OUR VISIT TO BRITAIN.
The Editor at Aberdeen—Invited to Dundee by the Campbellites—Visits Dr. Dick—The Kingdom’s Gospel announced—War declared against it—A “bishop” deposed—Campbellism shattered into fragments—descends into the streets and erects barricades—Teetotalism and the Gospel—A new church formed—Cupar uneasy—Opinions of Elpis Israel.
The writing of Elpis Israel being accomplished, I set out on my second tour through Britain. It will be unnecessary to enter into the details of this, inasmuch as it was pretty much a repetition of the first. I revisited all the places I had been to before, with the addition of Dundee, and Aberdeen. I came to visit the latter city in consequence of a friend being there, with whom I was intimate, a resident of Northern Illinois. Through him I became acquainted with several members of the Campbellite church of liberal and candid minds, who, though not believing, or rather not clearly understanding what I contend for, desired to hear and judge for themselves whether I said aught else than what the Scriptures revealed. My visit there resulted in some submitting themselves to the “obedience of the faith,” and the subscription of several to the forthcoming book.
The reader will not have entirely forgotten the tumultuous Campbellite convention at Glasgow in 1848, and that among the delegates there were certain very zealous opponents to myself. Belonging to this party were representatives from the Campbellite church in Dundee, meeting at Hammerman Hall in that town. They had observed my progress, and the interest created by my lectures in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and elsewhere, and concluded that it was possible I might be heard in Dundee without danger to what they considered “the faith once delivered to the saints.” They determined, therefore, to invite me; and, supposing I was still in Edinburgh, though, in fact, in Aberdeen, they sent the following invitation, which was forwarded to me from thence.
John Thomas, M. D., Edinburgh.
13, Nelson Street, Dundee;
26th July, 1849.
Dear Sir. —Being informed that you are to visit Aberdeen, we beg to say that a number of friends here are desirous to see you, and have a conversation with you over a cup of tea. If you could find it convenient to come this way, on your return, please say on receipt of this, and at what time. You will have a friendly reception, and your expenses will be paid.
Yours truly,
James Ainslie,
J. G. Ainslie,
John Watson,
Allan Fordyce.
I received this note a day or so before my departure from Aberdeen. I concluded, therefore, to change my route; and instead of making my way through Aberdeen to Perth, and thence to Paisley, to take the steamer, and landing at Arbroath, proceed by rail to Dundee. This accomplished, I was welcomed to Dundee by two of the friends who met me at the station, and conducted me to 13 Nelson St., the residence of one of the signers, who had been Cicerone to my friend, President Campbell, during his sojourn there. Soon after my arrival tea was introduced, and disposed of, without anything unusual. A walk into the town was then proposed and accepted. It terminated at the coffee-house where the President had resided, and which was to become my domicil also for the time. About nine o’clock the coffee-room was occupied by a considerable company who had convened as the “friends desirous to see and converse with me.” Cakes, coffee, and tea were served up by Mr. Lamb, whose guest I was to become. After a sufficient interval, conversation turned from generals to particulars, and I was asked for an outline of the things I generally laid before the public in my lectures. Having given this, the question was mooted among them whether I should be invited to lecture in Dundee. I suggested the propriety of my withdrawal from their company while they should discuss that, supposing that there might be some opposed to it, who would feel more at liberty in their opposition in my absence. It was not thought necessary; but I preferred it should be so, and withdrew. On being recalled I was informed that it was their wish that I should come and lecture in Dundee. But I could not then say, as I had sent an appointment to Liverpool, where I proposed to be after finishing at Paisley. I arranged, however, that I would return to Dundee from Paisley, if I could get released from Liverpool, which I managed to do as the appointments there had not as yet been made. The friends in Liverpool wrote to me at Paisley, and to them at Dundee, by the same mail, of which I obtained information as agreed upon by the following note:
13 Nelson St., Dundee;
10th August, 1849.
Dear Sir—As all arrangements for your lectures on Sabbath and the following days, have been advertised by bills, and in the newspapers, we shall look for you by the evening train tomorrow, by the Perth and Dundee Central Railway. The mail train arrives here about 7 o’clock in the evening.
