THE REVOLT OF THE WORLDLY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8273, 4 June 1890, Page 6

THE REVOLT OF THE WORLDLY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—"Theta'a" letters are delicious ! I think your readers ought to be grateful to me for provoking them. They are so typically English, so entirely destitute of sys tematic arrangement or logical argument, so full of assertions which the writer firmly believes to be reasons, and inferences which he is certain are proofs. His last letter shows that he is getting the worst of the controversy, for, like a true-born Englishman, he is beginning to get savage. He says that in my first letter 1 made ten separate charges against the Evangelicals, and in my second 1 only attempt to prove two. Does he not understand enough Latin to know what quod gratis asferitnr, grabs neijatur means? Here we have a lot of people calling themselves emphatically " Christians," aud saying plainly and plumply that wo have no right to the name, taking up the position and language of the Pharisee in the Temple, and then when we, who have been preached at and prayed at, and Varleyised until we are sick of it, turn round and give a little yelp in return, we are to be asked for proofs ! We could give proofs, but it is not a ease for proofs. I merely wanted to tell the Evangelicals plainly what we think of them. We may bo right or we may be wrong in so thinking, but "Theta's" argumentought to have been that " worldly people" did not, in general, think or say what " Another Christian'' asserted that they did think and say. Instead of this he goes oft' at a tangent, and reasserts their own belief in their own virtues and sanctity. We never doubted their belief in their own virtues and sanctity —we only say that icc. don't believe in them.

" Theta " really should, if he purposes to engage in controversy, study logic a little. If he understood the nature of the sylogism, aud the commoner kinds of fallacy, he would find in extremely useful. Repeated assertions af the same statement, even if the language vary a little, are not proofs. Por instance, this is not a syllogism. Evangelical Christians are the only real Christiana ; St. Paul never called ay unbeliever a Christian ; therefore, whenever St. Paul called a man a saint or a believer, he classed him as a Christian.

But this is : Major: A letter of the Greek alphabet can not be a real Christian. Minor: "Theta" is a letter of the Greek alphabet. Conclusion: Therefore' iThota"cannot bo a real Christum. Now I will bet my bottom dollar that " Theta" cannot point out the fallacy in that syllogism. To preserve the respect of his family circle, I will tell him what it is ; it is a specimen of the Fallacia cequivocationis, or fallacy of ambiguity. The word "Theta" is ambiguous— it represents not only a letter of the French alphabet, but also the Hum de plume of a real, though very imperfect, christian. If " Theta" would read, say Whaoely on Logic —Bain 1 think is rather too stiff for a beginner—and make himself acquainted with the terrible consequences of au undistributed middle term, he would find it distinctly advantageous. Unfortunately I cannot refer to my last letter to which "Theta" replies, as I have not kept a copy of it. But I think my assertion was that the Evangelicals continually appeal to the Bible as " the Word of God," without attempting to prove that it is the Word of God. Then he asserts in reply that the Revised Version was partly tho work of Evangelicals. It is not a question about a better or worse version of certain old manuscripts, the oldest of which, however, does not go back farther than three hundred years after the death of Christ, the question is, who decided that these old manuscripts were "inspired?" In reply " Theta" gives me an extract from or condensation of an article 011 the Canon of Scripture, from some cyclopaedia, very likely the one I have consulted myself— Chambers, and prefaces it by " history says" — so-and-so. Now " Theta" might just as well acknowledge candidly that he knows 110 more about the Carious of Scripture than I do. His information about it, like mine, is obviously second-hand. I think he can hardly have read the paragraph in his letter which relates to this subject, or even his very embryotic reasoning powers would have shown him that it affirms exactly what I said. In using the word "Papist" instead of Catholic, 1 purposely used a term which is generally employed by ill-bred and vulgar controversialists to designate the members of the Roman Catholic Church. If I had said " Catholics " " Theta " would certainly have quibbled about it and said Papist, so I used the latter term at once. But the main [joint is that while for several hundred years the question as to what books were or were not inspired was an open one, 011 which theologians differod, it was a Cotholic Council which decided the question. " Theta " quotes the Muratorian list, and says "it Is identical with our own, except that it omits the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of St. James, and both those of St. Peter." " Identical with our own !" 0! Sancta siniplicitan : Does ho really know what "identical" means? How can the word be applied in such a case? "History teaches," as " Theta" very well shows, that for more than a century and a-half after the death of Christ there was nothing collected even approximating to our New Testament; that Christ left behind Him no authoritative document containing an epitome of the faith and morals of His disciples ; that He does not appear to have oven commanded any of them to prepare any such document; that, aa a matter of foat, notorious to everyone, l

