vacating the chair, I think now as I thought then, that it was the best thing that I could do; and I certainly should not have consented to preside again if the joint request of Dr. Baylee and Mr. Bradlaugh had not led me to think that there was an intention to conduct the discussion in a more seemly manner. I have read to you the passage about the man in the moon, which was the origin of the confusion of last night. The laughter and uproar which it caused is sufficient proof that it was altogether out of place. Solemn and sacred subjects, such as the two gentlemen have met to discuss, ought to be treated with more respect; those who want to create mirth and ridicule out of them had better hold their peace. The Doctor quoted in self-defence the Biblical proverb, "Answer a fool according to his folly.” But the very justification is a repetition of the offence. Disputants have no right to call one another fools; that is to sacrifice the search after truth to abuse and personality. Besides, that sentiment of the Hebrew writer must be interpreted by time and place. He does not say, Do so under all circumstances. And the question is, supposing that you have a fool to deal with, is it right to answer him according to his folly before an audience of seven or eight hundred excited people, when you know that the certain effect will be uproar, confusion, and shouts of laughter? Are men in a fit state to seek after truth when they are treated thus? You simply rouse their passions, and crush their reason. And besides, if you answer a fool according to his folly by talking folly to him in turn, what does it amount to? You have two people talking folly instead of one, which surely does not mend the matter. An incident lately occurred in Liverpool which is full of significance, and shows how necessary it is to adapt our conduct to circumstances, A Church of England clergyman had a Scripture reader who refused to let the Roman Catholics have any peace; his too ready tongue vigorously abused them wherever they could be found. In justification he was wont to quote the conduct of St. Paul at Ephesus, and when at length he was dismissed from his post as incorrigible, he quoted it again. The clergyman gave him a sufficient answer in saying, “Liverpool is not Ephesus, and you are not St. Paul." And so now, when a proverb of Solomon is quoted in defence of similar inappropriate conduct, it is enough to say, "Liverpool is not Palestine, and Dr. Baylee is not Solomon." I entreat, therefore, that to-night the peculiarity of the circumstances, and the sacredness of the subject, may inspire at least decorum, and an absence of that levity and personality of which we have already had too much. It has been said that ridicule is the test of truth; but it is not so. A clever and witty man may find absurdity in everything if he will. A slight twisting of a word or an exaggeratiom of an opinion is sufficient to extract ridicule out of the most sublime and solemn truths. But is it worthy of the subject, is it worthy of either Dr. Baylee or Mr. Bradlaugh to try to do so? Let both gentlemen fairly endeavour to apprehend one another's meaning, and fairly try to answer one another's questions without personality, without any attempts to create a laugh. If this be done the discussion will be useful, if not it will be thrown away. And with respect to the misunderstandings that there were last night, and may be again to-night, let all remember that there is much truth in the words of Pope: "Good nature with good sense must ever join, |