CHRISTIANITY V. SECULARISM.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3071, 22 March 1892, Page 3

CHRISTIANITY V. SECULARISM.

TO THE EDITOK. Sib, —Your correspondent " Onlooker " says that " no attempt: has been made to overthrow the great chain of evidence that supports Christianity, or to prove that Secularism is in any way superior to it." With your permission, Sir, I purpose testing this " great chain of evidence," and we shall see how it stands, the strain. The relative merits of Christianity and Secularism must for the present, at least, be left in abeyance. Now, Sir, it is admitted by the majority of Biblical critics that the Pentateuch was not written by Mnsea, and many contend that it was not written until hundreds of years after his death. Mr Kenrick, in his essay on "Primeval History," contends that the first four chapters of Genesie cannot ba considered as traditions handed down from the earliest times concerning the primitive condition of the human race and the immediate ancestors of the Jewish nation ; but simply as speculations formed to account for existing facts and appearances, and gradually hardened by the lapse of time into narrative—in short, as suppositions converted into statements by the process of transmission and the authority by which they were propounded. Dr. W. B. Carpenter tells us that on the roof of the temple of Dendara (in Egypt) " there is a curious picture of the creation, which clearly embodies very much of the idea conveyed in the first chapter of Genesis. The sun is shining down ; the waters are disappearing from some parts, so as to make a separation between land and water ; the striking of the fervent rays of the sun on the land makes plants to spring up, and there are numerous animals appearing in different parts ; so that, altogether, it gives that kind of pictorial representation that many good critics have regardnd as the source cf the narrative given in the first chapter of Genesis." Many of what may be called the liberal school of Biblical critics have come to the conclusion that this record was a sort of translation of pictures into verbal language, so that it expressed the early Jewish ideas, based upnn pictorial records of the Egyptians, amunc; whom they lived. That, I believe, is a very probable account of the origin of the narrative of creation. All unprejudiced Biblical critics accept these narratives, not as truthful historical statements, nor on the other hand as forgeries but merely as expressions of the early belief of the people whose sacred literature they constituted. Whatever we may think as to the precise historical value of these records, we must agree, that the more they are investigated by scientific minds, the more we come to feel that they can only be received as a record of the early ideas of this very ancient poople. When we trace the record buck, we tinii it reaches much further than the origin (if the Jewish people, for there can now be scarcely any question that the ancient Egyptian civilization carries us back thon?ands and thousands of years before the timo that the Jews came in to Egypt. The revelations of science as to the history of the earth and its successive inhabitants can no longer be screwed and twisted into conformity with a set of writings, which, however ancient, can only be taken ae representing the beliefs of the people whose sacred literature they constituted ; and it is not by the beliefs of a people so low in the scale of culture as not to be able even to apprehend the doctrine of a future state, that tho beliefs of the highest intellects and the most religious natures of the present time are to be transmitted. Referring to tho same subject Edward Clodd, F.R.A.S., says:—" Since that which has to be said about one Bible legend applies to all the rest, we will deal with those about the creation. In bygone years people believed every word of these legends to be true, and there are many who still believe this, strangely overlooking the fact that the account given in the Ist chapter Genesis of the mode and order in which things were made differs from the account in the second chapter and therefore one of them must be wrong. After a time the Bible story seemed to be contradicted by the witness of those remains found deep down in the earth, and although many books have been written with a view of showing that there is no real contradiction, each has failed to prove this. For this reason, others have cast the narratives of Genesis aside as meaningless tales, which common sanse and science alike bid us reject. If among the different sacred books of the world, for 'which the same claims to be inspired, every word, are made, by those who believe in them, there was one book quite free from [mistakes and into which no blunder could enter, we would gladly learn of it, since the truth-seeking can have but one desire, namely, to know what is true ; but none such has ever existed, nor ever will exist, because every book is the work of man, and therefore is liable to error. That only is perfect which the finger of the Almighty has written on the rock-ribbed earth." Many of the leading divines of tho English Church now admit that the story of creation, as told in the Bible, is not to be taken literally; that it is only an allegory, and that man, instead of having been created perfect and fallen from sin, has slowly and painfully worked his way up in the course of ages from his position among the brutes. If this is the case, if the story of original sin is a myth, there could have been no need for an atonement, and the whole fabric of orthodox Christianity falls with a crash to the ground. With regard to miracles, Mr Earnest Renan says :—"No miracle such as those of which early histories are full has taken place under conditions which science can accept. Experience shows without exception that miracles occur only in timps and countries in which miracles are believed in, and in the presence of persons who lire disposed to believe them. No miracle has ever been performed before an assemblage of spectators capable of testing its reality. Neither uneducated people, nor even men of the world, have the requisite capacity; ereat precautions are needed, and a long habit of r°search, Have we not seen men of the world iti our own timii become tho dupes of the most childish and absurd illusions? And if it be certain that no contemporary miracles will bear investigation, is it not possible that tho miracles of the past, were we ;ibla to examine into them in detail, would be found equally to contain an element of error? It is nut in the name of this or that philosophy, it is in the name of an experience! which never vitrics, th.it wo K-inish mind's from hist'lw. We do not say a mir.icle is impossible ; we say only that no miracle has over been proved. Lnt a worker of miracles come forward to-morrow with pretension sorious enough to deserve examination. Let us suppose him to announce that ho is able to wise a dead

