CHRISTIANITY.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3079, 9 April 1892, Page 2

CHRISTIANITY.

TO THE EDITOE, Sir,—" Agnostic " having given the definitions I asked for, I have a few remarks to make on them. Ido not intend to discuss them in full, as to do so I should have to trespass too far upon your space. Suffice it to say that all his definitions lack one thing —authority. Apart from authority, Truth, Goodness, and Sin are mere abstractions, as every man would have his own standard and no two would be alike. The ttue Christian voluntarily accepts the Bible as a Divine authority. It is necessary that this authority should be voluntary, as there can be no virtue apart from freedom of will, and the stylo of the Bible is necessarily such as not to force conviction on any one. People who have no wish to live according to the Truth are better without the Truth, and this principle is taught in the words, "seeing they may see, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand." This is not a Divine edict but a spiritual law (a natural law some would call it), that a man who loves sin cannot love truth. Again I would point out that there are two ways of reading a book. One is to read it in search of truth : the other to read in search of error. Critics ore liable to lean towards the latter method, and some of our best writers before they had made a name have fared very badly at the bands of critics ; but surely this is an unworthy course to follow, and depend upon it, if you search for error, you will be sure to find it— at any rate to your own satisfaction. I submit that the propor way to read the Bible is to read it in search after truth, or else leave it alone. In so reading it, tht $leged errors may be left on one side until its style, aim, and scope are mastered, and then it will be found that the supposed errors are misconceptions on the part of the reader. Sceptical persons often boast that they have read the Bible more attentively since they have regarded it as error, than when they regarded it as truth. The least we can say of such persons is that they are not sufficiently unbiased to become leaders of public opinion. In the definition of " Life," as quoted by " Agnostic," an effect is described of which there is no cause. Such a definition can hardly be considered satisfactory or rational. In oonclusiou, " Agnostic " says, that in the place of Christianity, " he can only suggest a plain, straightforward code of morality, that shall embody the highest ethical teachings of the three great religions of the world—Christianity, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism." In my Bearch after truth, I have read somewhat of Buddhism and Ziroastrianistn, as well as other religions. T7uder the supervision of a Church of England clergyman, I have even arranged a religious service compiled from these sources. lam therefore not reluctant to own thatthese religions do contain some high ethical teachings, but my memory fails to recall any that are not also taught by Christianity. lam thus led to infer that what " Agnostic " proposes to do is to replace Christianity by n code of morality drawn from a limited Christianity. But who is to put a limit to Christianity ? Here again the question of authority is in the way. It was the attempt to set a limit to Christianity that caused the persecutions of the middle ages. Who is able tu draw the line now 1 Christians themselves have tried and failed, and infidel writers are quite as much at variance with each other as the sects of Christendom. But " Agnostic" has owned that he accepts Christianity to a certain degree. We are all Christians only to a certain degree, but all true Christians will live according to the truths they do accept.—Yours, etc., Tolerance.