The Divine Origin of Christianity.

First Evening.

he chairman (Mr. A. H. Ross) opened the proceedings by saying:—Ladies and gentlemen, it is scarcely necessary for me to state the object of our meeting to night, and I think the best thing I can do is to read the announcement in to-day's paper, which is as follows:—

Public Discussion Between Rev. M. W. Green And Mr. Chas. Bright. Subject: "The Divine Origin of Christianity," accepting the following definition of terms:—1. By "Divine origin" it is understood to be of Divine origin in the sense in which no other religion is. 2. In the term "Christianity" it is understood that there are included the Deity of Jesus, and His death as an atonement for man's sin.

Mr. Green affirms; Mr. Bright denies.

The discussion will commence by Mr. Green making a speech of half an hour's duration, to be followed by Mr. Bright for the same length of time. Then, both gentlemen will alternately make speeches of a quarter of an hour's duration. It is intended to extend the discussion over three nights, but Mr. Green desires me to intimate that it is extremely probable he will require a fourth night. Before introducing Mr. Green to you, I would just say that on the part of the disputants this discussion will be conducted in a courteous and gentlemanly manner. I would ask the audience also to assume an attitude befitting the importance of the subject—that is, one of decorum and gravity. I would advise that there should be no expressions of applause or dissent, and that you should listen to the arguments that may be advanced in a calm and dispassionate manner. This is the page 2 best method of arriving at the truth. I now introduce Mr. Green to you without further remark.

Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman and respected friends—I would like to say, in connection with the advertisement calling this meeting, so that I may put myself right with the public, that while the Committee have inserted the word "Reverend," in the advertisement, and while I may be addressed by that designation by many outside, I lay no claim to the title, and have had nothing to do with its insertion in the advertisement. I make this explanation because I do not think it wise that any of us should take such a designation.

I feel that perhaps an apology is necessary for my standing here to-night to address this large assemblage upon the subject which this debate is to take place. It may appear as though, in my judgment, I considered that Christianity required to be defended. Now, I have no such thought. I believe that Christianity, having begun in the manner it did, having to light its way step by step, we may say inch by inch, until it had gained by peaceful measures its mighty influence over the millions that lived in that early period, it may be said to really require no defence in this age. For at least eighteen centuries Christianity has maintained its own conquering way; it has over-ridden all opposition, and although vast forces have concentrated all their efforts to overthrow it, Christianity yet remains, and I believe will remain until the grand climax that God intends to bring about shall have been effected by its instrumentality. The only reason why I am here to-night is because I find it stated in that book which I venerate and love, that we are to "Prove all things," and to "Hold fast that which is good," and further, that we are to be "Ready to give to every man who asks, a reason of the hope that is within us with meekness and fear "I have been led to undertake this debate because I believe there are many persons whose minds have been unhinged by statements which they have heard in regard to Christianity, and I know that when persons listen merely to one side of a subject, and when they are continually having it dinned into their ears that Christianity is behind the age, that it is really only fit for old women, and is not fit for full-grown men, they sometimes come to have the impression, if they are not properly instructed, that there is some truth in the loud statements that are made by those opposed to Christianity. I believe that page 3 Christian Ministers ought always to be ready to give a reason for the faith that is within them; that they ought ever to be ready at proper times to lay before the intelligent people by whom they may be surrounded, the evidences on which they believe it reasonable and right to receive Christianity; the evidences on which they are led to urge Christianity upon the attention and for the acceptance of their fellow human beings. Simply for these reasons I am here to-night. Believing in my heart that if there is anything true under the Heavens of God, it is the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that if there is anything at all adapted to the wants of man in his present condition it is that holy religion. I feel happy, under these circumstances, in being here to-night, in order that I may present to you some of the evidences upon which I, and many in common with me, believe that that holy religion is worthy of the acceptance of every thoughtful and intelligent person.

Now, with regard to the occasion of this debate, it seems necessary that I should make a remark or two at this opening stage. I may say that I am only a recent resident in Dunedin, and I feel that I occupy, to some extent, an invidious position tonight, seeing that there are ministers of long standing and of greater ability than myself, in this city, who might ably have defended the truth. But they have not, thus far, done so, and therefore, on that account, there may be some justification for my present position. I would also say here that I have been, as it were, drawn into this matter, without any original intention on my part of having anything to do with such a thing us a debate. When I came here I found that Mr. Charles Bright—for whom personally I have a sincere respect—was lecturing in opposition to the Christian religion. I saw an announcement that he would lecture on "Our Saviour," and being curious to ascertain what would be the line of his argument upon such a theme, I attended his lecture. In my sermon on the following Sunday evening, I just adverted to a remark which I heard Mr. Bright make. I spoke to this effect: That the infidel lecturer at present in the city, while admitting that Christ was a good man, had yet been guilty of the illogical statement that while being a good man, his claim to be Divine was untrue—was a lie. This discourse was reported without my knowledge in one of the local newspapers. I cannot bind myself to that report because it was very imperfect, though I regarded its being published as an evidence page 4 of kindliness on the part of the newspaper proprietors. Mr. Bright wrote a letter to me, through the newspaper, in which he took exception to the term "infidel lecturer," and in which he asked if I would prove certain matters. Having heard in the meantime that Mr. Bright had challenged all the ministers of Dunedin to debate with him, I decided that I, at any rate, would not hold back if he should consider himself, in writing that letter, as challenging me to debate. I therefore asked him in my reply whether he wished mo to answer his statements—or rather to prove the positions that he suggested—through the newspapers, or whether he desired me to do so on a public platform, where he would have the right of reply. Many of you have doubtless read the correspondence, and I may therefore simply add that out of that correspondence has arisen this discussion. That Mr. Bright is regarded by the people of this city as having thrown out challenges to the ministers of the city is evident from the following announcement which appeared in the Morning Herald of the 8th of January:—"It appears that Mr, Charles Bright, the Freethought lecturer, has at length, after repeated challenges, induced a gentleman of the clerical order to meet him on a public platform, for the purpose of engaging in a controversial discussion." It thus appears from this paragraph that Mr. Bright has been throwing out challenges, and I would say that if he believes that he has the truth, and that all we, who hold to the verities of the Christian religion are in error, all honour to Mr. Bright for daring to come forth and challenge the ministers of the day to sustain their position before the world.

