then all future human beings existed in embryo in them. And if it be true that Levi paid tithes in Abraham, and that we sinned in Adam, then it will be true that a virtuous scion of the bad house of Borgia is vicious, and was vicious before he was born, and if he had never been born would have been vicious also. It is seldom we can get clergymen of character and standing in the Church of England thus candidly to admit the shocking incoherences of their position. Here is a clergyman holding the doctrine that man has a free will, and yet holding that he was bound in sin many generations before he had the opportunity of exercising that will.]

To the answer that slavery being an existing institution, a wise_legislator regulates it with reference to its "final extinction," Dr. Baylee makes the following addition:

"This distinction of the office of the legislator from that of the instructor is of the highest importance in regulating the conduct of our daily life." [Dr. Baylee forgets that his legislator and instructor should possess infinite wisdom and power, and that there should be no clashing of the attributes of Deity, or of the mode in which he acts; and that, if such a clashing or contradiction be found, then it is evident either that God had not infinite wisdom, and could not plan so as to avoid confusion, or that he had not infinite power, and could not carry out his plans, or that he had not infinite goodness, and would not.]

To the questions on Lev., xxiv., 44-46, Dr. Baylee adds:

"As a legislator, permission is given; as an instructor, the principle is disapproved of. Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, gave you this precept; but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt., xix., 8).

To the answers on Deuteronomy, xxi., 10 to 14, Dr. Baylee appends this

note:

"By the laws and usages of war at that period, a captive woman without the rights of concubinage or inferior marriage, would have been exposed to far worse evils. The true view of this case is the elevation of the woman to a higher state than the prostitution to which otherwise she should have been exposed."

[If this be true, then Dr. Baylee admits that so much of the Bible, at any rate, is not God's revelation to all people, in all time, but only an endeavour to make regulations for the conduct of a very uncivilised and licentious race, and is only applicable to them. This will absolutely contradict his admission made as follows:

"Iconoclast." Does the whole of that revelation apply to you? Dr. Baylee. It does.]

To the answer that God never has been seen and has been seen, Dr. Baylee affixes the following explanation :-"The rules of the debate required a categorical answer; otherwise I would have added, that the two assertions do not refer to the same sort of vision. When God manifested his presence by a visible glory, they were said to see God, because they saw that glory which was the manifestation of his presence. In the other statements the inspired writers are speaking of God as he exists in himself. In ordinary language we attach a similar variety of meaning to the verb to see-e. g., a blind man listening to an argument, when convinced, exclaims "I see, I see."

[This explanation is not a correct one. Was it the "glory" which Abraham invited to "rest under the tree?" Did Abraham speak to the "glory" when he said, "Let a little water be fetched and wash your feet?” (Genesis, c. xvili.) Was it the "glory" under whose feet there was, 88 it were, a paved work of sapphire stone?" Nay, in Exodus, c. xxiv., VV. 10 and 16, there is a clear distinction made between the "God of Israel" who was seen by the seventy-four, and "the glory of the Lord," which was seen by all the children of Israel. The addition is surely an attempt to evade a difficulty, not a fair endeavour to explain the text.]

On the second evening, first hour, "Iconoclast" asked, "Can two distinct things be the same thing?"

Dr. Baylee answered, "No;" but now adds, "The confusion by Mr. Bradlaugh here, is between the words persons and things; in theology a person means a mode of subsistence.”

[This explanation makes it no better. Are two differing modes of subsistence the same modes? Is there a special distinction between the theologic and the common sense meaning of words? If so, it will show the necessity for the care taken by "Iconoclast " not to admit words until their meaning had been defined.]

To the questions on the three days and three nights, Dr. Baylee adds the following notes:

"The facts of this case are simply these:

1. The hours of our Lord's crucifixion are reckoned by St. Matthew according to Jewish computation from sunset to sunrise, and again from sunrise to sunset. According to this, the ninth hour of St. Matthew would be our three o'clock in the afternoon; the same hours in St John, who wrote after the destruction of the temple, were reckoned after the Roman manner, from midnight to noon, and from noon to midnight. His sixth hour would be like ours, either sixth in the morning or sixth in the evening.

"2. In the Jewish computation our Lord gave up his life at the ninth hour, or three o'clock in the afternoon of our Friday; from that until the twelfth hour, or sunset, was still Friday. Then the Jewish Sabbath commenced, which ended at the sunset of our Saturday; from that onwards was the Jewish first day of the week.

"Our blessed Lord was thus part of three days in the grave, for we read that he was buried before the Sabbath.

