further pressed the speedy appointment of a time and place for the discussion.

"Two other notes were sent to Mr. Holyoake without eliciting any reply till the 2nd of September, when he definitively stated the leading points of Secularism, and suggested Leicester as the best place in which to hold the discussion.

"Mr. Grant replied on the 6th of September, and furnished Mr. Holyoake with a further explicit avowal of the principles which he was concerned to defend, referring to the Bible, the Bible and the People (edited by Mr. Grant,) the Congregational Library,' the Year Book,' and twenty-one out of the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, as the exponents of Mr. Grant's opinion.

"Mr. Grant wrote again on the 22nd of September, still pressing the discussion, and soliciting an immediate reply. On the same day Mr. Holyoake wrote to Mr. Grant, asking him on what information, or with what view, he began this correspondence. He then stated that he was afraid the discussion could not take place this year. To this letter Mr. Grant replied on the 23rd of September, complaining of the delay which had taken place. To this no answer was returned in time to be included in the correspondence as published in the Bible and the People. Some further correspondence was read which showed as clearly as possible that Mr. Holyoake was shirking the proposed discussion, whilst he had the audacity to lecture in one town after another on the question- Why do the clergy avoid Discussion?'

"After detailing all the circumstances of the case connected with the correspondence, Mr. Grant finally submitted to the meeting the following resolution:That this meeting having heard that Mr. Holyoake, having declined or postponed indefinitely a proposed discussion with the Rev. Brewin Grant, on the ground of want of time, and nevertheless that Mr. Holyoake finds time to lecture on the clergy avoiding discussion,-by which he avoids it himself in spending that time which would suffice for a discussion, this meeting records its conviction that such conduct by Mr. Holyoake is unfair, dishonourable and untruthful.'

"Some ridiculous observations were made by a few socalists present, whose object it appeared to be to throw the meeting in confusion, in which they partially succeeded; but the resolution condemnatory of Mr. Holyoake's conduct in shirking the proposed discussion, was carried by an overwhelming majority.

"A vote of thanks was given to Mr. Hoole for his conduct in the chair, after which the meeting separated."

The above meeting disturbed 'the equanimity of the Reasoner, and called forth the following leading article:

"THE ENEMY AT THE DOOR.

"The majority of our readers will learn for the first time of the correspondence with a Birmingham Independent minister, which appears on the following pages. Many readers, however, have been aware of it from

other sources. The publicity given in the Banner and the Bible and the People to my unfinished correspondence has caused many to take a one-sided view of the whole matter. The Rev. Mr. Grant has pursued the unusual course of printing my unconcluded letters without asking my consent. My duties in promoting our organization and visiting our societies have left me no time to answer his letters as quickly as he desired, and thereupon he has come to the conclusion that 1 decline' the discussion; and, notwithstanding that he had before him my repeated assurances that I should attend, and was attending, to his requests, he has proceeded to represent me as avoiding a debate to which I have unhesitatingly assented-even named the town in which to hold it, and have made the best arrangements I was able, to meet him at an early date.

"Dr. Campbell, of the Banner, an older and more experienced man than Mr. Grant, and not so likely to be carried away by inferences, has aided the misrepresentation of my agreement and intention, and many of my friends, especially in Blackburn, imposed upon by Mr. Grant's extraordinary proceedings in that town-of which we shall give an account next week-are inquiring what all this commotion is about. This short paper is written for their assurance. There is no truth in the representations that I have declined, or intended to decline, meeting Mr. Grant. There is a report spread in Leicester, to which town Mr. Grant belongs, that a public discussion has been appointed between us, and that Mr. Grant was present pacing the platform excited and alone, calling upon me in vain. There is no truth in any such discussion having been agreed to between us. What Mr. Grant may have done is an affair of his own, and will in due time come under our consideration. "Mr. Woodman, and others, are doing precisely what Mr. Grant is doing. But neither will succeed in forcing discussion upon us till the proper time. The enemy must be at our door. We are glad he is—but he is not to come in till we let him in. No amount of noise outside will induce us to move before it seems proper to do so. We are no longer a mere fighting party. We have won certain ground, and we shall keep it. We shall give battle to all who demand it, but not when they dictate, but when we see fit.

