Other formats

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

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 17

Scond Night

page 29

Scond Night.

Subject for debate: "Certain paragraphs in No. 2 of Mr. C. Watts's pamphlets entitled 'Christian Evidences Criticised.'"

Thomas Crow, Esq., again presided. He said that he was in favour of public discussions on theological subjects, because, if properly conducted, he thought them productive of great good. He hoped that both disputants would adhere to the questions in debate, and that the audience would listen impartially, Mr. Cowper's duty that evening was to prove that certain statements in No. 2 of Mr. Watts's pamphlets entitled "Christian Evidences Criticised" were incorrect; while it would be the business of Mr. Watts to defend these statements. Mr. Cowper would open the discussion.

Mr. Cowper said: Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen,—My first duty to-night will be to comply with a condition agreed upon at the last discussion—viz., to produce from the Koran evidence in support of my assertion, that therein Mahomet rejected the claim to the power of working miracles. The passage which I shall read is one among several. You will find it in the 13th chapter of the Koran, in Sale's translation, which I select as the more popular. It is in these words (p. 55, vol. 2). "The Infidels say, unless a sign be sent down unto him from his Lord, we will not believe. Thou art commissioned to be a preacher only, and not a worker of miracles; and unto every people hath a director been appointed." I now proceed with the discussion, taking up a paragraph, as previously arranged, in the second tract of Mr. Watts, on page 10, number seven on the list agreed upon. This paragraph commences thus :—"When the New Testament was written we have no certain means of knowing." Gentlemen, I do not deny it; but over against it I place this equally confident assertion—when Mr. Watts wrote his tracts Nos. 1 and 2, we have no certain means of knowing. It goes on—" Hartwell Home, who wrote in favour of Christianity, noticing the diversity of opinion among eminent critics as to the period when the page 30 Gospels first appeared, says: 'In this conflict of opinions, it is difficult to decide,'" and so on. My first observation is, that that first sentence refers not to the Gospels as a whole, in Hartwell Home, but to the Gospel of St. Matthew in particular. The remainder of the extract does apply to the Gospels as a whole; but my opponent, with characteristic cleverness, has omitted this sentence following his quotation—"Since, then, external evidence affords us but little assistance, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the internal testimony which the Gospel of St. Matthew affords, and we apprehend that it will be found to preponderate in favour of an early date." There is on the first of those pages a list of eminent men who have assigned the Gospel of St. Matthew to various dates, from a.d. 37 to a d. 64. I care not what date you fix upon, it is for me merely to know that they lie within the limits of the lives of the men who lived when the transactions of the Gospels occurred. He then proceeds to say—"Neither have we any knowledge that the statements of the New Testament were taken down as spoken by Christ and his apostles, or that they were committed to writing at all, previous to the middle of the second century." That I deny; and I appeal to the notorious facts that before the middle of the second century the New Testament was translated into the Syriac language, and also into the Latin. He then goes on with a quotation from Dean Alford's "How to Study the New Testament,"' which says : "These Gospels, so important to the Church, have not come to us in one undisputed form." He slides from the question of date into that of various readings, without making a new paragraph! But again; what is this extract? I shall not read the words, in order to save my time. But again, with characteristic cleverness, my opponent has omitted the following words immediately after where he stops: "Most of the differences are unimportant to the meaning; but, on the other hand, some are very important even to the omission in some copies, and insertion in others, of passages of considerable length." I know what those various readings are—I am not giving you second-hand information, but the result of personal investigation and inquiry; and I know that, with the exception of two passages, there are not in the whole of the four Gospels any passages of considerable extent regarding which there is any great doubt. The" first is, the account of the woman taken in adultery, in the Gospel of St. John, extending over ten or twelve verses, and the second is the concluding verses page 31 of the Gospel by St. Mark, from the 9th verse onwards. Those are the only two important various readings. But these various readings don't touch the question of date. There are thousands of various readings in the writings of Terence, the Latin poet, but who would doubt the antiquity of the poems because of that? He then goes on, in the paragraph numbered eight, to say—"The fact that neither Josephus, Philo, nor the Apostolic Fathers—writers of the first century—make any reference to the Gospels or Epistles, tends to confirm the opinion that nearly a hundred years elapsed from the occurrence of the events mentioned in the New Testament, supposing them to have taken place before their records were published to the world." With reference to Josepbus, I admit the fact; but Josephus does not mention the writings of Pliny, nor the writings of Horace, nor of Virgil, nor Martial, nor men about his own generation. He believed in Martial and Pliny as much as in the Gospels, I have no doubt, that is, in neither; and he quoted neither. (Cheers.) As to Philo, I ask my opponent how Philo could quote from the Gospels when he wrote before they were written? (Hear, hear.) I leave him to solve the chronological order. As to the Apostolic Fathers, I have them on the table, and I will give you a sample of what they have done in that particular direction. In the Epistle of Barnabas, page 7 of Dressel's edition, which is the best edition of the original work, I read thus :—"Let us take heed, lest as it is written, we be found, many called, but few chosen." That is from the Gospel of St. Matthew. I will give you a specimen from the Epistle of Clement, page 95 of this book. It is from the 47th chapter of the first Epistle of Clement. I read from the original:—"Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul in your hands, the first which he wrote unto you in the beginning of the Gospel." He is writing to the Church of the Corinthians, and if that is not a reference to the Epistle of the Corinthians, God knows how you will prove the existence of the book! In the remainder of the paragraph we have a supposed analogy between certain revolting events which took place in Jamaica a few years ago, and the occurrences of the transactions which are recorded of Christ, on the supposition that the events were not recorded until a century later. That is no comparison at all—it is a mere waste of words and of ingenuity on the part of my opponent, and the supposed supposition can only have been introduced in order to suggest a parallel between ex-governor Eyre, with whom page 32 I have no sympathy, and Jesus Christ, with whom I have a great deal. In the ninth paragraph, on page eleven, we read:—"Another instance showing the doubtful history of the New Testament is that, according to Mosheim and Dr. Pye Smith, the early ages of Christianity were remarkable for artful or superstitious copyists." Now you hear the supposed opinion of Mosheim—I will give you his real opinion. On page 36 of Reid's edition (century one, part 2, chap, ii. section 16) I read:.—"That the Four Gospels were combined during the lifetime of the apostle John, and that the first three Gospels received the approbation of this inspired man, we learn expressly from the testimony of Eusebius. And why may we not suppose that the other books of the New Testament were collected into one body at the same time?" Then comes the passage to which my opponent refers, but with characteristic cleverness, he has failed tocomplete it. I shall do so. "These worthless productions would have wrought great confusion, and would have rendered both the history and the religion of Christ uncertain, had not the rulers of churches seasonably interposed, and caused the books which were truly divine, and which came from apostolic hands, to be speedily separated from the mass of trash into a volume by themselves." Mr. Watts may get out of that as best he can. (Cheers.) I refer now to Dr. Pye Smith, whose opinion is given you according to the version of Mr. Watts, but whose opinion I shall give you according to himself, page 67 of the answer to Robert Taylor:—"It is no discredit to the apostolic writings that weak and dishonourable men who had their own selfish ends to answer, attempted imitations of them, and used such artifices as they could to gain credit to their inventions : on the contrary, it is a circumstance which enhances the honour and aids the security of our Scriptures, for two reasons : first, the existence of counterfeits is an evidence of both the reality and the value of that which is true and genuine; and secondly, this fact excited the general body of the earliest Christians to be so much the more careful in separating true from false compositions. Indeed the forgery of books, under the names of great men, was anciently a very common practice. Suetonius complains of such suppositious writings, both verso and prose, circulated as the productions of Horace; though he lived less than a hundred years after the poet's death. Several orations and epistles were given to the world as Cicero's, and their spuriousness remained page 33 long without detection; and forged works were published under the names of Orpheus, Hermes, Zoroaster, and many other revered names." On page 69, he says:—"Who does not see that this is a question only of curiosity, and of no real importance? Is any person sceptical of the genuineness and authenticity of Cicero's orations, or the poems of Horace, because we do not know who first bound together the scattered pieces, so as to make their respective collections?" Paragraph 9 contains this curious statement:—"That the writings of the New Testament shared the fate of other productions is evident from the following objection said to have been urged by Bishop Faustus as mentioned by Lardner. 'It is certain,' says the Bishop,' that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with, affixed to their works the names of apostles, or of such as were supposed to have been their companions, asserting that what they had written themselves was written according to those persons to whom they ascribed it?"' I ask whether that is taken from Lardner? I dare my opponent to say that he took it from that author, and I tell him that he took it from Robert Taylor's "Diegesis," page 106. (Cheers.) Mark the coolness, and at the risk of offending, I will say the characteristic cleverness, of my friend—he introduces this man Faustus without telling you when he lived, and where he lived. Why did not he tell you? Because he knows Bishop Faustus was a Manichean who adopted the two principles of good and evil, held the doctrines of the Manicheans, and was not a Christian at all in a proper sense. It is Infidel against Infidel. (Cheers.) Bishop! What's in a name? He took the title, but I can find the title applied to men in ancient writings who were not bishops at all. Faustus lived 400 years after Christ, and why should you believe in him rather than in Origen or Irenæus, or other men who bore witness to the originality of the Gospels? Why are they left out, and Faustus, who lived 200 years later, put in? (Cheers.)

