(Principal of St Aidan's Theological College, Birkenhead), AUSTIN & CO., 17, JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET, EO. 1860. 318 Baylec DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE (1326) REV. JOSEPH BAYLEE, D.D. (Principal of St. Aidan's College, Birkenhead), AND "ICONOCLAST." CONDITIONS OF DEBATE. 1. Mr. Bradlaugh's committee are to select the room, dispose of the tickets, undertake the expenses, and appoint a chairman. 2. My friends are to be permitted at the opening of each meeting to join with me in prayer. 3. Mr. Bradlaugh is to commence each evening by asking me whatever questions he pleases, on any subject connected with the Bible, one question and one answer at a time. 4. I am to be permitted to take down his question in writing, and so soon as I have given him an answer, I shall furnish him with the same in writing. 5. This questioning and answering shall continue for one hour. 6. I shall then have the same liberty of questioning Mr. Bradlaugh, respecting the being, attributes, and government of God, and the nature, circumstances, and responsibility of man. 7. I shall have the same liberty of taking down in writing my questions and his answers. 8. My questioning and his answering to continue for an hour. 9. On neither side shall speeches be allowed. The answers must be categorical. 10. At the close of each meeting my friends shall be permitted to join with me in prayer. The Rev. Mr. Binns, of Birkenhead, presided, and said they would see from small bills, which had been very freely distributed, that the discussion was one affecting the very fundamental questions of theology; but they must always remember that what the two gentlemen would say did not, in itself, affect the nature of the case. (Hear, hear.) Their answers gat be good or bad without leaving the truth of the matter at all affected, for an imperfect answer or half-statement of the truth did not at all answer the facts. Mr. Bradlaugh intended to put questions to Dr. Baylee for one hour upon any subject he pleased connected with the Bible; one question and one answer at a time. Mr. Bradlaugh, he supposed, would have in view to maintain that it was impossible to give any account of the Bible that did not recognise the fallibility of the various writers on every subject on which it was written. Dr. Baylee would then ask Mr. Bradlaugh questions and receive answers in the same way, for one hour, respecting "the being, attributes, and government of God;' "the nature, circumstances, and responsibility of man;" and "the Bible;" intending thereby, he (the chairman) supposed, to make out that it was impossible to give any satisfactory theory of the nature of things that did not recognise a centre intelligence; an individual personality at the heart and at the root of all. After expressing a hope that the audience would give no manifestation of their feelings, he called upon "Iconoclast," who at once proceeded with his series of questions. The following is as nearly as possible a verbatim report of the debate upon the Bible. We shall give at the conclusion of the debate any questions or answers which Dr. Baylee reports differently: "Iconoclast.' Do you believe that the ordinary authorised English version of the Bible is a revelation from an all-perfect Deity? Dr. Baylee. I believe that the authorised version is a sufficiently reliable translation of the revelation from Almighty God. I. Do you believe that the translation is an infallible one? Dr. B. I believe it is fallible, but perfectly credible. I. In what respects do you consider the translation fallible? Dr. B. Only in connection with the infirmity of human nature and man's imperfect capabilities. I. You say you believe our Bible to be fallible. Do you believe that God gave man capability to understand the revelation contained in that Bible? Dr. B. God has given man capability equivalent to the amount of his responsibility. I. What is the amount of man's responsibility with reference to revelation? Dr. B. Undoubtedly eternal damnation if he reject it. I. Am I to understand that man has capability sufficient to understand a fallible translation of an infallible revelation? Dr. B. God has given man capability to understand as far as is necessary. I. If it is necessary to understand God's revelation under penalty of "eternal damnation," ought not man to be invested with the fullest capability for understanding it? Dr. B. He has the capability equivalent for his salvation. I. If he has, he must have the fullest possible capability of understanding. Is that so? Dr. B. He has the fullest capability his nature will permit. I. Is his nature such as to permit him to understand God's revelation? Dr. B. He has capability to understand as far as is necessary. I. You are answering in a circle. Do you think less than the fullest capability sufficient when "eternal damnation" is the punishment for not understanding the revelation? Dr. B. Eternal damnation is not the punishment for not understanding the revelation. I. What is "eternal damnation " the penalty for? Dr. B. Eternal damnation is the sequence of suffering for an eternal continuance of sin. I. Is man eternal? Dr. B. Man is