Fourth Evening.

r. bright: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,—My friend the other evening adopted a common argument when he tried to persuade you that those who gave up the authority of revelation, to be logical, were bound to be Atheists. Now the profound and extended view which science takes at this day more than at any time past—for science is advancing with gigantic strides every year—almost necessitates the assumption of a Divine Power overruling the universe. Rather than trust to any words of mine in this connection, I will read a few lines from a volume just issued from the London Press, written by the Rev. H. R. Haweis, an eminent believer in Evolution. He says:—"We may try and construct the universe without having recourse to a guiding mind,—we may place mind at the end, and call it man, instead of placing it at the beginning, and calling it God. We may put aside the old argument from design as unsound, and call for one speck of living jelly, which is to take the place of God, and which contains within it the promise and potency of all terrestrial life; but as soon as our thoughts begin to dwell on this original speck of jelly, we ask, Whence hath it life and motion? Life, we are told, is a property of organised matter. We ask, What is it that organises matter? It gets organised by the play of forces in certain directions. And then comes the last inquiry, which, as it were, throws us straight into the arms of that God from whom we are vainly endeavouring to escape,—What directs those forces in one way for order and creation, rather than in another way for con fusion and chaos? There is no answer but this: mind, Divine mind, God. Sometimes we think, and sometimes we don't think; but in either case God is the one ark of rest to which we return again and again, the one stable thing out upon the great flood." That is the position which the great majority of Rationalists assume at this day, and from that position they are not readily to be dislodged.

For the purposes of this debate, then, I stand here and accept this definition of terms, but accepting this definition of terms, I deny that such Christianity is of Divine origin. That is the position in which the debate stands. To make this matter clear, let me have recourse to an illustration. Suppose my friend were to maintain that this city of Dunedin was now in the location which it was intended to occupy by those who left England to settle this portion of New Zealand; and defined Dunedin as including the inhabitants of the Peninsula. I accept that definition for the purpose of debate, but then maintain that the city, so defined, was not the Dunedin intended by the original settlers. What would my friend have to do? Surely he would have to go to the documents originating from those settlers to discover what was their intention, and one of his very first steps would have to be to prove that the documents which he produced did originate from those who came to effect this settlement. Bear in mind I do not stand here even to deny the Biblical origin of Christianity. I stand here to deny the Divine origin of Christianity, in the terms specified by my friend, and accepted by me. Therefore you see, just the same as in the debate regarding Dunedin in the way I have put it, he would have to show that the documents! he produced had really emanated from the men he stated they did emanate from; so when he goes to the page 101 text of Scripture in order to show what he supposes Christianity to be, there is a prior step, which he has never yet taken, and that is to show that those texts of Scripture are of Divine origin. Moreover, my friend even goes farther than this would indicate, for he stands in the same position as if he should assert that this settlement of Dunedin is the only, settlement in New Zealand which took place under the authority of (he British Crown. He asserts that this religion, and this only, is of Divine origin, and, by implication, maintains that the others are of human origin. My contention, in denying this proposition of my friend, is that the Divine Mind has inspired in a more or less supreme degree, and is still inspiring, messengers and messages to all portions of our race.

I have already drawn attention to the enormous preponderance of other religions in the world. In the latest statistics I have been able to procure—those contained in the article on "Religion," in the edition just published of Chambers's Cyclopædia—it is shown that the total population of the world amounts to about 1,291 millions. Of that number, 483 millions are Buddhists; 139 millions are Hindoos; 103 millions are Mahommedans; and 198 millions are of other religions; making a total of 923 millions. This leaves only 371 millions of Christians. I assert that it is more in accordance with Divine laws as we observe them in the universe, and, therefore to my thinking more likely to be true, that all other races should have had their inspirations, than that they should have been left forsaken by the Infinite mind. I do not mean to say that those inspirations are equal in degree, but in signification of "divine origin," they are identically the same. Therefore it is on that account, too, that I deny the Divine origin—in the sense in which my friend has explained, and I have accepted—of Christianity. Hence I once more assert—and I think you will admit that I have made good my position—that in this debate, and for its purpose, I do not stand here to deny that the Deity of Jesus is part of Christianity.

But assuming, as I have done previously, that we had agreed to debate the Biblical origin of Christianity, and not its Divine Origin, then it seems to me it would be more rational, in order to discern what Christianity should be, to endeavour to discover what was the mind of Jesus. For this, purpose I would not take the fourth Gospel, which, in my belief, gives us the mind of Plato, the great Greek philosopher, page 102 and not the mind of Jesus. In the first place, it is written in the language of Plato, and not in the language of Jesus. In the next place, the Greek in which it is written—we are told by the foremost Greek scholars—is of a pure and cultured character, such as we could not expect from an unlearned fisherman of Judea—Greek far superior to the Greek of the Apostle Paul, who was, by comparison with John, a learned Jew. Moreover, we have this fact: That a school for the cultivation of the philosophy of Plato was established in the East about the time that Christianity originated. We have here a perfect concatenation of facts, showing the probability that this Gospel of John, which was admittedly of comparatively late composition, gives us rather the mind of Plato than the mind of Jesus. But to discover the mind of Jesus, it seems to me we must go to the synoptical Gospels; we must look at his own utterances given there, and above all we must look at his utterances on important occasions. Now, if we study the whole of that magnificent body of morality and spirituality contained in the Sermon on the Mount, where shall we find anything to justify the Christianity put forward by my friend? If, further, we appeal to the occasion, when Jesus was absolutely asked by an anxious enquirer:—"Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"—we find he first reproves the enquirer for calling him "good," saying there is none good but one—God. Then he goes on to tell him that he is to keep the moral commandments, specifying them, and adding, according to Matthew, that he is to love his neighbour as himself. He gives those moral commandments—not even mentioning the ceremonial commandment of the Sabbath—as the formula which will enable the enquirer to earn eternal life. Then he says farther, when the young man tells him that he has kept those commandments: "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor . . and come and follow me." Follow him, mark, who at that time was standing in opposition to the orthodox priesthood, and denouncing the dignitaries of the day. He was struggling against a lower form of religion, the heritage of the past, and was pointing his finger to the higher ideal—the inner heart-worship which, he desired, might be the religion of the future. One more illustration of the mind of Jesus. On that other most important occasion, when he presented the remarkable allegory regarding the good who were to be blessed, and the wicked who were to be accursed—the page 103 allegory of the goats and the sheep—what was it that he specified as causing the distinction between the two? Was it any point of doctrine? Was it any question of belief in him as the Deity, or in his coming act of atonement? Not in the least degree. On the contrary, all that is specified by him as comprehending the difference between the wicked and the good is, that the wicked neglected their poorer fellow-beings—worked for selfish ends, and not for their fellow humanity; while the good are shown working for the benefit of their fellow-creatures. That is the cause of the division—the good on one side and the wicked on the other. It is not on account of such doctrine as my friend is advancing, but entirely on account of that grand religion of Humanity, which I maintain is of Divine Origin, and will be eternal.

If we take the religion put forward by my friend, and if it should be discovered at any future time that the whole of that Book upon which he relies—the whole of those Gospels—were a concoction of dishonest men, where would be his system of theology? But even supposing that it were discovered that those Gospels were a concoction and not historically true, still this Divine religion to which I am alluding—the religion of active goodness, the religion of doing to others as we would have others do to us—would stand its ground, showing that it is based on God's eternal laws, and not on the mere authority of any printed volume.

Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman and respected hearers: I am sorry that I cannot compliment my friend, either on his powers of argumentation, or upon his ingenuousness. In the first place he appears to have wasted both his first speech tonight, and his last speech on the last occasion, on matters altogether irrelevant to the question.

