Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE DEFENDER.

OBSERVATIONS BY OBSERVER.

313

Since the appearance of my advertisement, for an intelligent infidel, who could defend his principles without indulging in offensive personalities,' an individual, named W. H. Johnson, Secretary of the Secular Society, Huddersfield, has replied to it-offering himself as a candidate for the service for which I required such a person, evidently believing himself to be an 'intelligent' infidel, able to defend his opinions without falling into the same error which his predecessors have done. He says he is ready to discuss the respective merits of the two systems-Christianity and Secularism,—or first to examine the truth of the leading doctrines of Christianity, beginning with God and ending with Responsibility, either with Observer or any other truthseeker on the side of Christianity,' in the pages of the 'Defender.' In reply to his letter, I stated to Mr. Johnson (the intelligent infidel') that it was not my object to enter myself into a controversy either oral or written with any infidel-but simply that if an infidel considered himself up to the mark I laid down in the advertisement, and thought proper to reply to it, I would inform him by letter of the fact that the editor would insert in extenso any article he would send him against Christianity, and reply to it-and try to persuade him to come at once to rescue the principles of infidelity from the charge of not having a single friend who would come forward like a man to defend them; instead of leaving the open page' to be occupied on their side by men who could scarcely write grammatically, and then, when the editor requests them to be more correct, and spell their words and punctuate their articles carefully, or else he should have to refuse their insertion, another of their intelligent' friends comes forward and occupies upwards of two pages, blowing the editor up for making such remarks (as if an editor is bound to do everything his correspondents wish, under pain of being charged with 'narrow-mindedness'.) It was nothing but a conviction that to insert such ridiculous articles in the 'Defender's' open page-repeating such threadbare fallacies as oft refuted as advanced-was almost an injustice to its readers, which led me to try what such an advertisement would do. I am glad it has succeeded, for in replying to Mr. Johnson he has informed me that he will prepare a series of articles for the open page, provided the editor will insert them. He may be quite certain of their insertion, and I am persuaded the readers of the Defender' will rejoice that some one has at last come forward to show his love for his secular principles.

6

But before I finish with Mr. Johnson by committing him to the care of the editor, I must mention another matter. I should have proposed to have published the correspondence between us, but as Mr. Johnson says there is something in his letter semi-private,' of course I am not at liberty to do so. I shall just allude to the points at issue.

[ocr errors]

6

Mr. Johnson says I am guilty (in the advertisement) of the 'offensive personalities' I condemn in infidel advocates. Now, as many other infidels may think the same, I may state that if a reference to facts is 'offensively personal,' I am guilty of it, but I deny that it is so. It may tread on their corns to be reminded of Mr. Barker's cowardly behaviour in Liverpool, and Mr. Holyoake's sham talk about the honesty of his intentions, and his love of the working classes, but they cannot deny the facts, and, therefore, to be reminded of them ought not to be 'offensively personal'— -more especially as they boast so much of their consistency.

Again, Mr. Johnson 'hopes that Observer will no longer insult them by a reference to unpaid letters, as he never knew a secularist guilty of such meanness.' It so happens that at the commencement of his letter he alludes to G. J. Holyoake and J. Barker as 'two friends whom he holds in deserved esteem.'

In reply to him I reminded him of the fact that J. Barker, 'his esteemed friend,' was guilty of the meanness to the Rev. Mr. Grant. No doubt Mr. Grant can support my statement and if the truth were known many others who have been in the habit of corresponding with infidels have met with the same fate. Mr. Barker's act justified me in adopting the precaution I did, whether it 'insulted' Mr. Johnson and his friends or not.

In Mr. Johnson's last letter he says, 'It is easier for Observer to offer an insult than to defend a rotten system,' though he does not say how he was 'insulted.' Let him show me where I insulted him, and I will by all means→→ if it really is an insult-retract the expressions. But if he is insulted by my referring to facts, which are patent to all, he must not blame me, but the individuals who were guilty of the acts. He refers to a 'rotten system'-meaning Christianity. Supposing I were to say to him, 'You have insulted me by calling my religion a rotten one,' what would he say? However I hope now there is a probability of seeing WHICH is the rotten system-Christianity or Secularism. For my own part, I have been persuaded long since that both secularism and all other such humanly-devised systems are worse than rotten. I find I must again conclude my 'Observations,' or else I shall be trespassing too much on your space. I have other subjects to allude to in a future paperwith the editor's permission and the reader's indulgence.

Liverpool, 8th May.

OBSERVER.

MR. ROBERT COOPER'S SECOND LECTURE.

Mr. Robert Cooper delivered his second lecture in the Temperance Hall, George Street, Hyde, on Tuesday, April 24th, 1855. Subject:-"The Pulpit, its Moral and Social efficacy." Mr. Willis Knowles again occupied the chair, who, previous to introducing the lecturer, read an article from the Investigator on the Fast Day.