I am, dear sir, yours affectionately,
James Ainslie.
On the morrow, accordingly, I went and delivered, I think, some seven lectures while I remained. During my stay there I was well cared for, and kindly treated. President Campbell’s Cicerone was my guide in visiting around. He accompanied me on a visit to Dr. Dick, the celebrated author of the “Christian Philosopher,” and other popular works. The doctor received us politely, being free in conversation, and obliging in showing us his telescopes, through one of which he gave us a view of St. Andrews, from his observatory, some six miles in the distance, on the other side of the Tay. He accompanied us from his house on the way to the station, which afforded a brief opportunity to exchange a few words on the appearing of Christ and the Millennial Reign. He asked my views on these subjects, which I gave him as concisely as possible. “I suppose,” said he, “you allow others to differ from you?” “Certainly,” I replied, “I have no alternative, were I ever so disposed to be arbitrary; which I am not:” upon which he gave me to understand that he looked for a millennium, and a gospel reign, the result of a universal diffusion of science and philosophy, which would pave the way for a general reception of the gospel! Living four miles from Dundee, he did not attend my lectures there; though I have since learned he expressed regret to a mutual friend in Edinburgh that he had been unable to do so.
Affairs progressed very smoothly in Dundee until my last lecture, which treated of “the gospel of the kingdom.” This, though a Scriptural statement of the subject-matter preached as gospel to Abraham, the contemporaries of Moses, and to those also of John the Baptiser, Jesus and his Apostles, without any allusion to sects or persons, kindled a flame among the Campbellites which had not ceased to burn in Dundee when I left Britain. One of the Campbellite bishopric “became obedient to the faith.” This turned everything upside down. My “affectionate” guide to Dr. Dick’s, being “a bishop,” if I mistake not, was greatly frustrated; and all his affection evaporated into alienation and opposition to the kingdom’s gospel. “Persecution,” writes one, has now assumed a very formidable appearance against us in Dundee. The first step was the deposition of him you baptised from what they term “the bishop’s office:” and strange to tell, this has been done while as yet he had not opened his mouth upon any subject in the meeting since you were here. James Ainslie and company have become determined to check “the new light” in the bud; but contrary to their expectation the blade has made its appearance, and a stalk of no inconsiderable size has already sprung up. Since I last wrote five have been baptised. Two of these have delivered addresses to the brethren upon the subjects of the “new light” which have thrown the people into a complete consternation. On Sunday week the deposed bishop is advertised to give a trial discourse before the church, on the “new doctrines” before he can be again elevated to the bishopric; which he says he will do in earnest.
At the meeting of their office bearers, held on September 3, the following questions were proposed to him to answer impromptu, upon which the questions and answers were recorded in the church book.
Answer. “No.”
Answer. “No.”
Answer. “I never stated anything connected with your baptism. I say ‘without faith it is impossible to please God.’ If you had faith according to your own showing you were baptised. If you had not faith you deceived me, and ‘to your own master you stand or fall.’”
Answer. “I am not aware of two.”
Answer. “No.”
Answer. “I have not taught the brethren any other thing even yet.”
Answer. “I now consider myself as having been deceived.”
Answer. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
After all this questioning they declared themselves as ignorant of his views as ever, and said, “we do not really know what to think of him, or what to do with him.” Upon which he was deposed until they should think over the matter. They concluded that his deposition should be permanent after his discourse, because the things believed “are subversive of the foundation of the Reformation.” It was alleged that the doctrine I had taught “had seriously damaged the cause in Dundee, and cast a stumbling block before the weaker brethren and the world.” Yet I had said no more than what every one may read for himself in the Scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles. A correspondent writing from Dundee says, “If I were to examine into this allegation, and inquire who seemed most to stumble, or be afraid of this stumbling block, I should find that they are not those who think themselves the weaker brethren. And were I to give judgment in the case, it would not be unlike that of the sailor who, on being reminded that his wife was the weaker vessel, smartly replied, ‘Then she should carry less sail.’ The weak should not be stubborn. And yet when we inquire if you taught anything they did not know before? ‘O no,’ says one, ‘we knew it all our days;’ ‘we knew it these twenty years,’ says another; ‘I got nothing from Dr. Thomas,’ says a third; and so on to the end. These are the sayings of those who are offended at, and afraid of the doctrine you teach.”
