Page images
PDF
EPUB

therefore with joy that my eyes rested on those words, which I read through grateful tears: "The gifts of God are without repentance.”—The Eclipse of Faith.

HEATHENISM AT HOME.

There is great force in demonstration. Let us see before us the fruits of a theory, or any number of theories combined, manifested in a palpable form, and we are then in a position to form something like an accurate notion of their worth and desirability. How much have we heard of late from certain quarters of the injurious tendencies which have for ages accompanied the Christian ligion, and with what bnoj bombast has the plea been urged that if it were refor this "priestish" religion "human nature would assert its true dignity, and enjoy its true measure of liberty. The anomaly of claiming for poor human nature anything sounding like liberty, and yet holding it to be the "creature of circumstances," is left unexplained like many other anomalies which belong to the same school.

Unfortunately, we can in our own beloved country find too many spheres in which the influence of Christianity is not at all felt; where the "priest's religion" is positively unknown and where attention is given exclusively to the affairs of this life.

Well, what is the picture presented to us by those who have with praise-worthy Christian_benevolence penetrated into those dark regions of "heathenism at home." Impurity with her twin sister misery, hold indisputable sway. Poverty destitution, dishonesty and cruelty hold high carnival.

We have been brought to this chain of thought by perusing a work of deep interest called "The Dens of London," being notes and narratives of a six years' mission, &c., by R. W. Vanderkiste, late London city Missionary. The catholicity of this and kindred societies, cannot but enlist the sympathies of all true and philanthopists. We would say to our misguided and mistaken friends, the unbelievers, where can you show us in your plans and systems, numerous as they may be in theory but miserably few in practice, anything that equals in disinterested kindness to the lowest outcast of society, such organisations as our City Mission and Ragged Schools. Would it not show your 66 secularism" to greater advantage, if instead of being so eager and valiant in debate as you plume yourselves to be, you would make an effort to raise those poor creatures in the scale of intelligence and civilisation, something in the same way as the Christians are doing, thanks to the God of the Bible, with some suc

cess.

In the work referred to we see the exemplication of the benevolent influence which Christianity exerts over the possessor, belonging to men of education and talent, to devoute his time and talents to a large degree for the benefit of the lowest strata of English society, comprising thieves, prostitutes and abandoned characters of the worst grades.

In the next we propose making some interesting extracts, illustrative of the various topics introduced in the work.

Hyde Grove, Manchester.

DEAR SIR,

Our Open Page.

OBJECTIONS TO THE, GOSPEL.

J. W.

Being aware that space must be a consideration in your journal,

and wishing (as hitherto) the ipsissima verba to appear I condense as much as possible. I beg to submit the following to your notice.

1. The prophet Malachi foretold that Elijah the prophet should be sent to the Jews before the great and dreadful day of the Lord-Mal. IV. 5. When John the Baptist had drawn attention by his preaching, some priests and Levites were sent from Jerusalem to enquire of him about his mission. And said in answer to their questions that he was neither Elias nor that prophet expected-John I. 20. We are no where told that John the Baptist prevented God from smiting the earth with a curse by turning the hearts of the fathers to the children-Mal. IV. 6; nor did he restore all things,-Matt, XVII. 10; and as he flatly disowns the character we have every possible reason to be convinced that the prophecy did not refer to him. But Jesus falsifies either himself, or Malachi-an inspired prophet of God, and John-a man sent of God-John I. 6; for he, on more than one occasion affirms that John the Baptist was Elias that should come, Matt. XI. 14. and XVII. 10. 12.

2. When Peter asked Jesus what they, the disciples should get for following him, he was told that they twelve-when Jesus sat upon the throne of his glory -should sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matt. XIX. 28. Are devils and wicked men not only to enter into Christ's kingdom, but to sit on his thrones? Yes! we have it from the lips of Jesus; for Judas was a devil, and a son of perdition, and he was one of the twelve apostles on that occasion. Matt. X. 4.

