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 35

Third Evening

page break

Third Evening.

The chairman: Ladies and gentlemen—Before the debate is recommenced, I wish to announce that Mr. Green has exercised his right to ask for a fourth night, as he thinks it necessary for the completion of his argument. Before the debate was opened it was agreed that either of the disputants should be entitled to claim a fourth night's debate. The debate will, therefore, be continued and concluded on next Saturday night.

Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman and respected hearers: Before resuming the thread of the argument at the point at which I left off last night, I think it right to advert to one or two things that have been mentioned by Mr. Bright during the course of the debate thus far. You will remember that on the first evening, in his opening address, my friend appealed to you for sympathy, because he regarded himself as coming before an audience, under circumstances such as the present, for the first time; and feeling that a tremendous amount of responsibility rested upon him, he claimed, on that account, your indulgence and sympathy. Now, since that statement was made, I have revolved it over and over in my mind; and I would just suggest to my friend, with all deference, that the "tremendous responsibility" which rested upon him, came at the time when he set himself to oppose that which he is hero to-night—and has been for the last two nights—for the purpose of endeavouring to destroy. And when I remember the statement that I have repeatedly heard since I came to your city, how he has for the past year been challenging all the ministers of Dunedin to defend their position, I must confess I am at a loss to understand that ad misericordiam appeal with which my friend began his address on the first evening.

page 66

Last evening, also, he seemed to be in the same strain. Now, I know not who are sympathisers, or who are not. I. believe this audience is set to a critical frame of mind, to judge of the arguments, and I thought last night, that it was hardly wise or fair for my friend to suggest, when he saw the argument had produced a certain impression, that it was because the chief part of the audience were sympathisers with the views I was presenting. Now, certainly it is not the interest of the audience to believe in that which is untrue; and if my friend can present arguments which will undermine the foundations of Christianity, I think he need have no trouble whatever as to sympathy. I do not trouble about sympathy. All I ask is a fair field and no favour. We, as Christians, want no favour. We say: Only examine the evidence we present for your consideration, and then we have all that we desire.

Another matter which also struck me as very remarkable, was that which occurred last night, and to which I briefly referred, namely, the presentation of a long list of names by my friend as a justification for his believing in the theory of Evolution. Now, it appears to me that my friend plays fast and loose with reason. At one time, he says: "I am not going to accept any authority; but I will simply accept that which is in harmony with my own reason." Then at another time—as last night—he seems to advert to authority. Now, I wish to remind him to-night that there is really no authority upon those matters—that in connection with the theory of Evolution, if he is to follow authority, even the authority of its great exponents, he must change very much, and very "frequently. I know that my friend does not trouble about consistency; that he affirms he is progressing, and that he may take a different position tomorrow from that which he occupies to-day. I would say that that being the case, it places him in this position: That he is clearly not a reliable instructor for those who are seeking for truth, seeing that those changes ought not to take place so rapidly, if he were guided by true reason, as apparently they are likely to do with him. I have in my hand a work by Professor Dawson, one of the leaders in the scientific world, and his work is entitled, "The Story of the Earth and Man." I commend it to your perusal. In this work Professor Dawson shows the various theories that have been suggested in connection with the doctrine of Evolution. He points out that Parsons and page 67 Owen, who form one of the schools holding the theory of Evolution, affirm that there is an innate tendency in every species to change in the course of time, although they can give no evidence, nor yet any reason for it. Mivart and Ferris, again, believe in exceptional births, either in the course of ordinary generation, or by the mode of parthenogenesis. Again, Hyatt and Cope believe, or rather suppose, that the known facts of reproduction, acceleration, or retardation observed in some humble creatures, are evidences of this theory of Evolution. Lamarck and others say, that "new forms, arising in any of these ways, or fortuitously, may, it is supposed, be perpetuated, and increased, and further improved by favouring external circumstances, and the effort of the organism to avail itself of these," while Darwin, to whom my friend appears generally to look, holds to "the struggle for existence, and the survival of the fittest." I do not know whether my friend is aware of the fact that even Darwin has changed his views since he wrote his work, and has stated that had he been aware of certain facts which another scientist has brought forth in connection with this matter, his own work would not have been written, or if written, that his statements would have been largely modified. That being the case, away goes my friend's authority for holding this theory of Evolution, in connection with which there are so many other theories, so many suppositions and suggestions that are hardly worth a moment's consideration.

Another point to which I would like to advert is, that when I again urged the necessity of my friend showing why he did not accept the definition of Christianity which I gave, and which I supported from the Scriptures, from the early writers of Christianity, from its enemies, from profane historians, and from Strauss himself, he said that was not his duty, but that if this was a debate between a Unitarian and a Trinitarian, that would come in very properly. Now, I must confess that I do not quite understand what my friend is, because—and I say it without desiring to be personally offensive—Freethinkers seem to be either nothing, or everything. You cannot tell what they are, for you find one man holding certain views, and he is a "Freethinker;" and another man holding other views, which are diametrically opposed to those of the other, and he, too, calls himself a "Freethinker." But laying aside that question, I say that when my friend positively affirmed that those two items, the Divinity of Christ page 68 and His death as an atonement, were not a part of Christianity, it certainly devolved upon him to show, either that I misapprehended the statements I quoted, or, that those statements were really not made. I say that whether he be Unitarian, Trinitarian, or no Arian at all, his duty was clear in connection with this matter.

But my friend led you to the myths, and read passages in connection with certain supposed manifestations of the Deity in human form. I have fortunately given a little consideration to this matter, and I wish to point out that the highest authority who has written upon this subject, Max Müller, declares that in those ancient writings there were no such ideas as my friend and others suppose. Those ancient writings are in the poetic form, and poetry cannot be construed as prose. The mistake has been caused through taking their concrete form of speech, and understanding it as we do our abstract use of words. Professor Müller illustrates the matter thus:— "Where we speak of the sun following the dawn, the ancient poets could only think and speak of the sun loving and embracing the dawn. What is with us a sunset, was to them the sun growing old, decaying, or dying. Our sunrise was to them the night giving birth to a brilliant child, and in the spring, they really saw the sun and the sky embracing the earth with a warm embrace, and showering treasures into the lap of Nature."*

Then he gives instances where those ancient writers use the words night, day, &c., personifying them, and where our modern translators, taking those names which have simply reference to night, day, dawn, and so on, as if they were persons, have taken out of the ancient writings a meaning that never was in them. I hold in my hand a report of a debate which I had in Melbourne last year with Mr. Walker, the Spiritist. If you will excuse me making such a reference here, you will find in this report that Mr. Walker, in a very able manner, took up this question of mythology. I would, therefore, recommend any person who wishes to be acquainted with what can be said on that matter, and who wishes also to get within the arcana of that terrible delusion of modern days—Spiritualism—to obtain this book.

Although my friend last evening eulogised so very highly those Hindoo writings, it was evidently because he had not

* Lecture on Vedas, in "Chips from a German Workshop."

page 69 gone to original sources for his information. This copy of the debate which I hold in my hand, contains many extracts which I have personally taken from works in the Melbourne Public Library. I can verify them, because I have copied them from their original sources, and know what they are. This is what Max Müller says in regard to the matter to which my friend referred:—"According to the orthodox views of Indian theologians, not a single line of the Vedas was the work of human authors. The whole Veda was in some way or other the work of the deity." "The human element, called paurusheyata in Sanscrit, is driven out of every corner or hiding place, and as the Veda is held to have existed in the mind of the deity before the beginning of time, every allusion to historical events, of which there are not a few, is explained away with a zeal and ingenuity worthy of a better cause. But let me state at once that there is nothing in the hymns themselves to warrant such extravagant theories. In many a hymn the author says plainly that he or his friends made it to please the gods; that he made it as a carpenter makes a chariot."*

Müller says:—"The historical importance of the Veda can hardly be exaggerated, but its intrinsic merit, and particularly the beauty or elevation of its sentiments, have by many been rated far too high." "Large numbers of the Vedic hymns are childish in the extreme; tedious, low, common-place. The gods are constantly invoked to protect their worshippers, to grant them food, large flocks, large families, and a long life; for all which benefits they are to be rewarded by the praises and sacrifices offered day by day, or at certain seasons of the year."—Ibid.

