is every day fulfilling the divine command given at the creation, Go forth into the earth and subdue it,' and we cannot forbear uttering the exclamation of the psalmist, "O Lord, how wonderful are thy works, in wisdom hast thou made them all? the earth is full of thy riches." My meditation of him shall be sweet."

66

Further, if we direct our attention to morals, we observe this in infinite dualism. Good and evil are ever present, the wheat and the tares are there; they must both grow together until the harvest. The spirit of evil is ever rising up in all its variety of forms and protean shapes; he who overcometh alone obtaineth the prize and attains highest perfection.

Pleasure here is ever mixed with pain.

If we enjoy intellectual pleasure, it is often at the cost of an aching brain, as every student knows.

If we seek to attain eminence in any pursuit, business, or calling, and by our perseverance and prudence succeed, our competitors envy us, and we have to begin the warfare afresh, to outlive these petty annoyances, then we receive our reward. The poor man sometimes envies the portion of his rich neighbour, but he forgets the price he has paid to obtain it. Love and hatred both exist in human nature, and will continue till the time of regeneration.

In the journey of life each man finds his own worth. As we give so shall we receive; as we sow so shall we reap. Measure for measure. The balance always against itself. We cannot outrun this polarity of causes and effect, it is ever present. If you go to shoot partridges you must expect to get into the bog.

Solomon says in all labour there is profit, but what is the ultimate of our labour? We sow and reap; we build the city, but we do that in a hurry. We shut out light and air from our dwellings, noxious gases accumulate which engender disease, and cholera and pestilence claim hundreds of our fellowmen as compensation for our negligence. But why should this be? Nature teaches that we must pay the forfeit for our transgressions. Nothing is given.

Those who wish for the best article must always pay the best price. ·

When a talented man cultivates our garden, we acquire his taste; his practice makes our geometry real. The lines are no longer merely circle, pentagon, hexagon, or octagon, but poetic representations; and we inhale the sweet fragrance of the flowers, in the breeze of the morning air, when bright soL weaves his golden wreath around the eastern skies, and the dew drops hang like diamonds upon the tender leaves.

Here we are admonished, and would admonish you, dear reader, with an old proverb, which is a chapter of man's experience. We must not forget ' no cross

no crown.'

Are we Christians? We should be willing to leave all and follow him who was wounded for our transgressions. We should be willing to bear the cross of Jesus, our prophet, priest, and king, who took upon him the form of a servant, became as one of us, and paid the ransom for the sins of the world. Herein is God's infinite love made manifest. Salvation is offered to all, but they must work it out themselves, they must bear the cross, they must climb the steep and rugged path of duty.

The crown is for those who are willing to enter in at the strait gate; he who overcometh obtains the prize.

Dear reader, strive for the mastery, for the way of the transgressor is hard. Ye, who profess to be students of nature, be no longer blind to her teaching, cast no longer a mantle of vain philosophy about her, when she speaks in the words of love, saying, 'God is,' learn of her; examine, admire, adore, and worship Him, by whom all things exist.

PHILOS.

BARKER'S THIRD LECTURE.

THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE-ITS TENDENCY.

It is evident, since Barker came to England, that the atheists have regarded him as their prophet; that he has completely proved (as they suppose) that the Bible is not of Divine but human origin. This is what the atheists of the last century tried to prove, but, alas! they failed. Many of them confessed in their last hours that they felt that the Bible was not a mere fable. Their system of philosophy died with themselves; but the Bible shines brighter and brighter, after all their attempts to bring it to the level of other books. As well may the atheists try to blot out the sun from the firmament, or number the stars, one by one, and make them disappear from the Heavens, to be seen no more, as attempt to obscure the glorious light of the Gospel. The Bible, like a torch, the more it is shaken the more it shines.

Mr. Barker, in his third lecture, tries to prove that the Bible is the most immoral book on earth. At page 41 he says, 'What is more injurious to health, and what is more unfriendly to intellectual and moral culture-in short, what more ruinous, more murderous to body, soul, and character, than the use of intoxicating drinks, tobacco, and opium, or unrestrained indulgence in sexual pleasures among married people? Still, as the Bible does not prohibit these things, Christians indulge in them without remorse.'

As usual, he makes barefaced assertions without the shawdow of proof. Well, we shall see whether the Bible approves or disapproves of what Barker here asserts. Let the infidels look at the 6th chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, and the 9th verse- Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (18) Flee fornication; every sin that a man doeth is without the body, but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.'

Has he given us the true side of the picture of what the Bible really says about these fleshly lusts, which Joseph declares the Bible approves? Has he proved that the Bible has been the cause of crime, that it has led young men to become drunkards and thieves? No, he has not, and he cannot. It would have been better for his cause if he had proved it, instead of merely giving us assertions. Joseph and his atheistical friends should remember that facts are stubborn things. Neither he, nor any other pretender of free-thinking, is able to show me an instance in which the Bible has been the cause of making any man or woman a drunkard. Go to the prison, and ask the criminal if it was by reading the Bible that he had been led to commit crime, and he will tell you, No; he only wished he had attended to the precepts which it laid down, and which had been taught him in the Sunday School.