I feel that I occupy a position of some little disadvantage to-night, from the fact that, although Mr. Bright has been the assailant of Christianity, he occupies simply the position of a defendant, and I that of an affirmant in this debate. I may say further that I feel the disadvantage of my position because, having wholly to occupy an affirmative position, it prevents me from making that assault upon the position of Mr. Bright which I would like to have made, if time and opportunity had permitted. I tried very hard to get Mr. Bright to take an affirmative proposition, as well as myself, covering the ground which he occupies as a Freethought lecturer; but he was not willing to do so. One of his committee was of the same opinion as myself—that in order to cover the whole ground, and to make this debate really what it ought to be, page 5 Mr. Bright should affirm a proposition covering his ground as an advocate of the all-sufficiency of human reason for man's guidance. Then we would have been able to put this matter in a more complete form before the public. In justice to my friend, I ought, however, to say that he did suggest several propositions when I urged this matter; but they were in such a form that I could not consistently take the negative of them, inasmuch as I believed they would not cover the ground which was desired.

Now, having made these preliminary remarks, I would remind you that our proposition to-night is, "The Divine Origin of Christianity," and that there is this definition in connection with our subject: That it is Divine in the sense in which no other religion is Divine; and that Christianity includes the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ—the word "Deity" has been used in deference to Mr. Bright, who holds with the Divine origin of all things in a certain sense. I say, then, that Christianity is taken to include the Deity of Jesus, and His death as an atonement for man. Now there was an absolute necessity, apparently, for this definition, for I may say that, although from report and our correspondence, I was led to believe him to be an opponent of Christianity absolutely, yet Mr. Bright professes that he is not an opponent of Christianity as he understands it, but that he does not regard as parts of Christianity, either the Deity of Jesus, or the doctrine of the Atonement. Now, I regard these as fundamentals, and that without them there can be no Christianity. Mr. Bright takes the position that man's reason is his highest guide, and that he has a right to use his reason in any manner he thinks fit. I must say that I consider his understanding of the use of reason, and the principles which he professes, are detrimental to the welfare of society at large: that if the principles he holds were to gain general acceptance with the people—while he would doubtless deprecate such a state of things as much as myself—they would produce anarchy and wide-spread misery; they would utterly disorganise society, and prevent life and property from being secure.

But to return to the one point: Mr. Bright affirms that the moral teachings of Jesus Christ constitute, in his judgment, the sum and substance of Christianity, and that the Deity of Jesus, and His death as an atonement for man, are simply accretions which have been added by persons page 6 who lived subsequently to Christ, and are no part of the original Christianity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now you will perceive that I have, therefore, a very plain duty to perform to-night. That duty is to show from the Christian records that it is an essential part of the religion of Jesus that He is Divine—Divine in a sense in which no other mortal is, and that He really did die, according to the teachings of those Scriptures which are our only guide and direction in connection with Christianity, for and on behalf of man. I know not what line of argument my friend may take in the course of this debate, nor how he may deal with this volume; but I certainly shall expect him to use reason in his manner of dealing with the subject. I would therefore say that, as we have no other records which profess to embody the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and really proclaim His gospel, this book must be taken as the legitimate expounder of what Christianity is. In order to establish that Christianity includes the two points in dispute, and to show that my definition is entirely true, I will first take the Gospels written by the Apostles of Christ and their immediate companions. I shall take, then, the early Christian literature, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles addressed to believing persons; then the statements made by early writers of the Christian Church; and I will also show from the writings of profane historians, and also from bitter enemies, that those two points are essential features in Christianity. Then, I say, that if I understand the necessities of Mr. Bright's position aright, or at all, it seems to me there will devolve upon him the duty of showing that these records, and the testimony which we have had handed down to us from those living in that time are not reliable; for if the genuineness and authenticity of these records cannot be overturned, then I say that beyond all controversy, beyond the possibility of its being shaken at all, I shall have proved that Mr Bright's statement as to what Christianity really is, is based upon an utter want of information as to the Christian records and the teachings of those early writers of the Christian Church; and that in maintaining that Christianity has nothing to do with the atonement for man, and the Divinity of Christ, he is really manifesting culpable ignorance of that with which he ought to be acquainted.

I know that in an assembly like this it will seem tedious for me to take the Bible in my hand, and refer page 7 to portions of it, verse by verse. But, ladies and gentlemen, let us understand each other. I am not here to-night to appeal to you by declamation. I do not want to excite feeling. I believe that Christianity, while it appeals to the heart of man, appeals also to his reason; and I wish during this debate to appeal to your reasoning faculties. I ask you, therefore, patiently to bear in mind what I read from this volume to-night and on subsequent evenings in connection with this important theme. In many parts of the Scriptures we have these two doctrines clearly presented as essential features of the teaching of Jesus. I will take each of these Gospels in their proper order, and cite from them.

In the Gospel of Matthew xi. 27, we have the Lord Jesus Christ speaking in language which can only be understood in the sense of his proper Divinity. In that verse he says:—"All things are delivered unto me of my Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." If you will allow me to paraphrase the verse, by substituting the first person for the word "Son," and the word "God" for "Father," you will see the full force of the passage. It will then read as follows:—"All things are delivered unto me of God; and no man knoweth me, but God; neither knoweth any man God, save me, and he to whomsoever I will reveal him." No mere mortal, unless he were guilty of the most daring blasphemy, could utter words like these. In chapter xvi. of this same Gospel, and in the 16th verse, Simon Peter, in answer to a question from the Lord, said: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." I know that some persons endeavour to explain away these words; but, I would simply say that, if the expression "Son of the Living God" is only to be understood in the sense in which you and I are sons of God, it was altogether unmeaning for the Lord to say to Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." And it would be further unmeaning and unnecessary to give to him such a precious privilege as is here recorded merely because he had announced that which was previously known—that he was simply a son of God as Peter was himself. In the last chapter of this Gospel, and the last three verses, Jesus says: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and page 8 teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." I ask: Can it be possible that Jesus would place himself along with the infinite God—the Father and the Holy Spirit—if he did not claim to be divine in a sense in which no mortal on earth is divine? Passing, then, these statements in Matthew in regard to the Divinity of Christ, I notice the subject of His atonement, as found in this Gospel. You will probably remember the words in the 21st verse of chapter i., in which it is said: "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save his people from their sins." Again, in chapter is. 12, 13, we have these expressions: "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice; tor I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." In chapter xx., 27, 28, we have this further statement: "And whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant: even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Thus, in the Gospel by Matthew we see the proper Deity of Jesus is manifest, and His death as an atonement for sin. Taking now Mark's Gospel, we have at the very outset this declaration: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Then we have the statements made in chapter xiv., 61, 63, in connection with the same subject: "Again the High Priest asked Him and said unto Him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Now, the word "Blessed" is simply another designation for "God," and the question really was, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of God?" and His answer was "I am." Now, in this same Gospel, in connection with the atonement, in chapter x., 45, we have the words I before quoted from Matthew, "For even the Son of Man came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many." I now pass on to the Gospel of Luke. I can only refer to one or two passages in this Gospel, in consequence of the limited time at my disposal. In chapter x. 21, 22, we find this statement:—"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes even page 9 so, Father, for so it seemed good in Thy sight. All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him." We have ill chapter xix., 10, in connection with the atonement, the statement that He "came to seek and to save that which was lost." And in the last chapter of the book, verses 46, 47, the purpose of his coming is most clearly stated: "And said unto them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Now here, in the Gospel by Luke, we have substantially the same teaching as we find in previous Gospels. In connection with the Gospel by John it seems almost unnecessary that I should read any Scripture at all, because I think even Mr Bright will admit that that Gospel is full of this theme. In the first four verses of that Gospel we read: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made." And as identifying this "Word" with the person of Jesus, in the 14th verse we find it stated: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth." As I find that my half hour has expired, I have now to give place to my friend.

