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 apostle, 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 apostle 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 miraculous 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 kichard 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 infi

delity 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 semi-infidel 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 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 and 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 a 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. who ever 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 baptized 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 Acts, chapter 8, verse 27: and Mr. Barker appeared wishful to make the impression that the eunuch believed nothing more than that Jesus was the Messiah. But he did not tell us three things which are very important to give a correct aspect to that case. He did not tell us that the eunuch was just returning from the temple in Jerusalem, where he had been present

66

ing oblations to God, and thus recognized his consciousness of guilt, and his need of a vicarious atonement for that guilt. He did not tell you, either, that the eunuch was reading a certain part of Scripture which had a very immediate connexion with the object of his visit to Jerusalem, and also a happy connexion with the instructions of Philip. What was the eunuch reading? That delightful portion of Scripture contained in the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, where it is said that "He was wounded for our transgressions, and he was bruised for our iniquities, and his soul was made an offering for sin; that it pleased the Father to bruise him, and that he, himself, put him to grief, and that he maketh intercession for the transgressors." And he did not tell you another important truth, which I should have liked to hear him tell, and which I must tell you, or I should not discharge my duty, namely, that Philip preached Jesus unto the eunuch." And if Philip preached any thing like Paul, he would not leave out the propitiatory sacrifice; for Paul says, in the 15th chapter of his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, the 3rd verse," For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." And I feel assured-and I think no reasonable man in this assembly will debate the matter for a moment, if he give it a fair consideration-that, when the passage was opened before the eyes of Philip directly referring to the Redeemer's sacrifice, and in connexion with the anxious enquiry of the eunuch, whether it referred to the prophet himself or to another, Philip would point him to that bleeding lamb of whom the prophet spoke, who was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities. And this accounts for the sequel-explains the subsequent part of the history, that the eunuch "went on his way rejoicing." And he might well rejoice when he saw the happy connexion between the type and the antitype-between the victim in the temple, and the great sacrificial victim, the Lord Jesus Christ, who bled for the world's transgressions.And when he heard the evangelist tell him the nature, explain the character, and unfold the work of Christ, and apply to Christ the direct prophecies contained in that chapter, no wonder that his thirsty soul drank in the glad tidings, and his bleeding heart received the balm that makes the wounded whole; and that then he went on his way rejoicing?

Sophism, No. 4.—Mr. Barker introduced the subject of human depravity, and the subject of the Trinity: and I know not, sometimes, whether to be amused or grieved at the way in which he sought to disprove those doctrines. He sought to disprove the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of human depravity, Christ's sacrifice, and saving faith in it—he sought to disprove these doctrines, by referring to the preceptive parts