad to find that he has no intention to introduce the
obnoxious topic to which I alluded. I wished to forestal such an inten
tion, as I had heard of it from various quarters.
My opponent said, that the strong language used by him in his little
book, was the result of his prejudice against the Infidels.
Mr. Barker. — I stated that I had received a strictly religious training
from my parents, and therefore, I could not regard Infidels1 impartially.
I did not know facts enough to justify these conclusions.
Dr. Berg. — I am willing to take the word of my opponent — either
now or then, if he will tell me which to take. His statements conflict.
In his book, he speaks of having a considerable acquaintance with Infi
dels. If he speaks the truth now, he was in error then. If he spoke it
then, he is much in error now. (Loud laughter and applause.)
My opponent declines telling me the name of his God, and furnishing
answers to other questions, until the eight evenings for which I am en-

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 73
gaged to him for this discussion shall have expired. If he will not tell
us in advance, we will probably not hear it at all. It is not likely that,
after this debate, I will wish to trouble an audience with a controversy
with Mr. Barker, for, from present indications, there will be very little
left of him by that lime. (Vociferous applause.) There is one subject
I wish to introduce, which may be grateful to this audience, because it
will give diversity to the train of thought now uppermost. Mr. Barker
said he had seen Infidels die calmly and composedly, because eternity
for them had no fears ; and that he had seen Christians die full of horror,
because they had been taught to regard God as malignant. No such
thing. The Christian's God is a God of love, a reconciled Father, ready
to forgive his children, and afford them an abundant entrance into glory.
Only out of Christ is he a consuming fire. But he is all mercy to those
who rejoice in the Mediator.
I will now show you, out of my opponent's mouth, how dark Infidelity
is. He has told us that there is no remission of sin ; that no man who
has sinned can expect to be forgiven ; that there is no escape in this
world or the next. For Infidels, there is no Savior, but they must live,
always looking forward to fearful retribution. He has seen Infidels die
happy. His experience is altogether different from that of all others. I
never saw one of these bold blasphemers die, and I hope I never may.
The records of such scenes are so full of horror, that they overwhelm
with dread. I will give you one or two instances, to which I ask your
solemn attention.
I have seen many Christians die, but I never saw one die iff horror.
They all testified to the consolations of the Bible. There are some men
in our city, who extol Thomas Paine. They want a new revelation, and
Thomas Paine gave his followers a Bible. They cherish it now. But
hear the manner of his death. I quote from an eye-witness : —
HIS CLOSING SCENE.
" I was called upon by accident to visit Mr. Paine, on the 25th of February last,
and found him indisposed with fever, and very apprehensive of an attack of apoplexy,
as he stated that he had had that disease before, and at this time felt a great degree
of vertigo, and was unable to help himself, as he had hitherto done, on account of an
intense pain above the eyes.
" Concerning his conduct during his disease, I have not much to remark : though
the little I have may be somewhat interesting.
" Mr. Paine professed to be above the fear of death, and a great portion of his
conversation was principally directed to give the impression, that he was perfectly
willing to leave this world ; and yet, some parts of his conduct are with difficulty
reconcileable with this belief. In the first stage of his illness, he was satisfied to be
left alone during the day, but he required some person to be with him at night,
urging as his reason, that he was afraid that he should die, when unattended : and
at this period, his deportment and his principle seemed to he consistent : so much
so, that a stranger would judge, from some of the remarks that he made, that he
was an Infidel. I recollect being with him at night, watching : he was very appre-
hensive'of a speedy dissolution, and suffered great distress of body, and perhaps of
mind, (for he was waiting the event of an application to the Society of Friends, for
permission that his corpse might be deposited in their grave-ground, and had reason
to believe that the request might be refused,) when he remarked in these words, ' I
think I can say what they make Jesus to say — My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me ? ' He went on to observe on the want of that respect which he con
ceived he merited. I remarked to him, that I thought that his corpse should be a

74 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
matter of least concern to him ; that those whom he left behind him would see that
he was properly interred ; and, further, that it would be of little consequence to me
where I was deposited, provided that I was buried : upon which he answered, that
he had nothing else to talk about, and that he would as lieve talk of his death as
any thing, but that he was not so indifferent about his corpse as I appeared to be.
During the latter part of his life, though his conversation was equivocal, his conduct
was more so : he would not be left alone night or day ; he not only required to have
some person with him, but he must see that he or she was there, and would not allow
his curtain to be eloped at any time : and if, as it would sometimes unavoidably
happen, he was left alone, he would scream and halloo until some person came to him;
when relief from pain would admit, he seemed thoughtful and contemplative, his
eyes being generally closed, and his hands folded upon his breast, although he never
slept without the influence of anodyne. t
" There was something remarkable in his conduct about this period, (which com
prises the fortnight immediately preceding his death,) particularly when we reflect
that Thomas Paine was author of the ' Age of Reason.' He would call out, during
his paroxysms of distress, without intermission, ' 0 Lord, help me ! God, help me !
Jesus Christ, help me ! 0 Lord, help me ! ' repeating the same expressions without
any, the lensr, variation, in a tone of voice that would alarm the house. These ex
clamations induced me to think that he had abandoned his former opinions ; and I
was more inclined to this opinion, when I understood from his nurse, (who was a
very serious, and I believe pious woman,) that he would occasionally inquire, when
he saw her engaged with a book, what she was reading, and being answered, and at
the same time asked whether she should read aloud, he assented, and would appear
to give particular attention.
"I took occasion, during the nights ofthe 5th and 6th of June, to test the strength
of his opinions respecting revelation. I purposely made him a very late visit : it was
a time which seemed to suit my errand ; it was midnight ; he was in great distress,
constantly exclaiming in the words above mentioned ; when, after considerable pre
face, I addressed him in the following manner, the nurse being present: —
" ' Mr.Traine, your opinions, by a large portion of the community, have been
treated with deference ; you have never been in the habit of mixing in your conver
sation words of coarse meaning ; you have never indulged in the practice of profane
swearing ; you must be sensible that we are acquainted with your religious opinions,
as they are given to the world ; what must we think of your present conduct ? Why
do you call upon Jesus Christ to help you ? Bo you believe that he can help you ?
Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ? Come, now, answer me honestly ; I '
want an answer as from the lips of a dying man, for I verily believe that you will
not live twenty-four hours.' I paused sometime at the end of every question : he did
not answer, but ceased to exclaim in the above manner. Again I addressed him :
' Mr. Paine, you have not answered my questions — will yon not answer them ? Al
low me to ask again, do you believe — or, let me qualify the question — do you wish to
believe, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ? ' After a pause of some minutes, he
answered : ' I have no wish io believe on that subject.' I then left him, and know
not whether he afterwards spoke to any person on any subject, though he lived, as I
before observed, a few hours longer : in fact, till the morning ofthe 8th.
" Exclusive of Mr. Hicks, the Rev. Mr. Milledollar, the Rev. Mr. Cunningham,
and one or two other gentlemen, who visited him from humane and Christian motives,
he was abandoned on his death-bed, except by a few obscure and illiterate men, his
former bottle companions, who attended hiin merely, it should seem, to urge him to
persevere to the end in his deistical opinions. What his admissions would have been
during those ' compunctious visitingsof nature,' but for the ' whips and spurs ' of
those persons, we cannot even conjecture."
In another part of this volume, I find the record of the death of Fran
cis Newport.
[The Doctor here read the account. We have been unable to obtain
it. The most striking passage in it, was the exclamation of Newport on
his death-bed : " Oh ! that God would cease to be ! " "I wish there was
a possibility of getting over God I " "I endure more than damned
spirits."]

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 75
Now, here are passages which accord with the facts of universal expe
rience. Infidels are hardened when in prosperity, but when they are
near death, the latent fire of conscience is aroused, and, spite of their
pride, they call on Christ for mercy.
My opponent says that the family institution', which he loves, is of
Divine authority. I respectfully ask him how God has revealed it to him.
He begins now to see that some other foundation than human authority
is necessary. Now, if the God of the Bible has established the family
institution, the authority is there. We find that Adam and Noah had but
one wife ; that the moral government of God is throughout consistent,
and that God never yet revealed that polygamy was right. It is incon
sistent with every moral statute. I will add, that God sometimes per
mits men to be convinced of the evil of certain institutions, for the pur
poses of moral discipline. My opponent insists that it is my duty to
answer what he says of the case of 2 Samuel, 21. The Gibeonites
said to David that they would have neither silver nor gold, neither for
them should any man in Israel be killed.
[Here the Doctor read the passage, for which, see previous report.]
But they demanded that seven men of the sons of Saul should be de
livered to them. This was done, and they were hanged. The reason
of this punishment was, that. the children of Israel had sworn to protect
the Gibeonites, who, notwithstanding this oath, were slain by Saul.-
This only shows that God punishes murder. When murder has been
committed, God holds the land responsible for the innocent blood shed.
It appears that Saul had not only violated the pledge of the princes of
Israel, but had massacred a defenceless tribe.
The blood of the Gibeonites cried to Heaven for vengeance. The
punishment was retribution, not cruelty; and if there is one word Infi
dels would blot out of the Bible, it is retribution. But the children of
Saul were hanged for his sin ; and my opponent asks me, Will' God
punish children for the offences of their parents ? Yes ; for he has said
so; and mortal man cannot define all his ways. He is sovereign, holy,
and can do with us as he sees fit. On the same principle, we find, that,
if a man will degrade himself by drunkenness, his children will pay the
penalty ; if he has diseased his body by licentiousness, his offspring will
pay the penalty. These are enigmas we cannot solve, but the facts are
analogous. We cannot make every thing in this world square with our
ideas, and imagine that we know all that is in the world.
And here let me bring to your attention a beautiful illustration of Infi
del pity. It is in the shape of an anonymous letter. The friends of Mr.
Barker, not content with the atrocities they find in the Bible, find some
in modern times to excite their compassion. 1 do not like anonymous
letters, but I have no other than good feeling towards its author. It
would have been, perhaps, more manly, to put his name to his produc
tion ; but I will do it the honor to read it : — "Tuesday.
"Rev. Sir : — Returning home from the discussion last evening, and reflecting upon
the dreadful exhibition of the acts of the children of Israel, as ordered or sanctioned
by the Almighty, my mind was turned to a modern instance, which might furnish a
parallel to some of those atrocities. Allow me the liberty of stating the facts.

76 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
" A few months ago only, three or four men went into the humble lodgings of a
poor man, depressed to the earth with anxious days' and sleepless nights, and, in
spite of his piteous remonstrances, tied his hands behind his back, led him into the
back yard, and, passing a rope round his neck, deliberately strangled him to death.
Strange to add, there were some hundreds of spectators present, not one of whom
ventured to interfere; and, to crown all, a minister ofthe gospel stood up and made
a prayer !
"The unfortunate victim of violence left a widow and an orphan boy to bewail
their loss. The ringleader in this atrocious deed was Sheriff Allen, (movement in
the audience,) who pretended that he acted by warrant of the Governor. The name
of the murdered man was Arthur Spring." (Explosion of laughter, shouts and ap
plause. )
Here is a pretty sample of manufactured Infidel pity ! " The mur
dered man was Arthur Spring." Poor Spring ! innocent creature that
he was ! his hands bound behind him, the rope around his neck, is the
object of sympathetic regard. I pity him, too ; but will you blot out
retribution ? Should pity be exhausted on the infamous murderer, and
not a single emotion be given to the poor women whom his ruthless hand
had sent to their long account, whose throats he had, at the solemn hour
of midnight, cut from ear to ear ? Away with such pity, pleading im
punity for crime ! We owe no pity to those whose lives are forfeited to
the violated laws of God and man. But my opponent tells us that he
needs no divine revelation, because man has a law within himself — has
an inner light to guide him. But suppose this light turns out to be dark
ness, what then? (Loud applause and laughter.) Suppose they put
that light out ; there is no more light in the world, no law, no love, no
transgressions. A man may destroy his conscience, and what then?
The pirate has his light, too, within himself. His conscience is, that
there is no harm in murdering to get money. If my opponent can get
along with a light so flickering, I wish him well of it.
My opponent has much to say of the revelations of Nature. But if
these will account for the introduction of death into the world, I will
thank him to show it. The Bible is the only revelation that teaches
any thing about this, and many similar subjects, which, without it, are
enigmas. My oppjnent brings up again to-night a number of objections which I
thought I had answered. If he continues this course, it is evident there
can be no end to the discussion. I do not like what he says, nor he what
I say, and the better way, after stating what, we think, is to leave the de
cision to the intelligence of the audience. He speaks again of God's
having rested, and says, that to speak of God as if he had a body, con
veys a false impression. Has he not read the beautiful words of Isaiah ?
" Hast thou not known, hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God,
the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is
weary ? " Isaiah 40 : 28. (General applause.) Does not my opponent
himself stand here a living witness that the passages on which he com
ments are not to be understood literally ? He spoke again of Ahab and
the lying spirits. I have shown you — [Here the time expired. Long
and general applause.]

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 77

FOURTH EVENING-
At six o'clock, an immense crowd had gathered at the doors of Con
cert Hall. When the doors were opened, the seats were filled in a few
minutes. At a quarter past seven, Mr. Barker took the stand.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
As my opponent still contends that I have not observed the true order
of debate, 1 must again make a few remarks on that point.
The question for consideration is two-fold.
1. Is the Bible of divine origin ?
2. Are its contents, when the book is regarded as of divine authority,
calculated to exert a salutary or an injurious influence on man's char
acter ?
My opponent contends that the Bible is of divine origin, and, in proof
of his position, appeals, first, to internal, and, secondly, to external evi
dence. If my opponent had opened the debate, as he ought to have done, he
would have told you, I suppose, what he means by internal evidence, and
presented you with specimens of it. He would next have given you his
definition of external evidence, and presented you with specimens of
that. My opponent, however, did not take the lead. It consequently
fell to my lot to open the debate. -My business was, to show that the
Bible was not of divine origin, but of purely human origin. I accord
ingly proceeded to show, that the style and the contents of the book
were exactly such as we should naturally expect in human writings —
that there was nothing in the style or contents of the Bible to prove it
divine, but every thing to prove it merely human. I dwelt principally
on the doctrines of the Bible. I showed, that the representations of God
and his works given in the Bible, were foolish and blasphemous ; and
that different portions of the book gave contradictory representations of
God's character on every point. I further showed, that the Bible incul
cated a defective and a bad morality — that it encouraged and sanctioned
the grossest vices and the blackest and most revolting crimes, and that it
held fo.th for our admiration and imitation imperfect and evil examples —
examples of falsehood and cruelty — of licentiousness, treachery and
murder. I also gave you specimens of historical contradictions, philo
sophical errors, and of monstrous and impossible fables. In all this, I
was keeping close to the question, as my opponent must by this time see.
In short, I have not deviated one hair's breadth from the exact line of
argument, except to answer the irrelevant remarks of the Doctor. I
shall follow the same course of argument to-night, till I have finished
my remarks on the contents of the Bible. On Monday night, I expect
to proceed to notice what is called the external evidence for the super
human origin of the Bible. My opponent will probably give his views

78 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
on the same subject, and I shall follow with what may be necessary in
the shape of a reply.
At the close of my last speech, I was speaking on the Bible account
of the flood. The ark, as I said, was to be 150 yards long, 25 wide, and
15 deep. It was to have three stories. The room inside would be
about 56,000 cubic yards. This ark was to hold,
1. Noah and his family, (eight persons,) with food and other things
necessary for their comfort, for upwards of a year.
2. Seven pairs of all birds and of all clean beasts, and pairs of all
other cattle, and of all creeping things.
3. Food for all these living things, for more than a year.
These animals were all to be gathered together, and taken into the
ark by Noah. Noah was also to provide them all with food. Noah and
his family were to feed, and water, and tend all these animals, and keep
all clean. There was only one door in the ark, and that was shut; and
but one small window, and that was closed.
The number of animals would not, according to modern naturalists, be
fewer than a million and a half. One hundred and fifty thousand dis
tinct species have already been described by zoologists, and the probable
number of species existing is not less than half a million. Pairs of each
species, and seven pairs of all birds and clean beasts, would make the
number to be provided for about a million and a half. Noah and his
family would, therefore, have to feed, water, and keep clean, 2500 a min
ute every day ; a thousand times more than they could possibly do. And
a'l or most of these creatures would be kept in the dark, without fresh
air. The impossibilities implied in this story are innumerable. It would
be impossible for Noah to collect the animals. He could not have col
lected the necessary supplies of food. The ark would not have held the
animals, nor a tenth, nor a thirtieth of them, so as to leave room to go
about among them and attend to them. It would not even have held the
necessary food for them. Then, many of the animals could not have
changed climates without dying. One window could not afford the
means of ventilation, especially if placed in the roof. Two stories must
have been in total darkness, and without a breath of fresh air. Eight
persons could not attend to so many animals — they could not feed,
water, and keep clean a thousandth part of them, in such a place as the
ark. And no intimation is given that God provided for the creature's in
the ark by any miraculous means. The contrary is intimated. Besides,
what need of an ark at all, if God was to keep things alive by a mira
cle ? Hence naturalists, even Christian naturalists, give up the story.
They declare their conviction, that no universal deluge has ever hap
pened since the creation of man, and that such an ark as that described
in the Bible would be utterly unequal to the accommodation of pairs and
seven pairs of all the animals on the face of the earth. I will read you
some passages from Professor Hitchcock, one of your own countrymen,
a learned and a respectable man, and a Christian minister : —
" Among well-informed geologists, at least, the opinion is almost universal, that
there are no facts in their science which can be clearly referred to the Noachian del
uge; that is, no traces in nature of that event.
"Modern geologists have, until recently, supposed that the traces of Noah's del-

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 79
uge might still be seen upon the earth's surface. I say its surface; for none of them
imagined those effects could have reached to a great depth. Over a large part of tho
northern hemisphere they found extensive accumulations of gravel and bowlders,
which had been removed often a great distance from their parent rocks, while the
ledges beneath were smoothed and striated, obviously by the grating over them of
these piles of detritus. How very natural to refer these effects to the agency of cur
rents of water; just such currents as might have resulted from a universal deluge.
But the inference was a hasty one. For when geologists came to study the phenom
ena of drift or diluvium, as these accumulations of travelled matter are called, they
found the currents of water alone would not explain them all. Some other agency
must have been concerned; nnd the general opinion now is, that drift has been the
result of the joint action of water and ice; and nearly all geologists suppose that this
action took place before man's" existence on the globe."
Again : —
" The first difficulty in the way of supposing the flood to have been literally uni
versal, is the great quantity of water that would have been requisite.
" The amount necessary to cover the earth to the tops of the highest mountains,
or about five miles above the present oceans, would be eight times greater than that
existing on the globe at this time.
" A second objection to such a universality is, the difficulty of providing for the
animals in the ark.
" Calculations have indeed been made, which seemed to show that the ark was
capacious enough to hold the pairs and septuples of all the species. But, unfortu
nately, the number of species assumed to exist by the calculators was vastly below
the truth. It amounted only to three or four hundred ; whereas, the actual number
already described by zoologists is not less than one hundred and fifty thousand ; and
the probable number existing on the globe is not less than half a million. And for
the greater part of these must provision have been made, since most of them inhabit
either the air or the dry land. A thousand species of mammalia, six thousand spe
cies of birds, two thousand species of reptiles, and one hundred and twenty thousand
species of insects are already described, and must have been provided with space
and food. Will any one believe this possible, in a vessel not more than four hundred
and fifty feet long, seventy-five feet broad, and forty-five feet high ?
" The third and most important objection to this universality of the deluge is de
rived from the facts brought to light by modern science, respecting the distribution
of animals and plants on the globe.
',' If tropical animals and plants, for instance, were to migrate to the temperate
zones, and especially to the frigid regions, they could not long survive; and almost
equally fatal would it be for the animals and plants of high latitudes to take up their
abode near the equator. But even within the tropics, we find distinct species of ani
mals and plants on opposite continents. Indeed, naturalists reckon a large number
of botanical and zoological districts, or provinces, as they are called, within which
they find certain peculiar groups of animals and plants, with natures exactly adapted
to that particular district, but incapable of enduring the different climate of adjoin
ing districts.
"Now, suppose the animals of the torrid zone at the present day to attempt, by
natural means, to reach the temperate zone ; who does not know that nearly all of
them must perish ? Nor is it any easier to conceive how, after the flood, they could
have migrated into all continents, and islands, and climates, and how each species
should have found the place exactly fitted to its constitution, as we now find them.
Indeed, the idea of their collection and dispersion in a natural way is altogether too
absurd to be believed."
Such are the views of Professor Plitcbcock. It is true, the Professor
endeavors to save the credit of the Bible, by recourse to new rules of
interpretation; but his labor, in my opinion, is in vain.
Dr. Pye Smith, and Dr. John Harris, of England, Prof. St. John, of
America, and a number of other Christian geologists, agree with Prof.

80 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
Hitchcock. They give up the common account of a universal deluge.
Of course, their testimony is not infallible ; but how forcible must have
been the evidence, to induce such men to give up the common doctrine,
at the risk of their reputation, their incomes, and their friends.
We will now notice a few other passages of the Old Testament. We
stated, that the book of Genesis gives two very different, and appa
rently contradictory accounts of Abraham. According to one account,
Abraham lived to be one hundred years old before he had a son. He
then becomes a father only by a miracle. Sarah, too, is said to have
been past age, so that a double miracle had to. be wrought to secure the
fulfilment of the promise respecting the birth of Isaac. The apostle
Paul, and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, both speak of Abra
ham as being as good as dead before the birth of Isaac. — "And being
not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he
was about a hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's
womb." Romans 4 : 19.
The passage in Hebrews is as follows: — "Therefore sprang there
even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky
in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea-shore innumerable."
Hebrews 11 : 12. Sarah lived about forty years after this. She died
at the age of 127. Abraham had now been as good as dead for nearly
forty or fifty years. What shall we say, if we find it recorded that this
same Abraham, without any intimatirfn of miraculous aid, marries again,
and becomes the father of a numerous family. We do find it so re
corded in Genesis 25: — "Then again Abraham took a wife, and her
name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Me-
dan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah."
Here is a numerous family for a man fifty years after he was as
" good as dead : " and yet no menlion is made of a miracle !
And again, we are told that Lot was a righteous man. Notwithstand-
ing this endorsement of his character, we find, that when the men of
Sodom compassed his house round, and demanded, for the basest of pur
poses, the two strangers that tarried with him, Lot went forth among them,
and told them that he could not surrender his guests, but that he had
two virgin daughters, and that he would surrender these instead of the
strangers ! The story is inconceivable. I will not say that no righteous
man would do this; but I will say that no unrighteous man, with any
remains of his original nature in his heart, would volunteer to surrender
his virgin daughters to a fate more horribly revolting than burying alive
or sacrificing them as a burnt-offering.
There are other statements in Genesis which physiology forbids us to
accept as true, and which decency forbids us to describe. One of them
is the account, in the nineteenth chapter, of the parentage of Moab and
Ben-Ammi. I will now give you a few specimens of contradictory statements found
in the New Testament. Matthew 27 : 44, says :
"The thieves, also, whioh were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth."
But we find in Luke that only one of the thieves did so.
" And one of the malefactors which were hanged, railed on him, saying, If thou be

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 81
the Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked him, saying," &o.
— Luke 23: 39.
We find several glaring contradictions in the case of Judas. Matthew
says : —
" Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned,
repented himself and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests
and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And
they said, What is that to us .' see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of
silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief
priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treas
ury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with
them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore, that field is called the field
of blood unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the
prophet." Now, mark, there is no such passage, nor any similar one, in Jeremiah.
There is one something like it in Zachariah, but it is no prophecy of
Judas, nor any one else.
" And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom
they ofthe children of Israel did value ; and gave them for the potter's field, as the
Lord appointed me." Matthew 27 : 3-10.
Here we find that Judas took the pieces of silver to the chief priests
and elders, that he cast them down, and went and hanged himself, and that
the chief priests bought with the money the potter's field. But a very dif
ferent story is told in the first chapter of Acts. I will read the pas-

" Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the
Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake before concerning Judas, which was guide
to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained a part of
this ministry. Now this man purchased afield with the reward of iniquity ; and fall
ing headlong, he burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out. And
it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem ; insomuch as that field is called
in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood." Acts 1 : 16, 19.
Now, here are several palpable contradictions: one says, the chief
priests purchased the field ; the other, that Judas purchased it : one says
that Judas hanged himself; the other, that he burst asunder, and that all
his bowels gushed out.
The few instances I have given will suffice to show the imperfection
of the New Testament narrative, and to show that its real nature is
wholly incompatible with the idea of its divine origin.
I now proceed with my reply to my opponent's former speech. My
opponent appears to have misunderstood some of my statements on
death-bed scenes. What I said was, that I had seen Infidels peaceful
and composed on the approach of death, and that I had seen Christians
full of horror on his approach. The Doctor may find, among my ear
lier works, a memoir of a pious lady, who had the wildest paroxysms of
horror on her dying bed. I did not, however, say that the dying horrors
of Christians are always the result of gloomy and horrible ideas of
God. They are often the result of natural causes. There are some
diseases that affect the dying in much the same way as delirium tremens
affects the drunkard. The sufferers fancy themselves assailed with fiery

82 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
demons, about to drag them to the burning gulf. It was so with the
friend whose memoir I published.
The dying horrors of others may arise from similar causes. Still, the
character of God, as portrayed by Orthodox Christianity, together with
other Orthodox notions about devils, hell, and eternal torments, have a
natural tendency to make men go about in fear and trembling, even
while in health ; and their power to torture people when weakened by
disease, or deranged by brain or nervous fevers, is truly awful.
The Doctor says that if all have sinned, and there be ho forgiveness
for us, a fearful retribution must await us all hereafter. That does not
follow. Men may sin, and pay the penalty here, in the present life. If
the sinner amend his ways, he may raise himself to purity and peace,
to dignity and happiness. The pains or punishments of sin begin with the
sin. .They are meant to cure the sinner of his sinful tendencies. If they
answer this end, the pain or punishment gradually ceases. We do not
believe in Orthodox punishments, any more than in Orthodox forgive
ness. The Doctor read some account of Paine and Francis Newport, but he
gave us no proof that the accounts he read were true. To us, they seemed
like falsehoods. He must be aware, that religious parties do not always
speak the truth of those who differ from them. The advocates of old
abuses have always been ready to say all manner of evil against reform
ers. The Orthodox sectarians and priests of his day called Jesus him
self, according to the Gospel account, a wine-bibber, an enemy to Caesar,
a sower of sedition, a blasphemer, and a devil. He knows, or ought to
know, how the early Christians were slandered. He knows, or ought to
know, what stories the Catholics published against Luther. Is he sure,
has he good and sufficient proof, that the stories' he read respecting
Paine are not slanders ? I repeat, they sounded like slanders to me.
Men do not often make such formal speeches to the dying, as the anony
mous one which the Doctor read over last night. But they do some
times write them, as occasions seem to require, in defence of their creeds
and churches, or as the means of destroying the influence of reformers.
I never take the character of a Protestant from a zealous Catholic ; and I
never take the character of a Catholic from a zealous Protestant. Re
ligious parlies never keep to the truth when speaking of their opponents.
All know this.
I know that priests have belied Paine's writings ; and if they would lie
respecting his published works, which are open to all, and which can
speak for themselves, we may judge what liberties they would take with
his private character after his death. I have read his works, and have
found the statements published respecting them by Watson, Simpson, and
others, to be false and slanderous in the extreme. If I could read the
true story of his life and death, I should probably find the stories pub
lished by his enemies respecting his private character and dying hours,
to be still falser.
I know how such stories frequently originate. There are persons who
get their living by inventing such things. There are large establishments
that keep people employed the whole year round in collecting and man
ufacturing those tales of Infidel depravity and death-bed horrors.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 83
We are no idolators of Thomas Paine, but we have read his life, by
different authors, and have acquainted ourselves with his writings, both
on politics and religion, and our conviction is, that he was a lover of
truth and of virtue, and a devoted friend of man. His writings abound
with noble sentiments. His courage and disinterestedness shine forth
continually. He assails old errors and inhuman institutions, with such
determination and power, that one cannot bui feel, in reading his works,
that he was a true reformer, and a genuine friend of man. It would be
folly to say of *any man's writings, that they were absolutely perfect, or
of any man's life, that it was free from imperfection or error; but we
should be unfaithful to the cause of truth and righteousness, if we did
not declare our conviction, that Paine was a great and a noble man, and
that, by his labors and his sufferings in the cause of truth and freedom,
he made mankind his debtors, and entitled himself to a place among the
great benefactors of our race.
I have a multitude of documents, of the most creditable kind, unan
swerable, in fact, bearing on his life and labors, his hours of sickness, and
his death, from which 1 should be glad to quote, if I had time ; but I
have not. Another opportunity will be afforded me, I expect, of speak
ing on this subject ; I shall, therefore, proceed with the debate.
My opponent's quotations respecting Francis Newport need no answer;
they carried their own refutation along with them. How could he know
that he was more miserable than any spirit in hell ? Besides, it is ridicu
lous to call a man an unbeliever, who believes in devils, hell, and ever
lasting torments. None but Christians believe in such things. The
whole story of Francis Newport is manifestly a priestly forgery, written
and published for the purpose of frightening people into unreasoning
subjection to priestly authority.

REMARKS OF DR. BERG.
(Two rounds of enthusiastic applause.) It is sometimes well, when
the smoke of battle has cleared away, to look at the practical result, be
fore renewing the contest. Before proceeding in the positive argument
on the internal evidence of the scriptures, I propose to sum up a few
points already established. I would remark, 1st, that the truth of the
Bible does not rest ou the ability of any human advocate ; and that it
might be impossible for any intellect to explain all its pages, for they are
based on the wisdom of God and not of man. My opponent's mode of
arguing is extremely unphilosophical. He has no broad and satisfactory
views, exhaustive of the subject, but continues to urge insulated objec
tions. 2d. He produces again and again, matters which may be con
sidered settled, after the overwhelming array of evidence in their favor.
I have shown you that he cannot tell you the name of the God he wor
ships, without quoting the Bible he rejects. The word ' Godhead,' quoted
by him from the first chapter of Romans, to show that his attributes may
be learned from Nature, is used by the Apostle simply to denote the
unity of the Divine nature, in opposition to the polytheism of antiquity.

84 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
The light of Nature is insufficient to enable us to discover many of the
attributes of Jehovah. Without the aid of revelation, Nature is but a suc
cession of enigmas, which no human ingenuity can unravel, before which,
human science is silent. Without the Bible, man cannot tell who made
him. How can he know without it, the immortality of the soul ? Neither
Plato, nor Socrates, nor Cicero, could solve the problem. They hoped
it might be so. Cicero declared that though he fondly hoped he would
live beyond the tomb, the sight of death never failed to fill him with a
shuddering dread of annihilation. Revelation alone cannot dispel the
gloom that hangs over the portals of the other world.
My opponent speaks of the heaven of all nations. The heathen have
no heaven. With all their attainments in knowledge, the Elysium of
the ancients was nothing but a Paradise of shades, where gloomy spirits
flitted to and fro in silent joylessness. He says, too, that the heathen
have a hell ! Does he accept this conclusion of human reason ? Does
he believe in retribution in another world — a doctrine usually scouted by
Infidels ? He has seen Infidels die in peace, because their God is not
malignant ; and yet he assures us, almost in the same breath, that their
God never forgives sin ! He has taken infinite pains to prove to us that
Infidels have no Savior ! I have shown before how some of their lead
ers have died, by statements authenticated as well as facts can be ; how
they left this world in horror and trembling despair. They hoped for
nothing after the breath was out of the body. It is true, as he says, that
the transgression of physical laws is always followed by the penalty.
Out of his own mouth is he condemned, for moral evil must be punished
under the same law, and by the same analogy. (Applause.) On their
own ground, Infidels are doomed to hell, for their God never forgives
sin ! Their own champion has proved the existence of a hell. (Applause.)
Blessed be God, say we, who has given us the doctrine of salvation by
grace ! Jesus Christ has brought life and immortality out of the shades
of heathen doubt, and has made a light to shine on the black midnight
of unassisted reason.
My opponent quoted part of a hymn, and, by quoting a very small
part, grossly perverted its meaning. I will read it. It is No. 201, in
the old Methodist hymn-book : —
" Part of thy name divinely stands
On all thy creatures writ."
This he quoted ; but he did not quote the next verse, which, in allu
sion to the Bible, says : —
" Here the whole Deity revealed."
True, part of the attributes of God can be learned from Nature ; but
the question between us is, whether all of them can. Had he quoted the
whole hymn, it would have been seen to bear me out. (Applause.) My
opponent would have found that the good old Methodist hymns do not
sustain his theology now as they once did. (Laughter and loud ap
plause.) My opponent rejects the doctrine of the atonement. Well, he accepts
human reason as a sufficient guide. It has guided the heathen. Will

REMARKS OF DR, BERG. 85
he accept their conclusions ? If so, he must accept the atonement, for
the heathen have always felt the need of sacrifice. But he rejects what
they believe, and stands a living witness of the insufficiency of nalural
reason to guide us to positive truth. (Applause.) Behold how pride is
in conflict with doubt ! How necessary it is that Jesus should say to the
troubled heart, Peace, be still ! The Christian's soul is hushed in its
triumph, because his heart is stayed upon God. (Applause.) I have shown
from his own mouth, that despisers are without God and without hope in the
world. He may say that he has seen Infidels die happy. It may be so-
No one will dispute his assertion. But it sometimes happens that he
asserts on two opposite sides, and we are then puzzled which one lo
take. (Laughter, applause, and a few hisses.) I'll deal kindly with
him, and take whatever he holds now, hoping for grace to him, that
may get something better, and grow to believe that the Bible is the
true word of the living God. He has seen Infidels die with calmness.
What is their calmness but a stupid torpor, but the quiet of a strong de
lusion which, on account of their rejection of the truth, they have been
allowed to fall into, that they may perish ? Their consciences are seared
as with a hot iron. The scornful manner in which he speaks of justifi
cation by faith, proves the truth of the Scripture declaration, that to the
Jews, the cross is a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks, foolishness.
(Cry in the audience of " Time up.")
Dr. Berg (to the Moderator) — My time up ?
Moderator Rev. J. Chambers. — No, you have several minutes more.
Dr. Berg. — Surely, he knows that the Bible considers no faith good
for any thing, unless associated with good works. I shall not consume
time by discussing this question. What he says is not worthy of a se
rious refutation before a Christian community. Any child that has sat
under the teachings of a Christian pulpit knows that no faith justifies,
unless it is united with works. How, then, dare my opponent say the
contrary? (Applause. Cries of question — question — go on — and a
few hisses.) I am sticking to the question ; and if I don't, (cries of
question,) I only follow my opponent. (Question! Turn him out I
Let's have Noah's Ark ! A storm of shouts and hisses, and great dis
order.) Mr. Barker. — I hope no man who calls himself a friend of mine —
(Take your seat, Barker ! And shure, outh with him ! Laughter, and
the audience subsided once more into silence.)
Dr. Berg. — I will proceed to offer the proof which lies in rich profu
sion around this part of my subject ; but to what end ? It would be
more logical in my opponent to refute the positive evidence I have offeredi
than tp confine himself to negations and insulated objections. He argues
foregone conclusions. In another mode, he would find something worthy
of the ability for which he enjoys a reputation. He renews objection*
again and again answered. Does the sun give no light or heat, because
the telescope can descry spots on its surface ? I do not deny that there
are some parts of the Bible obscure, some mysteries that cannot be ex-

86 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
plained. But what then ? This very fact is evidence that there is no
fraud. In any communication of the Infinite to the Finite, we might
anticipate mystery. And are there no mysteries in Nature ? Will he
tell me how long the grass grows ? How the planets are kept in their
orbits ? We cannot reason with certainty of God as we can of man.
We can explain the works of man, but not of God. The mass of Chris
tians who have had experience of God, have found their souls satisfied
with the Bible. This, in itself, is strong collateral evidence of its truth.
To appreciate the Bible, there is necessity, not only of a careful study
of its contents, but an impartial one. Unhappily, Infidels approach it with
so much prejudice, that they wrest the truth to their own destruction.
They approach it with a foregone determination to disbelieve. Instead
of a humble desire to learn the truth, they wish to cavil at the doctrine.
They veil their eyes to all perception of the truth. Now, it is impossible
to explain light to the blind ; he will deny the sun, moon and stars, be
cause he cannot see them. (Applause.) He stands there, his face
turned upwards, winking and blinking at the heavens, in a perverse de
sire to substitute sight for faith. You might as well descant upon the
melody of music to the deaf. What avail millions of witnesses, millions
from all quarters of the globe, who have found joy in believing ? They
differ from him, and, therefore, he denies. His miserable negations are
a substitute for argument — his cavils an offset to all positive proof. The
Gospel has no power to penetrate, nor practical holiness to soothe and
comfort his heart. He breaks the brightest link of the golden chain
which binds him to his Maker. The hopes of the Christian he cannot
appreciate ; . he regards them as the fond dreams of an amiable but foolish
fanatic. Here, again, he illustrates the truth of Scripture ; he cannot
appreciate these things, because they are spiritually discerned.
There are certain marks which ought to convince Infidels that the at
tributes of God are to be found only in his revelation. Even Infidels are
compelled to borrow the name and attributes of God from its pages.
Why do they believe in one God, and not in many ? Why do they
prefer Deism to Polytheism ? They may learn his power and wisdom
from Nature; but how will they learn from it his mercy, truth, justice,
eternity, and omnipresence ? I see the sickness in the world, and that
bitter streams mingle with every fountain of pleasure. How can they,
by the light of Nature, reconcile this with Divine mercy ? I see oppres
sion ; the righteous languish, and the tyrant is prosperous ; the wicked ¦
flourish like a green bay tree, and the poor man is plunged into disgrace.
These are common moral phenomena, as well deserving explanation as
any of Ihe incidents of Nature, which all the astrology and geology of
lnfideldom can expound. (Applause.)
Another point : How were the Jews favored with a knowledge ofthe
unity of God, when other nations, more advanced in the arts and sciences,
were ignorant ? Here is a problem worthy pf my opponent's boasted
philosophy and science. He has an opportunity, by solving it, to sustain
his reputation. Let us see if he can make more impression on it than
his coadjutors, who huve long been hammering on it with their little
mallets. Better do this than take a geological fossil, and attempt
to batter down the Bible with it, as Samson slew the Philistines with the

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 87
jaw-bone of an ass. (Vociferous applause.) I assert, without fear of
contradiction, that there is net, in the whole world, an Infidel that be
lieves — (Cry of " Time up." Dr. Berg took his seat amid long-continued
and hearty applause.)

