THE ATTACK ON THE BIBLE.

Hokitika Guardian, 11 January 1930, Page 3

THE ATTACK ON THE BIBLE.

(“London Daily Mail”)

(In this striking article on the Modernist Movement a “Friendly Layman” asks whether we shall contin-! ... ne to read the Bible after being told that so much in it is allegorical or untrue. We shall publish replies by the Bishop of Norwich, the Hon, and Rev. James Adderlv, and , Ur. H. D. Major, Principal of Ripon Hall, Oxford.) j Modern Churchmen, from their own point.of view have gone from strength to strength, and many who have followed their proceedings with interest are wondering what is to lie the outcome of it all. j Beginning timidly under the guidance of that great scholar and preacher, Bishop Gore, they published “Ecee , Homo” many years ago, and the cries of protest were loud. But now Bishop Gore has been left far behind, and we have arrived at a stage which is perplexing. .. j Reading the sermons.of Ur Barnes' and Dr Inge, we perceive that the last stronghold of' the,; ancient Catjiolic With to; be., shattered) 'l)y '.these; highly gifted iconoclasts is ' t-Hat- of ■ the (miracles. They seem to have, been rejected by the Modernists without discrimination. The Virgin Birth, the phy-» sical Resurrection, the-Ascension. . . . these went long ago, as did. the miracles of the Old Testament. But now the minor miracles are: no longer suffered, and both Dr. Barnes and Dr. Inge tell us that a belief in them is unnecessary to the Christian Faith.

This being so, and considering this Faith as it is presented to-day by the Anglican Church, we are left wholly at a loss as to what the future of that Church is to be if the Modernists have the shaping of it.

Shall we continue to read the Sacred Scriptures after being assured that so much .that is in them is either allegorical or untrue? Must our ministers stand”at a lectern - and there Recite to us the story of the Birth or Death of Christ if afterwards it ‘be their lot to go into the pulpit and tell us that these recitals are fabulous? As well, or better, say some of the harsher critics, to expound to us the Koran or the cachings of Confusius. We cannot have a Church whose charter is fouii ded on fiction.

If the new society is to be frankly Unitarian, well and good. At least,we shall know j, where we are. There are some who cannot distinguish the Moderinist’s doctrines from the old Unitarianism, preached so eloquently in London for nearly a century. These disciples claim the new teachers for their own, and fail to understand the position .of the Modernists in our national 'Church. “Surely it is increidible,” they argue, “that men should continue to recite creeds in which they wholly disbelieve and, while professing themselves members of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, should deny every doctrine upon which that Church is founded.”

The reasoning may be hard, but the logic is irrefutable. The friendliest Critic of the Modernists can see but rnitarianism emerging from their teachings.

It is true that both Dr Barnes and l)r Inge would celebrate the Holy Sacrament as a memorial feast in which no spiritual presence of Christ was admtited in association with the elements—-but this very service, with all its beauties as itnow stands in our Prayer Books, must be anathema to many Modernists, and undoubtedly would be radically altered by them if they had their will.

The Nicene Creed, of course, would go; the abolition given by the minister is repugnant to many; the epistles and gospels would need editing so,that none of the miracles was therein recited. Such a service would be a mere memorial, as - I)r Barnes wishes it to be. There is no scnentific proof of the presence of Christ in + Sacrament, he says. And he demands “scientific prooif,” forgetting that if it be a condition of faith, then no man can prove scientifically that there is a God, and we must all become atheists.

Surely the bishop should explain himself since he has troubled many faithful folk. Surely he' should' tell us that faith dwells in the soul’s intutive perceptions and that science has neither part nor lot in it. This, however, is to become controversial, and that we have no desire to be. If we ask the Modernists just what they would do with the Church of England, it is because the challenge lias come from them. They have grown bolder and bolder in their attacks upon the ancient faith. ' Even an Archbishop has implored them to cease this task of destruction and to become constructive in their turn. Often have they told us in what they do not believe.

Will they now tell us in what they do believe ; will they set about the task of rebuilding the faith of a Church their doctrines have so gravely ‘shaken ? Even tlieir doughty antagonists the High Churchmen, have ever welcomed that frank and free discussion of theological problems which scientific truth has made necessary. But when we reach a state of affairs in which practically every dogma of the ancient Catholic Church is 1 denied then truly does it seem “to many that time for plain speaking has corhe and that the Modernist must justify without delay his position in the Church of England. 1 ■

Good tennis balls are as essential as a tr o od racket il you wish to play a^t 1 your bent. That is why good players demand Davis (1930) balls, 3s Gd a pair at. Ross’s Sports Depot. 7. For table use insist on Sharland’s Vinegar—strong, pure, and piquant* in bulk or bottle.— Ad - 1