THE REV. A. REID AND A PERSONAL DEVIL.

Evening Star, Issue 3134, 6 March 1873, Page 2

THE REV. A. REID AND A PERSONAL DEVIL.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Shortly after my arrival in Dunedin I expressed my conviction—neither offensively, on the one hand, nor with timidity, on the other-that the doctrine of a personal devil was a myth. There are many ways by which the friends of truth may play into the hands of the enemy ; and 1 believe this is one by which those who believe in the Scriptures give a handle to the infidel. I may say more of this by and by. Lest [ should be charged with acting the part the Rev. Mr Reid is blamed for by your correspondent of Saturday last of speaking of Mr Smith, the Spiritualist, a’ter he had left, I take liberty, with your permissiou, to state that, in consequence of the Rev. Mr Reid nibbling a little with the question of a personal devil in his public ministrations, I sent him, prior to his leaving for the Conference, an invitation to discuss publicly with him the question, “Is the devil a person or a principle ?” 'I he Old and New Testaments, subject to legitimate criticism, embracing both the purity of the text and correctness of translation to be the basis of appeal. To this I received no reply. I have lieard hia lecture yesterday on ihat subject, and I am prepare 1 to show before any intelligent and educated jury, that Mr Heid has violated both these principles of Biblical criticism, and that he is cither ignorant of them or guilty of wilful perversion ; in fact, if he he, as is sometimes reported, a learned man, his lecture gave no evidence that he had either employed his learning in his study, or brought it with him to the rostrum ; and to afford him an opportunity of justifying himself, I am ready to meet him at a moment's warning. Regarding his lecture, 1 can only analyse it thus : it consisted of affirmation, declamation, perversion but of neither ratiocination nor demonstration—a series of ill-constructed fallacies, and fighting with “a man of straw,” with a sprinkling of truth, which, if rightly put, would have disproved his whole theory. Mr Reid, from the capability he displayed in the art of hoodwinking, may claim very justly a diploma. He would have us believe that he is critically examining the Scriptures, when he is, cdimsiiy enough, only referring to our translation, and, with clever tact, assuming those who differ from him do not believe the Scriptures. To show the baselessness of this fallacy, I have tally to give an extract from a work of that erudite ami Christian scholar, Henry Craik, in his “ Characteristics of the Hebrew Language.” He writ* s thus “No intelligent reader of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures can attempt honestly and fully to expound the meaning of the Scriptures in public, without be ng under the necessity of frequently correcting our translation, in order more accurately to bring out the sense." I write this letter now, that if, by and by, I may speak or write more fully on the subject I may not be charged as being guilty of the cowardice attributed to the Rev. Mr Reid by your correspondent of Saturday last. Had I thought au expression emanating from au humble individual like me» having no pretensions to canonical insignia or habiliments, more the mark of Apostacy than of Apostolicity, should have caused such labor, I might have restrained it; but having let it out, I cannot, without conviction, retract. —I am, &c., James Gilmqub. Roslyn, March 3.