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
(Applause and a few sounds of h'sh.) I wpuld once more request the
audience to listen, and allow the speakers to proceed without interruption.
Thus far, the debate has proceeded with a considerable degree of order,
and I trust that order and peace will reign to its close.
Dr. Berg thinks, not that I have misquoted, but made an unwarrantable
use of a Methodist hymn. The truth is, I was as far from perverting
the meaning of the hymn, as from misquoting its words. I quoted the
hymn simply to show, that the word Deity, which is the Latin word for
God-head, was used by the author for the whole of the Divine attributes.
" Here the whole Deity is known," plainly meaning, all the attri
butes of the Deity. Paul uses the werd God-head in the same sense
when he says, that the eternal power and God-head are revealed by
Nature. His meaning manifestly is, that the attributes of God gene
rally, all those attributes that can be known at all, are made known by
God's works, clearly made known, so that the Gentiles, if ignorant of
God, are without excuse. I did not say that the hymn taught the doc
trine that the whole God-head is revealed by Nature. I said the con
trary. I simply quoted the hymn to show in what sense the word Deity
or God-head was used by Orthodox divines. It was Paul that I said
taught the doctrine that the whole God-head, so far as it can be made
known at all, is made known by the visible universe.
The Doctor says my course is unphilosophical, that I continue to deal
in isolated objections and secondary matters, instead of dealing with the
overwhelming array of positive evidence he has adduced to prove the
Divine authority of the Bible. I answer, I am net aware that we have
been furnished with any such overwhelming array of proofs. I have no
recollection of any propf of the Divine authority of the Bible adduced
by my opponent. I know of no such proof. I have certainly heard no
such proof in the present debate. Will he mention a solitary decisive
proof pf the Divine authority pr superhuman origin of the Bible which
he has advanced ? The truth is, there can be no proof of the Divine
authority of a book that contradicts itself, and that contradicts the oracles
of God in Nature, as the Bible does. There can be no evidence of the
Divine authority of a book that abounds with blasphemy and immorality.
He says, I cannot give the name of the God I worship without borrowing
from the Bible. Had God no name, then, till the Bible was written?
The ablest portions of the Bible were not written till the world was three
thousand years old. Had men no name for God all that time ? The
oldest book in the Bible is supposed to be the book of Job ; yet, accord
ing to that book, men had both a name for God, and had lofty ideas of his
character, in some respects, before the book was written. In the Book of

88 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
Job, which is generally admitted to be the work of a Pagan Deist, are to
be found much worthier and nobler views of God, than are to be found
in the writings ef Moses. If Job and his friends could have such supe-
ripr views ef God, as well as knew his name, before any portion of the
Bible was written, what should hinder men in our days from having
worthy views of his character, and giving him a suitable name, independ
ent of aid from the Bible ? The truth is, the man who studies Ged in
Nature, witheut the Bible, is infinitely likelier to get true views ef God,
than he who gets his ideas of God from the Bible, without regard to
Nature. The man who regards the Bible as a true revelation of God,
can hardly fail to have false and blasphemous ideas of Him.
My opponent says I cannot learn from Nature why God created me.
Can he learn from the Bible why God created him ? Will he show us,
first, the passage which says why God created us, and prove, second,
that what the passage says is correct ? The Orthodox notion as to the
end for which God created us, we regard as false and mischievous. If
Nature, if cur own nature, does not reveal the end for which we are
created, nothing does. Our common sense teaches us to consider thai
as the end for which a thing is made, which is the highest end the thing
can answer. The highest end we are fitted to answer, is our own per
fection and enjoyment, and the promotion of the improvement and hap
piness of our fellow-men. This is enough.
My opponent asks how it came te pass that the Jews had higher and
better views of God than the more learned Pagans around them. I have
yet to learn that they had. It will be time enough to attempt to account
for an alleged fact, when it has been proved to be a fact. The Pagans
cculd npt have mere blasphemeus or more revolting views of God than
the authors of the earlier parts of the Bible. It would be easier to prove
that the Jews borrowed their better views of God from the Pagans, than
that the Pagans borrowed their better views of God from the Jews. To
charge us with borrowing our ideas of God from the Bible is ridiculous.
The Bible does not teach the doctrines respecting God which we hold.
Nor do we hold many of those doctrines respecting God which the
Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God is subject to human weak
nesses and imperfections, that he exists in the shape of a man, isjimited
in his presence, his habitation, his knowledge, his power. That he eats,
drinks, talks, rests, and gets refreshed like men ; that he is partial, un
just, revengeful, cruel, passionate, changeable, pleased with sacrifices
and the smell of burning flesh, and a hundred other horrible, foolish,
impossible, contradictory, and blasphemous things. Will any one say
we borrow these doctrines from the Bible ? We reject, we spurn, we
loathe them. We believe that God acts always in harmony with univer
sal and unchangeable laws ; that he never violates, suspends, or changes
the laws of Nature. That stories of miracles, special providences,
divine judgments, supernatural revelations, partial affections, elections of
particular people, institutions of ceremonies, making covenants, writing
books, producing beings out of the natural order of generation, and a
thousand similar stories found in the Bible, are all fables. As for the
word God, that has not been borrowed from the Bible. It is not
Hebrew, but Saxon. The name of God in the Bible is not one, but

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 89
many. None of them have any thing about them specially to recommend
them. They are no better than our Saxon name, nor so good. The
Hebrew name most commonly used, simply means strong. It is gene
rally used in the plural, intimating that the earlier Bible writers believed
in many Gods. Hence, they frequently represent the Gods as appear
ing as several. They appeared so to Abraham and Lot.
They speak of themselves as several. Let its make man, in our own
image. We must shut him out of Eden, lest he become like one of us.
Both in the name we give God, and in the views we hold of his charac
ter and ways of working, we are far in advance of the Bible. And we
repeat, if God cannot be known by his works, the Bible must be false,
for it says he can.
But how can we know his glorious attributes of mercy, justice, truth,
&c, except from the Bible ? We answer again, the Bible itself declares
that the heavens declare the glory of God, that the earth is full of his
goodness, that all his works speak of his goodness, — (Explosion of
shouts, contemptuous laughter, hisses, groans, and cries of Oh ! Oh !)
Dr. Berg. — Allow me, my friends, to request you to let the discus
sion proceed. Let him say what he pleases, and do not interrupt him
unnecessarily. Mr. Barker. — I suppose those who interrupted me have some way
of justifying their conduct, in their own eyes. I confess, the expressions
of surprise, derision, and contempt, with which my remarks were inter
rupted, appear to me to reveal a state of mind to which I have not, of
late, been accustomed. If my opponent says we cannot learn the attri
butes of God from Nature, he contradicts the Bible. Either his arguing,
or the Bible, is false ; and, whichever it be, my answer is conclusive.
The truth is, the Bible is right on this point. Nature does reveal God,
so far as _God can be revealed. Those who believe more of God
than Nature reveals, believe at random — believe without reason. The
doctrines respecting God and his doings, that contradict Nature, are
false. The Doctor says that Reason and Nature cannot dispel the gloom that
hangs over the future. Nor can the Bible. The Bible makes darker
the gloom that hangs over the future. The future presents a gloomier
aspect to the believer in the Bible, and especially to the believer in any
of the Orthodox interpretations of the Bible, than to the unbeliever, who
rejects the authority of the Bible, and the doctrines of Orthodoxy. The
Bible talks of an eternal hell, of a bottomless pit, a lake of fire, burning
with brimstone, shrouded in darkness, thronged with innumerable mil
lions of damned souls, weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth, with
hosts of devils, held down in chains, suffering the vengeance of eternal
fire, the smoke of the tormented ascending up for ever and ever. It
teaches the horrible doctrine, that but few are saved. Wide is the gate,
and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that
go in thereat. Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth to
life, and few there be that find it. Even pious believers are not free
from gloomy fears of the future. They have many doubts as to their
own salvation. Their ideas of faith, of grace, of assurance, and a

90 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
number of other subjects, all tend to perplex them, and fill them with
the most anxious doubts as to their final destiny. Even those that are
free from doubts as to their own salvation, are in doubt as to the salva-
tion of those dear to them. The thoughts of brothers or sisters, parents
or children, friends or neighbors, doomed to eternal horrors, haunt them
continually. Not so with those who reject the authority of the Bible and Ortho
doxy. We have no fears of eternal torments, either for ourselves or
others. Nature teaches no such horrors. She reveals no burning lakes,
no bottomless pit, no endless torments. The gloomiest unbeliever on
earth fears nothing worse in the future, than a calm, unbroken, everlast
ing sleep. And the eternal slumber of our whole race is not a thousandth
part so gloomy or so horrible a thought, as that of the eternal burning,
and ever-living tortures of a single soul. But many of the unbelievers
of the present day, believe in immortality, and rejoice in hope of rational
and eternal blessedness. Talk of the Bible and Orthodoxy dispelling the
gloom that hangs over the future. It is preposterous. It wraps in gloom
and horror both the'future and the present. Nature shines sweetly on
both, and whispers of hope and peace and blessedness to all. >
The Doctor says that Reason and Nature cannot reveal the details of
the existence beyond this world. We ask, Can the Bible ? What
details does it give ? What details do Christians think it gives ? It ap
pears to me to give contradictory details. It is certain that believers
hold contradictory opinions on the subject. The Catholic believes in
three worlds beyond the grave ; heaven, hell, and purgatory. The Uni
versalist believes in only one, a world of purity and blessedness for all.
The generality of the Orthodox believe in two worlds, one a world of
mysterious happiness, the other a world of boundless, unutterable and eter
nal misery. The Swedenborgians also believe in two future worlds, but
they hold different opinions respecting the conditions and employments
of the inhabitants. Some, who are Orthodox in other respects, believe
the wicked will perish, die, cease to be, and that the good alone shall be
immortal. The opinions of the Orthodox, respecting the misery of the
wicked, vary greatly. Some think the wicked are burnt in fire for ever;
that they are rolled to and fro on billows of burning pitch and brim
stone, driven furiously by the breath of the Almighty. Others think the
misery is internal, spiritual, the gnawing of a guilty conscience, and of
insatiable, ungratified desires. They differ still more about heaven.
Some place its happiness in a mysterious sight of God, called the bea
tific vision ; others place it in freedom from toil, sickness, hunger, and
pain. Some place it in singing psalms, playing on harps, and worship
ping Jesus. Others rationalize a little, and look for a blessedness
resembling the blessedness of~rnen on earth, harmonizing with man's
nature. The less reverence the sects have for the teachings of the
Bible, the more rational and cheering are their hopes and anticipations
with respect to the future, and the less inclined they are to believe in the
horrid and blasphemous doctrine of eternal torments. But there is no
agreement among the sects. The Bible leaves every thing in doubt or
darkness. My opponent says I have taken pains to prove that we have no

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 91
Savior. I have done no such thing. I have simply disclaimed any be
lief in imputed righteousness, or salvation by faith in the merits of
another. We believe in a Savior ; a universal Savior. A healing or a
saving power pervades all Nature, and shows itself in every thing that
lives. We have our Savior within us, the only Savior we want. (Ex
plosion of contemptuous laughter.) There is a healing power in all
things. Wound a tree, and the sap will flow to the wound and begin the
healing process ; the severed fibres will be reunited, and the bark grow
over the spot. Wound the flesh of your arm, and Nature, if you will
only allow her to work unchecked, will heal the wound, and, perhaps,
not leave even a scar. So with the soul. When you go in opposition to
your sense of right and duty, you inflict a wound on your spirit ; but desist
from evil doing, and the soul, in time, will recover its moral energy and
peace. But repeat the wound on the tree, perpetually, and it will die.
Repeat the wound on your body, continually, and inflammation and morti
fication will be the result. Inflict daily wounds on the soul, and it will
lose its moral power, and be utterly debased and lost. But we have dis
claimed all hope of forgiveness, the Doctor says. We have. We want
no forgiveness. We are willing to bear the results of our misdoings. It
is better we should bear them. The painful effects of sin tend to fortify
us against temptation. We had rather be preserved from sinning, than
sin and be forgiven. But there is no forgiveness. The doctrine is a de
lusion. We must bear the penalty if we sin.
We Infidels are damned to an eternal hell, says my opponent, on our
own principles, if God never forgives sin. Such talk is ridiculous. In
fidels do not believe in an eternal hell ; they cannot, therefore, on their
own principles, be doomed to one. But how can we escape, if there be
no forgiveness ? We answer, by bearing the punishment of our sins in
the present life ; by ceasing to sin, and wearing out the effects of sin.
The Doctor can think of nothing but future, eternal punishment. We
believe in no such punishment. The Doctor distinguishes between phys
ical laws and natural laws, and different punishments for the trans
gressors of those different laws. We know of no such differences. Phys
ical laws are moral laws, and all true moral laws are physical laws.
There is but one kind of laws, and but one kind of punishment, and all
are natural. Natural laws are the only moral laws ; and natural punish
ments are the only punishments to which we are liable. And forgive
ness is a thing unknown in Nature. Amendment is what Nature de
mands ; her punishments are means of amendment. God's plan is, to
cure the sinner, not encourage him in sin by exempting him from pun
ishment. My opponent asks, if I will accept as truth what the Heathen believe
about the atonement. The Heathen have been led to that doctrine by
reason, he says. We ask for the proof that the Heathen were taught
their doctrine of atonement by reason. Reason teaches us to reject both
the Heathen and the Orthodox Christian doctrine of atonement. We
are ho more bound to believe all that the Heathen believe, than my op
ponent is to believe all the various doctrines held by all the sects of
Christians. A man may have no guide but reason, and yet not follow
reason faithfully. Will he accept the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, or

92 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
of transubstantiation ; or the doctrine of destruction, or of universal sal
vation ? Will he accept the doctrines of the Methodists, the Socinians,
or the Unitarians? He thinks himself under no obligation to do so'.
The doctrines of people who believe the Bible are not always in agree
ment with Bible teachings, he would say. Men may have the Bible, and
not read it. They may read it, but not understand it. They may un
derstand it, and yet not yield in all things to its teachings. They may
cling to their prejudices, or be ruled by their passions. So say we with
regard to the Book of Nature. Men may have the Book of Nature and
not read it. They may try to read it, and not always understand it
They may even understand it, and yet not give up every opinion at vari-
ance with its teachings. Besides, where is the proof that the Heathen
have always regarded Nature as their guide ? Have they had no priests ;
no sacred books ; no old traditions ? And, further, Nature is progressive.
Man is progressive. He is ever becoming more a man. We cannot
measure the possible attainments of man when fully developed, by his
attainments in his undeveloped infancy. Man can learn more from
Nature now, than he once could. He has freer and fuller access to
Nature than formerly. He is better able to read her lessons. If the
Heathen had always studied Nature from the beginning, they would
gradually have outgrown their errors and superstitions. Every age
would have made them wiser and better. The laws of life and health,
the laws of their moral and social nature, would have rapidly unfolded
themselves to their view. Their knowledge, their power, their health;
their virtue, their resources, their enjoyments, would have increased
from year to year, and the earth, and all things in it, would, ere this,
have been subjected to their control, and made subservient to their inter
ests and enjoyment. (Applause and hisses.)
My opponent grants that Infidels may die happy, in consequence of
being given up to delusion. We answer, only allow the fact that Infi
dels, as .you call them, may die happy, and we will account for the fact
in our own way. He asks, whether I will deny the light and heat ofthe
sun, because there are spots on its surface ? No ; but if he should say
there are no spots on the sun, and the spots should clearly show them
selves, we would tell him he was in error. So with the Bible. If he
says the Bible is of God, and that it is free from error and mistake, while
we see errors and mistakes, contradictions and absurdities, immoralities
and blasphemies in every part, we tell him he is in error here also.
(Violent explosion of hisses, cries of fair-play, go on, hear both sides,
fyc, fyc.) He acknowledges there are parts of the Bible that are ob
scure, mysterious. But that is not enough. The passages we have quoted
are not obscure. Their meaning is plain enough ; but it is false, im
moral, contradictory, blasphemous.
He says, we approach the Scriptures with prejudice, and in a spirit of
hostility. Can he, then, read our hearts ? I thought it was God alone
who could do that. A man should be prepared with irresistible proofs,
before he prefers such charges. Has my opponent got such proofs?
Where are they ? When a disputant makes such charges against an
opponent, and" knows that he cannot prove them, he places himself
in an unenviable position. We have proof, the best, the strongest, the

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 93
fullest proof the case admits, that the charge is false. The truth is, so
far from coming to the investigation of the question respecting the ori
gin of the Bible, with prejudices against the Bible, or with feelings of
hostility to the Bible, my prejudices and feelings all leaned the other
way. My prejudices were all in favor of the prevailing doctrine, the
doctrine of the superhuman origin and divine authority of the Bible. I
was taught that doctrine from my earliest childhood. I received it as
eternal truth. I looked on those who dared even to doubt it with the
most painful suspicions. I reverenced the Bible next to God himself.
The reverence with which my parents regarded the Bible ; the solemn
manner in which they spoke of it; the tones with which they read it;
the horror with which they regarded those who doubted or disbelieved it ;
all tended to strengthen my belief in its divinity. All those whom I
loved and revered, believed in its divinity. None but those whom I
regarded as outcasts and profligates, as enemies of God and goodness,
called its divinity in question. Every sermon or speech that I heard,
and every book that I read, were in favor of the prevailing doctrine. My
strongest passions were enlisted in its favor. I was taught that a be
lief in it was essential to eternal salvation ; that doubt of it was tp run
the risk of eternal damnation. My prejudices grew with my growth,
and strengthened with my strength. I sought to strengthen my belief by
reading books on the subject, written by the ablest and most learned de
fenders of the divine authority of the Bible. I read every book on the
subject I could find, on the popular side. I believed the books. 1 sup
posed the writers of them to be learned and honest, and my assurance
was increased. I preached and advocated the common doctrine. I de
fended it against unbelievers. I wrote several books in its favor. I re
ceived praise and rewards for my labor. My reputation, my friends, my
interests, as well as my prejudices, affections and passions, all joined to
keep me to the Orthodox faith. When light at length compelled me to mod
ify my belief, I yielded with the greatest reluctance. As long as-I could,
I resisted the light. I would feign have closed my eyes against it. To
change seemed horrible. The thought distressed me beyond measure.
The consequences which threatened me in case of change, were truly
terrible. My agony was often intense. Through the night, it deprived
me of sleep ; through the day, it filled me with gloom. Nothing but an
ardent love of truth, and an ever-anxious wish to be right, could have
carried me through the struggle.
And let me add, that this is the history of most of those called unbe
lievers at the present day. They were brought up Christians. The
prejudices of their education, their filial love and gratitude, their hopes
of heaven, their fears of hell, were all enlisted on the side of the popu
lar belief. To change their views, exposed them to reproach and perse
cution ; to the loss of friends and reputation ; to excommunication from
the Church, and to the threats of exclusion from heaven. Adherence
to the doctrine held by my opponent, had the promise of the good things
both of the life that now is, and of that which is to come ; while a
change was threatened with the loss of all. No men ever gave fuller
proof of a love of truth, of moral courage, or of fidelity to virtue, than
many of those denounced as Infidels. They live the life of martyrs,
and some of them die the death of martyrs.

94 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
We came to the study of the Bible question with prejudice, our oppo-
nent says. How does he come ? Has he no prejudice ? Is he perfectly
impartial ? Has he no more leaning to the Orthodox view of the Bible
than to ours ? Has he no hostility to unbelief? Has he shown none ?
Have we had no proof of prejudice or hostility from others, during this
debate? What mean those shouts, those hisses, and those frequent
bursts of derision ? We speak not thus in anger, but for the sake of
truth. We do not expect believers to come to such discussions free
from prejudice. It is not possible for them to do so. Still, we have
faith in truth. That which has conquered the prejudices of so many,
will conquer the prejudices of others — will one day conquer the preju
dices of all.
We are prejudiced, the Doctor says. Suppose we are, has truth
no power to conquer prejudice ? If the gospel be the power of God, if
the Bible be the word of God, ought it not to be able to overcome a few
prejudices ?
" To offer internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible to Infi
dels," says my opponent, " is like offering light to the blind." Then
why does he offer it ? Has he been reading and speaking all this while
for the benefit of believers only ? Why does he trouble himself about
internal evidence, if it can be appreciated by those only who do not need
it ? What ! give a candle to those who have the sun ? But unbelievers
can appreciate internal evidence as well as others. The difficulty is,
that my opponent's internal evidence of the divine authority of the-Bible
is not at hand. There is none. The internal evidence is all on the
other side. It proves the Bible to be merely human. The difficulty
with my opponent is, not that his hearers cannot see the light, but that
he has got no light to impart to them.
My opponent says, the blind will deny the sun. He takes for granted
that we are the blind, and that his opinions are like the sun. If, instead
of those big assertions, he would give us a little argument, it might an
swer his purpose better. Suppose we were to call our opinions the sun,
and call all men wilfully blind who happened not to agree with us ;
would it prove any thing ? The duty of disputants in a public discus
sion is, first, tq state their views; then, second, to give their reason for
regarding them as truth, and to leave their hearers to decide, each for
himself, which is right. Let both sides be fairly stated, and the argu
ments fully given, and the truth will triumph in the end.
My opponent speaks of the consolations, the peace? the raptures of
Christians, as a proof of the superhuman origin of the Bible. But con
solations, peace and raptures are not confined to Christians ; all reli
gionists enjoy them. They are enjoyed by the Pagans. They are en
joyed by the Mohammedans. They hold communion with God j they find
joy and peace in believing ; they experience raptures and transports, as
well as the Christians. Are their religions and sacred books of divine
origin ? Is the Koran the word of God ? Many of the Pagans have
purer joys than Christians. They have not so terrible a mixture of
gloom. They believe in no eternal torment, either for themselves or
their friends. When the Missionaries threaten them with a hell of fire
and brimstone, they smile, and say, " There may be people in your coun
try bad enough to deserve such treatment, but we have no such sinners

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 95
here." They think it monstrous, to imagine that God can doom to eter
nal torments in hell-fire, men and women that tbey do not think worthy
of imprisonment or death.
The Christian must be terribly selfish, that can rejoice in the prospect
opened to him by the Bible, as explained by its Orthodox expounders.
What is that prospect ? The certainty of endless and unutterable tor
ments to the great majority of mankind ; the certainty of endless tor
ments to many of those most dear to him. If he be Methodist, he be
lieves that God foreknew that the majority would be damned, before he
made them — that he made them with this frightful doom before them.
The Calvinist believes that God predestinated the greater part of man
kind to eternal torments ; choosing only the smaller portion for heaven
and happiness. These doctrines cannot be matched, either for horror
or blasphemy, by any nation to be found in the Pagan world. The
views they present of God and futurity are enough to drive the believer
mad. The man who can believe such doctrines, and yet indulge him-
se'f in joy and raptures, is a monster. He is to be pitied, loathed and
abhorred, rather than envied. We do not want his joys. We prefer our
own. (Hisses and applause.)
My opponent asks, How are we to reconcile oppression and suffering
with the mercy and justice of God ? The Bible, he says, makes all this
plain. We answer, the Bible gives no explanation of the matter but
what was given by Pagans before the Bible was written. They believed
that all would be righted in a future state. The Bible use of this doc
trine is of evil tendency. It commands people to be content under
oppression and wrong, to be content even in slavery ; instead of teach
ing them to try to raise themselves from oppression. We wish to see
things righted here. If all who suffer would unite to right them, they
would soon be righted. Besides, is my opponent sure that the oppressor
is happier than the oppressed, in the present world ? There are some
who think the wronged less miserable than the wronger. We shall not
discuss this matter here ; but; it does appear to us, that the Bible tends
to increase the evils of oppression, and the perplexity arising from the
prevalence of oppression, rather than to abate the evils.
My opponent charges the Deists with borrowing from the Bible. We
suppose Deists have as much right to borrow from the Bible as others, if
they find in it any thing worth borrowing. Our principle is, to seize on
truth wherever we find it. But we have not borrowed all the Bible rep
resentations of God. We have taken only the good. How far we are
indebted to the Bible we do not know ; but we think the Bible is more
indebted to us. We have forced the believers in the Bible to put better
sense and more truth into the words of the Bible. Who forced the
clergy to drop the old bad meaning of many parts of the Old Testament,
and put into them a more respectable and tolerable meaning ? The De
ists. Who forced them to press a little geological truth into their inter
pretations of Genesis ? The Deists. And so it has always been. Men
of science, free thinkers, philosophers, gather the truths revealed by
Nature, and publish them abroad. The priests cry heresy, infidelity.
They reproach and persecute the teachers of truth. But the truth
spreads. A few of the more honest and rational members of the church

96 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
receive it. Thejovers of truth among the unconverted receive it. The
clergy find it necessary to yield a little. They acknowledge there
is some truth in the new revelations, and contend that the Bible teaches
the same truth, or agrees with it. They throw away the old interpreta
tion of the Bible, and give the words of the book another meaning.
They force them to speak astronomy and geology.
We borrow our ideas of God from the Bible, we are told. Do we get
our ideas of God's justice from the Bible? The Bible tells us God
punishes the innocent, and lets the guilty escape. It tells us he punishes
Whole races for the sins of one individual. It tells us that he moves a
man to sin, then kills seventy thousand innocents for his sin. It tells us
that he destroys a whole nation, man, woman, and child, for a sin coro>
mitted four hundred and twenty years before they were born. Do we
get our ideas of God's justice from such blasphemous representations as
these ? Passages of the Bible represent God as infinitely cruel. Did
we learn God's mercy from these passages ? It is strange that men's
prejudices should be so strong as to enable them to maintain a position
so absurd. But we remember the day when we were equally blind, and
can pity those who are still deluded. We repeat, the Church is more
indebted to the world for light, than the world to the Church.
We are told that the purity of the doctrines of the Bible prove it to be
divine. But you must prove that they are pure. In order to do this, you
must first ascertain what is pure. You must have a standard of purity,
with which to compare the doctrines of the Bible. You must then prove
that the doctrines of the Bible agree with the standard. But where are
you to find your standard of purity ? Are we able, of ourselves, with<
out the Bible, to find out what is pure, and to frame a perfect standard
of purity ? If so, what need have we of a supernatural revelation ? If
we cannot judge what is pure doctrine, and what not, without the Bible, —
if we cannot frame a standard of purity, independent of the Bible, — how
can we test the teachings of the Bible ? ^ Must we take our standard
from the Bible, and so try the Bible by itself? In this way we could
prove any book perfect, provided it did not contradict itself. But here
is another difficulty with the Bible. Il does contradict itself, so that if you
prove one portion true and good, you prove another portion false and
bad. But even where the Bible does not contradict itself, we can still
test many portions of the Bible by our knowledge of facts. We can
test its accounts of creation by our knowledge of geological facts. We
can test its astronomical and meteorological teachings by astronomical
and meteorological facts. We can test its teachings about human
nature by our knowledge of our own nature, and by our experience
and consciousness. And so in other matters.
Take some of the teachings of the Bible respecting government
Some of them are so palpably false, that no man, who is not quite spiritu
ally blind, can help seeing their falsehood. Other portions are so mani
festly immoral, that it requires almost a miracle to keep men from being
shocked at them. I will read from Romans 13 : 1-6 : —
" Let every bouI be subjeot unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of
God ; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God : and they that resist shall receive to them-

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 97
selves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt
thou, then, not be afraid of the power ? do that which is good and thou shalt have
praise of the same : for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do
that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth not the sword in vain : for he is the
minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore
ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this
cause, pay ye tribute also, for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon
this very thing."
Here we are required to be subject to rulers : to obey rulers : to obey
the men in power, whatever they be, or whatever they may require. No
exceptions are made. No limitations are fixed. The command is un
limited. The same unlimited obedience is commanded in other places.
"¦Obey magistrates," says the Epistle to Titus. "Submit to every
ordinance of man," says Peter. In none of these passages is any thing
said to limit the duty of obedience to rulers. Every thing is added to
exclude limitations. " There is no power but of God," says the writer.
" The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore,
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God : and they that resist
shall receive to themselves damnation." In other words : to obey rulers,
is to obey God ; — to disobey rulers, is to disobey God ; — to resist rulers,
is to resist God ; — resistance to rulers, insubordination and disobedience
to rulers, entails damnation. He adds other reasons for obedience.
" Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil," says he. In
other words : " They never forbid what is good ; they never command
what is evil. They always forbid what is evil ; they always command
what is good. They always punish evil ; they punish nothing else.
They never punish what is good. Their laws are one with God's laws ;
their dispensation of rewards and punishments is one with God's."
Besides, says this writer, " Do that which is good, and thou shalt have
praise of the same." The rulers will commend you, applaud you, if
you do what is right. Not only will they be careful never to reprove
you, censure you, leproach you, for doing what is good ; they will never
fail to praise you. " But if thou doest evil," adds the writer, " be afraid,
for he beareth not the sword in vain." You are sure to be punished by
the rulers, if you do what is evil. And so the lesson goes on. Apply these
words to any government in existence. Apply them to Russia, to Aus
tria, to France. Apply them to the government of the Pope at Rome ;
to the government of the Queen, the aristocracy and the bishops in
England, or to the government of the Southern Oligarchy in America.
Do the words fit ? Are all these governments of God ? Ought those
who live under them to obey them in all things ? Would it be a dam
nable sin to disobey or resist them ? Would resistance to all these
governments be resistance to God ? Is it true that these governments are
never a terror to good works, but always a terror to evil works ? Is it
true that every one who does what is good gets praise of them ? Are
not all these things false, — utterly false ; false of every one of them ?
Could grosser falsehoods be uttered ? Is it not a fact, that all these
governments command things evil, and forbid things good ? Do they
praise those who do good ? Do they not, on the contrary, denounce
their best and bravest men as rebels and traitors ? Do they not arrest,

98 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
condemn, imprison, transport and destroy such men? Do they not
favor spies, traitors, false witnesses and murderers ?
Take the rulers of past ages. Take George the Third and his Tory
advisers. Were they a terror to evil doers ? Did they praise those who
did good? Did they never encourage the evil, and try to frighten the
good ? Was it wrong to disobey them ? Was it a sin to resist them ?
In resisting those tyrants, were your fathers resisting the ordinance of
God ? Are all your fathers damned ? Is Washington damned ? Are
Franklin and Jefferson, Hancock and Adams, all damned ?
Go back still further. Go to the days of Nero, who ruled when Paul
is supposed to have died. Was he God's minister ? Were all his sub
ordinates God's ministers ? Were his successors all ordained of God ?
Were none of them a terror to good works ? Were they all a terror to
evil works ? Did all who did that which was good obtain praise from
them ? It seems a mockery to ask such questions. You know, that
rulers are often a terror to the best works, and an encouragement to the
worst. 'You know that they often decree iniquity and cruelty, and for
bid truth, beneficence and justice. You know that they frequently praise
the bad, and censure the good ; that they often praise the worst, and
banish, behead, or hang the best. You believe that resistance to rulers
is, in some cases, obedience to God. You believe it was so in 1776.
You do not believe that Hancock, and Adams, and Jefferson, and Wash
ington, are all damned. You do not believe that all who labored or
fought with them are damned. You believe they were noble men.
You believe that their resistance to the tyrant George the Third was
obedience to God. You think they did well in resisting the tyrant ; yet
you know they got no praise from him. *
And so in other cases. You are not convinced that Cromwell and
Hampden, Milton and Sydney, are damned. You cannot believe that
Kossuth and Mazzini deserve damnation, for their resistance to the po
litical and ecclesiastical tyrants of Europe. The passages I have read
are a mass of falsehood, abominations and horrors. More false, more
blasphemous, more immoral, more revoling, more atrocious, more out
rageous, more mischievous, or more monstrous doctrines, can neither be
found nor feigned. ( Time up.)

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.
(General applause, a few hisses, followed by a second round of enthu
siastic applause.)
Moderator Chambers. — I hope that the Doctor's, friends will not oc
cupy his time.
Dr. Berg. — If those on the other side want to hiss, let them go ahead.
They will not annoy me in the least.
It is hardly to be expected that I should notice the speech of my op
ponent, as though given us as sober argument. He is certainly gifted
with wonderful powers of sophistry. I have heard many sophisms in my
time, but I never heard any so palpable. Some parts of his speech

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 99
sounded to me as if presented in joke. (Cries of question, question !)
In what I said about the passage in Romans, 1 meant to call attention to
the fact, that the word " Godhead " is only used to denote the unity of
God in contradistinction to polythesism, and does not include all his attri
butes. In his quotation of the hymn, he left out the part which speaks
of the " whole Deity," as revealed in his word.
He spoke of the doctrine taught in Romans 13, in regard to rulers.
I do not understand that passage as sanctioning all rulers and govern
ments, but as pointing out what rulers and governments should be. He
means that Christians can righteously obey rulers that govern right, and
honor those that are a terror to evil doers. Are not such rulers entitled
to respect and confidence ? Why should they not be obeyed ? Why
should we rebel against those who execute wrath only upon him that
doeth evil?
I wish to run over some of the arguments on the internal evidence,
this evening, so that I may be able to present my respects to what my
opponent said of Noah's Ark. Every individual who believes in God
has derived that belief, directly or indirectly, from the Bible. There is
nothing contrary to reason in the fact, that the Bible sometimes repre
sents God with human organs, passions and weakness. Human lan
guage must be used ; and it is feeble to express the Divine essence, which
is infinitely above the highest conceptions of the human mind. Infidels
avail themselves of its imperfections, to abuse, tarnish and blaspheme
the character of Jehovah. When the language is too lofty for their
conceptions, they denounce it as mysterious and unintelligible ; when it
is plain and simple, they discard it as unworthy the character of God.
Oh, if unbelievers would only lay hold really on God, they would feel
his gentle but mighty power draw them from darkness into light ; they
would feel the majesty of that Book, pervaded as it is by the Divine in
fluence, impress their hearts ; they would feel the earnestness and gran
deur of its truths ; they would be impressed with the fact that its utte
rance is divine, and that it teaches with an authority not like that of the
Scribes and Pharisees. The idea that it is a human production involves
a credulity that is without a parallel. We find within it sixty-six separ
ate books: every department of human knowledge is embraced — history,
poetry, politics, the science of government, political economy, law,
literature, religion, philosophy, art — all are treated of. The funda
mental principles and the last results of science are assumed as axioms.
Every subject is presented with concision, power and truth. This is
incompatible with any other theory than that of its Divine origin. The
principal writers are about thirty persons, coming from all classes, of all
temperaments, of every age, mode of education, condition, and so forth.
Among them were kings, priests, scholars, artists, generals, fishermen,
tax-gatherers. Yet, notwithstanding all this diversity of authors, extend
ing through a period of sixteen centuries, and in spite of the scrutinizing,
searching, unsparing and bitter examination to which these books have
been subjected, they have stood the ordeal in a manner without a paral
lel in the history of literature ; not a single solecism has been found, nor
a single discrepancy in morality, in statement or in doctrine. (General
applause.) In face of all these proofs of its Divine origin, none but
Infidel folly could blaspheme against this holy book.

100 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
My opponent, in his laborious search for apparent contradictions, has
raked a good many of them from the gutter, where past Infidel effusions
have been thrown — has raked them out and spread them before you,
(Applause.) I do not wonder, my friends and my foes, that respectable
papers have assailed me for taking the position I have. I admit it to be
scavenger work that I am doing. (Explosions of laughter and applause.
A few hisses.) I am willing to be engaged in the meanest office of
dumb and servile labor, if it will promote the cause of the Redeemer.
(Talking by one of the audience, cries of turn him out, h'sh.) If any
poor man wishes to talk, let him do so ; I will out-talk him, or do my
best at it.
I told you that the best evidence is where there is substantial agree
ment with circumstantial variety. This obviates all suspicion of collusion.
One writer, in his description, will introduce a greater variety of details
than another. But this does not affect the truth of any great transaction.
Science has made wonderful advances since the days of Moses, but the
early record is in harmony with every one of the discoveries of science.
There is upon its every page the indelible stamp of its Divine origin.
We see in it the sublime endowments and awful intelligence of its Author.
Under any theory attributing it to human invention, its character is ab
solutely incomprehensible. The Book of Job, which has been referred
to as the work of a Pagan Deist, as is generally believed, or the Book of
Proverbs, merely on the ground of literary merit, would immortalize the
age producing it. The Book of Psalms, derided by Infidels as a collec
tion of the religious odes of a half barbarous people, in its large views of
the Divine character, its clear enunciations of truths, and exalted reli
gious emotion, and in its lyric style, has never been equalled or even
approached by any production of mere human genius. (Applause.) Is
it not wonderful that a book written in the meagre language and style of
an age long past, should, for its clear insight into the workings of the
human heart, find expressions much more accurate than any my oppo
nent, the Solomon of this age, can invent ? That was distinctly under
stood long ago, which we are now only finding out. The absolute results
of modern science are assumed as axioms in those writings ; not as
theorems to be demonstrated, or problems to be solved. The writers of
those books knew more than we can yet comprehend. The style is one
of solemn gravity, in language of high intelligence, truths of high import
If ever Infidels are put to confusion, it is when they attack the Bible
on grounds of science. Smatterers in science may think Infidels exhibit
a proof of their profoundity, but men of superior knowledge are aware
that every discovery of a new truth in science is but another star in that
bright galaxy, which pours its flood of corroborative light upon the truth
ofthe Divine origin ofthe Bible. (Applause.)
The objections made by my opponent have been successively over
thrown, buried beneath the wreck of their own fabric, overwhelmed in
the rubbish, and consigned to the dust of infamy and merited contempt
Another point: the belief in the superintending providence of God is
almost as wide as the belief in the existence of God; The Scriptures
teach this truth with plainness ; history confirms it ; and it is in harmony
with all the truths on which Providence rests the truth of his revealed
word. The general laws of the moral government of the universe are

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 101
inexplicable on any other supposition than that the Bible is from God.
It commends itself to the intellect. The grand results of the World's ex
perience are no where so well recorded as in God's book, written while
the dew of the w orld's youth was fresh upon it.
Leaving this train of general remark, I call attention to one point.
The great central object of the New Testament is Jesus of Nazareth.
If any one can view his character without admiration, his mind must be
beclouded and his heart hard. How can any one, after contemplating
his merits, and meditating upon bis life, avoid exclaiming, with the Roman
centurion, " Truly, this was the son of God !"
I had hoped to complete what I had to say on this head, but it would
take me twenty minutes more. I have two or three minutes, which I
will devote to my opponent's account ofthe creation. Where he got his
knowledge, I know not. If he knows all about it, he is the wisest man I
ever heard of. (Laughter.) Let us inquire what the Bible really says
about it, not how this Infidel interprets its language. (Laughter.) If
any one imagines that the Bible says the world is* just 5850 years old,
he is grievously mistaken. It says : —
" In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Will he be good enough to tell us when this beginning was ? (Loud
applause.) " And the earth was without form, and void : and darkness was upon the face of
the deep : and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Will he tell us how long the earth was without form, and void ?
(Laughter.) Will he tell us how long darkness was upon the face of
the deep ? (Laughter.)
" And God said, Let there be light : and there was light."
Will he tell us how long the light existed ? " And the spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters ! " Yes : Geology brings to light the
fact, that the first animals on the globe were aquatic animals, thus con
firming the fact asserted by the Scriptures.
(Time expired. Loud and long applause. The audience then dis
persed quietly.)

