CHRISTIANITY.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3075, 31 March 1892, Page 3

CHRISTIANITY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —It is rather unfortunate that " Agnostic " instead of attempting to disprove the evidence for miracles should run into different channels and practically shirk the question. He commences by saying tlmt he is going to " treat the evidence " and then instead of doing so he immediately runs into an attack on the Creation story. His assertions are away from the point and ought not to have entered into the controversy, they are also astray, and are nowhere supported by proof. Assertions, no matter from where drawn are worthless when unsupported by proofs and though his letter abounds in assertions drawn from second rate authorities his proofs are conspicuous only in their absence. Will "Agnostic" tells us in what way the second chapter of Genesis contradicts the first instead of merely asserting that it does bo ; and will he mention some of those wonderful revelations of science he alludes to, and show us in what way they contradict the Mosaic narratives, for like Mr Gladstone I have heard a great deal about scientific atheistical proofs without ever coming across one ot them. "Agnostic" might have mentioned a great deal more than one legend that corroborate the first chapter of Gentsis but it is certainly something new to learn that an increase in the number of witnesses weakens the evidence for the facts attested by them, and it is also a little difficult to see how the Mosaic narrative can be the result of the speculations of one nation if a great many different nations all possessed similar record', it is surely absurd to say that because different nations possessed legends of the facts mentioned by Moses, that the Mosaic narrative was borrowed from these legends even though they could be proved to have been in existence before the age of Moses, though this " Agnostic "does not attempt to prove his assertion that Moses borrowed his narrative from the Egyptians is at once contradicted by the fact that the two narratives are diametrically opposed to each other, the narrative of the Egyptians represents the world as coming into existence by chance, and mankind as sprouting from the earth "like pumpkins " and to suppose thatthe sublime troths taught by Moses were copies from the degrading superstitions of the Egyptians is an idea too absurdto be entertained for a moment. " Agnostic " makes a rather clumsy attempt at explanation when he asserts that the Israelites were in a very low stage of development in the age of Moses ; he does not appear to see that, that fact would only make it the more impossible that they could produce so wonderful a work as thn Pentateuch is admitted to be. Equally absurd is the statement that if the story of originial sin was a myth there would be no need for an atonement, for the existence of sin and crime everywhere apparent is sufficient evidence of the need for an atonoment quite independent of the story of man's fall, though of course neither "Agnostic" nor any of his gang have ever advanced a single proof against the truth of the story of Adam and Eve, unless brazen assertions are to be accounted as such. " Agnostic" does not make the slightest attempt to overthrow the evidence for the miracles of Moses, for the very sufficient reason that he is not able to do so ; he therefore contents himself with the assertion that their history was not written by Moses but by someone hundreds „f years after ins death." This complaisant statement, as I pointed out in my first letter is immediately contradicted by the history itself, for the Pentateuch informs us that the continuous priesthood and festivals appointed by Moses date from the occurrence of the miracles, from which it follows that if the Pentateuch had appeared in any subsequent age the non-existence of the priesthood and festivals said to have been appointed by Moses, would have at once branded the mark as a forgery. The assertion of Renan, as quoted by " Agnostic," that " miracles occur only in times and countries in which miracles are believed in, and in the presence of persons who are disposed to believe them," cannot possibly hold good with regard to the person who fir-st claimed the power to work miracles ; for if the Secularist theory be true, t here must have been a period in the world's history when miracles were unknown and unheard of, and as in such a case the idea of miracles would contradict all precedent tradition, the strongest prejudices would be oppised to belief in them ; in that case the argument of Renan falls at once to the ground, for the person who first claimed miraculous powers could not possibly find a single person who had been educated to believe in miracles, and keeping this fact in mind, it is very difficult indeed to understand how, were he an impostor he could get people to believe him. Nor does the assertion of Renan hold good in the case of the Christian miracles, for these miracles were not wrought in the presence of persons who were " disposed to believe them, ' but in f.he presence of Christianity's bitterest enemies and when belief in them was attended with loss and persecution. Does anyone mean to say that the Greeks and Romans and other heathens converted to Christianity on the evidence of miracles were " disposed tc believe them,"or accept them on insufficient evidence? Hardly, for the secularist him self is always the first to tell us that people will cling m the most bigoted manner t( the beliefs of their fathers, and most strenu ously oppose every change of belief ever when it would be to their benefit to receive it; yet the heathen converts to Christianity not only forsook their national religions but in doing so became estranged from theii friends and practically outlawed by theii governments, and they were converted ir the full knowledge that they would suffei loss, persecution, and probably death itself as the penalty of their beliefs; surely it the face of these facts it is the height of ab surdity to say that theso people wex-e " dis posed to believe" the miracles that con verted them, or that they could be persuadei to adopt Christianity on the evidence o miracles if these miracles did not exist But the early converts to Christianity ar not the only witnesses who attest the trntl of the miracles wrought by Christ and hi apostles, for it must not be forgotten tha during the first ages of Christianity th truth of these miracles was never dispute' by friend or foe. Now, does "Agnostic mean to assert that such men as "Julian, Porphyry, Cebsus, or the Jewish scribe and Pharisees " were disposed to believe the miracles of Christ and his apostles, r that they were likely to admit their trut without the most absolute proof of the reality? Or does he mean to fay that he more capable of testing the cruth of an ever that occurred eighteen centuries ago tha those that were eye-witnesses of thee\en and as anxious to avoid belief as himsell The statement that "long habits of r search" and scientific knowledge are r quired to test such miracles as the passaf of the Red Sea, the renewals of thegarmen in the wilderness, the walking on the su face of the water, and the stilling of tl teinpeßt in a morr.ent; healing the sick ar raising the dead, and the resurrection ar ascension of Christ is too absurd to requi refutation. I do not choose to waste tin and paper in answering contemptib quibbles that are unworthy of consideratio if " Agnostic " has any arguments to brii forward, let him produce them and not hi( behind assertions and clap-trap.—l am, etc Onlooker,