Again, on page 42, he says, '1. Might not the superiority of Bible notions be owing to other causes than the Bible?'

Answer. Surely Joseph ought to remember that those nations that have now got the Bible were once in a state of barbarism, and no sooner was the Bible acknowledged to be the word of God, and its precepts obeyed, than it turned them from their evil ways; and nothing but the Bible is able to raise man up from his fallen condition.

Mr. Barker-2. Might not circumstances, position, climate, &c., have something to do in the matter? 3. Might not peculiar admixtures of races have helped to cause the superiority referred to ?'

Answer.-Men of different races have been mixed together, but have never risen to the level to which those countries have risen who have felt the influence of the Bible.

Mr. Barker-'4. Might not the age of the races composing these nations have something to do with it? 5. Might not the literature, traditions, institutions, &c., have something to do with it? Again, those nations that have not the Bible are not all alike: they are not all on a level; some are higher, some are lower.'

Answer. This is the very reason that mankind require a revelation to make them all on a level, and no other book on earth but the Bible has so raised man. We see that since the Bible has been introduced into many of the South Sea Islands it has been the means of placing them on a level—those of them who have received it. Before the Bible was introduced, they were like fiends, but since they have received it, it has completely changed their course of life. Mr. Barker's seven lectures would have very little effect in changing the Heathen's from a state of barbarism into that of civilisation. They would not accept it, because they know that there is a God. They want a book that will tell them about the Great God of the Universe, and the Bible meets their want.

Again, at page 49, he says, 'The Christians, with their Old and New Testaments complete, became the foulest, filthiest, and most inhuman races of beings that have ever cursed or burdened the earth.' Every person knows that an impure fountain can never send forth pure water. Well, then, if the early Christians were as filthy as Barker says, how is it that the Christians of the present day are not the foulest and most inhuman of beings? The early Christians had the same Bible as we have, and, consequently, it must have had the same effect upon them as it has on the Christians of the present day.

Again, in page 55, he says, 'They (that is Christians) oppose education.' Is this true? Where, I ask, are the infidels' ragged schools?-where their societies to clothe the poor?-where their houses to shelter the friendless?— where their infirmaries? They have got none. Infidels talk plenty, but do little. I would rather see them talk less and work more. When did ever Barker, this prince of atheism, Holyoake, Southwell, or Cooper, give the proceeds of any of their lectures to a charitable institution? Never. When a Barker or a Holyoake comes to lecture their price of admission is threepence; when a Southwell or a Cooper comes it is twopence; so we see there are a sort of popes among the atheists. They address their lectures to the working classes, but are they the true friends of the working classes? No. If they were, instead of pocketing every farthing they get at their lectures, they would appropriate some of the proceeds towards building houses to shelter the poor. When they begin to do this, it will be a feather in their cap; but this is what they will not do; they love gold too much. Gold, it may be truly said, is the atheist's idol. A WORKING MAN,

Parliamentary Road, Glasgow.

AGAINST THE DOGMA OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

The aid which has been rendered by the article from the pen of Samuel Coombs, in No. 20 of the 'Defender,' to the dogma of circumstances necessitating man's choice,' seems to me of a very feeble character indeed. If the circumstances of the birth and education of a Mussulman necessitate his belief in the Koran, are there any circumstances' which could necessitate his conversion to the faith of Christianity? If all the Turks must be followers of Mahomet, how can any of them become the disciples of Jesus? If some Eng

6

lishmen are obliged to be Christians, why are not all Christians? The people are Christians because 'they are taught to believe the Christian system on peril of eternal damnation,' yet some who have had the same teaching, in spite of this threatened peril, are unbelievers, secularists, and atheists. If the circumstance was sufficiently forceful to compel one individual to be a Christian, why was it not forceful enough to lead to the same result in every individual on whom it operated? Can Samuel Coombs, or any other individual holding the same opinions, account satisfactorily for the great difference of opinion between people in exactly similar circumstances without investing man with a 'will' having power to some extent to choose' or 'refuse? How does it come to pass that while one member of a family is a Christian, another may be an atheist? He says, 'But the human will is not the efficient cause of its own volition, because man requires evidence clear and convincing before he can believe.' Now, I think human experience testifies that many believe without 'clear and convincing evidence,' for how can there be 'clear and convincing evidence' on both sides of a given opinion? He is perhaps a secularist--I am a Christian. Has he clear and convincing evidence that secularism is true?-so have I of the truth of Christianity? Are they both true? That is impossible, for they each opposite views, and tend the one to destroy the other; therefore, one must be false, while the other is true. Now truth alone can give clear and sufficient evidence.' He cannot have clear and sufficient evidence' for believing secularism, if Christianity be the truth; nor can I have 'clear and sufficient evidence,' if secularism be the truth. Therefore, men may and do believe without clear and sufficient evidence.' But, then, if man' can believe what he pleases, he can believe in Roman Catholicism, Buddhism, or Atheism.' Certainly man can believe in each or all these systems, for many men do believe in them.