Mr. Bright: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: I must ask such indulgence at your hands as you may be inclined to give to me this evening in the tremendously difficult position in which I find myself placed. At the outset I would say, that this is the first time I have attempted to hold a public debate; therefore, for that reason, as a debutant, I may claim indulgence. But beyond and above that, the position occupied by a man like myself this evening in running counter to popular opinion, in appearing so presumptuous as I must appear to a vast number of the intelligent crowd I see before me, is such as to give me a claim to your very kindest consideration. I know this question will be in the thoughts of many of the ladies and gentlemen I page 10 see before me: Why should a poor puny mortal, like myself, venture to stand forth and to assail so grand an organisation, so world-wide a system as that of the Christian religion? The only answer I can give, is this: That I am impelled forward, almost in spite of myself, as I have been for these many years past, simply and solely by one thing, and one thing alone—a reverence for truth. It is because I feel within myself that I am following that brilliant star of truth which I see before me-that which appears to me, at all events, to be truth—that I venture thus alone to stand before an audience like this, and to find myself in so startling a minority. I ask you for all the indulgence you can give me. At the same time I wish to say that I honour and respect my friend Mr. Green, for thus coming forward in order to give a reason for the faith that is in him; for surely the truth need not be afraid of public discussion; surely we may say in the words of that most liberal of men, possibly one of the clearest thinkers the world has known, John Milton: "Let Truth and Falsehood grapple. Whoever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?" Some will urge, I doubt not, that even if I, by reading modern literature—and the literature of the day is saturated with what so many call infidelity—have come to this conclusion, that much of what is styled Christianity is false, I ought not publicly to proclaim it. Tennyson, in one of his verses, has put this thought most beautifully:—

"Leave thou thy sister when she prays,
Her early heaven, her happy views;
Nor thou with shadow'd hint confuse
A life that leads melodious days."

This would doubtless be well if there were merely a happy future to be found in this popular belief. But, alas! there is something behind that. In this belief, which is the orthodox conviction of our day, there is something besides "early heavens"—something besides "happy views." That sister, if her brother happens by more extensive and broader reading, to become a Freethinker, will night and day be upon her knees in an agony of grief, shuddering at the conviction that her brother is doomed to endure an eternity of torment. It is because of this dreadful background to the views of happiness that I feel, as all must feel who think unreservedly, that it is necessary we should no longer hesitate to speak out freely and frankly what we hold as truth—that we should no longer, page 11 as Leslie Stephen says, "apologise for being in the right." We should no more "travel in disguise by circuitous paths," but should come forward and face whatever obloquy there may be in stating our convictions. In reply to the remarks made by my friend, that I, too, should have had an affirmative proposition, I deem it justice to myself to say that several affirmative propositions were stated by me, as my friend admitted; but on these propositions he was unable to take the negative side. The reason why he was unable to take the negative side was because on all questions, except as to the weight we respectively attached to the Scriptures, we were almost at one. I offered to take this ground: "That human reason is superior to Biblical authority." I think my friend supposes that he is himself of that opinion—

Mr. Green: No.

Mr. Bright: For at all events he wished me to add "And is our highest guide." I thought that this would mean that I was setting myself up as a God Almighty. Therefore, I said that I would take that proposition, if it were worded as follows: "And is under God our highest guide." But then my friend would not take the negative, showing that he simply wished me to place myself in the position of affirming that there is no God, while I in my heart of hearts believe that God is all in all—that we, without the Divine mind above us, and through us, and in us, would be absolutely nothing, and that this grand and magnificent world would have been but chaos. Therefore I could not take the affirmative of a proposition which seemed to exclude the Divine direction from the Divine Universe. I say this much in defence of what might perhaps appear to be something like finesse on my part in forcing Mr. Green into the position of affirming, while I should simply have to stand and put him to the proof.