My friend wished you to believe that those writings conveyed the most elevated conceptions of the Deity. Müller says that:—"Hidden in this rubbish there are precious stones; only, in order to appreciate them justly, we must try to divest ourselves of the common notions about polytheism so repugnant, not only to our feelings, but also to our understanding," "With regard to the style and character of these hymns on which so much labour has been expended, it may be remarked that they contain very little poetry of an agreeable or elevated order. Nothing whatever that could be compared for a moment with the Psalms of David. As mere literary productions, apart from their Archaic value, we doubt if any man could be found to read them."—Ibid.

* Lecture on Vedas, in "Chips from a German Workshop."

page 70

Quoting again from this work to which I previously referred, Müller, in giving his estimate of the Hindoo writings as compared with Christianity, says:—"That by a comparative study of them we shall learn to appreciate better than ever what we have in our own. No one, who has not examined, patiently and honestly, the other religions of the world, can know what Christianity really is, or can join with such truth or sincerity in the words of St. Paul, 'I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.'" Again he says:—"Many are the advantages to be derived from a careful study of other religions, but the greatest of all is, that it teaches us to appreciate more highly what we possess in our own. Let us see what other nations have had, and still have, in the place of religion. Let us examine the prayers, the worship, the theology, even of the most highly civilised races, the Greeks, the Romans, the Hindoos, the Persians, and we shall then understand more thoroughly what blessings are vouchsafed to us in being allowed to breathe, from the first breath of life, the pure air of a land of Christian light and knowledge. We have done so little to gain our religion, we have suffered so little in the cause of truth, that, however highly we prize our Christianity, we never prize it highly enough until we have compared it with the religions of the rest of the world."*

So much for my friend's statement with regard to mythology. I do not think it is needful for me to trouble more in regard to it. No one stands higher than Professor Max Muller in the scientific world in connection with philological researches; and with reference to those ancient mythologies, if we are to take authority at all, his judgment is worthy of all respect.

Now let me just resume the argument which I began last night. But as I see I have only two or three minutes, I must be content with simply recapitulating, in order to prepare you for the argument. In the preface which I gave last night to this portion of my subject, you will remember that I called your attention to the question of the possibility of a revelation coming from God, and no one, I said, could deny the possibility; and that, when we reason from the relationship of the Creator to the creature, the extreme probability of a revelation seemed to be proved. But when we reason further from man's helplessness, and the sympathy of the Great Strong One for that helpless being, the power of the argument

* Lecture on Vedas, in "Chips from a German Workshop."

page 71 gains additional force, that God would, out of His own deep yearning for the welfare of man, give him some teacher to guide him. I showed—and I hope my friend will try to refute my statement if he can—that those ancients, before Christ, were sick and weary of this "reason" that is being dinned into our ears at present by my friend; that they yearned for authority; that they wanted someone who could teach them from Heaven, and that it is repeatedly found that those ancients entertained a conviction that someone from Heaven would come to instruct them in all that was necessary for their well-being.
Mr. Bright: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen—I shall pass over the remarks of my friend personal to myself almost without comment, for they have no bearing on the subject of debate. He has to prove a certain proposition, and that is what I am anxiously waiting for him to prove. He says that it was strange for me to make the appeal I did in my opening address the other evening, but when I am standing up to try to show an audience which is certainly Christian, and to a large extent orthodox Christian, that they may be wrong in their theological belief, surely it must be the merest affectation to assume that mine was an unnecessary appeal. Suppose any of you were to enter a Mahommedan country, and were to argue against the orthodox Mahommedan faith before a large mass of believers in the doctrines and theology of Mahomet, would you not deem it necessary at the outset to endeavour to allay their prejudices, and enlist their forbearance and sympathies. I do not say it offensively to any portion of the audience, but there must be prejudices among men and women who have been trained from infancy to a particular form of assumption. I am told by my friend that humanity yearns for authority—that this much vaunted reason is not sufficient. Now I ask, has not that been the statement put forward by priesthoods in all ages—deprecating anything of the nature of doubt or scepticism, and condemning heresy? In every age we have been told that it is for authority humanity craves—that reason is not sufficient. Why, that is the cry of the Roman Catholic Church, the leading church even yet of Christendom; that is the statement put forward by those who, from the Protestant Church, are now rejoining that ancient ecclesiastical body—that it is page 72 authority they want. In a late copy of the weekly edition of the London Times (November 20th, 1878) I find a letter from a reverend gentleman who has just joined the Roman Catholic Church—the Rev. Orby Shipley. The remarks contained in that letter would very fairly represent, as it appears to me, the stand which my friend is now taking on behalf of authority against reason. Mr. Shipley speaks of the religious dogmas he has been previously teaching as a Protestant clergyman, and goes on to say:—

"All this I have held and done, as I now perceive, on a wrong principle—viz., on private judgment. When I became convinced that the right principle of faith and practice in religion was authority; when I saw clearly that it is of less moment what one believes and does than why one accepts and practices, then I had no choice as to my course. The only spiritual body which I could realise that actually claimed to teach truth upon authority, and that visibly exercised the authority which she claimed, was the Church of Rome. For the last time, I exercised my private judgment, as every person must exercise that gift of God in some way and to some extent, and I humbly sought admission into the communion of the Catholic Church."

I say that if authority is to override reason, the Rev. Mr. Shipley is acting consistently in seeking re-admission to the fold of the authoritative church. In his concluding remarks, Mr. Shipley recommends the same proceeding to the rest of the Protestant clergymen in these words:—"They have only to exchange—though the change indeed is great, and is not made without cost—the principle of private judgment for the revealed basis of faith, which is authority." And if authority is to override reason, that is the course that all dogmatists who would be logical, are bound to take.

You cannot too carefully carry in remembrance the precise subject that we are debating. My friend keeps on asserting that he is proving that the Deity of Jesus and his death as an atonement are a part of Christianity. I am not here to deny that. I am here simply—(Hisses). Surely you are showing you have not confidence in your advocate if you hiss. I say I am not here to deny that these are part of Christian doctrine as popularly understood; but I am here to deny, assuming these are a part of Christian doctrine, that such Christianity is of Divine origin, and that all other religious inspirations are, by comparison, of human origin. page 73 That is the subject of debate—not what is Christian Doctrine even in the opinion of my friend. I take his interpretation of it as it is stated in the subject put forward for discussion. It is evident what he conceives to be Christian doctrine, and it is also evident to everyone that that is the popular belief—that an immense majority of people in Christendom will share the conviction of my friend. But the question is: Taking all that as demonstrated, taking that as part of Christian doctrine, is this Christian theology, thus stated, of Divine origin? I call upon my friend again to advance his proofs that this particular theology is of Divine origin, and that all other inspirations of other races of mankind are to be regarded as simply of human origin.

