OUR VISIT TO BRITAIN.
(Continued from page 117.)
Some little while previous to Mr. Campbell’s visit to Britain, Mr. Wallis had induced a young man of his church to buy a press and types by promising to give him the Harbinger to print. It was being printed by this brother when Mr. Campbell was in England. Mr. Wallis was the proprietor of the periodical, and Mr. Hudston, of the office, in which he had the right, of course, to publish any other things he pleased without Mr. Wallis’s permission. He gave Mr. Campbell an order for all his works; paid for them, and had his consent to republish from them anything he pleased. He accordingly republished several articles from Mr. Campbell’s pen in the form of tracts. But this was a sacrifice of an ill savour in the nostrils of Mr. Wallis, who seemed to think that no one had a right to publish Campbellism but himself. Mr. Hudston objected to the monopoly, and contended that he had as much pecuniary interest in the ism as Mr. Wallis.”
“The question of the right to publish Campbellism in tract form for the British became the ground of difficulty between them. Mr. Hudston had clearly as much right to publish as Mr. Wallis, and vice versa; but Mr. Wallis deemed it inexpedient, incompatible with his policy, that Campbellism should get at the public through any other printed medium than the Harbinger. Mr. Hudston, however, continued to exercise his right to issue tracts, which so incensed Mr. Wallis that he was determined to punish him by giving the Harbinger to some other printer in the town to publish. By all this Mr. Hudston considered himself much aggrieved. He had been induced by his “dear brother” to buy an office and to venture into business under the promise that he should print the Harbinger, and now because of a difference about publishing Campbellism in tracts, Mr. Wallis wounds him in the pocket, which is the tenderest part of most men’s consciences, and gives his monthly to an alien to publish. This was intolerable. A feud was originated that time has as yet been unable to heal. It grew into a church question, and was submitted to arbitration. This was unfavourable to Mr. Wallis, and caused him to “kick against the goads.” Mr. Hudston and he could not fraternize in the same church; the former, therefore, withdrew to Bullwell about four miles from Nottingham. The Bullwell church having examined the case received Mr. Hudston into their fellowship, which they withheld, and do still we believe, from Mr. Wallis until he should amend his ways towards Mr. Hudston.
The prohibition of tractifying Campbellism, and the taking of the Harbinger out of Mr. Hudston’s hands, reacted upon Mr. Wallis’ heavenly-mindedness very unsavourily. It originated the Gospel Banner, which created in Mr. Wallis a very evil eye towards his ‘young brother.’ It became an eye-sore, a prick in his eye, and a thorn in his flesh. The Banner was conducted prudently. There was nothing Mr. Wallis could lay hold of as a handle against it. Its Campbellism was perfectly orthodox, and it made no attack upon him. the fire of discord smouldered under the surface having found no vent Mr. Wallis, as appeared from private conferences, was in no very heavenly or amiable state of mind; but what could he, what dared he do, so long as the Banner behaved itself with propriety and kept itself aloof from heretics? The Bible Advocate was “a cut” upon his monopoly and supremacy; the Banner was an unkind cut; our reception by the Bible Advocate church was an unkinder cut; but when the Gospel Banner became the impartial medium of both sides of all questions, ecclesiastical and theological; and presumed to allow us—the proscribed of Campbell, of Wallis, and others of like spirit—to speak for ourself in its pages—Oh! This was “the unkindest cut of all.” The smouldering embers of the tract-difficulty began to find vent in the Harbinger, not so much in the editor’s own words, as in the letters of correspondents from America, which he must have elicited from willing tools by his intrigues and misrepresentations.
Here then was Mr. Wallis between two adverse influences, the Advocate and the Banner; the latter of which was an unpardonable offender against his will. We and the Banner were to be destroyed if possible. It became necessary, therefore, to bring to bear against us even the smallest antagonism available, upon the principle that “every little makes a muckle,” as they say among the Scots. The editor of the Advocate, it is true, was a small man, and could not do the Harbinger much harm if any; yet he had a certain influence in the Ellstree Brotherhood which might be turned to useful account against Dr. Thomas, and the Banner. It was expedient, therefore, to propitiate him. If Dr. Thomas could be disgraced, the Banner also would suffer for affording him facilities; and if the publishing of Campbellite tracts could be diverted into another channel, it would tend to cripple Mr. Hudston and to bring him to a stand as rival in the kingdom set up on Pentecost! But how was this to be accomplished? We shall see.