Mr. Watts: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen—If this debate is to be productive of good, it should be conducted on both sides with the quietude and the discretion which the pursuit of truth should inspire in the minds of disputants. (Hear, hear.) And let me say also, that both Mr. Cowper and myself must endeavour to be impressed page 34 with the honesty of each other. We have listened to a speech which is remarkable for the earnestness which is commendable, but which dwells too much upon what could be done rather than upon what my opponent himself can do. I do not know that I could give you a better illustration of how careful you should be as to accepting his references, than in noticing the great point in his address. You will remember that he quoted Bishop Faustus's name, which I referred to in my pamphlet, and he charged me with taking the quotation second-hand from the "Diegesis" of Robert Taylor, and he dared me to say that I took it from Lardner, leaving you to infer that Lardner does not mention the fact. If Mr. Cowper has not read Lardner better than this, it is for us not to accept his assertions unless we have black and white for the truth of them. The only quotation throughout his speech which he has dared me to produce I will now read from Lardner's own works (Lardner's "Gospel History," vol. vi., part ii. chap. 63, page 557). It is this :—"Since it is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with, affixed to their works the names of apostles, or of such as were supposed to have been their companions, and saying they were writ by them." Now here Lardner states the facts precisely as I have asserted in my pamphlet. I place the book on the table for Mr. Cowper's verification. (Cheers.) I proceed now to the statement of the arrangement which I have planned during my opponent's speech. I have to regret that the suggestions thrown out by the chairman last week have not been acted up to by Mr. Cowper. I am here to defend passages in my pamphlets which are to be criticised. Which sentences these were I did not know until I came on the platform. It was suggested that Mr. Cowper should send to me during the week the points he intended to attack to-night. Up to the present moment he has not sent me one word or syllable. (Shame.) I do not complain but state it as a matter of fact, so that if I have not every book which will be required for reference you may not conclude it was the result of my misquoting, but through not knowing what my opponent was going to quote. It is only by chance that I have Lardner on the table. If I had not brought it Mr. Cowper would have thought he had won a triumph. (Cheers.) My opponent has misrepresented, page 35 unintentionally of course, the object of the reference to the Koran. I said in my pamphlet that there are other religious theories for which the same claims are put forward as are urged on behalf of the Christian religion. Mr. Cowper said there are not. I referred to the Koran to show that in it inspiration, prophecies, and miracles, were claimed for the Mohammedan faith. He admitted all the claims except that of miracles. Mind, I do not say that Mohammed claimed them, any more than I assert positively that Christ claimed miracles. I do not wish to put myself in a false position by affirming what a man claimed centuries ago; but I state that another religious faith, apart from the Christian, had miracles claimed on its behalf. This Mr. Cowper denies. I quote the Koran to show that the general resurrection at the last day is taught therein. That may be a miracle, but I will not urge it. But I will turn to what are regarded as special miracles. I read from page 43 of the same edition of the Koran as was quoted by my opponent:—"It is confessedly the standard of the Arabic tongue, and as the more orthodox believe, and are taught by the book itself, inimitable by any human pen (though some sectaries have been of another opinion), and therefore insisted on as a permanent miracle, greater than that of raising the dead, and alone sufficient to convince the world of its divine original. And to this miracle did Mohammed himself chiefly appeal for the confirmation of his mission." That is reference number one; I turn to page 56, where the writer speaks of a certain bone in the body which will always remain uncorrupted to the last day. I read—"For he taught, that a man's body was entirely consumed by the earth, except only the bone called Ajb, which we name the os coccygis, or rump-bone; and that as it was the first formed in the human body, it will also remain uncorrupted till the last day, as a seed from whence the whole is to be renewed: and this he said will be effected by a forty days' rain which God should send, and which would cover the earth to the height of twelve cubits, and cause the bodies to sprout forth like plants." If that would not be a miracle, I do not know what would. (Hear, hear.) I now quote from page 57, wherein I. find foretold certain indications of the resurrection, the war with the Greeks, and the taking of Constantinople by the posterity of Isaac: "Who shall not win that city by force of arms, but the walls shall fall down while they cry out, There is no God page 36 but God: God is most great!" If walls can be made to fall down by simply shouting, it is similar to the falling down of the walls of Jericho mentioned in the Bible. (Laughter.) Then on page 426, we are actually told that Mohammed himself was the subject of a miracle—we are told that Mohammed was caught up to heaven and sent back again. This, I presume, was considered a miracle by the followers of Mohamet. And I find these words said in reply to some who doubted the event: "If any impossibility be objected, they think it a sufficient answer to say, that it might easily be effected by an omnipotent agent." I think I have proved that miracles were claimed for the Mohammedan faith. I do not believe they were true, but these quotations bear out my assertion that other faiths claim miracles as well as Christianity. We have met to discuss to-night not precisely, as it was put to you, the historical value of the New Testament, because my opponent would not consent to meet me on that point; but we have to debate statements in my pamphlet, therefore if I do not take up every position which some of you desire, it is for this reason that I am determined to-night to compel Mr. Cowper to attempt to disprove the statements in my pamphlet, and I hope to show you that the statements cannot be impeached. My duty is not so much to strike my antagonist, but rather to prevent him from striking me home, and to prove that there is no weight in his blows. I will give him many opportunities when this debate is settled to discuss the general question of the historical value of the New Testament. I place before you as a proposition, that historical records are valuable in so far as they state certainties, not conjectures; facts, not speculations. What then can be 'brought forward in the way of speculation or conjecture will not disprove my pamphlet; the New Testament, to be of historical value, must state that which is true and certain, not that which is merely an opinion. The first question submitted to us is this: Is the history of the New Testament certain? That is the first point of attack. In my pamphlet I state, "When the New Testament was written, we have no certain means of knowing," and I quoted Hartwell Home in connection with that statement, in addition to Dean Alford. But we are told that the quotation from Home only refers to Matthew. Is this so? Home says :—"In this conflict of opinions, it is difficult to decide." Never mind for the moment whether the Gospels were written from the year 30 to the year 80, or not; is the time when they were written page 37 certain? I say, no: and whether there be any grounds for the statement that they were written at the time specified, we will deal with presently. But am I right in affirming that there is no sure ground for saying when they were written? Home says:—"It is difficult to decide, for the accounts left us by the ecclesiastical writers of antiquity, concerning the times when the Gospels were written or published, are so vague, confused, and discordant, that they lead us to no solid or certain determination. The oldest of the ancient fathers collected the reports of their own times, and set them down for certain truths, and those who followed adopted their accounts with implicit reverence; thus traditions, true or false, passed on from one writer to another, without examination, until it became almost too late to examine them to any purpose." Am I right or wrong in my quotation? Nothing Home says afterwards in any way disproves that. Mr. Cowper said that if I read further on, I should find that the internal evidence of the New Testament made up for the defects of the external. As to the external, this is one point to me; and I will show that there is no more certitude in the internal than in the external. (Cheers.) Is there anything certain about the time? Lardner says in vol. i. of his supplement, page 69, that we should not be too precipitate in giving a date to the Gospels, and on page 48 he puts it as doubtful whether the gospels were written until after some of the epistles. Here are Christian authorities, and they say it is a matter of uncertainty when the Gospels were written. My opponent spoke of certain various readings in a Latin poet; if he will say that the same consequences attend the rejection of the poems of the Latin author, which he says attend the rejection of the gospels, I will go into the subject of the Latin poems, and treat them as I have treated the New Testament. As there is simply everlasting condemnation for the rejection of the one, and no penalty attached to the rejection of the others, I do not care whether the Latin poems be genuine or not, it is a matter of small moment. (Cheers.) Then in my pamphlet I say, "Neither have we any knowledge that the statements of the New Testament were taken down as spoken by Christ and his apostles, or that they were committed to writing at all, previous to the middle of the second century." Mr. Cowper in attacking this sentence says that there were several editions, taken down in certain languages. His telling you this will not do, he must page 38 prove it. My pamphlet says that there is no knowledge of the fact; his saying that there is, does not prove it; and though I have great respect for him, I cannot accept his word instead of the demonstration which must be produced to me, ii it exists. "When he has shown you "some knowledge" on the subject, then I will see whether it affects my position; but up to the present he has given no facts. Lardner says that "At the rise of the Christian religion there were no written systems or records of it. . . Afterwards it was taught by word of mouth, and propagated by the preaching of his apostles and their companions." Thus the statements of the New Testament were at first promulgated by tradition, and at a time when we have no knowledge about its being taken down in writing. Dean Alford, according to my opponent's own admission, says that there are misreadings upon important points in the New Testament. But more of that presently. As to the time when mention of the Gospels is first made by the early writers, Mr. Cowper has not produced any evidence to show that the Gospels were written or mentioned within a hundred years after the events reported in them are said to have occurred. If he can do so, now is the time. Mere assertions will not falsify my statement to the contrary. He admits that my reference to Josephus is correct, but throws out an inuendo about Philo which I shall be happy to take up in another debate. My question now is, however, as to the truth of my pamphlet. With respect to the Apostolic Fathers, will Mr. Cowper state that what he has quoted as the writings of those Fathers is given from books which are now admitted to be genuine? I have here the writings of Dr. Giles on this matter, and he says that there is not a word in the Apostolic Fathers where any reference is made to the New Testament. Early writers may have used expressions that are found in the New Testament, for that book is composed of savings that were once the common maxims of the time. To disprove my statement, my opponent roust prove that the early writers quoted not current phrases, but specifically the New Testament. I shall resume the discussion of this point, if necessary, in my next speech. (Cheers.)

