A Napier 'Moralist'

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIV, Issue 26, 28 June 1906, Page 1

A Napier ' Moralist'

The Napier '.Daily Telegraph ' has bitten off a bßgger chunk of controversy than it can chew. It said in its haste that all forms of playing for a stake or prize are 'a social scourge,' ' a gra\e moral evil,' 'a curse and a crime.' It is now repenting at leisure. The 1 Telegraph ' has out-council led the Wellington Council of the Churches— after having rejoiced that the ' Tablet ' had got in ' a blow from the shoulder under which those who singled out the Roman Catholic Church as the modern exponent of gambling cannofc but stagger.' Tne ' Telegraph ' has ' a code of morals,' too, that 'settles'

this q.uestion. 'Incidentally, this ' code ' permits misrepresenting an opponent, putting -him in the wrong in order to set 'him right, and recklessly flinging grave charges without? the shadow of justification or foundation. The 'code' is 'modern.' It is vastly superior to. that of the Bible— which the ' Telegraph ' denounces and calumniates in the crude Ingersollian style. But the ' code ' isi evidently a ' secret wisdom,'/ intended solely for the Mahatmas, Ahrats, or Adepts of the Napier philosophy. And wild horses will not draw it from the guardian arms of the ' Telegraph.' Well, our Hawke's Bay contemporary probably knows best where its precious ' code ' is safer— under lock and key in its holy of holies, or exposed to the nipping frost- of criticism in the public press. We are painfully familiar nowadays with the sciolists who hotly attack the Bible and lecture us from the viewpoint of Christian morals, whose very foundation they reject. Our standard of morals is unchangeable It is founded in the will and nature of God. Men may and do err in the application cf that standard. Such error is, however, nob in the standard, but in the imperfect knowledge of, or lack of proper compliance with, the will of God. And that will is made known to us in one or .other of the various forms of divine revelation. \lhit is the 'Telegraph's' standard? Though thrice challenged, it saith i.ot. But one thing it has made abundantly clear : it rejects the Biblical revelation and the Christian standard of morals. Its missing and much-desired ' code of morals ' is probably of the agnostic or materialistic variety. But what hope is there that the writer of the slipshod articles in our Napier contemporary will succeed where men of vastly bigger and better brains (Herbert Spencer, Harrison, Fitzjames Stephen, Clifford, etc.) so signally failed— namely, in ' setting forth ' and ' establishing ' any binding ' code of morals ' that sha.ll not have for its motive power the fear of the Lord (which is ' the beginning of wisdom ') and the love of Him (which is its end) ? Judging) from lii 3 matter ami the manner of the ' Telegraph's ' glaring misrepresentations of Biblical fact and teaching, its ' philosophy ' and its ' code or morals ' are those of that shallow plagiarist and adapter of other men's ideas-the late Robert lngersoll. According to that anti-Christian charlatan, thought Is merely a product of digested beefsteak md potatoes, etc., an-d man but a puppet in the iron grip of an unalterable chain of fate— carried inevitably hither and thither as it wills, just like a bubble on the i.roubled surface cf the Molyneux. Are these the principles that lie back of the

Napier 'code of morals,' that like Bonnie Prince Chaßlie, is so lang a-'comin' ? But no-matter what agnostic or materialistic or atheistic -' moral ' standard our northern contemporary may Have ' in petto ' (or locked and jealously guarded 'within its bosom), it can have no sanction or binding power beyond what mere brute force can give it. * ' Johnson put -this idea in his, own sturdy way when Bos well mentioned to him the name of ' a distinguishedfriend of ours ' who '"had not the least notion of immortality.' Here is how Boswell records the incident : ' Johnson : •' Sir, if it were not for the notion of immortality, he would cut a throat to fill his pockets." When I quoted this to Beauclcrk — who Knew much more of the gentleman than we did — he said in his acid manner ; "He would cut a throat to fill his pockets, if it were not for fear of being hanged." ' The Christian ' code of morals ' is based upon an unchanging and absolute standard, and its ultimate motive is the love of an infinitely perfect Being, Who is the Creator of all things. The agnostic ' code of morals ' is an unstable, weathercixk ccnventicn. • Its ultimate motive is the fear of the hangman. Are we right in our surmise (it is only a surmise) that the * Telegraph's ' missing ' code of morals ' is based upon the shallow Monism of Ingersoll — or, say, of Haeokcl ? If this be so, our Na-pior contemporary cannot consistently either commend or condemn any act of ours. For the system that we refer to utterly destroys all distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, truth and falsehood. It makes Jack the Ripper as good a citizen as Father Damien, Nero neither worse nor better than ' Good King Edward,' and places Deeming on as high a moral plane as Howard the Philanthropist. For (according to this hypothesis) all were equally bereft of free-will, all were alike the mere puppets of material forces, blindly and unavoidably believing and doing what it' was predetermined they should believe and do. And, in any event, on what standard, or by what right, does the Napier ' Telegraph ' presume to dictate a ' code ' to letter the actions and bind the consciences of people who do not recognise its competency as a teacher of morals — or even of plain Queen's English ?