When a naturalist finds a bone it becomes a datum from which, by a process of reasoning, he can rebuild in his own mind the form of the animal to which it once belonged; so when a man is observant of certain facts he can by reasoning discern the premises from which they spring. Now the following facts came under our notice while in Britain. First, after the Banner had published our correspondence with Mr. Wallis, the tomahawk was buried and the calumet was smoked by Messrs. W. and King—they became friends. Secondly, some one in America sent Mr. Wallis our “Confession and Abjuration,” which he reprinted and circulated privately. Thirdly, Messrs. King and Wallis met in Glasgow at and before the Campbellite convention there. Fourthly, after the meeting King assumed a hostile position towards us, as will be seen hereafter in our sketch of this protracted and distracted meeting. Fifthly, the publication of tracts was recommended to the meeting; and by Mr. Wallis’ management Messrs. Black and King’s press was to be the office of publication. Hence in one of his Harbingers he says, “bro. King, who has recently published an essay in the tract form on the Breaking the Loaf, by A. Campbell, is now engaged in bringing out a tract on Spiritual Life. Will our friends encourage him in this work of attempting to do his part to enlighten the human mind?” Any funds, therefore, “the brethren” might appropriate to the purpose, would find their way to Camden Town, instead of to Mr. Hudston; and the prestige of the Sanhedrin would be against him. And sixthly, after Mr. King returned to London, he opened a fire against us in the name of the Ellstree church, charging us with falsehood in saying, that we did not “refuse” to break bread at the same table with those in the United States who had not been immersed on the same premises as ourselves. Such are the six facts of which we became cognizant, and from which we draw the following conclusion. Mr. Wallis determined to detach the Ellstree brotherhood from us, and to weaken the Banner as much as he could. To accomplish this he found it expedient to make friends with Messrs. Black and King, the pastor and “evangelist” of Ellstree. He succeeded in doing this by sending them our “Confession and Abjuration,” and promising them all the Campbellite printing his influence could turn from Hudston to them. They swallowed the bait; and without any further struggles against his ascendancy, which he preserved by the sacrifice of his monopoly, became the willing instruments of his crooked policy against us. To work then they went to prove us a liar for the gratification of Mr. Wallis and his abettors in the United States; though from what is already before the reader, their work will be pronounced by all candid and intelligent persons, both evil and contemptible.
Their object was to hold us up to public reprobation if they could; and to cut us short in the career we were traversing so much to their mortification and vexation. The following correspondence will illustrate their manner of proceeding for the accomplishment of their end. While we were on our first tour the subjoined epistle was sent to the care of our sister in London.
71 High street, Camden Town,
Nov. 8, 1848.
Dear Bro. Thomas:
No. 4, Vol. III. Of the “Herald of the Future Age,” containing your “Confession and Abjuration,” was presented to a meeting of the London church last Monday evening. The meeting were entirely of opinion that the paper contains the very abjuration of the brethren in the United States which you most positively denied ever having made. It appears to them to be a duty to order this note to be sent immediately to you, expressing their surprise and sorrow at finding such matter in print, and to give you an opportunity to explain should you desire. In the absence of any explanation, they will feel it their duty to announce that your fellowship with them was obtained by misrepresentation.
Wishing you every present and future good, in the deepest sorrow on account of the above, I remain yours in the hope of immortality,
D. KING.
This piece of hypocrisy did not come to hand for several days. It was deemed expedient therefore to favor us with a repetition of the indictment, dressed up, however, with less of “cant” than the former. The “deepest sorrow,” the “dear-brotherism,” and “the hope of immortality,” will be found to have evaporated altogether from its phraseology; so difficult is it for religious actors to maintain a part which is foreign to their true character. The following is the second letter.
71 High street, Camden Town,
Nov. 25, 1848.
Dear Sir:
At the beginning of this month, by order of the church in London, I sent a note for you to Hoxton square. That note was to inform you that the brethren here having seen your “Herald of the Future Age,” which contains an article by you, headed “Confession and Abjuration,” conclude it to be the very abjuration of the churches in the United States, which you to us denied having made. The note in question stated, that before making their mind on this matter public they would wait your explanation. Some days since a note from your sister in reply came to hand, saying, that when she sends to you she will enclose the same. We send this in order to give you every opportunity for explanation. Your silence will indicate that you admit the conclusion of the church here to be correct.