Now, in regard to John's Gospel, I was upon that matter on Wednesday night, and my friend did not assail the argument; but on this, the last night of the debate, having refreshed his memory with what I cannot but term stale arguments against John's Gospel, he enters upon a kind of guerilla warfare, picking off a straggler here and there, for the purpose of detaching me from the main object of my argument.

As to his definition of Christianity, my friend distinctly stated that he believed in the Divine Origin of Christianity, page 104 leaving cut the Divinity of Christ and the Atonement. If that is not a denial, and if it does not place upon me the responsibility of proving that these are essential parts of Christianity, then I must confess that I have yet to learn what reason does teach. I have yet to learn what the denial that certain things belong to something else, involves on the part of one who affirms they do belong to it. I shall not waste time on these matters, but shall pass on to other points of much greater moment.

Noticing the remark with which my friend began, I shall have to speak on this question of Evolution again, because he wasted the latter part of last evening's time upon it, and has also taken up part of to-night. I am sorry to have again to say that my friend does not appear to be fully read on these matters, and evidently shows that he is not quite competent to speak with "authority" upon them? He has to-night stated that the latest science teaches that the theory of Evolution, necessarily leads to the acceptance of a Deity. Now, I have to draw issue here, and to assert that Herbert Spencer, the highest exponent of the theory of Evolution, affirms, that this theory drives the very idea of a Deity out of the Universe—"that God is unknowable, and Creation unthinkable." My friend is evidently too "credulous" when he reads from a falsely-called "Reverend," who asserts what he has read. If my friend would read more generally, and not give us mere scraps, we should then have a greater body of truth. In regard to the waste of time on Thursday night, and the eulogy pronounced upon this theory of eternal progression from little germs, which advanced onward to man, and that contains future glories that are now hardly imaginable, it appears to me that when my friend looks at this matter fairly, and allows unbiassed reason to have her way, he must be convinced—and probably a blush will suffuse his face that he has not seen it sooner—that he has been ignoring his own true reason. My friend, in stating that there has been eternal progression without any break, shows that he has not sufficiently considered facts which geology reveals—and when I use those expressions, I do so because I desire to be candid. I do not wish to pass reflections upon my friend; but when he comes forward as the assailant of Christianity, and presumes to challenge right and left, I say his erudition, his general information, must bear scrutiny; and I affirm, that when he states there has been eternal progression, steady and continuous develop- page 105 ment from lower to higher forms, he manifests an apparent ignorance of facts, which is culpable in a person occupying such a position as that which he has taken. If we take the Paleozoic or primary period of the world's formation, we find certain organizations during that period; but when we step from that to the mesozoic or secondary period, what do we find? Why, we find something that would make a person stepping from the one to the other feel that, like Rip Van Winkle, he had been sleeping one hundred years, so great and remarkable is the change that has taken place. In the paleozoic age we find nothing at all like what we sec in the mesozoic age. In the mesozoic age, instead of finding dwarfed animals—as would be the case if my friend's theory of steady and continuous progression were correct—we find monstrous reptiles, some of which were no less than 20 feet high. I give you as my authority Professor Dawson, in his work on the "History of the Earth and Man," and I believe his statements are unchallengeable. There is the ceteosaurus, or "Whale-Laurian," supposed at one time to have been an immense aquatic creature; but since demonstrated by scientists to be something like the hippopotamus, living in water and on land, and subsisting on herbs. It was more than fifty feet long, and ten feet high. And I ask: If there has not been this steady progression in size, but this tremendous leap from the smaller forms of the paleozoic to the monsters of the mesozoic, and then back from these to the smaller forms of the Neozoic or tertiary, how can my friend's theory hold water? When these facts are borne in mind, we see that between those ages, there are chasms that cannot be crossed, and as far as at present appears, it is utterly impossible for them to be.

But more, I say that this theory does violence to reason, because Spencer and others affirm, that all dungs have come from inert matter—this speck of jelly being a more advanced development. But until we see a stone before our eyes becoming an organised being, there is not the slightest reason for supposing that inert, lifeless matter, can become a living organisation. I challenge the world to find anything that caps the absurd so much as the assertion that the character of the Lord Jesus Christ—which you have heard my friend eulogise in such glowing terms to-night—has, through this steady progression in harmony with irreversible law, such as he has attempted to describe, arisen from a little particle of page 106 inert lifeless matter—that all those delightful teachings, those pure moral sentiments, found in the Gospels, have really been developed from lifeless matter. And yet, while we are required to believe this, we are not told how this immense chasm, between this small beginning and transcendent ending, has been bridged! I say that when my friend professes to be rational, and yet holds views such as these, it shocks my sense of right to hear him make such a profession.

Further, if we take this idea of progress and view it in the light of the history of man, where is the evidence? He said, on Lyell's authority, that man has existed for 250,000 years. I have only to say in regard to Lyell's hypotheses—for they are but such—that they are not worthy of much reliance, inasmuch as later science has shown that his statements as to deposits in rivers, &c., were thousands of years in error. But if we admit that man has been on the earth 250,000 years, we should expect, according to my friend's theory, that the remains of the first man found would be of a very low type. Yet what is the case? The brain of the earliest found man is fully equal in size to the brain of man in the present day. If you go back to ancient times, and ask where is this progression—is it in physical man?—you find that the men in ancient times were equal in stature, if not greater, than at the present time; or if it is in the intellectual sphere of man's being, you find that the ancients were equally subtle with the men of these days. Specimens of their eloquence, and of their reasoning, have each been handed down to us, and can hardly be surpassed. And, moreover, this monstrous theory of Evolution held by my friend, instead of being a modern discovery, is simply a resuscitation of a theory held by the ancients, and found in the earliest poetry and philosophy, when people were not only not critical, but were in a state of childhood and infancy. I affirm—and I ask my friend to contradict it if he can—that this theory of Evolution as at present held, is found in the earliest poetry and philosophy of those ancient heathens, and thus, instead of being an original discovery of the present day, it is but a resuscitation—as are all those theories that oppose Christianity—of old ideas long since exploded.

Now let me pass on to this matter of the genealogies. My friend made a great deal of the point that there are only 32 names in Matthew—admitting the four that should be supplied from the Old Testament—whereas there are 42 page 107 in the genealogy by Luke; and he pointed out that it was something like a man living 100 or 450 yeas ago, marrying a woman living in the present day. Let me say that I am indebted to my friend for his emphasis on this point; and let me affirm also that when every objection that can be urged against the Bible, and Christianity, is fairly examined, it amazes me how that objection is turned into one of the strongest possible proofs that mankind could conceive, of the truthfulness of that revelation. I affirm that the genealogy of Matthew covers the same number of years as that of Luke, and I invite my friend to attempt to controvert it. I do not know who may have written on this matter; but I like to obtain when possible, information at first hand, and as my friend emphasised this point, I have taken the trouble to go through the historical record of the Kings.

