Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 17

Debate on the Christian Evidences, — First Night

page break

Debate on the Christian Evidences,

First Night.

Subject of Debate: "Certain paragraphs in No. 1 of Mr. Charles Watts's phamphlets entitled 'Christian Evidences Criticised.'"

The Chairman in opening the proceedings gave, in a very clear and appropriate speech, an outline of the points to be discussed, and urged the audience to listen impartially, and judge calmly what was advanced by either gentleman. Each of the disputants would make three speeches, each of twenty minutes, during the evening, and no fresh topic was to be introduced in the last speeches of the debate. He then called upon Mr. Cowper to open the discussion.

Mr. Cowpee, who was loudly cheered, said : Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,—There are some curious things in a small pamphlet, the title of which I am about to read:—" Christian Evidences Criticised: being the National Secular Society's reply to the Bishop of London and the Christian Evidence Society, by Charles Watts." It is to a portion of those curious things that I am about to call your attention this evening. In order that the discussion may be limited and well defined, it has been arranged that we shall simply take a series of what I may call specimen paragraphs from this pamphlet, and that I, as the assailant on this occasion, shall appeal to any portions of those paragraphs to which I choose to appeal. I am not bound to take up every point, nor to object to every point, but I may if I like. I shall avail myself of this liberty, and shall endeavour, in the interests of the truth which we all profess to honour, and which we all declare ourselves ready to revere, to set before you to-night such statements as shall bear the most careful, minute, and dispassionate examination. The first paragraph to which your attention is to be directed commences on the second page of the pamphlet. In it occurs this question, among others—"Has Christianity anything to recommend it that other religious theories do not claim? Miraculous power, sublime teachings, sound doctrines, progressive aspirations are the supposed credentials of all assumed divine page 2 systems." I would ask the gentleman who thinks this proposition a very formidable question, and follows it up with formidable lists of assertions, what other systems embodied all the characteristics to which he alludes? Can he mention any other religious system, apart from the Bible, which claims to have all these "miraculous powers, sublime teachings, sound doctrines, progressive aspirations?" This is a question to which it is for him to reply, and I beg at the very outset, as a commencement, that he will reply to this, and tell me and tell you what other religious systems embody those assumed characteristics. But I proceed. "It is alleged that the moral excellence of the New Testament stamps it with divinity. This, however, is but an assumption, as illustrated by analogy. The morality of Confucius, Seneca, and Socrates, is read with admiration, but the writings of those philosophers are not regarded by Christians as divine. Their maxims, however, are as practical, as lofty, and as pure as those of the New Testament. Christian morals that can be reduced to practice are ethics borrowed from men who lived long anterior to the Christian era, and who wrote without the aid of Christian inspiration." I take these men in their order, and first Confucius; and again I ask whether it is true (that is the question) that the maxims, the moral maxims of Confucius are as practical, and as lofty, and as pure as those of the New Testament? This is a general statement, and it must apply to all of these, if any, for it refers to them as a system. What is the case with regard to Confucius, who lived 500 years before Christ? That we have only one single book which with any feasibility he can lay claim to as his production, and this book is an autobiography, and there, fore we have but little acquaintance, direct and positive, with his actual teachings. I am not a Chinese scholar, and therefore unfortunately I cannot go to the originals in this case; but I can quote from a review in the Athentœum, and I do so in the following words : "As regards the Deity, then, the teachings of Confucius are a blank. We come now to consider his views on man's duty towards his neighbour. This may be comprised in one word—'reciprocity;' and, indeed, Confucius himself has used that single term to express, with the utmost conciseness, all the instruction he had to give, on the head we are now considering. Certain writers have ventured to compare this precept of Confucius with the Sermon on the Mount. They expand the saying of the Chinese philosopher into that verse of the Gospel, 'What- page 3 soever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them,' and then they exclaim, 'Behold the Christian law forestalled.' But the intentions of the Chinese law-giver were very different from the gist of the precepts which the Christian is called upon to obey. On examination, we shall find that the Golden Rule of the Chinese sage was rather a political maxim than a moral law." Now a man's maxims may be partly gathered from his own interpretations of them in his own life; and as to these I shall read further from the number of September 14th, 1867: "As Confucius ignored the world to come, he found little support under the trials and disappointments which betel him. He was continually wandering about in search of employment, and was often rebuked by meaner men for his dejection under refusal. On one occasion an irreverent spectator, on his canvassing for power, compared his troubled appearance to the disconsolate look of a 'stray dog.' At page 171 we find him acknowledging that he was not unaccustomed 'to be overcome with wine;' and perhaps he was led to that indulgence by desire to wash away his regret for the loss of office. He was not over-truthful, for on one occasion he did not hesitate to violate an oath, excusing himself in the very words which