The Chaihman acknowledged that he had not clearly stated in opening the proceedings, what the subject of debate exactly was. He led the meeting to suppose that it was the question of the historical value of the New Testament, but that was wrong; he ought to have said the question of the page 39 truthfuiness of certain selected passages in Mr. Watts's pamphlet, which however he did not possess. (Interruption.)

Mr. Cowper protested against the Chairman's remarks.

The Chairman maintained that he was strictly in order, and thought that his suggestion at the last meeting, to the effect that the exact propositions of debate should be sent to himself and Mr. Watts, ought to have been carried out. He came that night twenty minutes before the time announced for commencing the discussion, thinking that Mr. Cowper would put him in possession of the points to be debated, but he had not done so, neither had he (the speaker) heard from him since the last meeting. (Disorder.)

Mr. Cowper then said: Gentlemen,—I have a work to do, and I must do it in the name of God. (Cheers.) I indicated to Mr. Watts the beginning and the end of every portion of his tract which I proposed to discuss; I indicated to the Chairman the beginning and the end of every passage which 1 proposed to discuss. (Cheers.) Mr. Watts asked me to tell him what books he was to bring; has he given you the titles or chapters of any three books? Have I not had to ransack and rummage the works of Lardner, and Pye Smith, and Mosheim? and should I be such a nincompoop as to give him the information which he asks for? (" On, ob," and cheers.) I now come to my opponent. I asserted that he had borrowed his quotation from Faustus from Robert Taylor, and not from Lardner. He read his book. Although my time is precious, I shall give you the extracts from the three. First from the tract:—"Asserting that what they had written themselves, was written according to those persons to whom they ascribed it." Robert Taylor:—Asserting that what they had written themselves, was written according to those persons to whom they ascribed it." Lardner:—" Or of such as were supposed to have been their companions, and saying they were written by them." Are they the same? ("No, no.") All this bluster about the Koran might have been spared. It was asserted last Thursday by me that the statement of Mr. Watts was not true of religions outside of the Bible, his statement being in the form of a question—"Has Christianity anything to recommend it that other religious theories do not claim? Miraculous power, sublime teachings, sound doctrines, progressive aspirations, are the supposed credentials of all assumed divine systems." I challenged him to prove that with reference to religions outside the Bible. He appealed to the Koran, and page 40 I retorted that Mahomet did not claim the power to work miracles, and I have read from Mahomet his own disclaimer. With reference to the quotation from Horne (page 257), he has contradicted me, as he has throughout. As to the introductory sentence, I said it applied to St. Matthew; he has denied it. The paragraph commences:—" Matthew is generally allowed to have written first of all the evangelists.", Home then mentions various authorities who fix the date of Matthew's Gospel at different dates, but all within the first century, and then says:—"In this conflict of opinions, it is difficult to decide." I do not think it is difficult; it must refer to Matthew, and it can refer to no more. Then, as to the quotation from the Apostolic Fathers, my opponent threw dust into the eyes of his disciples. He says that we have no proof of the date of these books; I am not going to prove that we have, for he has admitted it. He says :—"The fact that neither Josephus, Philo, nor the Apostolic Fathers—writers of the first century, make any reference to the Gospels," &c. He himself has admitted it. (Cheers.) I now proceed then, for I cannot and will not be drawn away from what I have undertaken. Paragraph numbered 10, p. 11, says:—"Mosheim and Simon also mention that during the early centuries of Christianity, there were numerous gospels and epistles claiming to be of divine origin, in addition to those now regarded by Christians as genuine." I have read a passage from Mosheim, page 36 of Reid's edition, which shows to you Mosheim's own opinion on the subject, and be does not say that they claimed to be of divine origin, but that they were ascribed to apostolic writers, or words to that effect. I take Simon, and on pages 1 and 2 of the original edition we have his own opinions, and not the opinions which are "fathered" upon him. He says: "It is an admitted truth, by the consent of all ancient orthodox writers, that there are Four Gospels, but yet there appeared others after the beginning of the church." On page 2 he says;

