CHRISTIANITY V. SECULARISM.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3083, 19 April 1892, Page 2

CHRISTIANITY V. SECULARISM.

TO THE EDITOR. Sin,—Your correspondent, "Tolerance lays it down as an axiom that, "Apart from authority Truth, Goodness and bin aremere abstraction." and he then tells ns that "the true Christian accepts the bioie as divine authority" from this it would appear that, since the (Treat majority mankind do not accept the Bible as an authority " Truth" " Goodness ana hin are to them " mere abstractions, therefore they can neither lie nor speak the truth, do good or evil, and consequently can neither speak nor act at all! Referring to the wearisome reiterations regarding the inspiration of the Bible, one of the most thoughtful writers of the present age says The Hible records the experience of the wisest and be«t of men of the past in their search alter truth, but the claim to special inspiration which is made for them, and which they would perhaps not claim for themselves, is one that cannot any longer be admitted. Even if it bo admitted, the inspiration would be without value unless it was also bestowed upon the man who copied the manuscripts, upon the men who collected them together, upon the men who translated them, and in short, upon every one who in any way has had to do with placing the Bible in the hands of people of any age a ndclirne."-lam,etc.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir —The letter that appeared in a recent issue over the signature "Tolerance 'was, to my mind, admirable both in tone and style, and afforded an instance of the fact that there exists men who can write on this important question dispassionately, and in a manner calculated to evolve the good that may eventuate from the discussion so lone maintained. I remember quite well the request for certain definitions made by the same writer in a former issue—terms which he has again repeated, the definitions of which he again seeks. 1 "Truth. , "Truth is the correspondence between the order of ideas and the order of phenomena, as that the one becomes a reflection of the other, the movement of thought following the movement of things." , _ , „ . 2. "Life." In this "Tolerance' is ambiguous. Does ho require a biological or psychological definition? If the latter, then Life is but the product or impression of all the circumstances which hive influenced it from the beginning. 3. "Goodness." "Noble service rendered ; duty done. In charity, soft speech and stainless days." . 4. "Sin." "A consciousness of having wronged our fellow men." Hβ also wants to know what "Christianity" is. Christianity is "revamped paganism " ; an intermingling of old and new ; a hybrid born of the conjunction ot Nazarene simplicity with Olympian ceremonial. It I admit that Christ's utterances, or those that are suppoaed co be His, were intended for the guidance of men f»r all time—and these with priestly amplifications are the foundations of Christianity — I am even then forced to the conclusion that the system has not answered. "After nineteen centime* of theology says Arnold White in Tries at Truth," " Christianity U restricted to n small portion of the planet, and amongst those who are by way of being called Christians, one finds mure drunkenness, lust and cruelty, than aiming a similar numbsr of Buddhists or Mahomet m*. Some years a"o, on the top of Adam's Peak in Ceylon, the then High Priest Summeigala, a man of saintly life, great learning nni ascetic habits, said to mo, as the first flush of the coming sun had caught the blossoms of a rhododendron growing in a cleft in the splintered mck. They want me to furwke my ancient faith when they have nut yet decided what they shall teach a poor heathen like me 1 Below ns was a white sea of clouds. Beneath it were at least seven forms of Chistrian doctrine being taught by the paid agents of as many various forms of Christian faith. Each hated the others more than it hated either Buddhism or ain. Sninanagala was right. The assertion of "Tolerance that it ie claimed that Christianity as we know it is perfect; a perfect religion wuulil nut be suitable to imperfect men, though an imperfect religion may be perfect in its adaptation." That is to say that there are some others who know it better, and that as man perfects hineelf so does his religion perfect itself along with him. They evolute tngether. How can God-inspiration be claimed for an imperfection ? How can the Infinite engender imperfections to be perfected by the Finite ? To my mind it would be as if an architect had prepared rough phns for an elaborate mansion and then said to the contractors:—l cannot make a perfect plan, adapt the thing as you can and work out the details according to your gradual appreciation of what I would like to have—the growth of your perception as tn what an elaborate mansion should be, and your supply of materials. And then, again, comes the oft-repeated, " Can you give us anything in the place of Christianity ?" Does " Tolerance " and those who ask with him consider the fairness of he request? Give us, they say, a ready-made something to supplant it. For centuries has the present Christian mountain been in labour, and has, after all that time, only succeeded in bringing forth the present mouse. Bucked by the civil power, it has, during long periods ot time, and with all it-, experience and "adaptations," accomplished nothing or the true amelioration of the condition of man. Can it then oa fairly expected of us that we shall be prepared at a moment s notic*? No, but we can advance an outline of a sVstem that would speedily fill in, the ground workof which is the first lesson taught by the Syrian carpenter and others years before him—the religion of humanity—the brotherhood of man. We must eliminata Moses and the prophets—consign all cumbrous theulogy to the limbo ot the pact— eschew "spiritual lotos eating so destructive of the mental and moral fibrn; they have been tried and found wanting, and modern men must abandon such things if they are to do the work that lies plainly before them. " For not by brooding over eur own wretched souls, not by wrangling about unknowable dogmas, not by ondlwj

chanting of dies ine, .and iniseivres will the city which we are m.«rohing ter bo won ; the real city, "hi; ci'.y of tmth .tncJ nglit and .uncial brotherhood—not in some future exiatenc, but with us hern and iitv.'—l am, etc., Or.KVNF.U.

