THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION.

Evening Star, Issue 4268, 31 October 1876, Page 4

THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION.

To tlit Editor.

Sir, —I am sure when the members of the Young Men's Christian Association come 7 ,; calmly to review their recent action, they . will see how hasty and ill-considered it has been. The whole world is ringing with this Evolution controversy. Multitudes of people are just feeling their way in an endeavor to understand it, and are far enough yet from having any decisive opinion about it. How "' unwise then 1 What a sign of intellectual feebleness ! What an unsympathetic treat- , ment; of a Bpirit of honest inquiry it is peremptorily to foreclose it! And by whom ..;. ; foreclosed? Not by a learned society; not c.i{ ( (tbyfo synod of divines, but by an association i'- ... : w Tpoung men. :'"' t -Howiitterly,incompetent—I.hope I may ,j ' ; without offencer-such a society is to :' 6f|br;an'opinien:(toßay-nothing of passing a J '':'*' "Pfflptj on such a subject, is evident from r ;.r . the;recent,discussion. It is lamentable to see with what eager applause the transparent , ( , ; fancies- pf, Messrs Moore and Connelf were received. When Mr Moore argues that Mr • Fitchett cannot believe in the need of a Saviour, however he may admit the '■•■•: ' fact''^"im;''''unless he also holds his \ (Mr theory of the Fall, one hiw to..remember the speaker's age to be prevented from calling his argu,jpe,nt nonsense. Surely no fact in the his ■ tory of a remote ancestor thousands of years , ■ ag»can afford such proof of man's need of a Saviour, as the fact of a Bulgarian massacre, or the fact of one's personal Bense of sin. And when Mr Moore expresses his horror at the notion (attributed to Mr Fitchett, but distinctly .disclaimed by him) of man's fall being necessary to his attainment of moral capacity, he Burely ought to remember that according to his own theology, the foulest of . all crimes, the murder of ths Son of God, ,<o.im necessary to man's redemption. Even more transparently fallacious, if pos«ble, was the argument of Dr Copland and Mr Connell. They declared that their objection was not to-Evolution perse, bat only ..... to the use Mr Fitshett made of it. But if the theory of Evolution has any bearing ,• upon ethics and religion,' surely their objectoonjwitefair applicatiom is an objection to •'," J B .®";:_ H » man believes in Evolution, that belief becomes at once a factor of his intelli- < gence. He does not keep it shut up in a dormitory of the soul, bed-ridden. Dr Copland is familiar enough with cases in which men believe in certain truths, but ignore them ; and it is a great part of the work of his ministry' to rebuke such people; why t does he now require his brother minister to display that very indifference to truth y. which he condemns in others ? . Such were the arguments which induced the association to reject an able, learned, and good minister. Could any demonstration be clearer of its incompetence to judge either . of science or theology ? I trust the gentlemen who have signified their intention of withdrawing from the association will yet be able to continue with others in the formation of a society which, without becoming hostie to the existing association, shall better represent the intelligence and charitv of our churches.—l am, &c, •rx ' ~ ~ One of xhb Minority. Dunedin, October 30.