Page images
PDF
EPUB

EARLY RISING. Happy the man who is an early riser! Every morning, day comes to him with a virgin's love, full of bloom, and purity, and freshness. The youth of nature is contagious, like the gladness of a happy child. And oh! youth-take my word for it-youth in dressing-gown and slippers, dwaddling over breakfast at noon, is a very decrepid, ghastly image of that youth who sees the sun blush over the mountains, and the dews sparkle upon blooming hedge-rows.

DIFFERENCES OF OPINION.

'I will not quarrel with you (said the Rev. John Wesley) about any opinion; only see that your hearts be right towards God, that you know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, that you love your neighbour, and walk as your Master walked, and I desire no more. am sick of opinions; I am weary to hear them. Give me solid and substantial religion; give me an humble, gentle lover of God and man; a man full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy; a man laying himself out in the work of faith, the patience of hope, the labour of love. Let my soul be with these Christians wheresoever they are and whatsoever opinion they are of. "Whosoever (thus) doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."

JUNE MAGAZINES.

SECOND NOTICE.

BENTLEY'S MISCELLANY for June contains a clear though condensed account of War politics and strategics at home and abroad during the last two months.' On administrative reform we have the following remarks:

'Administrative reform, to succeed in this country, must begin at the right end. Let boroughs open their portals to talent and close them to interested motives and local influence, and we should have a better class of men to resist political monopolies; let men of business spare a little of their valuable time-devoted so solely to mammon-cult-to the welfare of their country, and we should have fewer of those mishaps and mismanagements which we have had of late so much to deplore. If the system is bad, it would then be exploded; if the men are bad, there would then be some hope of seeing them disposed of according to their deserts, and not flattered or fawned upon and perpetually laughed at and smiled upon as the fathers if not the source of all merriment, the great heroes of climacteric political presumption-men who ask 'what is merit? Is it the opinion one man has of another an opinion that men cannot agree about? As if a true and righteous judgment had long ago fled the earth and is henceforth a thing impossible, or that merit was the opinion that a man entertained of himself!'

[ocr errors]

"The Confessions of an Exile,' are full of interest, though but mere extracts culled from the recently published work of Herzen, entitled GefangenSchaft and Verbannung.' They give a picture of the despotism of Russia -of its dread of literature, of learning, and of genius, well fitted to make any true man tremble at the very thought of the extension of its influence in Europe. The Exposition in Paris' receives a very brief and general exposition. We have not travelled in 'Monsieur Cabasson's Caravan,' and therefore cannot speak of its contents. There are some other light articles, and an excellent number winds up with 'Prosings by Monkshood' about Thomas Babington Macaulay.

[ocr errors]

THE DUBLIN UNIVERSITY MAGAZINE has a learned article on 'The Birth of the American Constitution.' Then we have a description of Boulogne, a history of the Arabs in Spain, their manners, literature, and arts: a memoir of Colonel Walter Butler, who served in the army of Ferdinand II., Emperor of Austria, and with his battalion of Irish Musketeers formed part of the imperial garrison which defended the town of Frankfort-on-the-Oder against the vic

[ocr errors]

torious army of Gustavus Adolphus. Geology' is very ably discussed in a review of its facts and fictions. Then we have 'Irish Rivers-No. XI.,' the Nore, a clever article on Education, Religion, and Polities; and a few concluding words on our Enemies Abroad and at Home.'

Our Open Page.

THE FREE-WILLISTS.

(Concluded from p. 365.)

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

Now I want to know how I could be free when I was forced to be a Chris tian when I had no other than Christian evidence, and when I was forced to have less reverence for Christianity when heavier evidence against Christianity made me reverence it less? Do not say I reverenced Christianity less because of its restraints and the penalties attached to the neglect of it, for these, especially the penalties, according to the Christian, could only be got clear of in imagination. No, nor treat such a change with contempt or scurrility, for nobody but those who have passed through a similar ordeal can tell the state of a person's mind when, by opposite evidence, he is torn from his long-cherished Christian faith. He has sleepless nights and restless days-he has offended friends-he is deserted by his companions, and is (in effect) outlawed by society. His former sun of eternal promise is plucked for ever from the horizon of his high and venerated hopes! Nothing but hard and flinty evidence would make a person lose his friends, his position, and his hopes. No worldly inducement; the world is against you, for the Christian book says truly that Christianity hath the promise of the life that now is,' while, opposing Christianity, you have not only no promise, but you have downright personal distrust and antagonism to contend against, which might be more scripturally expressed if I said that 'every man's hand is turned against you.'