Let me premise that royal families are subject to greater vicissitudes than private families; and that the list of the royal family given by Matthew would therefore be more subject to changes than the private family recorded by Luke. If I were to say that between the persons named in Matthew, there were much longer periods—even a generation or two in some cases——than those named by Luke; unless I could give proof of my assertion, you would think it a hard case indeed which needed to rest upon such a supposition. Now it is actually the case that there are these long intervals. For instance, in connection with the history in the Book of Kings; if we take David and Solomon, we find that David's oldest son did not reign, but Solomon, one of the youngest. Solo-man was a young man when he began to reign, and was probably born when David was about fifty years old, and as David, after a reign of forty years, died at the age of seventy, Solomon would thus be twenty years of age when he began to reign. Now here, in the case of the first two names in the descent, those of David and Solomon, we have a gap where we can save twenty-five years which will go towards filling up the apparent difference between the two genealogies. I have not time to present all the evidence I have prepared, but I may mention in connection with King Jehoram, that the fact is stated in Chronicles ii. 21, 17, that his family were all slain with the exception of his youngest child, and this youngest child succeeded him on the throne. We find further, that as the children of Ahaziah were all slain, except the youngest, by Athaliah, his wicked and cruel mother, page 108 another irregularity occured in the succession, and consequently in the genealogy also. There was an interregnum of a few years, and then Joash, the son of Ahaziah, who had been hidden six years, and was then seven years of age, began to reign, and continued forty years. Another thing to be noticed is, that when Jehoiachim was taken captive to Babylon he was thirty-six years of age, and was thirty-seven years in prison at Babylon. At the end of that time he was taken out; his prison clothes taken off, and he was exalted above the other subject kings in Babylon. At that time he was seventy-three years of age. Salathiel, his son, was born in Babylon and doubtless after that captivity was over, and thus we have another fifty years more gained towards filling up this gap. I have gone carefully through the chronological history of every one of those kings, and leaving out the fourteen names from Salathiel down to Joseph, regarding whom we have no chronological data, I have found that Matthew's genealogy covers 1,035 years, reckoning the generation at twenty-five years; while Luke's genealogy, reckoning the generation at the same rate of twenty-five years, covers 1,050 years. Thus we have a discrepancy of only fifteen years. If we had the chronological data of those other fourteen names, do you not think we could till up that gap? I affirm that this is simple fact, and can be supported beyond all cavil. Under these circumstances it was utterly impossible for Matthew to have manufactured that genealogy, and it, becomes one of the strongest evidences of the authenticity of the book he has written. Those apparent contradictions, when examined, prove that the man who wrote the gospel was none other than a man of truth, a man who knew of what he spoke, a man who may be relied upon. But another argument is to be drawn from this fact. I say that Matthew's list having been based on a genealogical table of the Kings, which, on comparison with the historical record, is proved to be true, and as those genealogies were all lost at the destruction of Jerusalem, and have never since been recovered, the fact that Matthew wrote that genealogy proves that he had the record before him. As those records were lost at the destruction of Jerusalem he must have written before that event, and must have consequently written within forty years of the death of our Blessed Lord. We thus sec how strong is the confirmation which this genealogy gives to the Gospel of Matthew. I will now pass on to my affirmative argument.

Mr. Bright has asserted that I have not attempted to show the Divine character of Jesus in any sense, and I am reminded of the remark, that I must prove the Divine origin of the Scriptures before I can prove my proposition. Now, if I prove, as I have done, that those Scriptures existed hundreds of years before the events narrated in the Gospel took place, and that the predictions, which could not have been uttered by man, were literally fulfilled, does not that prove that the predictions were given under "Divine direction? If my friend is a Rationalist, using his reason, surety I need not emphasize that any more. But he says, even if all those prophecies were admitted, they would not prove the Divine origin of Christ, and I suppose he would say in the same way with regard to miracles, that if admitted, they would not prove the Divine origin of Christianity. Now let me ask: If those prophecies were uttered hundreds of years before the event, and were all literally fulfilled, saying that a certain person was to come, that he was to be of Divine nature but in human form, and that he was to atone for man; and if that person comes, and works miracles in attestation of his claims, such as no mortal could work—can the human mind demand stronger proof than this? I ask my friend, if he does demand stronger proof, to tell us of what kind it is.

Mr. Bright: My friend asked if it were not an essential part of his mission in this debate to prove Christianity from the documents. It is no doubt an essential part of what he has to prove, but it is not the most important part. He has further to prove that those documents are of Divine origin. Suppose that instead of discussing with my friend I were discussing with a Buddhist; and that this Buddhist asserted to me that Buddha was divinely born of Maia—that being a virgin she had that child, Buddha, who was the man-God. I ask how he knows that. He quotes from his sacred books in proof of his assertion. Would I not then come with this further demand: You say that the texts you quote are of remote antiquity. I do not doubt it, because it is generally from remote antiquity that such stories emanate. But now will you please demonstrate that those texts are of Divine origin? I say that is the crux my friend has to tackle. The thing he has to do after, or before, proving Christianity from the documents, is to prove the Divine origin of those documents.

My friend affirmed that Evolution left no opening, as it were, for a Deity, and he asserted that scientific men denied the existence of any divine power.

Mr. Green: I only cited Herbert Spencer.

Mr. Bright: He referred especially to Herbert Spencer. Now Herbert Spencer—I recollect as well as if I were reading the book now—uses in more than one place the words, "The Power that controls the Universe."

Mr. Green: What is it?

Mr. Bright: Herbert Spencer does not pretend to say what that power is, and to do that, I think, will take a far greater man than my friend on the platform. With regard to the question of Evolution, if it were part of the theme we have met to debate, I would be happy to discuss it with my friend, and try to prove to him that, rationally regarded, it does not for one moment exclude the Divine Mind from the Universe—nay, rather that it insists upon a Divine Mind not inspiring the world 2,000 years ago or more, and then retiring, but a Divine Mind inspiring the world now, still regulating the world in all directions, and controlling its affairs—a living God, not a God of the remote past. My friend spoke of lifeless matter. Evolution would never sanction the use of the term. There is no such thing as lifeless matter. We do not know, as all Evolutionists say, the promise and potentiality of matter. We do not know what each atom of matter contains. The Evolutionist sees reason to believe that every atom of matter is inspired by the Divine mind—that God is universal and infinite. Let those who believe that God is not infinite and not universal conceive of an atom of matter without His power in it. If it be true, as asserted in the Christian Scriptures, that not a sparrow falls to the ground without the Father—if it be true, as Paul declares, that God is beyond all, above all, and in all, surely there cannot be an atom of matter anywhere that is not a manifestation of God.

I pass over what my friend said with regard to Lyell's hypothesis. I believe that book of Lyell's—the Antiquity of Man—can very well take care of itself. It has been criticised over and over again, and numbers have endeavoured to show that it is not based on sound scientific knowledge, but they have failed most notably. And even those who argued that Lyell was wrong, have never for one moment pretended to assert that Genesis was right.

I come now once more to this question of the genealogy of Jesus. It has been re-introduced by my friend; and I think I might almost leave it to my audience to judge whether in going to the Scriptures to put this and that passage together, and to make this Mosaic work in order to discover what is true religion, and in avoiding all reference to what I spoke of as that which Jesus himself declared was necessary to salvation, my friend does not stand self-condemned. If we have to go and piece this and that together—if we have to obliterate the name of Joseph in the genealogy and insert that of Mary—if we have laboriously to make up for largo spaces of missing time—and all this in order to justify the truth of a particular doctrine—surely it is more in accordance with rational Christianity to go to the fountain-head and see what Jesus himself affirmed when asked what was necessary in order to obtain eternal life. With respect to the genealogy, my friend acknowledges that there are only four more names which can be introduced into Matthew's account in order to fill the large gap between it and the genealogy by Luke. Now, I do not want to charge my friend with what he did not hesitate to charge against me, namely, a lack of ingenuousness but I do not think he should have calmly stated the other evening that if the names in the Old Testament were introduced into the genealogy by Matthew, they would make up for this alarming gap of 400 or 450 years, without at the same time telling you that there were only four names that could be so introduced. However, my friend insists now there are four names to be introduced into the genealogy by Matthew for the period that elapsed between David and Joseph. If this be so, I would ask him to account for that verse in Matthew, which says that there are fourteen generations from David to the carrying into Babylon, and fourteen generations from the carrying into Babylon to the time of Jesus? If those four names are introduced, this statement of Matthew's is wrong, and there are more than fourteen generations. But if the four names are not introduced, we have the lapse of time I have pointed out. But even with the introduction of those four names there is still this bungling process to be performed by which my friend endeavoured to show that one king lived to 70 years of age, and did not have a son until he was nearly dying, and so on.

