LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 283, 24 August 1908, Page 3

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

WOODWARD STREET AGAIN. Sir, —Tho Mayor's statement which you publish in reply to my letter in your issue of August 13, drawing attention to the narrow width of the Terrace at tho top of Boulcott Street—a street made, as ho points out, mauy years ago—is surely a poor justification for now narrowing tho Terrace opposite to Woodward Street. The Boulcott Street obstruction should rather have served as a warning and not as a guide. The Mayor having obtained tho consent.of the adjoining owners to raise this road level at Woodward Street thereby reducing tho dip, it only leaves his failure to do so the more incomprehensible. _ His "Worship, however, passes over my most important complaint: as t-o why he narrowed tho Terrace-at all.- I pointed out in my last letter that by using a strip off tho Woodward Street and Terrace sections tho subject of recent controversy, he could have got on to tho Terrace with only a small encroachment upon its width at tho new junction with Woodward Street. To so trench on tlicso sections would, it is true, have reduced their area slightly, but that, after ail, was tho special object for which the Government section was sold and acquired, and the justification advanced for its sale. By this extension of Woodward Street a practical traffic road has been found on to the Terrace, giving by its construction tho balance of tho land left a greatly enhanced value, which many think has not been sufficiently recognised by either side; and while not' begrudging Mr. Macdonald his good fortune, I can only imagine his surpriso at. tho amount for which some day ho will bo able to sell the land. Still; that is altogether a subsidiary consideration, and it remains.most regrettable that some arrangement was not devised by which the best possible street would have been constructed, and made, available for the public convenience.—l am, etc., PRO BONO PUBLICO. August 21. DR. TUDOR JONES AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. Sir,—The letter of the Rev. Isaac Jolly, of Palmerston North, escaped my notice in your issue of August 19 until my attention was called to it:last night, and hence tho delay. The letter is another instance of tho traditional theologian trying to fit modern theories of tho Atonement into the mould of tho creeds of his Church. If Mr. Jolly had been a. little more careful, he would have avoided the ambiguities and vagueness he has fallen into —qualities which aro tho dear possessions of tho custodians of tho theories or the Middle Ages. It is not difficult for any student of contemporary literature of the doctrino of the Atonement to give to Mr. Jolly's letter the .valuation, in so far as his letter shows, that he is not conversant with this doctrine on its theological, ■ philosophical, and religious sides, and seems to be totally unaware of the insufficiency of the ancient factors to make tho problem intelligible. In your report of my sermon it is not stated that nobody believes in the Atonement. On the contrary, I-havo definitely stated that it has the highest meaning and valuo to-dav, and the crucial point is that all tho leaders of religious thought in Brk tain, Europe, and America do not view it at all in .the way Mr. Jolly and the traditionalists do. Mr. Jolly has brought a series of few .names. forward, but his conclusions show a great lack of understanding the grounds and bearings of most of tho very men he quotes. •Please let mo deal with' these: men, whose writings are familiar to mo too. Turning to Scotland, Drs. Lindsay, Georgo Adam Smith, Orr, and Denney are quoted. Tho first two hayo written on points outsido the Atonement. Their strength lies in other directions, and to bo satisfied with a stray quotation from the one-sided editor of the "British ■Weekly," or some other editor who sat for 20 years on the traditional theological fence, >ill riot do. Mr. Jolly's doctrino of the Atonement, if it is based upon tho Articles of Confession of Faith of his Church, rests , upon' the myths and'miracles of tho 'Bible—such as the fn.ll of man, the predicting of future"Events in the Old Testament, etc. Dr. George Adam Smith has made it abundantly,.clear that the Biblo cannot, bo .viewed to-day as it was viewed by tho framers of-the Catechisms and Confessions of the FresbyteriaiV'Clmrch.. Therefore it is clear ■that many-factors which 1 helped to build up the orthodox doctrine of 'the Atonement and' every other Biblical doctrino have' been left out by him, and more modern ones, in tho light of Biblical criticism, put in their stead. There would havo been no heresy-hunt against him if this had not been the case. Besides, this he is an Old Testament scholar, and only indirectly a Now Testament, one.