brought such reproach on Euripides: 'My tongue swore, but my mind was unsworn.' He was not a brave man, for he turned pale at a clap of thunder, and migrated from any place where he apprehended danger. He was not a continent man, if the rule qui s'excuse s'accuse be true, for he had to justify himself with reference to visits which gave great offence to his disciples. We find him uttering shrewd remarks as to the difficulty of managing concubines, which shows he had experience in that line. He divorced his wife." Let that suffice of Confucius. Whether such morality is as lofty and as pure as that of the New Testament—that is the question at issue—I leave you to judge. I come now to the second name on the list—the name of Seneca. I need not tell you that Seneca was a Stoic philosopher who lived in the time of the Apostles, and that he lived in Rome during the twenty years preceding the death of the Apostle Paul, during which time the doctrines of Christianity were preached in the city, and with which, therefore, he may have been altogether familiar. But what is the fact in regard to Seneca? His morality, taken as a whole (for that is the question, no exception being allowed by my opponent), was it as pure and as lofty as that of the New Testament? He was the tutor page 4 of Nero; that may not be against him, though some men think it is; he was a minister under the government of Nero—that may not be against him, and it may. Under Nero he amassed an enormous amount of wealth. This Stoic amassed an amount of wealth which we, in this country and in this ago, can scarcely appreciate. Now Seneca taught some little maxims, and exemplified some little morality, to which I should like to refer my friend on the other side of the table. He teaches in his works, sometimes, suicide—self-murder; is that as practical, as pure, and as lofty as the morality of the New Testament? (Cheers.) You will find this in his works which I have on the table, vol. iii. pages 160 and 170. Another of his maxims, to which I can refer you, inculcates the privilege of occasionally getting drunk. He said, "We must sometimes come even to drunkenness." It is to be found in vol. i. page 196. Is that morality as lofty and pure as the morality of the New Testament? Mr. Farrar, who is the latest writer on Seneca, and who has done all in his power to speak well of him, says:—"So far from resenting his exile, he crawls in the dust to kiss Caesar's beneficent feet for saving him from death; so far from asserting his innocence—which, perhaps, was impossible; since to do so might have involved him in a fresh charge of treason—he talks with all the abjectness of guilt. He belauds the clemency of a man, who, he tells us elsewhere, used to kill men with as much sang froid as a dog eats offal; the prodigious powers of memory of a divine creature, who used to ask people to dice and to dinner whom he had executed the day before, and who even inquired as to the cause of his wife's absence a few days after having given the order for her execution; the extraordinary eloquence of an indistinct stutterer, whose head shook, and whose broad lips seemed to be in contortions whenever he spoke." Such gross and abject flattery, I contend, is not in accordance with the morality of the New Testament. He even goes so far as to praise Nero as a most innocentman, in a book which is now open up on the table. Nero is declared by Seneca to have been an innocent man! Is that morality as lofty and as pure as the New Testament?,. He condemns pity too. In the New Testament our Lord is represented as saying, "I will have mercy and not sacrifice;" in the Latin vulgate the word misericordia is used, and Seneca tells us that this word for pity is characteristic of old women and children, and a wise man is not to use it (vol. i. page page 5 301; and vol. iii. page 426). Mr. Farrar in his volume makes a remark which is of great importance because our teacher, who criticises our morality, thinks that Pagan morality was quite equal to Christian morality. On page 6, Mr. Farrar says;—"From first to last it will be abundantly obvious to every thoughtful mind, that alike the morality and the philosophy of Paganism, as contrasted with the splendour of revealed truth, and the holiness of Christian life, are but as moonlight is to sunlight." This is the conviction of a man who has gone to the original sources, and has compared things with one another, and has discovered how greatly they differ. I think I have said enough to show the character of Seneca's maxims in part, that they are not so perfectly immaculate as they are said to be in those vague and mysterious sentences which I have read. Let us now look at Socrates. The writings of Socrates, of course, are not regarded by Christians as divine. Will my friend tell me where he has found the writings of Socrates—where he has heard of them? What monstrosity to talk about the writings of Socrates (for what is said of one is said of all), because there is not a line of any of his works in existence. "But they are so pure," it is said. I could tell you what I should blush to tell you from ancient authorities which I have consulted with reference to the morality of Socrates. I have here a book, the "Memorabilia," of Xenophon. In book 3, chapter 11, there is a story of this sort, which will give you an idea of those teachings of Socrates which are so pure. Socrates heard that there was a celebrated prostitute who used to sit as a model to artists, and he thought he would like to see her. He determined to go, and some of his friends went with him, and he saw the naked woman, and after he had seen her he stayed and she entertained him, and they had a kind of festivity. Xenophon tells us of the conversation which ensued between the Stoic and the harlot. He taught that woman how to profit more than otherwise she would have done in her most wicked and disgusting vocation. This story occupies 1 the whole of one chapter in one book, and you working men are told that his morality is as pure and lofty as that of the New Testament. (Loud and continued cheering.)