My friend has quoted the opinion of Max Müller that the Christian religion is superior to the other religions, and that the better you become acquainted with the other religions the more readily will you admit the fact. As cordially as he can, I would endorse that assertion in respect to the Christian philosophy. My argument is that it is a question of degree in all these religions, not a question of signification. That the Christian religion, broadly considered, may be the highest thus far developed, I am not here to deny. I am here simply to assert that the Universal Father of the race has not left the rest of His family as spiritual orphans; that they too have inspirations fitted for them; and that the Christian inspiration is only higher in degree, not totally different in sense and origin. But as my friend appears to think highly of the opinion of Mas Müller on a question of this sort—as he conceives that Müller's opinion is to have great weight on the subject of religion—I would draw his attention to Mas Müller's sentiments as stated in his lectures recently delivered in Westminster Abbey, and printed in the Contemporary Review, on "The Origin and Growth of Religion." My friend, the other evening, put forward, and rather ungraciously it seemed to me, as a sort of taunt, that some of my friends were Atheists. Doubtless that may be true. I am happy to say that I have friends of various descriptions of belief, very many of them being orthodox Christians; for there are some orthodox Christians, I am rejoiced to assert, who regard conduct as above opinion. When he advanced it as a sort of taunt, that there were some of my friends who were Atheists, did he mean to imply that they were not good men—that they did not do their duty to society?

page 74

Mr. Green: No.

Mr. Bright: What then does he mean? If their reason, freely exercised, leads them to conceive that there cannot be known to the human mind any object of worship—not that there is no such object—surely they are not to be blamed for stating the fact for the sake of complete truthfulness. By those who see in every movement of nature a Divine Mind operating, they must be regarded much as men who are colour-blind—who simply cannot see that which the majority of the race see clearly. I allude to this matter principally, however, because I want to direct attention to what Max Müller says on this subject of Atheism. In the lectures to which I have referred, he says of Atheism that it is "the power of giving up what, in our best, in our most honest moments, we know to be no longer true; it is the readiness to replace the less perfect, however dear it may have been to us, by the more perfect, however much it may be detested, as yet, by others. It is the true self-surrender, the true self-sacrifice, the truest trust in truth, the truest faith. Without that atheism, no new religion, no reformation, no resusitation, would ever have been possible; without that atheism, no new life is possible to any one of us. In the eyes of the Brahmins, Buddha was an Atheist; in the eyes of the Athenians, Socrates was an Atheist; in the eyes of the Pharisees, St. Paul was an Atheist; in the eyes of the Swiss Judges, Servetus was an Atheist." Thus we "find that if Max Müller praises Christianity highly, he also praises Atheism highly, and his opinion on the one must be taken to be just as valuable as on the other. For my part I do not advance any writer's opinion as a matter of authority. It is advanced because it agrees with the conclusions of my own reasoning faculties, and is a good statement of the case as I would desire it to be stated. And here, I would refer, in passing, to my friend's allusion to the eminent names introduced by me last night. My friend has entirely misrepresented, doubtless unintentionally, the reason of that introduction. I did not bring in those names as authority on behalf of the doctrine of Evolution. Surely the names of Channing, Parker, and Harriet Martineau, who say little or nothing about Evolution, would not be so introduced. I advanced those names in reply to an illustration given by my friend tending to show that those who surrendered this particular Christian faith he is advocating, lost something tremendous—that their life hence- page 75 forth became, not a burden perhaps, but at any rate an aimless life, bereft of the aspirations which are essential to human happiness. Therefore I mentioned the names of some of the grandest of our race, as showing that, without that particular faith they were yet enabled to live noble, useful, and even happy lives. That was the object of my introduction of those names.

Now, with regard to this question of the revelation that my friend says must be obtained, if any religion is to be valuable to us. I think it is Greg, ill his "Creed of Christendom," who says,—"there are some people who cannot trust God unless they have His promises in black and white." To me it seems that by the study of Nature, by the teachings of Science, by the deductions of Philosophy, and by a free inter-pretation of all the religious teachings of the past, be they in the Bible or other sacred books, we can discover the signification of God's dealing with the human race—sufficiently at all events to be enabled to say that if we wish to be happy in this life, and to have the prospect of happiness beyond, we must "make for righteousness." That is the object of all religion, and my denial of the Divine origin of this particular faith, in a special sense, is simply because it is a revelation to a select few. I am pleading for a revelation to the whole race. I say God has not left any portion of His children without divine witnesses, and that, therefore, this particular revelation is not of Divine origin if all the others are of purely human origin. The mere fact that certain portions of those other sacred books may appear silly or foolish when read by one not trained to regard them with sanctity, is one which should not be unexpected by rational men. On this subject I will just quote the words of my friend's authority this evening—Max Müller. In the book I hold in my hand, by Moncure Conway, entitled "The Sacred Anthology," and in the preface to this, the 4th edition, Mr. Conway quotes the following words of Max Müller, contained in a review Müller wrote of this book in The Academy, the well-known critical journal, on Oct. 31st, 1874. Max Müller says, and his opinion on this subject is well deserving of our attention:—"The fact is, that what we call the beauty or charm of any of the sacred books, can be appreciated by those only whose language has been fashioned, whose very thoughts have been nurtured by them. The words of our own Bible cause innumerable strings of our hearts to vibrate till they make a music of memories page 76 that passes all description. The same inaudible music accompanies all sacred books, but it can never be rendered in any translation. To the Arab, there is nothing equal to the cadence of the Koran; to us even the best translation of Mohammed's visions sounds often dull and dreary. This cannot be helped, but it is but fair that it should be borne in mind as a caution against declaring too emphatically that nobody else's mother can be so fair and dear as our own." As the time allotted me has expired, I would just say before I sit down, that all of you have been nurtured on the Bible, and therefore when you come to try and realize what other peoples think of their sacred books, you must necessarily be prejudiced, and apt to conceive that they cannot have the same Divine origin as your own.

Mr. Green: May I say that, taking Professor Max Midler's definition of Atheism, and not that which would now be the definition of Atheism by many persons, viz., the denial of the existence of a Supreme Being, I do not know that I would be very far from echoing his eulogy, seeing that the spirit of Atheism, in Müller's judgment, seems simply to be the spirit of investigation.

I was sorry that my friend should speak of my having said anything that had the appearance of being offensive, for I think he must, and ought, to distinguish between things which are in themselves offensive, and can only be spoken with an offensive purpose, and those which legitimately arise out of the argument. My friend has not taken an affirmative proposition covering his ground, and I must, therefore, whenever I can, as my argument will allow, show how inadequate to the requirements of man, his principle of the sufficiency of reason, is; so that the other night, I adduced the fact that a number of those who are delighted listeners to my friend, are Atheists, while he is a Deist, in order to point out that evidently "reason" is not a safe guide, seeing that it leads both of those parties to diametrically oposite conclusions. My friend styles them colour-blind. Well, if they are content to be considered colour-blind by him, and as not having sufficient "reason" to see what to others appears reasonable, I am content. But I cannot see that it is in harmony with his own principle, "that whatever appears to a man to be true, is true to that man;" for, according to his principle, if a man believes page 77 there is no God, then it is true to him that there is no God; but if a man believes there is a God, then, however contradictory, the fact of his believing it, makes the existence of a God to be a fact to him. I had no intention personally to reflect on character, but the argument was strictly legitimate under the premises.

Now my friend brings up authority, and says this is just what priests have always been crying out for. What do I care what priests have been crying out for? I am a "Freethinker" in the true sense of that designation, and I say that while I bow to the authority of the Supreme Being, I refuse to call any man master in spiritual things; and hence I would kick authority, whether that of priests, parsons, or any other persons, to the winds. I want no one to take my word for granted merely because I am what is called a minister. I refuse to accept any authority but that which comes from God, save and except the civil authority of the land, and that which has been appointed by God in connection with religious government. My friend's argument upon that matter does not affect me at all. I will go with him hand and heart in pulling down all unrighteous authority, for all authority over the human intellect, imposed by man, is unrighteous. God, who has formed the mind and knows its capacities, is the only one who has a right to have authority, and to say what we shall believe for our good, and what we ought not to believe; or what if we do believe, will be to our injury or otherwise.

