LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 290, 1 September 1908, Page 4

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

FLEET WEEK EXPERIENCES. Sir, —I not the only ono who will have read with surpriso (not unminglcd with regret) that any 0110 can bo so prejudiced as to allow themselves to make public ail "emphatic denial" of a fact which appears to havo been patent to all who choose to note it. I was not so fortunato as tho Ministerial party, and cannot claim to have gono blindfold about Auckland City, but havo spoken to many who wore present, and they positively aver that many woro drunk. I strongly suspect that had Sir. Palmer como in rollicking spirit and exclaimed: "Fleet Week was glorious. "Auckland was drunk 1 Greatest timo since Adam was a baby" or something in that strain that not a voico \vsmld havo been raised against the gentlo insinuation. Tolerant human nature would havo answered: "Of course, wo were; didn't we come to havo a good time?" Personally, I sorrow deeply that tho good wine and the "good times" which no one should be too saintly to enjoy, cannot bo in this world without tho aftermath of sorrow, suffering, and crime. Tho only person "tolerant" human nature cannot tolerate is onp who is working for reform. Evcryono agrees that this world is what wo make it, and almost everyone will join hand in hand to hamper any ono trying to make it better —better for tho little ones, who should bo our caro, better for trade, and for tho country. I have known Mr. Palmer personally for many years, and declare him to be an earnest Christian, fearless in his duty, and only hopeful of "fighting a fight." He says: "I was in tho streets, and saw." Dr. Chappie sfiys "I was at a dinner (within four walls) till 1 a.m., and did not'sce." Whose opinion, think you, is likely to bo the more correct? Dr. Chapplo was possibly with the officers, Mr. Palmor with or among the men. I hope it is the seeming churlishness of criticising our guests whom all havo delighted to honour (which is, of course, most unfortunate) that has turned tho vials of Mr. Baumo's wrath against Mr. Palmer, and not itho fact that because of bis mission amongst us he is forced to seo when men are drunk —not like tho policeman whom I havo seen turn, a kindly back on somo poor, staggering wretch, thereby preserving his "human tolcrance," but sadly neglecting his duty. I was travelling in a crowdcd train, and heard there this "denial" of Mr. Palmcr's. truth discussed. One angry orator loudly applauded tho writer with: "There y'are, that's tlio talk that will stop those temperance blokes." Somo ono murmured "Shame," and others upheld tho "Parson." I, thinking Mr. Palmer had perhaps chosen a far from happy expression, hazarded the opinion that he might put it more mildly, when an earnest looking man near jno spoke. "Mr. Palmer," ho said, "is not hero to put things mildly! Ho is hero to help lis check a curso which is paralysing the best that is in our men, and degrading many of our women. " I do not know the man; but was in Auckland, and emphatically declare that what ho said was true, and if it is not true, why did Qven ono paper stato that "the men wero assisted back to their ships in cabs, as occasion required." This man added that. 011 several occasions 110 saw police patrol pass a case "eyes front." . Mr. Palmer is himself a visitor, brought over to do his best for/No-License. Ho had nothing but kindly praiso for the Americans as a whole; was delighted with Auckland, find tho kindness of its people, and of Tire Dominion, ho said: "It is a fine paper; it is tho ]>est in tho Colony," and I felt sorry for this reason to see an article in its pages so antagonistic "'towards himself; so had for his cause. Hoping you will have the goodness to also givo this a place.—l am, etc., AUSTRALIAN.

