We have also contradictory accounts of the creation of man. In the first chapter, God is represented as creating the lower animals first, and man and woman after; while in the second chapter, God is represented as making man first, the lower animals next, and woman last of all, an indefinite period after. The passages are as follows. Gen. 1:24-28 :—

:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after its kind and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Read next, Genesis 2: 7,8, 15, 18-22. Here man is represented as formed first, as placed in the garden of Eden alone: as living some time alone: a time of indefinite length. God at length says, "It is not good for man to be alone:" and he makes the lower animals, and brings them all to Adam, to see what he would call them, in hopes, as it would seem, that Adam may find a suitable and satisfactory companion in some of them. But for Adam, there was found no helpmeet for him. It is now, after a lapse of time not measured, that God makes woman.

It should be observed, that the account in the second chapter of Genesis, beginning at the fourth verse, differs in many other particulars from the account given in the first chapter. In the second account, no mention is made of six days: nothing is said of God resting. God is spoken of under a different name; a different account is given of the origin of vegetables and plants, &c.; all going to show that the accounts are by two different authors.

REMARKS OF REV. DR. BERG.

[As the gentleman rose from his seat, there was a burst of applause; when he reached the stand, there was a second one, more general and enthusiastic. A few sounds of h'sh.]

My opponent compels me, by his present mode of argument, to lay aside the more calm discussion, which I would greatly prefer, from prepared notes, and to resort to extemporaneous refutation. I much regret that the preliminary arrangements of this discussion have been forgotten by my opponent, and that he introduces subjects entirely foreign to the topic in hand. The consequence of this is, that the form of the discussion is not regular; and that wherever he has wandered, I have been compelled to ask your indulgence in following him. I am glad that he did not repeat his charge against me, that I did not answer his objections. I have answered them as fast as I could talk; and he knows full

well, that it requires far less time to make an objection, than to answer it. I find, too, that his frequently-refuted arguments are again and again presented. Before I go further, I would respectfully remind my opponent that I have asked him several questions, which he has not yet answered. I would now repeat them, and again request an answer, whenever it may suit his convenience to give it, and not one moment before. I ask him

1. What is the name of the Supreme Being he worships? 2. What are the attributes of that Supreme Being?

3. How are these attributes revealed to him? How does he know these attributes belong to Him, when he does not know His name? He said that he had seen Infidels die without fear, because they believed in a God of love, free from malignity. This is true of Christians; their God is one of infinite compassion and love, and they go to him with the confidence with which they would to a father. My opponent says that the heathen know the attributes of the Supreme Being from his works, and that Paul affirms that His eternal power and love are known from Nature. These do not, however, include all the attributes of Jehovah. Now, I would like to know how the others were revealed to them; and I beg him to answer me, unless he is unable to tell.

My opponent discards the idea, that there is nothing besides laws for the government of the universe; he admits that there is something back of malaria, for the production of disease. This is certainly an advance towards the Orthodox faith. (General applause and laughter.) I am glad he is coming over, and that this discussion is doing him some good. But his views are not yet Orthodox. He admits that there is something back of marshes; that there are not only fixed laws, but a law-giver, who superintends and controls their operation. If he says that God fixes the laws, and then leaves their operations to take care of themselves, he is in the bog of atheism. (Slight applause and cries of h'sh.) I find myself under the necessity of correcting a few personal mistakes, for which my opponent is, perhaps, not to blame in one respect, but in another. A report published in some of the papers makes him say, that we were born and educated in the same borough.

Mr. BARKER.-I said that we were born under the same government, and that you were educated in the same parish in which I was born.

Dr. BERG.-I will state the way in which Mr. Barker became possessed of his information. In the preliminary arrangement for this discussion, Mr. Barker complained, that in a former debate, my friend, Mr. McCalla, had used his foreign origin to excite prejudice against him. I then said that I had crossed the water, too. But though there is this in common between us, there are some striking differences between us. I crossed when I was a child of 13 years of age; I received my educa tion in this country, and have been here twenty-eight years; and though I love its institutions, my opponent is no worse in my estimation, though he is from a foreign land. I shall ever look with love towards the land

where cluster my associations of school and childhood. But I would remark, that there is this difference between us:-I did not come to preach disorder and sedition; nor to upset the government and institutions of the country; nor to insist upon topics which—(murmurs of disapprobation, hisses, cries of question, and go on, bravos, and some applause; it was a minute or two before order was restored.)