Those who published them asserted that they were veritable collections of the doctrines and preachings of the apostles, but having no character of truthfulness, they had reason to reject these apocryphal books as filled with things false or doubtful." There is the original French copy. My opponent quotes Mackay, and Giles, and Evanson, but I repudiate them utterly, because I do not deal in second-hand statements, I deal in positive statements, the result of my own inquiry. (Cheers.) Then as to when this selection was page 41 made, Hartwell Home admits that history is silent." Now here again, with characteristic cleverness, my opponent has substituted—(hisses)—gentlemen may hiss, but they prove themselves geese by so doing. He has substituted the word "selection" for the word "collection." (Shame.) The passage really is:—"Neither the names of the persons that were concerned in making this collection, nor the exact time when it was undertaken, can at present be ascertained with any degree of certainty; nor is it at all necessary that we should be precisely informed concerning either of these particulars. It is sufficient for us to know that the principal parts of the New Testament were collected before the death of the Apostle John, or at least, not long after that event. Modern advocates of infidelity, with their accustomed disregard of truth, have asserted that the Scriptures of the New Testament were never accounted canonical until the meeting of the provincial synod of bishops from parts of Lydia and Phrygia, commonly termed the Council of Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, a.d. 368." Our friend, instead of quoting that, after transforming a collection into a selection, says that "According to the opinion of many writers upon this subject, it is supposed that the New Testament was canonically settled in the fourth century, at the Council of Laodieea, which is said to have been held a.d. 364." I say that there is not an author who would say that a provincial council could fix the canon of the whole church. "Dr. Irons is of opinion," he says, "that the church did nothing to the canon for 400 years; nothing, except by individual and much neglected and opposed doctors, for 500 more; nothing authoritative till the sixteenth century; nothing satisfactory to herself even then; nothing to settle by authority the Hebrew or Greek text, till this hour." Dr. Irons shall himself distinctly score the back of my friend with a white stroke—"Such are the facts bearing upon the claim of the Church of Home. . . . she did nothing to the canon for 400 years," &c. What Dr. Irons said of the Church of Rome, my opponent says Dr. Irons said of the church. (Cheers.) In paragraph eleven on page 12, my friend says: "Equally uncertain is history as to the mode of selection. Some writers mention that when the bishops met to decide what should be the word of God, the books were put to the vote of the meeting, and those Gospels and Epistles which had the majority of votes were regarded as divine.' By other writers it is stated that the bishops put page 42 the whole of the books under the table, and besought those that were inspired to leap on to the top, and it happened accordingly. To believe this, however, would require a leap of the imagination. What became of the rejected books we know not. The Apocryphal New Testament contains some of them, but there are many of which we have no trace." I ask him first, who are the writers who 'say the bishops met and did as he says? And who are the other writers who state that the bishops made the selection; by putting the books under the table, &c.? And which of the rejected books can he lay his finger upon in the Apocryphal Gospels? I challenge him to find one respectable author of any country or age who will say the one or the other. (Cheers.) In paragraph twelve he says: "The characters of the men who are alleged to have composed the council, rendered them unfit to decide upon the merits of any book." I demand what council he means; the only council he has mentioned is the council of Laodicea; and of that it would be emphatically untrue. Then "Neander and Tindal state that they were remarkable for quarrelling and fighting." I throw out Tindal as not being a Christian man, but where is it said in Neander that the council were remarkable for quarrelling and fighting? Then to whom is it that" one of the company is reported to have said that 'he fled all assemblies of bishops, because he never saw a good and happy end of any council, but that they did rather increase than lessen the evil; that the love of contention and ambition always overcame their reason?'" In paragraph thirteen, page twelve, he says : "Critics who profess to have examined ancient manuscripts, allege that in the English version there are passages and chapters not to be found in those manuscripts." I challenge him to mention any manuscript in the world that has been thus mutilated, and that does not contain every chapter of the New Testament as we have it. I know what he will do; he will tell you that according to some one who lived in the fourth century, the Ebionites rejected the first two chapters of the New Testament. That will not do; he must show the critics who will point out any chapter that is absent from those books. (Cheers.) He then makes an extract from Dean Alford, pages 21 and 22, and as usual he slides out of his subject, utterly forgetting what he was writing of. (Oh, oh, and laughter.) I ask, Is a man like that fit to refute Biblical literature and refute all England? (Loud cheering.) He is talking of various readings, and page 43 then to bolster up these various readings, he quotes what Dean Alford says about the English translation! Mistaken translations are one thing, and mistaken readings are another. We know the English translation of the Bible is not infallible—(ob, oh)—and gentlemen who wish to overthrow the faith of Christianity must have an infallible system to put in its place before they can hope to succeed. Mr. Watts mutilates his extract. He says: "A formidable list of passages might be given in which our version either has confessedly misrendered the original, or has followed a form of the text now well, known not to have been the original form." . . . . "It is not a word more than the truth to say that it [the New Testament] abounds with errors and inadequate renderings." Now what Dean Alford really says is: "The English version for faithfulness, for simplicity, for majesty, will bear comparison with any that ever has been made; yet it is not a word more than the truth to say, that it abounds with errors and inadequate renderings." Why did not my opponent quote the two sentences, in order to give you a correct estimate of what he said? (Hear, bear.) And then Dean Alford says—" A formidable list of passages might be given, in which our version either has confessedly misrendered the original, or has followed a form of the text now well known not to have been the original form. These might be corrected at any time; and it is a grievous thing that this has not been done, or is not now in doing." Mr. Watts tells you of the mistakes, but he does not tell you that they can be corrected by any competent scholar. I have .half a minute left, and I say after all that he has said as to my want of generosity, I can tell you that I have done what very few debaters have ever done—I have allowed him the final speech on each evening instead of myself. (Cheers.)