"BACCHANALIAN ORGIES AT AUCKLAND." Sir, —During the past week Wellington has been favoured by a visit from the llcv. H. I<Y L. Palmer, who comes under engagement to the New Zealand Alliance as a lecturer on temperance, and who, it will bo remembered, upon being interviewed by a press representative, declared, amid other extraordinary statements, that "Auckland had been treated to a Bacchanalian orgy during Fleet week." It is well to point out to tlioso of your readers who' readily give credence to such statements that Mr. Palmer's asseftions have met with aj very whole-hearted and apparently indignant protest from gentlemen who stand high in the estimation of our temperance workers. Messrs. Laureuson and Chappie, M.P.'s, both flatly contradict Mr. Palmer's account of the condition of Auckland during Fleet week. Mr. Palmer's assertion that Auckland .brewers have a "fighting fund" of £20,000 (1) is also open to grave question. It will be sad if our visitor's future remarks concerning No-Licenso (which is such a vexed question) aro no more justifiable than those ho has already made dealing with the "Jackics" of.tho American Fleet at Auckam, etc., QUERISE,

UNIMPROVED VALUES. Sir, —In reference to the discussion' in Parliament on tlic Valuation Department's Estimates, it must have been apparent to the voriost tyro in valuation matters that the Minister's reply simply burked the whole subject. As far as the unimproved value js concerned, the sales referred to—and they aro being continually trotted out by the Minister and the Valuer-General as proof of tlio fairness of the valuations—aro, when analysed, simply useless in the majority of cases. And the unimproved value is, of course, the most important value, as practically all taxation is levied on' the unimproved value. Now, all sales must bo com' pared with the capital or total value. But who divides the capital value, as between the unimproved value and the improvements, to got at a comparison of the unimproved valuop The Valuation Department, of

course. Consequently, improvements . low, unimproved value high. What is tho good of the comparison? As a further proof of the boosting up of the unimproved value, without any consideration for improvements (as complained of by some M.lVs), take the last (1906) valuation of this city. On that occasion the Government Valuer (Mr. James Ames)' refused in the Assessment Court to endorse the valuation of Lainbton Quay, saying that his estimates of the unimproved value had been increased by the Valuer-General. But did tho Valuer-General pay any attention to or make one alteration in the improvements? Certainly not. Yet surely it is to be presumed that if the unimproved value ivas wrong, the improvements were wrong also. With your kind permission I shall, on some future occasion, return to this subject, as there arp many matters as regards valuations that require to be ventilated. Among such is the statement made by the ValuerGeneral and read in tho Houso of Parliathe Minister (see Hansard, 1007, J 01. 139, 1 age 672), that the Government \ aluer s valuations are never altered by the Department. _ How can this statement be reconciled with the action of the ValuerGoneral regarding Lambton Quay valuations? —But for the present, I am, etc., ... ... „ VERB SAP. Wellington, August 31, 1908.

WORKER AND EMPLOYER. Sir,—The recent cases that have been before tho Arbitration Court shows that thero' is no good feeling between tho worker and employer. Why ? Because men have been led on to believe that if they join a union lifo will bo far easier for them. Rubbish 1 The poor worker in this country has a lot to put up with, so these agitators say, vho have never had their backs well covered, or their stomachs so well filled till they canio out here. Tho country would bo far'better without theso and their unions. Instead of always living at war with one another, why not try and bo on good ternis with each other? What chance hjivo tho carpenters of getting Is. 6d. an hour in December, when they are having all the builders up for breach of the prcferenco clause. It is a bad clause, and the carpenters found it out in Auckland. Anyhow, it is high time that non-union carpenters and joiners started an association, or something of tha,t' sort. What keeps a man from becoming a member of this carpenters' union is that the fees are so high, and the chief delight is agitation. Another thing, sir, is that non-union men claim moro wages than union men, simply because tho nonunionists work better and are not« everlastingly talking eleven bob for myself and sixpence for the boss—unionism, socialism, lazyism, and pointerism.—l ajn, etc., THOS. URQUHAUT. August 29.

