requires of its disciples that they wear no mask, that they put on no varnish, that it demands that they should take a true, an open, a determined, a manly, a sun-light course? The third passage is equally irrelevant to the proposition. It frowns not upon the earnest and sincere inquirer. It says not a word about the penalty annexed to wilful unbelief, although there are other passages which do. We, too, beg our readers to refer to the passage and the entire context (Mark 9. 38— 50), and they will see how completely Mr. "James " misrepresents it when he adduces it as proof of "Christ's frightening men into becoming his followers." With how little attention has he read it, if he has not perceived that there is not a word in the whole paragraph about faith, or about men's becoming Christ's followers. It was written to warn men against offending one of these little ones that believed in Jesus, and by implication against offending or injuring any man. "These little ones" were the representatives of those who in all ages amid opposi tion, persecution, and unrelenting hate have been true to conscience and to God. Christ, with a deep and a fraternal love, throws over them the shield of his protection. He asserts with an emphasis, unknown before, the inviolability of soul-life, and of soul-liberty, the essence of all freedom and of all right. He confronts the oppressors of the true and the good, vindicates the claims of the feeble and down-trodden, and encircles them with a wall of "fire," which the tyrant may not penetrate without eternal loss. "The still more fearful threat, rendered so by repetition and terrible distinctness," hangs like a dark thundercloud over the path of the persecutor, the tyrant, the man of malice, and of blood. And it is well. Suffering right, bleeding truth, injured vrtue, need such protection. Go, read those burning words to the slaveholder, and let him know that the offence which he is committing against these "little ones" is a deep-dyed crime upon which will be let loose all the artillery of heaven; that one at least, the divine brother of humanity, will brand his conduct with deep and everlasting condemnation. O, Christ! thou vindicator of the oppressed, thou friend of man, however the scoffer may laugh, we thank thee for the words thou hast spoken to "the little ones,' ," and rejoice that thou reignest to defend the right 1 The objector represents Mr. R. as saying that "Christianity does not call upon men to repent under threat of eternal damnation;" but in justice he ought to have given the close of the sentence,-" without presenting high and mighty, and thrilling reasons why they should repent." And if he had given the connexion of thought, the meaning would have been still more obvious. It was stated that in order to change men's thoughts of God's character and dealings with men, he had made a sacrifice for human weal which left man utterly inexcusable if he believed that Jehovah was his enemy; and that, therefore, men were besought by "the mercies of God" to abandon their selfishness, and live for the glory of their Creator, and the well-being of their fellow-men. If men do not repeat they must perish, just because there is no spiritual life with out communion with God, and there can be no communion with God without the knowledge of his character. "For this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Our objector quotes He that believeth not shall be damned," as another of his proots; but he forgot to tell his readers that the rejection of divine testimony must be a sin, at which the displeasure of God should be manifested; that disbelief is soul-ruining because it shuts out from the soul the only influence that can deliver it from sin; and that it is kind as well as just in the Redeemer of man to point out the consequences of such a course. It may not be pleasant for men to know that issues so tremendous are connected with unbelief. We never thought of denying that Christianity addresses to man mixed and manifold motives, but we deny that it makes its highest appeal to man's fears. Of the last passage quoted, our space only allows us to say that ignorance of moral and spiritual truth and of the character of God is a crime, where there are opportunities of knowledge, and that disobedience of the gospel as disobedience to the "law of the life-giving Spirit," must involve exclusion from the sunshine of God's love, and that destruction, which is not the destruction of man's being but of his blessedness. We are now prepared to enter more fully into the general question and propose doing so next week. Our Open Page. TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER. Sir, Not that I think myself more able than Willis Knowles to state the question of Man and Circumstance, Freedom of will &c., &c., do I interfere between you and that gentleman for he has stated the case not amiss, I consider, especially when we know the briefness that your correspondents must impose upon themselves in their communica ions to you. But as you are very ready in calling your correspondents "ignorant," and their com munications"Twaddle," I write to you to urge you to master your passion and not be so .6 Grantish" in your replies to those who embrace the opportunities offered by your "Open Page." How do you know the difficulties that people writing to you labour under-what have been their opportunities of learning to spell and write and punctuate? The doctrines they advocate may be as evident to their own minds as conviction can make them--and because opportunities have not been offered them of learning the media of making those doctrines known to others as plainly as they perceive them-you will try to close their mouths, and give them no chance of learning to express them, so that they may get their difficulties removed, or else help to remove the difficulties of others! Strange conduct