Wishing you every present and future blessing, I am your’s, &c., D. KING.
To J. THOMAS, M. D.
This was the real man—“I am your’s &c.”—stripped of his outer garment: “in the deepest sorrow on account of the charge against you, your’s in the hope of immortality,” was mere wool to hide his claws. We saw through these epistles at a glance. Mr. Wallis was using this man King to trump up a charge of falsehood against us in the name of the Ellstree brotherhood. The only evidence we had that the church had anything to do with the affair is before the reader in D. King’s two notes. Mr. Black was the pastor and ought to have communicated with us; King was only their emissary, whom they called “evangelist.” We therefore paid no regard to him in the matter; but wrote to the church through Mr. Black. It appears from a third letter received from D. King, that we wrote to Ellstree on Nov. 22, 1848, three days before his second note arrived. We regret to find that the copy of this letter is missing: but from what appears in the following epistle it would seem that we stated substantially what is already before the reader on pages 89-90, number 3, of the current volume. To ours of the 22nd, we received the following reply:
London, Dec. 6th, 1848.
Dr. J. THOMAS:
Dear Sir—Yours of Nov. 22, 1848, was presented to the church on the 28th of the same month, and I am requested to say to you as follows:
1st. That in the examination of your abjuration the church here did not (as you suppose) confound persons with opinions. They fully understood your words in the lines pointed to in your letter as referring to errors and mistakes, and not to persons.
2ndly. They consider you to have abjured the brethren in the United States, and here also, by pointing to their position as being one which would forbid any christian to fellowship them. For instance, many of our churches in this country unanimously hold the “existence of an immortal soul in corruptible man,” nearly every church has a large number of its members of the same opinion. You say, “no man can hold this dogma, and acceptably believe the gospel;” you also abjure it as a “damnable heresy:” ergo, most, if not all of the churches with which we stand connected, do not believe the gospel acceptably, and if not acceptably are unbelievers, and holding “ a damnable heresy” are damnable heretics. Now as no christian may fellowship heretics and unbelievers, the brethren in this country, and those of similar character wherever existing are abjured by you. Again: “men are saved by the hope, he (Dr. Thomas) was not saved by it, and while he writes this must be in his sins.” You teach that as you were with respect to “the hope” our churches now are—they receive not what you call “the hope.” You call the system into which you were baptised an “erroneous one;” they were baptised into, and remain in the same system, therefore, are yet in their sins. You claim to be a christian, and as christians cannot fellowship men while in their sins, you thus abjure the churches connected with us.
Seen and approved by a meeting held Nov. 28, 1848, and signed for them.
D. KING.
In reply to this we transmitted the following letter to the care of Mr. Black.
Newark, Nottinghamshire,
Dec. 9, 1848
Dear Friends:
Yours dated Dec. 6, 1848, has come to hand today. By it I am able now to comprehend, that you have construed what you think I ought to do with my views on the truth, or the ground which you consider the principles stated place persons holding the traditions quoted, into a non-fellowshipping of those you call your brethren (by eminence) in the United States. This, then, is your indictment, that I have constructively rejected the brethren of the Reformation in America, which you consider equivalent to an actual excision of myself from the churches there, or them from my fellowship, and consequently of myself from similar churches in England.
But I object to your constructions; first because you have no right to put constructions upon any one’s principles save your own; and secondly, because your constructions are not in harmony with facts.
1. You have no right to construe for me, neither have you the ability till you are made intelligent upon the subject of my views of fellowship. I claim the sole right of construing my own sentiments, and when I shall have construed and published them to the world in their application, it will be high time for you to express your approval or rejection of them and their author. You have your views of fellowship; they may or may not be mine: I discuss them not. My duty is to state and advocate what I believe to be God’s truth according to the manner which appears to me (not to you) most scriptural. It is for me to state, illustrate, and prove principles, and to interpret the word; and to leave men’s consciences to make the application—it is not for me to adjudge them to ecclesiastical pains and penalties. (“Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise of God.”—1 Corinthians 4: 5). I have stated in my writings, that “the immortality of the soul” as taught in dogmatic theology is the Hymenean and Philetan heresy; and I have shown from Paul’s words, that it is in his estimation a “damnable heresy.”—Haireseis apoleias, opinions of destruction, or destructive opinions. The argument you have not seen; yet you judge. Is this wisdom! I have received the conclusion to which Paul leads me. Did he tell the orthodox Corinthians to cast their heterodox friends out of their synagogue, or to non-fellowship them? No; and further than this, he still fraternized with the church, although they gave him so much annoyance on this very subject. His object was to enlighten and reclaim, not to cut off, and treat as enemies those whom this cancer-eating sentiment led to the denial of the resurrection of the dead, and by implication, the resurrection of Jesus himself, and the subversion of the doctrine of the kingdom of God.
