Mr. Barker also admitted the truth and the substantial correctness of some of those great principles of faith and of practice to which I referred, which I laid down, and which I endeavoured to substantiate, as essentially connected with the Christian. It is true that he afterwards sought, by turns of wit, and by sophisms, to neutralize the admissions he had made: but, still, those admissions are there; and when this discussion shall terminate, they will appear in print, and be read by a discerning public, who will be able to distinguish the wheat from the chaff, and to recognise those great principles which I laid down as the just criteria of the reasonings I adopted, and of the conclusions to which I came : and I fear not the result.

Mr. Barker's speech was made up partly, I say, of mistakes, He said that I charged him with denying that Christ had come in the flesh; and he was very emphatic in stating, "that is a falsehood." There was no need of all this emphasis; for the fact is, I did not make the charge upon Mr. Barker. I did refer to the heresy---the ancient heresy, which existed in the early days of Christendom, and which denied that Christ came in the flesh. I conceived that I had some important reasons weighing with me to notice that subject; and my reasons were the following: In the first place, I did not know but Mr. Barker might, ere this, have proceeded so far as to have adopted this anti-christian delusion. Certainly, for the last three or four years his changes have been so extensive and so rapid, that neither I nor a thousand more would have been at all surprised had he, by this time, denied that Christ had come in the flesh!

[The Chairmen of the two gentlemen were here heard to be in private conversation.]

Another reason is this: I conceived that the introduction of that subject was materially connected with the principle involv-ed in our discussion of what is a Christian; because it is well known that there were, in an early era of Christianity, a sect, calling themselves by the name of Christians, who did deny the reality of the Saviour's body---who did maintain that he was a man in appearance only, and not in reality; and it was to confront those speculators that the Apostle John speaks so emphatically and so decisively with regard to the reality of our Saviour's body in the first chapter of his first epistle.

The conversation between the two Chairmen continued to this moment, and Mr. Grant conveyed some intimation to the speaker, Mr. Cooke proceeded.]

It is thought I had better not refer to what Mr. Barker might possibly think. There will be no objection, I suppose, to my referring to what he has thought, and has published. It there fore became not unimportant or uninteresting to me to ascertain, at the onset of the discussion, what was the judgment of inspired men with regard to those speculators; and we find that judgment to be, not that they were Christians, although they held the doctrine of the Messiahship of Christ, but that they.

were "deceivers and anti-Christ." And then another reason is this I considered that there was no very remote resemblance in some of Mr. Barker's principles, to the views entertained, by that sect to which I have referred. For example, both Mr. Barker and the sect I refer to deny the divine authority of the two first chapters in the gospel according to St. Luke. And though there is a difference in this respect, that Mr. Barker does admit the human nature of Christ, yet in order to establish the position that Christ is the son of Joseph, he rejects the two chapters to which I have referred; and the sect to which I have referred rejected these two chapters, not that they might establish the doctrine that Christ was not miraculously conceived, but to establish the doctrine that Christ was not conceived at all; that Christ had no real human nature, but that his body was a mere phantom! and then this ancient sect contended that they were Christians as strongly as Mr. Barker or any of his adherents contend for the title Christian. They professed to believe that Jesus was the Messiah; they professed to place themselves under his instructions; they professed that their faith worked by love; and some of them suffered death as martyrs, under the Roman persecutions; yet this sect, notwithstanding their professions of Christianity-notwithstanding they professed to love the Saviour and notwithstanding their recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, were denounced by the apostles, who lived in their days, as being anti-Christ and deceivers. Besides, the sect to which I refer did not alter the gospel out of their avowed hatred to it, but, as they said, out of love for the gospel. They desired to make it more conformable to the prevailing system of philosophy, and to render it more acceptable to mankind in general. And it is a remarkable fact that these Gnostics were almost, if not entirely, the only heretics who denied the Miraculous Conception from the days of the apostles down to the time of Joseph Priestley; so that for about a thousand, or from that to one thousand four hundred years, the earth was not trodden by a man who held the name of Christian, and denied the Miraculous Conception, until the time of Joseph Priestley, that changeling-that learned but eccentric man, who, while he denied the doctrine of the Miraculous Conception, denied the existence of the human soul!