this, Mr. Rutherford, conduct I am sure that a calmer conscience and a more mature judgment will enable you to see, will never make thorough improvement nor reasonable converts. I myself commenced working down in the pits at 10 years of age, and have had to learn most all I know of writing and other things under the deteriorating effects of a Pit atmosphere-an atmosphere that weakens to totteringness the very pillars of physical and moral and mental health,-and in your replies to your "Open Page" correspondents you should make allowance for difficulties like those, and not to be harsh and crabbed as if your correspondents had had the chances of improvement that you have had. I hope you will not scorn my advice, and it I thought you would not, I would say farther, that in your replies you should tackle the arguments of your opponents for it is it out of place in a critic and out of etiquette in a gentleman, it is even out of character in a Christian to hunt out implications not decidedly in the text, and to throw out indications not intended-and especially is it reprehensible for a minister to lecture his opponent on his ignorance, his dogmatism, and his blindness, when there are arguments to oppose, to weaken, and to destroy. I will say this one thing more, and that is were it not for your "Open Page" the circulation of your Defender would not be so great, as there are a great number of secular people subscribers for the sake of the "Open Page" information. Try then to deal fairly with the arguments, and not the personal blunders, nor with the incompetency of your correspondents, as you are to be a critic of arguments and not to be dispenser of insinuations, you will thereby fight stronger and more manfully when you grapple with the foe, than when you damage a man's character for (as I am sure Willis Knowles' character for writing competently will now be damaged) by means unworthy of the critic, the Christian, or the Gentle man. I did intend to make some remarks on your answer to Willis Knowles on the Formation of Character &c., but conscience bids me not to say more as you want room for other communications as well as my own. Hoping you will take well what is well intended, I remain with due respect, Your humble servant, W. T. H. ANSWER. SIR, We never scorn advice, even though it be meant in scorn, much less when it is "well intended." You greatly mistake the feelings that we cherish toward correspondents that differ from us. We suspect that it is those whose arguments are met that need to be warned to" master their passion." We do not brand all our correspondents as "ignorant," and if we think anything "twaddle," will you not allow us to say so, without questioning our equanimity? We have ever written calmly and as we deem justly. But infidels, above all others, should be the last to complain; for they cannot afford to allow us to speak for ourselves in their periodicals and there are none whose writings and speeches are so full of imputation. We try to close no man's mouth except by argument; and are happy to help in removing the difficulties of any of our brethren; but must we therefore be prevented from urging you to get the most competent men among you to represent your side of the question, or from requesting, if less competent men write, that they do their best to give us clear, accurate, and legible copy? More than this we do not ask; and is it unreasonable to expect as much. We make every allowance for the difficulties under which some of our correspondents have laboured in educating themselves; we are glad that some of them have made considerable progress notwithstanding those difficulties; we shall ever be ready, not in the spirit of patronage but of brotherhood, to encourage and help them as far as we have ability but if any of them should attempt to teach where they ought to learn, should make pretensions to logic when they have none, should seek to settle by dogmatism or by authority what can only be settled by reasoning, though it may be as painful to our feelings as to theirs to do it, we must remind them that they are but tyroes, and for their own sakes seek to diminish their self confidence. We have no pleasure in the blunders or incompetency of any one, but we have duties to the public, to the truth, and to our correspondents themselves, which you must allow us to discharge, according to the best of our judgment. We have often to rob ourselves of sleep in order to prepare the contributions of our correspondents for the press and we leave you to judge whether it is not reasonable to expect that as far as possible they will save us that trouble. We are thankful to find that after all, you do not think that Christianity will sanction any man's doing what is inconsistent with true courtesy aud kindness to others. It is not unfrequently that infidelity thus inadvertently admit the high standard of Christianity and the beneficial influence it is fitted to exert. Yours Faithfully, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT DEATH. EDITOR. We think that there is strong direct, as well as presumptive evidence, that, immediately upon death the soul of man enters upon a state of blessedness or misery. Is it not implied in the parable of Dives and Lazarus: "The rich man died and in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torment"? Was it not of a state of conscious happiness that Christ spoke when he said to the forgiven, renovated malefactor, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise'? And what means the explicit assurance, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord." The very thought of the cessation, even temporarily, of conscious existence, must be darkening and depressing to a mind that has panted after the true and enjoyed communion with the infinite. For what end should the author of our being ordain such a collapse of reason, and moral agency? What honour can come