FIFTH EVENING.
[At six o'clock, the Hall was nearly fujl. The people were quiet
and orderly, being evidently inclined to leave the debate to the champi
ons.]
REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
(Profound silence.) It seems necessary to state once more what is
the point under discussion, and what it is not.

102 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
1. The question, then, at present under discussion, is the origin of the
Bible. Our opponent says, it is of Divine origin ; we contend that it is
of human origin. This is all that we contend for at present. Mark ! we
do not contend that the Bible is wholly false or evil, but simply, that it is
imperfect — of a mixed character, partly true and partly false — partly
good and partly bad, like other human books. To prove that it is of
Divine origin — that it is inspired, in the Orthodox sense of the word —
the book must be proved to be all true, all good, without admixture of
evil. On the contrary, to prove that it is of human origin, it is enough
to prove that its contents are of a mixed character.
2. We have no wish to destroy the Bible, or to prevent people from
reading it; we simply wish to show men that the book is not of divine
authority ; that they are never to believe what it says, unless it looks
like truth ; or to do what it bids them, unless they think it would be best
to do so. We wish them to know that they have a right, that it is proper,
and that it is necessary, that they should use the same liberty with the
Bible that they do with the works of Newton, Locke, Milton, Dryden,
Pope, Webster, taking all that looks like truth and that favors goodness,
and leaving all that looks like falsehood -or that seems to favor evil.
3. We have no wish to destroy the Bible, any more lhan we wish to
destroy the Koran, or the Greek and Roman classics ; we would have
them all preserved. They are interesting and useful. They reveal to
us the thoughts, the customs, the characters of past generations. They
show us where the race of man once stood in politics, religion, philoso
phy and manners, and thus afford us an opportunity of comparing the
world as it now is, with the world as it was long ago, and of finding out
what progress it has made. Even the errors and follies, the crimes and
cruelties, the impieties and blasphemies, the immoralities and obsceni
ties, the contradictions and inconsistencies, the fables and the forgeries
of those ancient books, are all of use, when regarded simply as monu
ments of antiquity, as revelations — not of the mind and will of God-
but of the ignorance, and rudeness, and depravity of childish, savage, or
half-barbarous times.
4. But those ancient books have much in them that is beautiful, ten
der, good. They have- touching stories, beautiful fables, excellent poe
try, noble sentiments, powerful eloquence, calculated to arouse and
excite the mind, and promote our intellectual and moral development.
The man who regards the Bible as a human production, may read it with
as much pleasure, and study it with as much profit, as he who regards it
as a divine production. Nay, more. He can take all the good, and yet
feel free to reject the bad. He can admire and love the beautiful, with
out feeling obliged to forge new rules of interpretation, and do violence
to his common sense and conscience, in order to explain away the false,
the foolish, the immoral, and the blasphemous portions, or to reconcile
historic a theological and moral contradictions.
5. Our opponents say, we reject the divine authority of the Bible,
because its doctrines and its precepts are so decidedly against all vicious
indulgences. The contrary, however, is the truth. One of the reasons
why we reject the divine authority of the Bible is, that its doctrines and
precepts are too favorable to evil. If we wish to lie, and steal, and com-

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 103
mit murder, or to kidnap and enslave our fellow-men, or to have a plu
rality of wives and a number of concubines, and to justify ourselves in
doing so, where could we find a book better suited to our purpose than
the book which tells us that men who indulge in all these vices were the
friends of God, men after God's own heart, and declared by Gbd him
self to be the best and wisest men that ever lived ? No, friends, tho
morality of the Bible is too lax. Even the morality of the New Testa
ment, though often unnatural and extravagant, is not so strict, so pure,
so. perfect, as it should be. The morality of the New Testament, and
even portions of the Old Testament, is better, purer, far better and purer
than the morality of the Orthodox priesthoods and churches of the day,
whether Popish or Protestant ; but it is not half so pure, so perfect, as
the morality of humanity — the morality of what is foolishly and falsely
called Infidelity. Our morality, our law, allows no crime — tolerates
no neglect of duty — provides for us no indulgences, no substitutionary
victim, no borrowed garments of another's righteousness. It requires
unchanging fidelity to duty, or compels us to endure the penalty in full,
without the least abatement.
6. We say the morality of certain portions of the Bible is better than
the morality of the Orthodox churches and priesthoods. We go further.
In some of the Psalms and some of the Proverbs, in portions of the
book of Job, and in the writings of some of the prophets, we meet with
passages so beautiful, so pure, so tender, and some so full of the spirit
of humanity and philanthropy, that to admire them too much, or to prize
them too highly, seems almost impossible. Happy would it be for the
world if the churches and priesthoods would read and study them, and
begin to reduce them to practice. In the Gospels and the Epistles, too,
we find passages on charity and beneficence, on temperance and purity,
on the subjugation of the animal part of our nature to the intellectual
and the moral, — passages on the duty of employing our talents and re
sources for the good of our fellow-men, and on our obligations to live
and labor for the regeneration and salvation of our race, which, when
favored with that liberal interpretation which the enlightened philanthropy
of modern heresy sometimes gives them, are really excellent. We find
much, also, in the examples of Jesus and Paul, and some of their early
followers, as presented in portions of the New Testament, well worthy
of admiration and imitation. All these things we prize and cherish.
We wish both to practise them ourselves, and to bring all others^ to
practise them. But when you have brought together every beautiful
and valuable passage in the whole book, you have nothing like a perfect
rule of life. You must look elsewhere, if you want to be furnished to
every good work. You must study the human system — you must read
the laws which are written on your organization, and the laws inscribed
on the world around you, if you would learn your duty fully. In short,
you must know the laws of your own being, and understand your rela
tions to your fellow-creatures and to the world of things around you, if
you would either know in which way you ought to ,go, or be supplied
with sufficiently powerful motives to induce you to walk in that way.
Besides, the good parts of the Bible arc so mixed up with inferior
materials — the moral sentiments are so blended with low and selfish,
with superstitious and unnatural, with illiberal and cruel, with blasphe-

104 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
mous and inhuman doctrines, and so obscured with bad examples and
immoral fables, that it requires a man of superior intelligence and moral
powers to separate the good from the bad.
We have, however, no more sympathy with the pretended rationalist,
who quarrels with the Bible on account of the good that is in it, than we
have with the proud pretenders to superior piety, who make use of the
Bible as a means of blinding and misleading their brethren, and of rais
ing themselves to wealth and power, at the expense of their less crafty
and more credulous neighbors.
We have shown that, though the Bible contains much that is good,
there is nothing in it to prove that any portion of it is of superhuman
origin ; much less is there any thing in the Bible to prove the whole of
the book divine. Even the best, parts are no more than the natural utter
ances ofthe human heart; while other parts bear marks of having come
from rude, uncultivated, ignorant, and barbarous portions of our race.
We have shown, that all Bibles in existence, whether called transla
tions or originals, whether printed or manuscript, abound with contradic
tions, immoralities, blasphemies, and faults and errors of every kind.
We have shown, that the Bible in common use, (and it is as good as
the Greek and Hebrew Bibles, and, in some respects, much better,) attri
butes to God the weaknesses and imperfections of humanity.
That it charges him with infinite injustice, and with horrible cruelties.
That it represents him as the patron of vice, and the special friend of
enormous, prodigious criminals.
That it sanctions the grossest and most atrocious crimes, such as lying,
theft, and murder; adultery, polygamy, and concubinage; kidnapping,
slaveholding, and retail and wholesale slaughter ; the slaughter of fhe
innocent ; the slaughter of helpless women and children ; the slaughter
at one time of thousands and tens of thousands of mothers and their
children, in cold blood. We have shown that it sanctions every form of
despotism, both in the State, the Church, and the family. We have
shown that it>abounds in contradictions ; contradictions in theology ; con
tradictions in morals; contradictions in history; contradictions ofthe
most palpable and irreconcileable character. We have shown that it tells
the most foolish stories, gives the most unphilosophical and childish
.accounts of the creation and the early history of our race ; and we may
add, now, that there is no kind of error or defect, to which the literary
productions of men are liable, which may not be found in the Bible. It
has errors of style, and errors of sentiment. It has errors in grammar,
errors in rhetoric, errors in logic. It has geological and astronomical
errjrs, meteorological and geographical errors ; historical and biographi
cal errors; errors botanical and zoological; chemical and physiological;
.chronological and arithmetical; medical, moral, and prophetical.
Every charge which we have made in former speeches, we have
.proved by unanswered and unanswerable arguments. (Storm of hisses;
¦cries of fair play I Moderator, let him go on.) I suppose none of you
think your hisses and cries are any answer to my arguments. The
answer must come from my opponent. (Renewed hisses.)
Moderator Illman. — All sve ask of you, gentlemen, is, to grant us
an impartial hearing.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 105
Moderator Chambers. — I do beseech the audience to grant what
they ask — it is but fair play.
Not one of our statements has been refuted ; not one of our objections
has been answered.
No answer can be given to our arguments, which would not as easily
justify any other book, howecer bad or obscene. There is no book that I
have ever had the opportunity of seeing, that contains any thing worse
than what is found in the Bible. There is no book —
1. That contains more glaring or more palpable contradictions.
2. There is none that contains more blasphemous representations of
God. 3. There is none that contains things more indecent or obscene.
4. There is no book that contains things more unphilosophical.
5. There is no book that contains more immoral doctrines and exam
ples. 6. There is none that contains more foolish or childish precepts and
stories. So, that if it can be justified, any other book can.
If the Bible can be proved divine, any book can be proved divine.
What has my opponent done all this while ?
He has not even defined his terms, or explained the propositions he
has undertaken to prove. He was to prove the divine inspiration of the
Bible: but,
1. He has never told us'what he means by divine inspiration. ,
2. He has never told us what is necessary to prove the divine inspira
tion of a book.
3. He began an argument on the necessity of a divine reve'ation ; but
suppose the necessity of divine revelation proved, it would be no proof
of the divine inspiration of the Bible, nor of any other book. ' >
4. The Doctor gave us a long discourse, professedly on internal evi
dence ; but, first, he gave us no definition of internal evidence, and he gave
us no proof whatever, that what he adduced under that head was inter
nal evidence, or any evidence at all, of the divine inspiration of the Bible.
5. But, stranger still, the statements of which his address on internal
evidence consisted, were bare assertions, utterly unsupported. He said
the Bible stood alone in poiDt of style, but he offered no proof of the
statement. He said the Bible was in harmony with all the discoveries of science,
but he neither proved that it was, nor did he prove to us that, supposing
it to be so, it would afford any proof of the superhuman origin of the
Bible. The Doctor, therefore, has not advanced one single argument in
proof of bis position. He has his work, as the advocate of the divine
inspiration of the Bible, to begin.
6. This is not all. We have given proof that the Bible is not. of
divine origin, that it is of purely human origin, that it bears all possible
marks of "having been composed and compiled by men, who were not
only as liable to error as other men, but, to some extent, by men who
were more ignorant, more under the dominion of error, than many
other writers, whose works have come down to us from antiquity.

106 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
My opponent says the laws of Divine Providence, or the laws by which
the world is governed, are given in the Bible, with a precision unequalled.
We, however, cannot find them in the Bible at all.
The representations given in the Bible of the laws by which God gov
erns the world, and the manifestations of those laws in the world, are
flatly contradictory. The real laws of the universe, and the representa
tions given of God's laws and doings in the Bible, are directly opposed
to each other.
There are a few things in the Doctor's speeches which I would notice.
He says that the seven sons of Saul were hung up by way of righte
ous retribution for the murder committed by their father. Strange retri
bution, to execute one man for the crime of another ! Suppose that our
government should act upon this principle, permit thieves and murderers
to escape with impunity, and after they were dead, should hang up their
innocent sons and grandsons ! ! Should we call it righteous retribution
then ? What a perversion of the moral sense there must be to attribute
such atrocities to the Divine Being I It is an abuse of words to call such
atrocities retribution. But the Doctor tells us that God is sovereign, and
can do as he pleases. We do not deny that God is a sovereign, but a
sovereign has no more right to do wrong than other people. He cannot
abuse his power, and commit atrocities at pleasure.
But the same principle is carried out in Nature, we are told. The
drunkard and sensualist entail disease upon their posterity, it is said.
Yes, but is God answerable for the doings of drunkards and sensualists?
It is blasphemy to charge them upon God. As well may we charge him
with the sins of all men. The drunkard is as really the cause of the
disease which he transmits to his children, as the murderer is the cause
of the death of his victim. The crime does not cease to be mine, because
I commit it on the babe before it is born. Give God the credit of his
beneficent laws, but do not charge Him with men's violations of those
laws. The Doctor says, God's ways will not square with our ideas of justice.
Portions of the Bible say they will. The Bible itself says, " He that
justified! the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, are both an
abomination to the Lord." Prov. 17: 15.
The Doctor charged the anonymous letter he read on some unbeliever.
I should have given it a different parentage. However, it had nothing to
do with the question.
As to capital punishments, I suppose he may find persons opposed to
them among Christians, as well as among others.
As to those who pity the murderer, instead of pitying the murdered, if
there be such people, we should like them no better than our opponent
does. Our view of punishment is this, that it should be adapted to secure:
society ; and, secondly, to reform, if possible, the criminal. We ques
tion the wisdom of cherishing revenge.
We would kill a man without hesitation who should attempt to murder
another, if we could not otherwise prevent the murder ; but when we
had got the murderer safe in our hands, we should feel it a violation of
the law of God, in our nature, to kill him in cool blood.

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 107
The Doctor asks, What is a man to do if the light within becomes
darkness ? We answer, AVhat can be done in the case of a man who
turns the Gospel into a patron of licentiousness? They must both take
the consequences.
But where there is no law, there is no transgression, says the Doctor.
But in the case supposed, there is a law, only the man refuses to read
and obey it.
Dr. Berg said I made complaints against the ordinances of Jehovah.
I only complained against those who attribute to Jehovah ordinances
which are not his.
The Doctor says, if I will account for the introduction of death into
the world, he will thank me. But we had better have no account ofthe
matter at all, than one which is manifestly false and blasphemous.
At the close of his last speech, the Doctor took up the account of the
creation in Genesis, and said that the Bible does not teach that the world
is 5850 years old ; that it does not say that the world was made in six
days, but " in the beginning ; " and he asked me, with a triumphant air,
to tell when that beginning was, intimating that it endured endless ages.
He and his friends seemed to think his retort a triumph. We answer,
the Bible expressly teaches that the " beginning," when the heavens and
the earth were made, was a part of the six days. This is plainly the mean
ing of the passage in Genesis. Other passages, however, are more
explicit still. Look at Exodus 20:9, 11 : —
" Six days shalt thou labor nnd do all thy work. . . . For in six days the
Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh
day ; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."
And again, look at Exodus 31 : 17 : —
" It (the Sabbath) is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever ; for in
six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and, on the seventh day, he rested, and
was refreshed."
Before these authorities, the Doctor's triumph comes to a close. The
Bible itself, his pretended infallible book, declares that his interpretation
is wrong. [Interruption by cries of lime, time.] Not one of the state
ments he has made in favor of the Bible has been proved — not one of
those which we have made has been refuted. [Cries of time.] Mr.
Barker turned to Moderators, who decided that only a few moments
remained. No allowance had been made for time lost in interruption.
[Cries of Berg, Berg.]

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.
(Two rounds of applause and cheers.) With your permission, I will
now notice my opponent's speech of last Friday evening, and will en
deavor to straighten matters with him in this casting up of accounts.
He said, on Friday, that the name of the Supreme Being, whose
existence he recognises, is God ; need I remind him that this is a generic
term, abstract insteadof concrete ? Suppose I should ask him his name,

108 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
and he should answer me, Mankind ; would the reply be sufficient ?
Every man has his own individual name, and the heathen gave names
to each of their gods ; why cannot he, therefore, name his ? My God,
the God that Christians worship, has revealed his title — it is Jehovah,
and he says, " Beside me there is no other I " It is true that the " hea
vens declare his glory, and the firmament showeth his handiwork," but do
they reveal all the attributes of God ? It is true that the planets show
his glory — " For ever singing, as they shine,
The hand that made us is divine."
But they do not reveal all his attributes. God manifests not only in
nature, "but in grace, and in his son Jesus Christ, his three-fold character.
It is our God who has made the heavens with its glory ; it is he who has
stretched out the sea; and it is he who hath clothed the dry land with its
various beauty. Let not my opponent confound his nameless God with
ours. Who is his God ? Where is he ? If my opponent will not
answer, I will undertake to do it.
He says that Job was a Pagan Deist. Inimitable discovery ! How,
then, is it that he has written an epic poem, which, for sublimity of
thought, grandeur of expression, transcendant pathos and beautiful
imagery, surpasses every work of merely human genius ? Job a Pagan
Deist! How happens it, then, that he has put on record those beautiful
words, which my opponent and myself have so often heard repeated by
the dying Christian ; — " For I know that my Redeemer liveth ; and that
he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth." Job 19 : 25, 26. No.
Job was neither a Pagan Deist, nor an Infidel Deist. (Slight applause.)
He was an humble believer in Christ. And now, mark I the oldest book
extant was written by a man who believed in the coming ofthe Messiah.
Herein it is a clear enunciation of the Son of God. Upon ils pages is
stamped the seal of Divine Intelligence, to prove, in the face of all who
reject, that the Bible is indeed the Book of God.
My opponent offered an elaborate eulogy on Thomas Paine. It was
in sad contrast with his encomiums on the Bible, but worthy of the'sinking
cause which my opponent is endeavoring to save from merited perdition.
Thomas Paine, the loathsome drunkard, the filthy debauchee, who
covered all things holy with the slime of his railings, has found a eulogist.
My opponent has abandoned his defamings ofthe Scriptures for ihe pur
pose of extolling as base a miscreant as ever upheld the flagstaff of Infi
delity. (Applause, hisses — renewed applause and cheers.) My oppo
nent says that Paine is slandered ; that the record of his dying moments
is a perversion of the truth. Was he there ? If not, what right has he
to contradict those who were, and who are quite as worthy of credit as
he ever can be ?
Mr. Barker descanted on the horrors of the hell into which the Bible
says, " the wicked shall be turned, and all the nations that forget God."
He represents Christians us believing that the vast majority of mankind
will be condemned to intolerable torment. Christians believe no such
doctrine. The vast majority of mankind die in infancy. It is true, that
all men are by nature children of wrath ; but if the child is a partaker of

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 109
the condemnation by Adam, he is also a partaker of the salvation by
Christ ; and it is written that of such is the kingdom of heaven. But it is
true that the wicked shall be turned into hell. Jehovah is the God of love ;
and he says that heaven shall not be polluted by those who are defiled
with guilt ; but that all the blessed will be there in washed robes. What
father would bring the plague of leprosy into bis family, and make of his
home a Lazaretto? Into the portals of heaven, sin and death cannot
enter; and, therefore, the sinner who rejects God and despises Christ
cannot enter. Hell is the moral lazar-house ofthe universe. My oppo
nent says that God never forgives sin. I say, out of Christ, never — out
of him, there is no Savior, no heaven, no cross, no crown. What he
says is horrible. Does my opponent expect God to measure His hatred
of sin by his love of sin ? " God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son " to take away the sin of the world. And the banishment
of sinners suffices to set before the universe the tremendous truth, that
men cannot defy Him, and trample on the cross, with impunity.
My opponent speaks of the Savior which every man has within himself.
He says that a cut finger will heal, and gives you other instances of the
recuperative energy of Nature. But how does the soul show it has the
Same ? Does it bleed ? No. Conscience will resent the wrong. A
thief picks your pocket ; his conscience troubles him, and all is right.
He keeps your money, because, forsooth, he has a Savior within himself.
(Laughter and applause.) Suppose his conscience is seared, he still has
his Savior within himself, and your money too. He says that ihe pen
alty ofthe sting of conscience is one part of the moral law. How iong
will this sting last ? Until the sin be healed. Then must conscience
for ever sting : and as all men have sinned, my opponent's argument is a
strong one in favor of an eternal hell.
My opponent says that knowledge is progressive. How, then, did the
Jews do what he charges them with — borrow from the Pagans, who
lived before them ? If the law of progress was universal, the Malays
would not have remained in the same condition for centuries, while the
Sandwich Islanders have advanced in civilization. He should blush at
the absurdity of his assertion. (Tremendous app'ause.)
Pie speaks of the account of Abraham, who had a child born to him
in his old age. His objection is feeble as infant silliness can make it,
for God is Almighty, and if he had chosen, he could, out of the very
stones ofthe street, have raised up children unto Abraham.
One more remark, and I come to the matter of the ark. I had hoped
to have the happiness of congratulating my opponent on making one
speech without referring to Solomon's seven hundred wives and three
hundred concubines ; and in his last, I thought he would keep clear of it,
and in fact, he only squinted at it. (Laughter and applause.) He reminds
me of the Scotch parson, who could never preach a single sermon with
out some allusion to Uriah, the Hittite. Once the elders of his church,
wishing to cure him of the habit, called on him, and begged him to ab-
stain, and he promised he would. In his next sermon, he got along pretty
well until near the close, when he could not refrain from breaking out
with, "And now, britbers, ye'll bear in mind the case of Bathshe — och,
it's all out." (Laughter and applause.) The case of David offers no

110 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
difficulty. He not only sinned in the matter of Uriah, the Hittite, but
he himself confesses that his iniquities were more than he could number.
We should interpret the Bible as a whole. Its author has given us
reason to be exercised.
Like all men, he fell short, and needed forgiveness ; and the sin in the
case of Uriah is the only one mentioned, because that sin left the stain
of infamy upon his reign, and descended to his posterity. My opponent
may say it is unjust to visit the sin of the fathers upon the children, but
the fact is so, and he may settle its .injustice with his nameless God. I
could not but observe how his rank atheistical doctrine glided again into
my opponent's speech. He says tfiat the disease of the drunkard's child
is not owing lo God, but to the crirne of the drunkard. Who instituted
the law by which the drunkard does entail disease upon his children ?
(Loud applause.) My opponent is like the Hindoo, who thinks the
world rests on an elephant, and the elephant upon a tortoise. He may
settle the principle with his God, and when he makes the fact square with
his sense of justice, he will get along. Of one thing we are sure, God's
ways are not as Mr. Barker's ways, and his thoughts are not as Mr.
Barker's thoughts ; and I suspect that Mr. Barker's admiration is not at
all essential to His government or happiness. (Applause.) And now as
to the ark. I must express my surprise at the want of fairness shown
by Mr. Barker, in his statements; the exposure of which, he must have
known, would consign him to merciless ridicule and contempt. I will
undertake to prove that the ark was not only large enough and to spare,
to accommodate all the animals mentioned, but also my opponent and all
the_ members of the Sunday Institute into the bargain ; (laughter, and
vociferous applause, and a few hisses) — though I rather suppose that my
opponent and his friends, if they had lived in that day, would have been
outsiders. (Tremendous cheering.) I might insist on taking the Egyp
tian cubit as the standard of measurement, but I will accept that of my
opponent. The ark, then, was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet
high, giving a capacity of 1,518,750 cubic feet. This would make a
vessel, if we take the modern mode of measuring, of 43,413 tons.
Now, if we remember that a first-rate man-of-war is only of between
2,200 and 2,300 tons, the ark would have had the capacity of storage of
18 ships-of-the-line, each of them capable of containing 20,000, with
sufficient provision for six months' consumption, besides" an enormous
weight of cannon. My opponent said that there were 500,000 species
of animals; to each of which he supposed that one cubic yard should be
assigned. I know not which most to admire, his estimate of your
credulity, or the courage he shows in coming before such an intelligent-
audience as this with such an assertion. Buffon says there are only from'
200 to 250 species of animals, from the mouse to the elephant. Cuvier,
who has been quoted, includes fishes in his estimate. Well, we may as
well heave them overboard, for they will live quite as well in the water
as in Noah's ark. (Laughter.)
We may dispose in the same way of the amphibious animals, who
could find a floating log or tree to rest upon. (Laughter.) All the
animals we care for are those inhabiting dry land. We have thus part
of Mr. Barker's cargo out, as not included among the beasts, fowls and

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. Ill
creeping things of the original invoice. • He wished to allow a cubic yard
apiece to each one of his half million of species. Why, a pair of tur
keys would live with comfort in that space, but the creeping things form
considerable items in the number on the bill of lading ; and the curious
in such matters know that whole regiments of creeping things can be
accommodated in very circumscribed limits. (Laughter and cheers.)
Just think of allowing a cubic yard to insects discoverable without grand
mother's spectacles. (Laughter.)
The large animals are very small in number, and the small animals
were an immense number. We have, for this calculation, taken our
opponent's own standard, but we might have taken the Egyptian meas
ure, which would give us 2,243,521 cubic feet. This would give us
large space, not only for the animals, but for provender for a year or
eighteen months. My opponent spoke as if there was but one window,
and that only a cubit wide. Indeed ! Where did he learn this ? Did
he consult the spirits ? He quoted the Bible, but even that can be quoted
not exactly in its right sense. What does it say ?
" A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above ;
and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof ; with lower, second, and
third stories shalt thou make it." Gen. 6 : 16.
The word window is used to signify a means of admitting light. At
the top, it was reduced to a cubit in size. It was in the roof of the ark,
in which was set this translucency or transparency — [Time up. Dr.
Berg sat down amid tremendous cheering.]

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
(Slight applause, hisses.) A curious place, truly, to put a window —
in the roof! a three-storied ark, ventilated by a roof-skylight! Through
this, the eight persons were to throw all the filth made by half a million
of animals ; through this, lay the road for wafer, not only for drinking,
but for making all clean. A curious explanation, truly ! Besides, if you
should ask any farmer accustomed to keeping cattle, whether, in a barn
one hundred and fifty yards long, twenty-five wide, and fifteen deep, or
in one of the dimensions claimed by my opponent, he could winter seven
pairs of every species of fowl and clean beast, and two pairs of every
unclean beast, adding other beasts in sufficient number for the suste
nance of the carniverous animals, and have room to stow away enough
grain, grass and other kinds of food for the rest, he would laugh at you.
And the wintering would be for four or five months only, and not for
twelve or eighteen. He would laugh more, should you ask him whether
Noah, with his wife and his three sons and their wives, could tend all
these animals, clean the ark, and keep the air pure, and the ark well
ventilated, by means of one window, and that a roof-skylight — the worst
place possible for the purposes of ventilation! For the number of spe
cies of animals, my opponent quotes Buffon, an out-of-date author, who
wrote befo e zoology had taken its present scientific form. He spoke,

112 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
also, of Cuvier as an authority of mine. I never referred to Cuvier. I
quoted from Prof. Hitchcock, a distinguished geologist of your own court-
try, and President of one of its leading colleges. I will again read the
passages : —
"The first difficulty in the way of supposing the flood to have been literally uni
versal, is tlie great quantity of water that would have been requisite. Ihe amount
necessary to cover the earth to the tops of the highest mountains, or about five
miles above the present oceans, would be eight times greater than that existing on
the globe at this time.
" A second objection to such a universality is, the difficulty of providing for the
animals in the ark. Calculations have, indeed, been made, which seemed to show
that the ark was capacious enough to hold the pairs and septuples of all the species.
But, unfortunately, the number of species assumed to exist by the calculators was
vastly below the truth. It amounted only to three or four hundred; whereas, the
actual number already described by zoologists is no loss than one hundred and fifty
thousand ; and the probable number existing on the globe is not less than half a mil
lion. And, for the greater part of these, must provision have been made, since most
of them inhabit either the air or the dry land. A thousand species of mammalia,
six thousand species of birds, two thousand species of reptiles, and one hundred and
twenty thousand species of insects, are already described, and must have been pro
vided with space and food. Will any one believe this possible, in a vessel not more
than four hundred and fifty feet long, seventy-five feet broad, and forty-five feet
high ?
" The third and most important objection to the universality of the Deluge is de
rived from the facts brought to light by modern science, respecting the distribution
of animals and plants on the globe. * * * If tropical animals and plants, for
instance, were to migrate to the temperate zone, and especially to the frigid regions,
they could not long survive ; and almost equally fatal would it be for the animals
and plants of high latitudes to take up their abode near the equator. * * *
Now, suppose the animals ofthe torrid zone at the present day to attempt, by natu
ral means, to reach the temperate zone, who does not know that nearly all of them
must perish? " — President Hitchcock's " Religion of Geology," pp. 128-131.
Why, the food requisite for the graminivorous animals alone, for eigh
teen months, would have filled the ark. And of this, much would have
had fo be preserved green for the insects. The sheep necessary for a
single pair of lions would have occupied no inconsiderable space; and
the sheep, in their turn, would have needed large quantities of fodder.
Besides, all these animals could not be packed like bales of cotton.
Those who tended them needed room to get about the stalls, for the pur
pose of cleaning, feeding, and watering them ; as well as room to pass
up and down stairs. If, too, they had to go up stairs for water, if they
had to carry up stairs all the refuse, we cannot help thinking what a get
ting up stairs there must have been. (Laughter.)
My opponent's talk about the ark carrying 43,413 tons, is simply ridic
ulous. However well built, it could not, with its dimensions, have car
ried, in a universal deluge, much more than a tenth of the burden. Sup
pose the window in the roof, where would they have got fresh air while
the rain was pouring down through the open windows of heaven ? How
would eight people manage so large a vessel, besides tending so large a
number of animals ? Again : the small animals would want separate
accommodation, and room for way, and room above would be needed.
Many of the larger animals would require from one to ten thousand feet
each. Even a house of the dimensions given would not hold a tenth

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 113
even of the mammalia and birds alone, with food for thirteen or eighteen
months, to say nothing of the creeping things. Six thousand species of
birds have already been described. Of each of these, seven pairs were
to be preserved. This would make eighty-four thousand birds. We
have next, a thousand species of mammalia described. There would
have to be room in the ark for about three thousand. The number exist
ing, however, would probably be three times as great. It is monstrous
to talk of such a multitude being accommodated in a floating vessel of
such dimensions. One fiftieth part could not be accommodated and sup
plied .with food in such a vessel. The impossibilities implied in the story
are almost innumerable.
The Doctor asked me the name of the God I worship. I told him,
God. To this he objects, that this term is generic — that an individual,
when asked his name, does not answer by calling himself " mankind,"
but must give the name which distinguishes him from other men. Now,
I was not aware that there were so many Gods ; I thought there was but
one. Men need different names, because they are many ; but there is
only one God, and He needs but one name. The Doctor says that his
God made the heavens, and asks me what mine has done. I am happy
that for once we are agreed ; for that is my God, too.
He speaks of the beautiful passage in Job, " I know that my Re
deemer liveth," &c. The best commentators agree that the sense given
by him to the passage has no authority in the original text ; but in the
translation only.
He says that Paine was a loathsome drunkard and a filthy debauchee,
and alleges that I said the account he read of Paine's last moments was
untrue. What I said was, the account sounded to me like a slander —
that the clergy ever stood ready to belie every reformer — that I knew
they had belied his writings, and supposed they had done the same by
his private character. I know, by experience, how eager, unscrupulous
and reckless, Christians are in slandering unbelievers. A Christian lady,
who has attended this debate, said I had come upon the platform half
drunk. Now, I have not taken a glass of intoxicating drink for nineteen
years. A minister in one of your pulpits charged me with something
much worse than this. His brethren have heaped upon me a thousand
slanders. If they will say these things of living men, who can answer
for themselves, what will they not say of dead men, who have no power
to defend themselves? All manner of evil is said about every one iden
tified with an unpopular movement. If the chief priests called Jesus a
devil and the prince of devils, surely no other reformer can expect to be
exempted from such abuse.
The Doctor informs us that few only are lost — that the vast majority
of the human family are saved. My answer shall be in the words of
Christ: — "Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to de
struction, and many there be that go in thereat. Because straight is the
gate and narrow the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that
find it." Now, if " many " be more than " few," the Bible is on my
side. He says that children are taken into heaven ; but the passage he re
ferred to for proof says no such thing, but only that heaven is composed
of people like little children.

114 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
He speaks of " my love of vice." This requires no answer. I sup-
pose my character will bear comparison with the character of the best
in the Church or priesthood.
He ridiculed the inner light, and says, if a thief picked your pocket, his
conscience troubles him a moment, and all is right. This is not our
doctrine. Man's nature will not be satisfied, — the wound will not he
healed, — till the evil-doer has tried 'to undo the wrong. But are they
the men who follow the inner light that pick your pockets ? Are they
the men who study the laws of their being, and labor to follow them ?
Were the early Quakers addicted to pocket-picking? Was William
Penn celebrated for pocket-picking ? Was George Fox ?• The Ortho
dox picked the Quaker's pockets, and robbed them of their liberty, and
life besides; but when did these followers of fhe inner light retaliate?
(Applause, hisses, one hiss from the platform.)
But if a man has no conscience ? asks my opponent. We answer, if a
man has no conscience, what can the Bible do for him ? But there are
no such men. There are men whose consciences have been perverted
by false theologies and moralities ; but none are born without. Our law
teaches to develop conscience, and all the moral and intellectual
powers and impulses. It is a fact, that unbelievers are generally more
conscientious than believers. What men have most credit in the market
or on 'change ? The very pious, or the men who make do pretensions
to piety ?
My opponent still talks of his eternal hell, as if a father could not be
satisfied with the improvement or amendment of his children, but must
torture them for ever, without regard to their amendment. This Orthodox
theology is a blinding and a brutifying power. Again : those who fol
low the inner light, or unbelievers, are not only the most upright and
honest of men, but the most philanthropic and reformatory. Who are
every where the men of progress ? Those called Infidels. Who are
every where the conservatives ? The priests. Wherever so-called Infi
dels have been most numerous, progress has been most rapid and gene
ral ; wherever priests have been in power, it has been slowest. Which
was the friend of truth, of science, and of man, Galileo, who proclaimed
the time system of the universe, in defiance of the Bible ; or the Pope
and his Bible-believing cardinals, who thrust him into prison, and kept
him there, in darkness and misery, till his health and spirits failed ?
And who are now the reformers, the men of progress ? The men who
toil for science, — who study Nature, — who respect her oracles, — are
chiefly unbelievers ; while the men who frown on science, — who de
nounce the revelations of Nature as Infidelity, — who frown on geologists,
naturalists and physiologists, are the worshippers of the Bible. The men
of moral progress, the foes of despotism and tyranny, the friends of
freedom and justice, the republicans, the democrats, the advocates of
universal human rights, are the unbelievers. It is so in Europe : it is so
in America. Your pulpit men are nearly all tories. In England, they
are for drink and despotism. In America, they are for oligarchy and
slavery. My opponent asks, who established the law which causes the drunk
ard's disease to descend to his offspring ? Suppose we should say God;
would God be answerable for .the disease inflicted by the drunkard ?