Allow me, my friends, to finish my sentence, and do not take up my time with applause. In alluding to this topic, I disclaim all intention to excite any feeling of angry hostility against Mr. Barker. My only object was, to prevent the introduction into this debate of a topic wholly foreign to it, and which I have understood, from several sources, my opponent was resolved to force into it. I wished to forestal this, by stating the chief differences between us. I think that when a foreigner enjoys the benefit of our institutions, he should not interfere with them; that modesty requires him to leave their reform to those who are better entitled to discuss them. My opponent objects to the Scriptures, that the original MSS. are lost; and that there are diversities in the copies. I would ask him, what work of antiquity is not open to precisely the same objections? Is not the original MS. of Homer's Iliad lost? Are there not diversities in the copies preserved? Would he reject it on that account, and say that there is no such book? and that the story of Homer is entitled to no credit? Virgil's Eneid is in precisely the same case. And would he refuse to receive the Commentaries of Cæsar, because the original MS. is lost, and there are different readings? And let us come to modern times.

If I present you Shakspeare's plays, do you think of this? How about the original manuscripts? Well, where are they? Have they not been copied and re-copied? I do not pretend to deny, that in a work, the transcripts of which have been handed down from century to century, there are occasional interpolations. It is admitted that these exist in the Bible; but my opponent can make nothing of this. The tendency of his argument is to prove that there is no Bible; and it bears as severely on his side, as on mine. We have the highest judicial authority in Europe and the United States for saying that it is settled as law, that the best evidence is where substantial agreement is accompanied with circumstantial variety. The variations in Shakspeare are the best proofs of the former existence of an original, and thus is my opponent's argument on this point scattered to the winds. (Slight applause, a few hisses, and cries of h'sh.)

My opponent says that I called him some thirty or forty foul names. If I did, I am sorry for it. But I have no recollection of doing so. What I did, I may do again, for when this blessed book lays down a principle, I accept it as true. If it says that certain expressions are blasphemy, and a man uses them, he is a blasphemer, and I can't help it. If it says that persons who act in a certain way are children of the devil, and I call them by that name, I can't help it. All that I can say is, that if my opponent feels that the cap fits him, he can wear it.

My opponent has cited the denunciation by Christ of the Pharisees as applicable to ministers and professors of the Gospel, and quotes Isaiah to prove that the Jews were more vile than the Gentiles. Can this be a charge upon the Bible?

Does the prophet not utter his denunciations against those who refuse the Gospel? Does not Christ speak of the Scribes and Pharisees as his enemies? To the enemies of the Bible, then, do these passages refer. (Slight applause.) To them belongs the appellation of hypocrites; to them pertains the denunciation of Christ. Of them it is said, Ye serpents, how shall ye escape the damnation of hell? (General applause.) Again, he says that the Bible reflects upon the character of God, by representing salvation as withheld from nine tenths of the human family. My answer is, that all the gifts of God are gifts of grace; that men are by nature sinners, and have no claim, whatever, upon the justice of God; and that all his good acts towards his creatures are of undeserved favor. And let me tell him, that all the signs of the times indicate that the period spoken of in the Bible is approaching, when the light of the Gospel shall chase away all the clouds of error, when such a scene as this shall not be witnessed, and when a man shall not need to say to his neighbor, Know the Lord, for all shall know him, from the least to the greatest. God speed that glorious day, when Infidels shall cast their gods of darkness to the moles and to the bats!

My friend paid me a compliment, last evening, which it gives me great happiness to reciprocate. It is said, that to quote from a man is the highest compliment possible. He brought to your notice a sentiment uttered in a lecture of mine, which had found its way to him. I have something here (the Doctor held up a book) which he may recognise:

"But there are other facts which deserve observation. Many of the best men with whom I have had the happiness to be acquainted, have been great readers and great lovers of the Bible. Whether it was their attention to Bible teachings that made them good, or their goodness that led them to delight in Bible principles and influences, the result is equally in favor of the Bible. If the Bible made them good, then the Bible must be good in its tendency; and if it was their goodness that led them to delight in the Bible, there is an affinity between the Bible and goodness; they harmonize; therefore, the Bible must be good in its character.