There were fewer persons present than on the previous evening. Mr. Cooper, after a few introductory remarks, observed that though intemperance was a curse on domestic and social life, yet its evils were small compared with the evils engendered by the monster power of the pulpit. He then proceeded to say that priestcraft was a clog to mental progression, and it lived continually in the most vitiated atmosphere; and when it was viewed in all its great phases, it had tended always to the same thing--the prostration of the intellect, and the power of the human mind.

The monopoly of priestcraft was the greatest of all monopolies, Our mothers were not allowed to enter into respectable society till they had been churched, and the church received its accustomed tax. The child must be christened ; man must ratify his most solemn vows of love and fealty by legal marriage in a church; we could not inter the remains of a departed friend till the "dues" were paid; or inherit property until we had taken out letters of administration; we must pay tythes and church-rates; in fact, it was continually tax! tax!! tax!!! While we professed to be one of the most religious nations in the world, we were at the same time one of the most immoral. The lecturer illustrated this by reference to the moral condition of the city of Glasgow, saying where did we find a more religious city than Glasgow, and where did we find one more immoral; drunkenness abounded in that priest-ridden city even on the Sabbath. If we walked through the city we would see the window-blinds pulled down, the doors closed; and if a lady played the piano on Sunday it was deemed a dese cration. He then proceeded to say that the pulpit, as an engine of moral and social reformation, was always defective, and wherever we found churches

and church-going, we found the fruits of ignorance. It led its votaries to look upon all things as black and dark-tainted with original sin, and produced mental stagnation, caused mental bondage and intellectual weakness; and Beelzebub and brimstone, rather than reason and argument, controlled them. Man must be moral--morality was essential to his personal respect, and necessary for the happiness of the world. After making a few remarks to prove that the Church had the means of accomplishing great reforms, but failed to use those mean to attain that object, the lecture concluded.

The Chairman intimated to the meeting that discussion would be allowed, but no one came forward.

DELTA.

CHRISTIANITY.

(A GRATEFUL TRÍBUTE.)

Whence shall the poet derive sublimities whereon to found his mightier mindcreations, but from the eternity outstretching backward and beyond finity. Imagination upsoaring pauses on bewildered wing. Conception sinks faint and amazed. Intellect, struggling her wildering way along the grand achievements of the Eternal, lights on the Great Mystery.' The poetic faculty vainly seeks a purer ideal, and straightway reposes thereon. The harp, hung in despair on the willow, has vibrated in strains seraphic when strung to minstrelsy evoked at Her shrine; and the peerless production of the 'blind bard' was an oblation consecrated on the altar of human redemption.

This system bespeaks the divinity that doth hedge' it, by an unique comprehensiveness of character, universality of application, and relevancy to an avowed design. It professes infinite regard to man's higher interests, in which shall be involved both present benefit and future good; hence we find 'security to youth' in the van of its marshalled blessings. The desire for security is instinctive, common to sentient existence. The bleating of the lamb, the child's tear, and the quivering hope of youth alike ask for it. To life-dawn is contingent a helplessness, and a degree of solitariness and fear. Christianity meets each deeply felt want-with a gentle hand draws aside the dark curtain, and whispers, 'I will satisfy thee EARLY with my mercy.'

6

But further-if we may reverently so proceed-Christianity stands to view a Heroine par excellence. In sanguinary combat with raging powers, hidden and black as Erebus, her quick and powerful' sword hath gleamed to descend and pierce even to the dividing of the joints and marrow.' And o'erborne perchance by Hell's legions, like a wave on the ocean of God's eternal purpose, hath she fallen crested but with victory. Germany, with eager eye, watched the triumph of the Victor, and anon rewaked; the British Isles 'applauded to the echo that did applaud again. Great commonwealths, too, uprising and dim seen, shall swell the pæan long and loud. Gems of brave deeds stud the profane historic coronet, but their lustre evanishes and is absorbed in the gleam of the diamonds, rich and rare, which shine around the divine.

We shall find upon a candid examination of the 'truth as it is in Jesus' every element and principle necessary to secure a peaceful democracy, a holy earth-state. The spiritual republic recognises no merits in her chosen representatives save those of personal purity, self-sacrifice, and patient service. The Christian commonwealth imposes no liability, no burden on the part of its subjects. The divine influence kindles duty to the offer of a willing tribute, and the heart, all grateful, pours its melting wealth on the altar of its liberties and life.

We have faintly traced the world-fact in her refined truthful beauty, and indicated her broad democratic basis; we have spoken of her almighty security, and dwelt upon her previous promises. It remains to picture a radiance concentred in which she floats a star differing from others in glory. Dimmed is that glory on earth. She receives here the meed of praise not solely on her own account, nor by reason of her own intrinsic excellence, but of her assimilation with adjuncts, haply of physical beauty, mental eminence, or moral superexcellence. But turn we to her future. To Christianity in her lone glory. But who shall essay description of the mighty magnificence, the overwhelming grandeur of her coming state-day? Let us in imagination draw the veil! What glory bursts now upon our view! We tremble, yet trembling cry, Truly now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.'