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 115
Who established the law which enables one man to slander, rob, or kill
another ? Suppose we say God ; will my opponent say God is answera
ble for all slanders, robberies, and murders ? God simply gives man a
power ; it is man that is answerable for the use of that power. It is well
men should have influence over another: it is not well they should use it
for mischief. Man's power to injure the unborn babe no more reflects
on God, than the power to injure the upgrown novv. lt is the abuse of
the power that is to be regretted. But what would my opponent prove ?
Would he justify the revenge, the injustice, the cruelty attributed to God
in the Bible, by proving the existence of something wrong in Nature ?
Would two wrongs make a right ? Prove the God of Nature as unjust, as
mean, as,cruel as the God of the Bible, and you prove we ought to hate
and censure both. But the God of Nature, and the God of the Bible,
are not alike.
We come now to the Doctor's speech on internal evidences.
The Doctor made a number of statements in favor of the Bible, but
how many of them did he prove ? He did not even attempt to prove
one of them. With the exception of one or two, which amount to noth
ing, they cannot be proved. They are not true.
He says the Bible has a peculiar gravity, dignity, and solemnity of
style. Read Solomon's songs, or the childish fables of Genesis, or the ridicu
lous revelations which abound in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, about
the tabernacle, altar, priestly attire, and see whether it has.
But is every thing written in a grand and solemn style of superhuman
origin ? Then the world has superhuman books in abundance.
He says there is not a subject in the whole circle of the sciences to
which allusion is not made in the Bible. Suppose it were true, what
then ? Would it prove the Book divine ? No more than it proves the
American Encyclopedia divine. But it is not true. I could mention a
thousand subjects, of great importance, to. which the Bible makes no
allusion, and a thousand more after that.
He says every subject is presented in the Bible with a power, a truth
fulness and a clearness unparalleled. It was a pity he made no attempt
to prove his statement. Every subject presented with a clearness ? I
thought certain portions of the Bible were remarkable for their mysteri-
ousness. Truthfulness ? Why, some of its statements are the most
monstrous falsehoods the mind of man can conceive.
He says not a solitary real discrepancy of precept, doctrine or fact
can be proved against it. And this was said before an audience that had
listened to the historical, theological and moral contradictions which we
had just before mentioned.
The Doctor says the teachings of the Bible are in harmony with all
the discoveries of science. Did he try to prove this ? But I had forgot.
The Doctor did not finish his speech. Perhaps he will try to prove his
statements towards the close. We shall see.
He says the Book of Job or the Psalms would have been sufficient to
give immortality to their authors, on the ground of their literary merit
alone. This we are willing to acknowledge ; but is every work of
superior literary merit of superhuman origin ? If so, we have super-

116 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
human books without end. Every nation has them. Every age pro
duces them.
We not only acknowledge the great literary merit of portions of the
Bible, but the excellency of the morality of several portions of the
book. But what then ? We find both high literary merit and beautiful
moral principles in thousands of books, which make no pretensions to
superhuman origin. Again : if is worthy of remark, that some of those
portions of ihe Bible, which excel as literary compositions, embody or
inculcate moral principles of the most revolting character.
Take the 137th Psalm ; a more beautiful little poem can hardly be
imagined. But look at its close : " O ! daughter of Babylon who art to
be destroyed — happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones
against the stones." It is thus with several of the Psalms. Poetical
beauty accompanies the most savage and revengeful sentiments. We
have, in our day, poetry equal in beauty to the best of the Psalms, and
far surpassing them in truthfulness and morality.
The Doctor says I have wonderful powers of sophistry. I have often
observed that when my opponents find my arguments unanswerable, they
raise the cry of sophistry. If I were really to use sophistry, they would
expose it ; but when they find nothing but unanswerable arguments, they
give them an ugly name, and try to get out of the way. Such devices
may impose on some, but not on all. They may answer for a time;
but not for ever.
The Doctor says the word Godhead, in Romans, means the unity of
God. He acknowledges, at last, you see, that Nature does reveal the
unity of God.
He says that Romans 13 is intended to show what kind of rulers are
worthy of reverence and obedience. We answer, the passage itself
proves the contrary. Let us read : —
" Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of
God ; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God : and they that resist shall receive to them
selves damnation."
Can words be plainer ? If these words do not teach that all powers,
all rulers, are ordained of God— that the governments then existing
were of God — that every Christian was to be subject to them, and obey
them — and that whosoever dared to resist them should receive damna
tion, there are no words that can express such a meaning. If the writer
had meant to say, whenever you have got good rulers, who command
only what is good, and forbid only what is evil, obey them, he could
easily have said so. He could as easily have said what he thought, as
what he did not think. To suppose that God, or even a man of common
sense, would say : " Let every soul be subject to the higher powers;
there is no power but of God ; the powers that be are ordained of
God ; whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance ;
and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation;" — when
he simply meant, Obey good governments, — such governments as give
only good and righteous commands, — is out of all reason.
Besides, if the passage meant no more than what my opponent says,
it would amount to nothing. Obey good governments. But can every

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 117
government be said to be good ? Who is to judge ? The governments
themselves ? Then we must obey all, for where is the government that
will acknowledge it is not good? Must every one judge? The com
mand is as good as none ; it leaves men perfectly at liberty.
Again, in corresponding passages, about masters and servants, ser
vants are commanded, expressly, to obey, not only the good, gentle mas
ters, but the froward. And wives are commanded to obey, not only
Christian husbands, but unconverted Pagan husbands.
The Doctor said our law was a nose of wax. But what is his, if its
precepts can be dealt with as he deals with the passage before us ?
Besides, where were the good governments he talks about — the gov
ernments that commanded nothing but what was good, and forbade noth
ing but what was evil ? There were no Christian governments. Were
the Pagan governments so good as to command nothing but what was
good, forbid nothing but what was evil ? What, then, becomes of my
opponent's remarks about the darkness and depravity of the Pagan
world ?
The interpretation of my opponent is the most forced and unnatural
conceivable. It is not an interpretation, but a perversion. Of course, it
is very inconvenient to have such passages in a favorite book ; but there
they are.
Take, then, the passage in its plain and unperverted meaning, and it
enjoins the basest servility to despotic power, and teaches the grossest
and most palpable falsehoods to be found in any book on earth. It
dooms to damnation the best, the bravest, and the noblest spirits that
have honored and blest humanity. Cromwell and Hampden, Milton and
Sidney, Kossuth and Mazzini, and men to whom your own great coun
try has given birth, whose names are worthy of everlasting remembrance,
and whose virtuous deeds and noble daring have made them the idols ol
the friends of freedom, and the lights and guides of the world, it con
signs to the horrors of damnation. It is a happy thing that men are so
often better than their creeds and sacred books. If it were not that men
are impelled to great and noble deeds, in spite of their old authorities and
guides, no man could take up aims against a tyrant, till he had renounced
his faith in the Bible. As it is, men who war with tyrants and with
tyranny, as well as reformers generally, must be looked for among the
hosts of unbelievers.
The Doctor says there is nothing in the Bible about God, that is con
trary to reason.
We answer, some passages say Jacob, and the elders of Israel, and
Isaiah, saw God ; while others say, no man hath seen or can see him.
One class of passages must be contrary to reason.
Besides, we have proved, by a hundred passages, that the Bible attrib
utes to God, not only human infirmities, but the greatest cruelty and
injustice. ,
He says language is incompetent to express the real character of God.
Then why should any one use it for that purpose ? But I thought the
Doctor told us that some portions of the Bible did express God's charac
ter truly.
Our opponent says we pervert the language of Scripture. A strange

118 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
charge this, to come from one who could deal, as he did, with the pas
sage in Romans, and others ! It is especially strange to be made against
one who takes the Bible exactly as he finds it, and who grounds all his
statements on its plain and obvious meaning.
He says we reject the truth because it is so simple, and that we are
influenced by the worst of motives. Does not our opponent know how
easy it would be for us to return such charges ? But we hope to be pre
served from yielding to the strong temptation. We have no infallible book
to guide us, but we think we can see a better way than charging an oppo
nent, in public debate, with impure and vicious motives. There is a
precept in the Gospel, which says, " Judge not, that ye be not judged."
We do not ourselves regard the precept as divine or unobjectionable;
but a person who does so regard it, would do well not to violate it so
often in a public audience. However, we believe that a man is justified
by works, and not by faith alone, and we should try to act accordingly.
He says the Bible is a wonder. So it is, in more respects than one.
He says it has been proved, over and over again, that all the parts of
the Bible agree. Will he please to find us one of those proofs. We
never had the happiness to see one.
His remarks about raking up things out of gutters, scavenger work,
and the like, my opponent will allow me to pass unnoticed.
He speaks of the arguments of unbelievers being overwhelmed. I
recollect no instance of such a thing in the present debate. And Paine's
arguments have never been met. Let me say here, that those who have
not read. Paine's works, cannot conceive how wretched are the pretended
refutations which have appeared under the sanction of the clergy.
He says that the best evidence of the Divine origin of the Scriptures
is the substantial agreement and circumstantial variation in their state
ments. But he gave us no proof. He favored us with an application of his
principle to passages, by way of illustration. The truth is, his boasted
principle does r\o\ fit the passages which I have quoted. He cannot find
any substantial agreement in them. Examine a few. One passage says
no one hath seen God at any time ; other passages say several people
have seen him. Where is the substantial agreement here ?
Some passages say there is no respect of persons with God ; while
others say he loved one brother, and hated the other, before either was
born. Where is the substantial agreement here ?
One passage says the son shall bear the iniquity of the father ; another
that he shall not. Where is the substantial agreement here ? Take a
few historical passages.
The Bible states, in one passage, that God tempted David to number
the people ; and in another, that it was Satan that tempted him. Where
is the substantial agreement here ? Are God and Satan the same ?
The Bible states, in one place, that the two thieves reviled Jesus ; and
in another, that one only reviled him, and was rebuked by the other.
Where is the substantial agreement ? Is one two ? (Interruption by a
cry of Time.) The Moderators will attend to their duty, if permitled.
The Bible states, in one place, that a certain man was two years older
than his father, and, in another, that he was eighteen years younger.
Where is the substantial agreement here ?

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 119
The Bible states that Saul slew all the Amalekites, except Agag, and
that Samuel hewed Agag in pieces ; but it also states that, after this,
David went out to war against the Amalekites. Where is the substantial
agreement here ?
The Bible says, in one passage, that Judas bought a field, and broke
asunder in the midst, and his bowels gushed out ; another says that the
high priests bought the field, and that Judas hanged himself. Where is
the substantial agreement here ?
Here are substantial, radical differences ; irreconcileable variations.
Besides, the maxim which he cites is applicable only to human courts,
where human witnesses, liable to err, testify, and where it is necessary
to sift the truth from the mass of their statements. It is not applicable
to a book which pretends, or which its advocates pretends, consists of the
declarations of the omniscient God, who cannot err or speak falsely. In
a book written by God, all must be true. There must not only be no
substantial disagreement, but no circumstantial variations. God could
no more err in reference to little things, than great things. His words
must all be true. (Applause and hisses. Time up.)

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.
(Applause.) My opponent says that I point to no passage in support
of my assertion, that we find substantial agreement with circumstantial
variety in the Scriptures. Now, there is hardly a child who cannot un
derstand that substantial agreement between the accounts of different
writers consists in both giving the same fact. He says, one passage
asserts, " And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel,
and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah "
(2 Samuel, 24 : 1); while another says, "And Satan stood up against
Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." (1 Chronicles, 21 : 1.)
He asks, Where is the substantial agreement ? Is God Satan ? Why,
the substant;al agreement is, that David was tempted.' Again he quotes,
" And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field " (Mat
thew 27 : 7) ; and compares it with, " Now, this man purchased a field
with the reward of iniquity." (Acts 1 : 18.) The substantial agreement
here is, that the field was bought; and with the price of Judas's treach
ery ! (Laughter.)
We pass over the blasphemous comparison he institutes, by asking,
" Are God and Satan one ? " and boldly assert that we have already an
swered his miserable subterfuge. We have said that the Bible must be
taken as a whole, and we have referred him to the passage which says,
" Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God'
canndt be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man ; but every
man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."
James 1 : 13, 14.
If my opponent will persist in advancing such things as arguments, he
will lose his reputation of fairness. To quote passages out of their con
nection may be worthy of an Infidel, but it is unworthy of a man.
(Hisses, tumultuous applause, cries of " Keep quiet.")

120 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
My opponent gives his oft-repeated argument, that Romans 13 : 1-3
teaches that we are to submit to all rulers, be they good or bad, and that
damnation is meted out to those who resist them, under any pretence
whatever. It is not so. The passage teaches simply :
1. That civil government is ordained by God.
2. That civil government is worthy of the obedience and respect of
God's people, when rulers " are not a terror to good works, but to the
evil ; " when government is conducted in accordance with the laws of
God's word. It is, the evil who are trying to stir up sedition and break
down all governments, who will not admit the existence of any right
rule, because it interferes with the excesses in which they delight, and
the licentiousness to which their passions would lead them. Does the
Bible teach obedience to despots, when their commands oppose His law?
Does he assert that God is the author of kingcraft ? He well knows
that it was in anger that God gave the Jews a king, and that the first
form of government which God gave the Jews was a pure republic. My
opponent says that it is written, " Judge not, that ye be not judged." So
it is ; and it is also written, " Ye shall know them by their fruits. Every
good tree bringeth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit ; " and while we are not to indulge in an uncharitable or cen
sorious spirit, we are not forbidden by that passage to form an estimate
of any character from its fruits.
I had scarcely, when my time expired, entered upon the consideration
of my opponent's caricature of the window of the ark. The passage
reads, " And in a cubit shalt thou finish it above."
Does this justify my opponent in asserting that this window was but
one cubit square ? " In a cubit shalt thou finish it above." That is, the
width of the window (and the word is here used to designate the means
of admitting Jight) was a cubit above ; merely showing that the roof of
the ark in which it was placed sloped upward to a ridge of about a cubit
wide. Sure enough ! Let my opponent answer that ! My opponent
asks, How could this ark be ventilated ? How could the filth of these
animals be all carried up, and thrown out of the window ? Has he for
gotten that there was a door to the ark ? The farmer would sometimes
use the door, sometimes the window of his barn. Like my opponent, I
have a place in the country with a stable upon it ; and it is a matter
of indifference to me, whether the refuse is thrown out of the door or
window. But, says my opponent, the Bible says nothing about ventilators!
Well, and it says nothing about nails and spikes ; but are we to suppose
that the ark was held together without them ? .Instructions were given
which were perfectly intelligible to Noah, and he acted upon them. The
Bible speaks as to men of candor and sense. It does not presume, we
will infer, that the ark was destitute of all convenience and all comfort,
because every little detail is not given. In relation to the door, I read:
" And the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower,
second and third stories shalt thou make it."
This would seem to imply that each story was supplied with a door.
The details of the measurement are pronounced by those in the profes
sion best able to understand them, those who have large maritime expe
rience, to be in strict accordance with the best results discovered in ship

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 121
building by modern science. Noah must have had an extraordinary
mechanical genius. Here, again, is internal evidence, that Noah was
divinely directed. The difficulty of getting all the animals to the ark,
stated by my opponent, is just no difficulty at all. Was God, the Maker
and Creator of these animals, unable to guide them to the ark at the
appointed time, by prompting their instinct ?
Let not my opponent confound his nameless God with the Christian's
God, (Jehovah,) who is the Creator and Sovereign of the universe — is
proved to be the God of Nature, of Providence, and of Grace. This
example of the ark is not only important on its intrinsic merits, but from
the associations connected with it.
Infidels say, Present us facts that an unbiassed world pronounces to
be facts. Here is one. Was it a real occurrence ? There is scarcely
a historical account extant of any nation or tribe, or historical tradition,
even, which does not embrace the notion, that, long ages ago, their
ancestor was saved from a great flood of water. How ? All the ac
counts agree, that it was by enclosure in a large floating edifice of his
own construction. Whence this intimation ? Did the earth whisper it ?
Did the stars announce it ? Whence did Noah get the promptings that
carried him forward in his design ? . From the first rain ? Why should
he be alarmed at this ? He had often seen rain before. Blot out the
whole Mosaic account, and we find the notion or tradition of which we
speak, incorporated in the religious rites and ceremonies of all nations.
We meet it in Greece, in Egypt, in India, in Britain. We find in all
these countries its memorials installed, thus proving, under Providence,
the fact of the flood's occurrence. Whence this consent ? Does my
opponent think that all mankind are fools, superstitious dupes, but Infi
dels ? Now, does not this fact prove an intimation from God ? Who
else could give it ? Why did Noah provide for protection from water,
rather than from fire or earthquake ? Because he was forewarned of God.
The Apostle says, " By faith, Noah being warned of God of things
not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving rjf his
house." Let us pass from all annals to the teaching of Nature. We find truth
imbedded in the earth ; we find the discoveries of geology confirming a
deluge. My opponent says, there are, in parts of the earth, no trace —
Mr. Barker. — I did not say so. Prof. Hitchcock (holding up "Re
ligion of Geology,") says, there is no trace in any part of the earth of
such a deluge as that spoken of in the Bible.
Dr. Berg. — Then Prof. Hitchcock tells us a  makes a tremen
dous mistake. In almost all parts ofthe earth, we find indelible impres
sions, firmly convincing us that God did bring about the catastrophe of
submerging the world with water.
My opponent alluded to my remarks on Friday evening, on the first
chapter of Genesis, and totally perverted them.
Let me now advance on the positive side of the argument for internal
evidence of the Divinity of the Bible. The appearance of Christ in an
age the most corrupt ; his character presenting excellencies the world

122 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
had never before seen; unrivalled, nay, almost unapproached by the
best of earth ; this appearance, I say, at such a time, is utterly beyond
Nature, and surpasses the most wonderful miracle. This difficulty lies
before my opponent, and he must meet it,' before he can prove Christi
anity a delusion. He will hardly deny the existence of Christ, but even
if he should, how will he explain the still more wonderful phenomenon
that four men should imagine such a character, and transmit such a por
trait, with no original from which to draw their copy ? It is absurd.
The Evangelists were plain, unlettered men ; they were not the miracles
of genius which they must have been to originate the lovely character
of our Redeemer. .There are a few points conclusive, to my mind, in
establishing the Messiahship of Christ. His appearance, his whole doc
trine, his kingdom, his character, were at variance with the expectation
of the Jews. They thought that Christ, at his appearing, was to be the
instrument of breaking their yoke of civil bondage, and exalting their
nation to supreme power and fame. At the very time that, not only
Jews, but Gentiles, in all parts of the world, were anxiously looking for
the arrival of some personage, who would have the most powerful influ
ence upon their religion and their institutions, Christ appeared.
These impressions of his advent, which were so rife at that time,
doubtless arose from the old prophecies, which designated time and place
of his appearance. The classical historian was familiar with them ; and
this fact may be of sufficient importance to authorize quotation. Let us
read from Josephus, where he mentions the causes of the Jewish revolt :
" That which chiefly encouraged them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, found
also in our sacred writings, that about that time, some one from Judea should obtain
the empire of the world. This, they understood to belong to themselves ; and many
of their wise men were mistaken in their judgment ; for this oracle referred to the
government of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor in Judea."
The second is from Suetonius. His words are :
" There had been, for a long time, all over the East, a notion, firmly ^believed, that
it. was in the books of the fates, that some one from Judea was destined, about that
time, to obtain the empire of the world."
So Tacitus, after mentioning the calamities arising out of the destruc
tion of their city, says :
" That the mass of the people entertained a strong persuasion, that it was men
tioned in the ancient writings of the priests, that at that very time, the East should
prevail, and that some one from Judea should obtain the empire of the world. These
ambiguities predicted Vespasian and Titus; but the common people, according to the
usual influence of human passions, having once appropriated to themselves this des
tined greatness, could not be brought to understand the true meaning, by all their
adversities." All these vague expectations I believe to have been fulfilled in the
coming of Christ ; and this is confirmed by the fact, that numerous pre
tenders to the Messiahship appeared in the field about this time.
Now, let us remember, that the four Evangelists were Jews, and Jews
of the lower class; therefore doubly apt to imbibe the prejudices of
those over them. How could they, in opposition to what they them
selves tell us were their own anticipations, and what we know were the

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 123
anticipations ofthe nation, proclaim as the Messiah this meek and lowly
Jesus ?
In answer to the objection sometimes made, that the Evangelists wrote
after the destruction of Jerusalem, I say, why should these men make
Christ predict that very overthrow which they expected he could pre
vent ? Why should they receive him, in spite of all their prejudices ?
Christ's character is peculiar. The Evangelists might have found a
prototype for a fancy sketch among their prophets. Christ differs from
them all. He is meek and lowly, and yet speaks as one who knows that
his mission is to establish a new dispensation. He comes without aus
terity. His manners are familiar, but dignified.
He readily communicates instruction to honest inquirers. He over
whelms his enemies by pungent appeals. He boldly assails the rulers,
and denounces woe upon the Pharisees, who neglected the weightier
matters of the law for minor ceremonies. He spake with such authority
and grandeur that the very men who came to drag him to prison and to
judgment, went away exclaiming, " Never man spake like this man."
This originality is the more remarkable, because the Jewish Rabbis had
made the ceremonial law even more exacting, and its power was fettered
by traditions. The Talmud abounded with grotesque superstition. The
Savior complained that they had made void the law of God. See Him
sitting down to meat with unwashed hands, eating with publicans and
sinners, associating with Gentiles, and doing many other things from
which the Jews shrank in horror. Listen to his discourses. He omits
tithes and sacrifices, and speaks of mercy and justice. He denounces
external sanctity, and preaches purity of heart ; and he does all this,
claiming to be the Messiah, the object of the expectations of the Jews.
How could four unlettered Jews invent this character ? The soured
Infidel may turn away from this portrait ; but what unbiassed mind can
fail to recognise the lineaments of the glorious Son of God ? ( Time
up. Long applause.)

SIXTH EVENING.
REMARKS OP JOSEPH BARKER.
(Silence.) As the discussion to-night may lead to some freedom of
comment on the New Testament, and the character of Jesus as there
taught, it may not be amiss to make a few preliminary remarks. We
wish it distinctly understood, that we find no fault with the New Testa
ment on account of any thing good in its contents. All its exhortations
to virtue, charity, courtesy, temperance, and purity, we cordially approve.
Whatever is beautiful, noble, good and generous, in the characters it

124 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
recommends as examples, we admire. If we have any objection to it,
it is to such portions of its contents as seem to us at variance with truth
and human duty. If our duty should lead us to point out any defects or
positive fault's in the leading characters, we wish it understood, that we
find no fault with what is good in them. We do not find fault with the
Church because it is too good, too pure, too gentle, too courteous, or too
useful to mankind. We find no fault with the Ministry, on the ground
that it presses human duty too closely on the conscience, or that it wars
too sternly with the great evils of intemperance, slavery, oppression and
impurity. We find fault wilh the Bible, because we think its teachings
fall short of the real standard of truth and human duty; and we find
fault with the Church and Ministry, because they are too little concerned
for truth and duty, and too much for themselves ; too anxious for populari
ty, wealth and power. We find fault with them, because they are not
zealous enough for the annihilation of those social evils which cause ig
norance and wretchedness, and for the accomplishment of those reforms
which would tend to the instruction, the purification, the happiness, and
salvation of the race. In fine, our objection to them is that they are not
sufficiently wise, or good, or charitable, or useful.
The Doctor says " I ought to know " that the faith which they say leads
to salvation, is always accompanied by good works. Now, it happens that
I do not know any such thing. I know the contrary. The vast majority
of those who profess Christianity, (and, according to the Doctor and the
Bible, I must judge the doctrine by its fruits,) do not distinguish them
selves by their zeal, by good works, by their efforts for the improvement
and happiness of mankind, but the contrary. They are remarkable for
selfishness, deceit, malignity. They tumble as often into the mud, and
sink as deep in the mire of sin, as others, and defile themselves, and
others as much, with licentious abominations. This is the tendency of
their doctrine. If they believed that men reaped as they sow, they would
sow good seed ; but as they believe they will reap as another has sowed,
they are apt to be careless about the seed they sow. Suppose a gar
dener, instead of trusting to his own culture, believes his garden will be
kept free from weeds, and will be made to produce as much good fruit,
and as many beantiful flowers, by the horticultural skill of a neighbor,
the tendency would be to make him defer his labors until some period
which might -be extremely convenient. But if he believes that fruits and
flowers will come only in reward of his own industry, he will be diligent.
And so in respect to moral conduct ; if I believe I am to be damned or
saved, according to the life I lead, I am likely to seek out the best course
of life, and follow it. But if, on the other hand, I am to be saved by
faith, and works are a secondary matter, — if I believe I am to be saved
by relying on another's merits and another's sufferings, the tendency is
to make me more anxious to get hold of the true faith, to care more for
believing right, than for studying and following the best, the most use
ful way of life.
Then the difficulty of ascertaining which is the right kind of faith, —
of knowing what is the thing to be believed, and the way in which it
ought to be believed, puts men at the mercy ofthe priests.
Men, generally, are not able to investigate historical matters, and sat-

REMA|RKS - OF JOSEPH BARKER. 125
isfy themselves as to the grounds of faith. Ancient history, and eccle
siastical history, especially, is a region of mists and darkness, a world of
doubt and uncertainty. There is nowhere where men can rest. Then
controversies about doctrines are endless. No one can examine them
all. Not one in a thousand can examine a tenth or a hundredth part of
them. Even the controversies about the inspiration, the authenticity,
the genuineness, the canonicity of the different books of the Bible, and
the value of different manuscripts, readings, translations and interpreta
tions, are endless. The consequence is, men are obliged to leave such
matters entirely to their priests. The authority of the Bible becomes the
authority of the priest. The believer rests his faith on the priest. True,
the priest may no more judge for himself than the layman : no matter ;
the layman trusts in him. He spends his powers of thought on matters
of trade, and blindly rests on authority in matters of reljgion and duty.
Thus men neglect to exercise their intellects, till they have no intellects
to exercise. They lose their power of judging. They cannot distin
guish the plainest truths from gross and palpable falsehoods. When,
therefore, they are taught that men may be saved from the consequences
of a life of sin, at the hour of death, — when they are taught that the
vilest sinner may return, so long as the lamp of life holds out to burn,
that sins red as scarlet or crimson, can at once be made as white as wool ;
in short, when they are taught that, by faith alone in the merits or
righteous of another, the thief, the liar, the drunkard, the profligate, the
murderer, may escape hell, and enter at once into eternal blessedness and
glory, they receive it as God's own truth, live carelessly, recklessly, in
selfishness and sin, a curse, a disgrace, and a torment to mankind.
The Doctor says that the Scribes and the Pharisees were the Infidels
of Christ's day. If so, Infidels then were very different from Infidels
now. Infidels, now-a-days, do not pray in the synagogues, or at the
corners of the streets ; and especially, they do not devour widows' houses,
and, for a pretence, make long prayers. They do not even pay tithes
-of mint, and anise, and cummin, and neglect the weighter matters of the
law ; they do not talk much of trifling ceremonies, but speak rather of
truth, and freeddm of intellect, and moral cultivation. They would give
a large wagon-load of theological opinions for temperance, charity,
purity, and manliness in a man's own character. The Doctor knows
that the Pharisees of Christ's day were sectarians, and that they made
broad their phylacteries to indicate their great authority and piety. The
Infidels were the Sadducees ; and it is a remarkable fact, that Jesus had
little, if any, fault to find with their morals. The Scribes were the teach
ers of the law, the Pharisees were the great professors, and against them
Christ fulminated his most terrible anathemas.
The Doctor says the " substantial agreement" in the two stories, re
specting the numbering of the people, was, that David did number them ;
and that the " circumstantial variation " in the stories is, that one of them
says : Satan moved him to do it, and the other that God did. And this
substantial agreement and circumstantial variation, the Doctor says, is the
strongest of all kinds of testimony.
Well, let us see how such testimony would work in a court of justice.
A man has been murdered, and two witnesses are brought, who say they

126 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
know who murdered him. There stands the pritoner suspected of the
murder. Samuel is sworn, and testifies that the prisoner at the bar killed
the man. I saw him do it. I am, besides, infallible. I speak by divine
inspiration, and cannot, therefore, err. Very well. Ezra is sworn next,
and he testifies that the person who committed the murder was quite a
different man from the prisoner at the bar. Why, says he, the prisoner
at the bar is black, whereas the murderer was white. I saw the murder
committed. I knew the murderer perfectly. Besides, I am inspired of
God ; I cannot be mistaken.
Would these two witnesses settle the matter? Just the contrary.
They would destroy each other's credit.
But suppose another witness, called James, steps forward, and says, no
man murdered the dead man ; he died of an internal disease. I am di
vinely inspired, and know. This, surely, would prove the charge against
the prisoner. Ridiculous ! The result of such testimony would be the
discharge of the prisoner, and the arrest of the three witnesses as per
jured imposters, notwithstanding their pretensions to divine inspiration.
Imagine a civil suit respecting'a field. I want to prove the field was
purchased by a brother priest, and I bring two witnesses to prove the
point. Matthew takes the oath first, and swears : I am an infallible wit
ness. God has made me so. God speaks through me. The field was
bought by the priest. Luke qualifies next, and swears : I have a perfect
knowledge of all these things. I am God Almighty's speaking trumpet.
It is not I that speaks, but God that spcaketh through me. Judas bought
the field. While the court is all amazement, Matthew appeals to Jere
miah to confirm his statement. Jeremiah is sworn, and says he knows
nothing about it. The testimony attributed to Jeremiah is not found in
his works. Zachariah is called on, and says it was he that bought the
field. And they all declare themselves inspired and infallible. The court
says the case must be dismissed. " Please your honor," says the coun
sellor, " the case seems very plain. The evidence is the best that can
be. We have substantial agreement, with circumstantial variations."
Is this the way the audience is to be trifled with ? Substantial agree
ment and circumstantial variation ! You may prove any thing by such
rules of evidence. There are the Doctor and myself; we both believe
there is such a book as the Bible ; this is the substantial agreement. But
the Doctor says the Bible is of God ; while I contend it is of man. This
is only a circumstantial variation. Nothing more. We are, therefore,
agreed. The Doctor says again, that what the thirteenth of Romans teaches is,
that civil government is ordained of God, and that good rulers are wor
thy of the respect of all God's people.
This is just what the passage does not teach. What the passage
does teach is —
1. That we are to obey the powers that hp, making no exceptions or
qualifications. 2. That if we resist them, we shall receive damnation.
As reasons why we ought to obey rulers, the passage tells us —
1. That there is no power but of God.
2. That the powers that be — the powers then in being — were of God.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 127"
3. That whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi
nance of God, and shall receive to themselves damnation. It adds, as a
fourth reason, that rulers are not a terror to good works, but —
5. That they are a terror to evil ; and,
6. That if we do that which is good, we shall have praise from them, &c.
These are th'e plain, the positive, the unqualified teachings of the pas
sage, and baser and falser teachings I defy the world to produce. I
know well enough that the Doctor could write a better passage ; but that
is not his business. His business is to prove the passage already written
to be of God, or else, give up his theory of Scripture inspiration.
The Doctor says Infidels take the ground that men have no right to
rule. Does he mean that we take such ground ? If so, it is a calumny
— a base and inexcusable calumny. We say that men have a right to
rule, when their countrymen appoint them to do so. True, we say that
men have no right to rule in virtue of their birth, or in virtue of ill-gotten
wealth ; and we also say, that even when men have been appointed by a
nation to rule, they have no right to use their power against the rights or lib
erties of the nation. If we are wrong in so believing, have pity on us, and
enlighten us. But our principle is, that rulers are for the people, not the peo
ple for the rulers ; that the people are sovereign, and the rulers servants ;
that neither king, nor aristocrat, nor priest, has any more right to rule,
than the printer or the ploughboy, till commissioned to do so by the
people. If rulers abuse their power, the people have a right to depose
them. If they resist the will of the people, the people have a right to
tumble them from their places by force, and to punish them for their
insolence, too. The people have a right to resist every form of tyranny
and usurpation. Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. The Eng
lish were never further from damnation, than when they humbled the
tyrant and the traitor Charles ; and the descendants of those English
reformers were never further frbm damnation, than when they resisted
the tyranny of George the Third, and declared this great and glorious
country free and independent.
These are the principles of those you reproachfully call Infidels. If
you have any better, let us hear them.
My opponent says God instituted a republican form of government
among the Jews.
Then God did well, in our judgment. But did he give no power to
the priests, think you ?
God never instituted king-craft, the Doctor says. So we think ; but
there is much king-craft in the world, and priest-craft too, and the Bible
says the powers that be are ordained of God — and that whosoever
resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.
To justify himself in charging us with immorality, he quotes the pas
sage, " By their fruits ye shall' know them." Let us quote the whole
passage : —
" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but invariably
are ravening wolves. Te shall know them by their fruits."
I take the meaning to be, " Ye shall know whether preachers are
really the friends of the people or not, by their lives." Does my oppo-

128 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
nent know any thing about my life ? Does he know me to be a drunkard,
a profligate, or a thief? If he thinks he does, let him speak. If he will
prove me guilty of any crime, or stained with any vice, I will retire, and
leave the platform and the victory to him. These personal charges and
insinuations are discreditable and inexcusable. (Sensation.)
The Doctor says there are proofs in almost every part of the earth,
that, at some remote period, God visited the earth with a flood. We
answer, Geologists say there are proofs of several great floods ; but even
theological Geologists, such as Hitchcock, Pye Smith, and Dr. Harris,
say that there is no trace of such a flood as the one recorded in Genesis ;
that there are no traces of any universal deluge ; that the great floods of
which the earth bears traces, all took place before the appearance of man
on the earth. As for the origin of the almost universal tradition of
which the Doctor spoke, what more natural than for men, when they saw
almost every where the marks of great floods, to frame some such stories
as those of the Greeks and Romans, or the monstrous and impossible
fable of the Bible ?
One word more about this deluge story, and we have done for the
present. According to Hitchcock, and other Christian Geologists, there
are half a million species of birds, beasts, and creeping things. Accord
ing to the Bible, therefore, there would have to be about a million and a
half in the ark ; for, of the birds and all clean beasts, there were to be
fourteen of a species. Noah and his family would have to feed, water, and
clear after 2500 a minute, (hissing and applause,) or 42 in a second.
The idea is monstrous. (Hissing and applause.) ,
The Doctor again says, that the matter of which the universe is made
was created an indefinite period before the six days mentioned in Gene
sis. But the Bible does not say so. The Bible says nothing about the
creation of matter ; it simply speaks of the creation of the heavens and
the earth, the sea, and all that in them is ; and these it over and over
again declares, contrary to the revelations of geology, were all made in
six days, about six thousand years ago.
However, I am glad the Doctor is beginning to place himself on geo
logical, philosophical, Infidel ground.
He has told us twice, that the natural man understandeth not the things
of the spirit, neither can know them, because they are spiritually dis
cerned. We ask, why, then, does he talk to natural people about them ?
Did become here to talk to the regenerate only? If natural men can
not understand spiritual things, how are they to become spiritual ? Can
we be converted by the truth before we understand it ? Are we to be
converted first, and understand it only afterwards ? What is the use of
your spiritual things, if people can be regenerated and made spiritual
without understanding them ?
My opponent should know, that the original word should be translated
animal, not natural. The animal man, — the man lost in sensuality, 
the man in whom the intellectual and moral faculties have never been
unfolded, cannot well understand the things of the spirit. But are we
thus animal ? Does it become the preacher of humility to say, my intel
lectual and moral faculties are well developed ; but my opponent's are
not developed at all ? I am spiritual, and can judge all things ; but my

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 129
opponent is animal, and can judge or discern nothing ? Perhaps it would
be as well to let others judge which of us seems to understand things
best. We had next an essay on the advent of Jesus, and on his character
and doctrine. The object of the essay was to prove the Bible of super
human origin, I suppose ; for the superhuman origin of the Bible is the
point in dispute. Did the essay make good that point ? Did it prove a
single book, or a single chapter of the Bible, of superhuman origin ?
Not at all.
He says there was a general expectation, about eighteen hundred and
fifty years ago, that some great personage was to be born in Judea, who
should gain the empire of the world.
Very well ; what then ?
Several persons appeared among the Jews, says he, and professed to
be that person.
Exactly so ; the very thing to be expected in such circumstances.
There is a tendency in such expectations and prophecies to fulfil them
selves exactly in that way.
But Jesus of Nazareth was the person really alluded to.
Where is the proof ? Did the Doctor give us any ? We think not.
But suppose he had proved this point, would it prove the divine origin of
Solomon's song, or of the blasphemous, immoral, and contradictory por
tions of other parts of the Bible ? Would it prove the superhuman ori
gin of any book ? Nothing of the kind.
But the character of Jesus was perfect, and his doctrine was true and
divine, said the Doctor.
But did he prove what he said ? He did not even attempt to prove it.
His essay, on this point, was all assertion ; bare, unsupported assertion.
Did he tell us what constitutes a perfect character ?
No.
Did he tell us how we may know when a character is perfect ?
No.Did he tell us on what grounds he judged the character of Jesus to be
perfect ?
No.
But, to make good his proposition, he must do all these things.
Besides, what proof did he give that the account given of Jesus in the
New Testament is a true account ?
None.But the portrait given of Jesus in the New Testament, says my oppo
nent, was drawn by those who were well acquainted with him. How
does he know ? Where is the proof? He cannot know. There is no
proof. But suppose it were so, what proof could he give us that the acquaint
ances of Jesus drew his portrait correctly ? None. Where is the
proof that they were able to portray him correctly ? Where is the
proof that they were willing to do so ? There is none. ( Time up.)

130 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
REMARKS OF REV- DR. BERG.
(Enthusiastic applause.) Before proceeding to answer my opponent's
speech of this evening, I will allude to a few points made by him last
evening. He says of the account given by Matthew, " Then was ful
filled that which was spoken by Jeremy, the prophet, saying, And they
took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him that was valued, and
gave them for the potter's field," (Matthew 27 : 9, 10,) that no such
words are found in Jeremiah, though a somewhat similar account is
-given by Zechariah. (Zechariah 9 : 13.) - I will easily explain this,
by the quotation of a few words from " Gaussen on the Inspiration of
the Scriptures."
" We know by Jerome, that there existed in his day an Apocryphal book of the
prophet Jeremiah, in which the words quoted by St. Matthew are found, letter for
letter. It is also shown, that the second book of Maccabees records many of the
actions and words of Jeremiah, which are taken from another book, and not from his
Canonical Prophecies. Why, then, should not the words quoted by the Evangelist
really have been pronounced by Jeremy, and might they not have lived in the mem
ory of the Church, down to the time of Zechariah, who would then himself theop-
neustically give them a place in Holy Writ ? as is the case in the traditional words of
Enoch, quoted in the Epistle of Jude; or the traditional words of Jesus Christ, quoted
by the Apostle Paul in the book of Acts. What confirms this supposition is, that the
words cited by Matthew are only partly found in Zechariah. Moreover, it is known
that this prophet loved to record the words of Jeremiah."
My opponent then introduced a large amount of chaff, which would
require time to winnow and sift. You cannot wish me to occupy either
my time or yours for this purpose now. (Applause.)
There are certain kinds of argument which it is impossible lo meet
with sober refutation. When we see a man assuming the strut of self-
satisfied complacency, we may know that it is done to cover over his
lack of argument. It is one of the common tricks of enemies of the
truth. He quoted me as arguing that every book possessing grandeur
of style, and sublimity of thought, was of superhuman origin, because I
adduced these qualities as one link in the chain of evidence proving the
Divine origin of the Bible. He asks triumphantly, Is every such book
superhuman ? I answer, No. Suppose my opponent were giving us a
lecture on the human system, body and soul; or, as some Infidels say,
they have no soul, we may leave out the spiritual part, to accommodate
them. Among other things, he tells us that a man has two ears. A day
or two after, I bring him an animal with two long ears, (applause,) intro
duce him as his fellow-man, and invite him to embrace his brother. (Ap
plause.) What would he think of such an argument ? Precisely what
I think of his argument. (A voice in the crowd, " There are other judges
here than Mr. Berg — that's not the subject." Cries of " Turn him out,"
and general disturbance for a few moments.)
Mr. Chambers succeeded in restoring order, and Dr. Berg proceeded.
Is every animal that has two ears a man ? But it is just such artifice
as this that constitutes his tactics. I shall not follow him through all his
vagaries, but merely say that the ancients had a proverb, Ex pede, Her-
culem ; I wish to add to it another, Ex aure asinum.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 131
_ My opponent says he thought there was only one God, and the neces
sity of a specific name was done away with. The word God has become
generic, by being used to denote the gods of the heathen, and all others.
Let him give his God a name — Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, or even his own
name, Joseph Barker. (Laughter.)
Tell me that the heathen could arrive at correct results concerning all
the attributes of God from the teachings of Nature ! My opponent
knows as well as I do, that the Greek word Deiotes, translated " God
head " in the passage in Romans, which he quotes to prove his assertion,
means only God's supreme excellence, or glory. If it alone meant all
God's attributes, why should one of them (eternal power) be specified in
this very passage ? Did the heathen know God from Nature ? No.
" They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the image of
corruptible man ; " — " Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools." Show me one single notion among any of the heathen, that is
not borrowed from the Bible. By the teachings of Nature only, they
became addicted to all manner of crime and evil. Does Paul teach the
Heedlessness of the Scriptures ? Was Paul an Infidel Deist, as Job was
a Pagan Deist ? Mr. Barker quotes " that which may be known of God
is manifest in them." Let us read the whole passage. " For the invis
ible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead ; so that they are without excuse."
My opponent shows the poverty of his Infidel resources by going to
the Bible for his argument. ¦,
How does he evade the proof that Job believed in Christ ? He here
displayed his ignorance, if not something?worse. He cries out about the
plain meaning ; but when the plain meaning of a passage in the oldest
book extant slays him, he runs for shelter to the commentators. (Ap
plause.) Alas ! they'll show him no protection ; for nine out of ten of
them uphold my view. (Laughter.) Mr. Barker is his own commentator ;
he has a system of hermeneutics to himself. He goes at the passages
about children like an Orthodox priest, comparing Scripture with Scrip
ture. The words mean both what he says they do, and what I say
they do.
My opponent is shifting his ground. He laughs at the account of
Abraham's sacrifice of his son, because God prevented it, and yet cites
the case of Jephtha's daughter to prove that God accepts human sacri
fices. Did ever man blow hot and cold more fiercely ? (Applause.) If
an Infidel in his despair should leap from the roof of this house, and
dash his brains out in the street, would God accept his sacrifice, because
he did not suspend the laws of the universe to prevent his act? But he
denies the analogy between natural and moral things. He calls it cruel
to slay the seven sons of Saul for the sins of their father. Let him
settle that question with his nameless God. He asks, " Has any civil
government now the right to act in this manner? " No. It is beyond the
province of human control. God administers his own government. We
do not know the reason, but we know the fact, that God does visit the
sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation.