I will now pass to what my friend said in answer to my demand that he would prove the Divine origin of the Scrip- page 112 tures, from which he quoted. He pointed out that there were predictions concerning them, and he alleged that those predictions could not have been uttered by man. Now, I ask again how does my friend know what can be uttered by man, and what cannot? I have here a volume, entitled "Predictions Realised in Modern Times," published in London. This volume is filled with latter-day prophecies, very many of them of a most extraordinary character, a large part of which were verified in quite as strange a fashion as that verification which my friend desires you to believe in. Therefore, even supposing that there were such predictions, they do not prove that they required more than the human mind, assisted by that inspiration which I conceive to be universal—that inspiration which is operating now as in the past. We have no proof that the human mind is incapable of originating those predictions.

Then my attention is directed towards miracles. Well, I assert that the miracles of antiquity—those of my friend the same as others—must stand or fall entirely by the rules of historical evidence. For the proof of a miracle, we require testimony of a most overwhelming kind. You have seen in our own day what sort of testimony is required to prove a miracle. You know the reception which the alleged miracles of one Christian Church encounter from the rest of Christendom. I have read accounts of some of these miracles—especially of two in France, one being the alleged apparition of the Virgin Mary in the mountains of La Salette—and I must say that if anything could prove so remarkable and marvellous an occurrence, the proofs contained in a book published on the subject seem to be altogether irrefutable. The examiners into the proofs on that occasion were not priests of the Roman Catholic Church itself, but included a vast number of free thinking magistrates; and the testimony they elicited from the two children, examined apart, and from the various persons living in the neighbourhood, was of the most astonishing character. If alleged miracles can be proved by historical testimony, then it seems to me that these apparitions would stand a better chance of being demonstrated than any similar incident in the remote past. For if you examine the Scripture miracles as historians, what evidence really have you? Have you the testimony of any one person upon whom you can place your finger as a reliable historical character? Can you point to one of them as you can point to Josephus, and page 113 say where he was born, give the names of his parents, give an account of his life? Not one witness of those miracles can be produced who stands in the same relation to them as Josephus stands to that period of history. I say, therefore, that with regard to the testimony of miracles historical methods have to be pursued, and before you can argue from them that any book is of Divine Origin, you have to bring historical tests to bear, and discover if you can whether those miracles really occurred; and when you have so substantiated them, you have further to learn whether they are of a character demanding Divine intercession, or whether they are merely due to unexplained laws in nature.

Mr. Green: My friend tells us no one knows what is in matter, or what matter is; yet strange to say, we have this paradox: while nobody can tell what is in matter, he affirms that a part of the Divine mind is in every particle of matter, and that there is no such thing as dead matter; although our senses would, say that if "inert" means "lifeless," there is an immense amount of lifeless matter indeed. I leave the paradox with him.

With regard to the saying of the young Ruler to Christ, "Good Master," &c, it is not needful that I should trouble about it, as I think no one using his reason, is at all likely to misunderstand it. As to modern prophecies, I can only say: Produce them; show that they have the same credentials as those we say are recorded in this Book, and then they will be worthy of consideration. Further, in regard to the miracles said to be performed among the Roman Catholics, I am not here at all to question anything about the Roman Catholics, or any other body; but I say: Let us have evidence such as can be presented in favour of the miracles of the New Testament, and whether my friend will believe them or not, I will believe them; for if they have the same kind of evidence, they must be true.

Now, let me resume my affirmative argument. I may say that I am sorry I have not had time to go all through the predictions; I can only now simply state that they have reference to the whole of our Saviour's life, His sufferings, His death as an atonement for man, His resurrection, and His ascension. All these things are predicted, and they were literally fulfilled. But there is one special prediction in page 114 the 9th chapter of the Book of Daniel worthy of special and emphatic notice, and which I regret I cannot now dwell upon, where the very year of our Lord's coming is predicted; and I affirm, that according to the testimony of Josephus, he came exactly at that time when those seventy weeks of years were fulfilled. I ask you to study that prophecy for yourselves, as time fails me to more fully refer to it to-night. Not only were the seventy weeks of years fulfilled, but also the very things that were predicted would be accomplished when he came. Again I repeat, that as it is beyond the power of the human mind to foresee events hundreds of years before they take place, and especially such a long concatenation of events, beyond all doubt, the book in which those predictions are found, proves itself to be from the Divine Mind, and from no other source.

Now, taking those things as I have stated, and passing on to this question of miracles which my friend has referred to—thereby rather anticipating my argument—I would just say that he takes the position that all miracles are impossible, inasmuch as it is more likely that all testimony would be false, than that a miracle would be true; and in this he follows in the path of that "modern man of God," David Hume—whom he characterises by that expression. Let me call attention to this: My friend denies the possibility of any testimony to prove a miracle. I really must again bring up that Eastern prince, and the formation of ice. My friend affirms that miracles are against ail human experience. That Eastern prince was told by men from colder climates that water, under certain atmospheric influences, congealed. The Prince exclaims: "I will not believe it! It is contrary to all human experience." He is told: "Here are men prepared to testify." They say: "We come from that country; we have seen it with our eyes; we have handled the congealed water with our hands; we know it to be true." "But, sirs," he would say, "I believe it is more likely that your testimony should be false than that a miracle should be true; and, therefore, as this which you tell me is contrary to all human experience (meaning simply his experience), I refuse to believe it." And David Hume's and my friend Mr. Bright's statement, that "It is contrary to all human experience," simply means that it is contrary to the experience of David Hume and Mr. Charles Bright, and those who think it well to regard the matter in that light.

I wish to say in regard to miracles, that of course they are uncommon. I would define a miracle as an event whose only antecedent is the Divine will and power. Miracles, in their very nature, must be uncommon. "We have miracles really all around us—in the sense of things the modus operandi of which we do not understand—in fact myriads of miracles—but because they are common, and are in harmony with certain supposed laws by which they are governed, we do not style them miracles. We therefore say, that miraculous interventions of the Divine Being—acts simply resulting from His will—must in their very nature be uncommon. Hence, when any friend asks: "Why are there not miracles now equally as in the past?" I reply: They would no longer be miracles if they were as common as you would like them to be. But I ask: Are not miracles possible? Is there a human being in the world who can venture to say they are impossible? Probably my friend will, because he appears to be a Pantheist, according to his last statement about every particle of matter having in it a part of the Divine essence, and Pantheism is simply Atheism, the denial of the existence of a personal Deity; therefore, if my friend is to be understood to be an Atheist in this sense, as his words would seem to imply, he of course will say that miracles are impossible. The only question for us to consider is: May miracles be reasonably expected in the presentation of a new religion which has imperative claims upon the attention of man, and the rejection of which involves sorrow to those so rejecting it? Certainly, if God chose to impose a religion upon man, the rejection of which must be calamitous to him, he must, in all reason, make the evidences by which that religion presents itself to man, so clear and convincing, that no reasonable and impartial man could reject them. Hence, we think rationally, that miracles must have been wrought to attest the Divine origin of the religion of Jesus. Now, we need only ask: Have we testimony that miracles were wrought, and was that testimony reliable? Passing that by for the moment, I wish you to notice the miracle of our Saviour's own life and teachings; and I say that in this itself, we have a greater miracle than anything that can be found throughout the world. On this point let me read from Rousseau, one of those who take a position similar to that of my friend: "Is it possible," says he, "that the sacred personage whose history it (the Bible) contains should be himself a mere man? What sweetness, page 116 what purity in his manner! What an affecting gracefulness in his instructions! What sublimity in his maxims! What profound wisdom in his discourses! What presence of mind, what subtlity, what fitness in his replies! How great the command over his passions! Where is the man, where the philosopher, who could so live and so die, without weakness and without ostentation? The death of Socrates peacefully philosophizing among his friends, appears the most agreeable that one could wish; that of Jesus, expiring in agonies, abused, insulted, and accused by a whole nation, is the most horrible that one could fear. Socrates, indeed, in receiving the cup of poison, blessed the weeping executioner who administered it; but Jesus, amidst excruciating tortures, prayed for his merciless tormenters. Yes, if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus are those of a God."^*

Now, let me read the words of Napoleon the First, a man whose utterances are worthy of being heard:—

"In every other life," says Napoleon, "than that of Christ, what imperfections, what inconsistencies! Where is the character that no opposition is sufficient to overwhelm? Where is the individual whose conduct is never modified by event or circumstance, who never yields to the influences of the time, never accommodates himself to manners or passions that he cannot prevail to alter?

