THE meeting having been opened pro forma by the Chairman,

MR. ROBERTS said: Ladies and Gentlemen, when Mr. Stern gave me the challenge which has led to this debate, it was with the idea, on his part, of holding but one meeting. I told him at once that I felt sure that we should not be able to go through the subject in one night -- that it would want, at least, three nights. I am afraid that I was under the mark. The extent of the evidence that I proposed to adduce in support of the claims that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, I find to be so great as to make it next to impossible to compress it within the designed limits. For this reason, I must necessarily pass by many points of detail which I had thought of noticing, and content myself with following that line of positive evidence which is likely to make an impression upon logical and sincere minds, with regard to the merits of the question. There are, however, one or two little matters I should like to say a word upon before pursuing this course. I should like to say that Mr. Stern has rather misapprehended my appeal last night to the general attitude of his people in the course of their history. He resented my appeal as an accusation. He thinks that I appeared in the capacity of an accusing counsel, calling upon you to pass judgment upon them. I excuse him for making that mistake, seeing that there are so many plain things which he has failed to perceive with that clearness which one would have expected: but I will give the explanation. The argument I intended in my appeal was a mere answer to an argument employed by himself. He said: "My fathers rejected the Messiah; therefore, I will", which implies this assumption: "My fathers were in the right in their rejecting Jesus". Now, my answer strikes at the root of this assumption. It shows that his fathers (according to what he himself is compelled to admit) have always been in the wrong, and, therefore, that is highly probable that upon this greater question, they are equally in the wrong. I should like to deal with the great Jewish objections to the genealogies of Christ as found in the New Testament. I expected to be called upon at the hands of Mr. Stern to deal with these objections, and, therefore, reserved in my first half-hour speech, the more particular consideration of them. He has not so called upon me. Yet as the point is of some importance, I will devote a minute or two to the subject before passing on to the general evidence in demonstration of the Messiahship of Jesus. The Jewish objection to the genealogies is, that even if they were genuine, they would fail to prove Jesus to be of the seed of David, since they do not make him out to have been so on the male side -- the female side not reckoning in Jewish genealogies. I admit that so far as the strict genealogical tree is concerned, the female genealogy is not taken into account, but I do deny that the Jewish genealogies ignored the female element in reckoning extraction. I will call your attention to one or two proofs in support of my denial in the writings of the Old Testament -- in the writings of Mr. Stern's own nation, and which he is bound to recognize. In the cases to which I call attention, the interposition of a female was sufficient to continue a genealogical line in the absence of a male link; men were reckoned the sons of fathers whose real sons they were not, by reason of their marrying the father's daughter. I refer first to 1 Chronicles 2:22, in which we learn that one Jair was begotten of Segub, son of Hezron, son of Phares, son of Judah, one of the sons of Jacob. The words of the verse are "Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir, the father of Gilead, whom he married when he was threescore years old: and she bare him Segub, and Segub begat Jair". Now, according to the argument of the Jews upon the genealogy of Jesus, Jair ought to be reckoned of the house of Judah, because he was the son of Hezron of the tribe of Judah, though his mother was the daughter of Machir of the tribe of Manasseh. The mother ought not to be allowed, according to their argument, to have any effect in determining the genealogical status of the son. But we find that contrary to the Jewish contention the mother did have effect. When we turn to Numb. 32:41, we find this same individual (Jair) introduced as "the son of Manasseh", because he was the son of a daughter of the tribe of Manasseh, though his father was of the tribe of Judah. Now I ask upon what principle can it be denied that Jesus was the son of David, when his mother was of the house of David, if Jair was a son of Manasseh, because his mother was of the house of Manasseh?

Again, in the same chapter we read of Sheshan, of whom we are told, in the 34th verse, that "he had no sons, BUT DAUGHTERS", according to which Sheshan (in the Jewish contention), should have had no subsequent genealogy. But what happens? At the same 34th verse, it says that Sheshan had a servant, an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha; and Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha to wife, and she bare him Attai, and Attai begat Nathan, &c. Now, whose children were Attai, Nathan, &c., according to Jewish objection to Jesus? Jarha's distinctly. Not Sheshan's, the father of Jarha's wife. Yet at the 31st verse, they are called the children of Sheshan. True, it reads "Ahlai" instead of Attai, but this is one of those mere variations which are so common in Hebrew names. Thus, we find the offspring of Sheshan's daughter attributed to the father of that daughter and not to be reckoned at all to the Egyptian. Now, if Attai can be the son of Sheshan, according to the Jewish genealogy, when he is only the son of Sheshan's daughter, I ask why Jesus of Nazareth cannot be considered the son of David, though descended from David by a daughter only? Again, we have the case of Hiram, employed by Solomon in the artistic processes of the Temple. He is described as the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan. There are other cases which I had sought out, but these must suffice. I consider them sufficient upon that single point, which I supposed Mr. Stern would have made a strong point.

I now resume the line of evidence upon which I was engaged last evening, and to which, in view of the limited time, I shall strive largely to devote myself in the subsequent part of to-night's debate, irrespective of the course Mr. Stern may pursue; unless, indeed, he unexpectedly turn very logical, and give me something else to deal with. You will recollect that, last night, I produced an abundance of evidence from the prophets to show that the Messiah was to be a sufferer, and, at last slain. The passage I now quote was to have been the last link of evidence on that point. In Zech. 13:6, it says: "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? then shall he answer: Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends;" in connection with which we have this singular declaration: "Awake, 0 sword, against my shepherd, and against the man my fellow, saith the LORD of Hosts; smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered, and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones". The first point here is that Messiah is described as the fellow of Yahweh, the God of Israel; I ask upon what principle the Messiah looked for by Mr. Stern can be described as the fellow of God? The New Testament Messiah answers that description exactly; for we are told, in the 1st chapter of Heb., verse 2, that he is "the brightness of God's glory and the express image of His person" -- This result was by the very means that the Jews despise with so much scorn -- the operation of the Spirit upon a virgin of the house of David. Thus was begotten a son of David and son of God -- higher than the mere man Messiah of Jewish expectation. This reminds me that, last night, Mr. Stern made some sort of unfavourable comment upon an expression of mine about the beauty of the mystery. Now I did not attempt, as he supposed I did, to explain the mystery; for there are depths in divine truth that we can only know without being able to understand. And this is true in nature as well. We know the sunlight, but we do not understand it. We know life in all creatures, but we do not understand it. There are thousands of things we know, but cannot understand in a profound sense, because the infinite is beyond the grasp of the human intellect. I do not attempt to define the mystery of God in Christ, but I pointed out what Mr. Stern failed to see -- that Jesus of Nazareth combines the two necessities created by the prophets. The Messiah was to be the son of David; Jesus of Nazareth was so. He was to be God: Jesus of Nazareth was so in the sense of God being manifested in the flesh by the Spirit; whereas, the Messiah he upholds as a mere man, cannot be made to answer to these two things.

I proceed to call attention to other features of the Messiah of the prophets with which Jesus of Nazareth corresponds. In Deut. 18:18, we read: "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth: and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him". The point here is the declaration "I will put my words in his mouth" -- the words of the God of Israel in the mouth of the antitypical Moses. This feature is apparent in other parts of the prophets. In Isaiah 61:1, you find it in these words: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound". Again in Isaiah 11:2: "The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD". Again In Isaiah 51:16: "I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand;" and again in Micah 5:4: "He shall stand and feed in the strength of Yahweh, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide, for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth".