I think my friend was hardly fair in that statement which he again made about his denial of the Divinity of Christ, and the Atonement being parts of Christianity. He says: "I am not here to deny that these are a part of Christianity as popularly understood." Now, I can hardly clear my friend from the charge of endeavouring by words to impose upon you. He knows quite well that he is denying, in this proposition, that the Divinity of Christ and His death as an Atonement, are parts of the Christianity taught by Christ. We have nothing to do with what is "popularly" understood. He is here denying that it was taught by Jesus, and by His apostles, and the early Christians, and to say therefore that he is not here denying that it is part of "popular" Christianity, is simply to play upon words, and really, whether he intends it or not, by his words to lead you astray.

With regard to the proposition as to the Divine Origin of Christianity, I have pointed out that it was utterly impossible page 78 for human beings to predict events hundreds of years before they occurred, and as we may suppose a revelation from God to be possible and reasonable, and as a communication coming from Him must have credentials, we therefore should expect, either that these incidents would be predicted beforehand, or that at the time the communication appeared, miracles would be wrought as evidencing Divine origin, and that if we had both those lines of evidence, then that which came to us with those claims would have proved its position as having come from God. Now, in regard to the Old Testament Scriptures, let me repeat that they existed in the Greek translation 280 years before Christ came, and let me further intimate, that those Scriptures have been preserved to the human race by a people directly and bitterly opposed to Christianity. My friend may object to this view, but so far as I am concerned, I believe that as a Providential arrangement, God designed that even by this to-be-regretted circumstance of the opposition of the Jews, there should be one of the strongest and most irrefragable evidences in favour of Christianity adduced in subsequent times. For had the Jews all received Christ, and become Christians, do you not think that it would be at once urged: "Of course, there is harmony between the Old and New Testaments. Why, the whole thing has been in the hands of one people, who have made them to fit in one to the other?" But as the Old Testament has been in the hands of the bitter opponents of Christianity, and as by that Testament we prove a long chain of prophecy, clearly indicating the coming of Christ and his religion, which prophecies are clearly fulfilled in the New Testament, we have in this a testimony which no power on earth can overturn, until it utterly obliterates from the page of history the last eighteen centuries of bitter, fierce, and oftentimes vindictive opposition on the part of the Jews to the religion of Christ. I am not here speaking against the Jews. I would regard it as the highest honour to be a Jew, if that had been the will of God; but I say it is a fact that they have been bitterly opposed to Christianity, and that they persecuted its advocates in that early age. But, notwithstanding all this, their own Scriptures are the most valuable testimony to the Divinity of its origin.

In Jeremiah, chap, xxxi., v. 31, God is represented as finding fault with the Jews, and saying that a time would come when he would make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. There is a prediction page 79 uttered 600 or 700 years before the event occurred, that a new covenant, differing from the Mosaic economy, would be made with the Jews. In the Book of Daniel, we have an account of four Empires identical with the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman Empires. And It is declared:—"In the days of these kings (evidently referring to the last of the Empire's, from the particular details there given) shall the God of Heaven set up a Kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the Kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these Kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." "Kingdom" means "reign;" we have God's laws thus reigning in our hearts which will never be destroyed. I thank God for the faith which I have; that, notwithstanding all opposition, that "kingdom" or "reign" never will be destroyed, while this condition of things endures.

Then, again, we have that prediction uttered by Jacob:—

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be." Now, the Shiloh, the setting up of the Kingdom, and the statement made by Jeremiah, were all understood by the Jews prior to Christ, to have reference to the Messiah, and to what he would do. Well, we are able to trace Judah as an independent and self-governing people, until nearly the 12th year of our Saviour's life, when Archelaus was deprived of the government, and Judea became a Roman province. Never till then did the government go utterly from the hands of Judah, except during those brief periods of captivity which they suffered in punishment for their sins; but from that date, the government has gone, the Shiloh came, and the sceptre was taken from Judah, and has been kept from then until the present day (unless, by the way, there is truth in the theory that the Queen of England is the lineal descendant of David), but of that matter I am not here to speak.

I would say further in connection with these things, that we have the declaration in the Old Testament that this coming Messiah was to be a Divine personage. In the 9th chapter of Isaiah, we find it is said: "Unto us a child is born." The present tense is used, indicating the absolute certainty of the event, and assuring them that it was as certain of fulfilment as if it already were an existing fact. It is said: "Unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulders: page 80 and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

Not only so, but in the 13th of Zechariah we have the same intimation as to the Divine nature of the coming Messiah, when it said: "Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts: smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered," which was quoted by the Saviour in connection with His own sufferings. Again, we find that he was to be born in Bethlehem, and we have its fulfilment in the Gospel narrative of Matthew, chap. ii. He was to be born of a Virgin Mother. In the Garden of Eden it was said, "of the seed of the woman" God would raise up one to bruise the serpent's head. "Seed of the woman," mark you; not of the man. In Isaiah, chap. vii. v. 14, we read:—"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." And in Jeremiah, chap. xxxi.—the very chapter where the new covenant is predicted—this same fact is stated, only in different words: that God would manifest a wonder—"A woman shall compass a man." Probably my friend will challenge this prophecy in Isaiah, and will say that it refers to the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz, the son of the prophet; but I am prepared to show by clear evidence from the book itself, that no such position is sustainable. The son of the prophet is never termed "Immanuel," as this person is. The land is never said to be his, as it is said to be the laud of "Immanuel;" and the whole circumstances clearly prove that this prediction was not spoken to Ahab the King; but, because Ahab refused to listen to the words of the prophet, the prophet turned to the people and said to them that God would give them a sign—that a virgin would conceive and bring forth a son, and that they would call his name Immanuel.

Mr. Bright: My friend claims to be a Freethinker, and yet he expects that there shall be a uniformity of opinion.

Mr. Green: No.

Mr. Bright: He has been ridiculing the Freethinkers, because some of them are Deists and some Atheists. He therefore expects uniformity of opinion.

Mr. Green:No.

Mr. Bright: So it seems to me. At any rate that would be the idea one would glean from the words of my friend page 81 Now, the very essence of freedom of thought is, that there shall be freedom, and consequent diversity of opinion; that we shall look to conduct, not to opinion, in forming our estimate of others; that those who conduct themselves well shall be enabled to associate together cordially, although some of them may have Atheistic opinions, and others may have Deistic opinions. I do not know from what particular source my friend has gained his information about Atheists forming a part of those who attend my Sunday evening lectures; but at all events he has asserted it. It appears to be regarded by him as something in the nature of a taunt, by his bringing it forward so frequently. Now, Freethinkers do not anticipate that they shall agree with one another in opinion—above all in theological opinion. They expect that there shall be evidence that each is desirous of doing what good he can in the world; but, beyond that, they do not look for uniformity of opinion as a necessary precedent to united action. Each one is his own priest, and looks to no one but himself for absolution. His authority is the individual mind which is exercised in believing or disbelieving.

