MR. CAMPBELL AND THE GOSPEL BANNER.
From the Gospel Banner Extra.
" ‘THE GOSPEL BANNER AND BIBLICAL TREASURY: containing the writings of Alex. Campbell and his coadjutors, in America and Great Britain. London: Hall & Co., Paternoster Row; A. Muirhead, Edinburg; P. Woodnorth, Liverpool; H. Hudston, Nottingham.’
“Such is the title of a monthly periodical circulated through Great Britain. I am sorry to be constrained and have too long forborne, to notice this publication, as unworthy of the patronage of our brethren in England and Scotland. The editor and his paper are sailing under a false flag. It does not ‘contain the writings,’ nor a tithe of the writings, of ‘Alex. Campbell and his coadjutors, in America and great Britain;’ and of the morsels of them given in it, most are given to subserve an indirect purpose; to betray us, by a kiss, into the hands of the erratic materialist and rather plausible sophist, John Thomas, of no-soul memory. It is a striking demonstration of the oblique morality of an exceedingly oblique theory, of any one who could thus stealthily impose upon an honest and unsuspecting community.
“That Mr. Hudston and John Thomas, M.D., of the celebrated medical school at Petersburg, Va., (which has, I believe, neither faculty nor students,) have a political right to preach, write, and promulgate their opinions, I do not deny. But they have no moral, religious, or honorable right, to garble my writings, and to deceive their readers by seeming to fraternise, in order to delude.
“John Thomas, M.D., and his deserted, dispersed, and withered flock, in Eastern Virginia, have long since ceased to attract any attention in this country. He left Virginia without presuming to answer my essay against his theory, and is now seeking to make a politico-religious impression on the English community, by a book and a theory called somewhat whimsically, the ‘Elpis (or hope) of Israel.’
“He has proved all the Apostles to be wrong in making the resurrection to eternal life the hope of God’s people, and for it, has substituted another terrestrial paradise, of which I shall not now speak particularly. True I have never read the new book, or the newly discovered ‘Elpis Israel,’ but am informed that it is that maintained by some Jews of the present day, as a substitute for the hope of the resurrection of the just. We Christians have but one evangelical hope of our calling, just as much as we have but one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Ours is the veritable hope of the resurrection of the just, and not the political Elpis of the worldly Jews of this day. It is not, in other words, the literal return of the true Messiah to reign in Palestine, or on earth, or in any portion of the present solar system, but the hope of new heavens and a new earth, in which the pure in heart, and righteous in life shall reign. But at present I have room only to complain of the very censurable use made of my writings by the publisher of the ‘Gospel Banner and Biblical Treasury.’ A. Campbell’”
MR. WALLIS’ PREFACE TO MR. CAMPBELL’S NOTICE.
Mr. Wallis says “the flag under which this Banner continues to be sent out, is certainly a false one.” A rigid critic would expose the rhetorical inaccuracy of this phrase—but we shall forbear, wishing to be actuated and to manifest a nobler spirit than its author. Its falsity however must be exhibited. Now this same accusation was brought against us by Mr. Henshall in the June Harbinger, and we then produced arguments and facts to prove it false. It ought not therefore to have been reiterated before those were over-turned. But our contemporary does this. Without even noticing our reply, he reaffirms the accusation, and introduces it as if this was the first time of its publication, and expresses it as if it was an established truth. Such treatment would not have been given to the vilest criminal in any court. When he has made his defence to the accusations brought against him, these are never charged upon him again, much less worded as if proved true, till that is examined. “The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.”
We will not further remark on this conduct, though we shall again answer the accusation in our reply to Mr. Campbell.
Mr.Wallis declares his assertion respecting the Banner, to be true, “as decidedly so as that some who write for its pages are the most bitter and subtle enemies with which the Reformation has to contend.” This next must have our attention. We will first show that it is not correct; and, second, that if it had been true, it would be an honour, and not a disgrace, to the Banner.
First. There are but two individuals whose articles have appeared in our pages to whom these epithets can with any degree of truth be applied. And Mr. Wallis has yet to prove that “they are the most bitter and subtle enemies of the reformation.” The first is a gentleman who signed himself “B.B.,” and the second is Dr. Thomas of course. But neither of these can truthfully be said to be in the number of those “who write for our pages,”—this phrase signifying one who is a frequent contributor. The first wrote four articles in last year’s volume, and two of these were controversial with ourselves. Our readers will remember the skirmish. Since that time we have never received a line from him for the Banner. He is not, then, one of the number. Nor can Dr. Thomas be said to be so intimately connected with our periodical. There are but four original articles in the last volume bearing his name, that name at which
Some madly rage, and turn of snowy hue.