In regard to Drl Lindsay, it may bo stated that ho is a church historian. • If Mr. -Jolly reads his "History of the Reformation'j" and puts in Dr. Lindsay's mouth what Dr.- Lindsay meant to put in Martin Luther's mouth, all I can, say, is that Mr. Jolly has a power of critical discernment capable of further development. Dr. Lindsay's position on the questions of Biblical criticism has advanced much during tho past ten years. When wo pass to Dr. Orr, wo pass to a compiler whom no one would recognise as an authority on New Testament questions. But his works, too, show that ho. is cognisant of the fact that tho modern contributions to Biblical literature have necessitated important changes in his theological views.' He is not now a believer in the verbal inspiration of tho Bible, so that 1 he too cannot build his theological views on tho sands of tradition. That this is evident may be gathered from tho whole ethical tone- of his "Christian View of God and the World." 'The same applies to Dr. Denney. Mr. Gibson Smith has proved sufficiently in' my mind tho inconsistency of Dr. Dcnney's views. As Mr, Smith has pointed out, Dr. Denny cannot justify the old theory of tho Atonement, and fears to face tho new. Ho is a type of a Presbyterian who is bound hands and foot to the dead body of the past, and he'knows the history of heresy in tho Presbyterian land of the descendants of John Calvin and Jonn Knox. These men dare not say everything they believe to bo true. The watchers are at their game day and night, from John o' Groats to Bcrwick-on-Twecd, just as they are from tho Bay of | Islands to tho Bluff. And when wo pass to the nest name quoted by Mr. Jolly wo find a verification of this statement. I need only add that it is not. yet forgotten by many of us how the late Professors A. B. Bruco and Marcus Dods were persecuted fifteen years ago in Scotland. Dr. Dods is of the same views as Dr. G. A. Smith, and has long ago passed Mr. Jolly's goal. His article in tho volume on the Atonement issued by the "Christian World" a few years ago is a proof of this. He cannot build as Mr. Jolly is building on the letter of the Bible. He has attempted, too, to give a more ethical and religious aspect to the doctrine of tho Atonement far in advance of Mr. Gibson Smith. The miraculous and supernatural havo receded to the background with him. Tho final name in" Scotland is Dr. Patterson, whose writings I do not think justify his inclusion as being any kind of leader at all. The fact that a man is a. professor of a'Presbyterian Theological College does not justify his being a distinguished theologian, as Mr. Jolly expresses it. When we turn to England Mr. Jolly is in still a deeper bog. . It. is astonishing to find a man making: such glaring errors in a letter so short. Paragraphs in newspapers and oxtracts in magazines will not do really in one who teaches religion and theology to the people. Mr. Jolly : does not seem to know what work is actually being done in the religious field to-day. He lias not what tho Germans call the Orientierung of things. Ho names Dr. Driver as a believer in the Atonement. But everybody belioves in tho Atonement, • but Dr. Driver least of all, in tho sense of Mr. Jolly. Ho is with Dr. Chcync, the great herctic of Oxford. Driver's book on the "Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament'' was tho beginning of a now era in tho science of Biblical criticism in Britain. It appeared in 1891, and was based upon tho writings of the lato Professor Robertson Smith, whom Mr. Jolly's church turned out of his Chair in Aberdeen 30 years afjo. Thrco years ago Dr. Driver published his "Commentary on Genesis," and it is one of tho most heretical books ' on the subject. Tho whole Biblo, in fact, by Dr. Driver is conceived as having been brought together from Jewish and heathen sources. It is saturated with myths, allegories, superstitions, miracles. These are a current which runs through the .whole of

the Okl Testament, and Dr. Driver is ready to adopt tho same methods of investigation towards the New. iiut it is oil the Old Testament alono lie lias worked and lias helped to bring about a revolution in the meaning of tho Bible —a fact which sccni3 to have no existence to Mr. Jolly and his friends. By showing the true nature of tho Old Testament, Dr. Driver has been tho moans of bringing out, too, tho other great current of incstimablo value in tho Bible— the ethical and religious one. Through his writings tho foundation has been knocked out of three-fourths of tho pillars which supported tho traditional views of orthodoxy. Tile people don't know this as yet, and -letters and positions like thoso of tho Rev. Isaac Jolly only help to keep that knowledgo away from them a little time longer; perhaps long enough for most of tho intellect of the land to drift from the churches. Tho two final names mentioned by Mr. Jolly damago him quite as much. Ho refers to Principals Forsyth and Gnrvie. The? belicvo in tho Atonement, but they do not believe in it on the same grounds as Mr. Jolly believes: their factors aro quite other than his. Principal Forsyth stated less than two years ago in ' the annual Congregational meetings that ho did not believe in tho miraculous birth of Christ. Mr. Jolly must bo ignorant of this fact, or else he could not claim a greater heretic than Mr. Gibson Smith on his side. The Atonement of Christ as presented by Principal Forsyth is a great spiritual reality, and ho knows what Mr. Jolly does not seem t-o realise, that spiritual realities aro very different from theological intellectual constructions of tho past. This distinction hero is tho very point of departure between the old and tho new views of tho Atonement. Any one who does not realise that the centre of gravity of the problemi lies here does not know what ho is talking about, and is not fit to be a religious teacher. Dr. Garvio through his excellent work labours at this very problem. Forsyth and Garvie accept Biblical criticism, tho results J of tho modern philosophy 01 religion, but more than this they form a construction of religion on the consciousness of Christ, and thej know too well that this living spiritual entity is only lamed and wounded if forced into worn-out intellectual grooves of tne past. My letter is already long, but tho subject is of such importance that it cannot be dealt within a few words by the mere quoting of names and tho failing to discriminate as to the significance of tho actual work of these names. -If ail occasion arises further, I shall bo ready to show that not only in tho present day literature of Britain, but also of Germany, France, Italy, and America vast reconstructions have already been accomplished on tho truths of religion in general, and of the Atonement in particular, on lines far. removed from Confessions and Articles .of Faith, and on lines far removed, judging from his letter, of the traditional theology ( of tho Rev. Isaac Jolly, of Palmerstoa North.—l am, W. TUDOR JONES. August 21.

