A
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE
AGAINST THE CHARGES
OF
MODERN INFIDELITY;
CONSISTING  OF THE SPEECHES OF ELDER JONAS HARTZEL,  MADE
DURING A DEBATE CONDUCTED BY HIM AND MR.
JOSEPH BARKER, IN JULY, 1853.
BY JONAS IIARITZEL.
" WE W1AVE NOT FOI.LOWED CUNNINGLY DEVISED FABLES."
CINCINNATI:
(C(HI,U.1,1IAN PRINTIN(  C (OMT'A N Y PRINT.
1S54,
,,, o 1), 4,,, 
Entered according to Act oi Congress in the year 1854,
BY JONAS IIARTZEL,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States
for the District of Ohio.
% 
SYNOPSIS.
The debate is on the proposition  The Jewish and Christian Scriptures contain a
series of communications,  supernaturally revealed
and miraculously attested; from the latter, man may
acquire a perfect rule of life.
The Book contains -
I.  Preliminary Correspondence.
II. A consecutive history of Mr. Barker's refusal
to comply with the stipulations of agreement for
bringing out the reported discussion in book form.
III.  J. Hartzel's speeches, in which will be found
copious extracts from Mr. Barker's writings in defense of the divine inspiration of the Bible, while a
Methodist Minister. Also, that it does not sanction
despotism and oppression, etc.
IV. Notes interspersed through the volume, which
were intended as an appendix to the work as originally contemplated.
HIOPEDALE, HARRISON COUNTY, ORIO, February 23, 1854.  
COPR RESPONDENCE.
LETTER I.
JONAS IIARTZEL S FIRST LETTER.
RIESPECTED SIR:  After a few weeks mature reflection upon what passed at the recent Bible (or, rather,
anti-Bible Convention,) and the expressed wish of
many of our mutual friends, and my position in
society as an acknowledged advocate of the Gospel, I
feel disposed to meet you in public discussion, upon
a fair and equitable distribution of labor. I therefore
submit the following propositions:
I.  That the Creator has endowed  man with the
requisite mental capacity, to acquire from the developments of Nature, a perfect knowledge of his relatiofs, duties and destiny.
You affirm, I deny.
II.  That the Jewish and Christian Scriptures,
contain a series of communications, supernaturally
revealed and miraculously attested.  From the latter,
man may acquire a perfect understanding of his
reations, duties and destiy.
I affirm, you deny. 
6  DEFENSE OF TliE BIBLE AGAINST TI-E
Now, sir, if you can maintain the first, I shall
have neither interest nor inclination to debate the
second; for I believe there is much good sense in the
old Ileathen maxim, " Call for a God, when there is
an occasion worthy of a God."  The above propositions contain the pro and con of the seven resolutions
read by yourself at the opening session of the aforesaid Convention, and will afford (according to my
understanding) an opportunity to call out all that is
debateable between disbelievers and believers of a
supernaturally revealed religion.  I would further
propose, that, as the discussion may be somewhat
protracted, I have the privilege of calling one to
my assistance, and that you have the same.
Also, that the discussion shall be conducted according to parliamentary usages -time and place, with
all necessary preliminaries, to be arranged by mutual
agreement.
Yours, with respect,
JONAS HARTZEL.
Hotedale, Iarris8on Co., 0., Jan. 18, 1853.
LETTER II.
JOSEPII BARKER S FIRST LETTER.
A  note we have received from Joseph Barker,
informs us that he has never received the numnber of
the Bttgle containing Mr. Ilartzel's proposition for 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
a public discussion. Hie had, however, been informed
of the questions proposed. Of these, under date of
February 5th, he says:
As to Mr. Hartzel's propositions, I do not believe
that God has endowed every man with the requisite
mental capacity to acquire from any source, a perfect
knowledge of his relations, duties and destiny   I
question whether he has so endowed any man.  It
will certainly take eternity to gain a perfect knowledge of all our relations, &c. I cannot, therefore,
take the affirmative of that proposition.
I have no objection to take the negative of the
second proposition, though I had rather the proposition had been more comprehensive.  However, I will
take the affirmative of the following proposition:
That mankind are able to obtain the knowledge
needful to their improvement and welfare, without
supernatural revelations or infallible teachers.
Perhaps you will publish this in the Bugle.  I
have not yet seen the Bugle containing Mr. Hartzel's
propositions.
Where must the discussion be, and when?  And
what the particular arrangements?
For the information of both Messrs. Hartzel and
Barker, we append their respective Post Offices:
Jonas Hllartzel, Hopedale, Harrison Counilty, Ohio.
Joseph Barker, Millwood, Knox County, Ohio.
7 
8       DEFENSE OF TIIE BIBLE AGAINST TIlE
LETTER III.
JONAS HARTZELIS SECOND LETTER.
HOPEDALE, 0., Feb. 28, 1853.
MR. ROBINSON- Respected Sir: Joseph Barker's
note to you, Feb. 5th, is now before me, in which he
says:  " I have not yet seen the Bugle containing
Mr. Hartzel's propositions."  He does not say, he
has not seen my letter to him, Jan. 18th, but, that
he has been informed of the questions proposed by
myself for discussion. The questions are all that is
important in my letter to him. Why did he not address me, as I did him? Did he intend to put a stop
to a direct correspondence? I preferred the press, as
the medium of communication between us. I knew
Mr. Barker's address, and he obtained mine, before
we took the parting hand at your house.
My proposition for a discussion with Mr. Barker
on the Bible question, grew out of a challenge uttered
by himself, before the Bible Convention of last November, and a personal interview at your house and
in your presence. From these circumstances, a
report went abroad, that Mr. Barker had respectfully
invited me to a discussion, and that I had declined.
This, I could not deny. Having acquired a little
celebrity as a disputant, my decline has been prejudicial, creating a suspicion that there were doubts in
my own breast, with reference to a rational defense 
CIFARGES  OF MODERN  INFII)ELITY.
of the claims of the Bible.  This suspicion was soon
confirmed by an article in the Plain Dealer, by one
who says he was in the Convention as spectator and
reporter.  Speaking of me, he says:  " ie offered
no argument which led me to think that he believed
the Bible a work of divine inspiration." These things
were not done in a corner, and my negotiation with
Mr. Barker should, therefore, be conducted through
the medium of the public press.
I will now come to Mr. Barker's objections to the
proposed issue, and 1st, The questions (the first of
which he will not debate,) were legitimate deductions
from the seven resolutions read before and accepted
by the Convention, but not debated. These resolutions were in the order of climax; the last two being
the  concentration of the preceding ones.   They
declare, that man has an infallible rule of life, and
in what that unerring rule consists.  I will here
insert them:
VI.  Resolved, That man has an infallible rule of
life, on the knowledge of which depend the progress,
perfection and happiness of his nature,. in all states
of his existence.
VII.  Resolved, That the rule is found, not in the
Bible, the Koran, the Shastrcs, nor in any supposed
arbitrary revelation, but is engraven on the nature of
each human being, by the hand of his Creator.
Where, then, will man find an infallible rule of
life?  Not in the Bible, &c., but " engraven on the
9 
10     DEFENSE OF THIE BIBLE AGAINST TIIHE
nature of each human being, by the hand of his
Creator."
Mr. Barker has here given us an unequivocal confession of his faith, or what it was two nonths8 ago;
he has stated affirmatively where man's infallible
rule is, and negatively, where it is not.  But what is
his present position?-let us see.   Anti-Slavery
Bugle, Feb. 19:  " As to Mr. IIartzel's propositions,
I do not believe that God has - endowed every man
with the requisite mental capacity to acquire, from
any source, a perfect knowledge of his relations,
duties and destiny; I question whether he has so
endowed any man.  It will certainly take Eternity
to gain a perfect knowledge of all our relations, &c.
I cannot, therefore, take the affirmative of that proposition."   Ttis is  progressive, indeed it is.  In
November, 1852, every man had an infallible rule of
life; that is, a rule incapable of mistake, and this he
received from the hand of his Creator; but on the
5th of February, 1853, he says: "I do not believe
that God has endowed every or any man with the
requisite mental capacity to acquire from any source,
a perfect knowledge of his relations, duty and destiny," and think it will require "Eternity,"  &c.
Why, sir, man's relations and duties in Eternity are
not the subjects of discussion. What then? Why,
this: Mr. Barker said in Convention, that man had
an infallible rule without the Bible; and to this, he
challenged investigation; can any thing be a rule of
life, that does not reveal to man his relations, duties 
CHIIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
and destiny.? Relations must be understood, before
duty can be defined, and their destiny, whether present or future, or both, to give value to relation, and
inspire with motive, to the discharge of duty. Surely
there can be no misunderstanding in regard to a
rule of life.
Mr. Barker will, however, take the affirmative of
the following proposition:  " That mankind are able
to obtain the knowledge needful to their improvement
and welfare, without supernatural revelation or infallible teachers."  This is a very different thing from
an infallible rule of life. Itow gloriously indefinite.
"Knowledge needful."  This much might be affirmed
of ahorse.
But Mr. Barker's proposition contains an affirmative and a negative. First, " That mankind are able
to obtain the knowledge needful to their improvement
and welfare."  Second, " Without supernatural revelation or infallible teachers." Tie will then take
the affirmative of a negative.  Mr. Barker being a
logician, I can but regard his proposition as an artful
piece of management to get up a false issue; and,
further, a refusal on his part to defend, in orderly
discussion, the doctrine contained in those offensive
resolutions, of which he will not deny the paternity,
for he was first in committee, first in report, and first
in defense."
HIe has, then, in seven resolves, and in his other
publications, preferred many and grievous charges
against that Book, which has been for ages, and yet
11 
12       DEFENSE. OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TI-IE
is, revered by millions of the better portion of mankind. These accusations he ought to prove, for he
certainly does know, that the more weighty the calumny, the clearer shoould be the proof of it, and then,
as the Apostle of rationalism, he should show to us
superstitious devotees of that Book, (" whose origin
is wrapt in darkness,"' " which carries on its very
face the markls of human imperfection and error,"
whose authority is not decisive as to the truth or
falsehood of any principle, or the goodness or badness
of any practice," " and that the belief that the Bible
is a perfect rule of faith and practice, is not only
altogether erroneous, but exceedingly mischievous,")
that we have a more sure word of prophecy, to which
we shall do well to take heed.
Mr. Barker cannot get up a false issue with us,
neither can he hide himself fiom the public gaze in
responsibilities he has incurred, in offering himself
as a worthy guide to the ignorant and erring of his
race.
In view of the whole premises, I must again urge
upon his consideration the propositions submitted in
my former letter.
First- " That the Creator has endowed man with
the requisite mental capacity to acquire from the
developments of nature, a perfect knowledge of his
relations, duties and destiny.  You affirm, I deny."
Or, if he prefer this, given over his own signature,
(as we might say,) " That man has an infallible rule
of life, engraven on the nature of each humran being 
cOtIARGES OF MODERN IN.FI)EL;J.
by the hand of his Creator, on the knowledge of
which depend the progress, perfection and happiness
of his nature, in every state of his existence."'
Second-" That the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contain a series of communications supernaturally revealed and miraculously attested -from the
latter, man may acquire a perfect rule of life. I
affirm, you deny."      -'        -
So matters present themselv   t-en! my  mind  at
present; but if I have not understood the original
resolutions, I ask to be corrected, for I do not ask Mr.
Barker to defend any doctrine hle has not avowed.  If
his mind has changed with reference to the infallible
source of knowledge since the Convention, we only
ask him to use his influence in blotting from the
public records those resolutions.
If Mr. Barker can show good reason why he should
not be required to defend either of tie pro,positions
contained in this article, the second of which is
couched in the precise language found in the 6th and
7th resolutions, we shall then proceed  to discuss my
affirmative, the negative of which he has accepted.
Debate to be held at some point on the Western
Reserve, and to commence the 25th of May next.
Other preliminaries. to be settled by mutual agree  ient.  Hoping to hear from Mr. Barker soon,
I remain, yours, for the Truth's sake,
J()NAS IIARTRZEL.
iL I' 
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
LETTER IV.
JOSEPH BARKER S SECOND LETTER.
EDITOR OF THE BUGLE-Dear Si?': In answer
to Mr. Ilartzel's letter, I would observe,
1st.  That I have never received a letter from him,
or I certainly should have answered it, for I have no
objection to a direct communication with him.
2d.  Mr. Hartzel is quite mistaken in supposing
that in the sixth and seventh resolutions laid before
the Convention, I have given a confession of nmy
faith. I had nothing to do with those resolutions
except to express my dissent from them. The first
five resolutions were the only ones I acknow ledged or advocated. It is a mistake to suppose that
in November last I believed that every man has an
infallible rule of life, with which he was capable of
becoming perfectly acquainted.  It is a mistake to
suppose that I said anything in the Convention about
man having an infallible rule.
3d. That I have preferred many and grievous
charges against the Bible, or rather that I have
brought forward many arguments to prove that the
Bible is not the word of God, I admit; but I think
myself able to make good what I have said.
4th.  Mr. Jtartzel need be unler no fear that I
shall shrink fromn any responsibilities that I have
taken upon myself, or that I shall try to hide myself 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
from public gaze. But he must not expect me to acknowledge any charge he prefers against me to be
true, when I believe it to be false.
5th. Though I do not like Mr. Hartzel's second
proposition as well as I like the five resolutions
offered to the Convention, yet, if he will not discuss
those resolutions with me, I will discuss his second
proposition with him, at such time and place as may
be considered best. The 18th or 25th of May will
suit me, I think, and as to place, I should as soon
have the discussion at Salem as anywhere else.
I ought, however, to state, that some weeks ago, I
wrote to Alexander Campbell, requesting him to send
me a copy of his8 challenge, and offering to discuss
the merits of the Bible with him, and have not yet
had an answer from him; but should he agree to a
discussion with me, I shall feel bound to give him
the preference.
Yours affectionately,
JOSEPH  BARKER.
P. S. I am obliged to you, sir, for the statement
of facts with which you have accompanied the publication of Mr. Hartzel's letter. It would be just as
reasonable for me to try to make Mr. Iartzel answerable for the first five resolutions, as for Mr.
Itartzel to try to make nme responsible for the last
two. lIe said as much in favor of the one, as I did
in favor of the other.
I repeat my offer to meet any acknowledged min
15 
16   1 DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIHE
ister of any influential church, and to discuss the
whole question as to the origin, the character, and
the tende'ncy of the Bible.   I wish  Mr.  Jlartzel
would discuss the whole question.            J. B.
LETTER V.
JONAS IIARTZEL'S THIRD LETTER.
1st.  Mr. Barker will not defend the 6th and 7th
resolutions, says he had nothing to do with them,
"except to express his dissent from them."  Iow
then came the President and Secretaries of the Convention to make such a blunder - on whose report I
fixed the responsibility of defense -on J. Barker.
My apology for thenm, and myself, is, that we never
heard his dissent till now.
2d. But he does acknowledge the paternity of the
first five, and these he is willing to discuss.  Ile will
then lead in the discussion, with five negative propositions, and have the respondent to take the place of
the affirmant.  Strange mode of warfare.
3d. In the fifth resolution there is an implied affirmation:
" Resolved, That the prevailing notion or belief,
that the Bible is a book of divine authority, and that
we need no other guide to truth and duty, is not only
altogether erroneous, but exceedingly mischievous." 
CIIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
Ilere are points of agreement between Mr. Barker
and myself: 1st. That man needs a guide to truth
and duty.  2d. That man has a guide,  etc.  3d.
That this guide consists in a revelation of God's will.
The point of disagreement is simply this: Where is
this guide to be found? Ile, as the assailant, says
not in the Bible. I, as respondent, say yes, in the
Bible God has given us a perfect guide to truth and
duty, as in Mr. Barker's own words, see report of
the Bible Convention, page 33:  "For myself, I believe there is a God, and that he has given a revelation of his will to mankind."  We understood Mr.
Barker to concur with Mr. Wright, that this revelation of God's will consisted in the divine engravings
on the nature of each human being, &c.  But as we
now stand corrected on that point, we only ask Mr.
Barker not to be so cautiously non committal but,
for the enlightenment of all, to embody in an affirmative proposition, where this revelation of God's will
is to be found?  If not in the Bible, where then?
This now becomes the painfully interesting and perplexing question.  I appeal to Mr. Barker's magnanimity and philanthropy, for an unequivocal answer.
When I heard him in Convention, I supposed we had
in the person of J. Barker, a candid  and honorable
skeptic, who would not ask to rob the Christian of
his rejoicings in Christ, without offering him something as an equivalent.  If his rock is as our rock,
let him show it.  If there is a "guide to truth and
duty," let him affirm it, define, defend it, and let the
17
0 
is     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
merits of the rival system be brought into a fair
comparison. But if there is no guide to truth and
duty, I hope he will cease to trouble this community
with his notions about the wrongfulness of slavery,
war, priestcraft, &c.
4th. As the books now stand, Mr. Campbell has
the preference, if he will accept. As it relates to
myself, I shall wait for future information, specifying
only that if Mr. Barker will debate with my humble
self, the proposition upon which we have agreed, that
he will fix the time, giving me at least eight weeks
for arranging my appointments and other matters.
I hope Mr. Barker will answer soon and let us have
done with these preliminaries.
Yours, as ever,
JONAS HARTZEL.
LETTER VI.
JOSEPH BARIKER S THIIRD LETTER.
TO THE EDITOOR OF THE ANTI-SLAvERY BUGLE.iz[y Dear Friend: The impression left on my mind
after reading MIr. Hartzel's long rambling letter, is
anything but favorable.  Why not come at once to
the point, and keep to it? In his first letter, Mr.
Ilartzel offered to meet me in discussion on the following, proposition:-" That the Jewish and Christianl scriptures contain a series of communications 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
supernaturally revealed, and miraculously attested -
from the latter man may acquire a perfect rule of
life." I accepted this offer. He named the 18thli or
25th of May, for the discussion.  I agreed.  Why
attempt to mystify so plain a matter, by a multitude
of words about other subjects?
But I gave Mr. Campbell the preference. I did.
But Mr. A. Campbell has not answered my letter, so
I give him up.
Mr. Hartzel says:  " If Mr. Barker will debate
with me the proposition upon which we have agreed,
he has only to fix the time, giving me at least eight
weeks for arranging appointments and other matters."  Very well.  I will debate with him the
above proposition, and I will give him eight weeks
for preparation. I fix the first Monday in July, for
the commencement of the debate, and I name James
Barnaby and Jacob Ileaton, as my committee to
make the necessary arrangements.
Yours, respectfully,
JOSEPH  BARKER'.
LETTER VII.
JONAS HIARTZELIS FOURTH LETTER.
RESPECTED EDITOR:   Mr. Barker says my  last
letter is "long, "   "rambling, " " unfavorable; "
and asks, " Why not come to the point at once, and
keep to it. "
19 
20      DEFENSE OF TIlE BIBLE AGAINST THE
It would be a reflection upon the intelligence of
your readers, to say one word by way of defense, but
as this will probably close the correspondence on
preliminaries, it is important that MAr. Barker should
be corrected in the following statement: " In his
first letter Mr. Ilartzel offered to meet me on the following proposition -' That the Jewish and Christian
Scriptures,'" &c.  If Mr. Barker has forgotten, you
have not - your readers have not - that I proposed
to meet Mr. Barker on condition lhe would defend the
6th and 7th resolutions offered in the Convention,
namely: "that man has an infallible rule of life,"
&c. This he refused, and gave his reasons, but he
would discuss with me the first five; to this I consented, if he would put them in a debateable form.
This part of my letter he calls "mystification," "a
multitude of words about other subjects."  Let me
give an extract from my letter:  "If there is a guide
to truth and duty, let him (Barker) affirm it, define
it, defend it, and let the merits of the rival systems
be brought into a fair comparison."  In view of the
position Mr. Barker took in the Convention, against
the Bible as a guide to truth and duty, standing at
the head of this aggressive movement, challenging investigation to this only practicable point, (guide to
truth and duty,) permit me to say, that Mr. Barker
has evaded, what all had reason to expect from him,
which is, to affirm something -as a rule of life, as the
measure of human responsiblity.  We cannot relinqjuishl our claim upon him in this respectfor he says: 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
"God  has  made  a revelation of his will to mankind; " we ask again, where is it?  Bring out your
light from under the bushel. Let it shine.
" He that has a truth and keeps it,
Keeps what not to him belongs,
But performs a selfish action
And his fellow-mortal wrongs. "'
Finally, as Christians are not afraid to come to
the light, I shall, the Lord willing, be ready to
maintain the propositions on the first Monday of
July, "That the Jewish and Christian Scriptures
contain a series of communications, supernaturally
revealed and mniraculously attested -from the latter
man may acquire a perfect rule of life. "
Mr. George Pow will act as nay committee.
Let the committee act promptly, that early notice
may be given through the columns of the Bugle.
Yours, respectfully,
JONAS IIARTZEL.
21' 
22     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
PROPOSITION:
The undersigned having been chosen to make the
preliminary arrangement respecting the  management of a debate between JonAs IHATZEL, of Hiopedale;, Harrison County, and JOSEPir BARKEE, of
Salem, Columbiana County, on the following proposition:
"The Jewish and Christian Scriptures contain a series of
communications, supernaturally revealed and miraculously attested; from the latter, man may acquire a perfect rule of life."
A FFIRMATIVE,
MR. HARTZEL.
Notice is hereby given, that the discussion will
commence in the Town Hall of Salem, on the FOURTIr
OF JULY, at 2 o'clock, P. M., and continue four days,
unless the parties shall otherwise determine.
GEORGE POW,
JAMES BARNABY,
JACOB HEATON. 
I
NEGATIVE,
MR. BARKER. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
A CONSECUTIV.; HISTORY OF THIS REPORT OF MR. IIARTZEL'S
SPEECIHES, AND MR. BARKER'S REFUSAL TO. HIAVE HIS PART
OF THE DISCUSSION PUBLISHED.
This being the time and place agreed upon for the commencement of a discussion between JONAS HARTZEL, of Hopedale,
Harrison County, and JOSEPH BARKER, of Salem, Columbiana
County; Cyrus McNeely, selected by Mr. Hartzel, as Moderator.
Charles Griffin, selected by Mr. Barker. These two selected Wilson
Thorn, of Youngstown, Mahoning County, Presiding Moderator.
The congregation was called to order, and the rules for governing
the discussion read.
RULES:
I. Mr. Hartzel shall open and close the discussion.
II. The disputants shall each speak one-half hour alternately,
save the opening speeches, and Mr. Barker's final negative, which
shall be one hiour.
III. The debate shall continue four days only, unless by mutual
consent of the disputants.
IV. The discussion shall be conducted with that candor and
fairness, necessary to the eliciting of truth.
The reader will enquire, how came this debate to be published,
there being nothing said about. a report in the correspondence?
The following conversation, which occurred at the close of the first
session, will answer the question:
Mr. HARTZEL. -I perceive that Mr. Barker has employed two
23 
24     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIHE
stenographers to report this discussion. He has done this without
my consent or knowledge.  Had Mr. Barker informed mein person,
or by our committee of arrangements, I would have acquiesced. I
know nothing of the competency of his reporters, or their probable impartiality. This makes my position extremely embarrassing.
My preparation has been with a view to oral discussion only; but,
now that it is to appear in book form, makes it quite another matter. Had I been apprised of that fact in due time, my mind would
have profited by such a stimulant. And now I must say, Mr. Barker has departed from all the rules of courtesy and fair dealing
between honorable disputants.
Mr. BARKER. - I never engaged in a public discussion that was
not reported.  Mr. Hartzel may have an appendix if he wish, and
I will have one of equal length. As to the reporters, James Barnaby and Caroline Stanton, I believe them well qualified; they
have reported some speeches for me, to my entire satisfaction.
MR. ]HARTZET. - I shall consent to a report, (as a matter of safety)
and such are my conditions:
1st. I shall require from the reporters some evidence of competency- say that they write out a part of my first speech, and give
me a specimen of what they can do.
2d. That I correct and revise my speeches, and read the proof.
3d. That we sell the copy-right to some publishing-house.
4th. That all that shall accrue from the sale, over an(I above
paying us for our time and expense, shall be devoted to two benevolent institutions, as we may severally prefer.
Mr. BAKRER. -I agree to Mr. Hartzel's conditions.  I shall give
mine to the anti-slavery cause; or, he may pay the stenographers,
publish the work himself, arind have the profits, or I will do so.
But the reader will again enqnire, why this one-sided report?
To answer this question, we call attention to the following:
On the 27th day of August propositions were submitted to me to
purchase the copyright.  I immediately informed Mr. Barker that
the manuscripts must be delivered to the publishers by the 18th
day of October, corrected and ready for publishing- gave him an 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
invitation to come to Hopedale - and for him to get proposals,
that we might have a choice, and to fix upon a price, &c.
To this I received in answer:
SALEM, Ohio, Sept. 21, 1853.
DEAR SIR: — cannot come to Ilopedale, but I shall be glad if
you can come to Salem. I shall be at home on the 4th of October.
As I have not yet received the manuscript of my speeches, of
course I have not corrected any of them. I am going to Salem today, and, if my speeches are written out, I will correct them as
soon as possible. But I shall be busy for two or three weeks. I
have no proposals from any publishing house; but I will agree to
any reasonable propositions which may have been made to you. I
should like to have Irom fifty to one hundred copies of the work
for my trouble and time, allowing you the same number. If anything more can be got for the copy-right, let my share go to the
Western Anti-slavery Society, and your share to any cause you are
most desirous to promote.
I should have written sooner, but I have but just returned from
Knox County.
We shall be glad to see you at our house, when you come to
Salem. We will not compel you to talk about theology, youen shall
enjoy yourself in your own way. Though we differ so widely with
you in opinion, we think you a good and worthy man; and
we are not so anxious to bring others to our views as we are
to see all seeking diligently for truth, and working zealously for
the general good. Devotion to the interests of humanity (which in
this country seems to mean devotion to the cause of anti-slavery)
pleases me more than agreement with me in opinion. Indeed, I
cannot doubt, but that all honest and benevolent menl are ever
moving near to truth, on all subjects of importance.
With kind regards to your wife and family, and to your. excellent
friends and neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. McNeely,
I am, yours, respectfully,
JOSEPH BARKER.
I now informed D. S. Burnett, of Cincinnati; that on account of
Mr. Barker's delinquency, the manuscript could not be handej
25 
26      DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
over for "examination " at the time specified -" will you still entertain your propcsitions to me? " — and received in reply:
CINCINNATI, OCt. 25, 1853.
Send your manuscripts - say definitely what will be the cost of
the manicript in our hands?  Can we pay that cost in books at
wholesale price?                Yours, in haste,
D. S. BURNETT.
I again wrote Mr. Barker, in substance:
"DEAR SIR:-It is important that the book should appear as soon
as possible; public expectation will soon-die away, and the value
of the manuscript is daily depreciating. "
I received in reply some apologies, and the following promise:
"Put off as long as you can and let me know, and I will be ready
for you. "  I said to Mr. Barker, by return mail —" I will give
until the 18th of November to prepare your speeches, when I shall
call for them on my way to Cincinnati," etc. 
The following letter came to hand after I had left for Salem:
SALEM, Ohio, Nov. 14, 1853.
DEAR SiR: -I am sorry to inform you, that in consequence of
having been called twice away from home, I have not yet been able
to do anything at the report of my speeches.  I could begin now,
but on Thursday I have to leave for Philadelphia and other places
east: and, after I return, I have to visit Indiana. If I had had the
report earlier I could have made the corrections, but 1 did not receive it till about three weeks ago, and I have been from home
almost ever since.  Could you not take my speeches as they are,
and let me correct them as they are wanted for the press? If not,
I will have to keep them some time longer.
Yours, very respectfully,
JOSEPH BARKER.
Had 1 received the foregoing letter before leaving home for
Salem I should not have gone; for it was an indefinite postponement of the publication.  "I would begin now, but on Thursday
I mnust leave for Philadelphia, and other places East, and, after 
CHARGES OF MO1IDERN INFIDELITY.
mty return, I have to visit Indiana. "  Was  Mr. Barker under
obligation, by previous engagement, to visit the east and the west
at this time? Was the period between the 4th of August and the
14th of November too short to make the corrections? If so, why
did he pledge himsqlf to his opponent, and the public, to be forthcoming in the joint publication of his speeches with those of his
opponent, and thus foolishly lay the foundation for his future regret, "I am sorry to inform you," etc.
The apology offered for having violated his promises I could
have but understood as an act of treachery, and that further effort
to publish the discussion, as originally contemplated, would be in
vain. Mr. Barker says -" If I had had the report earlier I could
have made the corrections. "  Why did he not have it "earlier?"
His residence is only about one mile from Salemn, which is the resi dence of the reporters. Is it not presumable that Mr. Barker was
frequently in town during this period of some three months? But
let us have the testimony of Mr. James Barnaby, one of the reporters. He says in a letter to me, dated August 4th, 1853- "We
write out Mr. Barker's speu ches as we do your own, and hand them
over to him as he wants them. "  Mine were all received, corrected
arid ready for the publishers before the 12th day of September.
Now, the facts are, Mr. Barker did receive his speeches as I did
or he did not want them. So matters stood on the 14th day of
November, viz: That I must take his speeches to the publishers,
uncorrected, "or they must remain in my hands sometime longer. "
Ilow much longer? till he would "go to Philadelphia, other places
east, and to Indiana. "  Now, I ask, do not-these facts -learly show
that Mr. Barker intended to withold his speeches from the
publishers?
But to proceed: I went to Salem, at the t;me specified, and, in
the presence of Jamrres Barnahy and Jacob Ileaton, we entered into
the following article of agreement, written by Mr. Barker himself:
AGREEMENT, RESPECTING TIE REPORT OF TIHE DEBATE BETWEEN
JOSEPII BARKER ANI) JONAS HARTZEL':
Mr. Jonas Hartzel offers to transfer lis right in the report to me, and to
hand me his corrected speeclihesc, on cond.tion that I publish it as soon as I
27 
28      DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AG(4AINST THE
well can, and pay the expense of reporting, leaving it to my sense of right
to give him thirty or forty copies of ths work or not.
I accept this offer, and engage to begin the printing of the work within
eight weeks from Nov. 18th, 1853. I do, at the same time, leave Mr Jonas
Ilartze]at liberty to sell the report to any publisher, if he can sell it to
better advantage, on condition that he give me seventy-five copies of the
report, h6und in muslin and hoards, for my labor ill correcting.the report
of my speeches, and he pay the expense of reporting. In ease I puhush
the report, Mr. Jonas Hartsel engages to certify to the correctness of the
report, supposing I publish his speeches as hehands them to me; while, in
ease he takes thework, to sell or puhush it, I agree to give the same certifi  cate, on condition my speeches are published as handed by me to him.
Whichever publishes the report, the certificate of the reporters to the cor  rectness of the report to be appended.
The speeches of each disputant to he published in the same type.
Each disputant to have the liherfy to add an appendix; the appendixes
to be of equal length.
Mr. ilartael to let me have the work by the 12th of December, 1853, if
he does not sell it before that time.
In case Mr. Ilarteel takes the work, I engage to give him my speeches,
corrected, within two months from the date of this. A portion of them
JOSEPHII BARKER,
JONAS HARTZEL,
I then went to Cincinnati, presented the report to the publishers,
and, after due examination, the following agreement was entered
into:
AGREEMENT  BETWEEN   THE  AMERICAN   CHRISTIAN   PUBLICAT:ON
SOCIETY AND JONAS HARTZEL, Nov. 28th, 1853,
The American Christian Publication Society agrees to take the financial
responsibility of the publication, by Jonas Hartzel, of his debate with Mr.
Barker, and to superintend the execution of the same, and will give to
Jonas Hartzel (who hereby relinquishes the entire interest in the copy-right
and sale of the work for himself and Mr. Barker) seventy-five copies of the
work, when published, for Mr. Barker, and the amount of one hundred and
twentyfive dollars, also in copies of the work at the cost price. The Pub lication Society not to be liable for the expense of reporting.
TifOMAS J. MELISH, 
GEORGE LENT,                Publication Committee.
A. M. LESLIE.            )
JONAS HARTZEL. 
CIIARGES OF1 MODERN INFIDELITY.
On the 3d day of December I requested Mr. Jacob H!iaton, of
Salem, to act as my agent, in handing over Mr. Barker's speeches,
and to see that they were duly mailed, &c. On the 13th of December Mr. Ileaton wrote me:
-DEAR SIR:-Mr. Barker came home on Saturday, and, at the
earliest opportunity, I called on himn to hand him his apeeches, and
ask him to correct forthwith.  Hle said: "I won't hand him over
any of my speeches, until he pays the reporters, and give me security that he will publish my speeches according to contract.  From
what I have learned since, Mr. Hartzel designs to publish an appendix, which he does not design me  to see.  This I will never
consent to.  I must see his appendix, and shall write a reply of the
same length, and he must give me security that he will do it. "
I became satisfied that he either did not comprehend a business
obligation, or that he was unwilling to do what.was right.
So, you see. another difficulty has sprung up.  But, so far as security is concerned, your friends here will vouch for that. Write
immediately.                        Truly, &c.,
JACOB HEATON.
To which I replied:
As to Mr. Barker's troubles, they are all provided'for in the article of agreement: I am under no obligations to pay the reporters
in advance, but, if they are not willing to trust me, you may give
them security; on condition, that as soon as the last of Mr. Barker's
speeches are mailed by you, and received in Cincinnati, "we, or
either of us, will pay," &c.  The publishing of h's speeches
according to contract is in his own hands, as he will correct them
himself, and read his own proof sheet.  The article says:  "Each
disputant shall have the liberty to add an appendix, the appendixes
to be of equal length."  "What is written, is written."
I requested Mr. Heaton to take the copy of the agreement, and
ask the reporters to accompany him, and have an interview with
Mr. Barker, etc.  To this I received as follows
SALEM, December 21st, 1853.
Your letter came to hand, in reply to mine, and I went, with Mr.
Barnaby and Miss Stanton, (sent Mr. Pow word, but he did not
29 
30    )DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
come) to see Mr. Barker, but he is inexorable, and I fear you will
have some difficulty, if the book is -ev-er published. He takes the
stand that he must see your appendix and write a reply, and that
you must pay him, for th- appendix, one hundred copies of the
work. In the last request, we unanimously concurred that it was
not right, and I told him so.  Mr. Barnaby desired that I should
not write to you for a few days, hoping that Mr. Barker would reconsider it, but he has not done so, therefore, we write you the result of our interview. Mr. Barker has corrected most of his
speeches for the press,-but says he would, rather than submit to the
wrong and insult you offer, by attempting to write an appendix,
which he shall not see, pay the reporters himself, and burn the
speeches. Hie alleges that you might fill your appendix with personal or new matter, which it would be untair for him not to see.
I am satisfied that the work will not be published, unless you
agree to publish without appendix, or else you agree that he shall
see yours and write a reply. Probably, under the circumstances,
the least trouble would be to publish without appendix, then his
speeches would be forthcoming immediately.
As ever, your friend,
JACOB lHETON.
P. S   The copy of the article of agreement.s in my possession,
and it does look as thlough he had not intended to sell his appendix,
still it would be fairly inferable that he should not be paid for what
was merely granted as a privilege.                         J. H.
Reply to the foregoing: (I have quoted all my letters from
memory, as I kept no copies.)  "Mr. Barker then has given up two
of his difficulties, and, as to the remaining one, why did he not say,
(when charged by myself with unfairness, in having made arrangements to have the discussion reported, without informing me,) Mr.
Hartzel may have an appendix, and I will have one of equal length,
and reply to his. "  Then I might have thanked his clemency for
])is generous offer.  Or, why did he not so specify in the article of
agrcement' MIr. Barker intends to have a written discussion ap]ended t) an oral one, and then call the written con[trov(rsy ap);eldix, " and thus send forth the book with a lie in its mouth."
S)mie days after the date of this, I went to Salem in person, but 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
Mr. Barker had left for Philadelphia, and, after consultation with
Messrs. Barnaby, Ileaton and Pow, (our committee of arrangements) I said to Mr. Heaton, " I will publish without an appendix,
on condition that Mr. Barker's corrected speeches are delivered
into my hands immediately.  To which Mr. Heaton replied:  "Mr.
Barker left his corrected speeches, with the understanding that, if
you came, and would comply with that condition, or an appendix
of three or four pages only, his speeches should be given up; do
you go and ask Mr. Barnaby to go to Mr. Barker's house and get
the speeches."  To this Mr. Barnaby cheerfully consented, but returned without them. The three gentlemen before named, were
now in attendance, and, after some. deliberation, we agreed to write
to Mr. Barker.
As I received no word for some time, I wrote Mr. ileaton   "If
Mr. Baiker does not give up the speeches before his return, or soon
after, please write me, and I will come to Salem immediately and
make another effort, " and received in answer:
SALEM, January 19th, 1854.
Your letter of enquiry, in regard to the speeches of Mr. Barker,
came duly to hand, and, in reply, will say, that as soon as I heard
that his family had received a letter from him, I immediately went
down to their house to see whether he had not ordered his corrected spe(ches to be given up, because I felt it was due from me  to
see that he complied with his promise to me, but the letter was
merely giving an account of the debate with Dr. Berge. The next
day, however, he wrote again, in reply to Mr. Barnaby, and his own
sons, and regrets that it is now, for the present, out of his power to
comply. He alleges that the "two speeches" which he did correct he
wants to reviewv, and that with his present excitement, he cannot
spare mind enough to think about, much less to correct his Ohio
speeches.  And says, "Mr. Hartzel has himself to blame for this, I
was at home for weeks, and could and would have corrected all my
speeches, if he had not been so unjust in his demands, and now he
must wait until I get back-then I will attend to them.
Thus, you see, the cause of the delay, which I know must annoy
31 
32      DEFENSE OF TilE BIBLE AGAINST THE
ing. Still, I hope that it will not militate against your sale in
Cincinnati.  IHe will surely attend to it when he comes bask.
All well, with best wishes for your wife and family, believe me,
as ever, yours, for the ultimate triumph of truth,
JACOB IIEATON.
A few days after this I received the following.,
CINCINNATI, January 26th, 1854.
BRO. HAR,EL:-Your letter of 24th of last month, was placed
in my  hands. Debates are somewhat like hot cakes, (to use a
common expression) commanding a rapid sale only while the public mind is eager and excited on the subject of the discussion. So
much time has elapsed since the debate came off- so much delay
in furnishing the manuscripts-so much doubt about ever getting
Mr. Barker's speeches at all, and so late aperiod would arrive before the book could be presented to the public, that we have
thought best for the Society not to attempt the issuing of the worlk.
Wishing you much success in the cause of the Lord, and much
individual happiness, we remain yours, in the good hope.
J. A. DEARBORN,
On behalf of Pub. Com. of the A C. P. Society.
Such is the history of my ill-fated effort to bring out the report
of the discussion, according to stipulation.  I am sure no one can
censure me for not having made sufficient effort, unless so be that I
erred in not consenting-to recall my appendix trom Cincinnati
for it was not until after it was deposited with the Publishers tbhat
Mr. Barker raised the question of right to reply.  But on what did
Mr. Barker base his right of reply? Not upon any stipulation,
verbal or written; but upon this, viz: "That I might fill my appendix with personal or new matter."  In this I subjected myself to
the same liability, for I never asked to reply to his; neither had I
any fears on that score. Had he filled his with irrelevent matter,
rather than relevant after-thought, it would only have been the
better for my argument, and public sentiment would have chastised
him for such misdemeanor. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
But I did consent to publish without appendix -not because
it was right I should —but to facilitate the business; for, if his
benevolent efforts to convince the world that the Bible must be abjured, in order to elevate mankind, required so much of his time
that he could not find sufficient leisure to correct his speeches for
the press from August 4th to November 14th, though tending to
p)romote the object of his great mission, how much would he have
required to revise his argument, and write out some forty pages
of new matter? No wonder that he should now ask as compensation one hundred books for that which he merely claimed as a
privilege, in the article of agreement.  Having been informed by
Mr. Heaton, a man of acknowledged veracity, that Mr. Barker had
corrected most of his speeches ready for the press, I felt disposed
to give up my rights, but when I was informed, by a subsequent
letter, that the Two corrected speeches had to be revised before
they could be given up, the last, lingering hope was disappointed,
and "patience was no longer a virtue. 
2
33 
AIR. IIATZEIL'S FIRST ADDRESS.
Books have prefaces, some have exodiums, and
important controversies should be entitled, at least,
to a brief introduction. With the consent of the
Chair, I wish to spend a little time in miscellaneous
remarks and readings.
First: Christian Friends and fellow-citizens, you
will ask of me an apology for bringing into public
discussion the evidences of the Christian Religion.
Christians are required to be always ready to give a
reason for their " hope. "  This demand is now being
made, and, if there were but one individual making
such inquiry we would feel ourselves bound to bring
forward the evidence of our faith and hope. If the
Gospel be true, we have a reason to giveQ; if it be a
"cunningly devised fable, " we can have no reason
to offer. In that case, we must say, with the Apostle, "our preaching is vain, and our faith is also
vain, " and, as a matter of course, our hope will
never be realized.
Christians are required to " contend for the faith
once delivered to the saints." This pre-supposes opposition.  We do not labor to promote opposition. 
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE, ETC.
We do not invite opposition. But, when it presents
itself, we cannot, in view of our responsibilities as
Christians, refuse to meet it. To meet promptly the
opposition that has, from time to time, been arrayed
against the Bible, has been, on the part of Bible believers, one great means of spreading and propagating
the Gospel and increasing the number of its faithful
followers.
Second:  A  brief explanation is due myself and
that part of the audience who sympathise with me in
the present controversy.
This controversy has grown out of a Convention
which was held in this place in November of last
year.  That Convention was called together, if I ami
not mistaken, by individuals on the other side of the
question. The call of that Convention was to the
Friends of free discussion," to discuss the " origin,
authority and influence of the Jewish and Christian
Scriptures:"  So far as I was acquainted with the
names signed to that call, they were persons who supposed that "the origin of the Bible was wrapped in
darkness;" that the authority of the Bible "is not de cisive as to the truth or falsehood of any principle,por
to the goodness or'badness of any practice."  "That
the influence of the Bible is most prejudicial and un favorable to human happiness."  There were some
seven resolutions offered during that Convention. It
was my desire, if a discussion was had at all, that
these seven resolutions should be brought under in vestigation. We accordingly madean effort to con
35 
36     DEF'ENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
centrate these resolutions and bring them into fair
discussion.  In this we have been baffled; Mr. Barker declining the defense of those resolutions so derogatory to Bible, and offensive to Christians.
The present discussion is not that, which in the first
place, we wished to engage in.  Suffice me to say,
then, on this point, we are not the aggressors. We
have been called out, and compelled to meet a responsibility which we, as  Christians, could  not
throw off.
We had a right to expect that those on the other
side would appear before the public, taking an affirmative position. It was expected they would declare
their creed and give us a synopsis of their principles.
In this we have been disappointed, as the published
correspondence between  Mr. Barker and myself will
sufficiently show.
Third:  The divine origin of the Christian religion
has always been under discussion. There have never
been wanting friends to advocate its claims and
enemies to oppose them. We are sorry there have
been those who were so unfriendly to their own interests, and the interests of their race, as to wish to
oppose it, (I speak, of course, for myself and the
friends of the Bible,) but we must take the world as
it is.  We must act with reference to things as they
are, and will be, and not as they should be. Our
Lord said, "because iniquity shall abound, the love
of many  shall wax cold."  This was speaking of
things as they would be and not as they should be, 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
for the superabounding of iniquity should have
caused the tove of the many to wax warmer.
Fourth: Christians have nothing to fear from the
issue of a thorough investigation. Though the controversy has been going on from the earliest ages of
Christianity to the present day, we believe that it has
invariably resulted in good. I wish here to read an
article from "Christianity Triumphant," (a happy
title,) by Joseph Barker. Perhaps he could not have
selected one more descriptive of the subject matter of
the work.  The title-page is as follows: " Christianity
Triumphant; or, an enlarged view of the character
and tendency of the religion of Christ; showing that
it is every way calculated to remedy the evils of a
disordered and miserable world, and make mankind
truly good and happy." I have read the work carefully, and wish to say, without flattery, that it is a
work of great merit. The masses of the people need
instruction upon the very points noticed in the title
page. It is a beautiful comparison between Christianity and Paganism, Heathen Philosophers and the
teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, and their
comparative influence upon mankind. We are so
far removed from Paganism, both as to time and location, that the masses of our countrymen seem not
to have any proper estimate of the merits and benefits of Christianity. If we could but have a true
idea of Paganism, I am sure the great majority. of
mankind would prize Christianity more highly than
3a 
38     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
they do. It is to throw light upon this matter that
0I read from the work before me.
I read from the work before me.
Before I enter on the great question which I am called upon to
discuss, I am wishful to make a few observations. And in the first
place, let nme advise the friends of Christianity not to be afraid of
the attacks which are made upon the Gospel.  We cannot but be
sorry that any should be so ill-informed, or so ill-disposed, as to
assail the Gospel, but we have no need to be afraid of the result.
It is no new thing for the religion of Christ to be opposed. It has
had its enemies in every age, from that day that it was first revealed to the world to the present time, but it was all in vain.  The
Jews opposed it, but it still spread; the Pagan Philosophers opposed it, but it still rolled on; the Magistrates and Rulers opposed
It, and shed the blood of its teachers and disciples like water, but
nothing could stay its progress.  The Priest and the Magician, the
Prince and the Philosopher, were all borne down before it. The
patience of its martyrs, affection and courage of its converts, subdued
the hearts of its enemies and brought them with tears to implore the
blessings of its Salvation. The voices of fishermen were mightier than
the fleets and armies of the whole earth, and the persecuted Gospel
put to silence the boasted Philosophy of Greece and Rome.   The
corrupt interests and passions and customs of a dark and degenerate
world gave way before it, and through blood and fires, and many hideous forms of death, it still went forward, in meekness and in majesty, uninjured and undismayed, "from conquering to conquer."
The Gospel was opposed at the time of the Reformation; the
power of the Popedomn was against it, and the powers of many nlations were against it; but it still pursued its course, and multiplied
its conquests on every hand. Since the time of the Reformation it
has been opposed by a new kind of enemies. A number of men appeared in England, in France, and in America, some years ago,
professing to be the children of reason, and claiming for themselves
alone, of all the people upon earth, the honors of rationality. They
also united their counsels and joined their energies for the overthrow of the Gospel, and made great efforts to destroy Christianity
from the face of the earth; but they passed away.  Their boasting
was turned into silence, their pride and their pretensions all perished; but the Gospel still lives, and goes forth with quicker step
and with greater glory to illumine and to bless the world.
At length another foe has entered the field against the religion of
Christ, which boldly threatens to sweep it, in a few years from the
face of the earth.  But we cannot be afraid.  The Gospel will trium-rph again, and the system of infidel socialism will go down to
the grave of its fathers, and know no resurrection.  The men who
at present are fighting against the Gospel are loud in their boasting,
and fierce and headlong in their attacks; but they are strangers to 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
the system with which they are warring, and to the powers which
are joined together in its behalf.  A few more struggles will reveal
to them their folly, and extinguish their mad hopes for ever. All
that is in Heaven is against them, and all that is good and true and
strong upon earth is against them. They fight against the light of
the whole world; they fight against the strongest feelings of every
uncorrupted human being; they war against the rights, the joys,
and the hopes of the whole intelligent creation. And as soon will
they blot out the sun and the stars, as extinguish the light of the
Gospel, or tear from the hearts of men their belief in God, and their
hopes of a blessed immortality. O yes, the Gospel will triumph
again; and the efforts of its enemies, instead of checking its progress, shall only make it roll on the faster, and win to itself new
fame and glory.
Truly, this discussion has not been in vain. If
this is true, then all that is conservative in matters
pertaining to religion or civil government, will be
found in the fact, that no important controversy will
retrograde. It will continue to be agitated; it will
be discussed and re-discussed, until the question will
be amicably adjusted by the parties, or the discomfiture of the one and the triumph of the other, of
which we have the clearest proof in Luther's advocacy of Protestantism, Locke's defense of religious
toleration, the abolition of English slavery, by Wilberforce, and Christians with unbelievers in their defense of the inspiration of the Bible.
The  discussion of the great proposition: Is the
Gospel true, or is it false?  Is it of divine or human
origin?  Is it from Heaven or from Hell? is still an
interesting question, and another proof that no important principle will suffer by investigation.
As Mr. Barker has said,   as soon will they blot
out the sun and stars as extinguish the light of the
Gospel, or tear from men their belief in God, and
39 
40     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
the hopes of a blessed immortality."  But it may be
said, the question of the divine origin of the Bible
is not yet settled. True; but all the foirns of infidelity belonging to former generations are settled.
Where now the old theory of diabolical agency and
magic, and the more modern theories of Lord Iherbert and Thomas Paine, to account for the miracles
of the New Testament upon the principle of fraud?
I shall here read a few passages from "The Christian," by Joseph Barker.  We shall depend much
upon the testimony of others in this controversy.
"For if I (alone) testify of myself my testimony is
not to be regarded. "  The point in the extract which
I am about to read, is this: that Christianity has
gained something; that the old arguments are abandoned by those who are now in the field:
It is a fact that the unbelievers of the present age, lay no stress
on the objections brought forward against Christianity by the unbelievers of the first ages of Christianity.   Unbelievers of the
present day regard the objections of the unbelievers of the first
ages of Christianity, whether Pagan or Jews, as altogether powerless.  The objections of each preceding age have been abandoned
by the unbelievers of each succeeding age. Is there not reason to
believe, that as the objections of all preceding ages have lost their
power, and gone out of date, so the objections of unbelievers of the
present age will lose their power, and go out of date in like manier?
The arguments in favor of the truth and divinity of Christianity
are more numerous and powerful at present, than they were in ages
past; and they are becoming more numerous and powerful still.
Even unbelievers themselves are obliged to acknowledge now,
that many of those doctrines which were objected to, during the
last two or three generations, as irrational and incredible, are in
truth, no parts of the religion of Christ, and therefore no proof that
Christianity is irrational and incredible.
Is there not reason to believe that those doctrines which are brought
forward by unbelievers of the present day as incredible, irrational, 
CIHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
or inconsistent, will also prove, when properly examined, to be no
part of the religion of Christ?
First: That we may discriminate clearly, I wish
first to show  the points of agreement.  So far as
known to me, all Philosophers, of every school agree
in this: that man, as he is, needs instruction. All
Philosophers have put forth some effort in this direction, atheists  not excepted.   Who  has  traveled
farther, delivered more lectures, and published more
books for the purpose of benefiting and enlightening
mankind than Robert Owen? and so of others of
this class. They are as indefatigable in their labors,
in publishing books and pamphlets, in delivering
speeches and reading lectures, as though the salvation of the world depended on their efforts.
Second:  That man  is capable of receiving instruction.
Third:  That man is greatly profited by receiving
instruction, provided it be of the right kind.
Fourth:  That the Creator has, in some way made
provision for man's enlightenment in all important
matters pertaining both to time and eternity. In relation to this point, also, there is agreement, however we may differ in other respects.  Without some
common ground it would be impossible for us to meet
together upon any settled issue whatever.
The different philosophers may, perhaps, be classified under a few general headings, as, Rationalists,
Spiritualists, and believers in a supernaturally re
41 
42  DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIHE
vealed religion, as found in the Jewish and Christian
Scriptures.
With the first, Natureis man's instruction book, and
reason isboth the pedagogue and the pupil. Some of
our Conventionists belong to this school, as may be
seen from the report of the Bible Convention, page
seven.  Our friend, Mr. Barker, does not belong to
this school.
Spritualists have not much confidence in this philosophy. Nature, with them, is not a trustworthy
guide, and reason is a dull scholar. They have a
peculiar kind of parlance who belong to this party.
"The still small voice;" "Spiritual intuitions;"
"Turn your eyes inwardly;" "Look into the depths
of thine own  soul."  The above phrases are highly
descriptive of the leading elements of their creed.
If I understand my opponent, he is not of this school.
The following will define his position:  "For myself
I believe there is a God, and that God has given a revelation of his will to mankind."  (See Report of
the Bible Convention, page 33.)
From this confession of his faith we see his entire
concurrence with all other philosophers. 1st: That
man  needs  instruction.   2d: That  man  is  capable of receiving instruction.  3d: That man is
greatly profited by receiving instruction, provided it
be of the right kind. 4th: That the Creator has, in
some way, made provision for man's enlightenment.
The following  quotation  fro   I HIebrews, 1: 1-2,
" God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom
also he made the worlds;" is our theological basis
on which our religion rests.  Our friend does not be long to this school, but he agrees with us, that God
has, in some way, made provision for man's instruction.
The point in debate, then, is simply this: Where
is this revelation to be found? What are God's means
.for enlightening mankind in the great questions of
human duty and happiness? I hope the audience
will not lose sight of this. The question is not
whether man needs instruction - whether he is capable of receiving instruction.  But the question is,
where is the source of instruction? To what department of the natural or spiritual universe should man
look for' the needful information?  There are then
points of agreement.   The great question between
Atheists, Deists, and Christians is, what is the reliable source of knowledge. Every man who proposes
to teach this, proposes to himself something as the
object of his toil. I do the same in the present discussion.  I do not expect to convince all who listen
to this controversy of the truth of my position
perhaps I shall convince none.  Many believe in
reason alone; these do not see the need of a verbal
or historic revelation, but, to show the ulter elples88es88 of man without such revelation, I will read an
article from the " Edinburg Review, " October, 1849,
pages 298, 299, 300:
43 
44     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
But perhaps the most striking example of the helplessness to
which man is soon reduced if he relies upon his reason alone, is
the spectacle of the issue of his investigations into that which one
would imagine he must know most intimately, if he knows anything, and that is, his own nature -his own mind.  There is
something to one who reflects long enough upon it, inexpressibly
whimsical in the questions which the mind is for ever putting to
itself respecting itself; and to which the said mind returns from
its dark caverns only an echo. We are apt, when we speculate
about the mind, to forget for the moment,  that it is at once the
querist and the oracle; and to regard it as something OUT of itself,
like a mineral in the hands of the analytic chemist. We cannot
fully enter into the absurdities of its condition, except by remembering that it is our wise selves who so grotesquely bewilder us.
The minid, on such occasions, takes itself (if we may so speak).
into its own hands, turns itself about as a savage would a watch
or a monkey a lettel; interrogates itself, listens to the echo of its
own voice, and is obliged, after all, to lay itself-down again with
a very puzzled expression -and acknowledge that of its very self,
itself knows little or nothing!  "I am material," exclaims one of
those whimsical beings, to whom the heaven-descended "Know
thyself" would seem to be ironically addressed.  "No!-immaterial," says another.  "I am both material and immaterial," exclaims, perhaps the very same mind at different times.  "Thought
itself may  be matter modified,"  says one.   "Rather,"  says
another of the same perplexed species, "matter is thought modified; for what you call matter is but a phenomenon."  "Both are
independent and totally distinct substances, mysteriously, inexplicably conjoined," says a third.'How they are conjoined we
know no more than the dead.  Not so much, perhaps."  "Do  I
ever cease to think," says the mind to itself, "even in sleep?  Is
not my essence thought?"  "You ought to know your own essence best," all creation will reply.  "I am confident," says one,
"that I never do cease to think - not even in the soundest sleep."
"You do, for a long time, every night of your life," exclaims
another, equally confident and ignorant.  "Where do I exist?" it
goes on.  " Am I in the brain?  Am I in the whole body?  Am I
anywhere?  Am I nowhere?"  "I cannot have any local existence, for I know I am immaterial," says one.  "I have a local existence, because I am material," says another.  "I have a local
existence, though I am  not material," says a third.  "Are  my
habitual actions voluntary," it exclaims, " however rapid they become; though I am unconscious of these volitions when they have
attained certain rapidity; or do I become a mere automaton as respects such actions? and therefore an automaton nine times out of
ten, when I act all? To this query two opposite answers are given
by different minds; and by others, perhaps wiser, none at all;
while, often, opposite answers are given by the same mind at 
CIIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
different times. In like manner has every action, every operation,
every emotioni of the mind been made the subject of endless doubt
and disputation.  Surely if, as Soame Jenyns imagined, the infirmities of man, and even graver evils, were permitted in order to afford amusement to superior intelligences, and make  the  angels
laugh, few things could afford them better sport than the perplexities of this child of clay engaged in the study of himself. "Alas!"
exclaims at last the baffled spirit of this babe in intellect, as he
surveys his shattered toys -his broken theories of metaphysics
" I know that I am; but what I am - where I am - even how I
act -not only what is my essence, but what even my mode of operation, - of all this I know nothing; and boast of reason as I may,
all that I think on these points is matter of opinion -or is matter
of faith!"  He resembles, in fact, nothing so much as a kitten
first introduced to its own image in a mirror; she runs  to the
back of it, she leaps over it, she turns and twists, and jumpstand
frisks, in all directions, in the vain attempt to reach the fair illusion
and, at length, turns away in weariness from that incomprehensible
enigma- the image of herself!
One would imagine -perhaps not untruly -that the Divine
Creator had subjected us to these difficulties -and especially that
incomprehensible mtlemmia,- there is an union and interaction of
two totally distinct substances, or that matter is but thought, or
that thought is but matter,- one of which must be true, and all
of which approach as near to mutual contradictions as can well be
conceived, — for the very purpose of rebuking the presumption of
nian, and of teaching hin  humility; that He had left these obscurities at the very threshold — nay within the very mansion
of the mind itself,-for the express purpose of dete ring man firom
playing the dogmatising fool when he looked abroad.  Yet, in
spite of his raggedness and poverty at home, no sooner does man
look out of his dusky dwelling  than, like Goldsmith's little Beau
who, in his garret up five pair of stairs, boasts of his friendship
with lords, he is apt to assume airs of magnificence, and, glancing
at the Infinite through his little eye-glass, to affect an intimate acquaintance with the most respectable secrets of the universe!
It is undeniable, then, that the perplexities which uniformly puzzle man in the physical world, and even in the little world of his
own mind, when he passes a certain limit, are just as unmanageble as those found in the moral constitution and government of the
universe, or in the disclosures of the volume of Revelation. In
both  we  find abundance of inexplicable difficulties  sometimes
arising from our absolute ignorance, and perhaps quite as often
from our partial knowledge.  These difficulties  are probably left
on the pages of both volumes for some of the same reasons; many
of them, it may be, because even the commentary of the  Creator
himself could not render them plain to a finite understanding,
though a necessary and salutary exercise of our humility may be
45 
46   DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
involved in their reception; others, if not purely (which seems not
probable) yet partly for the sake of exercising and trainin that humility, as an essential part of the education of a child; others,
surmountable, indeed, in the progress of knowledge and by prolonged effort of the human intellect, may- be designed to stimulate
that intellect to strenuous action and healthy effort - as well as to
supply, in their solution, as time rolls on, an ever-accunmulating
mass of proofs of the profundity of the wisdom which has so far
anticipated all the wisdom of man; and of the divine origin of
both the great books which he is privileged to study as a pupil,
and even to iIlustrate as a commentator- but the text of which
he cannot alter.
Our present situation, then, is a state of discipline,
a state of trial, and, therefore, a state of perplexities,
and in such a state, it is an -easy matter to raise objections and start difficulties with reference to anything, however true or good.
Men may raise objections against Christianity, or
the testimony upon which it is based. Much depends
upon the state of the mind in approaching testimony, and in the investigation of testimony.  If an
individual is under a certain mental bias, it is impossible for any amount of evidence to produce conviction. In another state of mind men will acquiesce
too readily.  Then mind, in one case, becomes too
credulous, in the other it is too stubborn -too incredulous, so that reasonable evidence will not produce the desired result, which is a conviction of the
truth of my proposition.
But on this point, I beg leave to call attention to
my worthy friend.  lie has sokren word8 so important that I cannot, in justice to myself and the audience, pass them by without attention.
See "Christianity Triumphant," pages 384-5, in 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
answering the infidel objection, "If man were supplied with a stifficiency of evidence, belief would follow as a matter of course."
Mr. Barker says: 
You are ill error, I imagine. A man's belief does not depend
altogether on the amount of evidence with which he is supplied;
it depends in a great measure on a person's state of mind, and on
the attention and regard which he chooses to pay to that evidence.
The evidence which convinces one man, does not convince another.
O)ffer the fullest evidence in the world to a man who is wallowing
in sensuality and drunkenness, and it will produce no conviction
at all; but offer the same evidence to a man that is acting as becomes a rational and accountable being, and who is truly desirous
to know and obey the truth, and he will be convinced at once.