TO TIIK KDITOH. Sir, —" Aprnnstic" iiiiixt ''« sr ""V i-'" ,, ; ,, '' , in Kiblic.d mutter* if ho ia n-t invar; In t the " Kingdom of the Son c.f Man" moans simply th.i reien of Christ ~,, r-artl,. and did it nut " come with power wh*n it «a 4 established among n.un by tin; glorious miracles of the Aposlln* ; thn evidence for which " Ai-'oo-tic " is n.jt .•>!>!.:. and <!■="-

lot al.tfltnut to dispnva. Art for tho projhecy of Paul, it simply >-tato< Out iho--.-DhriHtinns who are alive in the lai-t day* til ,vill lie ci.ught ii 1: in the clouds ; it does not r o »tatn, as a-xnrtcid by "Agnostic," that flint would occur in the apostolic nf?"". His remarks on Mr GlnrMonu I pins on wit!) tlic C'lntnmpt which they inmt-I d> rr not choose to waste tiiiio in replying to 1 abusive falsehoods; nor do I intend t> waste timo in pspbiniii" tho six-days of creation. Tho explanation of that seeming contradiction is in thn possession of every school b>iy, nnd Ido not choose to repeat it I here. Ah for tho statoment thut mankind f £ have worked their way "onwinl anil upward " through n. course of ' millions of y.'ars "it is simply an assertion, bucked e by not the slightest shadow of proof, and I « Challenge him to prove it. Does Agnostic" believe that his scientific stmdinjr is so high that if he merely states that an g( assertion i» scientifically proved the world is going to bow down and believe it without fuither proof? Or is he so icrnorant as not to know that the worlds prnatiot t scientists have been Christians? Or is lie v so swallowed up in self-esteem as to believe Q that scientific knowledge is a sealed hook to all but the " little coterie?" The statement that I have used nothing but assertions 1 drawn from the Bible to prove the reality r of miracles is so false as scarcely to require c refutfition. Does " Agnostic " mean to say , that it is only an assertion that Christianity wbs established in the face of enemies ' on the evidence of miracles ? Is it only ' an assertion that Porphyry, Julian, t Cehus and all the other early hsathen ] opponents of Christianity admitted the reality of those miracles, or dare he deny the truth of it ? Has he the impudence to , deny that the Jewish rulers made the same admission while having every desire and every opportunity to disprove them if unreal? Or ia there any single assertion in any of my letters which he is able to disprove ; and if so will he explain why he has not attempted to do so ? It is quite usal»ss to say with "Gleaner" that other relieions have been believed by great numbers. Ihe question is, were thtise religions established on the evidence of miracles; and if so,

were they nf a public character such as 3ou!d be easily tested, and are there any festivals instituted in commemoration of them, Siting from their occurrence. If these srileria are wanting, the testimony is worthless, if it could be proved Ihiit all these criteria meet in any other than the Christian and Jewish religions it would simply prove that human testimony may he wrong in one case, it could not possibly prove that it must also be wrong in every other case, though of course it is scarcely necessary to say that no such religion exi-ts. A moment's consideration will convince any one that thora are only three explanations that can be given of the Christian miracles. First, the persons who claim to have been eye-witnessos of the miracles were themselves deceived. Second, they wilfully deceived others. Third the miracles w im veal and genuine. One or these explanations must be the true one. will "Asn-st.i.;" toll ns which it is? And will he show us in what way his explanation is more probable than that adopted by Christiana, f-r as reasoning beings we are bound to neoi.t the explanation nf any tact which app.ws m .<t i.robahle. It therefore lies with " Amitotic " to disprove the testimony tha , cm be adduced in prwf of tho Christian m ; he will have to show how belief in tlie.iii originated, and why it TO , never contradicted by friwl or foe in the early ages of Christianity; Ins explanation must bo full and complete and he will have to prove it to be more rational than that adopted by Christians, otherwise we cannot accept it. It is absolutely necessary that " Agnostic " should give such an explanation if he ia to maintain Im position at all, for the moment wa admit the reality of the Christian miracles the secularist theory is thrown to the ground, and the truth'of revelation established: of course it isquitu unnecessary for me to point out that no such explanation has yet appeared, I therefore wait for " Agnostic to reveal it.—l am, etc. Onlooker.