"I defy you to cite another life like that of Christ, exempt from the least vacillation of this kind, untainted by any such blots or wavering purpose. From first to last he is the same always the same, majestic and simple, infinitely severe, and infinitely gentle; throughout a life that may be said to have been lived under the public eye, Jesus never gives occasion to find fault; the prudence of his conduct compels our admiration by its union of force and gentleness. Alike in speech and action, Jesus is enlightened, consistent, and calm. Sublimity is said to be an attribute of Divinity; what name, then, shall we give to him in whose character were united every attribute of the sublime?

"I know men, and I tell you that Jesus is not a man.

"In Lyeurgus, Numa, Confucius, and Mahomet, I see only legislators who, having attained to the first place in the State, have sought the best solution of the social problem; I

^* Emile ou de l' Education, lect. iv., quoted in Dr. Schaff' s Person of Christ, p. 340, 341.

page 117 see nothing in them that reveals divinity; they themselves have not pitched their claims so high.

"It is evident that it is only posterity that has deified the world's first despots,—heroes, the princes of the nations, and the founders of the earliest republics. For my part, I see in the heathen gods and those great men, beings of the same nature with myself. Their intelligence, after all, differs from mine only in form. They burst upon the world, played a great part in their day, as I have done in mine. Nothing in them proclaims divinity; on the contrary, I see numerous resemblances between them and me. Common weaknesses and errors. Their faculties are such as I myself possess; there is no difference save in the use that we have made of them, in accordance with the different ends we have in view, our different countries and the circumstances of our times.

"It is not so with Christ. Everything in Him amazes me; His spirit outreaches mine, and His will confounds me. Comparison is impossible between Him and any other being in the world. He is truly a being by himself; His ideas and His sentiments, the truth that He announces, His manner of convincing, are all beyond humanity and the natural order of things.

"His birth, and the story of His life, the profoundness of His doctrine which overturns all difficulties and is their most complete solution, His Gospel, the singularity of this mysterious being, His appearance, His empire, His progress through all countries and kingdoms,—all this is to me a prodigy, an unfathomable mystery, which plunges me into a reverie from which there is no escape, a mystery which is ever within my view, a permanent mystery which I can neither deny nor explain.

"I see nothing here of man. Near as I approach, closely as I may examine, all remains above my comprehension, great with a greatness that crushes me; it is in vain that I reflect—all remains unaccountable."^*

If, then, neither the fishermen of Galilee, nor St. Paul nor the early Christians, were capable of inventing these early records, whence did they come?

If my friend can explain a life like that on any other basis than that given in the Scriptures, we shall thank him for the explanation.

Mr. Bright: I am certainly rather surprised that my friend, after complaining of the pressure of time, should go on quoting those long opinions of other people regarding the character of Jesus. If it comes to a question of opinion on the Deity of Jesus, against Rosseau's I would be inclined to stake that of Voltaire, against Napoleon I would pit Frederick of Prussia, and as to the opinion of John Stewart Mill, I, for one, cordially say "Amen" to it. But my friend, although finding time to read these long extracts, declined to answer my arguments respecting the teachings of Jesus when addressed as "Good Master." Surely that quotation of mine deserved a word of comment. It must be tolerably palpable that there, at all events, Jesus himself seems in so many

^* Essays on "Nature, Religion, and Theism." p. 253.

page 119 works to rebuke anyone who would attempt to apply to him the epithet which he says is only to be applied to God. Surely that must be the signification of the quotation if we take the fair meaning of it. I would again ask my friend if he will condescend to answer those arguments which in the early part of the debate he said he was waiting for? I ask him too, if he can give any explanation of that heart-rending exclamation which came from the lips of the crucified Jesus, and manifested, if anything could, the depths of human suffering:—"My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" Will he explain in accordance with his theory of the Deity of Jesus, whence that cry arose, and to whom it was addressed? I call attention again to the fact that we are now away from our proper theme. We are debating the Biblical origin of Christianity which is not, in this discussion, denied; but waiving that, I ask: What is his explanation of this heart-rending appeal, as well as of the quotations to which he has avoided reference.

Moreover, on the question of the fulfilment of predictions being necessary to show the Divine origin of any Scripture, I would refer to the prediction stated to be made by Jesus, that he would remain three days and three nights in the grave; whereas, according to the account itself, he was only one day and two nights therein. I would ask my friend to explain the failure of that prediction, if by the success of predictions we are to judge whether or not Christianity is of Divine origin. My friend misstated altogether the argument of Hume, and therefore, of course, the position I take up as endorsing the argument contained in Hume's celebrated essay. My friend stated that Hume asserted, and that I asserted with him—and I am greatly indebted to my friend for coupling the two names together—that it was more likely that all testimony was untrue than that miracles were true. Now, that is not at all the argument taken up by David Hume in connection with miracles. His assertion is that we only know of the natural—of what occurs in nature—by testimony, that we can only ground our opinion upon testimony, and, in stating "such is the course of nature," we mean that "such is the testimony of observed facts." Therefore, when any one person, or two or three persons, or even a hundred persons, come and tell us something opposed to the general testimony of observed facts, it is more likely that those men lie, or are mistaken, than that the testimony of the rest of the race page 120 should fail us. He contends, moreover, that when we get sufficient testimony to prove a miracle, as against the overwhelming testimony by which we prove natural events, then the miracle ceases to be a miracle, and becomes a natural event. It is proved by such a mass of testimony that it is no longer a miracle, but takes its place in nature, and is discovered to have been before but an unexplained and misapprehended fact of nature. Thus, in the past, we have those who were ignorant of the way in which eclipses were produced, regarding them as miracles. Nor can we be astonished that when the ancients saw the face of the sun or moon darkened, they should have supposed, with the little knowledge they then had of the Universe, that some offended Deity was hiding the face of the luminary, and that it was a miraculous portent? So the rainbow was also regarded as a miraculous portent, as were innumerable phenomena we now know to be natural. The argument of Hume is, that if it comes to pass, through frequent occurrence, that any wonderful thing regarded in the past as a miracle is recognized as a fact through sufficient testimony, then we come to know that it was not miraculous, but a natural event. That is precisely what is now occurring with many of the incidents that were believed in Bible times to be miraculous. Why, Materialists like Lewes, Clifford, and H. G. Atkinson, are admitting that there are many strange occult phenomena in mesmerism and clairvoyance, before deemed either untrue or miraculous, but regarding which, such a sufficiency of evidence is being obtained as to show that they have to take their place in a domain of nature not previously investigated. That is the view I take of many so-called miracles. The time will come—nay, it is rapidly approaching—when nearly all those marvels of the past will be seen to belong to a portion of nature not yet fully explored; but, if proved to be true, they will take their place as natural events, and will cease to be regarded as miraculous. Hume's statement remains unanswered and unanswerable, that when you get testimony sufficient to prove an apparent miracle it ceases to be a miracle, and is recognized as a natural event. That disposes altogether of our persistent friend, the Eastern prince.