Mr. Watts on rising was warmly applauded. He said : Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen—You will ere this have recognised that the subject which we are about to discuss tonight is not an ordinary theological question. You are aware that I appear to-night upon the defensive; and I apprehend page 6 that though it is sometimes considered pardonable in a conflict where victory is the object of the disputants, to adopt any line of conduct to carry out their particular views, yet in a debate where we desire above aught else to arrive at truth, we should endeavour to adopt only those measures we deem best calculated to achieve that result. Mr. Cowper has told you that he has but to criticise certain paragraphs in my pamphlets. Here I may intimate to you, that I wished my opponent, in order that you might have a fair discussion, to specify, some time ago, as minutely as possible, the particular points, and also the particular sentences in my pamphlets that he was about to criticise. I accepted the defence of those pamphlets, because Mr. Cowper had said publicly that I was not only untrue, but dishonest in my statements therein. I acknowledged that the statements which I published might be incorrect, that I might be in error, but I knew that I was not dishonest; and therefore I was willing to come to-night to sit at the feet of Mr. Cowper for the purpose of being set right. If I have been guilty of mistake, I shall acknowledge it when it is pointed out by my opponent. (Cheers.) Up to the present time, however, he has not been fortunate enough to do that. I wish to refer for a moment to what occurred some time ago, when this discussion was agreed upon. It was stipulated that every book to which I should be referred should be laid on the table; but instead of Mr. Cowper sending a list of the books which he would require me to refer to, he sent the fifteen paragraphs of my pamphlets so marked that it was difficult to know which would be attacked; and a cart would have been required to bring books enough to cover the whole fifteen paragraphs. (Hear, hear.) I wrote to my opponent, and a copy of my letter I have here in my possession, asking him to reconsider the matter, and to mark the paragraphs more explicitly, that I might bring every authority required to bear out the truth of my statements. He wrote back to say that he did not mean to do anything of the sort, and could not specify more particularly to what he should refer to-night. I mention this because if I have not every authority here for reference it is not my fault. If he really wished me to bring my authorities for what I had written—(I impute no motives)—if he really wished it after he bad read the pamphlets some three months ago, would it not have been better for him a few days since to have said "Mr. Watts, I shall require you to produce such and such books?" (Cheers.) lie has not done so. I intend, page 7 however, to follow him line by line, and in the event of his falling into his own trap, he must not blame me, for I shall endeavour to show you why that particular course of action has been adopted by him. Whatever my opponent has done to-night in the way of refutation, he has not attempted to verify or repeat the charge which he made against me, of being dishonest or untruthful. I apprehend that by next Thursday night he will have shown me that he is capable of making one or two mistakes, and I shall then press home the charge and ask him where I show the marks of dishonesty in my pamphlets, and where I utter falsehoods? Strange to say, the very first paragraph which he sent to me marked, he has entirely overlooked, and has made no mention of it to-night. It is, "Much confusion of opinion exists among Christians in reference to the terms 'Divinity' and 'Christianity.' Have these words ever been adequately defined? Or are they not expressions used to represent notions acquired through religious training, notions based on belief, not demonstration; faith, not facts? Have we any knowledge to enable us to distinguish the 'divine,' supposing it to exist, from the 'human?'" Although that is one of his marked passages, he has passed it over, because I suppose, he knows no more of the Divinity than I do, and is unable to give a clear definition of Christianity; and therefore, with his usual ability, he avoids touching the question at all. (Cheers.) Then the paragraph with which he commences reads thus :—" Has Christianity anything to recommend it that other religious theories do not claim?" I ask that question—has my opponent been kind enough to tell what Christianity has that other systems have not? I have read a book called the "Koran," which is supposed to represent a religious faith different from that of the Bible. There I find claims to inspiration, divinity, miracles and prophecy. Are not the same claims urged for the Christian faith? My pamphlet does not dogmatise, but it puts the question; and it is for my opponent to answer that question this evening, and when he has done so, I will endeavour to deal with his reply. I deny that the morality of the New Testament is original, and assert that the moral maxims taught by the men whom Mr. Cowper has mentioned would be found as lofty and pure and practical as the morality of the New Testament if compared with it. And then I state that what is practicable has been borrowed from men who lived long anterior to the time when Christ is said to page 8 have lived. Is this true, or is it false? Instead of going to the ancients, my opponent should have gone to the point, and proved first that the morality of the New Testament is practicable, lofty, and pure, and then in the second place that it is more so than the maxims of other systems. I deny both the one and the other. (Cheers.) Then again his extracts to prove that Confucius, and Seneca, and Socrates, were not moral men, go for nothing; because however immoral their conduct may have been, their moral precepts may be as pure and lofty as those of the best men. (Hear, hear.) Shall I apply my opponent's reasonings to Christ? In the New Testament, which I have here, Christ actually offers a premium to a man who deserts his wife. You do not, however, urge that Christ was an immoral man on that account? In chapter xvi. of Luke you have a parable of an unjust steward, who is commended for his conduct, and it concludes in these words:—"I say unto you make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that when ye fall they may receive you into everlasting habitations." Now if this were found in a passage of Seneca or Confucius, our friend would say, "Here is a parable extolling a swindling usurious steward—out upon such morality." Then as to the disciples who were going on a mission of propaganda, we are told in the New Testament that if persons would not receive them into their houses they were to shake off the dust of their feet when they departed from the city, and it should be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city. Will Mr. Cowper tell this audience the meaning of shaking off the dust of their feet, in oriental language? If he will do so, you will learn that it meant that the disciples should have a hatred against those to whom they were sent to preach, but who received them not. Then again, one of Christ's disciples requested permission to bury his father, but Christ said, "No, let the dead bury their dead, follow thou me." (Cheers.) Mr. Cowper speaks of the drunkenness of the ancient philosophers, and he says that some of them taught, if they did not practise, suicide. Does that prove that the maxims of those men are necessarily immoral? Because if so, what do you say of the Bible, which in Proverbs says—"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more." If that is not giving permission to get drunk, then words have no meaning what- page 9 ever. And will you have a passage as to suicide? Then I draw your attention to Proverbs xxiii. 1—"When thou fittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee; and put a knife to thy throat if thou be a man given to appetite." Is the morality, as taught in the Bible, original? My opponent says that he is not up in the Chinese language. Neither am I; but in a book by R. W. Mackay, entitled "The Progress of the Intellect," vol. ii. page 376, he says—"It has often been observed that the gospel morality is no absolute novelty, but that the same precepts had been already announced, if not among the Jews, at all events in other times and countries. The requital of good for evil, the virtue of loving an enemy instead of ill-treating him, had been appreciated by the philanthropy of Greeks and Hindoos." Davis, in his work upon China, vol. ii. pp. 41-50, says that the maxims "Guard the thoughts of the heart," and "Do to others as you wish them to do to you," are among the sayings of Confucius. So say Mr. Mackay and Mr. Davis; and the former goes through the precepts of the New Testament, showing that they are either in the Old Testament, or in the writings of the Greeks or Hindoos or Chinese. Therefore you have authority after authority, to show that the morality of the Gospels is not original. (Hear, bear.) I would have you understand that my opponent is here to contradict me. He has said that I have acted dishonestly and spoken untruthfully. If I have not, then all he brings forward to-night upon other matters will not affect my statements. In the pamphlet upon which Mr. Cowper has commented, I have said : "To the truths already uttered in the Athenian prison, Christianity added little or nothing except a few symbols which, though well calculated for popular acceptance, are more likely to perplex than to instruct, and offer the best opportunity for priestly mystification." Here I am prepared to verify that statement from page 19 of Mackay's "Rise and Progress of Christianity." But what says John Stuart Mill? On pages 28. 29, and 30 of his work on "Liberty" he says—"To extract from it [the New Testament] a body of ethical doctrine has never been possible without eking it out from the Old Testament—that is, from a system elaborate indeed, but in many respects barbarous, and intended only for a barbarous people. . . . I do not scruple to say of it that it is, in many important points, incomplete and one-billed and that unless ideas and feelings not sanctioned by it page 10 had contributed to the formation of European life and character, human affairs would have been in a worse condition than they now are. . . . What little recognition the idea of obligation to the public obtains in modern morality in derived from Greek and Roman sources, not from Christian as even in the morality of private life whatever exists of magnanimity, high mindedness, personal dignity, even the sense of honour, is derived from the purely human, not the religious part of our education, and never could have grown out of a standard of ethics in which the only worth professedly recognised, is that of obedience. . . . I believe that other ethics than any which can be evolved from exclusively Christian sources must exist side by side with Christian ethics to produce the moral regeneration of mankind." My opponent has attacked my first paragraph, wherein I allege that the maxims of Christianity are not more practical, and lofty, and pure, than those of the ancient heathen philosophers; I think I have not only verified the assertion, but that I have also proved that the morality of Scripture is impracticable. I leave it to you to judge for yourselves. Then our friend has spoken about our having no writings of Socrates. Suppose I adopt the same language and say, Where do you find one line of the writings of Christ? (Hear, hear.) Do you, when you appeal to the working men of England, think they are going to be bewildered like that? You have some teachings attributed to Socrates in the works of his disciples; then, if you do not believe in the disciples of Socrates—why do you believe in the disciples of Christ? I have exhausted my time; I suppose my opponent will have something to say upon other parts of my pamphlet, but, so far as the discussion has gone, I think I have answered him on paragraph one. (Loud cheers.)

