THE REV. MR WATERS AND PROGRESS.

Clutha Leader, Volume II, Issue 102, 23 June 1876, Page 5

THE REV. MR WATERS AND PROGRESS.

TO THE BDITOK,

Sir,— l had imagined that it was possible for one to have his faith in Christian dogmas somewhat shaken, in consequence of reading the current literature of the day, and still continue a good churchman. I had further conceived that one might venture to point out the defective mode of attack upon free-thoughtism commonly made by our ministers at soirees, &c, and yet remain a Christian. T have, however, been effectually undeceived by Mr Waters' reply in your last issue. For some unaccouutable reason, he sets me down as the determined foe of Christianity, and all the enormities of free thought are visited upon my devoted head.

Nothing was further from my intention than to advocate the cause of the so-called apostles of free thought ; they are fit enough to take caro of themsely.es. I have no doubt that Christianity can be. triumphantly defended against all the attacksr/of free thought; but I again humbly submit 'that ;the mode of defence adopted by Mr. Waters and others is more calculated to injure their own cause than to throw discredit upon the assertions of tree thinkers. Meeting assertion by simple, denial is generally all that is attempted, and that is no argument at all in the estimation of reflecting minds.

I am charged with ignorance because I do not know that a host of able divines sincerely believe both the Mosaic and goelogic account of creation. lam perfectly well aware, however, that Dr Chalmers, Dr Pye Smith, and Hugh Miller laboured hard to reconcile geology with the first chapter of Genesis, and that scheme after scheme was invented, and in turn abandoned, to meet the requirements of geology, as the science progressed. Hugh Miller's scheme, as propounded in " The Testimony of the Hocks," is, as far as I am aware, the one still considered by divines sufficient to meet all the difficulties of the case.-. It is no doubt very plausible and ingenious, but so far from being rational, it is nothing but mere conjecture and assumption from beginning to end, and entirely unsupported by evidence. The forced interpretation that is put upon the opening chapter of the Bible is neither more nor less than making plain language mean aiaything or nothing, just as one happens to wish. Some of our more enlightened divines are already proving evolution from this same chapter of Genesis 1 Verily, the ingenuity of man in perverting scripture is wonderful ! lam told that not only does every theologian believe both, the geologic and Mosaic account, bub they have always done so, and the Fathers of the fourth century and the Westminster divines are cited as instances. The less said about the cosmogony of the former the better, and though 1 have the greatest respect for the piety of the latter, I have so little faith ,m thenTscientinc attainments, that I venture to assert that had the geologic record been propounded in their healing, they would have rejected it. to a man, and settled the question about the earth's antiquity in the same way as the doctors of Salamanca settled the question about

its form

I'rpe thought is called upon to prove its worth, by civilising the heathen as Christianity- has done. lam no defender of free thought, but in

fairness let me remark that the conversion of ignorant savasres to nominal Christianity is by no means a very great achievement to accomplish, nor yet, perhaps, nearly so important as come suppose. The morality and sobriety that obtain among savages before they come in contact with civilisation is often such as to put Christians to the blush. Asa case in point : the story is told by Dr Guthrie of a certain Indian chief who was one day urged by a missionary to become a Christian. The plumed and painted savage drew himself up in the consciousness of superior rectitude, and with indignation quivering on his lips and flashing in his eagle eye, replied—" Christian lie! Christian cheat ! Christian steal !- -drink ! —murder ! Christian has robbed me of my lands aid slain my tribe!" adding, as he turned haughtily on his heel, " The devil, Christian ! I will be no Christian."

Mr Waters certainly takes Macaulay to task for his version of the Aikenhead tragedy. Well, I can afford to give up that story ; and permit me to assure Mr Waters that no one can more heartily rejoice than I do that such a foul aspersion should be removed from the national character, there are, alas ! many ugly stories— for facts I dare not call them, with the example of Macaulay before rae— that I could most devoutly wish.- to see erased from the pages of history. For instance, it is recorded that the same men who, according to Macanlay, were concernod in Aikenhead's death, or, at least, their immediate predecessors, were the great instigators in the persecution against the imaginary crime of witchcraft. It is upon record that the clergy of Scotland entered upon this lamentable business with a zeal most deplorable. Innocent jpeople who had no crime save that perhaps they were ugly, old,>r unfortunate were hunted, and done to the death in the most revolting form by these zealous ministers of the gospel ; no sooner was one victim executed, than they preached what waa popularly known as the witch sermons, for the purpose of stirring up their flocks to procure another. Nay, it is even asserted that some ministers acted the part of executioners, and plunged long pins and needles into the flesh of the trembling wretches, to try their sensibility ; and further, I have ' read that when the civil power put a stop to tho evil by repealing the laws relating to witchcraft, able divines, like John Brown, of Haddington, regarded the matter as an iustance of backsliding, for which God would bring the nation to account. I have read these things, with grief and burning shame, believing, in my simplicity, that the accounts Were true, when, in all probability, it was only another instance of wicked historians " vilifying honourable men." Now, however, a ray of hope dawns upon my mind. I have seen with what ease Mr Waters disposed of Macaulay, and I have no doubt he can with equal ease *end the other detractors of our worthy Presbyterian divines to the right. about. If he will do so, he will receive the undying gratitude of

An Inquirer after Tbuth.

. P.S. — So far as I am concerned the discussion must now close, as, from the turn it has taken, it can do little or no good. /