"The phraseology days and nights' is explained in the answers given

above.

"The following passages prove the Jewish custom:

"THIRD DAY.

"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.'Matt., xvi., 21.

"THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS.

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.'-Matt., xii., 40.

"It is remarkable that it is only Matthew who speaks of three nights. "The other gospels were written for Gentiles, by whom the phrase would not have been so readily understood.

"They came while it was yet dark.' I mean by this answer our Saturday. From sunset to midnight of our Saturday was the Jewish firstday.-John, xx., 1.

"In the confusion unavoidable from our having to take down the questions in writing, and also the answers, I think I have ante-dated the time by a few hours."

[This attempt at explanation in nowise improves Dr. Baylee's position, but, on the contrary, rather injures him. According to his own case, it was three o'clock on Friday afternoon before Jesus died, and it was evening before Joseph of Arimathea obtained his body, so that Jesus could not bave been in the grave until Friday evening-that is, not until sunset on Friday. He admits also that the phrase, while "it was yet dark," wil mean some time on Saturday, and therefore he admits that Jesus was only in the grave from late on Friday until late on Saturday. We are

sorry to add that, feeling his difficulty, Dr. Baylee has further complicated the subject by entirely altering the answers he gave during the debate.] The following is the version now given :

"Iconoclast." Specify day by day, and night by night, the days and nights between late on Friday evening and before the end of Saturday?

Dr. Baylee. The Jewish mode of reckoning would be this:-Our Lord died before the Jewish Sabbath commenced (in the discussion I inadvertently called this Friday). They would call that one day and night; then the Sabbath (in the discussion I inadvertently called this Friday); then part of the first day of the week (in the discussion I inadvertently called this Saturday).

"I." Was Jesus three days and three nighis in the grave?

Dr. B. He was, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning.

"I." Give me in English, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, the names of the three days and the three nights that Jesus was in the grave?

Dr. B. Sixth day, seventh day, first day (inadvertently I called these 5, 6, 7 at the discussion, and Thursday for No. 44).

"I." As you have already said Jesus was not in the grave till late on Friday evening, and out on Saturday, how do you make three days and three nights?

Dr. B. It was on Friday evening that Jesus was buried.

"I." How do you account for your contradiction; is it simply to get out of a difficulty?

Dr. B. If I have said on Thursday it was an oversight. I should have said Friday. I am here to prove the infallibility of the Bible, not my own. [Even allowing the Doctor's correction, this only makes confusion worse confounded, for he has previously admitted that according to Matthew Jesus was never in the grave on the first day of the week.]

To the questions next quoted:

"I." Do you believe that Jesus was and is God?

Dr. B. He is God and man in One person.

66

'I." Do you believe that Jesus was and is God?

Dr. B. I do.

Dr. Baylee adds:

"Mr. Bradlaugh knows our doctrine about two natures in Christ; his evident object in the question was to fasten a contradiction on our belief in the feebleness of Christ's humanity, as if we imputed that to Deity." Dr. Baylee's report of the answer to Jephtha is thus varied:"I." Is Jephtha's conduct disapproved in any part of the Bible?

Dr. B. It is "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the taith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." (Col. ii., 12).

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deut. iv, v. 2).

"What thing soever I command you observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it" (Deut. xii., v. 32).

"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a kar" (Prov. xxx., v. 6).

"I." Is Jephtha's name ever again mentioned in the Bible? if so, where? Dr. B. It is not (This was an inadvertence-see Heb. xi., v. 32).

[I do not remember Dr. Baylee reading the texts above quoted, but assuming that he did, I ask-Is there the slightest connection between those verses and the sacrifice of Jephtha's daughter?]

After giving the first four of the questions put by Dr. Baylee, and answered by "Iconoclast," the Rev. Doctor remarks:

The reader will perceive in these four answers simply an evasion of the subject.

"Had Mr. Bradlaugh said he believed in intelligent causes, we should have at once proceeded to the real question-an intelligent first cause. Had he said he disbelieved in them, then we should have discussed the question, whether an intelligent result can be produced from a non-intelligent cause. The reader may judge whether Mr. Bradlaugh has any doubt that a very intelligent book on astronomy must have been written by an intelligent author; in other words, the author was the intelligent cause of the intelligent book.

"Let the reader judge from these, and the three following answers, whether Mr. Bradlaugh evaded the question of intelligence.

"The Atheist and the Theist both believe in first cause: the former a sel.-existing universe, the latter a self-existing, intelligent Being. To evade this question was therefore to evade the whole question-see his answer to questions 9 and 20."

