THE REV. MR WATERS AND PROGRESS.

Clutha Leader, Volume II, Issue 99, 2 June 1876, Page 6

THE REV. MR WATERS AND PROGRESS.

TO THE BDITOB,

Sir,-— ln your last issue I observe that the Rev. Mr Waters, while speaking on the subject of Progress at the Waiwera Soiree, has been having a fling at the "apostleß of free thought." Judging from such expressions aa '* walking on their heads," "tail foremost," etc., the rev. gentleman must have been indulging, in a good deai of pleasantry. It seems to me, however, that a subject of so great importance, involving' as it does the possible abandonment of the popular faith, should be approached' in anything but a jocular spirit. Mr Waters complains that the teaching of this class of "progressionists" has a .'" bemistifying" tendency, I submit,- however, that it is only when we attempt, to look through ecclesiastical spectacles that we get bemißtified by the doctrines Ot " progressionists." Take an example suggested by .Mr Waters himself. Speaking about a "; queer. old fiah," he says " its. race is older than the first man, — older than the' great rocks,— ay, older than the everlasting" hills." Now, this is in accordance with .the teaching of certain progressionists,— the Geologists, who clearly demonstrate that untold ages before man appeared, the earth was inhabited by fishes, birds, £and creeping things. It is only when when we attempt to reconcile the' geologic with the Mosaic account of the creation that "one feels as if a bag or bottle of ink had discharged itself in his mental face," Mr. Waters stigmatizes doubt as " progress on its head with

ita heels up, or with tail foremost, swimming! hack to mediocreism or further." Ih' spite r b£ this assertion, and the elegant language in which! ifc is couched, I hold that doubt is' the' first -step to that intelligent enojuiry without whichhuinstn orogi-ess is impossible. I quite agree with Mr Waters about the necessity of an " impartial and •'.ommon-sense sifting" process, not only in the "preparation of progress," hut in every concern of life.' But it is not very clear that tho advantage in this respect lies with Mr :Watord rather 'ihan with his opponents! It is, 1 am sorry, to my, a very common though not very, dignified practice with many of our worthy el-sratymen to characterise all who havo-the misfortune to differ from their orthodox view as being " possessed of a great deal of ignorance and of as much impertinence." Such assertions, however, only show a most lamentable want of argument. For the benefit of such of your readei-s aa do not read history,—and Mr Waters says that all those who are caught V.y the " tenacles" of free thought do not,— I remark- that all history, whether recurded in the locks or on the pages of the historian, proves on the one hand that progress— an onward, upward progress— has been the rule ever since the present order, of things began to be ; and, on the other, that tliß Church has ever been the persistent , enemy of progress. Geography, astronomy, geology^ etc. , have all in turn been denounced as the work of tWdevih It is scarcely half a century since tho belief in the Mosaic account of the creation was all but ■universal, and the findings of goologista were denounced from the pulpit, as blasphemous falsehood. And yet, I ask, what lias now become of the old belief ? Here we have Mr "Waters himself, a most uncompromising champion for the faith, abandoning tbo Mosaic and avowing his belief in the geologic record !

Mr Waters waxes eloquent when he speaks of the many long and bloody fights waged by our forefathers " in behalf of the rights of private judgment." Now, while yielding to no man ih my admiration of the heroic stand made by our Scottish ancestors in behalf of their religion, yet 1 maintain tbat the eulogy of Mr Waters is true only in a limited sense. They fought for the rights of private judgment, only so far as that agreed with Presbyterian principles. -' They fought stoutly for liberty to worship God after their own fashion. But that is quite a different thing from universal toleration, • That differs widely from that privilego which is the birthright of every British subject,— the right of judging for ourselves in all matters of religion and morals, and of promulgating bur views so long aa they are not subversive of good order and morality. Instead of our Covenanting forefathers fighting for the rights of private judgment in this sense, — and I hold it is the only true sense, they were every whit as bigoted and intolerant as their loss orthodox neighbors, the Catholics and.prelatists, aa the following historical fact,— abridged from Macaulay's England, and selected almost at random,— will testify:— ln the year 1696, a young student had, inthe course of his reading, met with some arguments against the Bible. Fancying that he had made a discovery, he proclaimed to some of his companions that Trinity in Unity was as much a contradiction as a square circle, that Christianity was a delusion and would not last till the year 1800, For this wild talk, of which he would in all probability have been ashamed long before -he was twentyfive, he was prosecuted. , There was, among the Scottish statutes, one which made it a capital crime to revile or curse the Supreme Being, or any person in the Trinity. Nothing said by the lad could, without the most violent straining, bo brought within the scope of tho statute. But the poor lad, being unable 'to do justice to his own cause, was convicted and condemned to be executed. In vain he abjured his errors, and pleaded for mercy. He begged that if his lif« could not be spared, he might at least be allowed a short time to prepare for death. The civil authorities were willing to grant this small boon, provided the ministers of Edinburgh would intercede. Well, how did the clergy of Edinburgh —then, as now, the most enlightened of our Presbyterian ministers— act 1 That they should be deaf to the entreaties of a penitent who begged, not for mercy, but for a little more time to receive their instructions, arid to pray to heaven for the mercy denied him on earth, seems incredible. Yet so it was. The ministers demanded th© poor boy's death, his speedy death, though it should prove his eternal death. The preachers, who were his murderers crowded round him at the gallows, aid, while he was struggling in the last ugony, insulted heaven with prayers niore blasphemouß than anything he had ever uttered. •-.'•'-

No blacker story is told of Dundee. There lives not, I venture to say; 1 a Scotchman with. the least spark of patriotism in his breast who will not blush for very shame at the recital of deeds like these, and yet if Mr Waters is to be believed, these were the very men who Waged many a long and bloody fight for the rights of private judgment.

Regarding another kind of "modern progress" mentioned by Mr Waters, I remark that if church bazaars are avowedly "as great swindles as anything in the betting rooms of gamblers," and "very difficult to keep to hondst dealings," the assertion that " the Church is a great fenco to keep in virtue and shut out; vice from society" is at least not very apparent. These church bazaars may with every propriety bo called "progress on its head with its heels up," etc.

To conclude, this " free thought" krveryperplexing to many,reflecfcing mirids at present. Mr Bright and others of- the same school quote largely from ' patristic literature -and other Bources, which individuals in my.'position Have not the means of verifying. .1 trust, therefore, that our ministers will meet their opponents on fair terms. Surely, if the apostles of free thought misrepresent histpricarfacts, Ihey are capable of being contradicted, and the falsity of their rear soningis capable of being exposed. I have: of late observed in .the public prints that a good few of our ministers have been alluding to* the subject at soirees, etc. Now, though f-have; been reading with interest all their sayings; with the view of getting information, I. have hitherto been disappointed. Asa rule, they either evade the real question at issue,- or else try to. throw a stigma on scepticism. - I cannot see how. it is possible for , thinking minds who . lack thp v necessary information, to avoid falling into scepticism. Let. our ministers, therefore jbestir themselves.. Never was the Church in a more critical position. Christianity may afford to abandon the. Bibhv account of creation; but if tho Incarnation, ; JELeV surrectioh, and Ascension of Jesus Christ have lp be given up as fables, I cannot soe.whatiis left of ecclesiastical Christianity worth caring for. Any attack upon the free thought stronghold like Mr |. Waters' address at Wairuna is worse than, use- [ less; it is a strong argument on the sceptical I side.— l am, osc,

An Enquirer after Truth.