Your logic does not appear to me to keep pace with your zeal. A man may hold a “damnable heresy,” and not therefore be “a damnable heretic.” Simon Magus held the “damnable heresy” that the gift or power of bestowing the spirit could be purchased for money; but he was not finally condemned, inasmuch as scope was afforded him for repentance and forgiveness This was not the case with others. If you hold “a damnable heresy,” I pray God that the light of knowledge may find an entrance into your understandings, that you may recover before you make shipwreck of faith.
You say that your churches do not receive what I call “the Hope.” Very well. Now, suppose it should turn out that what I demonstrate is indeed “the hope of the calling” (which Platonism, new or old, is not)—and you admit that “we are saved by the hope”—what becomes of you and your churches? But you are unacquainted with what I call the hope; for I call not one item of itself “the hope”—why then jump to conclusions and constructions at present? You may regret it some day, (as others here have already,) when your logic peradventure may be directed by a more scriptural and experienced zeal.
But there are a great many in “your churches” (if I guess them rightly) who reject the immortality of the soul as mere heathenism. Why do you not construe conclusions for them? Are not Newark, Lincoln, Nottingham, Edinburg, Glasgow, &c., some of your churches? There are many of this class among them; why do you not undertake for them? Why so solicitous to construe conclusions, and officiously to apply them for me? I really do not feel at all indebted to you for intermeddling! If you do not wish any thing to do with me, say so and have done with it. I believe I am your debtor for nothing, but a little past civility. On two occasions, at some inconvenience and a trifling expense, I did the best I could to enlighten you. Much satisfaction was expressed by some. To this labor of love I bid you welcome. But a change hat come o’er the spirit of your dream since Mr. Wallis’ visit to London, or that of your delegate to Glasgow. If you think your ecclesiastical reputation hath been defiled by the little politeness of the past, then make your repentance known as far and wide as you please, and upon any ground you choose, actual or constructive. I shall regret your shutting yourselves out from what many of your brethren freely and candidly admit is the irrefutable truth of God. But you must do as you please. The loss will be yours, not mine.
Without comparing you to Judas, I would enquire, was not he in his sins when Jesus broke the loaf with him as well as the rest of the Twelve? This will be a sufficient quid for your quo, that I necessarily abjure churches, because there are those among them who on my principles are in their sins.
2. I object to your constructions because they are not according to fact. There are many in American Reform-churches in which I am well received, who believe in the Platonic dogma of the “immortality of the soul.” We have learned, however, the important lesson of bearing and forbearing with one another, in hope that all will come to see the real truth on which side soever it may be before it become too late. But your dogma is, that I ought to reject them, and they me; we, however, do not think so. We regard such a spirit as the one actuating you as both intolerant and proscriptive, and well calculated to place the person who responds to it in the situation neither to advance the truth, nor to benefit his contemporaries. It is the dark spirit of popery, and characteristic of all sects, whose fear of God is taught by the precepts and commands of men.
Trusting that whatever you may do may be to the glory of God, and the furtherance of the truth, and not to the gratification of personal pique; and leaving you henceforth to work out your own conclusions as you may deem most expedient, but declining any further correspondence in the case,
I subscribe myself, dear friends,
Yours respectfully,
JOHN THOMAS (Continued in our next.)
PRACTICAL LOVE OF TRUTH. —It is one thing to wish to have Truth on our side, and another thing to wish sincerely to be on the side of Truth. There is no genuine love of truth in the former. Truth is a powerful auxiliary, such as every one wishes to have on his side; every one is rejoiced to find, and therefore seldom fails to find, that the principles he is disposed to adopt—the notions he is inclined to defend, may be maintained as true. A determination to “obey the Truth,” and to follow wherever she may lead, is not so common. In this consists the genuine love of truth; and this can be realised in practice, only by postponing all other questions to that which ought ever to come foremost, “What is the Truth?”—Abp. Whately.