The Chaibman intimated that the charge of dishonesty was not made in the room, therefore it ought not to come within the debate. He thought it would be better to keep strictly to the rules laid down.

Mr. Watts said that in his first letter, which formed the basis of the discussion that night, one of his conditions was that Mr. Cowper should prove that he was untruthful and dishonest.

Mr. Cowper: Gentlemen—Two things will be apparent to my judges : first, that my accusations of immoral teachings and practices against Socrates, Seneca, and Confucius have not been rebutted. (Hear, hear.) The second is this page 11 —it has not been shown that the New Testament teaches suicide, or drunkenness, or hypocrisy, or flattery, or any of the other vices which I have shown were taught by our Pagan philosophers. (Cheers.) Our friend, in referring to a question which I asked when I requested him to produce some other religion in which the conditions he lays down do meet, refers me to the Koran; but I said expressly some other religion outside the Bible. The Koran recognises the Old and New Testaments, and if it does not admit that they are the sole revealed authorities on the matter of religion, it recognises the divinity and truth of both, and quotes largely from them. This is my answer to that. (Cheers.) Our friend said that the morality of Christianity was borrowed—"Ethics borrowed from men who lived long anterior to the Christian era, and who wrote without the aid of Christian inspiration." I admit that there are many moral maxims in the New Testament which are found in the Old, and there are some which are to be found in the writings of wise men of all countries and times; but it is not the point. The point is that Christian ethics, as a whole, are borrowed from men who lived long anterior to the Christian era. Where is the proof of it? A quotation from Mackay won't do; it is merely bringing up Mr. Mackay to speak for Mr. Watts. A quotation from Mr. John Stuart Mill will not do; it is merely knocking me down with the great philosopher. (Cheers.) I want facts, and until they come I am perfectly safe. I will give another illustration of the morality of Socrates. Plato writes of what is in Latin convivmm, and in English a banquet. Some gentlemen are represented as being there, and among them is Socrates himself. Another is Alcibiades. They eat and drink; they get drunk, and one after another they go to sleep; but Socrates is able to bear more strong drink than any of them; and he rises at daylight sober, and goes away, and returns home the next evening. That is a specimen of his morality; we are told it is as lofty and pure as that of the New Testament. The Evangelist of Socrates reports their conversation, and that conversation turns upon various vices, and certain practices of the Boulton and Park order. Is this the morality to be compared with the New Testament? (Cheers.) I told you when I referred to Socrates, that I dared not quote what the most ancient authors say of the man, but I pass on. The next paragraph is on pages three and four, and with that I shall at present note first of all certain quotations which page 12 occur on page five. On page four of the pamphlet it says:—'Among the many religions which existed at the time Christ is said to have promulgated his faith, the utmost toleration for the new theological system prevailed. 'Each nation,' says Mosheim, 'suffered its neighbours to follow their own method of worship, to adore their own Gods, to enjoy their own rites and ceremonies, and discovered no sort of displeasure at t heir diversity of sentiments in religious matters. . . . The Romans exercised this tolerance in the amplest manner."' Now I accuse my opponent of deliberately leaving out of that passage the portion which is contrary to bis own cause and opinion. I take Reid's edition as the best, Murdock's translation, it is page eight. It reads thus:—"Each nation, without concern, allowed its neighbours to enjoy their own views of religion, and to worship their own gods in their own way. Nor need this tolerance greatly surprise us. For they who regard the world as being divided like a great country into numerous provinces, each subject to a distinct order of deities, cannot despise the gods of other nations, nor think of compelling all others to pay worship to their own national gods. The Romans in particular, though they would not allow the public religions to be changed or multiplied, yet gave the citizens full liberty in private to observe foreign religions, and to hold meetings and feasts, and erect temples and groves to those foreign deities in whose worship there was nothing inconsistent with the public safety and the existing laws." That restriction is intentionally left out. The second is from Gibbon, page 36, and it looks like a deliberate suppression, because the part which is suppressed occurs in a footnote. The quotation is—"The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful." Gibbon also says (and this is left out by my opponent), "The Christians, as well as the Jews who lived under the Roman empire, formed a very important exception—so important, indeed, that the discussion will require a distinct chapter of this work." Now this is utterly ignored. Then, to show how large this toleration was, my opponent says that "St. Paul counsels his followers to have no fellowship with unbelievers, but it a man preach any other gospel save Christianity, let him be accursed." 2 Cor. vi. 14, is a prohibition to have nothing to do with unrighteousness—the word unbelievers is not in the clause; and as to the words, let lain be accursed,"they are page 13 a misrepresentation of Galatians i. 8. The word "anathema" signifies not condemned in another world, but let him be excommunicated. (Cheers.) Further, before I lay down this pamphlet, in the same paragraph he says, "The same unjust conduct was exhibited by the Independents, who, in the reign of James I., persecuted to death many of the Baptists and Quakers, who sought to carry their Christianity into America, where the Independents had already partially established their faith." I ask what Quakers there were in the reign of James I. for Christians to persecute? Will he show me in what history it is recorded? (Cheers.) If you want illustrations of the measure of toleration which existed among the ancient Greeks and Romans, can give you all you desire. Gibbon, in the sixteenth chapter of his celebrated book, treats in detail the whole subject of the persecutions which the Pagans inflicted upon the Christians, and he shows why it was that they persecuted the Christians. It was because the Christians brought in a system of religion—a theology which did not happen to be recognised by any Act of Parliament, or any decree of the Senate; of which the professors could not say it was the national religion of any people in the world. (Cheers.) Now the cat is out, and you see, as well as eyes can see, that you have been misinformed, and that in the most palpable manner. (Hear, hear.) If you have any doubt whatever, I would refer you to Neander, who was a later writer than Mosheim or Gibbon, and who, in the first volume of his history, quotes from the ancient jurist, Julius Paulus. He says: "Whoever introduced new religions, whose tendency and character were unknown, whereby the minds of men might be disturbed, were, if belonging to the higher ranks, to be banished, if to the lower, punished with death." What comes, then, of your toleration and progressive aspirations? My friend says "it would be no disadvantage to the Christians of enlightened England if they accepted a lesson of toleration from Pagan Rome;" but, from what I have just quoted, we should have to put them all to death if we carried it out. (Cheers.) Mr. Watts knows very well—it was in the National Reformer some months ago—

The Chairman: I cannot allow quotation from a book which is not present.

Mr. Cowper: I am not quoting—it is a matter which I state on my own personal honour.

The Chairman: I cannot allow you to quote from it even page 14 on your personal honour; you must keep to the terms of the engagement.

Mr. Cowper: I have the book on the table, but I have not charged my memory with the reference. (No, no.) Well, I have said enough to suit my purpose. Toleration, my friends! and Mosheim quoted for it, when his book is filled with the most bloody persecutions! Gibbon quoted; when Gibbon quotes the fact, and records the detail, and philosophises upon them as best he can! Toleration! it is of Christian origin, and of Christian conception. But we are told that Christianity is intolerant because an apostle says believers are to have nothing to do with sin; the Christian morality is intolerant because Christians were told to shake the dust off their feet! If intolerance never went further than shaking off the dust from your feet to show your displeasure or vexation, intolerance would be a very harmless thing indeed. (Hear, hear.) Secularists must be very sorely tried for their cause to summon to their rescue a passage like that—" Shake off the dust of your feet." What does it come to? As to the third paragraph, there is a comparison instituted between Moses and Christ. So great is my friend's dislike to Christ, that he draws a comparison between the teachings of Moses and those of Christ to the advantage of the former. I don't object to Moses, but my reference is to Christ, who, it is said, "taught that good conduct in this life was not necessarily associated with its well-earned reward of human happiness and enjoyment. As for sin, he appeared to think it was generally prosperous, that riches and depravity were allied, and that the sinful ones of the earth 'fared sumptuously every day.'" If any man will read the opening verses of the Sermon on the Mount, he will see that it is the good men who are blessed in this world, and he will find that the doctrine of the Apostles is that "godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." (Cheers.) Now, it is a doctrine of the Bible throughout, of the Old Testament (for I may refer to that), and of the New, that "the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace to the wicked." And to the disciples of Jesus Christ is given peace, for he said, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." Is there anything in that to indicate that the religion of Christ is bad? (Cheers.)

page 15

The Chairman intimated that Mr. Cowper had three times imputed motives to his opponent; he hoped Mr. Watts would not see fit to adopt a similar course.