Now, Jesus of Nazareth answers to all these plain declarations concerning the Messiah, in the Old Testament. He did not pretend to be wise of himself. He expressly declared that God's words were in his mouth; he did not, according to Trinitarian views of him, claim to be God himself -- one of three persons in the God-head -- but he claimed to be the manifestation of the one Eternal Father, who revealed Himself through him to Israel. I proceed to call your attention to the illustrations of this point. In John 3:34, we have the testimony of John the Baptist concerning Jesus, thus, "He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him". In John 7:16, Jesus of Nazareth said: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me;" and in the 8th chapter and 26th verse: "I have many things to say and to judge of you, but He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him;" and at the 38th verse: "I speak that which I have seen with my Father". At the 12th chapter and the 49th verse: "I have not spoken of myself, but the Father who sent me. He gave me a commandment what I should say". John 14: 10: "Believest thou not", he said to Philip, "that I am in the Father and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works". Then, at the 24th verse: "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings, and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me". These I consider to be unmistakeable illustrations of that feature of the Messiah foretold by Moses and the prophets, "I will put my words in his mouth". Jesus didn't come in his own name, like the false Christs, whom the Jews have, from time to time, received; as he said, "If any man come in his own name, him ye will receive; but I have come in my Fathers name, and ye have not received me".

Now the argument following upon that is this: that the words of Jesus of Nazareth are of a kind that can only be explained on the supposition that he is in reality that prophet like unto Moses, in whose mouth the words of God were put. That, indeed, is the very answer given by the men who were sent to apprehend Jesus; they were struck with his words, and when they returned to the captain of the temple, they said, "never man spake like this man". I propose to read you one or two illustrations of this fact that "he spake as never man spake"; and that, therefore, the words of Christ are the words of God; that the words of Christ can only be the words of a man who was no mere man, but the Father of men tabernacling among men by his Spirit, and speaking through this man in words which illustrate the description of him, that "he spoke as one having authority, and not as the scribes". I will read you a specimen of his sayings from Luke 11, commencing at the 29th verse:

"And when the people were gathered thick together he began to say: This is an evil generation, they seek a sign and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this generation. The queen of the south shall rise up in judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold a greater than Jonas is here. No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light. The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed, therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light. And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. But woe unto you, Pharisees, for ye tithe mint and rue, and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them. Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also saith the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute. That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation. From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge; ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered".

That is a public discourse of Jesus, and I submit that it is speaking as never man spake; a style of discourse not to be accounted for on the Jewish hypothesis -- that he was an impostor, but only intelligible on the supposition that he was indeed the Messiah, the prophet like unto Moses, into whose mouth the God of Israel was to put His own words.

I now give you a private discourse of his to his own disciples (John 15), and I call upon you to imagine an impostor speaking in this style, which is the character in which Mr. Stern wishes us to consider the Lord Jesus.

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away; and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches; he that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit: so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you; Continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in His love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you . . . These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you ye know that it hated me before it hated you ... Remember the word that I said unto you, the servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not Him that sent me".

Take another discourse, which you will find recorded in Luke 12, cornmencing at the 32nd verse:

" Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heaven that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth, For where your treasure is there will your heart be also. Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily, I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them. And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants. And this know, that if the good man of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of Man cometh at an hour when ye think not. Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But, and if the servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; the lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers".

(Time called.)

MR. STERN: Mr. Chairman and friends: We have now arrived at what I may term the beginning of the end; that is if an end is to come to upon this subject at all. My opponent has taunted me with not having given him sufficient to attack me with. He seems to have been prepared to attack me had I been Mr. Monaet; but as I am not Mr. Monact, and consequently have not taken up his arguments, I have not received the hard hits that Mr. Roberts was prepared to give him. But I am not here to give him arguments to attack me with. It is for him to prove his affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and it is for me to disprove it. it is for him to bring arguments forward, and it is for me to deny them and to show you why I deny them. A number of points have been laid down -- namely, the seventy weeks of Daniel, and the virgin as it is called in the English version of Isaiah. I went at once to the points, and I have proved my case from my point of view -- from the Jewish point of view -- which, of course, is different from his, and which he knew I should do before he came. I have proved to him that the seventh of Isaiah -- the passage which he quoted -- had nothing to do with Christ. I have proved to him that the passage he quoted in the middle of the chapter really referred to the passages preceding it, and it also referred to the two, or rather the three, chapters following. My friend then shifted his headquarters from the seventh to the fifty-third of Isaiah. I thereupon proved to him that that chapter could have no allusion whatever to Jesus, since it was alluding to a personage who lived before the time of Isaiah. He again referred me to the ninth chapter, and here again I assert that this passage has nothing whatever to do with Jesus. I will just quote it, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall rest upon his shoulders; and he shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace". I hold that is still calling attention to the same event which Isaiah was alluding to when he was addressing Ahaz; and when he says, "unto us a child is born", he is certainly alluding to himself, and his wife, and the child his wife bore. I expect you will differ from me and say he alluded to something different, but you know it is a very easy matter if you wish to quote something to harmonise with any theory which you wish to establish. What my friend had to do was to bring such overwhelming proofs that I could not have had any doubt at all, but he has not done so. I asked him, and it seemed to him rather out of the way -- I asked him to produce the originals of the Four Gospels, but after a good deal of wrangling he admitted that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke, and John wrote John -- the first in Hebrew, and the three last in Greek. The original copies my friend says are lost, and he doesn't seem to have any hope of ever recovering them, nor does he tell us in whose possession they were when they were lost. Well, now, let us examine the position we are in. I came here as a doubter, not alone of Jesus, but I came here as doubter of the value of the testimony in the New Testament; and I have a perfect right to doubt it. "But", says Mr. Roberts, "you have not, the testimony is sufficient"; and he goes to the old Hebrew Testament and quotes passages, which certainly, wherever he reads seem to refer to Jesus; but as soon as I read them, they seem just the reverse. Now, I wish with your kind permission to read some quotations from a learned authority, but before doing so I thought of just comparing a passage he has quoted from the New Testament with a few I have cut from the same book. He has shown us of course the beautiful and the best pssages he could possibly find of this good individual -- of this God of my friend, who was to do all this good. Now with your permission, I will just, in opposition to what he has read, see how good these seem to you. Luke 12:49, 5 1: "I am come to send fire on the earth, and what will I, if it be already kindled; suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? Nay, but rather division". Well that is true; he has been the cause of division; I believe it. Matt. 10:34, 36:--

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in- law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household".

I think this has been fulfilled with a vengeance. Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned". Matthew 10:14: "Whosoever shall not receive you nor hear your words, when ye depart out of their house or city, shake off the dust of your feet". Here is kindness! "Verily, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city". I only pity those poor Africans where the Missionaries go to teach these things; they would be far better off if they had never seen them, for one thing is certain, that if they had never heard the gospel they could not be expected to obey it. Mark 4:2: "And he said unto them, unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables, that seeing they may see and not perceive; and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them". Then my friends, if I do not understand, Jesus is responsible. He spoke in parables that I might be deceived. If he is the son of God, and if he has power to enlighten and yet withholds that enlightenment, how dare you blame me for not understanding? I see it doesn't please you for me to show you the bad passages, but when my friend quotes the good ones and leaves the bad ones out, it so happens that I was prepared with the bad ones. I give my opponent the sentence, "Lest at any time they should be converted and their sins be forgiven them". What becomes of the missionaries, if Jesus has nothing else to do but keep the people blind. Let us go a little farther. In Matthew 4:8, we are told that the devil took Jesus into an exceeding high mountain; and showed him all the kingdoms of the world. My friend has just given you a grand eulogy on Jesus; he says he is not man, and I agree with him -- no man would use such words. Here is Jesus, who is no man, but the son of God; here is Jesus, who is supposed to have been present when God created the world, and was there to assist him, according to my friend's theory.

