Page images
PDF
EPUB

to it." You surely do not mean that you could not have avoided replying, or that you could not have replied otherwise than you have done.

We know that men require education. That is obvious enough; but any one who knows the meaning of the Latin words of which it is compounded will tell you that it implies the existence of something to be drawn out, and a little thought will teach you that the mind is not passive but active in its true education.

You will find that most people, "brought to court against their will," take shelter in the thought that they "could not help it," and it is only those who know that they might have done otherwise that will ever blame themselves. If your doctrine be true, you should never think of putting any man on trial for bad conduct, because, being the "creature of necessity," he could not help acting as he did.

How is it that you cannot induce Mr. Cooper, or some of your leaders, who could perceive the real point at issue, to enter upon a thorough discussion of it in our pages, for which they are open?

QUESTIONS ABOUT DEATH.

"I have lately found in some passages of Scripture a sense quite different from what I understood them in before, or from what I found in commentators; and yet it appears so clear to me....I shall dare to appeal to you in it. But I read the Word of God without prepossession or bias, and come to it with a resolution to take my sense from it, and not with a design to bring it to the sense of any system."-John Locke.

Two important questions are presented by AMICUS, viz. "Is it probable that when the spirit leaves the body it will go at once to Heaven or Hell? If so, is it a correct idea that the judgment will be at some future period?"

[ocr errors]

In regard to the first-by the word "spirit" I apprehend he means "immortal soul." Our friend has thus taken for granted the inherent and unconditional immortality of man, a dogma which- —as I opine—the Scriptures do not teach. The word "spirit," or soul," we have come (from early training) to assume as suggesting the essence and destiny of human nature, and not unfrequently as being properly the man. Now the Bible, I think you will admit, points prominently to the natural form, for proof whereof read in a literal manner Gen. iii. 19, Isaiah ii. 22, Job xxvii. 3. "Spirit" and "soul" in Scripture mean in most instances no more than "life," breath," "animation," "vital principle," &c. The word immortal "spirit," &c. not once occurs throughout.

66

For myself I gather from the Holy Scripture that God created man mortal, placing him in Eden a probationer for immortality. The "Tree of Life" was the pledge or guarantee of immortality. Man fell; became subject to death. We recover our lost inheritance by accepting "The way, the truth, and the LIFE."

And, furthermore, ALL who die, whether Christians or unbelievers, cease from consciousness at the moment of death. They await resurrection, and judgment. Believers "sleep in Jesus"-"rest from their labours"66 are dead;" their "life is hid with Christ in God." Their inheritance is "RESERVED in Heaven, " and "ready TO BE REVEALED IN THE LAST TIME." The wicked in like manner lie among the "CONGREGATION OF THE DEAD," Prov. 21, 16, awaiting resurrection and judgment. Read Col. 3, 4, John 5, 29, Phil. 3, 10, 11, Col. 16, 17, Job 14, 12. I cannot but think it insulting to the Divine benignity and wisdom, to maintain that a spiritual modicum of the human personality shall by the Almighty be wafted to bliss, or sped to torture, in order subsequently to be RECALLED TO JUDGMENT.

MONS.

April 8, 1855.

MR. EDITOR,

THE SECULAR SONNET.

I see that one of your lively correspondents has been misquoting my sonnet. Let that writer omit his full-stop after "their atoms wander to to the kindred soul," and punctuate it as I have done, and not ignorantly or wantonly mangle my sentences to suit himself. He need not seek atomic theories in the peroration of a sonnet. Let him read,

The noble dead still move the noble heart;
Their atoms wander to the kindred soul-
Avoid the herd of wealthy servile men—

And in the steadfast hearts of freemen live again.

And make nonsense of that, and I will tell him that no atom of the noble dead
is in his composition: but I did not assert that every "ATOм" had brains.
Begging the insertion of this brief reply, I remain, with due respect,
Your obedient servant,

Northampton, 20th April.

KWEXE.

MR EDITOR, I am afraid that the sonnet written by KWEXÆ will fail to prove to the readers of the " Defender" that secularism has or can have any poetry. Your would-be-a-poet-in addition to his brevity-must handle his "themes" very differently, or he may give up all thoughts of ever becoming either a Byron, a Milton, or a Shakspeare.

