meandering brook "making sweet music with the enamell'd stones," the majesty of" ocean's gray and solitary waste," and all the glory of the host of heaven to the full as much as George Jacob Holyoake; or who can doubt that the Christian enjoys the grateful amenities of social intercourse and the hallowed pleasures of domestic life in measure equally abundant? It is certain that so far as all these pleasures are concerned the infidel has no advantage over the Christian.

But the Christian has other and deeper joys than these. He knows this world to be a glorious dwelling place, but his heart rests in hope of one infinitely more glorious. The exercises of his religion assuage his griefs and increase his joys. In the study of the Scriptures he finds that knowledge which, whilst it satisfies his seeking spirit, exalts his character by purifying his mind. Convinced that God is, and that He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him, he kneels prayer and adores with an unfaltering trust, whilst in the exercise of praise he finds fit expression for his gratitude and enjoys some faint foreshadowing of that coming time when, in the celestial city of sunshine and song, before the excellent glory of the Father's throne, and amid the rejoicing hallelujahs of cherubim and seraphim,

in

It does not concern me at present to enquire if this belief is either reasonable or true. Although I subscribe to it with my whole heart, I am not now called on to give a reason for the faith that is in me. I only point out its results, to show that the Christian experiences happiness which the infidel cannot know, but which is not on this account the less real or influential. Hence it follows that, supposing other circumstances to be equal, in precisely the degree in which a Christian realizes those pleasures which his religion is capable of affording-in precisely that degree will he be happier than the man who derides his belief as a worn-out imposture, and regards his joy as the amiable vagary of a deluded mind. M. A. H. T,

Liverpool.

Our Open Page.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE LONDON

SECULARIST SOCIETY.

Lest our notice, in last week's number, of a communication that we received from the vice-president of the London Secularist Society, may not be deemed satisfactory, we have inserted it in full. When our space allows it, and the communication seems to require it, we shall always greatly prefer giving the ipsissima verba of our correspondents, especially of those of them who differ from us. Where this is impracticable, we shall do our best to give the substance. We may here also state, that, though in many instances we may give the objection and its answer in the same number of The Defender, it may often be otherwise. This will excite thought among our readers, and give any of them who desire it an opportunity of meeting objections and difficulties,

?

Sir,

37, King Street Terrace, New North Road, London,

February, 12, 1855.

Being at Mr. G. J. Holyoake's, 147, Fleet Street, to-day, I purchased

a number of The " Defender," the first I had seen, being No. 5.

I observed with pleasure that you reserved an open page for your opponents. May I claim a small space to give expression to the impressions I had on reading it. I cannot but regret to observe,-what is so apparent,-a spirit of bitterness against what is called infidelity; but I felt some surprise, mingled with sorrow, at seeing an article headed-"Barker's view of Socialism," the whole paragraph unmarked as a quotation, and the source whence it was derived unnoticed.

It appeared to me prima facie to be intended, not merely to expose some views Mr. Barker may have had of Socialism at one period of his life, but also to convey the impression to your readers, that the socialist advocated nothing more than a mere brutal indulgence, the mere satisfaction of hunger and thirst and animal gratification.

It is to correct this false impression, I write to you, and I may say that I date my conversion to Socialism and change of views of what is called Religioutruth, to the discovery I made, a few years since of the gross, misrepresent ations of the aims and ends of Socialism, proceeding from Christian Ministers and Christian publications. If your article be really a quotation from Mr. Barker, he has amply atoned for having written it, by an honest confession that he was mistaken. If it be intended to convey the impression that such in reality is the only aim and end of Socialism, I give it the most unqualified denial. Socialism always advocates the utmost culture and development of both the intellectual and moral faculties, is the consistent advocate of universal and equal education and training of every human being, is not necessarily opposed to the most fervent belief in a God or the most extatic hopes of bliss in a future state.

I must say that I am astonished at the Christian rejecting and sneering at Socialist desires and efforts for the removal of the numerous evils which affect humanity, which are capable of being perfectly removed by human exertions and wisdom, guided by experience. A cursory glance at Robert Owen's works, and those of other English and French Socialists, would suffice to show how utterly groundless is the charge, and that moral and intellectual excellence is as much desired and aimed at as physical improvement. In fact we believe they must go hand in hand and no style of education can be perfect which neglects the due development of the physical powers.

I am, ir, your most odedient,

JOHN MAUGHAN, Vice President of the London Secularist Society.

