Page images
PDF
EPUB

wanted MONEY and nothing else! How annoyed he was when he found out that Christians in Liverpool were wide awake to his tactics.

At his first lecture, the Rev. Dr. Baylee went with the intention of replying to him at the conclusion. But knowing that he had a most able Biblical scholar by his side, he continued lecturing to a most unreasonable hour. The doctor saw through this, and privately requested the chairman to say how long the lecture was to continue, as it was getting very late, and he had to cross over to the other side of the river to get home. The request was refused. He then asked permission to speak to the people for one minute, intending to announce that as it was so late, he would deliver a lecture in reply some other night. However the lecturer heard him speaking to the chairman, and threatened to knock Dr. Baylee down if he did not sit down; reminding me of the manner in which he dealt with the Bible in his lecture, if he could not reason it down, he would knock it down. Other ministers tackled him at his other lectures, but in his usual manner when an argument was advanced which he could not well reply to, he gave it the lie direct, and then refused his opponents an opportunity of advancing their proof. This is in perfect harmony with infidel fair-play everywhere! He did not like the resuscitation of his own arguments when he was a Methodist preacher. Unable to answer them, he evaded their force by this most significant remark, "I was a great fool when I said it." If he was a fool then, how shall we know that he is a wise man now?

But his second visit was if possible still more interesting than the first, for his first lecture was advertised to be on "Pious Frauds and a more gross fraud was never attempted than that lecture of Joseph Barker's! A very sensible minister. got up at the conclusion and told the people his opinion of the "fraud," in which the people joined most cordially, and as a matter of course, Mr. Joseph tried to defend himself, but it would not do. The people saw through it, and the meeting after being aroused most completely with what had taken place, broke up in sheer disgust at his miserable attempts at defence. On the second night to his utter amazement, confusion, and disparagement, who should appear on the platform but an old opponent of his, the Rev. J. H. Rutherford, of Newcastle-on Tyne. The infidel champion was greatly troubled, and gave unmistakeable signs of it especially when his own past course, to which he had alluded, was exposed. F was sorry for him. It was the best exposure which was made of him in this town, and one which will not be easily forgotten. Several most pithy arguments were brought against the lecture by Mr. Rutherford, and as Barker could not answer? the charges, he threw them all overboard by saying they were false, and then refused Mr. R. a minute to substantiate what he had said. But why should we wonder at it? It wouldn't do for him. It would be like giving a man a whip, and then saying, "Now, lash me with it." Besides it wouldn't pay. The people would see that his word was not to be trusted, and they would not waste their time going to hear him. However the next night Mr. Barker gave proof positive that he was frightened of Mr. Rutherford, for as soon as he saw him preparing to reply to him, he gave the chairman the sign to dissolve the meeting, so as to let Mr. R. have no opportunity of speaking. So much for Infidel free and fair discussion!

But he was not to be discouraged, so he came a third time to deliver three more lectures, which I presume will have almost exhausted his stock; every time challenging all ministers to discussion, and saying they dare not come forward to defend the Bible. So some Christians in Liverpool were determined to have a discussion, and to test his boastful challenges. The money stood in the way, Barker must have half, or else he would not discuss! What was to be done? This was an awful barrier. No Christian man would like, if he could avoid it, to put money in such a man's pocket. In this strait, a meeting was led, and Mr. Barker invited to defend his principles in public discussion with3

the Rev. J. H. Rutherford. The people were admitted free, so that there was no money to be divided! Placards, &c., were paid for by the Christians, and after all Barker dared not turn up. He did not reply to the invitation to be present, until the day before the meeting was called for. The consequence was, the arrangements could not be altered. The meeting was held, and I should think there were upwards of 2000 people present; of course, as he was not there, Mr. Rutherford had to occupy the time of the meeting by exposing Joseph Barker's policy, which I must say he did in a most able and clear manner, to the entire approval of the vast assembly. At the close of Mr. Rutherford's address the following resolution was proposed by Mr. Bathgate, Scripture Reader; seconded very ably by the Rev. J. D. Hirsch, German Chaplain; supported by Mr. Kent, Professor of Medical Botany; and carried by most enthusiastic cheering :

"That this meeting regards the professions, the policy, and the principles of Mr. Joseph Barker, the Infidel Lecturer, from Ohio, America, as unworthy of public confidence; looks upon his challenges to discuss with any influential minister the Divine origin and authority of the Bible, as part of a money-making system; considers his refusal to debate, on condition that the surplus proceeds should be devoted to a benevolent end, as evidence that Gold is with him in higher consideration than the enlightenment and welfare of the people; deems his refusal to confront the Rev. J. H. Rutherford, on the present occasion, proof of his fear to subject his substitute for the Bible to a just and reasonable test; views his treatment of some of his opponents, at his lectures, last week, as showing how false are his professions of free thought: and regards his attack on the Bible as worthy only of his connection with a society, which, in its placards, masks his position, as an Infidel lecturer, by calling him the Rev. Joseph Barker; conceals its Atheism and opposition to Christianity, by assuming the name of the Free Protestant Association, and under a pretended advocacy of pure Moralism, hides principles that are subversive alike of religion, morality, and order."