3. Certain of the Scribes and Pharisies desired a sign. The sign Jesus gave them was that 66 as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly so the son of man should be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."-Matt XII. 40. This sign we have been taught was prophetic of his burial. Jesus was buried towards the evening of Friday Mark XI. 42, and was risen before it began to dawn on Sunday, Matt XXVIII. 1. 6, and could not have been in the heart of the earth more than thirty-six hours; or, two nights, those of Friday and Saturday, and one day, Saturday, just half the time required to fulfil the the sign. The operations of nature are more exact than the words of Jesus (God ! !). 4. There is another circumstance connected with this death and resurrection that needs explanation. One of the men who were crucified with Jesus moved his companion so that he said. " To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise"-Luke XXIII. 43. But we have proof from the words of Jesus, on the authority of John the Evangelist that Jesus did not go to Paradise that day, and so could not be there with the thief. For on the third day after his death Jesus told Mary that she was not to touch him, because he had not yet ascended to his father.-John XX. 17. You will probably tell me that Jesus and the Father were one, and, that if the thief was with the Father in Paradise, he was with Jesus there, though Jesus was in the "heart of the earth." How then could Jesus say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"? Or how could he go to his father and his God-John 20. 17, if he was already with him and the thief in Paradise? With thanks for the insertion of and answer to my last,

March, 1855.

I am yours obliged,

SILVERWATER.

QUERIES AS TO THE FALL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

Will you or any of your numerous correspondents answer the following queries? or otherwise throw a little light upon them through the medium of your "open page ?"

[ocr errors]

1. Is the 18th verse of the 3rd chapter of Genesis, (which is part of the eurse pronounced upon Adam), to be understood literally, or is it figurative,

2. Were all savage animals such as lions, tigers, &c., tame previous to the fall of man?

Your attention to those queries in an early No. will much oblige yours, a constant reader and admirer of the "Defender,"

"OUR JOHN."

Dear Sir,

FAIRPLAY ON "THE INFIDEL DODGE."

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

I am very much amused by the perusal of an article in No. 14 of the "Defender," headed, "About the Infidel Dodge." The writer of it appears to be fretted, and vexed at the just exposure I gave, of what I then did, and still do believe to be, a "mere dodge." The infidels appear to be quite astonished to find that the inhabitants of Hyde were wide awake to their treachery. Poor fellows! I am sorry for them, and yet I cannot help laughing when I see them so chaffed, like a bear with a sore head. I told you in my account about the dodge' that I should be sorry in any way to misrepresent the infidels and I say so still; for 1 do not believe I have done so in one single instance. And yet I am accused of "dodging" readers of the "Defender," and giving them a false report. This I deny, and will now proceed briefly to examine and answer the brilliant epistle of "the chairman."

First of all, he says, that "an old gentleman did oppose (?) Mr. Barker, and occupied 25 minutes in his first speech." Well, this is a great argument in my opinion, in favour of its being a "dodge." I understood that Mr. Barker allowed his opponents only ten minutes each to state their objections. But the gentleman was allowed to go on without interruption for twenty five minutes. Was Dr. Baylee allowed to spend twenty five or even ten minutes? Not a bit of it, but Mr. Barker threatened to knock Dr. Baylee down if he did not sit down," (see No 1 of the "Defender.") Did Mr. Barker allow Mr. Rutherford twenty five or even ten minutes to speak in opposition to him? No such thing, but he got the lights turned out, and the meeting dissolved, rather than allow Mr. Rutherford to speak at all. I think this shows that rather than let Christian truth prevail, they will resort to "tricks and dodges". But what was I doing that I did not step forward and relieve the old gentleman by taking his place?" I think he must be very ignorant of the duties of a chairman to expect either me or any one else to do anything of the kind. It was the chairman's place to stop him and not mine. But now, as soon as Mr. Barker had done lecturing, the old gentleman got up, and spoke for twenty five minutes, and Mr. Barker took twenty five more to reply; and then he said "there are yet ten minutes left and if this gentleman takes five minutes, and I the other five, the time will be up." Now then where was there a chance for any one else to speak? There were persons present who intended to speak but they had not the chance. Then with regard to the "unknown man coming and departing with Mr. Barker," I am told that is "simply untrue." It is quite apparent that the chairman has simply misunderstood my meaning. I did not mean that he came publicly in company with Mr. Barker, nothing of the kind. Had he done so the people would have seen through the thing at once, and this would have greatly diminished the amount of "twopences,,' and so you see it would not 66 pay. "My meaning simply was that he came at the time that Mr. Barker did. No one that we know of knew, either who he was or what he was, or where he come from. (I mean of course none of the Christian