DR. TUDOR JONES AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT. Sir, The letter of the Rev. Isaac Jolly, ot i almerstou North, in your issuo of August ~ P ol . u^s 9"o or two things which require investigation. I had no hope that my letter would have produced siich a wound in Mr. Jolly's theological constitution, but I may say that I am very glad of it. Human eyes are often opened through pain, and although that pain touches human vanity, it is a trial worth going through, because man conies to see that there are other of life and religion in the world outsido the two publishing shops of -Messrs. Hodder ajid Stoughton and Messrs. T. and Clark. Kindly allow me to call further attention to some of' Mr. Jolly's confessions and concessions. Of the names, mentioned in his first letter sevoriil have disappeared iu the second, and those that are included are repeated without any attempt whatever to justify their inclusion. I challenged Mr. Jolly to show that the men lie names believe iu the traditional dogmas in the same way'as ho and his Church do. It is not enough for your readers to bo told that Mr. Jolly believes in the dogmas of his Church same l grounds as these men. My contention is'that nil the men he lias named give an interpretation of the theological constructions in terms other than those of the and" more in : accordance wjth the knowledge and experience of the day. The synthesis which they have framed has been brought about by different factors in viewing tho universe, man, and God than the factors of the Articles and Confessions of Faith. Your readers will mark that the contents of these Articles and Confessions were the work of men in the past with certain definite views of tho universe. These, vioivs in the main have ceased to have any" meaning to-day. They did not drop, from heaven like a stone, but were the totality of the theological constructions of their day. AVo have not built our theology on any immutable ground: the history of tho Christian Church has shown that theology lias changed from age to age. If Mr. Jolly admits this fact then the Articles and Confessions of his Church have no permanency about them, and' therefore cannot be in any real sense a standard or criterion of even the theological life, not to speak of their utter failure to be so for the religious life. That is' what the nieii whom Mr. Jolly narnps feel. And ho says that 'lie believes in" tho . doctrines on tho same grounds as they believe. Now, what does this amount to? It amounts to this, at least, that the Rev. Isaac Jolly, Presbyterian minister of Palmerstoi) North, New Zealand, is a believer in the Higher Criticism of tho Bible. Ho is a man who ,looks upon the creation of tho world in six days as a piece of archaic knowledge 110 longer tenable; ho' believes that tho fall of man is a myth; ho believes'that the sun did not stand still a.t the command of a man; ho believes that tho whale never swallowed Jonah, and that a she-ass never spoke; he believes that many of the miracles of the Gospels are no longer credible in a literal sense, but, that their original meaning was something quite different from the meaning given to them in tho Cathechisms and Confessions; he believes that the supernatural birth of Christ is a legond which grew up

after the time of the , earliest Christian community; he believes that wo have 110 impregnable rock even in the external contents of tho New Testament; lie believes that Christ was not- deified until the third century of the Christian era. I might go oil, but 'enough has been said to' show that if the llev. Isaac Jolly believes on the samo grounds as the men ho quotes he has no business to remain in tho ' Presbyterian Church and to hold to the infallibility of what has been pointed out? Does his congregation understand that he believes what have been pointed out? Does -his Church in New Zealand know that this supposed custodian of orthodoxy does not believe what he professes to believe in regard to sound doctrine ?_ They have no inkling that Mr. Jolly believes in any of theso tilings. But the men he names believe in them, and lie says he believes as they do- Which is it? Does he know what these men believe, or does ho act as s pendulum of a clock, swinging from one side to the other Without rest anywhere? Or does lie not knoiy what he believes at all? This 13 one of the men who defends the standards, loor standards 1 It is no wonder that they havo fallen into such disrepute amongst so many to-day. But perhaps Mr. 'Jolly will have changed his mind again before lie reads my letter. No man can be a hare and a hound at tho same time, and I must say that it is not very worthy to be both .alternately from hour to hour. When Mr. Jolly answers these questions I shall deal with him further. We want definitoness on these points: it is not sufficient to blow theological bubbles. Life has too many pressing problems of religion to waste time in tlia.t way.

