I,
pointing south. 'Then come this way,' said he, 'quick;' and he pulled me
north. This probably saved my life. The mob knew which way my lodgings
lay, and as soon as they got out of the hall, they hurried south, like a
pack of hounds, roaring and furious. I was soon half a mile away in the
other direction. 'Where shall I take you?' said the policeman. 'Do you
know any one hereabouts?' 'Take me to Mr. Mott's,' said I, 'in Arch
Street.' We were there in a few moments, and as the door opened to
receive me, the policeman received his gratuity, and hastened away. In
fifteen minutes there was a noise in the street. Mr. Mott opened the
door and looked out, when a brickbat passed just by his head, and broke
itself to pieces on the door-post, leaving its mark on the marble. He
had a narrow escape. He closed the door, and after awhile the mob
dispersed, and all was quiet. Thus ended the discussion with Dr.
McCalla.

One would have thought that after such an experience as this, I should
have taken care to keep out of debates on such an exciting subject. But
I was daring to madness. I was engaged again in discussion on the same
subject, in the same city, in less than a month.

The clergy of Philadelphia, unwilling to leave the cause of the Bible in
this plight, demanded that I should discuss the question with Dr. Berg,
a minister in whom they had great confidence. I yielded to the demand,
and the discussion took place in Concert Hall, in January, 1854.

The hall was crowded every night. One very wet and stormy night, the
number present was only 2000, but every other night it was from 2250 to
2400. A Philadelphia newspaper of that period says, "We cannot forbear
to notice the contrast in the manner and bearing of the two disputants.
Mr. Barker uniformly bore himself as a gentleman, courteously and
respectfully towards his opponent, and with the dignity becoming his
position, and the solemnity and importance of the question. We regret we
cannot say the same of Dr. Berg, who at times seemed to forget the
obligations of the gentleman, in his zeal as a controversialist. He is
an able and skilful debater, though less logical than Mr. Barker; but he
wasted his time and strength too often on personalities and irrelevant
matters. His personal inuendoes and offensive epithets, his coarse
witticisms and arrogant bearing, may have suited the vulgar and
intolerant among his party, but they won him no respect from the calm
and thinking port