[ocr errors]

To me he appears in his "sonnet" to have succeeded in jumbling together a lot of words without any meaning. "Nature,' 66 Honour,' "God-like man," "Atoms," "Green Fields," and "Skies of Blue." What does he mean by Nature? He tells us that she is the "Mother of the Secularist." That he, that is the secularist (how modest) "lives by Honor's hest," and "at last sleeps in peace upon her breast, beneath her starry eyes." I apprehend that he just bears the same relation to nature that others do, and at last sleeps in the same place as far as this world is concerned.

"All things subserve her vast," &c. Nature's vast and mystic plan. “From atoms grow green fields and skies of blue." What jargon! Nature ever according to the secular theory is a collection of atoms, each of which may be separately considered, and everything we know goes to prove that it is unconscious, unintelligent, and incapable of forming or devising any "plan." But after all, perhaps, Nature is but another term for an intelligent personal First Great Cause, and something within our secular friend's bosom gives the lie to his secularism, and so in order to distinguish man above all others, he terms him God-like.

The latter part of the sonnet, I see, has been noticed by a correspondent in your last number. I will, therefore, no longer, trespass on your time, but remain,

Manchester, April 14, 1854.

SIR,

[blocks in formation]

WHY DID NOT CHRIST DIE FOR OTHER WORLDS?

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

I have seen in previous numbers of the Defender the statement of your readiness to assist in removing the difficulties of any one who should make their difficulties known to you. I shall be very glad to have you opinion upon the following statement.

I am about to notice the reasonableness of Christ coming to redeem man when we do not believe that ours is the only world that exists. Astronomy teaches that it is not. Our chief astronomers have shown that the planets are worlds like the earth, and that the fixed stars are suns-the centres of systems like ours. I do not think it reasonable to suppose that the earth is the only planet inhabited by intelligent beings. Then, if other worlds exist and are inhabited like unto ours, it is just that some one should make intercession for them also, as Christ did for us. Christianity calls God just. In John 3 chap., 16 verse, it is said, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish but have everlasting life." But why should the earth be selected out of an extensive group, and made the particular care of God? I do not think it unjust that Christ should save man, but may not other worlds require to be saved as well as this? and we must either believe that God was unjust in sending his only Son into this world, when it is probable that other worlds require equally as much as this, that their Maker should die for them, or we must think that this world was more degraded than any other, and that God was not so merciful to man as Christianity states him to be. Requesting an answer,

Northampton, April 21, 1855.

AN ENQUIRING FRIEND.

A REPLY TO "SILVERWATER'S" OBJECTIONS.

The opinion that Elijah was to appear personally before the coming of Christ was a general one among the Jews. John's design was evidently to destroy this notion. Christ showed his disciples that the Scriptures had been fulfilled, and that Elias had come in the person of John the Baptist, that John had come in the spirit and power of Elijah; and I think it does not require any very great amount of penetration to see the great similarity of the work, character, and of habits, to that of the great prophet, and although John the Baptist was not personally the Elijah in his office, work, and character, he was he of whom Malachi predicted.

"Silverwater" objects because the Bible does not say that John turned the hearts of the fathers to the children; but, supposing that it does not, is that evidence that he did not do it? I should think not. But there is evidence that John did answer to the description given by Malachi. If "Silverwater" will read the third chapter of Matthew he will see with what power and success John preached to the Jews. And is there no evidence from that that there were many homes made happy; that there were better fathers, better mothers, better brothers, and better sisters? Religion is the same now as then, and there are many now that are made happy by its influence.

He objects again to the statement that the disciples who followed him should sit on twelve thrones. He asks, Are devils and wicked men not only to be admitted into Christ's kingdom, but to sit on thrones? We answer, no. The passage does not say so-does not say Judas would. It says, "That ye which followed me in the regeneration" shall sit on twelve thrones. But Judas did not follow Christ through his regeneration; he did only a part of it-therefore, was not entitled to the reward he promised his true followers.

I don't see that "Silverwater" makes a case out at all in regard to the three days in which Christ was in the grave. Supposing that "Silverwater” had buried a brother on the Friday, and, in company with another friend, went to the tomb on Sunday. If the friend asked how long he had been in the grave, would the answer not be a very natural one, This is now the third day.

As God, Jesus is everywhere; there was then no contradiction in saying to the

thief thou shalt be with me in Paradise to-day. He was man as well as God, and that explains the language, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" He was dependent on the Father only as man; as God he was equal with the Father.

W. P.

ON MODERN INFIDEL ADVOCATES.

DEDICATED TO G. JACOB HOLYOAKE AND JOSEPH BARKER.