The same writer continues, “On the evening of the Sundays that have intervened between your visit and the present time, the topic of conversation at our meetings at the Hall, has been ‘the kingdom.’ Old fancies stand firm in the minds of some, but others are abandoning the fabrication of men, although they are not as yet appreciating the truth in full. Some light broke in upon them last Sunday, and a storm of wrath has been raised about my head. I spoke too strongly. They see the gospel is held by me to be somewhat different from their gospel; and they who advocated and defended a fanciful kingdom, seem to have abandoned, or at least temporarily left that position, and come forward with their full strength to the menaced point. None will venture to establish an inquisition on my account; but I should not wonder if an ‘act of conformity’ were not sought to be passed for speakers, or something else of like potency to prevent ‘the same words being again spoken to them.’ I wish they may not; but I cannot help consequences. Honeyed words will not do with some.”
In December following, it was proposed to prohibit members from speaking the “new doctrines, under pain of being compelled to withdraw from their fellowship.” It was, however, moved and seconded, that the question be not entertained. Twenty-two said do not entertain the motion, and twelve said “do.” My “affectionate” cicerone, who by inviting me introduced the “new doctrines,” voted their suppression, and so lost his vote. But our friend did not rest here. After about six months agitation the majority changed sides. One of the most active speakers was voted out. This proved their numerical superiority, and emboldened our redoubtable friend to a renewed effort for the exclusion of heretics. It was no longer loss of Campbellite fellowship if they spoke out their convictions; but the absolute expulsion of “all who had been baptised in such doctrines.” This was Mr. James Ainslie’s proposition. The effort was opposed by the persons aimed at, but unsuccessfully. A resolution was carried by the majority that “we separate and appoint arbiters to arrange the secular matters.” Arbiters were accordingly appointed, and on the first Thursday evening this convener reported, that by a majority they had decided, that those who disapproved, or had voted against a separation, should in the meantime have the use of the Hall. This was objected to, and a counter resolution was proposed. A couple of hours was consumed in stormy debate, at the expiration of which the meeting broke up without any formal decision being arrived at. But after thunder comes the hail. The Campbellites finding they could not resolve things to suit them, determined to “descend into the streets,” as the phrase is, and throw up barricades against the advocates of the kingdom. This was the fashion of that epoch in the old world. Republican barricades were everywhere thrown up by the rebellious against monarchy, and the Dundee Campbellites formed no exception to the rule. They would have none of the kingdom, nor would they tolerate any of its adherents. If they could not vote them out of their territories, they were determined to expel them by force from their citadel. Sometime in March, 1850, about seven months after my visit, the crisis came. The believers in the kingdom’s gospel suspecting nothing, went as usual to Hammerman’s Hall; but to their great surprise they found it locked against them, although one of their number, the deposed bishop I think, was responsible to the owner for the rent. On examining the outworks they discovered an undefended window, out of which the last of the evacuant garrison had retreated. Through this opening one of the excluded passed into the Hall, where he found the doors barricaded with forms and tables, and the windows made secure. The locking and barring out was twice repeated. On this first occasion, the barricades were overturned, and the battle-field with forms and tables, the trophies of the fight, remained for one day in the hands of the anti-hammer-men; and those who thought to pound their fellows in a fool’s mortar, exposed themselves to the contempt that ever attends the rage of imbecility.