Now, with regard to this question that we are here to debate. The question, as you have heard it read, is one which was adopted by myself and my friend at a private meeting as bringing us on two opposite sides of the platform upon a topic where we really are in genuine antagonism; for surely it is not worth while spending our time in debate, unless there is a positive and true subject of opposition between us. I could not take the negative of the proposition that Christianity is of Divine origin, unless there had been some such interpretation as my friend's attached to it, because I conceive that of all things we know in this world, the system, or rather the page 12 systems of religion, which have served the turn of the best part of our race for so long a period, must be of Divine origin—that is, must have emanated, in the broad sense, from the Mind which controls and rules the Universe. Therefore I could not take the negative of a naked proposition of the Divine origin of Christianity. But when it came to a statement of what was meant by my friend by "Divine origin," and what was meant by "Christianity," I could very easily assume the position I hold to-night, because he speaks of the Divine origin of Christianity as bearing a totally different sense to the Divine origin of any religion which has helped forward other portions of the human race. Moreover, when he came to state what he meant by "Christianity," still more did I feel that I could readily take the negative. Christianity, in his idea, means that Jesus of Nazareth was God; that the Deity of Jesus is part of this Christianity, and also His death as an atonement for man's sin. Now my friend has not yet commenced to prove this allegation, He has proved that there is a certain printed book containing statements which lead him to this supposition; but he has not in any way advanced the slightest argument that Jesus was in very truth God. What will have to be the very first step in an argument of that kind? Surely the initiatory step will be to give us some sort of definition of what he means by God. What does the term "God" imply? How are we to conceive of God? Surely in anything like clear thinking that is the first stage we must set out upon in considering this strange and important question as to whether Jesus of Nazareth was God in person. What do we mean when we so glibly talk of God? In attempting to get at something like a definition of what we mean by the term God, I would draw your attention to what is said of him by one or two capable minds of the past. The writer of the Psalm lxxiii., says: "God is the strength of my heart." I presume he meant that God is the strength of all hearts that call upon Him for strength, or look to Him for strength, and even of those hearts which do not professedly look to him for strength. In another part of the Scriptural writings God is spoken of as manifesting himself, not in the tempest, not in the storm, but in the "still small voice;" evidently illustrative of the still small voice within each of us if we will but listen to it—the voice we term "conscience" instigating us towards righteousness. Then we have the statement attributed to Paul, and contained in the page 13 writings termed "The Epistle to the Ephesians," that there is one God, above all, through all, and in all "—a definition of God to which I can most cordially assent with all the emphasis of which I am capable. Then we have another definition or description of God given us five centuries before the Christian era, by Xenophanes, the Greek:—"One God, not to be compared to mortals in form or thought—all eye and all ear—who without effort rules all things by the insight of his mind." Meaning, of course, by "all eye and all ear," that he is omnipresent and omniscient. Then we have Plato's statement, four centuries before the time of Paul, that God is Infinite Good, and the Author of Good, and that it is the perfection of man's existence to bring his nature as far as possible into harmony with God. Coming down to our own day we have that well-known and memorable definition of Matthew Arnold's, that God is "the stream of tendency which makes for righteousness"—the "Power, not ourselves," which impels to goodness. Now we have all these, and innumerable other deliverances relative to God, but our highest and noblest ideals of the Almighty Ruler and Inspirer of the Universe fall short of what he must be, and therefore there is, in my humble judgment, no way in which we can define our ideal. I leave it, then, to my friend to say what he means when he speaks of God. For myself I may say there are only two words contained in all the creeds which I can adopt as giving anything like a statement of what God is. These two words are "infinite" and "incomprehensible." It seems to me we are bound to discern that God is thus infinite and incomprehensible—that any god who is less than universal cannot in this age (or any age but one comprised of very ignorant beings) satisfy the ideal and aspirations of religiously-minded men. In the past, we know the God of the Universe was represented as Jupiter, a great and powerful man domiciled on a high mountain, with his Court and courtiers around him. Again we have him described in the Biblical Scriptures as a man who walked about in a garden, who was angry, who had revengeful feelings, and who is delineated in all respects as a Great King seated on a throne. His hands, his feet, his back, are spoken of; and in fact in all ways he is presented, as it is called, anthropomorphically. He is described as a vast man, but still a man. Now it is well known that this ideal of God existed in the world, and was the highest ideal that the human intellect could conceive. So long as this was page 14 the case we cannot he surprised that in the olden times mortals were supposed to be the children of God in a different sense altogether to that in which we are all of us children of God—that throughout the olden times men, and women too, were put forward as the offspring of God. We have many instances of this kind. The learned author of "Supernatural Religion," adduces several of them. We know that not only was it the case in Greece and in Rome that various mortals were supposed to be children of God's in a different sense to others—in an absolute sense—but also in the East, far away in India, and in China, they had their God-begotten men, who appeared to them too great, too glorious, and altogether too remarkable to be mere mortals like themselves. They were so prominently in advance of their era, that they were believed to be God-begotten. But what does my friend mean when he affirms that Jesus of Nazareth was God in person? The difficulty to be surmounted is this: God being universal and infinite, how could the infinite have ever been comprehended within one finite body? If he alleges simply: "We have in Jesus of Nazareth a manifestator of Divinity greater than any the earth has seen," to the last letter I am with him. I revere the character of Jesus as much as anyone now listening to me can revere it; and if Mr. Green simply means that Jesus of Nazareth was a Divine manifestation, then I am cordially and heartily with him. But he affirms far more than this. We can look upon the lily as it grows and spreads out its glorious white leaves in the sun; and we can say: There is a manifestation of God in the vegetable kingdom. And if what is meant by the statement that Jesus was God is simply that he was a glorious manifestation of the divine spirit in the human kingdom, then I can heartily endorse the sentiment. But it is precisely because more than this is meant that Rationalists start back. It is not because they are Godless that they decline to run with the crowd, and to affirm that Jesus is God. It is because of their high and noble ideal of God—it is because they cannot conceive of the Almighty mind of the Universe having been cramped and confined in one poor mortal body—that they start back when this creed is thrust under their noses. I have nearly exhausted my time, and my friend will doubtless say that I have not answered the propositions he has put forward. Well, to me there seems no occasion for an answer to them. I can thoroughly subscribe to much that he has said. page 15 At the same time there is this great distinction between us: That book which he held in his hand and requested me no longer to reason over, for that is what it amounts to—I am to prostrate my rational faculties before it, and worship it as a fetich—is the same to me as any other book. All that is good in it is good, and all that is bad in it is bad. I use my reason in its interpretation. Still I am quite prepared to admit that there is probably no such remarkable book in the Universe—at least none such familiar to us. Doubtless other nations have their sacred works which they revere just as highly, and many of them containing morality almost as noble as the best which is to be found in that Book. The simple fact that there are other works regarded as sacred by other families of mankind should prevent us from bowing down before that book in its entirety, and should lead us to read it with free minds. Where we see anything we can approve of, we should approve of it; and where there is anything that startles us, we should examine it more carefully. Where wonders and miracles are put before us, as in so much of the literature of ancient times, we should await further evidence. But wherever good, high, noble, and moral sentiment is to be found in that work we can heartily coincide in it, and probably revere it quite as highly as those who subdue their reason before it and accept all its statements as infallible authority.

But I am told that in that book we have evidence of the way in which we are to regard Jesus of Nazareth. It seems to me that even in that Book, when intelligently read, you cannot deduce this from it: That Jesus ever declared himself to be God—the God of the Universe. There does not appear to me to be one line in that Book—and I have read it most carefully—that to a rational mind, free from prejudice, trained to enquire into everything with a doubting and sceptical spirit (for that is a pure and good spirit, which has ever been useful to the progress of the race in the past, and will be useful to it in the future)—nothing that absolutely binds the intellect down and declares that you must conceive of this man, who walked the earth nearly two thousand years ago, as being the infinite God in person; that there was no other God anywhere when he walked the earth: and that when he died absolutely God himself, the Creator of the universe died, and poor mortal man had put an end to the earthly career of his own Creator. Possibly my friend will say that I misstate the case in this; but then surely he must be landed on the page 16 other horn of the dilemma. If Jesus were not in this sense God in person, then he was no more than a Divine manifestation in human form. And the moment that signification is introduced, it becomes a question for each Rationalist to form his own judgment upon. If not God in person, then he was less than God, and it is wrong to worship him. If he were God in person, surely at that time, when he was alive, God was to be found nowhere else. The whole world beside was in a Godless state; nowhere else could God have been at that time; he was there and there alone, walking the fields of Judea as a poor carpenter. As an infant, too, in the cradle by the side of Mary his mother, and there alone, the Almighty Mind manifested in this marvellous Universe, was "cribbed,-cabined, and confined."

