very clearly appeared that tradition was no safe guide; that if, even when she was hardly a month old, she could play such freaks with the memories of honest people, there was but a sorry prospect of the secure transmission of truth for eighteen hundred years. From each man's memory seemed to glide something or other which he was not inclined to retain there, and each seemed to substitute in its stead that which he liked better.

Though the assembly was in the main most anxious to come to a right decision, and really advanced an immense way towards completing a true and faithful copy of the lost original, the disputes which arose, on almost every point of theology, promised the world an abundant crop of new sects and schisms. Already there had sprung up several whose names had never been heard of in the world, but for this calamity. Amongst them were two who were called the " 'Long Memories" and the "Short Memories." Their general tendencies coincided pretty much with those of the orthodox and the Rationalists.

It was curious to see by what odd associations, sometimes of contrast, sometimes of resemblance, obscure texts were recovered, though they were verified, when once mentioned, by the consciousness of hundreds. One old gentleman, contributed (and it was all he did contribute) a maxim of prudence, which he recollected, principally from having systematically abused it. All the ethical maxims, indeed, were soon collected; for though, as usual, no one recollected his own peculiar duties or infirmities, every one, as usual, kindly remembered those of his neighbours. Husbands remembered what was due from their wives, and wives what was due from their husbands. The unpleasant sayings about "better to dwell on the housetop," and "the perpetual dropping on a very rainy day," were called to mind by thousands. Almost the whole of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes were contributed, in the merest fragments, in this way. As for Solomon's "times for everything," few could remember them all, but everybody remembered some. Undertakers said there was a "time to mourn;" and comedians that there was a "time to laugh;" young ladies innumerable remembered that there was a "time to love;" and people of all kinds that there was a "time to hate;" everybody knew there was a "time to speak;" but a worthy Quaker reminded them that there was also a "time to keep silence."

Some dry parts of the law of Moses were recovered by the memory of jurists, who seemed to have no knowledge whatever of any other parts of the sacred volume; while in like manner one or two antiquarians supplied some very difficult genealogical and chronological matters, in equal ignorance of the moral and spiritual contents of the Scriptures.

As people became accustomed to the phenomenon, the perverse humours of mankind displayed themselves in a variety of ways. The efforts of the pious assembly were abundantly laughed at; but I must, in justice, add, without driving them from their purpose. Some profane wags suggested there was now a good opportunity of realising the scheme of taking "not" out of the Commandments and inserting it in the Creed. But they were sarcastically told that the old objection to the plan would still apply; that they would not sin with equal relish if they were expressly commanded to do so, nor take such pleasure in infidelity, if infidelity became a duty.

Others said that if the world must wait till the synod had concluded its labours, the prophecies of the New Testament would not be written till some time after their fulfiiment; and that if all the conjectures of the learned divines were inserted in the new edition of the Bible, the declaration in John would be literally verified, and that "the world itself would not contain all the books which would be written."

But the most amusing thing of all, was to see, as time made man more familiar with this strange event, the variety of speculations which were entertained respecting its object and design. Many began gravely to question whether it was the duty of the synod to attempt the reconstruction of a book of which God himself had so manifestly deprived the world, and whether it was not a profane, nay, an atheistical, attempt to frustrate his will. Some, who were secretly glad to be released from so troublesome a book, were particularly pious on this head, and exclaimed bitterly against this rash attempt to counteract and cancel the decrees of heaven. The Papists, on their part, were confident that the design was to correct the exorbitancies of a rabid Protestantism, and show the world, by direct miracle, the necessity of submitting to the decision of their church and the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff; who, as they truly alleged, could decide all knotty points quite as well without the word of God as with it. On being reminded that the writings of the Fathers, on which they laid so much stress as the vouchers of their traditions, were mutilated by the same stroke which had demolished the Bible (all their quotations from the sacred volume being erased), some of the Jesuits affirmed that many of the Fathers were rather improved than otherwise by the omission, and that they found these writings quite as intelligible and not less edifying than before. In this, many Protestants very cordially agreed. On the other hand, many of our modern infidels gave an entirely new turn to the whole affair, by saying that the visitation was evidently not in judgment, but in mercy; that God in compassion, and not in indignation, had taken away a book which men had regarded with an extravagant admiration and idolatry, and which they had exalted to the place of that clear internal oracle which he had planted in the human breast; in a word, that if it was a rebuke at all, it was a rebuke to a rampant "Bibliolatry." As I heard all these different versions of so simple a matter, and found that not a few were inclined to each, I could not help exclaiming, "In truth the devil is a very clever fellow, and man even a greater blockhead than I had taken him for." But in spite of the surprise with which I had listened to these various explanations of an event which seemed to me clear as if written with a sunbeam, this last reason, which assigned as the cause of God's resumption of his own gift, an extravagant admiration and veneration of it on the part of mankind-it being so notorious that those who professed belief in its divine origin and authority had (even the best of them) so grievously neglected both the study and the practice of it-struck me as so exquisitely ludicrous that I broke into a fit of laughter, which awoke me. I found that it was broad daylight, and the morning sun was streaming in at the window, and shining in quiet radiance upon the open Bible which lay on my table. So strongly had my dream impressed me, that I felt as though, on inspection, I should find the sacred leaves a blank, and it was

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 bno 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 66 your 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 " 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, I am yours obliged,

March, 1855.

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?"

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.

66

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 "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