MR. ROBERTS: No.

MR. STERN: Actually taken up to the topmost mountain by the devil himself; and for what purpose do you think? Why for the purpose of showing him the whole world. Jesus ought to have known the whole world long before the devil knew it; Jesus, who was there when God made the world, ought to have known that it was not a plane as he must have thought at that time; else the devil must have been cleverer than he, and took him up to deceive him. If Christ had been God, he would have known that it was a globe, and that, therefore, however high he might go, he could not see it all. But there is another good thing Jesus did. Mark 5:11:--

"Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. And all the devils besought him saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea".

I want to know the use of this, let us just examine it. I can only understand this by thinking that Christ was a Jew who did not like pigs. If so, however, it could not justify him, unless he previously made a bargain with the owners of them. There were a legion of devils -- that is 3,000. How were they divided amongst the pigs? 2,000 pigs and 3,000 devils -- Were there two devils to some pigs and one to others, or was there one devil and a half to each pig? (Confusion.) Oh, friends, this is legitimate. My friend has shown me his reasons and quoted to me good deeds of Jesus, and told me why I should believe him. He has blamed all the Jews for not accepting Jesus; and I come here to show why I do not accept him, and to show why my fathers rejected him. How unfair it would be to allow Mr. Roberts to say all he likes, and not to hear me. But supposing Christ had wanted to get rid of the devils -- I wish he had got rid of all the devils -- couldn't he have destroyed them without drowning the pigs? But the thing of itself looks so absurd. "Now this was nigh unto the mountains". We very seldom see a mountain with a steep hill running down into the sea; if they had been under rocks near the sea coast it would have been more intelligible. But I suppose it is one of my friend's grand mysteries, and I will leave him to explain it. Then again Mark 11:12-14, 20, 21:--

"And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came if haply he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it he found nothing but leaves; for the time of the figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat of fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it".

"And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away".

I should like to know the beauty of this passage. He goes to the fig tree, knowing -- for he was the Son of God, mind -- knowing it was not the time of year for figs to grow. How much more reasonable it would have been to make the figs grow all at once than commit the absurdity of cursing a tree, and causing it to grow nothing at all. One would have been quite as easy to do as the other. But I leave that for those who believe in Christ to reconcile. I shall now proceed to speak about the New Testament. He says the original is lost, but that we have got a copy of the Greek. More shame for you, you ought to have taken better care of it. It seems rather singular that a valuable document like this should have got lost. But Mr. Roberts -- because I made an assertion last night which doesn't seem to agree with his theory, as he seems to have come here with ready cut and dried arguments against me -- said I disagreed with all the writers of my nation. That is just the identical thing I announced the first night. I said I was not here as representing any body of Jews: that I came here to represent myself only, and I place my words and arguments -- having been brought up to the Hebrew faith -- against those of Mr. Roberts. Who has more right to explain the Hebrew than a Jew who has been brought tip with the Hebrew language? But I will bring you an authority. Mr. Roberts says all the scribes before me differ from me; I will show that the scribes on the Christian side differ from Mr. Roberts, Mosheim, considered one of the fairest and most honourable writers on ecclesiastical history that ever wrote, who exposes the falsities of his own people as well as speaking against the Jews at other times -- let us hear what he says: "The place of his birth has not been hitherto fixed with certainty, notwithstanding the deep and laborious researches of the learned in the matter". This is what Mosheim says, who devoted the whole of his time to searching every Greek and Latin book, in order to see what could be found in favour of Christianity, Here you have his words. He says "There is nothing surprising in this when we consider that the first Christians laboured under the same difficulties, and were divided in their opinions concerning the time of Christ's birth. That which appears most probable is that it happened about six months before the death of Herod". Mosheim leaves it in doubt; it shows the honesty of the writer: when a man is uncertain, he should not pin his faith to anything. Mr. Roberts says Matthew wrote Matthew. Let us see whether he did or not. First volume, page 65 --

"The distance of time and the want of records, leaves us at a loss with respect to many interesting circumstances of the peregrinations of the apostles; nor have we any certain or precise accounts of the limits of their voyages, of the particular countries where they sojourned, nor of the times and places in which they finished their glorious course. The stories that are told concerning their arrival and exploits among the Gauls, the English, the Spaniards, the Germans, the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians , and the Russians, are too romantic in their nature, and of too recent a date to be received by an impartial enquirer after truth. The greatest part of these fables were forged after the time of Charlemagne, when most of the Christian Churches contended about the antiquity of their origin with as much vehemence as the Arcadians, Egyptians, and Greeks disputed formerly about their seniority and precedence".

That is just what I say, I am here as an impartial enquirer after truth, and I cannot receive it. I will now read with your permission the 381st page, where Mosheim says:

"If the enthusiastic frenzy of the monks exaggerated, in a manner pernicious to the interests of morality, the discipline that is obligatory upon Christians, the interests of virtue and true religion suffered yet more grievously by two monstrous errors which were almost universally adopted in this century, and became a source of innumerable calamities and mischiefs in the succeeding ages. The first of these maxims was 'That it was an act of virtue to deceive, and lie, when by that means the interests of the church might be promoted;' and the second equally horrible, though in another point of view, was, that ,errors in religion, when maintained and adhered to after proper admonition, were punishable with civil penalties and corporeal tortures'. The former of these erroneous maxims was now of a long standing; it had been adopted for some ages past, and had produced an incredible number of ridiculous fables, fictitious prodigies, and pious frauds, to the unspeakable detriment of that glorious cause in which they were employed. And it must be frankly confessed, that the greatest men and most eminent saints of this century, were more or less tainted with the infection of this corrupt principle, as will appear evident to such as look with an attentive eye into their writings and their actions. We would willingly except from this charge, Ambrose and Hilary, Augustin, Gregory Nazianzen, and Jerome; but truth, which is more respectable than these venerable fathers, obliges us to involve them in the general accusation. We may add also, that it was, probably, the contagion of this pernicious maxim, that engaged Sulpitius Severus, who is far from being, in the general, a puerile or credulous historian, to attribute so many miracles to St. Martin. The other maxim, relating to the justice and expediency of punishing error, was introduced with those serene and peaceful times which the accession of Constantine to the imperial throne procured to the church. It was from that very period approved by many, enforced by several examples during the contests that arose with the Priscillianists and Donatists, confirmed and established by the authority of Augustin, and thus transmitted to the following ages.