This defeat of the enemies of the gospel of the kingdom could not supersede a regular and formal settlement of affairs. The anti-tyrannists, though one in opposition to our “affectionate” friend of Nelson Street and Arthur Lee, his valiant Sancho’s barricade theology, were not united on the truth, nor on their views of how their victory should be improved. Many a brave and noble cause has been lost for want of wisdom and singleness of heart. One of their number informed me, that some of them wished to form from the victors, what he terms “a motley association something like David’s army at Adullam”—1 Samuel 22: 2. That is to organise a new congregation out of the old materials on the basis of simple opposition to Campbellistic proscriptiveness. This would have created a church of some forty members, of which about half a dozen only would have been “obedient to the faith;” the others being but friends to the proscribed from distaste of proscription, and not from fellowship with them in the faith of the kingdom’s gospel. But such an association as this, having a name to live, but really unbegotten of the word of life, was demurred to by brother George Schleselman, late secretary to the Glasgow Campbellite Convention, and others. They thought that now, if at any time, was the crisis for the formation of a society at Dundee, all of whose members should have been baptised upon a confession of faith in “the things of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ”—Acts 8: 12. They considered that “without faith it is impossible to please God;” and that that faith which is alone pleasing to him is “the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen”—Hebrews 11: 1, “which are eternal”—2 Corinthians 4: 18. They applied this principle to churches as well as to individuals, considering that God could be no better pleased with a misbelieving church, than with a misbelieving person. They would not give in, therefore, to the work of founding and building up a new Babel of iron and clay, destined to fall to pieces when the excitement which gave it birth should have passed away. They wanted to guard against the repetition of the late displays of ignorance, arbitrariness, and unbelief, and the only way to fulfil this indication was to begin in the truth and in the love of it, and all other good things would follow of necessity. “It was contended,” in the words of one of them writing to me, “that human traditions and practices should receive no quarters; that human praise and popular plans should be treated as dangerous; and that instead of conformity to the world, we should strive to conform to the doctrine of Christ, and the simplicity of conduct that almost (if not altogether) of necessity follows. You know we disapprove of all clericals of whatever name or degree, and discountenance the assumptions of all hierarchs from Christ’s pretended Vicar on earth, to Baptist pastors; and their mimic ‘presidents.’ We know the public has no true faith, therefore, we do not countenance it in its idea of offering acceptable worship to Israel’s God; but repudiate the confection Christianity of our day, moulded and sweetened as it is to please the depraved taste of a world lying under sin.” No objection could be urged against this but expediency. Its scripturality was admitted, but some did not think it expedient to be too rigid, or rather so rigid; and therefore withheld their cooperation, preferring to invite the others to join them in establishing a more popular and liberal institution. But they declined, and each pursued the course best suited to their own view of things.
On my second and last visit to Dundee, in 1850, I was sorry to find a want of union, confidence, and cooperation among all who had yielded obedience to the gospel of the kingdom. Roots of bitterness existed, connected with total abstinence and what was supposed to be a tendency to episcopal ambition, or leadership. Alas, when will they who would be greatest learn to become the servants of the least of Christ’s flock? I judge not in the case before us, because I am not sufficiently informed of its real demerits; but I do most sincerely tender to all the friends of the kingdom’s gospel the advice which I aim to practise myself, and that is, have patience till the kingdom comes, and seek no lordship until then. If we are found worthy of that kingdom, we shall share with Christ in his absolute and divine lordship over Israel and the nations. Surely this will be honour and distinction enough for the most ambitious. Till then, let us despise the microscopism of a little powerless and brief authority in the household of faith. A man of knowledge and wisdom, will have more authority and power thrust upon him by his fellows, than he will care to exercise, if his mind be rightly chastened by the truth. Let each esteem other better than himself, and all will be well. Men are sometimes made usurpers by the suspicious insinuations of others, and their intrigues to prevent usurpation. Let us beware of this; and let all things be done with love as unto God and not to men, and then harmony will be undisturbed.