Before the Resolution was passed a gentleman, who had just arrived from America, and seeing the placards on the walls had come that evening to the meeting, advanced forward to the platform and stated that he was a citizen of Ohio, America, and wished to inform that large meeting, that MR. JOSEPH Barker did not IN ANY WAY REPRESENT THE INHABITANTS OF THAT STATE, AND THAT THEY WOULD BE UTTERLY ASHAMED TO OWN SUCH A MAN, OR HAVE ANY CONNECTION WHATEVER WITH HIM.

I must now conclude this article, else I shall be trespassing too much on the space of The Defender; and I will do so by adding that a committee has been formed in Liverpool for the purpose of bringing about a Public discussion between Mr. Joseph Barker and the Rev. J. H. Rutherford, on Mr. B's. own terms, so as completely to rob him of every excuse.-Observer,

HOW DAN MITCHELL BECAME A SECULARIST.

Mr. Editor,

As a lover of fair-play, I am pained to observe the systematic efforts which Mr. Holyoake and his friends are making to injure Mr. Grant's character, for no other reason that I know, than that he has tested Secularism by the very standard which themselves have set up. They have challenged the judgment of their compeers upon their past course by declaring that they have nothing to recant or to regret, and they must not expect to escape that judgment either by evasion or recrimination. If they do not defend their past course it is because they dare not; and if they say that others have committed similar sins, they confess their own sinfulness, and can have no "justification by conduct." Had they candour enough to say that they abandon the past, and have resolved upon "turning over

a new leaf" for the future, they would not so frequently be annoyed by quotations from the works they have given us for "reference" but as long as they profess a willingness, and even an anxiety, to be judged of by the past, they can expect nothing less, from those who are familiar with it, than an exposure of its reckless "temerity" and two-faced "policy." They may try to throw dust in people's eyes, by charging their opponent with being "unconverted," but thinking men will see that this is only to distract attention from their own defencelessness. Capable as they seem to be of heartlessly sacrificing an opponent's character on the altar of expediency, they may find that it has a vitality and a vigour, which bid defiance equally to the assassin's dagger, and to the sword of open war; and should their machinations succeed, they would only furnish a silent, but eloquent tribute to the inviolability of Christianity, which they seek to wound through its disciples, because they have not even a "forlorn hope" of piercing its divine panoply, in a “fair and open encounter."

[ocr errors]

On Secularists, and other one-side thinking, or unthinking persons, the mere reiteration of charges may produce an impression; but despite the desperate effort, made during the Glasgow debate, and renewed in this week's "Reasoner," by one who professes to be an "honourable" opponent, to produce distrust of Mr. Grant as a Christian advocate, I have little fear that his character will suffer in the estimation of any man of just and independent thought. For my own part, ten thousand of such testimonies would not shake my confidence, but rather convince me that he was doing considerable execution against the anti-christian batteries, and that they attempted a sortie in order to spike his cannon. The substance of the charge is that somebody said to somebody that Mr. Grant is an "unconverted man.' And if A did say it to B does that prove the fact? Or if A denying having said it to B, and B denying having heard A say it, it is discovered that C and D said it, what then? Is that proof? If it is, then, what cannot be proved, and where is justice? On this flimsy foundation an attempt is made to destroy the confidence of the public in Mr. Grant as a Christian advocate. Supposing for a moment, what is by no means clearly proved, that two men, professing Christianity, have alleged that Mr. Grant is "not converted," is such an unsupported allegation admissible as evidence on the point? Who are those men? What have been their opportunities of judging? On what grounds have they come to such a conclusion? Are they men of judgment, and free from all bias, jealousy, and party feeling? All these questions need to be satisfactorily answered, ere any importance can be attached to their statements. The whole affair seems to me an illustration of the vindictiveness, and bitterness with which Infidels have too often assailed the character of those whom they could not refute in argument. But there is another charge needing proof. At the Stockport anti-christian conference it was reported that "Mr. Grant's lecturing at Todmorden had been the means of making additions to the Secularists there." Mr. Dan Mitchell, Shuttle Maker, volunteers evidence on this head. His remarks deserve a place in a Museum of original specimens of infidel reasoning, which Mr. Holyoake is forming! On the 393rd page of the gazette of Secularism we findhim sa ying. "Now for the second part of the statement-that is, of the additions to the Secular Society. I for one am proof of the truth of this, for I was not connected with any of the Secularists at all; in fact, I was not a reader of "the Reasoner," nor any other work of the kind; neither was I at all conversant with any of the Secularists previous to Mr. Grant's lectures. I attended them and heard him denounce Mr. Carlile, yourself, and others so very unfairly, and in so unbecoming a manner, so very much different from what I had expected from one who was the declared champion of Christianity, that I went away thoroughly disgusted with him; and farther than that he so confirmed my total disbelief in Christianity and in the Bible (od, that I at once declared myself a Secularist."