Mr. Geeen: My friend has very properly anticipated that I would make the remark that he had not met the argument, which, it appears to me, is his proper and legitimate duty; and further, that he was not stating the case of Christianity aright when he gave such a representation of our views of the Lord Jesus Christ as he did. I do not intend to be drawn away from the proposition before us by any side issue. I do not intend, either to-night or at any other time, God helping me, to trouble about a definition of the Deity, for the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. But one thing must be clearly understood:—That no Christian at all affirms—certainly I do not, and I am not aware of any who do—that the whole of the Godhead was manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. Mr. Bright ought not to have taken this matter for granted, inasmuch as he knows that I simply used the term "Deity" in the proposition on account of his special interpretation of the word "Divine." He considers himself to be divine; he considers each of us an emanation of the Deity—this bouquet of flowers—these books. Now I say if he uses the term "Divine" in that sense, then I am under the necessity of finding a word which will convey Divinity in a higher sense in connection with the Lord Jesus Christ. We do not affirm that Jesus was God, nor was he man; we say He was God manifested in the flesh. He was the express representation of the Father's character and the brightness of His glory. He came in order that He might manifest, as far as that manifestation could be given in human form, the infi- page 17 nite Deity that fills the Universe. Therefore I say that Mr. Bright, in having spent so much time upon the definition of the Deity, and then in charging mo with saying that Jesus was the only God, and reasoning on the absurdity of supposing that the whole of the Deity was cooped up in the person of one puny man, was really using his time for a purpose foreign to tins debate.

Mr. Bright defines Christianity as the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. Now I would ask what right Mr. Bright has to give an arbitrary definition of Christianity, and to throw aside that book which is alone to be taken as expounding what Christianity is? When was my friend constituted an authority to define by his own mere ipse dixit what Christianity is, and to say, "I will not take that written or printed book as explaining Christianity, but I will say what Christianity is?" This appears to me, not to be reasoning, but just leaping right over the point which requires to be proved. If my friend says these statements are not the statements of Jesus—if he affirms that this book is not reliable—then we have a clear issue, and I must ask him to say why it is not reliable. But our position at the present time is to show that these two points—the Atonement, and the Divinity of Christ's nature in a sense in which no other being in the Universe is divine, except God—are parts of Christianity. In as much as He assumed human form, he was, properly speaking, neither God nor man, but God manifest in the flesh, or as the Greeks would term Him, Theanthropos. I say that having the declarations of the Scriptures upon this matter, we have just to go on in the course we began—to point out that these Scriptures declare that Jesus was Divine in the sense that is stated in the proposition, and that He did die as an atonement for man's sin, and I shall expect my friend, if he declines to accept this definition of Christianity, to show why he will not accept it—to show reasons why these records are not to be received as the true expounders of the nature of the Christian religion.

Now let me just finish the remarks I was making on the teachings of the Gospels, as to the Divinity of Christ. In this first chapter of the Gospel by John, we have Jesus spoken of as the "Word that was with God, and that was God," and also as the one "by whom all things were made," showing that there is true and essential Divinity predicated of Him in this verse. Then in chap. v. of this same page 18 Gospel, 17-23, it is said:—"But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father; making himself equal with God. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doeth; and He will show Him greater works then these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent Him." Now, that certainly cannot be predicated of any mortal man in the world. It can only be predicated of a Being who is Divine in a sense in which no earthly being is. Now we find in connection with the Atonement, in this Gospel, the following statements:—Chap, iii., 14-16, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." In chap, vi., 51, the Lord Jesus says:—"I am the living bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the World." Thus, we have in these Gospel records the declaration of the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and His death as an atonement; and if my friend denies that these things do form part of Christianity, then it is for him to show that these words can be properly understood in a different sense to that which I have named. If he can also show that these books are not to be relied upon as explaining what Christianity is, he will then be in his legitimate line of disproof; but unless he does this, he is certainly not meeting the argument which is legitimate in connection with our proposition.

Now, the next book which is regarded as of authority—or, for the moment we will leave out authority, and take it as simply written in the early period of the Christian age—is the Book of page 19 Acts. That book, whether written by inspired men or not, was beyond doubt, even by the admission of the enemies of Christianity, written in that early Christian period, and therefore if it teaches the Divinity of Christ and His death as an atonement, it will be part of our proof that the proposition as worded can be legitimately affirmed—that the Divinity of Christ and His death as an atonement are parts of Christianity. Now in the Acts, chapter ii., 36, the Apostle Peter, in preaching to the Jews, concludes his discourse with these memorable words:—"Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." The term "Lord" is the translation which is given to the Hebrew terms Jehovah and Adonai—the one applying to the Divine Father, the other designating more especially the executive power of the Divine Being; and we see that this term is applied to Jesus, indicating that he occupied the position of the Divine Executive in connection with the government of the world. Again, in the 7th chapter, 55th and following verses, we find the following with regard to Stephen, the first martyr of the Christian Church:—But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God; and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." I am not concerned at this stage of our controversy to explain how Jesus can be Divine. I am simply establishing the fact that it is part of Christianity; and I want my friend to meet that point, for it is the first point we must settle. Now, in connection with His atonement, as taught in this book, in chapter v., 30, 31, we have these words:—"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins." In addition to the Acts of the Apostles, let me point out that we have certain letters addressed to believers in various parts of the world. These letters form part of the early Christian literature, and whether it be admitted that they page 20 were written by apostles or apostolic men or not—whether it be admitted that they were written immediately subsequent to the death of Jesus, or towards the end of the first century—they certainly are the earliest Scriptures that we have next to the Book of Acts. I shall be prepared to show, when my friend is prepared to take up and grapple this point, that these Epistles were written in the first century, by the men whose names are attached to them, and that they are legitimate writings, declaring to us what is and what is not the religion of Christ.

Mr Bright: As I had almost anticipated, it seems, if I may be allowed to say so, that my friend has not clearness of thought upon this question. It seems to me that he asserts the Deity of Jesus, and in the same breath declares that there was somehow or somewhere, a Deity superior to Jesus, or at all events, that Jesus was not all God. Then I say, we are entering upon the sphere of a plurality of Gods. If he was a Deity at all, surely he must have been the Deity. Is there any other Deity? If he were the Deity, then I again ask, where was the rest of the universe without the support of its God—that God who, as Paul says, is above all, through all, and in all? And not only Paul, but all the great minds of the past, and all the great minds of the present, admit the infinitude of God. Therefore, it all turns upon this point—Was Jesus the whole of God, or was he not? If he were not, then he must take his rank with other creations. He is no longer the Creator; and in that case, a vast stumbling-block in the way of Rationalists is removed. It is the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is put before us as the Creator that is so abhorrent to rational minds. Therefore again I say, it is upon this ground, and upon this ground almost alone, that any material difference of opinion should arise; because if Jesus be a Deity, he must, so far as I can form an idea on the subject, be the Deity. Otherwise he is merely a manifestation of the Deity—vastly superior in degree, possibly, to other manifestations, but still a manifestation of the Deity, the same as other men who have lived and breathed upon this globe.

