AN ARCHRISHOP ON CHRISTIANITY AND MAHOMMEDANISM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 8986, 25 February 1888, Page 2 (Supplement)

AN ARCHRISHOP ON CHRISTIANITY AND MAHOMMEDANISM.

The Archbishop of York reopened the Church of All Saints', Cawood, near York, after having undergone partial restoratian. He preached a sermon from St. Matthew, xx. 27-23. lie said that Christ had not triumphed in the world as they could have hoped, and when they said that Christianity had failed to go over the earth as they could have hoped, was it wrong to say that that must be because the men and women who had it in hand did not properly use the weapons with which our Lord had supplied them. And whose fault was that? Not the fault of the gospel even, but rather the fault of the men and women who had professed to adopt it. He pointed out that reverence for Christ was not perfectly practised amongst all Christians. They heard people defending and justifying Christ and comparing Him with other teachers, and showing now much, according to them, one contributed to the wisdom of the world, and how much another. Even that' did not take them to the lowest depth. They had had a notable example of that. Lately a discussion had been goingon in the newspapers, however incredible it might seem, whether the religion of Mahomet or the religion of Christ is the more fitted for certain nations ; and if they only knew in full the terms of such discussion, they would start back from it with complete disgust. For what was the religion of Mahomet in Africa? It was associated with the slave trade. It swooped down in the person of certain marauders of the disciples of the Prophet upon some district, carried off' the women and children into slavery, and destroyed, as a crusade of God, all the men that it found there. There were regions almostquite barren on account of the slaughterous acts of these vile marauders; and this system had gone on for centuries, and this was what they put beside Christianity, and gravely discussed whether it was likely to do good for people. They said that it was making converts, and some of them overstated it, and pretended that it was making many converts. Why, how were the converts made when Mahomet devoured up the listless, depraved tribes of Asia ? By the sword, and when the sword converted, it found plenty of terrified disciples who professed to bo converted. There was another point he could not preach about. He could not tell them of the depravity— describable, unutterable, unthinkable which had gone with Mahommetanism wherever it had gone-. And so this religion of cruelty and depravity was to be put beside Christianity to compare with it. Nay, more, a religion which in its nature could not, as Christianity could, draw converts it, was assumed to be a religion which might be under certain circamstances, more successful than Christianity. Why could not it call in converts to it? Because of its absolute intolerance and of the strictness of the laws laid down in the Koran, which would not allow it to go in sympathy to the rest of the earth. It looked down upon everyone that was not under Moslem, and could not possibly sympathise with them, but the Son of Man " is as a servant who goes amongst them, and wherever His word is spoken, love is spoken of." The souls of all were equally precious in the sight of Christ. To tell him that a doctrine such as that of Mahommetanism was comparable with Christianity was to j speak most foolishly, and " to do despite to j the law of Christ." I