Mr. Watts.—Mr. Cowper need not think I am under any obligation to him for allowing me the last speeches in this debate. If he will make up his mind to debate Christianity or Secularism in general he shall have the last speech; but as, in this discussion, he is attacking my pamphlets, it is only fair that I have the final reply. You had much of the last quotation from Dean Alford's "How" to Study the New Testament." "Why did not I finish the last passage?" my opponent asks. Because it was not necessary to my argument! And why did not Mr. Cowper read on? He wound up his quotation with the words: "These might be corrected at any time, and it is a grievous thing that this has page 44 not been done, or is not now in doing." Had he read the next sentence you would have learnt the Bean's practical conclusion: "For, as matters now stand, we are printing for reading in our churches, we are sending forth into the cottage and the mansion, books containing passages and phrases which pretend to be the word of God, and are not." (Cheers.) Mr. Cowper repeats that my quotation about Bishop Faustus was not from Lardner. But I read it to you from the very page where Lardner records it. Would it not be better, instead of fighting with each other because we do not give the precise words or the whole of the statement of a writer, to deal with the broad question, to be careful only as to fact? Instead of that, when my opponent finds himself in a corner he is glad to pick at any hole he can discover, in order to get out. This really is not debating simply for the truth. He says that he communicated to me the passages he meant to discuss, but he was careful in marking those passages in my pamphlet not to indicate the sentences which he has dealt with. He has spoken upon others, instead of those which he had marked; and I can state on my own honour, and on the honour of the Chairman, that we have never had the sentences marked by Mr. Cowper. (Shame.) I will now go through, as rapidly as I can, the points touched. First, Have we evidence that the books of the New Testament were published to the world before the middle of the second century? That is one of the questions I want answered. My opponent has studiously avoided it. I say that there are no writers in the first century who refer to the New Testament, and that nothing certain is known of it till the second century. I quote two authorities, Dr. Evanson, a gentleman who has been acknowledged to be a scholar, and Mosheim. Evanson says on page 30 of his "Dissonance:"—"The whole weight of the historical evidence in favour of the authenticity of the Four Gospel, amounts to no more than this, that these books, in the main of their contents, were extant in the latter end of the second century." Now for Mosheim; and permit me to remind you, by way of parenthesis, that in reading Mosheim last week, Maclaine's edition was called in question by my opponent. He told you that it could not be relied upon. This is the fate of men who write honestly, and have more regard for the truth than for orthodoxy. Such men as Giles, Evanson, Irons, Priestley, and Mackay, are to be thrown overboard by the advice of my opponent, page 45 because they do not agree with his theological opinions. He says that Maclaine's translation of Mosheim is not trustworthy. Now, in a biographical sketch of Maclaine, I read:—"He was educated at Glasgow, under the celebrated Mr. Hutcheson, for the Presbyterian ministry. . . During his residence at the Hague, he was known and highly respected by all English travellers, and not unfrequently consulted, on account of bis extensive erudition and knowledge of political history, by official men of the highest rank. . . His superior endowments of mind and heart, his genius, learning, and industry, constantly directed by a love of virtue and truth, by piety and charity, diffused a beneficial influence over the whole of his professional and domestic sphere. As a scholar, a gentleman, and a divine, uniformly displaying a judicious taste, an amiable deportment, and an instructive example, he was admired and loved by all who enjoyed his society." Now, here is a picture of a Christian man; but he is untrustworthy, forsooth, because he does not agree with Mr. Cowper. To show that Maclaine is an accurate writer, take his translation of the passage as to the toleration of Rome; it agrees with Tytler, Gibbon, Chambers, and Priestley; so if he is wrong, he is in good society. My object in quoting Mosheim here, is as to the time when the books of the New Testament were collected. Mosheim says:.—"The opinions, or rather the conjectures, of the learned, concerning the time when the books of the New Testament were collected into one volume, as also about the authors of that collection, are extremely different. This important question is attended with great and almost insuperable difficulties to us in these latter times." I quote this to show that we know nothing about the New Testament as a book till the second century. If Mr. Cowper asserts that he does, it is for him to bring proofs; but he has not done so up to the present time. Neither has he again touched upon the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. I quote men like Dr. Giles, who has won a reputation for his scholarship, and reached an eminence in literature to which our friend, with all his ability, cannot hope to aspire. (Cheers.) Now my opponent asks: Is it true that the early ages of Christianity were remarkable for artful or superstitious copyists? I quote Mosheim for it. He says: "For not long after Christ's ascension into heaven, several histories of his life and doctrines, full of pious frauds and fabulous wonders, were composed by persons whose intentions, perhaps, page 46 were not bad, but whose writings discovered the greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was this all: productions appeared which were imposed upon the world by fraudulent men, as the writings of the holy apostles." And as to the genuineness and purity of the text of the various documents which make up the New Testament, Dr. Evanson says: "Before the invention of printing it was very easy for artful or superstitious copyists, not only to interpolate authentic writings with such alterations and additions as accorded with their own credulity or cunning, but even to produce entire pieces of their own or others' forgery under the name of any writer they pleased. And this practice was actually so common amongst several who called themselves Christians, in the second and succeeding centuries, that if what we call the Scriptures of the New Testament were not so tampered' with, they are almost the only writings upon the same subject, of those early times, which have escaped free." Not true that the early ages of Christianity were remarkable for literary frauds! Why, Mosheim says that for several centuries the Christians thought that by resorting to lying they committed no sin, if they thus could promote the glory of God. (Mr. Cowper: Bead it.) Well, 1 will do so, although it will take up my time, and I want to deal with other matters. You-see how my opponent jumps when be thinks I have not the volume at hand, but fortunately I am prepared for that. On page 55, Mosheim says:—" The Platonists and Pythagoreans held it as a maxim that it was