Mr. Dan Mitchell may be an accomplished shuttle maker, but he is certainly no

[ocr errors]

logician, and it must have been a case of urgent necessity that led the Reasoner to insert such testimony, unless indeed we believe, what he so emphatically denies, that infidelity has perverted his logical faculty, and that secularists reason backwards. Mr. Dan Mitchell has to prove additions to the Secular Society as the result of Mr. Grant's lecturing at Todmorden, and he gives himself as evidence. Does he wish us, then, to believe that he is PLURAL and not SINGULAR; or that the Secularists are so pleased with him, that they take him for "a host in himself, and in utter contempt of the rules of grammar call him "an additions" to their Society. How proud they must be of such recruits! He heard Mr. Grant, he tells us, "denounce Mr. Holyoake and others unfairly," that is not in accordance with facts; now how could he know that there was unfairness, if, as he tells us, he was not a reader of the "Reasoner," which contains the facts on which Mr Grant rests his charges? Mr. Grant's manner was "so unbecoming"! Unbecoming what? Is the strong denunciation of duplicity, unbecoming one who! believes it, and who adduces indisputable facts to substantiate his charge? Or does Mr. Mitchell mean "unbecoming" Christianity? Then why reject Christianity for that which does not BECOME it? "So very much different from what I had expected from one who was the declared champion of Christianity"! He did not expect anything unfair or unbecoming in manner from a Christian, because the religion of Jesus sanctions nothing unfair or improper; and yet the alleged unfairness of the advocate "confirms his total disbelief in Christianity, and in the Bible God"! His disbelief in Christianity is strengthened by evidence that proves it to be better than one of its advocates! A Temperance lecturer gets drunk, therefore Mr. Mitchell will not become a total abstainer! An anti-slavery lecturer holds slaves, therefore our friend the shuttle maker of Newton Green, will not uphold the cause of emancipation! How a "total disbelief in Christianity was confirmed" by conduct opposed to Christianity is a problem, which I must leave for the solution of our friend of Newton Green. My total disbelief in Christianity and the Bible God," he says, "was so confirmed, that I at once declared myself a Secularist." The alleged inconsistency of the Christian advocate with his principles "disgusted" Mr. Dan Mitchell, brought him up to "the stick. ing point," and led him, with heroic resolve, to declare himself a Secularist!

[ocr errors]

A few more such discoveries, Mr. Editor, and we shall be able to form a "natural history of Secularism," which will convince the working classes, that it is not by logic and good sense that men become identified with this ever-varying ISM, but by casting both to the winds.

[blocks in formation]

A great amount of correspondence has been accumulating upon our hands, to which we shall give attention as soon as possible.

J. B. Manchester.-Received with thanks, and will appear in our second number, "Observer," Liverpool. We highly approve of your suggestion to form a 'Christian Defence Association."We shall insert it in our next.

We

We are thankful for the expressions of sympathy which we have received.

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.

Hunter & Co., Printers, Grainger Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

THE BIBLE THE FRIEND OF THE POOR.

The enemies of revelation have often charged the Bible with being the friend
of poverty, but not of the poor; with containing injunctions fitted to depress
the poor man's lot, and prevent him from bettering it. Compelled reluctantly
to admit that both the teachings and the practice of the first Christians mani-
fested the utmost care for the poor, they assail the Old Testament, and, from
the thundering denunciations of the prophets against the oppressors of the
people, they attempt to show that the scriptures in possession of the Jews were
not fitted to awaken their sympathies for the suffering, and to chase away mi-
sery from the land. Their very quotations from the prophets disprove their
charges; for how can any fair reasoner hold the Bible responsible for that which
it condemns in the strongest possible language. They ought to point out the pas-
sages which sanction the neglect of the fatherless and the widow, which defend
the oppressors of the poor. They ought to show us what principles are taught,
and what duties are inculcated, that favour the despot and crush the people.
This they cannot do, but have recourse to the poor expedient of condemning
those things among the people to whom the book came, which the book itself
reprobates; and holding it responsible for the miseries it was sent to cure. The
Bible charges with disobedience to God those whose selfishness, violence, and

No. 2, Vol. 1,

« PreviousContinue »