« PrécédentContinuer »
ren's families, and it has been administered to alleviate their wants and sorrows. I may, perhaps, after this, particularize the expenditure of it, when it is all exhausted, that it may afford consolation to the givers, that it had not been sent in vain.
I am solicited by my mother and sisters to present their Christian regards and warmest affection, along with my own to yourself and family, remaining with much respect and esteem, yours in love for the truth's sake.
No. 21, NELSON STREET, EDINBURGH, 16th Dec., 1847. My dear brother Campbell—I have just received the inclosed report a few minutes ago; and as the Post-Office box for America closes at half an hour hence, I hope you will excuse me for being brief.
The congregation here is moving on: I trust every one perfecting his character and becoming more and more meet to join with those in the New Jerusalem. Several additions to our number have been lately made, and several have fallen asleep in Jesus. The typhus fever has removed many who promised long life by an apparent good constitution.
I have not heard of my books. When you send them, please write me and let me know what you think about this law process. In the meantime allow me to subscribe myself your faithful brother in the kingdom and patience of Jesus,
ROBT. MACDOUGALD. So matters stand in Scotland. May the Lord make all these trials redound to his own glory, to the consolation of his own children, and to the enlightenment and salvation of many! The great cause of original Christianity and of a general reformation in the land of our fathers, is, we confidently expect, to be furthered and advanced by the singular providences through which we have been made to pass. May the Lord, in his infinite mercy, multiply grace, mercy, and peace, to all the holy brethren in the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland! I have some other English matters to lay before you in my next.- -Your affectionate Father,
A. CAMPBELL. P. S. Desirous to preserve the more meritorious and elegant specimens of the good taste, good manners, and moral excellencies of all my troubles in Scotland, I will give you another splendid demonstration of the caution, truthfulness, and good will of the Scotch Emancipation Society, near the great literary and religious centres of the kingdom. The following emanated from the master spirits of the Glasgow Anti-Slavery Society. It was glaring or staring in my face as I walked the streets of Glasgow, on every public corner, in a city containing 340,000 inhabitants. But it speaks for itself:
COPY OF THE GLASGOW ILACARD. “The Glasgow Emancipation Society deem it their duty to warn their fellow-citizens regarding the Rev. A. Campbell, of Virginia, who has announced a course of lectures on various religious subjects.
“This individual has long been, and is now, an unscrupulous advocate and apologist for American man-stealers, slave-holders, separators of husbands and wives, and cradle plunderers."
“Citizens of Glasgow-You have long since decided for ‘no union with slave-holders, either civil or ecclesiastical. Indignantly tell this man, and every apologist for man-stealers, that you scorn, contemn, and loath all who, like him, meanly and impiously attempt to prove that the New Testament sanctions turning their fellow-man, made in the image of God, and of the same blood with themselves, into a slave, a chattel, a thing, a piece of property like a beast. No confidence is, or ever will be, placed by Britons in the Christi. anity, or the exposition of Christianity, by man-stealers, their apologists, or their abettors, who have not even learned that the chief and fundamental principles of Christianity, are to love mercy and do justly-in short, to do to all men as we would they should do to
T. MURRAY, Secs."
WM. SMEAL. You will, no doubt, admire the conscientiousness and love of truth, to say nothing of the consistency which prompted this community, through one of its Secretaries, to institute a suit against me for slander, because I excepted from the list of accredited opponents in debate one of three James Robertsons, because excommunicated for violating the fifth commandment. This is even a greater miracle than straining out a goat and swallowing a camel. It is straining out a mote and swallowing a mountain.