If

"In that little volume which so disturbs Mr. Grant, and which he quite misreads, entitled 'Why do the Clergy avoid Discussion'? it is predicted that we shall have opponents in plenty ere long, and our prediction is being verified to the letter. We shall have (if Mr. Grant will pardon the presumption of saying so) abler opponents than himself, after we have met him; but we must meet him in that manner that shall entitle us to opponents of a more patient temper and fairer judgment. I am to meet every man the moment he sets up the belligerent cry of 'warm work' here, and cries out we dare not meet him,' I shall be at the mercy of every minister who may choose to utter these bravadoes. We must set our faces against this species of incitement, or the intelligent Christian will come to think that we cannot live upon our reputation a single month in the face of an enemy. He will say we are not only wrong, but weak. We must guard against this imputation. "The contest thickens and widens. In the Yorkshire districts, where I have been all the week, opponents, challenges, and menaces abound.

On two nights last week I met the Rev. Mr. Winks in Leicester, before the largest audiences which have, I think, assembled at our discussions. As fast as I am able I am meeting all opponents who have prior claims to Mr. Grant, whom I shall meet before long, as he, I hope, doubts not himself.

"We who have passed through the opponency of the Bishop of Exeter, and the crusade of the Brindley race, are not unprepared for the new species of warfare with which we are favoured. And profiting by former experiences, we ought to be able to find in this new crusade a nobler and more permanent opportunity than we eliminated before. All we ask of our friends is patience, and we promise them that the policy to be pursued shall be conducive both to the truth and to our own honour. Week by week we will keep them apprised of all proceedings. As circumstances seem to require, we shall abandon other work in order to pursue this efficiently.

“Mr. Grant has issued a separate edition of our correspondence. Perhaps by next week we shall have one ready at the Reasoner office. We shall announce particulars in our next number. Our friend W. J. C. has enabled us to keep pace with the enemy. Other friends will doubtless join as soon as they see the temper of the foe and the necessity of the hour.

"One thing every reader may do—that is, circulate the Reasoner in new quarters. This past fortnight I have seen evidence I never saw before of the necessity of asking that this be done. In districts I have visited I have found the densest ignorance of our principles and views, and the most extravagant and ridiculous reports circulating about us. A single copy of the Reasoner would correct many of them. But nothing but religious publications, with their erroneous reports, find their way there, and well-meaning persons among the working class are imposed upon by persons who would be with us, if they knew us.

"We know of a hundred thousand persons in Great Britain who think with us. If each one devoted but a penny a week to the Reasoner, what an immense circulation we should have! Instead of having to defer meeting opponents in order to find the weekly outlay for printing and paper, which the sale does not yet provide, we should have a valuable surplus, and much of my own time would be set free for other work. Let this agitation so vehemently raging around us now, in other than the Grant and Campbell quarters, have the effect of calling up our friends to that activity which would enable us to compass all our foes by circulating weekly our answers (to their mistaken representations of us) in every corner of the land.

"Let the enemy menace, reproach, taunt, misrepresent. We must answer by work. Let no one think himself too rich, no one too poor to order a penny Reasoner. The fortunate day of opposition has come upon us. Have we the good sense to use it well? Irritation-such as we have not before encountered-will now be employed against us. Public meetings will vote disparaging_resolutions against us. For a time it will be said we want courage. We must learn to bear all this, and more than

this."

Besides this calm and rational refutation, the Reasoner still further assures its readers by the following announcements.

"A reply to the last four letters of Mr. Grant has been forwarded to that gentleman, and from which our readers will see, when it is made public, that some important points bear a different complexion when both sides are heard."

"We are preparing to issue, in a separate publication, the whole of the Grant and Holyoake correspondence."

All this not being quite satisfactory to Mr. Holyoake, he favoured Mr. Grant with another refutation of the Blackburn affair, in addition to the reply to the four letters; all which, with the answers, are given below, from which our readers will see how some things "bear a different complexion."-getting darker as the affair progresses.

London, November 2nd, 1852. REVEREND SIR,-Now I am able to reply to your four letters of Sept. 6th, 22nd, 23rd, and Oct. 1st.

