"The Bible is still in advance of mankind, and no science, or letters, or philosophy, no march of mind or of knowledge, will ever go beyond it."Dr. Beaumont.

"The Bible has marched down the generations of men with accumulating light and grandeur, and in triumph has led idolatry and infidelity captive, and in its train left civilization and a pure and undefiled religion, with all its inspiring satisfactions and hopes."-Ibid.

"It has refined the domestic affections; it has purified the tone of public morals; it has softened the sternness of legislation; and has given to liberty the dignity of a moral privilege. It has elevated the spirit of literature, and liberalized and graced all intellectual pursuits. The very infidel who scoffs at it is, to a great extent, a debtor to it. Barbarous customs have been banished by it. It has fettered vice by new restraints; t has enforced and recommended virtue by new sanctions and motives."-Ibid.

"The little tract of Whately on the christian evidences contains enough within its paper covers to baffle the efforts of infidelity, for it states the great facts on which Christianity has been, and is, received in the world"-A Defence of the Eclipse of Faith.

"Christians believe that precisely one and the same principle applies both to the works and to the word of God.' "The great difficulty of an infidel or secularist is not only to maintain, but for himself to believe, what he avows in matters

of religion as his belief. It is next to an impossibility for a man, for any length of time, to believe that there is not a God-that man is not immortal -that there is not a future judgment, upon the decisions of which hang the eternal destinies of all mankind-that sacred and profane history both unite in forging a lie, and that the best and wisest men for now nearly nineteen centuries, have pronounced it true, and died in the conviction that the Bible is a book of pure fictions, and that the founder of Christianity was an unparalleled impostor."-Ibid.

Ir falls to our lot now to meet, in final reply, in this deoate, the opponents of our divine Christianity, and the advocates of Secularism. We shall, in all friendliness of

iron

spirit, answer their objections, errors, and imputations, according to the light that is in us, holding the personality of our opponents sacred, but not sparing our pen" in the exposing of secularistic fallacies, profane sophistry, or blasphemous imputations. We confess that it has become a very grave subject of our deepest and most anxious thought, as to how we should reply to our opponents; not that we think for a moment that Christianity has at all suffered from the expression of views contradicting its eternal principles, its holy spirit, and regenerating truths; not that we think for a moment that any candid, God-loving, and earnest soul has been led to reject Christianity for Secularism on the strength of what our friends "James," J. L., "Halket,” and, we may further say, Voltaire, Paine, or even Mr. G. J. Holyoake has said or written;

by no means. Our deep anxiety has arisen from the solemnity of our task, as viewed in its infinite relations to souls of kindred origin, nature, and swift-coming destinies. We say to our opponents and readers, if Christianity is a lie and a deep-rooted fallacy, holding the full possession of the hearts and minds of millions of men, and that this has been the case for many ages, and bids fair to be so to a greater extent in ages yet unborn, it is an awful fact, and one which, upon the briefest consideration, must envelop the soul in the darkest hopelessness concerning fallen humanity; but if Christianity is from God, then what heart can do other than tremble for those who, in the pride of unsanctified reason, and the love of a delusion, declare it untrue, and would have men spurn

We shall take our opponents' articles as they appeared in the order of the debate. Our friend "James" reminds us forcibly of the conduct of Mr. Holyoake on an occasion of interest in a large town-we refer to one of his debates touching christian truth. It was expected, naturally enough, that the champion of Secularism would maintain his own secularistic province on the occasion. He did not; and to the surprise of the gentleman who met him in debate, and to the audience, he granted in favour of Christianity, so much in particular and in general, that the debate soon came to an issue, and the audience left, to wonder what that really was which admitted so much to be in favour of Christianity, and yet denied it in theoretic pretension in toto! This, reader, is Secularism, not only according to Mr. Holyoake in debate, but "James " on this occasion. To the point. "James" sets forth Secularism under five distinct propositions, each of which practically owes its origin to christian truth. Where did "James learn that health of body and mind can only be promoted by action, and living to moral and physical laws? Whence came the great truth, from Christ or Mr. Holyoake, from man in his blindness or God in his loving revelation? We charge "James" with acting as Mr. Holyoake has done, i. e., receiving pure truth from Christ in one form, and then giving it out to the world as a conception of his own soul in another form. In fact, Secularism is, to a great extent, a mock embodiment of christian truth. We are aware that secularists deny this, but that it is so is plain as print can make it in " James's" propositions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. What is there in those five propositions that is essentially excellent which Christianity does not inculcate and enforce as parts of man's creed and practice? There is literally nothing expressed or implied there, of "truth, justice, and love," which may not be traced to our Divine Master. Sham upon those who learn theoretic truth of Jesus, and then declare him an impostor, abandon his religion, sneer at its professors, and glorify their own wondrous powers of insight by holding the insignia of Christ up to the vision of the world as their own cre

position.

