Dr. B. Do you believe that Thomas Paine wrote the "Age of Reason p I. I do. Dr. B. Do you believe that Copernicus advanced our limited knowledge of astronomy? I. Yes. Dr. B. Do you believe that Julius Cæsar waged war in Gaul? I. I have read so. Dr. B. Do you believe it? I. I have not paid so much attention to that subject as to the other three matters to which you have alluded; therefore, my thought is not sufficiently determined upon the topic. Dr. B. Do you believe that Homer's Iliad was written in Greece? Dr. B. You know it to be ancient? I. Yes. Dr. B. How? I. I judge from cireumstances thus (lifting a sheet of paper); I know this is modern, by its appearance, its consistency, its watermark; other evidence would equally convince me of its antiquity. Dr. B. Do you believe in historic evidence? I. If the evidence is sufficient to command my belief, yes. Dr. B. How long have the Jews and Christians been antagonists in belief? I. I do not know when Christians originated, and therefore I cannot answer your question. Dr. B. How do you know about Origen's self-mutilation? I. I do not know, I only believe; but my belief is strengthened by your admission. Dr. B. When was Origen born? I. I do not at this moment remember the precise date. Dr. B. Do you believe that Tacitus was a Roman historian? I. I have read so, and see no reason to doubt it. Dr. B. Does he make any allusion to Christians? L He does. Dr. B. When did he live? L. I do not remember the precise date. Dr. B. Do you deny that he lived before the second century? Dr. B. Do you believe that Christianity is as old as Tacitus? I. If you mean the Christianity to which Tacitus refers, I do. Dr. B. At what time did the Jews and Christians commence to differ in religion? I. I do not know. Dr. B. Would it not be well to be better acquainted with the common facts of history? I. I am not aware that Christianity is a common fact of history. Dr. B. Do you think that this intelligent audience believes you? [Some slight hissing here arose in the meeting.] I. I neither know nor care, I only try to speak the truth. Dr. B. On what evidence do you reject the statement that Jews and Christians separated about 1800 years ago? L The questions I am bound, by the terms of debate, to answer, are those respecting the being, attributes, and government of God, and the nature, circumstances, and responsibility of man, and I decline therefore to continue answering questions on historic evidences of Christianity. [Dr. Baylee commenced a speech in explanation, but "Iconoclast" said "Dr. Baylee insisted that no speeches should be allowed on either side, I rise to order." The chairman decided that Dr. Baylee was out of order, but stated that he agreed with neither of the disputants, and desired that the questioning should proceed as nearly as possible according to condition Six of the terms of debate.] Dr. B. Suppose a man brought you a small box, and that in that box was a beautiful piece of machinery; that the box contained innumerable worlds, some of them arranged like our solar system, one like our world, but in miniature, with an atmosphere surrounding it, and having upon it a little Lord Palmerston or a little Lord Brougham delivering speeches, what would you think about it? I. I cannot suppose any man bringing me a box containing innumerable worlds, and therefore cannot answer the question. Dr. B. What is the ultimate end of smallness? I. I do not know. Dr. B. Would not the microscope assist you? I. It would assist me to see small things not visible to the naked eye, but its usefulness would be limited by its magnifying power. Dr. B. Would you think the man sane that said he was self-existent? I. No. Dr. B. How came he into existence? I. I do not know? Dr. B. Does Geology teach that there was a period when man was not on this earth? L I do not know? Dr. B. Do the series of geological periods imply gradual progress? I. I think they do. Dr. B. Does that imply design? I. If by design you mean an act apart from the one existence, no. Dr. B. Does that imply design? I. If by design you mean an act or volition apart from the one exist ence, no. Dr. B. Does it imply design by the one existence? I. If you mean that there are forces in the one existence sufficient for all effects, yes. If anything more, no. Dr. B. Is design nothing different from force? I. Design not being a word I have used, but a word you have used, and to which you have yet attached no meaning, I give an explanation, that you may understand my answer. Dr. B. Do you mean to tell us you do not know the ordinary meaning of design? I. If by "ordinary" you refer to the theological meaning, I do know it and deny it. Dr. B. In the common popular sense, is design to be confounded with force? I. The common popular sense and the theological meaning are two different things. In the one case a designer is signified, or rather an adaptor of materials already existing; in the other a creator, or one who produces