eternal. I. Am I eternal? Dr. B. You are. I. Was I in existence before I was born? Dr. B. You were. 1. Did I sin before I was born? Dr. B. You did. I. If I had never been born should I have suffered "eternal damnation" for that sin? Dr. B. You would. I. I will leave this for the present. Do you accept the whole of the Bible, from the first verse of Genesis to the last verse of Revelations, as God's revelation to you? Dr. B. I do. I. I will read you the following, Leviticus xxv., 44, 45, and 46— : 'Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." How do you understand this text? Dr. B. I understand that every wise legislator deals with man as he is, and endeavours to raise him up to a higher standard. I. Do you consider the institution of slavery the act of a wise legislator? Dr. B. I do not. I. Do these verses commend, institute, or approve slavery? Dr. B. They do not. I. What does the text mean when it says: "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever?" Dr. B. It means that slavery being already an existing institution, a wise legislator established a regulation to provide for its extinction. I. I see the book says they were to be bondsmen "for ever." extinction of slavery to take place after that period had elapsed? Dr. B. It was. I. When will be after "for ever?" Was the Dr. B. When the time has passed which is represented by the Hebrew word holem. I. And how long is that? Dr. B. The whole of a limited period, as when we take the lease of a house for ever. I. I never heard of such a demise in any lease. Where are houses leased for ever? Dr. B. In Liverpool. I. If you took the lease of a Liverpool house for ever, how long would that lease have to run? Dr. B. Without limitation on the part of the landlord. I. Then this book permits slavery without any limitation on the part of the slaveholder. Is that your answer? Dr. B. It is not. I. What is your answer? Dr. B. Without limitation on the part of the slave-sellers. L Why do you say "slave-sellers?" The Bible speaks of slave-buyers. Correct your answer by the book. Dr. B. The slave-buyer has power over the slave until he chooses to release him. L Then do you consider that God gave power to the slave-buyers o bind men in slavery until they choose to release them? Dr. B. God created no such power, he only regulates it. L. Do you consider it the act of an all-wise legislator to give you power to buy and to keep slaves as long as you choose? Dr. B. That very book forbids me to do so L Do the verses I have read apply to you? Dr. B. They teach me how to legislate under different circumstances, I. I want you to say yes or no. Do these verses apply to you? You ean give any explanation after your answer. Dr. B. They apply to me in the purpose for which they were given. I. You say you are forbidden to buy slaves by the Bible. Will you give me the text which forbids you, chapter and verse? Dr. B. Deuteronomy x., 19, "Love ye, therefore, the stranger." I. Do you mean to say, after having heard me read the positive permission or injunction to buy slaves from Leviticus, that you are, in Deuteronomy x., 19, positively forbidden by that text to purchase slaves? Dr. B. The text absolutely disapproves slavery. I. You said there was a text forbidding you to purchase slaves. I want the one not simply disapproving but absolutely forbidding. Dr. B. The command to love the stranger implants a principle destructive of slavery. I. I want the text which you said forbade you to purchase slaves. I. Admitting your position then, one text allows slavery while another forbids it. Is not that a contradiction? Dr. B. The contradiction is in the fallen nature of man with which a wise legislator must deal for its elevation. I. I want an answer to my question. If one text permits slavery, as I have read, and another forbids it, as you assert, is that a contradiction? Dr. B. It is not. I. I will read you the following from Deuteronomy xxi., 10:"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hand, and thou hast taken them captive, "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; "Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 66 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. "And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her." Does that relate to you? Dr. B. It teaches me how a wise legislator ought to deal with a corrupt state of society. I. I ask you again do those verses relate to you? Dr. B. They teach me how to legislate in a similar state of society. I. Is it good, or the act of a wise legislator, in any state of society, to permit a man by the strength of his arm, to take a beautiful woman, rob her of her virtue, and then turn her adrift in the wide world? Dr. B. The legislator did not create the state of society-he found it. I. That is no answer to my question. Is it good in any state of society to teach that a man by the strength of his arm may capture a woman, take her to his home, rob her of her virtue, and then turn her out into the world to its mercy? Dr. B. It would not be good to teach that. I. You have stated that the all-wise Legislator did not create the bad state of society, but found it. I will refer you to the passage in Isaiah [Dr. |