66

There is much in this short article of "James's" which is fallacious and half truth. We will take two examples of the many contradictions and false imputations. James," speaking of the secularist, says, "To him the Past is a sealed book," &c.; further on he writes in a grandiloquent strain of the same man, that he steadfastly looks "to the great names of the past and present, and the resolute following in their footsteps;-this is the aim of the secularist."

Now, if the Past is a sealed book to the secularist, how can he learn the character of its great ones, and imitate their nobility? Herein lies the truth-the Past, like the Book of God, is sealed, or not sealed, to suit the secularist's purpose. As soon as either of them opposes the spirit of Secularism, they become sealed; the violated dictates of reason, alias human blindness, cry, "Away with them!" There is a terrible meaning in this idea of the sealed book, for God has given man the Past, with its histories, for his guidance, and he is either a fool or a madman who, to suit his own purpose and selfcomplacency, shuts the book, and bids God be silent.

Again, "James" insinuates that Christianity inculcates a blind belief in Providence -a belief which disregards the use of appointed means to given ends. "Others may trust in Providence he will keep his powder dry. Instead of a day of humiliation and prayer for the success of our arms in the Crimea, the secularist would propose to send out abler commanders," &c., &c. Does not the Christian keep his powder dry-aye, dry as the boasting secularist? Does not the Christian propose and carry out better plans under the present calamitous war?-plans as good as Secularism can either propose or conceive? Who is Miss Nightingale, that angel of mercy among the wounded and dying warriors? A secularist? No! Who is Layard, that noble minded reformer of a corrupt state of things at home? A secularist? No! Whence came the Patriotic Fund? From Secularism? No! Who was Howard or Wilberforce? Can Secularism point to men with greater activity, selfdenial, and philanthropy than they brought to bear upon the miseries of humanity?

Can it? It is one of the most unjust imputations ever published in this world, to say that because Christianity inculcates a belief in a divine providence, it leads men to inactivity and neglect of means appointed to given ends by God. The true Christian, through the history of nineteen centuries, has ever been the most active and diligent in the use of God-appointed means; and the key to the historic fact is this article of his holy creed-a trust in a divine providence, while using the appointed means. We say that "James" is herein guilty of a gross misrepresentation of Christianity and its sublime genius, as manifested in the ever-active agency of the christian church. The activity, the toil, the self-denying fortitude of Secularism, when brought into comparison with the agency of christian zeal, and love, and faith, is as nothing. We feel that we dishonour Christianity in the comparison. For such imputations let "James" remember he is morally answerable to God. It concerneth man far less than thyself, thou that art wilfully blind to the glory and ever-active love of Christ, which is even now working out the world's redemption, though thou canst not see it.

66

66

In this same spirit of prejudice and shortsightedness is "James's" second article written. Mere dogmatic contradiction, we would remind him, will not suffice for argument and induction; and as this second article is chiefly this, there is little in it for us to notice. Secularism," says he, does not deny that the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men;' it is not so impious as to think of associating weakness or foolishness with God." This is a fair specimen of the general treatment which scripture gets at the hand of Secularism. Did "James " ever read the chapter in which this passage occurs? It is but a wretched compliment to the infallibility of "James's" wondrous reason to say that he did not understand it, plain as its meaning is. It is a far more serious charge if we admit that "James" saw the apostle's true meaning, and then perverted the passage to suit his purpose. One of these two must be the case; let " James's " conscience decide. The apostle does not charge God with foolishness, as “James " intimates. James" ought to see the meaning of the twenty-fifth verse of the first chapter of

66

the first epistle to the Corinthians, in the eighteenth and twenty-third verses, where the apostle speaks of what the gospel is in reality to the unbeliever or the mere philosopher, i. C. "foolishness," while he then proceeds to illustrate the power and glory of the gospel, which men accounted as foolishness and weakness, by opposing it to the wisdom of man or the judgments of reason.