66

party.) Some said he was a Wesleyan minister from Stalybridge, others that he was a clergyman, and some that he was a Mormonite. In fact nobody could give a definite answer, but what one said another contradicted. Now then does this not look like an 'infidel dodge'? Had this gentleman been indeed a minister, he would have shown himself to the minister in Hyde of the sect to which he belonged. But he did no such thing, for he came and departed the same 'unknown.' If he had come from any town or city near Hyde, he would most certainly have been known. Now if he came from a great distance I ask, 1. How would he know that Mr. Barker was lecturing at Hyde. 2. If he had known, what induced him to come so long a way, merely to meet a 'braggart"? I told you that all he had said was "moonshine" and I tell you so again. This old gentleman was so good as to contradict himself no less than five times in his first speech, so you see he gave Mr Barker every advantage. "But at the close of the old gentleman's speech Mr Barker asked the chairman who he was." Granted that he did, that does not alter my belief that if any one knew who he was, Mr. B. did. But the chairman will perhaps say that would be dissimulation So it would, but Joseph is used to it. Did he not when a " Methodist preacher, repeatedly give to Conference a solemn confession of faith in doctrines" which he afterwards tells us he did not at that time believe? If he would deceive then, I cannot trust him now. But Willis Knowles appears to be quite incensed that I did not give my "real name and proper address." Does imagine that every body is as fond of notoriety as himself? If he does he is simply mistaken. He appears to be afraid the people wont know it is he that has written to the "Defender" and so he signs his full name. Does Mr. Barker always sign his real name to what he writes? Did he not write six anonymous letters in praise of himself to the Rev. W. Cooke in which he declared that "if there was in the wide universe of souls, a man who had acted more guilelessly, and more disinterestedly than Mr. B. had done, he hoped God would grant him the unutterable bliss to see that man?" This piece of egotism was signed A Christian' (i. e. J. Barker). If witholding my real name be a 'dodge,' will the chairman please to tell me what he calls the case of Joseph Barker just narrated?

April, 1855.

I remain,

Yours Respectfully,

FAIRPLAY.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Received. Willis Knowles; Observer, Liverpool; J. B., Hyde.

Meagreness of Infidel Argument, Note to "Mons" on the Atonement, and "Is Christianity a religion of Fear" unavoidably left to our next.

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.

a Weekly Magazine,

OF CHRISTIAN EXPOSITION AND ADVOCACY,

Who knows not that truth is strong, next to the Almighty; she needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious, those are the shifts and the defences that error uses against her power.-MILTON.

[blocks in formation]

Before proceeding more fully to the proof of our position that "Christianity is a religion of love;" with hope of affording a little instruction to our opponents, we shall notice some of the other passages which "James quotes to prove that Christianity is not what we represent it. He says, In the New Testament the warm palaces of hell are used as much to the reader, as the cooler and pleasanter ones of heaven to allure him. Had he written the whole truth, he would have said that while there are threatenings to alarm, and hopes to allure, there are found, far more abundantly, revelations of pure, disinterested, matchless love, fitted to melt and to win.

alarm

[graphic]

To prove that Christians are not, even in the New Testament, regarded as he New Testament, regarded as brethren and equals, he says that "saints" then plentifully abounded and are referred to in every epistle. Now this is either a slip of the pen, or it shows deplorable ignorance. It is true that saints are spoken of in every epistle: but who are the saints? Not a peculiar class of people in the church, exercising authority over others, but the members of the church themselves. Though used by many now as a term of reproach, the word saint," means a sanctified, that is, a holy, loving, moral, true, and godlike, person. n. Bishops are mentioned," he says. Yes; but he ought to

« PreviousContinue »