66

the 8th inst., we were meekly told, if we wished to become members of the Secular Society, we must pay two pence per week; and if members of the guarantee fund, not less than twenty shillings yearly, to be paid quarterly in advance. This certainly is an improvement on the orthodox system of one penny per week-just double; and yet you appeal to the 'pockets" of the working classes to know if they are not too poor to have a God." Allow me to suggest that in your next edition you inquire if they are not too poor to pay you two pence per week for telling them "there is no God," or that you would "put the Deity on half-pay." Have you forgotten, because it is "out of print," that ("Reasoner," vol. i.) you said it was by these "thieves (i. e., the clergy) mankind were robbed, bruised, and bleeding?" and at page 85 of your Trial, you tell us they were "literally thieves." Is this another specimen of your infidel courtesy? Certainly, you never could have said with truthfulness that you "had swept controversy clear of imputation," had you remembered the tr thieves" and "robbers;" or have you forgotten that some time since you declared "I have never said a word disrespectful of Mr. James or of his Sunday school ?" Certainly, I cannot prove that you ever said s disrespectful word, but I can prove that you wrote the following:-" I would rather go to hell with Lord Bacon than to heaven with Angell James," (i. e., the Rev. J. A. James.) What a wonderfully consistent man you are. Who can trust you when you thus falsify your own words? But of course you "did not mean it," and we must judge you by what you mean," and not by what you "say."

66

I must again notice the "kind and generous treatment of freethinkers to you, as described by you, page 4:-"Though an anti-priest (i. e., an atheist), my treatment was that of a priest. My congregation, as is the case with most free-thinkers, objected to the pay of the priest, when the true quarrel was with error, and not with payment (and yet you tell us nine-tenths of the best public men and women have turned back at that point); for if a man has the truth, it is well that it should be his interest to hold it. But dissent (i. e., atheism), objecting to the pay of others, has been left without pay itself-hence its apostles have been reduced to fight the lowest battles of animal wants, when they should have been fighting for the truth. Dissent has too often paid its advocates the bad compliment of supposing, that if placed within reach of competence they would either fall into indolence or hypocrisy. It has acted practically upon the hypothesis, that the only possible way of ensuring their zeal and sincerity was to starve them-a policy which leaves progress to the mercy of accident. For a long period the operation of this policy chilled me. My initiation into affairs of progress was in company with men who estimated, above all other virtues, the virtue which worked for nothing. They would denounce the patriotism of that man who accepted a shilling for making a speech, although it had cost him more to compose it than those who heard it would probably give to save their country. Nine-tenths of the best public men and women I have known have turned back at this point." In the above revelation of free thought, we certainly have a most wonderful display of "kind and generous" feeling. They must have stood very high in your estimation, when you implied that they would not give "a shilling to save their

country." What patriots, to be sure! "The friends of the working classes!" We must not forget, however, that "nine-tenths of the best public men and women "have turned back at the point of "pay;" and who is the "tenth" man, left to tell us? Why, "I, George Jacob Holyoake." Neither must it be forgotten that you Secularists (i. e., Socialists, Infidels, Atheists, and other names that you have at former times given yourselves) believe only in this life, and, of course, make the best of it. Let us see in what way the friends of "social progress" treated you. Page 1 describes your journey from Worcester to Cheltenham on an intensely cold winter's day. You, however, shall give the remainder-"The shop lights threw their red glare over the snowbedded ground, as we entered the town of Cheltenham, and nothing but the drift and ourselves moved through the deserted streets; when at last we found a fire, we had to wait to thaw before we began to speak; when tea was over, we were escorted to the house where we were to stay for the night. I was told it was a friend's' house. ***** We were asked to sit by the kitchen fire (this was a genteel house, you tell us), on the bench in the corner, and there we sat from eight till one o'clock without being asked to have anything to eat. ***** When at last I clearly comprehended that we were to have nothing to eat, I proceeded to take affairs into my own hands, and being too well assured of the insensibility of my host, I did it in a way that I conceived suited to his capacity, and began as follows:-'We have talked all night about social progress, and if you have no objection we will make some. And if eating,' I added, 'be not an irregular thing in your house, we will take some supper.' 'I am very sorry to say,' he answered, we have nothing to offer you! Charge me bed and board while we are with you,' I rejoined, but let us have both. You have bread, I suppose?' We have some rice bread.' 'Perhaps you will toast it.' 'Will you have it toasted?' 'I will. Could you make coffee?' We have no coffee.' 'Tea ?' "We have no tea.' Any water?' 'No hot water.' butter?' Yes, we have salt butter.' Then put some on the bread,' I added, for he did not even propose to do that. ***** No innovation for him-not even into his own loaf! I was obliged to take the initiative into the 'salt' butter. After seeing the bread toasted, and buttering it myself, to make sure that it was buttered, I put on my hat and went into the streets, in search of material out of which to manufacture a cordial, for eight hours had then elapsed since Eleanor (i. e., Mrs. Holyoake) had had any sustenance, and my good host's choice reserve of cold water did not seem quite adequate to revive her."