Furthermore, I am asked if I can say how the Divine Power could operate, and assign limits to such operation? I do not presume to say; but I do say that we only know the Divine Power by his manifestations. It is what we see in nature that teaches us how God inspires and acts; and when page 121 we say that a thing is not possible, or that it is opposed to nature, we simply mean that God has not taught us that he acts in that way. He teaches us day by day the method of his action in nature. We bow to that teaching, and if we discover in the remote past any event that seems to fly in the face of observed facts, we await further evidence. We do not even rashly pronounce it impossible; because as the French philosopher Arago says: "Out of the sphere of mathematics it is presumptuous to use the word impossible." My friend thinks that occurrences happening in occult directions, such as the spheres of Mesmerism and Clairvoyance are impossible; but I simply say we know of God's action merely by the observed mode of that action. We investigate nature to discover what natural laws are; and when we speak of natural laws, we simply mean the way in which observed phenomena operate. We do not mean that there is some external lawgiver who fulminates those laws. By the law of gravitation is meant the mode in which bodies in space tend towards each other. By the law of evolution is meant the way in which matter gradually changes, unfolds, and develops. Thus when we speak of a law of nature we simply mean the way in which phenomena operate, and hence the way in which the Divine Mind causes them to operate. Therefore when we read of a fact in nature termed a miracle, and said to attest Divine power, we say that the Divine power is known only through nature, that the alleged occurrence is opposed to the observed method in which the Divine power operates, and that we do not see sufficient evidence to convince us that the miracle ever happened.

Moreover, we must not forget this: My friend in answer to my question why miracles did not happen now, said that if they happened frequently they would become common. All I can say is that they did happen frequently, if we can accept the testimony which proved satisfactory in those olden times. They were always happening, at the genesis of every nation. We find miracles at the commencement of the Greek history, and we have the miraculous preservation of Romulus and Remus at the foundation of the Roman nation. At the initiation of the Hindoo dispensation there is nothing but miracle. The Buddhist religion is all based on miracles. The same is the case with the Mahommedan. We find Mahomet having interviews with the angel Gabriel, and we have still, if we choose to believe it, Mahomet's coffin page 122 miraculously suspended between heaven and earth. Miracles in the olden times were almost as common as natural facts are now, and people were prepared as readily to believe in them.

My friend has twitted me with being a Pantheist. If I am a Pantheist, surely Paul, who said God is above all, beyond all, and in you all, must also have been a Pantheist. It seems to me that whatever may be true or false in religion, Pantheism must be true when it declares the infinitude of God, when it affirms that God is everywhere, that there is no escape from Him,—that He is universal. Whatever else may be true or false, to my mind that declaration of Pantheism must be true. But if it be true it does not follow that the love of God is incapable of making itself felt in response to the love of His human family; it does not put that love beyond our reach. I say we are still enabled to receive that love, and enabled to feel that we are nurtured within the arms of the Infinite. It is this very supremacy of law, this absence of miracles and magic that enables men who study nature to rely on the Divine Soul, to feel the utmost confidence in Him; to rest assured that no irresponsible power can cast us into eternal torment if we do not believe in one direction, and eternally favour us if we only believe in what seems to us to be incapable of proof. We know, as Paul said, that as a man sows so he shall reap; and are aware that we may rely on the Divine law in every direction. It is this very reliance on law that enables scientific men in our day to discern that even in morality and in sociology—that is, the science of society—we may still rely on law, and therein discern Divine principles at work, assuring us that here too, precisely as we sow, so we shall reap, that just as we are enabled to act now, so we shall gain the bane or benefit of those actions in this world, and in all worlds beyond.

Mr. Green: As my friend quotes the apostle Paul to contradict his (Mr. Bright's) own statement, I think I may very well leave the matter in its present position. In one breath he said that persons are condemned merely because they do not believe, and that they are saved merely because they believe; and in the next breath contradicted it by quoting Pauls words, that "as a man sows, so shall he reap," (which is the real teaching of the Gospel.) I think I may leave that matter to answer itself.

In connection with Pantheism, let me say that Paul was not writing of such as my friend Mr, Bright—good, upright, and moral a man as he may be—but writing of Christianity and of this Christian doctrine, that the Spirit of God dwells in the heart of every Christ-loving man who is sincerely seeking to do God's will; and therefore, "God is in you all," not in every human being, which is the sense in which my friend uses it. My friend says I misrepresented Hume. Well, I will come to that when I mention miracles again.

He asks me to favour him with an explanation of the passage "Good Master," and to give him the meaning of the exclamation "My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me! He also refers to the Saviour not being three days and three nights in the grave. Some have said—I do not know if it be true—that my friend is of Jewish birth. (Hisses.) When I tell you that I would regard it as the highest honour on earth if I were a descendant of Abraham, why do you act thus? There are a large number of Hebrew gentlemen on the platform, and they all well know that there are what are called Special Sabbaths—that is, days of rest—under the Jewish dispensation; and in the Gospel narrative it will be seen that that day was a "high day"—a special Sabbath—for which the day on which Jesus was put to death, was the preparation. Now, I have simply to call upon my friend to prove that that Sabbath day, on the day preceding which Christ was crucified, was the legal seventh-day Sabbath, and was not one of those special Sabbaths that are so often spoken of in the Old Testament Scriptures. Then, in regard to that statement about "Good Master." Now, I have to put a question to my friend. Jesus said to the Jews: "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is He?" I would put the same question to Mr. Bright. They replied, "The son of David." "How then," said Jesus, "did David call Him Lord?" I ask my friend to explain how the Messiah could be David's son, and yet David's Lord? Now, just as the Saviour presents His Divinity in that question, so He presents another thought in this expression "Why callest thou Me good?" That young man who came to Him looked upon Jesus merely as a man, and because evidently he was a self-righteous man, because he prided himself upon having observed the perfect law of God, the Saviour wanted to infix in that man's mind the fact that there was no earthly being good, that is, no merely human being; therefore Jesus, in speaking to this young ruler, who looked page 124 upon Him simply as a man, and saying "Why callest thou Me good?" really meant to impress upon him this fact: That no man on earth is good, and that consequently neither was he (the young man) good. The Saviour is not there speaking in the sense my friend would imply, but is seeking to impress on this young man the fact that there is no mortal on earth good; that goodness belongs only to the Divine Being, in its true and essential sense.

My friend asks why the expression: "My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me!" was used? I reply, simply because of that which to my friend is so absurd—because Jesus was perfect man and yet perfect Deity, manifest in human form, and was dying in man's form and on man's behalf. It was because He was our substitute, dying on our behalf that the Divine Being, looking upon Him as such, and as having resting upon Him the accumulated sins of the world, did not give Him aid in that hour of His extremity; therefore, as He was in man's form, so, in our stead, bereft of all support, as a culprit dying on account of wrong, but at the same time realising His own close relationship to God, He exclaimed, "My God! My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me," and with a broken heart He gave up His Spirit. That appears to be the reason why.

Now, in regard to miracles, my friend says I misrepresented Hume. Well, I am quite content to leave my representation as it stands, and when the debate is published you will see that I have just stated, only in other words, what my friend asserted. He says, speaking of phenomena unexplainable to the ancients, but since found to be in harmony with natural laws, these were once miracles, but are not now." But suppose that a man in that day came and said: "You think these are all miracles, but I am able to explain the whole phenomena in connection with these matters, and to show you they are simply the working out of the laws of the Divine Being." Would not that person show a knowledge beyond and above all that portion of the race then living, which would prove that he had a revelation, that must have come, not from human consciousness, but from the Divine Being, and would not that have been a miracle? But what do we see in connection with the miracles of Christ? If we have dead men raised to life, if we have disease dispersed at a word—the blind made to see, the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak—done simply by the power within Himself—I ask my friend to deal page 125 with those matters and show how they can be resolved into operations merely of certain laws? And even when he does this, I shall simply affirm that it only proves that the Lord Jesus Christ had a knowledge of those laws which no mortal could have, and it therefore truly demonstrates His Deity.