132 DISCUSSION ON THE BtBLE.
This is one of the evasions which my opponent uses when he is cor
nered. Let him tell us why the God of Nature, his nameless God, could
not, in justice to the unborn children, whom he pities so very much, have
ordered the laws of Physiology so that the diseases of the drunken and
licentious should not descend upon their children. (Applause.) Why
can he not break this law, which links the misery of the whole human
race to the sin of their first progenitor ? (Applause.)
Let me develop the Infidel theory of the soul's recuperative powers.
The Infidel believes that every man has a savior within himself; that
conscience is his law, and obedience to its dictates is salvation. A thief
steals your money ; conscience troubles him, and he restores it. Well,
so far so good. He satisfies you, perhaps. But where is the command,
Thou shalt not steal ? If it is merely a violation of human law, what
kind of God is this who cares not whether you lie, or cheat, or steal?
But suppose the thief, before this restitution, should be taken ill and die,
(God never forgives sin, says Mr. Barker,) will he send this man, then,
to his Infidel heaven ?
There are numberless points of this kind in my opponent's, speech,
making a total of atheistical jargon, which I have never heard surpassed.
They might be answered, but the game is scarcely worth the powder.
-My opponent says the law does not define adultery. How happens it
that every Christian knows what it is ?
When my opponent alleges a contradiction between the two accounts
given by the two Evangelists of the crucifixion, how does he know that
both statements are not true ? Might not both thieves, at the beginning,
have reviled him ? But as the scene progresses, one of them, moved by
the majestic sweetness of the suffering Savior, is heart-broken, and
rebukes the reviling Infidel. Does my opponent ask here for substantial
agreement? (Applause.) There is not only substantial agreement be
tween the two accounts, but both are a fulfilment of the prophecy of
Isaiah, " He was numbered with the transgressors." Before my opponent
so triumphantly announces his assertions as proved, he must show us that
the apparent discrepancy cannot be reconciled by any rule.
I will now proceed to my argument, drawn from the character of
Jesus Christ. When my opponent attacked that argument, he knew that
I had only entered upon the threshold of it. This was scarcely fair, but
I go on.
The character of Christ presents,
1. Unexampled moral grandeur. Behold the strongest fortitude min
gled with the most melting tenderness ; awful majesty with condescend
ing familiarity ; almighty power with the most lowly humility. Behold
Him who raised Lazarus from the dead, washing the disciples' feet ; the
Lord of all, dispensing his bounties like a prince, possessing no treasure
and having no place where to lay his head ; working the most astonish
ing miracles, and yet perfectly unconcerned about his fate.
In suffering, behold the majesty of that brow ! He is great while
uttering words of love and entreaty ; majestic when, with divine tender
ness, he stopped the bier that bore the lonely widow's only son, and with
one word restored him to her arms. He is mightier still, when on the

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 133
cross. While his enemies heap curse on curse on his devoted head, he
sublimely cries, " Father, forgive them ; they know not what they do ; "
then bows his head, and in great agony, gives up the ghost.
Need we press the argument that the Evangelists were conscientious
believers ? How could they else emerge from the babbling follies of
Infidelity surrounding them, and make such a portrait ? See its sublim
ity, derived from no art of the narrator ! It is truth that needs not, will
not bear an ornament. See its symmetry and consistency ! Always
compassionate to sorrow, lenient to human infirmity, He presents the
same calm repose, whether the rabble frown or cry Hosanna ; whether
driven from the haunts of men, or entering Jerusalem in triumph ;
whether comforting his weeping disciples or preaching truth to the de
spised mass of his followers, he is always the same great compassionate
Jesus, the friend of the poor and the Savior of sinners. Not one unwor
thy word ever dropped from his lips. His whole life was one continued
attestation of the truth of his professions ; of the truth that he was really
" God manifest in the flesh." (Applause.)
This may suffice for the leading argument on the internal evidence of
the divinity of the Bible.
I pass now to Infidel opinions of Christ.
They themselves admit that he was a good man. Hear the celebrated
Rosseau, in his treatise on education : —
" If the life and death of Socrates were those of a aage, the life and death of Jesus
were those of a God. Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction ? In
deed, my friends, it bears not the mark of fiction. On the contrary, the history of
Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus
Christ. Such a supposition, in fact, only shifts the difficulty without obviating it ;
it is more inconceivable that a number of persons should agree to write such a his
tory, than that one only should furnish the subject of it. The Jewish authors were
incapable of the diction and of the morality contained in the Gospel, the marks of
whose truth are so striking and inimitable, that the inventor would be a more aston
ishing character than the hero."
Now, hear Tom Paine, whom my opponent eloquently- eulogises*
After ridiculing the account of Christ's birth, he says : —
" Nothing that is here said can imply even the most distant disrespect to
moral character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous andi amiable man. The moral
ity that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind. He called men
to the practice of moral virtues, and the belief of one God. The great trait in his
character is philanthropy. ' '
( Time up. Dr. Berg sat down amid tremendous cheering.)

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
" He was a virtuous and amiable man," says Paine. And so, as far
as I know, will unbelievers generally say. We ourselves would say, that
the portrait of Christ, as given by the Evangelists, possesses many beau
tiful traits. But we doubt the perfection of the portrait, and we deny,
at the same time, that the teachings of Jesus were all true and good, or

134 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
that his arguments were always sound. My opponent professes, next, to
give a quotation from Rosseau in praise of Jesus. If Rosseau published
the passage just quoted, as expressive of his own convictions, and not as
a declaration ofthe opinions held by some character in a novel, why call
him an Infidel ? If he uttered them as his own, if he abode by them
during life, without altering or withdrawing them, then he was a Chris
tian, and no Infidel. If he held these views in early life, but afterwards
changed his opinions, then there will probably be found some statement
of his reasons for the change in other parts of his writings. In this case,
the passage should not be quoted as the words of Rosseau the Infidel, but
as the words of Rosseau the believer. In either case, the quotation is
out of place. The truth is, the words quoted from Rosseau, are quoted
from a novel. They are the words, not of Rosseau, but of one of the
characters portrayed in the novel. To quote them as the words of an
Infidel is ridiculous.
As to Paine, his writings show that he admired moral and intellectual
excellence wherever found, that he studied with rapture the beauties and
wonders of Nature and Art. He repeated with enthusiasm the touching
poetry of the paraphrase of the 19th Psalm, " The spacious firmament on
high," and he certainly did full justice to the character of Christ.
The Doctor says that there were apochryphal books of Jeremiah and
Enoch, and that Matthew referred to the former. What ! did Matthew,
an inspired man, quote an apochryphal book ? There is no fuller proof,
that Matthew, Enoch, and other New Testament writers, were erring
men like ourselves, without supernatural inspiration, than the facts stated
by Gaussen, as quoted by my opponent. They were either imposed on
by pious frauds, or they appealed to spurious writings, for the purpose of
deceiving others.
My opponent says I deal in glaring sophistries. When we meet
with sophistries, we expose them. We never call them sophistries,
but prove them such. When people cry out sophistry, we may
safely conclude, that they have met with something that they feel
to be unanswerable. We speak from experience. We have always
found, that when our opponents find any arguments unanswerable, they
call out " Sophistry ! glaring sophistry ! " and so pass on. I have seen this
device employed so often, that now, when I find my opponents resorting
to it, I invariably conclude that they feel themselves vanquished. I al
ways regard it as a confession, on the part of my opponents, that they
feel their case to be hopeless.
He says I took a part, of his argument, and dealt with it as if it had
been the whole. He says the point I replied to was but " one link in
the chain." The truth is, I noticed a number of the links in his chain,
and found them all defective. To make a good chain, every link must
be good. If one link be bad, the chain is worthless. So with my oppo
nent. He tried to make an argument out of anumber of statements. I
tested those statements, and found them good for nothing. There was
not a sound one among them. I accordingly pronounced the argument
unsound. The chain broke in my hands, and fell to pieces.
He next tried to help himself by a comparison, but that, too, failed
him. If I should ever attempt to prove an animal a man, because it had

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 135
two ears, I acknowledge that I should deserve to be laughed at, or pitied.
But my opponent will not find me attempting any thing so foolish. If,
in attempting to prove an animal a man, I should point out nothing in
the animal but what might be found in animals inferior to man, I should
fail, as a matter of course. This was just what my opponent did, with
regard to the Bible. He attempted to prove it divine, by reference to a
number of qualities in the Book, all of which are to be found in purely
human books. I showed this : and his arguments fell to the ground.
My opponent's illustration jis as absurd as his argument, and is calcu
lated to excite a suspicion, that he does not properly understand the true
nature of an argument. I shall not call in question the depth, or the
vast extent of his learning, after the proof he has given us of both, by
the wonderful discovery that he has made, that there are other animals
besides man, that have got two ears ; but I may, perhaps, be allowed to
call in question the propriety and good taste of making so prodigal a dis
play of his learning, just at present; especially, as learning is not al
ways logic. I am glad to see, that in one particular, my opponent is
improving. I refer to the use of foul names. It is true, he has not
given up the use of foul names, but he shows that he is beginning to be
ashamed ofthe practice ; for instead of calling me names in English, he
has begun to do it in Latin ; a language that few understand. It is only
right, however, that I should translate his Latin abuse. He says, " Ex ore
asinum ; " that is to say, " You may see that Barker is an ass, from his
mouth." Dr. Berg. — I said " Ex aure."
Mr. Barker. — I thought you said " ore."
Dr. Berg. — No, "aure."
Mr. Barker. — A great difference, truly ! He did not say that you
may know me to be an ass by my mouth, but by my ears. The one
is as bad as the other. Both are false, and my opponent knows it.
You may judge from the recklessness of his remarks on this sub
ject, what credit is due to his statements on other subjects. If he
will utter what he knows to be false, on these matters, he is not to be
trusted in any thing. (Hisses and applause. Some hisses came from
the platform.)
Wm. D. Baker, Esq., Chairman. There has been repeated disorder
upon this stage, and I despair of seeing the Moderators succeed in pre
serving order in the audience, when the signal of the contrary is given
from those who should set a better example. I have been privately ap
pealed to, to do my duty. My only duty is to keep order upon the stage
and keep silence, unless some question is referred to me by the Mode
rators. And I now wish it distinctly understood, that if there is any
further disorder upon this stage, I am not to blame. (Cries of " good,
good.") Mr. Barker.  The Doctor refers again to the punishment of children
for sins of their parents. He says that Nature and Scripture teach the
same doctrine on this subject. The truth is, the Scriptures teach oppo-

136 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
site doctrines on this subject. While one passage says, " God visits the
iniquities of the fathers upon the children," Ezekiel says, " This shall" no
more be a proverb in Israel, — ' The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and
the children's teeth are set on edge.' The son shall not bear the ini
quity of the father. The soul that sinneth, it shall die."
The natural laws, which cause the conduct of one man to influence the
lot of others, even of babes unborn, bears no resemblance to the deeds of
revenge attributed to God in the Bible. There is beneficence in the
laws of Nature : but none in the vengeful butcheries charged on God
in the Bible. And we can see good reasons why the laws of Nature
should be fixed, unvarying. If they were changeable, we should never
know what to expect. We should be at a loss how to regulate our own
conduct. The world would be all confusion. The race of man would
perish. As things are, we can calculate the results of our actions. We
know what deeds will cause pain or injury : we know what will yield us
pleasure or profit. We have no excuse for wrong doing, when we know
that it will injure both ourselves and others : we have no excuse for
neglecting to do right, when we see how it will benefit both ourselves
and our fellows. There is wisdom and goodness in Nature's laws ; in
many of the deeds attributed to God in the Bible, there is neither.
The doctrine, that God has cursed all the human race for the sin of
one individual, — the doctrine of the Bible, avowed in its most revolting
form by my opponent, that God has linked the misery, the present and
eternal misery of mankind, with the one transgression of Adam, — the
doctrine that God has condemned the majority of mankind to guilt and
misery here, and to eternal and unutterable torments in fire and brim
stone in hell, is the greatest blasphemy that tongue can utter. No one,
either on earth or in hell, whether man or devil, however malignant or
wicked he may be, could ever invent a blacker or more frightful blas
phemy. He says a father may punish a child, and that unless atonement is
made for the child, the father might continue the punishment eternally.
We answer, there are no such fathers on earth. If my son got into
wrong ways, I would try to bring him back ; and if I failed, I would give
him up, with tears. I certainly would not try to lengthen out his life for
ever, that I might eternally torment him. The cruellest father on earth
would not. My opponent's doctrine makes God worse than it is possi
ble for the cruellest man on earth to be.
But why does not our God suspend the laws of physiology, to prevent
the drunkard's sin from injuring his offspring? We do not believe in
any power to alter or improve the laws of Nature. The Bible represents
God as letting the children of Amalek escape for four hundred years, and
then rising to vengeance to cut off the whole race. There is nothing at all
resemb'ing this in Nature.
I have said that the tendency of the Scriptures, when accepted as Di
vine, is bad — facts prove it to be so. Everyi>eliever who is guilty of
adultery or polygamy, flies for shelter to the Bible. The Latter-Day
Saints justify polygamy, on the ground ofthe example ofthe Patriarchs,
and of David, and of Solomon, the wisest of men. I was reading, some
time ago, a Presbyterian paper, which declared there were some sins at

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 137
which God would never connive, and others,, which he would, in certain
circumstances, tolerate. He would not connive at idolatry, the paper said,
in any case ; but that he would at polygamy, concubinage and slavery !
Hence the paper argued, that idolatry was inconsistent with a state of
grace, but that polygamy, harlotry and slaveholding, the sum of all vil-
lanies, were not. And believers are right, if the Bible is right. And
yet these men cast the first stone at Infidels for immorality ! There is
no book, in the whole circle of literature, portions of which encourage
licentiousness more plainly than the Old Testament Scriptures, and there
is no form of licentiousness so gross, so extravagant, so boundless, which
it does not encourage. (Sensation.)
My opponent refers again to the discrepancies in the Bible. He says
some of them are trifling. What would he say of them if he found them
in the Mormon Bible ? I have no doubt, that if my opponent could find
as many and as glaring ones in the Mormon Bible, he would regard them
as triumphant demonstrations that that book was an imposture and fraud.
The Doctor speaks of Christ's character as one of unexampled moral
grandeur, as one exhibiting a combination of many good qualities, appa
rently opposite. Where does my opponent find the proof, that this won
derful combination of good qualities met in Jesus? In the Gospels, he
says. But the Gospels do not give the same character of Jesus that my
opponent does. Besides, where is the proof that the Gospels give the
true character of Christ ? The truth of the Gospel story has not yet
been proved. That Jesus was a sane, good man, we do not question ;
but that the accounts given of him in the Gospels are correct, we do not
believe. They cannot all be true. They contradict each other. The
Gospels give us two or three Christs ; or two or three different and irre
concilable representations of Christ.
We are told that Christ was unconcerned about his fame ; yet we read
that he inquired privately, with apparent anxiety, of his disciples, what
men said of him.
He prayed for his murderers ! But did no one else ever do so ? We
read of" cases in which good men forgave their enemies, and did good for
evil, long before the Christian era.
The Doctor tells us the rocks were rent at the time of his death on
the cross. Why take this for granted ? Why not prove it ? He can
not prove those things. There is no proof of them. In fact, there is no
proof that the Evangelists were the authors of the narratives which are
called by their names. There is proof, rather, that they were compiled
by pthers, and afterwards put under their names by ignorant or fraudu
lent men. There are chronological marks about some of them, which
show that they were not written by eye-witnesses,' but made up from
floating traditions. Hence the incongruities and uncertainties .of the
record. But Christ's character, as given in the Gospels, is perfect. We think
otherwise. There are sayings put into his mouth by the Evangelists,—
sayings to his mother and others,— which a perfect man would not, in
our opinion, have uttered. And actions are recorded of him, which a
perfect man would not have done.
My opponent should proceed more logically on a matter of such im-

138 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
portance. He should prove every point as he goes along. He should
tell us what goes to make up a perfect character. He should prove his
list and arrangement of virtues is complete ; that his idea of perfection
is the true idea. When he talks ofthe symmetry, consistency and elevation
of Christ's character, as given in the Gospels, he should quote passages
in proof of every thing, show that there are no passages which contradict
those he quotes, or defy us to produce such. He should then show that
no one, without superhuman power, could draw a picture of perfect
moral excellence. In order to do this, he should show that the character
of Christ had not been portrayed without supernatural aid. He should
show that no character given in the ancient or modern writings of the
heathen is perfect. He should show that the powers of man are not
equal to the task of imagining or painting a perfect moral character.
He should then tell us where he got his standard of perfection, by which
to measure or test the character given of Jesus in the Gospels. If he
has himself got a standard of perfect character, independent of the
Bible, he upsets his own theory. If he has not, he upsets it. For how
can he ascertain that the character given of Jesus in the Gospels is per
fect, if he has no measure, test, or standard of perfection, outside the
Gospels, with which to compare it?
My opponent talks as if he thought himself proving something, when,
in truth, he has not even prepared the way for proving any thing. His
work is yet to begin. But we will return to his speech.
What proof did he give us, that the character given of Christ in the
New Testament is his true character ? None.
What proof can he give, that the character of Christ, as given in the
Gospels, is a genuine, real, true character of any one ? None.
lt was drawn by people well acquainted with him.
Where is the proof?
But suppose it was, do people well acquainted with public characters,
all picture them truly ? By no means. Does not prejudice or passion,
love or reverence, often cause them to exaggerate ? Is it not common
with people to think more highly of their friends and benefactors than
they ought to think ? Does not affection often blind people to the faults
or failings of their friends, and throw a more than natural radiance about
their virtues and excellencies ? It does. Might it not be so in the case
of Jesus and his friends ? Where is the proof that it was not ? But
further, where is the proof that the portrait, given us of Jesus in the
Gospels, was drawn by persons acquainted with him ? There is no such
proof. There is proof to the contrary.
But the character of Jesus is so much above all that could be imag
ined in such a dark and vicious age, that it is impossible any one could
have feigned it, or painted it from fancy.
Has my opponent, then, found out how far the powers of fancy can
go ? The truth is, nothing is more common than for genius to imagine
and to picture forms and characters more beautiful than reality. The
painter, the sculptor, and the poet, all give us forms and characters more
beautiful and more perfect, than the real forms and characters in the
world around them.
Biographers and historians do the same. So far from it being difficult

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 139
to do so, it is difficult not to do so. It is a common complaint, that
writers of lives make the men they write about into angels. They drop
their faults, and multiply and magnify their virtues. They act on the
principle of saying nothing but good of the dead. The writers of
Wesley's life say nothing of his foolish conduct towards his wife. The
Quaker editors of George Fox's life, leave out such passages as appear
likely to lower him in the estimation of their readers. Our love often
blinds us to the faults or failings of our friends, even while they are liv
ing, but how much more powerfully does affection operate in this way
when our friends are dead !
Men are always imagining persons and things, and states of society,
better or more perfect than any that really exist. The earth never saw
a golden age, yet poets have often painted it. There are no real Utopias
on the earth, but- there are many such places in books. There are no
winged angels, perhaps, either on earth or in heaven, yet there are many
to be seen in pictures.
There is scarcely a poem, a biography, or a history, a novel, a
romance, or a picture gallery, which does not present fairer, more per
fect, more beautiful characters or forms, than are met with in the world
of realities.
Cannot malice paint a man blacker than he is ? Of course it can. It
can turn a poor creature, however innocent, into a devil. And cannot
love and gratitude paint a man fairer than he is ? Of course it can. It
can turn the most homely creature into an angel. And who will prove
that it might not be so-in the case of Jesus and the Evangelists ?
But remember, says our opponent, the character of Jesus was drawn
in a most dark and depraved age. But we happen to know better. The
age in which Jesus is said to have appeared, was more than usually en
lightened, and could boast of much superior virtue. You need only to
look into Roman and Grecian history to see this.
Besides, the beautiful portraits and exalted sentiments of superior men
of preceding ages had been presented, and the moral portrait painter of
that age had access to them. There were the beautiful sentiments of
poets and prophets — the exquisite portrait of the Patriarch Job, in the
29th and 31st chapters of the book that bears his name, and the unsur
passed expressions of moral truth, in chapter sixth of the book of Micah,
and elsewhere.
The facts that present themselves in refutation of the assertions of my
opponent, are innumerable. But it is waste of time to dwell on this
point. It will be soon enough to deal with the arguments of my oppo-
ent, when he has been so good as to bring them forward.
The Doctor says the Jews were expecting a temporal prince as their
Messiah, who was to raise their nation to dominion and glory ; while
Jesus spoke only of spiritual dominion, and glory and blessedness in
heaven, and promised his disciples only poverty, reproach, persecution,
and death. My opponent is greatly mistaken. According to the Gos
pels, Jesus spoke of" himself, at times, exactly as a temporal prince, and
promised his followers wealth, and honors, and dominion here on earth.
The Doctor will not deny that the disciples expected Jesus to set up an
earthly kingdom, I suppose. He will not deny that they quarrelled

140 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
among themselves about the highest places in his kingdom ? He
will remember what two of them said to him, according to the story :
" We trusted it was he that should deliver Israel, but now our hopes are
blighted." I suppose he remembers the question his disciples are said
to have put to him before he was finally parted from them : " Lord, wilt
thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ?" And finally, I suppose,
he will remember it is said, that when he parted from them, some of his
attendants cheered the disappointed office-hunters with the assurance that
their friend would come again, as they had seen him go away, and that
he is aware that the hope of his speedy return was the great support of
the early church.
And now for the words of Jesus himself, as attributed to him in the
Gospels. ,
1. In Matthew 6:33, he tells them that if they will seek the kingdom.
of God and its prosperity, all other things needed shall be added to them-
In Mark 10 : 29, 30, he says : —
" Verily, I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gos
pel's, but he shall receive a hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and brethren,
and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions ; and in the
world to come, eternal life."
In Matthew 19 : 28, he says : —
'* And Jesus said unto them, "Verily, I say unto you, That ye which have followed
me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye
also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Not a statement, then, of my opponent, will bear investigation. He
errs on every point.
But now let us take a somewhat different view of the subject. He
says the New Testament is divine. We ask for proof, and he gives us,
instead, a number of random assertions, not one of which will bear ex
amination. If he gives authorities, they fail him. If he refer to the
Gospels, they contradict him. He fails at every turn. ( Time expired.
Sensation.)

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.
(Applause.) When I said Ex aure asinum, I did not mean to say? that
my opponent was an ass, but that his arguments were foolish ; so that
his eloquent denunciation of personal attacks does not apply. I would
advise him, however, when next he has occasion to use the Latin lan
guage, to better understand its drift. My time was up just as I intro
duced Paine as a witness to the high moral character of Christ. But my
opponent denies Paine. I took it for granted that they stood in the same
catalogue, but it seems not. My opponent stands alone. He is the only
one among Infidels, I have ever heard of, who has no word of commen
dation for the character of Christ ; who thinks that character worthy of

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 141
no love or veneration. He overtops them all, and on that bad eminence
I leave him.
Mr. Barker. — I did not say the character of Christ was unworthy of
veneration. I believe it was worthy of reverence.
Dr. Berg. — Did he not attempt to impair the hold which that char
acter has upon every Christian ? (Applause.) All other Infidels con
cede that he was a good man. Will a good man lie ? No. Then Christ
spoke truth, and when he claims to be the Son of God, to work mira
cles, to save sinners, he claims no more than what belongs to him. Who
will call him good, if, under the guise of seeming virtue, he was all his
life endeavoring to establish a fable ? Would not this have been hypoc
risy ? But, by the concession. of my opponent's predecessors in the war
fare against Christ, it is admitted that he was entitled to the reverence of
mankind. They admit his truth, his goodness; they must admit his
claims, and thus they are pinned to the wall by the point of their own
sword. What has Christ claimed ?
1. He claimed to be a perfect teacher.
2. He claimed to set a perfect example ; to be the model man of the
race. 3. He claimed to be a perfectly sinless being.
4. He claimed that all men should love and obey him.
5. He claimed to work miracles, as no other man ever did.
6. He claimed that in him all the. prophecies of the Old Testament,
respecting the Messiah, were fulfilled.
7. He claimed that he would himself rise from the dead.
8. He claimed that he would ascend to the right hand of God.
9. He claimed that, as the Lord of heaven and earth, he would admin
ister the government of the world.
10. He claimed that, as the final Judge of quick and dead, he would
revisit this world in power and great glory, and mete out the awards of
eternity to all men — an eternal heaven to his friends, and an endless hell
to his foes.
Let him now escape, if possible. He must either denounce Christ as
an impostor, and retract the admission he has just made ; or denounce
his own attacks upon His character as slanders the most base, originating
with the father of lies. (Applause.) Let him choose which horn of this
dilemma he will take. Let my opponent answer. How could a good
man devote his life to uphold a moral government which my opponent
stigmatizes as unjust ? How could a good man pretend to work mira
cles ; to be the central object and end of all the prophecies ? Now, this
whole thing hinges upon the single question, was Christ sincere ? If he
was, and all these claims were not well founded, then, with all reverence
be it spoken, he was a deluded fanatic. If he was not sincere, his ene
mies are right in calling him a deceiver and impostor. If he was sincere,
a wilder hallucination is inconceivable. Think of all these claims !
Think of Christ proclaiming himself as the light of the world, and the
author of a new life to his followers ! Think of him offering to satisfy
the longings of the soul after immortality, calling aloud, " If any man
thirst, let him come unto me and drink ! " Think of him claiming to be

142 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
one with God, and that all petitions addressed to him by his disciples
should be granted. Think of the prediction of his death and resurrec
tion ; and then tell me if Christ was a sincere, deluded man. Where, in all
the wildest vagaries of human insanity, can aught be found that can fur
nish a parallel to this ? The very idea that Christ intended to deceive
is blasphemous. Bui this he must assert, as I have shown, or else aban
don his position. If he does assert it, will not every principle' of human
ity rise up in arms against the blasphemy ? (General applause.) Strike
down the image of Christ, and you destroy all future possibility of faith
in any indication of goodness. You may fill the air with pestilence,
disrobe the sun of his beams, and the calamity/ may be borne ; but oh ! if
you quench the light of Christ's virtue, you take from us the life of life
itself! (Renewed applause.)
I know that nothing is too sacred for an Infidel to asperse ; I know
that they are prepared for any atrocity ; but I would admonish my oppo
nent, in advance, to beware how he heaps obloquy upon the blessed
name of our King, Jehovah-Jesus, lest he who holds the breath of man
in his control, should let him know that there is a God in heaven, and
cause his blasphemies to freeze upon his lips. (Great applause.)
I proceed now to the consideration of the external evidences of the
divine origin of the Bible.
The great central object of the whole book, to which all parts of it
point with unerring sagacity, is, Christ. Of Him the New Testament is
written ; to Him the prophecies of the Old Testament point. In taking
up the subject of the prophecies, I intend to confine myself to about one
hundred, all of which refer directly to Christ, and all of which were lit
erally fulfilled, in His birth and mission upon earth. But, before pro
ceeding to the argument from prophecy, let me define the term. By a
prophecy, we mean the statement of some future contingent event ; in
other words, such a manifestation of knowledge as must be beyond any
human sagacity, and must necessarily imply an extraordinary revelation.
Now, here we have prophecies given one thousand years beforehand
concerning Christ, giving time, and place, and date, with most minute
particularity. My opponent may tell of his apparent contradictions, and
his solecisms, but if we find these prophecies fulfilled in the New Testa
ment in Christ, the conclusion is irresistible, that all my opponent's string
of objections is nothing but a rope of sand, which the wind will scatter.
(Applause,) God himself uses this very argument. Read from Isaiah 41 : 22 : —
" Let them bring them forth, and show us what shall happen ; let them show the
former things what they be, that we may oonsider them, and know the latter end of
them ; or deolare us things for to come."
Can Infidels do this ? Let them try. The challenge continues : —
" Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are
gods ; yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together."
Verso £to.
Why is not this challenge accepted ? We have the reason in the 24th
verse ; and let Infidels mark well its pungency : —
" Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought; an abomination is he that
enoosethyou."

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 143
Turn now to the prediction of the coming of Christ, immediately fol
lowing: —
" I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come ; from the rising of the
sun shall he call upon my name ; and he shall come upon princes as upon mortar,
and as the potter treadeth clay. Who hath declared from the beginning, that we
may know ? and before time, that we may say, He is righteous ? Yea, there is none
that showeth; yea, there is none that declareth; yea, there is none that heareth your
words. The first shall say to Zion, Behold, behold them ; and I will give to Jeru
salem one that bringeth good tidings. For I beheld, and there was no man ; even
among them, and there was no counsellor, that, when I asked of them, oould answer a
word. Behold, they are all vanity ; their works are nothing ; their molten images
are wind and confusion." — Verses 25-29.
My opponent talks of the oracles of the heathen as an offset to these
prophecies. But I defy him, in all the divinations of Pagan oracles, to
find a single parallel. They were destitute of dignity and importance ;
they had no connection with each other ; they related to no one object
of central interest, and seldom, if ever, looked into times remote from
their own. There is not a single token to show them genuine ; not a
single fulfilment of one of them given ; not an argument that can be
brought to save them from the condemnation they have obtained. But
all the Bible prophecies centre in Christ alone — in one person. The
central object to which they all point is, that Christ whom Christians
adore. Throughout the Patriarchal, the Jewish, and Christian dispensations,
they concur in a harmony and uniformity clearly revealing their divine
origin. The whole range of prophecy is of prodigious extent. It begins
with the history of the fall of man, and ends with the consummation of
all things. It was uniformly carried on in the line of one people, sepa
rated from the rest of the world, and made the repository of the divine
oracles, and it centers in one glorious Person, who, though spoken of as
" the seed of the woman," and the " Son of man," is still represented
as superior to angels and men — as far above all principality and power,
as the heir of all things by whom Jehovah made the worlds — as the
Son of God, equal with God, the express image of His person, and the
brightness of the Father's glory, one in essence, distinct in person, and,
with the ever-blessed Spirit, constituting the Triune God, who is over all,
blessed for evermore. Of such transcendent dignity is Jesus Christ
possessed. I proceed now to offer, hurriedly, a series of prophecies, all of which
met tlieir fulfilment in our Divine Redeemer. It was predicted that
Messiah should come. Four thousand years afterwards, he did come.
In ancient times, there were four monarchies in immediate succession ;
each one more glorious than its predecessor. It was foretold that Mes
siah should be born under the last. He was born under the Roman
Empire. It was predicted that he should come to the second temple.
He did come to the temple, and preached in it. It was predicted that he
should come before the sceptre departed from Judah. In the very year
of his birth, the Jews were taxed by Casar, as a sign that the national
independence had passed away for ever. ( Time up. General applause.
The large audience then quietly dispersed.)

144 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
SEVENTH EVENING.
REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
It may be well, before we proceed with the discussion, to review the
ground we have gone over. My opponent undertook to prove, first, that
the Bible is divinely inspired. He was to give us, first, internal evi
dence ; secondly, external evidence of this. Whether he has done so,
you are to judge. I do not, myself, recollect any proof he has given of
either kind. He has not even told us what constitutes internal or external
evidence. He has given us many assertions, but I cannot see that all he
has said furnishes materials to make an argument. However, I will not
dwell on this.
I undertook to show that the Bible is not divinely inspired, in the Ortho
dox sense. The Orthodox definition of divine inspiration is, such divine
aid as preserves the writers from error or mistake. To prove, then, that
a book contains errors or mistakes, is to prove that it is not divinely inspired.
I have proved that the Bible contains errors, that it abounds in them. I
have proved that it contains contradictions, — contradictions about God,
about duty, about matters of fact; gross, palpable contradictions.
I have proved that it contains errors in Geology, Astronomy, Meteo
rology, Botany, Zoology, Biography, and on every other great subject on
which it treats.
I have proved that it teaches a false and blasphemous theology, and a
low, a sensual, and a savage morality. In other words, I have proved
that portions of the book teach the most blasphemous and immoral doc
trines that ignorance or depravity could imagine. I have shown that in
no book can more decisive traces of a human origin be found, than in
the Bible. I have shown that the book not only contains no internal
evidence of a divine origin, but all possible evidence to the contrary.
We have shown that there is no external evidence of the superhuman
origin of the Bible. There cannot be external evidence of the divine
origin of a book which abounds in contradictions. What is called
external evidence, I have shown to be mere hearsay, — hearsay of the
most untrustworthy kind, — the testimony of convicted, of avowed, of
systematic, wholesale deceivers, — deceivers on principle.
I am not aware that my opponent has detected me in one error, an
swered one of my objections, or refuted one of my arguments. Nor am
I aware that I have allowed any thing put forward as an argument, or as
part of an. argument, to pass unanswered. So far, we have made good
our principles. We now proceed with the discussion. I was replying
to the speech of my opponent.
You heard from my opponent, that Paine regarded Jesus as a virtuous
and benevolent man, and the morality he taught as amiable and good.
If you were to read his writings, you would find many other good things
there. The priests are afraid of people reading them, lest they should
be converted by their sound sense and powerful argument. The reason
why they call him a drunkard, is not because he was one, but to prevent
men from reading his writings.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 145
One word more in regard to Paine's character. Does my opponent
think that to prove Paine a drunken profligate would be to prove the
Bible divine, or our views of the Bible erroneous ? If so, he must think
that to prove a professor or a minister of Christianity a drunkard or a
debaucbee, would be to prove the Bible false. And what would be the
result then ? We should have proofs by hundreds of thou sands. All
we should have to do, in that case, would be to name Bishop such a one,
or Elder, such a one, or Brother such a one, and the doctrine of Bible
inspiration would be overthrown. One of the most drunken and licen
tious classes of men in England, if not the most drunken, is the Metho
dist priesthood. You know the opinion entertained by Protestants of
the Catholic priesthood. Bad as it is, it has been, if is not even now,
too true. Jesus, according to the Gospel, spoke of the clergy as whited
sepulchres, fair outwardly, but inwardly full of all uncleanness. The
same is true of the clergy now, we imagine. But does this prove tlie
Bible merely human ? It does not.
A word about drunkenness. The Bible gives people liberty to use
wine and strong drink ; and we know how the use of such drinks gener
ates the appetite that leads to drunkenness. One passage even says: —
" Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine to him
that is of heavy heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty, and
remember his misery no more." (Prov. 2 : 6, 7.) And a man must
drink very freely to do that. Another passage represents Jesus as mak
ing wine for a marriage feast. The guests had finished what had been
provided by the host, and Jesus, according to the story, made — how
much do you think? — about one hundred and thirty gallons. This,
supposing the number of guests to have been about twenty, would be six
gallons apiece. (Hisses. Laughter. Cries of "Oh ! Oh ! ") A liberal sup
ply for men who had already drank what the host had provided.
Another passage says : " Drink no longer water, but use a little wine
for thy stomach's sake, and thy frequent infirmities." Is it to be won
dered at, that lovers of the Bible so often are lovers also of the bottle,
and slaves to intemperance ? Those passages are among the strongholds
of the drinking system ; and will be so, so long as the Bible is regarded
as divine.
Now, look at Nature as a guide in this matter. She utters her most
urgent protests against its use. The taste, the stomach, the brain, the
nerves, the muscles, all cry out against it. The burning throat, the
aching head, the heavy eye, the reeling brain, the subsequent depression
of feelings, all are God's voice speaking in man's nature against the use
of the destructive drink. Let men's attention be called to the voice of
Nature or of God ; let their minds be enlightened with respect to the
fearful ravages intoxicating drinks make when taken into the system,
and the use, the sale, the manufacture of the drink will cease through all
the abodes of man. Oar law, the law oT our nature, and the laws of
Nature generally, go unchangeably and for ever against intoxicating
drinks • and no man can name any excuse either for drunkenness or
moderate drinking, who is acquainted with them.
I grant, portions of the Bible speak against drunkenness ; but it does
not say what drunkenness is. (Hisses. Laughter. Cries of " Oh ! ") It

146 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
gives no rule by which a man may know when he is drunk. (Hisses.)
It allows people to use the drink in undefinable quantities, and drunken
ness naturally follows. - Our law is against the use of the bewitching and
destructive article altogether. A believer, therefore, in natural law, is
most inconsistent, if he drinks.
But let us not be understood as allowing the charges made against Mr.
Paine. In Paine's day, almost all drank. Paine was not an exception.
But he appears to have been more temperate than his neighbors, as un
believers generally are. (Hisses and applause.)
The Doctor says, I traduce the character of Christ. I do not. To
speak of a good man as imperfect, is not to traduce.
But I speak of it as not worthy of the reverence of mankind. I do
not. The character of every good man, and especially of every brave
reformer and philanthropist, is worthy of reverence, even if it should not
be free from imperfections.
He says, if Christ was a good man, he must have spoken the truth on
all occasions, and the claims he put forth must have been valid.
1. It does not follow. Good men may err.
2. Besides, there is no proof that Jesus spoke all that the Gospels rep
resent him as speaking. There is no proof to the contrary.
3. Apply the Doctor's reasoning to the case of Swedenborg. We
have the fullest evidence that he was a good man. He was, besides, a
philosopher. Yet the Doctor does not allow his claims. He claimed to
be inspired. He believed that God had granted him innumerable reve
lations. His revelations, too, were of a pure and benevolent tendency.
He even foretold future events, if testimony is worthy of any credit, and
read men's hearts. He knew what was taking place in distant lands, at
the moment it was taking place. There were none of the common indi
cations of insanity about him, but marks of the highest intelligence,
purity, disinterestedness, philanthropy, and even piety. For he was a
Christian, though a philosopher. All this is attested in a manner in which
the Gospel story is not attested. Yet we do not admit his claims. We
believe he was in error, to some extent. There were laws of Nature at
work in his case which he did not fully understand. His belief is super-
naturalism, his erroneous Christian philosophy, led him to misinterpret
his experience, and to put forth claims in behalf of his doctrines which
were not valid. It has been so with thousands. It might be so with
some of the founders of Christianity. But in their case, we do not know
what claims they put forth. In the case of Swedenborg, we do.
The Doctor says, Jesus claimed to be a sinless being, a perfect teacher,
a perfect example, entitled to universal obedience, a worker of miracles,
such as no other man ever worked, &c. We ask, 1. Where is the proof
that he put forth those claims ? The Gospels say so. But where is the
proof that the Gospels are strictly true ? Where is the proof that the
writers of the Gospels knew the truth on the subjects on which they wrote ?
2. Where is the proof that they were faithful witnesses ? 3. Where is
the proof that the Gospels have come down to us uncorrupted ? There
is no proof of any of these points. There is no proof to the contrary.
There are no good grounds for the common belief; there are the strong
est reasons for rejecting it ; reasons literally innumerable.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 147
I must either denounce Jesus as an enthusiast or impostor, says the
Doctor, or acknowledge him a Divine and supernatural personage.
Not at all. It is only necessary to suppose that he was a good, kind
man, a preacher of righteousness, to the best of his knowledge, and a
friend and benefactor of the poor, and all the rest can be accounted for,
without difficulty. We know how churches magnify and glorify their
founders, — how rapidly fabulous stories spring up about popular leaders,
even while they live, and how much more rapidly they multiply and
gather round the memories of the good and great when they are dead.
A thousand stories of miracles are in circulation respecting Father
Matthew ; and the number may be doubled after his death. Stories of
miraculous works are to be found in the Lives of Wesley, Bramwell, and
other Methodist ministers. These miraculous stories sprang up more
rapidly formerly, and multiplied much faster. It was so in every country of
antiquity. All the great men were miracle-workers, in the estimation
of the masses. The early histories of Greece and Rome are full of mira
culous stories, So are the ancient writings of other nations. In earliest
ages, men made their benefactors into Gods. In latter times, they were
content with making them into sons of God. Miraculous powers and
supernatural gifts were ascribed to them. Days were set apart for their
worship, and priesthoods established to attend to their interests.
All these things could take place in times of ignorance and credulity,
without fraud, or with comparatively little fraud. So it might be with
Jesus. It was enough, that he was a good man and a reformer ; a friend
of freedom and a friend of man ; an enemy of the priests and sectarians
of his day, and a stern denouncer of their false theology, their vicious
morality, and their deceitful, selfish, and intolerant doings. The love
and admiration of his followers, without any ill design, would make him
first a prophet, then a worker of miracles, then a being of supernatural
origin, or son of God, and even God himself. It was as natural for the
love and admiration of his friends to make him a God, as for the hate
and rage of the priests and sectarians to make him a devil. Both were
natural. When once exalted, all the rich sayings afloat in society, and all the
best maxims of antiquity, would be attributed to him, and mixed with the
traditions of his own sayings. Tales of miracles would grow as rapidly
and as plenteously as flowers in spring. Those tales of miracles and tra
ditions of his sayings, would in time be written down. The writers
might be no cheats. They might be as firm believers in the traditions
of the churches which they collected, as the churches themselves. One
writer would copy another, making such alterations as tradition or his
own conjectures might seem to require. The plain matter-of-fact writers
would compose such books as those of Matthew and Mark. The more
imaginative, would color his narrative, and give us such a story as that
ascribed to Luke ; while the dreamy, poetical, transcendental philosopher,
would produce such a gospel as that of John.
Mark, we do not say the canonical Gospels were produced in this way,
though we are inclined to believe they were ; but only that they might be
thus produced. The facts we have given, show that the representations
of Jesus, of his sayings and doings, found in the Gospels, might all be

148 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
accounted for, without either supposing that Jesus was a fanatic, or an
imposter ; or that the authors of the Gospel were wicked and wilful
deceivers. I am sorry the time is so short, or I could give a thousand
facts, (hisses and contemptuous laughter,) both from ancient and from
modern writers, as well as from the experience and observations of living
witnesses, in confirmation of this view of the case.
But how came the Gospels to bear the names of Apostles of Jesus, if
they were not composed by them ? We answer, how came the Apos
tles' creed, the Apostolical constitutions, the apocryphal gospels and
epistles to be called after the Apostles ? We answer : —
1. Books often get the names of men who are not their authors, where
there is no intentional fraud. It was thus in ancient times, especially.
But, —
2. At a very early period, fraud began to be practised in the church,
and that on a very large scale. Men wrote books without end, and gave
them out as the works of Jesus, Thomas, Nicodemus, or any one whose
name was in high esteem. Hence, a great number of Gospels appeared,
and a still greater number of Epistles. These pious frauds increased .
with amazing rapidity. Falsehood was held to be lawful, if it tended to
the praise and glory of God. To prove this, I need only quote another
passage from Mosheim. He says : (Here Mr. Barker's time expired.)