You ask (letter Sept. 6th,) if I do not know "that the duties of this life pertain to another world, according to Christianity ?" I do know it; and it is precisely on this point that Secularism is opposed to Christianity. The Christian regulates his life by what is reported to him concerning futurity; the Secularist regulates his life according to what he perceives in the present-not from indifference as to the consequences of actions, but from the belief that human experience is a safer guide than theological speculation. The "precedence" which puzzles you is the precedence of the certain over the uncertain-of the realities in which we live, to the contingencies concerning which the religious world has ever been divided, and of which no man living has any experience to offer.

You seem to object greatly to my leaving open the possibility of a future life. "To this (I understand you to argue) Secularism has no right." But has Secularism the larger right to pronounce a dogmatic negative on a problem so mysterious, the data for solving which are utterly beyond mortal ken? I leave the question just where it leaves me-in that uncertainty which inevitably results from human ignorance, and which can only be cleared up by infinite knowledge.

You desire a distincter statement of the advantages of Secularism. My three "verses," of whose shortness you complain, are from a very large book-the volume of nature.

The advantages accruing from my first "verse" are the advantages of the certain over the uncertain, as stated above.

The advantages of my second "verse" is the liberation from a danger not "imaginary," as you assert. When we see a country praying to God against the cholera, and neglecting that regard to science which would annihilate the cholera, I conceive that we are justified in saying, that "man may be betrayed by reliance on spiritualism," and that "science is the providence of man."

The advantage implied in my third "verse" would be that we should go direct to the facts of the present life for the source of the present duty,

and should be freed from all that mass of theological virtues which block up the path of the natural ones, and be left at liberty to act as disciplined nature shall direct.

You ask "what books or manuals I refer to as authorized statements of Secularism, and our general views?" I might refer you to half the books on Mr. Watson's list, in which you would find one or other of our principles stated. But the positive side of them is a more recent development of our own. Our party has so long been obliged to fight for the right to exist, that it has scarcely yet been able to put forth any mature utterances in this direction; and what we have done has been rather tentative and suggestive, than authorized. The prospectus of the "Cabinet of Reason" will show you what we are endeavouring to commence in this direction. Two volumes of it have appeared. I may also refer you to my "Rationalism," "Catholicism," "Philosophic Type of Religion," "Logic of Death," "Organisation of Freethinkers," and the twelve volumes of the Reasoner generally, (especially the articles on Secularism in Nos. 323, 325, 327,) as containing the most of our views.

My letter of Sept. 22nd had this expression:-" May I ask on what information, or with what view, you began this correspondence?" This question-asking whether I might ask it—which you make the subject of so many comments, seemed to me simple enough. I had no knowledge of the letter Mr. Emery had written to you; and you appear now to as sume, what is not true, that it was anthorized by me. It is long since I solicited any minister to a discussion. To afford the opportunity of debate-to accept it (almost unconditionally) when offered-is indeed my custom; but beyond this, I do not willingly go. The harsh and disparaging construction put upon our former overtures of discussion-the assumption that we sought it in vanity, or the spirit of gladiatorship-tanght me to withdraw such overtures altogether. You must, therefore, hold Mr. Emery's letter as his private act. It contains expressions proper enough to him, as a neutral person; but nevertheless such as ill accord with the manner in which I speak of discussion, or of the spirit in which I regard it.

When you transferred to me your letter to your Leicester correspondent, I took that to be the opening of the question with me. What you said in it to that writer was no business of mine; and, as you did not inform me what had taken place between you, I studiously kept from inquiring, until the impatience manifested in your letters seemed to demand it-and then, as was your right, I put the question to you, and not to Mr. Emery. If you inquire into the matter, you will find that the first communication you received, which you call my challenge, was a joint production of your own brother David (who enclosed it to you) and Mr. Emery, and that I had no more to do with it than I suppose you had. The reason which always kept me from inviting you to a discussion-the use I expected you would make of it if I did the manner in which you would misunderstand me if I did-forbade any such act on my part, especially when I was not free to pay that respect to your unresting demands which would be your right if had given you an invitation.

You justify, I observe (letter Oct. 1st,) the publicity of my letters by accusing me of having, at some former time, acted in a similar arbitrary