Again, "James," with "Halket," clamours about our remarks on human reason, and attempts to show that we violate its dignity and debase its powers by assigning it to its own province, and inculcating the grand doctrine of its submission to God and Christ in matters of religion. Let our readers judge for themselves who dishonour reason most; we, who seek to bring it in submission to divine light and eternal love, i. e., to God in Christ, or they who permit it to rise up in open antagonism to the divine will, and glory in its usurpation of the prerogatives of Deity? These are matters of pure faith: hence Pascal says, "It is fit we should know how to doubt where we ought, to rest assured where we ought, to submit where we ought. He who fails in any one of these respects, is unacquainted with the power of reason." Hence Austin says, "Reason would never be for submitting, if it did not judge that on some occasions submission was its duty. It is but just, therefore, that it should recede, where it sees an obligation of receding, and that it should assert its privileges where, upon good grounds, it supposeth itself not engaged to waive them." We are happy to leave this great topic in the hands of such great christian philosophers, and to charge our opponents to study their profound teachings ere they dethrone God in the matters of the soul, and say in action to proud reason, "Be thou my God."

As it regards our friend "James's" view of historic evidence in connection with vital Christianity and its influence upon the world, we have little to say, except that we pity from our heart the terrible blindness and noon-day frenzy, to say no more, which veil and possess his mind, and in which he utters thoughts of deepest blasphemy in the world's great ear; for it is nothing less than blasphemy to ascribe the corruptions and horrors of papacy, the errors and baneful influence of episcopacy, and the daring deeds of a modern Nero, &c., &c., to Christ

and his holy teachings. As well mightest thou impute to Christianity slavery, Hindooism, or any or all the monster evils which prey upon our fallen humanity. Herein thou hast gone beyond the utmost border of the profane, and the dark impiety of thy imputation gives a brighter and bolder prominence to the glory, the beauty, the holiness, and grace of Christianity. If Secularism is to supersede Christianity by such advocacy as thine, "James," verily Secularism must soon retire into the gloom whence it emerged, and thou mayest live to see and pronounce it what it really is, a mockery, a delusion, and a snare."

66

The article signed J. L. comes under review now. It contains little worthy of remark, or that can give rise to any earnest antagonism. It is very specious. J. L. does not take the real secularistic ground, but attempts to establish a harmony between Secularism and Christianity, which is an utter impossibility: as well might he seek to combine light and darkness. J. L. begins with a very unjust remark upon our opening article. He says, "On entering the arena of this debate, we are not ignorant of being branded with the most opprobrious epithets from the iron pen of 'Rolla."" This is false. Did we not, in opening this debate, say, in the clearest terms possible, all personality shall be studiously avoided, &c., p. 106, 1st col.? Did we not, through the whole of that article, avoid the very shadow of personality? and did we not deal with Secularism as a theory, a pure abstraction of distinct principles? Certainly we did; and J. L. would have done well if he had given us proof, instead of impudent assertion on the subject. We pointed out the folly of Secularism, and we imagine J. L. recognized his own therein, and in anger dreamed that "Rolla," with his " iron pen," was aiming at J. L. as a person professing a specious Secularism. By no means, J. L.; we did not entertain the slightest conception of the personality of thyself or "we." It would appear that J. L. admits what Secularism denies, in order to be at all consistent,―the necessity of religion as the great element of social happiness. Hence he says, "It will be our object in this article to show that Secularism is not opposed to religion." Certainly J. L. has taken a step in the right road, by admitting the necessity of true religion in order to

secure human happiness. It is to be hoped that he will yet see that Christianity is the true religion for the immortal soul of man. But Secularism, in its essential principle, denies this. True religion consists in doing the divine will in this probationary world, which will is opposed radically and eternally to the carnal will, which Secularism makes its supreme object to obey and pander. The true religion teaches a man to live for eternity, but Secularism teaches him to live for time supremely and alone.