REMARKS OF REV- DR. BERG.
I am anxious to proceed in the positive argument, as the time is urgent,
but my opponent seeks to cover the real point at issue with such a web
of perversion, that I must needs brush it away. It is evident that he
begins to find that his reckless assertions and bold blasphemies are not
enough to make us attach importance to discrepancies which it requires
only a little candor to reconcile. In the revelation of his will to man,
God made use of men as his instruments, but he did not necessarily
change their fallible nature. The prophets and evangelists knew the
great truth they were charged to communicate ; they communicated that,
and circumstantial variations are no objections to the substantial truth of
their narrative. Thus, one passage states that Judas bought the field,
and another that the priests bought it ; but such circumstantial discrepan
cies occur in the ordinary life of men. My opponent, with his usual
unfairness, substitutes another question for the real one. The real ques
tion is, was the field purchased with Judas's money ? The case is wholly
different from the murder case supposed by my opponent. Let us exam
ine the three witnesses. Matthew, who was an honest man, and had
abandoned a lucrative business to follow Christ, first testifies. What
does he say ? Was the field bought ? Yes. " And they (the chief
priests) took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury
strangers in." What says Luke ? His testimony is given in the first
chapter of Acts : — " Now, this man purchased a field with the reward of
iniquity ; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his
bowels gushed out."

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 149
Now let me ask my opponent if, in the ordinary transactions of life,
property is bought with a man's money, he is not said to buy it ? Is a
man a liar for saying he nas bought a horse, when some friend or agent
bought it for him ? The field was bought by the chief priests, but it was
bought with Judas's money. The two witnesses state the same fact, with
circumstantial variation. The third witness, Zechariah, says he himself
bought it. "And the Lord said unto me, cast it unto the potter; a
goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces
of silver and cast them unto the potter, in the house of the Lord."
Zechariah 11 : 13.
Here is a clear and distinct prophetical enunciation of the fact, four
hundred years before it occurred, that the Lord was to be sold for thirty
pieces of silver, paid as the price of his blood. Was ever the fallacy of
Infidel blasphemy so glaringly apparent. (Applause.) The Bible, itself,
furnishes unanswerable arguments to his wretched quibbles and con
temptible sophistry. And so, when in one place, it is said that God
tempted David, and, in another, that Satan tempted him, there is no sub
stantial contradiction ; all that is needed to understand the passage, is a
little candor. David was lifted up by national pride to number the peo
ple. He was led away of his own lusts and enticed. Does not James
tell us, " Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God " ?
And so, to my opponent's objection, I answer that Satan stirred up
David, but that he was permitted to do so ; and, in ordinary language,
God is said to do what he permits. So my opponent's argument is scat
tered, as wind blows the smoke from the diamond. This may not satisfy
my opponent, but it will satisfy any one but he who is determined not to
believe. (Applause.)
My opponent speaks again ofthe foul names which I have called him.
I answer, that if the Bible calls certain things blasphemy, I must use the
term, (applause) ; and if he should undertake again to translate Latin, I
must express the hope that he will show some acquaintance with the
real drift of the language. As to his attack on the ministry, I should be
mortified if a single word of commendation had been bestowed on them
from lips which aspersed the blessed Savior. I know that they are not
perfect, but I should be sorry if one who spends his time in traducing
our Master should exempt ministers from blame. (Applause.) It would
be evidence that we did not resemble at all our Blessed Master ; if he
was called Devil, and Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils, what must his
servants expect ? Our office is that of ambassadors of Christ, and it is
our lot to be often called upon to answer these stereotyped calumnies.
He speaks of sordid motives. To this I might make a rejoinder which
would make even his boasted equanimity fail, but I can afford to be gen
erous. The pulpit of .this country is filled by men of talent, learning
and laboriousness equal to what is displayed in any other profession.
What lawyer, or physician, would be content with the average stipend of
the clergy ? That average in the United States is about $400 per annum-
(Applause.) What man in any other profession would think that suffi
cient pay? Sirs, I tell you, if temporal emolument, honor, and dollars,
were the sole inducements to enter this profession, there is not a man
deserving the name of minister who would not be as great a fool as any

150 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
Atheist that ever lived, if he did not abandon his calling on the spot!
(Applause.) But we look to eternity. We believe that this book is an
authentic revelation. We know it is the word of God, and if, by the
blessing of God, we can be instrumental in leading men to Christ, we are
repaid ; this is our joy and crown of rejoicing ! (Applause.) Reproach,
contempt, persecution, calumnies, and the intrinsic difficulties of our pro
fession ; distress, poverty, sometimes ingratitude, incident to our calling,
are honors which we wear thankfully. The Infidels say that we want
the fleece of the flock ! The Infidels say that Christ means us when he
says, " Beware of false prophets, who come in sheep's clothing, but in
wardly they are ravening wolves." These words go like drawn swords
to the heart of the Infidel. (Tremendous applause.)
Who are these wolves in sheep's clothing ? Who, but the men who
talk of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, when in their very souls they
know, and when the very language of my opponent shows that he
regards us as oppressors, who are to be put down,vhad they the power.
He and his associates would silence the voice of the pulpit, and hurl
every minister of the Gospel into the lowest dungeons of oppression and
contempt, if they did not consign them to the gallows or the lamp post,
as in those palmy days when Infidel republicans bathed their swords in
the heart's blood of all who would not pronounce their infernal Shibbo
leth. An Infidel, not one hundred yards from where I stand, was heard
to declare recently, on a public occasion, that the Reign of Terror was
a reign of terror only to priests and kings, but a reign of peace for the
people. Is this the heaven they promise us, when they get their much-
talked-of ascendency ? Once, in the cities of France, God did in judg
ment let loose the passions of Atheistic despisers of his truth, that they
might scourge with scorpions the nation that had despised his covenant.
Your Infidel reformers are the ravening wolves in sheep's clothing. Be
ware of them ! They come with honeyed words to tell you that they
are slandered when the right of the people to rule is questioned. They
are the friends of the dear people, and such were Robespierre and Dan-
ton and Marat, until the dear people, or what was left of them, paid back
the debt of charity, and sent the*bloody instruments of wrath to plague
their abhorred inventors.
He would have you believe that Infidels are the true republicans ; but
what kind of a republic is that, whose laws rest merely on human author
ity ? on human authority, too, in its most degraded forms ? He finds no
fault with us, so far as we advocate moral reforms, but our conservatism
he cannot endure. I thank him for that statement. Our conservatism is
one of the bulwarks of the land. It has contributed, with the conserva
tive statesmanship of the purest statesmen in the country, to save the
United States from the horrors of Infidel radical treason, with its long
train of internecine and servile conflicts and carnage.
Every true patriot will join in the prayer, that the pulpit may be pre
served from Infidel contamination, (applause,) Infidel machinations, and
Infidel mercies.
My opponent thought fit to take to himself what I said of the ten
dency of Infidelity to immorality. My remarks had nothing to do with
his personal character. If I should indulge in such remarks, I should

REMARKS OF DR. BEGR. 151
wrong myself; but I did mean to say, that the tendency of Infidelity is
to unbounded licentiousness. This he has not answered, and dare not
approach. (Applause.) But I find that he has not yet done with the
ark. (Laughter, and cries of u O, that ark ! ") He is not satisfied that
the persons on board could have attended to sixty-six animals in a sec
ond. Ridiculous perversion I In his random estimate of Hitchcock, he
seems to take him without the proof he requires for the Bible. (Ap
plause.) If he had one half the faith in the Bible that he has in
Hitchcock, he would at once abandon his Infidelity. (Applause.) I
have shown to you, by quoting Buffbn, that there were only between two
hundred and two hundred and fifty different genera of animals, and
it is not to be expected that Noah would act according to the modern
divisions in zoology. Noah had no opportunity to consult Hitchcock.
(Laughter.) Every body knows, that of monkeys, there is an intermi
nable variety ; but only two or three original types. Taking my oppo
nent's estimate of the number, there are one hundred and twenty thou
sand different kinds of insects. How long do you think it would take
Mrs. Noah to clean after them ? (Laughter, loud and renewed cheer
ing.) Then there are at least one thousand mammalia — well, the whale
is counted among these. And how many whales do you think Noah
had in his ark? (Great laughter.) I will settle this matter of Noah —
let my opponent laugh at it, as Noah's contemporaries did before him, but
I will make him drop it or send it to keep company with Solomon's seven
hundred wives and three hundred concubines. (Great laughter.). The
ark was four hundred and fifty feet long, seventy-five wide and forty-five
high, at the lowest estimate, and it was divided into three stories, of fifteen
feet each. But at another estimate, it would be nine times as large as
this hall, three and three-fourths its width, and fifteen feet high in each
story, from the floor to the ceiling. If it was not big enough to hold all
the different animals, even including the one hundred and twenty thou
sand insects, Noah was not so wise a man, nor as good a carpenter, as
he has been taken to be. Then, as to the elephants, would he not take
care to economise space by selecting young ones ? In this hall, there
are two thousand two hundred people, and if men occupied only the
same space in the ark, that vessel would have held fifty-nine thousand
four hundred passengers, with ample space to stow away provisions and
with ample accommodations. Take into consideration that very few
animals are larger than man, that the mass of them are smaller, that the
insects would be smothered in a small space, that the species of fish and
amphibious animals are not in the invoice, and the whole aggregate of
genera, by my opponent's own showing, amounts to only one thousand,
and most of them small. I cannot conceive where the difficulty is in
this Scripture account of the ark ; but I leave it here, having shown that
my opponent has dealt in blank assertions, and that his estimate is exag
gerated. He says that the Evangelists did not compose the Gospels, but that
these are patched up from floating traditions. Can he sustain himself by
thus making unsupported assertions ? Traditions ! No ! the Gospels
were written either by eye-witnesses, or good men, who had both seen
and heard them. Matthew was a friend of Christ, though he had been

152 DISCUSSION ON THE BtBLE.
a publican, had been in attendance on his person, sat as a disciple under
his teachings. Mark was the familiar companion of Peter, and proba
bly wrote under his direction. Luke was the friend of Paul, and a man
of learning and research, and on terms of confidential intimacy with the
Apostles ; besides, he was an eye-witness of many of the facts which he
narrated. John was the disciple whom Jesus loved, on whose breast he
leaned, in whose closest intimacy he lived. Did these men patch up
their story from tradition ? What need had they of traditions? If they
did, is it not a marvel that these four men, writing at different times, in
different places, should have stated the same truths with so much sub
stantial agreement and so little of circumstantial variety ? (Great ap
plause.)

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
The Doctor says Matthew was an apostle.
Dr. Berg. — No, sir, I said he was a disciple.
Mr. Barker. — I understood you to say apostle. The Bible says he
was. But where is the proof that Matthew was either a disciple or an
apostle ? Where is the proof that the Gospel which bears the name of
Matthew was written by a disciple of Jesus at all ? There is none.
The Doctor says Luke wrote one of the Gospels. If he will prove
that, he will have done something for his cause ? Will he try 7
He says God did not change the nature of the fallible men whom he
chose as instruments to write his word ; but that be preserved them from
error. The fact, however, is, as we have shown, that the writers of the
Bible fell into the grossest errors, and even penned the most palpable
contradictions. He talks of circumstantial variations again. I repeat, the passages we
have quoted are specimens, not of variations, but contradictions, errors,
immoralities, blasphemies, of the worst description.
He says the important question in the case of Judas is, whether the
field was bought. But where is the proof? There is none. If the fact
of buying the field was the only one of importance, why are all the
authors so careful to tell us who bought it ? Did they all go off into unim
portant matters just to make contradictions ? Whether the matters were
important or not, it was of importance, if they meant to be believed, that
they should not tell opposite tales.
He asks, If property is bought with a man's money, is he not said to
buy it ? We answer, No. It is only when the person authorises or
directs the purchase, that he is said to make it himself. If I lose my
money, and another finds il, and buys a field with it, no one would say
I had bought it ; soif I throw my money away, or give it to some one. It is

agent has bough.
him ? No ; but were the chief priests the agents of Judas ? Did they

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 153
act under his commission or instructions ? Prove that, and you have
accomplished something. The field was bought with Judas's money, my
opponent says. But that does not alter the matter. If the Doctor should
kill a man with a pistol, which another had lost, or thrown away, who would
have to answer for the murder — the Doctor, or the man who had happened
once to own the pistol ? A disputant is in trying circumstances, when
he can have recourse to such reasoning as this.
He says it is only a circumstantial variation ! We call it flat contra
diction. But God would not fall into the slightest error.
In quoting the passage from Zechariah, the Doctor left out a part, —
the part which shows that Zechariah spoke of himself, and not of Judas.
But Zechariah says nothing of buying a field. His words have no
reference either to Judas or his times.
My opponent says, God permitted Satan to tempt David, and that God
may be said to do what he permits others to do. This would make God
answerable for every crime committed, for he permits them all. This is
carrying blasphemy further than even the Bible carries it. But the
Doctor gives no proof that Satan tempted David by God's permission.
The Bible no more says so, than it says that God tempted David by
Satan's permission. The case is this : the Bible proposes to tell us who
tempted David. Who was it ? God, says Samuel. Satan, says Ezra.
Neither, says James. A threefold contradiction. Yet men are found
who call it a divine revelation ! The Doctor's attempt to reconcile these
contradictions of the Bible, shows how easy it would be, in any day, to
write a better book ; but that is not the Doctor's business. His task is to
prove the divinity of the book already written.
He says he hopes, if I should undertake to translate Latin again, I
shall show some acquaintance with the real drift of the language. Does
he mean to say I mistranslated his Latin"? I have never boasted of
learning. I have not even pretended to understand Latin. But if I can
not, in the estimation of competent judges, translate Latin, of any age,
as rapidly and as correctly as he, I will retire from the debate, and allow
him to bb proclaimed the victor.
To prepare the way for a discourse on the salaries of ministers, he
said I had charged them with sordid motives. I had made no such
charge. But if I had, I might have quoted his example in justification.
He has charged us with base motives repeatedly. Nay, more, he is
accustomed to charge the majority of the clergy with base motives. He
habitually charges the Catholic priesthood with sordid motives. How,
then, can he refuse the Catholics, or me, the right to charge the Protest
ant clergy with sordid motives ?
He says the wolves in sheep's clothing, alluded to by Christ, are the
men who talk of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity ! Are all, then, who
speak of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, wolves in sheep's clothing ? Must
people, then, to prove that they are not wolves in sheep's clothing, cease
to speak in favor of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity ? Does the Doctor
mean to say, that he never speaks in favor of Liberty, Equality, or Fra
ternity ? Are we to look for the friends of truth, and humanity among
those only who speak against Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, and in
favor of Despotism, and Injustice, Tyranny, and Cruelty ? If this is. the

154 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
rule by which we are to judge who are wolves, we must acknowledge
that the clergy will come off in triumph. It is certain enough, that there
are not many of them that can be charged with speaking in favor of
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, either in Europe or America. Any
number can be found who can speak in favor of Despotism, Tyranny,
Slaveholding, Fugitive Slave Laws, and man-hunting; but hardly two in
ten thousand can be found, that speak in favor of Freedom, Justice, and
Human Brotherhood. And even those two will be found to be denounced
by the rest, as heretics or unbelievers. It is too true, that the parties
chargeable with talking in favor of Freedom, Justice, and Humanity,
are heretics and Infidels. The clergy, every where, are the friends of
despotism, the props of tyranny. In Europe, they prop up autocracy,
monarchy, and aristocracy, with all their iniquities and cruelties. They
justify their blackest and their bloodiest deeds. It is the same here. An
American gentleman wrote a work, long ago, entitled, " The American
Church the Bulwark of American Slavery" — the worst, the vilest, the
most inhuman and atrocious form of despotism on the face of the earth.
If every one must be taken for a wolf in sheep's clothing, who cannot
cease to speak in favor of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, and begin
to speak in favor of Despotism, and Tyranny, Injustice, and Inhumanity,
let me be taken for a wolf in sheep's clothing for ever. (Applause.) I
do not envy my opponent the distinction he claims, for himself and his
brethren, of never speaking for Freedom, Equality, and Human Brother
hood. If he thinks it an honor, let him keep it. Such honors would not
sit lightly on us.
My opponent alludes to me as having said, that the reign of terror was
a reign of terror only to priests and kings, and a reign of peace to the
people. He did not hear my remarks, or perhaps he would have given
them more correctly. My statement was, that Thomas Carlyle had said,
in his history of the French Revolution, that the list of persons executed
during the reign of terror, framed with the greatest care, by a friend of
the suffering party, did not contain two thousand names ; that the reason
why the execution of this number made so much noise in the world,
was, that the victims belonged to those classes who had the means of
complaining, the means of making themselves heard, the classes which
had the command of the press, the pulpit, the tribune ; that two hundred
thousand might have been butchered or starved to death, and nothing
been heard of it, if they had been of the poor, oppressed classes, whom
it is customary to plunder and destroy ; but that the death of two thousand of
the rich, the aristocratic or privileged classes, makes all the pulpits and
presses on earth cry out. 1 also stated, that Carlyle had said, that look
ing back, for generations, no period could be found, when the people of
France at large, the thirty-five millions of the laboring classes, enjoyed
so much peace, or lived so happily, as during this reign of terror. I did
not vouch for the truth of this. I could not ; but I believe it to be true.
It at least shows that there are two sides to this celebrated reign of ter
ror, as well as to the French Revolution generally. There never was a
movement for freedom and right, either in Church or State, which the
priests and the despots did not slander and belie. To the charge of my
opponent, that we wish to hurl ministers of the Gospel into dungeons, or

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 155
hang them on the gallows, we can offer no refutation. When he speaks
of the past or the present, we can deal with him ; but when he takes his
flight into the future, we must let him go alone. We know who they
are that put men in dungeons, and plead for the gallows now ; and we know
who have distinguished themselves by slandering, imprisoning, torturing,
hanging, burning men for demanding freedom of thought and of speech
in the past ; but we have no prophetic powers to enable us to tell what
shall be in the future.
My opponent has had much to say about the comparative merits of
Christians and unbelievers, with respect to moral conduct, and the time
has come to discuss this point ; but as this is a delicate point, we shall let
the Christians bear witness of themselves and of each other. It is not
necessary that I should remind you what Protestant writers say of the
immorality, the deceit, the intolerance, the treachery, and the cruelty of
Catholics. Your Protestant books are full of these things. I will con
fine myself chiefly to what Protestant writers say of Protestants. I
refer you, first, to the testimony of Mr. Stephen Colwell, one of your
own citizens, a man in high esteem, as given in his late work, enti
tled " New Themes." He tells us that Protestants are the most cov
etous, the most devoted worshippers of wealth, to be found. No
where, he says, are competition, love of gain, love of power, the de
sire to rule, to domineer over others, so rife as in Protestant countries,
and in members of churches. Nowhere, he assures us, are the masses
more neglected, or worse treated. He assures us that none are so con
servative, so opposed to reforms, so set against investigations into the
causes of our social evils, or any plans for curing those evils, and rais
ing the masses of mankind to intelligence, virtue, freedom, independence,
and happiness. He places the men of the world, and even avowed and
notorious unbelievers, higher in the moral scale, than the Protestant
churches and the Protestant clergy. I cannot, at present, give his words ;
but I will give you them hereafter.
I will give you next, a quotation from the N. Y. Evangelist, a Presby
terian paper : —
" To the shame of the Church, it must be confessed, that the foremost in all our phi
lanthropic movements, in the interpretation ofthe spirit ofthe age, in the practical
application of genuine Christianity, in the reformation of abuses in high and in low
places, in the vindication of the rights of man and in practically redressing his wrongs,
in the moral and intellectual regeneration of the race, are the so-called Infidels in
our land.
"The Church has pusillanimouslj left, not only the working oar, but the very
reins of salutary reform in the hands of men she denounces as inimical to Christianity,
and who are practically doing, with all their might, for Humanity's Bake, that which
the Church ought to be doing for Christ's sake ; and if they succeed, as succeed they
will, in abolishing slavery, banishing rum, restraining licentiousness, reforming
abuses and elevating the masses, then must the recoil on Christianity be disastrous.
Wo, wo, wo to Christianity, when Infidels, by force of nature, or the tendency of
the age, get ahead of the Church in morals and in the practical work of Christianity !
In some instances, they are already far in advance. In the vindication of Truth,
Bighteousness and Liberty, they are the pioneers, beckoning to a sluggish Church to
follow in the rear."
I will read another quotation, from the N. Y. Independent, a paper of
the same denomination : —

156 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
" Among all the earnest-minded young men, who are at this moment lending in
thought and action in America, we venture to say that four-fifths ar"e skeptical even
of the great historical facts of Christianity.
*' What is told as Christian doctrine by the churches, claims none of*heir conside
ration, and there is among them a general distrust of the clergy, as a class, and an
utter disgust with the very aspect of modern Christianity and of Church worship.
"This skepticism is not flippant ; little is said about it. It is not a peculiarity
alone of the radicals and fanatics ; most of them are men of calm and even balance of
mind, and belong to no class of ultraists. It is not worldly and selfish. Nay, the
doubters lead in the bravest and most self-denying enterprises ofthe day."
It has always been thus. The clergy and their followers have
always been the enemies of reform and progress ; the friends of super
stition and tyranny ; the upholders and the advocates of absurd creeds,
bad laws, bloody punishments, unjust and inhuman institutions, and uncon
scionable slanderers and persecutors of the advocates of truth and reform.
But we will leave this subject for the present. We were speaking,
when we closed our last speech, of the. arts employed by the early Chris
tians, to bring men to receive their doctrine as divine. We wish to
finish our remarks on this subject. The falsehoods they propagated
were most extravagant ; the literary frauds they perpetrated were
unbounded and outrageous. They forged Gospels, Epistles, canons, con
stitutions, creeds, visions and revelations without number, and gave to
them the names of all the most celebrated characters. No man had left
an honorable name behind him, who had not forged revelations fathered
on him. The leaders of the Church encouraged these frauds. They
took part in them. They justified them. They taught that falsehood was
not only lawful, but praiseworthy, when used for the good of souls and the
spread of the Gospel. You shall hear the testimony of Christians on this
head. The following is from Mosheim, the ecclesiastical historian, whose
reputation for truth and candor stands high, both here and in Europe: —
" Not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and doc
trines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were prepared by persons, whose
intentions, perhaps, were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest super
stition and ignorance. Nor was this all : productions appeared which were imposed
upon the world by fraudulent men, as the writings ofthe holy Apostles.
" The Platonists and Pythagoreans held it as a maxim, that it was not only lawful,
but even praisworthy to deceive, and even to use the expedient of a He, in order to
advance the cause of truth and piety. The Jews, who lived in Egypt, had learned
and received this maxim from them, before the coming of Christ, as appears incon-
testably from u, multitude of ancient records : and the Christians were infected,
from both these sources, with the same pernicious error, as appears from the number
of books attributed falsely to great and venerable names, from the sibyline verses,
and several superstitious productions, which were spread abroad in this and the fol
lowing century."
Other passages of this kind might be quoted from this work in abund
ance ; but these are enough.
Take, however, the following, from another work of Mosheim : —
" But these few particulars [respecting the infancy and early life of Jesus] not
being found sufficient to satisfy human ouriosity, some artful, unprincipled characters
amongst the early Christians, had the presumption to avail themselves of the igno
rance and inquisiliveness of a credulous multitude in this respect, and, under the
pretence of illustrating this obscure part of our Savior's life, to impose on the publio
a compilation of ridiculous and nonsensical stories, which they entitled Gospels of
the infancy of Christ. "

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 157
Other writings were forged, in the names of Clement, Polycarp, Igna
tius, and many others. Some wrote books and sent them abroad under
the names of Noah, Seth, Abraham and Enoch. Others were forged in
the names of celebrated Gentiles. Books previously written were altered
to meet the wants of the priesthoods. Frauds overflowed the church like
a deluge, till a darkness like the fabled darkness of Egypt wrapped the
converted nations as in a pall, and chaos came again. Here, also, I
could give almost a wf rid of facts, illustrating my statements, and estab
lishing my positions. But time would not permit. These, however, are
sufficient to show the unsoundness of the arguments of my opponent,
built on the testimony of the. early Christians. His theory is but as the
vapor which the wind carrieth away.
I know the seeming arguments with which such theories are some
times propped ; but they are errors or frauds, from first to last. The
whole external argument rests on testimony, and the testimony on which
it rests is good for nothing. It is false from first to last — a world of
falsehood. The Ancients and the Moderns are alike in this respect.
None are worthy of trust. Begin with Horne or Watson, or the random.
writer from whom my opponent read so rapidly his pretended list of
prophecies ; or begin with Newton, Keith or Nelson ; and not a solitary
statement of any of them can be found which can be safely trusted. I
could give you hundreds of proofs, that the modern defenders of Bible
inspiration act as freely on the principle that it is right to use falsehood for
the good of souls and the defence of the church and the Bible, as the an
cient ones, though they do not find it convenient to avow the principle, as
their elder brethren did. Take an example. Here is Nelson, an Ameri
can defender of the Bible. His work is published by the American
Tract Society, so that the Orthodox churches and priesthoods are an
swerable for its contents. Yet its contents are a mass of falsehood,
much of it wilful falsehood. Take the following as an example. ,
In bis " Cause and Cure of Infidelity," Nelson quotes, or pretends to
quote, from Voltaire, as follows : —
" Men saw Isaiah waking, stark naked, in Jerusalem, in order to show that the
King of Assyria would bring crowds of captives out of Egypt and Ethiopia, who
would not have any thing to cover their nakedness. Is it possible that a man could
walk, stark naked, through Jerusalem, without being punished by the civil power ."'
Nelson then says : —
" What impression must this make on one who opened the book in search of sup
port of his system of Infidelity ? I had read the Bible and heard it read often,
(through necessity,) when I was young. I knew that many who read this would
think it true, and make their inferences without further examination ; but /knew it
false, and I knew that the author must have known its untruth. He knew that the
man without arms [weapons of war] was, and is called naked, in a military sense.
Armed troops, and naked troops, are terms in common use. No one means by this
stark nakedness, except those who choose so to understand ; and those who thus
choose, have something in their hearts which so actuates them."
Look at the passage referred to in Isaiah — it is in chapter 2jpd — and
see whether Isaiah speaks of literal nakedness, or of figurative naked
ness : —

158 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
" At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saying, Go, and
loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did
so, walking naked and barefoot. And the Lord said, ' Like as my servant Isaiah hath
walked naked and barefoot three years, for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon
Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and [the
Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks
uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.' "
It is not only plain that Isaiah spoke of literal nakedness, but that Nel
son must have known that he did. In making his charge of wilful
falsehood against Voltaire, he was himself guilty of wilful falsehood.
Voltaire had spoken the exact truth ; and Nelson knew it. A grosser or
more palpable case of wilful lying than that of Nelson's, backed by the
churches and clergy of America, cannot be produced.
This practice of using wilful falsehoods is common to advocates of
the divine authority of the Bible generally.
Take Keith on the Prophecies ; he not only falsifies history, but alters
prophecy, and actually makes Prophecy where there was none.
Take Simpson, Bishop Watson, and Mcllvaine ; they all belie the
writings of Paine, on points respecting which they could not be deceived,
if they ever read his writings. And to slander a man's writings on mere
hearsay, without reading them, is almost as bad as to slander them wil
fully, after reading them.
Then think of the worlds of pious fraud embodied in the histories,
traditions and legends of the Church of Rome. You can believe in the
infinite, unscrupulous, systematic deceit of the Catholics. The Catholics
can believe in the deceitfulness of Protestants. We can believe in both.
A most ignoble pair. Yet the testimony of those two profligate, per
jured witnesses, who call each other liars to the face, and damn each -
other to the eternal fires of pitch and brimstone, in the bottomless abyss,
is all the advocate of Bible inspiration has on which to rest his case.
We have, next, an appeal to prophecy. But observe, my opponent
should have done three things to make an argument out of prophecy, all
of which he emitted to do. He should
1. Have proved that the passages to which he referred were prophe
cies, and prophecies of Jesus.
2. He should have proved that the Gospel histories are real, true his
tories ; statements of facts.
3. He should then have shown that the prophecies were rea\\y fulfilled
in those facts.
He should have taken each pretended prophecy separately ; told us
where it was ; shown us that it really meant what he supposed ; then
carried it over to the fact supposed to be its fulfilment — shown us that
the supposed fact really happened as represented in the Gospel ; shown
that the fact and the prophecy correspond, and so in every case. But
this my opponent did not do. Perhaps he will try to do it. We will
wait and see. Till he has done it, he will have proved nothing more
than that he is very wishful to seem to prove something, whether he can,
in reality- prove it or not.
There are a few other points my opponent will do well to consider.
1. How prophecies sometimes fulfil themselves.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 159
2. How Christian historians make history out of prophecy. See
Mosheim. 3. How easy it is for people, with prophecy in view, to modify the
story of a man's life, so as to fit the one to the other, especially when the
man has long been dead.
4. He should also think a little of those passages which represent God
as employing/aZse prophets to deceive into belief of a false religion.
He says that Jesus sanctioned the Old Testament Scriptures.
We ask for proof.
We know of none.
We see proof to the contrary.
In the New Testament, I find errors gross and numerous. (Laughter
and hisses.) We have had proof sufficient of this^ We need no fur
ther proof than that certain parties in the audience can laugh and jeer during
a serious debate. I find in the New Testament errors in genealogy ;
the descent of Jesus is traced in two genealogies through Joseph to
David — each of the two contains different persons, and a different num
ber of generations, and both differ from the parallel genealogies in the
Old Testament. After so much painful labor to prove him of the seed
of David through Joseph, we are told that he was not Joseph's son at all.
We find errors in references to prophecies. Matthew tells us that
the child was called Jesus, " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child,
and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emanuel." A
curious reason for calling him Jesus, that the prophet had said he should
be called EmanueL
Again : Matthew tells us that Joseph took the young child and his
mother, by night, and departed into Egypt, and was there until the death
of Herod, " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord, by
the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." We waive,
for the present, the objection that Luke gives an account of Christ's in
fancy, which makes this visit to Egypt impossible. The words quoted
as a prophecy of Jesus are to be found in Hosea, but on looking at the
passage, as found in Hosea, it is found to be no prediction at all. The
words are, " When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son
out of Egypt." It is Israel that is spoken of. The calling out of Egypt
spoken of was past, not future. And so with other pretended predic
tions. Not one of those mentioned by the Dpctor makes mention of
Christ, or refers to him in any way.
There are similar contradictions in the history of the New Testament,
and as to its morality, we have shown that it inculcates the basest ser
vility to tyrannical government — places the wife under the despotic con
trol of the husband — and that it enjoins upon servants 1o be obedient
in all things to their masters, not only to the good and gentle, but even to
the froward. Worse morality could not be taught. (Time expired.
Hisses and applause.)

160 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.

REMARKS OF REV- DR. BERG.
I would thank my opponent, when he quotes me again, to quote me
correctly. I said Matthew was a disciple, though it is true he was also
an apostle.
I was just beginning, when my time was up, to show that it was im
possible that the Evangelists could have patched up the Gospel from
floating traditions. My opponent has proved, that, in the early age of
the Church, there were many spurious works in the world, purporting to
be the exponents of religious systems. He instances the book of the
Shepherd of Hermes. But what has the book of the Shepherd of Her
mes to do with the book of Matthew ? My opponent's business is not to
prove Hermes not true, but to prove Matthew not true. How does he
accomplish this end ? These books of Hermes and others are not true,
and, therefore, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not
true. Indeed ! Why, I might thus infer the falsity of the Bible from the
fictions of Don Quixote. What earthly need was there of these tradi
tions ? If the Evangelists did patch up the Gospel from floating tradi
tions, is it not a marvel that all four of them should, at different times,
in different places, and with no collusion or comparison with each other,
state the same truths with so much substantial agreement ? How will
my opponent account for this ? Will he impugn their motives ? Why,
interest forbade such a course of conduct. What did they gain but per
secution and temporal penalties ? Impostors do not covet such things.
The Evangelists suffered rebukes and tossings. Impostors never covet
them ; they covet wealth and power ; but the Evangelists lost all to fol
low Christ. They were honest men. Their lives prove it. They were
driven from their civil and social positions and possessions.
Is not, then, their record true ? It comprises all the details, either of
their own experience, or that of others, who, like themselves, had sacri
ficed every thing. The whole history of Paul, in connection with that
of Christ, gives an overwhelming argument for the truth of the Scrip
tures. Who was Paul ? After the straitest sect of his religion, a Phari
see ; a Hebrew of the Hebrews, caressed, honored, young, aspiring,
impetuous, of cultivated intellect, and skilled in all the learning of the
times. Behold this man turning from the open path of preferment, not
withstanding the entreaties of his friends ; abandoning the feet of Gama
liel for the feet of Christ'; seeking the society and confidence of the very
men he had hated and persecuted ; and counting all this sacrifice as less
than nothing, that he might win Christ, and be found in him. Behold
him devoting his energies with quenchless fervor to the task of promot
ing the Gospel ; proclaiming, in the very face of kings, priests, and Infi
dels alike, that Jesus was the resurrection and the life — the only hope of
men in life and death. What a stupendous change ! What wrought
this change ? The story is recited by Luke. And now, mark ! if he be
an imposter, (and he was, if this statement be not true,) how can my
opponent evade the point ? Let him explain how, every where, Paul
recommends devotion and practical benevolence ; how he sacrificed tem
poral good, and considered it of no account, in comparison with the love

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 161
of Christ ; how always futile were the blandishments and curses of the
world alike to win him from the way he had chosen. Would he, if an
impostor, (and he must have known that he was supporting a lie, if it
had been so,) have disappointed the hopes of his kindred, his own hopes
of preferment and distinction, have sacrificed his wealth and reputation,
to encounter perils by sea and perils by land, and perils among false
brethren, and to run the gauntlet through scourgings, and contempt, and
bonds, and go daily in danger of his life, to sanction a story which he
knew to be a lie ? Impossible ! He believed in fearful retributions
against the enemies of truth ; would he encounter them by systematic
lying ? He preached a high standard of morality and virtue ; he
preached the doctrine of justification by an imputed righteousness. And
let my opponent here mark ! neither he, nor any other Christian, ever
gave his enemies a warrant, by his example, to charge this doctrine with
being of licentious tendency. (Applause.) It is calumny. Here is the
brightest refutation, in the case of Paul, and of every other man who
walks by faith and not by sight. How can any man dare to call those
who regard these truths with love and reverence, fanatics ? Monstrous !
Infidels never, in their most presumptuous paroxysm of atheistic folly,
more utterly expose the rottenness of the foundation upon which their
system is built, than when they dare deny attributes thus stamped with
all that is genuine and noble in humanity.
When my opponent tells us how much of the Psalms, Proverbs, of
Job, and the writings of Paul, is pure and good, and yet insists that all
cannot make a perfect rule of faith and practice, and that we must study
the laws of human organization, I know not which most to admire — the
self-complacency with which he would allow us to infer that he could
make a better rule than this in the Bible, or the facility with which he
overlooks the laws of our organization, that govern the mind in determin
ing the weight and truth of evidence, or the blindness which compels
him, in spite of himself, to pay homage to the excellencies of men whom
he calls arrant fanatics. Surely, he will pardon me if I express doubt
of his qualifications to point to us a more excellent way than the pure
Word of God. We want something fixed and substantial. None of us
would be satisfied to take his vagaries for our guide ; for, alas! he is like
an unfortunate vessel which has lost her anchorage, and, without chart or
compass, is drifting upon the dark sea of speculation, blown about with
every wind of doctrine. (Applause.) Let him go on without this
blessed chart, in the study of his organization, while his vessel is set
tling in the dark waters, and, shortly, he will have to take a leap in the
dark, and, we fear, like the unfortunate Hobbes, into the dark. He says
he has no fear. He would gently correct his own child, and God is not
more severe with his children. Very well. Yet it scarcely comports
with his assertion of the other evening, that God never forgives sin.
Still, I forgive this lapse of memory. He has said so many absurd
things, that it would hardly be generous to insist upon convincing him
on them all.
He ridicules the idea of our question — How do you know there is no
devil ? Is his ipse dixit enough to make us ignore his existence ?
My opponent put words into my mouth that I never used. He makes

162 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
me charge God with all the sin of the world, because I asserted that he
permitted David's sin. I made no such assertion. God is not the author
of sin, and to make, such a charge is blasphemy. My opponent's prin
ciples are abhorrent, for this very reason. God is not the author of sin,
though he permitted Satan's fall. God does not make passive machines.
Both men and angels are responsible for their actions, and will for ever
be responsible.
My opponent referred to the dark ages. What made them dark, but
the quenching of the holy light of the Scriptures ? Let Infidels cover
the candle of revelation with their bushel, and see how long a time will
elapse before a dark pall of horror covers the land, and thick darkness
falls upon us.
My opponent accuses me of passing hurriedly over a list of prophe
cies, without proof. He knows that but a few minutes remained to me, and
I only pretended to give a list, intending to recur to them again. Let us
now look at the first of them : — " But thou, Bethlehem-Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall
he come forth unto me that is to be the Ruler in Israel ; whose goings
forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2. Go now
to the fulfilment of this prophecy: — "Now, when Jesus was born, in
Bethlehem of Judea." Matthew 2:1.
Will my opponent say that this has no reference to Christ ? To whom,
then, has it reference ? It is not predicted that Jerusalem, the capital,
and the place most likely to be selected by a human oracle for the birth
of Christ, shall be the honored spot. But Bethlehem, a little obscure
country village is specified. Christ was born at Bethlehem, and that, too,
by a series of very peculiar providences.
We go now to the second we shall instance: — "Rejoice greatly, 0
daughter of Zion ; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem ; behold thy King
cometh unto thee ; He is just, and having salvation ; lowly, and riding
upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass." Zechariah 9 : 9.
In the twenty-first chapter of Matthew, from the first to the twelfth
verse, we find the literal fulfilment.
It was prophesied that he should be betrayed by an intimate friend.
And was he not ? Read that beautiful Messianic ode, the 19th Psalm,
and then compare with Matthew 26 : 47.
The prophecy of Zechariah concerning his price — the thirty pieces
of silver — you have become familiar with in the course of this discus
sion. Compare Isaiah 59 : 9 — "Therefore is judgment far from us,"
&c, with the whole history of his crucifixion. Were not his condem
nation, suffering and death, all under color of justice ?
Isaiah, in his fifty-third chapter, speaks almost as if he were an eye
witness, writing the history of Christ, instead of a prophet foretelling his
sufferings. Was he not scourged ? Was he not smitten on the face ?
Was he not befouled with spittle ? Was he not wounded in his hands
by his own countrymen ? Who can fail to see the literal fulfilment of
these predictions ? Who can have the hardihood to say that no manner
of evidence can be adduced from prophecy — that no single fact of real
prophecy was fulfilled ? An assertion more monstrous, it would be im
possible for even my opponent to make.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 163
" He was numbered with transgressors." He was crucified between
two thieves. " He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in
his death." He was buried in the sepulchre of the wealthy Joseph of
Aramathea. How can these be mere coincidents ? Will my opponent
venture to tell us any thing, not of the most ordinary occurrence, that
shall happen to-morrow ? Will he risk his reputation by any such ordeal ?
I know of none more tremendous to which the Bible could have been
subjected. When we find Christ's coming and whole history recorded
just at that point of time when Daniel's seventy weeks had expired, and
many other prophecies fulfilled at that juncture, we must argue that men
are inexcusably blind to reject this testimony ; testimony to the truth
which the God of heaven has stamped upon this holy Book, showing
things that are to come, and that Christ is the Messiah. (Tremendous
cheering. Time up.)