I am a Christian, holding much the same opinions as the editor, and yet I affirm that I could believe in Buddhism, or any other ism, and that without 'clear and convincing evidence' of the truth of these systems. All that I have to do is merely to be one-sided, to gather up, to pore over, to fill myself with, all the arguments which can be found in favour of my predilected favourite_ism; and to refuse to admit anything on the opposite side of a given opinion. I may believe a lie as freely and easily as the truth, if I am determined to do so. To retain any opinion that I hold, it is only necessary that I close my eyes and ears, and refuse to investigate. Can I not do that if I choose? To be blind it is but necessary to close the eyes; and to remain wrapped in mystery and mental darkness, all that is required is that I should refuse to admit knowledge to my understanding. May I not know or refuse to know if I will?

'If the above proposition be not true, the editor can refute it by becoming, at his will or choice, a Buddhist or an Atheist. If his will is the efficient cause of its own volition, surely to oblige the readers of the 'Defender,' he will." This appears rather a curious, not to say ridiculous, mode of argumentation.

6

1st. Is he sure that it would please the readers of the Defender,' if the editor were to become either a Buddhist or an Atheist? I am one of those readers, and I know another; and we each of us venture to affirm that it would not please, but grieve us, if the editor believed either of these things. He must have imagined that all the readers of the Defender' were secularists, or that they were unsettled about the doctrine of circumstances necessitating belief,' and would be glad of any objectionable solution of their doubts and perplexities: 2nd. If the editor were to become Buddhist or Atheist, would that settle the question? Have not others, holding similar opinions, done so ?—and the question does not seem to be satisfactorily decided-instance Joseph Barker. If the editor did change, because he pleased to do so, sceptics would endeavour to account for the change by some circumstance or other, according to their

favourite dogma, and as they have always done before.

3rd. If the editor changed his views in the manner indicated, to please the readers of the Defender' (admitting that they would all be delighted with the change), would not that be changing according to circumstances, (for the editor will certainly desire to please his readers) and a very substantial and tangible proof in support of that very proposition it was designed to refute?

If Samuel Coombs wishes to come to the rescue of this favourite portion of the infidel's creed, it is to be hoped he will bring a better rope with him next time, or it will most certainly sink into oblivion in spite of his efforts to rescue it. If he has not read 'Is man responsible for his belief,' I would recommend that work to his notice.

SIR,

BARKER'S PROMISED RETURN.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE DEFENDER.

W. L.

As, in a former number of the Defender,' you request your readers to inform you of any important movements in connection with the late resuscitation of infidelity in its new garb and name-secularis:n,' which may have transpired in their several localities, and supposing you will be somewhat interested in any news respecting the whereabouts, or actions, or intentions of Mr. Joseph Barker, perhaps the most gifted, and certainly the most audacious, of secularist controversialists, I beg leave to comply with your desire, in letting you have what I know of him. Judging from the reception Mr. Barker received at Liverpool, I thought he was most undoubtedly paying us his last visit, and that, indeed, 'we ne'er should see his like again;' for, when he, in his own peculiar and bombastic manner, challenged public discussion at Liverpool, and threw down the gauntlet, daring any Christian champion to take it up, the Revs. J. H. Rutherford, Dr. Baylee, and others appeared in the field, to encounter this blasphemer of the Christian's faith and the Christian's God, he made it his business to beat a retreat, and showed that he considered discretion to be the better part of valour;' but, I find now, my opinion that he would never return to Liverpool is yet to prove quite an incorrect one, my deductions from his conduct will be shown to have been erroneous; for Mr. Finch, the chairman at Mr. Barker's lectures, who so materially assisted the latter in the Queen's Hall, Bold Street, by ordering the lights to be extinguished when the Rev. J. H. Rutherford commenced to speak in favour of Christianity, and in opposition to some of Mr. Barker's statements, thus

'Making their case darker

Which was dark enough without,'

the same Mr. Finch told a friend of mine that Mr. Barker contemplated erelong returning to England, and then he (Mr. B.) would make the Christians 'look about them;' I presume by the term looking about them,' is meant that Christians will be most anxiously searching for weapons wherewith to defend themselves from the bold attacks of Mr. Barker, and not, as it easily might be interpreted, from Mr. Barker's past conduct, looking about' for their foe, finding he has slipped through their fingers and escaped to-America, or any other country distant enough. So true is the old saying—

'He that fights and runs away,

Lives to fight another day.'

I am, Sir, yours most respectfully,