RELIGIOUS PROGRESS OF THE AGE.

Waikato Independent, Volume VII, Issue 462, 18 January 1908, Page 5

RELIGIOUS PROGRESS OF THE AGE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Taking advantage of the liberal spirit in which you accept discussion of such subjects as the above, I offer a few remarks, partly suggested by a letter signed “ Argus ” which appeared lately in your columns. With the main intent of the writer, which is to mark the importance of the progressive attitude of the Archbishop of Canterbury, I fully agree. Though not a member of the English Church, I acknowledge the vast influence of that ancient institution, and rejoice to find it more and more into fresh channels of beneficial thought and action. But it seems to me that “ Argus ” is too unqualified in his representation of the entire Church as being in a state of stagnation, which leaves her far behind the progress of the time, at once in thought and action. lam not accustomed to extol the Church, but rash charges should not pass without condemnation. Leaving out of view the great and increasing activity of the Church in practical efforts for the good of mankind, I affirm that in reception of scientific thought, the Church is not quite so much behind as some people suppose. The period we have to deal with runs from about the middle of the last century to the present hour. Then it was that science and theology came as never before into sharp conflect. My age, of about eightytwo, takes in the whole of that remarkable period of transition, and circumstances made me an attentive observer of what then took place. Previous to that time the Christian Church lay at ease, entrenched behind heavy bulwarks of dogma. No doubt, her position had been once and again challenged by stray freethinkers, who lately were not scared by the good old way of burning at the stake, but were reserved for future fire and brimstone. Bo it was until suddenly, alarming blasts of scientific advance were heard within the fortress of traditional dogma, growing louder and louder as nearer came the enemy. Soon actual war began, and became sharp and bitter. The old.men of God convinced that they were fighting for Eternal truth, armed with the double-barelled gun of the Testaments, old and new, were ready to fight to the death and stood their ground year after year. Some of the young men, however, among whom I might count my unworthy self, began to weary of the monotonous ring of the hardtempered steel plates of old John Calvin —of election and reprobation and of the orthodox heaven of eternal psalm-singing as not an over-happy escape from the hideous orthodox hell pictured by oldfashioned preachers and poets, such as Blair and Pollock, nor did they think the Water of Life much improved by being filtered through the brains of Paul, Augustine, John Knox, etc., and kept for .use in old rusty theological tanks until nearly all flavour of Jesus Christ was gone. Just after the antiquity of man

bad been stretched out from six to about

two hundred thousand years, I, the least of all saints and not much more as a scientist, was led to take a small share in what was going on. At the suggestion of a fellow of the Geological Society, I wrote and delivered a lecture entitled, “Was Adam the first man?” which, in various places where read, brought on its author a very distinct stamp of heterodoxy. This, of course, rather helped than hindered departure from the old way of thinking, and it led to concentration of mind on the important change that has been taking place for the last fifty years • or more in religious conception and belief. Now, therefore, I say, with some assurance, that the Church has not seriously failed in the reception of scientific discoveries affecting faith, although she has as yet too little modified her old dogmatic methods in concession to the more common-sense methods of scientific thought. The majority of her leaders and her thoughtful members freely take in the new light; what is done to enlighten the mass of Church-goers I do not know, but I know that untrained minds make very little of any matter requiring something like correct use of reason, which, without careful training, is seldom anything else than haphazard in its action. Let it not be supposed that in so far defending the Church, I stand up for her antiquated and elaborate creeds. If she has made progress, it is certainly not by help of her formal confessions, but in spite of these venerable documents, in tenor and tone out of date. It is very difficult for any Church to change her symbols so as to satisfy diverse-minded members, but thorough change will of necessity come by and by. Differing greatly from views current in the .Church creeds, I have the utmost respect for most of the men who stand by the Church, As a whole they are honest, cultured, and have the good of « mankind at heart, and do honour to their professions and are free of old opinion. Hoping this rough and ready treatment of a difficult subject may be of some little use. —I am, etc., Thomas Bruce. Taotaoroa, Jan. 14, 1908.