Temperance is a virtue against which there is no law. Jesus Christ, our sovereign lord and king, was temperate in all things, and so are all the members of his royal household. He and they are temperate as a fruit of the Spirit—a virtue resulting from the truth believed. He was not a total abstinent. This is a fact. Neither were Paul nor Timothy; nor can Christ’s members be who drink of the new covenant cup. Total abstinence was never made a test of christian fellowship by the apostles, though temperance was; for it is written, “no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Drunkenness is disorderly conduct; and from every brother that walks disorderly, we are commanded to withdraw ourselves. The saints have no right to impose tests of fellowship upon one another which the spirit of God has not imposed. The world, whose standard of morals is not God’s standard, can impose what it pleases upon “its own;” but it has no right to dictate to Christ’s household, who are its master’s elect; nor should Christ’s brethren permit it. They should be careful, too, not to drink into its spirit, nor to cooperate with it in carrying out its crotchets. If every earth-born were a total abstinent, the world would be as far from the kingdom’s gospel as if every man, woman and child were drunken with the fumes of alcohol. The soberest of the world’s people have been made drunk with the wine of the great harlot’s adultery—Revelation 17: 2. This intoxication continues, and will obfuscate their intellects until the Lord comes to sober them—Isaiah 25: 7. Offer the kingdom’s gospel to the most pious of the world’s total abstinents, and they will reject it with contempt, and perhaps with rage; or if they profess to believe it, how few of them are sober-minded enough to obey it. Let not the saints misspend their efforts, and waste their energies. If they be zealous for total abstinence, let it be for a total abstinence from all sins. The gospel needs, and commands their whole soul. Let the world attend to the liquor, to tobacco, and to the emancipation of “its own” from political and social duress imposed upon them by sin, whom they serve; be it ours, the “heirs of the kingdom,” and the future enlighteners and regenerators of mankind, cooperators with Christ in the deliverance of the world, to mind our own business, which is to open the blind eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of the adversary to God, that they may receive remission of sins, and inheritance among them that are sanctified by the faith which is in Jesus—Acts 26: 18. It is well for the world’s sinners to bind themselves by oath to one another totally to abstain from all intoxicating drinks; for this is the highest obligation they can attain to. Total abstinence will improve their social condition, and mitigate the ills inseparable from it. It is doubtless attended by many temporal advantages, and highly to be commended in the man whose purpose is infirm. This being freely admitted, I still contend that none have any right to turn Christ’s church into a total abstinence society, and to brand with reproach the man in Christ, who, like his Lord chooses to exercise his liberty in the temperate or moderate use of wine. “The Son of man came eating and drinking; and they said, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber, and friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of all her children.” John the Baptiser totally abstained, and they said, “He hath a devil.” To abstain for the purpose of “doing good” is fallacious. John’s total abstinence did not save him from “decrease;” and our Lord’s “increase” was not obstructed by the formation and use of wine. Believe and obey the kingdom’s gospel, shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life; advocate it with whole-souled energy, and leave the world to its crotchets, and the saints will do all the good that is possible in this crooked and conceited generation, and all that God demands.
Our Dundee friends of the one part were zealous for “teetotalism,” as well as for the gospel, and in so far, embarrassed its relations. The others were for keeping these two things distinct, which was not interpreted by that charity which “thinketh no evil.” I pretend not to judge between them. “We considered,” said one, “that our righteousness should not be less, at all events, than that of the scribes and Pharisees of the day; and accordingly, for preventing danger, preventing or stilling the whispers of slander and their influence, it was deemed proper to express our sentiments, especially on the present damnable drinking customs, and the practice of countenancing drinkeries. Other points are not overlooked, but as the apostle directed letters to the churches, warning them of the dangers that surrounded them, so it was deemed that this gigantic evil should be particularly avoided, and testified against, and that on no account should we drink of the Abana and Pharpar of Hell. We saw that night-shade was poisonous; so, instead of cultivating and pruning it, we resolved to hew it down and cast it into the bottomless pit, so far as we were concerned. Popular precedent might be found for a mixed race of tipplers and ‘avoiders of evil,’ but in view of public opinion, and of God, and regarding, too, the necessity of purity in the primary advocates of any doctrine, we concluded without hesitation, that on this, as well as on every other evil, our position and practice should be such as we could always honestly pray, ‘Lead us not into temptation.’ If any person advocated the hope of God’s promises as incomparable incentives to morality, it would be very damaging that any one should be able to say at the conclusion, ‘Oh, he takes a dram!’”