ELDER J. HARVEY TO THE EDITOR. The following letter was recently received from Elder James J. Harvey, now of Kentucky, in which he complains of some injustice having been done to his views of Christian union in some of my strictures upon a new basis of union presented by the Christian Conference, and by him commended my consideration. I have not time to read again all that has been printed in the M. H. on this subject. But, to remove from his mind every suspicion that I either desire to suppress or misconstrue any thing which he writes, I will give him all the benefit he can claim from an insertion of his entire defence on our pages, without either note or com ment. Some items have been already twice published at his importunity or suggestion. Not desiring any controversy or misunderstanding with him, I re
quest the attention of my readers to what he here says for himself. Those who are not then satisfied, I refer to all that has appeared in 1845 and 1846 on these subjects on our pages. Wishing him grace, mercy, and peace,-benevolently,
ELKTUN, KY., December, 1847. BROTHER CAMPBELL:
My dear Sir-Having learned by my November Harbinger that you have returned home, I embrace the first leisure to write you in reply to the article you published touching myself and the subject of Christian union, in your paper of May last. I really regret the necessity, but the course you have seeif proper to adopt on the subject compels me to send you this communication. And I hope it will not be asking too much to request you to publish it entire, and its proper connexions. Had my good brother done this with my letter of Jan’ry. last, I should have been much better satisfied, and in it is more than probable you would not have been troubled with this.
When between you and others there is an honest difference in faith or opinion, if heard at all in your own defence, you wish to be fully heard. This is sust, anil every man's right. And surely it will not offend, when I remind you, that on this point, others are very much like yourself.
In many things you and I have the good fortune to agree, in a few the misfortune to differ. And I dare presume my right to differ from you, is just as good as yours to differ from me. But now let us in the spirit of kinduess, and by fair dealing, see how near we can come together, and in all things be with Christ and his Apostles.
But to the review of your article--You begin by speaking of “Elder James Harvey,” and then state that you “have been publicly censured by Elder J. Harvey for not republishing certain Resolutions,” and next promise that you will, “for his sake, and at his request, lay them again before your readers.”
But instead of publishing again the “Resolution,” (for there is but one,) to which I alluded in my former letter, you publish under three separate divisions, several conclusions to which I had arrived in my reasonings, as laid before you in my letter of April 29th, 1845. These, from certain premises, were my own deductions, and not the “Resolutions of the Pennsylvania Conference" as you represent. I am sorry that you have not better understood this matter; and that you may, I would again respectfully ask the reading of my communication found in the September Harbinger for 1845.
As to the “censure” you charge upon “Elder J. Harvey,” I must, in justice to myself, plead “not guilty.” It was of some importance to me, to be understood in this whole affair, and therefore i alluded (not by way of censuring you) to the Resolntion under which I first wrote you on the subject of Christian union, expressing my regret that you did not publish the resolution with your strictures on my communication.
The Pennsylvania Christian Conference, in August, 1844, passed a Preamble and the Resolution in question in the following words, viz.--"WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Christian Conference presents to the world, as a fundamental principle, that the BIBLE ALONE is a sufficient rule of faith and manners, and that all true Christians can be united upon it; and whereas the people known as “the Disciples of Christ,” or “Reformers," "the Church of God,” improperly called “Winebrennarians," and others profess the same; and whereas it is of the highest importance that all persons making such profession, live in union; and whereas such union does not now exist in consequence of misunderstanding or other causes: Therefore,
“Voted, (or resolved,) That Elder J. J. Harvey (with such counsel as he may obtain) be appointed to correspond with some prominent person in each of the above named bodies, and such others as shall be thought proper, with a view of ascertaining the cause of such disunion; and, if possible, remove it; setting forth that CHRISTIAN CHARACTER, and not technicalities of opinion, being the true test (or ground) of Christian fellowship.”
The publishing of this Preamble and Resolution is now necessary in order to disabuse the public mind from the 'censure’you pass upon the Conference in the words following; —“Had not the basis proposed in the resolve of the Christian Conference proposed an opinion or an article of belief concerning the Messiah that does him great injustice by reducing him to the rank of a mere Prophet, I should likely have suffered the whole matter to pass without an allusion to Unitarianism or Trinitarianism.” See M. H. for May, 1846,
This, sir, is a grave charge; and by an examination of the above “Resolve," the impartial reader will see that you have made it altogether gratuitous! Does not my brother remember that it is wrong, even in him, to “bear false witness against his neighbors”?