J. L. then refers to "Rolla's" error-the infallibility of the Bible-and then goes on to enumerate the old list of infidel objections, which have been answered a thousand and one" times, and which it amounts to an absolute absurdity on his part to repeat. He then pompously asks, "Who, then, will maintain that it (the Bible) is the 'voice of Divinity?"" Who? Why the good, the true, the holy, of nineteen centuries. Ask them who endured the horrors of persecution, and who passed through great tribulations into ineffable glory. Their lives are the exponents of their belief in the divinity of the Bible. Who? Why the truly good and great of the present and the futurethe poet, with his magic of the soul-the philosopher, with his profound insight into truth the christian preacher, with his stirring eloquence and burning zeal. Who? Why the young in their strength and beauty, and the aged as they near the tomb-the mother, who weeps over her dying child, and the dying child, who in faith bids her weep not, but remember the glorious truths of the Bible. Aye, and thou, too, mayest yet believe in its divinity, my opponent!

--

Again, J. L. says, "If the apostles were infallibly inspired, they could not disagree on any one point." This is a very empty argument. Does J. L. think that the apostles did not possess common sense, or that God had no respect to their character as men of judgment? It by no means follows that because God inspired them to teach certain truths and doctrines, that they were denied the privilege of private opinion. God inspired them to teach certain essential truths, and beyond that they were left to their own enlightened judgments on minor and non-essential points. If this is a fair specimen of secularistic logic and induction, that because the apostles were inspired to

teach certain divine truths, they were necessarily inspired in all things, however trivial and unconnected with divine revelation itself, -Christianity has little to anticipate on that ground. Such logic is mere weakness. "Does 'Rolla,"" J. L. goes on to ask, "date religion and piety from the time when the stereotyped canon was published by authority, and appointed to be read in churches?"" Has J. L. really read the article he thus feebly attempts to answer? If he has, he must be very fond of writing for writing's sake. In that very article did we not answer this question, by showing that man's happiness was to be sought in religion, and, consequently, in our own words, which J. L., in common justice, ought to have read and considered, anticipated this inquiry? "The elements of happiness date from eternity, are indissolubly allied to it; and only in the possession of that religious life which casts the shadow of eternity and its sublime realities over this life, this dawning of infinite duration, can man be happy," p. 109. In debate, if we speak or write, we ought to do so to the point, and not to ask questions, as J. L. does, for asking's sake. Let him take the friendly hint, or he may expect a keener reply than this in futurum.

J. L. is equally inconsistent, as a secularist, in his distinct avowal of the existence of a God, as most infallibly attested by the intuitions of human consciousness. Secularism, as Mr. Holyoake, its great exponent, exhibits it, ignores the absolute existence of God, and denies the existence of the evidence of human consciousness on its behalf. J. L. sneers at christian orthodoxy; may we not laugh at his secularistic confusion and inconsistency?

sounding language, but, like most highsounding things, is it not very empty? If "Halket" had possessed common modesty, he would have finished this remark with, at least, "It appears so to my finite powers." What right has "Halket" thus to dictate upon the divine procedure in human redemption? What if it please God to work out the world's redemption according to the progressive character of man's nature? is it the less a divine agency that thus brings it to pass? It by no means follows that because God has sent into the world a divine agency for man's salvation, that man's salvation. shall be an instantaneous and universal result of that agency. This assumption, advanced by "Halket," belies the essential characteristic of the divine outgoings, and stands opposed to the very constitution of man's nature as a progressive being. Christianity is an emanation from God, but it is a system of grand means,-a vast agency to a glorious result,-and wherever the means and full agency of Christianity are brought directly to bear upon the state of the world, there are its glorious blessings realized, in ten thousand ways, by mankind. It is to Christianity that the world owes its very hopes and signs of reformation. Before its piercing light, idolatry, superstition, ignorance, and the monster woes which torture the soul of man, are fast vanishing away. Secularism denies this; but it is a fact of history, and every age more fully attests it.

Secu

We have to thank "Halket" for his definition of Secularism, as it more fully proves the truth of our position, which J. L. is so unwilling to admit that Secularism denies,that man's happiness consists in the cultivation of his spiritual nature and outgoings towards God; for he says of Secularism, "It knows nothing of spiritualism or supernaturalism." Oh, how true this is! larism does indeed in itself know nothing of spiritualism. It ignores the very existence of spiritual life, whether it be that of an eternal God, or an immortal soul. It knows nothing of spiritualism truly, for it says to human consciousness, which attests the existence of God eternal and the soul immortal, "Thou art a lie!" It knows nothing of spiritualism truly, for it says to man, “Thou being of sense, eat, drink, and be merry,