There has always been sufficient evidence afforded of the truth of
the Gospel, wherever it has been promulgated; and when  men
have attended to that evidence with  rightly disposed minds, they
have become sincere believers.  But no evidence can cure the unbelief of a man that is bent on living in sin, and disables and perverts his mental powers by lewdness and intemperance.  Evidence
is to the mind what light is to theeye. All the light in the world will
not make a man see that shuts his eyes, or that puts them out.  If
a man is to see, he must make a proper use of his eyes, as well as
have a good supply of light.  At the moment that I am now writing, it is near midlday, and the sun is shining brightly in the
heavens, shedding down light in abundance; and yet there are
numbers that see nothing of the surrounding scenery. Some are
asleep; some have shut themselves up in dark rooms; and others
refuse to place themselves in a proper situation for beholding the objects that surround them. And it is much the same with respect to the
light of revelation and the minds of men. The doctrines of the
Gospel are unfolded, and evidence of their truth is supplied in
abundance, from every quarter.  The Gospel carries along with it
evidences of its divinity in its own doctrines; and evidences of
its divinity are furnished by the whole current of history.  Proofs
of the truth of the Gospel doctrine are scattered through the whole
universe, and not a day- or night passes by, but what lifts up its
voice in attestation of its divine original.  Still some do not believe.  And if the evidence was thousand times stronger, it is possible that sonme might be unbelievers still.  Evidence has no
power to suclh as will Lot regard it.  Man has it in his power to
close his'e,yes, aind ears, and heart, to every sight, and sound, and
gracious influence in the universe.  If a person should say"Give the man sufficient light, and he cannot help but see," when
he knew at the same time that the man had put out his eyes, you
47 
48     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
would take the man to be quibbling, or else set him down as want
ing in intellect.  And it is the same with the man who speaks as
if a person's belief depended solely on the amount of evidence with
which he is supplied.  No arguments can have any effect on dogs
and swine, because they have not capacity to take in arguments;
and it is possible for-men to so far. imitate the dog and the swine
in their conduct, as to reduce themselves to a level with them in
point of capacity.  Men may so far corrupt and pervert their faculties by sin, that they shall put darkness for light, and light for
darkness; call evil good, and good evil.  There were such characters in the days of the Savior, and he appears to have had reference to such characters in his sermon on the mount, when he said,
"Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast  e your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and
turn again and rend you.  Matt. vii., 6.  If our opponents follow
the advice of their leader, Robert Owen, with respect to the unrestrained indulgence of their appetites, they have no need to seek
for the cause of their unbelief in the want of evidence; they may
find it iearer home.
It is then true, that much depends upon the state
of mind in forming a favorable or unfavorable opinion with regard to religious truth, or with reference
to matters of any kind, whether ordinary or extraordinary.
In conelusion, let me say, "there is light enough
for those whose sincere wish it is to see, and darkness
enough to perplex and confound those of an opposite
disposition."  It is the former class only we expect
to profit in the present discussion.
MR. IHARTZEL'S SECOND ADDRESS.
You have heard the prefaces, both mine and Mir.
Barker's.  From these you can judge somewhat correctly of what is to follow.  There are but a few 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
things in the address of Mr. Barker that require a
word of reply.
I am sure there was matter enough in my opening
remarks upon which to have formed an issue and an
opposite one, if he had desired it.  To do this he admits is hlis province.
Mr. Barker claims, that, like Paul, he has become
wiser than he once was.  Paul did become wiser in
abandoning inftdelity and becoming a Christian, and
Mr. Barker in forsaking Christianity and turning
Infdel.  It is said to be a good rule when it works
both ways. The extracts read from Mr. Barker's
writings are matters of history. Is it not a matter
of history that Christianity was opposed from its very
birth? Is it not true that the " Jewish Rullers and
Pagan Philosophers were all directly against it?'
Is it not a fact that it triumphed over all opposition,
and went forth from conquering to conquer? "
If I had met my friend in discussion upon some
scholastic dogmas, I ought not to hold him responsi ble for his sentiments, now disclaimed by him. But
in matters of history, I have a perfect right to hold
him responsible for what he stated when a Methodist
preacher. A change from positive belief to disbe lief does not change historic truths into falsehoods.
Calvinism and Armninianismn are points of specu lative theology, adopted without evidence and may
be abandoned without reason. It would be unrea sonable to hold a man responsible for his opinions,
49 
50     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
while every man should be held responsible for his
faith.
On the same ground on which my friend dis claims what I have read, or may hereafter read from
his writings, a man might claim to be exonerated
from the payment of a debt. He might, with equal
propriety, say, I was a Christian when I contracted
that debt; I am an infidel now, and ought to be dis charged from the obligation. I ask, is it not true that
the  unbelievers  of "each succeeding  age" have
changed their mnode of opposition to Christianity?
Mr. Barker says: "The objections of each preceding age have been abandoned by the unbelievers of
each succeeding age."  Was my friend ignorant of
the history of infidelity in 1844? or did he act the
part of a "lying priest?"   Surely  not.   I will
not charge him with doing so, though he did belong
to that priesthood, of which he has given a terrible
picture.
But, Mr. Barker said, "that the Jewish priesthood were the children of the Devil, and that Christ
called them so."  This is foreign to the question.
If God had communicated to us through the Scribes
and Pharisees, then this remark would have some
point. Did Jesus Christ call Moses and the Prophets
children of the Devil? Did he thus designate those
whom God had appointed as the mediums of divine
communications? And even suppose-there were some
among them who were not good men, for we claim
that God could appoint fallible men as instruments, 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
by which he could impart infallible instruction,
otherwise, he could not have spoken by man to man
for the benefit of man.  This point has no bearing in
the present controversy.
The Bible has a positive existence. Portions of it
hiave existed for three thousand three hundred and
forty-four years; the whole of it, in its present form,
has existed for seventeen hundred a ndjlfty-seven years.
Now, the question arises, how came it into existence?
We have not come to the question of its transmission. The source from which it was derived is one
thing, the medium of communication another. But,
Mr. Barker says, " all we have to sustain our position, is other's people's word - hear-say - and this
is not reliable."  Is human testimony unworthy of
rational belief in any case?  I will ask the audience
whether they believe there were such men as the
Cesras, Alexander or Napoleon?  I ask, what is
the strength of your belief in history, as to the existence of these persons?  Is it but a weak and faltering faith? have you any mental dubiety as to this belief? For myself, I have none. I know of nothing
that could strengthen my conviction; even sight
could not. I can no more doubt that such i-en lived
than I can doubt that I stand before you. I have the
same mental and moral assurance of the one as of the
other.
But, Ir.' Barker says, " the early Christians were
liars. " Were the early Christians liars? Did their
enemies so regard them?  We will hear Mr. Barker
51 
*52    DEFENSE OF THIE BIBILE AGAINST THE
to this point:  "Christianity Triumphant," page
165.
The early Christians were celebrated for their sacred regard to
truth; and Pliny, in his letter to Trojan, mentioned it as one of
the peculiarities by which the Christians were distinguished, that
they bound themselves not to deceive any one, nor to deny any thing
entrusted to them, when called to restore it to its owner. The
Christians of old, says Cave, looked upon honesty and an upright
carriage as a considerable part of their religion, and to speak the
truth, and to keep their words, to perform their promises, and to
act sincerely in all their dealings were as sacred and dear to them
as their lives. They even used the greatest candor and simplicity
in expressing their minds to one another, not pretending what was
false, nor concealing what was true.  Yea, yea and nay, nay was
the usuual measure of their transactions.
His last discourse would not have been a very good
preface for the book from which we have just now
read. Either the author or disputant is under some
misapprehension. The disputant, upon the authority
of Joseph Barlker alone, says, "that the early Christians were liars; " but the author says, upon the testimony of Pliny, one of the early enemies and persecutors, " that they were not liars." Is he sure that
those lying professors, to whom he referred, were
Christians?  If he will refer us to the chapter and
verse where either Jesus or the Apostles have approved of, or justified lying, then his argument will
be to the purpose. -He ought to be more careful how
he charges men with being liars: and if he proves
them such, and calls them Christians, then we demand
of him the proof that they are Christians   If he can
prove this he has made an argument, and-we will honestly confess the fact, that a man may be both a Christian and a liar. We have received our religion from 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
Jesus and the Apostles.  Were they liars?  We will
hear Mr. Barker again to this point. " Christian,"
Vol. 1, page 19.
(Infidels) "cannot prove that the men who wrote the Gospels,
the Acts, and the Epistles were not good men,-men of truth and
integrity,-men of purity and charity."
I am sure Mr. Barker was not a Methodist preacher
when hewrote this book. Can he prove that Christ
and the Apostles were liars, now?  Hie shall have the
opportunity; and as soon as he shall have done this,
I shall give ip the controversy.
I will now speak a few words in the way of defining my propositiori.  The proposition is, "That the
Jewish and Christian Scriptures contain a series
of communications, supernaturally revealed and miraculously attested, from the latter, man may acquire
a perfect rule of life. " 1st, It is not at all necessary
that I should go into all these explanations called for
by my friend. When I use language, I wish it under stood that I suppose those who hear me have common
sense. I use language in its common acceptation.
When I use the word "supernatural " or the phrase
" supernaturally revealed,"I wish to be understood
as Bible believers have generally understood and ap plied these words.  I use the word" miraculous " in
its current meaning, according to the standards of
our language.
2d. With reference to the second part of the propo sition (for it contains two affirmatives,) my friend
ought to award me some credit for being willing to
53 
54     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
take two affirmatives, when he refused taking one.
The second member of the proposition reads thus
" from the latter, man may acquire a perfect rule of
life."  The word acgure, I put into the proposition
for the purpose of meeting the issue raised in the
Bible Convention, otherwise I should have written it,
"In the latter, man hs a perfect rule of life."
Perhaps Mr. Barker will ask whether every man
has this perfect rule of life in the New Testament.
I answer: every man, who is a proper subject of
moral government, just as far as he has a capacity to
understand the will of God, and to do it, has a perfect
rule of life in the Christian Scriptures.
By a perfect rule of life, I understand that which
reveals to man his relations, duties and destiny, for
nothing less than this would constitute such a rule
as would convey to man the needful instruction.  I
think this sufficient at present, by way of defining a
perfect rule of life. Many other things in my friend's
address may come up at another time; such as his
dash at Abraham, and the character of some of the
Old Testament Saints.
I am not required to defend the character of Abraham, or the absolute morality of the Law of Moses.
The proposition does not make any such demand
upon me.  I heard my friend in the Bible Convention
in November last, and I saw thie many false issues
he was raising in relation to this question. I saw it
then, and I wish it understood now, that I am under
no obligation to show the absolute perfection of the 
CHAIRGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
Old Testament Scriptures, in order to sustain my
proposition, "that the Scriptures contain a series of
communications supernaturally revealed, and that in
the N~ew Testament we have a perfect rule of life."
I am willing to defend the Old Testament Scriptures, or the Old Testament writers, when we shall
have come to the right place-when we enter upon the
second feature of the proposition, namely: that in the
New Testament mail has a perfect rule of life.
We will now proceed to offer an argument in defense of the proposition, that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures contain a series of communications
supernaturally revealed and miraculously attested.
Argument 1st: On the authenticity of the 07ld Te8                tament Scriptures.
The word authenticity as defined by Walker and
Webster, means authority: genuineness: the quantity of being authentic: of established authority for
truth and correctness.
This, however, will only apply to the people who
receive it as such, for many books are regarded as
authentic, and yet not entitled to credit in all their
pretensions.
Take for example the Book of Mormon, or the Koran.
No one questions the truthfulness of these documents.
They are every way reliable as to the origin of the
religious systems they contain.- Neither can we account for the rise and spread of Mormonism in America and Europe, and Mahometanism in the East,
without acknowledging them to be truthful docu
55 
56     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
ments as to the origion of these frauds. It is true
that in thus admitting the authenticity of the Koran
we do not admit that Mahomet made several trips to
Hieaven and back again, borne upon his steed Borak.
"Volney's Buins," page 96.
"The supreme bounty had itself written the pages of the Koran:
then explaining the particular dogmas of Islamism, the Imam
unfolded how the Koran, partaking of the divine nature, was in create and eternal, like its author: how it had been sent leaf by
leaf in twenty-four thousand nocturnal apparitions of the angel
Gabriel: how the angel announced himself by a gentle knocking,
which threw the prophet into a cold sweat; how, in the vision of
one night, he had traveled over ninety Heavens, riding on the ani mal Borak, half a horse and half a woman."
It is true that these pretensions were made; but it
is not true that these things transpired; therefore we
say that the Koran is an authentic record with refer ence to that embodiment of religious faith, yet in many
of its statements not entitled to credit. But did not
the people who received it acknowledge its authority
Do they not regard it as genuine? This is true with
regard to many other books.
Hlow are we to account for the spread of Mormonism in the United States and in Europe, without acknowledging the authenticity of the book of Mormon?  I cannot account for its prevalence, or even
for its existence without this; perhaps  MIr. Barker
can. I can neither account for the existence of Mormonism nor Mahometanism without acknowledging
the authenticity of both these books; that they are
true and faithful reports of two systems of religous
imposition, and yet unworthy of credit.
Why say unworthy of credit? you ask.   We reply, 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
because they are wanting in the necessary credentials
to prove them of divine or supernatural origin. Do
you  ask  what these credentials are? We answer;
They are, 1st, Prophecy; 2d, Miracles; with certain
corresponding results. " Faber's Difficulties of Infidelity," page 170.
" They say; We will by no means believe on thee, until thou
cause a spring of water to gush forth for us out of the earth; or
thou have a garden of palm-trees and vines, and thou cause rivers
to spring forth from the midst thereof in abundance; or thou cause
the Heavens to fall down upon us, as thou hast given out, in pieces;
or thou bring down God and the angels to vouch for thee; neither
will we believe thy ascending thither, alone, until thou cause a
book to descend unto us, bearing witness of thee, which we may
read. Answer: My Lord be praised! Am I other than a man,
sent as an apostle? And nothing hindereth man from believing,
when a direction is come unto them, except, that they say: Hiath
God sent a man for his apostle?  Say: God is a sufficient witness
between me and you; for he knoweth and regardeth his servants.
[Koran, chap. 17.] They have sworn by God, by the most solemn
oath, that if a sign come unto them they would certainly believe
therein.  Say: Verily signs are in the power of God alone; and
he pgrmitteth you not to understand, that, when they come, they
will not believe.  [Koran, chap. 6.]
Neither the Jewish nor the Christian religion stand
wholly upon Prophecy —neither wholly upon Miracle.
They stand upon  both these, and upon  more  than
these. They, also, rest with ponderous weight upon
the internal evidence,-the fruits they produce.
It is a fact that Mahometanism, in its moral and
practical tendencies, is unworthy of God. Its results are mischievous. It is the patron of ignorance,
superstition and crime, of which its entire history is
ample proof.   [ " Volney's Ruins," page 86.]
"And this religion (Mahlomet's,) has not ceased to deluge the
earth in blood. Read the history of Islamism, by its own writers,
and you will be convinced that one of the principle causes of the
57 
5:8      DEFENSE OF TIIE BIBLE AGAINST THE
wars which has desolated Asia and Africa, since the days of Ma homet, has been the apostolical fanaticism of its doctrine."
Miracles, however, were never designed to make
men Christians. Theobject of miracles was to secure
for the truth a hearing. They have no power to
make men Christians.  But more of this at another
time.
We say, then, that Judaism had a positive and
authoritative existence for a period of ffteen hundred
yeas8, from Moses to Jesus Christ.  It had certain
public religious observances, as the Pentecost, Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, &c. These imply:
First: That there is a cause and reason to which'
they owe their origin.
Second: That there was a time when they commenced.
Third: That there is a place where they began to
be observed. 
Fourth: That there is a person, or, that there are
persons who are mainly instrumental in establishing
this system of Religion, with all its forms of worship.
These things enter into the very existence of every
Religion, whether true or false, no matter when or
whence they originate. This is true of all organizations and associations. It is true of civilgovernment;
it is true of our own government. There was a time
when Judaism had no visible existence; a time when
it began.  There is, also, a reason, —a cause for its
existence.  It was brought into existence by some per 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
son or persons. The same is true of the Temperance
organization. There is a reason for its formation
and existence. There was a time when it began.
It owes its existence to six reformed drunkards.
[Half hour up, but by agreement of both the Chairman and Mr. Barker, Mr. lIartzel continued for
twenty minutes longer.]
I will not, then, enlarge upon the argument as I intended, but will hasten, though leisurely. The things
named, we say, enter into every religion, true or
false. These are vital points.
The authenticity of any historical religion is a
simple question offact, to be submitted to testimony,
the only question being as to who are competent witnIesses.
We offer then, in defente of the authenticity of the
Jewish Scriptures
1st. Their own sacred Historians, Poets, and Prophets as competent witnesses.
2d. We offer the writings of Josephus in defense
of the authenticity of the sacred Books found in the
Bible.
3d. We  offer "Letters of certain Jews to Monsieur Voltaire, containing an apology for their own
people and for the Old Testament;" a respectable
volume, not only for its truthfulness, but, also, for its
literary character. It was written in answer to Voltaire.
4th. We offer all the New Testament writers, eight
in number. All these concur in the most explicit
59 
60     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
statements and base their historic facts upon the following admissions:
First. That their religion was derived from a supernatural source- that God himself was the cause
and reason of it- that by a series of miracles wrought
by the hand of his servant Moses, he brought about
their emancipation from slavery, and destroyed their
oppressors - that they were sustained by constant
miracle for the space of forty years.
Second: That their religion began when God took
them by the hand to lead them out of the land of
Egypt, in the days of the Egyptian Pharoahs.
Third: That the law was given during their sojourn-in the wilderness. Deuteronomy being a recapitulation of it.
Fourth: That Moses was the man chosen of God
to be their deliverer and law-giver.  That he confirmed his mission and authority by signs and wonders, in the presence of their fathers, Pharoah and
his court.
So far as I know, all these witnesses agree.  If
there are any dissenters among them, my opponent
will, of course, bring them forward.
We say, then, briefly, that the Passover was appointed in Egypt. That the children of Israel first
observed this feast on the night of their exodus. That
God on that night slew the first born of Egypt. Then
we have the dividing of the Red Sea, the deliverance
of Israel, the destruction of the Egyptians, the pillar
of cloud by day, and of fire by night, the giving of
the law upon Sinai, their idolatry.  Here let me men 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
tion a singular fact. Josephus, in his account, passes
over one case of idolatry; it is that of their making
the molten calf. Josephus, it seems, was not fireproof, and shrank from recording this most scandalous procedure.  Poor, weak human  nature!  Nothing seems to be so onerous as to be compelled to
testify to the disgrace of our fathers. Family pride,
and a thousand other elements of man's nature operate against it. But the sacred writers tell the whole
story. Moses records it in all its disgraceful particulars, and does not seem disposed to hide any of its
deformed features. We must admit that in one particular Josephus failed to record the whole truth, but
in the main, he agrees exactly with the other witnesses
to which we have referred.
But, to proceed with our summary, we may name
the frequent apostacies of the Israelites, God's judgments, fiery serpents, brazen serpents, dividing of the
Jordan, the falling of the walls of Jericho, the division of the land -giving none to the tribe of Levi.
This is but a summary, while they agree in a thousand other particulars.  There is one point in this
argument that must not be overlooked, namely: That
the New Testament writers and the unbelieving Jews
were much engaged in controversies about things
contained in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms.
Both parties appealed to these documents, and claimed
them as authentic records. It would have been impossible to have submitted the Old Testament to a
more severe test.  Jesus Christ made some humilia
61 
62     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
ting applications to the Jews of their own Scriptures.
Speaking to the Jewish nation, he says:  "Do not
think that I will accuse you to the Father, there is
one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom you
trust; for had you believed Moses you would have
believed me, for he wrote of me.?   Again:  " Did
not Mloses give you the Law? and not one of you
keepeth the law. Why do you go about to kill
me?"
As Jesus did, so did the Apostles.  They turned
the Old Testament Scriptures directly against their
adversaries, the Jews; maintained the Gospel, and
that Jesus of Nazereth, whom they had crucified,
was the Messiah, by an appeal to their own sacred
Books. Now if these had ever been contested documents, why appeal to them?  Would I be likely to
appeal to a contested document, between by friend
and myself-one which we both admit to be of
doubtful authority?  It would be vain for me to
hope to sustain myself by such an appeal. But when
the Savior made an appeal to the Jewish Scriptures,
if the authenticity of these had been disputed in that
nation, would they not have thrown off that humiliating application?  " Moses gave you the Law, and
not one of you keepeth the Law; why then do you
go about to kill me?"  And so in many other cases,
might not a Jew have said: " Your animadversions
have fallen upon a contested point. We, as a nation, are not satisfied that Moses was the author of
our Law. This question has never been settled. We 
CIHARGES OF MODERN  INFIDELITY.
have always been in doubt as to whether Moses was
the author of the Pentateuch."
Now, if my friend will bring testinmlony bearing
upon this point, in opposition to the view we have
taken, we will give him credit for it. Our object is
to prove that the Jewish nation acknowledged tho
authenticity of their own sacred Books. The Jews aro
the Christians' librarians, the keepers of the documents by which the divine character of the Christian
RPeligion is established.
Our conclusions from the argument we have offered, are:
1st. That all religious usages are public monuments of facts.
2d. That  they  are,  therefore, standing  proofs
through all successive time, that the persons whose
memory they thus embalm, and the events they thus
record, did once actually exist, and therefore are entitled to credit.
Can the origin of Judaism be accounted for without acknowledging the authenticity of their sacred
Books?  Can its continued existence for ffteen hundred years be accounted for without acknowledging
the authenticity of their Scriptures?  This is a matter that admits of great amplification. For if the
Old Testament is authentic, which we think is
proved, then it follows that their religion was communicated to them by God himself.  The religion
is either from God, or it is the most stupendous falsehood. If it is not divine, the authors have written
63 
64     DEFENSE OF TIlE BIBLE AGAINST TIE
the basest lies. To fabricate such a story as the destruction of the first-born in Egypt, or the passage of
the Red Sea, with the destruction of Pharoah and
his hosts, would, at least, be to invent most extraordinary falsehoods: for these are events in relation to
which there could be no possibility of mistake. No
trickster-no magician could have made the people
believe that they had passed the Red Sea, while, at
the same time, they were remaining in Egyptian
slavery; nor that they saw Pharoah and his hosts
overwhelmed in the waters of the Red Sea, when,
in fact, nothing of the kind had taken place, I ask,
could the people be thus deceived? We admit that
men can be deceived in many things, but not in matters of that character. - Could the people think they
looked upon Sinai when in fact they did not?  The
account is either true, or it is a prodiqious lie.  So
with reference to a hundred other things. The facts
must have occurred, or the statements of the writers
must have been wilful falsehoods. But I will close
my remarks for the present, by offering the testimony
of an infidel writer and traveler, with regard to the
authenticity of the Pentateuch. The work from which
I read, is, "Volney's Ruins," page 33.
" This stream of water without an issue is the river Jordan, and
these naked rocks were once the theatre of events which have re
sounded through the world. Behold that desert of Horeb, and that
Mount Sinai, where, by means unknown to the vulgar, a profound
and adventurous leader created institutions whose influence cx:,ended to the whole lhuman race."
I-ow has it reached the whole human family?  We
'uswer, first, by the knowledge of God, imparted 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
through these institutions; they being disseminated,
to some extent, throughout the human family.
Second: " Influences have extended to all mankind"
in the consummation of that religion; for the Jewish religion was never consummated till the Gospel, in all
its glory and majesty, went forth to bear the message
of joy and salvation to the world. What is Christianity?  It is Judaism perfected-it is prophecy fulfilled-it is the type fulfilled by its corresponding
antitype it is Moses removed and Jesus filling his
place. " The -Lord thy God will raise up unto thee,
a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like
unto me; unto him ye shall hearken."  " The voice
crying in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the
Lord."  When the Gospel came in all its fulness and
glory, Judaism waned.
It is then, the testimony of Volney, this most
learned infidel, that the institutions, created by
Moses, " extended to the whole human race."  How
were they created? He says, " by means unknown to
the vulgar."  Now what does he mean by the vulgar? He meant, ofcourse, the Jewish people. Volney was a full-blooded infidel, and, like other infidels, would deny everything and affirm nothing;
make certain -things doubtful, and nothing clear.
"By means unknown to the vulgar." This language
is characteristic of infidelity. Does he say who the
vulgar were?  Were they Jews or Gentiles?  Was he
one of them?  iHe is guarded;  a- is implication and
3
65
0 
66     DEFENSE OF THE BBLE AGAINST THE
insinuation. Oh shame! Where is your candor?
Where is your compassion for the ignorant and erring, with all your boasted infidelity? The world is
deceived; you have the means of undeceiving them,
and you -vill not do it. Hle knew thousands were as
vulgar as I am, who did believe these stories; yet his
benevolent soul would not impart the necessary information; for if Volney did not know the means by
which Moses accomplished his purposes, how does lihe
know that the means by which he created these institutions were unknown to the vulgar?
MR.'HARTZEL'S TIhIRD ADDRESS.
The point in the address to which we have listened, if there be a point, was quite similar to his
last speech of yesterday. - The speaker seems to aim
at this-to destroy all confidence in human testimony, and thus deprive man of one of the two great
guiding principles with which his Creator has endowed him, namely:  aith and reason.  Faith and
reason are sisters they are twin sisters, only faith
is the first-born. We believe before we reason. I
do not say we believe before we /ave reason; for the
fact is, that belief upon testimony pre-supposes that
we have reason. But we believe before we can reason,
from premises to conclusions, for it is by the exercise
of faith, that reason is enlightened and matured. If 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
the child could not believe that fire would burn-that
deep water would drown-that poison would destroy
'its life, it would be difficult to save infancy from
premature death. In that case reason would have
to be enlightened by experience, and experience
would be fatal.
It is true that he that believeth not shall be destroyed. (It is true with reference to the present
life,) and in the Gospel, " he that believeth not shall
be damned." Neither can man be educated without
faith. Suppose the abecedarian could not believe
the first letter in the alphabet was A. The reason
why it was A could not be explained upon philosophical principles. ie has not reason enough to be
convinced of this-to be shown why the first letter
is A, and the second B. Hie must receive this with
implicit faith, in the confidence he has in his preceptor.
There are three different states of mind, described
by the three following terms: Knowlege, faith andopinion. These are the result of differentdegrees of evidence.
The frst, is the testimony of our own senses; the
second, the indubitable testimony of others, verbal
or written; the third, is the result of testimony not
quite reliable.  To make myself understood, let me
give a few examples.
First. I know there is a material universe-I know
I am in this hall, that there is an audience before me.
composed of men and women. These are matters of
perception, of observation, and, therefore, belong to
individual experience.
67 
68      DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIHE
Second. I believe that Julius Cesar was emperor of
Rome; that Napoleon died in exile; that Cyrus, the
Mede, conquered Babylon; that Victoria is now Queen
of England; that which was once the experience of
some-the present observation of others is now my
faith. 
We do not know that there was such a man  as
Julius Cesar, that there was such a man as Napoleon
Bonaparte; or such cities as Babylon, Thebes, Rome,
or Ninevah.  These belong to the domain of faith.
We rest upon the conviction as true and certain,
and we feel the same amount of moral certainty, with
regard to these persons and places, as we can feel with
reference to our being within these walls.
I do not say that every item in history is reliable.
We take no such position.  But because there are
a few inaccuracies in history, and historians differ a
little in details, shall we, therefore, say that history
is always untrustworthy, and thus destroy all confid,mce in that portion of history which is susceptible
of. satisfactory proof? It is not a matter of knowledge
that Jesus Christ rose frcam the dead, (it was to some
of the first Christians.) That belongs to faith.
Third. Opinion doubtful testimony-amounting
only to probability. There are many theologians
who suppose that Melehisedec, King of Salem, was
one of the sons of Noah. Others, that he was no
other that Noah himself. This is but opinion, and
will forever remain opinion until we have certain
evidence, then it will be faith. Again: there are
many things in nature concerning which we can only 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
form an opinion. It is the opinion of some that the
moon is a world similar to that which we inhabit.
That it is the abode of living beings; that there are
lakes, and rivers, and mountains on it; but this is
opinion, not faith, supported by analogy only. Men
can reason beautifully from analogy; but analogy
proves nothing, and can only produce that state of
mind designated by the word opinion.  In matters
purely secular we are often compelled to act upon
opinion, or on the stronger probability. I wish here to
read Alr. Barker's distinction between faith and
opinion. lHe says: [" Christian," Vol. 1, page 2'4.]
"My opinions are always undergoing some change; so that if I
were to take to myself a name from my opinions, I must be frequently changing  my name.  But while my opinions undergo
changes, my faith, my hope, my love remain the same; and the NAME
CaRISrIAN serves me to the last. Again; if I take to myself a
name from any of my opinions, I identify myself with all who hold
that opinion; and cut myself off from all who do not hold it. I
know no opinion which may not be held by BAD men; and I do
not consider it proper to identify myself with bad men.  And I
know no opinion which may not be rejected by good men,-by
Godly believers in Christ; and I consider it not right to cut myself
off from the fellowship of any that are truly Christians. Besides,
if I give myself a name derived from any particular opinion, and
so identify myself with all who hold it, I am quickly made answerable for all the other opinions, which are held by such men, as
well as for all their vices."
With reference to opinions, therefore, in matters
purely religious, we have little to do.  There aresuch
things in the Bible. With regard to these we will say
"let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
-But all the items of Christia-faith and practice are so
clearly defined, that he that "runs mlay read."
We are compelled to rest upon testimony, which
69 
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
is but another word for faith, in many of the importzat. affairs of the present life. We act more frequently upon faith than upon knowledge, and the
reason. of this is, that we believe more than we know.
This mn st always be the case in the present world.
Mr. Barker himself is compelled to act upon faith in
his efforts to benefit human kind; for, some how or
other, little confidence as he has in human testimony,
little as he seems to have in human integrity, he has
wrought himself up to the belief that by his repeated
thrusts at religion, he will become the savior of the
world and of his race; redeem us froim superstition,
and remove that mighty weight which crushes humanity; namely, a superstitious belief in the Bible.
I cannot bult admire my friend's zeal; it is worthy of
imitation, and, in my humble opinion, -a better cause.
If, then, faith is of.uch transcendant importance,
as we have already shown, in all that pertains to human conduct in the affairs of the present life, even
the most important, is it, therefore, marvelous, that
God should have pitched our salvation upon this
principle? It is a beautiful axiom of the New Testament, that Chrtstians " walk by faith, not by sight."
Our reason examines the testimony, and our credulity
receives t/he truth upon the recommendation of reason.
Now the man-believes; now he feels; now he acts,
if the testimony is that kind which calls for action.
I said we believed more than we know. Our knowledge
is our own experience. It is what has passed under
our own observation. " By faith we understand that
70 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
the worlds were made by the word of God;" what
others heard and saw from the beginning of the
world is our faith, so far as history has transmitted
their experience. Deprive me of faith and you deprive me of all the experience land observation of
others, and the best means of improvement. This
cannot be done:-yes it can be done.  Our friend is
a living example of its truth. Those who were present yesterday and heard his discourse, want no
further proof that it can be done; and, for the benefit
of those who were not in yesterday, we shall simply
say, that he has no confidence in the testimony of
Christians none in the Bible-none in ecclesiastical history-none in his own; for, if I mistake not,
hlie did concede, that, while he was an itinerating
Methodist preacher, he did lie.
Mr. Barker. I certainly did not concede anything
of the kind.
Mr. Hartzel. IIe disclaims it; but if my  ears
deceived me, mine were not the only ears that were
deceived. Mr. Barker has, at least, very little confidence in his own testimony, or that of others. We
ask him to be consistent, and shake out of his mind
al] that yet remains of historic information, as a man
would shake the dust out of his garments.  This done,
then let him make a net estimate of the capital stock
on hand. I judge his head would be as anl emptied
vessel, comparatively.
We thank Hieaven that this wayward skepticism is
wholly impracticable. We do receive the testimony
71 
72     DEFENSE OF TIE BIBLE AGAINST THE
of men; we could neither live in, nor enjoy society
without giving credence to human testimony.
Mr. Barker says that, " owing to man's propensity
to falsifiy, we cannot place confidence in what men
have spoken or written."  rell, then, there may have
been such a man as Napoleon, or there nmay not. He
may have been a great general, and emperor, or he
may not; he may have died in exile or he may not.
So of all men, great and small, whose names have
been handed down to posterity. Why these universal sweeping calumnies? It is true he did say this
morning that there were some good men among Chris
*Bible, or "the Book, " so called by way of eminence. We do ot here enquire whence
came it, but what is it? what is it to me? In a certain sense it is history, all history to
me.  Its truths, facts, doctrines, statutes, ordinances,  precepts, promises, thireatenings,
*  together with all the personalities-however awful in name-  divinely glorious in char   acter, or those of more humble title and character inferior, all come to me in the form of
history.
History may be simple or complex. The history of Dr. Johnson, by Boswell, is the
history of an individual, and, therefore, simple. But the history of the Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Esq., is the history of Empires,
Governments, Subjects, Revolutions, etc., hence its complexity. The Bible, like the
latter, is not the history of an individual in his DRA.ATIC EXISTENCE; but the history
of God and man, in their relations and doings.  This would be the impression made upon
the unsophisticated mindfrim the opening of the book.  In the first chapter, God has
but the one title, God, and is represented as Creator only.  In the second, we find Lord
as a prefix.  "Lord, a mast er, a person possessing supreme power and authority, a
ruler, a governor."  "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of
the Garden thoumayest freelyv eat. "  Gen. 2, 16.
The word LORD, i          n its i ntroduction, is significant of a new relation.  We  have, then,
in the literal use of t.hese divine titles, the parties in the history, and their relative posi   tion to each other.  God, Creator, Man, the Creature.  "And the Lord God command   ed, " possessing supreme authlority, Man, th         e humble subject.
What would we expect a faithtul history to be, when such are the parties?  If, in its
details, we should find nothing but what is perfect, divine, Godlike, we should'be led to
suspect that we had not understood the title-page, or the work  was a fraud, or as PER
CONTRA, if we should find nothing in the book but the weakness, imperfections, follies,
wickedness, incident to humanity, (or humanity in its best developements) we would sMy
the e is some misunderstanding, or deception, for the book does not fil. the terms of the
pro spectus.
A f       ew words, then, in regard to the contents of this history.  (Our space forbids even
a summary.)  God, as Creator, is Proprietor; as Lord, he is moral  Governor; has the
right to act legislatively, judicially, executively; also, as the instructor, (not of his
brute offspring, governed by instinct,) but his rational offspring-the creature of edo   cation, capable of intellectual and moral improvement. Now, let the reader look at man
in all these implied relations, dependencies, liabilities, etc.  In  all equitable govern   ments, human and divine, are first, the capability of humble acquiescing obedience, and
second, the fearful liability of revolt and rebellion - "FOR tIE THAT CANNOT FALL CAN   NOT STAND," and vice versa.  This is true in all governmental relations.
In the historical details of the Bible are brought together the infinite and  the finite,
the perfect and the imperfect in their widest range, with all their inequalities and dis   proportions,  We  would expect few parallels and many contrasts   The writers, in 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
tians. I listened yesterday for something of the
kind; but he made no exceptions. The direction of
these eccentric views in relation to history, both
sacred and profane, is quite obvious.  If human testimony is reliable in human affairs, why not in things
religious and divine? It is necessary to invalidate it
in order to deprive the Bible of the benefit of that
source of evidence. So infidels begin by doubting
first the truth of human testimony, when it bears
upon unwelcome truth; and secondly they doubt its
credibility in the common occurrences of life, for the
sake of self defense.  These are but the different
passing from the one to the other, would introduce the extremes that exist between the
parties; now a display of the divine, then of the human, with all their differential and
characteristic peculiarities.      -'
This view accounts for many things supposed'to be objectionable in the subject matter
of the volume. The perfect and the imperfect, the sublime and the ridiculous, the glori eous and the inglorious are found upon the same page of necessity.
God's effrt to instruct man, and man's waywardness to receice instruction.  God's
laws and man's violations. God's judicial proceedings, both for the benefit of the offender and the vindication of his own government.  Here we see God and man in loving
peace and amity, and there in awful co nflict; ow enjoying the smiles of his beneficent
countenance, and thenfeeling his chastening rod for diciplinary purposes  and  admonitory examples to others.  Herewe seeman under different'dispensations- different degrees of light and moral training
To close these hints to the reader, let me briefly state, that, on account of the great
antiquity of the book, the great brevity of its early portions, the variety of design, the
differe'-t per sonalities appearing upon the stage, each casting his own shadow upon the
canvas, and its wide expanse str.tching over the world's entire history, to the morning
of creation, when time, like a diverging ray of light, sprang from the bosom of eternity,
then forward to th     e orld's evening, when her last sun shall set and time shall  be no
more,  the Bible has a complexily not found in any olther book.
These things taken into the account, (and the candid will consider them) many of the
supposed contradictions vaish, and others are easily reconciled-  Hiuch that appears to
us' gross in the oniduc.t of th, ancients, and uncouth in conversation, is palliated, and
in many instances justified, withot license or detriment  to those  livingnder a dispensation of clearer light and a more full revelation of duty* "where much is given, much
vill be required."
God, occupyinga place so conspicuous in the Bible, reconciles the contradiction of
all contradictions, namely: the concessions that all leading infides make in favor of the
Bible.  As I have one before m. I will transcribe it: " The  Bible is pervaded by a
sentiment whilch is implied everywhere, n,mely: THE SYMPATHY OF THE PURE AND
PERIF.ECT GOD WITH THE HEART OF EACH FAITHFUL WORSllIPE-. This is that which is
wanting in the Greek Plilosophers, English I)eists, German Pantheisto, and all formalists.  This is that which so often edifies me in Christian  writers and speakers, when I
ever so mich DISBELIEVE THE LETTER OF THEIR SENTENCES. "' This concession in favor
of the Bible, Christian writers and speakers, and  condemnation of English Deism,
Greek Philosophy, &C., is from the pen of Hr. Newman, one of the German  Neologists.
See Phases, page 188S.
,Sivil'ir conrei-ssions are foulld in all popular infidel books.  8nich ailnissions, roming
from such a source are honorable to the Bible, and would he ineplicable upon any other
rinciple than, that the infidel himself HEARS GOD, SEES GOD, FEELS Gon to be revealed
In the Bible, as he is inowiere: else.
73 
74     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
stages on the road that leads to sheer atheism, until
the madman says in his heart " there is no God."
We have an illustration of this in our friend Barker. He has told us how he passed on from one step.
to another in unbelief, until he has reached his present position. And, I fear, his rapid progress will
carry him still farther. I do not know where he will
stop, but I am sure our friend is a locomotive of more
than ordinary speed.
But Christians " receive the witness of men: the
witness of God is still greater." Christians have
the benefit of the experience and observation of the
whole world for their text-book, and all they can acquire by their own efforts. And yet they are not the
most credulous people in the world. - I think infidels
are, in many cases, as credulous as Christians, and
can believe on as weak evidence; indeed, I think
many of them are more credulous. I ask, who have
been the foremost, for the last ten or fifteen years, to
go into the most extravagant delusions, receiving
them as true? Hiave they not, upon the weakest testimony, been the first to run after the various forms
of modern necromancy, and spir  rappings   Are
they not more credulous in matters of that kind than
Christians-?
"The Bible," he says, "stands in the way of
human improvement." We call for the proof. If
our friend had not anticipated on this point, we should
have called him out upon this subject in the second
feature of our proposition, namely, "that in the 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
Christian Scriptures man has a perfect rule of life."
Hie says that his father regarded every word in the
Bible as true and divine; as the word of God, and
he was taught to believe so. Well, I cannot be held
responsible forhis blunders, or what his father taught
him. I do not know one intelligent Christian, who
believes that the Bible is unqualifiedly the word of
God. I may say of McIlvaine, Horne, Campbell, and
all the defenders of the truth of the Bible, who are
entitled to respect, do not hold to this view which
Mr. Barker says has been generally taught; and the
same is true of all Bible defenders of any credit.
A word as to translations, and the manner in which
the Bible has been translated. I must say to my friend
that he has anticipated a little too far.  The origin of
the Bible is the question at present. When the other
shall come up in logical order we shall be ready to
meet it. I will, however, notice a remark on different
readings. He says there are one hundred and fifty
thousand different readings of the Bible. This is a
great number. I ask, do these different readingsmere verbal differences in the translations of certain
portions of the Bible, necessarily effect its authenticity?  I acknowledge there are different readings,
but I deny the number given. The authorities do not
give so many.  Some of them say twenty thousandsome of them twenty-four thousand.  But what then?
Does it follow that the Book is not entitled to credit?
I ask in the first place, whether the same things may
not be told in different words? Different words may
be selected to tell the same story, yet both forms be
75 
76     DEFENSE QF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIIHE
strictly true. We have many different ways in writing the same thing in our own language. We have
many words that convey the same idea, and many
others, with only shades of difference which, when
placed ih certain connections, have the same meaning. Once we spelled favour, now favor; Savi?our
now Savior; labour now  labor.  Once we spelled
antient, now ancient. There have been great cha.ges
in the orthography of our language, but I ask whether
thesehave effected any important change in the grammer of our language?  So there are these different
readings, we admit; but we deny the legitimacy of
Mlr. Barker's reasonings.  Mr. Barker says there are
a great many different versions of the Bible. I grant
it. I have two on the stand.  Let my friend take
two or three approved versions, such as have been
approved by Protestant Christendom, and compare
their different readings for our enlightenment, and let
the audience judge of the merits of these verbal differences in the present issue.
MR. HIARTZEL'S FOURTH ADDRESS.
I claim I have the right to introduce any individual as a witness. If I can employ my opponent as
a witness to establish my position, I will do so. I
said yesterday that I did not hold him responsible on
any scholastic question; or any question of specula 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
tive theology; but that I would hold: him responsible
on questions of historic fact, or references made in
his own writings to history, for the purpose of establishing and sustaining the position which he occupied while he was a minister. I say so still. Mr.
Barker says the sacred historians are not "' competent witnesses."  In this, however, he has only followed in the track of his predecessors, for they have
always labored to discredit sacred history. Suppose
we were discussing some question involving English
institutions; what historians would we rely upon?
Would we rely upon German historians only, in
things appertaining to the early existence of English
institutions, or, would we go to the French-writers to
decide upon English customs and usages? Certainly
not.  We could not reject all English writers -those
who lived at the very time the events transpired, or
those of the next subsequent period- and seek in
the writings of other nations the true history of English institutions, and how. they were brought into
existence.  But, in some instances, we would prize
English history more than French or German, supposing that all were relating facts highly disreputall
to the nation.  I ask, whether we would not ],lyve
more confidence in the English historians thian either
the French or the Germuan, though all related the
same things? The latter would have no sacrifices to
make.
The writers, both of the Old and New Testamejt,
have detailed matters disreputable to their own pc( —
77 
78  DEFENSE O1P Ti  BIBLE AGAINST THE
ple.  I ask, whether this should not be received as
additional testimony of their integrity?
The Papacy, our friend says, has an existence. We
agree in this. But how can we account for that existence without acknowledging history to be authentic and reliable?
We did not say that the religion of the Jews, as a
whole, began in a day; we only say that it had a
beginning, and that it dated its commencement in
Egypt; that the Law was given during their forty
years sojourn in the wilderness.
With regard to the magicians, referred to by my
opponent, I did not expect to hear that old infidel
hobby from him.  We had a right to expect something new and original from him, after his declaration " that infidels had abandoned all the arguments
of their predecessors."  IHe must have been either
ignorant or dishonest when he declared that fact to
the world.  I am not disposed to charge him with
either the one or the other, yet his recurrence to these old objections looks a little suspicious.
I  believe  that  infidels,  generally,  have  looked
upon their predecessors as having failed to answer
fully- the arguments that have been offered in favor
of the claims of the Bible. Hiis objection, drawn
i  1 the affair of the magicians, is an old objection.
It is not in the premises that the magicians were
equal to Moses or to God; not in the premises that
there was any doubt as to the result of the contest.
" Then came the magicians with their enchantments." 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
It is not admitted at all by the writer that these magicians were equal to Mloses or to Aaron.  They
brought up frogs, covering the entire surface. Now,
could the magicians do this to the same extent, when
the surface lwas already covered by the frogs,
brought up by Moses. All they could do was to clear of'
a little spot which the frogs of Moses and Aaron had
pre-occupied. They could only operate on a small
scale. But divine interposition was required to do
what-was done by the hand of Moses and Aaron.
But enough of this.
[Here followed a recapitulation, for the benefit of
those not present on the preceding day, which is
omitted.]
[Some new matter added to the Recapitulation.]
If all these witnesses, sacred and profane, are to
be thrown aside as worthless, then there is an end to
all credit due to historic testimony. If they all concur
in their statements, when they had so many inducements to contradict them, is not this proof that the
matter was well established? If there had been any
question as to the facts recorded by Nehemiah, and
pressed home upon the Jews by Christ and his Apostles, would they not have said? "show that we have
departed from the Law of the Lord. Prove your
charges to be true."   If the question  had  not
been settled- if the law had not been regarded as
authentic, these individuals would have said: I Stop,
79 
80     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIHE
sirs; these are contested points. First prove that
Moses gave us that Law, before you charge us with
departing from it."
Nehemiah charged the Jews with disregarding the
law of marriage, and he contended with them and
rebuked them for their transgression.  If there had
been any question among them, with reference to the
authenticity of the Pentateuch, would they not have
said, "Nehemiah you are a little too fast, sir.  This
is a disputed matter.  Our Scribes and Eldert are
not agreed among themselves upon this question.
We are not sure that our Law has not been corrupted
by interpolations. The genuineness of our Law, in
its present form, is with many a matter of doubt."
Nothing of this kind is developed in the way of
self-defense, but all, both accuser and accused, appealed to the supremacy of the Law. And the Apostles never found so much as one unbelieving Jew,
who did not acknowledge the Old Testament Scriptures to be reliable, but differed with them only in
the application of Prophecy to New Testament times
and circumstances.  I believe no documentary evidence  could be stronger than that we have given.
Certainly nothing can be more clear than this,
that the Jews'received their sacred books as authentic, and if authentic, true; because fully sustained
by Prophecy and Miracle.
We now proceed with the argument, in proof of
our proposition  "that the Jewish and Christian 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
Scripture.s contain a series of communications supernaturally revealed and miraculously attested. "
We shall read from Genesis, chap. 12: 1-3.
1. Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto
a land that I will show thee.
2. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless
thee, and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing.
3. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that
curseth thee, and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
The first of these promises will be the beginning
of a series of supernatural communications, that is,
communications which could not have been discov ered by man's perceptive powers.   These promises
form the basis of the Christian Religion.
Here are three promises. We propose to base an
argument on each of them.  By the word promise in
this place, we mean a declaration of a benefit intended, or the bestowment of some future good.   Promises are like Prophesies, in the future tense.
" And I will make of thee a great nation."
Argument second:   This promise  was made  to
Abraham while, as yet, he had no child. We must
refer to the subsequent history of Abraham and his
descendants,  for the  fulfillment of this promise.
First: The Jews, the descendants of Abraham, yet
are. This gives them a high antiquity, an essential
element to national greatness.   What  nation can
now claim the same? and by its own history trace
its origin back for four thousand years, to one man
and one woman, and say," here is the flesh and blood
of Abraham  and Sarah."   Is there a parralel in
81 
82     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
the history of mankind?  The descendants of a man
who existed four thousand years ago can yet lift up
their arms and say, "here is thejlesh and blood and
-stnew of Abraham." We have no list of the number
of the Jews, but it is supposed by many to be as great
as at any former period. The Jewish nation is a
family nation. It is not made up of many nations,
as the American nation, which is a nation of nations.
But here we have a nation derived from one single
family. We have no statistical account by which
we can determine the whole number from the birth
of Isaac to the present day.  We can only say that,
in point of numbers, they are the greatest nation
that ever existed.
Second: Great men are also essential to national
greatness.  The Jews had Kings, Prophets, Judges,
Artists, Musicians, Orators, Historians and Poets.
" Who  shall ascend into the hill of the Lord?
and who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath
clean hands and a pure heart. Who hath not lifted
up his soul unto vanity or sworn deceitfully. " Is
there a Poet to be found in antiquity that gives such
exalted views of God and moral worth as David?
They had also very distinguished female Poets; such
as Miriam, the Prophetess, who, with timbrel in
hand, breaks forth:  " Sing ye to the Lord, for he
hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and the rider
he hath thrown into the sea." There was also John
the Baptist, the-greatest of all Prophets, and Jesus
Christ, the son of Abraham, according to the flesh, 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
and all the holy Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus
Christ our Lord, who were, under God, the redeemers,
the benefactors, the saviors of mankind.
Third: This nation was great, on account of its
varied fortunes. First, they were captives, then captors; great in war, mighty in battle, when executing
their mission against the Canaanites.  " One chased
a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight."
Again they became captives   their Capitol and
Temple were destroyed, and the nation held in captivity for seventy long years. Again emancipated,
they return to their own land -rebuild their metropolis, and their Temple- which was the wonder
of the world,- on account of its magnificence -restore their religion, and become once more an independent nation, for some five hundred years; then
became tributary to Roman despotism- and finally,
besieged by their enemies for three years, and after a
most terrible and unparalleled resistance, were destroyed by those who had long oppressed them. When
compared with others, they were great in privileges,
in goodness, in crime, in sufferings, in honors and
sins; and God's judgments upon them were always
proportionate, and yet they existed under circumstances most peculiar.
83 
84     DEFENSE OF TIHE BIBLE AGAINST TIIE
MR. HARTZEL'S FIFTH ADDRESS.
It is always embarrassing when a great mass of
irrevelant matter has been introduced into a speech.
This is my present embarrassment. To select from
this mass that which is worthy of a passing remark,
and omit the balance, is not the most easy task.
"Dr. Nelson" is a man of no authority with us;
and, so far as I am informed with his celebrity as an
ecclesiastical writer, he was never famous for his
defense of the authenticity of the Scriptures. Whatever importance Christians have attached to his work,
has been from other considerations than his defense
of the Old and New Testament Scriptures against
the assaults of infidelity.
So many witnesses, all concurring in so many facts,
are sufficient to establish the authority of any book.
It was for this purpose, we offered the Old and New
Testament writers-Josephus and "Letters of Jews
to Voltaire."  We did not introduce witnesses to
prove that the Old Testament was  true.  The point
of our whole argument, was simply as to the authenticity of the Scriptures, more especially of the Old
Testament. Now, I say again-if so many concurring witnesses in any one fact, or series of connected
facts, do not prove one point, then there is an end to
credulity in testimony. "In the mouth of two or
three witnesses every word shall be established," is 
CHIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
:'n old law maxim.  My opponent says, it was a long
time before the Jews had any authentic history. I
beg leave to differ from him.  Are not the books of
Kings, Samuel, Judges, witnesses?  They had these
historical  writings  long  before Chronicles,  etc.,
Josephus or the New Testament. My friend said,
the- Jews never originated a book.* He admitted,
that he was not quite certain that- they had not.
Why then bring matters of that kind into controversy?
Is it merely to perplex and confuise? I thought all
extraneous matters should be left out. I propose,
then, to show by reference to my friend's own writings
that that matter is not quite so doubtful as he seemed
* we Christian Religion has had a positive existence for, at least, eighteen hundred
yeas.  Its facts, commandments    promises, with all that enters into its constituency
sre found in the New 1Testament. That the Book is, is not a debateable question, but how
dame it to be, is one of the many points npos which the Christian and infidel take issue.
The way Christians account for the origin of this Book is known to all, and their
tailh in this respect has been uniform; namely, that the several parts of the Book were
written by those to whom they are accredited.  Infidels take issue, and say, not so.
Still this does not reach the main quiestion, for the BOOK did not produce the RELIGIOn,
but the RELIGION produced the BOOK. The eligion was, and many were its adherents
before it assulmd its histor.ic book form. What, then, are the infidel theories upon the
simple question of origin?  No man on earth can tell.  They have been niumerons and
varied. But Mr. Barker has now aband dthe old the d tlory. that Christianity originated
in fraud, and has adopted a mode rn dis overy,  namely, that Christianity never  had a
beginning.  Well. then, it is eternal.  No, why don't you understand us? it began
by degrees."  I think I get your meaning now;  a    volcano or a river forms it.s a1lvial, deposits a little at a time, not of earth to be sure, but a deposit of tradition, say on
this wise, some good men discove-ed a good idea involving an important moral duty;
perhaps h added another, that made two  (ell, that was a beginning.) he revealed it
to anothr; he   enlarged upo  it; he to                        a third he  ade some advane, and ow it beame
a growing tradition; in this way all the moral precepts were brouglit into existehnc,
and no inspiration in the question. Tell me, now, howof miracles?  Pshaw, there is no
trouble about them. " I have raised he dead myself;'that is, I gave a man some medicine, who was supposed to be dead, he soon revived  the people who saw this said I
had "raised the dead,;"     the e story went, and you, a good honest man, let it go at
that! Why not?  You knw a story never  loses anything; no, o, and   o the story
obtained currency and credit'itil every body believed it,  In this way all the miracles
in the Bible were invented. We can acconnt for all these tales about mirales upon the
principle of man's credulity his love of the marvelous, and his known prepensity to
exaggerate, without the etercise of any supernatural power, or the charge of deliberate
falsehood. Then, this religian in its primordial state wvas clearly not an origination, but
a growth, the production of many minds, acting together for ages, contributing to the
general stock of traditionary information.
1st. IHonv, then, came these flouting gossiping traditions  to be worked up into a book?
Was it the work of an individual? How did  itget into his head to collate and embody
them?  If he took all the traditions as       hefouuld  hem itmusthave  been a traditionary
religion par ex.cellece.  I judge, however, lhe rejected  some.  On that supposition lie
muot have been a man of fine taste, and no ordinary genius in classification and arrange.
mont.
85 
86     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
to insinuate. Mr. Barker handed me the pamphlet
I now hold in my hand, in November last, and accompanied the gift with this remark-"This contains
my views of the Bible."
Mr. Barker. Mr. Hlartzel's statement is incorrect.
I could not have used the words he attributed to me,
as the views expressed in that book have not been
held by me for a number of years.
Mr. llartzel.  Mr. Barker, you did positively say
so. Farther, this "Review" was published in'48.
Mr. Barker.'46.
Mr. Hlartzel.  No, sir, 1848 is the time on the
As we have substituted dogmatism  for testimony in this investigation, I incline to
this opinion; that the eight writers of the New Testament met together in convention, for the purpose of embodying these invaluable traditions, that they might not be
lost by the "'toulderings" of time, nor yet corrupted by the wicked; and, as they
could not agree upon 4he whole among themselves - what should be admitted and what
rejected - they each recorded what he thought worthy of presentation and transmission.
Will not this account for their agreement and disagreement?  If it does aifidelity hasgotten ottt of one troutle.
2nd. How did it happen that this vast deposit of traditisn originated wholly among
the Jews, who had done so before, transplanting a few traditions, (,-ut of whose garden
I don't know, neither do I care 4ust now,) got them growing, and fiom these grew areligion, and from that religion grew a huge folio.
3rd. This last b6ok of Jewish tradition, imperfect as it now is. is yet much admired,
and by many it is supposed to be the best book in the world. What must it have been
in its more perfect state? It is said by some that it has been greatly marred by "transcribers, translators,' " by " interpolati"tionns,'   throughli mistake and policy."
We know that structures in the process  f time, ill "moulder"  down to"ruin," and
when we shall see palaces moulder into existence, then ma  webestow morethought upon
this way of accounting for the origin of the Christian rei0ion.
4th. The Christ'an religion like the United States g6vernnent, had its incipient stages.
These were the times of their origination* not by the gathering up of vaporius traditions,
but by the discovery of and right appreciation of religions and political truth, and the
development of a series of connected facts.
The one gave rise in the short period of thr      ee          year s to a n ew eliqion, the other in the
space of some seven years called into existence a no  form of civi qover       et.  The
time, the tacts, the inst rumentalities employed in the originating of ocir Republic are
matters of historic credibility, Before George the III, King of England, I find nothing
in the history of the world with reference to our  Constittion," "laws," and national
independence.  Since then our body politic has beeni a prominent portion of the civil
history of the world. So in regard to the origin of the Christian church. Before the
reign of Tiberius Caesar, we  ever find the words  "Jesus Christ," "Christianity,"
"Christian,"' "church of Christ," in any history  Since then these terms are as famiiar
history as household words in the domestic circle.
There are no facts in the history of huiman kind that have more, and more credible
vouchers than, that the Christianity of the New Testament assumed a positive existence
in A. D. 34: that it was called into being by the supernatural agencies to which its in,pired history refers the readers for an account of its origin; and, we can only say, we
pity the man who has so far lost his balance as to adopt the vague  conjectures and
strongly asserted dogmatisms of- skeptical doubters. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
title-page. I proceed to read from Mr. Barker's Re view of the Bible, pages 4 and 7.
4. " The Mosaic account of creation is, in general, true: but in
many of its particulars it is, in my judgment, doubtful, or plainly
fabulous." 7. "in substance, the account of Moses in reference
to these matters may be perfectly true: but as to the particular
form of the story, I believe it to be fabulous."
This is good testimony for me: for he must regard
the matters which he has written out as true. He
must have received this from a reliable source or he
could have regarded the subject matter of "Genesis
as true."   Canmy friend, after what he has written,
still say that there are some doubts whether the Jews
ever originated a book? If he can prove this, I must
fail in my effort to maintain the proposition.  But I
will read farther on this point, from Mr. Barker's
"Review of the Bible," page 10:
"Who originated those accounts is unknown. It would be foolish
to suppose that any single individual originated them. They were
probably the production of a multitude of minds operating for ages.
The person who first wrote them, only collected them perhaps, and
reduced them to something like form and order.  The person who
first put them in the form in which they stand in the book of Genesis, very probably, took them from records or books that had been
written previously. No doubt he regarded them himself as true.
He probably selected them from other accounts or traditions, less
worthy of regard."
From these we infer, that Moses was the author of
the Pentateuch. Certainly we may hold our friend
responsible for this matter of historic knowledge in
his recent writings. - Surely, my learned friend had
the means of knowing at the time he published that
pamphlet, whether Moses or somebody else was the
author of Genesis. The account of creation was
87 
88     DEFENSE' OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE'
called in question. With reference to the supposed
discrepancy between Geology and Genesis, we may
simply say that all his remarks on that subject have
fallen upon a contested point. There are authors on
both sides; some of them we will name: Brewster,
Pye, Smith, Hitchcock, Horsely, Harris, Smucker,
Dr. Bedford, &c.  These all claim a perfect harmony
between Geology and the cosmogony of Moses. The
inquisitive, we refer to these works. I have not read
all of them, but have examined some, and have referred to others. This investigation is not legitimate
in a question of this kind.  My proposition does not
require me to reply to these cavils. The question is
not, is the Mosaic account of creation in harmony
with physical science?  Permit me to say, however,
that when Geologists shall have harmonized their
conflicting views with reference to this science, many
of the present difficulties may be obviated. As the
science of Geology advances they will -anish. This
has already been the result to some extent; and, I
doubt not, will be more so as the science shall be
better understood. I admit there are apparent diffliculties; but I do not admit that they effect the question.  Geology is a young science, and should be
modest.
As Mir. Barker has not met me, I shall proceed with
the series of arguments I introduced in this morning's
session: To prove that the Bible contains a consecutive series of communications, which man could
never have discovered by the exercise of his percep 
CIIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
tive faculties, or by his own meditations. I was
broken off, in my last, before I had reached the
conclusion of my argument. I was saying that
notwithstanding all the varicd fortunes of the Jews,
they still exist as a nation under circumstances most
peculiar. 
If the Jews possessed originality enough to invent
a system that has stood for four thousand years,
through all the vicissitudes- of fortune to which they
were subjected, they must have been in advance of
all the nations that have ever lived, in originality
and inventiveness. Has not God, then, fully sustained his pledge to Abraham? "And I will make of
thee a great nation."
Argument 3d: "And  wil make thy name great."
Many of the reasons of Abraham's great name
were given in the preceding argument; to which we
may add, that perhaps his chief personal excellence
consisted in believing what God said to -him, and in
doing what iHe commanded him.  None of the great
names of antiquity will compare with his.  They are
all wanting in the right kind of association.  The
greatest nation on earth has said for four thousand
years, "Abraham is our father."  The seers and
prophets of olden time pronounced his name with filial
respect. So did Paul and Peter, and all the Apostles
and first Evangelists of the kingdom of Heaven.
And even John the Baptist the "greatest" of all the
Prophets, and Jesus theson of Mary, in whom dwelt
89
11r 
90     DEFENSE OF  THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, claim
Abraham to be their father according to the flesh;
and, with delight, did honor to his venerable name.
Hie has other children by the law of Gospel adoption.
See Galatians, chap. 3: 26, 27, 28, 29: "For ye are
all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For
as many of you as have been baptised into Christ,
have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.  And
if ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, and
heirs according to the promise."
There will be an innumerable host which no maa
can number. The excellent ones of all the earth the
benefactors of their race-the redeemers of mankind
from ignorance, idolatry, slavery, intemperance-all
these associate with this name the whole scheme of
human redemption-and this name is still increasing
in greatness in the exact ratio to the spread of the
Gospel, both at home and in distant heathen lands.
The Gospel bears it upon its wings, and every edition
of the Bible gives it a wider circulation and more
enduring fame; and it will increase in greatness while
sun and moon endure.
Here, we ask, has God been a defaulter in relation
to this promise?  "And I will make thy name great."
Argument 4th:  "And in thee s8hall all families of
the earth be blessed."
But Mr. Barker quarrels with this promise.  We 
OHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
cannot do better than to refer him and the audience
to his own testimony given in former times. See
" Christianity Triumphant," page 186:
"But turn to the religion of Christ, and the scene is all changed.
