'Aufanger' ought to know that Foreknowledge and Pre-arranging the actions of men are two different things. I am certain of this, that if ' Aufanger' was to abstain from eating and drinking, death would follow as an effect of such abstinence. But, because I foreknow this, do I pre-arrange it? Certainly not. Yet such is his argument where he says-' Mr. Spurgeon's views infer a foreknowledge by the Creator of all future events, and lead to the idea of a system in the Divine government of the universe; if such be the case, the Almighty must have had a definite plan in the formation of the world and its inhabitants. He must have known, and indeed pre-arrranged, the actions of men.' We may eat, drink, laugh, sing, walk, or refuse to do so, (or, at least, we appear to be able to do so,) but when the mind is concerned, the case is very different; belief is the result of conviction, and a man cannot believe but according to that conviction which depends, moreover, almost entirely on circumstances over which he has no control.' Aufanger' has surely intended the foregoing as his random shot; indeed, the whole paragraph is a specimen of indolent thinking, appropriately introduced by the-something-new-- Man's freewill.. is more physical than moral.' As though he had said, man's freedom of will manifests itself more after the manner of an inflexible physical law of nature than as the exercise of a latent power, to do or not to do, which is the only idea we have of a free-will. Man is possessed of a reasoning faculty, by which he tests the true or the false; also, he is possessed of a conscience, enabling him to test the good or the bad. This implies that he can take up a true, or a false position,-that he can pursue a course of good or evil. Else, what are the uses of reason and conscience?

When man shall be moved by every passing breeze-when he shall be deprived of the power to say, No, or to give assent to the things which solicit his approval, then, but not till then, will he be the creature of necessity. Moreover, let those who dispute man's free agency, prove that there is no difference between man as he really exists-possessed of reason and conscience—and as he exists only in their philosophy-destitute of both. When they shall have done this, their first position will be made good. But to be ever ringing in our ears the assumption of its truth, without once condescending to prove it, is like putting on the top-stone ere you have got the foundation-a thing which is only effected when buildings are erected in mid-air. If Aufanger' would give himself the trouble to inquire, he would find that Christians never assert that we must believe the Bible, simply because it is the Bible,' but because it is the Revealed Will of God.

'It appears very difficult to ascertain precisely what believing the Bible means, for there are immense divisions among orthodox teachers.' In reply, I solicit 'Aufanger's' attention to the following brief summary of what orthodox teachers believe:

1st. That a God exists who made all things.

2nd. That man has fallen from his first estate; that sin has alienated him from God, developing the moral maladies which afflict the world.

3rd. That God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life.

4th. That obedience to God, in Christ, secures eternal happiness: but disobedience is a making choice of eternal misery.

5th. That man is regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the medium of the Word.

6th. That man, when he acknowledges all these facts and willingly submits himself to their guidance, inherits a peace which passeth knowledge, and is the subject of a joy which earth cannot give-no! nor take away.

If 'immense divisions among orthodox teachers' make it 'difficult to ascertain what believing the Bible means,' 'surely, therefore,' when 'orthodox

เ

teachers' plainly and heartily agree upon the foregoing points, it were easy for 'Aufanger'' to ascertain precisely what believing the Bible means,' so far as its fundamental, soul-saving truths are concerned. Thus his own argument recoils upon himself. Yours respectfully,

Gateshead, June 1st, 1855.

MR. EDITOR,

A. TEACHER.

FOREKNOWLEDGE AND FATE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

This question is being much discussed just now, and as we have our difficulties in relation to it, we would make a few observations'Aufanger' and ourselves seem to be at one.

Mr. Spurgeon, of London, preached a sermon, which I heard, and at which I was astonished. His text was Ezekiel i. 16th and following verses. The great wheel and the wheels within wheels, the rings with eyes, and their never-deviating revolutions, according to his exposition, were the absolute foreknowledge, and the necessary and eternal decrees of God, and that all events were forefixed and certain. He tried to rid himself of the charge of fatalism, by saying that although this fixity and certain coming about of events appeared to negative free-will, yet the freedom of the will must be admitted, and yet, as 'Aufanger' justly observes, inconsistently enough denounces the non-elect. While asserting that a portion only of mankind would be saved, viz., those who had been predestinated to salvation, in strict conformity with the above he went on to say that theft, murder, adultery, and all kinds of abomination, must, in some mysterious way, be ascribed to God.

We intended to have made some remarks on J. M.'s reply to Mr. Coombs, but as the question proposed above is of anterior importance, in our opinion, we shall confine ourselves to it.