THE EDITOR'S REPLY.

Sir, We cherish none of the spirit of bitterness against infidelity, and shall gladly do our utmost to destroy that spirit wherever it exists. You do not tell us where it is apparent in anything that we have written,

The paragraph to which you refer was quoted from Mr. Barker's "Overthrow of Infidel Socialism," to show what were his views of it when he was an advocate of Christianity; the remainder of the extract appeared in number 6th., under the title, "A miserable portion," with the proper signature, which unintentionally was omitted in the other. No one, however, who knows anything of Mr. Barker's sentiments, or had read his speeches as reported in that No. of The Defender, would be in any danger of supposing that he now holds the same language in reference to Socialism. We neither had, nor have, any desire to represent him as subscribing to views which he now withdraws. We know that he has recanted what, we are afraid, he will never be able to refute.

You seem to doubt whether the article referred to, is really a quotation from Mr. Barker. You may satisfy yourself by turning to the 47th page of his

"Overthrow of Infidel Socialism," and at pages 29, 30, 31, and 32, you will find a record of facts to substantiate the general proposition, that Socialism is debasing in its tendency. Now, if these were facts, no recantation of his can alter them; and if they were "pious frauds," invented by him to serve a purpose, how shall we know that any "confession" he now makes is "honest." You say "he has amply atoned for having written it," but how can you and your fellowsecularists assure yourselves, that he will not, for ends of his own, make similar atonement for all he says against the Bible, and startle you with another "honest confession."

You have volunteered a statement, which will assist us in writing a history of modern conversions to infidelity. You date your conversion to Socialism,' not to any careful examination of the evidences, and the adaptations of Christianity, not to any conviction that the morality of the New Testament is insufficient, not to any ascertained defect in Christian doctrine, but to the discovery of "the gross misrepresentations of the aims and ends of Socialism proceeding from Christian ministers and Christian publications !" This is an amazing admission, and proves how slight and shallow must have been your views of "what is called religious truth. Nor are you alone in this; for the President of your society tells us, that the imprisonment of Charles Southwell, made him an atheist. If you could prove that Christianity is responsible for those misrepresentations, there would be some reasonableness in your conduct; but this you have not so much as attempted.

We do not seek to produce the impression, that the "only aim of Socialism" is the unlimited gratification of man's animal appetites; to prove that it is part of its aim would be enough for right thinking minds. Does it not allow a man to act according to his likings? (Law 12.) Does it not teach that marriage is a satanic device of the priesthood to keep mankind within their slavish superstitions? (Book of the New Moral World, 8.) Does it not teach that the natural association of the sexes should be resumed; that all single family arrangements are one continued compound of absurdity, folly, and wickedness, from their commencement in marriage, to their dissolution by the death of the parent. (pp. 9, 37.) Your "most unqualified denial" cannot alter the facts of the case. You tell us that Socialism is "not necessarily opposed to the most fervent belief in a God, or the most ecstatic hopes of bliss in a future state." If you say this of the Socialism of Robert Owen, you are either ignorant of its real nature, you give us credit for very little knowledge of its principles, or they have undergone some metamorphosis during the last twelve years. Read the outline of Socialism, page 8, Social tracts, No. 6, Book of the New Moral World, pp. 36 -65, Discussion with A. Campbell, 69, 155, 156, 217, and you will find a distinct denial of the existence of an intelligent Deity, of Providence, and of a future life of consciousness for man. Have you not yet learned one of the first principles of Socialism "that all the religions of the world are founded in ignorance and are productive of misery? Do not suppose, Sir, that we are as ignorant of Socialism as many of the Secularists are of the first principles of Christianity. For our part, we neither reject nor sneer at "socialist desires and efforts for the removal of the numerous evils that afflict humanity," on the contrary we sympathize with such desires wherever they are cherished, and would readily unite in any such efforts, consistent with truth and promising success. We are not insensible to the fact that the agitation of Socialist the ories has been productive of good in turning attention to the condition and the claims of those classes whose well-being is so essential to the progress of society; we only grieve that any truth fitted to benefit our race, should have been mixed up with so much, so great, and so debasing error. Yours, very truly,

THE EDITOR.

Notices to Correspondents in our next.
London: HOULSTON & STONEMAN, 65, Paternoster Row.

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, not stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious, those are the shifts and the defences that error uses against her power.-MILTON.