My friend, in the same breath, said that he was averse to authority imposed by man. My contention is, that the theology he advocates is imposed by human authority, where it contravenes Rationalism. He is bringing forward now, as against that view, the predictions pointing directly, he alleges, to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, and argues that therefore—I presume that is what the deduction would come to—he must be the Deity, and that his death must be an atonement for man's sin. Why, even granting that he were the Messiah in the sense of being the messenger of the Divine Power, does it follow that those assertions which my friend undertakes to prove must have a foundation in fact? He himself admits that the very people to whom those prophecies were given—among whom the Messiah was alleged to have come—rejected him and declared that he was not the fulfilment of those prophecies, given in their own language,' and, it is to be presumed, best understood by them. And really, it seems to me that to an enlightened mind, looking at this question fairly, and accepting the records as they stand, there was good reason for declining to receive him as the fulfilment of those prophecies. One of the foremost facts in connection with those prophecies was that the coming Messiah was to be a Prince of the House of David, a Lion of the page 82 tribe of Judah. A lengthy genealogy is given in the Gospels according to Matthew, and according to Luke, of Jesus of Nazareth, to show that he fulfilled those predictions. But when we look at these extraordinary genealogies do we find that they bear out the statement they are supposed to substantiate? On the contrary, do we not discover in the genealogy as shown in the Gospel according to Matthew that Joseph is declared to be descended from David, to be of the tribe of Judah, through David's son Solomon? and then follow a number of names—given in the Old Testament, and capable of verification there—of the various progenitors of Joseph. But there is this extraordinary fact to be remembered: That after bringing this genealogy down to Joseph, Joseph is declared not to be the father of Jesus. Now, taking my friend's illustration, suppose it were deemed necessary to show, as is alleged by some, that Victoria, our present gracious queen, is a descendant of King David, and suppose her genealogy were elaborately traced back from the Duke of Kent, her father, to King David himself. But if, after it was thus traced, it was asserted that the Duke of Kent was not the father of Queen Victoria, would anything be gained by the previous genealogy? Moreover, we must not forget that in the other genealogy given in the Gospel according to Luke, this same Joseph is again traced back to David, and found to-be of the tribe, of Judah, but this time he is traced back to another son of David—not to Solomon, but to Nathan—and the whole of the names with one or two exceptions are different in the genealogy given by Luke to those in the genealogy given by Matthew. Now I ask you if this occurred concerning anything in which your feelings were not enlisted—to which you had not been early trained to give reverence and worship—if it were found in any of the ancient books of the Hindoos or Buddhists—would not that be convincing evidence to you that those genealogies could not truly fulfil the prophecies which said that the Messiah was to be of the House of David—a Lion of the tribe of Judah? Why, the Jews above all nations have held that descent must be through the male line. Through the father the descent must come. The Jews never thought anything whatever of the women in tracing descent. In olden times they did not even allow the women to worship; and up to this day in the synagogues the women are not permitted to tread the floor of the place of worship, but are seated in a gallery apart. Women among page 83 the Jews are not confirmed in religion on arriving at years of discretion the same as the males. Therefore even yet this strong inclination prevails to make the male the be-all and end-all in the family and especially in the tribal life. We do not even know the name of Noah's wife, the mother of humanity. The woman from whom the whole human race is said to have sprung, is not even mentioned in the Jewish Scriptures, but is simply spoken of as Noah's wife. So with the mother of David—we do not know who she was. The names of women are deemed to form no part of genealogy among the Jews. There could be no fulfilment of the prophecy, then, that the Messiah was to be of the tribe of Judah, excepting through male descent. These genealogies show that an attempt was made to trace it in the male line—to bring it down to Joseph—but then after all they are valueless, as Joseph is declared not to be the father of the Messiah. I say therefore that in a rational view—the Jews were justified in assuming that those prophecies of theirs, always regarding the Messiah as a Prince of the House of David, were not fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. And although in after times it came to be asserted that they were fulfilled by the Christians who doubtless believed that they were fulfilled, still it regains for us to look at the question ourselves and see if this were truly and really any fulfilment of those prophecies which declared that the Messiah should be of the tribe of Judah—of the House of David.

But as I have said, this is a side issue. It has nothing to do with this debate, for even assuming that Jesus was the Messiah prophecied of—even granting that those prophecies pointed directly to him—still, for all that, he may have been but a spiritually-minded man—a man of the most advanced character you may please to assume—but still not Deity. It does not prove, or go to prove in the slightest degree, that this assumption of the Deity of Jesus is of Divine origin; and that is the affirmation my friend has undertaken to prove. The position taken by the majority of those who freely enquire into these subjects—who do not and cannot regard them as too sacred for their reason to be exercised upon—is that these old records come to us in a form similar to other traditions,—that they cannot be regarded as historically accurate. Even at this, our day, it is most difficult to get historical accuracy about any of the subjects that come prominently before the world. I was reading the other day page 84 of a transaction in which Ex-President Grant, of the United States, was interested. It was stated as a historical fact, that, on assuming command of the Federal army, General Grant had an interview with President Lincoln and Secretary Seward, at which President Lincoln directed him to conduct his campaign in a special way, and that Grant replied: "I can do it, but it will cause the loss of 100,000 more men than would otherwise be required." That was affirmed by a trustworthy chronicler, writing a history of the Civil War, to be a fact. Lincoln was dead; Seward was dead; and had Grant, the only other person present at the interview, been dead, that statement would have gone before the world to all time as a historical fact. Ex-President Grant, however, was himself appealed to and requested to say whether it was true or not. He declared emphatically that he was never interfered with in the slightest degree either by President Lincoln or Secretary Seward, but that the whole conduct of the campaign was left to himself. So that promising historical fallacy was nipped in the bud. We need not, however, look further than our comparatively small proceedings—even at this debate—for evidence of the fact of how easily contemporary records may be mistaken. I find in a telegram sent to a Wellington newspaper last week, that it was stated a debate was about to take place between the Rev. Mr. Green and Mr. Charles Bright, and the subject was declared to be "The Divine Origin of Christchurch!" At some future day—a century or so hence—if the subject be deemed of sufficient importance, possibly some antiquarian investigator might discover that telegram, might see that it had never been contradicted, and might adduce it as showing what an extraordinarily important and even miraculous place Christchurch was fancied to be at that epoch. If in our own day, then, we find such mistakes arising, can we suppose for one moment that in remote ages and countries, when printing was unknown, when even manuscript was a mysterious thing which only one here and there was taught to decipher, the events transpiring would be placed on record with infallible and uniform accuracy?

Mr. Green: I would just like to say in regard to the statement of my friend—that I believed there ought to be uniformity of opinion, and which I thought it right to page 85 contradict at the time, that whether he may be able at present to understand it or not, this is the position which I hold: Uniformity of faith, but diversity of opinion; faith, resting on credible testimony—that is, testimony which by all the laws of evidence is found to be credible.

Now, in connection with this statement that I have made about Atheism; I am very sorry that my friend will bring in the personality. Let me then say, what I would not have said otherwise: That I believe the Atheist is more reasonable than the Deist. And for this reason—and hence you will see there was no taunt—if a man believes there is a great Universal Father, who has love in his heart—(if we may use this expression anthropomorphically—and it is necessary thus to speak when speaking of God, for the Divine Being has affection towards his offspring) and yet has left his offspring without instruction and guidance, is to be guilty of that which is utterly unreasonable. I believe myself that God has left no part of humanity without a directory, and that he will judge them according to the directory he has given them. And I say that the position of the Atheist, who denies a Deity altogether—though in my judgment not at all in accordance with reason and observed facts—is far more reasonable than that of the Deist; for it is far more reasonable to deny the existence of a great universal and loving Father, than that that Father should exist, and yet leave his offspring without a revelation of himself. I simply mention this to show that there was no thought of a taunt. I am forced to say these things, and I do hold that they come legitimately within the sphere of my argument in this debate.