When we pass from Palinerston North to the seats of learning in the Old World we find that the "supposed" beliefs of tho Rev. Isaac Jolly have gathered such strength that it is now impossible to turn them back. Tho beliefs I have_ mentioned above; have becomo practically universal. More than this is believed, but my contention is that tlie ground had to be cleared and a modern theology created. Eighteen out of twenty of the German universities have passed to this modern way of looking at things in spite of great opposition. ■■ In fact, every leader of religious thought in Germany to-day has attempted to reconstruct the doctrines of religion _ and bring them into line with the scientific and philosophic constructions, and to quote one of Mr. Jolly's men —ProfesEor Sanday—"what Germany thinks to-day England will think to-morrow.?' He does not say when Scotland will think it. But I may say that even in Calvinistic Scotland and Wales to-morrow has becomo to-day. The same theological position lias been reached in the universities of France, Switzerland, Holland, and Italy. When we turn to Britain we find the same revolution taking place. The justification of the higher criticism of tlie Bible and of criticism of tho creeds, standards, and coiifessions has been acknowledged by all competent leaders of religious thought. Hastings's' Dictionary of tho Bible accepts all the conclusions of knowledge in regard to the Old Testament; and some of tho men who wrote articles ton years ago for tho New Testament section havo since moved much further and have issued books- far more heretical. The Encyclopaedia Biblica, edited by Canon Cheyne and Dr. Sutherland Black, is a monumental work: in it oil the Old and the New Testament scholarship, honesty, and sincerity aro to be found.- The editor of the "British Weekly" designated the work as "The Bible in Tatters" and an "end to the Christian religion.'' "But Truth still moveth on," and l the Christian religion will become through all this work 'more humane, rational, and spiritual. Its authority will bo more and more based on the demands and aspirations of man's cpnsciousness and less ana less on miracles- and myths and creeds.

In tho universities of Britain not only is this the case in tile theological chairs, but to a far greater extent in the philosophical chairs. I challenge Mr. Jolly to name olio philosopher iiKßritain who tries to justify the Creeds and Confessions of Faith. Tliero is not one under fifty years of age. In tho following universities the leading philosophical thinkers are bringing about'a neiv world in the region 'of'life and its demands. In the University of London we find men liko Professors Sully, Carveth Reid, Dawes Hicks, Bpyco Gibson, .'and .others; iu Cambridge; Professors. Ward, Sorley, Dr. M'Tagart, Dr.' Lowes Dickinson, Dr. Moore, and others; in Oxford, Drs. Druinmond, Estlm Carpenter, F. H. Bradley, F. C. S. Schiller, Hastings Rashdall, Edward Caird, and many more; in Durham, Professor Jcvons; in Birmingham, Sir Oliver Lodge; in Manchester, Professors Alexander and Rhys Davids; in Liverpool, Professors Frazer and M'Grnm; in Wales, Professors J. S. Mackenzie, Etlie, Anwyl. When we finally turn to Scotland wo find same truth. In Glasgow," Professors llenry Jones, Latta, and many more; in Edinburgh, Professors Campbell .Eraser, Andrew Seth, James : Seth, Macintosh; in St. Andrew's, Professors Stoufc and A. E. Taylor ; in Aberdeen', Professors Mcnzies (partly theologian) and Davidson. ■ This list I ain giving from the writings of those .philosophi-. cal teachers that are familiar to. me. I fiud nothing less in them than that the old theological positions are no . longer tenable and that a need of doing something besides living 011 tho back of the past has arisen. Many of these men were meant for tho Presbyterian pulpit. Alasl they could not eiiter.it, and their places had to be taken by less ablo men. Nobody has handled the standards with such vigour and shown their futility with such learning as most of these, njen liayo done. I close by. asking your readers to consider two questions: Are our congregations to go on not knowing .anything of the theological revolution that is taking place under their very feet? and Are wo to obtain no help from so many of the pulpits of tho land in the intellectual and moral perplexities of lifef —I am, etc., \V. TUDOR JONES' August 26.