Here charity is inculcated in all its glory: here we find ourselves
living and breathing in a new element: here we walk up and down
in a universe of love.  The religion of Heaven is a religion of love
from first to last. Even in its earliest dispensations it breathed the
spirit of its benevolent Author, and taught men to look forward to
the regeneration of the world as the end of all his plans.  In the
revelations which were given to Abraham, God declared it to be
his purpose, that through him and his seed, "all families of the
earth should be blest." All succeeding intimations of the purposes of
God are of the same description: all bear the stamp of unbounded
and impartial goodness."
To bless, is to make " happy;  to prosper."   Men
are blessed when the means of happiness are afforded
them.   For example, the people of Ohio are greatly
blessed by their public improvements. The people
of our State are greatly blessed in their means of
traveling and transportation.   We  go  by railroad
speed.  We  are, also, blessed by our means of telegraphic communication, by our various internal improvements. We say, in our village, we are greatly
blessed with facilties for the education of our children;
a benevolent individual having made  an appropriation of some ten thousand dollars in the erection Of
a beautiful structure, with philosophical apparatus,
library, etc., and now tenders the occupancy to our
community.
This promise imports " that in Abraham and his
seed should all families of the world be blessed" with
the means of happiness.  This is all God or man can
do to promote the happiness of our fallen race; fo
91 
92     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
happiness implies man's own free agency and the
voluntary use of the means of improvement and salvation.
As this language is promissory, it is, therefore, in
the future tense. Shortly before, and about the time
the Messiah made his appearance, there was a general
expectation all over the East, that some illustrious
personage would soon make his appearance both
among Jews and Gentiles.  Orators spoke of him,
and poets sang of him. This expectation was created by prophetic announcements, to which we shall
pay some attention in due time. In the mean time
we shall open to the New Testament, and read the
first verse of the first chapter of Matthew.
" The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the
son of David, the son of Abraham."'
This is the commencement of the genealogy of
Jesus Christ, or rather Matthew's preface to it.
Jesus Christ is, then, the son of Abraham, through
David.  Abraham is the progenitor of the Messiah
by oft repeated promises.  Matthew wrote to the
Jews of Judea, who were in possession of both the
promises and prophecies. It was, therefore, all important that he should convince them that Jesus
Christ had descended from Abraham through King
David. Upon this would depend his success with
the Jews. He could not reasonably expect that any
of his countrymen would receive him as their long
promised Messiah without being fully satisfied on
.this point. Many Jews were satisfied.  The Apostles 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
themselves were satisfied, otherwise they would not
have received Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah.
He might have been a son of Abraham, by another
branch of his family; but the Prophets had named
David, and as; he could not be a son of David with out descending from Abraham, therefore in proving
the latter you establish the former. We, therefore,
affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is a son of Abraham
after the flesh.
I now call attention to the second feature of this
promise, namely; that Jesus Christ was a blessing
to all families of the earth. We would infer this
from the angelic announcement of his birth. "Fear
not; for, behold I bring you good tidings of great
joy, which shall be to all people."  Mark the reading.  These words are rich with blessings " unto all
people."  These give to the blessings a universal
application "Iunto all people."  This was a grand
conception.  Something new and original in the
history of our world.  Hitherto there was no religion that embraced all nations.  Judaism was the
religion of a single family. It was not adapted to
all people.
The different forms of Paganism were nothing but
State instruments, used by State agents, for State
purposes.  They rose with the State and perished
with the State, hence there were State Gods and Provincial Gods. But not so with the Christian Religion. Its very announcement shows that it was intended for the benefit of all nations - a religion in
93 
94     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
which " all families of the earth should be blessed"
- a religion, such as the human mind could not have
originated   such as the human family, during their
existence of four thousand years, with all their wisdom and intelligence had never conceived of.
When this personage, of whose nativity we have
been speaking, was about to finish his earthly mission, we hear him say, in the language of authority,
to eleven men, "Go ye, therefore and teach all nations.
Go preach the Gospel to every creature- he that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned." Make the tender of salvation to all nations!
What a coincidence between the promise, in its expressed designs, through Abraham's promised seed,
and the birth of Christ! The anthem sung by the
angels at the nativity, was:  "Fear not, for behold, I
bring you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to
all people.  Glory to God in the highest.  Peace on
earth, good will to men." The promise to Abraham
was:  "In thee and thy seed shall all the families of
earth be blessed." In the anthem, not the literal descendants of Abraham alone, but all the world is invited to partake of the blessing. " Behold I bring
you glad tidings of great joy, which is unto all people.
For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a
Savior, who is Christ the Lord." Now, the commission which Christ gave to the Apostles, was:  " Ye
shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and in
Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
Though this commission was not immediately carried
out, it must have been in the original design.   There
is such a perfect coincidence between the commission
to the Apostles and the promise  to Abraham-   the
long lapse of time between them, and the leading
ideas - blessings to man, universal man -  that fraud
is out of the question.
That the Jews should here invent a religion with
special reference to a union between themselves and
the Gentiles, is so contrary to their prejudices, their
history, that we can see no motive unless it were a
benevolent one, and that forbids the idea of falsehood
and deception.
Was this commission executed? We say, yes.
And here I offer as authority my learned friend, so well
acquainted with history, who has read almost  all the
writings in  the world!  I appeal to him, therefore,
with  the greatest  assurance.   I quote from  "The
Christian," vol. 1, page 18:
"Unbelievers can never prove that the religion of Christ did not
originate about eighteen hundred years ago. They cannot prove
that the religion of Christ did not first make its appearance in
Judea.  They cannot prove that the religion of Christ was not first
preached and established by Jesus of Nazareth.  They cannot
prove that Jesus of Nazareth was not a true Prophet-a Teacher
sent from God. They can never prove that Jesus of Nazareth did
not prove himself the Messiah, by many miraculous works and
mighty signs.  They cannot prove, that the religion of Christ was
not first preached in Europe, Asia and Aftrica by Paul and Peter,
and other Apostles, their companions and fellow-laborers.  They
cannot prove the account given in the Acts of the Apostles, and
other ecclesiastical records, respecting the first spread and triumphs
of Christianity, to be untrue.  They can never prove, that the
Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles were not written by the persons
whose names they bear.  They cannot prove that they were written
by any other men."
95 
96      DEFENSE OF TIHE BIBLE AGAINST THE
We claim then, that this commission was executed.
Mr. Barker says, "the Gospel was preached in many
parts of the world," and this agrees with the New
Testament. Christ said, his Disciples should be his
witnesses unto the uttermost parts of the earth; and
Paul declares, (Colossians chap. 1: 23,) that "-the
Gospel was preached to every creature under Hieaven."
This testimony is sufficient for our present purpose.
It remains 4now to be considered whether the Gospel
has been a blessing to mankind? We say it has. I
will give one quotation which, for the present, must
suffice, though many others might be given.  Peter
in preaching Christ to his own nation says, (Acts 3:
25, 26,) "Ye are the children of the Prophets and of
the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying
unto Abraham  -And in thy seed shall all families of
the earth be blessed."  " 26. Unto  you first, God
havingraised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you,
in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."
MR. HARTZEL'S SIXTH ADDRESS.
There are but few things in Mr. Barker's last speech
of sufficient importance to merit a word  of reply.
If he thinks that I shall follow him through his long
list of objections, he will be disappointed. We would
pass them entirely, only that there are children in
the audience, who may require something to enable 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
them to see the character of his criticisms.  It would
not be needed-for men and women.
If my friend had understood this most important
truth, a truth which is canonised in theliterary world,
"that man, constituted as he is, can only know things
by things already known," I am sure he would not
have raised a quarrel with Hitchcock.
It is a truism not to be questioned, that man must
know one thing in order to know another, and that
one item of information only becomes a steppingstone to another. This principle will account for
most of the difficulties he has attempted to raise, in
his march through the Bible, from the beginning of
Genesis to the end of the book-for he has given us
one course.
Mr. Barker says, that the Jews exist in contradiction of prophecy-that God said, that those who
would not receive the Prophet, like unto Moses, that
should be sent to them, should be cut off from his
people; that they did not receive him, and were not
cut off. Were they not cut off from the people of
God?  To the testimony: "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold and said: It was necessary that the
word of God should first have been spoken to you;
but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves
unworthy of everlasting life, lo! we turn to the Gentiles." Acts 13: 46. "Well; because of unbelief
they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.
Be not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not
4
97 
98     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not
thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of
God: on theml which fell, severity; but towards thee,
goodness, if thouL continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."  Romans 11: 20,
21, 22.  Mr. Barker says, "Jesus sent his Disciples
only to the Jewish nation." This is not true. iHe
gave to his Apostles two commissions. One reads
thus:  - " Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and
into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but
go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Matthew 10: 5, 6.  On the same night in which lie
was betrayed, his own earthly mission to the Jewish
nation expired, so did that of the Apostles, and in a
most orderly manner he took it back, that he might
give them another.  This be did shortly before his
ascension.  In the second, we have the most sublime
plan ever contemplated by the human mind- a plan
for gathering together, into one happy and loving
brotherhood, all the nations of the earth, both Jews and
Gentiles. It is a fact in New Testament history that
a multitude of people of different religions were
brought together, and made of one heart and one
soul, as the result of Christ's commission, " Go ye
into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every
creature."
"But Christ did not go to the Gentiles."  True.
Jesus says he was sent to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel; does that necessarily confine his mission to
the salvation of the Jews? Did lie not set on foot 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
a system of teaching-a vast missionary scheme when he commanded the Apostles to go and preach
the Gospel to every creature. Is it true that be cause M:ark's wording of the commission differs from
that of Matthew, therefore, it was written by another
hand than his - In this, the Evangelist did as in
recording other incidents, one records what was omitted
by another; so, in this case, all that Matthew has
recorded of Christ's commission to the eleven is implied
by Mark, and vice ver8sa.  But the words of Matthew
are another proof that Christ did not confine the
blessings of his salvation to the Jews. "Go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations."' We have the same
sentimentin Luke, conveyed in the most emphatic
terms:  "Thus it is written and thus it behooved
Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third
day; and that repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem.  Luke 24: 46- 47.  And
again, Luke, in his second treatise - tile Acts of the
Apostles-alluding to this commission, says: "; And
ye shall be witnesses of me, both in Jerusalem and
in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.'"
Mr. Barker said that "Peter would not go to the
Gentiles until a miracle had been shown him."  I
am glad my friend mentioned this, as it brings out
an important fact.  The fact I refer to, is this:
When God employs Prophets orr Apostles, as messenigers of his will, we do not find tlhat this fact ima''.e* ee*
99 
100     DEFENSE OF THiE BIBLE AGAINST THE
plies that these individuals are thereby deprived of
all their human weaknesses — that, in other words,
God employs, for the accomplishment of his purposes,
men, and nothing but men. If the Apostles had ever
claimed to be anything else than men, then they might
have been thus reproached.   Paul says:'We have
this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency
of the power may be of God, and not of ns.'I It
seems that the Apostles did not understand that the
Gospel was to go to the ends of the earth. I am not
compromising any truth by this admission, for it appears upon the face of the whole book. The Apostle
Peter says, that the Prophets did not understand,
when they predicted the sufferings of Christ and the
glory that should follow, and that even angels did not
understand the plan of redemption, but desired to
look into it. 1st Peter, 1: 10, 11, 12. It was not
necessary that Peter should understand  t     hat    the Gospel was to be preached to every creature, until the
time had come, in the arrangements of Providence,
for him to go forth and teach the Gentiles, and when
that time came he was more fully instructed in that
part of his mission. It is true, as Mr. Barker says,
"a miracle was required to do this." 1But this only
proves that these men were the messengers of Heaven,
appointed to convert the Gentiles. The fact is fully
established that they did go, and preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ. Notwithstanding their natural aversion, their inveterate prejgies against the Gentiles, they went among them, 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
and made them a tender of the Gospel.  We can account for the fact upon no other principle than divine
interposition. But I fear we are taking up too much
time with matters not - directly involved in the controversy.
In the next place, we wish to say a few things in regard to these "fabulous" accounts in the Bible. Our
friend says " fabulous."   I did hope he would give
us the definition of the wordfable. According to
Webster it has two meanings; the first is, " a fictitious narration, intended to enforce some useful truth
or precept."  The other meaning is, "a falsehood, a
lie." What does he say in his own writings, after
he had well studied the fabulous book? I read from
Mr. Barker's " Review of the Bible," pages 5 and 7:
"I regard the Mosaic account of Creation, I mean its PARTICULAR
STATEMENTS, as fabulous. 7. I believe that God made man, and
that he made woman; that he made woman to be a help-meet for
man, and that he provided man food at his creation, and that man
and woman were intended to live together in marriage, in a devoted
and lasting union. I believe,. too, that man was tempted and
sinned."
IHere, let me ask, on what testimony he believes
that woman was made to be a help-meet for man, if
he regards this account as a fable? Does hlie use the
word in its first or second meaning?
Again, on page 9, of the same work, Mr. Barker
says:
"I may state, that, though I regard the early portions of Scripture as fabulous, I still consider them, in many cases, as truthful
and useful fables. Though they are fables, they are still, to some
extent, in harmony with the great principles of religion."
Now, I shall read you fifteen principles from  Mr.
101 
102    IDEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
Barker, which I regard as honorable to God and tihe
Bible:
For instance, they are based in general upon the great principles that there is a God-that God created the HIeavens and the
earth - that God made man - that man is an accountable creature,
a moral agent, the subject of divine Government - that there is a
distinction betwen good and evil-that there are some things
which man is bound to do, and other things that he is bound to
leave undone - that man's happiness depends on his obedience to
the law of God -that if man does evil he will be punished, and
that if he does good, or lives aright, he will be rewarded -that
the manr who obeys God is safe, but that the man who  disobeys
God is in danger -that obedience to God and hapiness are inseparable, and that disobedience to God and wretchedness are
equally so -that the whole universe is under God's control, and
that ife does what He pleases, both in heaven and in earth- that
He can make all nature an instrument of chastisement to offending
man, or a means of joy and blessedness to obedient man."
I repeat, that I consider these principles alike honorable to God and the Bible.
Obedience to law, implies a law-giver.  Obeying
a command, pro-supposes a commander.  I wish Mr.
Barker would not be so non-committal as he has
been hitherto. If God has given us a law, and that
la-w is not in the Bible, wt/ere is it to be found?  I
do wish the same benevolent feelings that have
prompted him to be thus secretive would make him
a little more communicative on this point
I have yet one more extract to read from this
"Bible Review."  The author will separate the chaff
from the wheat.  He is going to separate the false
and fabulous from the true and the good. What a
tbenevolent work! He will doubtless favor the world
with a new edition, improved and corrected, by Joseph Barker.   "The Bible Rleview," page 89: 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
" The course which I am pursuing will not ditminish the good
influence of the Bible, but only destroy that evil influence which
has counteracted the good. The course which I am pursuing will
still leave the Bible the friend of -all truth, and the opponent of all
error; the patron of all virtue, and the opponent of all vice."
Now, can this much be said of any other book under
heaven, Mr. Barker himself being judge? I will
submit to him a proposition: If Mr. Barker will
bring forward a book, written I care not when, where,
or by whom, though it be by himsef, of which a
disinterested,committee (to be appointed by mutual
agreement) will say that it is " the friend of all truth
and virtue, and the enemy of all error and vice," I
pledge myself to pay the sum  of one thousand dollars, on the presentation'of that book. I have but
little - I need it all - yet I will cheerfully pay the
sum named for another such book. Or, if he can
produce a book in which the elements of the fifteen
principles, which I have read to you, are embodied,
upon which to base our obligation to God and man;
and, secondly, a book that is " the friend of all truth
and virtue, an enemy of all error and vice," I will
pay for that book one thousand dollars, and consider
myself a happy man. I submit this overture to my
opponent. If I cannot advance the money on the
presentation of the book, I pledge lny honor to give
him my obligation, with good security, payable in
sixty days.
But, Mr. Barker says, " the Bible is full of contradictions."  It is an easy matter for a talkative man
to raise objections and start difficulties, and espe
103 
104    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
cially to a document which is so very brief in its dotails. A few chapters spread over a period of sixteen hundred years before the flood, and a few more
passing over a period of two thousand years. Can
you conc6ive of a document, such as this, in which a
person with the mental bias of Mr. Barker could not
point out at least an equal number of seeming contradictions?  And, upon the whole, how  do these
contradictions, as he is pleased to call them, effect
the whole amount of evidence? Discrepancies between witnesses are never considered as disparaging
their testimony; it is supposed rather against the
credibility of witnesses it there is an exact verbal
agr ement between them.
Upon the real or supposed contradictions in the
Bible, infidel writers have taken opposite ground.
Thomas Paine assumes that the Biographers of Jesus
Christ were independent writers, and, therefore, the
want of harmony in their narrations destroys their
credibility.
Robert Taylor, an apostate from  the Episcopal
church assumes that the first three Evangelists wrote
in concert, hence the verbal agreement. Hle has arranged in parallel columns some of Christ's prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and
because of the verbal sameness, he concludes that
one might have furnished the original, and the others
were copyists; at any rate, they all drew from a
common source, and that their absolute independence
was given up by the learned as no longer tenable. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDETITY.
(I quote from memory.)  From a verbal sameness he
proves concert, and from concert, fraud. So, the
Doctors disagree. The one says the Apostles disagree, therefore, they are liars; the other says they do
agree, therefore, they are liars.
Upon the ground that the writers of the Books of
the Bible contradict each other, Mr. Barker says:
"The Bible represents God as hating sonae persons
and loving others." A little disposition to do justice
to the record would have saved Mr. Barker some
trouble and me some timne.  What is the meaning of
the word " hate? "  We  will refer  to Webster.
"I lIate "- second definition -" In Scripture, to love
less." HIe gives the following example: "If any
come to me and hate not father and mother."  Give
Christ the preference.  " Jacob" have I preferred to
"Esau" would be, and truly is, the meaning.
In view of the meaning of the word "hate,"
Christ has not contradicted himself. It is further
true, that, according to the Hiebrew idiom, when there
are two things in comparison and one is considered
vastly more important than the other, the less important is spoken of in the language of negation, and
the more important is expressed afrnatively. (This
we say upon the highest literary authority.)
With regard to sacrifices it is true, as Mr. Barker
says -for we will agree with him whenever we can,
and join issue with him only when an important
principle is involved. It is true, we may say, that
God, by the Prophets, often spake to the Jews as
105 
106    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
though he took no delight in sacrifices. "II am full
of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed
beasts, and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or
of lambs, or of he-goats."
But why does God say this?  Because  they had
paid more attention to the positive part of the Law
than to the moral. The moral was always more valuable than the positive. There never was any real
intrinsic virtue in the latter. They were ordained by
heaven for other purposes, hence, God reproves them
in view of their blind observance of mere outward
forms.  There is nothing incongruous, or in contradiction with Iis commandments, in condemning
them for attaching so much consequence to sacrifices
and offerings, while they neglected justice, mercy and
love of God.  All the Books of the Bible harmonise
in relation to these, as well - as all the other facts of
the Scriptures. But, if I were going to build an argument on these sacrifices, I would take this ground:
that the universality of the practice of sacrificing
among all nations of the earth proves that it is of
divine origin; at least there are arguments to be
produced in favor of this position. As I have a few
minutes of time left me, I will proceed with my argument, based upon the promises to Abraham.
It remains yet to be considered whether the Gospel
is a blessing to mankind. Acts 3: 25, 26:
"Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the covenant,
which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham: and in
thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
" Unto you first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him
to bless you, in turning away everyone of you from his iniquities." 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
To comply with this condition is itself a blessing,
and proposes the way for still greater and more extended blessings, both in this life and that which is
to come.
The coming of the Messiah was promised unconditionally, but personal blessings through him are only
to be enjoyed on certain covenanted stipulations.
The Gospel must be heard before it can be believed:
believed before it can be obeyed; and it must be
obeyed before its proffered blessings can be enjoyed
in their divine and glorious fullness. The blessing
that came upon the nations by the original promulgation of the Gospel was the free tender of the means
of moral illumination and salvation, through Jesus
Christ, the promised seed. "For the Gospel was
preached among all nations, for the obedience of
faith."
I will now speak of the benefits enjoyed by those
who are onlyunder the reflex influence of Christianity
-the record God has given of his Son. But, it
will suffice to say, they are all that civilization is worth
to man. Mr. Barkler has set this forth in terms most
happy. You shall hear him to this point. " The
Christian," Vol. Ist, pages 5 and 6: In a tract entitled " Mercy Triumphant:"
"Writing is one of the principle means of spreading religion,
and of doing good to the souls of men.  It was  by means  of writing that Jehovah taught his laws to the Israelites, and instructed
them in the history of creation, and in all his dealings with their
fthers.  The Almighty commanded the Israelites to teach his law3
to their children, not only by talking of them, but by writing them
on their door-posts, and on the gates of their houses; (I)Deut. 6: 11.)
and he directed all his laws and judgments to be written inr, plaster,
-107 
108    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
on large monuments, for the benefit of all the people. (Deut. 27.)
By means of writing, the Almighty has communicated to us the
whole system of Revelation.  Writing is the means which God has
chosen for imparting the knowledge bf religion to the universe, and
diffusing through the human family the holiness and joy of heaven.
God has honored writing above every other acquirement, and taught
mankind to regard it as one of their first and highest blessings.
God has employed the same art under the New Testament Dispensation as well as under the old. He would not allow the instructions and labors of our Redeemer and his Disciples to be
committed in trust to the memories of men; but-gave to his chosen
servants his choicest inspirations, that they might commit them to
writing, and thus secure their transmission, unimpaired, to future
generations, and to the remotest parts of the earth. Had the revelations of the Mosaic and Christian Dispensations been left unwritten, their excellency would have lasted but an age or two.
The great truths of religion would have been supplanted by error
-the precepts of God would have been made to give way to the
will of man, and a corrupt priesthood would have enslaved and
held in chains the whole race of men. Tradition would have been
the creed and the law of the world, and in the hands of an interested and ruling priesthood, it would have been converted into an
engine of insupportable cruelty. The multitudes of men would
have been at the mercy of a few savage tyrants, and we must have
groaned our weary way to the grave beneath the double yoke of
superstition and tyranny, without consolation and without hope.
We  have heard what darkness covered the nations, and what
crimes and cruelties wasted the earth, when a corrupt priesthood
succeeded in concealing the writings of heaven from the people.
But what could have checked the extravagance of their impositions
and cruelties, if they could have entirely blotted out the handwriting of heaven, and employed their spurious traditions without
all fear?  Blood and rapine would have raged without restraint;
freedom, and peace, and hope must have expired; and ruin would
have sat and mocked the agonies of a despairing world. But,
thanks be to God, he employed the heavenly art of writing, and,
by this means, baffled the enemies of mankind, and secured to us
the perfect system of his truth and laws to latest times." 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
MR. HARTZEL'S SEVENTII ADDRESS.
Mr. Barker says, "the Jews were commanded to
go into the territory of other nations, kill the inhabitants, and take their property and lands."*
I wish to call attention to an important misrepresentation. Mr. Barker continues to represent mne as
holding that the whole Bible is the word of God. I
disclaim such belief. Hie referred to " Nelson" to
show that that was the current orthodoxy of the age.
However that may be, I know not; but I know that
among those authors who are the acknowledged defenders and expounders Qf the Bible, that have come
under my observation, not one of them has taken
such a position.
That I may not be further misrepresented to the
* I will let Mr. Barker meet his own objection, and let hi.r justifiy the ways of God in
this particular.  See Christianity Triumphant, by Joseph Barker, pages 427, 8.
Obj. 147. "The Old Testament teaches us that God commanded the ancient Jews to
kill the people of Canaan, and take possession of their lad."
Ans. It is true, but I see in this no argument agaimst the beneficial influence of Christianity.  1. At the                        time when the Jews were directed to drine out tle n ati ons of  anaa
and take possession of their land, Christianity was not in existence. Thie religion then
in fore was,Judaism, a religion which, though glorious.  when compared with the idolatrolls and unclean systems of Paganism, had yet no glory when  compared with the
religion of Christ. Many things were allowed under the Jewish dispensation, and were
properly allowed, which are not allowed under the Chr     ispensatieon.
2. Nor cau I see any thing in the command given to the Jews in reference to the expnlsion of the Canaanites, wh         ich was at variance with the justice and benevolence of God.
1. The land  as God's, and he had a right to give it to what people he saw best. 2. The
('anaasites were expelled for their sins. If they had obeyed God, they would never
have been expelled; and if they rebelled, who  that acknowledges a God at all, shall
call in question his right to punish transgressors? 3. The Canaanites were not cast out
till their iniquities were full. Thes were  were of the most loathsome and revolting character; they prevailed among all classes, and infected the whole people; and God had
borne with them for many generations.  They had sinned beyond measure, and beyond
all hopes of reformation.  4. Though expulsion from their land, or extermination, was a
terrible punishmbent to the transgressors, it was calecilated to prove a mery to others,
by admonishing them of their danger in sinning against God, and bringing them to repentance.  5. They had already rendered their lives a misery to ihemselves by their licestiasis and uniatiural vices.  They had filled their bodies with loathsome and horrible
diseases, so that the land was "eating them up," "and spewing them out: " they were
neither in a state to be happy themselves, nor capable of pro-creating their species,
109 
110    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
audience, I would say that the Bible contains the
words of men, and yet it is not the word of man-that
it contains the words of angels, and yet it is not the
word of angels - that it contains the words of demons, and yet it is not the word of demons — that it
contains the words of God, and yet it is not unqual,fedly the WVord of God to speak in chosen language.
But it is the Word of God in a sense that it is not
the word of men, or of angels.  To illustrate farther:
here is a book, the words of Joseph Barker.  But in
this volume, claimed and acknowledged by Joseph
Barker, I find the words of Wilberforce, Home, Clarkson, Ryan, Robertson, Seneca, Cicero, &c., and yet
it is the word of Joseph Barker in a sense that it is
not the word of any of these, and yet, strictly speaking, it is not the word of Joseph Barker.  But if it
were not for the word of Joseph Barker, we should
not have the words of these individuals in such an
without perpetuating and spreading disease and wretchedness in their worst forms. In
mercy to their posterity, and to the interests of humanity at large, their expulsion or
extermination was necessary. 6 Why God employed the Israelites in pulnishing and
destroying them, I cannot tell; blt I have no doubt be had good reasons for so doing.
It might, for one thing, fill the Jews with horro r at the idolatries and abominations of
the Canaanites, wbhen they were made to witness the miseries they had brought upon
them.  Ad God  ight with propriety employ the Jews in a way in which it would not
be proper to employ men in a higher state of improvement, and under a purer and a
fuller l      aw.  Exercises which would prove hurtifl to men in higher stages of improvement, and under a brighter dispensation, might prove useful to men in a ruder state and
under a darker dispensation. We know that God's object was to destroy idolatry and
crime, to train a people in the knowledge and service of the true God, and to prepare
the way for the spread of light and p'ity and happiness throughout the world.  7. God
did not inflict any other punishmient rpn  the Canaanites for their sins, than he threatened to inflict upon the Israelites, if they followed their evil ways. Therewasnopartiality
in the Divine Being. 8. What God commanded the Israelites to do, was not sonmething
more cruel than was customary-in war in thobe days, but something much less cruel.
The common custom of war in those ages, was extermination and this continued to be
the custom among the pagans for many hundred years after, and it continues to this day.
But God did not enjoin the entire destruction of the people': he mitigated the horrors of
war, and afforded the guilty Canaanites opportunities of preserving themselves either by
repentance or by flight.
The Lord comman ded the Jews to keep his ordinances   that the land spew you not
out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you."  They did
"defile themselves," and the land has "spewed them out."  This prophetic threat has
been executed to the letter, to which the world has been witness for eighteen hundred
years, and will be so- long as the nation shall exist, and " Jersalem shall be trodden
under foot of the Gentiles." 
CIHARGES OF MODERN  INFIDELITY.
embodiement as they are. Why did Mr. Barker introduce the words of other men into this volume entitled
the " Christian," by Joseph Barker?  Answer-Because of the relative position in which these writers
stand to him as concurring with, or dissenting from
him. In this book, we have the inspiration of Joseph
Barker.  In the Bible wehavethe inspiration of Jehovah. The inspiration of God and Joseph Barker differ
as personages differ from eachl other, and as the Bible
differs from - the volume I hold in my hand. But if
the inspired portions of the Bible were principles
supernaturally revealed and miraculously attested," these words to which we have referred, such
as the words of angels, men, and demons, we must
receive as such upon documentary evidence, if at all,
for they would not have been transmitted to us but for
the inspired portions of the Bible. This will suffice.
I hope I am understood.
Second. He farther represents that we hold the
preceptive portions of the Old Testament as perfect,
and the rule of Christian virtue and piety. We have
taken no such position. The Old Testament does not
claim to be perfect, and the New Testament does not
award  perfection  to it.  Moses  says, "' another
Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up like unto
me; to him shall ye harken." Would it appear from
this prediction, that Moses expected that all the nation would refer to him for instruction throughout
all time?  Again-Jeremiah says, Behold, the days
come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new cove
ill 
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
nant with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah:
not according to the covenant I made with their
fathers; in the day I took them by the hand to lead
them out of the land of Egypt."  Paul commenting
upon this says, (Hebrews 8, 7,) "For if that first
convenant had been faultless, then should no place
have been sought for the second. But being faulty,
the Lord said by the mouth of the Prophet, he would
abolish it and make room for a new convenant
established upon better promises." Again-Ezekiel
says, "I gave them, also, statutes which were not
good, and judgements by which they should not
live."
This is that sponge that wipes away an hundred
of Mr. Barker's objections. They were not good in
one sense, and yet in another sense they were good.
The word good is a relative term. To illustrate my
meaning, I will say that when "Solon was interrogated whether he had given the Athenians the best
laws? said that he had given them the best of which
they were capable." So God gave to the Jews the
best laws they were capable of receiving in that age
of the world.
Who would propose our " Constitution," and complex laws for the government of the American
Indians?  Or who would propose the Constitution of
England with its more complex code for the government of the Greenlanders? Such a proposition would
subject a legislator to merited reproach.
Mr. Barker, however, has a few words upon this
112 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
point. They are not only explanatory of, but corroborate the views just submitted.  On account of
the dimness of my vision, I shall call upon Mr.
McNeely to read for me.  IHe will read an extract
from " Christianity Triumphant," page 428.
Ans. The religion of Christ differs very considerably from the
religion of the Jews, and yet God might be the author of both
without being changeable.  God is the author both of the sun, and
moon; and the sun and the moon differ widely from one another,
and yet it does not follow that God is changeable. He made the
sun and moon for different purposes: the sun to rule the day, and
the moon to rule the night, and they are both well adapted to their
purposes. So with the religion of the Jews, and the religion of
Christ.  The religion of the Jews was like the moon, or like the
morning star, adapted exactly to its place and time; but not adapted
for the whole world, or for all times. The religion of Christ is the
sun, intended to bring the full light of day, and adapted to all
ages, and to all climes.
God is a parent, we are his children, and God is unchangeably
attached to his children, and invariably seeks their highest happiness. What course shall we expect his unchanging wisdom and
goodness to pursue?  Will he treat mankind in one unvarying way
from first to last? By no means. While the human race is in its
infancy he will exercise their feeble powers with childlike labors,
giving them little tasks and easy ones, such as their childish state
requires. Thus did God deal with the first generations of men:
he laid few burdens on  them, and those but light ones.  The
laws he gave to the Patriarchs were very few and far from strict,
but they were as many and as strict as in those rude and infant
ages could be of service to mankind. It was necessary that some
laws should be give thus early, and it was necessary that those
laws should not be many or severe, and the kindness and wisdom
of our Father appointed it so.  But after a number of generations
had passed away, men became intellectually and morally strongerthey were capable of greater exercises, and the needed them; and
God, always the same affectionate Father, gave them more work.
He gave the law by Moses, and accompanied the law with fuller
revelations of his character and providence.  Under this new dispensation the human family rose still higher, and gathered more
inward strength, and became prepared for greater and better things;
and it was then that God, in the same unchanged and unchangeable
wisdom and benevolence, abolished former systems, and gave a
full and perfect system of truth and duty by Jesus Christ. But in
all these changes we see the same unchanging Father, pursuing the
same grand end, the greatest happiness of the human race.
113 
114    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
God has given us "a perfect system of truth and
duty by Jesus Christ." That expresses the second
feature of my proposition beautifully and truly. I
marvel that Mr. Barker upon his principles should
calumniate the Bible; for, if there be no supernatural revelation, if the Bible contains nothing
divine, from whenc'e flow all the communications
found upon its pages? From the same source, the
common fountain from which the Shasters, the Koran,
all systems of superstition, all the different forms of
Paganism and infidelity were derived. Upon his
own principles if there be nothing supernatural, if
all is nature and nature is all, then, his opposition
to the Bible is nothing but the development, the
workings of his own nature; and my opposition to
him is nothing more nor less than nature in confito
with nature.  We  must hear Mr. Barker on this
point also. I engaged in this discussion before I
knew that Mr. Barker was the author of such works
as I have, and shall read from them.  They came
into my hands unlooked for, and I had them some
weeks in my possession before I opened them. I had
used the very argument to which I have just adverted,
weeks befo:e I discovered the extract which we shall
read in a momnent, to which my worthy friend, (the
reader,) is witness.  Finding that Mr. Barker's writings contained a great amount of matter which I
desired to bring before this audience, my health
being feeble, not having been able to be out of bed a
whole day for sonme weeks past until within a few days, 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
I  discovered  it  would  save  me  a  vast  amount
of labor and research to refer to his own writings
and present them to the audience. I feel under lasting obligation to my friend for this assistance.
We now ask the reading of the argument to which
I have just referred.   " The  Christian," Vol,  1st,
page 19.
"Unbelievers sometimes say that nature never errs; that she is
wise and beneficent in all her operations; and that the reason why
her children are not happy is because they follow other guides.
They especially blame religion and superstition, and represent them
as the great occasions of human guiRt and wretchedness.  But if
religion be false, and infidelity true, NATURE is the only power in
existence. If religion be false, and infidelity true, then religion
is one of nature's productions, one of nature's own children. What
else but nature could produce religion on the unbeliever's theory?
If the theory of the unbeliever be true, all that unbeliever's complain of, and even the complaints of unbelievers themselves, are the
productions of nature. Nature and, religion are not at variance;
they are one. If the unbeliever's theory be true, there is no such
thing as following other guides instead of nature; nor is there any
such thing as the transgression of nature's laws.  Religion itself,
and superstition, and ignorance, and error; and priestcraft, and
slavery, and war, and intolerance, and civil government; and all
that is black, and unclean, and terrible, as well as all that is fair,
and lovely, and glorious, are all so many parts or productions of
nature. If religion, then, be wrong, nature is wrong. If nature
be right, religion is right. So full of inconsistency is the unbeliever's creed.
It does seem to me that Mr. Barkler cannot, with
any degree of consistency, as a scholar, or a man of
integrity, throw off the responsibility of such arguments.   "True,"  he  says, " I  have  thrown  them
away.   They were mine."   This is mine originally;
I did not receive it from him. It is his also;
therefore the validity of the argument has double
support.
Mr. Barker repeatedly says, "I know that Mr.
115 
116    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
Ilartzel cannot prove his position." I would say to
my  friend  as one said of old, "Let not him  that
putteth on his armor boast himself as he that putteth
it off." But this kind of egotism seems to be characteristic of the man. It displayed itself more or
less while he was a minister, and it still manifests
itself. It is a personal peculiarity for which I will
not hold him responsible, nor chide him; but there is
no argument in it.
I now  commence the train of argument where  I
left it. In my last address I closed by saying that
the Bible is all that civilization is worth to us. I
was about to read a beautiful extract fromn Mr. Barker, which I will read now.   I.Christinnity Triumphant," page 385.
"Obj. 87. The arts and sciences flourished among
the Greeks and Romans, before Christianity was
heard of."
Ans. 1. Yes SOME of them did; but when earthly arts and sci
ences flourished most among them, they were a wicked and
miserable people.  The history of the Greeks and Romans is a
proof that Mathematics, Sculpture, Painting, and Poetry may
flourish among a people, while war, and pride, and slavery, and
intemperance, and licentiousness, are indulged in almost without
restraint.
2. There are many important arts in use among us, which were
not at all understood among the ancient Greeks and Romans. The
most important of all arts, the art of DOING GOOD, appears not to
have been at all understood or practised among those nations.
They made fine statues, and kept them with the greatest care; but
they cared not for the LIVING  statues with which they were surrounded; they murdered their brethren without a sigh. They
were very clever im imitating with the pencil, flowers, and fruits,
and landscapes; but their armies trampled the flowers and fruits
which the liberal earth sent forth in the mire; and the landscapes
painted by the hand of Heaven-the fields, and woods, and
gardens, which were full of life and blessing-they turned to a 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
desolate wilderness. They studied Mathematics, Logic, and Rhetoric; but they allowed the millions of their brethren  among
whom they lived, to suffer all the miseries of ignorance, and error,
and vice, without a single effort to enlighten and regenerate them.
Sculpture and Painting, Music  and Poetry, Mathematics, Logic
and Rhetoric, are but childish trifles compared with the multiplied
arts of beneficence called forth into being, and kept in active operation, by the influence of the religion of Christ."
You will remember that Mr. Barker, yesterday,
made quite a point upon this, that it was impossible
that a religion generally adopted by the world could
be a documentary religion and rest upon historic
basis. We proceed then to the argument.
If, then, Christianity is a blessing, this promise to
Abraham was not an empty boast, but God has fulfilled his convenant, and sent the richest blessings
upon the nations through Abraham's promised seed.
We claim that these promises to Abraham were
" supernatural communications," and have received
a miraculous confirmation. Abraham is yet a great
nation, and his name is still great. The Jews delight
to do him honor by naming their sons Abraham.
Christians do the same.   In almost every Christian
family, there are Abrahams, Isaacs, Jacobs, and
Saralis. In my own family I have a Sarah. These
names are honorable on account of their connection
with blessings conferred upon the world through the
Gospel. But who calls his son Esau? I have never
found one Esau, etc. The name of Abraham is still
a great name, and God's promise has been fulfilled:
" I will give unto thee a great name."' In the exact
ratio of the spread and prevalence of the Gospel will
tle name of Abraham become greater and greater.
117. 
118    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
lNow is it possible that man's human perception,
human invention, or foresight could have originated
these promises and placed them in that early period
of the world? If Abraham had originality enough
to devise a schemes and so control and direct it, to
carry it out through so long a period of successive
ages, he is the author of an imposition for which the
world.,as no comparison.
MR. IARTZEL'S EIGHITII ADDRESS.
If Mr Barker had remembered the principles to
which we adverted on yesterday, involving the means
of acquiring knowledge, whether scientific or religious, it would have saved both him and myself some
time, and Professor Hitchcock from the caricature to
which we have just listened. I refer to the principle
that man is subjected to this necessity-" that he can
only know things by things already known."
Mr. Barker.-" I deny doing injustice to the views
of Hitchcock. I defy any man to produce proof that
I have done so."
Mr. Hartzel.-I wish to make a few detailed remarks respecting these " statutes which were not
good."  My friend looks at the Bible through the eye
of an infidel. I still look at it through the eye of an
admirer, a lover, and own that I highly respect its
authority. To me there never was a system of things 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
since the world began that is so beautiful. It is true
that the strained interpretation he puts upon certain
parts of the Scriptures, may have weight with some.
But you may torture any book and make it say what
it does not mean.* With regard to MIoses and Jesus,
*I shall here give a few examples of Mr. Barker's method of quoting and perverting
the Scriptures, and let these represent his course throughout the entire controversy.
First: He said some of the Psalms are beautiful, while others are very different.  Ho
then said, "I will read one."  This he did not do;  he only read from the 9th to the 16th
verse of the 109th Psalm, and then exclaimed:  "IT IS EiNOUGI TO MAKE ONE SHED
TEARS OF BLOOD." The Psalmist was here uttering some imprecations against the un godly, "Because he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy
man, that he might even slay the broken in heart. As he loved cursing, so let it come
unto him, as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As he clothed himself
with cursing," etc.  If he had read the connexion, HE MIGIT HAVE RESTRAINED "his
tears of blood."
Second: "Happy shall he be that taketh and dasbeth thy little ones against the
stones."-Psalm 137.  "Strange HAPPINESS that would be," exclaimed  Mr. Barker.
Why did not Mr. Barker quote the preceding verse; because it did not suit his purpose.
"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy SHALL he be, that rewardeth
thee as thou hast rewarded us, happy SHALL he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones
against the stones."
The "daughter of Babylon" was, for many years, the most oppressive power on earth.
They carried the Jews, with their consecrated vessels, into Babylon, burned their temple,
and left their city in ruins. One of their inspired poets foretold the coming fortune of
this tyrannical despotism.  " O  daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed." She
was "destroyed."  God named theman two hundred years beforehe was born-called him
his "ANNOINTED" to" open to him the two leaved gates of brass," etc.  Who was commissioned to perform this service? Cyrus was AxrPPY in executing the divine denunciation against Babylon. The prophecy against which Mr. Barker has directed his SATIRE,
was declarative of the divine purpose and justice, as a judicial proceeding, and Cyrus is
yet called "happy."
Third:'"Some passages say that God tempts no man; another says he tempted
Abraham." 
The word "tempt" is sometimes used in an ill sense,  To incite to an evii act, in this
sense God tempts no man, as the Scriptures say-" Let no man say when he is tempted, I
am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his lusts and enticed."  But the
word " tempt " is als      o u sed in agood sense to " trvy," to'prove," to "put on  trial for
proof."  "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."-)euteroomy 6th.  Matthew 4th,
"You shall sot put the Lord your God to the proof."   r. Campbell's translation. In
this sense, God did "tempt" Abraham.  He pIrt him to the proof  You may  substitute
the word TRY in the case of Abraha m, and many other passages, and the sense will be
the same.  "God  id TRY Abraha."  " There has no temptation (trial) taken you, bat
such as is common to man.I-I st Corinthians 10: 13.
Fourth: "The Bible  cntains  a  morality concerning sacrifice. It recommends
humai  sacrifice. It represents God  s co mmanding  Abraham to offer up his son, etc.
There were three distinct      a ctions in a sacrificial performance.  First, the offering; second,
the slaying or sacrificing of the  icti; third, the burning of the sacrifice  God  gave
the command to Abraham in the first, and he obeyed it in its expressed terms  but, when
he was about to proceed to its implied terors, the angel said unto him, lay not thy hand
upon the lad. Mr Barker committed no sm.ll blunder when he said  "the Bible ecommends hna  sacrifice."  It did, in this solitary case, command a human offering, but
FORBADE a hulman sacrifice.21
This cavil of Mr. Barker's is as old as Voltaire  and we shall let certain Jews, in a
series of letters to Monsieur,Voltaire on pages 358 and 359, answer Mr. Barker, as they
did his worthy predecessor: "If the God of the Jews had approved of such sacrifices
vonl he have stopped the hand of Abraham who was offeringg ip his sel to'him?  Sat isfied wih th is tria of his servant's faith and obedience, he forbild hi.  to stretch  his
ar  over so dear a victim, and sbstittes another in its place. Does not thi s codct
at a time, when, aceordln  to you, the Canaanites were beginning to sacrifice their  hildren to their divinities, show that "the God of Abraham " did not resemble the gods  ri
the idolators, who  delighted to see h,oneot blood flowing, The refusal of this
119 
120    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIlE
none would understand by anything in the language,
that Jesus was to be like unto Moses in all things.
There were remarkable points of similarity between
the two personages. These you can examine for
yourselves.  Jesus, Peter, James, and John, being in
victim, under the circumstances, was doubtless a striking lesson by which God, whilst
he made a trial of Abraham's faith, meant to give a perpetual lesson to this holy man and
his posterity, of his abhorence of those barbarous superstitions."
Fifth: Mr. Barker says,  "when I read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, I
am  filled with sorrow and amazemenct.  DI)ives was rich, but no evil is charged against
him." Let us see: " There was a certain beggar laid at his gate full of sores; and
desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table; moreever the
dogs came and licked his    sores.
The " rich man " in the parable, was the exact personification of a voluptuous, brutehearted Saducee-more brute-hearted than a dog.  HE WAS LITERALLY AN INFIDFL.
He neither believed in a resurrection, future life, angel, spirit, heaven or hell.  But "no
evil is charged AGAINST HIM," says Mr. Barker.  No evil implied in this?   "A BEGGAR
LAY AT HIS GATE, WISHING FOR THE CRUMBS THAT FELL FROM HIS TABLE-DOGS LICKED
HIS SORES."  Dives was not like the good Samaritan, or he would not have let the dogs
dress the poor man's sores, he would have done it himself; he would not have suffered
him to lie exposed at his gate; he would have taken him into his house and laid him on
his bed; he would have had no occasion to desire crumbs, for the GOOD man would have
given him LOAVES.
SENSUALITY, and a WAIT OF SYMPATHY for suffering humanity are no crimes with Mr.
Barker. Query; how is it that his benevolent soul can feel so deeply for the neglected
slaves? Are not slaveholders, to say the most, as kind to their slaves as this "rich
man " was to the "beggar"? Yes; but that such a man should be sent to hell is what
fills Mr. Barker with nORROR.  No doubt thedistinction which shall be visibly displayed
in a fittre state, between the righteous and the wicked, is the chief cause of opposition
to the Bible.
Sixth: Mr, Barker referred to the words of Christ in Matthew 5th, "but whosoever
shall say, thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire."  He then quoted these words of
Christ to his discipies:  " 0, fools, and slow of heart," etc.  lithe word "fool" had
but one meaning, if it could be used in but one sense, there svould be some point in Mr.
B3arker's remv~ks.  " Fool," as defined by Webster, has six meanings: 1st, an idiot;
2d, a person defcient in i ntellect, one who acts absurdly; 3d, IN SCRIPTURE, FOOL is
often used for a wicked or depraved person; 4th, a weak Christian; 5th, a term f indignity and reproach, In the 5th f Matthew, Christ forbade his disciples to use the word
"fool " in its fifth meaning as a term of reproach; but i Luke 24:25 he applied it to his
apostles in its fourth meaning: "O fools (weak) and slow of heart to believe all the
apostles have spoken." Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into
his glory? Now ought not Mr. Barker, a scholar, to know that the words are different
in the original.
Seventh: "Some passages say you must not be angry, and if you are yeon are in
danger of the judgment; while ohers represen t Christ himself as being  angry."  The
first meaning of the word " angry," is feeling resentment. Christ forbade his disciples
such feeling of resentment as might prompt to murder, or the use of reproachlful language,
for this was the subject of his teaching in Matthew 5: 21, 22, but in Mark Id, to which
Mri. Barker referr         ed, the Jews "watched Jesus Christ if he would heal on the Sabbath
day, that they might accuse him," "And when he had looked round about on them with
ANGER, BEING GRIEVED FOR THE HARDNESS OF THEIR HEARTS,     he aith unto the man
stretch forth thy land."  Christ's " anger" was a HOLY RESENTMENT, " BEING GRIEVED
FOR THE HARDNESS OF THEIR IHEARTS.'
The above is a fair specimen of Mr. Barker's efforts to pervert the plain and obvious
meaning of Bibl     e laguae.  To ti infidels have always resorted ini their opposition to
the Scriptures. That cause must be a bad one, which is driven to such means for support.
AMr. Barker, i)eing a master of language, evidently DISSEBLED  whell he said, and
repealedly said, "I AM NOT AN ENEMY TO Till- BIBLE;" " I DON'T WANT TO T)ESTROY THE
BIBLE,' etc.  I am. happy ini the covictio, that altough  is measis wer e chosen with
direct reference to this END. the wise will regard it as another display of infidel folly,
and, as " DEAD FLIES caus       e the ointment of the Apothecary to send forth a STINKING
sAVOi, SO doth a little FOLLY him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
a high mountain- Moses and Elias, from the regions
of the dead, appeard in their midst. While engaged
in conversation with the Messiah about his death,
(see Luke 9: 31,) a voice was heard from the Eternal
Heavens, saying: " This is my beloved Son; hear
him." Moses then laid his commission down, and
resigned his authority as God's oracle and law-giver
to Jesus Christ, his successor in office and authority.
These formalities, with the imperative hear him,
were, doubtless, to satisfy the Apostles that their
present law-giver who was to be like unto Moses, was
yet superior to Moses, and had authority to change or
abrogate his Law, as he had done in his sermon on
the mount. The Savior there repealed some of those
"statutes which were not good."  "' An eye for an
eye, and a tooth tor a tooth," was not a good statute;
and Jesus Christ abolished it, and gave this better
statute: " But I say urnto you, that you resist not
evil." Now, Jesus Christ, the last messenger of
Jehovah, has taken the place of Moses; and surely
the predecessor is honored by the successor.
When the Pharisees asked this question: " Is it
lawful for a man to put away his wife for every
cause?"  Hie answered: "In the beginning it was
not so.-"  " Why did Moses, then, command to give
her a writing of divorcement and send her away?"
" Moses on account of the hardness of your hearts
suffered you to put away your wives," etc. This was
another statute whick was not " good," but it was the
best Divine wisdom and benevolence could do. " Ye
121 
122    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIIE
have heard it said by them of old time, thou shalt
not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger
of the judgment. But I say unto you that who soever is angry with his brother without cause, shall
be in danger of the judgment &c."   The letter of
this law was required at the hand of the Jew-the
overt act was the offense.  But Jesus Christ forbids
the indulgence of the passion, (anger,) which might
prompt the act, and make this an offence against his
more discriminating law of moral rectitude. The
Apostle's teaching was in perfect harmony with this:
"Whosoever hateth its broth7er is a murderer."
" Ye have- heard, that it was said by them of old
time, thou shalt not commit adultery?. But I say unto
you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after
her, hath committed adultery already with her in his
heart."
The law forbade the act; but the Gospel forbids
the passion.  God has required of man, under every
dispensation, according to the light they had, and
the privileges they enjoyed; but his mercy made
many abatements, else no flesh could have been
saved.
Paul makes a beautiful comment on the Law
and the Gospel:  "For what the Law could not do, in
that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin
condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness
of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not
after the flesh, but after the spirit.' 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
God in the greatness of his mercy did not require
the righteousness of the Law from the Jew.   The
righteousness of the precepts: " Thou shalt not kill,"
' thou shalt not commit adultery," was more than to
abl)stain from overt action. Moses required obedience
to the letter of these great moral principles. Christ
to the spirit of them.  The onie placed his  interdict
upon actions; the other upon passions first, and
second upon actions.  The Law was weak ifor the
want of motive; hence the Jew was always in bondage on the score of moral principle. The Gospel, or
the Law of the spirit of life has motive-imparts
strength; hence the Christian is "free," and the
Gospel is the "Law of liberty." 
Our friend still talks of contradictions.  I must
say, and i hope he will not consider this speaking disparagingly of him, for it is my settled conviction,
that these contradictions are of his own creation.
tle asserts that the Gospel says that Christ was
angry. Will he bring the passage? I know of no
such'passage.  I wish here to say to Mr. Barker that
if he will bring forward some palpable contradictions,
such as are important, and cannot be reconciled, I
will concede to him that he has accomplished something against the authority of the Scriptures. Let
me be understood. Such contradictions as would
efiect the credibiiity of witnesses before a court of
law. He does say that Jesus Christ never contradicted himself, or contradictedt ttie trtl.  "Christian," Vol. 1st, page 20.
123 
124    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
"Unbelievers  cannot prove that ever Christ taught doctrines
that were inconsistent with each other; they cannot prove that He
ever either contradicted himself, or contradicted the truth."
The argument, that upon infidel principles, nature
is a7ll, and all is nature, he tried to meet with his
notions of human progression.
I wish now to offer my views on the subject of progression.  I did not intend to introduce them  at
present, but it seems to be required.
"-Man is progressive."' True: So are animals and
vegetables, and all things that come to maturity by the
law of growth. Still progress is subject to certain
limitations. It has its hitherto; and man, as well
as other animals, is subjected to the same humiliating
i" itherto 8Ishalt tot come, and here shall thy progress be stayed."  When  the law of growth  has
accomplished its work in the vegetable kingdom, the
plant suddenly passes into another state, which we
are pleased to call maturity. In this state it remains
but a short time, then passes into another, which
we call decomposition.  Nor is it otherwise with man,
at least in so far as our eyes and ears can follow him
through his earthly pilgrimage. Some twenty years
will finish his physical progress; and in twenty
years more the retrograde begins; and at sixty the
mental faculties are fully developed, and the retrograde begins. Some of the mental faculties begin to
fail, and in a few years more his friends begin to say,
"he is getting childish."  "Why! how childish he
is." Incapable of any important business transaction,
he retires from the active cares of life, and from the 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
world,-a superanuated man-a child-an idiot,-he
drops into the grave.
This is, indeed, a humiliating picture. No more
so, however, than true. It is so, because true.
Now let me ask the infidel: What of your boasted
progression-eternal progression?  Nothing sounds
more ludicrous and imaginative, than to hear an
unbeliever talk of his eternal progression. And even
while in his progressive state, his progress is subject
to some controlling influences, we call circumstances.
This is true both of his body and his mind. Some
never attain to physical manhood, and others
fall short of intellectual manhood on account of
adverse circumstances. Some make no progress in
art, in science, in government, in religion. It is a
fact of history that many nations existed for ages
without knowing the use of fire, among whom were
the Persians and Phoenicians. Many do not now
know how to make a hatchet. They cannot read a
word, nor form a letter-progression notwithstanding has done nothing for them.  From whence, then,
comes the propelling power?  Ah! that is the question. Is it inside of mnan, or outside of him- to
speak in a homely way?' It is both. The capacity
is within, but the steam, the power, that drives the
machinery, is without.
Our friends, even more speculative than profound,
have not discriminated between man's native capacity
for improvement, and the instrumental causes effecting it; and hence they speak of man as a seyf
125 
126    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
sharpener, a self-propeller, a pepetual motion.  I
have  often wondered  at Mr. Fowler's tardiness.
Perhaps he is one of those gentlemen who do
not prize patent honors. Be that as it may, I would
certainly advise Henry C. Wright, if he-has not pro gressed out oQf the region of his resolutions, to make
a trip to the Patent Office as soon as convenient.
We might suppose that man was capable of making
the necessary progress in things pertaining to his
present temporal welfare  without the Bible.  The
history of the-world, however, declares it to be quite
otherwise.  Where  has humanity developed itself
most rapidly and most favorably   In Pagan lands?
Will nay friend say yes, in heathen lands? And if
not there; where then?  We answer within those
geographical boundaries, where the Bible has been
most circulated and read.
Come to our own America.  To test this principle,
select, if you please, any State in the Union, or we
will say any six neighboring States, which have made
the most progress in art, in science, in morals, in
education and general intelligence, and see if they
were not moredevoted to the reading and circulating
of the Bible than any other six in our political confederacy. Will some one name them? "' The six New England States." You arerightsir In this respect Mr. Barker is with us.  "Tile Christian," Vol. 2, page 247.
"JI have another fact to state. Those nations, where the Bible is
respected, and where it is most read and studied, are the FIRST, the
FR,,EST, the W-ISPST, tir BEST, thie T.APrIEST of the nations. There
are greater philosophers in those countries, and greater philanthlro 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
pists, than in other countries where the Bible is not respected or
read. There are more examples of temperance and purity in the Bible
countries than in others. There is more domestic comfort, there is
more respect to marriage and to marriage duties in Bible countries
than in others.  There is, also, less priestcraft, and more religious
freedom in Bible countries than in others. In all respects the lands
of Bibles are the first and happiest nations of the earth.  I know
that in Bible countries there is still much sin and misery; but this
vice and misery will be found most prevalent amon such as pay
least regard to the Bible and its teachings. In Bible countries some
forms of vice, perhaps, prevail which do NOT prevail in countries
where Bible influences are not felt; but this arises from the abuse
of that liberty which the Bible creates. When men are free they
necessarily become either better than others, or worse than others.
Those who choose to-ImrnovE theirliberty, excel in goodness; while
those who ABUSE their liberty become extravagant in vice. Still
the tendency of the Bible is to promote virtue and happiness."
This extract concedes everything we claim. We
ask again, have the blessings of civilization advanced
without the Bible? Jiave infidels and atheists
plunged into  the wilderness  of Heathenism, with
their Godless and  Christless  books,  educated  and
elevated the savage  tribes of earth?  We  answer,
emphatically, no!  never!   Who,  then,- has  accomplished the little that has been done  in that way?
The Christian with God's  Bible in his hand  and in
his heart. These are eloquent facts,-they speak
for themselves. They need no comment.
Finally, upon the subject of eternal progression.
We  have seen WHAT it is, so far as this life is concerned, and if there is no future life, it is all a dream.
But Christians, with the evidences of the Gospel
in favor of a future life of blessedness, may reasonably
indulge in  this pleasing hope.   But infidels  must
be required to prove first, that there is a future lifQ
for man; and then, secondly, that that life will not be
127 
128     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
as the present.   First progress, then retrograde.
For upon their own principles, if God, or nature has
placed them in this world, I am sure they can have
no reason to offer, that they may not be placed in a
worse hereafter. But Christianity is every way favorable to human progress, in all that is valuable to
man; but especially in moral excellence, without
which, all other advances are of no avail. " But
grow in grace and the knowledge of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ, that favor, mercy, and peace
may be multiplied unto you."
The Christian has Jesus Christ before him as the
beau ideal of all perfection. Hiis examples are of
Heavenly type. These are copies for his eyes. IHe
looks at these with admiration and a prayerful desire
to imitate. iHe listens with attention to his precepts;
these serve as so many prompters to his eyes. Iis
lessons of Heavenly wisdom and of love are constant
food for his soul, and he feels sure that with his best
effort he shall not reach that point of mental and
moral grandeur to which he himself aspires; and let
me say to my friends, that when they have reached
this point of moral excellence, and can progress no
further, and they are not removed to another world
more favorable to their full development, they will
then have a right to petition Heaven in behalf of a
new and more perfect standard of moral excellence.
And if their petition shall be denied them, they will,
probably, be excused from further progress.
I now resume my main argument, and I promise 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
myself a more calm sea and fairer sailing to the
end of our voyage.  Our friend said yesterday, that
he was going to strike out a course for himself. Is he
not here to respond?  Is it not my place to lead?
But if he is not disposed to reply, we are not re sponsible for his failure.
We shall, then, continue our train of argument on
prophecy. Then we shall offer some arguments on
miracles, Bible history, and biography, and the per fect adaptation of the Gospel for the removal of slavery,
polygamy, and all the other organized and systema tized forms of iniquity that afflict and degrade man kind. I-ad I a guaranty from this audience that
they would continue this attendance for eight or ten
days, we would follow our friend through all his
windings and shiftings, though our proposition does
not require it. But lest he should make a solitary
child believe that there is argument in his declamations, I would pursue that course. I aver Mr. Barker
is an excellent declaimer, but I am not sure he is
quite so good a logician.
Mr. Barker.  " I used to be a good logician."
Mr. Hartzel. Yes, I admit that; but he has
changed, and what a change!
Argument five:  We have now given four arguments. One, upon Authenticity —three, upon promises and their fulfillment. And now proceed more
directly to prophecy. The Jews were the subjects of
prophecy during the whole of their national existence,
5
129 
130    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
and an examination of these claim a place in our
series. Moses says: " And yet for all that, when
they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast
them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy
them utterly, and to break my covenant with them:
for I am the Lord their God."
I must here read some more prophetic data before
summing up the testimonies on the subject before us.
I read first from Jeremiah, 46: 28. "Fear thou not
O Jacob, my servant, saith the Lord; for I am with
thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations
whither I have driven thee; but I will not make a
full end of thee, but correct thee in measure; yet
will I not leave thee wholly unpunished."  Again,
Jeremiah 31: 35, 36, 37.  "Thus  saith the Lord,
which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by
night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof
roar; the Lord of hosts is his name.  If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then
the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a
nation before me forever. Thus saith the Lord: If
IHeaven above can be measured, and the foundations
of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off
all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done,
saith the Lord."  We will next read  losea 3: 4, 5:
"For the children of Israel shall abide many days
without a king, and without a prince, and without a
sacrifice, and without an image, and without an
ephod, and without a teraphim.  Afterward, shall 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their
God, and David their king; and shall fear the Lord
and his goodness in the latter days."
"There is nothing in the history of nations so
unaccountable on human principles as the destruction
and preservation of the Jews.", Citizens of the
world and yet citizens of no country, subject to
kings but not their own, obedient to laws but not of
their own framing, oppressed but not oppressing,
persecuted but not persecuting, "like the bush that
was burning, but not consumed." " They shall not
be utterly destroyed," said the Prophet Moses. They
shall still exist, but not as they once did-without
king, prince, sacrifice, image, teraphim, etc. In this
condition they were to "abide many days."  For
almost eighteen hundred years they have existed in
this condition - a people who were so prone to image
worship -a people who, for a thousand years, could
not be kept from idolatry; but now, when their temptations have been greater, they have existed without
an image, for no image or idols are to be found in
their synagogues. There are many wicked practices
charged upon this nation, but the pen of the historian
has not accused them of the sin of idolatry for eighteen hundred years. Once they had kings-once
they had princes, sacrifices, ephods, images, and teraphim.  But ever since the destruction of their Temple-the breaking up of their priesthood- they have
existed without these.
"I will make a futll end of all the nations whither
131 
132    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
I have driven thee, but I will not make a full end of
thee."  Thej rst has been literally fulfilled.
