MR “ALEPH" AND MR PEEBLES.

Evening Star, Issue 3119, 17 February 1873, Page 2

MR “ALEPH" AND MR PEEBLES.

To the Editor.

S}R—On first reading “ Aleph’s” letter in your yesterday’s issue, I thought he was an orthodox Christian, whoso language was—to us® his own elegant adjective more “rancid,” than Christ-like. On a second and more careful perusal, 1 feel inclined to doubt his orthodoxy. Had there not have grown up in Dunedin a practice of persons—unbelievers of the true faith—under the garb of anonymity attacking the faith, while all the time they pretended to be orthodox, in charity I might not have accused “ Aleph ” of heresy. But Sir, it cannot be forgotten that, through the exertions of Mr Koseby and Dr Copland, the writers at the least have been proved heretical while signing the name “Orthodox,” and pretending to be believers in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The reasons which led me qn second thoughts to make such a grave charge as that of heresy against Mr “ Aleph” were the following First, he asserts that the doctrines alleged by Mr Peebles to be believed in and taught by the Church are not so believed nor ta Eight. Second, he contradicts himself; and third he uses language which proves him not to hfi ft fqllqvyer cf Christ. The doptmtios whidh he ft s «f,erts ape nos the dredal doctrines of tWQhurqfi pnaei thftt of eternal donation, t hell torments, election, etc. Now, any one, who is orthodox, knows well that these doctrines are not only taught by all orthodox churches, but never a true gospel sermon w preached but what, sinners are warned or the doonv of the unbelieving.. sot$ ot ol } ] l V® the doctnnes taught (we Confession pfhaith, chapters .33 all orthodox loo*

upon the terrors of the lost as beacons of warning—as urgent appeals to the unsaved to flee from the wrath to come. I find Mr Sutherland, the author of “ Urgent Appeals,” properly stating the Church’s doctrine. “Left to himself,” says Mr Sutherland, “he would slide into hell; how certain and speedy his doom, when he is, at one and the same time, dragged by the Devil and driven by the Almighty.” Again, in pourtraying the awful and eternal doom of the sinner, Mr Sutherland hursts into eloquent description, as follows;—“ The devils are assembled for their rush at their prey ! Death is opening the floodgates for the torrent of vengeance; the storm has come down, dark as the night, upon him, and the hurricane-blast is coming! And, now, on the hr nk of the precipice, and in full view of the Infernal Lake, the resistless suction of its unquenchable flames is felt in all its force,” etc. And. as a warning to “ Aleph,” let me make one more quotation—- “ These blasphemers and their neighbors, the infidels, may claim the unenviable distinction of being the first to advance towards hell,” etc. Nor is Mr Sutherland doing aught in thus picturing the sinners doom but what his Church and his New Testament alike sanction. Hence the “ Free Church Record” favorably reviewed his book, and the “Evangelist” said of it—- “ The writer appears to us well fitted to lead the careless to reflection on the dangers of their position, etc.,” and went so far as to recommend such books to be circulated where gospel ordinances could not be administered. If “Aleph” had only ignored the “ credal doctrines ” of the Church, apparently to please the careless and the hearers of Mr Peebles s lectures, it would have been bad enough, but after denying that the doctrines referred to by Mr Peebles are the doctrines of the Church, he states—“Mr Peebles knows as well as we do that some of the most terrible representations of the punishment of unforgiveu sin fell from the lips of Jesus. Mr Peebles knows that Christ expressly taught what he exi ressly calls blasphemy,” etc. Taken along with the former part of “ Aleph’s ” letter, I can only come to the conclusion that the alleged “credal doctrines of the Church” were taught by Christ; that “ the most terrible representation of the punishment of unforgiven sin fell from the lips of Jesus,” but that “their hideous and blasphemous imagery is as repulsive to the mind of every Presbyterian, every Churchman, and every Methodist in this community as to Mr Peebles.” what is this but something little short of “disgusting and rancid blasphemy.” Christ pictured the most terrible representations of the doom of the lost, but Presbyterians, Churchmen, and Methodists, forsooth, in these days of enlightenment (!), look upon these most terrible representations “ as hideous and blasphemous Ipagery.” uch contradictions stamp “ Aleph” as one who does not believe in the to Westminster Confession of Faith, and who, please the conipupity in these Jatitudinarian days, is to surrender some of the most vital doctrines of the Church. Another proof of the heresy of “ Aleph,” I take to he in his bitter words. Christ, when reviled, reviled not again, and no one pretending to be a follower of the meek and Jowly Jesus can defend the use of such qualifying words as “ Aleph ” pens. T pick out a few choice epithet-i —“disgusting,” “rancid,” “blasphemy,” “foulness,” “jiidepus,’’ “savages,” “abyss of foulness “impious,” “vulgar,” “nastiness,” ike., Ac. Wliy one pretending to be a Christian should use towards Mr Peebles aoxne of the epithets I have quoted I am 'utterly at V loss' to know) wheq lie admits tjiat MfipeebW. “meant tpdqiqage the paqte pf religion here, but I believe he has served it-’’ No ; Ajcpff ’’ is a heretip in d}sgqige, #nd by Lis letter will give Mr Peebles and ajl other heretics an opportunity of paying, “Behold the bigotry cpid narrowness of the orthodox.” See how bitter and personal and contradictory are letters, ft is high time that our clergy, such as Mr Boseby. Dr Copland, or Mr Stanford, came out and met Mr Peebles on the platform, and did not leave the defence of our religion to anonymous critics who write without judgment, and who apparently are not orthodox in their faith. We do not stand in need of the missionary services of Mr Aleph Wq have many plergymen hefp who are acquainted with the doptripes pf the Churph, and who, when discussing religious questions, will not, however great the provocation, bo betrayed into the use of “disgusting and rancid” language,—l am, Ac., Tau.