The second mistake which Mr. Barker made is the following: I stated that some persons reject a doctrine, and then allege that it is unimportant. Mr. Barker thinks that had no application to himself. Now in that I think he made a grievous mistake; for I find in the tract issued by him not long since, entitled "the Miraculous Conception of Jesus Christ," that the doctrine is therein held to be unimportant.. The following is the passage:"It has been a great evil among Christians, that much stress has been laid on points which have nothing to do with the salvation of men, and the great doctrine of immortality. It is presumed this has been the case with respect to the Miracu

:

lous conception of Christ. If it be a fact, it affects no other subject in the gospel, it is of no importance in Christianity." This is the instance to which I made reference when I uttered the expression last evening-when I made the statement which Mr. Barker has subsequently denied. Now I say that is a mistake; and that Mr. Barker, having issued the tract containing the sentiment, and sent it out among the people without anything like a sentence correcting this false statement, made by one Richard Wright, is responsible for it and I regard the sentiment as being bona fide his sentiment, the tract being sent out into circulation by him as expressing the sentiments which he himself entertained. Forsooth, then, it follows that a doctrine, however clearly stated-however positively asserted, is, because it be deemed not important, to be rejected! An old infidel objection! and as stale as infidelity itself. A thousand times repeated, and a thousand times refuted. Why, it is just such a sophism as Lloyd Jones uttered, when, in debate with Mr. Barker, at Oldham, he said (and I have his words before me, used in the discussion) it did not matter what sentiments people held as to doctrine or general truths: if their conduct were only right, that was all that was required. But the blessed God knows infinitely better than Messrs. Lloyd Jones, Richard Wright, or Joseph Barker, whether a right faith be important or not. With a right faith God has connected his approbation and everlasting life. With unbelief, God has connected his displeasure and everlasting death: "He that believeth shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." It has always been the object of Satan to persuade men that there is no importance in faith-in belief in God; and so it has been, also, of his agents. So long as Satan can keep men in unbelief, he keeps men from God, from pardon, from happiness, from heaven; for faith is the bond of union with God, and the instrument of his blessing.

But who, I would ask, gave to Mr. Barker a right and an authority to release man from his obligation to believe in any part of the word of God? Where are his credentials? Where the

proofs of his commission? This sophism will not sway the judgment of a Christian audience. The sceptic and the semiinfidel may drink it down with avidity, and present their congratulations to Mr. Barker, or any one else, for his zealous endeavours to relieve them from the duty of submission to God's authority. But the sober, the reflecting, the pious, the faithful part of the community, will reject the principle with disdain and contempt. Men will see that whatever God reveals or declares as a truth, they are bound to believe; even as they are bound to obey what God may command. The question lies in a very narrow compass. Can Mr. Barker point to a single passage in God's blessed word which gives a man the right to disbelieve any portion of God's word? Can he bring a single example or instance in which the Almighty has accepted an individual into his favour, while wilfully rejecting any portion of

C

his revealed truth? He cannot--he cannot. I challenge the instance to be produced. His boldness, therefore, in publishing a statement like this-that a truth, being unimportant, may be rejected, is, in my estimation, unwarrantable presumption— most unwarrantable presumption; yes! and as irrational as it is impious and both the impiety and infidelity become the more deeply aggravated by the clearness and the fulness with which the doctrine stands declared in the book of God. There

:

it is!—a wayfaring man though a fool need not err in its interpretation. There it is-and the same spirit which dictated the truth has declared---" He that believeth not God hath made him a liar."