My friend says I defined Christianity for myself as the teachings of Jesus, and asks me to show why I defined Christianity in that manner. Now, I did not define Chris- page 21 tianity in that manner as a dogma for others. I defined Christianity for myself alone, because that is the position taken by a Freethinker. I did not come forward and say that others must believe as I believe. But for myself I define Christianity as comprehending mainly the teachings of Jesus and the example of his life. The reverence I entertain for Jesus is based more upon my appreciation of his life, as set forth in the traditional history concerning him, than even upon the goodness of his teachings. It seems to me to have been the life of a man who, of all the men I have read of, surrendered himself a willing sacrifice for the common weal. But that surely does not, in any sense or way, make him to be God in person. The moment you make him to be God in person, in that moment and to that extent you degrade humanity, because humanity, through the manhood of Jesus, is elevated. If you take away the highest peak of our mountain range of humanity, and declare that it is not a mountain peak of humanity at all, but something dropped down miraculously from the heavens, then the whole range is dwarfed. But if you leave that high and lofty peak before the view of men as an example of human life—a life towards which all may aim, however far short of it they may fall—then, indeed, you make it of some use to the race. And I maintain that the time when Christianity will play its noblest part in the history of mankind will be when Jesus is looked upon as our elder brother, one whose example is not rendered abortive by his being conceived of as a Deity, a superhuman production. I am asked to state why I take a view of Christianity different to that which is taken by the majority of people—because that is what my friend's interrogatory amounts to. I have surely the right of formulating my ideal of Christianity so long as I retain that right for myself alone. The wrong would begin if I put it forward as an act which is to be in any shape binding on other people. But for myself alone I assert that that book must come before my reason just the same as any other book. All that is in it of which my reason approves, I value and esteem; but with it, as with any other volume, I will not degrade my intellect by bowing down and saying that is good and moral, which appears to me bad and immoral.

Even taking the orthodox view of that book, regarding it as a Divine production, the very book itself as it page 22 stands now, is undergoing examination by the race, in order to discover whether it is in every respect the word of God or not. In the earliest copies of the New Testament that we have—those which scientific criticism deems to be the earliest, the version found on Mount Sinai, and the version in the Vatican—many portions of the authorised New Testament are not to be discovered within those versions. Therefore it is alleged by the profoundest critics of our day that they form no part of the Word of God itself. Why, that beautiful incident in the Gospel to which my friend referred—the Gospel of John—that beautiful incident of Jesus, and the woman taken in adultery, is not to be found either in the Sinaitic or the Vatican version. Therefore, so far as those versions are concerned, it is not a part of the Word of God; and to those who think that we are bound by the book, and nothing but the book, and that that book is to be regarded as totally different to every other description of writing and printing, the moment it is shown that certain passages are not in the early writings, they cease to be a part of the Bible in any sense. So, all the concluding verses of the Gospel of Mark, all after the eighth verse, including that most important passage upon which more than any other the whole Baptist schism is based—the doctrine of immersion—are not to be found in the Sinaitic and Vatican versions. Hence even taking this comparatively superficial ground of Biblical criticism, I assert you cannot hold forth any book as being in itself—within its boards and nowhere else—the infallible word of God. Moreover, we know that a vast section of Christendom, consisting of at least 180 millions of believers, does not regard that book, which my friend holds forth, as the Word of God. It has another Word of God—the Douay version of the Bible as accepted by the Roman Catholic Church—and there is very much within it that is not to be found in the version accepted by my friend. The Sinaitic MS., discovered by Tischendorf in the Convent of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai, is admitted, as I have said, by Biblical critics to be the earliest version of the New Testament. This is shown in many ways, one of which I may roughly intimate, viz.: that passages mentioned by some of the earliest Fathers, which are not to be found in other versions, are found in the Sinaitic version, showing that it must have been of early date. There is especially a passage mentioned by Origen, which is found in the Sinaitic version and in no other. There- page 23 fore I say the Sinaitic version is regarded as the most ancient; and in this version—now in the Russian Emperor's library at St. Petersburg—there is a book entitled the "Epistle of Barnabas," and one entitled the "Shepherd of Hermas," which form no part of the Word of God as received by my friend. Therefore I maintain even on this ground of mere Biblical and verbal criticism, I have a right to say that reason must not bow down before the book held out on this platform, as if it were proved to be of Divine origin,—a special revelation. But as you will have noticed, the whole argument of my friend upon this question is that certain statements are contained within the Gospel records. Well, I assert that the statements advanced by him from those Gospel records are of no authority to Freethinkers. The Freethinker holds the right to examine everything, no matter where it may be found—to examine everything for himself—to bring his own judgment to bear upon it. This right is not claimed by those who conceive themselves to be orthodox believers, yet in reality they themselves, pick and choose certain passages as having more authority than other passages, and will not be bound by everything that is to be found especially in the older portion of that book which they term the infallible Word of God. They will not take these passages as if authoritative over their reason now. There are commands given in those earlier portions of Scripture which they will reject and plead a right to disregard. Well, if that be the case with orthodox believers, surely a Freethinker cannot be regarded as presumptuous if he goes still further and says, "Upon every statement that you put forward out of that book, I claim a right to exercise my reason—to see whether it accords with reason—to see whether it is consistent with the facts of the Universe as approved by science to the senses—to discern whether I am to receive it as really the truth, according to the highest truth known—the manifestations in nature of the Divine Mind." I say this is the right which every Freethinker asserts, and insists on exercising.

Mr. Green: I will take the remarks Mr. Bright has made in the latter part of his speech first in order. Let me say that we are very glad that the works of Barnabas and of Hermas were found in the place referred to; but until he can page 24 show that those two books have any claim to inspiration, and that they put forth any claim to be of authority in connection with the Christian religion, the mere fact of their being found along with the books of Scripture proves nothing whatever. "With regard to other portions of the Scriptures, I do not quite agree with the correctness of my friend's statement, but will pass that by for the present. Christians show their anxiety not to receive anything but what has clear evidence in its favour, so clear and convincing that it cannot be overcome; hence, when manuscripts have been discovered, and have been compared with the others, if upon careful examination it was found that there was not evidence sufficient to establish their claim to be considered inspired writings, writings which have come from the pens of the Apostles or of Apostolic men, they rejected them. I think this in itself is one of the most powerful arguments in favour of the authenticity of this book—that those who were examining the manuscripts should determine to accept nothing as coming from an authoritative source, unless it had all the evidence that human reason can possibly demand in favour of it.

