صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

in the religion of Christ, and have lived under the influence of its principles, for more than forty years; but it never made them either vicious or miserable. They have been faithful and affectionate to each other; they have been temperate and industrious; they have been true and upright; and according to their ability, they have laboured to promote the welfare of their fellow-creatures. My brothers and sisters are most of them religious; they read and study the religion of Christ on purpose that they may obey its teachings; and yet they are not remarkable for either vice or misery. I have relations that are not Christians; I have relations that profess not to believe the Gospel, and who live in open violation of its laws: and they are both vicious and miserable. As far as my acquaintance with the world goes, things are just the opposite of what our opponents represent them to be. Those who most heartily believe and most faithfully practice the religion of Christ, I have always found to be the most virtuous and happy; and those who know the least and care the least for the religion of Christ, I have generally found to be the most vicious and miserable. If men are vicious and miserable, it is for want of Christianity; and it seems almost a mystery how any man of common understanding can believe it to be otherwise."

Whichever alternative Mr. Barker may now prefer, he will never be able to explain these glaring and palpable contradictions; and unless infidels have lost all sense of truth, they will never be able to trust him more; they will be driven to the conclusion which Mr. G. J. Holyoake once reached:-"I will not say that when Mr. Barker wrote it he knew it to be false, but I will say that any other man but Mr. Barker, would have known it to be so." He appears, however, to have boundless confidence in the credulity of so-called free-thinkers, and continues his old trade. At one of his lectures we heard Mr. B. declare that he believed in the existence of a great and good God; a few days afterwards, one of Mr. Barker's most earnest friends, when he was a Christian advocate, called upon him, and in the course of conversation, Mr. B. told him that he had very serious doubts about the existence of God. We have the fact from the gentleman himself, and his probity is unimpeachable. We could give many other illustrations of our statenient, but the above may suffice for the present.

For the truth of the pages, (12, 13, and 14,) which Mr. Barker says are "crammed with lies," we can vouch, and there are hundreds of others who can do the same. He evaded discussion with the Rev. Dr. Baylee by unreasonably lengthening out his first lecture. He was afraid of crossing swords with so accomplished a scholar and critic, and, though he could allow Mr. John Finch to interrupt him for five minutes in the midst of one of his speeches, in sounding his own praise, he could not allow a moment to Dr. Baylee, but threatened to use physical force, if he did not sit down.

We have more than one communication from correspondents, corroborating the other facts.

As our space does not admit of the insertion of all, we shall be excused for briefly giving their substance; and it will be found that "Observer's" account is not so dark as the reality. On the first night of Mr. Rutherford's appearance, at the close of Mr. B's lecture, he was allowed ten minutes to speak and requested that the chairman would tell him the moment his ten minitues were up, that he might not be exposed to the charge of insolence which Mr. B. made against him at Newcastle, when he had unwittingly taken more than the time allowed him, though Mr. Barker had taken twice that time in reply. We have the testimony of several witnesses that Mr. B. was very much agitated; and soon there was evidence that his ire was kindled. In his reply he said, "To the charge of insolence and impudence, I have now to add that of lying." At the close

Mr. Rutherford requested a minute to reply to this personal accusation. It was refused. He then demanded it. Still it was refused. As nine tenths of the audience were inclined to listen, he attempted to take it, and ascended the platform. At the prospect of a further exposure, Mr. B. became fearfully excited, crossed the platform, jostled Mr. R., and literally yelled in his face in order to drown his voice. Such an unmanly, and degrading exhibition of a public speaker we never saw! Next night it was quite clear that he and his chairman had determined, if possible, to prevent Mr. R. from speaking. As he was making his way to the platform, past the reserved seats, the only way in which the platform could be reached from the body of the hall-he was stopped, and a demand made for more MONEY, though he had paid at the door, and stated that he was going to reply to the Lecturer. This difficulty surmounted, Mr. R. found another gentleman on the platform, and although the audience was clamorous to hear him, the other gentleman had the precedence. The arrangements of the meeting were, that after the lecture, discussion would be allowed for an hour, in speeches, ten minutes each, Mr. B. having the same time for reply. This allowed three speakers against the lecturer, and three replies. That night, however, two speeches against Mr. B., and two replies from him, were considered enough to fill up the hour, and when Mr. Rutherford demanded a hearing, Mr. B., though he said that he had not occupied all his time, gave the sign to close the meeting, and the gas was almost immediately put out. Infidel love of light, of free-thought, of fair play! And all done under the auspices of the "Free Protestant Association," and with the sanction of Mr. John Finch, who declares that they are the only consistent protestants in the world!! Barnum should get a museum for these gentlemen by themselves. It was a painful thing to see an aged man with white locks, who makes such boasting of what he has done in the cause of free-thought, actually attempting by force to drive Mr. Rutherford from the platform, when he was only demanding the right of every Englishman, to be heard in self-defence.