not only lawful, but even praiseworthy to deceive, and even to use the expedient of a lie, in order to advance the cause of truth and piety ... and the Christians were infected from both these sources, with the same pernicious error, as appears from the number of books attributed falsely to great and venerable names. . . .It cannot be affirmed that even true Christians were entirely innocent and irreproachable in this matter." On page 77, the same writer observes :—"Thus it happened . . that they who were desirous of surpassing all others in piety, looked upon is as lawful, and even laudable, to advance the cause of piety by artifice and fraud." If you want still further corroboration, you will find it on page 202, where Mosheim repeats himself, charging Christians with lying and deceiving to promote the glory of the church. Let Mr. Cowper answer that. Then my opponent puts it that there were no other gospels besides those in the New Testament that claimed to be divine. I hold in my hand an authority on the subject page 47 which I think he will not repudiate. Jones says on page 4, vol. i., "Canon of the New Testament" :—"The number of books that claim admission is very considerable. Mr. Toland, in his celebrated catalogue, has presented us with the names of above eighty, which he would have us receive with the same authority as those we now do. I cannot do him that honour which Mr. Nye does in his Answer, viz., to say his catalogue is complete; for it will sufficiently appear there are many more of the same sort which he has not mentioned. . . . They are generally thought to be cited by the first Christian writers with the same authority (at least many of them) as the sacred books we receive. This Mr. Toland labours hard to persuade us; but what is more to be regarded, men of greater merit and probity have unwarily dropped expressions of the like nature. Every body knows (says the learned Casaubon against Cardinal Baronius), that Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and the rest of the primitive writers, were wont to approve and cite books, which now all men know to be apocryphal. Clemens Alexandrinus (says his learned annotator Sylburgius) was too much pleased with Apocryphal writings. Mr. Dodwell (in his learned dissertations on Irenasus) tells us that till Trajan, or perhaps Adrian's time, no canon was fixed—the suppositious pieces of the hereticks were received by the faithful, the Apostles' writings bound up with theirs, and in differently used in the Churches. To mention now no more, the learned Mr. Spanheim observes, that Clemens Alexanrinus and Origen very often cite Apocryphal books under the express name of Scripture." Here then are gospels and epistles that were said to be in existence in the early ages, and claimed precisely that which you claim for the New Testament. Jones observes, moreover, that there were epistles published with St. Paul's name attached. And the author of what is termed "The Gospel according to St. Luke" admits that other gospels were in existence before he began to write his, and says that these were written not by the eye-witnesses themselves, but were taken in hand "to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." That is, they were taken down from hearsay, from tradition; or if founded on loose original written memorials, what has become of those real authorities for the later gospels, which only "set forth in order a de- page 48 claration of those things" which were most surely believed among the early (not the earliest) Christians? Mackay says that there were hundreds of gospels in the early centuries, and asks why four were selected from the many others. Oh, but Mr. Cowper says he will not accept Mackay. No, because Mackay differs from him; but we ought in this debate, in order to arrive at truth, to go to any author who can give us information. We ought to go to the bar of reason and seek truth wherever it is to be found. (Hear, hear.) Speaking of Home, my opponent referred to him to prove that my reference was not correct. Home mentions the gospels in the plural, and how the gospels can be but one, I do not know. He says "it is difficult to decide." Mr. Cowper says he does not think so. But I am here to discuss what history says, and not what my opponent thinks. Mr. Cowper throws over my authorities, simply because they are against him, and he cannot disprove them by counter authorities. Then as to when the selection of the books of the New Testament was made. My opponent says that I have put "selection" for "collection." I have done nothing of the kind; it is my own word I use in the pamphlet and not one quoted from any authority, and really there is no difference in the sense in which I have used the terms. My opponent admits that history is silent as to when the New Testament was written, and we have no certain means of knowing when its selection and collection took place. That is my statement in the pamphlet, and I challenged him to disprove it. He has not done so, and his silence proves that I am right. (Cheers.) On page 117 of" The Bible and its Interpreters," Dr. Irons says: 'At what time the various parts of this Book were arranged in this present form? At what time each part of it was first written? and by whom? and where preserved? and how edited? It almost looks as if some pains had been taken to hide these things! So widely known, and yet not known; so royally translated, and yet from what ascertained originals? We are thwarted at every point. If we could get at the clear beginnings of but one of its twenty-two books, it would be something literary to start with; but no." Here, then, Dr. Irons verifies my statement, although when I penned it, I had not read him. Dr. Lardner tells you also that the New Testament was simply received by tradition; that there can be no time fixed for the settlement of its canon. I have proved previously that them page 49 were many gospels in existence in the early centuries; I wish now to know when the selection or collection was made. Dr. Giles and Dr. Irons say that no one can tell, Dr. Lardner says that it was received by tradition, Mosheim says that the question is attended with insuperable difficulties, and Jones and Evanson say that it was received by conjecture. (Cheers.) Then, as to how the selection took place. My opponent asks, where did I learn about the books being put under the table, and those that were inspired leaping on to the top? If he had told me that he wanted my authorities for this report, I could have brought the books; but I will now quote from a work of Dr. Perfitt's, which I happen to have here. (Hisses.) Will those who dispute the Doctor's statement, try to refute him on this question? In "The Life and Teachings of Jesus," on page 158, Dr. Perfitt's statement is to be found about the books being under the table. In my pamphlet I said: "To believe this, however, would require a leap of the imagination." I do not give it as a fact, but simply as a rumour, implying in my tract that it is not true. And the same authority I give in reference to the character of the bishops who met in council. It is on page 159 of his work, the "Life and Teachings of Jesus." Dr. Perfitt refers to Neander's Church History, vol. iii., p. 249, to support his position. My time is now up. (Cheers.)

