DR. TUDOR JONES.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 301, 14 September 1908, Page 2

DR. TUDOR JONES.

Sir, —The letter over the above signature, professing to bo a reply to mine, was what I expected. The writer. refuses to debate with mb on the ground that I have not given my, name. I will take him on his own ground. Ho says, in effect: What does it matter what happens to Mr. Smith through his (Dr. Jones) discussing the book while it is under trial, so long as the forward march of truth is secured? How much less does the publication or not of my name hinder or help the cause of truth in the matter at issue? If I choose, for reasons sufficient to myself, not to orabroil myself in a dispute. with which I have nothing to do, that ■is my own affair. .1 suspect that the real reason why Dr. Jones declines the gauge of battle is the same as has been proved to a demonstration in his controversy with Mr. Jolly, viz., that Dr. Jones, despite his title, requires to equip himself better for the task lie has entered on. He should, at all events, make himself acquainted with the real opinions of the man from whom his own sect has sprung before he attempts to give advice to Presbyterians in matters of their faith. In the report of his address (which, by the way, was not three inches but half a column long), without giving a single reference, he claimed that the teaching of Mr. Smith's book was practically the teachingof Socinus on the Atonement. With amusing agility, and realising how untenable" this position is, he shifts his position and raises a new issue, viz., "Was the death of Christ a satisfaction which God needed in the form of a payment of debt?". On that point he .'claims that the teaching of Socinus and Mr. Smith are practically parallel. Now I don't think that this issue improves matters for Dr. Jones.' Socinus denied anything of the nature of satisfaction .at, all,-', and-iMr. Smith • strongly asserts., it. as ■. an ,of:-,,his teaching../ He;exprossly says; fiVNo.-'heliover in Christ can .possibly - object to the statement that Jesus, through His death fulfilled and satisfied the ends-of Divine' justice." Anyone who has the most superficial acquaintance with what Socinus taught'and what' Mr. Smith' teaches ' knows,' that' they' stand : at al-' I most the opposite poles of thought. .' I I raised the question of the good, taste, of Dr. Jones in publicly ■' discussing' a matter that is sub judice, and in which Mr. Smith's position and prospects ..are at stake, not that F.think Dr. Jones's popgunwill affect the issue very much. Of course, the book is published- to the world and' is open to criticism, but there is a right and wrong time for criticism. Were a newspaper to comment oil a case beforo the law courts, in the manner Dr. Jones has done; it would. be adjudged guilty of contempt of Court in prejudging the case.' There is ■ an 1 unwritten law in the case under discussion that should appeal to every man's sense of justice.—l am, etc., ANOTHER PRESBYTERIAN.