To the Editor of the "NortH-Cama Datty News"
Sm—I trust it may have some weight with Mr. Sowrmsv when I say that I myself once held. in principle, the very views that he now holds and that I can on that, account appreciate the arguments he puts forward. The radical change in my outlook took place about sixteen years ago. Previous to that time I could only feel exasperation at those who pinned their faith to a Book written by men, as I then supposed. who were far less enlightened than we moderns: but the time came when I made the discovery that this Bible they believed in, was nothing less than the product of the Master Mind of the Eternal God. that it was not only up to date but ahead of time. My subsequent study of the Bible has confirmed more and more that it can be nothing else than the Word of God and that (Man's reasoning, far from leading him into truth, is taking him down deeper into the fog of error. But enough of that: Mr. Sowersy appeals to reason, therefore let us get down to the arguments set forth in his letter.
Regarding his instance of a baby being born with a cigar in its mouth. what, would your correspondent think of me if I denied that an acorn was an acorn because it did not begin its career by sprouting oak leaves? He would reply that. given the needed environment, the acorn would certainly produce.the oak in time simply because the acorn has "oak tree" life in it, and, by analogy, I say that every human child will sooner or later produce the fruits of sin because sin is inherent in the child from birth. Sin is hereditary. but that is not to say that sins are the fruits or symptoms of si is not a sinner because he sins—he sins becaüse he is a sinner. Sin manifests itself in a variety of ways and in different forms in different men, therefore, if a child grows up io be.a.thief, it is not necessarily because his father was a thief, but because his father was a sinner, or, it was not the tendency to steal that he inherited from his father, but he, inherited a sinful human nature which later expressed itself, in his particular case, in acts of theft. Tt is not a conclusive argument for inherent sin, but it is a point to be moted. that men when alluding to some phase of failure on the part of a^fellow creature. will refer to it. as human nature." If that certainly inful tendency is "human nature" then surely nature is inherited and not introduced later by some extetnal influence. The thought, of a child. born of "wicked parents and kept from outward contact with sin, afterwards leading a blameless life is purely hypothetical and carries no weight-besides. a blameless life is not necessarily a sinless life. A mah would be blameless if he carried out perfectly the first Hine commandments given on Mount, Sinai, but unless he fulfilled the tenth he would not: be sinless.
Mr. Sowtmsv asks, "What is sin?" and then proceeds to give us a definition of sins. No, this is no quibble on my part, neither is it the red herring across the trail: but the distinction is of vital import. While sins may be described as violations of certain accepted moral laws, sin is the state of being out of touch and out of harmony with God: sin is the failure to conform to God's stated standard. which is perfection; sin is the inherent principle in man which responds to certain outward appeals—sins are its fruits or symptoms.
Now we are being told that certain tendencies of man are also found in the animal creation and that these tendencies, at least as far as the animals were concerned. were not. in themselves sinful. but that, in the ease of man who "gave free rein" to these impulses, some sort of a curb was needed for the protection of the community. Surely this argues that the animals, who needed no such restriction on their impulses, possessed a higher morality than man—is this what Mr. Sowersy intends us to understand?
Further, in his attempt to define sins, your correspondent makes no allowance at all for God's interests. the dominant idea seems to be the interests of "our social order"—the "smooth working of our soda] order." I do not wish to make Mr. Sowrnev an.offender for a word. for it may, after all. be nothing more than a word, but that expression "our" savours of collective human selfish-mese that would give God ho place at all in its schemes. save to blame Him when calamity overtàkes our social order. What would be the verdict on a family of children whose behaviour was exemplary and entirely conducive to the smooth working of life in the nursery, but who never exchanged a word or kiss of greeting with their parents—yet such is the attitude of man towards his God. What, excuse has he to offer for such an attitude?
Space will forbid my answering Mr. SowrnsY's letter as fully as T would wish. but I would observe that Mr. Sowersy says that I am wrong in saying that God never punishes out of unworthy motives of vindictiveness and revenge and refers to the Bible as supporting his contention. therefore it is only just that I should call upon him to produce those verses in the Bible which reveal, God as a mean and vindictive God of revenge—but, let him be very. very careful in his selection of the necessary passages.
In conclusion I would like to put a question—it matters not who answers it. We have been told that the progress of human civilization is due to men of science, while. on the other hand. Christianity, with its "slaughter house theology" of blood sacrifice is compatible with naked savages and the jungle. Consequently I expect to see a tremendous amount, of scientific enterprise in such a civilized country as, may I say it. dear old England, while I must look to the jungles of Africa or Brazil for a flourishing Christianity. Well. the scientific achievements, etc. are in England right enough. but strangely enough, so is Christianity. I may go into almost any country on earth and find a Bible printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society—not the Hottentot and Foreign Bible Society, but the British and Foreign Bible Society. Now we seem to be.fáced with the problem of cause and effect—Science and Christianity flourishing side by side in that civilized ltle island and both claiming the credit for the civilizing. What is the true answer?
Shanghai, May 24.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.