MR. IHARPTZEL'S NINTtI ADDRESS.
A few words of reply.  You remember that Mr.
Barker undertook to make a point in relation to the
words of prophecy,' utterly destroyed."' Ie says,
"to destroy means to kill, and that the nation is still
alive, and that we have failed in our last argument."
Let him prove that "destroy" necessarily means'"to
kill," and he will have made a capital argumLnent.
"And they shall serve other G(ods, which neither
thou nor thy fathers have known."  Well, they did
serve other Gods, as the history clearly shows, while
in Babylon.
The Prophecies to which we referred, relate to
another period in the history of the Jewish nation,
and we have shown that they fully describe their
present condition.  We have then established our
point. The Prophet says they would be in that condition a long time-  "for many days."  They have
been in the condition described for eighteen hundred
years, and are so at present. We acknowledge the
prophecy to which Mlr. Barker referred was literally
ftilfilled. We also claim a literal fihfillment for thiose
wh'  we have cited.
a. Barker says there were no points of likeness 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
between Moses and Jesus Christ. Let us see: Moses
was forty days on the Mount; Jesus was forty days
on the Mount. Moses was a law-giver; Jesus Christ
was a law-giver. Moses was a Prophet; Jesus Christ
was a Prophet. There are many other points of reseinblance, but the coincidences we have named are
sufficient to justify what we said upon that prophecy,
and the accomplishmnent is plain and undeniable.
Mr. Barker says we thought we had found a point
with regard to his saying that Christ was angry.  I
did not think so.  All I thought was that he had not
found one. I shall show, then, what a point would
be.  I only said there was nlo contradiction in relationi to that subject.  If Mr. Barker will find a passage which says that Christ was nlever angry, thenir he
will have made out hIis case.
Mr. Barker.  I did not quote it as a contradiction.
Mr. IIartzel. Then, as to the abolition of slavery
and the sects most opposed to it; who hold that
slavery is ordained of God and sanctioned in the
Bible, Who refer with great assurance to'" cursed be
Canaan, a servant of servants shall hlie be," &c., we
have something to offer on that subject hereafter.
*" And Noah awokefrom his wine. and knew wlat his younger son had done iltO him.
And he said, cursed be Canaan  a servant of servants shall he be unto lisis brethren.
And lIe said, blessed be the Lord  God of Shem   and  Canaan shall be  his servant.
(-ni9. 9.24.26."
,tlaveholders and apologists for American slavery press this scripture into their service, aid ifidel abo               litionists ito theirs.  Tey aree as to  he nig of' the text.
They only differ in the application.   They first claim it as a guarantee for Americans to
enslave the Afican race, and the seod as an objection against the inspiration of thel
Bible.  I shall briefly examine their respective claims.
First They claim that Noa's aaening from his "wine," and the malediction
prolollncel "d on "Ca. aa,    " were il thes rdr o f time, as they stand il the order of
hIistory.  Is this a legitimate conclsio      srel.noti  a history so condensed that  ie
lsapers engross  a          deriod of 20(6 years; where events Are connected in the order of
words, wich wer e may ),cars  apart il the ore    of  tim e.  " And Noah Icgai lto be a
liusobndman, and he pAuted a vineyard:             d dra  k of the i:ie B  id was druniken,"
133 
134    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIHE
My friend mentions the Quakers as favorable to abolition, and claims that they are unbelievers. The
Quakers are not infidels. They receive the Bible as
of divine authority.   I have their declaration of
faith.  I will read from their own official documents
to prove my position, at the proper time and place.
With regard to Mr. Barker's caricature upon the
subject of marriage, we shall come to this in the
regular course of our argument. iHe quotes from 3rd
chapter of Peter:  "Likewise ye wives be in subjection to your own husbands, &c."  If he had read the
whole connection, his objections would have had no
force.  I will read it:  " Likewise,  ye husbands,
dwell with them according to knowledge, giving
honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and
as being heirs together of the grace of life." I pledge
etc.  There were some years between these events.  There was first, the "planting,"
second, the growth of the vine, etc.  Would it be safe to connect the "planting" of the
vineyard" and thle inebriation as following each other in immediate succession? We
say ro.
Farther, only "eight " souls entered the ark and " eight" eame  out of the ark.
The "curse " was pronounced upon Canaan, not upon Ham.  There is no evidence that
Canaan was born at the time that Noah recovered from the influence of his wine, for lhe
was the fourth son of Ham; there may have been many years betwee              n  Noah's intoxication and his predicting the future fortune s of his sons.  We are not at all certain that
Ham was the father of o( aaan at the time Noah "awoke from his wine; " but we are
sure that he was at the time, anal long before the history (Genesis) was written.
It is, then, of the most doubtful interpretation that the cursing of Canaan had any
connection with anything good or bad that Ham  had done, or that it resulted from any
vindictiveteoling eithertoward Ham or his son "Canaa." Neither does  the word
"curse' in the text necessarily imply any unkind feelingtoward his son or his grandson.
Among the many meanings of the word "curse isthis: "dev                      oted to destructin;"
devoted Canaan."  "Al, devoted  Ca          " aa,."-Thompson's translation. When God made
known to Cain his filture desti,ty, he employed the word " curs           e " in the same, sense.
'" And now art thou cursed from the eath,"  devoted to destruetion."   And this
prophecy was as literally fulfilled, for all his descendants perished in the flood which God
brought upon the ungodly, just as he subjected to servitude and destruction the descendants
of Canaat  when the cup of their iniquity was full.
Second. They assume that'*Ham's" conduct toward his father was  disrespectful.
Where is the proof?  Did he make a mock  of his father?  Nay.  He informed his
" brothers without."  The whole transaction on the part of the son shows nothing but
FILIAL RESPECT.
The parties have hated their claims upon nothing but assumption, which is always
the case whenever the Bible is forced into a wrong service.  Setting out firom  the same
point, they first say the Bible justifies the relation of "master and slave," THEREFORE
SLa'E.1 IS RIGHT.  The others  say, we agree with you that the Bible teaches slavery,
but slaivery is wrong, and the Bible is flse.
We will now for the sake of the argumnent grint all-that the advocates of American 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
myself, if you will be patient, that I will elaborate
out of this volume, the principle which has accom  plished more for the amelioration of mankind from
all despotism, than all that human philosophy or
Pagan mythology, or all other good men or systems,
outside of the Scriptures, have ever accomplished.
It is the law of nations that the strong shall oppress
the weak- that might gives right. The teachings
of our Lord Jesus Christ is the reverse; namely:
"that the strong are to bear the infirmities of the
weak."  If my opponent will be patient I will meet
these calumnies in due time. I have now noticed
all and more than I deem worthy of a passing re mark.  I return to prophecy.  "I will make a full
end of all the nations whither I have driven thee,
but I will not make an end of thee." There are two
distinct features in this prediction; the first of
~~..
slavery claim of divine right from this scripture.  And then we shall require of them,
first; to prove that the American slaveholders were once themselves slaves; (servant of
servants shall he be.) Second; That the Africans are the descendants of "Canaan."
Third; That the commission God gave the Jews as his executives was not accomplished
by them against the sinners, the " (Caaanites."  Fourth; That God is still carry ing on
a judicial process against the Africans (Canaanites) by the socs of Japheth, acting
under another comission.  I say when  they shall have settled all these preliminary
matters, we shall then be satisfied with their right, and  shall only ask for their commission. Then will we make their sIaveholding no more a matter of complaint or
admo.ition, provided first; that they will show that the Jewish law (by which the servitude of the Canaanites was regulated,) is yet in full force for the special benefit of the
Chlristian slaveholder, with this amendment; NO JUBILEE TO TfE SLAVE FOREVER.
Hebrew slavery being imp racticable  in America, we will only ask of them this little
thing; that they colonize themselves somewhere about central Africa, that they may
buy of the heathen "round about  them," for in their present location the American
Indians are the " heathen round about them; " and when they have righted themselves
as to location that they buy their slaves, unless they have good evidence that another
law has been amended or repealed, namely, "he that stealeth a man and  selleth him
shall surely be put to death." Come you sticklers for law and order, this thing of pleading law only for the right, and then managing the balance without, or in opposition to
law don't look ijust right. You seem to have a great veneration for the Bible; you would
not hold slaves if the Bibledid not justify you in doingso.  Your consciences are as tender upon the simple  question of RIGHT TO BE MASTERS as were the Pharisees about t, e
tithing of " mint, anise and cummin, and like them you rejectithe weightier matters,"
and violate every precept of the Hebrew law, regulating their domestic servitude.  You
do not yourselves (being Gentiles ) acknowledge the obligations of that law any farther
than as its moral principles have been transferred to the New Testament.  Suppose the
lsw of Moses were your standard of moral obligation to your  slaves; now would tho
decision stand in that day when God will judge the secrets of man by Jesus Christ? "A s
ay as Lave.sinned in the law shall be judged by the law."
135 
136    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
which has been literally fulfilled. I wish to refer you
to McIlvaine, pages 205, 206:
"Where are the nations among whom the Jews were scattered?
Hias not the Lord, according to his word, MADE A FULL END OF THEM?
While Israel has stood unconsumed in the fiery furnace, where are
the nations that kindled its flames?  Where the Assyrians and the
Chaldeans?  Their name is almost forgotten.  Their existence is
only known to history.  Where is the empire of the Egyptians?
The Macedonians destroyed it, and a descendant of its ancient race
cannot be distinguished among the strangers that have ever since
possessed its territory. Where are they of Macedon? The Roman
sword subdued their kingdom, and their posterity are mingled inseparably among the confused population of Greece and Turkey.
Where is the nation of ancient Rome, the last conquerors of the
Jews, and the proud destroyers of Jerusalem?  The Goths rolled
their flood over its pride. Another nation inhabits the ancient city.
Even the language of her former people is dead.  The  Goths I
where are they?  The Jews! where are they not?  They witnessed
the glory of Egypt, and of Babylon, and of Ninevah; they were
in mature age at the birth of Macedon and of Rome; mighty kingdoms have risen and perished since they began to be scattered and
enslaved; and now they traverse the ruins of all, the same people as
when they left India -preserving in themselves a monument of
the days of Moses and the Pharaohs, as unchanged as the pyramids
of Memphis, which they are reputed to have built.  You may call
upon the ends of the earth, and will call in vain for one living representative of those powerful nations of antiquity, by whom the
people of Israel were successively oppressed; but should the voice
which is hereafter to gather that people out of all lands, be now
heard from Mount Zion, calling for the children of Abraham, no
less than four millions would instantly answer to the name, each
bearing in himself unquestionable proofs of that noble lineage."
I will also read an extract from " Volney's Ruins,"
page 23:
"Here, said I, here once flourished an opulent city; here was the
seat of a powerful empire. Yes! I these places now so desert, were
once animated by a living multitude, a busy crowd circulated in
these streets, now so solitary. Within these walls, where a mourn ful silence reigns, the noise of the arts, and shouts of joy and fes tivity incessantly resounded; these piles of marble were regular
palaces; these prostrate pillars adorned the majesty of temples;
these ruined galleries surrounded public places.  Here a numerous
people assembled for the sacred duties of religion, or the anxious
cares of their subsistence; here industry, parent of enjoyments 
IOHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
collected the riches of all climates, and the purple of Tyre was ex changed for the precious thread of Serica; the soft tissues of Kache mire for the sumptuous tapestry of Lydia; the amber of the Baltic
for thepearls and perfumes of Arabia; the gold of Ophir for the
tin of Thule.
And now a mournful skeleton is all that subsists of this powerful
city! Nought remains of its vast domination, but a doubtful and
empty remembrance!  To the tumultuous throng which crowded
under these porticos has succeeded the solitude of death. The
silence of the tomb is substituted for the bustle of public places.
The opulence of a commercial city is changed into hideous poverty.
The palaces of kings are become a den of wild beasts; flocks fod
on the area of the temple, and unclean reptiles inhabit the sanctuary of the Gods! Ah! how has so much glory been eclipsed?
How  have so many labors been annihilated?  Thus perish the
works of men, and thus do empires and nations disappear!
And the history of former times revived in my mind.  I recollected those distant ages when many illustrious nations inhabited
these countries: I figured to myself the Assyrian on the banks of
the Tigris, the Chaldean on those of the Euphrates, the Persian
reigning from the Indus to the Mediterranean.  I enumerated the
kingdoms of Damascus and Idumea, of Jerusalem and Samaria,
the warlike states of the Philistines, and the commercial republics
of Phoenicia. This Syria, said I, now so depopulated, then contained a hundred flourishing cities, and abounded with towns, villages, and hamlets. Every where were seen cultivated fields, frequented roads, and crowded habitations. Ah! what are become
of those ages of abundance and of life? How have so many brilliant creations of human industry vanished? Whiere are those
ramparts of Ninevah, those walls of Babylon, those palaces of
Persepolis, those temples of Balbeck and Jerusalem?  Where are
thdse fleets of Tyre, those dock-yards of Arad, those work-shops
of Sidon, and that multitude of sailors, of pilots, of merchants,
and of soldiers? Where those husbandmen, those harvests, those
flocks, and all the creation of living beings in which the face of
the earth rejoiced? Alas! I have passed over this desolate land I
I have visited the palaces, once the theater of so much splendor,
and I beheld nothing but solitude and desolation. I sought the
ancient inhabitants and their works, and could only find a faint trace,
like that of the foot of a traveler over the sand.  The temples are
fallen, the palaces overthrown, the ports filled up, the cities destroyed, and the earth, stripped of inhabitants, seems a dreary
burying-place.  Great God! whence proceed such fatal revolutions?
What causes have so altered the fortunes of these countries? Why
are so many cities destroyed? Why has not this ancient population been re-produced and perpetuated?"
I have given, for the consideration of my friend
137 
138    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIIE
and the audience, not the testimony of a corrupt
Christian priest, but I have brought the testimony
from the other side of the house. You have heard his
testimony to the point in the argument, for which we
read him.  This testimony must have its full weight
on the subject, for surely Volney cannot be suspected
of having any partiality in favor of Christianity.
It cannot be supposed that this apostle of infidelity
would have written for the confirmation of prophecy.
We then say, upon the testimony of a competent
witness, and he an avowed enemy of the Bible, that
God has made an end of these nations who were once
the oppressors of the Jews, and honored the truth of
his prophetic word.
"But I will not make a full end of thee." " The
Jews, where are they," or rather, "where are they
not?"  "The laws of nature have been suspended in
their case." " A stream has held on its way through
a lake without losing the color and the characteristic
marks of its own current." A mighty river, issuing
from the mountain sides of Judea, has poured its contents into the ocean of life, where it has been broken
and lashed into spray, hundreds and thousands of
times; yet, strange to tell, every drop may be separated and identified as having passed into the sea of
human existence through that particular channel.
We would call this a miracle. All that is marvelous
in this imaginary case, is literally true, with respect
to this extraordinary people, the Jews.
Again, Jeremiah: "If these ordinances depart 
OHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
from before me saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel
shall cease to be a nation before me forever." The
facts respond to the prophecy and say-the Jews are
still a nation separate and distinct from all other nations. If any nation on earth could have reason to
run out its separate national existence, it must have
been the Jewish. For eighteen hundred years their
very name has been a badge of disgrace, and the
signal for persecution. They have been the victims
of popular fury and massacre. They have not only
outlived their cotemporary nations, by whom they
were oppressed in their dispersed condition, but also
those who took their rise subsequently. They have
seen the words of their Prophets fulfilled, in the entire destruction of these nations, and their own
miraculous preservation. What is this but miracle
connected with prophecy which it fulfills?  It is a
double miracle!
"Whether testimony can ever establish the credibility of a miracle, is a question of no importance
here. This miracle is obvious to every man's senses.
All nations are its eye-witnesses." The Jews are
still among our richest pedlars,'merchants, bankers
and brokers, and possess a vast amount of floating
wealth. Once they were the greatest agricultural
people in the world. Such is the testimony of history: yet, now they are exclusively engaged in commerce. So far as I know there is but one Jew under
hIeaven who depends upon the productions of the
soil for subsistance and wealth. This is Meshullem,
139 
140    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
who purchased from the Sultan a beautiful and fertile plain, some six miles from Jerusalem, and is
carrying on extensive and successful farming operations; so much so, that it has excited the cupidity of
the English IHierarchy.
They will not cultivate the lands belonging to the
Gentiles, either for themselves or as hirelings. If
there are exceptions, they are so few that they do not
affect the general result.
Hiow strong must be that bond of union which has
bound them together through so long a period of
time, and so many fearful revolutions! No national
policy can explain this phenomenon, for they have
none. Their local position will not solve the wonder, for this has been most unfavorable to their union.
Nothing will solve it, but the peculiarities of their
religion, and the superintending care of the Almighty.
And the anticipation of their precise condition for
so long a period, can only be solved by acknowledging
" that the Bible contains communications supernaturally revealed."  " IThey are still beloved for their
father's sake!"
I shall now ask your attention to those prophecies
which relate more directly to Jesus Christ, and his
coming.  These are numerous, varied and minute.
"To him give all the Prophets witness."'  "The
spirit of Prophecy is the testimony of Jews."
Argument 6: On thetime of the coming of Christ.
Prophetic date.
The sceptro shall not depart from Judali, nor a 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
law-giver from between his feet, until Shilohi come."
Dr. Adam Clarke gives "sent" as the definition of
Shiloh.  The sceptre as the ensign of royalty.  The
point in this prophecy is, that the kingship should
still be in the tribe of Judah till the coming of Christ;
and so it was, "Judah grasped the sceptre with a
feeble hand." But the Jews were still a united people. A king ruled over them. They were governed
by their own laws, and their judges were from among
their own brethren. The power of life and death
was in their hands, until about twelve years after the
birth of Christ. The same year that Jesus, the Son
of Mary, made his first public appearance, Archelaus,
their King was banished. Caponius, a Gentile, was
appointed Procurator, and the kingdom of Judea,
the last remnant of its regal glory, was debased, and
became a part of the Province of Syria.
Absolute princely power has not been exercised by
a Jew from that day to the present, save by David's
Son, and David's Lord; and this in fulfillment of a
prophecy uttered nearly three thousand years before!
What an overwhelminig proof of inspiration!  hIow
improbable, at the time this prophecy was delivered,
that Judah would ever furnish a king! At that time
he was a s8lave and continued so for many years after;
and after his emancipation, and taking possession of
the land of promise, the Jews were governed by
Judges for the space of four hundred years; their
government was a Theocracy-a most beautiful social arrangement-supposed by many to have been
141
i 
142    DEENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
one of the best forms of republicanism ever enjoyed
by any people. Now the Jews desired a king. (1st
Saml. 8th chap.) Samuel came before the Lord, and
the Lord said: " Hearken unto the voice of the people,
in all that they say unto thee, for they have not re jected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should
not rule over them."  He ordered Samuel to tell
them what manner of king they should have. That
he would take their sons and make servants of them,
and of their daughters he would make confectioners,
bakers, cooks, etc.  All these things were faithfully
submitted for their consideration. Still the people
were clamorous and would not hearken to Samuel.
"We will have a king to rule over us." A king was
given them. " I gave them a king in my anger and
took-him away in my wrath." This shows an im portant principle in the divine government. When
the heart of an individual or of a nation is determined
upon a certain thing, and they cannot be dissuaded
from their purpose, God will even let them have it,
that they may be taught a lesson by their own devices.
He, therefore, gave them a king, that they might learn
a lesson by experience, which they refused to learn
from the divine counsel.
When finally a kingship was orignated in Israel,
it was not in the tribe of Judah, but in the tribe of
Benjamin. How discouraging and dark everything
appeared thus far with respect to the sceptre passing
into the hand of Judah! Saul, a Benjaminite, wears
the crown royal. But he is unfaithful. God removed 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
him, and appointed David, the son of Jesse, of the
tribe of Judah, to be head over Israel.  David is
annointed king and now the sceptre passes into the
hand of Judah. Judah now became the royal family,
and continued to be from David until Archelaus, the
son of Herod, was removed by order of a Heathen
Emperor.
Who can tell who shall be our next President?
Who has sufficient political sagacity and forecast to
foretell who shall fill the Presidential chair in three
years from now? Who can tell into what family the
Presidency will pass at next election? No one. We
are utterly unable, with all the data we have, and
surely there is not a little from which a far-sighted
politician might make some calculation, and yet no
one would run a hazard or stake his reputation upon
his foreknowledge.  But infinite wisdom could foretell, that after so many hundred years, the " sceptre "
should pass into the hand of Judah, and should continue in that tribe until the coming of " Shiloh," two
thousand years distant from the date of the prophecy.
Again: "I will shake all nations and the desire
of all nations will come: and I will fill this house
with glory, saith the Lord."
143 
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TiE
MR. IIARTZEL'S TENTII ADDRESS.
Mr. Barker, in answer to some remarks we made
with reference to the great promoters of civilization,
claimed  that the Quakers,  with  many  others he
named, were infidels.
Mr. Barker.   "I said only that most of them were
Iunbelievers."
Mr. Ilartzel. Joseph John Gurney, an orthodox
Quaker,  says, (page 5 of a pamphlet, entitled "A
Declaration of his Faith respecting several points of
Christian Doctrine:)
"The Holy Scriptures. My belief respecting the Scriptures of
the Old and New Testament may be stated in the words of George
Fox:'Concerning the Holy Scriptures, we believe they were
given forth by the Holy Spirit of God, through the holy men of
God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. We
believe they are to be read, believed, and fulfilled, ()ie that fulfills
them is Christ;) and they are profitable for reproof, for correction,
and for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, and are able to
make wise unto salvation, through faith in Christ Jesus.  We
believe the Holy Scriptures are the words of God."'
We might give other testimonies on the same point,
and shall if called for.
Mr. Barker referred to the Law in Deuteronomy,
chap. 14: 21, as something exceedingly objectionable;
namely, that the Jews were allowed to give to the
stranger and sell to the alien, the meat of animals
that had died by disease.  The Jews had been accustomed to eat such flesh, or why prohibit it? The
prohibition is evidence that they had done so hithlierto.
144 
CHTARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
They were to be a peculiar people, from henceforth,
for important purposes; therefore the Lord forbade
them the use of this kind of flesh in the future.
IHere was some progression. The custom of eating
such flesh was,universal at that time, and among the
nations surrounding the Jews. It may have been
esteemed a luxury. The Jews were prohibited, but
their laws could not, of course, operate upon the
heathen. It is somewhat strange, I must say, that
my friend should prefer such charges against this Old
Testament law, since during his own life-time-within thirty years-the custom of eating such flesh has
prevailed in many parts of civilized England.  We
,ave living witnesses to this fact, whom I could name,
but will not at present. Some Germans, and those
)f other nations whom we call civilized, do so to this
lay.
Geology again: If Mr. Barker had only read
Iitchcock, and let us judge of its contents without
Perverting the text with his comments, there would
.lave been no occasion for my referring to it again.
If God had spoken to man in the language of physical science, it would have been impossible to have
made them understand what was meant, unless he
had also given them instruction in physical science,
which appears to have formed no part of his design.
God does nothing for man that man can do for himself.
The argument of Mr. Barker this morning, upon
nature, is answered by a reference to his own writings;
for, if there had never been any "supernatural com
145 
146    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
munications," I could see no propriety in his reasoning against the Bible; for, if there is nothing supernatural-if it be true that nature is all, and all is
nature-then slavery, priestcraft, infidelity, atheism,
sectarianism, can neither be called bad nor good:
they are but so many manifestations of nature. This
was my argument.  Hiow did he meet it? He did
not meet it.  ]le gave us his views of progression.
I made an argument on progression in reply. Did
he meet it?
I shall proceed.+  "I will shake all nations; and
the desire of all rations shall come, and will fill this
house with glory saith the Lord: Again, and the
glory of this latter house shall be greater than the
former." Haggai 2: 7-9. Sometime previous to
this prophecy, the Samaritans made propositions to
*Mr. Barker has now taken this position, "That the nations who do not progress will
be destroyed-and destruction becomes a means of progression." Is not this giving up
the question that man is, by the laws of his own nature, a "progressive" being?  It is
conceded that some nations do net "progress."  If we had accurate statistics of the
nations who make no advance in art, in acience, in morals, etc., we would doubtless see
tlat a vast majority of the mighty whole are doomed to destruction, on Mr. Barker's
plan, and His MEANS OF PROGRFION.o
Now, what of the "progression " of the rac collectively, when some have retrograded
into a state of CANNABALISM, and yet are not "destroyed?  "Is Sall, also, among the
prophets?"  Is the "progression" ofthe "race   matter of CALCUATION, or is it a
matter of PROPHECY? If "progression  was universal, if all "progressed," if it we re
but the millionth part of an inchI, in knowledge and virtue in a million of years, it
might be a matter of feasible calculation. What is characteristic of the species is common to the individuals  ( Sury is characteristic of the lion as a species, because common
to the individuals.) In the light of this TRUISM, let us look at man.  If"progression"
were a charateristic of the "race," it would be common to ALL UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.  But the truth is, as Mr. Barker ssY, some nations "progress s      not at all.
The'experience of every individual, nay  the record of history fails to trace the movenient of the index of the HUGE DIAL."    The hand of the great clock moves so immeas -
urably slow, tlat it is impossible to note it," and a philosopher might modestly doubt
the truth of the theory, and say no. As it now is, so it always has been. Some nations
advance, while others RETROGRADE.  And even among the nations who do advance in
knowledge and virtuous excellence, there are many individuals on the descnding scalewith all the help of the most favorable circumstances, are waxing WORSE and WORSE
continsually.  It is most certain that this golden age, to come for the "race," in the
CONCRETE, is not "calcllation," for the index of the world's history points the other
way. It is then a matter of prophecy? Yes; and the truth is, (if it be a truth,) for
which progressionists contend, that as with other parts of thei! system, "it is but a
PLAGIARISM from the ABJURED Bible."  And, it I must believe prophecy, I prefer the
sublime strains of the Hebrew and Christian prophets, to the visionary prose of any
OMNISCIENT CLAIRVOYANT or my friend Joseph Barker. I do most sincerely disbelieve
their prediction about their infidel MILLENNIUM, and their means by which it is to be
broughl about. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
the Jews, to unite with them in the rebuilding of the
Temple, as they " worshipped the same God, and
especially prayed to him," and were desirous of their
religious settlement, etc. But they declined their
offer, and in their response offered them the privilege
common to others, " to come to the Temple and worship God there." The Samaritans now wrote an
epistle to Darius to stop the building. At this time
the Governor of Syria and Phoenicia sent a deputation to Jerusalem for the purpose of embarrassing
the Jews in this enterprise. The Sanhedrim referred
this deputation to the edict of Cyrus, under whose
direction they had commenced the work, and challenged their adversaries to investigate the matter.
They accordingly wrote to Darius.  Darius sent
them a copy of Cyrus' edict to rebuild the temple,
etc.-Josephus, book  11, chap. 4.  "During the
period of the troublous times the Jews became disheartened-their workmen relaxed their energies for
a time-but, when Haggai delivered his predictions
they resumed the work with great energy."
"The glory of this latter house shall be greater
that the former, saith the Lord of hosts, and in this
place will I give peace saith the Lord of hosts."
We claim that this is a prediction of the coming of
the Messiah.  This latter house, hoiver, was not
to be greater than the former on account of its magnificence. Josephus relates the facts as to its inferiority.  I believe they are every way reliable; that
when the young men saw the temple they rejoiced;
147 
148     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
but when the old men looked upon it, they wept:
for they saw how much inferior it was, when compared
with the former, in which the tribes were wont to
rejoice before God. The remembrance of which
mnade them weep in Babylon, as described in the
beautiful language of one of their prophets in the
137th Psalm: " By the rivers of Babylon there we
sat down; yea we wept, when we remembered Zion.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst
thereof. For there they that carried us away captive
required of us a song; and they that wasted us required
ofus mirth, saying: Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
Ilow shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land 
If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I'do not remember thee, let my
tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer
not Jerusalem above my chief joy."'
But wherein did the superiority of this latter house
consist?  Let Malachi answer:  "Behold I will send
my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before
me; and the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come
to his temple even the messenger of the covenant,
whom ye delight in; behold he shall come, saith the
Lord of hosts." Let us examine the points in this;
first:." The Lord whom ye seek "-whom ye look
for-whom yeesire —" and the desire of all nations "
I intend to introduce a considerable amount of reading to this point.  I shall open the "Debate" between
Caimpbell and Owen, part 2d, pages 74-76: 
CIIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
"But so clearly was the event predicted, and so general was the
knowledge of it, through the Septuagint version of the Jewish
Scriptures, then read through the Roman Empire, that the expectation became general, that at this time some wonderful personage
was to be born, who would put the world under a new government.
This singular fact shows that the prophecies concerning the time in
which the Messiah should be born were so plain, in the estimation
of all who read themi, as to preclude all doubt as to the time of the
appearance of the Messiah. But some will ask, Where is the
proof of the fact that such an expectation was general? I answer,
the history and poetry of Rome prove it. We shall summon some
of their historians and the Manteran bard to give their evidence in
the case:
"Suetonius, in the life of Vespasian.-An ancient and constant
tradition has obtained throughout all the East, that in the fates it
was decreed, that about that time,' some who should come from
Judea would obtain the dominion of the world.'
"Cornelius Tacitus speaks to the same effect, when speaking of
the prodigies which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem. He
says, That'many understood them as forerunners of that extraordinary erson whom the ANCIENT BOOKS of the priest did foretell
u~P         e         ro,:1
should come about that time from Judea and obtain the dominion.'
"From the Jewish prophets, the Pagan sybils gave out their
oracles, so that the expectation was universal. The same year that
Pompe  took Jerusalem one of the sybil oracles made a great noise
'that ature was about to bring forth a king to the Romans.'
Suetonius says, this so terrified the Roman Senate that they made
a decree that none born that year should be educated. And in his
life of Augustus he says, that' those whose wives were pregnant
that year did each conceive great hopes, applying the prophecy to
themselves.'
"Appian, Sallust, Plutarch, and Cicero, all say that this prophecy of the sibyls stirred up Cornelius Lentulus to think that he was
the man who should be king of the Romans.  Some applied it to
Caesar. Cicero laughed at the application, and affirmed that this
prophecy should not be applied to any one born in Rome.
"Even Virgil the poet, who wrote his fourth Eclogue about the
time of Herod the Great, compliments the Consul Pollis with this
prophecy supposing it might referpto his son Salonimes, then born.
Virgil substantially quotes and versifies the prophecies of Isaiah,
and applies them to this child Salonimes:
"The last age decreed by Fate, is come;
And a new frame of all things does begin.
A holy progeny from Heaven descends.
Auspicious be his birth! which puts an end
To the iron age! and from whence shall rise
A golden state far glorious through the earth!
149 
150    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
",Then the poet alludes to Isaiah 65:17:' The wolf and the
lamb shall feed together, and the LION shall eat straw like the ox.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain:',
"Nor shall the flocks fierce lions fear,
Nor serpent shall be there, nor herb of poisonous juice.
"Then the expiation of Daniel is referred to:
"By thee what footsteps of our sins remain,
Are blotted out, and the whole world set free
From her perpetual bondage and her fear.
"The very words of Haggai, last quoted, are by the poet next
referred to:
"Enter on thy honors! Now's the time
Offspring of God! 0 thou great gift of Jove!
Behold this world! Heaven, Earth and Seas do shake!
Behold how all rejoice togreet that glorious day!
"Virgil, as if he were skilled in the Jewish Scriptures, goes on
to state that these glorious times should not -'immediately succeed
the birth of that wonderful child:
"Yet some remains shall still be left
Of ancient fraud; and wars shall still go on.
"Now the question is not, whether Virgil applied this partly to
Augustus, Pollis, or Salonimes then born; but, whether he did
not apply it to the general expectation everywhere prevalent, that a
wonderful person was to be born, and a new age to commence?
"The Jews have been so confounded with these prophecies and
events, that such of them as did not believe, have degraded Daniel
from the rank of a great prophet to one of the inferior prophets
and others'have said, that there were two Messiahs to come-one a
suffering,'and one a triumphant Messiah.  But the excuses of
mankind for their unbelief are so frivolous and irrational, that
they deserve pity rather than argument.  It is worthy of remark,
however, that not only the Gentiles, the proselytes to the Jews'
religion, the Eastern magi; but myriads of the Jews themselves
recognized these evidences, and bowed to their authority.
One was to prepare his way."   Jesus  says:  "  I
was daily in the temple." "-The Lord shall suddenly come to his temple," after-his way was prepared.
He must first be introduced as the son of that Father
whose  house  they  had  desecrated.   The  Queen of
Sheba had come from a far-distant country to see the 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
glory and hear the wisdom of Solomon.  But Jesus
said,  "behold a greater than  Solomon "-"the
builder of the former temple is here."
To sum up this prophetic data, Christ was to come
before the second temple had gone into decay-at
the time when all nations were expecting him. He
was to come immediately after the coming of John
the Baptist. " Prepare ye the way of the Lord," etc.
All these predictions meet in the reputed son of Joseph.
The desire of all nations did come, when the expectation was prevalent. When he came, the temple
stood in all its glory-not one " stone" was removed.
" The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare
ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,"
was heard; and, soon after his death, every mark of his
coming was erased. Therefore the Jews look in vain
for a Messiah yet to come. Who but the Spirit of
God could have foretold all these events?  Who  but
God could have justified his own word, and brought
about the fulfillment of prophecy by corresponding
events; events which have no significance, if we6
deny God's predetermination.
Argument seven:  Still further with regard to the
time of Christ's coming, and the setting up'of his
kingdom.'" I shall read from the prophecies of
Daniel 2: 35-45:  "Then was the iron, the clay,
the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces
together, and became like the chaff of the  summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them
away, that no place was found for them; and the
151 
152    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
stone that smote the image became a great mountain,
and filled the whole earth. This is the dream; and
we will tell the interpretation thereof before the
king. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the
God of:Heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power,
and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the
children of men dwell, the beasts of-the field, and
the fowls of heaven, hath he given into thine hand,
and hath made thee ruler over them all; thou art this
head of gold. And after thee shall arise another
kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom
of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.
And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron;
forasmuch as iron breakethli in pieces and subdueth all
things, and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it
break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter's clay and part
of iron; the kingdom shall be divided, but there
shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch
as thon sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.  And
as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of
clay; so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and
partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed
with miry clay, they shalt mingle themselves with
the seed of men; biit they shalt not cleave one to
another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And
in the days of these kings shall the Lord 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 king 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
doms, and it shall stand forever. Forasmuch as thou
sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain
without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron,
the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the
great God hath made known to the king what shall
come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain,
and the interpretation thereof sure."
Nebuchadnezzar, a Gentile, had the dream; and
Daniel, the Jew, gave the interpretation. " Babylon
and Jerusalem attest its truth."  Gentiles and Jews
combine in making the revelations, and both are
concerned in their future consummation, and are
equally interested in the setting up of the fifth kingdom, symbolized by the "stone cut out of the mountain without hands, that should fill the whole earth."
Daniel says, the "head of gold" is the Chaldean
dynasty. This lasted fourteen hundred years, and
was subverted seven hundred  and seventy years
before the coming of Christ. The " silver shoulders"
are the Medo-Persian dynasty. This continued two
hundred years, and fell three hundred and thirty-six
years before the Christian era.  The "brazenbody"
was the Macedonian Empire. This continued only
ten years, and ended three hundred and twenty-four
years before Christ.  The "iron legs" were the
Roman Empire. This was the last of the four great
Pagan Empires, which held in turn the supremacy
of the world; and make out the three " overturnings "'
of Ezekiel's prophecy. In the last overturn he was
to come "whose right it was;" and he should wear
153 
154    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
the crown and the diadem. And in the days of these
kings, symbolized by the iron part of the image shall
the God of Hieaven set up a kingdom which shall
never be destroyed. Thus prophecy joins prophecy
in fixing in advance the time of Christ's coming,
and the beginning of his earthly reign.
Now we must consult the historic portions of the
New Testament: "And it came to pass in those
days, that there went out a decree from Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." While this
tax-law was in operation, Joseph and Mary went
up to Bethlehem to enrol their names: while there,
the Messiah was born. This fact meets one point.
Jesus Christ then was born while the Roman COesar
Augustus was upon the throne; not before the iron
kingdom was brought into existence, nor after it had
passed away; but while that part of the kingdom,
symbolized by the "iron " part of the "image " was
in existence': now it was that Christ the Messiah was
born. For the sake of brevity we pass. But nothing is heard about the setting up of a new kingdom
yet; all is moving along quietly. The strong "iron "
kingdom holds the supremacy of the world; while
the Jews are under the Governorship of one of their
own nation, and their courts are formed of their
brethren. They yet exercise the right of trying
offenders by their own courts, and executing the
sentence of law upon the culprits.
Some twenty-eight years after the inquiry was
made in Jerusalem, "Where is he that is born king 
CIHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
of the Jews?" a singular personage appeared in the
wilderness of Judea. HIis personal appearance was
grave and solemn. Iis mode of subsistence abstemious.  His costume that of the ancient prophets.
IIis voice was heard on the banks of the Jordan" Repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
Tiberius COesar was now upon the throne of universal
empire. The Jews went out to hear this voice crying in the wilderness, "prepare ye the way of the
Lord, make his paths straight." "Repent ye, for the
kingdom of Hieaven is at hand." While John was
baptizing such as professed repentance, came Jesus
also. You may see the account in Matthew, 3d chapter. When this stranger appeared for baptism, the
Baptist forbade him, saying " I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?"  And Jesus
answering, said unto him " Suffer it.to be so now;
for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness:
then he acquiesced." "And Jesus, when he was
baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and
lo, the Heavens were opened unto him, and he saw
the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo, a voice from Hieaven saying,
This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased."
The "H oly Spirit," in the form of a "dove" identified his person.  Now there could be no misunderstanding as to the person recognized by the voice and
introduced to the audience, as the Son of God. John
the Baptist preached, "the kingdom of Heaven is at
hand."  The Lord Jesus proclaimed the same, "re
155 
156    DEFENSE OF TEE BIBLE AGAINST TIIE
pent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand."
He commissioned the twelve, and sent them to the
"lost sheep  of the house  of Israel."  Then  he
commissioned "other seventy," and sent them forth
on the same mission.  The prayer and the sermon
were in perfect harmony.  The prayer was-" Thy
kingdom come."  Thie sermon-"The kingdom of
Heaven is at hand."  Meanwhile, in the mighty
contest between Jesus Christ and his countrymen,
the Heaven-appointed king of that kingdom which
was soon to be set up, was brought to trial. One of
his Judges asked the question, "Art thou king of
tile Jews?"  Jesus answered, "To this end was I
born, and for this cause came I into the world, that
I should bear witness unto the truth."  HIe was tried
and condemned.  The prospect of his becoming a
king was doubtful.  When the king falls in battle,
the kingdom is subverted or passes into other hlands.
The hope of the Disciples was blasted.  Hiow natural,
how artless their conmunication with each  other!
"We trusted it was he that should have redeemed
Israel."  But the Savior rises from the grave, and
hope revives. So strong was the expectation of the
Jews, that their Messiah would be a king, that when
he was crucified and buried, the unbelieving portion
of them supposed they had triumphed, and his Disciples were disappointed in their expectation of
having a deliverer in Jesus of Nazareth.  Peter says,
"I go a fishing." But no sooner did they see himn
alive again, than their former hope revives, and then 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
fondly ask, immediately before his ascension, "wilt
thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 
IHow can we account for this expectation, that the
Messiah wouLld come? How can we account for the
fact, that both Jews and Gentiles expected such a
personage, upon any other than their prophetic
writings?  "Yet have I set my king," says  David,
"upon my holy hill of Zion "-the king whose right
it is to reign.  "The God of IHeaven shall set up a
kingdom." The preaching of John the Baptist
greatly strengthened this expectation; and the expectation was gaining strength all the time until Messiah
was cut off. The unbelieving Jews, with their
ancient oracles in hand, are still looking for their
promised Messiah.  But when Jesus Christ arose
firom the dead, the disciples had the fuilfillinent of
promise and prophecy "miraculously attested." The
resurrection of Christ was the greatest and most conv-incing of all the New Testament miracles.  After
this, his Disciples doubted no more; for here they
had now a double miracle. The delivery of the
prophecy was an intellectucl miracle, and his literal
rising from the dead, was a phy8ical miracle.
MRP. ItARTZEL'S ELEVENTII ADDRESS.
The reading and study of the prophetic writings
have not, as yet, had the effbet predicted by Mr.
Barker.  The more I have read, compared and examined prophecy with history and seen its fulfillihent,
157 
158    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
the more I have been confirmed in the inspiratioa of
the Bible. I must read again from Haggai. You
will remember that the Jews were engaged at this
time in rebuilding the temple. Haggai 2: 1-9:
"In the seventh month, in the one and twentieth
day of the month, came the word of the Lord by the
prophet Haggai, saying: Speak now to Zerubbabel
the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to
Joshua the son of Josedech, the IHigh Priest, and to
the residue of the people, saying: Who is left among
you that saw this house in her first glory? and how
do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes, in comparison of it as nothing? Yet now be strong, 0 Zerubbabel, saith the Lord; and be strong, 0 Joshua son
of Josedech, the High Priest; and be strong all ye
people of the land, saith the Lord, and work: for I
am with you saith the Lord of hosts. According to
the word that I covenanted with you when ye came
out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you:
fear ye not. For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet
once, it is a little while, and I will shake the Heavens
and the earth, and the sea and the dry land; And I
will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations
shall come; and I will fill this house with glory saith
the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold
is mine, saith the Lord of hosts.  The glory of this
latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith
the Lord of hosts: and in this place will I give peace
saith the Lord of hosts."
I do not like to animadvert upon my friend's intel 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
ligence or candor. The " little while " did not refer
to that part of the prophecy, " the desire of all
nations,' but to the "shaking of the Heavens and
the earth," which, metaphorically, in the Bible, mean
governments;, and the connection must determine
whether ecclesiastical or political. And was there
not a tremendous shaking of the political heavens
for the next five hundred years? To that the " little
while "  referred.  It stands  in connection  with
these events.  "And I will shake all nations and
the desire of all nations shall, come: and I will fill
this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts." I
will first " shake all nations " then the'4 Desire of
all nations shall come." Who does not know that
for some time before the coming of Christ there had
been the greatest political agitation. The Emperor
Augustus was upon the throne. Hle administered
the government with so much prudence that it was
a time of universal peace, when the Christ was born.
"The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith
the Lord of hosts." I will-be forthcoming to you and
supply you with materials necessary to accomplish
the work. " The glory of this latter house shall be
greater than the former, saith the Lord of hosts, and
in this place will I give peace saith the Lord of hosts."'
The word " peace " was in those days used in a sense
different from now. We now understand by the
word "peace," quietness, a kind of repose.  But the
word "peace" in those days meant, not only that,
but almost every blessing, comfort, consolation.
159 
160    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
This is what we understand by the word ".peaee" in
this passage.  The same, shall I say, disingenuousness or ignorance of prophecy appears in his remarks upon this
passage: " Behold I will send my messenger, and
he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord
whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight
in: behold he shall come saith the Lord of hosts."
Mr. Barker grounds his objection to my argument on
the wrong feature in this prophecy. " Suddenly
come to his temple." That is, immediately after the
coming of John the Baptist. There are two " messengers'" in this prediction.  One was to-" prepare"
the way of theLord.  The Lord was the "messenger"
of the " covenant."  Jesus Christ is styled "mediator of the new covenant."' lHe shall suddenly
come."  IHow " suddenly'" did he come?  I cannot
tell exactly how many days or months it was after
his baptism before he was seen in the " temple." It
was not long, only forty days after, that he entered
upon his public ministry. Hie first took a tour into
theland of" Zebulon."  Hie was seenin the " temple"
soon enough to justify the language of Malachi.
I am sorry that Mr. Barker is dragging in so much
irrelevant matter, and will not reply to my arguments.
Why this waste of time?  What was the testimony
of Gibbon, one of his own side of the house, in
regard to Christianity, in its going forth in its begining?  Ireadfroma book entitled, "Infidelity P,efutecl 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
by Infidels." We have here the testimony of a
number of infidels who wrote against Christianity in
the early ages of the church. I have the same list
of witnesses by Mr. Barker in favor of Christianity.
The  testimony  which  I am  about to read and  the
testimony found in his own book do agree, and
therefore depose to the same  important events con cerning the spread of the  Christian  religion.  Gib bon says, page 257, 258:
"A candid but rational inquiry into the progress and establish ment of Christianity may be considered as a very essential part of
the history of the Roman Empire.  While the great body was
invaded by open violence or undermined by slow decay, a pure and
humble religion gently insinuated itself into the minds of men,
grew up i silence and obscurity, derived new vigor from opposition, and finally erected the triumphant banner of the cross on the
ruins of the Capitol. Nor was the influence of Christianity confined to the limits of the Roman Empire.  After a revolution of
thirteen or fourteen centuries that religion is still professed by the
nations of Europe, the most distinguished portion of human kind
in arts and learning, as well as in arms. By the industry and zeal
of the Europeans it has been diffused to the most distant shores of
Asia and Africa, andby the means of their colonies has been firmly
established from Canaaato Chili, in a world unknown to the ancients.
Our curiosity is naturally led to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtains so remarkable a victory over the established
religions of the earth.  To this inquiry an obvious but satisfactory
answer may be returned; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence of its
great Author. But as truth and reason seldom find so favorable a
reception in the world, and as the wisdom of Providence frequently
condescends to use the passions of the human heart, and the general circumstances of mankind as instruments to execute its purpose,
we may still be permitted, though with becoming submission, to
ask, not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary
causes of the rapid growth of the Christian church."
This is right good evidence for an infidel. This
same Gibbon says, " a great and powerful state grew
up  in  the  heart  of the   rom-an  Empire;"  having
6
161 
162    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
reference to the Christian church. It was called the
"Kingdom of Ieaven," because a "kingdom" is the
most splendid of all human organizations, and the
prefix "Heaven," distinguished it from the kingdoms
of this world.
I left off in my last address with the argument on
the death and resurrection of Christ. Our Lord
Jesus Christ took an appeal from those wicked courts
where he was tried and unjustly condemned. lIe was
not willing to rest the case there.  Where would a
man seek to regain his reputation but where the robbery had been committed? Our Lord, therefore,
appealed from the decision of the Jews and the
Gentiles to the high court of eternity.  That appeal
stands written out in the 2nd epistle of Peter, chapter
2: 23.-" Who, when he was reviled, reviled not
again; when he  suffered, he threatened not;  but
committed himself to Him that judgeth righteously."
In a few days after the Lord Jesus Christ had
referred his case for another adjudication, a report
was sent down from Heaven.  We have an abstract
of that report in Acts'd chapter.  It embodies
the decision of that'      estion.  They said he
was a "blaspher                   worthy of death."
That was the d.                  judges.  Another
made an effort                     have the former
decision reversed.'s not guilty of
the charge alleged                       this man,"
he said, "and I fineu                      ut Pilate
gave him into the ha                        id then, 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
in their presence, took a basin of water and " washed
his hands," saying, "I am innocent of the blood of
this just person; see ye to it." Alas! poor Pilate!
all the waters in the Pacific could not have washed
from his guilty soul the stain of murder. IHe had
incurred the) awful responsibility of delivering an
innocent man to be crucified. We shall next hear
the decision of the Supreme Court of the universe
with reference to the crucified one.
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words:  "Jesus of
Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by
miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did, by
him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Hiim being delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked
hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath
raised up, having loosed the pains of death; because
it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
For David speaketh concerning him:  I foresaw the
Lord always before my face; for he is on my right
hand, that I shall not be moved."
Then Peter cites David upon this point. Hie reminds
them, that David spoke not of himself, but of the
resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.  le told
them that " David's sepulchre was with them to that
day." That God fulfilled his pledge, that IHe would
raise up Christ to sit on his throne.  Now, be it
understood, that this decision in regard to the personal righteousness of Christ, was not only satisfactory but was so overwhelmingly convincing, that
163 
164    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TiHE
three thousand of these very people, who were accessory to his murder, were satisfied with regard to the
claims of Jesus to the Meesiahship, and cried " men
and brethren, what shall we do? "  Peter's reply was,
" repent and be baptised every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the
promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all
that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God
shall call." And as many of the literal descendants of
Abraham who received Jesus of Nazareth as the promised seed, and the Messiah, were baptised.' And
the same day there were added unto them about
three thousand souls."  The " kingdom" was small
in its beginning.  According to prophecy it was the
" little stone " that was cut out of the " mountain;'
but it was to becomne a great "' mountain," and fill
the whole " earth."  It was a rapid growth for I three
thousand'" to  be added to the little " kingdom" at
one time."   One hundred and twenty" counted in
a day. The number was now rapidly increasing.
" F'ive thousand" were added soon after.  Multitudes
of Jews believed.  They were not only satisfied with
the demonstration they had received, but they also
were satisfied with regard to that frightful difficulty
about the "genealogies " of Christ.  If they had not
been convinced that Jesus -Christ had descended
through the progenitorial line, they would not have
received him as their " promised Messiah, specified
in the Old Testament. They had the records, and 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
could have as good an opportunity of examining His
genealogy as you have of going to your recorder's office
and examining your land titles.
My friend seems to intimate that he had very little
confidence in prophecy while he was a preacher. -
Mr. Barker. Not so. I had very little confidence
in it as an argument to prove the authenticity of the
Scriptures.
Mr. Hartzel.  I think I see in tht one cause of
his sliding. Hie stood upon an avalanche that in a
very short time would slide from under him -or
rathler bear him down in its awful descent. But he
did refer to prophecy while a Methodist preacher.
IHear his answer to an infidel objection:
Obj. 71. " Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire."
Ans.  "Christianity did,  in one sense, destroy  the Roman
Empire, and the fact that it did so, is a most striking proof of its
truth and divinity.  It was foretold by Daniel, several hundreds of
ears before Christianity made its appearance in the world, that it
should  break in pieces the Roman Empire, as well as all similar
empires: See Daniel, 2nd chapter 34: 35-44, 45; chapter 7: 12-28."
And it is a most striking thing that the prediction should have
been so plainly and wonderfully fulfilled; that even infidels themselves should be heard stating the facts asa matter beyond doubt.
Thus does God make his own enemies to bear witness to his truth.
Christianity will destroy all Governments or Empires founded
in force, and leave no other authority on earth but that of truth and
charity; but this is to me a recommendation of Christianity. What
harn will it be to have all men living in love with each other all
nations voluntarily disarmed, confiding in each other as brethren,
and rejoicing in each other's welfare.  We have had terror, and
violence, and blood enough surely; we ought to rejoice in the prospect of the universal reign of love."
His kingdom then began with " one hundred and
twenty subjects."  Behold! how it grows like a grain
of mustard seed! As the Redeemer himself said:
165 
166     DEEFNSE OF THE BIBLE  AGAINST THE
" The kingdom of Hieaven is like unto a grain of
mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds;
but when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs,
and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come
and lodgoin the branches thereof." The " kingdom"
of Jesus Christ then was the smallest of all the
"kingdoms" of the earth. It began with " one hundred and twenty." We have the testimony of Gibbon,
and if more is needed it can be had. The history of
the whole world from the time of Tiberius Caesar to
the present day is full of testimony to the same point.
It is a difficult matter to give anything-like a coirect
history of our own day without having much of Christianity incorporated with it.
As the death and resurrection of Christ are intimately connected with the setting up of his " kingdom," which  occurred- in the days of the Roman
Cesars, we next call attention to a few prophecies
upon these awfully sublime and interesting Gospel
propositions.  I will read as introductory from the
15th chapter of Corinthians, 1, 2, 3' and 4.
" Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel
which I preach unto you, which also ye have received,
and wherein ye stand. By which also ye are saved,
if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you,
unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered
unto you, first of all, that which I also receive, how
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose
again the third day according to the Scrtures." 
CHATRGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
That my auditors may  see the point in  these
three propositions, I must make a few remarks.
The point in this seems not-to be that Christ did die.
There was nothing extraordinary in his dying; for his
connection with human flesh subjected him to mortality.  It was to be expected then that he would- die.
Neither was it remarkable even that he should die for
sin.
Men have died for their own sins, and people for
the sins of others; " yet peradventure for a good
man some would even dare to die." This is the
divinity of the proposition, that Christ died for our
sins 8" according to the Scriptures."  Among  the
many thousands who had died, there was but one
whose death was " according to the Scriptures" -  the
subject of previous prophecy.
Secondly." He was buried according to the Seriptures."  It was the custom of the barbarous and civilized to bury-their dead; but of all that were buried
only one'wa8 buried " according to the Scriptures."
Again, Christ rose from  the dead according to the
Scriptures."  Some had arisen from the dead before,
but not one of them " according to the Scripures," as
we shall show by reference to historic facts. The
many events connected with the death of Christ were
the subjects of prophecy.  This will be seen by comparing the history of hi-s death as recorded by the
Evangelists, with some of the predictions of the Old
Testament. We select Mathew, 26, 31. The Lord
Jesus, the night on which he was betrayed, used. this
167 
168    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
language:  "All ye shall be offended because of me
this night; for it is written I will sminite the shepherd,
and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad."
Did they believe it? Not a word of it. Peter said
unto him: "Though all men shall be offended because
of thee, yet will I never be offended." What an expression of the most unflinching steadfast adherence!
Christ knew Peter better than Peter knew himself.
MR. HARTZEL'S TWELFTH ADDRESS.
It is true, indeed, that Christianity has, in one
sense, given rise to an amount of " fanaticism," and
to that which has been evil in the world. But why
is it so? Hiave these evils been the natural result of
Christianity?  If Mr. Barker had opened the New
Testament, and shown that the teachings of Jesus
Christ and the Apostles had justified slavery and
falsehood, and those many evils of which he complains, then he would have gained a point. ite referred to certain delinquent churches and individuals,
and called them Christians Were they really so?
Did they practice the precepts of the New Testament?
Mr. Barker.  I did not say so.  You, yourself,
said they were Christians. You referred to them as
a proof of the spread of Christianity.
Mr. Hartzel. - One reason that the Christian religion has given rise to such extremes, is the following: 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
No religion, since the world began, has set the human mind into action as this has done.  No religion
has all those motive powers and mighty stimulants to
apply to the human soul - to develope all that belongs to human nature, either for weal or for woe.
Such a religion going forth amid ignorance and heathenism would, indirectly, lead to many  extravagancies.*
I did not say the "kingdom of Heaven" began in
the fourth century, but that Christianity had extensively prevailed in the fourth century.
*Mr. Barker has done merited justice to the subject, he has accounted for many of the
errors and wrongs connected with the Christian profession upon rational principles, and
filly defended Christianity from all those unjust and libelous imputations with which he
now assails the Gospel. If he couldhave extenuated the imperfections of professors, by
showing that their wicked conduet was legitimate and in harmony with Christianity, he
would have done so. His position in the discussion required this at his hand.
But you shall hear him where he occupied my ground, and somebody else his. Christian, Vol. 1st pages 139,140. 
INFIDEL.-NO religion has produced such abundance of enthusiasm, fanaticism, false
doctrines and intolerance as Christianity
CuHRIsTIA.-BeCause no religion has roused, awakened, set in motion, so many ignor ant and untutored minds. Most other religions have allowed men's minds to slumber;
they have allowed men to be brutal, animal; to pass through life without thinking on
the great subjects of God and providence, of duty and immortality.  And if mei never
think on these suhjects, they cannot think wrong: if men never move, it is impossible
for them to go astray; if they never act, it is impossible for them to act amiss.  Christianity will not allow     s en's minds to slumber, it will have them awake and active.  Its
object is to make men intelligent and godlike; to make them think, and judge, and feel,
and act.  It aims at raising men to God; at making  them sharers of his nature, partakers o his wisdom, his purity, and his love.   nd it is impossible to do this, without
being the occasion of many and mournful excesses. Children are sure to stumble, when
they first begin to walk; and the mind will stumble, when it first begins'to think., We,
none of us, should bleable to thread our way through a wood with ten thousand false
tracks, without getting, at times, a little  ut of our way: and the mind cannot find its
way through a world of errors and delusios, without at times being led astray.  It is
impossible toconduct a multitudeof free and thinking creatures, through the measureless
distances between the cradle of a child and the mansions of the Cherubim and Seraphim
in Heaven, without tremendous risk.  When I hink of man's nature, and consider the
object and character of Christiasity, I cannot wonder that the Gospel, in the accomplishment of its great, and godlike, its infinitely benevolent, but infinitely difficult task,
should prove the occasion of many, and strange and mournful tragedies.
But the Gospel does not CAUSE the evils which appear in its spread; it only reveals
them. It does not MAKE the weaknesses and faults of its disciples: it only makes them manifest. It draws forth man's soul in all varieties of circumstanes, in the  idst of all kinds of
difficulties and trials; and thus reveals its powers and its weakness. its noble capacities
of what is good and great, and its terrible liabilities to what is bad and fearful. It is a
moral or spiritual influence, making a new creatin,'frming  vast universe of bright
and fair, of beauitiful and godlike creatures  and it is not to be wondered at, if, in its
difficult and perilous operations. it should, at times, give rise to strange disorders, to
terrible-and dark catastrophes. The creation of a universe of great and godlike souls, is
inconceiveably more difficult than the crati of the ro earth and heavens, and if the first
crsation had its chaos, no wonder that the second should have one too.
169 
DEFENSE, OF THE. BIBLE AGAINST THE
Mr. Barker.  I did not represent Mr. Hartzel as
saying so; I say he referred to it.
Mr. Hartzel.  I have some arguments for the defense of the Christian religion from all these imputations of favoring slavery, etc. If the Christianity of
the New  Testament is a pro-slavery religion- if it
is favorable to slavery, you shall have the benefit of
that objection, Mr. Barker.  But honor us with a
candid hearing. My friend will be good authority
for me on that subject.
I will now proceed with my argument:
It is said byMatthew that Jesus Christ was "betrayed
by Judas, one of the twelve."  This was " according
to -te Scritres."  " Yea mine own familiar friend
in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath
lifted up his heel against me." When Jesus had
pointed out Judas as the man who should betray him,
he turned his back upon the Savior, and went to
the temple, and said to the chief priests:  " What
will you give me and I will deliver him unto you?."
Ilow apposite the metaphor, "lifted up his heel"
against me.  In following out the history of this
traitor -he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the
chief priests and elders and made this confession:
" I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent
blood." The chief priest had some qualms of con science about this price of blood, and-with it pur chased the " Potter's Field."  Zechariah 11: 12, 13.
Now we look at Peter, the bold Peter.  " Though
170 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
all men forsake thee, yet will I not forsake thee."
" Then all his Disciples forsook him."
The first thing in a legal process against an offender is the arrest. Hie is then taken to court for
trial.  The next thing is to find witnesses.  "Many
came," but their testimony was irrelevant.  At the
last came -' two false witnesses," upon whose testimony he was condemned.  And what was their testimony?  Almost true.  But he had not quite said
what they testified. They said: " This fellow said,
'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build
it in three days.,"  Christ did not say so.  When
Christ rebuked the Jews for their desecrations of the
temple, (as one having authority,) they asked him for
a sign. D" Destroy this temple, and inthree days I
will raise it up."  By  comparing these words of
Christ with those of the witnesses you will see that
they made some changes and additions.  " Forty and
six years," said the Jews,  "was this temple in
building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?"
There was a law in Israel, that if any man should
speak or prophecy against the temple, -he was considered worthy  of death.  -See "Bishop  Porteus'
lectures on Matthew." This was speaking contemptuously-of the temple.  But Jesus spoke, really, not
of the Jewish "'temple," but the "temple -of his own
body."  Well do the Scriptures say:  " False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that
I knew not." The high priest asked him: "IHearest
thou what these testifly against thee?" Christ answer
171 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
text.  Then the inquiry arises, why these forgeries?
What was to be gained by them?  Let my opponent
answer. Many writing at differentperiods, with long
intervals between them- by men who could not have
conferred together-could not have acted by intelli gent concert, or any system of enlightened selfishness.
Can we account for these predictions upon any known
principle of human policy?  Why are they in the
Book?  Hiow came they there?  Hias their genuineness ever been questioned by the Jews?.
Or Secondly: It must be claimed that their application to Jesus of Nazareth was a mere matter of
accident or chance.  But this is assuming that the
Prophets spoke without an object. These prophecies
which are supposed by thousands of intelligent persons, to be clear and lucid predictions concerning the
suffering of Christ, were nothing but random -sayings,-that they were neither inspirations of the
divine spirit, nor preconcerted frauds. But that all
these predictions could have met in one person-predictions so numerous, so complex, so minute, as the
result of blind chance, beggars all credulity, even that
of a scevtic. And that such a coincidence of things
should only have been brought about once in twenty
five hundred years!  Was it a lucky hit?  Would it
not have been strange that all these should have met
in the person of the son of Joseph?  The probabilities
are as a million to one against it. I refer you to an
extract from the writings of Dr. Gregory, published
173 
174    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
in "Campbell and Owen's Debate, page 77, 78;
Vol. 2.
