“ORTHODOXY AND ITS PRETENSIONS."

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 437, 15 January 1890, Page 6

“ORTHODOXY AND ITS PRETENSIONS."

Auckland, January 13. A large audience assembled at the Temperance Hall last night to hear the ttev. E. H. Gulliver’B address on the above subject. The lecturer began by saying that before proceeding to tho subject of bis lecture he thought it right to take some notice of two letters which had been published during tho week, and which traversed statements that he had made in his last address. These letters were partly of a personal character, but he would ignore that element in them, and only deal with what related to the matter of hi® address. Now he had told them last Sunday that until lately it had been popularly supposed that there had been only one incarnation, whereas it was now generally recognised that numerous incarnations were recorded, including that of Christ, and that the parallelisms between them were numerous and very remarkable that was his main statement. Now, us the writer of the letters had traversed some of his assertions, he felt it his duty to cite some .of his authorities. In the first place, the writer objected that he was merely reviving an old heresy in a modernised form ; this was a common objection, but what did it amount to? No doubt in all ages there had been individuals who knew more and were far wiser than the mass of their fellow’s, bub we spoke of the accepted ideas of the people without reference to these exceptions. Taking the Copernican theory, the truth of that theory was known to the few before it was generally accepted, and the masses still held to the belief that the earth was the centre of our system long after the truth was known to the few—-so with regard to tho Incarnation. The lecturer re asserted his statement that, until comparatively recent times, it had been generally believed that there had been only one incarnation. Only a century ago a famous Scotchman — Dugald Stewart —amazed apparently at the character of the Sanscrit traditions and the antiquity ascribed to them, actually denied that there could be such a language as Sanscrit. Not until some time later was the extent and antiquity of Sanscrit literature recognised and realised— together with the accounts therein given of n any successive incarnations of Saviours of men. In his last address he had mentioned many points of resemblance between the recordsof two of these incarnate Saviours and the record of Christ. The writer of the letters took exception to w’hat had been said of Gautama and wrote that it was a mistake “ to suppose that the welfare of mankind was the only object of his teaching, as all living beings are therein equally made the object of compassion.” The lecturer said that, with all due deference to the writer, the very point urged was thus conceded by the admission that the Buddha had a heart large enough, and sympathies wide enough, to embrace not mankind only, but the whole animated creation. Max Muller had shown that the strong point of Buddha's system was its social and moral code. A Roman Cathoiic Bishop wrote that most of the virtues and graces commonly _ called Christian, were to be found in it. Mr Gulliver then gave quotations from Spence Hardy, Laboulaye, and Barthelemy St. Hilaire, all testifying to the lofty and stainless character of Gautama Buddha, and maintained that in it we had something which approached very closely to the life of Christ. True, the life of Christ was familiar to us, while tho life of Buddha was new and strange, but when we tried to weigh and compare them dispassionately we saw that they were indeed of the same kindred, and that their lives were alike devoted to the good of mankind. Passing then to the objections made by the writer of the letters to what he had said of Krishna, Professor Tiele (Doctor of Theology and Professor of the History of Reiig.on in the University of Leyden) says, speaking of Krishna : “ The Brahmanic Iheosophists make him a disciple of the Brahmans, who devotes himself to mystic meditations, and thus in the Bhagavad Gita he appears as the preacher of an ethical - pan thestic doctrine and proclaims himself as the ‘ Supreme Being’and the ‘ Redeemer;’ ’’and further, “In all the incarnations (of which Krishna is one only) Nishnu is a God of salvation and beneficence, and as a human being he is in no way inferior to the Buddha in gentleness, humanity and self-denial,” and that “at the end of this age Nishnu is to appear (as ‘ Kalkin ’ — another incarnation) to root out all wickedness.” Mr Gulliver then read from a book called “Monumental Christianity” by Dr. Lundy, a strictly orthodox and very learned Episcopalian clergyman, several passages relating to the life of Krishna, its great antiquity, his crucifixion, etc., etc. Archdeacon Hardwick had also testified to the kindly and sympathetic character ascribed to Krishna. It was thus seen that the same idea of a Saviour existed in the or.e case as in the other, and their kinship was thus established. The writer of the letters had also stated that it was not certain t*--at these men ever existed. This was surely dangerous ground for him to take up, for the argument was readily carried a s ep further and applied to Christ himself, of whom (excepting in Christian writings) scarcely any mention could be found. He was mentioned briefly by Josephus and by Tacitus, but the authenticity of the references was doubtful. Such an argument was not unlike a booim rang thrown by an unskilful hand, and dangerous to the thrower. Then aga n the objection that Krishna was miraculously transferred before birth, and not miraculously conceived, only carries the matter one step back; the strong resemblance still remained. Mr Gulliver wished his hearers to understand once for all that he did not make statements without considering carefully what he said ; that truth, and truth alone, was what he sought to discover and to maintain, and although the quest might lead him in other paths than those in which he had been trained, it led in the direction to which many wise, and liberal and thoughtful men of our age seem tending. Now, to come to the proper subject of bis lecture. He feared that the length of the introduction, and the short time left to treat his subject, would give his lecture a sort of tadpole character —all head and no body. He would therefore only introduce the subject, and deal with it more fully on next Sunday. It was often said, “Oh, what you say may be. all very true, but you are simply upsetting a very useful system, and what can you offer in its place ?” Now it did not appear at all right to accept this as an argument for silence. Orthodoxy certainly made large claims to a certain assumed influence Tor good, but in fact we find in our daily life scarcely any evidence that orthodox Christianity has any hold; on it at all. Take our bankruptcy reports, our police courts, our mining speculations, our races, our daily life, in fact, and say what trace of Christianity there is about it—is it a Christian life ? Take the teaching of the.founder of Christianity ; : it tells us that selfishness is the most devilish thing on earth, yet our life is based on the assumption that it is the only reliable basis of human action. If the captain .of a British raan-o’-war were ordered to Zan-

zibar, and at once steered for Callao, what would be eaid of his conduct ? We ' might paste texts in our tramcars and on our walls, we might distribute tracts by the thousand and go to church every Sunday, but the plain fact was that we were not Christians, and that to call ours a Christian life was a farce. Orthodoxy made great pretensions, but had only taught one lesson thoroughly—the lesson of “hypocrisy.” Christ taught the crushing of selfishness; wo make selfishness the idol of life. The practice of orthodoxy was summed up in “ disobedience to the teaching of Christ,'" and “ hypocrisy .” We follow our selfish system all the week, and on Sunday we go to Church because it is “ respectable ” and for feat lest Mrs Grundy should lay her scalding finger on us. If a man is to produce any real effect in this world the first essential ‘ is that he should believe in the truth of his own message ! Who set Europe on fire for the Crusades ? - It was Peter the Hermit—a man fairly intoxicated with faith and zeal to rescue the Holy Land from the Infidels. Look at Luther, —could ho have done what he did if he had not supremely believed ? It was a burning consciousness of truth that supported him and gave him his power over others. So too in "our own case, when we are asked what have we to put in the place of the creeds and dogmas of the past ? let us answer “the love of truth.” Let us realise the hypocrisy and unreality around us, and get back simply to the love of truth, and so alone we may hope to see the rise of a new religion if only we give “ the truth ” fair play.