[ocr errors]

Is this a relationship to the world and to his friends for a person to choose? If I were free, do you think I would choose a system which almost excluded me from kind friends from chances of success from connection with men of wealth and influence from the hope of living in endless bliss with those we love and cherish here on earth? Would I choose a system that excluded me from 'the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come? Very, very unlikely. Nothing but evidence and hard conviction can effect such a change; and if evidence does effect it, we cannot be free, unless being free means believing according to evidence, which is not freedom but necessity.

But while contending for necessity of belief according to evidence-which binds the will, and is therefore opposed to freedom-there needs something to be said by way of a guide, lest people think we approve of bad conduct, and submit to it as being necessary. There is a wide difference between belief and conduct, they differ both in their origin and their effects. But, recollect, it is not especially for bad conduct, but for bad belief, that the Christian book damns you; He that believeth not, shall be damned."

I said I thought there was extravagance on both sides of the argument; I ought rather to say that extravagancies are ascribed to the necessarians by freewill believers, which they do not deserve. I am aware that as belief is the result of evidence (it may be said) so is conduct the result of belief. But belief ought not to be responsible for conduct, else Christian belief could be brought into bad repute, on account of its delinquent professors. Good conduct is the result of belief, because this implies an intellectual process such as we know

takes place in working out a result, and may, therefore, be said to be necessitated. But bad conduct is the negative side of reasonable governance, and proceeds from the passions. It is not prompted by belief, because belief supposes the existence of enquiry-of education-of conviction--and being without the sanction and governance of reason, and not having the authoritative directiveness that intelligent belief supposes, it is not, therefore, necessitated in the same sense that belief is necessitated by evidence. Bad conduct is the horse away without the bridle,-the ship at sea without a rudder; and when we display the advantages of moral conduct-when we urge virtuous guidance as preferable to vicious tendencies-when we prove the individual and national advantages by being sober-inquirative and moral, we deposit, as it were, so much evidence that naturally inclines (or necessitates) men into virtuous and happy conduct.

Such are my views of belief and conduct, for which no one is responsible but myself. I ought to have said-before now, perhaps, that I do not attempt to represent the secular views-that I have never been allied with them, and that you should, in answering these communications, not drag in either the secular leaders, so-called, nor make that society answerable for my weaknesses. G. J. Holyoake never had a line from my pen-never had a glimpse of my countenance (as a friend); but still I nevertheless believe him to be a man worthy of respect and of confidence, generally speaking, for he has done a deal to purge literature of grossness and unmeaningness, besides what he has done in liberating men from the slavery of the Bible, the slavery of the priests, and the slavery of man to the fear of Hell, on account of a belief caused by evidence, over which a man has no more control than a musician has over rapturous delight caused by the performance of first-rate music. Sir, in conclusion, I will be frank enough to confess that Christianity is not all bad-that, though there has been a very great deal of wickedness, and persecution, and slavery propagated in its name by its professors, it is still capable of raising men from a lower to a higher civilisation; but there would still more good be done if they would preach the claims of humanity more than the claims of spiritualism, for the former is present with us and we know it, while the latter is uncertain, as our senses are capable of taking cognizance only of material and not of spiritual objects.

Newcastle, May, 1855.

SIR,

W. T. H.

WHAT ORTHODOX TEACHERS BELIEVE.

[ocr errors]

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER,

Aufanger' seems to be one of those whose 'belief is to a certain extent a mere matter of accident,' and whose assertions are matters done at random.

In attempting a few criticisms on his 'Foreknowledge and Fate,' I beg to offer to his notice two important principles, viz. :--

1st. Believe nothing but what you can but believe everything which you can logically demonstrate.

2nd. Give the Bible credit for all that it plainly teaches and blame it for nothing but that which it plainly inculcates.

If Aufanger will allow those two principles to preside, as his guardian angels, I apprehend he will have more precise views respecting the teachings of the Bible, and be able to estimate, at their proper value, the opinions of such as Mr. Spurgeon, who, it appears, has asserted that all men are created at birth either for bliss or torment. Where in the Bible is this doctrine taught?

'Aufanger' ought to know that Foreknowledge and Pre-arranging the actions of men are two different things. I am certain of this, that if' Aufanger' was to abstain from eating and drinking, death would follow as an effect of such abstinence. But, because I foreknow this, do I pre-arrange it? Certainly not. Yet such is his argument where he says- - Mr. Spurgeon's views infer a foreknowledge by the Creator of all future events, and lead to the idea of a system in the Divine government of the universe; if such be the case, the Almighty must have had a definite plan in the formation of the world and its inhabitants. He must have known, and indeed pre-arrranged, the actions of men.' We may eat, drink, laugh, sing, walk, or refuse to do so, (or, at least, we appear to be able to do so,) but when the mind is concerned, the case is very different; belief is the result of conviction, and a man cannot believe but according to that conviction which depends, moreover, almost entirely on circumstances over which he has no control.' Aufanger' has surely intended the foregoing as his random shot; indeed, the whole paragraph is a specimen of indolent thinking, appropriately introduced by the-something-new-Man's freewill is more physical than moral.' As though he had said, man's freedom of will manifests itself more after the manner of an inflexible physical law of nature than as the exercise of a latent power, to do or not to do, which is the only idea we have of a free-will. Man is possessed of a reasoning faculty, by which he tests the true or the false; also, he is possessed of a conscience, enabling him to test the good or the bad. This implies that he can take up a true, or a false position,—that he can pursue a course of good or evil. Else, what are the uses of reason and conscience?

