CHRISTIANITY.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3067, 12 March 1892, Page 3

CHRISTIANITY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sin, —In a previous issue, dited March Ist, appears a letter in answer to one fro"} J') 1 ® pen of the Venerable Archdeacon Willis, in which that highly-esteemed gentleman and truly- as well as popular—Christian minister set forth some plain and palpable truths, being the utterances of Mr Loweh, as quoted from the Review of Reviews In answer to this " Gleaner " (who is the author of the letter in question) remarks that '' the assertion, from whatever source drawn, is mostly inferential, and counts for nothing." By the same process of reasoning adopted by onr opponents may we not, with far more truth and greater justice, assume the whole of their assertions to be inferential and counting for nothing, when brought before us without proofs? "The same kind of argument,"observes "Gleaner,' "has been used scores of times previou-ly by those who fancied they saw in the decay and the purging of a creed sure indications of a moral and social chaos that never came." If your correspondent presumes to inform your readers that creeds and dogmas represent Christianity, he never was more mistaken in his ideas. True Christianity is that which is represented by the New Testament and is more or less diffused by the teachings of the various Christian Churches, and which has been the means, under Providence, of regenerating the nations of the earth from a state of barbarism to a highlycivilised and Christian state. The statement that Christianity is the only power under Heaven which can reform and purify the deep and agitated heart of mankind, and thus to the greatest possible extent secure the real happiness of society according to the degree of such divine and redemptive influence upon the hidden life of men—limited, indeed, as all true happiness must ever be where sin exists—is a statement which admits not the shadow of a doubt, if history, sacred and profane—if experience, whose facts are the most indisputable data—if reason, which in her own limited sphere is side by side with divine revelation—if true philosopy, moral ariß metaphysical, and intense outgoings and soul intuitions, more or less in every heart—if these teach and demonstrate any one grand fact it is that stated in Archdeacon Willis' admirable letter. I observe that the opponents of Christianity seem very partial to quotations from various infidel writers —such as J. S. Mill, Paine, Bucle, Gibbon, Motley, Herbert Spencer, Darwin, Huxley, and a few others—yet when an advociite of Christianity ventures to quote from the works of some Christian author he is coolly told that the authority counts for nothing. Christianity needs not the cover of darkness; it desires not the mantle of ignorance; it welcomes science and literature, when subordinatsd'to itself and applied to the realisation of its own glorious purposes. It has been said by One who could not err : " Wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times, and strength of salvation." If we have had a Luplaco, a Voltaire, a Bolingbroke, and a Hume (as well as thoso previously mentioned), who have tried to undermine the faith of the Christian and to set at variance God in Nature and God in the Bible, have we not also had a Newton, a Butler, a Chalmers, a Pye Smith, a Buckland, a Harrison, and hosts of other Christian ministers, travellers, philosophers, and scientists who have torn into shreds their miserable sophistries and shown that every development of nature is a confirmation of the mighty power, matchless wisdom, and infinite goodness of the Great God of Heaven and Earth. The question that I would here ask your correspondent is: Are the statements set forth respecting the Creator and His works by infidel writers, whose numbers are so limited that they are easily enumerated, true or false? Again, let me ask : Are the statements of the countless multitude of Christian writers, both dead and living, when coupled with the evidence of our senses, to be set at nought for the assertions of a few, whose life-long powers were oxerted for the overthrow of the Christum doctrines? Byron himself, opposed as he wa=i to the searching truths of revelation, admitted the wisdom of those who embraced Christianity, even though it should be found hereafter a splendid delusion. Science has been made to utter some opposing facts in years gone by concerning geology and astronomy, which did disturb a few good souls reposing on their evidence and inward experiences of eternal trut'a. But since then science has broken from such impious restraint, and with mighty power has borne her testimong against the detainers of Christianity ; and, beholding the Divine imprint in revelation, has grasped her outstretched hand in everlasting union. The Christian God, says our critic, has slowly conformed to the increasing morality of man—never initiating a single reform or giving a new commandment. There is in this mode of arguing an awful degree of profanity necessarily brought to light cn the part of those who profess to be supremely anxious for the salvation, and moral wellbeing of mankind, but who nevertheless, calmly and with daring courage, attempt to destroy—not the best means which the aggregate wisdom of all ages has at length brought to light—but, be it remembered, the profound, the mighty, the sublime, and perfect scheme of miracle-working mercy which emanated from the Divine mind as the only means tor man's restoration to God and truth, to love and virtue, and thus to partial happiuess on earth and perfected bliss in Paradise. If "Gleaner" had reversed his statements und told us that man was slowly, but surely, conforming to the moral laws instituted by God Himself and embodied in the Scriptures, there would have boen some truth in his atgument. As to God not initiating any reforms or issuing a new commandment, if our critics know anything of the Bible, they must! be fully aware that all of Christ's teachings, as well as His apostles', are contained in the Holy Scriptures, such teachings to suit all times until the coming of our Lird once more upon earth, which will be in His own good time. Previous to His ascension into Heaven He relegated His teaching authorit to His apostles and their successors—the priests and ministers of His Church. If mankind does not obey or follow the truths laid down in the Scriptures, it is the fault of those who presume to style themselves ministers of the Gospel and teachers of God's Word. With what exalted sentiments of devotion ought the contemplative infidel philosopher (like our friend "Gleaner") to consider the various and unspeakably-beautiful phenomena of light! We find it to be little less than the life and pleasure of all animated beings. Of what benefit would life be to our friendly critic—what pleasure, what comfort, could he enjoy in the horrors of perpetual darkness? How could he transact the least business? How could he provide himself and his family (if he has one) with food and other necessaries? How could he correspond with anyone, or be of the least reciprocal service, without light and those admirable organs of the body which the Omnipotent Creator has adapted to the perception of this inestimable benefit? And yet men can be found brazen enough to deny the Creator and all His works ! I shall for the present leave your correspondent to answer the few interrogations here, as space will not allow me to waste any more paper.—l am, etc., Junius Hibkrnicus. Cambridge, March 9th, 1892,