REV. BREWIN GRANT AND MR. JOSEPH BARKER, ON THE ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.

FOURTH NIGHT.

There was a large attendance, but not so numerous as on the previous evenings. E. M. Wavill, Esq., presided.

THE CHAIRMAN opened the meeting by thanking his audience for the respectful attention they had already given the disputants, and the impartial spirit they had manifested during the debates of the previous evenings. The opening of the discussion for that evening would devolve upon Mr. Grant, in a speech of half an hour.

MR. GRANT said, he concluded from Wednesday evening's debate, that Mr. Barker was either unacquainted with his proposition, that there was no evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, or had given up his objection to its divine origin. So far, Mr. Barker had brought forward nothing in proof of his propositions; he had made many assertions, but they were groundless. They would remember what he said about the creation of man, and that assertion was most unjust, as had since been shown. He also referred to the views of Professor Norton on the doctrine of the Trinity. Now he (Mr. Grant) had nothing to do with Mr. Norton's religious views; but if he had, that would not prove that the gospels were not No. 9, Vol. 1.

of Divine origin; but expose Mr. Barker's double shuffling. For the future he (Mr. Grant) would first take the positive position, and then answer the remarks of his opponent. If Mr. Barker intended to maintain his proposition, he must treat the subject in such a manner as no other person ever did; and if he did not intend to maintain his proposition, he should at once give up the discussion. The remark made by Mr. Barker, respecting the characters of Abraham, Noah, and other Scripture worthies, were as futile as the reflections of his own darkened mind. He had asserted that the Bible sanctioned polygamy, but he could not prove such assertions by quoting the case of Solomon or that of any other Scripture character. After all that his opponent had said (Mr. G.) would still maintain that there were more real liberty, equality, and morality taught in the first two chapters of Genesis, than could be found in any other two chapters, or books in the world. Mr Barker should be well prepared on this point, as he had alluded to it in strong terms on former evenings. If he discussed scientific truths upon the same principle as he discussed this subject, his ignorance would be exposed by every scientific man. The two first chapters of Genesis proved that God was the creator of the world, of man, and of woman: and that they were at the head of creation, and as far superior to the rest of the animal creation, as was the Bible to all human productions. He challenged Mr. Barker to produce a book, from amongst all infidel works, or the writings of the philosophers of Greece and Rome, so good as to bear comparison with the Bible. For Mr. Barker, or any one else to attempt such a thing, would only be to cover himself with shame. Mr. Grant concluded by reading a masterly paper on the doctrine of the liberty of man, according to the Scriptures, and the high tone of morality exhibited in the early chapters of Genesis.

MR. BARKER remarked that his opponent had affirmed that he was bound to produce all logical evidence against that of the divine origin of the Bible. Now that was impossible, because was no evidence of the divine origin of the Bible. Mr. Grant had pledged himself to prove that there was such evidence, and seemed disposed to attempt to produce it, but they would see whether he redeemed his pledge. Was it possible that there could be proof of the Divine origin of the Bible, a book that contained gross blasphemies, multitudes of contradictions, and dreadful, frightful immoralities! There was perhaps some good in the Bible, but it was not entitled to be considered the best of books, in fact, it would not be difficult to produce far better books, written by the learned of Greece aud Rome. What did his opponent mean by charging him with gross slanders upon the characters of Abraham, David, and Calvin? Those slanders were not made by him (Mr. B.), they came from another quarter. He did not charge Mr. Grant with telling black lies, because telling black lies was against the teaching of Christianity, namely, that liars should be tumbled down into hell and eternally damned. If the Bible is what it professes to be, a book of Divine authority, should afford the best examples and teach the purest lessons. But that was not the case, and it was beyond the power of any one to find a single production of any Grecian or Roman philosopher, that does not contain matter much superior to the earlier chapters of the Bible. Mr. Grant had said that if I found the truths of the Bible were acted upon, they would produce the best moral effects. How, then, could the case of Abraham be explained? He was, doubtless, acquainted with those truths, yet he was a most cruel and bad man. In the Bible were to be found accounts of the worst of crimes, of the most horrible murders, all commited by men set up for our examples! But in the Bible could not be found one worthy character, one whose conduct was not immoral and reproachful. Mr. Barker then pointed out numerous imperfections in the lives of several Scripture worthies, men and women said to have lived almost blamelessly in the sight of God, though they were guilty