[ocr errors]

6

When man shall be moved by every passing breeze-when he shall be deprived of the power to say, No, or to give assent to the things which solicit his approval, then, but not till then, will he be the creature of necessity. Moreover, let those who dispute man's free agency, prove that there is no difference between man as he really exists-possessed of reason and conscience-and as he exists only in their philosophy-destitute of both. When they shall have done this, their first position will be made good. But to be ever ringing in our ears the assumption of its truth, without once condescending to prove it, is like putting on the top-stone ere you have got the foundation-a thing which is only effected when buildings are erected in mid-air. If Aufanger' would give himself the trouble to inquire, he would find that Christians never assert that we must believe the Bible, simply because it is the Bible,' but because it is the Revealed Will of God.

'It appears very difficult to ascertain precisely what believing the Bible means, for there are immense divisions among orthodox teachers.' In reply, I solicit Aufanger's' attention to the following brief summary of what orthodox teachers believe:

[ocr errors]

1st. That a God exists who made all things.

2nd. That man has fallen from his first estate; that sin has alienated him from God, developing the moral maladies which afflict the world.

3rd. That God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life.

4th. That obedience to God, in Christ, secures eternal happiness: but disobedience is a making choice of eternal misery.

5th. That man is regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the medium of the Word.

6th. That man, when he acknowledges all these facts and willingly submits himself to their guidance, inherits a peace which passeth knowledge, and is the subject of a joy which earth cannot give-no! nor take away.

If 'immense divisions among orthodox teachers' make it 'difficult to ascertain what believing the Bible means,' 'surely, therefore,' when 'orthodox

teachers' plainly and heartily agree upon the foregoing points, it were easy for Aufanger''to ascertain precisely what believing the Bible means,' so far as its fundamental, soul-saving truths are concerned. Thus his own argument recoils upon himself. Yours respectfully,

Gateshead, June 1st, 1855.

MR. EDITOR,

A. TEACHER.

FOREKNOWLEDGE AND FATE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

This question is being much discussed just now, and as we have our difficulties in relation to it, we would make a few observations-'Aufanger' and ourselves seem to be at one.

Mr. Spurgeon, of London, preached a sermon, which I heard, and at which I was astonished. His text was Ezekiel i. 16th and following verses. The great wheel and the wheels within wheels, the rings with eyes, and their never-deviating revolutions, according to his exposition, were the absolute foreknowledge, and the necessary and eternal decrees of God, and that all events were forefixed and certain. He tried to rid himself of the charge of fatalism, by saying that although this fixity and certain coming about of events appeared to negative free-will, yet the freedom of the will must be admitted, and yet, as 'Aufanger' justly observes, inconsistently enough denounces the non-elect. While asserting that a portion only of mankind would be saved, viz., those who had been predestinated to salvation, in strict conformity with the above he went on to say that theft, murder, adultery, and all kinds of abomination, must, in some mysterious way, be ascribed to God.

We intended to have made some remarks on J. M.'s reply to Mr. Coombs, but as the question proposed above is of anterior importance, in our opinion, we shall confine ourselves to it.

Does absolute foreknowledge necessitate human and all other actions? We may here quote, as relevant to the subject, a verse from Isaiah, 45th chap. and 7th verse-I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.' And so the poet says

"There's a Divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we may.'

A French author, in treating this subject, says divines reconcile freedom and foreknowledge thus:- God is infinite in time; then his existence is not successive, but simultaneous; then he cannot be said to foresee, but only to see; and if he sees our acts, it is because we do them, and we do not do them because he sees them; therefore, the prescience of God bears no relation to human freedom.'* If this be the way in which the reconcilement is made, we think it a fallacy, inasmuch as it involves a contradiction, as we must now endeavour to show.

If God sees our acts, it is because we do them.' Now our acts are committed in time, therefore, it cannot be predicated of God that he sees them (eternally), for it is eternal and absolute prescience that is in question; it reduces the knowledge of God to contingency. This theory much resembles one which we proposed to meet the objection of a friend with whom we were debating the question of free moral agency, thus :-God does not eternally fore

*Geruzez nouveau systeme de philosophie.

« PreviousContinue »