Let me ask you to notice that all His miracles were cognisable by the senses, done in the open day, and in the presence of large numbers of witnesses, and that the Gospel writers who give the accounts of them, saw the miracles with their own eyes. If you can find miracles wrought in these days which can present such reliable testimony, I say by all means believe them. It is a peculiar characteristic of Christ's miracles that they displayed no vindictiveness, and that they were purely works of benevolence. See Him raising the daughter of Jairus to life; giving back a living son to the widowed and previously sorrowing mother; behold Lazarus given back to his distressed and dejected sisters; see Him feeding thousands with bread miraculously increased. These are all deeds of a character indicating that the Being who manifested this power was animated, not by "human" sympathy merely, but by a spirit such as was never before seen in man.

Then take the miracle of the resurrection, predicted by the Saviour himself before it took place. His death he predicted, and, as my friend himself has said, his resurrection also. The disciples, notwithstanding that they had been told over and over again, did not expect it; and when they heard of it, they would not believe it, except upon ocular demonstration, and those men were only convinced when that demonstration was given. It was given to eleven witnesses, and afterwards to five hundred, more than half of whom, Paul, says, were alive when he wrote that letter to the Corinthian Church, which even Strauss admits was written within thirty years of our Saviour's death. I ask how can these things be untrue? Then, if we take into account the character of those men who were witnesses—fishermen whose keen eyes were well suited to detect such things—men who for three and a half years had been companions of the Lord. They saw him after he was risen: they heard him speak; they saw him eat, and ate with him; touched his body; saw the prints of the nails and the spear; and, I ask, Could these men have been mistaken in connection with such matters as these? It may be said they might have been deceivers, or they might page 126 have been deceived. What I have stated proves that they could not have been deceived; deception was utterly impossible, because of the vast number of witnesses, which are given as five hundred and twelve, Paul himself being included. That those witnesses were not deceivers is, I think, very clear from the fact that there could be no reason whatever for any deception on their part. The Gospel narrative is such that it could never have been conceived by them. A spiritual system such as that developed in Christianity was beyond the capacities of any men such as those. I have pointed out by the quotations from Mill, and others, that those men were incapable of giving expression to a system so unique, so complicated, and yet so simple and perfect in all its parts, as the Christian system. Then, friends, let me ask you further, what object could those men have in thus acting as impostors? They were disinterested, were they not? What was it that they gained? What could men like these have for their object in propounding a morality such as that in the New Testament record? Was it to make money? Priests in these days oftentimes play upon the credulity of people in order to get money; but in this blessed volume the very opposite of that spirit is seen. Had they no self-interest whatever? Yes, they had; but it was an interest not of the pocket, but of the soul, referring not to time but to eternity, and to secure their interest they were terribly in earnest. Animated by a purified spirit, they followed Christ in all his teachings, and in thus carrying out all that he had pointed out to them, they realised that their highest spiritual interests were secured. They had now found that after which the ardent souls of the whole human race had been yearning for century after century, and which they had been privileged now to see. I say that, when we look at all these things, and consider that those men died in attestation of their testimony, the evidence is overwhelming.

My friend asked the other evening what proof it was of the veracity of those writers that they were willing to die for their Master, and said that many persons had been found who were willing to die for their noble masters, and that this case of the Apostles was one of a similar nature. Now, it is true the Apostles were willing to lay down their lives for Christ in the manner suggested, for we find that on one occasion, when Jesus was going to Jerusalem into the midst of the enemies who were thirsting for his life, Thomas said to the other page 127 disciples, "Let us also go that we may die with him." But an the present instance there is no parallel between the cases. Those men died, not for their Master, but in attestation of the truth of the things which they asserted in regard to him, and of which they declared they had actual knowledge. They died, if my friend's theory is true, in favour of what they knew to be a lie; and I say, that for men to give up all that is dear to humanity, everything that is regarded as pleasant and agreeable, and to their worldly interests, and to die for what they knew to be untrue, is a greater miracle than the world has yet been called upon to receive.

Mr. Bright: It would seem to me just as impossible as I believe it seems to my friend, that any man should yield up his life for what he knew to be a lie. Men do not die on be-half of known lies. The Apostles died for their faith in a glorious commander. Jesus was a peaceful and willing sacrifice,—one who died for them and all mankind in one sense—the sense in which all great martyrs die, in order that by their death they may show the better way—the way of righteousness, to the race. I say there is nothing astonishing in the fact of the apostles being willing to die for their faith in a man like that. But does their death for him prove that he was the Deity? Is there an atom of proof in that death of theirs of the truth of my friend's theology? On the contrary, must we not be surprised to see that men should, like the Apostles, live throughout a considerable time with a man who is declared to be the Deity, and that yet they should not know it? If they did not know it, living through a portion of his life with him, can we possibly know it on written testimony? If they did not know it, and were so astonished when they heard of his resurrection (the very event that might be anticipated of a Deity) that they took it at first to be an "idle tale," can those who now elect to think clearly on the subject be blamed if they disbelieve this theology to be true? Those men might die on behalf of the spiritual hero, and the system they wished to uphold. I believe thoroughly that they were completely earnest men, but earnest men are not infallible; they are not always capable of distinguishing precisely truth from error.

My friend, at the commencement of his last address, took an opportunity of stating that I was of Jewish descent. page 128 Well, I do not know for what purpose he introduced that statement. I am sure he was communicating very little news to the majority of the people of Dunedin. It is a fact I have never attempted to conceal. I am not ashamed of being descended from the same race as Jesus of Nazareth, and if my friend thinks that is a taunt he used towards me—and I cannot see any other reason—(Cries of "No.") Then why was it needlessly introduced? I have endeavoured throughout this debate not even to make use of a satirical observation at the expense of my friend. When, the other evening, I indulged in a slight joke about men and monkeys, I made it at my own expense rather than at the expense of my friend. I have at every stage of this debate stopped myself when on the eve of making use of a satirical or severe observation against my friend. Even when I might have pressed home what seemed a tremendous advantage in argument I did not do so. For instance, on the evening when I spoke of the genealogies, I might, if I had chosen, have driven home a very strong case, but I declined to do so. And this is the first time I have had to seriously complain of my friend introducing any observation into this debate which I think he should have avoided. With regard to what he advanced touching a special Sabbath, all I can say is that, being of Jewish descent, I do not know of it. I am not aware of it, or of the alleged preparation for this special Sabbath. And I say again that seeing this system of theology has to be upheld by these continual changes in the meaning of words, by this perpetual introduction of new interpretations of obvious expressions, we should rather, in order to get a rational explanation of what Christianity should be, go to the mind of Jesus himself. Let us refer to his direct teachings when he was asked: "What am I to do to obtain eternal life?" and when he set before that "anxious enquirer" the formula he deemed necessary in order to secure that eternal life the enquirer was seeking.

The whole of this question, it seems to me, is based upon the one important fact: Do we or do we not receive every word in a certain book as the infallible word of God? Do we regard it as a book upon which we are not to exercise our reason, but before which we are to bow down and worship? And if it be a revelation of God to such an extent, then I say it is unlike all the rest of His works. It is not made so clear and plain that a rational mind can understand it, the page 129 same as a rational mind is capable of understanding the other works of nature. Surely if it were such a revelation, every word in it ought to have had supernatural care accorded it. Every time it was translated from one tongue into another we have a right to expect that it would have received the same Divine superintendence. Yet we find this book treated precisely as a human work; looked at by numbers in that light; criticised on all hands; certain portions of it obliterated, they not being supposed to be the genuine word; and certain other portions mistranslated, as we now learn from superior scholarship. All this occurs with this alleged word of God. More than that, if it be a revelation in the sense in which my friend says it is, how comes it that a small portion only of God's immense family has become aware of it? And even among that portion, at this day, it is still held to be doubtful by a vast number whether it is a true verbal revelation or not.