"Suppose, says he, that instead of the spirit of prophecy breathing more or less in every book of Scripture, spreading events relative
to a great variety of general topics, and delivering besides almost
innumerable characteristics of the Messiah; all meeting in the
person of Jesus; there had been only TEN men in ancient times
who pretended to be prophets, each of whom exhibited only FIVE
independent CRITERIA as to place, government, concomitant events,
doctrine tought, effects of doctrine, character, sufferings, or death -
the meeting of all which in one person should prove the reality of
their calling as prophets and of his mission in the character they
have assigned him.  Suppose moreover, that all events were left to
CHANCE merely, and we were to compute, from the principles
employed by mathematicians in the investigations of such subjects,
the probability of the fifty independent circumstances happening
AT ALL. Assume that there is, according to the technical phrase,
AN EQUAL CHANCE for the happening or failure of any one of these
specified particulars; then the probability against the occurrence
of all the particulars in ANY way is that of the 50th power of 2, to
unity; that is, the probability is greater than ELEVEN HUNDRED AND
TWENTY FIVE MILLIONS OF MILLIONS TO ONE that all of these circumstances do not turn up even at distinct periods.  This computation,
however, is independent of the consideration of TIME. Let it be
recollected farther, that if any one of the specified circumstances
happen, it may be the day after the delivery of the prophecy, or at
any period from that time to the end of the world; this will so
indefinitely augment the probability against the contemporaneous
occurrence of merely these FIFTY circumstances, that it surpasses
the power of numbers to express correctly the immense improbability
Of its taking place."
Jesus, the Nazarene, has had many civil claimants
to the MIessiahship of Israel. Most of them were
tried and condemned to death as he was. Why have
not  these predictions  met  at  least in  one of  the
" twenty-seven" that have appeared from the first to
the sixteenth century.
Thirdly: There is but one other position to be
taken; namely, that these were genuine predictions —
"That holy men of old spake as they were moved  by 
CHARGES OF MODERN INTIDELITY.
the Holy Ghost "-that God made use of their vocal
organs and their pens to make known beforehand the
"sufferings of Christ and the glory that should
follow."
That a Jew left to his own meditations shouldhave had
any notions of a suffering Messiah, is wholly out of the
question. According to their religion, health, wealth,
and victory over enemies were indications of divine
power,-and the opposite of these, manifestations
of the divine displeasure. That a Jew, therefore,
should have spoken of their coming Redeemer as a
root out of dry ground, without form or comeliness" as despised and rejected of men " -" as a man of
sorrows and acquainted with grief," from his own
impulses, is contrary to reason and fact. And because
these predictions, so descriptive of the deep humiliation of Jesus the Son of Mary, were so literally
fulfilled in him, the nation, as a nation, rejected him,
Yet many were convinced that Christ's degradation
to the cross and the grave was according to their
Scripture, and received him as their Messiah.
So overwhelming were the arguments of the Apostles, that on their first effort they convinced "three
thousand," and on the second "five thousand;" and
soon a " multitude of the priests became obedient to
the faith;" and myriads of the Jews believed and
obeyed the Gospel.
Argument 9:  Christ was buried according to
Prophecy.
We will read from Isaiah, 53 chapter:  " And he
175 
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich
in his death; because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth."
I will give you Bishop Lowthe's translation, (I
quote from memory. There are some translations
more clear and lucid than others.) "Il He was with the
wicked in his death, but his grave was with the rich
man." I think this the more correct reading. Was
Christ buried " according to the Scriptures," is the
present inquLiry?
There are many different things connected with a
burial. First: The persons engaged.' Second: The
dressing of the corpse.  Third: The grave.  One
might be with the rich in his burial, in one of
these and not in all.  In- that case the prophecy
would be but partially fulfilled. Jesus Christ was
with " the rich " in his burial, in every sense of the
proposition.  We can imagine no application of the
prophecy which is not justified in the burial of Jesus
Christ.  The body was given to " Joseph of Arimathea." But he must dress the corpse. Did he call a
servant to his side? No. Nicodemus, a rich man,
who brought with him " myrrh and alloes, a hundred
pounds weight,"' to embalm the body of Jesus, as
was the custom of the Jews. The first of these,
Joseph, went to Pilate, as it is said by one of Christ's
biographers, and- "begged the body."  They took
it down from the cross-clothed the body in clean
new linen.  Thus far he was with " the rich " in his
burial. The body was now clothed according to the
176 
176    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich
in his death; because he had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his mouth."
I will give you Bishop Lowthe's translation, (I
quote from memory.  There are some translations
more clear and lucid than others.) " IIle was with the
wicked in his death, but his grave was with the rich
man." I think this the more correct reading. Was
Christ buried " according to the Scriptures," is the
present inquiry?
There are many different things connected with a
burial.  First: The persons engaged.  Second: The
dressing of the corpse.  Third: The grave.  One
might be with the rich in his burial, in one of
these and not in all.  In that case the prophecy
would be but partially fulfilled.  Jesus Christ was
with " the rich " in his burial, in every sense of the
proposition. We can imagine no application of the
prophecy which is not justified in the burial of Jesus
Christ.  The body was given to " Joseph of Arimathea." But hlie must dress the corpse. Did he call a
servant to his side?  No.  Nicodemus, a rich man,
who brought with him " myrrh and alloes, a hundred
pounds weight," to embalm the body of Jesus, as
was the custom of the Jews. The first of these,
Joseph, went to Pilate, as it is said by one of Christ's
biographers, and- "begged the body." They took
it down from the cross -clothed the body in clean
new linen.  Thus far he was with " the rich " in his
burial. The body was now clothed according to the 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
taste and means of these Jewish Grandees. They
did not carry it to some obscure place as the I potter's
field," but to the " rich man's garden," in which was a
" new tomb," hewn out of a solid rock, in which no
man had ever been laid, and in this " sepulchre "
they laid the poor man, the crucified one.
What wide extremes in this mysterious person join.
Who can say that this prophecy was not literally
fulfilled? " He shall be with the rich in his burial."
But why was he to be with " the rich in his burial? "
Let the Prophet answer:  " Because he had done no
violence; neither was any deceit in his mouth."
These honorable senators would not have conferred
this honor upon the body of Christ if he had been
justly condemned. They were conscious of his innocence or they would not have conferred upon him this
last tribute of respect. These honorable rulers of Israel
were not avowed converts. One of them took a lesson in the " night;" the other was a disciple, " but
secretly for fear of the Jews." Poor, weak Aumanity!
Still it is evident that they held him in the highest
veneration; if not convinced that he was the Messiah,
they were of his innocence and moral worth.  I ask
now, in view of these facts, whether such a coincidence could be the result of chance?  If fact, with
prophecy, could possibly have happened by mere
accident?  The Jewish people looked for something
different. They had raised their expectation to a
person of military and princely character clothed in
177 
178    DEFENSE OF TIE BIBLE AGAINST THE
regal pomp and splendor. One who would carry out
their political designs in the character of an earthly
conqueror.  He did not come in this character, and
tley rejected him, " according to the Scriptres'
The Scriptures said they should reject him.
None but the omniscient spirit could have enabled
men to have foretold such events so many hundred
years before they came to pass. We claim that these
prophecies were " communications supernaturally revealed and miraculously attested."  I How improbable
that an individual who was condemned to suffer
death-who was " crucified between two thieves "
who was condemned before two courts- suffering
death in a form too ignominious for the vilest citizen
in the empire - a form reserved for aliens and slaves
only, (see Bishop Porteus again;) how improbable
we say, that such an one should have been with " the
rich " in his burial. This incident stands by itself in
the history of the world. Its parallel is not known.
The reason assigned is, also; without a parallel in the
history of mankind:-" becaus8 e he ad done no violence."
But he also arose from the dead " according to the
Scriptures." There were some resurrections before
the resurrection of Christ; but none of them were the
subject of prophecy. Such as Elisha raising an individual to life (the widow's son,) and Jesus raising the
daughter of Jairus, and Lazarus. But these were
only miraculous demonstrations of divinely appointed
missions.  But the resurrection of Christ had ahigher 
CHARGES OF MODERN -INFIDELITY.
aim.  It entered into the original design of his
whole scheme —was indeed an essential part of it,
andtherefore theworthy subject of prophecy.  Psalms
16-   For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither
wilt thou  suffer thy holy one to see corruption."
There are two distinct features -in this prophecy.
First, the subject of it, or his "flesh should not see
corruption." If Jesus Christ had continued in the
grave till the fourth day, decomposition would have
begun.  But he was not to "see corruption."  "I
will rise again the third day."  He was in the grave,
but did not "see corruption."  And immediately or
soon after his resurrection, he should appear in the
presence of the Lord, and sit at his " right hand."
This expresses a station of dignity and honor. This
will not apply to David.  It will not apply to any of
those who rose from the dead before Christ arose.
All these were still men in the flesh, and were as
liable to death as before.  The man Christ Jesus was
the." first fruits of them that slept." The first that
went from the grave to the skies. IHe has gone to
Heaven with an immortal, a glorified body-" the
man Christ Jesus, now upon the throne." Humanity exalted in the person of Jesus Christ. ", Sit thou
at my right hand," is an oracle of great significance
in Christianity, and should fill every heart with the
highest and holiest aspirations.
To sum up the argument deduced from this com parison let me say, that the incidents recorded in
the biographies of Jesus Christ, in regard to his trial,
179 
180    DEFENSE OF THE B3IBLE AGAINST THE
death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, form a
series of predictions with corresponding facts, which
never could have been the work of collusion or fraud.
HIis Disciples did not believe that he would suffer.
iHe repbatedly told them that he must " suffer many
things from the scribes and Pharisees "'-that he must
be put to death, and "rise again the third day."
But they believed it not. Peter on one occasion
could not suppress his feelings, but said, in the language of rebuke, "These things shall not happen
unto thee." And When he was buried it did not
enter into their hearts, that he would rise from the
dead. This is evident from their own artless story.
They are not to be suspected for acting in concert to
get him out of the grave. They could have had no
motive for doing so. If they had done so, they
would have acted contrary to all rational motives.
And if his enemies acted intelligently in bringing
about his death, they must have acted with reference
to the fulfillment of their own prophecies.
MR. tIARTZEL'S THIRTEENTII ADDRESS.
It is indeed humiliating to be required to notice
such an address as we had near the close of last session.  I do not like to call it a tirade-perhaps that
would be too hard-but I will pay to it this melancholy tribute of respect, to read a few prophecies, in 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
which more than all that was detailed in that speech
was anticipated by two New Testament prophets.
Much that is now history was once prophecy.
Much that is nlow becoming history; and, much that
will follow in the future history of the world, till
time shall be no more, stands upon the prophetic
page.  I wish time and other engagements, and
matters over which we have no control, would permit
us to elaborate this point more extensively than we
can under present circumstances.  We  read from
2 Timothy 3: 1-7:
"This know also, that in the last days perilous
times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their
own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,
disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy; without
natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good;
traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures
more than lovers of God; Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such
turn away. For of this sort are they which creep
into houses and lead captive silly women laden with
sins, led away with divers lusts; ever learning, and
never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
These had forgotten the injunction given to the
primitive churches-to abandon all " foolish jesting"A
and unprofitable pleasures, which obtained throughout the Pagan world-which were so incongruous to
Christianity.  " hIaving a form of Godliness, but
denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
181 
182    DEFENSE OF TIiE BIBLE AGAINST TIHE
For of this sort are they which creep into houses and
lead captive silly woman."  This, from Paul the
Apostle to his son Timothy, is of transcendant importance. But you ask, to whom does it refer? We
answer to some who proposed to be Christians.
Those who have " a form of Godliness," but deny
the power of that form in its purifying and ennobling
influence. We had the matter most sadly detailed
in the address of last evening.
Voltaire claimed to be a Christian.  Some of the
most black-hearted villians in the world have claimed
to be Christians. Some of the vilest men seek to
cover their deformity under the Christian name,
because they know it is honorable. If they can appropriate that name to themselves; i they can get
the world to -award it to them, they can use Christianity as a hiding place. It is true, we often find
worse men within the circulation of the Bible than
any where else. There have been greater giants in
wickedness in Christian lands, than in pagandom.
We account for this, upon the same ground that the
sweetest wine will make the sourest vinegar. The
richer the soil the more abundant will be the crop,
whetherofwheat or of weeds.  I knowyouwill understand that.
The next prophecy to which we refer, is in Peter
3: 3, 4. We will break into the connection:
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the
last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts; and
saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELrrY.
since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as
they were from the beginning of the creation."
The phrase " last days," is in both of these prophecies, and it is not in these two passages only that the
phrase occurs.  It is applied to the gospel dispensation, not only because it was the last system of divine
communication to man  but because it was to continue so till time shall be no more.  The next revelation will be the personal appearance of Jesus Christ.
This dispensation will continue till that revelation
shall supersede  this.  How  marvelous, my  dear
friends, that the Jewish people should have transmitted a book that is a standing reproach against their
character. A book that records the disgrace of the
nation. But they have kept that oracle, and keep it
still. And what shall we say of both Papists and
Protestants?  Hiave they not done the same    ) Did
not my friend say, the " Scriptures have come down
to us from a source most corrupt"?  We admit it.
Why did not Mr. Barker accept the proposed issue,
with respect to his supposed contradictions in the
Scriptures?  Was it not a fair one?  Some of the
audience may have forgotten it.  We proposed to
him to select a few palpable contradictions, if any
there were, and present them in due form and order,
and we would attempt a reconciliation of them; if
we did not reconcile them so as to show that there
was no important discrepancybetween the statements,
he should be entitled to the benefit of his contradic tions when he had proved them to be such. Why
18-3 
184    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIIHE
has he not done so?   I will  give you the reason.   I
will refer you to the "Christian, "by Joseph Barker,
vol. 1, pages 394, 395:
"The Sacred Scriptures are a collection of writings, written by
differet men, in different ages and countries, all tending to throw
light on God's character and will, and all tending to awaken and
cherish the spirit of piety in man, and adapted to promote the im provement and perfection of men in knowledge and true holiness.
They are not a creed, but helps to understand and believe the truth.
They are not a law, but helps to a right understanding of God's
law, and helps and encouragements to obedience. They are helps
to religious knowledge, to true piety, and to everlasting blessedness.
When they were written, where they were written, and, in some
cases, by what persons they were written, are matters not certainly
known.  Nor is it certainly known, with respect to several of them,
in what form they at first appeared. Nor is it certainly known
what changes they have undergone since they were first written.
The original copies are lost, and what WE have, are translations,
translations of translations. translations of translations of trans cripts, of transcripts of transcripts.
And every translation, and every transcript which  has  ever
been made of those writings, was made by men who were
liable to err, by men, all of whom, we have reason to believe, did
err more or less.  There is, however, reason to believe, that the
principal translators and transcribers, and the principal printers
and publishers also of the sacred writings, have been persons who,
like the original writers, were, in a great measure, under the influence of the spirit of God, the spirit of truthfulness and piety.
And there is reason to believe that, in general, the Scriptures
retain their original character, and are fair expressions and correct
revelations of the righteous souls that gave them forth. That
passages have been added, and that passages have been taken
away, and that other passages which remain have been altered and
marred, is beyond all doubt.  Still there is abundant reason to
believe, that the general character of the writings remains, and
that they are calculated, when read and interpreted, and applied,
in the spirit of truth and piety, and in reliance on that light
enkindled by our heavenly Father in our own souls, to answer the
great end for which they were designed. They came from God, and
God has graciously preserved them for our good."
We ask, who was the writer of the communication
just read? Joseph Barker. HIow long since he
wrote it? In 1844. Who was Joseph Barker?  Was
he a novice, or was he a man of mature years? IHe 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
was in the prime and vigor of life. Was he a scholar? So far as I am competent to judge of scholarship, he was.  He has examined the Scriptures, not
only in the different versions, but also in the original
languages, from,which they were translated.  We
regard him then as a competent witness. What then
does he declare the facts be? He says, " that there
is reason to believe that, in genera], the Scriptures
retain their original character, and are fair expressions and correct revelations of the righteous souls
that gave them forth."  Hle says, "they came from
God, and God has graciously preserved them for our
good." 
His remarks upon transcripts and translations
appear to me extravagant.  Our friend says, all we
claim.  It is satisfactory to me; and, we believe
most Christians would endorse the sentiments con'tained in this extract.  Is not this enough?  If the
Scriptures bring us into intimacy and fellowship
with God, from whom they have been derived,
is not that enough?  That is all we claim.
I will resume the series of argument where I left
it. The words of Christ are but the re-echo of prophecy.   I came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give my life a ransom for many."  We
have before hinted that the death of Christ- was
according to prophecy, and an important part of his
earthly mission -I will add to this his resurrection
and ascension.  Before the death of Christ, while in
conversatioln with his disciples, he staked all his
185 
186    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
pretensions to the Messiahship on the fulfillment of
these prophecies uttered by himself. These predictions are recorded in the testimony of Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John. We will refer only to two
recorded in Matthew, and one in John."
Matthew 16: 21.-" From that time forth began
Jesus to show unto his disciples how that he must go
unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders,
and chief priests, and scribes: and be killed, and
be raised again the third day."
Matthew 20: 18, 19.-'  Behold we go up to Jeru
salem; and the son of man shall be betrayed untc
the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall
condemn him to death. And shall deliver him tc
the Gentiles, to mock, and tD scourge, and to crucify
him: and the third day he shall rise again.
We open to John 6: 62.-" What and if ye shal
see the son of man ascend up where he was before.'
These were the most fearful tests that could hav
been imagined.  Why were they so?  1, because o
their complexity; 2, because of the kind of co-opc
ration  essential to their accomplishment.  When
series of items enter into the constituency of an;
thing, we call it complex.  Our Lord, therefore
intended to make this test of the most precarion:
character on which he would rest his claim to th
Messiahship of Israel. We shall give them numer
ically: 1, that the son of man should be betrayed
2, that he should be betrayed to the chief priests an(
scribes; 3, that he must suffer many things befor 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
he should be put to death; 4, that he should be con demned of the Jews; 5, that they should deliver himn
to the Gentiles; 6, that the Gentiles should mock
him; 7, that they should scourge him; 8, that he
should rise again.  Is not this complexity? It would
not have been strange that he should have foretold
that he would die, or that he should die by violence.
Sometimes a man may foretell that his death will be
brought about by violence, especially if he should
be surrounded by malignant foes, and was himself
unflinching in his principles, bent upon his purposes,
with fearful odds against him. A man might predict under such circumstances, that his death would
be by violence. But to predetermine that he would
be "betrayed "-that he would be betrayed into the
hands of the " chief priests and scribes "-that he
should "suffer many things " before his death-that
he would be condemned by the Jews-that he would
be " delivered unto the Gentiles "-that they would
G mock him "-that he would " rise again the third
day."  No human foresight could have anticipated
all- these events, so unprecedented, occurring in connection with his own death, or the death of another;
neither is it possible for a man so to influence his
enemies as to inflict upon him all the sufferings foretold by Jesus Christ. Nothing can solve these difficulties but Christ's prescience, and no agencies could
have brought them about but unrelenting foes, and
the interposition of the Almighty. If Christ had
been betrayed into the hands of the populace, or if he
187 
188    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
had not been betrayed at all -or if he had been
mocked but not scourged, etc., these would have been
but a partial accomplishment.
It is a rare occurrence that a culprit suffers much
before his execution.  There is something in human
nature that calls for sympathy in behalf of those
under the sentence of death. I have seen the most
hardened sinners weep, when the Judge sentenced
an offender to the State's prison.  But the sympathy
natural to men wvas restrained, when Pilate delivered
him up to be crucified.  They " mocked " him-they
" scouryed " him.  I-e suffered all these indignities
before they crucified him. The crucifix was not the
most common mode of punishing culprits. Socrates was not nailed to the cross. Seneca was permitted
to choose in what way he would die. The crucifix
was reserved for slaves and aliens, and  these of the
vilest character only. But Jesus Christ had said,
" the son of man must be crucified."  The apostles
heard their Lord foretell all these things concerning
himself, so very improbable, and so unwelcome to
their ears; but they saw their literal accomplishment.
What a proof of his integrity and Messiahship! 
2. "And in three days he shall rise again." Ilie
did "rise again.'   So that this test was also literally
fulfilled. If he had risen on the second day, there
would have been some doubt about the matter.  If
he had remained in " the tomb " till the fourth day,
it would have been the same.
3. The third and last test of his MIessiahship was 
CIIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
his ascension. " What and if ye shall see the son of
man ascend up where he was before." Our Lord had
fed a multitude the day before he spoke these words.
The second day, they came again from base motives,
when he gave them this gentle rebuke: " Ye seek
me not because you saw the miracle, but because
you ate of the loaves and were filled."  Jesus now
spoke of himself as the bread of heaven, and said,
" except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye have
no life in you."  Many of the disciples said, " this
is a hard saying." Who can bear it? He said unto
them, " Doth this offend you?"  "What  and if ye
shall see the son of man ascend up where lie was before." Will not that settle the question? Will not
that test my pretensions as the Messiah of God?
These proofs dispelled all doubt, and they were satisfied. I say, having these demonstrations they were
satisfied and did not doubt the fact thereafter. All
tkeir former doubts were now removed. Peter once
so faint-hearted, could no longer be intimidated. No
officer could alarm him.  He was in great terror
when Christ was arrested, and when accused with
being one of his company, he said, " I know not the
man." The fearful now became bold as the lion.
When Peter and John stood before an infuriated
council, the people " marvelled at their boldness,
and took knowledge of them that they had been with
Jesus." They disregarded the menaces of their
rulers, and answered their threatenings by an appeal
to themselves:  "Whether it be right in the sight of
IS9 
190    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
God, to hearken unto men more than unto God, judge
ye, for we can but speak of the-things we have seen
and heard."  The future fortunes of the cause of
Christ depended upon his success with the apostles.
To make these "able ministers of the new covenant,"
was essential to the propagation of the Gospel.  IHe
knew the kind and the amount of evidence they
required to fit them for the work, and he was able to
give it. iHaving seen all the things accomplished
upon which he staked his pretensions even to his
rising from the dead and ascension, they doubted no
more.
MR. HARTZEL'S FOURTEENTH ADDRESS.
Before proceeding, I will call for the reading of an
article from the " Christian," published A.  D. 1848,
vol. 4, pages 276, 277:
"The finest specimen of moral greatness on record, is Jesus
Christ.  There is something in the character of Christ unspeakably
sublime.  There is somiething in his character infinitely great.  I
cannot describe the feelings with which I contemplate his life at
times.  Nor can I describe the reverence with which I regard him
I feel, while I look on his character, that if there be one thins
under heaven more worthy of my wishes than another, it is t(
share his god-like spirit, and to be conformed to his glorious like
ness.  Compared with the greatness which I see in Jesus, al
physical greatness, all mere intellectual greatness, all the splendor
of talent, all the stores of learning, all the mighty achievements
all the wondrous discoveries in science, all the improvements in art
look little; appear as nothing.  Christ was not without intellectun
greatness.  On the contrary, his intelligence was unusual.  Bu
his goodness is the most striking, the most touching, the mos
enchanting, the most transporting. I cannot imagine an objee 
CHIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
more  lovely than  Christ.  I cannot conceive  greatness  more
divine or glorious than his.
We have specimens of moral greatness in the characters of some
of the apostles, and especially in the apostle Paul.  He gave up his
reputation for learning; he sacrificed his Jewish friends and connections; he relinquished the honors of his sect; he renounced
whatever he had. prized of a worldly character, and gave himself
up to a life of hardship, of reproach, of suffering and of loss, out
of regard to the truth, and for the welfare of mankind. His labors
were most abundant. His sufferings were great and almost constant, yet he thought himself abundantly repaid for them, in the
good which he was able to do to his fellow-creatures.  When he
was told on one occasion, that bonds and imprisonments awaited
him in every city through which he was likely to pass, he replied,
'.None of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto
myself, so that I may finish my course with joy, and accomplish
the service to which I have been appointed by the Lord Jesus, to
testify the glad tidings of the goodness of God.'  And as he lived,
he died. When writing to a friend near the close of his life, he
says,' I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I
have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge shall give to me,
and not to me only, but to all them that love his appearing.' We
have other striking examples of moral greatness in the reformers of
later ages.  We see something of it in Wickliffe.  We see something
of it in Luther.  We see more of it in Fox and Penn.  We see
something of it in Priestley and Channing. We see something of
it in Whitfield, and Wesley, and Fletcher.  But in none do we
behold so rich, so full a revelation of true greatness, as in Jesus.
And shall we not labor to share his greatness? This is a kind of
greatness which all can appreciate. It is a kind of greatness which
we all admire in the departed.  And shall we not seek to emulate
this greatness ourselves?  The greatness of which we have been
speaking will endure for ever.  It will never cease to be admired.
It will never cease to be glorious. It will be loved and honored
as long as God himself shall live, or eternity endure."
From what source did Mr. Barker derive these
views of the character of Jesus Christ and the Apostles  Hie certainly received his information from
these " fabulous," corrupt Scriptures. If they could
give him such exalted views of moral excellence, and
grandeur, exhibited not in imaginary or fabulous
personages, but in real life-characters mnore exalted
1-91 
192    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
and holier than have been presented by the best and
most enlightened of moral reformers of later ages,
I am sure these facts are a refutation of his notions of
the progress of our race. If he finds the best examples
of mora greatness, and human perfection, eighteen
hundred years back in the history of mankind,where has been this glorious progression, of which
we have heard so much boast by some minute modern philosophers?
Primitive Christians refer us back to the time of
Christ and his Apostles. Ancient Christians to the
fathers -the days of St. Cyprian, St. Augustine,
Crysostem, etc. Modern Christianity brings us down
to our own times.  Into these periods Christianity is
divided by the celebrated D'Aubigne. It is not
ancient or modern Christianity, but primitive Christianity for which we plead. We can only be held
responsible for the character and teachings of Jesus
Christ and the Apostles. We have nothing to do
with the professors, whose characters our friend has
painted so darkly.  Mr. Barker has shown the entire
fulfillment of the prophecy read, and has so far been
proving the truth of our proposition. I am glad he
has performed this service, as the task was one we
did- not like to perform. There are, however, many
exceptions to this terrible picture he has drawn. I
wish there were more.  My friend admits there were
good priests, and has placed Christ at the head of all
of them.  " Luther," he says," was a good priest."
I believe he did honor Campbell, by placing him in 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
the list. After these were expelled, we believe there
were yet some good ones left in the churches. - I am
persuaded of one thing however, that it is after all
an exaggeration on the part of Mr. Barker: still his
testimony justiies the prophecy.  The prophecy does
not apply to the church universal, but that there
should be such men claiming to be Christians, having
"  foon of qodliness; (not the form,) they were
apostates.  The genuine  Christian has the "form of
godliness," and the power with it.  I sympathize
with Mr. Barker.  I have ten volumes of his writings,
covering thirteen years of his life, and I have no
doubt but that my friend has been instrumental in
part, in bringing upon himself the persecutions to
which he has been subjected. Somehow or other he
seems not to have a proper respect for the feelings of
others, or the treatment due to them.  Christians are
required to be  courteous."  He seems to have
taken this. View of humanity when a preacher, that
men are like iron, to be operated upon whenhot. -When
iron is hot it is soft- when men are hot they are
hard.  I see in my friend's case fiulfilled the saying
of Jesus Christ -"with what measure youl meet it
shall be measured to you a.gain."  Had he observed
this precept of the Savior-"Whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them"in his intercourse with men, he would not have experienced the ill-treatment of which he complains.
But to proceed with the argument. I was broken
7
-193 
194    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
off in my last address while speaking of the complex
character of the tests to which our Savior submitted
his claims to the Messiahship. I had only examined
those accomplished by human agency, and began to
remark upon those which called for supernatural
interposition. When the Jews had crucified the
Lord, they had done  all they could do.  Human
agency could go no farther.  When they had laid
him in the grave, the only thing they could do farther
was to keep him there. They go to Pilate, the
Roman Procurator, and ask him for a guard. They
obtain it; and a band of Roman soldiers are placed
around the" sepulcher."  Now, another agency must
be introduced to bring him out of the grave, or
Christ must fail in the testimony offered to the
apostles.  Two miracles must now be performed to
meet the pledge Christ gave to his disciples. First,
"And rise from the dead the third day." Behold,
the morning of the third day begins to dawn! All
Heaven, Earth and Hell are in a state of anxiety
and suspense.! There was a reason for the Jews to
use the precaution they did, to keep him in the grave.
Mighty "signs" had  showed themselves  in him.
They would not feel easy about the probable results.
Ah! this was an eventfulmorning-the immortality
of a world suspended on the issues of a moment!
But, before the sun had shaken his golden locks over
the hills and valleys of creation, the Redeemer had
risen and secured "life and immortality," for man.
Jesus had risen from the dead.  It did not hence 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
follow that his disciples must see him ascend up to
Hieaven. But he had referred them to his ascension
as evidence that he was the " bread of life." Second,
"What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up
where he was before." That will settle the question,
that the man who obeys my voice shall never die.
In "forty days" after his resurrection, he ascended
to the skies, and, like a kind father, full of affection
for his children, he pronounced upon them a parting
blessing. While thus engaged-, he began to rise.
He ascended higher and higher-and, as they were
gazing after him, a " bright cloud" bore him rapidly
out of their sight-  like the high-soaring eagle, its
form diminishes as it ascends till finally it is lost in
the expanse above. But God gave them consolation
in this trying moment.  An "angel" descended and
said unto them, " Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye
gazing up into Heaven?  This same Jesus, which is
now taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come
in like manner as ye have seen him go into I-eaven."
I defy Mr. Barker to call in question these facts.
Gibbon knew better than to attempt it. I challenge
our friend to show on rational principles, how the
death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ
can be regarded as false without disregarding every
item of the evangelical history. These enter into the
frame-work of the entire system, and are to Christianity what the foundation is to the superstructure.
The apostles being witnesses to these, we can easily
195 
196     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
account for their zeal in propagating the Gospel, and
the present existence of the Gospel history.
I know we are traveling slowly; but the man who
attempts a short answer to so long a question, will
not make his answer satisfactory. I also ought to
say, that the question in debate is one of transcendant importance. I have come here for the purpose
of benefitting those who may attend this discussion.
I will ask the audience to be patient, and when you
have given us a faithful hearing, and we have not
redeemed the pledge, then yours will not be the
blame. You shall next hear MIr. Barker on these
interesting facts.  In his discussion with W. Cooke,
page 600, he says:
"I believe that Jesuswas (in Hebrew,) the Messiah; (in Greek,)
the Christ; (in English,) the most favored and exalted of mankind; the beloved Son of God. I believe that Jesus was endowed
by God with power and wisdom, that God wrought many " signs
and wonders'" by him, and set him  forth as a teacher of truth, as
an example of goodness, as the guide, the Savi6r, and the judge of
mankind. I believe in the general truth of the Gospel history. I
believe that in the Gospels we have, in general, a truthful and satis factory history of the Savior's life; of his teachings and labors, of
his trial and death. I believe that Jesus rose again from the dead,
and that he still lives to labor for the good of mankind."
Before  closing  my  serial  argument,  offered in
defence  of the affirmation, that  the " Jewish  and
Christian Scriptures contain a series of communica tions supernaturally revealed and miraculously attes ted "-let me bring the whole to bear upon a single
New Testament proposition:  namely, " Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God."   See Matthew
16th chapter. After this is done, we shall proceed
to the second feature of our proposition. We have 
CHARGES OF MODERN  NFIDELITY.
now offered ten independent arguments; any one of
which is sufficient, in itself, to sustain the first feature
in my proposition:    -
First. Upon the authenticity of the Old Testament.
Suppose we take out of -these ancient records all the
prophecy relating to Jesus Christ, what would their
credibility be worth to us?  Would they be worth
contending for?  Surely not.  The hope of a coming
Messiah was the soul of these ancient oracles; as
the testimony they now bear to Jesus of Nazareth,
as the" Christ of God," is still the heart and life of
them.'"The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of
prophecy."
Second. The promise to Abraham.  "I will make
oftheeagreat nation."  Is there anything appreciable
in the election of Abraham, and the making of him
a great nation, independent of-;Christ and Christianity? The Gospel gives a thousand good reasons
for God mnaking of Abraham " a great nation."
Third. "I will make thy name great."  God never
elected men to distinctions and honors for their own
sake always for relative purposes. Paul gives a
good reason for this.  See Galatians 3: 14:  " That
the blessing of Abraham  might come upon the
Gentiles through Jesus Christ."
Fourth. "In thee shall all families of the earth
be blessed." This promise, though grand in its conception, and benevolent in its design, is yet without
any significance or meaning, unless we receive Paul's
words as true: " God, who at sundry times and in
197 
198    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
divers manners spake in time8 past unto the fathers
by the prophets8, hath in these last days spoke unto
us8 by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all
things, by whom also he made the worlds." Let this
basis of the Christian religion be repudiated; let Mr.
Barker show it unworthy of rational belief, and we
will readily admit that the promises to Abraham are
without any importance.  We do not see any enlightened system of selfishness or fraud in them. But
when this promise was fulfilled in Christ, what
untold blessings are contained in it I
Fifth. The preservation of the Jews. Why was
this nation so long under the protection and chastening of the Lord? It is inexplicable from any other
ground than this, that Jesus who was declared to be
the Son of God when emerging from the baptismal
grave, is also the son of Abraham according to the
flesh-that he is both the " root and the offspring of
David." All the greatness, and all that has given
consequence to this extraordinary family is in some
way connected with this more extraordinary personage.
Sixth. And why should prophet have united with
prophet in fixing the time of his coming so definitely,
that the expectation at the time of his birth was
general, both among Jews and Gentiles. All this,
to introduce to the nation of Israel one of its own
children! To introduce Jesus, the carpenter's son,
to his own nation!!  Wonderful!!
Seventh. Why should the time of the setting up 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
of his kingdom have been determined so many hun dred years in advance, if he was not the " Prince of
peace "-the "Prince of life "-the Son of God and his kingdom that of " peace and righteousness,"
differing froin all other organizations under heaven
Eighth, ninth, tenth. To speak in a more summary
way-why should his death, burial, and resurrection,
have received so much attention?  No satisfactory
answer can be given but this he died'"for our
offences, and rose again for our justification;" and
hence his resurrection was a demonstration of his
mission.
"And declared to be the Son of God with power,
according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead."-Romlans 1: 4.  This is a corroborative proof of Peter's confession: "'Thou art
the Christ the Son of the living God," and that the
revelation he had received was reliable. "' Flesh and
blood have not revealed it unto thee, but my father
which is in Heaven." When did he receive this
revelation? At the time of his baptism. What was
it?  "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased."' "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Hiighest shall overshadow thee."
"Therefore that holy thing [offspring] which shall be
born of thee shall be called the Son of God." This
was the announcement  of' Gabriel" to the virgin mother of the Messiah. It is always the prerogative of the parent to name the offspring. There
is then a beautiful decorum in this, as well as a most
199 
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
simple and unostentatious introduction of the Son of
God, by his own Father, to the people of Israel.
We now enter upon his ministry.  lIe called certain individuals from their humble vocations to be
his Disciples.  Hie took them under his special care
and teaching for a timne, and then sent them out as
missionaries to the Jewish nation. These were instructed in the doctrines of his "approaching reign."
These were entrusted with all his secrets. They had
rival feelings and jealousies among themselves.
They were often reproved by their Master. On one
occasion he called the most bold and decided one
among them, "Satan."  On another occasion they
asked him, "shall we call down fire to destroy these?"
Shall we do as Elijah did-burn  them up?  HIow
beautiful, how benevolent, the response!  "The Son
of Man is come not to destroy men's lives, but to
save them." The freedom with which our Lord
reproved the Disciples, never elicited fromn them an
unfavorable report of him.
MR. IIARTZEL'S FIFTEENTIH ADDRESS.
A formidable list of difficulties truly! A very few
words by way of reply. The speaker who has just
taken his seat says, "it is strange that the Disciples
of Jesus Christ should have been so ignorant."  We
answer, this is not strange. If they understood the
200 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
Savior no better than they did, would they not have
been too ignorant to fabricate such a religion?  H ow
can Mr. Barker impeach the testimony of the first
article we read from his pen this morning?  Will he
show that the character of Jesus Christ which we
have in the Gospel, is not a genuine protraiture?
He knew better than to assail it, after having written
an eulogy, so true, so beautiful! If it be a true portraiture-if the Evangelists drew it from real life,
from practical life-if they described the character
and moral excellence of any one individual, then it is
a true protraiture.  It is for him to show that it was
not a portraiture, but a fiction. Then he would have
done something. He would have changed the difficulty, but would not have removed it; then the
inquiry would arise, how could the human mind
invent such a character without a model? -so he let
it alone most cautiously.  In regard to these indelicacies in the composition of the Bible, I will respond
in the language of the Apostle Paul, in his epistle to
Titus, 1: 15:  "SUnto the pure all things are pure:
but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is
nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience
is defiled."'  False modesty awakens suspicion.  The
chaste and pure in heart, of all ages, have employed
familiar language, when there was occasion for it.
Having noticed all worthy of reply, I proceed.
And after his separation from them, they were
more faithful than before. See "Christianity Triumphant," page 22:
201 
202    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
"After the ascension of Jesus into heaven, the principles of his
religion took a wider spread, the number of his disciples was
greatly multiplied, and the blessed effects of the Gospel were more
clearly seen.  The Apostles, in the true spirit of their religion,
gave themselves, in the face of danger and death, to the work of
instructing and regenerating the world. They renounced all selfish
interests, abandoned all prospect of earthly gain, and against a
world of opposition and persecution, they went forth toiling and
suffering for the salvation of mankind. Wherever they went, the
Gospel proved the power of God to the salvation of their hearers.
Foinicators, idolators, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves
with mankind, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers, and
extortioners, were washed from their impurities, and made holy
and useful and happy.-(1 Cor. vi. 10, 11.) Men and women, that
had wallowed in licentious pleasures, and taken the lead in the
wanton and riotous disorders of abominable idolatries, became patterns of sobriety and chastity. -(1 Peter iv. 3, 4.) Magicians,
soothsayers, and sorcerers were alrested by the power of the truth,
and gave up their impositions; and' many that believed came and
confessed, and showed their deeds. Many of them also, which
used curious arts, brought their books together, and burned them
before all men: and they counted the price of them, and it amounted to fifty thousand pieces of silver.  So mightily grew the word
of God, and prevailed.'-(Acts xix. 18,19.)"
The Apostles had the world to co6ntend againstall the priesthoods and  governments, both  Jewish
and  Pagan.   "We  have  not  followed   cunningly
devised fables when we made known to you the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," said Peter, near the
close  of his  life.  They   acknowledged   both   his
authority and  his wisdom, while he was with them.
" The multitudes were astonished at his doctrine, for
he taught them as one having authority and not as
the scribes." Hiow can this report be accounted for,
without acknowledging the truth of the evangelical
history? How, I ask, can we account for the existence  of these  biographies,  without  the subject of
them?-the variety of detail, without  any  irreconcilable contradiction or falsehood 8 But what is most 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDETLITY.
astonishing, is that they should differ in the subject
matter of their narratives, yet all succeed in drawing
a picture of moral perfection which has secured the
respect of the good, and extorted homage from the
bad; and that they have all succeeded in- this portraiture so admirably, that we know not to which of
them the palm should be awarded. That a man
should have one biographer who is a living witness
is rare.  That he should have two is extraordinary.
That he should have three is unparalelled.  And a
fourth, who drew upon the testimony of those who
were eye and ear witnesses of the things they reported -who was himself a cotemporary with the subject of these narratives, is something unheard of, and
without a parallel in the history of our world. The
wonderful doings of Jesus Christ have come down
to us well attested; and the evangelical history can
furnish the only solution of a religion superhuman
in its conception -a religion miraculous in its developement and propagation.
I shall now proceed directly to the task before me,
which is to prove, "that in the Xew Testament we
ave aperf ect rule of life."  And first: to givesuch
a law of life is itself a work most onerous. We
would be naturally led to this conclusion, from the
many who have undertaken it and have utterly failed,
that no mere man or set of men possess the necessary
qualifications to ensure success. Competency to give
to our ignorant and erring race a perfect code of ethics
203 
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
required more than the highest degree of human wis
dom.
Second. Such lawgiver must have a perfectknowledge of all the diversified relations, both religious
and political, that now are or shall be in the future.
Rlelations must be understood before duties can be
defined.  At this point the wisdom of the world has
always failed.  "The world by wisdom knew  not
God" the creator, and, therefore, could not know man
the creature.
Third. To adapt a system of moral instruction to
man-universal man-required a knowledge of more
than the present and the local. It required a knowledge of the distant and the future. As no man could
be acquainted with the condition of society in districts
unknown to himself, and as no finite being can know
the changes of after ages, therefore it required Omniscience to give such a "rule of life" as we possess
in possessing the New Testament. -  If my affirma
* Are man's powers creative and inventive, or inventive only? This inquiry will bring
to light his utter inability to ontrive a religion equal to his wants.  No ma  of a sound
head will claim for him self or others physical creative powers, and none will deny to man
physical inventive powers.  The m       ehanic illvets, he does not c  reate. Wher  the jeweler has worked up his material, he must  cease to operate.  When the  anfactrer has
exhauste d his stock, his machinery stops, and his hands aredischarged.  He is subjected
to this necessity because he cannot crete-ce ative powers imply omnipotenee.
These reflections are only introductory to the question.  Does man possess moral crea.
tive powers? Wee answer, No, without fear of contradiction.'  He can no more create the
material f thought than the cabinet-maker his lmber or the smith his iron and steel;
but frm his stock of mental types and images, by which we men all he can know by
his own observation ad all he has learned from the experiene  of others, from conversations, books, et.; all that comes  ithin the domain of knowledge, faith and opinion,
constitutes, both to the savage and the sage, all the material for his mental operations.
From this store he may invent a thousand new fanies, assoc           iati ons and combinations.
This leads out two conclusions: First, when man desires to perform some mental operation for which he has no mental images, he is compelled to abandon the enterprise;
second, when he has exhausted all his capital upon a given subject, his moral machinery
stops until he obtaias a new supply; bht, if the mind coulid bv its natural fecundity
originate the types of things unknown, there would be no bounds to our mental progress.
Bot the mind like the " hand " has its metes and boundaries.  It may not be so easy t o
decide upon the HIITHERTO, still every man's experience says, there is an UncCOMPioMIs*
ING HITHERTO,
The mind may elaborate from its available capital many new associations, theoretical
,204 
CHARGES OF MODERN  INFIDELITY.
tion is true, and I trust we shall prove it so, is not
Christianity adapted to all countries. I answer yes.
Where men can live by honest industry.  Are not the
moral precepts of the Gospel as well calculated to
promote the best interests of mankind now, as they
were eighteen -undred years ago?. We answer yes
progression notwithstanding.
Fourth. Such an one must possess authority to
command-otherwise the duties specified will not,
or may not be regarded as imperious. Then there
must be some sanction to inspire with motive to do
some things, and not to do certain other things.
The requisite qualifications to give to man "a perfect
and practical; they may be right, true and good, or they may not.  All knowledge may
be classified onder two comprehensive headings-the FINITE and the INFINITE.  We apply
these terms to "time,"          i to "motion," to "power," etc.  The mind may grasp a period
of fifty years-or. say one hundred-say one thousand, then it feels burdened-savy one
million of years, and the mind becomes MULISH-but say ETERNITY, time without end,
here I am lost.    Complex ideas" relate to the first class. or things finite, and may be
defined;  but " simple ideas" belong to the second, or things infinite, therefore cannot be
defined.  To illustrate farther, a strong mancan raise thee hundred pounds, a horse
can carry five, a locomotive will move at the rate of forty miles per hour, with a train
carrying many hundred tons burden. The greater the power the more vague the conception. Indeed, the mind is bewildered long before it arrives at the INriNiTE, the ONiPOTENT. Man has power to build a palace when furnished withtools -and material. The
reader can form tolerably distinct notions of his strength and inventiveness. But God
made the universe without hammer or saw,  ithout tools or materials, whatever hlie may
have employed of theone or the other.                   he first made it.  "He said, let there be light and
light was.  TinS WAS THE EFFECT OF POWER INFINITFE, OMNIPOTENT.  This is theGod of
the Bible-the God whom the Christian delights tohonol. Tothis God, as revealed in the
Bible, are ascribed a class of infinite perfections, such as the human mind never did, nor
ever could originate, for the want of sensible sIGNS OR im GES.  Though revealed (supernatorally,) they are only addressed to our powers of apprehension, with this we must be
satisfied.  We are I If our God was of our own creation, we could comprehend him as
we do all our inveitions;, and, therefore, he could not be an object of rational worship.
To specify our God is ETERNAL, OMNIPOTENT, OMISCIET, ONIPRESENT. While writing these words, my mind is lost in their awful significance. Here I feel my HITHtERTO
perhaps betterfeltthantold.  Yes; but let me try.  Of things mostimmediaielycnnseted with the finite, the mind forms the most distinct cenceptions, and the nearer  we
approach to te i            fiite, idefit th e  mor e indefinite the  onceptions:'therefore, When we arrive
at that point where the ind can go no farther for the want of DATA,; where it cannot
form another idea fom such material as it inmay possess, however vague-we would say
that is the TERMINOUS-all beyond this must be revelation. I do not say that nothing else
is, but this must be.
From this stand point len us look at the revealed God of the Bible, and the invented
gods of the heathen.  David gives this striking contrast; "He that planted the ear
shall he not hear? He that formed the eye shall he not see?  eI-I that chastiseth lthe
heathen shall he not correct? HIe that teacleth man knowledge SHALL NOT IE KNOW? "
Psalms 94-" Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's  hai,ds.  They have
mouths but they speak not: eyes they have  obut they see not."  "They have ears but
they hear not;" "hands they have but they handle not; feet they havebut they walk not.
They that made them are like unto them," etc.-Psalms 105.  Man can invent no better
God than this, for he never did.
205 
206     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
rule of life," and to make it in any degree efficient
and efiectual, are manifestly superhuman and divine.
To sum up in few words.  The author of "a perfect rule of life," must first have a perfect understanding of the relations of the persons or parties
involved; in order to make known  to them their
mutual obligations; and to accompany the same with
sufficient motive power to secure respect and obedience. Relation, duty, and destiny, are three essential
elements in what we call "a rule of life." Bless
God, we have found one who is competent to the
task of giving to man such a rule of moral right;
Man's ability to originate a god worthy of his homage, whose moral character when
transferred to the worshiper would tend to his improvement and happiness, has been
tested upon a broad scale. The heathen world has had time, learning, science, talent enough of every facility to exhaust all humnan resources. What of her inventions?
"Lords many, gods many."  The VICE that has not been deified would be a new one in
the catalogue of crie. THEREFORE the heathen, by common consent of infidel and
Christia., escapeCENSURE AND THE CHARGE OF HYPOCRISY.  Let their ignorance and
crimes be what they may, they are yet the objects of commiseration.  Their gods neither
planted the ear nor formed the eye."  To their invented gods they neither ascribed infi nite purity, holiness or ubiquity; hence there was no " fear of God before their eyes,"
neither can there be without the abiding conviction of an all-pervading, everywhere
present Divinity with whom we have to do, and to whom we are accountable. The man
that does not fe'l this is not to be trusted at all times. The fear of man can only restrain
when in his presence, and self-respect is not always strong enough to keep tumultuous
passions in obeyance. Perhaps in these facts we have the reason why an Atheist cannot
be a witness in law  an avowed  infidel can.ot become a member of the LODGE, accord ing to the Canons of the brotherhood, and this is the legal decision of one of our ablest
jurists. "Many  things may  be reproved in sound morals, which are left by the
law without remedy. except by an appeal to the conscience of the party himself."
"It should therefore always be borne in mind, that he who adopts the law of the land,
aE the only guide in his dealings, or the only rule for his moral conduct, is neither a good
neighbor nor an honest man."-Judge Swan.
Why appeal to a m's conscience who has no     realizin g faith in the Divine presence?
It m"y be safely questioned, whether such a mon has any conseience beyond self-interest.
Moses appealed to the conscience of sch an one in behalf of some slaves, but he stoutly
answered "I know not the Lord, neither will r let Israel go."  I am told that some of
the heathen moralists believed in the unity of God, his omnipresence, etc. Grant that
thev had some light upon these subjects. Did they receive it? or, did they create it?
"Moses was born more than a thousand years before Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, or
Seneca."  He could not have borrowed from them, but they may have borrowed from
him. " Genesis and the whole of the Jewish law, antedate Solon, Xenophon, Zeno,"
and all these philosophers of infidel boast. "Hiram. king of Tyre, was in habitual
interconmunity with Solomon, whose fame for learning and wisdom was in all nations
round about." Some of these distinguished Pagans lived in the days of the prophets,
and were blessed with manv facilites to learn the knowledge of the true God.  Our only
uarvel is, that they learned so little, and so confounded that little with such a mass of
corruption, ignorance, idolatry, etc., as to destroy all its practical utility. Whatever
worthy views they had of the INFINITe OxE they did not invent, for where in all creation could they get the types to print the words OotIsCIENCE, OmiNIPRESENCE? Let the
learned infidel Volney say, "Moses created INSTITUTIONS whose influence extended to
the WHOLE human race." 
CHIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
" even Jesus of whom Moses and the Prophets did
write."  See Matthew 11th chapter.  "Come unto
me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of
me; for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye s8hall
find rest unto your souls."  I must look at this Scrip
ture in its connection and practical signification.
Christ here assumes the office of a teacher-" learn
of me." He prefaced this claim and invitation to
the humble, to learn of him, by a few words of adoring praise:  "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven
and earth, because thou hast hid these things from
the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto
babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in
thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my
Father; and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father;
neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."
Here is something beautiful, decorous, orderly.
Jesus Christ accommodated his language to human
weakness. Man can only know divine relations, by
his knowledge of human relations. It is in the
divine as in the human-the father knows the son
and the son knows the father. Therefore the Father
knew the competency of the Son to reveal the " all
things " delivered to his charge.  "And as no man
knows the Father but the Son - threfore no man
can know the Father but " he to whomsoever the Son
willreveal him."  Godwithheldthese honors from the
worldly, "wise and prudent, and revealed them unto
207 
O08    DEFENSE.OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
babes."  Christ was a'babe," and so were his pres ent Apostles  babes" in the learning of the schools the literature of this world.
God determined that the Gospel of his grace should
not be valued on account of the worldly consequence
of the messengers employed to develop and propagate
it. Nothing but -its intrinsic worth should recom mend it. The diamond should not be valued because
of the casket that contains it. Hence said an Apostle,
" we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the
excellency of the power may be of God and not of
us."  Jesus Christ says to all who desire to know
God-"  learn of me."  "No man hath seen God
at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."-John
1: 18.
All antecedent revelations of the divine character,
were to some extent imperfect - they wanted fulnesg.
To the Jews God was but partially revealed.  They
had no "Emanuel."'  To them God was not manifested "in the flesh."  When God revealed himself
on "Sinai," they were filled with terror. When
God threw over himself the vail of humanity, they
could converse with him without fear - could approach
him as a friend- could recline on his bosom, etc.
The Pagan forms of idol worship, and legalized
immortalities, (of which we have something to say
hereafter,) show clearly their utter ignorance of God
and his moral perfections.  The knowledge of God
possessed by the Christian is as vastly superior to 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
that possessed by the Jews, as Jesus Christ was
superior to Moses and the Prophets; and theirs as
superior to that of the Gentiles, as Moses and the
Prophets were superior to the Heathen oracles and
moralists.    -
The knowledge of God is the only basis of ethical
science. From this stand-point let us look at our
second affirmative-" In the New Testament we
have a perfect rule of life."
Arg. 1.-As the matrimonial alliance lies at the
basis of all the relations of society, I shall proceed
with this; and shall specify first, that marriage is
from Heaven. In man's creation we have the origin
of this institution. Woman taken from man's side,
near his heart, contains a volume upon this subject.
From this every intelligent Bible reader would infer,
that woman was not designed to be at the head of
man, nor yet at his feet, but under his protecting arm
and near his loving heart-that she was intended
by the Creator to be a help-meet to man and not to
be her husband's slave or lord. So Adam understood
it. Said he, " this is now bone of my bone and
flesh of my flesh." " No man ever yet hated his own
flesh," is a New Testament maxim; and in perfect
harmony with this grand fact. A single verse from
Paul is all we need in the form of precept or of law
upon this subject:  " Nevertheless let every one of
you in particular so love his wife even as himself;
and the wife see that she reverence her husband."Ephesians 5: 33.
209 
210    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
The duties here specified are strictly philosophical,
because in harmony with the natural and differential
peculiarities of the parties. Farther: Christianity
has given birth to a principle, (for it rules more by
principle than by statute law,) which has broken the
arm of oppression, and will do it so far as the Gospel
is-understood and obeyed.  "We then that are strong
ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to
please ourselves."-R-omans 15: 1.
This precept is enforced by Christ's own example;
for even Christ pleased not himself-therefore one of
his Apostles commands the Christian husband to give
honor unto the wife as the weaker vessel. See 1
Peter 3: 7: "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with
them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the
wife as the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not
hindered."
Woman's weakness entitles her to respect. This
must secure to woman her rightful portion when her
lots falls under the influence of the Gospel. HIIence
it is that Christianity has merited our everlasting
gratitude, for bringing woman back again to her
rightful position -to her husband's side and heart
to his affection and esteem. Yes, but the wife is
commanded to be subject to her husband as the church
is to Christ. True, and the husband is commanded to
" love the wifeas Christ loved the church."  And how
was that? He "gave himself for her "-laid down his
life for the church. What is right in principle, cannot 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
be wrong in practice. If Christianity, as then taught
and practiced, brought about such a happy change for
woman, it will do so now, and forever. That Christianity is most favorable to woman is admitted by
infidels.  Gibbon says, (See "Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire," vol. 4, page 274: 3' The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians."
Heathenism had robbed woman of her rights.  Christianity gave them back to her again, and will now
protect her in possession of them. Hence, wherever
Christianityhas prevailed, woman is intelligent, virtuous, lovely.
We claim, therefore, that the Christian husband
and wife have in the book manual of their profession,
"a perfect rule of life." If the husband will treat
his wife with that tender affection, required by the
New Testament, the wife will reverence him. And
if the wife will return the proper respect to her husband, her husband will love her. Let the parties in
wedlock carry out these specified duties in all the
details of practical life, and they will not fail to
receive from each other that which will be in harmony
with what may be peculiar to each. The duties to
love and revere, are perfectly philosophical. They
grow out of the relation. Man feels that there is a
degree of respect due to him. God has implanted
this feeling within his nature; as he has implanted
into the breast of woman the desire to be treated with
tender, loving fidelity.
211 
~12    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
MR. IIARTZEL'S SIXTEENTH ADDRESS
I am required to prove a proposition. This can
only be -done by presenting testimony bearing upon
the proposition, and showing its connection with, and
relation to the proposition to be proved.  We know
what the audience want. They want evidence, not
declamation. Declamation does all for my friend; but
unsustained assertions will not do for me. If I were
simply to affirm that my proposition is true, would
you, therefore, believe it to be so?  What does Mr.
Barker mean by this, viz: " All your evidence in
favor of the Bible is brought from the Bible-from
the friends of the Christian religion- from those
interested." If Christianity is true, Christians have
always been interested in the defense of it. If it is
not true, their interests would be in disavowing it.
It is no new thing for infidels to take this false position. It is saying that men can have an interest in
maintaining known, conscious, unprofitable falsehood. Why these insinuations? Why not prove
the New Testament writings untrue?  A new order
of things must be introduced to suit unbelievers;
namely, that no witnesses shall be heard in court,
who believe what they testifiy. When a man has
espoused a cause as right and true, he must be
regarded as a liar in what he may say in its defence.
When a man has avowed his friendship for another 
OCHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELIT.
he is incompetent to testifty in his case. The bestqualification a witness can have is, that he believes the
testimony he offers. This demand of unbelievers is a
departure from all legal and historic investigation, to
meet the necessities of a wayward cause. They are,
in this respect, as hard pressed as my  friend was
when he referred to Hitchcock -manufactured a man
of straw, and then asked us to protect him. Arbitrary and unjust as this demand is, my friend still
insists upon it. I will bring witnesses from his own
side of the house before we close; and if I fail Mr.
Barker will have the benefit of that failure. We
resume, then, our argument.
The religion of Christ has always been  the friend
of woman. I will refer to Gibbon to show the condition of woman in the Roman Empire, in the
Augustan  age-the most  enlightened  period  in
Roman history. vol. 4, pages 273, 274.
"Experience has proved, that savages are the tyrants of the
female sex, and that the condition of women is usually softened by
the refinements of social life. "By his ( husband's) judgment or
caprice, her behavior was approved, or censured, or chastised; he
exercised the jurisdiction of life and death; and it was allowed,
that in the cases of adultery or drunkenness, the sentence might be
properly inflicted. She acquired and inherited for the sole profit of
her lord, and so clearly was woman defined, not as a PERSON but as
a THINO, that if the original title were deficient, she might be claimed,
like other movables, by the use and possession of, an entire year."
I will next read some historical testimonies from
Mr. Barker. I read from " Christianity Triumphant,"
pages 118, 119, 120, 121.
"In-the first place, woman was not honorably and justly treated.
In almost all the nations of the earth where the religion of the
Gospel has been unknown, woman has been regarded as a being of
2.13 
214    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
inferior order, and treated with the greatest indignity and cruelty
Among savages it -appears to be the uniform lot of woman, to be
treated with unkindness and contempt.  "Through the continent
of America," says Robertson, referring to the time of its discovery,
"their condition is so peculiarly grievous, and their depression so
complete, that servitude is a name too mild to describe their
wretched state.  A wife, among most tribes, is no better than a
beast of burden, destined to every office of labor and fatigue.
While the men loiter out the day in sloth, or spend it in amuse ment, the women are condemned to incessant toil. Tasks are
imposed on them without pity, and services are received without
complacency or gratitude.  Every circumstance reminds women of
their mortifying inferiority.  They must approach their lords with
reverence; they must regard them as more exalted beings, and are
not permitted to eat in their presence.  There are districts in
America, where this dominion is so grievous, and so sensibly felt,
that some women, in a wild emotion of maternal tenderness, have
destroyed their FEMALE CHILDREN in their infancy, in order to deliver
them from that intolerable bondage to which they knew they were
doomed."  " The North American tribes," says Home, "glory in
idleness, the drudgery of labor degrades a man in their opinion,
and is proper for women only. It would be unpardonable meanness
in the bridegroom, to show any fondness for the bride. Young
men among the Hottentots," says he, " are admitted into society of
their seniors at the age of eighteen; after which it is disgraceful to
keep company with women.  In Guiana, a woman never eats with
her husband; and in the Carribbee islands she is not permitted to
eat even in the presence of her husband." Dampier observes in
general, that among all the wild nations that he was acquainted
with, women  carry the burdens, while the men walk before, and
carry nothing but their arms. Women even of the highest rank are
not better treated.  The sovereign of Giaga, in Africa, has many
wives, who are literally his slaves: one carries his bow, one his
arrows, and one gives him drink; and while he is drinking, they
all fall on their knees, and clap their hands and sing. The Giagas
subject their wives to every sort of drugery, such as digging, sowing, reaping, cutting wood, grinding corn, fetching water, &c. These
poor creatures are suffered to toil in the fields and woods, ready to
faint with excessive labor, while the monsters of men will not give
themselves the trouble even of training animals for work.  Among
the wandering Arabs of Africa, the men leave the women to card,
to spin, to weave, as well as to manage the household affairs. The
women milk the cattle, grind the corn, dress the victuals, bring
home wood and water, and even take care of their husbands' horses.
Every thing like drudgery is thrown upon the women, while every
thing like honor and respect is withheld from them.  The poor
wives are dragged along with one infant at the breast, and another
in a basket, and in the evening, though tired with the march and 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
their burdens, they are not permitted to sleep, but must spend the
long night in piroviding for their haughty and unfeeling husbands.
To complete the wretchedness of the woman, a young wife is taken
by the husband, who is permitted to abuse her and her children,
because she is no longer regarded." -Sketches of the History of
Man, by H. Home.
The condition of woman, even among nations reputed civilized,
was one of great degradation and misery. Among the Greeks and
Romans woman was considered as the property of man, to be treated
and disposed of in all cases as he might think fit. She might be
sold, or lent, tortured, or destroyed, returned to her parents, or turned
adrift upon a wide unfeeling world, without protection, without
compassion, and without hope. Fornication was regarded as a
thing altogether allowable among the Gentiles generally, and was
actually encouraged both by the laws and by the religious ceremonies both of Greeks and Romans.  In many cases licentiousness
was sanctioned or commanded by law, and crimes were perpetrated,
and customs were established, of the most awful description, tending directly to the entire corruption and degradation of the female
sex.  "In the purest ages of Greece and Rome," says Ryan, "it
was lawful to put female infants to death, and on the decline of the
Roman empire, Heathen matrons were degraded creatures. According to the system of oppression, which generally prevailed when
the Gospel was promulgated, the husband, instead of being the
friend of his wife, was a tyrant over her; and the wife, as might
naturally be expected, obeyed from a principle of fear, instead of
love or gratitu&e. Callicratidas, a Heathen philosopher, exhorted
wives to bear with the unfaithfulness of their husbands patiently,
"since the liberty of fornication," says he, "is allowed to men
but not to women." Some of the laws of Lycurgus in reference to
women were most shameful, and the principles of Plato and Aristotle were no better.  It would be a shame even to repeat somerof
the vile regulations of those renowned philosophers."
Again: to see what Judaism did for woman, see
pages 125, 126, 127, 128, of the same book.