Mr. Watts said: I do not wish to do so; my position is sufficiently good, and my principles are too charitable to require me to ascribe anything mean to my opponent. Although I differ from him, 1 can believe that Mr. Cowper is sincere and honest. If you give me your attention, I will give you a fair sample of Christian teachings and quotations. You were told that I had not disproved the immorality of the ancient philosophers. I did not try to do so. I admit, with my opponent, that the ancient philosophers may have been immoral to a certain extent; but if a man be immoral, it does not necessarily follow that his writings or teachings are impure. (Hear.) But can my friend say that the teachings of the New Testament are not immoral, and that the disciples of Christ were spotless? Has he replied to what I said in reference to this matter in my former speech? I say that in every age and in every man there is some virtue as well as some vice; and the disciples of Christ showed by their teachings and works that they were not exceptions to this rule. (Hisses.) You who are not prepared to hear both sides of the question had better retire. I presume that you paid your money to hear my opinion as well as my opponent's. I do not allege that the ancient philosophers were moral par excellence, I have not stated that in my pamphlet; I am here to defend what I have really stated therein, not what my opponent has represented that I have said. Then we are told that the Koran acknowledges the Bible. Who says it does not? My position is that the Koran has a different theory from that of the Bible. Because it acknowledges portions of the Bible, my opponent says it is not different from the Bible; but Christians do not believe the same doctrines as the followers of the Koran, and therefore their belief must be a different theory, and this theory comprises what Christianity claims as peculiar to itself. (Cheers.) Then you were told that the quotations from the ancients themselves are required in this discussion; but a moment before you were informed by him that some of their writings were not in existence; then why demand that which is not obtainable? Because my opponent could not read Chinese, he went to a certain author and quoted what he required, which was quite right, and I did the same; but he says with the most perfect coolness that page 16 you must accept his author, but not mine. (Cheers.) He says, "A quotation from Mr. Mackay will not do for me; it is merely bringing up Mr. Mackay to speak for Mr. Watts but I also produced Mr. Davis. To quote J. 8. Mill to Mr. Cowper is only, he says, to knock him down with a great philosopher. Certainly. And if my opponent is not strong enough to hold his position he deserves to fall. I ask whether he can produce to me in the teachings and writings of Socrates and Seneca, the statements of their conduct which you have heard from him to-night? He knows very well that he has not a shadow of direct evidence for the truth of those immoral sayings and doings which he ascribes to them, and therefore he gives incorrect representatives of those men, and not the writers themselves. Now I hold in my hand the "History of Philosophy," by Lewes, and I ask whether that author impeaches the principles of Socrates? Does he not tell you that Socrates taught love, and morality, and forbearance to one another, of which I have spoken? Let my opponent disprove this, and I will then accept his imputations against the authority of Mackay and Lewes, gentlemen who have won laurels by their industry and their care. Then as to toleration, you will remember that it has been said, and truly so, that the Romans persecuted the Christians. Will Mr. Cowper tell me where I said they did not? I said at the time when Christ is said to have promulgated his faith, the utmost toleration for new theological systems prevailed. Can it be proved that the earliest Christians, for their faith, were ever persecuted by the Romans—say 1840 years ago, or when Christ was on the earth? My pamphlet states distinctly "at the time," and I defy my opponent to show one passage which will prove that the Christians were persecuted on account of their religion, at the time when Christ is said to have promulgated his faith. Until he does this, all his references to Nero and others will avail nothing. I admit that they were persecuted in the time of Nero, but then what was it for?—because they met in secret, and it was thought that they were conspiring against the civil power, and not till then did the Romans attack their rights. (Cheers.) Then we were told that I left out purposely a passage from Mosheim, which was hostile to my own cause and opinion. I was grieved to hear it stated that this was intentionally done, and I deny the statement. If Mr. Cowper possesses a different edition from the one I quote, then he should, as a gentleman, read every other edition before page 17 charging his opponent with wilfully suppressing a passage. In fact, Mr. Cowper has used Murdock's translation, in which the passage in question does occur, and I have used Maclaine'8 translation in which that passage does not occur. But do the parts which he says I have purposely left out tell against me? I will read the whole passage:—"One thing indeed, which at first sight appears very remarkable, is that this variety of religions and of gods neither produced wars nor dissensions among the different nations, the Egyptians excepted. Nor is it, perhaps, necessary to except even them, since their wars undertaken for their gods cannot be looked upon with propriety as wholly of a religious nature. Each nation suffered its neighbours to follow their own method of worship, to adore their own gods, to enjoy their own rites and ceremonies, and discovered no sort of displeasure at their diversity of sentiments in religious matters. There is, however, little wonderful in this spirit of mutual toleration, when we consider that they all looked upon the world as one great empire, divided into various provinces, over every one of which a certain order of divinities presided, and that therefore none could behold with contempt the gods of other nations or force strangers to pay homage to theirs The Romans exercised this toleration in the amplest manner." I contend that these words do not tell against me, but that they tell against my opponent. "The Romans exercised this toleration in the amplest manner;" these words are word for word with my pamphlet, and yet I am charged with dishonesty. If I had left out a word purposely because it did not suit my case, I would never again dare to appear before an audience, for it would have been dishonest; but have I done so, have I perverted the truth, or wilfully suppressed that which was adverse to my cause? Here is the passage on page eight, and I lay it before Mr. Cowper for his own inspection. (Cheers.) Then I am charged with misquoting Gibbon, and my opponent says that on the page from which I have quoted there is a note which modifies that which I have stated in my pamphlet. Let us see, I will read the quotation: "The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful." That is my statement and here is the book, and on the page there is not one note in reference to what I have quoted. (Cheers.) What am I to do, gentlemen, with an opponent who charges me with page 18 misquoting, and with suppressing words which really are not to be found? (Cheers.) I endeavour to be truthful, and I maintain that I have not misquoted any one passage; but wishing to take no advantage, I place this volume in my opponent's hands for him to verify my statement. Again, I am charged with misquoting from the New Testament—three misquotations I was charged with. We were told the word "unbelievers" is not to be found in one passage. Then our friend has a different version from mine I suppose—he has a different New Testament! Because I read, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" This is the admonition of the apostle Paul, and this is what I have stated in my pamphlet. Then in Timothy, Paul says that if a man does not consent to the words of Jesus Christ, he is proud; does not that bear out what I have said with reference to the intolerance of the Christian precepts? (Hear, hear.) Then we come to the passage which Mr. Cowper attempted to give you. Paul says—" But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." "We are told that this means "let him be excommunicated." Will my opponent tell you that the best Greek scholars adroit such an interpretation? Are there not some of the best Greek scholars who deny it? (Cheers.) I think, then, I have answered the charge of misquotation. Then as to the general question of Roman toleration. I said that the Romans were tolerant, and I read from Mosheim and Gibbon to prove my assertion; and now I will give you a quotation from Chambers, in their "History of Some." On p. 360 they say—" One good quality they (the Romans) pre-eminently exhibited—namely, the toleration of other forms and rituals than their own, no matter whether exhibited at home or in the countries they conquered." Here, then, Chambers, Gibbon, and Mosheim, corroborate my statement; and now I ask my opponent to answer them. He has not answered them hitherto; if he cannot do so, I have proved my side. Then you are told about shaking off the dust from your feet. My opponent says that if you never have any more intolerance than that, intolerance will be a very harmless thing indeed. You know, that I spared him even there, for the chapter teaches something worse than that; for it says of those very parties who would not receive the disciples, that it would be more tolerable in the day page 19 judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for them. Perhaps he will say that they were to be burnt, because they did not accept the disciples into their houses! That is Mr. Cowper's idea of toleration, (Cheers.) Then as to the next paragraph—and I am surprised that I have not been challenged for a proof of the statement that the doctrines of Christianity were not original. I say they were not, and I quote the story of Crishna and the history of the Essenes in proof thereof. But to pass on. I have said : "The same unjust conduct was exhibited by the Independents, who, in the reign of James I., persecuted to death many of the Baptists and Quakers, who sought to carry their Christianity into America, where the Independents had already partially established their faith." What is it Mr. Cowper denies in that? Does he deny that the Independents put the Quakers and Baptists to death on account of their religion? If it is a question of date, then I admit he is right; but then I say that Mosheim has made similar mistakes with regard to dates. I urged that the Baptists and Quakers were put to death by the Independents. My authorities are Priestley, and Conder in his "Views of all Religions," a book which I have on the table. Therefore I think that I have established my assertion—namely, that in putting to death the Quakers and Baptists, Christians have exhibited a marked difference from the toleration which was exercised by ancient Paganism. I admit that the date is wrong, but the deed is the same; and I will put other authorities before my opponent, as I have Mosheim and Gibbon, if he says that the Christians did not murder and persecute their brother Christians, because they appeared to be encroaching upon their livings.

