THE REV. GIBSON SMITH AND "THE DOMINION."

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2514, 15 July 1915, Page 6

THE REV. GIBSON SMITH AND "THE DOMINION."

Sir,—Kindly permit me a few words ou your article under tho abovo heading. ' Let me thank you, first -of 'all, for-tho. very.fair summary you gavo'of ray sermon. It leaves mo,- nothing to complain of in-the way. of accurate reporting, and I heartily recogniso your courtesy. ... ' ' : ■"

•With regard to your accusation -.'.of misrepresenting you,- I think it would be nearer the trirth to say that you had' misrepresented ; }*purself. Tho . main theme of the Bishop of Wellington's address was the need and tlie value of prayer in connection -with.' tno war and tho conditionsof .real and ofFect-vc prayer. You criticised that address, ad-. Tersely, and- in so doing said not a single word to guard yourself ag.r'nst being supposed to undervalue prayer. As you say this morning: "We did "not even mention' it-." 'Why did you'i'.ot? I submit'that under the. circumstances ninety-nine, people out of a. hundred would have drawn the same coriclusioli did, namely, that the Bishop's address left you cold, because you and he were at variance on the luestion of the value of prayer. ' . As a -.VTiter/ for. the public, you are wpll-used to-guard-ing your positive statements from (Unwarranted inferences. . Why did .you not do so on this occasion? If you did not do so, who is to blame? You cannot well complain of any inferences whatever being drawn. Tlou-'. cannot well say that only clear, definite, statements are to be used in public discussions. You did not treat the Bishop of Wellington on such , lines. V Tho Bishop never said that "we have no right to denounce German fright-fulness." You affirmed, . however; that' "the Bishop seems to think"'that wo have no such right. .There you draw- an inferenco which 1 do not for a moment believe is justified by-tlio Bishop's own words. You went much beyond that in riusrcprescnting the Bishop. He liiid clearly stated his opinion '.'that the Christiancitizen will feel bound to throw, all his energy into this war." Ho had plain-ly,-repeatedly, and elaborately rcpudiUlei .fcha i!doot4ns of non-reaistanco"

as applicablo to the present struggle of tho nations. Aiid yet you argued: against him, as though ho had indeed advocated non-resistance. If there are to be any a])ologies, it seems to me that tho first should come from you, and be addressed to tho Bishop of Wellington. Tho point at issue is not whether every effort should bo' used to urge the country to throw her whole strength into the.present most critical conflict. On that question, I take it, wo are all agreed. The realquest-ion is "Whence aro we to draw our resources for that effort?.--. From abovo or below? From prido and doggedncss and hatred, or from humility and self-scrutiny, and an. anxious desiro to be worthy of the victory wo seek? As against the Germans wo can hold up our; heads- proudly, enough. But as in the sight of God?, That is a different and a' much more important matter. —I am, etc., .T. GIBSON SMITH. -

[Our critic, it is plain, seeks to evade . tho real points at issue between 'us.' v He accuscd us of scepticism as to whether prayer is of any value, and of re-., garding prayer at such a time: as the - present as "nothing more, " breath.". We invited him to quote ' 0110 word .or one'sentence in ourartick which justified these allegations. • He • ■has failed to do so. Instead, : he puts : forward the astonishing.argument that' 1 becauso wo made no reference to the 'part of the Bishop's address, ' dealing, with tho value .of prayer, therefore we regard prayer ~\ as ."nothing,more, than wasted breath." .' Wo might leave our critic in, this unhappy position, but perhaps it is'desir--,able to direct his attention to the, fact; that though he may bo .quite entitled to disagree ' with _ deductions - which wo: drew from the Bishop's statements— those deductions were based on-state-ments'actually made and on record, s , whereas. Mr. Gibson Smith himself. is : utterly unable to quote one word or, . one sentence in our leading article in support of his : allegations , concerning ■" our'views as expressed in that article.- , Ho is equally unfortunate. iii his at- 1 tempt to show that we misrepresented .the Bishop by failing to mention ' his,, opinion, that "the. Christian :citizen will, feel bound to throw t all his energy into ,' this-, war." .As a. matter of fact-, we.,' ■ were careful to acknowledge that the. Bishop, .declared that "action, whole? . . sou'led action, was the supreme need ' and the supreme duty." We did nob argue against the Bishop as though ho had advocated non-resistance. in regard to the present war. We said that he fully admitted that "taking all the circumstances into consideration, Britain could not, without loss of honour, have refrained from: drawing the sword."- • Wo would like to know, what Mr. Gib-, son Smith discovered in our article to , justify his assertion that wo.hold that the oiie thing that matters is to get:recruits "110 matter how you appeal to' the baser • motives." ■ Surely such an accusation coming from.one in hisposition also ought to be proved or n ith. drawn.] ;