is lost. Not so with the Christian, he can endure these light afflictions, which are but for a moment, and are not worthy to be compared with the eternal weight of glory reserved in that invisible kingdom which to him alone is full of the sublimest and truest poetry: For if this earthly house of our tabernacle be destroyed, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.'-(2 Cor. v. 1.) The secularist, with us, doth groan in this tabernacle, being burdened' with disappointments and lacerations of heart, which discourage and agonize him to-day, but he has no other tabernacle for to-morrow; and all creation groaneth and paineth in travail till now,'-all mankind long for something better than this life, as slaves fettered and confined; hence the upheavings of men's desires,-their acceptance of chimerical earthly hopes, the longings expressed in the Pagan philosophy for something suitable to the capacity of man's desires; and this can be found only in the emancipation by Christ Jesus; the redemption of our souls and bodies from all confinement and corruption, and a share in the glorious liberty of the children of God,'-liberty beyond the confines of our short earthly life,-liberty for our swelling hopes and inarticulate aspirations,-liberty from the prison-house of mortality and the grave, and an anchor within the veil,'—an assured inheritance in the infinite and invisible future, the region of the sublimest and truest poetry,' from which secularism would exclude us, and imprison our winged spirits within the dark of a sepulchral and sceptical dogmatism, which has declared, that which went before, and which will follow me, I regard as two black impenetrable curtains which hang down at the two extremities of human life; a deep silence reigns behind this curtain, all you can hear is a hollow echo of your own voice, as if you shouted into a chasm.' This is the most cheerful news the black curtain gospel promulgates to mankind, in that hideously-named cordial for man's (sorrows, The Logic of Death.' It is like a death's head at a banquet: and yet these undertakers, who bury all man's noblest hopes, and extinguish his better nature, or wrap it round with the pall of these dismal impenetrable black curtains, and carry us along in their funereal triumph-the hearse and mourning-coaches of secularism-assure us that they shall smile to-morrow. Really it must be a very ghastly smile that shall respond to Hamlet's inquiries, as he philosophised over a skull thrown up by the spade of a grave-digger-Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table in a roar? Not one now to mock your own grinning,quite chapfallen. Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come; make her laugh at that.' Or he might, had there been secularists in those days, have sent them this grave-token from behind the black curtain, to encourage them to smile in the confidence and peace of to-morrow. No, it all ends in a vault, in which man's hopes are buried before he dies, and wherein he is surrounded with the black, impenetrable curtain of a dark, damp, and doleful charnel-house. Patience! wait! we shall smile tomorrow! Surely these harbingers of a dark fate might rather adopt the words of the jesting Mercutio, who, when he had received his deathwound, found no comfort in the assurance of his companion: 'Courage,

man, the hurt cannot be much.' 'No,' he replied, "'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door, but 'tis enough; 'twill serve; ask for me to-morrow, and you shall find me a grave man.' He did not boast of smiling to-morrow; nor have they much reason for it, since, though they should secure the whole world, they cannot secure the life to possess it, and, with all their reality of present things, will find them unreal to those who must soon be absent; and may be taught by the moralising of a Prince over relics: This might have been a great buyer of land, with his statues, recognizances, and double vouchers; will his vouchers vouch him no more of his purchases than the length and the breadth of a pair of indentures? The very conveyances of his land, will hardly lie in this box; and must the inheritor himself have no more?-Not a jot more, my Lord.' What, then, is all this, which is no more within the reach of the sceptic than of the Christian, compared with the better hope we are taught to cherish of durable riches, and righteousness (a treasure in heaven) that fadeth not away; the very conception of which is naturally calculated to give more present joy than the idea of worldly estates? In my Father's house are many mansions, I go to prepare a place for you,' is the Divine messenger to the poorest inhabitant of earth, wherby, though poor in this world, he becomes rich in faith, and heir of that kingdom which God will bestow on those that love him.'” A vote of thanks to Mr. Grant and the Chairman terminated the proceedings shortly after eleven o'clock.

II.

SCEPTICS' RELIGION.

Under this department, sceptical objections, and systems or principles advocated as hostile to Christianity, are dispassionately considered.

SECULAR DISCUSSION:

The following report appeared in the Blackburn Standard, Wednesday, October 27th, 1852.

DO THE SECULARISTS SEEK DISCUSSION?

"On Wednesday evening, at the Independent Chapel, in Chapel-street, the Rev. Brewin Grant, of Birmingham, delivered a reply to Mr. G. J. Holyoake's lecture, delivered in the Mutual Instruction Association's Room, on the 6th inst. The object of Mr. Grant in acceding to the invitation of the friends of Christianity in Blackburn, was chiefly to expose the unwillingness of Mr. Holyoake, the champion of the Atheists, or, as they style themselves, the 'Secularists,' to enter into a formal discussion with any one representing the clergy. A private letter was sent to Mr. Holyoake, apprising him of the meeting, and inviting him to be present. Mr. W. Hoole was called to the chair, and several respectable gentlemen, chiefly of dissenting persuasions, were on the platform. As the proceedings consisted almost entirely of the reading of the correspondence which had passed between Mr. Grant and Mr. Holyoake, there was very little to report beyond what was of a documentary character. The chairman commenced the proceedings in a brief speech, in the course of which he assured the audience that he should scrupulously seek to give every one a fair hearing, without fear or favour. The chapel was densely crowded on the occasion.