Now let me say that my friend claims a liberty of a vast kind. He says books are of no authority to the Freethinker. Well, my impression is that it is difficult to tell what is of authority to the Freethinker. But can any of us by our mere statement, say that those historical records, which have been handed down to us from past ages, are to be taken as true or untrue merely because we say they are true or untrue? I say my friend must prove that the records which he refuses to accept as being true have not that evidence in their support which all true records ought to have; and if he says he exercises his reason, he must certainly allow us the right to exercise ours, and to say: "With all deference, Mr. Bright, we refuse to accept your statement as an authority, affirming that this book is not to be received, merely because you say it ought not. We want reason, argumentation, and not mere statement."

My friend has defined Christianity: First, he says he defines Christianity for himself alone. What is his guide in this definition? Another will define it in another way. How am I or you to decide which definition is true if we are not to refer to the records which tell us of the origin and promulgation of the Christain religion? The Baconian philosophy can page 25 only be known from the writings of Bacon; and the character of the Christian religion can only be known from the teachings of Jesus and of the Apostles. Therefore Mr. Bright's mere judgment of Christianity, apart from the records, can be of no weight to any intelligent and reasonable audience.

But let me show you how Mr. Bright places himself in a great dilemma. He says Christianity consists of the teachings of Jesus, and the example of a life. Then I have to ask: If Christianity consists partly of the teachings of Jesus, of what part? For I have shown that part of the teaching of Jesus consists in the affirmation of His Divinity, Divinity such as is possessed by no mortal being, and of the possession of power in his Human person, committed to Him by the Father, such as no mortal can claim. Now, if Mr. Bright says he declines to accept those statements of Jesus, is it not reasonable that I should ask him what portion of the recorded teachings of Jesus he takes as really having been spoken by him, and what part he rejects? Is it not reasonable that I should ask on what authority he accepts part as the teachings of Jesus, and rejects the other part? Are we to accept this or that merely because my friend says it? If so, are we exercising our reason in the manner in which he says every human being in this world ought to use it? Unquestionably not.

Again, let me say that my friend has spoken hastily. He charges me with want of clearness of thought in connection with the Divinity of Christ, and says that if Christ is God, there must be another God—a superior God—and that consequently there are two Gods in the Universe. I would just remind my friend that this is altogether beside the question. We have first to ascertain whether the Divinity of Christ is part of Christianity. We are not concerned at present with the question as to its reasonableness or otherwise. He affirms that this is not a part of Christianity, and I affirm that it is. Now, I say that the only way in which we can prove that it is a part of Christianity is, to take the records which declare what Christianity really is. If my friend will admit that this book teaches the Deity of Jesus, then I will be happy to pass over that part, and to grapple with him on the question of the reasonableness of the position taken up by this book. But he commenced his last speech by saying that even upon a reasonable—or, as he terms it, a rational—interpretation of the statements in this book, Jesus cannot be shown to be Divine. I have simply to ask him to take those passages, and page 26 to give us a rationalistic exposition which will be in harmony with grammar, and with those general principles of interpretation which guide us in our understanding of all books, and show that the declarations in this book do not legitimately mean what I have asserted to-night they do.

Now, as further establishing my affirmation upon this matter, I have to say—and I will just affirm it broadly, and if my friend calls it in question, I will then give the proof—that in all the epistles which were written by the Apostles, or by Apostolic men, the Divinity of Christ, and His death as an atonement for man, form the sum and substance of those writings, and are the basis upon which the hopes of those Christian people are said to rest. Take those two points from Christianity, and you rob it of its very existence—of its very central truth—and you leave nothing to which the term Christianity can be legitimately applied. Let me further say, with regard to those early writers of the Christian Church who followed the Apostles in the age immediately succeeding, that Bishop Blunt, in his work on the "Use of the Early Fathers," gives abundant quotations clearly showing that they held the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and His death as an atonement for man. But as these were Christian men, and may therefore be said to be in favour of that of which they spoke, I will pass them by, and just go on to those who were not Christians, and we shall see that they too declare that those two positions were held by the Christians in that early age.

In a letter of Pliny's to the Emperor Trajan, we find him speaking of the Christians, and in connection with them he makes this statement:—"They (Christians) assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake, was this:—that they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing an hymn to Christ, as to a God, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament (or oath), not to do anything that was ill, that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal." Now, the Divinity of Jesus is clearly manifest in the remark of Pliny that they offered worship to Jesus as to a God.

We have further testimony from Lucian, who wrote about the year 170. Speaking of the Christians, he says:—"They therefore still worship that great man who was crucified in page 27 Palestine, because he introduced into the world this new religion." By these two writers, who could have no purpose to serve, and who simply wrote from a knowledge of actual facts, we have it stated that the Christians worshipped Jesus as being Divine.

We have also the writings of Celsus—the greatest opponent of Christianity in that early age—and I will merely make the statement, without, at this point, proving it by quotations, that in his arguments against the religion of Christ, he refers, not only to the Divinity of Christ and to His death as an atonement, as being held by Christians universally, but also to almost every event in our Gospels. Having the testimony of these profane historians—having the testimony of unbelievers, who were opposed to Christianity and wrote against it (not only such as Celsus, but also Porphyry, Julian, and others subsequently)—it is clearly shown that it was part of the Christianity propagated in that first age, that Christ was Divine, and that He did die as an atonement for man.

But more than this, I will show you, even from the work of Strauss himself, that the Divinity of Jesus is really the very basis on which the Gospels are written. He says, the "hypothesis of the Gospel writers is that Divinity was the operating principle in Christ, irresistibly determining His every word and action." He says this is not his theory—nor is it my friend's; but here we have Strauss's admission, that the theory on which the Gospels are written, is that of the Divinity of Christ operating as a principle in him, irresistibly determining his every word and action. This being the case, and as I see my time is just expiring, I have to ask my friend whether he is prepared to admit that the definition which I have given of Christianity is true or not—that it includes the Divinity of Christ and His death as an atonement? If he is not so prepared, will he show that those historians are not reliable? As a reasonable man and a rationalist, will he give us the reasons on which he rejects this testimony, so that we may see whether he is really acting reasonably in so refusing to accept what, in any Court of justice in the land, would be regarded as legitimate evidence?

Mr. Bright: Replying to the last observation of my friend first, I would say that no Court of justice in the land ever has to examine evidence about such a startling pro- page 28 position. The testimony required in order to prove an event has, according to all rules of evidence, to be doubled, trebled, and multiplied, if that event is of a prodigious and improbable nature. Therefore when such an extravagant proposition is required to be proved, as that an individual of the race who lived nearly two thousand years ago was a "Deity"—for that is the mildest way in which I can state the proposition put forward by my friend—surely any Court of justice would demand evidence of the most overwhelming character. I ask you to think for a moment what description of evidence would convince us at this day that any living man was God? That is what the definition accepted in this debate means, and I can put no other construction upon it. In what possible way could we at this day be persuaded of that fact? Suppose a man were now to be working all the miracles said to have been worked in Judea—suppose he were healing the sick in various directions wherever the faith of the people permitted him to so heal—suppose he raised in some instances the apparently dead to life—suppose he changed water into wine—and assume that he lived in all respects the life which is said to have been lived by Jesus himself in the records aceepted by my friend—could we yet believe that we had before us in any sense whatever, the corporeal representative of the Almighty Mind which controls this Universe, the Being who is God over all, above all, and in all? I think not. I do not see how evidence could be adduced to the satisfaction of any Court of justice, of such a startling and marvellous fact as that would be.