The Chairman said it was true that he had a marked pamphlet sent to him, but what he wanted was the exact propositions to be discussed. (Disorder.)

Some dispute then took place between Mr. Cowper and the Chairman, the former of whom thought the remarks of the latter were unfair, and were also out of order. The Chairman contended that he was perfectly in order, and took a show of hands to test whether he enjoyed the confidence of the meeting. The vote of confidence was carried unanimously.

Mr. Cowper: As this is the last time I shall be permitted to speak, I must state a fact in the correspondence by which the terms of this discussion were arranged between myself and Mr. Watts. He said in one letter that he accepted my arrangement for marking the paragraphs, under protest. I wrote in reply to say I could not limit it more than I had done; he must withdraw his protest. He wrote back, saying he accepted; but now he is in this assembly, he again comes forward with the protest which he withdrew in writing. My page 50 reading of certain passages from Dean Alford appears not to have given complete satisfaction; but I think my statement or admission that our authorised version is not absolutely perfect, ought to have prevented the necessity for the remarks of my opponent on the one hand, and for the joyous expression and exultation of his disciples and friends on the other. My friend informed me that he was fully prepared to defend every line of his writings; and being prepared, I never anticipated all these Gambetta-like telegrams of victory. (Cheers and hisses.) Still following in his old track, he assails me with not one particle of his own industry, but with extracts from authors whom he can turn to his purpose. When I tell him like a man that I am not going to take heed of such names as I have referred to—Dr. Giles, Tindal, and the rest of that class—he immediately proclaims that they are paragons of learning. Dr. Giles, he says, edited the Apocryphal Gospels; I have not only edited, but I have translated them; and after an examination of Giles's book, I have come to the conclusion that he has distinguished himself by this one circumstance—that he knew nothing of his subject. ("Oh, oh," and laughter.) As to Dr. Evanson, a writer of the last century, I must at least claim to be on a level with him. As to Dr. Irons, it is well known that he is a most eccentric man; he would put the Bible in the shade to-morrow if you would allow him to administer the sacraments; and as for his curious writings,' he is disgusted with these men who misquote him, and I am prepared with authority for this, if necessary. Dr. Jowett's name was foisted into the last speech; I never condemned his writings; I have too much respect for him to do so; he is an admirable scholar, and worthy of all praise, and it is an unrighteous thing to represent me as having condemned his scholarship. We have Maclaine again. Dr. Pye Smith says: "I prefer using my own translation in preference to Maclaine's;" and in Dr. Murdock's translation of Mosheim, which was taken by me last week because of Maclaine's being a bad one, he was charged with adding something of his own occasionally; and further, Dr. Murdock says : "Nor is this all, for the old translation has actually exposed Mosheim to severe and unmerited censure from different quarters; and Maclaine has long stood accused before the public as a translator 'who has interwoven his own sentiments in such a manner with those of the original author, both in the notes and in the text, that it is impossible for a mere English page 51 reader to distinguish them, and in divers instances he has entirely contradicted him."' Yet in the face of these facts, my opponent says he regards him as a scholarly man. Finally upon Mosheim, I find that Dr. Reid's translation is perfectly correct, and a man who can deny that is at liberty to do so in the public prints, or in any other way. As to the story about lying, we have that thrust in our faces; but do not Secularists depart sometimes from the truth? (Hear, hear.) Do not unbelievers sometimes speak with such a faltering tongue that it is difficult to recognise the truth? I can give you proofs of it from the table, and therefore it is ungracious to say, because certain men disobeyed the law of Christ, while they professed to obey it, that on that account Christianity teaches lying. The law of Christ is that you "put away lying, and speak truth every man to his neighbour." (Hear.) The sentence of Christ, as uttered by his disciples, is "that all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone"; and "whosoever loveth or maketh a lie." Is not that strict enough 1 Well then, if you find men professing to be Christians who love lies and speak them, you prove nothing but that they are hypocrites. This is the right way to treat the subject: here are certain books which we call "Acts of the Apostles;" do these books look like the productions of honest men or liars? If liars, how is it that they have kept their countenance so perfectly that they do not deny the fundamental principle upon which they proceed, and that none of them ever was detected until the mighty Mr. "Watts rose above the horizon? (Cheers.) I will tell that gentleman one thing he perhaps does not know, which is yet in Mosheim, his holy oracle-that these hypocritical Christians who cheated and deceived, obtained those lessons in lying from the Platonists and Pythagoreans—those brilliant oracles you had depicted here last week. As to the extract from Jones. Jones is an honest man, and I am strongly inclined to think that the extract was something that my opponent had extracted from another man; I shall be glad to know. With these remarks, I do not wish to hurt anyone's feelings. I have gone on with this debate with the spirit of a lamb; but my opponent seems to think that my feelings are so deep that he has not been able to get down to them. (Laughter.) Paragraph 13: I now come to pages 12 and 13. This paragraph gives us a rigmarole regarding the opinions of certain critics. I do not care how many of these opinions are brought against page 52 me, because for every one my opponent brings contradicting what I believe, I can bring twenty supporting what I believe. (Cheers.) But he appears to be driven into a corner in which he says, "I cannot settle the question for myself, or express an individual opinion;" so he ransacks different men's opinions, and hurls them at the Christians; why not give opinions of his own as to the genuineness of these books? And with reference to the King James's translation, I want to know what that has to do with the discussion in question? Thoroughly muddled is the man who drags in the critical value of the authorised version, or who blackens good men on the faith of Scott Porter and others. As to Erasmus, did any man with one letter of the vocabulary of criticism in his noddle ever talk of an "author" of a New Testament in Greek? We say the editor of a book of which a man is not the author, but here our friend makes Erasmus the author; whereas he was not even the editor of the book from which our version was made. The translation was mainly taken from Robert Stevens in 1550, in small folio, without the verses being marked. I have a copy in my possession. Now, with the assault upon Erasmus I need not occupy your time, but as it is a trivial thing, and we want something to enliven us, I shall read from Dr. Tregelles on this matter. He says: "Ninety-two is the Ms. famous as that which was brought forward for the purpose of compelling Erasmus to insert the passage of the three heavenly witnesses (which he had promised to do if it were shown him in any Greek copy)." Erasmus said, "If you can show me a copy with the verse in, I shall insert it." The paragraph quoted is this: "Erasmus, the author of the Greek edition from which the English Testament is taken, admits, says the Rev. Scott Porter, that he inserted into his edition this very verse, ('For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one') knowing it to be a forgery, just to silence the clamour which was then raised against him. Erasmus does not attempt to conceal that he was dishonest and careless; that his Greek Testament was 'tumbled out headlong rather than edited.' "This is not true; and suppose it were true, have there been no critics since Erasmus? His work came out first in 1516, and since that time the manuscripts have risen in number from four or five, to perhaps 1,200, thanks to the labours of Christian critics—not infidel critics. (Cheers and hisses.) Some are offended—facts are page 53 facts. There is not on the roll of eminent Scripture critics, one infidel as a collator of the Greek Testament, and having myself been a student of the whole subject for many years, I ought to know something about it. Then in the fourteenth paragraph there is a long array of names of men who held different theological opinions; but do they prove that my opinions are wrong? If they do, they also prove that my friend's opinions are wrong. That men differ from me is no more than that they differ from him. I am a great advocate of religious liberty, as all intelligent Christians are at the present time; so I shall pass over the whole of the names. Then I shall go on to the fifteenth paragraph. In the fifteenth paragraph the first two sentences read thus : "The truth of the claims of Christianity depends upon the 'fidelity of the Gospel history.' If this is defective,' the Church herself is in error, 'and, says Dr. Tischendorf, 'must be given up as a deception.'" That is a misquotation. But my time is gone, and I leave the truth with you. (Cheers.)