My friend says the Jews best understood their own prophets, and yet they rejected Christ. Now, I do not wonder at their rejecting him. Any person who studies this Bible, or who would study it before the coming of Christ, would be perplexed, because in connection with the Messiah there predicted, there were certain things indicating a position of humiliation and suffering, and others indicating a position of exaltation which it was difficult to understand could apply to a human being. This peculiarity could not be understood except by the revelation contained in the New Testament; and hence no wonder the Jews before Christ were divided into two sects: the Palestinian Jews and the Alexandrian Jews. The Jews of Palestine took those Scriptures that referred to the manhood of Christ, and regarded him as a page 86 man, a hero, and a soldier; whereas the Alexandrian Jews laid those aside, and said they could not be true if the others referring to divine attributes were true, and as they could not conceive those statements which indicated Deity to belong to a man, they therefore regarded the Messiah as merely an ideal. Hence the existence of these two sects before Christ came, and, from the points of view at which they looked at these matters, it was reasonable that they should not understand. Prophecy can only be understood fully as it is fulfilled. When all the indications that have been outlined in prophecy are seen to converge to one focus, and centre in one individual, they are understood and clearly seen to be true. I do not think, taking what I have said into account, that it is any wonder the Jews rejected Christ and crucified Him, believing he was an imposter, and thus without intending it, fulfilled the very predictions that were found in their law. But my friend says that, even admitting all those prophecies referred to the Messiah, they will not prove the deduction I wish to draw from them, namely, His divinity and death as an atonement. I draw issue here, and affirm, that if the predictions declare the Messiah was to be Divine—that, as Isaiah predicts, he was to be called "the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Everlasting Father," and so on—if all those predictions in regard to his manhood and divinity, converge, coalesce, and harmonise in him; and if it is stated that the Messiah would suffer for the sins of others, then, beyond doubt, they do establish those points. As human foresight could not lead to the prediction of events hundreds of years beforehand, those prophecies prove that the Divine Mind must have been guiding, controlling, and regulating, and thus preparing evidence, whereby we who live now, and those who lived at the time of, and subsequent to, our Saviour's coming, might see the invulnerability of the foundation on which his claims to our acceptance rested.

Now, I am glad to be able to congratulate my friend on his coming to the point, although he says it is a side issue. His reference to the genealogy—to the statement that the Messiah was to be of the House of David—a lion of the tribe of Judah—is really to the point; and for once during the course of this debate, I will say my friend shows that he has really—though perhaps unconsciously—apprehended the real point. Let me say that if my friend could prove what he has asserted—namely, that Christ did not descend from the House page 87 of David, and the tribe of Judah, then I would admit readily—for I am ready to admit anything that is capable of being established—that the claims of Christ fall utterly to the ground. Let me say that all those genealogies of the Jews, through the captivity, had fallen into some degree of confusion, although not so great but that they understood them. The very fact that for several hundreds of years after the commencement of Christianity, no Jew is found urging genealogical inconsistencies as against the claims of Christ, proves that in their judgment, those apparent, but not real discrepancies, were only on the surface. Let me say further, that during the life of Jesus it was not known by the Jews but that Joseph was really the father of Christ, and therefore, so far as that is concerned, there was no justification—from any knowledge they are said to have had that Joseph was not His father—for their rejection of Christ. But let me point out in reference to the genealogy in the Gospels that it was necessary to prove, in the first place, that Christ descended according" to the flesh from David—that he had the very blood of David coursing through His veins by being descended from one of his posterity. And I say that if you take the statement made in the Gospel by Luke: "Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph," and refer the words, as I think they may be, both to Jesus and to Joseph, you will see that, as some translators of our Scriptures, efficient scholars in the Greek language say, this statement is, "Being as was accounted by law, the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." and we have at once this fact: That just as men sometimes marry ladies whose parents have had no sons to perpetuate their name, and at the request of the parents of the lady take her name in order to perpetuate it; so among the Jews, for the purpose of tribal arrangements, and the perpetuation of names in families where the parents had no sons, the man who married the eldest daughter, or only daughter, took the name of her father, and was really, and legitimately in the eye of the law, the son of that person whose daughter he had married. Now we see that the genealogy by Luke is properly the genealogy of Mary; but because, as my friend correctly said, the Jews took no account of women, Mary is ignored, and Joseph her husband is placed in her position. But do you not see that Mary's genealogy was absolutely necessary in order to prove that Christ had descended from David by blood? Mary was His mother, and he had no earthly Father, so that un- page 88 doubtedly her genealogy was necessary to be given to establish the fact of blood descent from that notable King of Israel.

Now, taking Luke, as establishing the descent by blood from David, it may be asked: Why was it that the genealogy by Matthew was given? Let me again remind you that the Jews, when Christ was living, were not aware of what we now know. But suppose it happened—please bear with me in making this reference—that persons have offspring soon after they have entered into the matrimonial state, and prior to the time, when, according to those arrangements which are right, and in harmony with Divine laws, progeny should result, do we not know that if the child is born but one day after the marriage ceremony is performed, that child is legitimate, has a legal title to property, to the name of the father, and to all the immunities that a child, born under proper legal requirements, would have? Now, as we have seen, Christ descended from David, by blood, through Mary, but it may be asked, how is the claim to the throne of David established, seeing that the throne came, not through the line of Nathan (from whom Mary was descended), but through the line of Solomon? Does not this show us the necessity of Joseph's genealogy being given by Matthew, to prove that, as Jesus was born in wedlock, and took the name of Joseph, His reputed father, He legitimately inherited the throne to which Joseph, the lineal descendant of Solomon, had a legitimate and inalienable right? Thus, two genealogies were absolutely necessary to establish blood descent and a legal right to the throne of David.

I have just two minutes left, and let me say further in connection with my proofs, that we have the statement made by the prophet Haggai that the Messiah was to come when He was generally expected; and if those predictions existed before Christ came, we naturally would expect that there would be a looking forward to the coming of some personage at that time. Now, I will read from three historians, none of whom are acceptors of Christianity. Suetonius says:—"There had been for a long time, all over the East, a prevailing opinion that it was in the fates (the decrees or prophesies) that at that time some one from Judea should obtain the empire of the world. The Jews, applying it to themselves, went into a rebellion." If these prophecies did not exist how could that expectation have been entertained? Tacitus, in page 89 his history, b. 5, c. 13, says:—"Many were persuaded that it was contained in the old writings of the priests, that at that very time the East should prevail, and the Jews should have the dominion." Josephus, who had taken up the Alexandrian philosophy, and did not believe in a real and tangible Messiah, in his Antiquities, b. 6, c. 5, see. 4, says:—"But now what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was found in their sacred writings, how, 'about that time one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.' The Jews took this prediction to themselves in particular, and many of their wise men were thereby deceived in their determination." These extracts show that there was just such an expectation as we would suppose to have existed.

Mr. Bright: Notwithstanding what has fallen from my friend, I again assert that we are now debating a side issue, because, even if he could prove his case, in regard to those genealogies, he would be as far as ever from proving that Jesus was the Deity. Therefore, he is debating a side issue. But, taking that side issue for what it is worth, I find my friend says that those genealogies had fallen into a degree of confusion. I think most of you must admit that if this be a part of my friend's case, it may be taken as proved. They had certainly fallen into some degree of confusion, if it be true, as he says, that one of them was intended to apply to Joseph, and that the other one, although purporting, the same as the first, to apply to Joseph, was intended to apply to Mary. First, I ask how it is that under these circumstances the two genealogies are not given by one evangelist? How is it that it is two different writers who give these two different and strangely conflicting accounts? Surely, if this important point had to be proved that one of these genealogies applied to Joseph, and the other to Mary, notwithstanding that in both Joseph is named, it would have been given by one writer, and not left to be suspected, as, in spite of what my friend says, it must now be assumed, that there was a great discrepancy between these writers, and that as both could not be true, later commentators have conceived this explanation as a loophole of escape. That appears to me to be the rational view. Furthermore, we have a strange element introduced into these two genealogies—and you must pardon me if I page 90 appear to be pressing this view of the case. I know very well—I feel it strongly, and regret to feel it—that I am hurting the emotional faculties of many here in speaking thus plainly of what they regard as a sacred subject; but with me one thing alone is sacred, and that is Truth. Reverence for truth impels me to point out that in these two genealogies, examined a little closer, we find this most remarkable discrepancy: That, whereas in Matthew there are 25 generations given as from David to Joseph, on the other hand, in Luke—even taking that enormous jump which my friend says we are to take, and assuming that the genealogy by Luke applies to Mary—we have no less than 41 generations as from David to Mary, represented by Joseph. That is a difference between the husband and wife of a period of time amounting to from 400 to 450 years. The difference between 25 generations and 41 generations, at the lowest computation, would amount to 400 or 450 years. What would we suppose now if in English history we had a genealogy traced down to a man who lived at the time of the battle of Agincourt, and another genealogy bringing us down to a woman in our own day, and if those two people were declared to be married?