existence out of nothing. Dr. B. In the popular sense, do the gradual geological changes imply an ultimate end? I. I do not understand your question. Dr. B. Do the gradual geological changes imply an ultimate end? I. No, in so far as you cannot imagine "an end" in connection with eternal existence. Dr. B. May not a finite thing attain a final organisation, and retain that for ever? I. I have no means of judging: but I will add to my answer, so far as I have had experience, my belief is against it. Dr. B. By what law may existing things become men? I. I do not understand the meaning you attach to the word law, and therefore decline to answer the question in its present shape. Dr. B. By what law may existing things become men? I. I repeat my answer; but if by the word "law" you mean conditions of existence, then I do not know. Dr. B. How then can you tell that they did not come into existence by means of an intelligent power extraneous to them? I. If by intelligent power you mean the sum of the forces of the one existence which I know and can demonstrate, then it may be so; but if you mean by intelligent power a second existence, then I will prove it cannot be. Dr. B. How can you prove it? I. It will take me half an hour. If you are willing I will state my proof. (Dr. Baylee signified his assent.) I take as my starting point to reason from the fact of my own existence. I am. This is an indubitable position -an irreversible certainty. Doubt as I may, I cannot doubt my own existence. It is a fact above and beyond all logic-a fact which to me logic can neither prove nor disprove, and this because a proof is only efficient when it makes a thing more clear to the mind of the person to whom it was addressed, and no amount of evidence can make my existence more certain to me than it is. The fact I start from is the fact that something exists. Now this existence is either infinite in duration-that is, unlimited in duration; that is, eternal, or else it has been created or brought into existence. If created, then it must have been by some existence the same as itself, or different from it, but it cannot have been created by any existence the same as itself, because that would be but a continuation of the same existence; and it cannot have been created by any existence differing from itself, because things which have nothing in common with each other cannot be conceived in relation to each other, and cannot be the cause of, or affect one another. The same argument applies to extent as well as duration. This demonstrates one existence; by existence, meaning that which is conceived of itself per se-that is, that the conception of which does not involve the conception of anything else as antecedent to it. I regard intelligence as the quality of a mode of existence. [Dr. Baylee here rose and asked if he was to reckon "Iconoclast's" speech in the hour? and "Iconoclast" replying in the affirmative, Dr. Baylee refused to allow him to proceed.] Dr. B. How do you know that one thing cannot be brought into existence by another existence besides itself? I. I cannot answer in less than half an hour. Dr. B. I repeat the question and require a straightforward answer. Give Your reasons without shuffling on the word existence. I. I cannot give my reason in less than half an hour. It was no shuffling, because I defined existence to be that which is aonceived per se. This shuts out the possibility of any other existence. Dr. B. What right have you to give a new definition to existence! I. It is not a new definition, it is at least 200 years old. Dr. B. How old is the word existence? I. I do not know. Dr. B. What right have you to that definition? I. I hardly know what you mean by what right. If you ask why I use it-because the definition is calculated to express the posi ion I take Dr. B. Have you a right to make a definition involving a principle, and then use the definition to prove the principle? I. I have not made a definition involving a principle, and have not used such a definition to prove the principle. Dr. B. Who first used your definition of existence? I. I do not know who first used it, but as I first gave it, it is in the precise words of Benedict Spinoza. Dr. B. Had Spinoza a right to define a word and then prove a position from that definition? I. I am not aware that he did so, and I decline to discuss Spinoza's right to do a thing which it is not proved he ever tried to do. Dr. B. So you derive your Atheism from an arbitrary definition of a word. How do you know that the conception of existence per se does not involve the conception of any existence antecedent to it? I. I do not derive my Atheism from a word; when I speak of existence per se self-existence is the essence of definition. Dr. B. How can the phrase per se involve essence? I. The phrase per se does not involve essence, but the phrase, that which is conceived per se does. Dr. B. Is not the phrase an assumption of the principle? I. No; I gave a