Our Open Page.

THE SCEPTIC'S DIFFICULTIES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

[ocr errors]

MONS.

DEAR SIR,

On Monday evening, April 23,, 1855, I visited the New Temperance Hall in Hyde, for the purpose of listening to a lecture, to be delivered by Mr. R. Cooper, "On the Bible and its Difficulties." And to be honest, I must confess that, at the conclusion of the lecture, I was somewhat disappointed in regard to what had been advanced, for I expected to hear the lecturer describe some of the real difficulties contained in the Bible, instead of talking, as he certainly did, about difficulties which he seemed to have dis covered in various authors concerning it. I was a little surprised to hear Mr. Cooper make mention of such frivolous objections against the Bible as he did; objections which have been often answered, and may be easily answered again. He considered that one grand objection against the Divine origin of the Bible was, the want of uniformity and universality in the knowledge, the reception, and the belief of the Bible. If the Bible had been given to man by God himself, it would have forced instant, uniform, and universal conviction of its truth. Such is a specimen of the mode of argumentation which he adopted. It is getting time, I think, that Mr. Cooper should learn that by such a course of reasoning he might as easily and as fully prove that nature, with all its wonders, is of human origin as that the Bible is not of Divine origin and authority. If his argument about the universality of the Bible is a solid and good one, it will hold good, and apply with equal force in regard to nature, philosophy, and science also. We may, therefore, say, had not nature been of human origin, it would have forced instant, uniform, and universal conviction of its truth, and its absolute sufficiency to afford substantial happiness and endless triumph; or, had nature not been of human origin, it would have been universally known, acknowledged, understood, and attended to. It is a certain fact, that the great mass of mankind in all ages have been ignorant of nature, and nearly all its teachings. Nor has there been uniformity of opinion concerning nature among those who have talked most loudly of the importance and propriety of attending to it instead of the Bible. For we are prepared to prove, that what one infidel has stated in regard to one very important law of nature another infidel has opposed and contradicted. But to pass on, we may say also in regard to the kind of reasoning referred to, philosophy and science cannot be depended upon, because not known and understood by all ranks and conditions of society

throughout the globe. To say the least we can say concerning the point in hand, want of universality in the knowledge and reception of the Bible cannot be any objection against its Divine origin, for the same objection applies with equal force to nature; and, if the objection were a good one, it would go to prove that nature is of human origin, if infidels will allow it to have any origin at all. I cannot help wondering that any man, who wished to be thought a man of intellect, should talk so unwisely and illogically, and advance arguments which involve consequences so absurd and ridiculous.

At the conclusion of the lecture, a young man got up to reply to what had been advanced by the lecturer; and, having occasion to refer to the free agency of man, it drew from Mr. Cooper, in his reply, a plain statement in regard to his belief on that important point. That statement was this: "I don't believe that man has a free will." To me, this was really astonishing. Does not Mr. Cooper know, that if the free agency of man be destroyed, there can be no such thing in the world as either virtue or vice; that no man could be righteous. ly blamed on account of any crimes he might commit, however abominable and injurious they might be; and that no man could be wisely and consistently praised for the performance of anything noble, benevolent, great, or good? Not only the Bible, but reason, common sense, and experience too, go against both him and every other person who denies the free agency of man. And then, besides all this, how inconsistent it necessarily must be for infidels to talk as they do about free thought, free inquiry, and free investigation, while they deny that they are possessed of any such thing as free agency. I say how ridiculous it must be for infidels to call themselves free-thinkers, and to boast of the appellation, while at the same time they believe and contend that man has not a free will.

Mr. Cooper also stated, in his reply, that he knew nothing but nature, and believed nothing but nature; from which curious statement I eventually concluded, that in order to avoid the difficulties of the Bible and of Christianity, he chose to flee for refuge to atheism. But I think that if Mr. Cooper had that discernment which he ought to have, he would not fail to perceive that there are infinitely greater difficulties connected with atheism than with the Bible; for, in connection with atheism, there is no end of difficulties and absurdities, of inconsistencies and contradictions.

I sincerely hope, Mr. Editor, that the time is not far distant, when infidels will more calmly and thoroughly investigate the evidences and the excellences of Christianity,-when they will look better after their greatest and noblest interests and concerns,--and when they will begin to make progress onwards in the scale of rational existence, spiritual freedom, and moral excellence, instead of progressing backwards towards eternal nothingness.

Mr. Cooper delivered three lectures in Hyde, but I can give no account of the other two nights, for I had not the opportunity to attend.

I remain, yours most respectfully,

SIR,

VAIN ENQUIRIES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

SIGMA.

"Not to speak it profanely," I must confess I was rather amused by reading a lucubration, in your last week's number, entitled, "Why did not Christ die for other worlds?" The writer of that most outre production seems to have taken it for granted that other worlds required Christ's dying for them,

« PreviousContinue »