Mr. B. had no heart to come to the public meeting to which he was invited, to discuss the question with Mr. R. The money was awanting, and he had no confidence in the working classes, whom he knows how to flatter. A gentleman stated at that meeting, in the presence of two thousand persons, that Mr. Barker had said, that where there was no charge for admission, it would be impossible to keep order, for he found it hard enough to keep order where he charged twopence and threepence. This infidel-craft cannot long stand. Its days are numbered; and the men who have been deceived by it, will come to see that Christianity not only professes to help them, but is in reality their true, their best, their constant friend.

MR. HOLYOAKE'S PROFESSIONS VERSUS HIS PRACTICE.

Dear Mr. Editor,

I purchased very recently a copy of the correspondence between the Rev. B. GRANT and Mr. G. J. Holyoake, leading to the Cowper Street Debate. It appears that Mr. Grant had published some portion of the correspondence without Mr. Holyoake's consent having been first obtained, for which he is censured most severely by Mr. H., in his letter of November 2nd, 1852, in the following language, in reply to Mr. Grant's defence of the course he adopted :-"You justify the publicity of my letters by accusing me of having at some former period acted in a similar arbitrary way. But if I had done so, does my wrong justify yours? And again, in the same letter, he says, "Every month I return correspondence, sent to me for publicity, without a previous understanding to that effect between the writers. There is no case in which we

ever wilfully violate this rule. ........You say you gave very good reasons for the act. No reasons on your side-no silence on mine could be sufficient in such a case." In fact this point is made quite a subject of contention through the whole of the correspondence. Mr. H. says there is no case on record in which they wilfully violate the rule requiring the joint consent of the writers previous to publishing any correspondence. Now I can state most distinctly that if there was no case on record then there is now. Whose consent did he obtain to publish the Liverpool correspondence which appears on pp. 139, 154, 165, vol. 17, of "The Reasoner?" Certainly he never asked the permission of the Young Mens' Christian Association. Possibly he may have had permission from Mr. John Finch, but I can confidently state that he never got the consent of Mr. Leyland! Although this may not to some minds seem important and worth noticing in The Defender, yet I lay great stress upon it as evidence that Mr. Holyoake's word, is not to be trusted. He even contradicts himself! His professions are contradictory to his practice. Witness the fact I have cited amongst many others. The lesson I would wish your readers to learn from this is-to read and search for themselves. Do not take infidel Lecturers' words for anything they say about the Bible or Christian teachers. Search and try their statements by the unerring compass of Holy Writ-for if they, in their profession, say they do not do things, which they really and positively do, how can they be believed in other things? I confess I should like to see Mr. Holyoake try to defend himself in this instance, for it is such a glaring proof of the inconsistency of his practice with his professions.

OBSERVER.

Liverpool, Feb. 1855.

Our Open Page.

LABOUR, CHRISTIANITY, AND INFIDELITY.

Omega" has sent us an article with the above title, which, we have no doubt, has been written with the best intentions, but which is not quite up to our standard. To have prepared it for the compositor, would have cost us as much time as writing an original article of the same length. As, however, we are deeply anxious that The Defender should be an organ of the people's thoughts and inquiries, we should have endeavoured to give the substance of it, if time and space had allowed. If "Omega," in future, will write a little more carefully, and on one side of the paper only, we may have the pleasure of presenting some useful lucubrations to our readers.

We make room here for a few of his statements, and he will be convinced that we wish to do him justice, and are willing to hear him speak. He believes "that the true gospel is adapted to every child of Adam, and that there is no greater advocate of labour's rights than the Bible. The transgression of the immutable, unchangeable, and eternal principles, which God has established, is the fertile source of nearly all the misery, the vice, and the infidelity which flood these islands."

"It is a well-known fact, that true Christianity is opposed to all kinds of slavery, and cannot sanction that condition of things, which places a virtuous man, within the power of the most wealthy, and most oppressive of English capitalists. What can be more painful to any reflecting Christian than the spectacle, now presented in this country, of labour degraded, virtue weeping, vice triumphing with unblushing effrontery, while thousands are sent to early graves in the Crimea, victims to the avarice, ambition, and selfishness, of the Eastern and Western aristocracies. Let the pages of your magazine be open to

the defenders of right against wrong and much good may be done."

"Labour is the foundation stone of all human society. It is impossible for any community to prosper so long as the most useful and valuable portion of society is deprived of its rights. Men must have their rights before they can perform their duties. Let us do justice, and then afterwards we can claim to walk humbly with God. How can we Christianize England, amid laws the most inhuman, barbarous, and unjust. Sneering at unbelief will not mend matters; something more must be done; you must look about you to see if there is not some duty neglected, some benevolent act omitted, and more than all, if you are not yourselves infected with a practical unbelief of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

"Education is the second principle that is neglected; and more especially that kind of education, that shall teach the future men of England their social, moral, and political duties."

66 Marriage is the third principle, which we would do well to attend to, if we wish to overthrow injustice and infidelity. The marriage of the labourer is a speculation, more than a Christian marriage."

