LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14283, 4 August 1908, Page 8

LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

TILE USE OF THE MASK IN ATTACK. „ «>y former letter to you I said nothing about the review 0 f the Rev. ,T '' C^an!' 1 R6 1 ° k " JOUl ' wtnbutori Constant Reader, neither d d I ewress ' any opimon about Mr Smith's teachiVmhis conduct in preaching ami publishing liis x re&Dyteuan Church. It- may be necessary f ' f ° r mySftlf and others to In vW , OJI , th ®° mattors. «i««i £%&ii!SS'lgjj; !"th some care, ? hall Ibein a Sionto judg 61 vhether he ha acl<x] honorably n publishing his book and preaohihn it- ; , ln a tuition to judgo SA' v ffsMSiS "" •** <*■*& 3 "Z" »a two points omj. .the anonymity of the letter 0 f fora PU8 ' l T incomplete and thereWk'"" 6 fWnWion of Mr toe ttSo poit^wS f Firet, as to the anonymity of tic letter of Carpus : I could ■ not know who tout r . The allusio/he S SW a t .Mr Smith's induction Mr ,n 6011,0 way connected the Wpllinirf t) o< ? l S :re S a^i o n > or with , P , r *'y- Tbe- know- , P Jed mo to infer that' he was a Presbyterian minister, and as such of M 3 6lt > A«emMy H , one S Sra,the Judgw. I; am'.not Baying Md have not said, that the charge of ®f °- uH not have boen ™4 but Wu i. '"j" l7 oplDlon ' ifc ehouid not ™ e ,<i ver a Pseudonym, and specially if should not have been made by on© whose letter suggests that he is a roiimter ami consequently a possible judge ?*&■>% his book comes before the Aseembly, It-passes my comprehension how such a man can iegard it as honourable and .courageous for him to shoot from bohind a hedge. In this morning's Times carpus continues his shootinjr from knmd his pseudonym. Ho contrasts Mt Smith a. conduot with that of Dr Young, the author of Light and Life of Men." The Hr , cettSl " e , on Mr Smith; may bo perfectly aesory&cl, but why put oh a mask in order.to write it?. It is the veriest trifling u i uest j on pf a, serious anonymous attack on a clergyman, for "Carpus" to' write as he does: "-As regards my writing anonymously, I have followed the good example of Mr Hewitson, who, by repute has done excellent service in the Outlook by voluminous anonymous letters." I cannot have " Carpus" un dcr my 'cloak-he must turn out, from there. Ho may fire from behind his pen-name if he wishes, but 1 cannot have him firing from behind me. I do not feel it quite safe to have a masked man firing- tliore. "By repute," says "CarPU6, »I have written anonymously in the itatlcpk. Ifc is well known that as convener of a committee I liave mitten to the Outlook anonymously, and also some years ago, with.the full knowledge of the leaders c l the Bible olasa movement, I wrote on that movement; but never in my.life have I. put on a mask to attack'the . character of a public man, much less a brother minister. The.(second subject upon which I wrote was -the incomplete representation ■" Carpus" gives of Mr Smith's teaching on one ( point—na-mely, the , divinity of, our lord. 11 Carpus", wrote: " The Unitarian gets no credit for'originality of thought or moral courage when he 6ays that all that men can see on Calvary is an 'unjustly condemned martyr': these are the words used to express Mr Smith's own faith. (used by himself), and, afl -an honest man, having drifted so far from the faith °f Church catholic, his right place l is alongside those who hold kindred views." " Carpus" gives three words, " unjustly condemned martyr,'.' as the expression of Mr Smith's faith invMr Smith's own words. Ho does this in face of the fact that on. the first pago of hia first chapter Mr Smith uses the words " Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God," and on page 162 tlie words, "He was infinitely far away from being really a martyr." In to-day's issue "Carpus" says he did not profess to prove that Mr Smith was " far removed" from the doctrinal position of his Church on the Atonement. " I accepted," he says, "the judgment of your reviewer as The words I quoted were adequate to the extent of confirming the opinion of the reviower—inadequate as regards setting forth all the articles of Mr Smith's belief." I make two remarks on these statements: (1) There was no question of " all the articles of Mr Smith's belief. The doctrine involved in the quotation from " Qarpua's" first letter is not the Atonement, but the divinity of our Lord. This was the one point raised. I •Oaiyus" implies that Mr Smith is a Unitarian. (2) The words quoted do liot adequately represent Mr Smith's published opinions on the divinity of our Lord. The three words taken alone mislead. To substantiate the correctness of his representation of Mr Smith's position 'Oarpns" quotes from a. review in the Outlook. Here again is the 6ame shifting of ground. The doctrine referred to in the words quoted from the Outlook review w the oxpiatoi7 theory of the Atonement and not the divinity of our Lord, the only point concerning which I accu.scd "Carpus " of making an incomplete representation of Mr Smith's position. Let me sum up. To justify a serious anonymous charge of treachery against a flyman, possibly a brother clergyman, Carpus" pleads my "good example" in writing anonymous letters on general subjects, letters in which there was not a single personal charge. Many of those letters were written over the 'official title . The Convener." To justify himself against my charge that ho had given an incomplete representation of Mr Smith's opinion on the divinity of Christ, " Carpus quotes the opinion of a reviewer on Mr Smith's attitude to the expiatory theory of the Atonement. I simply cannot understand "Carpus"; I trust I shall be forgiven for my limitations. I must leave him over, as I have had to leave over a good many moral and intellectual problems, for a brighter world. T^ m ' e ™> WM. Hewitson. Ivnox. Church Manse, July 31.