When we cast an eye towards the lives and morals of Christians at this time, we find, as formerly, a mixture of good and evil; some eminent for their piety, others infamous for their crimes. The number, however, of immoral and unworthy Christians began so to increase, that the examples of real piety and virtue became extremely rare. When the terrors of persecution were totally dispelled; when the church, secured from the efforts of its enemies, enjoyed the sweets of prosperity and peace; when most of the bishops exhibited to their flock the contagious examples of arrogance, luxury, effeminacy, animosity, and strife, with other vices too numerous to mention; when the inferior rulers and doctors of the church fell into slothful and opprobrious negligence of the duties of their respective stations, and employed in vain wranglings and idle disputes, that zeal and attention that were due to the culture of piety and to the instruction of their people, and when (to complete the enormity of this horrid detail) multitudes were drawn into the profession of Christianity, not by the power of conviction and argument, but by the prospect of gain and the fear of punishment: then it was, indeed, no wonder that the church was contaminated with shoals of profligate Christians, and that the virtuous few were, in a manner, oppressed and overwhelmed with the superior numbers of the wicked and licentious".

"Multitudes were drawn into the profession of Christianity", from what, do you think? Mosheim says "not by the power of conviction or argument as I have come here to-night; but two things drove them to it. My friend taunts me with being blind, and not being able to see, but I can see, I can find out these arguments from Mosheim. They were driven to make a profession, not by these, but "by a prospect of gain, and the fear of punishment". Those were the reasons. I say in face of such authorities as these what are we to believe? I can also quote you others; I can quote you Dr. Lardner, Dr. Alexander, and numerous others, who have devoted their whole lives to find out every particle of truth, and the conclusion they have come to is that there is no evidence that these documents are genuine. How can I deal with a subject like this, when he says he cannot accept my authority. I have here authorities like Mosheim which I leave to your judgment and consideration.

(Time called.)

MR.ROBERTS: With the corruptions of the early ecclesiastical saints, I have nothing whatever to do. I should be quite as willing as Mr. Stern to prefer an indictment against the heads and pillars of the church that present themselves before the world as the Church of Christ. But that is not the question we are at all discussing; we are discussing whether the facts recorded of and principles enunciated by Jesus of Nazareth justify the belief entertained concerning him that he is the Messiah. In so far as Mr. Stern's remarks have borne upon that point, I will briefly notice them, though there is very little indeed to notice. The attitude taken by Christ with regard to the fig-tree is perfectly explicable in view of the object intended to be accomplished, and that object was the illustration to his disciples of the power of faith, as the context shows. When the disciples had recognised the result of Christ's words to the fig tree, he said to them if they had faith as much as a grain of mustard seed, they would not only be able to do what he had done but much stranger things than that. Is it a very wonderful thing for a teacher to illustrate what he wants to teach to children? (for the disciples were children then in relation to the great truths which lay at the bottom of the system of the truth of which Jesus was the centre). Mr. Stern's criticism is a mere child's criticism. He then finds fault with Jesus for sending the herd of pigs into the Sea of Galilee. It shows how little apprehension he has of his own system, the system he speaks of under the name of Judaism: for what is Judaism if it be not a system of obedience based on the law of Moses? Was it not a commandment to eschew the use, and therefore the cultivation of the pig? It was; and Jesus in his treatment of the great herd of swine illustrated the fact which he stated at another time in these words: "Think not that I have come to destroy the law and the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfil." Jesus vindicated the Jewish law in the very thing which this Jew finds fault with him for doing.

Then he finds fault with Jesus for uttering a true prophecy -- "Think not I am come to send peace on earth". Mr. Stern admits that the work of Jesus has had precisely the effect which Jesus foretold. His mission was not at that time to bring the peace that the world will afterwards see, when he comes again. The object was to take out from amongst Jews and Gentiles a faithful people, upon the basis of voluntary obedience, and he well knew that these principles, operating upon society, would produce these results of division of whose occurrence Mr. Stern is a witness.

Then he asks why are the Jews to be held responsible for not believing, if they have been made blind? I do not say that they will be held responsible. Their blindness is a national punishment for a former offence for which they were responsible. He mistakes me for a missionary. I am as much prepared to maintain that the clerical doctrine of damnation in hell is unfounded in truth, as I am that Mr. Stern's doctrine of the Messiah is opposed to the prophets. I am prepared to prove that the rule of God's moral government is that the punishment of sin is death -- that death will at last obliterate every trace of disobedience from the universe; all disobedient Jews as all disobedient Gentiles. I admit that if the popular doctrine were true -- that blinded Israel will be sent to live in eternal agony -- there would be great force in Mr. Stern's argument; but it has no force against my position. We are all born into the world without inheritance of eternal life; and Jesus of Nazareth said "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins". Therefore, if he be the Messiah, Mr. Stern and the unbelieving Jews generally are doomed. But suppose there was any force at all in Mr. Stern's argument on being made blind -- I mean any force against Jesus, would it not recoil upon Mr. Stern's own prophets? Does Mr. Stern believe in the prophets? He says he is an orthodox Jew; and therefore I am bound to assume that he does. Let me then call your attention to Isaiah 6:9, where this mission is confided to Israel as the merited punishment of Israel for having, century after century, rebelled against the servants of God. "Go and tell this people, hear ye, indeed, but understand not; and see ye, indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and convert, and be healed".

And if any man challenges God's right to do such a thing, we shall simply have an illustration of a finite mortal criticising the doings of unsearchable wisdom.

Mr. Stern's position with regard to the originals is really too trifling to notice. I deny that he can produce the Hebrew originals of the writings of Moses, if he means the real documents that he wrote -- the very parchment which the pen of Moses moved upon in inscribing the words he wrote. The documents no longer exist; for it was not in the nature of the substance on which they were written to last so long; but does that fact interfere with the faith of the Jews? That it does not, is evident from Mr. Stern's belief in them; and again I say, if Mr. Stern can believe in the writings of Moses, in the absence of the originals, having otherwise good reasons for doing so, he cannot find fault with me under precisely similar circumstances, doing the same thing with regard to the New Testament.

Having noticed so much in his last speech as calls for notice, I proceed with the evidence upon which I was engaged, and I do so by anticipating a retort that might be made in connection with the evidence I have already produced. It may be said that Jesus of Nazareth, in the position in which he is put forward as God manifest in the flesh, is an interference with the Jewish doctrine delivered by Moses, that there is but one God. I, therefore, wish to call your attention to this, that the doctrine of the New Testament is not that Jesus is a second God, but that he is subordinately related to the great fountain of universal power, who revealed himself to Israel by Moses and the prophets. This can be shown by quoting the testimony of those who quoted the testimony of Christ. I first refer you to the Acts of the Apostles 2:22, where Peter, the leader of the Apostles, gives the definition in these words: "Ye men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and signs which GOD DID by him in the midst of you, as ye, yourselves also know". This does not present the Trinitarian idea, which I admit is a great obstacle with the Jews; but an obstacle that does not exist in my case, because I uphold the doctrine that there is but one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ, His son. In Acts 10:38, we have the same doctrine enunciated. Peter again being the speaker whilst in the house of Cornelius, where he says that GOD anointed Jesus with the power which he exercised. In I Cor. 3:23, we find God put in a position of supremacy over Jesus. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says "All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things to come: all are yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is GOD'S". In this you see a gradually-ascending chain; we are at the bottom; Christ intermediate; God at the top, an order which you will see presented in I Cor. 11:3: "I would have you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is GOD". In Ephesians 4:5-6, the same idea stands prominently out: "There is one Lord (that is the Lord Jesus Christ) ... one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all, and in you all". In the first chapter of Heb., a very beautiful epistle, you find Paul presenting Jesus in the same light: "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake, in time past, unto the fathers by the prophets, hath, in these last days, spoken unto us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down by the right hand of Majesty on high, being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels hath he said, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee; and again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son?"