Upon the compound principle, then, of teetotalism and the gospel, a few associated themselves to the exclusion of others, who had obeyed, but refused to pledge themselves to total abstinence. If the sobriety of any of them were doubted, they should have been received upon gospel principles, and dealt with accordingly, when they were proved to have infringed culpably the example and precepts of Christ and his apostles. This would have vindicated their zeal for christian morality far more conspicuously than by barring the door of their association with total abstinence. It is strange that believers cannot be content with what satisfied Christ and his apostles. They were as much troubled with “tipplers,” and probably more so in the wine-growing country of Palestine, than we can possibly be in these climes; yet they were contented to “purify men’s hearts by faith,” and forbore to “tempt God to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples.” But we are more sensitive to “public opinion;” that is, the opinion of a vain, foolish, and evil world, than they; therefore, we must fence ourselves in with barriers to fellowship, such as pious, but misbelieving sinners approve!
When I visited Dundee in 1850, I found a church of about fourteen members, with whom I assembled early in the afternoon. Every thing was conducted decently and in order, and harmony seemed to prevail among them. On inquiring after my “affectionate” friend and his companions in the sky-kingdom fancy, I was told that the scattered fragments of the old body had been regathered under his sceptre, and continued to meet, a cold and lifeless skeleton, on the arena of their defeat, which had been handed over to them in default of union among the proscribed, and upon their agreeing to pay the rent.
Events in Dundee disturbed the peace of “the covenanters” in the “kingdom of Fife,” whose head quarters are in Auchtermuchty. A member of the Campbellite church in Cupar, wrote to a friend, saying, “the doctor’s sentiments on the kingdom have been very freely discussed here by Dowie and others. Dowie occupied an afternoon on the subject a few weeks ago; and as he was at Auchtermuchty that same week, he came home full of the views of Campbell and Dron, and expounded them to his audience in all their aerial splendour. It was a thing of air, something which they can never comprehend, far less expound. He received great commendation from the magnates of the place, and conquered for himself the reputation of the great champion of the Master Builder of Castles in the Air. Thus, he took the liberty of going in direct opposition to the word by saying, that ‘it would be derogatory to the interests of God, for us to suppose or desire that Christ should appear again, and sit on a throne among the nations of this earth.’ I leave you to draw your own conclusions. He spoke of the kingdom of Heaven being with us as much as it ever would be, and of its having been set up on the Day of Pentecost, and told us that Christ would not come until the final winding up of all earthly things; when He will come to judge his people in righteousness. This he said was the faith of the Christian, with a great deal more of like speculation, which tickled the ear, but added nothing to the understanding or the heart.”
Such is as correct a narrative of the introduction of the kingdom’s gospel into Dundee as I am able to give from the testimony of all concerned. A goodly number of Elpis Israels, and pamphlets on the “Wisdom of the Clergy proved to be Folly,” has been put into circulation among the people, which, I doubt not, will some day or other open the eyes of many blind. On reading the book, the opinions expressed of Elpis and its author’s motives and sentiments, were both exceedingly diverse and amusing. Some “admired it.” Others “never saw nor read anything like it before.” Some desired to know “when he is coming back? Is he to set up a kirk?” For said they, “we could sit under him with much pleasure.” Dissentients objected that “the author was a Baptist.” Others that he was “something similar in sentiment to a Mormon.” “The principal thing,” said one, “I don’t like him for is, that he makes every body out wrong, but himself.” “He seems to be clever,” said others, “but then the wisest of man may err.” Speaking of the sky-kingdomers a friend says, “they are more bitter, more devilish, in their opposition to Elpis Israel. Everything that is good is attributed to evil; and what is true is insinuated as being only there for the purpose of deceiving, and getting people to believe what is false.”
My intercourse with Dundee was brought to a close by a soiree at which I had the pleasure of meeting many persons who professed to be interested in the things of the kingdom of God. After tea and coffee were removed, questions and explanations became the order of the evening until a late hour. It was then I bid farewell to Dundee, and not long after to Britain itself. What has been the condition of affairs since that time I have received no information. No news is said to be good news. Therefore, in hope that increase in faith; and improvement in practice, have been characteristic of the times, we draw the curtain upon Dundee, and turn to scenes beyond the British Tiber and camp of Mars.