My friend says, in reference to the suggested substitution of the name of Mary for Joseph, that the Jews were not aware of what we now know on this subject relative to Jesus' birth. If I did not feel this distrust of trespassing on fields which, though not sacred to me, are sacred to others, I might, if I chose, be somewhat severe on this allegation of my friend. But I will not press this point further than saying it seems to me the Jews were unaware, not of what we now know, but of what, through the traditions of that time, and through additions to this old story by later writers, we have come to assume to be knowledge. That is the real ease. In all these questions it appears to me it is assumption that is put forward instead of knowledge, and Rationalists are expected to entertain these assumptions in the same way as they would entertain facts of science, and to admit them as proved, when, to their minds, they appear to be the wildest speculations.

My friend said at the outset of his remarks that what he advocated was uniformity of faith and diversity of opinion. To me this is a mere juggle on words. I cannot understand what it means. What is covered by faith, and what by-opinion? For a long time faith was supposed to include belief in the idea that the human race was created only 5,000 page 91 or 6,000 years ago. Now that is obliterated by the facts of geology. Lyell, in his work, "The Antiquity of Man," shows that man has probably inhabited this earth for something like 250,000 years. That question involved formerly a matter of faith. Was it not also a matter of opinion? How has it changed since? How is it that no intelligent man now believes that this globe is only 6,000 years old? Has not this opinion changed through the facts of science advanced, and proved by the true hand-writing of God which cannot lie and which is recorded in the strata of the rocks? In the handwriting said to be God's, and copied in a printed book, there is always a difficulty in ascertaining how much of it may have been inspiration, and how much may have been added by obvious human means. I do not deny inspiration; I do not know in fact what inspiration is. I am ready to consider the explanation of anyone who knows, but I really do not know what is meant by inspiration in the sense that certain ancient books were inspired, and that all books which came afterwards are uninspired. I can understand an inspiration working in the remote past and working now—an inspiration, even from the Divine source, illuminating every great and superior man, and upholding him in efforts put forth for the benefit of the race. But I cannot understand an inspiration which dried up some 2,000 years ago, and has never operated since.

But if, as my friend asserts, what he desires to see is uniformity of faith and diversity of opinion, in which category would he place this hypothesis of evolution to which he has alluded? My friend says that he would regard this as a question of opinion; and yet it is this very hypothesis of evolution that is proving itself so troublesome to so many theologians. I do not say that it is troublesome to my friend, although he has shown himself so strongly disinclined to entertain it in any shape. It appears to him, I fear, in some way to interfere with his faith, judging by the number of times he has introduced it and attempted to turn it into ridicule in this debate, in which it has little relevancy. So far as I can see, whether it be a question of opinion or a question of faith, it is precisely the same thing, because the faith of one day becomes the mere opinion of the day afterwards. There are a number of those who call themselves orthodox Christians who would regard this very question of evolution as trenching upon their faith. I do not say that it is page 92 binding on my friend, but I know one theologian here has declared in his lectures that this theory of evolution cannot be true, or that if it is true Christianity must be false. I do not pin my friend to the opinion of any theologian, but this hypothesis of evolution seems to me to be always received with such an amount of chagrin by theologians of all characters as would lead us to think that it trespasses upon faith as well as opinion.

However, I will dwell on that point no farther, but will endeavour, if I possibly can, to bring my friend back to the question we are debating. I assert again that all these deductions based on what may be found in a particular book do not go in any shape or way to prove the case of the Divine origin of what my friend calls Christianity. To do that he has to show the divine origin absolutely of those very records that he is quoting. Has he attempted for one moment to do that? He is simply showing that certain things are in his opinion doctrinal Christianity as found in that book. But has he adduced any evidence in this debate that that book from which he quotes is to be regarded as of Divine authority in a different sense to the sacred books of other religionists? In regard to the matter contained in the sacred books of other religionists, we do not need to ask the opinion entertained by Mas Müller or any body else, regarding their goodness. We can judge for ourselves. I could quote passage after passage if time allowed of the most exquisite morality contained in those books. We need no authority to tell us whether it is morality or not to love our neighbours as ourselves, or to show our love to God by acts of kindness and love to men. Therefore I say we can discover for ourselves that there is much beautiful moral teaching within those books.

To touch upon another question that my friend has introduced, viz., that God could, if He chose, give a verbal revelation to His human family. I do not say for a moment that we can tell what God can do, or cannot do. All we know regarding God is what we are enabled to learn through studying His works; but this I say: That if a God, whom we are to term the Infinite Father, did give a revelation to His human family—a revelation that was to be binding and infallible, so that when you saw it written in a certain way you need inquire no farther, but bow down before it and worship—then it seems to me the revelation would be to the whole human family. Instead of that being the case, however, this revelation only page 93 came to one particular race—the Jews—and was framed in such a shape that, even according to the admission of my friend, those very Jews to whom the revelation was given, entirely misinterpreted it, and are, to this day, the victims of that misinterpretation. Hence, we stand in this extraordinary position:—That we have here a revelation from God to one particular race, which has proved to be baneful instead of beneficial to that race, while, if no other religion is of Divine origin, all the rest of the vast human family is left without any revelation whatever.

Mr. Green: My friend appears to feel that the question of evolution is rather a delicate one. I do not wish to press it, but if he will say that certain things we believe in are absurd and do violence to reason, I must again persist in bringing up that, in my judgment, utterly absurd theory, that the finite produced the infinite, and that from the monkey came the man. Now, I say I may believe in a theory of evolution, and yet not in that theory which my friend holds, and which I regard as utterly irrational.

Let me show you the difference between opinion and faith. "Faith comes by hearing." In other words, belief, for faith and belief are synonymous, is produced by testimony; while opinion may be but a conception of the mind without any real or tangible foundation, if I am to believe anything, I must have testimony. If I am to believe in evolution, as my friend holds, I must either see the monkey transformed, into the man, or have that fact testified to, by witnesses who saw it and are trustworthy; or I must have some evidence from the geological strata of our earth showing that this process did take place, in order that from those rocks I may have the testimony. Now, until I have testimony to produce faith or belief, the theory must remain, if I hold it at all, in the region of opinion. There is the difference between faith and opinion.

But my friend quotes Lyell, and says he has proved that the race of man is 250,000 years old. Allow me to say that my friend is evidently behind the age. Just as a friend said to me in Melbourne, when he asked me what newspaper I read, I replied, "The Age," and he remarked, "Oh! you're behind the age." So, if my friend is not aware that Lyell has page 94 been proved to be in error in many of his conclusions, he is simply behind the age.