Such is the substance of "Omega's" communication. We have been at the trouble of transcribing it, and have not omitted more than a dozen sentences, the insertion of which would not have strengthened his remarks. We have done this to satisfy him, and all our correspondents, that, as far as space permits, we shall endeavour to do them justice; although we cannot undertake to transcribe their papers.

In reference to Omega's remarks, we have only to say, that the prevalence of Christianity in its purity, would give the best encouragement and recompence to labour, the most powerful incentive to a complete education of our whole nature, and the highest sanction, the greatest strength and beauty, to the marriage union. For ourselves, we despair of seeing all these blessings secured to human society, till it has been more thoroughly impregnated with the principles of the gospel.

Sir,

OBJECTIONS TO A PROGRESSIVE REVELATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

You will perhaps excuse me if I honestly tell you that I consider that a progressive revelation is a weakening point of theologians. It looks too manlike for God to grope, like as men grope in their necessities, for a fuller development of the thing needed. If God has waited always to give a Revelation of his will, only to be in accordance with the wants and civilisation of the age, civilisation then, in that degree, has been attained independent of such Revelation. If civilisation has been attained without the aid of such Revelation, no credit is therefore due to Revelation for such a result. But the question here occurs:-How can God be justified in waiting for men's fitness for a Revelation, when we consider that God's revelation might make men fit? You say God is all-powerful; but how can this be when your progressive-revelation-doctrine represents God as waiting until man in his puny weakness toddles on to fitness for such Revelation? God's good and wise character (according to your notions of it) is lost when you consider him waiting idly in the heavens for man's fitness for his revelation. It is like a useless government, which knows that a Repeal of the Newspaper Stamp would cheapen knowledge, and instruct and elevate mankind, but still will idly and criminally defer repealing such stamp duties, until the power from without forces them to it. If the Newspaper stamp was repealed, all the world might know that mankind would the sooner beguine instructed, enlightened, and purified, And if God had granted his

Revelations to make men fit, instead of waiting till men were fit for his Revelations, who knows but that the world would have been greatly in advance of its present state. And, again, if our Government is criminal for deferring the repeal of the taxes on knowledge, how can you rid God of criminality for deferring his revelations until man was prepared for them? And if our Government were to repeal the taxes on knowledge, so that the aristocratic class only could have the benefit, to the exclusion of the middle and working classes, would this be just? How then can you clear God's character of injustice, when you know that he only gave his revelations to so small a part of mankind as the Jews, to the exclusion of the rest? And, again, you damage your revelation cause when you compare God's unfolding of it, to, the development of science, and the progress of philosophy and the laws of the state. There is no comparison, you yourself will admit, between the standing-point of Newton, Ross, Leibnitz, Adam Smith, and that of God. God-the all-wise and all-powerful, can have no impediment in his way of at once granting complete Revelation of his will, character, and laws,-but man compared to God (you say) is as an atom infinitely divided, in the balance against the world! How then can you be logical in comparing God's actions to man's? If you say that it was only reasonable for God to give his A, B, C,-his Reading made-easy, and his spelling-book Revelations, at different times according to man's capacity, and that he is justified in so doing because the school-master does so with children,say, if you say this, you may think that you make out a reasonable case, but let us try it in the justice guage. A school-master can take a child and learn it to progress from A, B, C, to all that he himself knows (and there is progression here); but your progressive-revelation-doctrine causes God to have kept men for generations in the A, B, C, and if the Christian dispensation is the second step in progress, we are still only in the spelling-book of civilisation even yet. But there is this difference between the school-master and God (and here lies the injustice), while the former teaches only for time, God reveals (or ought to reveal) for eternity; and if the school-master is criminal for keeping children continually in the A, B, C, it will require an infinitesimal rule to measure the criminality of God, because he not only makes the children as they are, but he keeps them (according to Bible Chronology) for five thousand years in the A, B, C, Revelation, when a full and entire Revelation was needed to their eternal salvation. In conclusion I would proffer my advice, (though you may not be able to take it) as I myself have been a Wesleyan and can therefore form an idea of your freedom, with reference to my advice; I say, my advice is, say as little about the Bible as possible; "the least said is the soonest mended; for the motto, "Its ablest exposition is its best defence," will not hold good,and the more you stir it up the more muddled it will become, and the more destructive to your theology it will then be.

I

W. T.

Sir,

66

THE EDITOR'S REPLY.

You may have been a Wesleyan, but we have no evidence that you have ever been an intelligent Christian; and unless you have been a Christian, you can have very little idea of the liberty which Christians enjoy. Your proffered advice to say as little about the Bible as possible," however much our taking it might gratify its enemies, we are not likely to take, till it rests on something weightier than your dogmatic assertions. If it was on such grounds that you once made a profession of Christianity, it is little wonder that you gave it up. The motto, 'Its ablest exposition is its best defence,' has always held good. The more it is tried the more it is valued; and the better it is

« السابقةمتابعة »