There is another mistake. Yes, I will call it a mistake;and that is in reference to Paul. I understood, last evening, what I never understood before-what I never heard advanced before from any reasoner, or from any individual with whom I was ever in discourse,---that God converted Paul as a reward for his fidelity under the Jewish economy. Why, we have heard the merits of the Saviour discarded, it is true; but here we have the merits of man acknowledged; the merits of a man, too, unconverted; and the merits of a man, too, who combined in his character the elements of pharisaical pride and of bloody persecution. That Paul was punctilious and rigid in the observance of Jewish rites and pharisaical customs, there can be no doubt but who ever knew of pharisaical pride and of pharisaical punctiliousness commending a man to God's approval, and, by merit, bringing down God's favour as a matter of debt? And whoever heard an individual, whose career was like that of Saul previous to conversion, represented as having been so faithful as to deserve God's approval and saving grace? What is that career, as exhibited by the faithful and graphic pen of inspiration? That he breathed out threatenings and slaughter, haling men and women to prison, and seeking letters from the High Priest to spread wider the ravages of death and of ruin. And what is the picture he gives himself of his own state? That he was an injurious person, a persecutor-that he was a bloody persecutor---that he was a blasphemer---that he was the chief of sinners; and he exhibits himself as an example of miraculous mercy in his call and conversion, and not as an instance in which God had just redeemed his own character by giving what was due, namely, his grace and his favour. Now I call this a mistake. I will put that construction upon it. I think that, from the perturbation of his mind or something else, Mr. Barker must not have been in a right state for expressing his sentiments; and I will put it down as a mistake. (Hissing, cries of "order" from the Chairmen, and applause; all of which subsided, and were renewed.)

Mr. GRANT:---This is very improper. It is a gross breach of the terms on which you are admitted here. (Hear, hear.) Your character requires non-interference.

Dr. LEES :---Recollect that each party has appointed his own Chairman; and that the Chairman for each party is competent to say who is in order and who is out of order: and it is not the business of the audience to perform the functions of Chairmen, Now I trust the same spirit of quietness and impartiality that was evinced last night, will characterize this and the succeeding nights of the discussion. Truth does not need clamour. It only wants a fair hearing on both sides; and that must decide the question.

Mr. COOKE:---I hope there will be no objection to give me every minute of time that is lost by interruption.

Dr. LEES :---Two minutes.

Mr. COOKE:---Mr. Barker's speech was made up, in the next place, of sophisms, and I shall name them.

Sophism, No. 1.---With regard to the woman of Samaria. Mr. Barker referred to the woman of Samaria as being a Christian; and, of course, a proper example to this assembly of what a Christian is. But I ask, where is the evidence of the conversion of the woman of Samaria? She heard the Saviour's doctrine. She might believe theoretically that he was the Messiah. She went into the neighbouring town---into Samaria, and said, "Come and see a man which told me all things that ever I did. Is not this the Christ ?" But where is the evidence of her Christian experience and her conversion to God? And, besides, if she had been converted to God, her case is not an example in point. For how can a poor woman who heard one gospel sermon---a few principles of the Christian religion--only a few---be exhibited before a Christian audience as a fair specimen of Christian faith, or Christian experience, or Christian practice?

Sophism, No. 2.---Mr. Barker referred to the twelve disciples at Ephesus, Acts xix. 1-7; and he endeavoured to make the impression that they were fair specimens of what Christians are;specimens of Christians in sentiment---specimens of Christians in experience: and he tells us that they had never heard of the Holy Ghost. But he did not tell you---for it would not suit his purpose, I suppose that they were not disciples of Christ, but disciples of John. They had not been baptized in the name of Jesus; and it is evident, from their not having heard of the Holy Ghost, that they could not have been instructed in the principles of Christianity. But there is another view to take of this case, which appears to make against Mr. Barker's argument; for, as I said last night, unbelief consisted not in the want of information with regard to a doctrine, but in the rejection of a doctrine now when the Holy Ghost was made known to these men, did they reject it? They believed it: and they were aptized in the name of the Saviour, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost; and then, in their experience and in their conduct, they became living witnesses of his personality and of his Godhead. Sophism, No. 3.---A reference was made to the eunuch, in