EIGHTH EVENING.
REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
All I ask is a patient, and, if possible, a candid hearing. I am not con
scious of having done or said any thing in this debate to provoke ill-feeling,
or to forfeit my claim to a hearing. Nor have I any disposition to do so.
As is necessary in such a debate, I shall speak my thoughts and feelings
with great plainness, and with all freedom, but nothing further. If the
audience can bear with me I will be glad ; if, however, any should find
it impossible to govern the expression of their feelings, I shall not be in
clined harshly to censure them, for I remember the time when I should
have been less likely to govern myself than at present.
The subject of discussion is, 1. The origin of the Scriptures, as indi
cated by internal and external evidence ; and, 2. Their tendency, when
accepted as of Divine authority. The debate has turned almost wholly on
the first topic, while the tendency of the Scriptures, when accepted as a
revelation from God, has been touched upon only incidentally. , I pro
pose to speak of it at some length, after noticing some of the Doctor's
remarks on the last evening.
The Doctor says that it is impossible that the Gospels could have been
written from traditions. Now, if he will prove it impossible, he will have
done something for his cause. Till then, he will allow us to believe that
nothing could be easier or more natural.
Does it follow that the Gospels are untrue, because the Shepherd of
Hermes was a forgery ?
No • but the fact, that the early Christians forged so many books, and
that the Fathers of the Church encouraged such frauds, destroys the
worth of their testimony. And we have nothing but the testimony of
those forgers and false witnesses in favor of the genuineness and truth-

164 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
fulness of the Gospel. And when the foundations are destroyed, the
building falls.
But would the writers have stated the same matters with so little varia
tion and so much agreement, if they had written from traditions ? We
answer, the Gospels are just such writings as we should expect from such
a source. What did the disciples gain by following Christ ? We know what
Jesus promised them, and what they expected, according to the Gospels ;
namely, thrones, empire, wealth and glory.
The Evangelists were honest men ; and if so, their record must be
true ; for they spoke of their own experience. But the Doctor has yet to
prove that the writers give us their own experience. He has yet to
prove that the Gospels were written by the persons whose names they
bear. But think of Paul, says the Doctor, converted, and embracing Christi
anity, under such peculiar circumstances.
- But the Doctor must first prove, that Paul was thus suddenly converted,
(hisses ;) and second, that he was a man of so much judgment and sound
sense as he supposes ; and lastly, that men of judgment and sound sense
have never been converted to false religions, by imaginary visions or
voices — none of which can be proved; the opposite can be proved.
The history of Southcoteanism, Millerism, Swedenborgianism, Mormon
ism, and Irvingism, have taught us lessons on these subjects.
Could Paul have written and lived as he did, if he had been an im
postor ?
It is hard to say how impostors may write and live. (Cry in audience,
" It is, it is." Laughter and hisses.) But we are not supposing Paul
to have been an impostor. He might be deceived. But how are we to
know how Paul wrote and lived ? My opponent takes for granted what
he ought to prove.
Would Paul have encountered the hell threatened to liars, by telling
falsehoods ?
My opponent should understand that Christians distinguish between
lying, and using falsehood for the good of souls. They contend, that to
deceive people for their good, and the cause of God, is not lying. (Hisses.)
Paul taught the doctrine of justification by the imputed righteousness
of Christ.
He did no such thing.
The Doctor says I have the self-complacency to think that I could
give a better rule of life than the Bible.
The Bible gives opposite rules of life. No one could well give a
worse rule than one ; and it would be no great matter to boast of, to be
able to give a better than its besfc (Hisses.)
But I do not understand the laws of evidence 1
He is mistaken. I understand his laws of evidence very well ; but
they are bad ones.
But they want something fixed as a rule of life.
Then they must go somewhere else for it. The Bible furnishes no
fixed rule.
I am to take a leap in the dark, the Doctor says, and into the dark.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 165
Well, 1 hope the Doctor will allow me to take my own time for it.
But we think we are not quite so much in the dark as the Doctor.
Our God never forgives sin, he says. True, but he does what is bet
ter. He punishes us so as to cure us of sinning. (Hisses.) He says
God is not the author of sin. But he must be, if he does what he per
mits to be done. i
The darkness of the middle ages was caused by quenching the light
of the Scriptures, says the Doctor. Were the Scriptures, then, unable
to keep themselves from being extinguished ? Strange light of the
world. But who quenched their light ? Those who had them ? Then
what comes of your argument, that those who have the Scripture^
are better people than others? And pray, what enlightened the world,
when the light of the Scriptures had been put out? The truth is, we
are indebted for the preservation of the Scriptures, to the light and virtue
which exists in human nature, independent of the Scriptures. If it were
not for the Infidels, as they are falsely called, the light of the Scriptures
would be extinguished again. (Great hisses.) The Priests and Churches
invariably put out its light when they can. It is the darkness of the
Scriptures they want ; it is we who prize its light.
We had next a repetition of his pretended prophecies ; but did not the
Doctor see and feel, that he was taking for granted the points to be
proved ? He should have proved,
1. That the passages he quoted were prophecies of Christ. But this
he never attempted. He would have failed if he had. Not one of them
so much as mentions Christ. Many of them are no prophecies at all ;
and none of them can be proved to refer to Christ.
2. He ought to have proved, next, that what he calls the Gospel facts
are facts. That he did not do. It can't be done.
3. He should have proved, next, that the alleged prophecies and alleged
facts agreed ; but even this he did not do.
But it is easy for a man who writes a life from fancy and tradition, to
adapt the story to alleged prophecies. It is natural, also, for supposed
prophecies to generate fables, and cause them, in time, to be mistaken
for facts. Christians have followed the business of making history out
of prophecies, and prophecies out of nothing, for eighteen hundred years.
The business is not so good now, but it is still carried on.
The Doctor says I rely on Professor Hitchcock's testimony about the
deluge. No. We merely quote the Professor as corroboratory, because
he is a Christian. All modern geologists, so far as I am acquainted with
their works, give the same testimony.
He says, I fled to commentators to support my view of the passage in
Job 19. I did two things. I said the passage in Hebrew does not say
what the translators make it say ; and that in saying this, I am borne out
by many commentators.
I now come to the influence of the Bible, when accepted as the re
vealed word of the Creator. And here, I will not go for evidence to In
fidel writings, or appeal to Infidel prejudice, but will take the testimony
of Christians themselves. My first quotation is from John Wesley, the
founder of the Methodist Church. He says :—
J2 -

166 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
" The Reformed Christians in Germany and France, in Sweden, Denmark, Hol
land, in Great Britain and Ireland, are far beneath the heathens, even far beneath
the inhabitants of China and Hindostan, in justice, mercy, and truth.
' For we, who by Thy name are named,
The heathen unbaptized outsin.' "
[Vol. 9, p. 216.
Again he says : —
" Historians, indeed, tell ns, very gravely, of nations, in every century, who were
converted to Christianity. But, still, these converts practised all kinds of abomina
tion, exactly as they did before ; no way differing, either in their tempers or in their
lives, from the nations that were still called heathens." — Vol. 9, p. 215.
And again : —
" We learn from Tertullian, that in the second century, ' not only the tempers of
the Christians were exactly the same with those of their heathen neighbors, but
their lives and manners also ; pride, passion, love of the world, remaining alike in
both.' "—Vol. 9, p. 213.
There are stranger passages still, in Vol. 12, p. 223. Take the fol
lowing: —
"Now, what can an impartial person think concerning the present estate of religion
in England ? Is there a nation under the sun, which is so deeply fallen from the
¦wery first principles of religion 1 Where is the country in which is found so utter a
disregarded to even Heathen Morality ? Such a thorough contempt of justice and
truth, and all that should be dear aad honorable to rational creatures i What species
of vice can possibly be named, even of those that nature itself abhors, of which we
have not had, for many years, a plentiful and still increasing harvest ? What sin
remains, either in Rome or Constantinople, which we have not imported long ago,
(if it was not of our own native growth,) and improved upon ever since ? Such a
complication of villanies of every kind, considered with all their aggravations ; such
a scorn of whatever bears the face of virtue ; such injustice, fraud and falsehood ;
above all, such perjury, and such a method of law, we may defy the whole world to
produce. What numbers of those who profess religion, confute their profession by
their practice ; yea, and perhaps by their exhorbitant pride, vanity, coveteousness,
repaeiousness, and oppression, cause the very name of religion to stink in the nos
trils of many, otherwise, reasonable men ? "
As this is a delicate subject, rather than say any thing myself, I will
state the conclusions to which one of your own citizens, an Orthodox
Christian, has arrived, on the same subject. In his " New Themes for the
Protestant Clergy" Mr. Stephen Colwell expresses the following opin
ions : —
The Church forbade all freedom of thought or speech, extinguished all
thirst for knowledge, and all independence of soul, and made men its slaves.
— pp. 89, 90, of "New Themes for the Protestant Clergy."
The craving for power is more eager in priests than in politicians. Its
exhibitions are more hateful and mischievous in every thing concerning
religion. The thirst 'for power, the rage to govern, infects every reli
gious denomination ; it reaches to-every thing in men's conduct, and every
thing in their opinions. ^ — pp. 99, 100.
The contest between Protestants and Catholics, at the reformation, was
the most remarkable for fierceness the world ever witnessed. Rome ex-
¦erted all her power and all the unscrupulous wickedness of interested
dignitaries. In this^contest, Charity had no part. — p. 109.

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 167
The Church forged fetters for the world, which held men in bondage
for a thousand years. — p. 118.
_No selfishness is so intense us that which prevails in Protestant coun
tries. This is their chief characteristic. In the contest for wealth, every
possible human effort is exerted. — p. 124.
The Protestant ministry plunges into the stream. — p. 126.
The clergy of the Church of England embezzled all charities — per
verted them. They robbed the poor of many millions a year. They
pay not the slightest regard to the trusts reposed in them. The Protest
ants worse in this respect than the Catholics. The English Bishops
waste millions a year, of wealth given to the poor, while the poor, to
whom the wealth was left, starve in their presence. — pp. 140, 1.
The English Church, from the first, took the treasures from the poor,
then left the poor to the World. — pp. 141, 2.
Many thousands were hung in the reign of Henry VIII., for being un
employed, or idle poor. They first robbed, then gave the poor the bad
name of vagabond, then hung them. — p. 143.
The Church of England, for three centuries, has. shut her eyes from
beholding, shut her ears from hearing, and withheld her hands from
removing the woes of ten generations of increasing millions of suffering
poor. The State has reduced the treatment of the poor to a system,
which has since been adopted for criminals. — pp. 143, 4.
The poor are regarded as a burden on society, to be got rid of by any
course short of murder. A clergyman, Malthus, wrote a book to dis
countenance charity — to encourage people to let the poor starve, &c.
— p. 151.
Inhumanity can go no further.
Other Christians have not taught or practised the precepts of charity.
—p. 154.
They exhibit all manner of uncharitableness in their bearing towards
each other. — p. 154.
Full of self-righteousness.
Do nothing even to raise the poor to a state in which they can live by
their. labor. — p. 160.
Mr. Colwell can find no traces of any great movement among English
Christians to redeem the poor from their helpless bondage. — p. 160.
They do not even preach the gospel to the poor. — p. 161.
The labor of Great Britain absorbed by a comparatively few. The
producers of wealth left to starve. — p. 167.
Scores of churches surround us, mutually repelling and attacking
each other, and presenting a scene of strife, jealousy, animosity, and
evil-speaking, with scarce a parallel for virulence, — p. 176.
The bitterness of division only increases as the differences between
them become less. — p. 177.
Each sect rent by internal feuds. — p. 177.
Many of them convulsed to their centres, or blown asunder by explo
sions of strife and evil passions, which would be a disgrace to a civilized
people. — p. 177. .
Where Protestantism prevails, a hard and unrelenting selfishness, a
devotion to Mammon never before equalled, a grinding competition in all

168 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
the pursuits of life, a race for wealth and power in which the multitudes
are distanced by a few, who become masters, and wield their power with
unpitying severity ; a scene of strife, of endless divisions, of hot discus
sions about trifles, of sectarian rivalry, in which every element of evil
mingles, often without even a spice of human kindness. — p. 183.
The Clergy. — The frailties of human nature have been as apparent
among them as others. They have shown themselves as susceptible to
temptation. — p. 203.
The charge of a pastor has grown to be an affair of business, not a
mission of truth and mercy to the poor. Their discourses are not ad
dressed to the poor, but to the owners of the churches. — p. 215.
In what Protestant country are the clergy regarded by the mass of the
poor as their special friends ? In what country do the poor receive from
ministers or bishops, as such, any evidences of special regard, temporal
or spiritual, beyond what may be dictated by, and subserve the interests
of, such ministers and bishops themselves ? — p. 224.
In Protestant countries, trie wrangling disputes and uncharitable bear
ing of the various ohurches, carry disgust and dislike wherever they are
witnessed. — p. 260.
Mr. Colwell holds the following opinions of

INFIDELS AND MEN OF THE WORLD.
" Unbelievers do not dislike or despise Christians for the good that is in them, but
the evil. It is worthy of special remark, that the exercise of charity, of brotherly
love, of humanity, embracing those duties which Christians most overlook and neg
lect, are the very duties in which Men of the World are most willing to engage and
carry on independently or in company with Christians. It is further to be noted,
that very many of the benevolent and Christian enterprises of the day are, in fact,
more indebted to the liberality of men not professing to be Christians, than to those
who are. In those very departments in which Christians are most deficient, Men of
the World are most efficient, — most inclined to act. The strict moralists of the
world feel that their own conduct, even in what they deem Christian virtue, is so
much superior to that of professed Christians, that they cannot reverence the Christ
ian religion." — p. 265.
" It is a fact worthy of note and careful reflection, that many^f the most zealous
friends of humanity have either been Infidels, or have shown a strong bias in that
direction. We refer not to those who are merely seeking political reforms ; but to
those who apparently desire to go deeper, and effect more radical changes for the bet
ter in human condition. To go no further back than Paine, a long list of men might
be found, whose zeal for humanity made them Infidels, or whose Infidelity begat
their zeal for human welfare. They were looking for something to be accomplished.
They find Christians arrayed against their plans, and they array themselves against
Christianity. There is an appearance as if Infidelity were on the side of human
well-being, while Christianity stands up in defence of ancient abuses, oppressive le
gislation, and social enormities. Is it so, that those who set themselves to examine
existing institutions and the evils which afflict humanity, are brought to the con
clusion, that Christianity is one of the chief barriers to progress in the path of
charity and sooial well-being i" — p. 268.
" One-third of mankind are rich, or in easy, comfortable circumstances, and resist
all great changes. They are conservatives. And it so happens, in Christendom,
that thiB happy third consists of the priesthood, the noble3, public officers, gentry ,
and men of wealth." — p. 270.
" In chartism, in democracy, in socialism, there is not necessarily any ingredient of
Infidelity ; and yet, in fact, we find them, to a large extent, traveling together ; be-

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 169
cause Christians, ns such, and those who pretend to be such, have, without just dis-
cnmination, opposed every movement of reform, ns dangerous tosooiety." — p. 272-3.
" Religion and its institutions constitute a very effective power. This power is
abused both positively and negatively, by what it does and what it prohibits being
done ; it is efficient of evil and repressive of good.
.'' 1]llose. holding and wielding this power have always been inclined, not only to
stifle inquiry into abuses, (which might, expose them,) but also all free expression of
opinion, which might, in any way, bring the validity of their dogmas in question. It
was easier for them to sit tranquil in their places, and hold men to one track, of
thought, than to examine and try the soundness of positions as fust as they might
be advanced. This power for repression of truth and all disturbing investigations,
we find freely exercised. Thus, the Catholic opposition to the astronomical discov
eries of the middle ages. Thus, the modern opposition to the conclusions of geology ;
and thus, the almost universal opposition among rigid churchmen and the severely
Orthodox, to all free inquiries into human condition, the rights and wrongs of the
poor, and into the great problem of proper security for human labor. These sub^
jects are proclaimed to be ground which free inquiry should not touch ; ground with
in the domain of religion, and, therefore, not to be touched but by holy hands. Yet
these same persons do not so much as touch these subjects with their little fingers.
They do not enter in themselves, and they would fain prevent others from entering."
— pp. 27, 29.
" The worst, the most inhuman book on the treatment of the poor ever published
— the most inhuman book possible — was written by a clergyman, Malthus. The
answer, the indignant, crushing answer to that book, was from an Infidel, W.
Godwin." So much for the opinions of Mr. Colwell, respecting Christians and
Infidels. And here let me interpose one remark, in regard to the alleged
unwillingness of Christians to hear any thing said against their views. I
take it for granted, that in the present discussion, their object is to turn
Infidels into Christians. If so, they should and will observe such a calm
deportment, as will show that they are convinced that any thing like free
discussion will always turn out in their favor. (Mr. Barker had begun to
state a few things his opponent should prove, when his time expired. As
he repeated them in his closing speech, they will be found there. As he
took his seat, there were a few hisses.)

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.
(Applause.^ My friends will oblige me by endeavoring to listen with
as much calmness as they possibly can. I ask this as much on my
opponent's account as on my own. For the last two weeks, I have been
weighed down by the pressure of intense excitement, and my physical
system is now beginning to feel it.
You will hardly expect an extended reply to the assertion of my oppo
nent, that Christians make a distinction between lying and using pious
frauds for the good of souls, and that they do not call the latter lying at
alb A baser slander was never uttered by any man, be he called Infi
del, or any other name. (Applause.)
My opponent asks, Are those who have the Scriptures any better than
others ? No ! unless they use it, and practice what il teaches. I do not
believe that any society of Christians ever taught, that the mere posses
sion of the Scriptures, without the practice of its precepts, saved the soul.

170 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
When you produce to me a man, who makes the Bible his rule of faith
and duty, I will show you a man, who, in all the relations of life that he
can" possibly sustain, is an upright man before God and men. (Applause.)
My opponent speaks of pretended prophecies. Has he proved that
they are pretended ? Does he forget that the burden of proof is on him ?
Where is the evidence that they do not mean what we hold as their
meaning ? Let him prove that they are pretended. (" Good." Applause.)
Let him show us how he will get over the distinct enunciation of his
birth. Let him show how it could possibly be known beforehand, that
he would be born at Bethlehem. Let him show, how, at the very period
ordained by God, he was, born at Bethlehem. Let him show all the pre
dictions of his birth, his life, his sufferings, his death, are all fulfilled in
the history. Let us hear him explain these coincidences.
My opponent has shown the same want of faith which all Infidels have
in human testimony. My opponent could never discover whether there is
a Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson. The origi
nal cannot be found. Some say, that it is preserved in the office of the
Secretary of State ; others, that it is not. All the witnesses are dead, as
well as the signers. But, even suppose they were alive, and would
assent the reality of its existence, it is only human testimony, and my
opponent will not take that. If you find a man who thinks that every
human being is an intolerable rascal, you may be sure that human nature
in his own person is exceedingly depraved.
My opponent has assumed the fearful risk to his argument, which I
have shown he cannot avoid, by pretending to doubt the reality of the
character of Christ ; but the reasons by which he seeks to support his
position are not worthy the name of argument. They consist of blank
assertions, in the face of overwhelming evidence, which proves that the
Evangelists were describing a real character. This evidence 1 have
already presented. I need not recapitulate it here.
But he tells you, that even if it was real, it is far from being perfect.
That it fails to answer the model of Infidel perfection is readily con
ceded ; and, perhaps, as my opponent has so often alluded to Tom" Paine
as a much-abused and slandered man, it may not be amiss to show what
an Infidel, and an intimate friend of Paine, has left on record concerning
that paragon of Infidel excellence. I allude to the letter of William
Carver, who, be it remembered, was a co-laborer of the author of the
" Age of Reason," and whose testimony cannot be challenged on the
ground that he was a Christian, because he was as pious and devoted a
blasphemer as Tom Paine himself. (Laughter.) He addresses the fol
lowing letter in reply to one from his friend : —
" Ma. Thomas Paine :
" I received your letter, dated the 25th ult., in answer to mine, dated November
21st, and, after minutely examining its contents, I found that you had taken the pit
iful subterfuge of lying, tor your defence. You say that you paid me $4 per week for
your board nnd lodging, during tlie time that you were with me, prior to the first of
June last ; wliicli was the day that I went up by your order to bring you to York
from Now Roilielle. It is fortunate for me, that I have a living evidence that saw
you give me four guineas, and no more, in my shop, at your departure at that time ;
but you said you would have given me more, but that you had no more with you at

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 171
present. You say, also, that you found your own liquors during the time you
boarded with me; but you should have said, ' I found only a small part of the liquor
I drank during my stay with you ; this part I purchased of John Fellows, wbich
was a demijohn of brandy containing four gallons, and this did not serve me three
weeks.' This can be proved, and I mean not to say any thing that I cannot prove ;
for I hold truth as a precious jewel. It is a well-known fact, that you drank one
quart of brandy per day, at my expense, during the different times you have 'boarded
with me, the demijohn above mentioned excepted, and the last fourteen weeks you
were sick. Is not this a supply of liquor for dinner and supper ? As for what you
paid Mr. Glen, or any other person, that is nothing to me. I am not paid, and I
found you room and firing besides. You say, as you paid by the week, it matters not
how long your stay was. I accede to your remark, that the time of your stay at my
house would have been of no matter, if I had been paid by the week, but the fact is
otherwise. I have not been paid at all, or, at least, but a very small part ; prove
that I have if you can, and then I shall be viewed by my fellow-citizens in that con
temptible light that they will view you in, after the publication of this my letter to
you. You ask me the question, ' How is it that those who receive do not remember
as well as those that pay ? ' My answer is, I do remember, and shall give you credit
for every farthing I have received, and no more. I will ask you what consolation
you derive to your mind in departing from truth, and endeavoring to evade paying a
just and lawful debt? I shall pass over a great part of your letter with silent con
tempt, and oppose your false remarks with the plain truth. As the public will see
your letter as well as mine, they will be able to judge your conduct and mine for
themselves. You say that I seem not to know any thing about the price of boarding
in the city ; but I know the price is from $3 to $5, and from that to $10 ; with an
additional charge if the boarder should be sick for three months or upwards. I shall
show you how I calculate my expenditures, by the bill that will be rendered to
you, and I believe it will be an important lesson to those who may undertake to
board you hereafter. I have no person to help me calculate or write, but fortunately
took the adviee of a friend, and got him to keep the account of all the times you
stayed with me. You assert that you being at my house only added one more to the
family ; I shall prove that it added to the number of three. You know very well
when you came, I told you I must hire a servant-girl if you stayed with me. This I
did for five months, at $5 per month and her board. This I would not have done,
unless you had given me ground to believe you would have paid me. After your
departure, she was' discharged. Now, sir, how will you go to prove that yourself,
and Mrs. Palmer, and the servant-girl, are one ? In order to do this, you must write
a new system of mathematics. You complain that I left your room the night that
you pretend to have been seized with the apoplexy ; but I had often seen you in
those fits before, and particularly after drinking a large portioTT of ardent spirits,
those fits having frequently subjected you to falling. You remember you had one of
them at Lovett's hotel, and fell from the top of the stairs to the bottom. You like
wise know, I have frequently had to lift you from the floor to the bed. You must
also remember, that you and myself went to spend the evening at a certain gentle
man's hou'-e, whose peculiar situation in life forbids me to make mention of his
name ; but I had to go and apologize for your conduct ; you had two of those falling
fits in Broadway, before I could get you home.
" You tell me that I came up stairs in the night, and opened the cupboard, and
took your watch. This is one more of your lies ; for I took it during the time your
room was full of different descriptions of persons called from a porter-house and the
street, at the eleventh hour ofthe night, to carry you up stairs, after you had fallen
over the bannisters ; and, ae the cupboard door was open, the watch lay exposed. I
told you next morning I put your watch in my desk, and you said I had done right.
Why did you not complain before ? I believe that I should do the same again, or any
other person in my situation, for had the watch been lost, you would have thought
that I, or some one of my family, had got it. I believe it will not be in your power
to make one of my fellow-citizens believe, that, at this period of my life, I should turn
rogue for an old silver watch. ,.',,, „ ,
" You go on to say, ' Did you take any thing else ? Have you assumed the char
acter of a father-confessor, as well as a son of Bacchus ! Did you lose any thing >
Whv do you not speak out ? You have been so long accustomed to lying, one more
will not choke you. Now, sir, I have to inform you, I lost a silver spoon that waa

172 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
taken to your room, and never returned. Did you take that away with you ? If not,
I can prove that you took something else of my property without my consent. You
likewise gave a French boy, that you imported to this country, or was imported on
your account, a nice pocket bottle, that was neither yours nor mine; it being the
property of a friend, and has since been called for. I lent the bottle to you, at the
time you was sick with what you call apoplexy, but what myself and others know to
be nothing more than falling drunken fits. I ha»e often wondered that a French
woman and three children should leave France, and all their connections, to follow
Thomas Paine to America. Suppose I were to go to my native country, England,
and take another man's wife, and three children of his, and leave my wife and chil
dren in this country. What would be the natural conclusion in the minds of the
people, but that there was some criminal connection between the woman and myself.'
You have often told me that the French woman alluded to has never received one
letter from her husband, during the four years she has been in this country. How
comes this tff pass ? Perhaps you can explain the matter."
This precious morsel we obtain as the result of a quarrel between
Paine and his friend, and it is an apt illustration ofthe old saying, to the
effect, that when a certain class of people fall out, honest men are ben
efited. Perhaps it might be for edification and profit, to have this letter
read annually, on the anniversary of the birth-day of St. Thomas Paine.
It might possibly stimulate his admirers to greater zeal in striving to
obtain the highest model of Infidel perfection.
My opponent has a short and easy method of disposing of any amount
of evidence. All he has to do is, to tell us, " It amounts to nothing,"
and then put at the end, Q. E. D. — quod erat demonstrandum ! — and the
case is as clear as darkness can make it. (Laughter.) What ! is the moral
phenomenon presented in the character of Christ so easily explained?
Infidels have not always felt in this matter with my opponent, and I can
not conceive how any man, who is disposed to take evidence on any ques
tion in a spirit of candor, can dismiss such an argument in so summary
a manner. If my opponent will turn to Dr. McCulloch's book entitled,
" Proofs of the Credibility of Scripture Writers," vol. 1, p. 240, he will
find the following confession from Lord Bolingbroke, one of the wittiest
and shrewdest writers that ever assailed Christianity. He says : —
"The Gospel teaches universal benevolence, recommends the precepts of it, and
commands the observation of them in particular instances occasionally ; always sup
poses them, always enforces them, and makes the law of right reason a law in every
possible definition of the word, beyond all cavil. I say, beyond alt cavil, because a
great deal of silly cavil has been employed to perplex the plainest thing in Nature,
and the best determined signification of words, according to the different occasions
on which thpy are used." Bolingbroke, Essay iv. § 5.
" The Gospel of Christ is one continued lesson of the strictest morality, of justice,
of benevolence, and of universal charity." Bolingbroke, Fragments of Essays, xx.
Thus, out of the mouth even of an Infidel, the Gospel is shown to be
a perfect rule of life. My opponent must remember, that the standard
of perfection which he proposes, and which, if I understand it, amounts
to obedience to the laws of our organization, is an abstraction which com
mon people cannot comprehend ; and, moreover, after he has arrived at
the knowledge of these laws, they will require expounders, who must
come with authority, otherwise these laws will become a jargon of con
fusion, as every man will claim an equal right to offer his exposition of
the true theory. My opponent told us, that the precepts of the Bible

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 173
lead to intemperance in the use of strong drink. True, he says, the
Scriptures forbid drunkennness, but then they fail to tell us what drun
kenness is ! What next ? He cited the marriage supper at Cana, in Gal
ilee, at which, he tells us, Christ, after the guests had drank the house
dry, furnished an additional supply of one hundred and thirty gallons of
wine ; and, as there were twenty guests at that wedding, this would
amount to a little over six 'gallons apiece. He thinks this was a bounti
ful provision. So do I. Perhaps Mr. Barker will tell us where he has
obtained his information respecting the number of guests. I cannot find
any thing about this number, (twenty,) in my Bible, though I have spent
some time looking at the account of the transaction furnished in this
book ; and, not only so, I am at a loss to know how the said water-pots,
containing two or three firkins, metretes apiece, could amount to one
hundred and thirty gallons ! The metretes, called firkin, is used by the
LXX, as equivalent to Heb. Seah, (2J- gallons.)
And so, forty-five gallons would be nearer the mark, or one hundred
and sixteen gallons, if equal to the Hebrew Bath. As to the number of
guests, we are told that the mother of Jesus, Jesus himself, and his dis
ciples, were invited to the marriage. How many disciples Jesus had at
that time we have no means of determining ; but we do know, and my
opponent surely cannot be ignorant of the fact, that marriage ceremo
nies among the Jews were attended, when the parties were of any note,
by a large train of the friends, both of the bride and bridegroom. And
as this seems to have been an occasion of more than ordinary interest,
there can be no doubt the guests were more numerous far than Mr. Bar
ker is pleased to imagine. The bride, he knows, was usually attended
by at least ten bridesmaids; and the bridegroom, if a notable personage,
was attended by a large retinue of friends. Then, why so much ? Did
our Savior expect them to drink it all ? No ! there is a far better rea
son for the abundance. According to the Jewish custom, as my oppo
nent well knows, all the wine left after marriage ceremonies was sold
and the money given to the poor; and for them Christ wished to
make provision. Thus, every slander against the character of Christ is
hurled back to the confusion of his assailer. (Applause.) Now, I should
not have taken up my time in noticing this objection, were it not a sam
ple of the reckless style of argumentation adopted by the enemies of the
Bible, to vilify the character of Christ. What are we to think of a dis
putant, who, in the face of these facts, which he cannot deny without a
fatal exposure of ignorance, can tell us that Christ intended to furnish
each guest with over six gallons of strong drink ? This looks like the
desperation of blasphemy ! The Bible allows the use of wine, but for
bids the abuse of it. It forbids drunkenness. But what is drunkenness ?
says my opponent. Perhaps, if he would attend some anniversary of the
birth of the tutelary Saint of Infidelity, he will not be any longer at a
loss for an answer to his question. (Great applause.)
He says he does not traduce the character of Christ ; that I have not
proved he claimed to be a perfect character. Mr. Barker must pardon
me for having taken for granted that he had some little acquaintance
with the New Testament. I must advise him to read the Gospels before
undertaking to vilify Christianity. My opponent attempts to represent

174 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
me as opposing " Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," in every sense, be
cause I object to it in the scope given by the wolves in sheep's clothing,
who know in their hearts, that, had they the power, they would usher in
another Infidel millenium, that reign of terror to the few ! The few, by
Mr. Barker's showing, are the aristocrats and the priests, as all ministers
of the Christian religion, without exception, are denominated and de
nounced by my opponent, and by his brethren of the Sunday Institute,
who chant odes to their nameless God, in anticipation of the downfall of
every Christian ordinance and institution ! The spirit of Infidelity is a
revengeful spirit, (applause,) with all its professions of philanthropy ;
and, therefore, Christ says, " Beware of false prophets, which come to
you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." To
hear them talk of liberty and love, sounds like the bleating of pet lambs ;
but we know them, and we do not trust them. (Applause.)
I presented some of the prophecies which refer to Christ in evidence,
but as he objects to them, notwithstanding the overwhelming array of
proof, positive, plain and undeniable, I will present another fact, namely,
that Jesus Christ was not only the subject of prophecy, but was himself
the most illustrious of prophets, and gave ample proof, by his prophecies,
as well as by .his miracles, of his divine commission. Bishop Newton
gives a summary of these prophecies, (vol. 1, p. 391,) and it is a fair
test of the validity of the Savior's claims. Christ says, " I tell you
before it come, that when it is come to pass, you may believe that I am
He."
It is well known that Christ foretold not only his own sufferings, death
and resurrection, but also the manner and circumstances of them. See
Newton, supra. (The Doctor took his seat. Great applause.)