Does absolute foreknowledge necessitate human and all other actions? We may here quote, as relevant to the subject, a verse from Isaiah, 45th chap. and 7th verse-I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.' And so the poet says―

"There's a Divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we may.'

A French author, in treating this subject, says divines reconcile freedom and foreknowledge thus:- God is infinite in time: then his existence is not successive, but simultaneous; then he cannot be said to foresee, but only to see; and if he sees our acts, it is because we do them, and we do not do them be.. cause he sees them; therefore, the prescience of God bears no relation to human freedom.'* If this be the way in which the reconcilement is made, we think it a fallacy, inasmuch as it involves a contradiction, as we must now endeavour to show.

'If God sees our acts, it is because we do them.' Now our acts are committed in time, therefore, it cannot be predicated of God that he sees them (eternally), for it is eternal and absolute prescience that is in question; it reduces the knowledge of God to contingency. This theory much resembles one which we proposed to meet the objection of a friend with whom we were debating the question of free moral agency, thus :-God does not eternally fore

*Geruzez nouveau systeme de philosophie.

know all events, but his omniscient eye sees all things as they transpire; therefore, there is nothing past or present which he does not know. It may be objected to this that prophecy is a sufficient refutation. We do not see that it is, although it offers difficulty. Yet we find men of wide experience able to predict events with a degree of accuracy. We think, therefore, that the infinite experience of God renders him capable of prophecying. What gives this some plausibility is, that we do not find prophecies fulfilled in the exact letter of the prediction. We are not wishful to come to the conclusion that man is not a responsible agent. Yet, when we contemplate absolute and perfect prescience, we would observe, that, for the sake of preserving the logical harmony, socalled, of the perfection of God's attributes, divines lay insuperable difficulties in the way of many-instance ourselves.

It can be objected to absolute omnipotence that God cannot cease to existthat he exists necessarily; and to omipresence that he cannot withdraw himself from the universe, (and we think his omnipresence is not essential to the operations of nature); and, further, the human intellect cannot comprehend the infinite Eternal, &c. The widest flights in mental perceptivity or conception of extension, &c., are only a number of finite extensions or durations which logically will never make an infinite extension or duration.

Another, and to us insuperable, objection to absolute prescience is, that it destroys the idea of design, and design is the grand argument of the theist against the atheist, so that if absolute prescience be now contended for, to us it amounts to the denial of the existence of God. Finally, to say with Dr. S. Clarke, Boyle, and others, that there is no causality in knowledge, or, that it ought to be regarded as miraculous, avails nothing; for on their hypothesis God must be supposed to know the development of all the events which we call contingent, which he by man's creation rendered necessary, or, to distinguish which from necessity, amounts to a distinction without a difference. Hoping you will insert this, as I am desirous of having an intelligent view of the subject, I am, Mr. Editor, yours respectfully,

Newcastle, May 31st, 1855.

NATURE, SCIENCE, AND THE BIBLE.

.r

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

PHYRRO

MY DEAR SIR, To me it is exceedingly strange that, in the present day, there are many of our Infidel friends who appear to have got it into their heads some way or other, that those who receive the Bible as a book of Divine origin and authority, in order to be fully consistent, are necessarily obliged to shut their eyes and thei ears to the teachings of nature, and to the teachings and discoveries of science. I have ascertained this curious and unfounded fact from the infidel speeches, which of late I have heard and read. In the Halifax Discussion, Mr. Barker spoke as if he really thought that Christians, because they believe in the Divine origin of the Bible, were fettered with a sort of mental chain, and consequently prevented from making progress in enlightenment, civilisation, and in intellectual and moral dignity as if they were not free to investigate the wondrous and glorious system of nature, and as if they were incapable, in consequence of their belief, of making advancement in philosophy and science. 'Fasten the Bible,' said he, 'to our souls as the word of God, and then we must make its greatest errors and absurdities a part of our creed, its most foolish and savage precepts the law of our life, and its imperfect and