"The religion of Heaven has always, in all its dispensations, been
distinguished from other religions by its regard to the interests of
women. In the account of creation as given in the sacred writings
of the Jews, every thing is calculated to inspire respect and tenderness toward woman.  She is created to be man's companion in holy
duties and enjoyments, she is formed out of man's own flesh and
bone, she is animated with the same living breath, she bears the
same image of the Deity, engages in the same employments, and
inherits the same anticipations of glory and immortality. Marriage is represented as the institution of God, it is made to consist
in the union of one male and one female, and that union is made to
215 
216    DEFENSE 01O  THHE BIBLE AGAINST TIIE
consist in a close, and cordial, and an inviolable friendship, and in
the ceaseless interchange of loving offices.  In this state all was
delight and harmony; and the Jews were taught by the sacred
writings, that in this delightful and harmonious stateit was God's
original purpose that mankind should live.
The entrance of sin introduced disorder: the original law of mar riage was disregarded, and at length forgotten; adultery and
polygam.  were introduced, licentiousness prevailed and overran
all bouns and the rights and privileges of'woman were trampled
in the dust.  Woman became a slave, a drudge, the sport of man's
caprice, the victim of unholy passions, and the miserable inheritor
of every form of shame and bitterness. It was in those lowest
depths of misery and degradation that woman was found by the
religion of Heaven, as established in its earliest and imperfect dis pensation by the instrumentality of Moses. Under this dispen sation a number of regulations were introduced with the manifest
intention of rescuing woman from her degradation, and of restoring
her to happiness and honor. Man was not stripped of all his
usurped authority at once, nor was woman restored at once to all
her rightful portion; but many important steps were taken in the
way of moral improvement. Importance was given to woman bya law which made -females- capable of inheriting property, and
which constituted daughters, where there were no male heirs, the
inheritors of the entire possessions of their fathers.  Adulteries
and rapes were punished with death; licensed prostitution was
abolished, and a number of regulations were established with a
view to the abolition of prostitution altogether. Men were no longer
allowed to sell their wives as had been previously the case, but the
husband, who was bent on turning his wife away, was required to
give her a bill of divorcement, and send her forth among her people
free.  A number of other laws were instituted, all tending to protect woman from injury, and to promote her comfort and independence. Children were required to honor their mothers as well as
their fathers, and all were required to show kindness to the widow.
God proclaimed himself the judge of the widow, and the father of
her fatherless children; and he threatened the most awful judgments
against such as should injure or oppress them. In those numerous
and wonderful regulations which were made for the relief and
comfort of the poor, the widow and the fatherless were especially
remembered.  The wealthy were required to assist them in all their
distresses, and to give them or lend them as much as their necessities required.  And though pledging was allowed in may other
cases, yet no one was allowed to take the WIDOW'S GARMENT to
pledge.  When the people gathered in their harvests, they were not
allowed to reap the corners of their fields, or to glean the scattered
ears; these were to be FOa THE STRANGER, THE FATHERLESS, AND THE
WIDOW.  If in cutting down the harvest they forgot a sheaf in the
field, they were not allowed to return and fetch it; it was to 
CHMI:ES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
be FOR THE STRANGER, THE FATHERLESS, AND THE WIDOW.  When they
were beating their olive trees, they were not to go over the boughs
a second time; what was left after the first time was to be FOR THE
STRANGER, THE FATHERLESS, AND THE WIDOW.  When they gathered
the grapes of their vineyard, they were only to go over the vineyard once; the remnant was to be FOR THE STRANGER, THE FATHERLESS, AND THE WIDOW. The produce of the land, during the years
of rest, was to be left FOR THE WIDOW AND THE FATHERLESS, and
every third year an extra tithe was demanded, that out of the
produce THE STRANGER, THE FATHERLESS, AND THE WIDOW MIGHT EAT
AND BE SATISFIED.  A number of other benevolent regulations intended for the benefit of the poor, which may be mentioned in
future pages of this work, were all calculated to exert a happy
influence on the character and lot of woman.
The account of the creation prefixed to their law, presenting
such an instructive and affecting account of the origin of man and
woman, of the nature and design of marriage, and of its institution by the Deity, could hardly fail to lead such as were religiously
disposed, to behave toward their wives with respect and tenderness.
The prediction that of one of the daughters of Israel the Messiah
was to be born, would tend to excite feelings of interest -and
respect in the minds of men, exceedingly favorable to the happiness
of their partners.  All these things, as well as others which cannot
now be mentioned, tended to render the condition of woman
amongothe Jews far happier than among the rest of the nations of
the earth.  And notwithstanding the imperfections of this early
dispensation, it had the effect of mingling in the cup of woman no
inconsiderable measure of felicity, and of diffusing through the
dwellings of Jacob a degree of purity and happiness not to be
found in the dwellings of any other race of people then existing on
the face of the earth."
To show the effects of Christianity in favor of
woman, we read again from " Christianity Trinmphant," pages"142, 143, 144.
"And as for woman, no where does she appear so lovely and
so glorious, as in lands where the light of the Gospel shines
around her, and where the influence of its principles is extensively
felt.  Look at woman as she is found among the tribes of American
or African savages, and look at woman as she is found among those
who rejoice in the light and blessings of the gospel, and behold the
difference. Look at woman as she is found amidst thie influences
of irreligion and licentiousness, even in our own land, and look at
her as she is found under the influences of the religion of truth
and purity; -look at her as courted and beguiled, as dishonored
and cast away by the infidel sensualist, and look at her as revered
21,7 
218    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
and loved, as cared for and comforted by the faithful Christian
husband; look at her, in a word, under all the forms of wretched ness and shame in which she is placed by impiety and sensuality,
and then look at her clothed in the garments of purity, adorned
with the fruits of the Spirit of God, employed in her labors-of love,
and rejoicing in the fulness of her heart in the hopes of a blessed
immortality, and you will then have some idea of the happy influ ence of the Gospel on the character and condition of woman.
From the depths of pollution and shame-from the wreck of her
glory and joy-from the sorrows and phrenzies of a broken heart,
and from all1 the miseries and fears of guilt, it raises her to love liness and purity-to joy and dignity-to all that is dear and
delightful on earth, and to all that is glorious in Heaven.
From the first institution of Christianity to the present times, the
church of Christ has presented a large and unbroken list of living
instances of the happy influence of the Gospel upon the character
of females. We cannotlook through a single age- of the church, in
which we do not find women who have been raised by the Gospel
to a height of knowledge, and piety, and charity, of which the
ancient Pagans could have formed no conception.  We find them
employed in instructing the ignorant in the principles of religion,
training the young in knowledge and piety, nursing and rearing
orphan and outcast children, tending the sick, helping and comforting the prisoners, preaching the Gospel, building hospitals,
forming themselves into societies for the exercise of charity, founding benevolent institutions, and distinguishing themselves by a
forwardness to every good work.  Some have distinguished themselves as authors, and  any, in times of persecution, have stood
forward as confessors of their Lord, and nobly earned the honors of
martyrdom."
The first testimony we offered was Gibbon. He
was an infidel, one of Mr. Barker's party. The series
of testimonies which followed are from the pen of
Joseph Barker. Neither do they rest upon his own authority.   He  has drawn  freely upon  the history of
Robinson, Ryan, and Home for some of these important facts. He knows the respectability of these
authors, and the credit due to them. They are
worthy  of respect;  if not  he will  impeach  them
now. We proceed with our argument.
Argument 2d:   Christianity having  set to  rights 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
the relation of husband and wife, it went forward
in correcting the whole domestic circle.  " And, ye
fathers, provoke not your children to wrath; but
bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lford." Ephesians 6: 4. " Fathers provoke not your
children to anger, lest they be discouraged. Collosians 3: 21.
Under these instructions and divine laws they
could not expose their offspring, as the universal
,ustom was among the Heathen, and is nearly so
yet; -" but bring them  p in the nurture and adnonition of the Lord."  " Do not discourage them."
What a reversing of heathen laws and customs!  In
the state children were mere things; the father could
kill them in infancy, or in manhood  or sell them
Into slavery.  In evidence of this I read from Mil-nan's Gibbon's Rome, vol. 3, pages 169, 170.
The law of nature instructs most animals to cherish and educate
'heir infant progeny. The law of reason inculcates to the human
pecies the returns of filial piety. But the exclusive, absolute, and
,erpetual dominion of the father over his children, is peculiar to the
Roman jurisprudence, and seems to be coeval with the foundation
)f the city.  The paternal power was instituted or confirmed by,
RIomulus himself; and after the practice of three centuries, it was
nscribed on the fourth table of the Decemvirs.  In the forum, the
-enate, or the camp, the adult son of a Roman citizen enjoyed the
public and private rights of a PERSON: in his father's house, he was
m     ere THING; confounded by the laws with the moveables, the
rattle, and the slaves, whom the capricious master might alienate
)r destroy, without being responsible to an earthly tribunal.  The
and which bestowed the daily sustenance might resume the vol~ntary gift, and whatever was acquired by the labor or fortune of
he son, was immediately lost in the property of the father.  His
Stolen goods (his oxen or his children)might be recovered by the
ame action of theft; and if either had been guilty of a trespass,
t was in his own option to compensat  e the damage, or resign to
he injured party the obnoxious animal.  At the call of indigence
219 
220    DEFENSE Ol? THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
or avarice, the master of a family could dispose of his children or
his slaves.  But the condition of the slave was far more advantageous, since he regained by the first manumission his alienated
freedom: the son was again restored to his unnatural father; he
might be condemned to servitude a second and a third time, and it
was not till after the third sale and deliverance that he was enfranchised from the domestic power, which had been so repeatedly
abused.  According to his discretion, a father might chastise the
real or imaginary faults of his children, by stripes, by imprisonment, by exile, by sending them to the country to work in chains
among the meanest of his servants. The majesty of a parent was
armed with the power of life and death; and the example of such
bloody executions, which were sornptimes praised and never punished, may be traced in the annals of Rome beyond the times of
Pompey and Augustus. Neither age, nor rank, nor the consular
office, nor the honors of a triumph, could exempt the most illustrious citizen from the bonds of filial subjection: his own descendants were included in the family of their common ancestors; and
the claims of adoption were not less sacred or less rigorous than
those of nature. Without fear, though not without danger of abuse,
the Roman legislators had reposed an unbounded confidence in the
sentiments of paternal love; and the oppression was tempered by
the assurance that each generation must succeed in its turn to the
awful dignity of parent and master.
Christianity makes it the duty of parents to bring
up their children, and to treat them with paternal
kindness.   If the members of the " church" refused
obedience to the Apostolic injunctions, they were to
be further instructed, exhorted, and rebuked; and if
they would not reform, they were  expelled from  the
communion  of the " church."   There  are some important allusions in the New Testament which can
never be understood without a correct view  of the
condition of children under  the influence of Paganism  and Idolatry.   I will refer to one.   1 Timothy
5: 9.  Paul in making certain benevolent regulations
with regard to superanuated widow members of the
"church," specifies among  other  things, that " she
must have brought up children." We would under 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
stand this to have reference to the children of others,
but as the exposing of infants was a common practice
of mothers then, and is to this day in many countries
where Christianity does not prevail; hence we understand the Apostle to refer to her own offspring.
If she had been an infanticide, she would not have
been entitled to this church beneficence. The Christian religion has abolished this inhuman practice
throughout-the civilized world. And where infancy
and childhood  are uncared for, unprovided for,
Christianity is not. That which was then common
and approved is now rare and condemned. Again:
Such widow must have been THE wife of one man,"
not A "wife of one man."  This was a stroke at
polygamy which has always been proverbially unfavorable to tile offspring of one man and many
wives.
These inhuman laws prevailed in the Augustan
age,  the most enlightened and refined age of the
Roman Empire. They were as old as Romulus, who
was himself exposed when an infant, but found by
some one and rescued from his exposed condition,
otherwise he would never have been the founder of
Rome. These laws were perpetuated by their sena tors, and approved by their philosophers and moral ists.  It is the law and order of nations for-the strong
to oppress the weak; and from its universality, I
believe it is a law of our nature-natural religion
Deism.
221 
222    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
MR. HARTZEL'S SEVENTEENTlHl ADDRESS.
We sliall call attention to the reading of a scrip ture alluded to by Mr. Barker; 1st Corinthians
14: 34.
" Let your women keep silence in the churches:
for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they
are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith
the law. And if they will learn anything, let them
ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for
women to speak in the church. What! came the
word of, God out from you? or came it unto you
only?"
These are regulations given to "the church"-"the
church" as an organization. This implies order, and
order implies rule.  Women  are commanded  to
" teach." Every competent mother of Israel is commissioned to " teach the young women to love their
children," to be virtuous, " chaste," etc. The only
prohibition placed upon woman is, that she is not to
go forth as a missionary or preacher.  " What! came
the word of God out from you (women?) or came it
unto you only? "  If Mr. Barker had discriminated
between these New Testament terms, the "word"
and " teacing," he would not have committed this
blunder.
The subject matter of the New Testament divides
itself into two chapters sufficiently marked by inspira 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
tion.  " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to
observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded
you; and lo! I am with you always even unto the
end of the world."
" Go teach the nations" was to preach the " word"
to the unconverted, to make known to them the
"Gospel," and accompany the same with supernatural demonstrations, and to " baptize" the "believers."  "Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you," was to teach
the baptized the duties of the Christian life. This
distinction is every where expressed or implied.
' Then they that  gladly received the word were
baptized."-Acts 2: 41. "And they continued steadfast in the Apostle's doctrine."-Acts 2: 42. Again:
1st Timothy 5: 17-" Let the elders that rule well,
be accounted worthy of double honor, especially they
who labor in word and doctrine."  Some "elders
ruled well." Others preached the " word" to sinners
and taught the saints the "doctrine of Christ."  In
this latter department woman may work; nay, she
is commanded to work.
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I have preached unto you; which also ye
have received, and wherein ye stand, by which ye
are saved." " For I declared unto you first of all,
that which I also received; how that Christ died for
our sins according to the scriptures " -"  that he was
23 
224    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIIE
buried and rose again the third day according to the
scriptures."  The proclaiming of these facts to the
world is "preaching the word."  Christ chose men
only, for "this work."  Hence Paul  asked those
aspiring sisters, II What! came the word of God out
from you, (woman?) or came it unto you only?
Woman  is proscribed upon that subject.  Is this
degrading to woman?  She is graciously exonerated
from a duty from which she is not qualified. Why
not quarrel with Jesus Christ for not having made
some female Apostles.
Now, I venture to affirm, there is not a single
passage that our friend will take up, from which he
might expect to make  some capital against me, but
will militate against him, and aid the argument in
my favor. Let me inquire into the circumstances
connected with the Apostle's language in 1st Corinthians. The women had become too' aspiring.
This is a trait of human character, that when individuals have been degraded and oppressed, and are
suddenly elevated, they will feel a degree of exaltation, injurious both to themselves and others, and
will have to be restrained to preserve order.  It was
so in the primitive churches with the men, as well
as the women. Therefore, Paul had to command
the men to obey their Heathen " magistrates," because they themselves were once " foolish," etc. Mr.
Barker speaks of these terrible men professing to be
Cliristians in England. Were they Christians?  Did
they give honor to "the wife" as unto the " weaker 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
vessel? "  If not, then they were not Christians.
As a matter of course, if they did not honor woman,
they were heathen, not Christians. My friend must
not suppose that because he came from England,
that every one, living there is therefore a Christian.
Miany of them are no nearer to Christianity than
those living in South Africa. Did these men love
their "wives" as " Christ loved the church? "  If not
they were no Christians.  " Christ gave himself for
the church." Did the people of Salem know that the
Protestant Christians were polygamists? that polygamy was favored in Christendom?  If so, I can only
say that such as favor the practice are not Christians.
Christ forbade polygamy, and it was driven out of the
world so far as Christianity prevailed. But Mr. Barker says the Mormons are polygamists. Well, they are
about as much entitled to the name of Christian as
himself.
Mr. Barker.- As yourselves.
Mr. Hartzel.-They are not Christians.
Mr. Barker.-But they receive the New Testament
as their " rule of life."
Mr. Hartzel.-I deny it, sir. They have another
Bible, called the "- book of Mormon."  They appeal
to their own book. That contains their " rule of
life," church order and practice. The Old and New
Testaments have no authority with them.  I know
what I say, and speak advisedly upon the subject. I
lived near the very hot-bed of Mormonism when the
8
225 
226    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
delusion began in northern Ohio.  I know their
religious peculiarities.
But polygamy is in the Old Testament. It is true
polygamy existed among the Jews to some extent.
I must make a few passing remarks upon this subject, that Mr. Barker may see-where the evil began.
"And Lamech took to himself two wives."  This
was the first departure.  Polygamy is of human origin, not of divine appointment.
Look at the origin of marriage in the Old Testament.  God made one man and one woman; " and
for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,
and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one
flesh."  Suppose, now, that the book of Genesis had
been a forgery for the purpose of defending the
religion of the Jews; would not the writer have
anticipated that sometime or other, some sharpsighted, clear-headed Joseph Barker would read it,
and would discover that the God of the Bible in the
latter part of the- book had departed from the law of
marriage, as taught in the first part of the book?
To make the book justify the practice, the writer
would have said, in the beginning God made one man
and three or four women. He would have said, -for
this cause shall a man leave his father and mother
and cleave unto his wives. That a- man should forge a
book for a people that would be a standing reproof to
them, and that they should receive it and transmit
it to posterity, would be paradoxical enough. We
do not say Abraham was a perfect character, but we
simply say he was a patriarcnhl saint.  Neither are 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
we bound to defend the morality of the Old Testa ment, either in principle or practice. It is a free will
offering on my part.   My  proposition does not ra quire it at my hand; and all my opponet's animad versions on polygamy are off the premises in the
present discussion. With whom did polygamy begin?
"And Lamech took unto himself two wives." If
polygamy is of divine appointment, God must have
instituted it. It filled the writer with surprise, He
made it the subject of a special note,-" And Lamech
took unto hnse7f two wives."
After " the flood," the people went off into idolatry.
Abraham was an idolator when God called him.  His
father was an idolator.  Polygamy was a human device, originated in the family of Cain, and after " the
flood" practised by idolaters. The evil had spread
far and wide among the nations, and could not be
rooted out at once. God gave pure and holy lessons
to the people-taught them principles that would
ultimately destroy the evil.  Reformation is a progressive work. God's plan has succeeded where his
word is the man of counsel. Abraham had great
trouble with his wives, and the same was the case
with Jacob. The Christian religion shows no favor
with polygamy. If Mr. Barker can find anything
either in the teachings of Christ or his Apostles to
favor poylgamy  why not bring it out?  We  call
for it. As relates to American slavery, we have a
chapter for him; it will be forthcoming in due time.
Argument 3. Next in order will be filial duty. In
227 
228    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
this subject the decalogue is like a light shining in a
dark place.   "I Honor  thy father and  thy mother.'
" Children obey your parents." This in the elevation
of woman was of transcendant importance, for it
assigned to the mother her rightful place in the family
compact - claiming equal honor for the father and
the "mother." These filial obligations extended even
farther than to parents. They were required of
"nephews."   "But if any widow have children or
nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home,
and  to requite their parents; for that is good  and
acceptable before  God."   1st Timothy  5, 4.  The
inhuman laws and practices of Heathen fathers had
their influence upon their children. Whenever the
children became the strong, and the parents the
weak, the parties changed  sides;  but the practice
was the same.   The parents were now the sufferers.
In proof, see "' Christianity Triumphant," page 152.
"The brutality of the Romans to their offspring, says Henry
Home, was glaring.  Children were held, like cattle, to be their
father's property; and so tenacious was this power of the father,
that if a soR or a daughter sold to be a slave was set free, the son
or the daughter fell again under the father's power, to be sold a
second or even a third time.  A son being a slave could have no
property of his own.  In Athens a man had power of life and
death over his children. So late as the days of D)ioclesian, a son's
marriage did not dissolve the power of the Roman father over his
son.
The effect of such unnatural powers was to destroy natural affection between parents and their children. When the children, who
had been thus cruelly used by their parents, were at length set free
from their power, IT WAS NO UNCOMMON THING FOR THEM TO REPAY
THE CRUELTY OF THEIR PARENTS BY CONTEMPT AND HATRED. Hence the
parent, if he were allowed to live, would frequently be left to groan
under the infirmities of age without sympathy, and allowed to die
of want, while his children were rolling in abundance. The description of them by the Apostle was no more than truth: they were 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
disobedient to parents, without understanding, without natural
affection, implacable, unmerciful,-hateful, and hating one another."
A very important testimony against Paganism and
in favor of Christianity. How vain the boast of
infidels,-that reason, with the helps of science, is
sufficient to mrake known to man his relations with
their corresponding duties! This doctrine is false,
or the history of the world is a lie. Look at Pagan
Rome in her best days; when she had made some
advances in science, art, and literature; great advancement in the development of talent and genius.
Look at the family compact. The husband and
father is the despot. Hiis power is absolute. His
wife and children are chattels.- He sells them as
he does his horses, or kills them as he does his pigs.
" The examples of such bloody executions were often
praised and never blamed," says the historian Gibbon."
If the history of the world proves anything, it
proves this, that in the ratios of man's intellectual
improvement, without moral culture, does he become
wicked and abandoned. This is true of all ages, and
of all nations. Hience it is that in Christian lands
we have some of the greatest giants in wickedness,
that have ever afflicted and cursed mankind:because when man is unprincipled but intellectual, he
is capable of higher degrees of wickedness. Hiis
moral nature loses that balance of power so essential
to goodness-the better sentiments of the soul become dormant, and he becomes a monster in wickedness-a demon.
229 
230    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
Argument 4.  The superiority of the teachings of
the New Testament on the subject of benevolence is
the superlative of all excellence. Jesus Christ was sent
"to preach the Gospel to the poor."  " The spirit of
the Lord is upon me, because he has annointed me
to preach the Gospel to the poor. He hath sent me
to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to
the captives; and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the
acceptable year of the Lord." Luke 4; 18.
When John the Baptist sent a deputation to inquire of Jesus,  " Art thou he that was to come,
or look we for another? "  He gave them this in
reply:  " The blind receive their sight-the lame
walk- the lepers are cleansed- the deaf hear-the
dead are raised up, and ths poor have the Gospel
preached unto them."
Jesus was the ever faithful friend of the " poor."
iHe had a treasury for their special benefit. IHe
taught the Apostles both by precept and example.
He communicated himself to them.  He lived in
them.-See Galatians 2; 9, I10. When the Apostles made some distributions, in regard to their
labors among the Gentiles, James, Cephas, and
John went to the Jews: Paul and Barnabas to the
Gentiles.  Paul- says, " this only, they would that
we should remember the poor, the same which I
also was forward to do." Christians are, then, to aid
the "poor" and the "weak."  Those who neglect
and oppress them are not Christians.  We want ino 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
proof but that of my worthy friend, who says "the
poor in England are kept in mines to toil for the
rich."  Are these oppressors Christians  Do they
practice the precepts of Christianity? If not, what
did Mr. Barker mean by referring to English tyrants?
Paul says, "I have showed how you ought to support the weak, and remember the words of the Lord
Jesus,"-" it is more blessed to give than to receive."
The Apostles appointed the weekly " contribution" not for the support of the ministry, but for the
relief of the "poor."  They got up, at one time, an
extensive system of co-operation, for the relief of the
poor saints of Judea.'" If any seethe his brother
have need and shutteth up his bowels of compassion
from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him."John.
The religion of I-Heaven, under every dispensation,
was friendly to the "poor." They were the objects
of special legislation under Moses.  I refer you to
"cChristianity Triumphant," pages 187 to 193.
" And God has inculcated the exercise of benevolence upon his
people, under every dispensation of religion which he has given to
mankind. Even under the Mosaical dispensation, imperfect as it
was, the exercise of benevolence formed the principal part of what
God required of those who were placed under it.  Some  of the
regulations of Mosaic dispensation on this subject, we have noticed
already, when speaking of the influence of the religion of Heaven
upon the interests of woman; but the subject deserves to be noticed
in the present place more at large.  The provisions which were
made for the poor by the law of Moses, will be admired as long as
reason and tenderness shall have a place in the souls of men.
This regard for the poor and friendless runs through the whole law.
We can hardly read a single chapter without meeting with something intended to protect them from  oppression, or to oblige their
brethren to seek their comfort and welfare.  " Thou shalt not vex
231 
232    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
a stranger, nor oppress him." saith the Lord; "for ye were strangers
in the land of Egypt."  The master was forbidden in the most
solemn manner to deprive the hireling of his wages; or to put him
to inconvenience by neglecting to pay him at the proper time.
"Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy
whether he be of thy brethren, or of the strangers that are within
thy gates.  At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall
the sun go-down upon it: for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon
it; lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, and it be sin unto thee."
The Almighty cautioned them, when a question was to be tried
before the judges in which the rights of the poor were concerned,
to take care that they did not suffer the poor to be wronged.  "Thou
shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger nor of the fatherless.
Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.  Keep
thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and the righteous
slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked."  The sternest
and most awful words almost that ever God spoke, were against
such as should oppress or injure the fatherless and widow.  "Ye
shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child.  If thou do in any
way afflict them, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear
their cry: and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with
the sword: and your wives shall be widows. and your children shall
be fatherless." Exod. xxii. 22. When God would introduce himself
as the patron and protector of the needy, he assumes the loftiest
titles, and clothes himself in the most terrible majesty.  "The
LORD your god is god of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a
mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh a
bribe.  He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and the
widow, and loveth the stranger, and giveth him food and raiment.
Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of
Egypt." Deut x. 17, 19. The Lord taught them to be tender of
the poor man's feelings, as well as of his rights.  "When thou
dost lend thy brother any thing on a pledge, thou shalt not go
into his house to fetch his pledge.  Thou shalt stand abroad,. and
the man to whom thou dost lend shall bring out the pledge abroad
unto thee.  And if the man be poor, thou shalt not seep with his
pledge, in any case thou shalt deliver -him the  pledge again
when the sun goeth down, that he may sleep in his own raiment,
and bless thee; and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the
Lord thy God."  Deut. xxiv 10, 13.
God established a number of regulations with respect to property,
which were both calculated to prevent people from becomming poor,
and to secure to such as did become poor theirshare of the bles
sings of Providence.  In the first place the land was divided
equally among all the tribes, except the_tribes of Levi; and to the
Levites was given suchl a measure of the produce of the land in
sacrifices, tithes, and offerings, as made their portion equal to the 
OHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
portions of the other tribes. If any family were obliged through
poverty to sell their land, they could not sell it out of the family
for ever; for at the end of every' fifty years the landreturned toits
original owners: so that few families could remain without their
share of the land for any great length of time.  Lev. xxv.  And
even while the land was in possession of others, the poor were'still
entitled to a portion of its produce   The poor were always at liberty to go into their neighbors' fields and gardens, and to eat of the
grain and fruit at their pleasure, to their fill.  Every seventh year
the land was to have rest, and what was produced during that year
was not to be reaped by the owners; it was to be for the poor, the
fatherless, and the widow. And so it was with the vine-yards and
the olive-yard.  The fruit which they produced every seventh
year, was not to be gathered by the owners, but left for the poor,
the fatherless and the widow. Exod. xxiii. 10, 11. During the
other six years, the owners of the soil were not to reap the whole
of the produce. " Thou shalt not reap the corners of thy fields,
saith theLord, thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger." Lev. xxiii. 22. " Nor shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy
harvest, saith the Lord; it shall be for the poor, the fatherless and
the widow. And if in gathering in thy harvest thou shalt forget a
sheaf, thou shalt not turn back to fetch it; it shall be for the poor,
the fatherless, and the widow; that the Lord thy God may bless thee
in all the work of thy hands. When thou beatest thine olive tree,
thou shalt not go over the boughs a second time; it shall be for the
stranger, the fatherless, and for the widow.  And when thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterwards:
it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow
Thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondsman in the land of
Egypt, saith the Lord: therefore I command thee to this thing."
Deut. xxiii, 24, 25. The poor and friendless had also assigned to them
a portion in the tithes and offerings: and they were, also, to be present
at all the feasts- which were appointed as occasions of rejoicing and
thanksgiving to God, that they might eat and be satisfied, and that
their souls might bless the Lord.  At the end of every third year
the children of Israel were to bring forth the tenth part of all their
produce for that year, that the Levite, and the stranger, and the
fatherless, and the widow, might come and eat and be satisfied.
Deut. xiv. 28, 29; -xvi. 9, 11.
The Israelites were commanded to assist their poor brothren by
loans, but they were not allowed to take interest from them for
what they lent, and at the end of every sixth year came the year
of release, when the debtors were all set free.'If thy brother be
waxen poor with thee, and fallen into decay, then thou shalt relieve
him; yea, though he be a stranger or a sojourner: that he may live
with thee.  Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend
him -thy victuals for increase."  Lev.  xxv. 35.  And  again; "If
there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any
233 
234    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
of thy gates, in the land which the Lord thy God  iveth thee, thou
shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy lhana irom thy poor brother;
but thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely
lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth. Beware
that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying the seventh
year, the year of release is at hand: and thine eye be evil against
thypoor blather, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the
Lord against thee, and it be sin unto thee; thou shalt surely give
him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto
him: because that for this thing the Lord thy God shall bless thee in
all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto. Therefore I command thee, saying, thou shalt not open thine hand wide
unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy in thy land."
D)eut. xv. 1-11.  Better laws for the prevention and relief of poverty could have not have been imagined.
The laws of the Mosaical dispensation on the subject of slavery,
were equally friendly to the interests of the poor. They were not
only calculated to lesson the bitterness of slavery, but to prepare
the way for its complete and everlasting overthrow. Man-steaing
was punished with death: ",He that stealeth a man, and selleth
him, or if he be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death."
Exod. xxi. 16.  No one could be made a slave against his will, and
so many provisions were madefor the poor, that few could be
under any necessity to sell themselves- into bondage.  Then the
power of the master was so restricted, that but few men could be
disposed to buy a slave, and those who did buy slaves had such a
feeble hold of them, that it was impossible for them to keep them
in their possession without the exercise of great kindness. Six
years was the longest term for which a man could sell himself.
"If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold
unto thee, and serve the six years: -then in the seventh year thou
shalt let him go free from thee."  While they held them, the masters were not allowed to use them as if they were their property, or
to rule over them with rigor, as was the general custom of slavery.
"When thy brother is sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to
serve as a bond servant: but as a hired servant shall be with thee.
Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shall fear God."
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, and she
please not her master, he shall have no power to sell her unto a
strange nation.  And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall
deal with her after the manner of daughters." And when a man was
sold to a stranger or a sojourner, though sold for six years, he was
not bound to remain in bondage the whole of that time, provided
his brethren or any of his near kindred were able and willing to
redeem him.  "And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee,
and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sellbhimself
unto the stranger or sojourner by thee; after that he is sold, he may
be redeemed again; his brother may redeem him, or any that is 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
nigh of kin unto him, or if he be able, he may redeem himself.
And if he be not redeemed, then he shall go out in the year of
Jubilee, both he, and his children with him. And as a yearly
hired, servant shall he be with him; and the other shall not rule
with rigor over him in thy sight.  For unto ME the children of
Israel are servants; they are MY servants, whom I brought forth out
of the land of Egypt." One object for which labor on the Sabbath
was prohibited, was to lessen the hardships of those who were in
service, and lighten the labors of the poor.  "Six days thou shalt
do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that the son
of thy handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed."  It was
further commanded that all servile work should cease on all their
festivals, that both the servants and the laboring poor generally
might not only be relieved from a portion of their toil, but have the
privilege of attending the feasts and the holy convocations.. If a
servant found the master to whom he had sold himself, cruel, and
in consequence of ill-treatment ran away from his place, the cruel
master had no power to lay hold of him and drag him back again.
"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which has
escaped from his'master unto thee; he shall dwell with thee in that
place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates, where it liketh
him best; thou shall not oppress him."  And when the time of
deliverance came, the slaves were not to be sent away empty; but
the masters were commanded to let them go away well furnished
with a portion of those good things which God had given to them.
"And when thou sendest out thyservant free from thee, thou shalt
not let him go away empty; thou shalt furnish him liberally out of
thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press; of that
wherewith the Lord thy God  hath blessed thee, shalt thou give
unto him. It shall not seem hard unto thee when thou sendest
him out free from thee, for he hath been worth a double hired servant
unto thee, in serving thee six years: and the Lord thy God shall
bless thee in all that thou doest." It was impossible that slavery
should flourish under such laws as these.  These laws amounted
in fact to a prohibition of slavery, and both their object and their
tendency was to prepare the way  for the abolition of slavery
throughout the whole world   Accordingly thq system of slavery
appears to have died away under those regulations among the
Israelites, and thus the foundation was laid for the entire and
universal destruction of the system. Such were the first laws
given to mankind by God; such were the manifestations of benevolent regard to the interests of the poor and friendless in the religion
of Heaven, even under its earlier and less perfect forms. Well
might Moses exclaim, while he contrasted those regulations of
Heaven with the systems of selfishness and cruelty which everywhere prevailed among surrounding nations: "What nation is there
so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this
law?"  If those laws were not the best that God could give, they
235 
236    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
were the best that men in the ruder ages of the world were able to
receive."
These pages are interesting, both because they are
true, and the source from whence they came. B13ut
Mosaic benevolence was too sectional. It was too
much  confined to their own  " brethren."  Jesus
Christ made it as wide as the family of man. The
doctrine taught in the parable of the unfortunate man
that went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, shows
the extent of Christian benevolence. The question
had been asked " who is my neighbor? "  The savior
then put that beautiful imaginary case before the
inquirer.  A Jew, going down to Jericho, saw one
of his brethren in the flesh and religion in trouble,
but passed by on the other side.  But a Samaritan
came that way, dismounted, dressed his wounds,
lifted him up and set him on his " own beast," bore
him to an " inn," made the necessary provision for
his comfort during his sickness, left some money, and
promised to defray whatever expense was incurred.
Now, who was "neighbor to him that fell among
thieves? "  The answer was, " he that had compassion on him.  "- Go thou and do likewise.' " Who
is my neighbors" then, according to Jesus Christ?
The man who needs my aid, no matter whether he
be black or white - whether he be a believer or an
unbeliever. I ask have not the rich " a perfect rule? "
so perfect that but few follow it!  Strange, if these
New Testament regulations are imperfect, that somebody has not improved them in this age of progress.
I do not believe they are capable of being improved; 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
perhaps my worthy opponent can offer some amendments.  " Love to God," and " love to all men " is
the sum;  but each in its proper manifestations.
Such is the perfection of the boundless benevolence
of the Christfan religion.
On all these important subjects the means of amplification are most abundant, but in the present
controversy we can select but a few items.  To engross them all would require a volume.
Christianity in its whole, and in all its parts, is in
perfect harmony with that angelic anthem which announced the nativity of its benignant author.  Nor
could it have been otherwise.  A religion originating
in infinite wisdom could not contain the elements of
its own destruction - could not be the patron of war
and strife. Designed, as it was, to unite men into
one common brotherhood, it must therefore in itself
be a bond of union to draw the contending nations
together on terms of peace and everlasting amity.
Its perfect adaptation to bring about this blissful consummation has been tested upon an extensive scale.
Its influence was seen upon Jews and Gentiles in its
original promulgation.  Their hostilities were of long
standing.  They grew out of religious and political
differences.  But the Gospel made of the  "twain
one new man, and so made peace;   and such has
always been its influence.  I refer you to "Christianity Triumphant," pages 91, 92.
"This point is placed in its proper light by the amiable and inltelligent Thomas Olarkson, in his life of William Penn. "There is
no government," says he, ".nor any code of law or jurisprudence in
*    -:         * —":
I.', -,...
237 
238    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
Europe, though almost all Europe is called Christendom, which has
been raised upon Christian principles as its foundation.  The different governments of Europe had their beginning before Christianity appeared.  Hence they were built upon Heathen notions of
false honor and superstition.  All we can say of the best of them
is, that as the light of Christianity arose, certain barbarous customs
and certain vicious principles of legislation were done away, and
that others were substituted by degrees, which were more pure, and
more benevolent, and more congenial with the religion which was
outwardly professed: but there is no one of these at the present
day, which was originally founded upon Christianity, or which,
notwithstanding its improvements, has attained to a Christian
model.  There is a strange mixture of Jewish, Papal, and Heathen
notions, in their respective codes.?'  Vol. II, page 402.  If, therefore, war has not been altogether abandoned by those countries
called Christian, it is because of those lower and baser principles
which are still mixed up with the laws and institutions of those
countries.  Wherever Christianity has been fairly and thoroughly
wrought into the laws and institutions of a country, it has prevented war, as in the case of the government founded by William
Penn; and in proportion as Christian principles have been allowed
to influence the old and earthly governments of other nations, in
such proportion war has lost its glory, and peace and goodwill
have begun to prevail.
But the Gospel has been tried on a national scale in other places
besides Pennsylvania; and in those places the results have been the
entire cessation of war."
MR. HARTZEL'S EIGHTEENTH ADDRESS.
And such has always been the influence of Christianity.  See " Christianity Triumphant," pages 92
to 94.
"We have some beautiful illustrations of the tendency of the
Gospel in the accounts of its influence upon the inhabitants of the
South Sea Islands. No people upon earth were more fierce and
savage than they were previous to the introduction of the Gospel.
They were almost perpetually at war, and their wars were of the
most cruel and exterminating character.  The following facts,
from the work of John Williams, entitled Missionary  Enterprise
~ e       *
,. -.,.. I. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
in the South Seas, will tend to show the awful character and condition of those people, with respect to war, while in their unconverted state, and the happy change which was effected among them,
by the influence of the Gospel of Christ.
"I visited Hervey's Island," says John Williams, "'in 1823,
intending to place a native teacher there, as I expected to find a
considerable population there; but on learniing that by their frequent
and exterminating wars, they had reduced themselves to about
SIXTY in number, I did not fulfil my intention. Some six or seven
years after this I visited the same island again, and found that this
miserable remnant of the former population had fought so frequently and desperately, that the only survivors were five men
three women, and a few children, and at that period there was a
contention among them as to which should be king."  "Mauke is
a small low island, discovered by myself and Mr. Bourne, in 1823. It
is about fifteen miles in circumference.  By an invasion of a large
fleet of canoes, laden with warriors from a neighboring island
about three years previous to our arrival, the population, previously
considerable, was, by the dreadful massacre that ensued, reduced
to about three hundred.  Mitiaro is a still smaller island, of the
samne description. By famine and invasion this island has likewise been almost depopulated, there not being an hundred persons
remaining."  (Page 17. )  In those islands, through the influence
of Christianity, those desolating wars have now entirely ceased;
the inhabitants neither slaughter one another, nor live in fear of
murderous invasions from their neighboring islands.
Rurutu was an island of savages, but behold the change effected
by the Gospel.  "Some time after the introduction of Christianity
into Rurutu, Captain Chase, who commanded an American whaler,
and who was in the habit of touching frequently at Raiatea for
refreshment, determined, on his last visit to us, to call at Rurutu,
on his way to America, in order to procure a supply of yams,
when, unfortunately, his vessel was wrecked upon the rocks.  The
natives, who would formerly have devoured thie wrecked mariners
and plundered the wreck, now, under the influence of those better
principles which the Gospel had taught them, afforded the crew all
the assistance in their power, from the moment the ship struck
upon the rocks.  When landing things from the ship, they were
put into the hands of the natives, and carried up to the native mission house, a distance of half a mile, and not a single article of
clothing was taken from any man belonging to the ship, though
they had it in their power to have plundered them of every thing
that was landed.  While the captain and his crew remained on
shore themselves, the natives treated them with the utmost kindness, and did their utmost to make them comfortable."  This island
was visited by D. Tyerman and G. Bennet, a deputation from the
London Missionary Society, some time after the introduction of the
Gospel.  They saw in every direction the pleasing effects of the
239 
240    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIIHE
religion of Christ. The people were decently clothed and living
in neat-looking white houses, and were blessed with plenty and
peace.  In the place of worship, the deputation were struck with
the orderly behavior of the people, as well as with some signal
trophies of the Word of God.  "These were spears," as they
observe, "not beaten into pruning-hooks it-is true, but converted
into staves to support the balustrade of the pulpit staircase; for
the people here learn war no more, but all, submitting to the
Prince of Peace, have cast away their instruments of cruelty and
their idols together.  So great a change effected in so short'a time
is almost beyond credibility; but we witnessed it with our own
eyes."  (45 50.)
Speaking of Aitutaki, another island, John Williams says, after
he had witnessed the happy changes produced among the natives
by the Gospel-" Little did I expect to see so much accomplished
in so short a time. Eighteen -months ago they were the wildest
people I had ever witnessed; now they had become mild and docile,
diligent and kind." Next day he preached to from fifteen hundred
to two thousand people, just emerged from Heathenism.    Man
of them," says he, " were dressed very neatly, and I could nst help
contrasting their appearance with that which they presented on
our first visit. At that time they were constantly killing and even
eating one another; but now they were all with one accord bending
their knees together in the worship of the God of peace and love."
Mr. Bourne visited this island some time after; he says, speaking
of the natives, women as well as men,-   They are diligent in
learning, and numbers can read.  Family and private prayer are
very general. Every thing has remained quiet since our last visit:
neither war nor rumor of war has been seen or heard, although
formerly it was their greatest delight, and the bodies of their slain
enemies formed the horrible repast at the conclusion of every engagement." (61, 62, 101. )
These facts speak for themselves.   There  must be
some wonder working power in Christianity - a
power unique and possessed by itsef alone.   A  brief
inquiry into  this will be the subject  of the present
argument.
Argument  5.   1st;  Most,  if not  all,  civil wars
grow out of civil government  directly or indirectly;
but  the  " Prince  of  peace "  said,- and yet says
" My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom
were of this world  then would  my servants  fight: " 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
and, as I understand him, I would give them license
to fight for me. Now, whence will the Christian get
his commission to become a soldier?  Not from
Christ, if he is consistent — with himself, and Mr.
Barker says he is.
Mr Barker.-No!  Mr. Hartzel.-I refer you to the  Christian," by
Joseph Barker, Vol. 1, page 20.
"Unbelievers cannot prove that ever Christ taught doctrines that
were inconsistent with each other; they cannot prove that he ever
either contradicted himself, or contradicted the truth."
And if a professing Christian goes to war as a
politician, surely he does not go as a Christian, and
Christianity is not responsible for his conduct.
Second.  The example of Christ was that of an
unresisting subject.  His doctrine was, " Render to
Cmsar the things that are Coesar's."i He handed
over to the treasurer his "tax  when demanded.
But when Caesar required of him to tell a falsehood
to save his life he would iot do it.  Hle told the truth
and suffered the penalty.  And all his teachings are
in unison with these examples.  But let me here
observe that Jesus Christ did not legislate for the
kingdoms of this world. — God's moral government
over hispeople, and hisgeneral providential government in the kingdoms of men are different things not
to be confounded.
The first lesson Christ gave his Disciples was in
these words, " And seeing the multitudes, he went up
into a high mountain, and when he was set, his Dis
241 
242    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
ciples came unto him, and he opened his mouth and
taught them saying, I say unto you thaat ye resist not
evil." The teachings of the Savior forbid the indulgence of all those passions and lusts which generate
war either between individuals or nations. Feelings
of resentment are among the most fruitful causes of
strife. Evil for evil is the prompting of the natural
heart. But Christ says to his followers, not so.
" Love your enemies, bless them that curse you; do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them that
despitefully use you and persecute you."  On one
occasion three of his Disciples felt some Jewish
resentment against a Samaritan family for not opening their doors for the hospitable reception of their
Master.  With  a feeling of indignity they ask:
" Shall we call down fire from Heaven and consume
these as Elijah did?"' But he said unto them, ye
know not what manner of spirit ye are of. The Son
of Man has not come to destroy men's lives, but to
save them." What a rebtuke upon the war spirit.
The love of faime-the love of wealth- the lust of
power-the love of country  pride, anger, resentment; these, with all their kindred passions, all these
war passions, are positively prohibited.  And the
opposite universal love- forgiveness of injuries,
etc., he enjoined upon his Disciples and encouraged
these virtues by his own blessed example while with
them.  Before he left them, "l He said unto them,
all power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth;
Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all
things, whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo!
I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world."  The Disciples did as he commanded them,
as may be seen from Romans 12; 17, 21.
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide
things honest in the sight of all men.  If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all
men.  Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but
rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, vengence is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him, if he thirst give
him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of
fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." Follow peace with all men
and holiness, without which no man shall see the
Lord," are Christian qualifications and motives.
The great Teacher lays down two principles of action by which his kingdom is to be regulated, namely:
love to God, and love to man."   "Love worketh no
ill to his neighbor," says the Apostle Paul. The
Apostle James says, speaking on the government of
the tongue, "Wherewith bless we God even the
Father, and therewith curse we men, which are
made after the similitude of God. These things
ought not so to be."
A warring, fighting Christian is a contradiction,
an inconsistency, an anomaly.
I shall now give some historical facts in defence of
243 
244    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
my argument. I quote from " Infidelity refuted by
Infidels," pages, 260, 261.   Gibbon says:
"If we seriously consider the purity of the Christian religon,
the sanctity of its moral precepts, and the innocent as well as
austere lives of the greater.number of those who, during the first
ages, embraced the faith of the Gospel, we should naturally suppose
that so benevolent a doctrine would have been received with due
reverence, even by the unbelieving world; that the learned and the
polite, however they might deride the miracles, would have esteemed
the virtues of the new sect, and that the magistrates, instead of
persecuting, would have protected, an order of men who yielded
the most passive obedience to the law, though they declined the
active cares of war and government."
Again: " Christianity Triumphant," pages, 60,
61, 62.
"The whole tenor of Gospel truths and Gospel precepts, and
the whole spirit which the Gospel seeks to breathe through the
hearts of men, are at perfect variance with the spirit and business
of war; and men cannot experience the full regenerating influence
of the Gospel, without being obliged to renounce all counexion with
war in all its forms.
There is nothing in the example of Christ to favor war; in the
whole of his conduct Christ was the very opposite of a warrior.
"When he was reviled he reviled not again; when he suffered, he
threatened not; but committed his cause to Him that judgeth righteously."  He was unkindly and unjustly treated from. frst to last,
but he never sought to avenge himself.  And when they came to
take him prisoner, he made no resistance.  His disciples would
have defended him, but he would not allow them; and when Peter
drew his sword, and struck one of those who came out against
him, he rebuked him, and said, " Put up thy sword into its place;
for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword."
And when they' scourged him, and mocked him, and on the testimnony of false witnesses condemned himn to be crucified, he uttered
not a single revengeful word.  I"He was led as a'lamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he
opened not his mouth." And when afflicted with the bitterest
pains of death, so far was he from the spirit of revenge, that he
prayed in behalf of his murderers.  "Father, forgive them; they no
not what they do." As he inculcated the principles of peace in
h    is preaching, so did he exemplify them in his conduct, both in life
and in death.
And the Apo sties followed the Savior's example. They used no
arms but the "arminor of righteousness."  "The weapons of our
warfare," said they, " are not carnal, but mighty through God, to the 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
pulling down the strongholds of the devil." Though their object
was to conquer the whole world, and produce a radical and thorough change in the principles and practices of society in all lands,
yet -the only weapons of their warfare were truth and charity. Nor
did the ancient Christians use any other weapons.  No violence
was allowed in any of the churches of Christ. If they provoked
one another, it was to loveland good works; and, if they conquered
their enemies, it Was by heaping benefits Upon them.
The first Christians were niever charged with acts of violence:
the objections brought against them by their enelmies were just of
an opposite description.  They were charged with REFUSING  to
fight; it was objected to them as a crime that they would not take
the soldier's oath, nor entelr the military profession. Celsus, who
lived at the end of the second century, in a work which he wrote
against the Christian religion, makes use of this as one of his
objections. He charges the Christians with refusing, in - his time,
to bear arms for the Emperor, and that in a case of necessity, and
when their services would have been accepted. And the charm
was true; the Christianis of those days did not attempt to deny it.
When Origen wrote in answer to Celsus, he admits the fact, that
the Christians would not bear arms, and he justifies them on the
principle that war is unlawful. "We no longer take up the sword
against any nation," said he, "nor do we learn to make war any
more." "We have become, for the sake of Jesus, THE CHILDREN
OF PEACE."  " We pray for our king," says he, in another passage,
"but we take no part in his wars, however he may urge us."
If the - Christian religion was the  production of
nature, its dictates would be in harmony with it.
In the old Heathen world, war was the business and
glory of men; while the women and the slaves performed the domestic drudgery at home.  It was one
of the means of wealth to keep up their extravagance
and pageantry. Civilization effected no change in
this respect. The Romans, the most civilized, were
no better in this respect than the rudest savages.
That " might gives right," was the rule of action,
and the moral sentiment of the age approved it. I
refer you to "1Christianity  Triumphant,"  pages
50, 51.
245 
246    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
Nay, so far did the Romans carry things, that they represented the
murderous work of war as virtuous, and as the only way to glory.
To lead forth armies, to waste the lands of strangers, to destroy cities,
to overthrow towns, to murder free people or subject them to bondage, was, with them, the path to immortality.  "If a man kill but
one, he is held for a villian;" as one observed, "but those who
murder infinite thousands -who moisten the fields and dye the rivers
with blood- is promised a place with the immortal gods."  "So
deep root had this doctrine taken among the Romans," says Hakewell, "that he who  shed most blood was deemed the best and
worthiest man, most like the gods, and fittest for a place in their lofty
habtiations."
What we see in the Greeks and Romans is no more than the
natural workings of man's animal nature, whenever it is left unsubdued and uncontroled by the influence of true religion.  War is
natural to man in his unregenerate state. War still continues to be
carried on as the principal and regular employment among unenlihtened nations  Among the nations of the South Seas, previous
to the initrodnction of Christianity, wars were perpetual, and they
were waged with unmingled  and  insatiable cruelty.  Among the
original natives of Africa and.America, war still continues to be carried on in this ceaseless and cruel way.  It still occupies the chief
place among the business of life. Martial heroism and contempt of
death, are the leading points of education in mnany parts of the globe,
and, in every case, the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty.  And among all nations, in proportion as men
continue to be governed by the inclinations and passions of unregenerate nature, war is still regarded with favor, and is followed
as a lawful and an honorable calling, and as the path to earthly
glory.
In view of these  undeniable facts, may we not
claim an argument in favor of our proposition;
namely, that in the New Testament "man  has a
perfect rule of life." 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
MR. HARTZEL'S NINETEENTH ADDRESS.
Mr. Barker did not present the overture I submitted to him with reference to contradictions exactly
as it was. It was this: If he would present in due
form a few of the most palpable ones, such as could
not be reconciled, and such contradictions as would
invalidate the testimony of witnesses in a court of
law, he should have the benefit of them, or he might
strike them out as interpolations. I really do not
see that such alleged contradictions, as he has produced, are entitled to any consideration in this discussion.
With regard to the alleged contradiction in the
book of Genesis, I have only to say, that every reasonable person would in this examination take two
things into the account.  First, the brevity of the
history; second, the fact that the second chapter of
Genesis is, in. part, a recapitulation of the first.  I
gave in the former part of thiscdiscussion, the-names
of a number of distinguished writers on Geology
and other matters connected with the account of cre ation, as given in the Bible, who find no such contradictions there - writers are entitled to respect
for their knowledge of physical science.  I refer those
who wish to examine tile subject further to them.'
* To,do justice to any writer we should inquire, first, who is he writing to? second,
and what is he writing for?         WVith these interrogatorier befourethemiid, we will approach
Moses and Geology.  Mo-es wrote to the Jews.  He wrote to them on religious and moral
snbje' ts.  If his writings were best calculated to promote these ends, he must stand
acquitted; if not, he must be condemned. The true basis of mau's religious and moral
.247 
248    DEFENSE OF THilE BIBLE AGAINST THE
The next contradiction is found in the New Testa
ment, in regard to Judas.  There are two points in
which the statements are supposed to differ. In the
account as given by Matthew, it was  the "high
priests " who purchased the field; Judas having
returned to them the "thirty piecesof silver." While
in the account in Acts, it was Judas himself that
purchased the "field."  Again:  the first account
says that "Judas hung himself," while the other says
that "he fell down-burst assunder in the midst,
and his bowels gushed out."
With reference to the first point, I need only
obligation is the character of God as Creator and Moral Governor. These and other
kindred convictions produce, in the human mind, religious affections, reverence, godly
fear, etc.  " Geology does not account for the origin of matter, or id us in forminga
conception of its creation."  Its use in religion must, therefore, be s econdary.  Te
history of creation, as given by Moses, is in harmony with mans OrTICAL view of the
material  orld; and, therefore, adapted to the Jes, (for whose special benefit he wrote,)
and equally adapted to the com    on intelligence of all the asses of mankid, under the
same obligation to love an  Serve the Creator.  The knowledge of physical science never
was essential to inspire the soul with love to God and  an.  If geology must be under stood —if the subterraneous formations of the earth must be understood-if astronomy
must be understood —then the duties of religion could have n      o laim on the early portions of makind, and now on but a favored few, if any; fr the sciences stillas MUTABLE
as the morality for which Mr. Barker and other infidels plead. But Mr. Barker is witness for me, that philosophy was never favorable to Christianity, but Christianity to
philosophy.  Hear him.  " Christianity Triumphant,"' page  367: "Go  ainmoig  the
nations Where Christianit:, is unknown,and yos will find that philosophy has produced
none of those great improvements there. G.   back t o those ages when Christianity was
unknown in our owi'cointiy, and philosophy did nothing for us then.  How  do you
account for these things? How is it that philosophy does no good anywhere bat where
Christianity begins to prevail: and that the good that it does in any ounry, is in pro -
portion to the regard which is paid to Christianity by i      ts inhabitant?  ow is it that
philosophy has done o mch for the Quakers, the Methodists. the Moavians, and other
rel;gioss people, who seldom or never men ion tlename of philosophy; while it does so
little for other people. who make such great boast of philosophy?  What do you say to
to these things? "  What do you say to these historic facts now, Mr.  Barkr? Andto
this extract, f'rom the same page, written with your onv  hand  The men who first
refused to fight, did not say we are philosophers, and therefore we cannot fight; they
said, we ARE CHSTIANS, and thereore cannot fight."  These were philosophers of
the right kind; thev saw none of these frightfu  contxadictions  between  Genesis and
G,,.l ~~         e inv   te wo            b                5 eginusug.'eah
Geology.  But they believed the words of Moses, that God in tle "beginning made the
heavens and theearth;" and 1n the words of David, "tho. Lord, in the beginning laidest
the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands *  and joined
with Jesus in these words of praise, " Ithank thee, oh Father, Lord oflheaven and earth;"
and with Pal, " throughl faith Ee understand  that the wolds were framed by the word
of Godl," who is now "uphlolding all thi sgt by the word of his power.'' MNoses has, i n
an eminet degree accomplis,ied the objects for which we wrote.  For it is a fct as Mr.
Barker says, to w hich all men are witress, that pliilosopliv has doe -nothilg where
Christianity is not,  ad has done most where it p, evails  These  ndeniable ats furnish
the col sion, that the religion of the Bible and philosophy are noi ANTIPODES, else a
system of moral and religious talsehoods has beer m ost favorable to that growing intelligeace, which has enabled man to discover scientific truth  To this CONCLUSION THE 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
observe that we sometimes attribute to the instrument
what properly belongs to the agent. Judas furnished the means.  The "priests" were the contracting party. "This is the price of blood," unfit for
sanctified purposes, let us give it to the I; potter," etc.
Again: with regard to the second point-" Ijis
bowels gushed out."  There are a thousand things
in the Bible that depend upon testimony.  We must
have history to explain history; we adopt this method
of investigation with respect to all historic matters.
Cave, in his "Lives of the Apostles," (I think I am
correct as to the work   I will not be positive -at
INFIDiEL IS DRIVEN, TUPON HIS OWN AD)MISSION.  While the Chlristian believes that all
religion and scientii truths are harmonios.  I say then, we are not afaid to eet all
thle diflficlties (if any there be.) growitg itt of a  e estlished GEOLOGICAL or any
other SCI'ITIFIC FACTS, O.ILY wve wislh to meet Elhen t the ryht tine  ntl place.  Soino
of thSc   pte sthtemeots mightot  be in harmoi y wit  the discoveries of lphysical
sc ience witiot affecting, i  t       he least, le ojects ofihese writigs,   and yet contain a
"series ofcommunic ations supernaturally revealed and mauloisly attested," and
fur nish man "a perfect rule o  li."  Bt s the learned St Jon says, in his elements
of Geology, page 28:  "The science of geology has, tlhough misapprehension of facts
and opinioni, been regarded with jealousy as favorable to infidelity, and even atheism,
teaching the eternity of matter -itself guiding and reniovating power, and dispensing with
a deity in the creation and regulation of the world.  On *he ontrary,  those who with the
competent knowledge of the science of geology, and the art of interpretation, have carefully examined this subject, confidently assert that lo other science  f-nishes an equal
number of striking illstrations of na tural a   revealed religion  Atheists, Deits ad
Christians, all lay clim to geology.  This only  proves what the sam e author says, page
287. "Although geology is by no means complete, since ii no science are facts more
rapidly accumulating, and theories and systiems are but expositions of the present
amount of knowledge on the subject," etc.  It is l ot a subject for such a controversy as
this, either in its verbal or book form; biut. whenever,Sr Barker shall feel disposed to
open upon thle Bible fiom this9 p,int, I doubt not he can be furnished with an opponent.
But for the present let re say, that  when  infils leave the entire field of history,
propllecy, miracle, ith all the different kinds of internal evidence, those bulwarks of
truth, upon whi ch revealed religion stands, and fly to geology, they give evidence of the
,exceedring bartenos         sdary c  of th il Bt we fe it he dy e f physical
,cience in the business of religion.  Tihonmas Dick, with many other/  hris       tian  riters,
(who are as competent  to rea,dand interpret nate as those f d in the ranks of infidelity,) shew clearly ilhe hirmoly between creation an          d  the  Testament scriptures,
"adapted to the purposes of a limited dispensation addressed to one people only.  When
we bear this more distinctly in mind, many of those difficu.lties ( admitting them for the
sake of the argum    e                                           t, are removed.  And this is   l   the true viewto be taken by the
Gentile Christian to whom it is only a guide and instructor, SECOND and SUBOlDIIATE to
the New Testament  a dead letter without it, bt able to make  us wise  unto salvation
"only throlugh faith which is il Jests Christ."
The cosmogony of Moses i  iin perfet lisrmony with the man's OPTICAL view of the
physical world, and the objects to be.cecomplishled by his writings; THaREFORE, all this
infidel RANT about contrad    i ctions is as ibhout cause and eqiallywithout meaning.  While
the Christian religion has promoted tlt  inteigee, which has exabled men to study
the works of God intelligibly, an  nature becoes a concurring witness.  Hpnce it is,
that Newton, Baco n, Lock, Gallileo, and all who have made the mrost important discoveries in science were believers in r      evealed religion,.
249 
250    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
any rate I give it as a matter of history,) that Judas,
after he had thrown the money down before the " high
priests," was standing in an upper chamber. In
descending the stairs he fell headlong with his bowels
upon sonme pickets below - rent the region of his
bowels, and they "gushed out."'- So he "hung himself," and all his "bowels gushed out." However
be that as it may; if the account cannot be perfectly
reconciled, it would not follow that Matthew and
Luke, one or both, are false witnesses. It is a principle in all legal investigations, that some discrepancy
between witnesses does not affect their credibility.
]Mr. Barker must be aware that it is not so easy to
make out contradictions between historians and witnesses, as some people imagine. It is easy to bring
out discrepancies in the statement of witnesses, but
these do not necessarily invalidate their testimony,
but often give strength and credit.
As to mny friend's third contradiction. I must be
excused from investigating it, for I would have to
spend one half hour ill a classification of the matter.
If it had been presented in an intelligible form, I
would have attended to it.  First he said " three
contradictions," then he said "three or four"-no
definite statement in his own mind.
Mr. Barker.  I consider this as one contradiction.
Mr. Hartzel. I feel no solicitude about that vague
matter, and will therefore pass it. 
* Infidels claim that the Bible is not entitled to rational belief, on account of the many
contradictions found upon its pages. If Christians can claim eq.ality with them in
numbers, intelligence and integrity, the objection has no weight, for they find no such 
OHARGES OF MODEN INFIDELITY.
In  answer to his definition of a "perfect rule of
life," I will say that the word "perfect" has a rela
tive meaning.  We do not mean  by the word "per
feet," in the proposition, divine perfection.  We
speak of huran or Christian  perfection.  We  only
mean a "rule of life" perfectly adapted  to man
perfectly suited to man's wants and duties as a social
and moral being. There is divine perfection, angelic
perfection, Christian perfection. The object of this
"rule," however, is not to teach man his physiologi
cal duties.  A  "rule of life" relates to ethtical subjects, not to physiological. The present discussion
contradictions,  Let the youthful reader make due allowance for the prejudices of the
one, and the preposs-essions of the other, then, if the beligerants are equal as to candor
and competency to examine questions of this kind, the objection is neutralized.  But
what isaotradiction?  "An a     ssertion ofthe contrary of what has been saidor-ffirmed;
denial, contrary declaration; contrary pposite, adverse as contrary winds.- Webster.