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.
I must again express my astonishment, that my opponent should found
his arguments on the statements of the very book, the truth and authority
of which are the points under discussion. Before he quotes from it as
an authority, he should prove it worthy of trust. He should prove it a
faithful record of events. Till he has done so, the arguments he brings
on its testimony are worthless. He says Jesus was an illustrious pro
phet, and he quotes the Gospel in proof. But where is the proof that
the Gospel is true ? We have proved that many parts ofthe Gospel are
false, — that they contradict each other: the Doctor has not yet proved
any portion true.
My opponent says it is a slander to say that Christians ever make a
distinction between lying, and the use of falsehood for a good object.
He seems not to know what his own brother minister, President Mahan,
of Oberlin College, and Paley, a minister of the English Church, have
written on this subject. Both distinguish between lying, in the common
sense of the word, and the use of falsehood, even for personal conve
nience. A hundred Christian writers might be given, who make the
same distinction, and give the same license to the use of falsehood. I

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 175
am sorry my opponent is so little acquainted with ancient and modern
Christian literature.
My opponent now acknowledges that those who have the Scriptures
are no better than others, unless they practice what the Scriptures teach.
He is becoming a little guarded in his assertions. At first, lie exclaimed, ,
" See what a difference between those who have the Bible, and those who
have not !" Now, he qualifies his words. But he has to draw back still
further, before he has done. Where are the men that do practice what
the Bible teaches ? There are no such men. The Bible gives opposite
rules of life. Men cannot follow both. The Bible teaches lying, theft,
murder, adultery, incest and polygamy. No worse precepts, no precepts
more immoral can be found, than some of the precepts, even of the New
Testament. Men, thereforAhat should obey the teachings ofthe Bible,
would be worse for it insteaiTof better.
My opponent must qualify his words a little more, before they can be
allowed to pass unquestioned. He should say, there are some precepts
of the Bible which a man may follow to advantage, provided he gives
them a liberal interpretation.
My opponent says, that the burden of proof, with respect to the pro
phecies, lies on me. He quotes fifty or a hundred passages, and calls
them prophecies of Jesus, and contends that they ought to be taken as
prophecies of Jesus, till I have proved they are not. This is simply
ridiculous. Nothing would be easier than to prove that his quota
tions are not prophecies of Jesus. It would be easy to prove that many
of them are no prophecies at all. But till my opponent has attempted
to prove that they are prophecies, and that they do refer to Jesus, it is
unnecessary to do so. My opponent knows, as well as I do, unless he
knows less than I suppose, that before his quotations of pretended pro
phecies of Jesus can be of any use to him, he must prove, 1. That they
are prophecies. 2. That they refer to Jesus. 3. That they mean what
he says. 4. That the Gospel history agrees with them ; and, 5. That the
Gospel history is true. But he has not proved any of these points. '
My opponent charges me with want of faith in all human testimony)
with thinking every man an intolerable rascal. He will allow us, per- '
haps, to say, that the charge is false. We do not think every man an
intolerable rascal. We know many men who are good and true. Nor
are we without faith in human testimony. There are numbers in whose
testimony we have the fullest confidence. The testimony we have called
in question, is such testimony as is afforded in proof of the superhuman
origin of the Bible. We have given our reasons for calling in question
such testimony. We have shown that much of it is palpably false, and
that none of it can be proved to be true. We have shown the best of it
is doubtful and suspicious. We have shown that the men who gave it
were sometimes ignorant, always interested, and never trustworthy. We
have shown that many of them avowed their belief that the use of false
hood and fraud, in support of their religion, was lawful and praiseworthy ;
and that those who did not avow this doctrine, acted on it. We have
shown (what every one acquainted with the subject knows) that ancient
history generally is fabulous,— that ancient priestly history is especially

176 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
fabulous, — that on no subject has a greater amount of falsehood been
employed, than on religion. If it be a sign of a bad heart, to doubt or
reject the testimony given in support of religion and sacred books, my
opponent is in the same condemnation as myself. I am not certain that
he does not reject as much testimony as myself. He rejects the testi
mony of the Mormonites, respecting the Book of Mormon and Mormon
miracles. He rejects the testimony of the Shakers, respecting the origin
of their sacred roll. He rejects the testimony ofthe Mohammedans, re
specting the mission and history of Mohammed, and the origin ofthe Koran.
He rejects the testimony of the Chinese, the Hindoos and the Persians,
respecting their sacred books, and the inspiration and miracle^ of their
prophets and saviors. He rejects the testimony of the ancient Greeks
and Romans, respecting the diving origin oflkheir laws and institutions,
the intercourse of the Gods with their ancestors, the wonders of Ovid's
Metamorphoses, their accounts of their oracles, prophets and miracles.
He rejects the testimony of all mankind on ihese subjects, except the
small portion called Christian. He rejects nine tenths of the testimony
offered on religious subjects by his brother Christians. As we have said,
he rejects the testimony of the Latter-Day Saints and the Shakers. He
rejects the testimony of the early Quakers, the most truthful sect ever
known. He rejects the accounts of early Methodist miracles. He re
jects the testimony given in favor of Swedenborg and his revelations, and
the testimony given in favor of Spiritualism, the most puzzling and
astounding testimony of all. Nay, more ; he rejects, at one stroke, the
testimony of the whole Christian Church, for more than a thousand years,
and the testimony of by far the greatest part of the Church, even to this
day. What faith has he in the Roman Catholic Church and priesthood,
the most numerous of all? None. He calls that Church the Man of
Sin. He says deceit, and fraud, and murder, have been employed by
that Church, without scruple, and without measure, from the beginning.
He calls their holy legends, their histories of the Saints, the grossest
fables. He denounces their accounts of miracles, relics, appearances of
the Virgin, of Jesus, of Saints, and the world of traditions which they
deem as holy and authoritative as the Bible itself, as a world of falsehood,
fraud and forgery. He goes yet further, and rejects the testimony of Uni
tarians and Universahsts, and is an unbeliever in all matters pertaining to
the history of their opinions, their celebrated men, and the virtuous lives
and happy deaths of their friends. He will not even rely on the testimony
of a brother Christian, in matters of religious controversy. He will call
in question the veracity of members of his own sect, and even of his
own church and congregation, when it suits his purpose. Even in mat
ters of business, he requires a written agreement, and a legal hand.
Where, then, is ihe difference between him and me ? He thinks there
are truth and honesty in a small number, whose testimony goes in favor
of his own opinions and prejudices : and we think there are truth and
honesty in a still greater number. He has a corner in the Christian
world, where be thinks the truth may be found ; we have corners in the
unregenerEMe and unbelieving world, where we know that truthful souls
reside. My opponent is a greater disbeliever than I. He goes incalcula-

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 177
bly further in setting down men as rascals than I. Much of the false
testimony that he attributed to rascality, I attribute to ignorance and
credulity, and to mistaken piety and benevolence.
As to the letter of Thomas Carver, I thought at first it was a forgery,
but afterwards I saw it was the outpourings of disappointment and passion.
The writer asks, " Should I turn rogue for an old silver watch ? " It
struck me, at the time, that a person who could write as he was writing,
would turn rogue for something less than a silver watch. The best men
that ever lived have had such letters written respecting them. You may
get them written against any reformer, for a trifle. For a trifle more,
you could get them attested. My opponent can assure you, that lies and
perjury are common things with some pretenders to religion. Others can
assure you that they are coaamon things with many. But supposing the
letter true, what does it proft? What has it to do with the question?
If I should prove to you that Popes, Cardinals, Monks and Nuns, Pro
testant Bishops, Methodist preachers, and Presbyterian ministers, had been
guilty of lying, stealing and murder, of drunkenness, fornication and
adultery — as I easily could do — would it prove the Bible false ? No.
Suppose my opponent could prove the letter of Carver true, which he
never can do — would it prove the Bible to be of God ? Not at all. My
opponent would gain more credit for himself, if he did not help his cause
a little better, if he would keep to the question.
He says Bolingbroke speaks of the Gospel as teaching unive rsal
benevolence. What then ? Suppose the Gospel does teach univer
sal benevolence, is every book that teaches universal benevolence of
superhuman origin ? My opponent knows to the contrary. A book may
teach universal benevolence in one part, and encourage slaveholding,
tyranny, and every form of iniquity, in other parts. Our plan is to take
the good and leave the bad, in every book. But my opponent must
excuse me if I say, that 1 never trust the testimony of Christians, with
regard to the contents of the works of unbelievers. They may speak
of them truly ; but I know they often speak of them falsely.
My opponent says he cannot find any statement in the Gospel, to the
effect that the number of the guests at the marriage of Cana was twenty.
I never said that was the number. I simply made the supposition. But
the supposition was not unreasonable. There might not be so many.
The Gospel says it was Christ's first miracle. According to other pas
sages, he had very few disciples till after he had wrought many miracles.
But it was usual to sell the wine that was left on such occasions, says my
opponent. It seems going too far,, to represent Jesus as making wine
for sale, as well as for private consumption. The story is a rather awk
ward one for the advocates of teetotalism, deal with it as you will.
I will now proceed with my summary of the debate, so that those who
wish may see what has been done and what has not been done.
The Doctor was to prove : —
1. That the Bible is of superhuman origin.
2. That its tendency, when so regarded, is to do good, and nothing
but good.
To prove the first point, he Was to produce —
1. Internal —
2. External evidence.

178 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
What has he done ? It is not for us to judge. We know what it was
necessary to do. We will state some of the things which he has not
done, and which remain for him to do.
He should prove —
1. That the style ofthe Bible is more than human. He should, there
fore, state what are the marks which distinguish a divine from a human
style. 2. He should prove that the contents of the Bible bear marks of a su
perhuman origin. He should, therefore, state precisely what things man
can originate in philosophy, morality and theology, and what he cannot,
and then prove all the contents ofthe Bible to be of the latter kind.
He should have produced a few of the best written books, in different
languages, and compared the best specimens of their style with speci
mens of the Bible style, and shown that we Bible specimens were in
comparably the best. __
He should then have produced the best books on morality, theology,
cosmogony, history, astronomy and physiology, and given specimens of
their best passages ; their truest, purest, and loftiest sentiments ; and
then produced passages from the Bible on the same subjects, and shown
that the Bible passages were infinitely truer, better, purer, loftier. This
he has not done. He has not attempted to do it. The man who should
attempt to do it, would make himself infinitely ridiculous. Suffice it to
say, that what we have done, we need not repeat. We have given the
most decisive proofs, that the Bible is not divine ; that it bears the plain
est, the most palpable traces, on almost every page, of a purely human
origin. And now we call on our opponent to produce a book that bears
on its pages more marks, or marks more manifest or more melancholy, of
an imperfect origin, than the Bible. But this, we know, he cannot do.
1. He cannot produce a book that contains lower or grosser represen
tations of God — one that more plainly attributes to Him the human form
and human imperfections.
2. He cannot produce a book that attributes to God more bloody deeds,
more inhuman butcheries, more heartless slaughters of unoffending peo
ples, of helpless, unprotected women and children.
3. He cannot produce a book that talks more childishly about astronom
ical, geographical, meteorological, or scientific matters generally.
4. He cannot produce a book that says more in favor of polygamy,
concubinage — that represents polygamists as the special friends of God,
as persons obeying in all things God's laws, and that tells us that the man
who had seven hundred wives and three hundred mistresses was the
wisest of them all — the wisest man that ever lived or that ever shall
live. 5. He cannot produce a book more in favor of slavery, the subjuga
tion and oppression of woman, and the absolute despotism of the hus
band. 6. He cannot produce a book that more expressly requires members
of churches to obey their church rulers, or that lays a broader or a
deeper foundation for Priestcraft.
7. He cannot produce a book that teaches falser doctrines respecting
political rulers, or that requires more servile, more absolute subjection

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 179
and obedience to the powers that be, or that strikes more directly or
more fatally at the civil rights of men.
8. He cannot produce a book that says more in favor of slavery, that
authorises worse forms of slavery, that sanctions grosser cruelties to
wards slaves, that connives more at the licentiousness inseparable from
slavery, or that requires from slaves more absolute and universal obedi
ence to the commands of their masters, whether good or bad, whatever
those commands may be.
9. He cannot produce a book that authorises harsher treatment of
children by their parents, or that speaks more strongly in favor of the free
and unsparing use of the rod.
10. He cannot produce a book that contains a greater number of
childish, trifling, ridiculous, contemptible laws about offerings, priests,
and ceremonies.
11. He cannot produce a book that contains more cruel and revolting
laws about the treatment of women and wives, than several of those in
the books of Moses.
12. He cannot produce a book that contains more partial laws than
those about servitude, bad meat, usury, and the like.
13. He cannot produce a book that represents God as more unjust
than those parts of the Bible do, which represent him as punishing whole
races of beings, throughout all ages, for the offence of one individual of
each race, and as commanding innocent sons and grandsons to be hung
or beheaded for a father or a grandfather's fault, or whole nations to be
utterly cut off, man, woman and suckling, for an offence alleged to have
been committed four hundred and fifty years before.
14. He cannot produce a book that represents God as more fiercely
or implacably revengeful.
15. He cannot produce a book that contains a more horrible or infer
nal effusion of revenge and cruelty, than the one hundred and ninth
Psalm, said to be a Psalm of David, the man after God's own heart.
16. He cannot produce a book that goes further in the encouragement
of cruelty — cruelty of the most savage and inexcusable kind — than the
book which says, " O Babylon, happy shall he be, that taketh and dash-
eth thy little ones against the stones." Psalm 137.
17. He cannot produce a book that contains a greater number of con
tradictions, or contradictions of a more palpable or astounding character.
18. He cannot produce a book that contains more indecent or obscene
stories, or more disgusting allusions, or more filthy exaggerations, than
the stories about Onan, Lot, the wives of Jacob, Sarah, &c, and pas
sages in the Pentateuch, the Song of Solomon, and the prophets.
19. He cannot produce a book that portrays a more deceitful, selfish,
scheming, swindling supplanter, than the old Jew Jacob, who is said to
have had such power over God as to have beaten him in a wrestling
match, and to have won from God himself the new name of Israel, or
conqueror of God.
20. He cannot produce a book that gives two more different or incon
sistent portraits of the same person, than the Gospels of Matthew and
John give of Jesus.
21. He cannot produce a book that teaches more foolish doctrines, or
that gives more foolish rules in relation to giving, lending, taking thought

180 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
for to-morrow, laying up for ourselves treasures on earth, selling all prop
erty and giving the proceeds to the poor, being content in whatever con
dition or calling we may he, and the like.
22. He cannot produce a book that gives a representation of the laws
by which the universe is governed, and the affairs of mankind con
trolled, more at variance with the fixed and unalterable laws revealed by
Nature and mankind themselves.
23. He cannot produce a book which presents for our admiration and
imitation more defective or faulty characters than the prophet who could
call down fire from heaven on his fellow-men, curse children, and cause
forty and three of them to be torn in pieces by wild beasts, for calling
him bald-head ; murdered eight hundred and fifty dissenting prophets
in a day, hewed men in pieces in jcool blood, lied, cheated, kidnapped,
bought and sold human beings, bred slaves, lived in unbridled licentious
ness, and practiced almost every known abomination.
24. He cannot produce a book that tells a greater number of ridicu
lous and impossible stories than those about a reasoning serpent, the
talking ass, the swimming iron, the origin of giants, the first transgres
sion, the tree of life, the flaming sword and cherubim, the tower of
Babel, the confusion of tongues, the monster fable of the flood, the foxes
and firebrands of Samson, the whale and Jonah, the devils and swine,
the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites, the experiments of Jacob on
his flock, and the thousand similar impossibilities so gravely recorded as
historical and scientific verities.
Yet all this he must do, and much more, before he can prove the
Bible to be of God, by internal evidence.
Before he can prove the Bible of God by external evidence, he must,
first, tell us what he means by external evidence, and show us its force.
He should define a miracle,' and show how a miracle may be distin
guished from events that are not miraculous.
He should prove that miracles have been wrought.
He should prove that miracles demonstrate the presence and special
agency of God.
He should prove that devils or bad men never wrought miracles.
He should prove that God never wrought miracles, or caused them to
be wrought, for the purpose of proving or tempting people to embrace
false religions, or believe a lie.
He should prove that the magicians of Egypt did not work miracles.
He should prove that the false Christs mentioned in the Gospels did
not show great signs, and work great miracles, so as to deceive all that
were not God's very elect, and incapable of being deceived.
He should prove that the miracles said to have been wrought by
Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Jesus, and his Apostles, were wrought.
He should prove that they were wrought by God, and not by some
other unseen power, as some of the other Bible miracles are said to have
been wrought.
He should prove that God wrought them to prove the truth of certain
doctrines, and his approbation of certain persons, and of their sayings
and doings, and not for the purposes of tempting, proving, misleading,
or deceiving men, in order to bring them to believe a lie and be damned.
He should prove that the Jews and Gentiles, in the days of Jfestis,

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 181
were not very wicked ; that they had not both rejected or corrupted pre
vious revelations of God's truth ; that they had not refused to receive
the truth in the love thereof; that they had not pleasure in unrighteous
ness ; or that they were not exactly the kind of men to whom the Apos
tie says God is accustomed to give up to themselves, to their own hearts
lusts, or to whom it is his plan to send strong delusions of the devil, to
work before them and among them all kinds of lying wonders and mira^
cles, irresistible in (heir power to deceive, to bring them to believe a lie
that they might be damned.
He should prove that the books of the Bible were written by the per
sons whose names they bear.
He should prove it by testimony that has not been proved untrustwor
thy, by being convicted of deceit and lies.
He should prove that the persons who wrote those books were spe
cially, miraculously endowed by God, so as to be secured against the pos
sibility of error or mistake.
He should prove this by arguments, such as men of common sense
and common attainments can understand.
He should prove that the claims to divine inspiration, put forward bv
writers of books, or by others in behalf of books, are not generally false.
He should prove that the claims put forth in behalf of the Bible are
an exception to the general rule.
He should prove that the Jewish priests, and the Jewish scribes, and
many of the Jewish prophets, who composed those books, or who had
the care and management of them, were not, according to Jeremiah,
from the least even unto the greatest of them, given to covetousness, and
that they were not, from the prophet even unto the priest, given, every
one of them, to deal falsely. Jeremiah 6 : 13. That in transgressing
and lying, and conceiving and uttering from the heart words of false
hood, they had not gained a deplorable notoriety; that truth had not fal
len in the streets, and that equity could enter ; that it had not utterly
failed, so that he that departed from evil made himself a prey, as Isaiah
says. That they were not the children of the devil, devising lies and
plotting murder, like him, as Jesus says. That they did not forge and
corrupt books, to aid them in their villanous plots. That the high priest
Hilkiah, who pretended to find the Book of the Law of the Lord, as
recorded in 2 Kings 22, did not forge the book, to gain favor for his
priestly ceremonies, his gainful institutions of offerings and sacrifices,
and the establishment of the priestly power over the people.
He should prove that the early Christians did not practise deceit, use
frauds, for the purpose of gaining proselytes, silencing objections, and
extending their religious system.
He should prove that they did not, especially, write fabulous books,
forge the names of celebrated characters to give them authority, and
thus impose, first, on the ignorant and credulous multitudes, and, ulti
mately, on the people at large.
He should prove that even the well-meaning and truly pious and be
nevolent did not use those pious frauds, believing they were serving God
and blessing men, by endeavoring thus to spread abroad what they
deemed to be the only saving truth.

182 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
He should prove that they did not labor in this department of piety
and benevolence more than in any other, and that the result was not the
production of a multitude of fabulous Gospels, forged Epistles, creeds
and constitutions, false tales of revelations, miracles, and remarkable
interpositions of Providence ; forgeries in the names of Gentile oracles
and philosophers, the corruption ofthe writings of Jews and Pagans, and
such a multiplication of frauds, of all conceivable descriptions, as the
world has never before either beheld or dreamed of.
He should prove that this system of fraud was not continued through
every age of the Church, till the Christian priesthood, so called, gained
the empire of the world, and introduced those ages of intellectual and
moral darkness which are now, and must remain for ever, the wonder
and the grief of every friend of truth, of freedom, of virtue and hu
manity. He should prove that our modern priesthoods, both Catholic and Prot
estant, have not continued' this system of fraud, these deceitful arts, to
this day, and that their defences of Biblical inspiration, and their pre
tended histories of the lives and deaths of heretics and unbelievers,
reformers and philanthropists, are not, as a general rule, either a compi
lation of ancient frauds and forgeries, or the fabrication of new ones,
published sometimes in pious and benevolent ignorance, and, at other
times, for the purpose of perpetuating their power over the bodies and
souls of their dupes, and maintaining themselves in ease and affluence,
at the expense of the toiling millions of the community.
He should prove, in short, that he has something more than hearsay for
his belief in the superhuman origin of the Bible ; the hearsay of known
and proved, of avowed and systematic deceivers, or of blind, unreason
ing, superstitious dupes of priestly guile.
He should prove to us that the passages he quoted from the Bible as
prophecies, are prophecies.
He should prove that they were spoken or written in reference to
Jesus of Nazareth.
He should prove that the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth given in the
Gospels, are true accounts.
He should prove, next, that these accounts are, what he says, a literal
fulfilment of the passages he quotes as prophecies — that the prophecies
and the records exactly agree.
He should prove that the Gospels were written by the persons whose
names they bear.
He should prove that the persons whose names they bear were com
petent and trust-worthy witnesses of the things they profess to record.
He should prove that the Gospels might not have been, and that they
were not, written long after the time when Jesus is said to have lived and
taught and died.
He should prove they are not collections of traditions, believed by the
earlier Christians, but having all the uncertainty and mixtures of fable
and exaggeration so common with the traditions of a dark and credulous
age. He should prove that the partial agreement and partial disagreement
of the Gospels are not exactly such as might be naturally looked for

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 183
in the works produced by different authors, but compiled from the same
traditionary sources.
He should prove that there is something in the style or contents of the
Gospels beyond what the powers of man might produce.
He should prove that the book has no errors, no contradiclions.
He should prove that the character of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gos
pels, is a perfect character.
He should prove that he did not, according to the Gospels, teach false
and contradictory doctrines, bad and contradictory morals.
He should prove that he did not, according to the Gospels, violate his
own precepts, doing the very things which he warned other people not to
do, on pain of God's wrath and damnation.
He should prove that he did not encourage hopes of earthly honor and
power and wealth, and of national aggrandizement, in his disciples,
which they never realized.
He should prove that he did not, according to the Gospels, make posi
tive promises to his disciples of thrones and empires, of houses, lands,
and friends, here on earth, which he never fulfilled. Matthew 19:27,
29 ; Mark 10 : 28, 30.
He should prove that he did not utter false prophecies respecting the
end of the world, when he said, This generation shall not pass away till
all these things — the end of the world and the like — shall be fulfilled.
See Matthew 24 : 29, 34.
He should prove that, supposing the character of Jesus, as given in the
Gospels, were a perfect moral character, it might not be a fancy piece
— the production of love, veneration, and poetry, from their own re
sources and the aids afforded by the forms of varied moral beauty in the
living characters around them, and the beautiful portraits of virtuous ex
cellence presented in the history, the biography, and the poetry of their
predecessors. He should prove that the natural tendency of the human soul is not to
beautify and adorn, to improve and perfect, the idea it forms of the ob
ject of its affection, its gratitude, its reverence ; and that the poet, the
sculptor, and the painter, the historian, the biographer, and the novelist,
do not generally, if not invariably, create for us forms and characters
and scenes more beautiful, more perfect, more entrancing than the
homely realities of nature and experience.
He should give us an argument to prove the necessity of divine reve
lation in ancient times, which would not prove as conclusively the neces
sity of a new revelation now.
He should give us an argument to prove the Bible essential to the
present or future welfare of mankind, which does not, in effect, amount
to blasphemy against God, so long as the great majority of mankind are
now, and always have been, left without the Bible.
He should prove that if God could, consistent with his goodness and
justice, leave nineteen twentieths of his children without a supernatural
revelation, he might not, consistent with his goodness and justice, leave
the remaining twentieth without supernatural revelation.
He should prove that the Jews who had the Old Testament Scriptures

184 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
were wiser or better people, in the days of the prophets, of Jesus and of
Paul, than the Gentiles, who had not those Scriptures.
He should prove that heretical Samaritans are not generally better
people than Orthodox Jews ; and that even unbelieving Sadducees are
not less selfish, less deceitful, less cruel, less filthy, less dishonest, and
less murderous, than the high professing sectarians and clergymen who
make long prayers in the synagogues and public places, and once in a
year, perhaps, appear unto men to fast.
He should prove that even now, their very enemies being judges, the
heretics and unbelievers, as the priests misname them, are not the first
in all beneficent reforms ; the bravest and most zealous advocates of
freedom and the rights of humanity ; the boldest assailants of political
and priestly tyranny ; the sternest foes of kidnapping, slaveholding, and
man-hunting ; the truest friends of free discussion ; the most gentlemanly,
courteous, and, in all respects, the best behaved and talented disputants ;
the first to acknowledge and correct a mistake ; the last' to call foul
names, or attempt to appeal to the prejudices or rouse the passions of an
audience. He should prove that the churches and priesthoods of the day, whether
Catholic or Protestant, are not the tones, the conservatives of abuses,
the props of despotism and tyranny, the bulwarks of oppression, the foes
of free inquiry, the friends of blind belief, the persecutors and slanderers
of men of science, and the enemies of all reforms, the advocates of bloody
laws, the great obstructions in the path of progress, the plunderers of the
poor and toiling, the flatterers of the rich, the idolators of the powerful,
and the betrayers of the weak and friendless.
He should prove that even where the Bible is most extensively circu
lated, the people who make least of its authority, such as the old-fashioned
Quakers, who subject it to the light within ; the progressive Unitarians,
who subject its teachings to reason, and modify them accordingly ; the
bolder Universalists, who subject the book to their benevolent instincts,
and allow no authority to a passage till it has been forced to speak the
language of humanity and philanthropy ; the anti-supernaturalists, who
take the book as a set of human compositions, and receive or reject its
teachings as seems best to their own judgments ; and the liberally educa
ted men of the world, who have kept themselves out of the meshes of the
Church and the priesthood, and who know no guide of life but their own
good sense, and better feelings ; he should prove that these classes of
men are not the best, the purest, the kindest, the most liberal and talent
ed, the most honest and truthful, the most just in their dealings, the
most upright in their public or political transactions, the most generous
patrons of worth, the readiest to do good to all as they have opportunity
— the best, the most respectful as well as affectionate husbands, the
most agreeable as well as the most faithful of parents, and the happiest
as well as the most honorable and useful of mankind.
He should prove that those who regard the Bible as wholly divine —
who blindly submit to its teachings, or, rather, to the teachings of their
priests, are not, with some exceptions, the most morose and uncivil, the
most conceited and uncourteous, the most intolerant and inhuman, the

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER. 185
most proud and uncharitable, the most ignorant and bigoted, the most
unnatural and inhuman, the most deceitful and treacherous, and when
provoked by the freedom of manly iniquiry, the most malignant and
revengeful, the most ferocious and bloody. None can hate like those
whose hate is aided- by religion. None can so relish the horrors of
another's martyrdom, or enjoy with such zeal the agonies of his heretical
victim, as the blind adorer of a Bible or a priesthood.
He cannot prove one of these things.
He should, also, name to us a war more bloody or more inexcusable
than the war of the Church, called the Holy War.
He should point us to an institution more inhuman or devilish than the
Inquisition — the Holy Inquisition — the pet institution ofthe clergy.
He should tell us of a bloodier or more butcherly massacre than the
massacre of St. Bartholomew.
He should name an order of men more crafty or dangerous, more
proverbial for the employment of every forbidden art for the accomplish
ment of their deadly aims, than the Jesuits, the most holy order of the
Church. He should mention a place of more doleful sound, or more melancholy
meaning — a place, the mention of which is associated with the idea of
darker deeds or more revolting crimes, than the nunnery or monastery,
the holy of holies of the Church.
He should mention a modern institution of more gigantic proportions,
of more deadly influence, more fraught with injustice and cruelty, more
fruitful of tears and tragedy, more ominous of coming evil, more discred
itable to a great and mighty people, or more distressing to the wise and
good of every nation upon earth, than American slavery, the nursling of
the American Church and clergy.
He should name a calamity more appalling and tremendous than the
Irish famine ; or guilt more atrocious than the guilt which caused it ;
the guilt of the English aristocracy and State priesthood, the worship
pers of the Bible.
He should mention a war more unjust than the opium war, waged by
the Bible-believing rulers of England. ,
He should name to us doctrines more absurd, more monstrous, more
impossible, more licentious, more blasphemous, than the doctrines of
modern Protestant orthodoxy. (Hissing and applause.)
Take the doctrine of the Trinity : one God in three persons : three
persons, each person God, and yet not three Gods. The first person is
the father of the second, and the third proceeds from the father and the
son, yet neither is before or after the other. All are of one age. The
son is as old as his father, and the grandson is as old as either. The
first of these persons demands satisfaction for man's sins ; the others do
not, though they are all one God. The second becomes man, suffers
and dies ; the others do not. The united Godhead and manhead are
crucified and buried ; go into hell ; rise again from ihe grave on the third
day. These are not a tenth part of the absurdities of this doctrine.
The doctrines of original sin, the atonement, imputed guilt and imputed
righteousness, justification by Christ's merits, &c, are as foolish, as ab
surd, as monstrous, as blasphemous, and as mischievous, as any that can
be found.

186 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.
(Immense applause.) My opponent seems to have unburdened him
self. He charges me with calling him foul names. It is not in my
power to use the utter malignity my opponent evinces in attempting to
brand with infamy the character of the best and purest men in this or
any other land.
He charges me with a long string of sins, of omission and commission,
which, if any man should undertake to answer, would make him as old
as Methuselah before he was done. (Laughter.) Among his so-called
absurd stories of the Bible, he mentions the fact of Balaam's ass speak
ing. He might as well have let the venerable brute go by without chal
lenge. He was a sensible ass, and there have been many asses since
his day, who have opened their mouths to much less purpose. (Uproari
ous laughter and shouting.) Jonah's whale. Could not God Almighty
prepare a fish large enough to swallow a man ? And it is expressly
asserted that the fish was prepared for that very purpose. He may as
well let him alone.
My opponent has spoken with learned precision on the subject of geol
ogy. He has doubtless large acquaintance with the subject, gathered
from personal investigation ; for, as he walks by sight and not by faith, it
cannot for a moment be supposed that so consistent a casuist would, in
order to invalidate the Mosaic history, quote Mr. Hitchcock, and expect
us to receive him as authority superior to Moses. He has not, however,
furnished the results of his own knowledge or experience. Perhaps he
will yet do so. The details will, no doubt, be of thrilling interest. But
let him do as he may, what a miserable piece of deception and presump
tuous imposture is presented in this whole ado about geological testimony !
Geology, as a science, is yet in its infancy. Its oracles are as contradic
tory as the sophisms of Atheism. They contradict one another, and
even themselves. Whom shall we follow ? Shall we go with Buckland,
when, in company with Cuvier, Le Due Dolomien, and others, he tells
us the traces of the Mosaic deluge are indubitable ; or, shall we believe
him when, in his Bridgewater Treatise, he modifies his views ? Shall
I take my stand with Hugh Miller, when, in his " Old Red Sandstone,"
he teaches that " the system began with an age of dwarfs, and ended
with an age of giants"? or, shall I follow him in his " Footprints," in
which he reverses his former theory, and at the very base of the system,
" discerns one of the most colossal of its giants ; " and, instead of an
ascending order of progressive development, asserts a descending order
of progressive degradation ? Which of Lyell's contradictory positions
shall I take ? There is one point, at least, in which all agree, and it is
this : " There is not a geological theory extant, which would not be over
thrown, and the whole science revolutionized, by the discovery of a sin
gle new fact." Miller, p. 313, says : " It furnishes us with no clue to
unravel the unapproachable mysteries of creation ; these mysteries be
long to the wondrous Creator, and to him only. A stray splinter of cone-
bearing wood, a fish's skull or tooth, the vertebras of a reptile, the jaw of

REMARKS OF DR. BERG. 187
a quadruped, or the humerus of a bird — all, any of these things, weak,
insignificant as they may seem, become, in such a quarrel, too strong for
us and for our theory. The puny fragment, in the grasp of truth, be
comes as irresistible a weapon as the dry bone in the hands of Samson
of old, and our slaughtered sophisms are piled up, heaps on heaps, before
it." This is the testimony of a man who is a geologist. The probabil
ity is, my opponent is not a practical geologist at all. If he were, he
would not preach Hitchcock, praise Hitchcock, and for all practical pur
poses, if not swear, at least affirm by Hitchcock, as lustily as he does!
(Laughter.) Is this the kind of evidence upon which the Bible is to be
discarded ? Are we to take the mutterings of geological wizards, who
peep out of the dust, as louder and better truth than the contents of this
book ? Geologists must be more modest. Let them tarry in Jericho till
their beards be grown ; and when the science which they are cultivating
is out of its cradle, and able to stand erect- upon its own feet, the first
impulse of its generous manhood will be lo proclaim, from the very heart
of this great earth' which Jehovah has made, that the Bible is the book of
God, as surely as heaven and earth declare his glory, and show his handi
work. (Applause.)
According to the code of disputations, I am not at liberty to intro
duce a new topic into the closing speech. I confine myself to some re
marks, recapitulating, and appealing to all within the sound of my voice,
to cherish the Bible as a precious gift, beyond all price that can be
named, in its influences upon the dearest interests of humanity. The
superiority of the Christian Revelation over the traditional revelation of
Deism is manifest in the fact, that the one rests its hopes for the future
upon a positive basis, whilst the other is built upon negation of every
thing supernatural. This is not philosophical, because, as the very ex
istence of Nature establishes the fact of a supernatural and overruling
power as the originator of this glorious frame-work, the government of
the intellectual and moral parts of the creation of God would call for a
corresponding indication of the Divine will and purpose, in clothing it
with those subtle attributes which are spiritual and immortal. We have
shown that man's nature leads him to worship ; that his character be
comes assimilated to the being which he worships ; and that whenever
man has been left merely to his own resources, his course has been a
downward one of superstition, abominable idolatry and licentiousness.
We have proved, that man possesses no resources by which to extricate
himself from this abyss — that art and science could not do it — that all
philosophy ever effected towards the deliverance ofthe race was to make
Atheists of Idolaters. I have shown, that before any religion can chal
lenge universal obedience or assent, it must be invested with the marks of
superhuman authority — that it must be accredited of God by indications
that shall attest its divine origin. Hence, the necessity for miracles and
prophecy is a philosophical necessity. The Bible, to be of God, must
bear not only internal evidence of its divine origin, but external also.
My opponent utterly denies the superhuman authority of the laws, doc
trines and institutions of Christianity. Then, I have shown that he has no
foundation upon which he can build the authority of law at all. Laws of

188 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
merely human origin, depending on no eternal principles of divinely re
vealed and divinely attested right, are no laws at all. Men may make
and men may unmake them. Without a law from God, one man's au
thority is as good as any other's ; and thus anarchy stalks forth upon her
work of desolation, and amid the ruins of civil freedom and social order,
and the sad wrecks of domestic purity and peace, the grand negation of
Infidelity stands confessed, as an accumulation of positive horror, deso
lation and wo — a calamity of direst influence upon all the relations of
life. I have shown that to deny a superhuman revelation places the
Infidel in the sad predicament of utter inability to announce the name of
a specific God, or to account for the harmony of the attributes ascribed
to the Deistical idea of a Supreme Being, or even to tell what those
attributes are, or even to show, with any degree of certainty, what object
the Supreme Being, (if, indeed, there be one in his creed,) proposed in
the Infidel's creation. 1 have endeavored to show you that the internal
evidences of the Scriptures sustain its claims ; that the alleged contra
dictions offered by Infidel assailants are captious cavils ; that these ap
parent discrepancies are often the result of the employment of language
accommodated to human infirmity ; and that the argument by which such
accommodation is denounced as pernicious, is neutralized by the clear
and positive declarations that God, as God, is not subject to the passions,
or arrayed in the. form of humanity, so that they who would pervert the
Bible on this account, do it in the face of its own protest. I have shown
that the more close Bible history is studied, the more clearly is the verity
of its facts established ; for it has been manifest that the Infidel objec
tions against the Mosaic account of the deluge and the ark, paraded with
so much pomp of authority, are idle and absurd.
In short, regarding the purity of its morals, the varied extent of its
Subjects, the harmony between the laws of the Bible and the operations
of Providence — the clear and distinct explanation of phenomena, such
as the introduction of sin, sickness, misery and death into the world,
which, without the Scriptural solution, are problems which Infidelity can
never unravel or reconcile with the idea of a God who governs in accord
ance with the laws of justice and mercy — regarding, I say, all these
things, and the want of man's nature, which seeks for and feels after that
light beyond the grave furnished in the Gospel, and then, above all, the
glorious example of Christ, so pure, lovely and gentle, startling the world
by a blaze of celestial glory, when the' midnight darkness of corruption
was blackest, and calling men to the path of the Gospel, by the most
wonderful attestations of divine power, in working miracles, and bless
ing the poor and the outcast with the sweet mercies of heaven, and offer
ing to sinful men the wondrous plan of redemption through the blood of
the cross, fulfilling the plainest predictions in the circumstances of his
own life and sufferings, death and resurrection, and himself predicting
events which were literally accomplished, not only in the terrestrial ful
filment of his mediatorial work, but after his ascension in heaven — re
garding all these things, and the consistent testimony of Evangelists,
disciples and apostles, who sacrificed all for Christ and the Gospel, and
lived and died in the defence and the faith of it, and gave the best prac-

REMARKS OF DR. BERG'. 189
tical testimony, in the holiness of their lives, that they were the messen
gers of God and of Christ, I cannot conceive of any amount of rational
doubt but must yield before the pressure of this flood of testimony.
We love this Bible. We can conceive no severer calamity to the race
than to be deprived of its pure morality — and we know of no blacker
gloom, even in imagination, than that which pours its shadow over the
soul, when the weary spirit is breaking through the dissolving walls of its
earthly house, unsolaced by this light of life ! No Bible ! Oh ! horrid
deprivation! No Bible! ¦ Then is the world one grand enigma — a
tangled 'tissue of contradictions, unanswered and irreconcilable. I see
the flowers springing from the warm bosom of the earth, and lifting their
meek eyes towards heaven, and I say, surely there is a God, and the
fragrance is earth's incense of praise. I hear the birds singing among'
the branches, happy and free, rejoicing in the pure air and sunlight of
the bright heaven, and I say, surely there is a God, and this music is
nature's anthem of thanksgiving. I look out upon the furrowed field,
and the springing corn smiles its blessing upon the God who sends the
soft showers in their season. I see the joy of the harvest, and the golden
sheaves praise him, and the fruitful trees praise him, and in full concert,
all his works declare that He is good. But I hear a cry of anguish — it
is the moaning of an infant gasping in its mother's arms. I see it pale
and quivering in its agony ; I hear the wail of sorrow which woman
alone can utter as she bows to weep over the dead whom she has borne.
This world, what is it ? A wilderness of graves ! A mighty charnel
house ! from which groans of pain and sorrow are for ever rising to the
heavens ; and I ask, " Is this world governed by one God who is good,
and by another who is evil ? And is it so, that the evil is mightier than
the good ? " Wretched man that I am ! How shall I oppose the wrath
ofthe malignant being who wars thus constantly against human happiness,
and finally prevails so that men die ; and dying, shall they ever live
again ? What answer shall I give ? Shall they live again ? And if they
do, wdl that life be a blessing or a curse ? What can I say ? There is
no Bible ! And every grave confounds me — the joys of life perplex me,
its sorrows depress me — I am afraid to live, I dare not die ! Oh ! what
can 1 do without the Bible ? What can I know without it, that shall still
the eager questioning of the restless, deathless spirit that is beating, like
a caged bird, against these earthen walls, struggling after the purer, wider
range of its immortal sphere ? I know nothing, except that I am a child
of sorrow and an heir of death. I can do nothing but regret my exist
ence, and submit to my fate ! So says the Infidel ; but not so the Chris
tian. This world is no enigma to him. He cannot explain every detail,
but he can see a glorious harmony between the operations of Providence
and the testimony of the Bible. He knows that God is good. He knows
that God is holy, that moral law has its penalty for transgressions, as
surely as natural laws have theirs ; and, therefore, he knows there will
be»sorrow where there is sin ; but then, he learns that this is not reme
diless. Christ has repaired the ruin, and provided the remedy. It is
faith in him as the author of a new life, that is mightier than the power
of death. It is faith which binds the soul to Christ, and raises it through
all these scenes of sorrow to the joys of the heavenly inheritance. Let

190 DISCUSSION ON THE BIBLE.
us cherish this Bible ! Let us read its words, pure as silver refined. Its
precepts are apples of gold. In keeping its commands, there is infinite
reward ! Let America keep the Bible, and the Bible will keep America ;
it will be the salt of divine truth, that shall rectify the tendencies to moral
corruption, whether in the family, in society, or in civil government. It
shall save the land from Infidel licentiousness and misrule. Remember
that God no sooner caused any part of his will or word to be written,
than he also commanded the same to be read, hot only in the family, but
also in the congregation, "that they might • hear, and that they might
learn, and fear the Lord their God, and observe to do all the words of
his law." Defend, protect and love the Bible, and the God of the Bible
will cause his presence to be your glory, and upon that glory shall be
the defence of his own almighty arm ! God grant to you all the blessings
promised in His word to them that love his truth, and ever save our
country from the blasting mildew of Infidel folly and falsehood !
My opponent may deride the faith of Christians as sheer submission
to the frauds of a Protestant priesthood, but so long as ministers of the
Gospel enjoin upon all men the duty of searching the Scriptures, we can
let this assertion pass, with others, alike unfounded, and leave our faith
and character to the ordeal of that day, when the fire shall try every
man's work, what it is : and the ways and the word of God shall be
finally and for ever vindicated !

CLOSING SCENES.
As soon as Dr. Berg had finished, Mr. Barker left the hall. A friend
of Dr. Berg took the platform, and, while the audience were sep
arating, read some resolutions in favor of the Doctor and the Bible.
" Less than one fourth of the audience," says the Philadelphia Regis
ter, " voted for them. The more serious part of the audience did not
vote at all. The great majority seemed to take the thing as a farce-
The result of the vote made a good many long faces on the stage and
front seats. A short silence ensued, followed by a burst of obstreperous
laughter, and cries of ' the Infidels have it.' And so ended the most
remarkable debate ever held in America."

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 5664