Away, you Apostates and infidels too;

Your hearts are deceitful; your words are untrue;
Your motives are selfish, I plainly can see;

But your "tricks" and your " dodges" will not do for me,

Your motives are selfish :-for, when did we see
On the placards you've issued, "Admission is FREE?"
'T'will not do," cries out Joseph and Jacob so bold,
"Work for nothing we will not while we can get gold."

Gold! gold is their idol; they love the bright ore,
And will fight, though they win not, if they can get more,
But the Bible HAS stood and will YET STAND we know
The "twistings and twinings" of Jacob and Joe.

They may pour forth their blasphemies, nonsense, or wit;
Their falsehoods, assertions, their subtle deceit.

They may hurl forth their scoffs-but the Bible will stand!
Preserved by its author's Omnipotent hand.

The Bible they've tried to destroy, but in vain-
Has Owen succeeded? did Rousseau, or Paine?
No! and Joseph and Jacob, these "two clever men,”
We are certain at last will be baffled again.

They may go round the country and tell their great tale,
They may sing "Uncle Ned" and their " Poor Lilly Dale"
They will face their large audience, and speak very well,
But when finish'd they will tell you "they've got books for to sell."

They are books wrote by Holyoake and some by his "Friend,"
They are foolish at first and obscene to the end;

They are cramm'd with loud blasphemies, heaped up again,
From the writings of Toland, Voltaire, and Tom Paine,

But adieu to such mortals-the time will soon come
When they and their writings will soon be cast down;
They have got no foundation, they are built upon sand-
And will fall by the stroke of Jehovah's right hand.

J. B, Hyde.

SIR,

ANSWER TO QUERIES AS TO THE FALL.

Seeing in No. 16 of the Defender two questions as to the Fall, I thought I would try to answer them. The first was-Is the 18th verse of the 3rd chapter of Genesis to be understood literally or figuratively. My reply is, that it is to be understood literally; that the land should bring forth thorns and thistles in great quantities; but not so as to leave no room for what has been, and what was to be, the food of man, viz. "the herb of the field."

The second question was-Were savage beasts-as lions, tigers, &c.-tame before the Fall? I reply that before the Fall they were in entire subjection to man, but that there were animals, living on other animals, before the Fall, Geology plainly teaches. See Hitchcock's Religion of Geology-page 75. A YOUNG BIBLE CLASS SCHOLAR.

Stockport, April 23rd, 1853.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

DEAR SIR,

If you will be kind enough to afford me a little space in the next number of the Defender, I will try to answer "Our John's" queries. I am of opinion that Gen. 3. 18, is to be taken literally, for before the Fall it is stated (see Gen. 2. 9,) that "out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food." Hence we infer that the earth would only bring forth such things as would please the eye, satisfy the appetite, and gratify the taste; not thorns, thistles, or noxious weeds; therefore, man's duty in "dressing and keeping" the Garden would be easy and pleasant, sweet and refreshing; for all things were adapted to promote his happiness.

After the fall man was to "eat bread of the sweat of his face." Hence he would have to labour long and patiently in cultivating the earth before it would produce food for his sustenance, for "thorns and thistles" would spring up and choke the good seed which he had sown, and make him sorrowful and dubious as to whether his labours would be crowned with success.

He was to eat the "herb of the field"-wild herbs and fruits in contradistinction to such as the Garden yielded; for " every herb bearing seed which was upon the face of the earth," and the fruit of every tree yielding seed, were to be to him for meat before the fall, but afterwards he would have to search and labour in order to procure them.

It is evident that man's food, while in a state of innocence, was the herbs and fruits of the earth, which God had pronounced to be good. It was after the flood when permission was given to eat flesh, but their was no encomium passed upon it; nor was the permission to eat flesh ever extended to the blood, for eating blood is distinctly prohibited, and the prohibition is imposed on Christians by the Apostolic decree.-Acts 15. 28, 29.

I am of opinion that lions, tigers, &c. were tame, and perfectly under man's control before the fall; for, if they were not, it would have been impossible for Adam to have named them, and searched for an help-meet for him.

Again, if we examine the Scriptures, we may justly infer that man was in a state of happiness and peace, similar to that which is promised to the faithful inheritors of the divine blessing upon the second coming of Christ; and in order that perfect peace may reign among the chosen people of God, that there may be nothing to hurt or destroy them, God promises (Lev. 26.6) that he will rid evil beasts out of the land," Again Ezekiel 34, 20th to 31st verses, where the

« PreviousContinue »