THE SALMOND CONTROVERSY.

Evening Star, Issue 7628, 2 June 1888, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE SALMOND CONTROVERSY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—lt is always possible to deal satisfactorily with a sensible man, however ignorant he may be, but when a man is so ignorant that any suggestion of his ignorance is a surprise to him the case is utterly hopeless. Now, it is with such a sad case as this I purpose to deal, not, indeed, in the vain hope of bringing the person to whom I refer to his senses, but to show the weaknesa of the cause which does not repudiate him as its exponent and advocate. I refer to your correspondent " Only a Layman." Another reason why I deal with him is the fact that there is much stronger reason than I heretofore supposed existed for believing that several of our clerics are imbued with th» same sentiments, and not only bo, but that they are privy to and approve of the foolish

words. “ Only a Layman " has of late been writing in your columns and in other newspapers. My object here is to show bow utterly unfit “Only a Layman” is to handle the points he has so rashly and presumptuously tried to discuss, and I regret to say that owing to the necessity of giving extracts from writers my letter shall be longer than I would like it to be; but it is easier to raise dust than to lay it. I shall prove my assertion—viz., “Only a Layman’s ” unfitness—by establishing (1) his crass ignorance and (2) his low moral tone. 1. “ Only a Layman’s ” ignorance.—Professor Lorimer, the occupant of the Chair of Public Law in the University of Edinburgh, says: “ The man who lives in the present is a barbarian, whatever be the other conditions of his existence, . . . The stage of civilisation stands almost always in a very close relation to the measure of historical knowledge ; and it is marvellous with what rapidity families, and nations, and races that have ceased to be historical slip back into barbarism.” He then proceeds to show the rationale of this. Now, this is precisely what your correspondent and his friends are doing. They ignore and despise the past, with the result that, religiously, they are fast approaching the condition of uncultured barbarians. ( Vide “ Only a Layman’s ” letter passim.) But not only does your correspondentandhisfriends despise the men of former times; they are grossly ignorant of these men; of their lives, their aims, and teachings, and utterly misrepresent them. Calvin, Augustine, Athanasius,andOrigen were “old fossils,” One was a tiger, another was a eunuch, and yet another was a dreadful scoundrel. It is not my intention to pile on the agony by recounting the unhallowed influences which “ Only a Layman ” says dominated Augustine’s life and led him ultitimately to attribute the qualities of a demon to Jehovah. Let me simply, in opposition to this ignorant twaddle, state ■what men -well cmalified to speak have to say on the point. The late Principal Tulloch, of St. Andrew’s University, a man whom even “ Only a Layman ” cannot condemn as being too strait laced, says that— Augustine was one of the four great fathers of the Latin Church, and admittedly the greatest of the four. . . . The theological position and influence of Augustine was unrivalled. No single man has ever exercised such power over the Christian Church and no one ever made such an impression on Christian thought, . . . His mother Monica was not only a Christian, but a woman of the most elevated piety. . . . She early instructed her sou in the faith and love of Jesus Christ. . . . Even those who may doubt the soundness or value of some of his dogmatic conclusions cannot hesitate to acknowledge the depth of his ►piritual convictions, and the strength, solidity, and penetration with which ho handled the most difficult questions, and wrought all the elements of his experience and of his profound Scriptural knowledge into a great system of Christian thought. The same writer says of Athanasius; "If imperious in temper and inflexible in dogmatic determination, Athanasius had yet a great heart and intellect, enthusiastic in their devotion to Christ and in work for the good of the church and mankind.” Gibbon admired him, and Hooker says in speaking of him: “The world against Athanasius and Athanasius against it—half a hundred years spent in doubtful trial which of the two in the end should prevail—the side which had all, or else the part which had no friends but God and death. Of Origen, Professor Haruack says; “Of all the theologians of the ancient church, with the possible exception of Augustine, Origen is the moat distinguished; he is the father of the church’s science,” Of Calvin, a philosopher of European fame —I mean the late Sir William Hamilton —says * 1 that in his estimation Calvin was one of th* ablest men who ever lived.” And Dr Alexander says : “Asa theologian he (Calvin) stands in an eminence which only Augustine has surpassed.” And Beza says : “ I have been a witness of him for sixteen years, and I think I am fully entitled to say that in this man there was exhibited to all an example of the life and death of the Christian, such as it will not be easy to depreciate, such as it will be difficult to emulate.” Beza, however, did not know “Only a Layman ” and a few New Zealand clerics. Now, let any one contrast “Only a Layman’s ” babble with the intelligent and sympathetic estimate of such men, and your correspondent’s ignorance of the subject on which he presumed to dogmatise is demonstrated. 2. “ Only a Layman’s” low moral tone.— (a) By his nom ile plume, “Only a Layman ” suggests to us that he is a member of a church which has for its standards the Westminster Confession of Faith, a Confession which all its members are supposed in a general way to accept ; not, indeed, with the fulness of light with which a preacher is supposed to accept it, but, for all that, to accept it, and have some respect for it, and yet here we have this man, with the whole volume of his small nature, raining contempt upon it. No doubt the Confession will withstand the terrible shock, but the morality of the thing is not encouraging. (hj) The subjects with which “ Only a Layman’s ” letter deals are of the utmost importance to a man’s spiritual wellbeing, and yet he treats them in a flippant, airy manner, as if they were only a good joke, and without even the semblance of earnestness. The broken-legged son of the cloud - driver and the fried children of Saturn (et hoe genus) are brought in to embellish an intellectual feast got up with the taste of a ghoul or a yahoo, (e) Your correspondent defames the illustrious dead. This I have, I think, already established ; and it is a thing which only a man of low morals could descend to. (d) “Only a Layman ” deliberately distorts the views of the church he claims to belong to. He knows full well that Ur Macgregor and all other exponents of her creed deprecate all attempts at ignoring any of the Divine attributes of the setting of one attribute against the other. They say God’s will is, indeed, the regulating principle of the universe, but it is a holy, just, and good will, and so the world is under a moral government; but, according to Dr Salmond and his friends, will is dominated by a blind necessity of nature, and morality even in

God is impossible. “ Only a Layman ” does not perhaps understand this reasoning ; but that is no reason why he should distort and misrepresent the views of his opponents. Now, in face of all this, I might venture to ask your correspondent whether he thinks himself intellectually or morally fit to discuss these questions. I have no hesitation in saying that he is utterly incompetent, and that only a blind self-conceit can suggest to him any other conclusion. Moreover, the distance between him, together with his friends, and Dr Macgregor, is greater than that between a third standard school-boy and some of the school inspectors. In conclusion, it is to be hoped that this episode may determine the church to take steps to ascertain more clearly than heretofore the doctrinal position of the men who are sent, or who come of themselves, with a view to find admission to her pulpits. It is only reasonable that clerics, as well as other mortals, should be made to feel like all other contracting parties, that mental reservations, some of them going far to destroy the whole contract, are neither consistent with honesty nor truth.—l am, etc,, J. Wood, Dunedin, May 31.