MESSRS PEEBLES AND DUNN AND THE CLERGY.

Evening Star, Issue 3144, 18 March 1873, Page 2

MESSRS PEEBLES AND DUNN AND THE CLERGY.

To Che Editor .

Sir, —Some time ago you kindly inserted a letter from me, in which I gave reasons why 1 thought it right that the ministers of Christ should not trouble themselves in the matter of Spiritualism. Will you now extend to me another favor of a similar nature, while’ 1 endeavor to set forth some of the errors of Dr Dunn’s theological effusion, as it appears in your issue of this morning ; and also, the error of the clergy in interfering with this matter. I will deal with the clergy first. So long as they kept quiet there was but little commotion among their opponents ; for when Messrs Peebles and Dunn had said all they had in supporting their “new and beautiful faith,” they were getting stale, and the interest in them was waning ; but our reverend friends failed to notice this, and having got themselves read up on the subject—crammed—for the occasion, they let go their ideas, some off which were no doubt good, and very logical!, bearing well on the point. But what is tjie result? ' Not "certainty a decrease 1 irT tHd interests of The'" new ndtion, bui it has mkd'e thematWr assume a’inorc important shape or appearance, aiiii again excited an interest in what was grpwing Ijat : and has just supplied what the Seer and his pupil wfepe npicp. in need of—viz., fresh material to entertain their audiences with. This seems to be the principal effect produced by the well-meant defence of Christianity versus Spiritism. I really think that tbeir action, though prompted by the highest motive, is to be classed amongst the conclusions of erroneous judgments. Dr Dunn has come out very boldly, but I will not say manly, for it is a manly action to take a stand which a close examination, and logical investigation will substantiate. But such has been neglected by the doctor for a rhetorical display, which, he kuowswcll, takes better as an oration. He says that "he only denounced the creeds of the Churches indirectly, or rather he asserts that he did it “ indirectly.” Now, this is such an ambiguous word that he may be several things*, oV modee, by* it. If be means that he did not denounce directly, he makes a mistake ; for his attack was deliberate. If he means that he did not purpose to so denounce, he must at once admit that his reasoning was extremely incoherent and illadvised . 1 f neither of these, does he so fi ankly confess that he was not straightforward ; that his action was indeed unfair and dishonest ? If this last be his meaning, truly the “open confession must have been good for his soul.” Yet he “felt it right to do so.” The Doctor did “ not attack a Church or Churches,” but “bigotry and superstition that had a tendency to bring down the human race to slavery and bondage—not only the body, but the senses and the soul, which degraded and brutalised the human rape,’* And ttys bjgqtpy atyl been the chief—the central theme—of thO Churches since the days of tbeir founder—namely, the divinity of Christ, I here challenge Dr Dunn to give evidence of a faith in Christianity ever producing such an effect as he charges it with. No. sir, it is a fact which must be universally acknowledged that, wherever Christianity has been planted, civilisation has beeu the result, and I defy Dr Dunn, with all his rhetoric, to deny it. With regard to Dr Dunn’s assertion regarding the word “everlasting,” which he said was never in Scripture applied to punishment, will he kindly let the public know if ever it is applied to reward in the Bible ; and if so, where ? For if he will admit that the Greek word aionlos is the one signifying the duration of the reward of righteousness, and that that duration is endless, it will then be impossible for him to refuse it the same meaning when applied punishment. Ho will find the word ip Matty xix. l , 29; Mark x., 30; Romv ii., l 7, &c, Will he also inform us in what, or how, the same word in the original aionon in Rev. i,, (3, and xx., 10, differ? For in the first passage it refers to the duration of the dominion of God, and in the last to the duration of the punishment of the wicked. Thus, then, we find the endless government of God described in the same terms as the duration of future punishments. Now, if the Doctor is not afraid of his stand, he will in honesty set us right on this matter. Of course, if he can limit the duration of the dominion of j,hp Deity, then vye arp bpuud limit the time of punishment.—l am, &c.‘, ” PIUbOMATHfiS, Dunedin, March 17.