My friend says he cannot receive the conclusions of my reason as being of any authority to him. I never supposed that he could. But the question is why—using my reason for myself alone—am I to accept any statement simply because it comes, or purports to come—for we have no conclusive evidence even of that—from some ancient writer termed an Apostle? If the man were living and breathing before me, and declaring to my face: "I am inspired by the Almighty to write this which you see me writing;" I would still turn round upon him and say: "Where is the evidence of this miraculous fact? And even if you are inspired, still, is that which you are writing to be regarded as of infallible authority to me? Am I not to use my reason upon it? Must every supernatural fact there set down be taken by me as absolutely true, without any process of ratiocination? Inspired or page 29 non-inspired I maintain my right to reason over it and guage its truthfulness." Seeing that these accounts come to us through various translations of manuscripts and printed books, with alterations and discrepancies at every stage, with various sects adopting various readings and interpretations—is it to be thought for a moment that our reason is to be held in bondage to these old writings, when, even if the writers were before us, we would decline to take their allegations as conclusive proof of infallible inspiration? My friend says that there is nothing of authority to a Freethinker. What I assert is that there is nothing of authority to a Freethinker which outrages his reason. A vast difference! Everything has to be brought to the bar of reason. There is nothing which can be of authority over that, he must use his reason on every statement which is presented to him. The moment his reason is satisfied of the demonstration of any statement—of the excellence of any life presented—then he yields to it the loyalty which every intellect must give to that which appears to be good, true, and beautiful. But not till then. It is therefore as much a question of reason with these old writings as with writings of a later date. Would my friend yield his reason captive to any other writings? And why to these? I have not heard a scintilla of argument urged why our reason is to be prostrated to these writings, and to no others in the world. Therefore each one who feels so disposed—this is the position of Freethinkers—may, without fear of priesthoods, or of any other social organizations, use his own reason, with such aid as he may get from the writings of the past, in judging of the truthfulness or untruthfulness of every portion of that written and printed record. My friend wishes me to prove that these writings are not authoritative over reason? Am I called upon to prove a negative? Why should I demonstrate that they are not authoritative over reason? I simply take these writings as I take every other writing, and I honour everything in them that appears to my reason to be good and true; but I refuse to honour and revere that which appears to me rather degrading than honourable. I say that in dealing with these writings, as in dealing with every other, reason has to be freely exercised; and it is not for me to prove that they are not authoritative at the bar of reason. I am asked, how do I examine the writings of Bacon, and take them as authoritative? But do I take them as infallibly authoritative? If any portions of page 30 his writings appear to me to be irrational, do I accept them? Not in the least. If I undertake to study his writings, I examine them on their merits, page by page. One portion may appear excellent, another portion the reverse; and I detach one portion from the other. It is for my friend to prove that I am to take a different position in the case of the book which he held up at the beginning of the debate.

My friend says that we are landed in confusion, and have nothing to hold on by, if we reject this book as authoritative. That is the same warning cry as was raised three or four hundred years ago by the Roman Catholic Church. "If you let go the Infallible Rock of the Church, what have you to hold on by? If you refuse to accept the duly appointed successors of the Apostles as the living means of receiving the true interpretation of these infallible writings, you will be landed in chaos. Each individual will follow his own interpretation." Just the same as was said then, and has been outlived by Protestants, is said now,—that if reason is allowed unfettered play by these ancient writings, you will be landed in chaotic confusion. I think we may trust above all things to the human reason; always remembering that there is the same Divine Mind regulating the processes of the world now as in the remote past. We have to look to that Divine regulation and inspiration, the same as they had in the earlier ages; and if we refuse to surrender our liberty to that book, which, I say regarded as infallible, stands in the way of progress instead of helping it—so far from being hindered, we shall be enabled to advance with a peacefulness and rapidity to which the human race is as yet a stranger.

I am called upon by my friend to remember that certain heathen writers speak of the ancient Christians as worshipping Jesus of Nazareth. I ask: Is it likely that those old philosophers, in the supercilious glance they threw at the early Christian worshippers—an obscure sect, Tacitus calls them, of superstitious men—according to him, the scum of the earth—would be enabled to determine whether they worshipped Jesus as a Deity, or merely revered Him as a good and noble Prophet of the Lord? Is it likely that those ancient writers would be able to distinguish on nice points of this kind, on which even in our day—with all the light thrown on the subject—there is page 31 so much difference of opinion? We may take these references simply as they stand—admitting, although it is by no means proved, that they are genuine—as indicative of what the old philosophers thought regarding an obscure sect, which, as stated in their writings, they looked down upon as thoroughly degraded. Therefore they do not help my friend in his theological assumptions. If my friend would convince Freethinkers of the truthfulness of his position, he has to demonstrate that Jesus was the Deity,—Divine in a totally different sense to any other human being. That is the position he has taken up, and that is where his proof has to come in.

I am told that the death of Jesus made atonement for man's sin. How comes it then that the sin of man still appears to be unatoned, and produces, as ever, evil consequences? Even according to the showing of the religious sects of the day, there are ninety-nine chances that a man living at this time will elude salvation, to the one chance there is of his obtaining eternal happiness. Therefore even from that point of view, how has the atonement acted so as to procure what it is affirmed to have accomplished? Moreover, we have this to look at: that throughout the wide wide world, there have been millions upon millions in every generation passing away who have never heard even the name of Jesus. Was this atonement made for them? Did it produce any effect upon them? Why, at this present day there are 622 millions of Hindoos and Buddhists, the Buddhists standing in somewhat the same relation to Hindooism as Protestants do to Roman Catholicism. So you have half the living world of this present moment given up to Hindooism and Buddhism—religions which have served their turn very well for them, but which my friend will still maintain, are not of Divine origin. Hence I ask: Where has this atonement, which was vouchsafed the earth 1800 years ago, been able to prove efficient? If these people, who have thus lived without a knowledge of this atonement, without a recognition of Jesus, are still able to obtain salvation then I say that this very act which my friend terms a beneficent and atoning act, has caused millions upon millions to be plunged into damnation, who otherwise might have escaped. For the populations who never heard of it are able to obtain salvation; while the vast majority of those who did hear of it, fail to secure the benefits which it was supposed to give.