Now, in connection with this matter of the genealogy, I still say I am very glad my friend has taken it up, because it is the nearest approach to grappling with the proposition that he has yet made. In connection with this question he asked why Matthew did not give both accounts, if both accounts were necessary? He also referred to the statement that the persons living in those days were not aware of the circumstances in connection with the birth of Christ, and further, as to the discrepancy in the number of generations in the two genealogies. Now, a little suggestion will show you how easily explainable those apparently difficult matters are. If my friend would ask the question from history: For whom did Matthew write? he would find that Matthew wrote for the Jewish Christians, who were well acquainted with the genealogical tables. Now, when Matthew wrote for the large number of Christians in Palestine, he knew that if he gave the broad outlines of the genealogical table, those men—every one of whom could run up the table on his fingers' ends from the living generation up to David—would know that those persons who were left out were not left out through ignorance on the part of the writer, but simply because the writer was writing to those as well acquainted with the whole genealogical table—and which is supplied fully in the Old Testament—as he was himself. Matthew knew, that to establish the claim of Jesus to the throne of David, it was only necessary to prove that He was, by law, the son of Joseph, legitimately taking his name and claiming his rights, because they were all aware that he was the son of Mary. In one place it is said: "Is not this the son of Mary?" And in another place: "Thy mother and Thy brethren without seek for Thee." The Jews knew that Mary was His mother; but it was necessary, when the matter of His claim to the throne of David was under consideration, that it should be seen that He was legally entitled to the claims which were Joseph's as the descendant of David, through Solomon. Now, in the case of Luke, we have a difference. Luke is writing for Gentile hearers. He wrote to one Theophilus—evidently a Greek, for he had a Greek name; and the whole circumstances indicate that he was a Grecian. Now, suppose Luke made the jumps Matthew had made, what would be the result? This Greek would have said: "I cannot understand how there can only have been so page 95 few generations between Mary, the mother of Jesus, and David, her ancestor." And hence, because he was writing to Greeks, and because it was necessary to enter into detail, he gives the whole of the names, showing also, as was necessary, that Jesus was, through Mary, descended lineally from David, the King of Israel. Now, this is just the explanation I have to offer. And in regard to their not knowing the circumstances connected with the birth of Christ, at the time of our Saviour's life, we are to bear in mind that the apostles did not know it probably, until the momentous events connected with His life and death were over. We do not know at what time they obtained the information. We know the promise of the Holy Spirit was given to them to guide them unto all truth. We have no intimation as to when the truth was revealed; but that it was revealed, those men declared, and proved that they believed their declaration to be true, by being willing to lay down their lives in attestation thereof.

Let mo now point out further in connection with the Christian evidences, that Isaiah predicts, in the 53rd chapter, that Christ was to be born in a poor and mean condition. What could more fully fulfil this prediction than His being born of Mary, a family so far removed from the Royal line, and at the same time in such poor circumstances—"a root out of a dry ground," as Isaiah calls it—and that then by the marriage of Joseph and Mary, He should have a claim to the throne of David?

It is also predicted in Isaiah that the Messiah would come while the temple stood. Now, if Jesus had come 50 years later than He did, He would not have come while the Temple stood, because it was razed to the ground forty years after His death, and has never yet been restored. Although Julian tried to falsify prophecy by rebuilding the Temple, the operations of the workmen were put an end to by fire coming from the foundations. Again, it is predicted that the Messiah would not be a soldier but a prophet—that He would not come as ordinary persons did, and that although not descended from the Levitical tribe, He would yet come as a priest to atone. This is predicted clearly in the 110th Psalm. Then there is the prediction in Zechariah ix. 9, which was fulfilled by Christ riding into Jerusalem on an ass, and the people saying to Him, "Hosanna to the Son of David—Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."

page 96

Mr. Bright: Still debating this side issue, and avoiding the main question, I take up my friend once more on the question of the genealogies. He has explained that there was no need for Matthew to give the whole of the names of the pedigree between David and Joseph in his account because they were well known to the Jews, and were to be found in their own Scriptures. But my friend has forgotten to mention that there are only four more names to be found in the Jewish Scriptures than are to be found in the genealogy of Matthew, and that, even if those four names were introduced, there would still be a discrepancy of twelve generations, or at least three centuries between the husband and wife, always assuming that Luke's genealogy can be made to apply to Mary. I believe I am right in making that assertion. I have not at this moment the means of verifying it; but I have not the slightest doubt, speaking from memory, that I am perfectly correct in saying there are only four more names in the Jewish Scriptures than are mentioned in Matthew. Therefore there is still that tremendous discrepancy.

I am told by my friend, and it appears to be advanced as if it were proof of the Deity of Jesus, that the Apostles were ready to die for him. Surely this is a strange conclusion to reach. Surely we know well that loyal followers of a great man have been ready to die for their commander without that commander being elevated to a Divine station. We have instances both in ancient and modern times, of men dying readily on behalf of capable and superior men to whom they were linked by ties of fellowship. Even in our own day we need not go far to discover instances of that kind. Although, therefore, the Apostles proved they were ready to die for their opinion of Jesus' divine mission, that does not show that he was the Deity, which is the point my friend has got to prove.

My friend seems to think that I somewhat shirk this subject of evolution—that I do not like it—ana evolution seems in the opinion of my friend, to consist of one circumstance—that of a monkey becoming a man. Now evolution deals with something more than that. It asserts that all formations from the remotest ages up to the present time, have gone on without any breach of continuity—that throughout the abyss of time everything has been gradually developing, just as the acorn, when planted in the ground, grows up in the course of a century to be a grand and beautiful oak tree. Will anyone page 97 assert that the fact of the oak tree growing up in a hundred years from an acorn within the ground, having in it the promise and potency of that tree, is less glorious than if the tree shot up in a night and was formed there by a miracle? Is it not, as it develops, miracle enough? And surely in this grand universe there is miracle enough in the idea of its natural growth. Moreover, we have this joyous fact before us: If it be true, as Evolution teaches, that out of the remote past we have advanced by natural development to what the earth and the human race have now become, what a glorious promise we have for the future—the past being the foundation from which that future is to spring, not by a miracle, not by magical conversion, but by natural force, and the race being impelled to make for that righteousness which the Divine Spirit seems to engender. It appears to me that the theory of Evolution is at all events grander than the scheme of occasional interferences on the part of some outside Creator. My friend makes merry over this transfer as he calls it, between the monkey and the man, and asks for a monkey to be brought before him and changed into a man. I cannot myself accommodate him in that capacity. I am as I am. Monkey or man, I am here. And really, if I were in a position to make my choice, I would just as soon have ascended from the animal kingdom by gradual development, with all the rational promise therein implied, as to have at any past time descended from a perfect position, and been degraded to a lower scale in creation. Looking at this question of evolution in the light of reason, it seems to me to be at least as capable of rational reception, and far more capable of rational proof, than the idea that there have been miraculous interferences with the universe at any time in the past. The inspiration I believe in is perpetual, and its outcome is beginning to be recognized in Evolution.

My friend talks of miracles. I cannot see why, if there were miracles two thousand years ago, there should not be miracles now. Surely we need miracles now just as much as in the past. There is now as much confusion in the matter of religion as in the past—as much difficulty in obtaining an authoritative faith. The world is now as much in doubt as ever on these questions. "We stand then in urgent need of miracle, if miracle is to be the attestation for faith. To mo, none is needed, for there is one gigantic miracle ever presents. We know more of the working of God in nature than we page 98 knew in the past, and that knowledge seems to me to present the grandest miracle possible to be conceived. To think that this great globe 24,000 miles in circumference, has spun round 2,000 miles on its axis while we have been sitting in this theatre,—to think that it has sped during the same time, some 150,000 miles in its swift course through space! Can any conception of miracle exceed that? And must not the knowledge of miracles like these lead us to form a grander ideal of the Deity than if we believe that 2,000 years ago some magical intervention took place which has failed to gain the end it was represented to aim at,—the salvation of the race. People sin now, as then; and now, as then, only require more knowledge of God's natural laws to become less sinful. As knowledge grows—as a thorough education progresses—sinfulness will decrease. I see nothing that has been achieved by those extraordinary interventions that my friend speaks of. I do not see why our faith should be called upon to swallow those ancient miracles, while all the grand present miracles of nature challenge recognition around us.

decorative feature