“THE SERVICE OF MAN.”

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 470, 10 May 1890, Page 4

“THE SERVICE OF MAN.”

liEV. E. H. GULLIVER REPLIES TO HIS CRITICS. Auckland, May 5. In beginning his address at the Temperance Hall last night, Mr Gulliver said that when he announced his intention of replying to Rev. Dr. Hooper’s recent letter he thought nothing more would be required of him, but to his surprise on opening the Star on Saturday he found there were “ two Richmonds in the field.” He very much regretted his inability to furnish his critics with verbatim reports of hie addresses. What had been published was necessarily greatly condensed, but might be taken as substantially correct. Last week he had called attention to the threefold claim made on behalf of popular Christianity—that it had raised woman, abolished slavery, and moralised war, and had said that this claim would not hold water. It was true tnat modern times had witnessed great ameliorations, but theseare precisely the times which are stigmatised as faithless and unbelieving. Dr. Hooper objected to what he had said about the position of woman, but the fact remains that a woman is even now to some extent the slave of her husband. Take, for instance, the case in which a man has done his wife the deepest wrong of all ; still, unless she can prove desertion or overt cruelty, she has no remedy, while if the case is reversed the man’s claim to a divorce is at once granted. Dr. Hooper says that for a long time past woman in Europe has occupied a position of friendly subordination, and that he does not claim for Christianity any considerable elevation of woman in that part of the world, and then passes to Asia and Africa; but those are not Christian countries. Our Teutonic forefathers were accustomed to honour . their women, and to such an. extent that ;

the old Roman writers express their astonishment at the respect paid to woman in the olden times, and therefore the elevation of woman was not due to Christianity. Dr. Hooper next objected to the statement that Christianity had not abolished slavery, and claimed that its abolition was due to the efforts of Wilberforce ; but the fact was that until comparatively modern times English clergymen had not considered the owning of slaves incompatible with their profession. In America the institution of slavery lasted down to our own times, and its overthrow was not due to any specially Christian effort. It was a Unitarian minister, the great Dr. Channing, who roused the American people against it. The liberation of the slave was not due to Christianity ; it was due to the gradual growth of public opinion ; it was the thought evolved by the revolutionary and scientific spirit which awoke in Europe at the close of last century. Now as to war, Dr. Hooper concedes the point and regrets the shortcomings of Christianity in this respect, only objecting to my illustrating it by reference to Napoleon and the French. The lecturer then read an extract depicting the horrors of the siege of Badajoz, and the excesses of the British soldiers, which fully bore out all that he had said, and yet these men were reared within the sound of English church bells. The three points raised remained therefore untouched. Dr. Hooper raises the question of definition ; he asks me to define such expressions as “popular Christianity,” “orthodox,” etc. Well, to my mind the matter appears so perfectly obvious that it scarcely requires definition. We all know that in the records of the life of Christ we have the story of a most beautiful and loveable character a character universally recognised as pre-eminent among the sons of men for its goodness and purity, its tender human sympathy and loving self - devotion ; but outside of all this we have the gradual growth and accretion of ages in the shape of ecclesiastical dogmas of all sorts, held more or less by all the different churches. These are the two points that strike any man of common sense. lam not attacking any special church —Roman Catholic, Protestant, or other ; but if you compare the dogmas of any two of them you will at once have an illustration of “popular Christianity ” aud “orthodox dogma.” I might indeed retort —Why do not my critics define their terms ? Take any of the wellknown ecclesiastical words (there have been plenty of them flying through the air lately). Take the word Christianity itself, and shall we find any two sects agree upon the meaning? You will bear me witness that I urge no “dogma” and proclaim no “creed,” but I do urge that the paramount duty is laid upon you to use your own reason, and to accept what I say only so far as I am able to prove it. In conclusion, Dr. Hooper quotes from “ Supernatural Religion ” two passages, which he says embody a large amount of the supernatural element and of dogma. To my mind, those terms do not apply to the words quoted, but certainly if the world went on the lines followed by the author of that book it would be far better for us in every way. Now, to pass to the letter of Mr Richards. I said that Huxley attacked miracles while Dr. Wace retorted by pointing to the morality of the Sermon on the Mount. I only mentioned the matter by way of introducing my remarks on Christianity and Morality, and had no idea of giving an account of the lengthy articles contributed by the disputants. I must, however, thank Mr Richards for calling attention to the words omitted in my quotation from Canon Liddon. The omission, however, was purely accidental. I was speaking specially of the doctrine of “ Grace,” and the force of the quotation depended largely upon the words omitted. The lecturer then proceeded to sum up the conclusions arrived at during the course of these lectures. He had shown how everything pointed to the decay of belief in the supernatural and miraculous element of Christianity, and had explained the reason of that decay. He had shown that claims were made in the name of the popular or orthodox Christianity which negatived all true morality, that the clergy of all shades preach the efficacy of a deathbed repentance, and appear blind to the immorality of such teaching. It was no wonder that under such teaching the ten commandments had little force, and that Mrs Grundy became the sole arbiter as to the extent to which they could be disregarded. It was felt that something was passing away from earth, and it was eagerly asked—-what is to replace it ? shall we have a new religion ? But they knew that religions cannot be made to order ; they grow slowly, the old thoughts find new developments, the old expressions become more and more inadequate, and at last the flood of thought overthrows its banks and finds a new channel. It has been so in the past, it is so now. The old idea of religion was largely based on the idea of sacrifice, of human sacrifice, and from that down through sacrifices of beasts and birds to the typical sacrifice in the bread or wafer of the present day. But there is another side to religion, and it is expressed and summarised in the title of these lectures ; it is the “ Service of Man.” To everyone of us the question is being put—what can you do to help in it ? Look at the sin, the suffering, the misery; what can you do to alleviate it? Leave the old world ideas of sacrifice and salvation and see what can be done to make the world we know and live in better than it is. We see the roads open to us for improvement in mind and body, and above all in heart; but we need knowledge and wisdom to apply our knowledge. Heredity and surroundings control us at every turn, and we can no more expect “grace” to control these conditions than farmers can expect “ grace ” to give them good cattle from bad stock. It is we ourselves who must control the conditions by which we are in turn controlled-'', and in the rational and reverent study of cause and effect we shall find the true and only road to the Service of Man, the Religion of the Future, and all the grand possibilities j which lie therein.