I have not been attempting in this debate to gain a momentary victory over my friend, nor have I expected, among my audience, to make any sudden conversions. Sudden conversions are of very little value in the eyes of Rationalists; and they do not much believe in them. My whole and sole object has been to sow some seeds of thought; and I anticipate—nay, I know—that I have sown seeds of thought that will sprout and blossom and bear fruit in years to come. I thank the audience for the quiet hearing I have received each evening of this debate, and—notwithstanding the complaint I felt compelled to prefer a few moments ago—with the friendliest feeling towards the gentleman whose views I have been opposing, I must, in conclusion, respectfully but firmly assert that the Divine Origin of Christianity, as specified and defined by my friend, remains still unproved.

Mr. Green: I rise at the present time with sadder feelings than I have experienced at any other period during this debate, because when I see a man aggrieved, I feel grieved if I have in any way been the cause of it. As my friend appears to be deeply grieved, I am sorry; but I cannot recall what I have said. I do think that my friend stands self-condemned. He says that he never hid from the people that he is of Hebrew birth and that it is a fact well known. page 130 Then why this indignation because I referred to it? Did I not say that I would regard it as the highest honour if I were in the same position? Did I not make the reference in order to appeal to his own consciousness, and the consciousness of the Hebrew gentlemen around me, as to the truth of the fact which I stated? It is a known fact that there are many Hebrews in Dunedin, and they need not be ashamed of their presence here to-night. Did I not simply appeal to their consciousness on this question of special Sabbaths? Where then is the reflection? My friend has tried to bring home tome personal remarks when there was no necessity. I am sorry he is offended; but I say it is either from a misunder-standing, or from some other reason that I shall not attempt to define. Now, in connection with this matter, I would say that if he does not know of special Sabbaths, then he is not sufficiently acquainted with his ancestral writings; because the Jews of this day know that there are many, even now, of such Sabbaths, which they are taught to observe, and on which, if they keep their law, they will not do a particle of work, or anything else that would be unlawful on the ordinary Sabbath.

Now, a point in connection with the genealogy, which I overlooked in my last speech. My friend said that I had stated that all those names omitted, and which the Old Testament supplied, would fill up the vacuum in the genealogy by Matthew. Now, may I tell you that it is a remarkable circumstance that those names do fill up the major portion of the vacuum. In connection with the first of the three omitted names in verse 8, there was the murder of Ahaziah's children by their unnatural grandmother; then an interregnum, during which the murdress, Athaliah, reigned; and after her deposition, the crown was given to Joash, a child of seven years, the youngest son of Ahaziah, and the only one who escaped the murderous hand of Athaliah. Also, where the fourth name is omitted, that of Jehoiachim, it is in connection with the birth of Salathiel in Babylon, and when his father was 73 years of age. So that my statement was actually in accordance with fact.

My friend says in regard to the death of the Apostles, that their dying for Christ does not prove that the things they taught were true. I never urged the fact for such a purpose. I did not perpetrate such an illogical statement as that. But I say, that if I die for my attestation of anything, no matter what it may be, it proves, not that the thing I died in attesta- page 131 tion of is true, but that I believed it to be true. Is not that clear? Then, if I have actual knowledge of the truth of the thing for which I die; if I declare that I saw, or felt, or heard that of which I affirm, and if my evidence is confirmed by ten others who also saw, and felt, and heard, and who are likewise willing to attest their declaration with their lives, is not that evidence, clear and unquestionable, of the truthfulness of that for which I and they were willing to die? Certainly none could be more so. I would like to say in connection with my friend's last remarks, that I fully sympathise with him in his desire to give expression to the truth. No one has heard me suggest any other thought than that as his motive. I do not believe in imputing motives. While I must say, in all candour, that I think my friend has been deficient in argument, at the same time, I am ready to acknowledge that he has not been deficient in courtesy. I will say that for him with the utmost readiness.

In regard to Christianity, I would like to say, during the last few minutes that remain to me, that it appears to me, that apart from all these things which I have mentioned, there are other and even more convincing proofs of its Divine origin can be presented. We know that no human government can at the same time display infinite justice, infinite mercy, holiness, and love, or even any of these characteristics. If justice is to be heard, mercy is shut out; and if mercy has its way, justice is shut out. If mercy is to be shown to the culprit, we have no holiness, in the sense of maintaining purity, and the integrity of law; while if mercy is not shown, love of the governed by the governing cannot be manifested. In observing human laws, we see that no such system as that which we find in the Gospel of Christ could ever be thought of. In Christianity we find as the underlying basis that sin is the transgression of law, and that man, having transgressed the law, is a sinner. If my friend believes in a personal Deity—of which I am doubtful, owing to his last statements—he must believe the Deity is a moral governor, as well as the governor of the merely physical universe. If He is a moral governor, then He must have moral laws; and as we know that men break physical laws, there is hence a probability of their breaking those moral laws. Now, seeing that the laws of the Infinite are immutable, and cannot be broken with impunity, there must be either the death of the criminal who breaks them, or some means of harmonising the manifestation page 132 of mercy with the Divine justice. Now, the Gospel represents God as an infinitely just governor, who cannot forgive sin unless all the requirements of justice are met. And as the requirements of justice could not be met by human beings, Heaven itself supplies the victim whose one sacrificial offering, because of His Divine nature, is ample to satisfy all the requirements of Divine justice, and to open the way for the be stowment of mercy upon the whole of the human race. Thus we have in the Gospel an exhibition of infinite justice such as could never have been suggested by the human mind; and, at the same time, we have infinite mercy shown to the sinner; for while justice is amply satisfied, mercy is shown to the fullest extent; for we receive a free and full pardon, without anything being done on our part. I say that such a scheme manifests infinite wisdom; that it is beyond the capacity of the human mind to compass it; and that it bears upon it the impress of its Divine author. It is just what we might expect a father to do for his children. Will not a father and a mother die readily for their children? Will they not do anything they possibly can to relieve their children from calamity? Therefore is it not reasonable that the Infinite Father should devise a plan whereby His own law should be vindicated, His government upheld, and yet mercy shown to His children? And see how it affects the matter. As an illustration of this I may mention, that Joseph Cook, in his Boston lectures, tells of a schoolmaster, well known to his auditors, who had taken the Gospel plan, and carried it out in his school. He had certain rules in his school, and for the violation of those rules there was a penalty. A scholar having transgressed, was brought before the master. The master read the rules, and having expatiated upon the necessity of those rules being observed for the well-being of the scholars themselves, he said: "Now, the punishment must be inflicted; but I am willing to bear it for you in order to show you that I take no pleasure in punishing you, and that all I want is that my laws for your good should be upheld." Putting the rod into the scholar's hand, and holding out his own, he said, "Strike my hand." The scholar takes the rod, but stares with astonishment at such an unknown proceeding. When he hears the master persisting, he does strike, but very gently; and then—and you might have seen the red flush mounting to his face—he lets the rod fall, at the same time bursting into tears. He cannot strike. Why? Because the schoolmaster had followed the page 133 Divine philosophy, and by bearing the punishment of the wrong-doer, he killed the seeds of rebellion in the boy's heart. In that school, when the principle in operation was understood, there were never any more breaches of the law.

As my time has expired, I must now conclude with this final statement, that in the illustration I have presented, we have a practical application of the principle of that Divine philosophy seen in the scheme of redemption, and by means of which, God is seeking to bring the Universe into harmony with His will.

The Hon. Robert Stout (the Attorney-General) moved, and Mr. Thomas Fergus seconded, a vote of thanks to Messrs. Green and Bright for the able and courteous manner in which they had conducted the debate. This was carried amidst loud applause, and having been duly acknowledged, a vote of thanks to the Chairman concluded the proceedings.