HISTORY VERSUS INFIDELITY.

Evening Star, Issue 5914, 23 February 1882, Page 2

HISTORY VERSUS INFIDELITY.

The first of a course of lootures by the Rev. A. C. Gillies, under the auspices of the Dunedin Young Men's Christian Association, was given in the Temperance Hall last evening to a crowded audience. In the absence of the president of the Association Mr M. W. Green occupied the chuir, and there were also on the platform the Revs. Niven, B st, and Barley, and Messrs Brunton, Hercus, and D. Wright. The Chaihman read the following letter, which had been received from Mr Fulton, M.H.R. :- Dear Sir,— Having to leave Dunedin to-day by the steamer, I shairii'e'ujiaWe'to preside at your opening ieoturc. I am glad to'know that the Board of Mana-rement'havc the services of tlje Rev. A. C. Gillies as a lecturer Q» '"fae WiifiMW # Chr ' s : tianitv." for we are assured that juaijy Of tnc wild assertions made 'against the Scriptures can be proved to j)e either phantoms tf the brain oy gross miweprescntatioiw. J trust ypu may have a pood attendance throughout the courte, and fhat good niay result, especially to the young men ot liuncdiu, In the course of his introductory remarks the chairman expressed the belief that as further light was thrown on science, and the facts of scionce became known, it would be found that the rock stoi'y qi the earth and the star story of the heavens were in conformity tq the g£ory of the Word. The Rev. A, C. Gilijes commenced his lecture by saying that if they wpre on the eve of an election, with two candidates in the fjeld who had been in political life for twenty years, they would have no difficulty in deciding, because they could turn to the records of their publio life. Thoy were in precisely the same

position with regard to the rival views of the Christian and the non-Christian. The definition he gave of Christianity was the acceptance of the Old Testament without the New, or both together, as a revelation from the Deity to man. He who believed from the firßt of Genesis to the end of Malachi, and practised it conscientiously, WW Christian enough for the purpose of his argument, and Christian enough, as he thought, to go to.a glorious heaven when he died. The glory of hi? belief was that there were million 1 * in heaven who had never belonged to a Presbyterian Church. His defiuition, therefore, included Roman Catholics, and Jews, and Unitarians, and all who accepted the Old Testament Scriptu.-s as the revelation of God to man. By " infidelity "he understood the rejection of what he had stated—the denial of the revelation from God the Father. Faith was an original part of human nature. The first mental act a child performed at birth was an act of faith. The first thing a child did was to believe the mother, the father, and the nurse—the three persons in the godhead of the child; and it-was only after experience of human frailty, falsehood, and deception that it began to act the part of a sceptic. He intended to treat his subject on the principle that a tree is known by its fruits, and was prepared to maintain the following propositions:— 1. That the so-called infidel has a creed aa truly, though not as true, and as really, though not as real, as ho had. 2. That the infidel was just as much fettered by his creed as he (the lecturer) was by his, unless the infidel was prepared to announce himself as a natural-bom rascal. He believed, for instance, that he was bound at all times to think, to say, and to do the light thing. If an infidel believed that, he was as much bound as the lecturer to act accordingly. 3. That the infidel was as much hound to defend his creed as was the lecturer to defend his.

4. That the infidel's creed was harder to believe than the lecturer's. He was not an unbeliever simply because he was not superstitious enough, credulous enough, to believe the monstrous propositions involved in the rejection of Christianity and the belief of infidelity.

5. That his creed had accomplished infinitely more in this World than infidelity; and 6. That it was better fitted and infinitely more likely to continue to do good in the future than was infidelity. The lecturer addressed himself mainly to the fiftVi proposition He referred to the great men — patriots, soldiers, philanthropists, and men of science—who had been Christians, and spoke of the immoralities and atrocities committed by leaders of infidelity. He challenged infidels to produce from their list a great patriot or philanthropist—to point to the institutions of learning or of charity they had founded. It was the privilege of liberty, which had been bought by the blood of Christians, that enabled infidels to hire the Garrison or any other hall, to make a charge at the door, and to talk any amount of beastly, brutal vulgarity, and insult the deepest feelings of the community without fear of bi ing arrested, imprisoned, or hanged. Referring to the death of an infidel, whom he described as mean and immoral, the lecturer said: "The sooner such dogs die the better. I wish I had the privilege of pleaching their funeral sermons. I would take this text: 'The beggar died.'" Referring to the statement by Mr Charles Bright " that no man can be a student of natural science and yet believe in Christianity," he said: "Mr Bright's profound regard for truth is the profound regard I had as a lad for a bull. When I saw it in the paddock my regard for it led me to keep as far away from it as I possibly could, and no further, Mr Bright, than you keep from the truth ; and you avoid it for the same reason, because jou know that the truth has an awkward habit of goring liars, such as you.—(Hisses and applause). Mr Chairman, this is not the first time I have been hissed by a goose."—(Applause.) The lecturer then Btated that the Government geologist and the Government astronomer of New South Wales were both Christians, and mentioned a large number of eminent scientific men who had been and were Christians. Mr Bright's assertion was, he said, a lie, and the only question was whether he lied knowingly or ignorantly ? To save his head, they must sacrifice his heart; to save his heart, they must sacrifice his head — and perhaps both must go. The lecturer was frequently applauded, and at the close a vote of thanks was carried by acclamation. Tonight the second lecture of the course will be given,