The Chairman asked Mr. Watts as a favour that he would, in his next speech, address the audience, and not Mr. Cowper. He also requested that the audience would not audibly give expression to their feelings.

Mr. Cowper.—If men were to deny that the sun was shining at twelve o'clock in the day-time, it would be a difficult thing to prove that the sun was shining. My opponent has said that the Christians were not persecuted because of their religion, but I contend that they were, and if he cannot see that such was the fact from the books I have quoted, I cannot show him further. He has quoted from Maclaine's translation of Mosheim, which is inaccurate in the extreme. A writer, Dr. Murdock, says that" he often added a few words of his own to give more vivacity and point to the sen. page 20 timents of his author, or more splendour to their dress. And whoever will he at the pains of comparing his translation with the original may see that he has essentially changed the style, and greatly coloured and altered in many places the sentiments of his author. In short, that he has paraphrased rather than translated a large part of the work." I have compared these two books, and I have found that Murdock's translation is correct, and I have not hesitated to use it. As to the extract from Gibbon, about which there was a considerable explosion, allow me, from Mr. Watts's own book, to read the words I said he had omitted from his pamphlet, though his edition is a different one from my own—"Some obscure traces of an intolerant spirit appear in the conduct of the Egyptians (see Juvenal, Sat. xv.), and the Christians as well as Jews who lived under the Roman Empire formed a very important exception; so important, indeed, that the discussion will require a distinct chapter of this work." These words are recorded in a foot-note on page 36; and yet you are told, with the courage of a Hector, that no such words are on the page. (Loud cheering.) I would also call attention to another little matter—the allusions that are made to the Koran. Allow me to observe that the Koran was written several hundred years after the latest book of the New Testament, and therefore the New Testament cannot contain any ethics borrowed from that book. The Koran, if my memory serves me—I shall be, perhaps, told to refer to the book—repudiates the claim of working miracles on the part of Mahomet.

The Chairman—I cannot allow you to quote the Koran unless it is on the table.