Matthew and Luke speak of Judas for different purposes, Matthew, to make his suicide
a historical Jact. Luke ecords the words of Peter to one hundred and twenty disciples,
on the necessity of appointing another apostle to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death
of Judas.  The supposed "contradiction" concerning the "purcha,e" of the "field"
is disposed of. There may be a remaining doubt in regard te his "hanging himself,"
and falling headlong.  Ater a more caretl examination of this OLD INFIDEL HOBBY, I
see more clearly the injustice done to this item of history. As Peter referred to Judas
for a definite object, he would mentio n such incidents in his sad apostacy and death as
would bear directly on that object, hence he called  the ttention of the adience to the
prophecy f David: "His bishopric let another take."  Again: "From which Judas by
ransgression fell."  Matthew speaks of Judas as a traitor and a  suicide, but Peter speaks
of him as an apostate " Apostle," and an object of the dviue displeasure.  Thedifference
in design accouns for the difference in narration.  We may set aside what Cave has
said, and then there is o difficulty in reconciling the statements. It isat leasta supposable case, tha t a man w ho "hung" himself might " fall headlong." etc. It is not probable that there would have been much search or inquiry for the absent Judas.    e may
have selected a retired spot-he may have hung upon the gallows until he fell to the
ground by his own weight-or, he may have been found  "hanging" in a state of
decomposition, and being cut down from the gallows, in either case he would fall "headlong  " and that he would "burst assunder," in the region of his bowels, is even more
than probable.  That such cases have occurred, no one will deny. This reconcilesthe
supposed contradiction. If the conflicting testimony of two, otherwise credible witnesses. were as tairly reconciled, before a l. gal tribunal as the bove, their testimony would
be fully accredited.
It may be objected, perhaps, that the gratuitous supposition of s ome unmentioned
fact, which, if mentioned, would harmonize the appare tly counter-statements of the
two historians cannot be admitted, and is in fact a surrender of the a-gument.  But to
say so, is ONLY to betray an utter ignorance of what the argument is.  It an objection be
founded on the alleged ABSOLUTE contradiction of the two statements, it is quite sufficient
to show any MEDIUM of reconciling them, and the objection is, in all fairness, dissolved.
And this would be felt by the honest logician, even if we did not know of any such
instances in point of fact. These equitable rights are denied to none, but the sacred
writers.  The infidel takes it upon himself, in the plentitude of his wisdom, to say, that
there is no fact omitted, which, if it had been mentioned, would explain the whole difficulty.  This is assuming that sacred writers must omit nothing, however unimportant.
If, for instance, Matthew and Luke agree in everything pertaining to the character of 
252     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
was provoked by the discussions had in the convention.  We did not then and there discuss man's
physiological relations, but his moral relations and
moral duties.
Mr. Barker says, the Disciples, many of them, are
slaveholders. Mr. Barker does not understand the
elements of-church government, as set forth in the
New Testament.  We are only responsible for those
who are members with us "in particular."  I would
say to Mr. Barker, that our Church is based upon the
congregational principle of church independence.
Jesus Christ, all his teachings, all his miracles, all the incidents connected with his death,
burial, resurrection and ascension-give the same moral and religious duties; but differ
in one unimportant statement coscerning a traitor, tha, with infidels has, power enough
to neutralize their entire mass of evidence.   Adiscrepancy ill aminute point of historical
detail, shakes the foundation of the whole edifice of revealed religion! There is yet
another supposed contradiction between Matthew and Lyke. Matthew says,  "Jacob
begat Josephi the husband of M.ary "  Luke says, "Joseph was  the son ot Hel." If
Luke had said Heli begat Joseph, then we would have a contradiction-for these statements Would be contraries, and admit of no reconciliation. Now, if we can show that
a Jew could have two fathers,  be the begotten son of one father and the legal son of
another father, then the difficulty is fairly solved.  I shall now show thatthere was uc h
a regulation among the Jews.  Th      e law requiring a man to marry a deceased brother's
wife had two specific objects; first, that "his brother's name be not put ut f Israel.
See I)eit. 25: 6. Se,ond, t at his inheritance should be contin ued in his name and
tribe. The reader may consult thel book of Ruth upon the subject.  In the fourth chapter,  Boaz proposed to the neaest kinman  of Elimelich to take  the widow of their
dece aaed broiepther, and  raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance "  He refuse.
Now it became the dity of Boaz, he being the next in relationship  He did so* and said
to the "Elders and all the people, ye are witnesses this day," etc.'Moreover,  Ru.h
the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name
of the dead upon his inheritance, that the nme of the dead be not cut off from  among
his brethren. and tihe gate of his place  ye are witness this day.'"  This was the law to
perpetuate the name an d inhritance of a  deceased brother.
There was also another la  that seed these ends when a man deceased  leaving
daughters only.  And Zelophehad had no sons but daughters. Num,ers26 33. "These
said to Moses and all the people,'Our fther died in the wilderness.' and had  o sons.'
Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he has
no sons? "  Numbers 27: 34. "The daughters of Zelophehad speak right.  Ifa man die
and have no son, then e shall cause the inheritance to pass unto his daughters."-7, 8.
The daughters of Zelophehad were marrie   d to their fater's brother's sons, and their
inheritance remained il the tribe f the family of their father.-Num. 36: 1l, 12. Their
husbands were now the sons of Zelophehad by law, His lands were transferred to his
legal sons: as such they stood upqn the public records to build up the "name," ad the
"inheritance " for the deceased Zelophehod.
Under,these legal regulations, Joseph, the son of Jacob, might have married Mary,
the daughter of Hell, and stood upon the record the ecrd  the begotten son of Jacob, and the
legal son of Hell. I am not Obliged to prove that it was so, only that itmight havebeeni
so, and according to All legal and historic investigation, the difficulty is fairly met. I
have reconciled the two contradictions, which infidels have ever regarded as the most palpable and important to their cause. My space forbids aiy farther notice of what they are
pleased to call contradictions. I hope the reader will pardon me for having bestowed
upon them thismuch attention.  Is it safe to reject the whole mass of evidence from such
DATA?  To the man that can do so let mesay, "go in peace."  If aiy man  WILL BE AN
INFIDEL, let him be an INIFIDEL. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
We have no authority over our brethren of other
churches, more than to admonish them; after that,
we are not responsible for their conduct. If my
friend wants proof of this, he shall have it. The Methodist church is- confederacy.   If I become a Methodist, I become responsible for all the official acts of
their General Conference, etc. So of many other
church organizations. We go upon the principle of
local church independence in all our churches. We,
as a congregation, have no fellowship with slaveholders. A brother's opinions do not come under our
jurisdiction. We have to do with overt acts.
Mr. Barker. I am glad to hear it. Would you
refuse to commune with Alexander Campbell?
Argument 6. We shall not inquire of the New
Testament with respect to the most exciting and
interesting question-the question of slavery. Before we open the Sacred volume, we shall read an
item of history upon the subject. It will aid -us in
our understanding of the divine teachings, and in
forming a higher appreciation of them.   The passage
I propose to read is in " Christianity Triumphant,"
pages 100, 104:
"The religion of Christ has proved itself the friend of liberty,
and the enemy of slavery.  Previous to - the introduction of the
Gospel, slavery prevailed throughout all the nations of the earth.
It was least prevalent among the Jews, the religion of Moses having
in a great measure effected its extirpation among them. Among
the rest of the nations, it prevailed to an extent truly appalling.
A great deal has been said about the free states of Greece, and
about the liberty of the Romans, and yet slavery was a common
thing bath among the Greeks and Romans.'In all the ancient
republics,' as Bishop Porteus observes,'by far the greatest part of
the inhabitants were not freemen, but slaves. In the 110th Olym
253 
254    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIIB
piad, there were at Athens only twenty-one thousand citizens, and
forty thousand slaves. In the small island of Egina, there were
four hundred and seventy thousand slaves. It was common for a
private citizen of Rome, in the times of Paganism, to have ten or
twenty thousand slaves.  In fact, every private family was a little
despotic kingdom. The master was the tyrant, and the servants
his wretched subjects, whom he bought and sold, whom he could
punish'nd torture as he pleased, whom he could put to death with
or without reason, and even for his own amusement.  It is true,
indeed, that the V.EtN(E, or home-born slaves, were sometimes treated
with lenity, and even with tenderness and indulgence; but these
favorites of fortune bore a very small proportion indeed to that immense multitude who were made to feel the utmost rigor of their
condition. In general, these wretched beings were continually
exposed to every evil that the most wanton tyranny could inflict,
They were compelled frequently to till the ground in chains or
cornfned in subterreanean dungeons, and strained to labor beyond
their strength by the severest treatment. They were obliged to
suffer every insult, and every injury, without resistance and without
redress. They had no protection afforded them, could have no
justice done to them, nor any reparation made to them. They were
subject to the cruelty, not only of their own masters, but of every
one that met them. They had no place to flee unto, aud no man
cared for their soul." The hurt that was done to them was estimated
in the same manner as a hurt done to a beast; nothing was considered but the diminution of their value, and the loss sustained by
their master.  The injury or the pain endured by the slave himself,
never came into considration. Their evidence was scarcely ever
taken but by torture; they were not supposed to be capable of
being applied to in any other way.  If their master happened to be
found murdered in his house, all the slaves in the family, which
sometimes amounted to several thousands, were frequently slain,
even those that were confessedly innocent.  A certain Rorman being
found murdered in his own house, all the slaves, to the number of
four hundred, were instantly put to death, says Tacitus, and this
was done, he adds, according to ancient custom.-Annals 14-43.
Nay, they were sometimes made the sacrifice of a youthful frolic,
and murdered in the streets and roads by thousands at a time,
merely for amusement.-[Porteus on the Beneficial Effects of Christianity.
"It would be endless to produce all the instances  which we
meet with in history, of the incredible barbarity of the ancients
towards their slaves. The few that here follow may serve as a
specimen.  Two thousand Lacedemonian slaves, who had been
promised their freedom, and were led round the streets of Sparta
in triumph, with garlands on their heads, soon afterwards disappeared, and were never heard of more: they were  all secretly
destroyed.-Thucyd. L. IV. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
"The youth of Sparta, it is well known, frequently lay in am bush for these wretched slaves in the night, and sallying out upon
them unexpectedly, with daggers in their hands, murdered in cold
blood eveli  Helot they met with.  The Ephori also, the rulers of
Lacedemon, as soon as they entered office, I)ECLARED WAR AOAINST
THEM IN FORM, that there might be the appearance of destroying
them legally.-Plot. in Lyeur.  At the time when L. Domitius was
pr'etor in Sicily, a slave happened to kill a boar of uncommon size.
The pr,etor, struck with the account he had received of the man's
dexterity and intrepidity, desired to see him. The poor slave, over joyed at this distinction, presented himself to the prietor, expecting,
no doubt, applause and reward; but Domitius understanding that
he had killed the boar with a hunting spear, the use of which (as
well as all warlike arms) was forbidden to slaves, ordered him to
be immediately crucified. And such horrible barbarities were
looked upon as common things, and scarcelv censured by their phi losophical moralists.' It was the custom of Vedius Pollio, when
his slaves had committed a fault, sometimes a very trifling fault, to
order them to be thrown into his fish-ponds, to feed his lampreys,'
says Bishop Porteus.  In Rome, the porters at the gates of thegran dees were chained slaves. Masters used to put their aged, sick,; and
infirm slaves into an island in the Tiber, there to perish without
pity or assistance.-Ryan.
"Such was the mournful condition of nine-tenths, or nineteentwentieths of our fellowmen, under the most enlightened and civilized governments of the Pagan world.  And this awful and deplorable system of slavery was connived at by the Pagan philosophers
and moralists of those ages.  It was a maxim of Plato, that no
friendship could subsist between a master and a slave; and Aristotle had a maxim very similar. Masters were commanded not to
use their slaves cruelly in times of war, it is true, but this was not
out of respect to the feelings or interests of the slaves, but merely
to prevent the slaves from taking advantage of the war to shake off
their own chains. I do not recollect a single instance in which the
philosophers and moralists of Greece and Rome undertook to plead
the cause of the slave, or to recommend to mankind any plan for
their improvement or emancipation. That noble principle of benevolence which prompts men to pity the oppressed and fallen, and
inspires the wish to relieve, and elevate, and bless the outcast and
neglected multitudes of mankind, had no place in the philosophy of
heathenism.  Cruel institutions and customs were left to grow
unchecked, and were allowed to spread their deadly influence unrestrained; and the multitudes of afflicted and injured mortals who
crowded the lower ranks of life, were left without relief and without
consolation.
"Not so with the Gospel.  The Gospel proclaimed deliverance to
the captives from the first, and its object and its tendency throughout was to bring bondage of every description to a perpetual end,
255 
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIIE
and to diffuse the blessings of freedom through all nations of the
earth. One of the first occasions on which the Redeemer preached
he declared that the Lord had appointed him to preach glad tidings to
the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the
captives, to restore sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who were
oppressed, and to publish a general and an everlasting Jubilee.
And the whole tenor of his doctrine was in accordance with this
blessed design.  He taught men that they were alike the offspring
of one God, and that they ought to respect and love each other as
brethren.  He commanded men to love their neighbors as themselves,
and to do to others as they would have others do to them."
This is a brief, but true account of the extent and
enormity of human slavery at the commencement of
the Christian religion.  It existed among all nations,
but was least prevalent among the Jews. The religion of Moses had, in a great measure, effected its
extirpation among them.  This is good testimony for
the character and mission of Moses, that he should
have effected more in this respect, than all the Abolitionists of America have accomplished. Jiow long
have they been laboring, both in and out of Congress,
to abolish slavery in tihe District of Columbia? Hiow
many  lectures  have been delivered?   How  many
pamphlets have been written? How many legislators have stood up and pleaded loud and long
for the emancipation of the slaves in this ten  miles
square, under the jurisdiction of Congress?  What,
has it all amounted to? It continues to be the hotbed of slavery.
The laws of Moses must have differed widely from
those-of surrounding nations. But let us come to New
Testament times. The existing government, under
which Christianity began  its career,  was  a widespreading, absolute monarchy; and more than half
256 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
(my friend says nineteen-twentieths,) of this mighty
mass of people were slaves!  Political action was
out of the question; nay, this crushing despotism
was against the Christians and in favor of the slave  holders.  The religion itself was sufficiently obnox  ious, on account of its novelty and uncompromising
opposition to idolatry, and to every form of corrup tion sanctioned by the government, which govern ment, we should say, was as good as could be expect ed, and defended its citizens in many of their rights.
We do not quarrel with civil governments -it is
"hard to bring a clean thing out of an unclean."
Now, with all these fearful odds, and this bitter
opposition against a few obscure Galileean fishermen,
onl human principles what was to be done? Jesus
Christ came to "preach deliverance to the captives,"
and to break down every form of oppression.   But
he must do it in a certain way, without strife, without clamor, or military parade. It was written of
him,  - He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall ally
man hear his voice in the streets.  A bruised reed
shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not
quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory."Matthew 12: 19, 20.  Permit me here to read an extract from Mr. Barker.
"Christianity Triumphant," pages 104,105:
"It is true the religion of Christ did not forbid slavery in so
many words, nor did it expressly command masters to liberate their
slaves; but it did that wfiich was much better-it breathed into
the hearts of its disciples such a spirit of love, and enjoined upon
them such a line of coaduct towards all their fellow-creatures, as
9
57 
258    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
could not fail, among all its faithful disciples, to bring slavery to a
perpetual end.  Christian' masters were not commanded to set their
slaves: at liberty;,- but they were commanded to look on them as
brethren, to love them as they loved themselves; and it was im
possible for them thus to esteem and love them as brethren, and
yet hold them in cruel and degrading bondage.  Christianity did
not expressly command masters to liberate their slaves, but it conimanded them to render to their slaves that which was JUST and
EQUAL; it commanded them to do to their slaves as they would
wish their slaves to do to them, and every one may see that by the
time the masters did this, there would not be much difference
between masters and their slaves.  Christianity did, in this respect,
as it did in many others, it accomplished great changes with little
noise. It did not lift up a loud cry about reforms, but it silently
effected them. It was like leaven which a woman took and hid in
three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened.  There are
great numbers of men who  make loud outcries against prevailing evils, and yet do nothing towards remedying  them: they
talk much and clamorously about improvements, but never bring
their improvements to pass.  Christianity took a different course.
It talked little, but did a great deal of work; it was humble
and modest in its pretensions, but vast and glorious in its performances.  It did not make confusion by foolishly shaking the
branches of the tree of evil, but it secretly struck at the root, and
the trunk and the branches came down to the ground together."
MR. HARTZEL'S TWENTIETH ADDRESS.
Tell Mr. Pillsbury, who applauded in his letter to
the "Bugle," the speeches of Mr. Barker in the
Bible Convention, as superior to the Bible itself, that
I would rather be the author of the extract just read
from Mr. Barker, than of all hlie said in the Bible
Convention. This extract sets forth the genius of
the Gospel-the divine philosophy of Christianity.
Well aind  truly  might  an Apostle  say -"The
weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty, 
CIIHAGES OF lkMODERN INFIDELITY.
through God, to the pulling down of strong holds."
Jesus Christ laid the foundation deep and broad for
the uprooting of every system of oppression.  In his
early instructions to his Apostles, he gave sll the
moral principles by which they should govern themselves, in regulating the affairs of his "kingdom,"
promising them further aid when — he should have left
them.  "I will give you a mouth and wisdom which
all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay, nor
resist."  In this was the secret of their success.
Now let me have your concentrated attention to
the last precept in Christ's sermon on the Mount:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so.-.to them."  Christ
gave this law of moral right to his disciples -— and,
to the well instructed in the kingdom of God, it is an
infallible rule, It never errs when applied by those
whose desires, tastes and affections have -been purified
and chastened; but to apply it to the ignorant slaveholder, drunkard and gambler, as his standard of
moral obligation, is most preposterous.  Is this law
found in any slaveholding canon?  Light and darkness cannot dwell together.
When Christ's Disciples indulged in feelings of
rival greatness, he corrected them, and cast out the
demon of worldly domination, as may be seen from
Matthew, 20th chapter.  The mother of Zebedee's
children, desirous that her sons should occupy the
most honorable positions in Christ's kingdom, besought the Lord in their behalf.  When the ten heard
259 
260    DEFEN-E OF-THE. BIBE AGAINST THE
it thy were moved with indignation; "But Jesus
calle~d tlem  unto him, and said, ye know t t the
Priaes of the Gentiles exercise:.minion over them e
and they tt are great exercise authority upon them.
But it shal not be so among you, but whosoever will
be great among you, let him be your minister; and
whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your
servant2;? Al the world has:been, and yet is mistaken  upon the subject of true, genuine greatness.
We see the. workings of this error.  It makes of one
man a wolesale murderer; of another a despot; of
another a saveholder.  What bitter fruit has grown
upon that accursed  tree!  The great may exercise
authority-the strong may oppress the weak —" But
whosoever will be great among you, let him be your
minister; and whoagever will be chief among you,
let him be your servant" was a new revelation, and
as offensive as it was novel.
I ask now, can a man be-a Christian-I mean an
inteltigent CArisn -and at the same time a slaveholder?  These terms are not convertible.  They are
incompatible- with each other. Genuine Christianity
is a reversing of things.  Among the Gentiles the
great were served; among the Christians the great
were toserve.  Lu the parable of the good Samnaritan,.
Jesus struck another blow at the root of this entire
system. of-selfishness, He there taught his followers, that their benevolent regards were not to be confined to a sameness of country or religion.   As
Christ taught the- Apostles, so the Apostles taught 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
the churches.  Under the influence of a more exalted
benevolence than Judaism,  IPeter commands  the
members of the church to "~ honor all men."  Slaveholders live in open violation of this command, and
every  kindred precept.   What! 7 honor a negro?
Yes, " honor all men."  Let us next hear the Apostles, for we must go to their teachings as the earliest
ministers and instructors of those duties enjoined
upon Christians. I will call your attention to 1st Corinthians, tlrchapter, beginning with the 21st verse:
"Art thou called beinga servant? care notfor-it: but
if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.  For he
that is called in tie Lord, being a servant, is the
Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being
free, is Christ's servant.  Ye are bought-with a price;
be not ye servants of men. Brethren, let every man
wherein he is called, therein abide within God."  In
all my  interpretations of. the Seriptures, my first
question is, what gave rise to the subject? So now,
what called this forth?  We  gather from  the first
verse of the chapter, which we have quoted, that the
church had propounded some questions to the Apostle
with reference to marriage, circumcision, and slavery.
This understood, we proceed: -
"And  the woman  which  hath a husband that
believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her,
let her not leave him.  For the unbelieving husband
is-sanctified by (to) the wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified by (to) the husband."  Religious
differences did not effect the legality of the relation;
261 
262    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
nor yet the legitimacy of their offspring.  "But if
the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother
or sister is not under bondage in such cases: but
God hathtcalled us to peace."
Then in regard to circumcision.  "-Is any man
called being circumcised? let him not become iuncircumcised.   Is any called in uncircumcision? let
him  not be circumcised."  There w/as the literal
circumcision, and the literal uncircumcision.  Let
not the Jew disclaim being a Jew according to the
flesh, nor the Gentile being a Gentile according to
the flesh.  For now  "Circumcision is nothing, and
uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the
commandments of God."  Then theApostlesenjoins,
"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein
he was called."
Then comes the statute bearing upon slavery.
What the precise form of the question was, we are
not informed.  Twenty-first verse:  "Art thou called, being a servant-? care not for it; but if thou
mayest be made free use itrather."  Yours is a hard
lot: "care not-for it."  Be patient; bear the injuries
with becoming submission.  We use the same form
of expression to those in hard allotments.  "But if
thou mayest be made free, use it rather." The desire
for freedom was a lawful aspiration; and no Christian master could refuse to grant his slave a justifiable desire and be guiltless, if duties are remiprocal.
In Christ, the slave and the freeman stand upon
equality.   Christ does not disregard the one nor 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
esteenrMther  H unt of these political differ ences. This was to comfort. It was the best the
nature of the case would admit. Again: 23d verse,
the Apostle says: " Ye are bought with a price; be
not ye the servants of men."  Mr. Barker says, Paul
never forbade slavery. Let me ask Mr. Barker the
meaning of this last sentence, " Be not ye the servants
of men."  Is it not used in a prohibitory sense, and
in the imperative mood?   Paul, then, did command free Christians not to surrender their-freedom
and become slaves, for the following reason: "Ye are
bought with a price, be ye not the servants of men."
For the same reason he says in the 6th chapter,
" Flee fornication."   "For ye are bought with a
price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in
your spirit, which are God's." This was forbidding
it with a strength of feature worthy of himself, and
worthy of the cause.
The next passage to which we invite attention will
be found in 1st Timothy, chapter 6: 1, 2.
"Let as many servants as are under the yoke
count their own masters worthy of all honor, that
the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
And they that have believing masters, let them not
despise them, because they are brethren; but rather
do them service, because they are faithful and beloved partakers of the benefit." There are evidently
two orders of "masters" in this passage. One, in
the first verse, and the other in the second.  The
first unbelieving, the second believing.  The " serv
263 
264- - DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
ants"' of these "masters" stood in these relations.
The one was under the " yoke," the others were not
under the "yoke."  The first are required to give
their " masters" " honor"- to count them worthy of
" all honor."  Now, on what ground does the Apostle
claim " honoFr for the masters in the first verse?  lHe
does not base it on the worthiness of the " master,"
but commands it, " that the name of God be not
blasphemed.'  Surely a Christian master would not
blaspheme the name of God, if his "servants" should
fail to "'honor" him; but it is presumable that a
heathen "master" would'4 blaspheme" "the name
of God," and quarrel with the religious profession
of his slave.  Christians are required to walk in
wisdom towards them that are without-to pursue
such a course towards unbelievers as to win them to
Christ; as is further shown in the 1st Epistle of
Peter, 3d chapter, 1st verse.
" Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own
husbands; that if any obey not the word, they also
may without the word be won by the conversation of
the wives."
Who does not know, that when a man becomes a
Christian by profession that there is an enlargement
of expectation with reference to his future behavior?
Both saints and sinners have an indisputable right
to claim something as the fruit of their profession.
This, on the part of many, is an unintended compliment to Christianity. It would be in perfect
harmony with the genius and spirit of Christianity 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELTY.
for a slave to suffer for the sake of his l' unbelieving
master," and it would also be the most certain way
of securing to himself better treatment, and perhaps
freedom.  Those who have "believing masters" are
to do them-""ervice, because they are faithful and beloved partakers of the benefit."   Such motives to
fidelity could never have been urged in case the old
relation had continued; but the character of the
" master" (" faithful and beloved,") and the motives
to obedience presented to the "servant," imply that
both " master-" and "servant" were Christians.  I
have examined the words "parker."  It means,
according to Webster,- a participator, a reciprocator.
It does not make-the "servant," but the'master," a
"partaker of the benefit.".  "-Partker"means nothing more nor less than a participator-one who. has
or takes a part in common with others.  To talk of
a Roman slave, as such- being a;paetaker" with his
"master" in the "benefit" of his toil would  have
been the superlative of nonsense, and could not have
been urged as a. notive to lidelity.:Suppose you
try it in the case of an American slave.  Say to
him, be "faithful;" you are a "partaker"-you
expect to eat of the- cor, for which yoe  toiL  Yes,
so will my master's mule.  ilHe and I have an equal
interest. We shall eat of it through the winter, that
we may be  able to raise another crop for our
4' master."  Can we suppose an Apostle would have
been guilty of such a piece of mockery?
We will next invite your attention to Colossians,
2Pa5 
266    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
4th chapter, 1st verse.  "Masters, give unto your
servants that which is just and equal; knowing that
ye also have a master in'leaven."
If this language means anything, it goes to show
that Christians could not hold their slaves as they
had formerly held them-that the property relation
was done away; and with that the profitableness to
the "master." I wish particularly to call attention
to the language of this -statute.  " Xasters give to
your 8ervants that which is just and equal."  Here
are two words utterly incompatible with the idea of
slavery.  There can be no such thing as justice and
equality between a proprietor and his property.  To
command a man to give goods and chattels, that
which is "just and equal," would indeed be a new and
a strange kind of parlance.  Had the language been,
"render unto your slates that which is merciful, that
would have been in harmony with property relations;
whereas, the other is at utter variance with every
thing of the kind, and consequently here the property
relation could not have existed.  Did the Roman
slave law require justice and equality from master
to slave  This was more than food, raiment, and
medicine.  It would require righteous compensation
for services according to the standards of appreciation, and respectful treatment in all religious and
social relations, as defined by Ohristiaiity.  Can we
demand such treatment of a man to his horse?  To
talk of equality between a man and his ox, is to talk
without meaning. "Partakers ofthe beneftt." Slave 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY. 
holders  never  were " partakers of the benefit," but
receiver8 of the "benefit."   There  was nothing reci  procal between a Roman "master" and his slave.
Let these specified duties be required of professing
Christian  silveholders  in these United  States, and
slavery will soon come to an end, at least so far as
the churclh is concerned. That such was the ten  dency of Christian principle and practice, and would
be again if these were allowed to control the parties,
we can have no doubt. If proof of this is required
it will be  found  in "Christianity Triumphant,"  by
Joseph Barker, pages 110, 111:
"Throughout the whole of those benevolent efforts, which have
ended in the abolition of this accursed system, we behold nothing
but the influence of the religion of Jesus Christ.  We find no society
of unbelievers passing resolutions against the slave-trade and
slavery, or sending forth their advices to their friends, backed by
powerful reasons, to keep themselves clear from the gains of op pression, and to employ their influence in seeking the abolition of
the evil.  From first to last the glorious and god-like achievement
is the work of the religion of Christ.  They were Christians that
first pleaded against it in their social circles; they were Christians
that first resolved against it in their solemn meetings; they were
Christians that first formed the anti-slavery society; they were
Christian legislators that first lifted up their voices against the
evil system in the high places of power; they were Christians
that went across the seas, and endured the hardships of persecution,
to teach the oppressed and injured slaves the religion of Jesus
Christ; they were Christians which sent up from almost every
town and village in the country their petitions for the liberty of the
slaves to our Houses of Parliament; and it was the influence of
Christian principle that at last prevailed to set the afflicted and
injured multitudes free. Oh yes, Clarkson was a Christian, and
Sharpe was a Christian, and Wilberforce was a Christian; and the
men that are still watching over the interests of the liberated slaves
are Christians; and those noble men and women also are Christians
that are lifting up their voices against slavery in America. Christianity is the friend of liberty in all its lovely forms, nor will it
cease to war with oppression and slavery, until their last remains
shall perish from the face of the earth. The Gospel was sent to
267 
-268    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
make a world free, nor will it ease its operations till the_ blessed
work is done.  The rod of oppression shall be broken; the lash
which wasmused for the torture of humanity shall be cast away
the chains and manacles of the slave shall be dissolved, and there
shall not be left a slave through all the dwellings  of mankind.
The Gospel shall continue its operations till liberty of soul, and
liberty of limb, shall be the portion of every child of man."
I will n'ow read a short extract from Gibbon.  Surely he cannot be suspected of favoring the Christian
religion; for he was an infidel, and sought by every
opportunity  to  throw  disgrace  upon -Christianity.
The extract I read  is from vol. 4, page 269:
"Whatever restraints of age, or forms, or numbers, had been
formerly introduced to check the abuse of manumissions, and the
too rapid increase of vile and indigent Romans, he (Justinian)
finally abolished; and the spirit of his laws promoted the extinction of domestic selwitude.  Yet the eastern provinces were filled,
in the time of Justinian, with multitudes of slaves either born or
purchased for the use of their masters, and the price, from ten to
seventy pieces of gold, was determined by their age, their strength,
and their education.  But the hardships of this dependent state
were continually diminished by the influence of government and
religion; and the lFide -of a subject was no longer elated by his
absolute dominion over the life and happiness of his bondsman."
By consulting Gibbon  more extensively you will
discover that the Romans had placed an injunction
upon manumission. Christianity having begun its
work the country was rapidly filling up with persons
of servile birth, raised first to the distinction of freedmen, and finally to the honor of citizenship. And
hence the restraints and checks imposed upon manumissions.    These laws,  intended  to check  manumission, Justinian abolished.   He again opened the
door to the Christian  Imaster,   to let the slave go
"free."   In this favorable opening for manumission,
it had gone on so rapidly that it was done away in 
CITARES OF MODAt)N INFIXI'lL.
the western provinces, and through the combined
influence of government and religion.'Tthe Christian
was now the prevailing -religion, that acted upon the
government and the government uponslavery; -and
our historian says the "subject had no longer the
absolute dominion over the life and happines of his
bondsman."  This was A. D. 552.  Justinian, a professed Christian, was at this time Emniperor; a weak
man  we admit, in some respects, but a professing
Christian.  He did a good work in removing these
cecks, intended bylthe Roman Senate to prevent the
too rapid manumi8ssion of slaves.  Now in view of
these positive facts, and of the extract last read from
Mr. Barker, what shall we say of professing Christians who appeal to the New Testament, or of unbelievers who calumniate-the Christian scriptures as
a pro-slavery document, that they may make slavery
the occasion of throwing discredit upon them? Is it
true that a pro-slavery system made anti-slavery men
and promoted the extinction of slavery?
Who have been the successful advocates of the
abolition of slavery from the first to the present
century? Did the heathen philosophers and moralists advocate the cause of the oppressed? Nay;
in the ages when they fiourished, slavery was universal, and more than half of mankind were slaves.
While the world was in this deplorable condition we
see a few Jews rising out of obscurity, and silently,
and unobtrusively setting on foot a system that has
made successful war upon this monster of wickedness
269 
270      DoSE  OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
for eighteen centuries.  And who has carried on the
war? Who'first moved in the matter, and who are
now doing the work of redeeming man from bondage?
That much hlas been effected in our own and in other
lands will not be questioned; and what has been
effected, h  been done by the same instrumentality.
I ask again, through whose agency has this been
accomplished? I answer in the words of Joseph
Barker, "through Christian influence ftrst and lact."
I ask, then, whether these facts do not clear Christianity from the pretensions-of pro-slavery professors
and of Anti-slavery infidels?   I ask again, must
Christianity be uprooted in order to do anything
effectually against the system of American slavery
in that portion of our country where it yet exists?
Let the church practice the Christianity of the New
Testament and she will soon throw offthis disgrace;
and until she does carry out Christianity both in
principle and in practice, it is wrong, it is unjust, it
is wicked to hold Christianity responsible.  Would
it be thought just or honorable to charge upon our
civil code all the thefts and murders committed by
pretended American citizens? Hie is only a true
American, who is one inwardly as well as in outward
pretension.  I appeal to that discriminating test of
the Great Teacher of our religion:  "The  tree is
known by its fruits."
But one will ask, has not the anti-slavery cause
been espoused by men called infidels for the last ten
years?  I answer no.  That is the nominal cause, 
OHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
not the real one.  Other questions havebeen raised —
other questions have taken precedence'in that portion
of the Anti-slavery movement.  The question with
this portion is, the "church," the "Bible,"  the
"Christian   iistry,' the "United States Constitution," etc.  The effect of all this diaggng in of
irrelevant questions upon the anti-slavery society
has been a separation in that society.  The American
anti-slavery society does not noW-toccupy the position
it once occupied. The separation will widen.  Our
friend and others havedone as the French Atheists
did.  What was the cry of Robespierre and his confederates-? -Liberty!  Liberty! Libety!  What we
do, is in order to gain liberty.  What  deprives the
people  of their - liberty    The "church."   The
"church" must be remnioved.  The e,urch is —- the
"bulwark" -of despotism.  And the Bible is the
bulwark of the chureh.  Hence they go to work to
remove the Bible.  Let us cast the Bible away; it
is the cause of all this mischief.  The Bible was proscribed.  And, my  dear friends, what horrible depravity developed itself.  The rage was against the
Bible.  The Bibles were gathered together, thrown
into a pile, and burned by the public hangman in the
city of Paris.  And when all this was done, what
was the result?  Did France enjoy liberty?  No.
Instead of liberty, the most crushing despotism the
world has ever witnessed!  A most horrible system!
So now. Our friends have espoused some of the
great popular questions of the age, just as infidels
271 
272    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGI:NST THE
have always done.  I saw this ten years ago, when
some eastern agents travelled through our state   I
then had charge of a pulpit at Wanen.  They could
get no house save the court-house in which to hold
a meeting   Applieation wa  made for our meetinghouse.  We replied, go in     lprivilege our folks
always gran:we.will attend and hear, with the
liberty of reply if thought proper.  But the meeting
was a scen  of confusion.   We  heard them  in a
series of addresses.. -We did not publicly say that
they were infidels,  But I deeland, as my convic~
tion was, t some of my personal friends that they
were.  These were prophetic word.  Although they
said many good-things against slavery; but the precedence they gave to other questions made  them
harbigers of a movement for abolhing the "Bible"
-the putting down of the ":church"' and "6minisy."
Yes, they-were the forerunners  of my friend Mr.
Barkr,:
But- we must not pass by Moses.  lie, too, is entitled to respect on this great question. I am not
obliged to defend the morality  f the law; but will
say, you hav seen the fruits of this,gnd of the Pagan
morality, in contrast, and can judge for yourselves
which is best.  Jesus Christ didnot refer his disciples to Moses to learn their moral relations and
duties.  He did, however, treat Moses  with the
greatest respect-with that respect due from one
great legislator to another. Hie did acknowledge his
authority as the Lawgiver of Israel. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
Some of the precepts of Moses " were not good,"
as may be seen from the sermon on the mount.'" It
has been said — by them of old time, an eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, that
ye resist not eril," and in Ezekiel, it is said, "I gave
them statutes which were not good."  But imperfect
as the LeviticaI law was, it was the best the most
enlightened nation under Heaven was capable of
receiving.  The Jewish law, when compared with
the laws of other nations, as a civil arrangement,
was so far in advance of the age, that we are compelled to acknowledge its divine origin, or admit an
effect without an adequate cause.  Its provisions for
the relief of the poor, and their guaranties against
oppression show clearly to an unbiased mind, that
God was its author.  In it we find all the germs and
seeds of that more perfect system communicated by
Jesus Christ, the mediator of a new and better Covenant.  As we cannot plant the seed, and the same
day have the fuill grown stalk and mature grain in
nature —so neither can we have it in grace.  My
opponent concurred with me in these views when a
Methodist preacher, and I am sorry he does not do
so now.   "Christianity Triumphant," pages 428
and 430:
"In answer to the 148th infidel objection-that "if God was the
author both of the Jewish religion and the Christian religion, and
if the Christian religion be different from the Jewish-if God commanded something to the Jews, which he forbids to Christians.
God must be changeable."  lie says, "The religion of Christ
differs very considerably from the religion of the Jews, and yet God
might be the author of both without being changeable. God is the
273 
274    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
author both of the sun and moon, and the sun and the moon differ
widely from one another, and yet it does not follow that God is
changeable.  He made the sun and moon for different purposes;
the sun to rule the day, and the moon to rule the night, and they
are both well adapted to their purposes.  So with the religion of
the Jews, and the religion of Christ.  The religion of the Jews was
like the moon, or like the morning star, adapted exactly to its
place and time; but not adapted for the whole world, or for all
times.  The religion of Christ is the sun intended to bring in the
full light of day, and adapted to all ages, and to all climes."
"od is a parent, we are his children, and God is unchangeably
attached to his children, and invariably seeks their highest iappiness.  What course shall we expect his unchanging wisdom and
goodness to pursue?  Will he treat mankind in one unvarying
way from first to last?  By no means,  While the human race is
in its infancy, he will exercise their feeble powers with childlike
labors, giving them little tasks  and easy ones, such as their
childish state requires.  Thus did God deal with the first generations of men; lihe laid few burdens on them, and those butlight
ones.  The laws he gave to the Patriarchs were very few and far
from strict, but they were as many and as strict as in those rude
and infant ages could be of service to mankind.  It was necessary
that some laws should be iven thus early, and it was necessary
that those laws should not be many or severe, and the kindness
and wisdom of our Father appointed it so. But after a number of
generations had passed away, men became intellectually and
toral  stroner; they were capable of greater exercises and they
needethem; and God, always the same affectionate Father, gave
them more work.  He gave the law by Moses, and accompanied
the law with fuller revelations of his character and providence.
Under this new dispensation the human family rose still higher,
and gathered more inward strength, and became prepared for
greater and better things; and it was then that God, in the same
unchanged and unchangeable wisdom and benevolence, abolished
former systems, and  gave a full and perfect system of" truth and
duty by Jesus Christ  But in all these changes we see the same
unchanging Father, pursuing the same grand end, the greatest
happiness of the human race."
But  before  closing  this argument  let me  give a
brief summary of my New Testament gleanings.
First:   Jesus Christ gave this in  solemn charge
to his apostles, "Whatsoever ye would that men
should do unto you, do ye  even  so unto them."   If
we would that men should enslave us, then we may 
OHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
enslave them. This is the moral in the present case.
Second:  He taught them that genuine greatness
consisted not in the exercise of lordship, but in the
most humble ministrations of kindness.  "He that
will be greatest among you, let him be your minister,
and he that will be chief let him be your servant.
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered
unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom
for many." The moral of this-the practical lesson,
is at war with slavery.
Third:  He told them that the love he required
extended to all who stood in need of their aid, without regard to country or religion.  Under the healthful exercise of this principle, slavery never could have
been born. And any love that stops short of this, is
the love of a patriot, which is the love of the world
and never comes within the list of the Christian
virtutes as taught by Christ and his Apostles. Under
such instructions the eleven sat for some three years,
and these divine teachings were honored by their
Master's daily example.
Fourth: The Apostles were appointed to preach
the Gospel to all nations.  They did so; Ethiopia
not excepted. This brings us to their instructions
imparted to the churches, as we have already seen.
1st, They commanded Christian slaves to accept
their freedom when it could be had. This was a
decided testimony against the lawfulness of the relation.  No good man would say to minors or indentured apprentices, "'care not for it, but if ye may
275 
o276   DEFENSE OF THE BILE AGAINST THE
be made free useit rather."  We would rather have
incendiaries in our midst than men seeking to break
up necessary and lawful relations, and subvert the
order of society.  2d, IHe said to the free,'you are
bought with a price: be not ye the slaves of men."
Do not surrender your freedom and become slaves.
3d, "Brethren, let every man wherein he was called
therein abide with God," (with this exception, "I If
thou mayest be made free Use it rather.") Let this
evil be circumscribed in the church-let it extend no
farther-let the "servant" -' desire freedom, and let
the'" free  neither become " servants " or' masters."'  This would have put an end to slavery in
the church, within one  generation.   4th, "Servants" - who had'" unbelieving masters," and were
still "under the yoke," were to " honor" them
for the sake of the Gospel.  It is a law of Christianity, that we are to suffer wrong rather than to give
occasion to the enemies of Christ, to speak reproachfully: that we are to suffer a present temporal wrong
for the sake of a present spiritual and eternal good
of others, is a principle everywhere inculcated in the
Gospel.
Fifth:  The "servants" who had "believing
masters" were to be " faithful," because they were
" bretren beloved," reciprocators of the benefit; and
these "masters" were to give them that which was
"just and equal."  Many see slavery in the church
from this point.  No passage has been more tortured
than this. Suffice it to say, that wherever there is a 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
slave population there are manumissions more or less,
and that such manumitted slaves generally continue
with their  maSters," and serve them as before in
new relations, and from considerations, as per agreement.  It is, at least, highly probable that the Gospel
found some in this condition, and others soon passed
into it, upon Mr. Barker's own showing. Manumitted slaves are always dependent upon others for
employment and the means for subsistence.  Roman
slavery was peculiarly favorable in this respect; in
many of its features wholly unlike our negro slavery.
As soon as the slave was manumitted, he was a citizen.  There being now no occasion for- a separation,
the "master" continues to be the "master."  iHe still
directs his own business and his men. There was no
reason to designate the parties by new titles. They
were still "master" and "servant."  The terms were
as apposite to the new relations as to the old.  There
are "masters"' and " servants," and the titles are applicable where slavery never existed. To assume that
the titles " master and " servant " necessarily imply
slavery, is to say that there are no terms to designate
the ordinary relation, between the employer and the
employed, in the New Testament. If, then, we show
that new duties were required-duties that could
not exist under the old slavish relation, the candid
will be satisfied that my position is the true one.
Sixth: We say, then, that the requisition, " Master give to your servants that which is just and
equLal," is not in harmony with the former relation.
277 
DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
If Paul had said, "masters" give that which is
mrciful to your  servants," this would have suited
the condition of slaves. But as there can be no such
thing as justice and equality between the proprietor
and his property, I am forced to this conclusion and were it against my creed, I am confident the
conviction would be the same-that the " believing
master&," addressed by the Apostles, were not 8laveholders, nor their " servants" slaves.
Seventh: Honor all men, is another Christian
duty enforced both by Christ and his Apostles.  It
is impossible to obey this injunction, whilst we are
holding in bondage any portion of the human family.
It follows, therefore, that there is no fellowship
between slavery and Christianity, and and that no
man can be an intellgent Christian, and an American slaveholder at the same time.
Finally: The great point has always been overlooked, by those who appeal to the Bible: namely,
who shall be the slave? The law of Moses was specific upon this point. "The brother that has waxen
poor, and the heathen that are around about you
shall be your servants." But with Christ and the
Apostles before me, I ask, who shall be the slave?
Suppose I see that it is quite convenient to have
slaves, and I resolve on having one or more; I ask
then, whom shall I enslave for my benefit? Will
they tell me?  Why,  Moses told the Hebrews of
whom they might make servants. The Jew could
act intelligently -act under instruction -and can
278 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
not the Christian do the same? When our slaveholders get the New Testament to answer intelligently
these two questions, then they may act as the Jews
did. First, May get I me a slave? Second, Whom
shall I get  Having these answered, go ahead; but
be sure you understand your orders.  If the heathen
round about you, then you must go to the American
Indians.  If the African heathen, so be it.  Be sure
that you obey orders. You profess to be a Christian;
you acknowledge the authority of Christ, do you?
Yes, I do.  Be sure then, that you get the "yoke'
upon the right neck, for you must take care that you
commit no blunder in this affair.  If you get the
"yoke" upon the wrong ox, when you yourself were
the one intended, it would be rather a serious matter;
and Jesus Christ may ask you, someday, who has
required this at your hand?  "0! the depth, both of
the wisdom and goodness," of Jesus Christ our Lord,
to adapt a scheme of love and mercy to a sin-ruined
worlds so as to give his Gospel free access to all; to
deprive none of its benefits and blessings, neither the
" master," nor the " slave," on account of previously
existing relations however wrong and oppressive;
and yet not to justify the wrong, but to correct the
evil-to lay the foundation for its future destruction,
and promote the good, present and eternal, of such as
had stood in wrong relations to each other.  The
greatest display of wisdom, human or divine, consists in the best selection of means, and their judicious adaptation to bring about contemplated ends.
279 
280    DEFENSE OF THE, BIBLE AGAINST THE
We must then say, that Christianity has accomplished
what the wisdom  of the worldly-wise could never
effect.  Under the old system the evil was fostered,
and it grew; under the latter it was reproved, and
it died,  Such is the testimony of its enemies.
Surely, their rule of human right is not our rule of
right-our enemies, themselves being judges.
The heathen world was full of organic evil-legal ized evil. But Christianity in her youthful, in her
virgin days, made war upon them all.  Christianity
is a unit-there are notmany Christianities. Where
the same consequences do not follow, Christianity is
not. It may be a modification or a corruption of it,
but it is not that identical thing. Upon the principle
of causation it cannot be.
But to close my argument on the perfection of the
New Testament ethics, I will read a few passages as
a specimen of the whole.
Galatians 5: 19:  " Now the works of the flesh
are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornic ation,
uncleanness,  lasciviousness, (20,) idolatry, witchcraft  hatred, variance, emulations,  wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies, (21,) envyings1 murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of the which I tell
you before, as I have also told you in time past, that
they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (See Galatians 5: 22-26;) (Ephesians
4: 17 to end of the chapter;) (1 Thess. 5: 22.)  Our
friend was positively right when he said, that "the
Religion of the Bible is the enemy of all vice." 
-HARGES OF MODERN INFIDEhL  S
Argument 7: I have something to offer upon New
Testament  history.  The  New Testament writers
have given such demonstrations of integrity, that
the charge of imposture, savors either of ignorance
or invidiousness.  They have incorporated such an
amount of the civil and religious history of their
times with their writings, as to place them beyond
the reach of honorable suspicion.  They have committed themselves in a way that impostors never do.
They say that Herod was "Governor of Judea" when
Christ was born; that he died soon after, and "Archelaus, his son, reigned in his stead." That when
"Joseph returned from Egypt," he was afraid to
take up his residence in Judea, but passed into Gallilee, as a matter of safety. Augustus Ciesar was
at that time Emperor, and " Cyrenius was Governor
of Syria." That Tiberius was Emperor at the time
John the Baptist entered upon his ministry.  Pilate
was Governor of Judea; Herod Tetrarch of Galilee;
his brother Philip of Iturea; and Lysanias Tetrarch
of Abilene; and Annas and Caiaphas were the High
Priests; that Herod of Galilee imprisoned the Baptist, and cut off his head; that when Christ was crucified, Tiberius Cesar was still Emperor-   Pontius
Pilate Governior, and Caiaphas iigh Priest."
In the book of Acts, the Coesars still held the Empire, and many other officials are named, both civil
and military: such as Gallio, Festus, Agrippa, Felix,
Lysias the Chief Captain, and Cornelius the Centnrion. The places where the Apostles preached,
281 
282    DErNsE OF -THE BIBLE AGAINST THt
wrought miracles, were persecuted and whipped, are
named, together with Paul's shipwreck, and many
other minute incidents and details, all, of which
belonged to, and are recorded in the histories of those
times, which histories are still extant-open to the
investigation of friend and foe.
This was throwing out the banter to all coming
generations.    "Gentlemen,  will  you  examine  our
claims? "   They have been examined by the wise and
good; and what has been the result? See "Chris tianity  Trinmphant," pages 295, 296:
"The wisest men that the world has known, and the greatest
patrons and friends of knowledge for many ages past, are to be
found in the ranks of Christianity.  The founders of Christianity
themselves were the first who entirely threw down the prison walls
of knowledge, and sent it forth to run at large among all ranks,
and to wander through all lands.  Foolish as the world accounted
the first heralds of the Gospel, they were the wisest that had ever
appeared in the form of men, and they did infinitely more towards
the spread of knowledge through  the earth, than the pretended
wise ones among the Gentiles had ever thought of doing. The
first Christian converts showed the same spirit as their teachers,
and went everywhere disseminating the truth. And so it has been
in succeeding generations. And the greatest lights of the world
which have appeared in later ages, are all to be found in the ranks
of Christianity.  Wickliffe, and Luther, and  Melancthon, and
Bacon, and Malebranche, and Newton, and Locke, and Boyle, and
Clarke, and Taylor, and Barrow, and Tillotson, and Wilkins, and
Hale, and Baxter, and Milton, and Penn, and Watts, and Wesley,
and Raiks, and Williams, and Morrison, and thousands upon thousands more in all the different branches of literature and science
are all to be found among the disciples of Christ. Our best poets,
and historians, and philosophers have been Christians.  Unbelievers have occasionally distinguished themselves as writers, but in
consequence of their want of fidelity to the interests of truth and
virtue, their works have hastily sunk into disrepute and forgetfulness. None but Christians can afford to be faithful to truth without
betraying their cause, and the works of Christians are the only
works which bear about them those marks of candor and fidelity,
which are necessary to secure to works a high and permanent place
among the illuminators and guides of the human race. The works 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
of genuine Christians are gathering fresh glories around them, and
year after year exerting a still mightier influence; while the productions of pollution and unbelief are sinking deeper and deeper
among the shades of death."
If the New Testament writers were men of truth
and integrity, then the extraordinary and miraculous
things recorded by them are as true as things ordinary
or common; for they are so blended that they cannot be
separated.  Indeed, it is the supernatural that gives
authority to all the rest of the system  whether of
precept or promise.  If Jesus Christ was no more
than the son of carpenter Joseph; if he did not perform the miracles the Evangelists say he did;  if he
did not'rise from the dead; if he did not ascend to
the skies: then is Christianity a tissue of the most
prodigious falsehoods ever uttered.  But these are
not lies.  The Apostles were men of truth and integrity.   We refer to the "Christian," by Joseph Barker, page 19:
"Unbelievers cannot prove that the men who wrote the Gospels,
the Acts, and the Epistles, were not good men-men of truth and
integrity-men of purity and charity."
Mir. Barker says, "they were good men," and good
men will not lie; and Christianity, as we- have it
in the inspired record, is worthy of rational beliefGodg8 in2ipred truth.
But if my opponent is right, as soon as a man
declares himself a believer in Christianity afcording
to the record, he forfeits all claim to common sensethe best'sense in the world. Nor can the best men,
and wisest men that have ever lived, clear themselves
283 
24    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
of the charge of ignorance and superstition. Bacon,
Locke, Newton, and a thousand others have reason
to blush for having believed and professed such a
superstition.
Argument 8:  A few words as to Bible biography.
A simple statement of facts in the most unadorned
and artless style, is peculiar to this part of sacred
composition. The writers from Moses to John maintain this singularity.  They had frequent opportunities for embellishment.  They record many touching
incidents where a lively imagination would have
found ample scope for display in the exercise of genius,
as well as to add some grace to the sketeh.  But
no attempt of this kind is made.  Some thirty or
forty, during a period of nearly two thousand years,
writing  at different times, and under different circumnstances, each maintaining his own individuality;
and yet a sameness among themselves; and yet dis
fering from all others.  Orators and poets draw upon
their compositions to enrich their pages.  Byron laid
the subject of his best poetical effusions in Bible-history.  I allade to his pQems on the destruction of
Senacherib, Joseph and his brethren -the best efforts
of this master-spirit in poetry.
The Bible writers never favor their friends or those
of their own party.  MIoses records the perfections
and  imperfections of.Abraham,  the father of his
nation, without praise and without blame, as John
the Apostle does the weaknesses. of Peter, a fellow
Apostle. In the same manner do they treat their 
CHARAR  OF MODERN INFIDET~TY.
enemies.  They mention  erod, and speak of his
wicked acts; but do:not so much as say, that he did
wickedly. This is a characteristic pecliarity of
these writer,9  How will we account for it on human
principles, without supposing a supeintending Providence, by which the writers were directed and
inspired?
But when they were not writing history, they
would occasionally indulge in a word of praise or
blame.  There is not a single eulogy on the doings
of Jesus Christ, in either Matthew, Mark, Luke or
John.  This is strange enough on infidel principles,
but no marvel to the Christian.  When  Peter was
preaching Christ to the Gentiles, he said that "Jesus
Christ went about doing good."  This much by way
of encomium is not found in the.four biographies of
our Lord.   Who, that speaks or writes of the Jesus
of the New Testament, -free from any restraint, -will
not be lavish of his praise, even extravagant, and
yet not enthusiastic.
Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, says "that
he withstood Peter to the face, for he was to be
blamed."  But that was not in regard -to doctrineit was a mere act of dissimulation on the part of
Peter, occasioned by the presence of some Jewish
brethren.  Of all men under Heaven, those engaged
in a conspiracy must be most careful of their conduct
toward each other. Suppose these men had been
impostors would not Paul have said to himself, if
I provoke Peter to anger he will turn state's evidence,
285 
286    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
expose the imposture, and the whole matter will be
out; and the, alas! alas!  Honest men only can
use such freedom.
As biographers, the Bible writersossess'this charactenristi'c difference.  We can all see why it should
be so.  If they had indulged in praise and blame, as
other writers and historians do, they would have corrupted the text with their own comments. They
give the facts as all impartial biographers and historians should, and let the reader make his own comments upon the moral qualities of the man, and leave
it to God to say what is right and what is wrong.
In this consists their peculiarity, namnely: that they
record simple facts, in regard- to miraculous or other
occurrences, and leave them with the reader to draw
his own  conlusions.  H-ere tlies a historian before
me, (Gibbon;) and, so far as I know as a chronicler
of simple facts, he is reliable.  I never heard his
integrity questioned, so- far as a statement of mere
facts is concerned. But in recording facts pertaining
to the Christian religion, against which he had strong
prejudices, he would slur them over in some way, to
favor his own prepossessions in respect to infidelity.
There is William Wirt, who wrote the life of Patrick
Henry, when recording something rather to the discredit of his beau-ideal, he always apologizes for it.
He speaks, for instance, of his indolence and disregard to his father's wishes.  Henry's father sends
him to school, and-supposes his son is at his studies,
but Patrick is by some stream  fishing.  But his 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
biographer makes him full compensation when lihe
says, he then laid his plans for all his "future greatness."  But the sacred historians record without comment, both the vices and virtues of those whose
doings they have written out. Perhaps, indeed, if
our characters were written by Moses', Matthews',
or Johns', we would not look upon ourselves with as
much complacency as we do.
MR. HARTZEIL'S TWENTY-FIRST ADDRESS.
Mr. MIcNeely will read a passage from the Declaration of the late Joseph John Gurney; page 6:
Also in the words of the General Epistle of the yearly meeting
of London, for the year 1836.  It has ever been, and still is, the
belief of the Society of Friends, that the Holy Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament, were aiven by inspiration of God; and,
therefore, the declarations contained in them rest on the authority of
God himself; and there can be no appeal from them, to any other
authority whatsoever; that they are able to make us wise unto salvation, thlirough faith which is in Christ Jesus, being the appointed
means of making known to us the blessed truths of Christianity;
that they are the onIy divinely authorized record of the doctrines
which we are bound, as Christians, to believe, and of the moral
principles which are to regulate our actions; that no doctrine which
s not contained in them can be required of any oaeto be believed,
as an article of faith; that whatsoever any man saysor does which
is contrary to the Scriptures, though under profession of the immediate guidance of the Spirit, must be reckoned and ACCOUNTED A
MERE D)ELUSION."
Surely this  testimony frees the  Quakers from  the
chaerge of infidelity. I wish to make some remarks
bearing upon the words, believers and unbelievers.
When  I spoke of unbelievers  not moving forward in
287 
288    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
the great work of human emancipation, I had no reference to such believers only who were church  members.
I find thousands who believe the Gospel-who have
the fullest confidence in its truth, and yet have no
connection with any of the different Protestant organizations.  So far as I know, those who have
denied the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, have
not been the active movers of any 8cheme of benevolence. I have listened with fixed attention to Mr.
Barker's replies to my arguments, that in the New
Testament we have a perfect rule of life. I proceed,
then, with the fullest assurance, that there is nothing
to be offered on the negative.
He has given us some quotations from Christ's
sermon on the mount, and raised a quarrel with the
blessedness Christ pronounced upon those of certain
dispositions and traits of character. These beatifications are not precepts. If Mr. Barker could have
shown that the duties enjoined upon "husbands" and
wives,' parents " and " children," the " rich"
towards the " poor," the " strong" towards  the
" weak," were not in harmony with these relations,
and calculated to promote universal benevolence and
good will among men, he would have done so.  The
fact that he has not done this is evident that he could
not. If Mr. Barker had read the first verse of the
fifth chapter of Matthew, in order to show to whom
this beautiful discourse was addressed, his course
would have been better calculated to enlighten us
upon the subject than all his biting remarks. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
" And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a
mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came
unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught
them saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for
theirs is the kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are they
that mourn: for they shall be comforted.  Blessed
are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.  Bless ed are they which do hunger and thirst after righte ousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the
merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are
the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed
are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the
children of God.  Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the
kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are ye, when men
shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say
all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."
I admit that this discourse would not be adapted
to the world in its -nenlightened condition.  These
blessings the world cannot enjoy; for these pure and
holy, these selfdenying precepts, the unconverted
will not, nay, they cannot obey. Therefore, Jesus
Christ withdrew from the multitude, that he might
give this lesson to his Disciples, who were prepared
to receive it. I declare before Heaven, this lesson of
our Lord did never appear, to me, so beautiful and
lovely, as while I listened to Mr Barker's attempt to
ridicule it. I am sure every intelligent Disciple will
regard this attack as an eulogy; but lest it might have
10
289 
290    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
been regarded by some in the light of an objection,
we have bestowed upon it this passing notice.
Argument 9th. I now proceed to an argument
upon miracles. I have selected for my present purpose, on this subject, a miracle recorded in Acts, 3d
chapter. When Peter and John were about to go
into the temple, a certain man, lame from his birth,
was carried and laid at the gate. "And Peter fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on
us.  And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, silver
and gold have I none; but such as I have give I
thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise
up and walk. And he took him by the right hand,
and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and
ankle bones received strength. And he leaping Lup
stood, and walked, and entered with them into the
temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God."
The opposing Jews called this " a notable miracle,"
and well they might, for so it was. There was every
thing connected with it that could give notoriety to
any event.  1st: It was performed in a great city.
2d: It was performed at the beautiful gate of the
temple, the most frequented place. 3d: The subject
of it was over "forty years of age" —"lame from
his birth," and supported by the charitable contributions of those who visited the temple either from
motives of curiosity, or for the purpose of worship.
The history goes on to say, that when Peter pronounced upon this cripple the word of healing, that 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
immediately "his feet and ankle bones received
strength," that he "leaped up, stood, walked into
the temple, leaping, and praising God."' This is a
minute description, and if it had been a falsehood, it
was of the easiest exposure. But the writer makes
it still more liable to the severest investigation, by
both friend and foe, by giving the time of its occurrence. He does not say anno domini, but that
which is equal; he says, " Annas and Caiaphas were
high priests." In regard to this item of history we
must take one of two positions; either it is true, or
it is not true. If true, then this was a real miraclean intelligible miracle, bearing directly upon the
resurrection of Christ and the inspiration of the
Apostles. This is our position; and infidels must
say it is a forgery. Has any negative testimony been
given?  Our friend certainly ought to have some.
He might have, and we have a right to demand it.
We shall show that this demand is reasonable. Suppose that after this treatise became public property,
some one should have undertaken to ferret out this
item of history. Say, in fifty years or more after the
event, some unbeliever had determined to examine
into this matter. He would have gone into Jerusalem and accosted some aged person, sixty or seventy
years old.  Sir, are you a resident of this city?  Yes.
Did you live here at the time that " Annas was High
Priest?" Yes. Did your father live in this city at
that time? Yes. This would have brought it within
the time specified. These men were in the city, and
291 
292     DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIHE
would doubtless have heard of such an occurrence
had it taken place. The inquiry proceeds: did you
know a man, some forty years old, who was "lame"
and helpless from his "birth "-was constantly about
the city, and was supported by public charity?  No;
I did not. Did you ever hear of such a miracle
being performed?  No; never.  I will put it even a
hundred years after the occurrence, and suppose this
investigation to have been made, with the above
result. rThis published to the world would have been
a complete refutation, and would have stamped the
cause with eternal infamy and disgrace; and the
same, or at least similar facilities for detection, cluster around nearly all the miracles in the New Testament history. Why were the early enemies of Christianity so impolitic?  Why did they put the pretended
miracle workers to death, and thus lend their aid in
building up a cause they were so solicitous to destroy,
rather than to investigate those extraordinary tales in
the Gospels and Acts, and publish the result of such
examination to the world?   On any principle of
human policy, the absence of such documentary evidence is unaccountable; or, will my friend say that
such denial, upon such investigation, might have
been published and the work have perished. Well,
he does say "infidel books must perish; "but in that
case it would not have been an infidel book, but
would have been a fathfu l book, and preserved by
the faithful; for the unbelievers, in that case, would
have been the- faithful, and such refutation would 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
have been preserved as the most invaluable treasure.
