MR. DENTON’S LECTURES CRITICISED.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2492, 1 April 1882, Page 4

MR. DENTON’S LECTURES CRITICISED.

In accordance with an announcement made at the morning service, the Bev. J. H. Bunntonds (Kaiapoi) addressed his congregation on Sunday evening on the subject of Mr Denton’s lectures. There had not been time, he said, to prepare on elaborate discourse; but he would endeavor to indicate the weak points in Mr Denton’s position, and to show them that they need not be alarmed at what had been said against Christianity. Mr Bimmonds then briefly sketched the line of discussion pursued by the lecturer, remarking that it was useless ]and foolish to fight against Mr Denton’s facts. Christians shou.rt hail with gladness every effort to make jenown the truths of science, and to free the world from superstition. No one could deny the great antiquity of the planet j no one conld <s<my that lifo aird death had existed hero side by side for countless t*ges. It must be evident to any one who looked at the facta that life had been developed progressively ; and there were reasons, over growing stronger, for beiioving that the various species haro been produced by evolution from tower forms. Man belonged to the life system of the woiid ; and it seemed probably that he had sprung from the lower animals, though the exact conditions under which this tad taken place might never bo knowti. Science seemed to teaoh further, that human beings had tenanted this planet for many thousands di years, and that they were at first in a low and bffrbarocs state. This was not in accordance with the conceptions they had borrowed x<m Milton’s “ Paradise lisot,” and from their older theological books;; but if they were to take the Bible and 'read it side by side with the geologic scriptures, without the influence of prejudice, they might ultimately see their way to believe that man vraa first an innocent animal, atid then a moral agent capable of tfcnowing the difference between good and ■evil. 'All this was not proved ; but if it eheuld bo proved, it need not alarm them. The'Bible was not realty committed to any theory of the origin of man beyond that: which nearly all admitted, viz., that he had, been produced by Divine force intelligently, •exerted. It was the notions of their older; theologians and poets that were in jeopardy,, not the great truths embodied in tbeir sacred; •dflements. , _ . Mr Denton had spoken with good eSeat on mxah’» spiritual nature, showing that it must’ iho something real, and separable from the .physical body. Science taught that there were forces and substances which, xmder ■ordinary circumstances, were not perceptible to any of our senses. At a ■ certain stage the germs of different animals were exactly alike, and the •coordinating power that caused the subsequent development of the animal must bo something different from the matter of .its body. The phenomena sometimes manifested ■in connection with sleep, drowning, mes-, xneriam, and clairvoyance looked in the same direction, and rebuked that stubborn materialism that would see nothing in man but the body and its functions. He (Mr Bimmonds) •'certainly felt sceptical about some of the things Mr Denton had said, but he was mot: prepared to deny them. The point he wiehtd to bring out here was that Mr Denton claimed to have soientifio evidence for 'Spiritualistic phenomena. Ke rould now come to the point that oon- ■ corned t -cm most. Mr Denton hod attacked .and ridiculed Christianity, and ho wished to • show them that this had been done, for the most part, unfairly and with signal failure. The lecturer had hurled hie rhetoric against crude oono ptions that wore no longer cherished except by the narrow and ignorant. All philosophic conceptions of Christianity had been studiously ignored. The Christian theory of miracles did not suppose that there could be effects without adequate causes. Mr Denton believed that Q-od was immanent in sdl nature, that matter was subservient to spirit, that there were forces and substances not perceptible under ordinary conditions, and that, by these forces, effects could sometimes be produced, which were contrary to the usual course of things, though in harmony with nature as a whole. This was precisely what intelligent Christiana believed. Every one of the miracles recorded in the New Testament was connected with some great and beneficent moral purpose, whereas some of the miraculous things believed in by Mr Denton were utterly sanseloee. ’lt was absurd to cavil at the chaste cud dignified narratives contained in the JNew Testament after giving credence to some of the things believed by Mr Denton. The Canterbury Museum did not contain a miracle department, certainly; but, -if ell the things Mr Denton had said were true, it was quite time such a department was added. The Christian doctrine of atonement bad been subjected to similar treatment, but there was a philosophic side to that doctrine which the lecturer either did not know about or had purposely overlooked. Mr Denton believed that divinity was present in all life, so did ■intelligent Christians. Let it bo further .granted that Divinity could in some sense - suffer in and tor humanity, and they would have a doctrine of atonement very different ■from that held up to scorn on the previous evening. Mr Denton’s ideas about a future state were not more advanced than those hold by most educated Christians. They did not believe, any more than did this great lecturer, in a heaven that was fit only for an oyster or for a mocking-bird. There might be Christians, and even Christian teachers, whoeo ideas on the subject were still crude and childish ; but, in seeking to represent Christian belief, a public lecturer should select its highest, not its lowest forms. Dogmatism and speculation had been condemned by Mr Denton as unscientific and calculated to foster superstition, and yet he had fallen into the same vices to an extent that must have shaken the confidence of his warmest scientific odmirers. Mr Denton’s tone when speaking about Christianity oould not be justified on any ground whatever. It was generally understood that educated men were to treat the opinions and feelings of those around them with respect and consideration. This Mr Denton hod failed to uo. The spirit he had manifested towards Christianity was

such as many Christian gentlemen would scorn to indulge in towards even the superstitions of a Hindoo or a Chinaman. The spirit of banter and ridicule was not scientific, nor was it required in the interests of truth. Mr Denton’s covert reference to Mrs Hampson was particularly unfortunate, causing some to compare the spirit of that devoted woman with the spirit of the lecturer to the great discredit of the latter. Mr Denton was really engaged in an attempt to construct a new religion, and hie prospects of Bucoese were not very encouraging. His scheme included some important truths, but these had been given to the world before. He bad proved nothing against a true and liberal Christianity, while he had given valuable support to some of those truths that were fundamental to the Christian system. Mr Denton's science taught them to believe in an Infinite Father, who was present in all nature, working intelligently towards definite ends, in the existence in man of a spiritual nature that would survive the death of the body, and in the existence of spiritual forces which, under certain circumstances might give rise to effects apparently inconsistent with the ordinary course of t v iags. These were Christian doctrines, not the doctrines of a new religion. Mr Simmonds concluded by exhorting his bearers to study nature as a revelation of God, and to harmonise their Christian beliefs with the facts which nature taught them, assuring them that by so doing they would attain to a wider outlook and to a firmer bads of trust and usefulness.