There are two other articles having his signature—but one was copied from a newspaper and the other a short extract from a letter. In the current volume he has written three articles. The first, that noted one on the throne of David; the second, occupying about half a page; and the third, a defence of himself against Mr. Henshall. Now these do not constitute him a frequent contributor, as will be shown. We inserted the first, because Mr. Wallis would not, though impartiality demanded it; the last, we published in fairness to him, it being a reply to the accusations brought against him by Mr. Henshall. Now when the character or sentiments of a man are attacked in a periodical, and he is not allowed to defend himself in it, should another open its pages for his defence, he cannot on this account be said to be to this a frequent contributor. And this position the Doctor has not occupied towards the Banner. It is true that in this month’s number, (the November one,) there are two articles from the Doctor, but this neither makes Mr. Wallis’ assertion true, nor our arguments false—for both parties speak of the past Banners; and one of those two it will be seen the Doctor writes in his defence. This accusation of Mr. Wallis’ is therefore a falsity.
Second. But supposing that it had been true, it would be an honour to our periodical. It will be granted that the same Christian virtues which are to shine forth in our words and actions, ought to be developed in the conducting and management of a magazine. Now it is the climax of perfection, to meekly permit a “bitter and subtle enemy” to freely express all his sentiments, and to commend every honorable feature in his character, and true principle in his doctrine. That periodical, then, which allows the “enemies” of its cause to speak through its pages, and approves every good quality they possess, is assuredly based on generous and magnanimous principles. And again, this conduct shows a confidence in the doctrines advocated—a conviction that these can pass through the hottest fires of hostility, and come out unscathed, aye, more brilliant. It proves, we believe, that when antagonistic tenets are placed side by side with them, the comparison will but the more forcibly demonstrate their truth and value, and the more convincingly recommend them to every intelligent mind. What an accusation, then, it is to be brought against us, that “some who write for our pages are the most bitter and subtle enemies the Reformation have to contend with!!” an accusation, which if true, would be a glory and not a shame.
Mr. Wallis then insinuates, that certain articles have appeared in the Banner, which are in opposition to its motto, “Speak the truth in love.” This is another sly innuendo—a reckless assertion. He has not correctly quoted our motto, having transcribed it thus, “Speaking the truth in love.” But we will forbear with this, and throw him upon the proof of his assertion. We defy him to produce a single expression contrary to our motto, save from letters written against us for resolutely defending our principles, or from replies to attacks made upon the character or doctrines of persons in his own periodical, and for such expressions as these every intelligent mind will say we are not answerable.
The reader will have observed how careful Mr. Wallis is to avoid specific charges. His accusations are all general assertions, not substantiated by one example, or instance. There they stand! Unsupported by any power, save the breath of their utterer! Can he imagine that such assertions will make any impression upon the minds of intelligent men? If this be his idea, it would become him, we think, to appropriate to himself the wish of the poet—
“O wad some pow’r the fiftie gie us
To see ourselves as other s see us!
It wad fra monie a blunder free us
And foolish notion.”
But here we leave him, and proceed to Mr. Campbell’s notice of the Banner.
MR. CAMPBELL’S NOTICE OF THE BANNER.
How long Mr. Campbell has forborne to “notice the Banner, as unworthy of the patronage of the brethren,” we cannot say, having no positive data from which to commence the calculation. But we think his forbearance did not commence for some months after its birth, for this reason: When Mr. Campbell was in England, Mr. Hudston paid him for all the volumes of his Harbinger, from the commencement to 1848, which were to be sent on his return. In the meantime the Banner was started, all its numbers containing articles from his pen, and were regularly sent him. Now when the volumes came, there was no complaint then made of our abuse of his writings. And had Mr. Campbell then been dissatisfied, he would assuredly have expressed his displeasure when placing in our hands so great an amount of his literary property. But we presume his uneasiness commenced at the time that Dr. Thomas’ name appeared in our pages.
We must say, with all respect to Mr. Campbell, that we cannot thank him for his long forbearance towards us, if we were guilty of wrong. We shall be grateful to the man who will tell us of a fault, providing that he prove that we have committed one. But in this very essential point, our brother most signally fails.”
Having refuted Mr. Campbell’s mis-statements, the editor of the Banner concludes his defence in these words:
“We have thus replied to Mr. C’s accusations one by one, and rest assured that we shall be acquitted at the tribunal of intelligence and candour. He assuredly surveyed us through a very opaque medium while writing the notice; and from this cause must have arisen the distorted portrait he has delineated. But, however, the errors of great men have in one respect a beneficial tendency. By them it is seen that they also are flesh and blood, and little men are prevented from regarding them as infallible oracles. In conclusion, we affirm that it has ever been our desire to give Mr. C. that honour and respect which assuredly are his due for his arduous services in the cause of God and humanity; and in fact we have regarded his ‘notice of the Banner,’ in the same light as the brother who wrote the following remarks, which are taken from a note he sent us accompanied with a copy of the ‘notice.’ We believe that Mr. C. has not a firmer and warmer friend in England than the writer—
‘The American Harbinger came to hand the other day. I have only time now to send you the enclosed article from brother Campbell’s pen, which I am sorry to see disgrace its pages. It is evidently written in ignorance, and by the instigation of other parties, and therefore I pity Mr. C. as he is made a tool of, doubtless, by some on both sides the Atlantic. Only preserve the Christian dignity which has hitherto characterised the Gospel Banner, and all will be well.’
* * *