Mr. Cowper—Well, I shall proceed with an observation or two—one only upon the subject of the morality taught by Christ, with regard to toleration. You are told of the people to whom you are to shake off the dust of your feet, that it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the Day of Judgment, than for them. But this is putting different things together—one is an exhortation to Christians not to have anything to do with unrighteousness and sin, the other being the prerogative of the Eternal God, who shall judge the living and the dead. I have not confounded these two things; I have a duty, and that duty is not to smile at or patronise or favour iniquity to any degree or of any name, for righteousness is not to have any fellowship with unrighteousness. Did any Pagan writer utter a sentiment like that? page 21 (Cheers.) Then we are told that "in the history of the Essenes, a sect that flourished long before Christ, are to be found the principal doctrines and customs contained in the New Testament." I have a book here by Dr. Ginsburgh, of Liverpool, one of the greatest scholars of the day, and among the statements that he makes with regard to the opinions of the Essenes I find he says—" They live in villages, avoiding cities on account of the habitual wickedness of the citizens." We are further told that they "do not marry nor give in marriage, hence there are, properly speaking, no newly born ones among the Essenes, no children, no youths, as the dispositions of these are unstable, and liable to change from the imperfections incident to their age." And he says again—" No one of the Essenes marries a wife, because woman is a selfish and excessively jealous creature, and has great power to destroy the morals of a man, and to mislead with continual tricks, flattering speeches, and other kinds of hypocrisy as on a stage; bewitching the eyes and the ear; and when they are subjugated like the things stultified, she proceeds to undermine the ruling intellect." Now, the Apostle Paul says, "Marriage is honourable in all;" and the difference affecting that, very matter—the fundamental principle of the social life—is such, that to say the one and the other correspond, is to say that which is not at all correct. There are other things stated with respect to their manners, such as "they regard ointment as defiling; and if a man is anointed against his will, he immediately wipes it off his body." Now Christ does not regard that as defiling. He says, "When thou fastest anoint thine head, and wash thy face." Then we are told about washing; but the New Testament says—" call no man unclean." But our friend, who does not calculate upon being brought to task like this, tells you that the doctrines of the Essenes are the same as those contained in the New Testament. The next reference is to Krishna. Our friend here, with that marvellous pertinacity which I do not condemn in a man who has a desperate case in hand, writes "Chrishna'"—it is written in modern works as Krishna;" but in the mind of an unbeliever it is supposed to have something to do with Christ, therefore it is written Ch, and sometimes the t is put in. But the name has uotbing whatever to do with Christ. (Mr. Watts—Hear, hear.) But again—" Chrishna, the incarnate god of the Brahmins, furnishes the outline of the supernatural structure said to have been page 22 erected by Christ and his apostles." Is that the case? I boldly declare that it is not, for the doctrines upon which my friend relies are later than those of Scripture, as proved by the writings of some of our best writers. I have here some extracts from Max M¨ller, one of the great writers on Sanscrit, and he says of the book which contains such statements with regard to Krishna, the Mahabhârata, none knows its date even approximately, or that it was written previous to the Christian era. And yet you are told that it contains an outline of the Christian system! "The poem, as we now have it," he says, "is clearly written with a special view of glorifying Krishna, one of the most recent productions of the theogony of the Hindoos." But I am not aware that any man, or any scholar, and I have taken a great deal of pains to find out, that any Sanscrit scholar now would advocate any antiquity for the story of Krishna, any more than he would think of writing "Chrishna" to make it look like "Christ." Then our friend says that "Chrishna furnishes the outline of the supernatural structure said to have been erected by Christ and his apostles, and that Christianity has been aptly described as Paganism modified, and somewhat refined." Now, in the first volume of the "Asiatic Researches," which I have here, we read these little things about Krishna:—"Chrishna was not less heroic than lovely, and, when a boy, slew the terrible serpent, Caliya, with a number of giants and monsters. At a more advanced age, he put to death his cruel enemy Cansa; and, having taken under his protection the King Yudhishthir, and the other Pandus, who had been grievously oppressed by the Curus, and their tyrannical chief, he kindled the war described in the great epic poem, entitled the Mahabharata, at the prosperous conclusion of which he returned to his heavenly seat." And then further on in the same book we have a general statement respecting Krishna, and the supposed resemblances of his story with the gospels. At the end of the same article we find the alleged analogies between the character of Krishna and that of Christ, and the writer, Sir William Jones, says—"This motley story must induce an opinion that the spurious gospels which abounded in the first age of Christianity, had been brought to India, and the wildest parts of them repeated to the Hindoos, who engrafted them on the old fable of Cεsava, the Apollo of Greece." So that Sir William Jones points out the facts of the ease. The story of Krishna is modern, and it is as foul and obscene in page 23 its details as it is possible to imagine. I think we may leave the Essenes and Krishna in the oblivion in which they should rest in the estimation of every Englishman. In the next paragraph we are informed "that the Galilean religion really retained many of the Pagan follies, some of which are to this day practised in the Christian Church." Will my friend tell me what Pagan follies Christianity has retained? If my memory serves me, the first chapter of the Romans contains a description of the idolaters, and it is written in a tone of holy indignation. In the first and second epistles of the Corinthians you have allusions to the practices of the idolaters, and Christian men are warned that God has nothing in common with idols, arid a great deal more. From first to last, if there be anything manifest on the face of this New Testament and the Old Testament, it is the unswerving spirit of utter condemnation of everything in the shape of idolatry or in the spirit or principles of idolatry; and yet we are told in a pamphlet called "Christian Evidences Criticised," that the Galilean religion really retained many of the Pagan follies, some of which are to this day practised in the "Christian Church." I regret very much that the multitude of matters prevents me from going into every detail which I have marked in this pamphlet; but there are still one or two more to which some reference must be made, and therefore I at once draw attention to the sixth paragraph, pages seven and eight, in which allusions are made to the opinions of "the alleged founder of Christianity," and "his credulous hearers, that the end of the world was at hand; that their existence on earth was nearly over, and if they accepted his faith, they should not only have houses and lands during their brief stay here, but happiness and immortality hereafter." The whole of this shows such a misapprehension of the spirit of Christianity, that two minutes will not be sufficient to speak upon it. Our Lord speaks of the world in a metaphorical sense, to denote the maxims and condition of this present life of the men of the world, and it was believed, and it is certain that to them the end of the world was very near. They did not live for ever, they passed away; but Jesus Christ and his disciples did not expect this material world to come to such a conclusion as this, because the Gospel was to be made known to the ends of the world. There were to arise scoffers, men who denied the Lord that bought them, who would say, "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all page 24 things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." There you have an indication that the end of the world was not so nigh; and men of the class described have brought us to this room to-night. (Loud cheering.)

The Chairman intimated that both Mr. Cowper and his opponent had slightly digressed from the rules laid down, by referring to the Koran, the book not being on the table. He would suggest, as the Koran seemed to be of some importance in the debate, that it should be laid on the table the following week, in order that the statement to the effect that Mahomet repudiated the claim of working miracles and the gift of prophecy, might be verified.