distinct definition of existence. Dr. B. Then how does existence become existence? I. As my proof involves only one existence, and as I cannot imagine a period when it was not, I decline to answer your question. Dr. B. Are you an existence? I. No; I am a mode of existence. Dr. B. What is the existence of which you are a mode? I. The one existence which I should have proved if you had let me. Dr. B. What is that one existence? I. Everything. Dr. B. Are you a mode of everything? I. In so far as I am a mode of existence-yes. Dr. B. Are you a mode of the moon? I. No; the moon is a mode of the same existence of which I am a mode, it differing from me; but I see no reason to assert that the elements of which I am composed, or some of them, might, or might not, be commingled with those of the moon. Dr. B. In that case you would be a man in the moon? I. If I went in entirely-yes. (Loud laughter.) Dr. B. How can you prove that you will become the man in the moon? I. I do not intend to try to prove it; my answer was only a repartee for your foolish question. [Some slight confusion here took place, which, however, was at once quelled by the chairman, who closed the debate for the evening.] SECOND HOUR-THIRD EVENING. Dr. Baylee. Is the universe self-existent? Iconoclast. If by the universe you mean all existence, I conceive it as self-existent. Dr. B. What proofs are there of a self-existent universe which would not apply to a self-existent mind? I. I define mind as a quality, a result of a mode of existence, and therefore cannot apply the term self-existent to either a quality or a result. Dr. B. Is mind thinking, or something that has the power to think? I. By mind I would express the total of the various and compound processes of thought. Dr. B Is a process of thought thinking? I. I am not certain that it always is so. I image things around me. This is a mental process; but I am not certain that the process should be defined as thinking. Dr. B. If it is not thinking, what is it? I. An action of the nervous encephalic apparatus. Dr. B. Is what we ordinarily call matter capable of thought? I. I do not ordinarily call anything matter, and therefore do not understand the question. Dr. B. Is a nerve capable of thought? I. I have no evidence of a nerve thinking apart from the rest of the organisation of thinking. Dr. B. Is thinking an organisation? I. It is not, but I sometimes find thought in connection with organisation, and I never find thinking apart from organisation. Dr. B. What is thinking? I. A word by which we express various processes. We perceive-that is, we image—surrounding existence, combine, collect, and recollect those perceptions; we determine, judge, etc., in relation to and between them, and we call all these processes or states of being, phases of thought, or thinking. Dr. B. Is it our nervous organisation which is disputing this evening about the existence of God? I. I will not answer for you; I will try to answer for myself, and if by nervous organisation you mean that by and from which sounds and ideas are now coming to yourself, then, yes. Dr. B. If you deprive a man of air for five minutes, what organisation does he lose? I. I have never inspected such a man, and therefore cannot give a cor rect answer. Dr. B. Is it a known fact that a man under such circumstances would be incapable of thought? I. It is a known fact that we never find a man capable of thought after the organisation is destroyed. Dr. B. In the case given above is the organisation destroyed? I. If the air is withheld sufficiently long to prevent the ordinary operations of life and to destroy life, yes. Dr. B. What organisation is destroyed by the withdrawal of air? I. The man's organisation is destroyed. Dr. B. Is it the nervous or the cephalic? I. In so far as the nervous and the cephalic are connected together, forming what I have already defined as the nervous encephalic apparatus. The particular injury done to the organisation depends on the mode of destruction or death. Dr. B. I have already stated the mode is the withdrawal of air. Have we any scientific evidence that the withdrawal of air destroys organisation? I. If you mean under a receiver exhausted by the air-pump, the probability is that the injury to the organisation would differ according to the temperament of the man, and would also depend on how he might resist the abstraction of air. Dr. B. Does science evidence any destruction of the nervous or cephalic system by the withdrawal of air? I. I am not personally aware of any case in which a man has died by the simple withdrawal of air in the mode you suggest, and am, therefore, unable to say. Dr. B. Are you aware that scientific works are written upon the subject? I. I am. Dr. B. Then why did not you come here prepared to meet what you had heard me before advance? I. I have not read every scientific book on the subject, or even a poor minority. I do not profess to understand every branch of science. I am |