It is thus shown that God spoke through Jesus of Nazareth; and this is a doctrine which is surely not impossible for a Jew to receive, seeing that God spake through the angel at the bush, and when that angel appeared to Moses, did he not say, "I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" If God can speak through an angel, surely He can speak through a man who was begotten by Himself, and whom He has provided as a channel of approach to Himself. In 1 John 1 the same doctrine is presented: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the word of life (for the life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us); that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His son Jesus Christ". In the gospel of John, the first two verses, you have the same doctrine expressed: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD; the same was in the beginning with God, and was manifested unto us, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth".

(Time called.)

MR. STERN: Of course, these long sentences are perfectly understood by Mr. Roberts -- that everything is God. Mr. Roberts understands it and I hope you do. But still, my friends, that is his Christian love toward me: he taunts me with something like madness: that I, a single Jew, should come forward to criticise Jesus. Does he think this will gain him credit? Why, I should have thought that at least he would have reserved it for some other occasion. He taunted me with being a Jew and with having the madness to come forward. Why did he accept the challenge? I expected you were a gentleman, sir (turning to Mr. Roberts); I expected you were an honourable man. I expected I was coming before an English audience who would allow me an opportunity, though a Jew, of expressing my opinion. Why taunt me with it? Why make use of the term, and address me by the name with the greatest sarcasm? How would you like to be called a Methodist? "This Methodist", or "this Quaker", or "this Roman Catholic"? I would have more respect for my opponent. But I will leave this matter, appealing to your own sense of justice and to your judgment, as to how far Mr. Roberts was justified. He says it doesn't matter; we must take no notice of what "this Jew" says about producing the originals. For if I ask him to produce the originals of the New Testament, he asks me to produce the originals of Moses. If this is the right way of arguing the subject, I do not know what sort of logic you will call it. You do not doubt Moses; then why ask me to produce the originals? But as to the New Testament writings, I doubt them upon the greatest authority. My friend says the evidence he produces is overwhelming. Indeed! It doesn't seem to affect me. He says Christ Jesus is the Son of God, and he makes him up a mystery -- three in one and one in three -- you know.

MR. ROBERTS: No, no.

THE CHAIRMAN here interposed, saying: Mr. Stern's expression applies to those who hold the Trinitarian doctrine; Mr. Roberts has stated that he doesn't hold the Trinitarian doctrine.

MR. STERN: I have come here to give reasons against Jesus of Nazareth, and I class Mr. Roberts among Christians generally. (Confusion, which lasted some time.) I have lost five minutes, and I claim it from you. I was going to address those who do not call Mr. Roberts a gentleman; but I will keep my temper, my friend, only if he should try to throw something on my head, I will try to give him one back again. When I challenged Mr. Roberts, I didn't think of coming here to ask your opinions as to what I should say. I gave him the challenge, and he knew very well that I came here to deny that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. How can I deny it unless you allow me to speak what I have to say against him? How is it possible? Another thing; you would not like, as Englishmen, that it should go forth that discussion was not allowed in the Temperance Hall in 1871, that the one on the side of Jesus had all the favour shown him, and the Jew was not allowed to express his opinions; you would really not like that. With your permission I will as calmly as possible examine the subject. My friend says bring the originals of Moses; I simply say this, Moses is not in discussion, I told him this last night, that when we discussed Christianity versus Judaism, I should be prepared to bring all documents which are necessary. I have quoted from Mosheim what he says about the earliest fathers who were supposed to be the translators of these documents, and here is something more. "As this divine religion was to be propagated to the ends of the earth, it was necessary that Christ should choose a certain number of persons through the whole course of his ministry. To answer the facts of this grand mystery, it required such men as the apostles were. They were the lowest of the low; it was impossible to get respectable men". Let us go further. "And these apostles (page 63), were men without education". So Mosheim considers. But the Jews were blind. Although Jesus was continually working miracles, he shut the eyes of the Jews so that they could not see. I challenged Mr. Roberts to discuss this question, I would not give a challenge to the man whom Mr. Monaet defeated; I wanted a learned man like Mr. Roberts, yet I expect from a learned man that he will at least give fair play. Jesus called thirteen persons, only one of whom had acquaintance with Jewish and Christian learning. The others were picked men of "mean extraction", respectable men he could not get. The only apostle who had any learning was Paul. Mr. Roberts told me last night that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and the rest in Greek. I ask him how can he expect illiterate and poor Jews, who never knew anything about philosophy, to write in Greek. I should like you to find me a man among the poorest and meanest of the Christians who could write as these illiterate Jews are said to have written. I say how is it possible for me to believe documents upon such authority, when I have such authorities as those I can bring in support of my arguments? How can I believe the New Testament? How unreasonable from a learned man; I say it truly; for I know Mr. Roberts to be a learned man; how unreasonable for a gentleman of his learning and understanding to answer me in the way he does. His friends ask me to keep my temper, but surely you must admit that I, like others, am a creature of circumstances; I cannot help it when it rises within me, I can simply control it. I am not made the same as a personage whom I do not think it necessary to mention. I will quote a few more beautiful sentences to see whether this shall be the means of making me embrace Christianity. I shall commence with Peter. John 18:10: "Then Simon Peter having a sword, drew it and smote the High Priest's servant and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus". That is how it states it in John. In Acts 3:23, it says: "It shall come to pass that everyone which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people". Those are Peter's own words. Luke 22:54: "Then took they him (Christ) and led him and brought him unto the High Priest's house, and Peter followed afar off. When they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall and were set down together, Peter sat down among them; but a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him and said, This man was also with him; and he denied her, saying Woman, I know him not". Now then, here Peter lays down a rule, that whoever denies that prophet shall be cut off, and yet this cowardly liar himself denies him, perhaps two or three hours after these very words were spoken. What reliance can be placed in books which contradict each other in this manner. (A voice: Peter didn't say it before he denied him.) If he didn't say it, then why does it say he did? The book must be wrong and liable to error, the same as all other books. If these are the words that are to lead me to Christ, I wish to remain where I am. I will quote some other passages. 2 John, 10th verse: "If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed". This has been fulfilled with a vengeance. I daresay my friend will say I cut the ground from under my feet again. "Neither bid him God speed". There has been a time within the last fifty years, when a Jew could not live in sight of London: could not get a house there.

THE CHAIRMAN here said Mr. Stern had lost some time in complaining about the audience not giving him a hearing. He didn't think that was just, there had been a little interruption, but it was very slight. He would advise Mr. Stern not to lose time by making unnecessary complaints. If there was any material interruption, he would immediately put a stop to it.

MR. ROBERTS: Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish there were time to follow all the little points Mr. Stern has raised. I must content myself with one or two. They are all equally fallacious, and the last is certainly no exception. The case of Peter is not in the position he represented. Moses does not say "Whosoever shall deny that prophet shall be cut off", but whosoever will not hearken to "that prophet", in the sense of ultimately receiving and submitting to him, shall be destroyed. His disciple Peter, under great pressure gave way to the temptation to deny him for a moment. It was but a moment. Immediately "he went out and wept bitterly". And is there no such thing as forgiveness? Is not the God of Israel a gracious God, forgiving iniquity and transgression? Have the Jews no sins to be forgiven, and will not forgiveness be extended to them if they repent? Even the murder of His own Son, He offers to forgive on conditions of repentance and faith.