Well, then, we have positive testimony, and no negative. I suppose we shall believe the record, and
give the opposition another occasion to -laugh at our
credulity ard superstition.
In relation to the miracles of the New Testament,
one of two positions must be taken by the infidel.
Either they were" masterly frauds, or fictions."  If
frauds, they must have been committed at the time,
and by the persons to whom they are awarded. If
fictions, they were fabricated after Christianity had
already gained a tolerably fair footing. It would
seem, in that case, that the impostors considered
them as all-important to keep up the credit of the
scheme.  In regard to the first of these hypothesis,
if frauds on men's senses, they did "succeed beyond
anything in the history of fraud or fiction since the
world began." The infidel must believe that a vast
number of apparent miracles, involving the most
astonishing phenomena, such as the instant rf,storation of the sick to health-the blind to sight-the
deaf to hearing-the lame to soundness-the dead
to life -the  feeding of hungry multitudes, under
circumstances where an adequate previous existing
amount of food was out of the question.  That these
things were performed in open day, in the midst of
multitudes of the most discriminating enemies, imposed alike on those who received and rejected them;
"they differing only in this, whether they came from
Heavenror:Ilell-not a very trifling difference either."
293 
294    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIHE
Yes, this was the point on which the beholders split.
"No man can do the work which thou doest, except
God be with him." "When the Messiah cometh,
will he do more miracles than this man doeth?-" " lie
casts out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the
devils." Some could hardly decide with either, and
with a tone of authority asked, "by what name or
power have ye done this?"  This demand was made
to Peter and John, when they healed the cripple.
The infidel must believe, too, that these conspirators
against men's senses and common sense, were Galileean fishermen -"the scum of the nation," which
was itself regarded as the most ignorant of all
nations; and the infidel must farther believe, that
these individuals had conceived the no easy task of
abrogating the religion of their fathers. The whole
nation, for fifteen hundred years, believing that they
had received it from God, were greatly attached to it
on account of its antiquity, and held it in the greatest veneration as the religion of Heaven; and other
nations were scarcely less attached to their systems of
superstition, commended by the moralists, sanctioned
by the state, possessing all the lure of pageantry,
splendid temples, gilded altars, costly victims, and
priests clad in the robes of beauty and of glory.
These operators required all these nations, both
Jews and Gentiles, forthwith, to abandon their own
religions and receive theirs; and that, too, upon such
evidence as they offered for their consideration. To
the Jews they said, your covenant has waxed old 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
and "is ready to vanish away;" and to the Gentiles
they said, "the God whom ye ignorantly worship
declare we unto you."  No impostors have ever uindertaken to subvert the established religion of the
country, but to incorporate the new with the old as
an improvement.  The Mormons did not attempt to
do this -the Mahometans did not. And when we
consider the character of this new religion-this
substitute -who but fools could have promised themselves success? A religion without temples, altars,
priests, or victims; without any of the trappings, so
essential to catch the attention of the gross and the
vulgar. Look at our modern synagogues and chapels, their splendid domes, their lofty spires, their
external pomp: are not these for effect? But primitive Christianity had nothing of this kind to beguile
the people into a false estimate. The founder, a
crucified Jew, abrogating the "Jewish ritual" -improving the morality of Moses, giving it an application to the heart-discriminating the motives of the
soul; and to the Gentiles, Oh!  how offensive, emanating from such a source, correcting all their false
morality, and setting on foot a new system of ethical
duties. This one precept was enough to repulse the
heathen world, viz:  " Except a man deny himself
he cannot be my disciple." The opposite of every
system of Paganism, which is but another name for
self-indulgence. I have no earthly doubt that this
element (deny thyself,) has proved more offensive to
the world than any thing else in the entire system.
295 
296    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
Nothing can be more offensive to an unregenerated
heart, than this precept -deny thyse.lf The infidel
says, true; and yet the adventurers had every probable hope of success. We all agree that they did succeed, to an enormous extent, in the face of all opposition; and in three centuries left the heathen temples
tenantless, or nearly so, and their priests without
employment.
But the infidel must fartherbelieve, that the original
actors in these unparalelled "frauds," acted not only
without motive, but against any assignable motive.
That they maintained an uniform consistency in unprofitable falsehood, and this they did not only collectively, but individually and separately, in different
countries, before different tribunals, under every kind
of examination and cross-examination, in defiance of
every menace, with the axe, the cross, the stake, and
kindled fire before their eyes. They persisted in their
"fraud," and induced thousands to join them who
were equally obstinate in their belief in these "cunningly devised" tricks. The infidel must believe
that Christ and the Apostles befooled the people, or
that they "befooled" themselves into the belief of
miracles.  "These are hard alternatives of a wayward
hypothesis; " but the hardest is to come yet, namely:
that these men, in a rude and ignorant age, without
learning, without science, had originality enough to
invent the most pure, the most sublime system of
morality ever offered to the world.  And, with all
their conscious villainy, had the daring effrontery to 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
preach it; and yet, more extraordinary,  had the
strange incon8i8tency to practice it.  And now, in the
language of another, let me say to him who can
receive all these paradoxes, (and they form but a
small part of what might be mentioned,) "0, unbeliever, great is thy faith!"
The same incongruities arise from the denial of
prophecy. If not the same, they are no less perplexing. Indeed, there is not a position, that infidelity
ever hlas assumed, or can assume, but that is infinitely more encumbered with difficulty, than the
belief of all the different branches of evidence upon
which the Bible rests for its defense, and claims our
unfaltering faith and confidence.
We may then say, without feeling in the least
abashed, "That the Jewish and Christian Scriptures
contain a series of communications, supernaturally
revealed and miraculously attested- from the latter
man may acquire a perfect rule of life." I feel
that I have fully redeemed my pledge in the amount
and variety of testimony adduced. But we shall
offer the testimony of some of the first infidel objectors, as concurring witnesses, to meet the cavils of
the captious.  "Infidelity Refuted by Infidels," from
page 271 to 276:
"Indeed if Josephus, Tacitus, Governor Pliny, the Emperors
Trajan, Adrian, and Antonius the Pious, Celsus, Porphyry, and
Julian the Apostate, be faithfully and candidly examined, to say
nothing of the Mishna, the Talmud, Philo, and those of humbler
fame, we shall find that ":1. The Jews' religion "2. The immediate antecedents of the Christian institution
297 
298       DEFENSE  OF THE  BIBLE AGAINST THE
"3. The existence of Jesus Christ, and his extraordinary character and wonderful works  "4. The call and mission of the Galileean fishermen as Apostles  "5. The genuineness of the writings collected in the New Testament  "6. Therapid and marvellous progress of the cause-and,
"7. The excellent character of the Christians, illustrative of the
tendencies of the religion  "Are clearly and amply tested in the very light in which they
are set before us in the Christian books.
" The following facts contain almost all the New Testament history; and I need not again repeat that they are unequivocally
quoted, or alluded to, as a part of the Christian religion by the
unbelieving witness above named, who wrote  "1 That the Jews' religion preceeded the Christian, is of the
highest antiquity, and distinguished by peculiarities the most extraordinary, from every other ancient or modern religion.
"2. That John the Baptist appeared in Judea; in the reign of
Herod the Great, a reformer and a preacher of singular pretensions
- of great sanctity of life, and was well received by the people;
but was cruelly and unjustly murdered in prison by Herod the Tetrarch.
"3. That Jesus, who was called the Messiah, was born in Judea,
in the reign of Augustus Cesar, of a very humble and obsure woman, and amidst a variety of extraordinary circumstances.
"4. That he was, while an infant, on account of persecution, carried into Egypt; but was brought back again into the country of
his nativity.
" 5. That there were certain prophetic writings of high antiquity,
from which it had been inferred that a very extraordinary personage was to arise in Judea, or in East, and from thence to carry his
conquests over the whole earth.
"6. That this person was generally expected all over the East
about the time in which the gospel began to be preached.
"7. That Jesus, who is called Cuist, taugh t a new and strange
doctrine.
"8. That by some means he performed certain wonderful and
supernatural actions in confirmation of his new doctrine.
"9. That he collected disciples in Judea, who, though of humble
birth and very low circumstances, became famous through various
parts of the Roman Empire, in consequence of the progress of the
Christian doctrine.
"10. That Jesus Christ was the founder of a new religion, now
called the Christian religion.
"11. That while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Tiberius emperor at Rome, he was publicly executed as a criminal.
"12. That this new religion was then checked for a while.
"13. That by some strange occurrence, not mentioned, it broke
out again and progressed with the most astonishing rapidity. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
"14. That in the days of Tacitus there was in the city of
Rome an immense number of Christians.
"15. That some Christians were, during the reign of Nero, or
about thirty years after the death of Christ, persecuted to death by
that emperor.
"16  That constancy (called obstinacy by some Pagan governors) in maintaining the heavenly and exclusively divine origin of
their religion, is the only crime proved against the Christians, as
appear from all the records of their enemies, on account of which
they suffered death.
" 17. That in the year 70, or before those who had seen Jesus
Christ had all died, Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by
the Romans, and all the tremendous calamities foretold of that
time by Moses and Christ, were fully visited upon the disobedient
and gainsaying people.
"18. That the Christians made a confession of their faith, and
were baptized, and met at stated times to worship the Lord.
"19. That in their stated meetings they bound themselves, by
the solemnities of their religion, to abstain from moral evil, and to
practice all moral good.
",20. That the communities which they established were well
organized, and were under the  superintendence of bishops and
deacons.
"21. That Jews, Gentiles, Barbarians, of all castes, and persons
of every rank and condition in life, at the risk and sacrifice of the
friendship of the world, of property, and of life, embraced this
religion and conformed to all its moral and religious requisitions.
" These specifications, independent of all that is quoted by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, from Old or New Testament, in their
proper import and connexions, do fully contain all the peculiar elements of the Christian religion as displayed and enforced on the
pages of the New Institution.  These constitute the skeleton of
the New Testament. Were we to clothe these bones with the summaries which we have given out of Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian,
to which we here again refer the reader, we should have the whole
frame of the Christian institution, differing only in color from that
found in the Book. The color of these facts and documents consists in the interpretation of them. Of course the twelve Apostles
of the Messiah interpret them differently from those witnesses
whose testimony we have just now heard.  The difference of the
interpretation, however, all men of sense will admit, affects not the
proposition before us, viz: that the testimony of our Apostles is fully
sustained by all the leading facts, by all the ancients of the first and
second centuries who have all spoken of, or alluded to, the Christian
reliqion."
299 
300    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIIE
MR. HARTZEL'S TWENTY-SECOND
ADDRESS.
Lord Herbert styles it the best religion. Tindal
confesses that "Christianity, stripped of all additions
which policy, mistake, and the circumstances of time
have made to it, is a most holy religion."  Lord
Bolingbroke says, "No religion ever appeared in the
world whose natural tendency was so much directed
to promote the happiness of mankind." Chub admits, that Christianity " If it could be separated from
everything that has been blended with it, affords a
much clearer light to mankind, than any other traditionary religion, as being better adapted to improve
and perfect human nature."  Rousseau says, "the
majesty of the scriptures strike me with admiration,
and the purity of the Gospel hath its influence upon
my heart." And yet, he says, "I cannot believe the
Gospel."  That a man of such a character could not
believe the Gospel is no marvel, but highly complimeniltary to Christianity.  Paine made similar concessions to the aforesaid; but he could not believe the
Gospel, I suppose for similar reasons. To these we
shall append a fbw concessions from learned friend.
"Review of the Bible," page 89:
" The Bible is the friend of all truth and virtue, and the enemy
of all error and vice."
This is a brief but true statement of concessions
by some of the leading infidels, ancient and modern. 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDEILITY.
They concede too much to justify their opposition.
One thing is manifest from their writings, they had
most incorrect views of the Christianity of the New
Testament. They were waring, and yet are with the
false exhibitions of it rather than the thing itself; for
upon their own admissions, it is an exotic, a plant
of an unearthly growth. Can they say of any other
what they say of this?  It is the best;" " it is
most holy;" " it promotes the happiness of mankind," etc. Take Joseph Barker's fifteen principles
upon which he based the concession, " that the Bible
is the friend of all truth and virtue, and the enemy
of all error and vice." Can they concede this much
to any system of infidelity?  Let them select the
best from( Celsus to Joseph Barker. Let them revise
it and correct it, and then sit in judgment upon its
merits. Will they concede to their own what they
have to the Bible?  I am willing to refer the decision
to themselves. Or if they are not pleased with this
test, I will propose to them another. Let them take
any other, claiming a human or divine origin-any
of the Pagan myths, and when  by consent of the
whole infidel fraternity, or a majority if they cannot
agree, or friend Barker himself, and now having
made the selection, he or they may throw it into
their little " allembec" and distil it until they have
nothing left but the essence, and then they shall have
the privilege of another purifying process; they may
put it through their best crucible once and again,
until they are satisfied they have expurgated all the 
302    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
dross-then we will submit the book to a competent
committee for examination, and if said committee
shall decide that it is the "best," the most "holy"
religion-" best calculated to promote the "happiness of mankind"-that it is the "friend of all truth
and virtue and the enemy of all error and vice." I
again pledge my honor as a man and as a Christian,
that I will be forthcoming in the sum of $1000 for
such book upon the delivery of it, or I will give them
yet another chance. Joseph Barker may write out a
religion himself, and have the benefit of the copyright and as soon as he can get the aforesaid decision
in its favor, I will be forthcoming to him in the specified sum. This I submit as a standing proposition.
Until this is done, or something of the kind, I must
say that your eulogies upon the Bible are most uncandid, if not invidious, and your thrusts at it uncalled  for.   Suppose  Christians  would eulogize
infidel books and then speak of them as you do about
the bible, you would say hypocrites-and justly too.
B3ut somehow, infdetls escape the charge of hypocrisy.
There is a reason for this; though they would do
with the Bible as one of old did with his fellowgive him one hand in token of friendship, and with
the other thrust a dagger through his heart. When
such admissions in favor of the Bible as the foregoing,
(and they are but a few of the many that might be
cited,) and infidel opposition to the Bible are before
my mind, and their zeal in carrying it forward-a
zeal worthy of a better cause. I can come to no other 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
conclusion, (despite all my charity-and the allowance I am ever disposed to make for weak humanity,)
than, that infidelity is a disease of the heart, not of
the head.:
We will read a few extracts from the " Christian,"
By Joseph Barker, from page 145 to 155:
"Infidelity is not born with us. We not only are not born infidels, but we are not even born with an inclination-a predisposition to infidelity.  On the contrary, we are born with a strong
nclination or predisposition to believe.  We are born, in fact, with
a strong incination to believe everything that is told us by those
who are older than ourselves."  " If, therefore, men become unbelievers, it is in spite of their nature. To become infidels. men
must do violence to nature. Nature must be shocked and perverted before it can disbelieve; before it can reject the great principles of religion. Nor does infidelity arise from a want of
evidence of the truth of Christianity, or from any defect in the
character of that evidence. The evidences of the truth of the
Christian religion, appear to me to be as complete and decisive as
can well be imagined.  The doctrines themselves bear every mark
of truth that doctrines can bear."  And I ask, what is there more
wonderful, in what Christianity tells us with respect to the future
life of man, than there is in that which the earth itself tells us,
with respect to the origin of the earth, of the vegetable and animal
tribes which still remain to grace it, or which have perished in its
past revolutions, or of the human race itself? The more I look
at nature, the more am I astonished that men should find a difficulty in believing the teachings of Christianity with respect to the
future destiny of man. A great portion of Christianity is proved
to be true by every good man in his own experience; and there
are many portions of the history of Christ which are sufficiently
proved to be true, by the experience of every religious reformer
"At the same time, the historical evidences of Christianity are
quite sufficient to satisfy an unprejudiced man who is acquainted
with them, that the historical facts of the New Testament are true,
or that the records of them contained in the Gospels and Acts of
Apostles are substantially correct." "And if infidelity does not
arise from any want of evidence of the truth of Christianity, much
less does it arise from any defect in the character of Christianity.
No one that understands Christianity, can say that it is a defective,
a foolish, or a mischievous system.   No  one that understands
Christianity as taught and exemplified by Christ can help regard ing it as a system of freedom, of purity, of benevolence, and of
peace.  "Again, infidelity does not originate in greatness of soul.
303 
304    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
It is not an unusual largeness of intellect, or a peculiar elevation
of moral principle, or extraordinary benevolence and conscientious ness that leads men into unbelief.  Unbelievers generally have not
been distinguished for peculiar greatness of intellect, or for great
superiority with regard to benevolence and conscientiousness. On
the contrary, those who have deserved to be called infidels, have,
in general, been remarkable for widely different qualities." "Who
are the men that have distinguished themselves above their co temporaries in later times, either for largeness of intellect or vigor
of mind, or purity of character, or fulness of benevolence or dis interested and unwearied efforts in the cause of human freedom and
human happiness?. You will at once refer to such men as Newton,
the fame of whose intellectual greatness has run through the word;
and Milton, whose labors in the cause of liberty, and whese su1pe riority as a poet, have raised him to a lofty and eternal eminence.
And Locke, whose depth of thought, and power of elucidation,
have secured to his writings universal respect; and Penn, whose
learning and intelligence were both of them great-whose purity
and temperance, whose courage and benevolence were still greater,
and whose labors in the cause of truth and righteousness, of uni versal freedom and improvement have scarce had a parallel in the
history of our nation.  All these were Christians. -And the best
and greatest of our own days are Christians. The best and greatest
men in England, the greatest and best men in Euro pe, and the
greatest and best men in America, are Christians; and even some
among the greatest and best men in Asia have been Christians."
" Again, infidelity does not - originate in greatness of knowledge.
It does not spring from alargeacquaintance with science.  A belief
in Christianity is in no way dependent on ignorance for its strength.
And doubts and disbelief of Christianity are in no way indebted
to knowledge for their existence.  The greatest scholars, the most
devoted investigators of nature, most ardent lovers of science, the
greatest admirers of the wondrous works of creation; the men that
have gained the largest acquaintance with literature and art, are to
be found amongst the believers in Christianity."   "We  observe
again, that infidelity does not originate in superiority of moral
character. As we have already intimated, those who are really
infidels are not, in general, superior characters. There is reason
to believe, that in a great many cases the infidelity of people has
originated in moral depravity.  There is no reason to believe that
it has in any case originated in moral purity, or virtuous excellence."  "Then again, some become unbelievers through the influenceof vice.  They are unwilling to give up their bad practices,
and therefore reject and at length disbelieve the religion that condemns their bad practices. They are unwilling to live in accordance with the requirements of religion, and therefore deny and at
length disbelieve the religion whose requirements annoy them.  It
is unpleasant to believe a religion which condemns us. It is un 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
pleasant to believe a religion which forbids-us to do what we are
anxious to do, and which requires us to do that which we are
unwilling to do. It is an old saying, that "men love darkness
better than light, because their deeds are evil."  It is an old cus tom for men to reject a message from Heaven, because it clashes
with their inclinations and pursuits.  "How can ye believe," says
Jesus, "who receive honor one of another?" " Ilow can ye be lieve," he says again in effect, "who refuse to act in accordance
with the light which you already possess? Act righteously and
you shall soon know of the doctrine which I teach, whether it be
of God, or whether I speak of myself."
Again, when I think of the wicked and profligate
lives of some leading infidels, I am yet more confirmed in this conviction. I know that infidels are
disposed to repel this charge-they do this by comparison, but their comparisons are unfair. They
compare their best infidels with the most delinquent
professors; perhaps such as are not esteemed by the
church.  Suppose Christians would  compare their
most worthy professors with the most base and unprincipled men professing infidel]ity, and then shout
victory! A just comparison will be between the
founders of Christianity and of infidelity and their
adherents. That will bring Christ and the Apostles,
Yolney, Carlyle, Voltaire, Paine, with others into the
comparison. I cannot commit such an outrage upon
your feelings as to carry the comparison farther than
to name the parties.  I will, however, select one of
the greatest infidel boast, namely Monsieur Voltaire,
with a few kindred spirits, and read a few sketches
from the pen of Joseph  Barker, and let him speak
for himself of these infidel worthies. I shall do this
partly from a sense of'duty to an absent friend. I
allude to Mrs. Wilson.   To make myself understood,
305 
306    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
let me say that Mrs. Wilson, in her correspondence
with Joseph Barker, referred to the wicked lives of
Voltaire and Paine, as I have just done. Mr. Barker
called into question the integrity of my religious
sister, as you will see.-Liberator April 22, 1853:
"Mrs. Wilson's tales about Voltaire and Paine require no
answer. He would be a simpleton, indeed, that could place any
reliance on the tales of church and bible men respecting the lives
or deaths of heretics and unbelievers.  I know what priests and
bigots are, when provoked by heresy or unbelief. They are the most
unconscionable liars, and the most infernal haters, on God's earth.
I have had experience of their cruelty and lies. And I have read
church history, and no little of priestly controversy. I cannot conceive a more awful perversion of humanity-a more inhuman or
infernal monster-a more unutterable or unbounded hater; a being
more reckless of truth, or more ravenous for innocent blood, than
the priest or bigot.  Talk of tigers; they are spirits of gentleness
and love compared with the priest or bigot, when excited by the
presence of the man who sets at naught his authority or speaks to
him of reform. But Mrs. Wilson refers us to the genuine letters
between the Rev. Father Capuchin and the Archbishop of Anneci.
I know what genuine letters mean. Letters between two chief
priests respecting an unbeliever.
" But she refers us to a General Biographical Dictionary.  Does
she suppose we do not know how General Biographical Dictionaries are made?  But she says, Voltaire cried out, "I shall go
to hell." Then why do you say he was an infidel-infidels do not
believe in hell. Again she says Voltaire's creed was the essence
of Popery."
You shall now hear Mr. Barker in defense both of
Mrs.  Wilson  and  myself.             "Christianity  Triumphant," pages 413 to 417:   In answer  to the  130th
infidel objection, that
"When the Catholics and Protestants were persecuting and
utterly destroying each other, in the kingdom of France, Voltaire,
out of his own purse, built a colony to keep them from each other.
Point to a Christian that has done as much. It is to Voltaire and
those like him that we owe the freedom that we now enjoy."
Ans. There is nothing in the history of Voltaire to warrant those
commendations: what our opponents say in his favor is quite a
misrepresentation. The idea of Voltaire building a colony, and 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
thereby separating the Protestants and Catholics of France from
one another, is altogether monstrous. But if Voltaire had done so,
yet for our opponents to suppose that no Christian had ever done as
much, shows them to be strangely ignorant of Christian history.
What did Penn do?  What did Richard Reynolds do?  What did
Professor Franks and Oberlin do?  What did Wesley do?  What
did John Willies do?  What did the men and women do whose
deeds of benevolence are noticed in preceding pages of this work?
To think of comparing Voltaire with Christian worthies, is out of
all character. As Voltaire appears to be the best man that unbelievers have to boast, I will here give a brief outline of his history:  Hre was educated by the Jesuits at the school of Louis le Grand,
and very early showed a leaning to licentiousness and infidelity.
When he left the Jesuits, his father sent him to the schools of law;
but he formed a connection with a number of leading infidels, and
all his father's efforts to induce him to devote himself to some
regular employment were in vain. He soon became a proficient in
lewdness and infidelity.  To break him off from his associates, his
father sent him into Holland; but there he seduced a young lady,
and conducted himself in other respects so badly, that he was sent
back to France in disgrace.
He now pursued clandestine authorship, and meeting both with
protection and persecution, he rose to some eminence as a wit. He
went on in feasting and wantonness, and writing anonymous
pamphlets. He formed an acquaintance with Rousseau, and
quarrelled with him, and they were never friends more. He is
next found throwing his "Henriade," a poem he had composed
into the fire in a rage, because some friends, whom he had called
together to hear it read before its publication, suggested some improvements.  He next quarrels with the Chevalier de Rohan, and
learns fencing that he may challenge him to a duel, and is sent to
the Bastile six months for his pains.
He next came to England-associated with some English infidels,
and got a large subscription made for him, which laid the foundation of his fortune. He then returned to France, and by lottery
gambling, and some successful speculations in African wheat and
Spanish commerce, greatly increased his stock of money.   By
army contracts he gained eight hundred thousand francs. He now
pursued his work of authorship briskly, but wrote such works for
obscenity and blasphemy, that he concealed himself and his name.
He now retired to Cirey, with a lewd woman of the name of
Chatelet, with whom he lived on terms of infamous intimacy.
Here he feasted, and wrote, and revelled in uncleanness, and quarreled with his harlot, corresponded with the infidel King of Prussia,
was very miserable, and had the mortification to see his harlot run
off with M. de S. Lambert.
He returned to Paris, visited the King of Prussia, got distinctions,
30'7 
308    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
a good salary, gay suppers, but showing himself over greedy, he
disgusted the king, quarreled with him, abused the king's literary
friends, composed a libel called' The Private Life of Frederick II.,'
together with other libels, returned to Paris, but never forgave his
infidel brother king Frederick.
He now, at the age of sixty, took up his residence at Ferney,
where he Lived for the last twenty years of his life.  Here he edu cated a daughter of Corneille the dramatist, and got her married;
and assisted the family of Calas, and of Sirven.  Two young
officers, one of them, De Barre, were accused of blasphemy and
obscenity in their orgies, and with having destroyed a cross at
Abbeville. These young men were condemned to death, and De
Barre actually suffered. One of Voltaire's works was found in
the young man's possession, and had served to corrupt him.  When
Voltaire cried out against the sentence, it was justly answered,
that the guilt also attached to him, for having corrupted the young
men's imaginations by his filthy and impious writings.
His chief occupation at Ferne  was a bitter and ceaseless war
against the religion of Christ.  Sometimes it was a large book,
sometimes a penny pamphlet; now a treatise on divinity, and then
a tale or a song; but hostilities never ceased   Let it be remarked
that it was after he was sixty years of age that his infidelity became most shameless, his ribaldry most insolent, and his obscenity
most offensive. Yet with all his zeal for pollution and impiety,
such was his timidity, or his consciousness that he was wrong that
all his attacks on Christianity came out with false names, and when
they were attributed to him, he would deny them even with an oath.
"Vanity and personal feeling," says my author, " mixed with all
his doctrines, and colored his best works. A disposition to make
light of every thing spoils all.  He is also ever waiting in impartiality; the promotion of infidelity is ever kept in view, and truth
and history are made to bend to this.' I am tired,' said this poor
creature,'of hearing it said, that twelve men were sufficient to
establish the Christian religion;  I am anxious to show that it requires but one to destroy it 1"'  Poor man!
His opposition to Christianity, as one of his biographers observes, did not arise from a love to truth or to mankind, but from
the spirit of inisanthrophy and sensuality. His whole conduct was
unworthy of one who pretended to be a reformer.  " Not only was
the mioral conduct of Voltaire censurable," says one of his biogra
phers, "and his conversation licentious, but his writings were
replete with gross indecency and insulting outrage to all that is
modest and uncorrupted.  Nor was it merely by the indulgence of
sensuality that he was unfit to serve as a model: he was subject to
anger, and envy, and hatred, and was full of malice, falsehood and
hypocnrisy. Sometimes hle would be seen tearing with his teethli a
stupid pamphlet, written to depreciate his genius; at another time
we find him writing anonymous libels against men whom in public 
CHARGE3 OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
he flattered. And as to his pretensions to benevolence, what was
he ready to sacrifice, or even to risk, for the welfare of mankind?
By the course he took he gained more power, riches, and fame, than
he could possibly have acquired in any other way. As for any
serious danger to his life or liberty, there was none; but when the
smallest danger appeared, even of his having to encounter the
ecclesiastics, what was his conduct? He fled from the danger,
made the most hypocritical submissions, feigned what he did not
believe, and professed himself a disciple of that religion which he
daily insulted.  In writing to Mr. and Msle. d'Argental, he says'My angels, if I had a hundred thousand men, I know what I
would do; but as I have them not, I shall take the Sacrament at
Easter, and you may call me hypocrite as long as you please.  No,
my dear marquis, no!the modern Socrates will not drink hemlock.'" In the same sense he wrote that, "if he lived at Abbeville,
he would take the sacrament every fortnight." (Correspondence.)
Is this the man that is to be compared with Hinm who laid down
his life for mankind, and freely sealed the truth with his blood?
Is this the man who is exalted above those martyrs to the interests
of truth and human happiness, of which the history of Christianity
is full?
That Voltaire did some good I do not pretend to deny: the most
malignant and selfish and debauched characters in the universe will
sometimes do a kind turn. Nero himself was kind on occasions,
and murderers and thieves are kind and honest when it suits their
interests, and it will sometimes happen that men are placed in
such circumstances, that they are obliged to do some seeming act
of kindness, or fall into disgrace. This was the case with Voltaire;
and hence, in the midst of a long life of pollution, and deceit, and
rage, and malignity, there appear some particles of better seeming
things, like here and there a spark amidst the smoky clouds of a
troubled volcano. But none that had any regard to truth and
decency, would ever think of comparing the conduct of such a character with the peaceful, the pure, the chaste, the benevolent and
godlike lives of such men as Howard, and Boyle, and Penn, and
Wesley, and thousands more, who have made it their business,
and felt it their happiness, to toil and plan and suffer for the
welfare of their fellow-men."
Again, "Christianity Triumphant," pages 339 and
and 340:
"Rousseau held the doctrine of irresponsibility, and he surely
could not imagine that new-born infancye could have any voluntary
faitlh; and yet he exposed his oviwn five little ones in the street, and
left them to perish. William Beadle held the doctrine of irresponsibility; he believed that man had no power either over his belief
or conduct; and yet he murdered ill one night his wife and all his
309 
310    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
children, and then destroyed himself. Diderot, one of the principal
leaders among the believers in irresponsibility in France, who professed to believe that men were no more to be blamed for their
unbelief or crimes, than the winds which blew down the trees, still
contended that evil-doers should be put to death, to furnish powerful motives or circumstances to prevent others from doing evil.
D'Alembert, another leader of the same school, used his influence
with the Censor of the Press in France, to induce him to suppress
the writings of such as wrote against himself; and when the Censor
of the Press sent him a letter mildly declining to do so, he cursed
and swore, and in his fury tore the letter to pieces.  When the
believers in irresponsibility in France got hold of political power,
their deeds of blood and death were revolting and diabolical beyond
all parallel.  The ministers of religion were hung to the lamp-posts
without a trial: the guillotine was kept going night and day:
terror seized on all hearts, and a cruel death presented itself to
every eye.  The history of the dreadful deeds perpetrated by the
disciples of irresponsibility in France, is about the darkest, the
most appalling, and the most heart-rending tale in the whole history of crime."
Also page 418 of the same book, answering the
131st infidel objection, viz:
"What half century has produced more wars than the last?"
Ans. And in what half century have infidel philosophers and
statesmen had so much to do with the affairs of nations?  The
horrors of the last century should teach us what we are to expect
when power falls into the hands of unbelievers.  Compare  the
history of Europe when power was in the hands of such men as
the infidel Frederick, and the infidel philosophers of France, with
the history of Philadelphia for seventy years, while under the government of Christians, and you may then find the secret of the
world's troubles, and you may see that the only hope of mankind
is in the spread of the principles of the Gospel."
As I have yet a few moments, let me say, if the
Gospel is not true, if Christ did not rise from the
dead, all that man can calculate upon is the present
life. If this is all, my main objections to slavery are
removed.  It has long been a settled sentiment of my
mind, that if this life is not preparatory to another,
the elevation and refinement of man is unfriendly to
his happiness. In that view I would say with the 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
heathen, " Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we
die."           What may suit a man's inclinations are his
chief good. If this be so, I must say with Mr.
Barker, the Christian religion is not best calculated
to promote human happiness, (we should say gratification,) as it forbids jesting, laughing, etc., it is
said that slaves usually enjoy the "jest," the
" laugh,"   the " ludicrous tale," the "merry dance"
quite as well as their masters do-perhaps as well as
Mr. Barker. Mr. Barker, if there is no immortality
for man, let the slaves alone, for the more ignorant
and brutish, the less they will feel when they come
to die. All the ox suffers in his exit is the pain of
dying, while the infidel philosopher suffers infinitely
more from the gloomy prospect of being as though he
never had been            "Go mock majesty! go, man!
And bow to thy superior of the stall;
Through every scene of sense, superior far;
They graze the turf untill'd; they drink the stream
Unbrew'd, and ever full, and unimbittered
With doubts, fears, fruitless hopes, regrets, despairs;
When the worst comes, it comes unfeared-one stroke
Begins and ends their woe; they die but once;
Bless'd incommunicable privilege;  for which,
Proud man who rules the globe and reads the stars,
Philosopher or hero, sighs in vain.
Then the moral offense of slavery is taken away.
From that point I have brought my best arguments
against slavery; so have the most efficient pleaders
of the cause of the oppressed.  William L. Garrison's
best appeals have been from the Bible in behalf of
the moral condition of the slave, as his writings
clearly show.
311 
312    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
MR. IIARTZEL'S CLOSING ADDRESS.
It is very common with disputants of a certain
class, to speak vauntingly in their closing addresses,
of what they have done, and what their opponents
have not done. It never was so with me. It is not
so now. If my work is not done now, it will have
to go undone. It would have seemed more proper
for Mr. Barker, instead of telling what he had done,
to let somebody else decide what he had proved and
disproved. I will trust to the good sense of the audience. I know the course pursued by declaimers in
discussion is to parade what they have done with
great assurance.  He has repeatedly said, that we
wandered out of our course in this discussion; perhaps so, the report will decide that question.
Mr. Barker has brought forward this again-" Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." We have
already stated, that the word ",ate,"' in the Bil)le,
often means " to love less," or "to give preference
to another," (so defined by Webster.) "And I hated
Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste
for the dragons of the wilderness."-Malachi 1: 3.
Never has anything been more literally fulfilled than
the predictions concerning Esau. I cannot offer
many proofs now. The prophetic denunciations
against  Esau and his descendants are numerous.
The prophets declare, expressly, that his heritage 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
shall be laid waste, etc.  " There shall not be any
remaining of the house of Esau: for the Lord hath
spoken it."-Obadiah 18. Of Jacob, Esau's brother,
Jeremiah says:  " Israel shall not cease to be a nation
before me forever."
About the beginning of the Christian era, the
land of Edom was destroyed. Petra, the capital of
Edom, has long been in ruins; and not so much as a
representative has Esau-even his name is blotted
out from nuder Heaven. Jacob, the twin brother of
Esau, has yet more than four million of representatives. God had a reason for prefering Jacob as an
honored progenitor of the Messiah, and rejecting
Esau, for making them the subjects of prophecy, and
the fulfilment of prophecy. Their pre.sent condition
is a clear proof of the truth of God; ail the world is
witness. All the predictions of the Old Testament
have a direct bearing upon the Gospel, its times and
circumstances. The Gospel is so interwoven with
the history of those days, that it forms an essential
part of the history of the Roman Empire during its
decline and fall. The prophecies have been one of
the most knotty questions that infidels have had to
deal with, because of their direct bearings upon the
propagation of Christianity. Gibbon has attempted
to account for the early prevalence of Christianity,
by leaving prophecy out of the number of his secondary causes.  "Infidelity Refuted by Infidels," pages
258, 259, Gibbon says:
"We may still be permitted, though with becoming submission,
to ask, not indeed what were the first, but what are the secondary
313 
314    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
causes of the rapid growth of the Christian church? It will, perhaps, appear that it was most effectually favored and assisted by
the five following causes:
"1. The inflexible, and if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish
religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit, which,
instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the
law of Moses.
"2. The doctrine of a future life, improved by evely additional
circumstance which could give weight and efficacy tothat important
truth.
"The miraculous power which was ascribed to the primitive
churches.
"4. The pure and austere morals of the Christians.
"5. The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which
gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the healt
of the Roman Empire."
Candor,would have required him to inquire into
the primary causes first, but then he would soon have
found himself entangled with the evidence of prophecy. If we had time, we would amplify here. We
must, however, refer to these secondary causes"the miraculous powers that were ascribed to the
primnitive church."   ile did not say, the "miraculous
power" possessed by the primitive Christians -that
would not have answered his purpose. That would
have accounted for the origin of Christianity. Who
then did ascribe " miraculous powers " to the primitive churches?   Miraculous powers  are  among  the
means of extending the Gospel, and must have been
awarded to the rimitive churches by the unconverted, otherwise miraculous powers  could  not have been
a cause of multitplying converts to Christianity.*
*Nothing has been more perplexing to infidels than to account for thie o igin of Christianity upon their own prineiples. Therefore Gibbon,'hi, master SOPHIST, steps,v r
all the primary, the originating eausen, and seeks to accon.t tor its rapid growth by
secondary causes. This only aggravates the dfficiilty, he says: "The virtues, energy,
and zeal of the earlychurch was a main instrument of the su,c.,: s of Christianity, wheras
it is the very origination of the early church, with all these EFFICACIOUS and EDOW 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
Our friend has called in question the credibility of
Ce]sus.
Mr:; Barker. Did I call in question the credibility
of Celsus? Nothing of the kind. I claimed that
Celsus was not a witness in the case.   Ido not deny
but that he was an excellent man.
Mr. Hartzel. It was not then the credibility of
Celsus he called in question. We will simply read
an extract, for which we are indebted to Joseph Barker.  See "Christianity Triumphant," page 26:
"Celsus was another enemy of the Christians, and wrote against
them 140 years after Christ's ascension; but his charges, when
properly understood, are so many commendations."
Celsus must, then, have seen enough of the Christian religion to know something about it, and we receive him as a concurring witness.
Mr. Barkerhas again called in question some matters
connected with the affairs in France, at the time
ENITS that we want to account for.  It is ss thloughl he had told me that we might account
for the scess of Christianity, trom the fact that it had succeeded to suchb an extent as to
render its  rther  success  very probable"  As for these secondary causes, when examined in the light of candid reason and fact. they were so many lhi,derances.  Is it at all
probable that the "early" Christiains by their itolerant zeal "could have TEASED both
Jews and Gentiles into the belief and practical acceptance of a religion the opposite of
theirs, and  t war with   their habits of life? Or, that the doctrine of a filture life "
to be enjoyed ONLY upon the condition of' denying all usgodliness and wordly lusts,
and living soberly, righteously, and godly, in the present world," would have given to
Christianity such powerful attractions, when viewed with the eye of an ACCOMMODATING
JOVIAL HwoATHElSM," it wolId have bee, "about  as inviting to the soul of a heathen
as the promise of an eternal lent  to an EPICURE."  Again, the miraculous power
ascribed to the primitive churches, but not possessed on infidel principles, was one of
the auxiliary causes of the' rapid growth " of Christianity.  There is alatent insinuation in this, which betrays a want of candor on the part of the historian.
VgThe history of the New Testament declares that the miracles were exhibited, not to
such ONLY as were in favor with the new religion, (as are the pretended miracles of
Papists, and Mormons, to confirm those who are already initiated,) but in the presence
of multitudes of t e most astute eagle-eyed eremies.  These New Testament facts are
confirmed by the prefane history ofthosa times. Why not assail these historic facts?
Why not attack Christianity in the FRONT rather than the REAR? Ahl that would have
brought him in contact with its origin. The supernatural causes which called it into
existence; nothing but these mighty agencies, and its aggressive character can solve the
PROBLEM of its "rapid growth." Gibbon's failure is apparent to all; for his five reasons
fail to account for the ear,y triumphants of the Gospel.  Still, his testimony is invaluable, as it bears upon the "pure" and holy lives of the first Chrietians.
315 
316    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
infidelity was in the ascendant.  "Christianity Triumphant," page 340:
"When the believers in irresponsibility in France got hold of
political power, their deeds of blood and death were revolting and
diabolical beyond all parallel. The ministers of religion were hung
to the lainp-posts without a trial; the guillotine was kept going
night and day; terror seized on all hearts, and a cruel death presented itself to every eye.  The history of the dreadful deeds pei-etrated by the disciples of irresponsibility in France, is about the
darkest, the most appalling, and the most heartrending tale in the
whole history of crime."
Mr. Barker has contradicted himself in his denial
of what I said concering French Atheism, and is my
witness against himself. I have not called in question
the character of unbelievers, during this discussion,
until my last speech, and then I did it from a sense
of duty, in the language of Mr. Barker, as found in
his  own  writings.  With  regard  to Mr.  Barker's
universal salvation, I have certainly no objection. I
only fear the doctrine is not true. But I do certainly
hope, that these " murderers of fathers " and " murderers of miothers," he expects to take with him to
the realms of bliss, will be "Pharisee" enough to
"wash" their "hands" before  they step  into the
presence of the Eternal.
We will now attempt a brief recapitulation.   Our
first argument was on the "authenticity of the Old
Testament Scriptures." We claimed that the Old
Testament Scriptures existed for fifteen hundred years
before the coming of Jesus Christ. That thereligion
of the "Jews  had  certain public observances  and
institutions."
1. These  imply,  that there  was a  "cause," a 
CHARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITYT.
" reason," to which they owed their " origin," and
that God, himself, was the athor of them.
2. "That there was a time when that religion
began."  That time was the period of the Egyptian
PharaoJs.
3.  "That there was a place where these religious
institutions began to be observed." That place where
they began to be observed was Egypt; but more fully
revealed to the Israelites during their sojourn in the
wiglderness.
4. " That there was a person through whose instru mentality, mainly, this religion  had  its origin;"
and it was the concurrent testimony of many writers,
that Moses was the man commissioned of God to
conduct the Israelites into the land of promise.  That
MAoses had given proof that the Lord had commissioned him to engage in the great work of their deliverance from bondage, and was God's oracle and lawgiver to the nation.
5. That all the Old Testament writers  all the
New  Testament writers -Josephus-a number of
German and Portuguese Jews, together with Volney,
attest the authenticity of the Pentateuch.  We offered
Volney, a learned and virulent infidel, as a witness
of the historic credibility of the law of Moses; blut
Mr. Barker says he has nothing to do with Volney.
I will read from Volney again, page 33:
"This stream of water without an issue is the river Jordan, and
those lnaked rocks were once the theatire of events which have
resounded through the world. Behold that desert of Horeb, and
that Mount Sinai, where by means unknown to the vulgar, a pro
317 
318    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
found and adventurous leader created institutions, whose influence
extended to the whole human race."
This is a most  important  testimony,  bearing
directly upon the " authenticity of the Old Testament
Scriptures."  But Mr. Barker, in his 8trait, sets
aside the testimony of infdels as well as that of
Christiams.
Again: in the Old Testament we have a series of
predictions, with reference to many cities of antiquity,
such as Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, Jerusalem, etc. I
offered Volney as a witness, that these prophecies
have been fulfilled; that these cities have all been
destroyed, and these countries made desolate. I-e
says, that in " traveling three days, he passed over
the ruins of a hundred large cities in the land of
Syria."  After having viewed this fearful desolation,
so minutely foretold by the prophets, and their predictions literally fulfilled, he fully justifies the predictions by this exclamation, so full of descriptive emotion: " Great God! whence proceed such fatal revolutions? What causes have so altered the fortunes
of these countries? Why are so many cities destroyed? Why has not this ancient population been
reproduced and perpetuated?" So Volney gives just
as many good testimonies as there are cities in ruins,
or countries depopulated. And having given his
testimony to the fulfilment of these predictions, we
give the testimony of more than a hundred witnes ses: Every city in ruin, and country in desolation,
is a witnessfor tAe truth of God. 
CHIIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
6. Again: we showed that God fulfilled his pro   mises to Abraham: that the Jews were still "a great
nation; " that Abraham had still "a great name; "
and, that his seed had been " a blessing to all fami  lies (nations) of the earth."
7. That the prophecies in regard to the destruction
and preservation of the Jewish nation had been lite  rally and miraculouslg fulfilled.
8. That a series of predictions had been fulfilled
with respect to the time of Christ's coming, and the
beginning of his earthly reign.
9. That another class of prophecies had been
accomplished in regard to the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ.
10. That Jesus Agmselfhad rested his pretensions to
the Messiahship upon a series of predictions, the most
complex imaginable.  That he would be put to death
in a certain way, and by certain hands; that he
would "rise again the third day," and "ascend to
Hieaven;" that the Apostles should witness these
things. They did.
11. That such demonstrations were essential to the
future propagation of his religion, and the extension
of his kingdom in the world. All these things, with
such details as we were able to make, we brought to
bear directly upon the first feature of the proposition,
namely: " that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures
contain a series of communications supernaturally
revealed and miraculously attested-in the latter,
man has a perfect rule of life." We did not say all
319 
320    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
men, but we said man has a "perfect rule of life."
We opened our defense of this by showing, that
nothing short of infinite wisdom and goodness could
give such "a rule of life."  Specific arguments were
offered in defense of this affirmation.
1. The duties of "husbands" and "wives.">  These
we showed were perfectly philosophical, because in
harmony with the differing peculiarities of man and
woman.
2. That the parental obligations, as taught in the
New'Testament, are no less in harmony with these
relations, and the promotion of the highest degrees of
domestic happiness.
3. So of filial obligation. The regulations given
in the New Testament in this respect, are, as in the
other case, in the highest degree calculated to promote filial respect, with the faithful discharge of corresponding obligations.
4. That the Gospel was especially favorable "to
the poor" in providing for their wants; requiring
the "strong to bear the infirmities of the weak."
5. That the Gospel both in principle and in practice was opposed to "war," and that the words,
warrior and Chri8stian were a contradiction in terms
when viewed in the light of the Gospel.
6. That the Christian religion was not favorable
to the relation of " master" and "slave;" that the
instructions Christ gave to his Apostles and they to
the churches, did encourage manumissiondestroyed 
CIHARG   OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
the property feature in the relation and forbade its
exstensio.,- 
7. That the biographical writers of the Old and
New Testaments, possessed a pecualiarity of char acter, such "  is nowhere to be found among unin spired biographers.  They never "praised"-they
never "blamed," but contented themselves with a
plain statement of facts.  If you believe Mr. Barker,
they never censured, though they did record many
things disgraceful to the beloved subjects of their
memoirs, without flattering their virtues, or animadverting upon their weaknesses.   Now be it distinctly understood, that any opinion
of theirs on moral good or evil, interspersed with
their biographical sketches, would have been most
fatal to the whole of the divine revelationi, as that
would have corrupted the text and a ftalse standard
of virtue would havc been introd'ued. 
8. We offered an argument on miracles, claiming
that the mirales of the New Testament were either
masterly frauds or fictions, if they were not fats.
What did Mr. Barker say to that argument?  He
said they were fictions, but he offered no argument
to prove that they were not real-miracles.  We
proved that the miracles are so blended  with the
whole history of the Christian religion, that it is
impossible to separate them from  either the promissory or preceptive pars, or to read the history
of those times without coming in contact with records
11
321 
322    DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST TIoE
referring to the miracles of the New Testament, as
one of the means by which the Christian lreligion
was propagated.
9. The Christian religion did not aimn at putingdown
moral evil by prohibitory laws.   Prohibitory laws
cannot put down any system of evil.  Prohibitory
laws, unless the people are in favor of them, and
public sentiment will sustain them, are vain and
foolish, and can accomplish no good.. low long
have we been laboring to put a stop to the sale of
ardent spirits as a beverage by prohibitory laws?  It
is according to our experience and observation, that
prohibitory laws, when the public bias is against
them, are of no avail.  
Mr. Barker.  The Maine law has proved efficient
in doing away intemperance.
Mr.  I Hartzel.  Where sir? 
Mr. Barker. If Mr. Hartzel introduces new matter,
I must reply to him..   Mr. Hatzel.  I had spoken before in relation to
prohibitory laws., I am only repeating what I have
before said- that the condemnnation.-of social lega lized wrongs, can accomplish nothing in building up
a new system. Every such attempt in the beginning
of the Gospel would have resulted in defeat..
Mr. Barker will  not, nay he cannot, raise. an
objection. here, for he has most clearly proved by his
former writings, that the Gospel affected slavery with
all other organic evils by moral principle and not by
political action. The Gospel therefore did not begin 
CIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
in this way.  It went forward upon principles perfectly unique and original. Nothing short of an
infinite mind could have devised a scheme so efficient to the removal of evils of such general prevalence, sanctioned by law, consecrated by age, and
so congenial to the depraved heart as slavery, polygamy, war, etc.
Paganism, by the power of positive laws, could
never have abolished them; and Judaism could only
show their  enormities, "for by  the law is the
knowledge of sin," and restrain them to some extent.
But a system of moral principles established by God,
were the means by which it was effected.  The
Gospel exercised an influence where it was believed
and obeyed, that brought about this revolution.  Its
principles are designed to promote all thesehappy
results.
10. The facts of history show-Mr. Barker's own
writings show, that the Christian religion contains a
system of ethical duties thatare adapted to every
state of society- based upon man's relations and in
perfect harmony with them.
Thus I feel I have sustained my proposition. It
is not for me to boast of what I have done (as Mr.
Barker did) or say what my opponent has not done,
but will leave the matter with the audience and the
public for their consideration and candid decision.:
I regret that I have not been able to make a-better
defense of a cause so good, and means so' ample. I
,do not say I feel satisfied.   I ought rather to regret
,323 
324   DEFENSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THE
that I have not been more successful in arranging
and classifying my proofs so as to bear more directly upon the question.  I have, however, done the
best I could. All my circumstances have been unfavorable.  The state of my health and other circumstances which I might name, have operated against
me.
Now I am willing that the report of thlis discussion
shall be published in proper form, and let it go to the
world.  We will send it out upon a mission, and let
it accomplish all1 the good it can.  I did not desire
the publication of my speeches when I left home.  I
knew not that Mr. Barker desired a report, or that he
had made arrangements, to -that effect.  It-was with
the utmost reluctance that I consented to it.
I feel myself nnder great obligations to the friends
and citizens of Salem for their respectful attention
and orderly behavior during the several sessions of
this discussion.  I fee thankful for the liberality with
which they opened to me their houses, and treated
both myself and several members of my family with
the utmost Christian kindness and hospitality.  I
also feel much obliged to the moderators of this dis cussion.   They have presided impartially. - And
lastly I wish to say that I have no aunklind feelings
towards my friend Mr. Barker.  I hope always to
meet him on terms of friendship; as his views now
are, of course we cannot aguree in sentiment.  Per haps we shall agree better hereafter, if not, no matter,
that concerns another.  If I regard him in great 
CHIARGES OF MODERN INFIDELITY.
error, as I surely do, I hope ever to give him the
kindliest treatment, and feel the most affectionate
regard for the welfare of Joseph Barker, with whom
I have discussed great principles for five days successively. Farewell.
We certify that the foregoing report of Mr. Iartzel's part in the
discussion betweea himself and Mr. Barker, is correct.
JAMES BARNABY,  l Reporters
CAROLINE STANTON,
RESPECTFCLLY SUBMITTED TO THE READER.
P'erhaps you  are especially interested in the  ropagation of
the Gospel.  By this Imean the multiplication   f converts to
Christ. -Then, give attention to the following argument:  Since
infidels are so straitened to account for the early propagation  of
Christianity, why  have they' not undertaken to show that the
Augustan age was especially favorable to the introduction of a
religious fraud?  Surely there is an argument to be drawn from that
source, favorable or unfavorable!i If it had been'a time of great
political agitation; if the empire had, at that time, been convulsed
with civil dissentions, or by foreign aggression; if the public mind
had been occupied with the exciting interests of war, how eagerly
would they call to their aid such facts, to show ihat'Christianity
had chosen a favorable time-a time when the wrise were otherwise
employed, and could not investigate the claims of the new religion,
and that Christianity had, in' a stealthy way  taken'possession, and
then by the aid of pretended miraculous powers, managd' to hold
itsifooting. but infinite wisdom cut off every plea of that kind,' and
sent the Gospel into the world at a'time the most'favorable,'to put
all its pretensions to the severest test-a time of universal peacea time when learning and philosophy prevailed; when the -Greeks
were seeking after wisdom," and the wise had both time and inclination to examine every new thing; when the world w'as full of
religion, and scepticism; when some w'orshiped all the gos'and
others derided them all.  The Augustan age would.have been tlhe
most unsuitable for a religious adventure, and nothing but the most
convincing evidence coulfd have gained for the Go'pel a reception.
*                       ~~~~~~~~* 
32,5 
926    D]lTXEiSE OF THE BIBLE AGAINST THIE
In the history of Christianity, as recorded by the New Testament
Writers, we have the only rational account of its origin. Every
attempt to account for its existence upon other principles have
proved a failure. Neither can its propagation be accounted for on
other principles than its proselyting character imprinted upon every
page of theGospel by the hand of its benignant author.  "I came
to seek and to save the lost."  But for this you would never have
seen a Bible, or yet have been troubled with reading this defense
of it. Let not the unsustained assertion, that the Christian religion
is like any other religion, promote a feeling of indifference to its
claims. Let me ask you, "Is it like the other religious products of
human nature, in daring to aspire to universal dominion, and that
too founded on moral power alone? Never, till Christianity appeared, had such an imagination ever entered the mind of man! I
Other religions were national affairs; their gods never dreamed of
such an enterprise as that of subduing all nations.  They were
naturally contented with the country that gave them birth, and the
homage of the race that worshipped them.  They were, when not
themselves assailed, very tolerant, and did the civil thing by all
other gods of alL other nations, and were even contented to expire
with great propriety (they usually did so) with the political extinction of the race of their votaries!  Christianity alone adopts a
different tone," Go ye, and preach the Gospel to all nations,"and declares, not only that it wiU reign, but none other shall. it
will not endure a rival; it will not consent to have a statue with
the mob of the Pantheon. Whether this ambition -call it pride
and folly, if you will, as you well may if the thing be merely
human -was likely to suggest itself to man, considering the local
and national character of other religions, and the apparent hopelessness of any such entertrise, I have my doubts.  An'ogance it
may be, but it is not such artogance as is very natural to man.
"These, I said, were amongst a few of the things in which I must
say I thought the theory of Christianity very unlike that of any
religion human nature was likely to invent.
"If, I continued, I examine the past history and present position
of Christianity, with an impartial eye, I see that it presents, in
several mnost important respects, a contrast with other religions in
point of fact.  I shall content myself with enumerating a few.
Look, then, at the perpetual spirit of aggression which characterizes this religion; its undeniable power (in whatever it consists,
and from whatever it springs) to prompt those who hold it to render
it victorious,-a spirit which has more or less characterized its whole
history; which still lives, even in its most corrupt formns, and which
has not been least active in our own time.  I do not see any thing
like it in other religions.  Till I see Mollahs from  Ispahan, Brahmins from Benares, Bonzes from China, preaching their systems of
religion in London, Paris, and Berlin, supported year after year by 
CIIARGI OF MOOF   X IXFIbP,LITY.
an enormous expediture on the part of their zealous comnpatriots, and
the nations who support them taking the liveliest interest in their
success or failure; till I see this (call it fanatical if you will, the
moniey thus expended wasted, the men who give it fools,) I shall
not be able to pronounce Christianity simply on a par with other
religions. 
"Till the sacred books of other religions can boast of at least a
hundredth part of the same efforts to translate and diffuse thehn as
have been concentrated On the Bible  till we find them at least in
half as many languages; till they can render those who possess
them at least a tenth part as willing to make costly efforts to insure
to them a circulation co-extensive with the family of man; till they
Occupy an equal space in the literature of the world, and are equally
bound up with the philosophy, history, poetry, of the community of
civilized nations; till they have given an equal number of human
communities a written language, and mnay thus boast of having imparted to large sections of the human family the germ of  li art,
science, and civilization; till they can cite an equal amount of testimonies to their beauty and sublimity from those who reect their
divine original-I shall scarcely think Christianity can be put
simply on a par with other religions.
"Till it can be said that the sacred books of other religions are
equally unique in relation to all the literature in which they are
imbedded; similar neither to what precedes nor What comes after
them, -their enemies themselves being judges; till they can be
shown to be as superior to all that is found in contemporaneous
authors as the New Testament is to the writings of Christian
Fathers or the Jewish Rabbis,- I cannot say that Christianity is
just like any other religion.
"Till we can find a religion that has stood as many different
assaults from infidelity in the midst of it, -educated infidelity,
infidelity aided by learning, genius, philosophy, freely employing
all the power of argument and all the power of ridicule to disabuse
its votaries; till we can find a religion which can point to an equal
array of educated men, philosophic in spirit, in learning, and genius, deeply skilled in the investigation of evidence, deliberately
declaring that its claims are well sustained, -we cannot say that
Christianity is just like any other-religion.
Till it can be shown that another religion, to an equal extent,
has propagated itself without force amongst totally different races,
and in the most distant countries, and has survived equal revolutions of thought and opinion, manners and laws, amongst those
who have embraced it, it cannot be said that Christianity is like
any other religion.
"Till it can be shown that the sacred books of other religions
have contained predictions as definite and as unlikely to be fulfilled
as the success of early Christianity against all the opposition of
21 
328    DEFENSE OF TIHE BIBLE AGAINST THE
prejudice and persecution, -its voluntary reception amongst different races contrary to all the analogies of religious history, - and the
continued preservation of the Jews among all nations without form.
ing a part of ally, -I cannot think that Christianity is precisely in
the condition of any other religion."
Again, it is unlike any other religion in its all-subduing influence
of men's lusts and passions.  When its precepts are obeyed, and its
divine spirit is enjoyed, the "Lion has become a Lamb."  It subdued the fierce spirit of a Saul of Tarsus, and thousands have been,
and now are the living monuments of its regenerating power.  Mr.
Barker, too, gives the most decided testimony to this point.  Christianity Triumphant, page 324, he says:  "I was once as violent and
revengeful as a youth could - easly be: a provocation would have
thrown me into a fury, and an injury would have been almost sure
to be followed with revenge.  But that is not the case with me now;
the religion of Christ has produced a happy change.  Nor  has
Christianity produced any mischevous effects  upon  any of my
kindred or acquaintances.  My parents have been believers in the
religion of Christ, and have lived under the influence of its prin ciples for forty years; but it never made them either vicious or
miserable." Finally, it is not a choice between many things; but
a few important alternatives we submit to the reader.
It is to receive the testimony of Prophets and Apostles concerning
Jesus Christ. The testimony of many early infidels and enemies as
concurring witnesses. The testimony of universal history. to the
beneficial influence of the Gospel, in rescuing our sin-ruined world
from ignorance, idolatry, and crime; or it is to receive the unsus tained assertions consisting of, ridicule, misrepresentation, detraction
and calumny, dogmatically affilrmned and maintained against Christ;
for whatever is uttered against Christianity, is said against Jesus
Christ. What think you of Christ? is a question of momentous
importance, for weal or for woe.
It is not a choice of religions, but will you have the Christian
religion! or no religion?  Will you enjoy its present blessings of
peace and pardon, and the hope with which it inspires, the bosom of
its possessor, of eternal blessedness. Upon what will you build your
hopes for the future? If not upon the Gospel, what then; upon what
form of infidelity? You know that many systems of infidelity are now
abandoned.  All who have trusted to these have been cheated.  Is it
not probable that the current infidelity will, also, be abandoned.
Joseph Barker says, this is "probable."  Infidelity is a negation, a
denial of something that is.  I admire its prudence, as it has noth  ing to give; it offers nothing.  What are its promises for the present,
or its pleasures for the future?  It impudently asks you to give
something for nothing.  Would you think it honest to take even a
toy, or a picture from a child, or a bone from a dog, without satis  factory equivalent? yet infidels would take from you the most 
CHARGES  OF MODERN  INFIDELITY.                   329
exalted system of divinity, the purest system of morality, and that
only which can inspire your soul with the hope of "eternal life."
They would cut every cord that binds you to the throne of God. I
know not what infidels can propose as the object of their toils, but
to detach man' from his Maker, and let the wreck float upon the
ocean of doubt and uncertainty.
"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I
will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me: for
I am meek and lowly in healt, and you shall find rest unto your
souls. For my yoke is easy, and my' burden is light." 
ERRATA.
Page 28, 40th line, instead "George Lent," read "George Tait."
Page 34, 1st line, for " some have exodiums," read "sermons have exordiums.?
Page 36, 6th line, for "me," read "it."'
Page 39, 15th line, for "this," read "then."
Page 49, 5th line, for "opposite," read "apposite."
Page 55, 18th line, for "quantity," read "quality."
Page 75, 14th line, for "translated," read "transmitted."
Page 84, 7th line, for "with," read "of."
Page 86, 19thline, for "presentation," read "preservation"
Page 125, 5th line from bottom, for "even," read "ever,"
Page 128, 13th line, for "eyes," read "ears. "
Page 172, 9th line from bottom, for "not," read " now."
Page 174, 9th line from bottom, for "civil," read "rival."
Page 192,10th and 11th lines, for "Christians," read "Christianity."
Page 193, 1st line, for "expelled," read "excepted."
Page 253, 15th line, for "not," read "next."
NOT].-Will the reader turn to page 29, and read the following sentence: " I became
satisfied that he either did not comprehend a business obligation, or that he was unwilling to do what was right."  Mr. Heaton, in a letter now before me, desires me to say,
that this remark had a special reference to Mr, Barker's "asking one hundred copies of
the book for writing his appendix."  See page 30.
AUTHOR.