[It is quite clear that Dr. Baylee does not at all comprehend the meaning o. the words he uses, or that if he does understand such meanings, then that it is he who confuses and evades the real points at issue. Does he use the word "intelligent" in relation to "cause," and in relation to "book," with precisely the same meaning? The Atheist does not believe in first cause. The Atheist does not recognise a term so misunderstood and tortured. The Atheist knows of existence, and he cannot with consistency apply to it either of the words "first "or "last." Indefiniteness of duration -infinity of duration, unlimited duration-preclude beginning or end.] On page 14 of his report, Dr. Baylee quotes the following question and

"" non

[If this be true, as the Doctor has improved his report, he might surely have added the explanation which he says I evade, or does he really not understand his own question? He uses the words "intelligent," intelligent," "intelligent result," "non-intelligent cause," but never ventures to add his own definition of the words.]

To the answer to the second question succeeding this, Dr. Baylee remarks:

"This answer involves the principle evaded in the foregoing questions. It admits that an intelligent result evidences an intelligent cause.'

[No more than a soft result evidences a soft cause. An "intelligent result," whatever that phrase may mean, cannot possibly evidence more than a sufficient cause for the intelligence. The cause of softness need not itself be soit.]

Dr. Baylee read the following protest previous to the opening of the discussion on Friday evening:

Mr. Chairman, before we enter further upon the proceedings of this our last meeting, beg to avail myself of the condition stated in a letter to you, part of which you read to this meeting last night. As you yourself read the latter part of the paragraph I am about to read, I shall not be chargeable with even the appearance of disrespect in again bringing it forward. It is this

"If you think proper to make any observations on the subject of the discussion, I must claim the liberty of protesting against any statement o yours as coming from one whose professional character I could not recognise as coming within the pale of Scriptural Christianity. This would introduce an element of discord which I hope you will be so good as to avoid."

I do not complain, Mr. Chairman, of your having expressed your sentiments, only I claim the privilege of this manner of protest. You declared yourself to be a Unitarian minister, and in doing so, added that provided men were honest in holding their opinions, they were equally innocent before God, whether Infidel, Deist, Unitarian, or Trinitarian. I claim to say that God allows no such liberty, but that He holds men awfully responsible for their opinions, declaring by His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, "He that believeth not shall be damned." I also, Mr. Chairman, claim permission to make a very brief statement respecting the principle of this evening's discussion. As chairman, you, last evening, rebuked me for placing my opponent in a ludicrous light, and for a time reused to act as chairman any longer. It may prevent a similar interruption if I make the following statements:

1. If an opponent evade the force of historic argument, by declaring his ignorance of those great facts of history which are well known to every educated man, it is my duty to expose that ignorance, and to show how unfit he is to enter upon a discussion in which the historic element forms an essential part.

2. If my opponent himself appeal to natural laws, and yet, when I question him about them, declares his ignorance of them, I have a right, and it is my duty to expose the true reasons of that professed ignorance.

3. If in conducting this discussion, when I employ the terms and words in ordinary use, my opponent professes ignorance of the meaning of those words, I have a right and it is my duty to convict him of assuming ignorance for the purpose of evading argument.

4. If by my questions I can reduce my opponent's assertions to an absurdity, it is my duty to do so, even at the risk of exposing those assertions to the laughter and ridicule of the audience.

5. If my opponent present himself in public as a denier of all that every thoughtful and moral man holds dear either for this world or the world to come, assuming the title " Iconoclast" which casts contempt and ridicule upon the philosophy, the morals, and the religion of his whole country, it is our duty, by the exposure of his personal ignorance and the absurdity of his opinions, to annihilate his pretensions to be listened to as a public teacher.

The Rev. William Binns, after reading the passage about_the_man in the moon, then said, I must make a few remarks in relation to Dr. Baylee's protest before this discussion goes any further. He has said some things with which I, of course, cannot agree; but I should be going out of my place as Chairman were I to reply to them now. He looks upon Unitarians as outside the pale of Scriptural Christianity; that is his opinion, and he has a right to hold it; but in his dogmatic expression of it, he surely forgets that it is just such language as I might also apply to him. But when both Unitarians and Trinitarians are seeking after the truth, it is not becoming in either party to call the other names. Invective is one thing, and argument is another. The justification which the Doctor thinks he has found for his conduct in my expression of opinion last night is only in appearance. I did not speak in favour of either side. I said that I dissented from both; and that was only said when I gave up the chair. I regret that at this point simple courtesy towards the Chairman did not teach the Rev. Principal of St. Aidan's to control himself. As to my