"I have further to observe, that I never knew a bad, unprincipled man, a false and selfish man, a proud, a filthy, and malignant man, that did delight in the Bible. I have invariably found such characters despisers, neglecters or haters of the Bible. I have known many profligate Infidels, and they were all haters of the Bible. I have known many profligate priests, and they were the same. Whether men be Infidels or priests, if they are selfish, deceitful, proud or malignant, they are equally haters of the Bible. There is this difference: the profligate Infidel generally lets his hatred of the Bible appear, while the profligate priest labors to conceal his hatred of the Bible, that he may live and grow rich, by pretending to teach its principles. But even Infidels themselves pretend to love and revere the Bible sometimes, when its suits their interests; and even priests allow their dread and their hatred of the Bible to appear at times. But, whether they conceal or avow their hatred of the Bible, the profligate, the bad, whether priests or Infidels, will still be found to be despisers or haters of the Bible.

"I have had considerable acquaintance, both with Infidels and priests, so that I have had good opportunities of learning the truth on this subject. I have especially had good opportunities of learning the truth with respect to priests. And I feel bound to declare, first, that I have, in general, found them either the most ignorant, or the most wicked and malignant of men. Some of them are exceedingly ignorant; they study nothing; they know nothing; they care for nothing, but just going through the drudgery required of them by their pay-masters, and securing their living."

My opponent has also undertaken to laud the French Revolution.

Let us see what that Revolution was. I will read you a passage in reference to it, from Scott's Life of Napoleon :

[The Doctor here read from Scott, a passage descriptive of the horrors practised at Lyons, Nantes, and other cities of France, where large numbers of men were bound together, or shut up in the holds of ships, and sunk in the stream, and the sacrifice was called republican baptism; and when a man and woman were tied together and thrown into a river, and the murder was called a republican marriage.]

My opponent said that he loved the family institution, where there is one wife and one husband living together in love for the term of their natural life; but is it not true, that when you deny the Divine authority of marriage, you strike a blow at the very foundation of that institution? If it has no other basis than the human law, then has it no dependence or stability. Men devise law for themselves, and can change it to suit themselves; what laws they make, they can unmake; what they enact, they can annul; and unless there is a sanction higher and greater than any human authority, there is no stability whatever for this institution. But I will read you another passage from Scott. [The Doctor had commenced reading, when his time expired. As he took his seat, there was long applause.]

REMARKS OF JOSEPH BARKER.

Scott was a Scotch Tory; a reviler of the old Covenanters, who fought so nobly for their freedom, and a bigoted enemy of all reformers, whether political, civil, or religious. He was a miserable worshipper of rank and titles; a hater of republican democracy, and his writings are in harmony with his antediluvian notions. His remarks on the French Revolution are in keeping with his Tory feelings and prejudices. They will not weigh a feather with those acquainted with his character, and friendly to the cause of freedom. Even Alison, though a son of a Church of England clergyman, and himself very much of a Tory, supplies an answer to the random abuse of Scott. He observes, that the occasional excesses of the French revolutionists were no more than the natural results of the tyranny and oppression to which they had been so long subjected. Their rulers had used them like brutes, and had rendered them brutal; and when they broke their chains and found themselves free, they acted like brutes. The fault of their excesses belonged to the tyrants who had goaded and tortured them to madness. Use men as men, says Alison, and they will be men and act like men. Use them as brutes, and you make them brutes; and when left for awhile to themselves, they will act like brutes. Hence the historian wishes rulers to learn to treat men with justice and humanity while under restraint, that they may be fitted for freedom when the day of their enfranchisement arrives. Allow men freedom of thought and freedom of speech; favor free discussion ;- respect each other's right;-despise no man;-treat all with respect and candor ;-and you will thus develop in all the higher and nobler faculties, increase in all the power of wise self-government,