Any

And when you reached the dark streets, to which you were an absolute stranger, where did you find it? Why, you tell us, " in the last place I should wish to be found." Such was the "kind and generous" hospitality of the friends of "social progress ;" and now, I ask, will you, or can you, point out a single instance in which, if you had gone into the house of the very poorest man attending any of the " orthodox" Christian churches, where you would not have had some of the last half-ounce of tea, some of the last piece of butter, and part of the very last crust of bread, upon such an occasion as the one you have described? But your friends believed in making the very best of this life. Will you say you were thus treated because the believer in "social progress" showed a

:

great "disparity between profession and practice?"—if so, your "principles have not made truer men,” at least, not more social men. But this is not all at page 74 you give us the following specimen of infidel sympathy with its leader (i. e., the last of the best men left!) "On that day (i.e., the day you left home to take your trial) no one came to accompany me, or spend an hour of solace with those from whom I parted." I presume this is another instance of how free free-thinkers are from thought, and certainly I cannot reconcile it with your statement-" I have never complained of the treatment I have received from the free-thinkers of England, for to me they have always been kind and generous." Either they were worthless or you are, and I shall leave you to settle it between yourselves; I have no interest either way-although I have a very clear opinion, which I need not express.

In the People's Institute 1 requested an explanation of the following passage (page 5)" For myself, I flee the Bible as a viper, and revolt at the touch of a Christian." In explanation of the above you said, "I said it because the handcuffs were put upon me;" this, again, is one of your wellknown shuffles. Did it not occur to you that you gave utterance to the above at the public meeting, held on the 24th of May, and the handcuffs were not put upon you until the evening of the second or the morning of the third of June, you having been down to Bristol and back again? Will you kindly explain the inconsistency of the two statements? You also said, you were influenced by "the imprisonment of my friend Mr. Charles Southwell." With us it has long been held as a truism, every man is known by the company he keeps," and need I remind you, that if we are to judge of you by the standard of "a friend of Mr. Southwell's," so long as his vile "confessions" of his own immoral life are extant, you will be considered a moral pestilence, wherever he is known and you acknowledge him as "a friend."

You have informed us, that when a boy, "I had a haughty temper, a proud spirit, and an inflexible will," and so far did you carry out the above admirable qualities, that "during thirteen years I stood twelve hours every working day by the side of one man, without ever forgetting or forgiving that he had insulted me;" another proof that "your principles' did not even make you a much better man.

*

We were also told the following, in Manchester, in reference to your defence," I prepared notes to last for two days. ** I could have spoken all night, and I should have done it, had the judge attempted to put me down;" but, Mr. Holyoake, would you not have required a little of "nature's sweet restorer, balmy sleep?" "No." And why not? “I laid in bed a week before my trial, so that I had got quite tired of sleep." The above needs no comment, it will speak for itself with thinking working men, and go far to show the practical results of "a haughty temper, a proud spirit, and an inflexible will."

These statements may be much too "personal" to receive attention from you, who have "swept controversy clear of imputation," or you may plead, as you did here,-"I do not pretend to be infallible;" but you must remember, you are "pretending" to teach the world something better than the old orthodox system, and therefore we are justified in expecting something better from you.-Yours,

Manchester, 20th October, 1854.

WILLIAM PHENIX.

IS THERE NO EVIDENCE FOR THE BIBLE?

THE discussion on the Bible for ten nights in Halifax, between Mr. Joseph Barker and the Rev. Brewin Grant, prevents our concluding in this number Mr. BARKER'S PORTRAIT.

We have had the satisfaction of destroying his confidence, dissipating his sophistry, breaking down his dogmatism, and giving him more than enough of debate. We shall resume our portrait of this gentleman next month. He has revived in England only to be killed in argument, and buried in infamy.