vicious examples the measure of our aspirations after virtuous excellence. The adoption and enforcement of this principle has restored barbarism in some lands, it has perpetuated it in others, and if universally adopted, would make barbarism, in its darkest and most horrid forms, universal and eternal.' This gentleman also insinuated that the believers in, and lovers of, the Bible, durst not attend to the teachings of nature and philosophy, lest they should discover something not in accordance with the book. The stars,' said he, would speak to him-meaning the man who believes the Bible to be of Divine authority-but he dare not hear; the book of nature would unfold to him her wonders, but he must not listen or attend to them.' Infidels will probably think that these are excellent and bold statements against the Bible and in favour of infidelity. They are quite at liberty to think so, and we have a right to exercise our judgment concerning them, as freely as they have. We calmly think, that more absurd statements were never given, that more irrational assertions were never made, and, that greater falsehoods were never uttered. They are evidently contradictory to all calm and intelligent reflection, to all enlightened and Christian experience, to almost all history, and to all common sense. What in the world could have induced Mr. Barker to come to such a horrible conclusion? What can have prevailed upon him to make such false and erroneous statements? Surely he must know (let him say what he will) better. We cannot believe that he is as ignorant as he pretends to be about the blessed effects which the Bible and its excellent religion have produced wherever they have been received and properly attended to.

This gentlemen talks about the great errors and absurdities of the Bible. He has been talking about what he calls the errors and absurdities of the Bible for years, in England and America, in order to disprove its claims to a Divine origin; but he is now as far from the accomplishment of such an object, as he was when he first began. He has not proved the Bible to be nothing more than a human production, and we are fully persuaded that he never can, nor any other infidel in the world. For my own part, I have been examining the Bible and its evidences, and the objections and arguments of infidels for years; I have heard Barker lecture and I have read several of his speeches against the Bible; and I have heard and read discussions between Christians and infidels, and the result is, I never had a more clear and satisfactory view, in all my life of the Divine origin of the Bible and of Christianity, and of the weakness and worthlessness of infidelity.

Mr. Barker calls the precepts of the Bible foolish and savage. What can he mean by such an extremely absurd statement? The first and principal precept of the Bible is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, and strength;" and the second precept is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Think of the union, the order, and the happiness, which would prevail universally; think what a delightful, harmonious, and blessed world we should have, if all men, of all climes, were to regulate their entire deportment according to these two most excellent precepts; and then you will know how to value Mr. Barker's statements. Another precept of the Bible is, "Love your enemies, bless them which curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you." Another is, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." And another is, "Provide things honest in the sight of all men. Mr. Barker says further, 66 to fasten the Bible on our souls as the word of God is to make its imperfect and vicious examples the measure of our aspiration, after virtuous excellence.' Το say the least we can say concerning this is, that it is talk without sense, and assertion without proof. We are nowhere in the Bible told that we must measure our progress in religious enjoyment and moral excellence according to the vices and the failings of the persons mentioned therein. And it must be ignorance, depravity, or presumption, that leads any

man to make such a statement. If there be anything good or great, benevolent or noble, truly amiable or praiseworthy, in the characters of the Bible, we may safely and advantageously copy it, but we may not imitate their vices and sins, for if we do it will be at our peril, it will involve us in disgrace, hasten our downfall, and accomplish our ruin, unless we meet with mercy in time to secure our pardon, peace, and safety. According to the absurd logic of Joseph Barker, not even Christ was a perfect example, because he was neither a husband, a father, a brother, nor a statesman. With equal reason and propriety might he say: Such a man was not a perfect example, because he was never either a thoroughly rich man or a thoroughly poor mau, never a statesman or a philosopher, never a wife or a mother, and never a sister or a daughter! I wonder who could help smiling at such abominable nonsense as this. It will not do at all for any man to advance such ridiculous follies in such an age as this, and in such a country.

(To be continued.)

THE EVILS OF AMBITION.-Dr. Prideaux states that in fifty battles fought by Julius Cæsar, he slew one million one hundred and ninty-two thousand of his enemies. If to this number we add the loss of troops on his side, and the slaughter of women and children on both sides, we shall probably have a total of two millions of human beings sacrificed to the ambition of one man.

THE CLOUD OF TROUBLE, while it drops, is passing our own heads and will be succeeded by fair weather, and the eternal sunshine of glory.-Gurnall.

THE DISCUSSION ON ATHEISM will be continued in our next, with Nature Dualistic,' and other articles for which we have not room in our present number.

Up till going to press we have not received a detailed account of arrangements made for the Inauguration Meeting of the Bible Defence Association.

We shall be obliged to refuse articles if they are not brief, as we have not leisure to condense them.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

RECEIVED.-W. T., Hartlepool; W. L., Middlesbro'.

CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDIST FUND-A friend, Rugby 1s., a correspondent, Newcastle, 6d. The real names and addresses of correspondents required, though not for publication. The Editor does not undertake to return rejected communications.

Our correspondents in different places will do us service by giving us prompt information 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.