Mr. Watts supplemented the chairman's remarks by requesting Mr. Cowper to furnish him, before the next meeting, with a list of books which would be required for reference, in order that he might not be inconvenienced by carrying a larger number of volumes than was necessary to support the paragraphs attacked in his pamphlet. He then said :—I will go seriatim through what has been said by my opponent. We were asked what was the cause of intolerance in ancient times. For I admit intolerance; but the point was, did the Romans persecute the Christians at the time when Christ was said to have lived? In my pamphlet I state that they did not. Although I have repeated this two or three times this evening, Mr. Cowper has avoided this point, because he knows there is not one line in history to verily his assertion that the Christians were persecuted by the Romans for their religion during the lifetime of Christ. What was the cause of persecution in after times? Mosheim states in substance what is said by Chambers in their "History of Rome," page 332. It is stated :—"In the reign of Trajan considerable excitement seems to have prevailed throughout the empire on the subject of Christianity, occasioned partly by theclamour9 of the populace in many towns against the Christians, and partly by the suspicion in which they were held by the authorities on account of their secluded manner of life, their aversion to public sports and to military service, and above all, their secret meetings for the purpose of worship." Here is precisely what is stated in my pamphlet, that because they met in secret, and; it was thought, conspired against the State, therefore then, and not till then, were the Christians persecuted. The next point to which my opponent referred was with reference to the modes of worship among the Romans, page 25 when he took hold of Gibbon for the purpose of refuting my statement, and proving that I had misquoted that author. [The Chairman: Will you kindly look at the audience?] Well, let us see whether he has done so. When this was first quoted, Mr. Cowper said, "If Mr. Watts had dealt fairly with it, he would have said it had a note appended." I deny that the note has the slightest reference to the passage quoted by me. It refers to an extract that has not been read to you to-night. The note refers to this passage—"The devout Polytheist, though fondly attached to his national rites, admitted, with implicit faith, the different religions of the earth." I never said anything about that paragraph. The extract in my pamphlet is—" The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful;" and to that extract there is not the smallest foot note in Gibbon. My' object is to argue the matter thoroughly. If I am wrong, put me right; but do not charge me, without any proof, with dishonesty. (Cheers.) First, I deny that the note refers to my extract. It says, "Some obscure traces of an intolerant spirit appear in the conduct of the Egyptians (see Juvenal, Sat. xv.), and the Christians, as well as the Jews, who lived under the Roman Empire, formed a very important exception; so important, indeed, that the discussion will require a distinct chapter of this work." To prove what.? That the Christians were not persecuted by the Romans. The point does not refer to my extract, and what is more, it points decidedly against my opponent; "I thank the Jew for teaching me that word." (Cheers.) So much for my misquotations. (Hisses.) You are not gentlemen if you hiss; judge on both sides for yourselves. (Hear, hear.) We were told next, that the Koran was more recent than the New Testament, therefore this cannot be copied from that. Who said it is? I never quoted the Koran for that purpose; I mentioned it to show that its devotees claim for their faith many of the same characteristics as the Christians do for their religion. That was my statement, and to that no reply has been given. Then, Mr. Cowper says, with reference to the shaking off the dust from the feet of the disciples, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrba, that they are two distinct passages, referring to different events. Are they? Why they follow each other. (Cheers.) I will read them :—Matthew x. 13, 14, and 15 : "And if the house be worthy, page 26 let your peace come upon it; but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city." (Cheers.) Shame that a learned man should thus come and report to you that I am wrong in my history, that I misquote the Bible, and that J wilfully pervert the sense of my authors. (Cheers.) Then F am challenged about the Essenes. I say in my pamphlet "that the principal doctrines and customs contained in the New Testament"—mark the word principal—are to be found in the history of the Essenes. What are the doctrines? The belief in a God, the immortality of the soul, the reward of the righteous; here are three of the principal doctrines which Christians believe. And these are admitted to have been among the doctrines of the Essenes by Josephus and Mosheim. Now come the customs of the Essenes; what were they? Not that all had to abstain from marriage, but that a portion only had to do so. Some were allowed to marry, and there were certain conditions relating to the ceremony. And did not St. Paul specify certain conditions under which Christians should remain single, and mention certain causes which would justify marriage? That is precisely what the Essenes exemplified among their customs, and they taught that persons should mortify their bodies, as St. Paul also exhorted. I would advise my opponent to read my pamphlet with a little more care and thought. Now, as to Chrishna—and I was staggered to think that a gentleman who held in his hand the first volume of the "Asiatic Researches" should dare to say what he did—Mr. Cowper said that no writer of modern times ever spelled the word Krishna with a C. What difference would it make of he did not?

The Chairman.—I must again request you to address the audience.

Mr. Watts.—T apologise for looking at our friend; you know when a man is destroying or building an edifice he likes to see how his work is progressing, (Laughter.) I will deal with Sir William Jones. Mr. Cowper says that Jones deals with the facts of the ease. Admitted. And what does Jones say? First he spells Crishna with a C., and instead of saying that the whole story is modern, as my opponent alleges, he says on page 273, vol. i. "Asiatic Researches," "That the page 27 name of Crishna and the general outline of the story were long anterior to the birth of our Saviour, and probably to the time of Homer, we know very certainly." (Cheers.) Why, it is almost an insult to be asked to discuss here in his way, with a man who denies his own authors. Jones says that Crishna was an incarnate deity; that he worked miracles, and was exposed to persecution as Christ was by Herod; and that he was hidden away, as Christ was; and here are the outlines of the early history of Christ. Then after that we come to Pagan follies. I am asked what Pagan follies Christianity retains? First, the doctrine of the Trinity—three in one and one in three; then sacrifice; then baptism was a Pagan rite; and then burning incense; the follies of Ritualism, too, are some of the follies of Paganism in the past. The last statement alluded to by my opponent was with respect to the end of the world; he denied that the speedy end of the world is taught by Christ to his disciples. Now, I find in the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, Christ teaching the speedy end of the world most emphatically. I will read it to you—"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works. Verily, I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Now there was Christ telling the people to whom he was speaking, that the end of the world would come while they were alive. In several places Gibbon and Mosheim state that the early Christians believed that the end of the world really was at hand, and that is my statement in my pamphlet. And then with regard to the learning of the early Christian teachers. Mosheim says that In general the apostolic fathers and the other writers who in the infancy of the Chuch employed their pens in the cause of Christianity, were neither remarkable for their learning nor their eloquence; on the contrary, they express the most pious and admirable sentiments in the plainest and most illiterate style." Christ said to the people to whom he preached, You who follow me shall not only have houses and lands in this life, but a crown of glory in the life which is to come. And yet we are told that all this is to be taken in a metaphorical sense. Now, I say that to every question, so far as my pamphlet is concerned, I have given an answer. As to Moses, as mentioned by my opponent in a former speech, I said that in comparison with Christ, Moses took a healthy view of human life. That is page 28 only a comparison. Christ said that nothing that entered the mouth could defile a man; Moses taught just the opposite. Christ taught that if we are smitten on the one oheek we are to offer the other. Moses taught that if smitten you should defend yourself. Moses taught respecting disease better than Christ, for whatever the faults of the Jews and Moses were, they were particularly clean as to the person. What says Christ? "Take no thought of your life;" "Seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, and all things shall be added thereto." I am asked to defend the passage that represents Christianity as having no charms for the self-reliant. The New Testament teaches that of ourselves we can do no good thing. Christ says, "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." and then we are told that wisdom is foolishness, and that God can destroy the wise, and that men would believe a lie in order that they might be damned. I am also taunted with the text in which a writer of the New Testament spoke of scoffers; but who was the man supposed to have written those words? It was Peter the convicted liar, who denied his own Master. (Cheers.) I have dealt, so far as my time will allow, with all my opponent's attacks, and if he wishes further to discuss this matter, I invite him to a written debate, that every assertion in my pamphlet may be thoroughly investigated. I entered the debate thinking that I should perhaps be corrected and put right; but such has not been the case. The greatest scholar my opponents have put forward has not successfully impeached a single statement made by me in No. 1 of the pamphlets. (Cheers.)

The proceedings terminated with a vote of thanks to Mr. Crow for his able conduct in the chair.