Mr. Watts : The last shall be first. Our friend in sitting down left the statement from Tischendorf in my hands charging me with a misquotation. That Dr. says: "If we are in error in believing in the person of Christ as taught us in the Gospels, then the Church herself is in error, and must be given up as a deception." This is what I stated in my pamphlet. I will now clear off' matters as quickly as I can. I was referred to my statement from Dr. Irons, that the Church "did nothing to the canon for 400 years." Mr. Cowper said it refers to Rome, whereas in my pamphlet I say it refers to the Church. I am surprised at a learned gentleman like my opponent talking thus. My words in the pamphlet are, "According to the opinion of many writers upon this subject [the selection of the New Testament] it is supposed that the New Testament was canonically settled in the fourth century, at the council of Laodicea, which is said to have been held a d. 364. This, however, is mere conjecture. Dr. Irons is of opinion that the Church did nothing to the canon for 400 years." The words of Dr. Irons are to be found on page 59 of "The Bible and its Interpreters." Of course the Dr. referred to the Church of Rome. Was it not the Catholics who had' the Bible at that period in their keeping? I had been alluding in my pamphlet to the council of Laodicea, which was composed of Catholics, and immediately I quoted Dr. Irons to support my statement. Any ordinary reader there page 54 fore of the sentence in my pamphlet would understand that it was of the Church of Rome I spoke. And I should like to know what Protestant Churches were then 'in existence. Throughout the middle ages the Church of Rome was practically the whole Church of Christ. Mr. Cowper says that I withdrew by letter my protest against his way of marking the paragraphs. I never did; and I defy him to show a letter of mine containing a withdrawal. I said in the correspondence that I had no wish to offend Mr. Cowper; but as to withdrawing the protest, I challenge him to send me the letter which he says he has, and if therein I retract my protest, I think that I can guarantee that it shall appear in the National Reformer. Then my opponent says that I have not done anything from my own industry. This is a palpable untruth; every line of my writings now in question—whether right or wrong is another matter—is the result of sixteen years' hard study, and the careful reading of the best literature which I have been able to obtain. (Cheers.) Anyone would think judging from Mr. Cowper's own account of himself that he was unequalled in industry, as he is in good taste and courtesy. I do not boast of my ability, but with all my ignorance I have too much love for learning to despise it or its votaries. If my opponent knows so much, how is it that he has not in answer to my request brought forward the productions of the Apostolic Fathers? If he is so learned, how is it that he failed to give us the writings of Confucius in the Chinese language? Was he not obliged to retail them second hand? If Mr. Cowper wants to discuss and parade his knowledge of Greek and Latin, imperfect as are my scholastic acquirements, I will undertake to match his authority with authorities at least as weighty on the general questions of the genuineness and antiquity of the books of the New Testament. Our friend must needs boast of his learning—" I have done this and that," he says. Never mind what you have done; if it is worth knowing the world will find it out; prove what you can do now. Show by your answering me this evening that you have the ability to silence an "Infidel," and when you have done that you will have some reason to talk. (Cheers) Professor Jowett has been accepted as an authority. Well, what does he say? On p. 444, cheap edition of "Essays and Reviews," are these words," When we demand logical equivalents and similarity of circumstances, when we balance adverse statements, St. James and St. Paul, the New Testament with page 55 the Old, it will be hard to demonstrate from Scripture any complex system either of doctrine or practice." This corroborates another point in my pamphlet that was to have been attacked. Then as to lying. You have at last had it admitted that Christians are sometimes given to lying. (No, no. Mr. Cowper never denied what I read from Mosheim on this subject. If—(A voice: "He said hyprocrites lie")—if he does not deny it, what answer has he made to the historical statement? He says: "Do not Secularists lie?" Professed Secularists may lie sometimes, but they never teach that to do so is a virtue, as I showed you that for centuries the Christians did. My opponent says: "Is this an argument against Christianity?" I never put it as such. I only quoted it to show that the early ages of Christianity were remarkable for fraudulence and lying. That was my statement. Then Mr. Cowper spoke of Christ's teaching; is this a debate on Christ's teaching? What would be said if I left off defending my pamphlet, and began to argue about Christ? I say that if Mr. Cowper, or any other Christian will meet me upon the teachings of Christ, I will gladly undertake to argue with him on the subject. (Cheers, and cries of "Question.") If he will meet me on the credibility of the Bible, I will meet him with pleasure. (The cries of "question" continuing, the Chairman rose, and intimated that he considered the speaker was perfectly in order.) (Chairman to Mr. Watts: "Proceed.") Then, having the decision of the Chairman in my favour, I say that if Mr. Cowper will meet me upon the credibility of the Bible, or any other subject connected with Christianity, I will meet him either in written debate or on the platform. (Cheers.) I am found fault with for producing extracts from modern writers. What of that? My opponent should have proved that they were not worthy of being put forward as authorities. He doubts the genuineness of my passage from Jones. Mr. Cowper insinuates that I have falsely ascribed it to that writer! Well, I will put the passage in his hands for him to verify. (Cheers.) I should be ashamed to impute bad motives to an opponent if I could not answer him. "Why did I not give my own opinions instead of those of other men?" he asked. Why? Because I am here not to give my own opinions, but to vouch for the truthfulness of the statements in my pamphlet; but I am ready to give my own opinions if necessary. But suppose I had said in this debate, "I think this, and I think that," what would my opponent have said? He would have replied, page 56 "I don't want to know what Mr. Watts thinks, but I want his authorities for what his pamphlets contain." (Hear.) Then I am told about Erasmus, and a joke is made about my saying Erasmus was the author of the Greek edition from which the English Testament is taken. I don't think there is much difference between the author of a text and the father of a text. I hold in my hand a work by the Rev. Scott Porter, wherein he says that Erasmus was the father of the Greek text, and that "his Greek Testament was tumbled out headlong rather than edited." If my opponent can prove to this audience that the rev. gentlemen quoted by me are making mistakes, then more's the pity for the faith that is in them, that it does not prompt them to write correctly I say that Erasmus put in the verse pertaining to the Trinity in order to still the clamour which was raised against him. Erasmus acknowledged this himself. We are told that there are no Infidels that examine the texts of Scripture, who are learned critics. I have mentioned a few in this debate. Remember, however, that avowed "Infidels" are excommunicated, their services refused. You have an instance now—that of Vance Smith; because he is a Unitarian, efforts are being made to strike him off the list of the revisers of the Bible. There are one or two points more. As to the books which were rejected in the early ages, Jones, on page 8, gives a list of those which were rejected by Christians themselves. Some of the very books which you have now included in the New Testament, were once regarded as not of divine origin. Is the; New Testament now in the condition in which it is supposed to have been centuries ago? How is it that my opponent, with all his knowledge, has not told us what he knows of the original manuscripts? The fact is, he knows nothing of any manuscript which goes back farther than the fourth century: if he does, he should have informed us. (Cheers.) In Mr. Cowper's last speech but one, he asked me for the author who said that the fourth century was the time when some persons thought that the New Testament canon was settled. I answer that Lardner, vol. 1, page 54, states: "It has been sometimes said that the Council of Laodicea first settled the canon of the New Testament." Home also, on page 68, vol. i., of his "Introduction to the Scriptures," states that it has been asserted that the "Scriptures of the New Testament were never accounted canonical until the meeting of the council of Laodicea, a.d. 364." Here are my authorities, your own men, Lardner and page 57 Horne. I have only three minutes left. I was going to quote Dr. Giles on this very subject. My opponent says that there are no writers of any eminence who have rejected the Gospels. I have here Professor Norton's work on "The Genuineness of the Gospels," and on pp. 16 and 17 of vol. i., he rejects the first two chapters of the present Gospel of Matthew; the account of the saints rising out of their graves and going into the holy city, and appearing unto many after the resurrection of Jesus, in the 52nd and 53rd verses of chap, xxvii.; and the account of Judas in the same chapter. I have here Luther's judgment as quoted by Sir William Hamilton; he rejects the epistle of St. James, considering it simply as "an epistle of straw." And Eusebius mentions as doubtful the epistle of Jude, the 1st of Peter, the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John, also the epistle to the Hebrews. In the face of such facts as these, my opponent says that there are no men of ability who reject portions of the Scripture! My time has run out, I have not discussed this matter so thoroughly as I could desire, but I have endeavoured, and I trust successfully, to give good authority for the truth of every statement in my pamphlets which has been called in question. Now what you have to consider is this: Was 1 justified in my statements put forth in these two pamphlets? If you believe that I was, then you must give the verdict for me; if, on the other hand, you consider that I have therein misrepresented and spoken falsely, then you must vote against me. I am surprised that my opponent, who has so much more learning than myself, will not discuss the broad question of the Bible, will not discuss the broad question of Christianity, and the broad question of Secularism. How is it that he must have my pamphlets for two or three months before he is prepared to assert that they are untruthful? You must consider these questions for yourselves. Let us learn in all future debates that we should not impute to our opponents bad motives; let us rise above the passions of our early tuition and preju dices; let us regard each other as so many pilgrims on the road to truth; and if some of us halt and take refuge in the citadel of orthodoxy, and have not the strength or courage to travel farther, let them not be jealous of us who still advance, as we are not scornful of them who linger behind; let us all do our best, and, whether we be right or wrong in our opinions, bear this in mind, that in the Bible, as elsewhere, there are truths, and our duty is to gather truths page 58 wherever they are to be found; and if there be a God above, he will smile upon the honest intentions of his people, and he will not condemn us because we have been faithful to what we thought right. (Cheers.) "When this debate is printed, read it carefully; and I hope you will, in your cool moments, impartially consider which is on the right side. I say that I have endeavoured to do my best, go you and do likewise. I have spoken as to wise men; judge you what I have said. (Cheers.)

A vote of thanks, moved by Mr. Watts, and seconded by Mr. Cowper, was then accorded to the Chairman; after which, by the consent of both disputants, it was resolved to publish the correspondence relative to the terms of the discussion, in order that it might be shown whether it was really a fact, as stated by Mr. Cowper, that his opponent had withdrawn his protest against the method of marking the paragraphs of the pamphlets.

The meeting then dispersed.

Printed by Austin & Co., 17, Johnson's Covet, Fifet Street, E.C.