Then he raised a question with regard to men who wrote the New Testament. He admits they were illiterate, and contends they were unable to write these documents, and therefore it was not written by them. I answer the argument upon the principle that shines through this little remark of the Jews which we find in John 7:15, where it says the Jews marvelled, saying "How knoweth this man (JESUS) letters, HAVING NEVER LEARNED?" Let Mr. Stern answer that question with regard to Jesus, and he will answer it with regard to his disciples. It is one of the strongest evidences of the Messiahship of Jesus that in connection with his word, illiterate men performed that which was impossible for them to do unless supernaturally assisted, which they were. The Spirit was sent upon them and produced results which caused the Jews to marvel. As we read in Acts 4:13, "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, THEY MARVELLED". What is the explanation? They had something besides their illiterateness. What was it? God worked with them, confirming their words with signs following. The promise of Christ was fulfilled, that the Spirit of truth should come to them and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had spoken to them.

Then Mr. Stern seemed to be very much stung by my calling him a Jew. From my point of view, it is the most honourable name in the earth. Salvation is of the Jews. Christ was a Jew. All the apostles were Jews. I look forward to the time when ten men shall take hold of the skirts of him that is a Jew and say "We will go with thee, for we have heard that God is WITH THEE". But when the time comes, the "God with them" will be Jesus of Nazareth whom they crucified -- Emmanuel.

The next branch of my argument is, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah because of the great works which he wrought; because of the miracles that he performed, none of which will be controverted as to their nature if admitted to have taken place. The opponents of Christianity give the answer to them that Mr. Monaet gave. Jesus told his disciples they were not to receive false Christs although they should show signs and wonders (Mark 13:22). The argument is that if false Christs could work signs and wonders, the working of signs and wonders is no sign that Jesus was the true Christ. The answer to that is that Christ admitted the possibility of other men doing the things that appeared miraculous, but rested his claims on the vast difference between what he did and what other men did. He challenges comparison. He says in John 15:24, "If I had not done among them the WORKS WHICH NONE OTHER MAN DID, they had not had sin". Where was there ever a man before him, or since, that walked upon the sea, and stilled the tempest by a word of command? Where is the mail that ever fed thousands of people with a few loaves of bread? Where was ever the man before him that raised the dead by a word? Never in all the category of false Christs -- never in all the history of impostures, has there been any approach to these great wonders, which, as Paul said of other things, were not done in a corner. If time admitted, which it does not, I should have liked to go very largely into this point, to demonstrate the historic reality of the things related of Christ. But I must hastily pass on the last point of my argument, which is, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, because he rose from the dead. Now my evidence upon that question is very simple, but exceedingly strong -- strong because of its simplicity. What are the facts of the case? They are such as are not doubted, as regards the principal of them at all events; and that is this, that after Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by Pilate at the instigation of the Jews, his disciples proclaimed to the Jewish public that he had risen again. They did not say "We believe it because somebody has told us, or because we are convinced as a matter of argument that it must be so; because we have some theory on the matter. No. They said, "He is risen again, for we have seen him, WE HAVE EATEN AND DRUNK WITH HIM SINCE HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD. We are his witnesses." I will just quote one specimen of the kind of testimony they gave on this most important point. In Acts 10:40, you find Peter -- who denied his Lord, but was forgiven -- declaring "Him God raised up the third day and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead". The testimony did not relate to a single interview with the Lord merely; but applied to a period of forty days, during which he repeatedly showed himself to his disciples. "To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion, by MANY INFALLIBLE PROOFS, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3). Now these men everywhere declared the same thing, and with one uniform result -- that, namely, of persecution; at the very threshold of their career, the authorities laid hold of Peter and put him in prison, and confiscated the goods of all in Jerusalem who dared to believe his testimony. The other disciples gave the same testimony. They went everywhere throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria declaring that the Lord had risen, and had commanded them to preach faith in him for the remission of sins. The result to the disciples was in every case the same. It brought upon them degradation, and evil and pain; and at last, in almost every case, death. Now what is the explanation of such an extraordinary phenomenon? Mr. Stern asks your attention to a thief at the bar as affording an explanation; he says, "Oh, a thief will tell a story of course, to get himself out of a scrape". Just so; but where is the man that will tell a story to get himself out of a scrape? The way for the disciples to have kept out of the scrape was to hold their tongues; or, having got into the scrape, the way to get out of it was to tell just the very opposite story to that which they told. If they had said, "We confess we have been deceiving the people. Jesus never rose, but is now rotting in the place where we laid his stolen dead body", they would immediately and gladly have been let out of the scrape and praised amongst the Jews as honest men. Instead of that, they persisted in a declaration, which, if not true, was of no benefit to them, but brought them continually into that which Mr. Stern suggests they made to get out of -- a scrape.

The facts upon which my argument is based are doubted. No one can deny that the Christians of the first century testified that Christ had risen, because they had seen him, and no man can deny that this testimony brought upon them every species of deprivation. Therefore we have to believe first that they were honest men; for none but honest men will bring upon themselves continued poverty, starvation, and death, by adhering to a statement. Why is a lie ever told? That the liar may get good to himself or screen himself from harm -- like Mr. Stern's thief. Did the disciples of Christ screen themselves from harm by what they said? On the contrary Paul said, "For Christ's sake we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted and have no certain dwelling-place. We are made as the filth of the world and off-scouring of all things unto this day". These were no liars. There is only one hypothesis upon which you can get rid of their testimony, and that is not a sustainable one, namely, that they were mad. This I suppose is the hypothesis that Mr. Stern would select. But it will be very hard work to maintain it in the face of the marvellous combination of greatness and goodness which he admits in saying that illiterate men could not write such epistles as the apostles wrote. There is no man can read the epistles of Paul and say he was a madman. They show him to have been a cool, clear-headed, logical, practical, sensible man; and having mentioned his name, I will speak of his case, which forms one of the strongest bulwarks of the Christian faith; for the facts of his case must have been intimately known at the time. Brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, who was a man of great authority as a leader amongst the Pharisees, Paul, when the disciples first began to declare that Christ had risen, took the lead in endeavouring to extirpate them as a class from the nation. A man of great intelligence, a man of learning, and of undoubted honesty of purpose, and of extraordinary energy and enterprise. All of a sudden, this man, whilst on his way to Damascus, with letters from the Sanhedrin empowering him to apprehend Christians -- all of a sudden, this man turns round and begins to preach the faith he sought to destroy. What is the explanation of this extraordinary incontrovertible fact? Let me read Paul's own explanation of it, and judge ye between Mr. Stern and Paul. Acts 23 brings before us Paul, who, after a prolonged journey among the Gentiles, testifying the mission of Christ, appears in Jerusalem. Some of the Jews recognise him and say, "Men of Israel, help; this is the man that teaches all men everywhere against the people and the law, and this place". A great uproar ensues, in which Paul is likely to be torn to pieces. He is at length rescued by the Roman soldiers, and he asks permission to address the people from the stairs; and obtaining permission, delivers this speech, which is Paul's explanation of an otherwise inexplicable career:

"Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith, I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know His will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance: and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: And when the blood of thy martyr, Stephen, was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth; for it is not fit that he should live".

(Time called.)

