LIBERAL RELIGION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6964, 2 November 1909, Page 7

LIBERAL RELIGION.

(To the Editor " N.Z. Times.") Sir, —Had "A Mere Woman" been more attentive she would not have rushed forth .with her protest. I did not express an opinion as to whether Liberal Religion" was inferior or not to Old Testament morality. The position is this: A correspondent, thinking himself to bo ‘‘Onward and Upward," and having presumably borrowed from Ur Jones a copy of the Rev. Mr SprotUs book on the Old Testament, derided the Old Testament principles of morality and pronounced those of modern advanced times to be so immeasurably higher that even King David himself would now be frequently tarred and feathered. My contention w*as that if the so-called Liberal Religion which he champions desires to promote reformation and high morality by such barbarous methods its inferiority is incontrovertible. But as "M.W." invites an opinion on tho subject, I will say that it is idle for her to imagine that tho Old Testament principles of morality have been outgrown by the present generation. On tho other hand, could your captious correspondents but live up to the principles they despise they would at once be regarded as marvels of excellence. "M.W." condescendingly says, "The morality of the Old Testament was doubtless in accordance with the intelligence of the people of those days," and explains that "mental evolution is a series of steps" which moderns only have been able to climb. She is evidently intoxicated by the hypothesis of evolution. For an antidote 1 must refer her to the teaching of one "of whom all tho world is talking," as an admirerstyles him. Professor Weinel, in the "Hibbert Journal" of last July, tells us that Eucken "adversely criticises the modern idea of evolution so far as this may be applied to the moral and spiritual life of man," maintaining that there is involved in the moral life "a conflict and au overcoming, apd not a mere evolution." If the morality and intelligence of the present times are step by step higher than the morality of earlier days we should he able to find at least some Shakespeares now, hut there are none. And what a pigmy in mind Aristotle would now he regarded as compared with moderns. But those who, according to your Liberal correspondents, should be pigmies, are rightly regarded as giants greater than any moderns. As to our 'supposed progress in morality let us consider , the. case where we are told the Mosaic law of marriage end divorce was a concession to the then state of society and say whether there is any progress at all. Instead of marriage wc often have now legalised concubinage, and the law is so far from perfect that it regards marriage to he uierely a contract to be set aside on trivial reasons. <1 suppose it will be readily granted that, Huxley had unusually fine mental endowments.' But he recommended tho reading of tho Bible in schools for instruction of the children in the best principles of morality, and could find nothing equal for such a purpose in modern literature. Indeed, when he wanted to find the noblest summary he could of moral ■principles he found it ‘in the words of one of the Old Testament prophets. From your correspondent’s words it

,• :pius that the so-called “Liberal Religion.” toeing its head in pride, spurns the past; as a thing beneath its contempt, ay Caesar Miimied the base degive-: of tho ladder of his ai-ceiit. and pruiG.-*-cs 1o -draw lit' origin 1 rom llitlaiuiod superiority of the present. I have-read with inUrr.d. after so. much prote-sion, the account, given ot Liberal moral a-pi ration s. 1 ought to have expected something of dazzling brilliance. But, tried bv the test of your former ‘■om's;rimlniL it i> a failure, for it not m*w. It is not oven distinctive, and we arc .''till in the dark as to what your correspondents mean by this so-called “Liberal Religion.” The designation ‘‘Liberal” is a catch-word, and of itself trails to impart a conceit of superiority. The same '.remark applies to the term “.Rahionali-.m,” and 1 may mention that rationalism, if it bo very diiferont. from the so-called Liberal Religion, has nut forth precisely similar moral aspirations, and ho L think has Anarchism and Socialism. “By their fruits ye shall know (.hem/’ not by their pretty names and professions. That ‘ A Mere Woman” should imagine that line feathers make tine birds is only what might bo considered natural enough.— 1 am. etc., ARISTOBULUS. Wellington, October 29th.