CRITICS CRITICISED. Sir, —I have recently noticed that prior to his departure from our shores, an enterprising reporter succeeded in eliciting the opinions of the captain of the English football team in reference to the results —as they appeared to him a visitor —of Prohibition in some of tho "dry" electorates in tho Middle Island; and that those views appeared st distasteful to a number of Prohibitionists that they held 'a meeting to give expression to their "indignation." For various reason?' I have a strong belief in the right—for sue! I may call it—of absolute freedom of specch as applied to Prohibitionists, anti-Prohibi-tionists, or any othei- section of our community. Tho English gentleman may have; been mistaken in iris views, but the fact of his having given utterance to them cannot bo considered such an offence as to render him deserving of a voto of censure from any school of thought in our Dominion. . But there is another feature of this incident not unworthy of public notice and attention. As what was practically an adden : dum to tho resolution, a protest was made against tho questionable taste of the Englishman in giving expression to ajiy opinion al all, in consequence of tho alleged .bacchanalianism of tho team during its tour through New Zealand. I was under the impression from all that I had heard and read that the visiting team were whilst with us a singularly .'abstemious' body of. young 'fellowsj who'acquired, by tlicir , conduct the,, personal likiiig and esteem of their antagonists, and the respcct of tho general community. I have read, upon tho authority of tho captain that only upon one occasion were two of tho tean seen in a "fresh" condition, and this testimony in itself furnishes proof of. tho abstemiousness of our visitors, who were many of them, I have been told, total abstainers. Such u'ncharitablo statements—l'might have used a stronger term—are easily mado, and as is well known it is generally practically impossible to prove a negative. But what can be said in reference to the "taste" involved in such charges mado against tho stranger within our gates. But even had the charges been true, what possible good could havo resulted from their publication to the world.

I havo just noticed that a visiting clergyman from Australia has been making charges against the conduct of our naval' visitors from America, and who camo hero it must bo remembered in consequence of our own special invitation. Again, an attack upon tno stranger within our gates, and probably all tilings considered worthy of being placed within the category of such as that to which I have drawn your attention. This visiting clergyman has said (I havo heard) that he has seen hundreds of American sailors drunk in the streets of Auckland. Perhaps so, but a brief glance into the surrounding circumstances may possibly in somo degreo relieve the "horror" of the situation as depicted by our visitor. The American Admiral told the people of Auckland that the sailors of his fleet wore upon the whole an abstomious body of men, not given to excesses when ashore on liberty. I havo just had a letter from a friend who was in Auckland during Fleot week, and he tells mo that the conduct of tho Amorican sailors, nearly all young men, was noticeably admirable! Why, if two' per cent., two in every hundred, wero to get frisky when on shoro that would give hundreds. for tho observation and detection of such investigators as our visitor. But from such testimony as we have received from' various sources, I have no doubt whatever that our visiting bluejackets behaved themselves in a manner worthy of tho naval representatives of tho great Republic. It may well furnish- surpriso to many that about fourteen thousand young sailor-men, full of vitality and brimming over with animal spirit, should, after a week's stay, leavo with so admirable a record.

The statements made in referenco to the alleged misconduct of our American naval visitors who carno here as I have pointed out at our own invitation appear to me, even if they were true—as in singularly bad taste when it is remembered that they were the representatives of a great and friendly nation. And the allegations made by tho Prohibitionists in the South in reference to our ;visitors who camo all the way from their British homo to engage in friendly athletic contests with' their Australasian kindred render them deserving of the censure of public opinion. Some of tho best men and women that I have known are and have been strong believers in a. movement which will, they contend, eventually prove a blessing to the human race. But this section of tho cult I have always found to be tactful and charitablo to those holding different opinions, in short they will exhort, leaving to others tho denunciation in which they so frequently appear to revel. Some of this latter school mount lofty moral pedestals of their own construction and affect to look down with Pharisaic horror upon all who look upon the vino when it is red. But even granting that this movement is destined to bccomo one of great benefit to human kind such an attitudo is scarcely likely to accelerate its pace. Jolm Bright is said to have stated that tho worst objection ho had to Homo llule was tho Homo llulors themselves, and I know that many thoughtful peoplo bold somewhat similar opinions in reference to l'rohibtion, and a certain proportion of Prohibitionists in Now Zealand. - Our-clorical visitor and also somo of tho cloth in this: country, would do well to remember that tho very raison d'otri of their professional existence is tho inculcation of tho cardinal principles of Christianity, not tho least of whi9b is that of the "charity that thinkoth no evil that sulfcreth. long.and is kind." —I am, etc., OBSERVER. August 21.