RURAL THEOLOGY.

Wanganui Chronicle, Issue 19898, 16 September 1913, Page 2

RURAL THEOLOGY.

(To the Tditor.)

Sir, —The- attitude of your correspondent, Herbert Grinstead, reminds mo of that of a certain lady novelist (Mrs. Florence Barclay) about whom I was reading quite recently. It appears England, at whidh the JSean oi Norwich England 3 at which the Dea nof Norwich presided. The h*dy professed her belief in the complete inspiration of the Bible. She proclaimed her belief in the truth of the Jonah story, and condemned that "shallow form of criticism" which declared this "fish story" to be an impossibility. Dr. H. C. Beeching (the Dean of Norwich) in referring to the address, took her to task for her absurd statements, and told his audience that there was such a thing in.the Bible as "inspired fiction" and he had not the faintest doubt that th© story of Jonah was one of them. It is interesting to remember that in this same city of Nonvich, about three hundred years ngo, several persons were burned for proclaiming "unchristian doctrines," amongst them being one, Francis Kett, a Fellow of Corpus Chnsti, (Cambridge. What a fizzling our present Dean would have made for these utterances in those days. I merely montior: this to show how much the world has gained a-ince those days end all through those who have stood out for freedom of thought and speech. When I think of the number of good people who persistently Lag behind the better-educated ministers of Christianity, dwelling in an intellectual backwater of conservatism, in these days of increasing knowledge, I cannot help wishing they had nut delayed being born. Why did they not Jive a thousand years ago? What a good time they would have had. How they wT'uld have revelled in the lush superstitions of those days. Anyhow the attitude of your coricspondent is that of not more than about ten per cent of educated Christians to-day if it is so much. Because he lives far from the hub of the world's intellectual centre, it is no reason why he should try and persuade us that his out of date theology is that of the earn-est-thinking men and women of to-day, for it certainly is not. Some time ago we got a v.iew of Germany and it 3 attitude to religion (as expressed by the Churches) from the "Christian Herald" in which it was stated that the German religious journals were lamenting that unbelief was gaining ground rapidly in that country. It said "that religion in the family and family worship have become practically non-existent, and that parents have, for the most part become indifferent to the religious training of children. In Berlin it is

said to be not unusual for parents to try to resell the Bibles they had been obliged to buy for their children's use prepertory to confirmation in the State Church. Once confirmed they had no further use for Bibles." Ihc same article stated that there were whole districts where it is all but impossible to liad young men for ordination to the ministry. In consequence of which, in south Germany, home missionary work was almost at a standstill; if the shrinkage proceeds at the present rate there will soon be no divinity students left in any Protestant university in Germany. And yet with all this Japse from Christianity we do not hear that the German people are any the worse from a standpoint of morality and the social relation. Your correspondent says " The evidence for the Historicity of Christ is simply overwhelming." Hear what one of the ripest scholars of the day has to say about the matter. This is J. B. Bury, I>. Litt,, L.L.D., _ otc., Pegius Professor of Modern History, Cambridge University. And this is not sfcven years old, is not one year old, for his book, issued in the Home University Library, is only just to hand, by mail. '"In the first place no intelligent person who has studied modern criticism holds the old view that each of the four biographies of Jesus is -'in independent work and an independent testimony to the facts which are related. It is acknowledged that those portions which are common to more than one and are written in indentical language, have the .same origin and represent only one testimony. In the second place,; it is allowed that the first Gospel is not the oldest and that the Apostle Mathew was not its author. There is also a pretty general agreement that Mark's book is the oldest. The authorship of the fourth Gospel, which, like the first, was supposed to have been written by an eyewitness, is stili contested, but even those who adhere to the tradition admit that it represents a theory about Jesus which is widely different from the view of the three other biographies. The result is that it can no longer be said that for the life of Jesus there is the evidence of eye-witnesses. The oldest account (Mark) was composed at the earliest some thirty years after the Crucifixion. If such evidence is considered good enough to establish the sup^i-natm-al events described in that document, there are few alleged supernatural occurrences which we shall not be equally entitled to believe. As a matter of fact an interval of thirty years makes little difference, for we know that legends require little time to grow. In the East you will hear of mira-cles which happened the day before yesterday. The birth of religion is always enveloped in legend, and the miraculous thing would be, <as M. Solomon Reinach has observed, if the story of the birth of Christianity were pure history. Another disturbing result of our prejudiced examination of the first three Gospels is that, if you take the,recorded words <rf Jesus to be genuine tradition, he had no idea of 1 (Minding a new religion. And he was fully persuaded that the end of the world was at hand. At present, the chief* problem of (advanced criticism seems to be whether his entire teaching was not determined by his delusive conviction. In any case, sir, Ido not feel it incumbent upon me to prove that the Historical Jesus of the New Testament is a reality. That is for those who profess Him. What I have endeavoured to do is, to show how all the marvels of both the Old and New Testaments are regarded by the thoughtful and most learned scholars of our 'ime .ijd the opinions of your correspondents, sincere as they may be, appear very puny by comparison with those. They claim ] do not reply to some of their questions. I contend they make no effort ixt deal with mine on the lines upon which they are based. Your correspondent, Herbert Grinstead, has a knack of getting mixed in his statements. He first says, referring to Prof. Drews, and his "The Current Myth," that he "wholly ignores the testimony of Tacitus, Pliny. Suetonius and Eusebius." >Now, when I point out to him his mistake from which I inferred he had never read the book he was bo freely criticising, he modies his statement thus: "The idea, was not that he did not name them but that he set them aside too easily." Yet this is the sort of writer who refers to another as making "reckless exaggerations." But-he. appears to have got his views of the matter from such poor sources that one cannot wonder at the result. I refer to a little pamphlet which I have just perused. A peculiar hotch-potch of repetition and ignorance, but just suited to a certain type who will not consider it expensive at threepence. But there, sir I This letter has already grown beyond the length 1 'intended it should have, so must conclude by again reminding your correspondent that I am looking for proof of the entire plan of Creation, Fall and Redemption of Man and of which I submit he lias, so far, given us nothing. I am, etc.,

REFORMER