The Rev. Brewin Grant then rose amidst loud cheers, and asked whether Mr. Holyoake was present; or, whether any one was present with a letter from Mr. Holyoake; or, whether any one appeared as Mr. Holyoake's representative at the meeting; or, whether there was any one present as the representative of the Secularists. He said that if Mr. Holyoake was present he should be allowed to speak as long as he (Mr. Grant) spoke. If any one was present as the authorised representative of Mr. Holyoake he should be allowed to speak for half an hour in reply, on condition that he confined himself to the points at issue. If there were any Secularists present who wish to be heard, three or four of them would

be heard for ten minutes each. They would see from this that he only wanted fairness to all parties; he wanted no more: but, in order to obtain this, the audience must observe the utmost quiet. If any gentleman got up to offer any remarks in opposition to his own, he hoped that no one present would offer one word of disapprobation. After again asking the questions which he put on rising, he wished the audience to understand why he came there to lecture on the question, 'Do the Secularists seek discussion.' He did not appear there to argue the question whether the system called Secularism was true. His object was simply to put it to the Secularists themselves whether the conduct of Mr. Holyoake, their acknowledged champion, was fair, candid, and honourable, in the negociation for a discussion which had been pending between that gentleman and himself. He would at the close of his remarks, propose a resolution which would give the Secularists an opportunity of pronouncing whether they thought the conduct of their champion either honest or fair. He then read the following copy of a letter which had been sent to Mr. Holyoake inviting him to meet the lecturer :

"Birmingham, October 15th, 1852. "My Dear Sir,-A friend was good enough to send me 'The Blackburn and East Lancashire Guardian' of Saturday, Oct. 9th, in which is marked this paragraph:

"MR. HOLYOAKE'S LECTURES.-On Wednesday and Thursday evenings last, Mr. G. J. Holyoake delivered lectures in the Mutual Instruction Association Room, to crowded audiences, on 'Why do the CLERGY AVOID discussion, and Secularists seek it?' and 'Confucius, or, Morality shown to be independent of Revealed Religion."

"Will you be good enough to inform me if this can be true? The account fixes your lecture on the sixth of this month; if it be true, did you tell your audience that on the 22nd of last month you had concluded a correspondence with one of these clergy, and had declined to meet him this year, without appointing any other year? Did you tell them that several clergy have discussed with you, that you could not print the last discussion, and that you hung back from meeting one whom you acknowledge to be a fair and intelligent defender of Christianity? How then can you go and lecture on Socialists seeking, and the Clergy avoiding, discussion? Is this the morality of Confucius? I do not find it in revealed religion,' nor in common life. You are very nearly concerned to explain so questionable a passage in your method of advocacy; and I shall endeavour to secure the same room next Wednesday evening, when it will behove you to defend this peculiar course; if you cannot be present, please to send a letter giving such justification as you think fit; for I cannot allow this conduct to pass without examination. I am really sorry to be obliged to this undertaking; but am in conscience bound to appeal to your late audience, and shall put it to them whether your conduct is appropriate.

"To Mr. G. J. Holyoake.

"Yours very truly,

BREWIN GRANT.

"P.S. A letter addressed, Birmingham, will find me till Tuesday morning: a letter written on Tuesday, should be addressed to the care of E. Kenion, Esq., Hanover-square, Manningham-lane, Bradford. Or you could send your explanation, in case of unavoidable absence, to any secular friend who can read it to the meeting.

"[N.B. Secularists especially invited.']

"As no response had been received to the fair and candid challenge thus given to Mr. Holyoake, the only conclusion at which he could arrive was, that the challenge was declined. If Mr. Holyoake did not appear before them, the audience would know whether the clergy or Mr. Holyoake declined discussion. The lecturer then proceeded to read and comment upon the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Holyoake and himself on the subject of a discussion. He remarked that the audience would perceive from the dates of the earliest letter that ample time had been allowed to make the necessary arrangements.

"The letter first read was from Mr. Thomas Emery, of Leicester, dated the 16th of June, in which an invitation is given by the writer, on behalf of himself and the 'friends with whom he acts,' to Mr. Grant to have a 'foot to foot encounter' with Mr. Holyoake, at Leicester. The letter proposed the engagement of an efficient and impartial reporter, so that an accredited and sort of standard debate might be published. An early reply to this communication was solicited.

"About four days afterwards, a reply was sent by Mr. Grant, in which the writer suggested, as a difficulty in discussing with Mr. Holyoake, that the same statements might be re-asserted by him in various towns, after they had been, as some thought, refuted; and, therefore, that a fair and cheap report of any debate ought to be in print, to follow him with a view of both sides. Mr. Grant accepted the challenge, and proposed some such theme as the following, in order to test the value as well as the truth of Mr. Holyoake's whole mission: What would be gained by mankind in general, and the working classes in particular, as to this life, by the removal of Christianity, and substituting Atheism in its place: in other words, wherein consists the superiority of the Atheist's gospel over the gospel of Jesus Christ?' Mr. Grant then wished Mr. Holyoake to favour him with a statement of the advantages he maintains that Atheism would confer, and which Christianity opposes.'

"The next letter was from Mr. Holyoake, dated in July, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and it contained a formal acceptance of Mr. Grant's theme as the ground of discussion, with the substitution of the word 'Secularism' for the word 'Atheism,' and suggested the National Hall, in High Holborn, in London, as a suitable place for the discussion. Mr. Holyoake wished to know the principal points in Christianity which Mr. Grant was concerned to defend.

"Mr. Grant's reply, of July 27th, stated the 'leading points' required at some length, among which the New Testament in general, the authoritative standard for Christians'-'the general doctrines of the orthodox''the atonement '-'the example of Christ'-'the judgment of the world by the Saviour,' &c., are the most prominent. This letter