SIR, THE FREE-WILLISTS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER. Excepting the Atonement,' I don't know that there is one doctrine which has occupied more time and got more attention than the doctrine of the Free Will of man. The Atonement is the ground-work of the sinner's salvation-and the free-will theory leaves you criminal for the non-acceptance of this ground-work, in working out your own redemption. There stands the Atonement; that is the base on which you may build your eternal blessedness, if you will only accept-as free-will implies your power to accept-this only medium. It is not my purpose at present to say anything on the scheme of redemption --although I believe it to be a priestly invention to work out priestly purposes -but I mention this en passant merely to note, that, with this exception, the free will theory has been the bone of contention' for a long time in the Christian polemical world. And is it not strange that there should have been so much said—so much wrangling, and bickering, and persecution-when it might have been apparent to the persecutors that the same difficulty they experienced in believing as others believed would exist in the minds of atheists believing as they believed? It is not for me to wrangle, to bicker, nor to persecute, if even I had the power, for these are not my modus operandi; but yet I think I might venture to say, that there is extravagance on both sides of the argument, which I will now endeavour to show. The Christian-anxious for converts-damns for disbelief, as- -'He that believeth not shall be damned' -and the necessarian is apt to be understood as giving license to bad conduct, by saying everything (bad conduct included) is necessitated. [As I am a plain person, I want to write in a plain way for plain people, and will, therefore, ty to steer clear of the metaphysical jargon that is commonly mixed up with this question.] The free-willists believe man to possess the power of believing freely-which means as he likes. I hold that a man cannot believe as he likes, and will try to prove the free-willists themselves don't act as if men were free to believe, but that they act with reference to the will, as if men believed of necessity. Can a free-willist believe (at once) in philosophical necessity? He could not believe in necessity, because the evidence he possessed would be in favour of the freedom of the will, and he would be necessitated to believe in it. Can a Christian (at once) become an atheist? Impossible, because (evidently) he possesses no atheistic evidence. If a free-will-man was to publicly advocate a system-say phonography-how would he do it? There could be only one way, and that would be to show the superiority of phonography to the old tem of spelling. He would endeavour to show that the old system was absurd in its spelling and pronunciation-difficult to learn-difficult to teach—and that it would consume more of a person's time when it was acquired than phonography would do in correspondence, &c., &c., and thus, by his extra evidence, and by illustrations of the absurdity of the old system, would very likely convince, people in favour of phonography. This is practical necessarianism. Christianity, even by free-will-men, is propagated on principles of necessity in the same way; or, if it were not, why ought a Christian minister to belabour himself so on the 'merits of Christ'-the 'beauties of the Christian system,' and its adaptability' to renovate society, but that he wants to convince men by the extra weight of evidence he furnishes to the acceptance of these propositions? What need is there that Dr. Lees should enter into a learned disquisition on the originals of wine to prove that it was intoxicating, if evidence is not the changer of belief? The doctor wanted to heap one view of the argument upon another until he made men disbelieve what they formerly held to be true. And with some he has succeeded. It seems, indeed, almost superfluous sys to reason out this idea, as any one who has reflected on this subject may see at once that the labour of the Christian, the lecturer, and the publicist would be considerably lessened in preparing for the pulpit, the platform, and the press, if evidence was not the sole agent, in connection with organisation, in influencing belief. It will, in fact, be needless that I should do more than mention the criminal proceedings of this country-trial by jury, special pleading, rhetoric, oratory, and other arts and means that are used to influence men's belief-as proofs of our belief being caused by evidence, because the practice is so palpable that we can scarcely fail to see that all our institutions partake of, and are based on, this principle. Evidence, then, is our mind's master: our minds are its slaves. If our minds are the slaves of evidence, how can they be free? They are bound to accept or to refuse a proposition according to the force of evidence presented; and to talk of being free when we are thus bound is both against the law of mind and contrary to good sense. Evidence is at the bottom of all change-improvementthe prime mover and master of civilisation. It has knocked almost out of use the old, unsafe, ricketty coaches, it has prevented us shivering in our shirts with the tinder-box in our hand,—and it has turned us round in our belief of the sun going round the earth, instead of the earth revolving round the sun. There might be a whole host of illustrations adduced to show that there would be a complete stand-still in civilisation if men could-but they cannot-act as if evidence was not at the bottom of all change-as if change was not the result of evidence. I myself was born of a Christian mother; I was reared by Christian parents. When a child-a mere infant-I was sent to drink at Christian rivulets to nourish and Christianise my little being. As I grew in years I was prayed for to grow in grace. I was made to attend the means'-I got off the catechism and belief--got off chapters and poetry, and repeated them at Sunday School anniversaries-said my prayers regularly nights and mornings-read Christian stories of happy deaths and horridly-told stories of infidel deaths -in short, every attention was paid that could be paid to make me a Christian 'indeed.' I read Methodist Magazines, Pilgrim's Progress, A. Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament, and, at last, at about twenty, I became a Christian, earnest and sincere. Evidence after evidence made me a Christian; ! could not resist it. My whole being was saturated with its evidence--I had examined no further and knew nothing of other evidence than Christian, so that it was impossible I could be other than a Christian. Do you ask, was Į not happy when a Christian? I answer freely and truly that I was; but so is a Hindoo under Mahomedanism. H. SIR, WHAT AFTER DEATH? TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER. I notice in 'Mons' reply to 'Amicus' about death (No. 18 of the 'Defender') that, All who die, whether Christians or unbelievers, cease from consciousness at the moment of death.' I think such a doctrine would be repulsive to our highest nature, and I do not think the passages to which he has referred go to substantiate his opinion. I would ask Mons' how I am to understand the parable of the rich man and Lazarus ?-the words of Jesus to the dying thief, To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise?' St. Paul, in writing to the Philippians, says, 'I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ, which is far better.' In his epistle to the Corrinthians we have this passage, 'We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.' Other passages might be adduced from the Old and New Testament to prove that when the 'spirit' leaves the body it will go at once to Heaven or Hell. I believe from Scripture that the Day of Judgment will be at a future period, when body and soul will be reunited, and redemption completed. Such an event is necessary in order OPENLY to vindicate the justice of God in admitting the righteous to the joys of Christ's Kingdom, and dooming the wicked to outer darkness and eternal despair. Liverpool, May 11th, 1845. J. H. O. JESUS. (Translated from the Latin of St. Bernard by D. French, Esq., vide Hammersmith Discussion.) O! Jesus, name to memory dear, The thoughts of thee with sweets my bosom fill, But, oh! thy presence is far sweeter still. No sound in heav'n or earth is heard So sweet as that melodious word That sweetest charm by which all hearts are won- O, glorious dayspring, heavenly morn, Of sinners desolate, forlorn, To seek thee, Jesus! is a sweet employ; But, oh! to find thee, who can tell the joy? Jesus! true sweetness and delight! O, living fount of splendour bright! With joys no tongue can tell, no heart conceive! Alas! how languid and how faint Is eloquence, thy sweets to paint! "Tis he that tastes thee who alone can know O, Jesus! King of power Divine, O! source of bliss with me remain; And whilst all tongues thy heavenly deeds proclaim, This anthem, O, Celestial King! With heart devout, to thee I sing; That when death spreads around its gloomy shades, THEATRES. Never do as some have done,-go once in order to judge for yourself. Take not the poison to ascertain how you like it, and to form an opinion of its deleterious power. Touch not the serpent to ascertain the sharpness of its tooth. These are matters which it is easier to decide by testimony; and a cloud of witnesses can, and do depose, that of all the avenues to destruction, not one is more seductive or more direct than the theatre.' SMOKING. 'It may seem trifling, but I know it is not, to say, that the first cigar a young man takes within his lips may (and often does) become his first step in the career of vice. A cigar is with young persons the symbol of foppery and conceit.' THE INAUGURATION MEETING OF THE "BIBLE DEFENCE ASSOCIATION," The proposed Rules of which we inserted in our last, will be held in HOPE HALL, HOPE STREET, LIVERPOOL, on Friday, June 22nd. It is expected that the Rev. Dr. BAYLEE, of ST. AIDAN'S THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE, BIRKENHEAD, will preside, and that the Rev. J. H. Rutherford, and other ministers and gentlemen interested in the defence of the Bible and the exposure of modern infidelity, will speak on the occasion. We would urge all our Liverpool subscribers and friends to attend. Full Particulars we hope to be able to give in our next. NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS. We have several communications from correspondents which we cannot insert, and they must remember that we undertake to return none that are rejected. CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDIST FUND, for the support and gratuitous circulation of the Defender, T. Gray, Sunderland, 1s.; a Friend, Sunderland, 2s.; a Friend, Glasgow, per a working man, 1s.; B. Vickerman, Esq., Huddersfield, 100s. 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. THE DEFENDER: 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. It is not every man who can be his own biographer; though an honest man can throw a light on his life which no one else can do. We cannot say of Mr. Jay's autobiography that it leads us into the very soul of his existence; it consists rather of interesting reminiscences of himself and others, strung together in his own artless style, apparently without any reference to chronological order, but simply according to the associations of the moment. William Jay has no proud lineage; he was 'satisfied to rise by his own worth a lesson and example for the young men of our day. He says:Lord Bacon remarked that they who derive their worth from their ancestors resemble 'potatoes, the most valuable part of which is underground.' When one of Lord Thurlow's friends was endeavouring to make out his relationship to the secretary, Cromwell, whose family had been settled in the county adjoining Suffolk, he replied, 'Sir, there were two Cromwells in that part of the country-Cromwell the secretary, and Cromwell the carrier; I am descended from the latter.' We have read of a man who, in prospect of his promotion, being asked concerning his pedigree, answered that he was not particularly sure, yet had been credibly informed that he had three brothers in the ark ;'but one of our most distinguished poets of obscure origin surpasses this, in his epitaph : No. 24, Vol. I.. |