The following papers indicate some of the lines of argument pursued in the discussion, and are introduced here, rather as being useful in themselves, than merely as being controversial. The discussion itself will soon be out, in numbers, and will contain more perversions on the one side, and explanations on the other, than will be found in the same space elsewhere.

The following are some of the observations made on the first part of the infidel proposition:

"That there is no evidence of the divine origin of the Bible" is an astounding assertion, that requires for its proof that he who maintains it should prove himself infallible, if not omniscient. The only logical answer required is to show that there is "some" evidence, even though this evidence should not be sufficient to prove the case. And that there

is, at least, "some evidence," is plain from the fact, that there is enough to convince many people, who may be as wise, as learned, as truth-loving, as inquiring as this gentleman. If this be true, there is certainly "some evidence," and therefore it is false to assert that there is none.

Mr. Barker, who will not discuss except upon his own wording of the topic, and his own "terms," in every sense, is responsible for the absurdity of the position he has chosen. He has imposed upon himself this impossible task, by that extravagance of assertion and wilfulness of disposition, so recklessly displayed on this subject. He has changed doubt into dogmatism, and has affirmed his negation so emphatically, that his own boldness has ensnared him; and he shall not easily forget or overlook the nature of his proposition. He is logically bound to adduce every possible and supposed evidence for the Divine origin of the Bible, to prove that none of the possible and supposed evidence is real. He cannot prove his point without proving that he has examined every form and degree that has been adduced; and showing that there is no real evidence in the whole, and that there is no other evidence that can be discovered. He must demonstrate that not only is there no evidence adduced in this discussion in its favour, but that none-more wise and learned than the Bible advocate-ever did or ever could produce any, and that there is none to be produced. He must not only assert all this, which is easy; he must prove it, which is impossible.

If a man declares, and undertakes to prove, that a pair of spectacles is not in any one of a set of drawers, he must examine every one; and NO. III. MARCH, 1855.]

D

if he adds, that the said article exists nowhere, he must go everywhere to prove it. Till he has done this, the logical answer to his assertion is, that though the object sought for is not here, it may be somewhere else. Now, though this gentleman has gone about a good deal, he cannot prove that "there is no evidence for the Divine origin of the Bible," without proving that he has examined all that has been, and all that can be, adduced in its favour. He must state to us the most powerful arguments that have ever been adduced, and prove that they are no arguments at all; and that no other is possible. He should also tell us what would be evidence of a Divine revelation, or else he has not defined his subject; and then he must prove that there is nowhere, in any book or any fact, produced or producible, any such evidence, or else he has not proved his assertion.

First, What would be evidence of the Divine origin of a revelation?
Second, What arguments have been adduced for this case of the Bible?
Third, What leading authors have you read or refuted?
Fourth, Have you refuted all you have written for the Bible?
Fifth, By what arguments did you refute it?

Sixth, How do you know that there is no other evidence?

Seventh, On what occasion, when arguing against the existence of any evidence, did you fully state the evidence which Christians rely upon? Eighth, If you cannot answer every one of these questions, how can you prove that there is no evidence for the Divine origin of the Bible? Ninth, If you can answer them, will you oblige us by doing so? Tenth, If you do not answer these, how can you satisfy your own friends, much less Christians, to say nothing of satisfying the logical requirements of your own mind, whenever you enter into a reckoning with yourself? Eleventh, by "no evidence," do you mean not sufficient? And, if so, for whom is it not sufficient? For believers, or for unbelievers ? Twelfth, Do you mean there is not enough to prove to your satisfaction ? When is there not enough for this? Was there enough for you when you professed to believe it, and wrote largely in its favour? Or did you believe then, till forty, without any evidence? If so, you may be under the same hallucination now. If there was some evidence then to satisfy you, where has it gone? If you say there was enough to prove it to you then, but is not enough to prove it to you now, that may be your fault, the change is in you, not in the evidence; and you either for twenty years, as a searcher, believed without any reason at all, or there is some reason now. If you believed so long, while inquiring, and still without any grounds at all, your opinion is worthless: if you had any grounds, your present position is destroyed. It is obvious, then, that there is evidence enough to convince thousands who have inquired; that there was enough to convince this inquirer once; and now he has to prove that all this is nothing, and that he was so easily satisfied for so long a time, and therefore can give us no reason for our trusting his assertions now. It is unfortunate that one with such antecedents assumes a position that requires omniscience or infallibility; and so his argument amounts to this: I have been deceived during my brightest days, most totally blind, and therefore I may be accepted as an infallible guide now.