to him from beings whose highest powers are under the torpor of sleep? What praise can arise from the empty censer of unconsciousness? We regard it, then, as highly probable, if not morally certain that at death, a man commences at once to reap what he has sown. "It so," asks Amicus, "is it a correct idea that the judgment will be at some future period." We answer that though man's destiny may be fixed at the bar of God the moment after his death, and this will prove a virtual judgment of men, it does not render superfluous a general judgment of all the moral agents in the universe of God,—a judgment which will furnish a grand illustration of the rectitude of God's moral administration and a vindication of His proceedings to all worlds. A SPECIMEN OF SECULAR KNOWLEDGE. EDITOR. Secularist. The Bible may have been true at one time, but you will not surely say that it is true now. Christian. If it were ever true at all it must necessarily be true now and always. Secularist. Nonsense; was it not true that this world was once a great flat, and is it not now proved beyond dispute to be a Globe? Christian. It was never true that it was a great flat, if it be a globe now, must it not always have been one? You do not discriminate between Truth and Belief, I admit that men once believed in what you affirm, but surely you yourself will not deny that they believed in a lie. Secularist. Yes I will, they believed what was truth then, and the time will come when men will deal with the Bible as we have done with that truth -cease to believe it Christian. You will excuse me but it is absurd to talk such nonsense, either a thing is true or else it is not two and two make four is not that true? Every thing equally true will continue truth in spite of men's opinions, for truth is eternal as its great author. Let God be true though every man be a liar. EGOMET. THE LATEST ATOMIC THEORY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER. SIR, I have long entertained the opinion, that to allow the advocates of infidelity, under whatever garb they may appear, to give utterance to their sentiments freely, fully, and without any other opposition than placing fact against presumption, argument against sophistry, is the surest way to effect their destruction. In the current number of the "Defender" you furns an illustration of the truth of these observations. I allude to KWEXÆ'S Sonnet. It was once your private opinion "that secularism has not and cannot have any poetry." Now it is a fact patent to the world. To my mind, this secularist's mother, "Nature," has endowed her son with the faculty of making verse with out poetry. A rich vein of nonsense pervades this abortion, and attains the dead lock of absurdity in the following lines :— "The noble dead still move the noble heart; Their atoms wander to the kindred soul." We see here how Milton was formed. From atoms wandering from the noble dead to his kindred soul. Milton ate poetry atoms with his meals, and drank atoms of poetry when he quenched his thirst. Hence the great poet. It is high time that poets were looking to their "themes," else by and by they will only have a mass of mangled remains to look upon. If so much can be done by one of these "dissenters" when curtailed by the spirit of "brevity," what damage may we not expect when they essay a wider flight? to it! Yours respectfully, Poets! see AN ATOM. THE REV. BREWIN GRANT AT STOCKPORT.-The public of Stockport have been favoured with the exercise of the talents of the above distinguished advocate of Christianity, and, we trust, have reaped great benefit from his visit. On Tuesday evening, March 27th, he gave his first lecture to a very large assembly in the Lyceum. The subject was "Joseph Barker weighed in the balances of truth and justice." The mask was torn from the face of the pretender, and the blick hypocrisy of his past life was fully displayed. At the close of an excellent lecture, several individuals (well-known secularists) arose, and in a somewhat savage manner attacked Mr. Grant. Most of their remarks were irrelevant to the subject, and the whole were very quickly disposed of by the lecturer. On Wednesday evening, Mr. Grant delivered a masterly lecture on the important question, "Is man responsible for his belief?"-the affirmative of which he satisfactorily proved. On Thursday evening, the room was densely crowded whilst Mr. Grant demonstrated the following proposition—“ Christianity the true Secularism." The objectors were much more tame than on the preceding evening, and it appears evident that secularism in Stockport has received a very severe wound. We have proof that several of Barker's followers have lost confidence in their leader; others have lost confidence in his dogmas, and we sincerely hope that the blessing of the Almighty may follow the efforts of this talented lecturer, and that many may be brought from the darkness of error into the marvellous light of gospel truth. Errata in last No. "Egomet's reply to the Chairman" Page 205. For " the Chairman did not recommend them to purchase the Investigator. Read "the Chairman did recommend them" &c. Page 206 near the end; "In my report I adhere to truth, I still adhere to it" reverse the position of the words "adhere" and "adhered." NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS. Received.-J. W., Manchester; Mons," The real names and addresses of correspondents required, though not for publication. Our correspondents in different places will do us service by giving us prompt informa tion of what goes on in their localities. Communications and works for review to be addressed to the Editor, 50, Grainger Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne, either direct, or through the publishers. London: HOULSTON & STONEMAN, 65, Paternoster Row. AND ALL BOOKSELLERS. Hunter & Co., Printers, Grainger Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne. |