man to liffi. What would be done? A committee would be appointed composed of physiologists, ihyscims, chemists and persons accustomed to exact investigation, a body would then bo selected which the committee would assure itself was really dead ; and a place would be choien where the experiment was to take place. Every precaution would be taken to leave no opening for uncertainly, and if under those conditions, the restoration to life was effected, a probability .would bo arrived at, which would be almost equal to certainty. An experiment, however, should always admit of b.>ing repeated. What a man has once done he should be able to do again; and in miracles there can be no question of oaso or difficulty. The performer wmil'i he requested to repeat the operation under other circumstances upon other bodies; and if he succeeded on every occasion two points would be established ; first, that-, thore may be in this world such things as supernatural operations, and secondly, that the power to perform them is delegated to, or belongs to particular persons. But who does not perceive that no miracle was ever performed under such conditions as these?" Mr Froude, commenting on the above, remarks, " If we attempt to establish the truth of the New Testament on the principles of Paley.if with Professor Jowett wo " interpret the Bible as any other book," the element of miracle which has evaporated from tho entire surface of human history will not maintain itself in the sacred ground of the Gospels, and the facts of Christianity will melt in our hands like a snow-ball." Now, Sir, contend that in no other way, can the Bible be read or interpreted—for men wrote it, some of them learned, some of them unlearned, many of them unknown to each | other living as they did in different lands ] and centuries apart from eaeh other. And not only was it written by ordinary men, but men also collected its books together. The books of the Old Testament were gathered together by the Jews, when or by whom among them it is not known. The books of the New Testament were chosen from many others and assumed their present form about the end of the second century after Christ, but men and churches have differed much and still differ as to which books should be left and which admitted. And then men had als pto translate them into our own and other languages, and it is stated on good authority that there are no less than onehundred thousand errors in the version authorised by James the First! No doubt many of those errors have been corrected in the revised version, but who dare say that even now the translation is absolutely correct? Taking all those things into consideration, what reliance can be placed upon the dogmas of any Christian sect ? But, notwithstanding the unreliability of the Bible, it embodies certain fundamental truths which all men may accept. I refer to some of the moral teachings of Christ, as for instance, " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but at the same time it must not be forgotten that this very precept has been inculcated by sevnral of the great reformers of mankind ; and the same may be said of all that I, as an Agnostic, consider worthy of consideration in the New or Old Testaments.—Yours faithfully, Agnostic.