»0 such document) exists; that from the earliest days of the Christian Church until now there have been • disputes as to what constituted the New Testament; that such disputes were only finally settled as regards Catholics at a comparatively late period; that as regards Protestants they are not settled now, and that the Evangelicals have no more authority to set up the authorised and revised versions as the " Word of God" than Luther had to reject the Epistle of St. James, or the Apocalypse. All this " Theta" kindly proves for me. I should not have ventured to encumber my letter with such a long extract. " Theta" says that St. Paul never called an unbeliever a Christian. This is indisputable, seeing that St. Paul never calls anyone a Christian. But I will show " Theta" that if it be true that an unbeliever is not a Christian (which I neither affirm nor deny) then "Theta" is not a Christian. For ho says, in excusing Evangelical disobedience to a Divine command, " when an Evangelical now falls seriously ill, his brother Evangelicals call in the best doctor they can get, and pray for the patient's ' restoration to health."' But St. James says nothing about " brother Evangelicals." St. James says:—"la any sick among you ? let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, (uioiiUitiy him nth oil in the name of the Lord ; cmd Urn prayer of faith shall save the sick ; and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him." It is clear that St. James was distinctly infected by Romish doctrine ; this i»rank Popery ; nothing short of extreme unction, in fact, clearly, "Theta" either believes that St. James as an inspired Apostle was uttering a Divine command, or be does not believe it. If he believes it, why does he sneer at it, and openly avow his preference for a local medical practitioner? It is quite evident that he does not believe it; and therefore not being a " believer" he cannot be a Christian, according to his own showing. I must now take my leave of "Theta" and this controversy. I have had my say, and have, I hope, convinced some of my good evangelical friends that they are not supremely and exclusively "Christians." As for " Theta," I distinctly confess that I envy him. I envy him that beautiful English characteristic.—so English, you know—of not being able to understand that any one but an absolute fool or a thorough knave can profess any opinions that he does not hold himself. I have had occasion, for literary purposes, to make a special study of the reigns of Henry Bth, Edward 6th, Mary, and Elizabeth —and no one thing struck me so forcibly as this : that both parties to the controversy were not only convinced that they alone were in the right, that one would have expected of course, —but both were as strongly convinced that it was mere folly of the wildest description, or else downright knavery, that induced their opponents to profess different opinions. In not one single instance did 1 find either Catholic or Protestant ever admitting that a thinking and a rational being could honestly hold opinions opposed to their own. This want of imagination in the English character has led to some of their greatest successes. Unfortunately I was brought up from a very early period of my life amongst foreigners, chiefly of the Latin races; I spoke their languages, I lived amongst them en famiilc ; consequently, although an Englishman by birth and descent, I am not English in thought or feeling. I am out of touch with all my countrymen ; I am a Radical among Conservatives, and a Conservative amongst Radicals. lam looked upon aa dangerously Liberal by religious people, and am regarded as a benighted bigot by Materialises and Freethinkers. " Theta" thinks I am a Unitarian ; and I look upon him as a curious survival of a type wbich I had thought as extinct as the moa ; but I can understand him, although he cannot understand ine. I saw so much of the type in my earlier days, that it is quite refreshing to oome across one now. They have, I should fancy, almost entirely died out at Home, and survive in Auckland, owing to peculiar circumstances which it would take too long to describe. I never could be a bigot; lam sorry for it, but it is impossible. So I must be content for the remainder of my life with the vague designation of Another Christian". Auckland, June 3rd, 1890.