MODERN UNBELIEF.

Last night in the Y. M. C. A. upper hall the Rev J. Fordyce, M A , delivered a lecture on " The Battle of Faith and Unbelief : the Present Position " Mr. D Walker presided. There was, said the lecturer, at present a sort of pause or lull in this conflict. Whereabouts did the combatants stand, and what was the outlook of faith? Mr Fordyce asked his hearers to distinguish between the attitude of scholars and the positions occupied by the masses of the people. Deism for example, had long been dead in the highest circles, yet many popular objectors to Christianity still argued from the Deistic standpoint. So they must not judge Biblical scholars by the views sometimes expressed by earnest preachers at the street corners. Looking at the position held by Christianity to-day in the highest circles they must acknowledge that it was far stronger than it was 30 years ago.
Go back upon some of the conflicts a little before and during the early part of the Queen's reign, and the contrast must be manifest to all. Strauss published his first " Life of Jesus " in 1835, and around it the battle was indeed fierce. About the same time or a little earlier our own Mill was beginning to discuss some of these problems. In 1859 Darwin published his " Origin of Species ; " in 1860 Spencer's " First Principles " appeared; and in 1863, Renan's " Life of Jesus ." And unbelief in critical, literary, scientific, and philosophical circles might fairly be represented by these names, and by such men as Huxley and Tyndall. The first result was to discredit somewhat the Old Testament, and even to throw doubt upon the trustworthiness of New Testament records. Many lost faith in God and in Jesus Christ, and the old design argument was for the time eclipsed by the new theory of evolution. Agnosticism, scepticism, and active opposition to Christianity were believed by many to have a kind of scientific and philosophical justification, and many students and thinkers lost their early faith. The story told in the "Life of Romanes" is the story not only of him, but of scores of hundreds of able men, and we cannot wonder that men of faith were for a time staggered by the strength of the new movements. The results had neither answered to the expectations of some nor to the fears of others. They were serious enough, are still doubtless serious to individuals but they had not really touched Christianity.
Faith in God and in Christianity was to-day far stronger than it was in the days of Strauss and Renan and Mill. Darwin died, as he lived an agnostic, but Mill, Tyndall, and Huxley all lived long enough to modify considerably their earlier views. In Huxley's republished Essays there were noteworthy modifications, and in his Romanes Lecture he practically asserted that man had an intuitive knowledge of moral distinctions, and that he had power to resist the "Cosmic Process." At his own request there was a Theistic inscription on Huxley's tombstone. Spencer still remained true to his early agnosticism, but his disciple Fiske, following what he regarded as Darwinian and Spencerian principles, accepted a personal God, or what amounts to this. He also believed in man's spiritual future and in life beyond the grave.
The intellectual world of to-day simply refused to rest in mere Process. Evolution might be the divine method, but behind evolution there must be intelligence, will, and purpose. As Lord Kelvin said, the new idea of design was far grander than the old. He also said that life did not come "by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atoms." Science was still dumb, it was also reverent, before the "mystery and miracle of the creation of living creatures." Faith in God, the Theistic interpretation of nature, therefore, was still possible. The religion and ethics of Jesus had not been touched by science, rather our idea of God had been purified and elevated, and our sense of the unity and mystery of all life immensely deepened by scientific teaching.
Equally hopeful were the results of the critical method as applied to the New Testament writings. The battle of criticism was by no means over, but some results were accepted by all scholars. The Robert Elsmeres of the future would not be able to think of the Fourth Gospel as belonging to the middle of the second century, for all New Testament writings belonged to the first century—most of them to the early part of the second half of it. Scientific critics regarded nearly all New Testament books as trustworthy. According to some of the ablest of them the "Acts or the Apostles" was genuine and also very high class history. Nor could miracle be separated from the substance of St. Luke's narrative. All now believed that the writers were honest men; that the early Christians believed in the objective Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that faith in Christ, as risen and glorified, created the Church and gave it power over the ancient world. Nor had the ablest critics or sceptics ever yet been able to give any account of the resurrection of Christ, the conversion of St Paul, or the triumphs of the early Church, that had held its ground for 10 years. The only rational view was the view given in the New Testament itself. Intellectually Christianity was to-day stronger than it had been for many a day. As Romanes confessed criticism had given it a new hold upon men of science, had strengthened instead of weakening its position. It had the promise of the future. Mill seemed to think Comtism stronger, but who now believed in the future of the "Religion of Humanity?" Certainly not M. Zola, who had professed it for a generation, but who confesses that it had no power in the Paris of to-day. Buddhism, or something akin to it, was put forward by some, but the English-speaking race would never be Buddhists " 'Tis life of which our nerves are scant." We sought more life, fuller life, not a religion of despair.
Christianity could do work for God and humanity, for the individual, and the nation. Take two men who had recently passed away, George Muller and W. E. Gladstone. A religion that created and inspired such lives surely was a noble religion. In the centres of learning and intellectual life Christianity was daily manifesting new powers. Witness the student volunteer movement the missionary movements in English, Australasian, and American Universities, also the new chivalry, the hundreds of cultured men and women who are living among and for the poor and the degraded in great cities. The only enemy to be really dreaded was our own lower natures, our sloth, indifference, and lack of enthusiasm for high ideals. The real battle was the old conflict of flesh and spirit, and this they must fight to the end. As for the rest no intelligent Christian had any need to-day to be ashamed either of the gospel or its future. The lecturer gave a number of humorous anecdotes, and was warmly applauded.

 The Sydney Morning Herald 7 June 1898,