I have no objection to your examining what I have submitted, or may hereafter present on this, or any other subject; but, my dear sir, may I not that your examination be candid and kind?
From the above proceedings, I am at a loss for the evidence on which you intimate that the Conference have “added three articles of union to the Bible.” See M. H. for May last, p. 256.
To your language that “the foundation of the Christian church was laid by God the Father, and is a FOUNDATION, TRIED, PRECIOUS, and SURE, other than which there neither now is, nor can hereafter be, laid any one as the basis of enduring union or everlasting peace to the family of God," I do subscribe with all my heart, and to which I cannot see that the above proceedings of the Pennsylvania Conference prefer the slightest objection. Nevertheless of those proceedings you say, “That of the Christian Conference is a sectarian basis; or, as some now call it, a Unitarian basis, or an Antitrinitarian basis."
This, brother Campbell, is the first time I have seen or heard these epithets used in this manner; and I must in all candor say, that such nicknaming comes with a very ill grace from Bethany. The Pennsylvania Christian Conference adhered as firmly to the basis which God the Father has laid down as you do, and I reckon you will not call that “sectarian.” They have no other, as you see by their Preamble and Resolve. I stated “that God had raised up Christ and authorized him to speak to the people.” But you say, “This is just as true of Moses, or John the Baptist, as of Jesus of Nazareth."
That God raised up Christ, and authorized him to speak to the people, I have proved from a quotation from Deut. xviii. 18, 19; by one from Acts iii. 22, 23; by one from Heb. i. 1, 2; by one from Matth. xvii. 5; and by yet another from John xii. 49, 50.
Now, according to your statement above, all these passages should apply with equal force to Moses and John as they do to Christ; for it is upon the authority of these texts that I say God raised up Christ and authorized him to speak to the people. Moses was raised up to lead the Jews, John the Baptist to be the forerunner of Christ; but Jesus of Nazareth was raised up, not as a type or forerunner of another, but as the Son of the LIVING God, as the Light OF THE WORLD, as the TEACHER, and SAVIOUR, and JUDGE OF ALL Nations.
I doubt whether the prolific genius of my brother will enable him to make the above texts apply with equal force to Moses and John, and thus prove his assertion in which I understand him to embrace and rely upon the same evidence, that I do in my assertion.
What Thomas Jefferson and his religious views and character have to do with this correspondence I cannot conjecture. I know nothing of his religious faith. But if he did not believe with Peter, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, of course I do not agree with him. For, I repeat, that what Peter believed and confessed, Matth. xvi. 16., I do, in the fair, full, and literal import thereof, embrace with all my heart and soul.
I regard Thomas Jefferson as the greatest statesman that ever lived; but I know comparatively nothing of his religious views or character; and it is astonishing that you should introduce such foreign mattərs here! They are entirely irrelevant, and altogether impertinent to the subject.
I am not the apologist of Thomas Jefferson's Christianity-indeed I know not that he ever professed religion at all. Your assertion, therefore, “that I with others, am a Christian of the Jeffersonian school,” is as bad logic, I think, as that of the Scotch Secretary when he “placarded you as the defender and ally of man-stealers."
But again, you say that my letter of January last, “is not satisfactory to saint or sinner." Well, my dear brother, I am sorry for this; I did most sincerely intend it should be "satisfactory” to all concerned. But I should not wonder if the false issues, and the remarks you make, before and after, and the garbled manner in which you present it, should, to some extent at least, neutralize and render it unsatisfactory.
But one thing is certain, that he tter which you say “has nothing in it satisfactory to saint or sinner, or that can do its author any honor before an intelligent community,” has so far satisfied you, as to induce you, for the first time in this discussion, to "honor its author" with the courtesy and title of “brother."
Of my letter you also say, “But in the whole piece there appears to be rather a writing for effect, than for conviction. I will, then, allow it all that it can effect in his favor.” It is very remarkable that, with this positive statement touching my “whole piece," you SERIES 111.-Vol. V.