MR. STERN: You have heard the beautiful passages that my friend has just quoted: all I have to say is, "I don't believe it". I still keep to my subject; I hold these are lies, forgeries, and falsehoods, and I will tell you why -- because I take against Mr. Roberts the statements of Mosheim. My friend says, What interest was it to those men to lie? Mosheim says they considered it a virtue to lie, when the interests of the Church required it. And these documents, the originals of which you say are lost -- more shame for you, that you didn't take better care of them. Mr. Roberts has quoted from St. Paul some good sayings, but I will quote some of the bad ones. Paul says, "I robbed other churches and took wages of them, to do you service". My friend has such a nice way of quoting all the good things, and leaving all the other things out. Am I to believe in a man who actually acknowledges that he has robbed other churches and taken wages, to do them service? That is very mild! I will quote two or three more passages of Paul: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His service, why yet am I judged as a sinner?" (Rom. 3:7). If he really has robbed and lied in the interests of the Church, why should he be looked upon as a sinner? Again, "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant" (1 Cor. 14:38). The Church acquired the greatest power when its people were ignorant, and kept them ignorant. Why? Because if they had not, they might have been able to read those Christian books. Now that the people have got to understand, what is the result? Even this New Testament of yours, which Mr. Roberts brings as an authority, which Mr. Roberts says contains truths, is now sent up to the Synod, in London to be altered. Why? Because the people can see the forgeries and falsehoods the book contains; and they want to take them out, and to put something else in their stead. (A voice: It's a lie.) My friend says it is a lie, but it is a fact. (Some confusion here occurred, and the Chairman had some difficulty in restoring order.) How unreasonable it is; my friend is allowed to quote good things out of the book, and I want to show you the bad ones. Why does he persist in quoting them, when I say they are lies and falsehoods. I tell you they are forgeries. I say, "Bring proofs". And you insist upon quoting Paul; then why not allow me to quote his bad sayings? My friend doesn't like me to do this. Paul says, "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach unto you any other gospel than ye have received, let him be accursed". Are these a godly man's words? Does it take Jesus to inspire Paul -- your dead Jesus who has risen again, as you presume; does it take Jesus to die and be crucified for the purpose of inspiring Paul to tell lies? Does it take all that for Paul to say, "Let any man be accursed", because he doesn't believe the doctrine of this book. If this is all, I say I will remain with those who do not believe it all my life; and if I am to be accursed for it, I will take my chance. "A man that is an heretic after the first admonition, reject". Why must I be rejected, simply because I won't believe these forgeries? "I would that they were cut off that trouble you. Nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile". That is what Paul says. "But (Acts 13:8) Elymas the Sorcerer withstood them". "Then Saul (who is also called Paul), filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, and said, 'Oh, full of all subtlety and of all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now behold the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season'. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness, and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand". I do not believe it. "And some days after (Acts 15:36), Paul said unto Barnabas, 'Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do'. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark; but Paul thought it not good to take him with them, who had departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder, one from the other". That is a very nice thing, isn't it? "For this cause ... God gave them up unto vile affections". This is a passage from Rom. 1:26-27. I advise everyone but ladies to read it; I think it is too disgusting for them; it is really too disgusting; it just caught my eye. I will give you another; of course, I must leave you to be the judge, now, of Paul. "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed:" this is what is said in the New Testament. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the arch-angel and the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first:" that is what Paul said (I Cor. 15). "We who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds". Let us only hope it will not be a damp cloud, or they will catch cold. "To meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord". What -- in the air? I wish them well over it. I don't want to be there. That is one of the grand mysteries, and I will leave it to my friend to explain. My friend has stated that no man ever did what Jesus did. He walked on the sea. Of course I don't believe it' but suppose he did, what does that prove to me? Does it prove that he is the Son of God? Is it proof because a man walks on the sea, and is born of a woman without a father, that he is the Son of God? To me it only proves that he can do something which I do not know how to do. What has he done? I am sure if he had only left the secret behind, it would be some good. Tell me what good he has done? Then Mr. Roberts quotes to me that beautiful passage about Christ turning water into wine. I will refer you to the passage. "Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots with water; and they filled them up to the brim. And he said unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast, and they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants that drew the water knew) -- [Yes, the servants knew all about it, because they knew the trick] -- the governor of the feast called the bridegroom and said, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now". If this is a test for a man to be looked upon as the Son of God -- and God himself sometimes -- if this is a test for me to believe in him, why then there is a friend of mine in Birmingham, whom I have not seen for the last eight years, he not alone can turn the water into wine, but he will take a bottle of water, and he will pour out of that bottle all sorts of wine; you have only got to mention what sort you want, and he will give it to you. But do I look upon Professor Hermann as a god, or connected in any way with a ghost -- I mean the Holy Ghost; I told you so; I do not know the meaning of the word ghost, nor Holy Ghost, nor do I know where he gets his translation from. Well, Professor Hermann can do something which I do not know how to do; but his servants know very well, as did the servants of Jesus. But it is not because he can do that, that I shall worship him; my friend doesn't want me to worship Professor Hermann. Well, my friend didn't quote this, but it happens, very fortunately, that I have it here: "I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened; which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things that were written in the books according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them". I should like to know what my friend means by hell? I do not know any Hebrew word that would give him such a translation. "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire!" I should like to know how that could be done. I should like to know how large hell is, and how large the lake of fire is to throw the lot into. These are some of the grand mysteries again. I do not believe it; but he will explain it to you, no doubt. "I am he that liveth and was dead, and have the keys of hell and death".

(Time called.)

MR. ROBERTS: I refer Mr. Stern to a well-known word in his own language for the Scripture idea of hell, and that is sheol, of which the word hades is the Greek equivalent. The meaning he has unintentionally supplied in his last quotation in saying that Jesus has the keys of it. Sheol is a place unseen; a well-known Hebrew equivalent for the grave. He says he does not believe in the Holy Ghost.

MR. STERN: In ghosts.

MR. ROBERTS: Does he believe in Ruacha kodush?

MR. STERN: Yes, in Ruacha kodu-sh.

MR. ROBERTS: That is the Holy Spirit of which the English phrase "Holy Ghost" is a corruption. The Holy Ghost that came upon Mary at Bethlehem, and led to the production of this marvellous man, was the Holy Spirit of the Mighty One of Israel. Surely there ought to be nothing difficult in this for a Jew to receive. As for the extreme modesty which he professed as a bar to the full discussion of the subject, I will only say that the Scriptures of truth, honour and common sense recognise none of the prurient mysteries that are known only to impure minds. "To the pure all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing clean". The only other point in his remarks which I will notice is his quotations from Mosheim. I altogether deny the applicability of Moshelm's testimony to the matters I have produced. To what age of Christianity does Mosheim's testimony refer? Does it refer to the days of the apostles and their disciples? Will it be said of them that they taught falsehood as a virtue? Never, never! Mosheim's remarks have reference to those dark ages in European history when a corrupt and Jesuitical priesthood were in the ascendancy, and the people demoralised by their teaching. And it indicates the desperateness of Mr. Stern's case that he finds it necessary to even insinuate that such principles were those of Christ Jesus, who was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and without sin". His attempt to prove them to have been the principles of the apostles by quotations from the writings of Paul, is even more to be deprecated than his attempt to make the early Christians responsible for Papal corruption. He has quoted a statement of Paul -- "If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory", as if it were a definition by Paul of Paul's principles; whereas it is really a suggestion that Paul puts into the mouth of a supposed caviller, and which he instantly repudiates, saying that he is slanderously reported when represented as saying, "Let us do evil that good may come". Mr. Stern has added himself to the list of Paul's slanderers, but I dare say that gives him little concern. I am sorry the time is so limited with so much that might be considered, but I must make the best of it. I must rapidly summarise what remains to be said. Usually the Jews, in their opposition to Jesus, point to the testimony of the prophets that the Jewish Messiah is to reign in Jerusalem as universal King of the earth, and ask how Jesus answers to that. I admit that the Jesus of popular preaching does not answer to it, but I should like to have shown that the case is altogether different with the Jesus of the New Testament. I should have liked by copious references to show that the mission of Jesus of Nazareth is to return a second time to the scene of his sufferings, and there to be exalted as King of Israel and Monarch of the Whole World. But the time failing, I must content myself with that simple definition, and proceed to say that in all possible things by which the Jewish Messiah could be recognised, Jesus of Nazareth answers to them. I have proved their applicability to him, as to:

1. -- The time when he should appear.

2. -- The place (Bethlehem) where he should be born.

3. -- The family from which it was promised he should be extracted.

4. -- The character in which he should first be manifested.

5. -- The way in which the Jews should receive him.

6. -- The manner in which they should treat him.

7. -- The manner of his death.

8. -- The effects of his death.

9. -- His resurrection.

10. -- The marvellous relation he should sustain both to his own nation and the Gentiles as the manifestation of divine power and wisdom.

And as I have intimated, I could largely show that Jesus of Nazareth, according to the predictions of the New Testament will answer in the fullest particulars to all that is promised concerning the Messiah's coming glory. I now simply have to deal briefly with the attitude of the Jewish nation toward him. They unanimously reject him, although they did not do so in the generation in which he appeared, (for as they are obliged to admit, many thousands of Jews believed on him), they take comfort from their collective unbelief. They seem to think it impossible that they can be mistaken in the matter. Have they forgotten their past history? Let me remind them that in all their generations, they have shown themselves wonderfully prone to go astray from things divine. They have in many cases accepted false Christs. I dare say Mr. Stern, if he is informed enough, can recall passages in the history of his nation in which they have submitted to the leadership of undoubted impostors, men who have in no particular answered to the description of their Messiah in the prophets. Time after time have they fallen into that snare and led themselves into national disasters, in which they would have been destroyed had it not been for the watchfulness of the great Supreme Ruler, who for the sake of his own great name, has preserved them a remnant to this time. I will read the description of them by Moses 3,000 years ago, and ask you to mark how signally his words have been verified in the whole course of their history since, and certainly not least of all, in their treatment of Jesus of Nazareth. In Deuteronomy 31:16, you have a wonderful composition introduced thus:--

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us? And I will surely hide my face in that day, for all the evils which they shall have wrought in that they are turned unto other gods. Now, therefore, write ye this song for you and teach it to the children of Israel; put it in their mouths that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel. For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey, and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat, then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant. And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed."

Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and we have it now, and I will read it to you (Deut. 32):

"Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass. Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is he not thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee? Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will show thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him. He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock. Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape. But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked -- thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness -- then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters, And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people [and I am here to-night as an illustration of the fulfilment of this]. I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains, I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of grey hairs. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men. Were it not that I feared the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand is high, and the LORD hath not done all this. For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is there any understanding in them. 0 that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end. How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?"

(Time called.)

MR. STERN: The big guns have been fired, and the battle is over, but so far from my friend making any impression on me, so far from his shots having hurt me, so far from the arguments pointed at me having made the least impression to make me embrace Christianity, they have only brought out the greater feelings I have against it. (Hisses.) Oh! hiss away, and it will only show your beautiful Christianity. (Renewed hissing.) It will only show you can hiss what does not please you. My friend taunts me because I said I don't believe in the Holy Ghost; but he has not told the difference between an ordinary ghost and a holy one. I, like him, have a great deal more to say. It would take me at least three weeks more to say all I have to say; and I am perfectly satisfied that if I only had the time to give verse and chapter for you to go home and compare them, I am perfectly satisfied you would never believe in Jesus any more. My friend asked me if I believed in ruacha kodush? Of course. The word ruach is "wind", and kodush is holy; and if a holy wind sometimes causes virgins to conceive, I should advise all respectable ladies to keep out of the draught. (A voice: It is blasphemy.) Then I will blaspheme as long as I live.

[THE GENTLEMAN (a Jew converted to orthodox Christianity), who thus charactertised the remarks of Mr. Stern, then rose and attempted to obtain a hearing for himself, repeatedly exclaiming, in an excited manner, that he would not allow blasphemy in his presence.

THE CHAIRMAN refused to hear him, and after some minutes' confusion the gentleman was prevailed upon to sit down.]

MR. STERN: I consider that that gentleman has come here for the purpose of disturbing the meeting. I am sure we have gone on very nicely, with the exception of a few interruptions. I am sure I will excuse them. I was perfectly satisfied that I should say something you would not like. Well, my friend says he will place me along with the slanderers of Paul. If I have slandered him I am sure I have slandered him truthfully from my convictions. I have come forward like a man and publicly announced my convictions, and if I have slandered Paul, I wish to be judged by those great intellects that are to be found in this country. The next thing my friend asks me is respecting the ages to which one of my quotations from Mosheim refers. He says the statements he makes with reference to the policy of the early church do not refer to the apostles. I have told you that they could not write, that they were illiterate men, that they could not write these books at all. But my friend says they did write them, although they could not. He says the originals have been lost; and when I quote Mosheim, I quote him merely to show what sort of people they were who are supposed to have written them. I say the translators have misrepresented everything, and these things could never have been in existence or there would have been something left of them. I want to know what the discussion has been about. He has yet to show me why Jesus was crucified, why he was to be three days and three nights in the grave, and yet only remained thirty hours, and why he should rise again and go to heaven; and I yet want to know where in the Hebrew there is an equivalent for the word heaven at all. We have not got an equivalent for heaven, so I do not know where Jesus is. But has he been crucified at all? that is the question. I maintain that according to the rules of English Grammar he has not (Luke 23:26). "And as they led him (Jesus) away they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him (Simon) they laid the cross that he might bear it after Jesus". I wish you particularly to pay attention to these few passages; it says they caught hold of one Simon coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross. "And there followed him". The last person alluded to is Simon, mind you, "And there followed him (Simon) a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him (Simon)". But Jesus turning unto them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for your children, &c." This was superfluous, for they did not weep for him but for Simon. "And when they were come to the place which is called Calvary, there they crucified him". Now the last person alluded to is Simon; therefore, it must have been Simon they crucified. "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". (A Voice: Is that Simon as well?) No, but Jesus, who shouted out from the crowd, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do", they are crucifying poor Simon and they think it is me. Well, this discussion for the present ends to-night. I thank you kindly for the attention you have given; for, although you have sometimes interrupted me, it still is a great credit to the town of Birmingham that you have at last allowed a Jew to come forward for the first time, to express his opinions publicly whether he is in the right or not. There never was a time when a Jew came forward in England before; and I am sure that out of England no Jew would be allowed to do what I have done here. It shows that we have in England at least arrived at the time when we can tolerate other opinions as well as our own. I will close in the sublime words of one of the finest female writers that ever graced the field of literature and moral philosophy.

CONTENTS | FIRST NIGHT | SECOND NIGHT