|
15 Arundel Crescent To Wm. Tallack, Esq. Dear Sir, I made sure that you belonged to the Friends, though I do not remember why. Among Christian sects, I have from boyhood, pre-eminently honoured the Friends; yet never have been able to assent to their extremeness. You suggest work for me, but the shops do not furnish ink for quill pens like that of my youth. The fault is not in my eyes, and partially is difficulty of nibbing a quill pen. Metal pens are uncertain. Some twelve years ago, if my memory is correct, an eager Congregationalist implored me to write an article, for "the Christian World," on the Plymouth Brethren. I presumed that the request came from the Editor and executed it carefully, not sparing to dwell on their faults (as to me they appeared), but giving full expression, also, to my sense of their genuine goodness. Time passed: I dare not say how long. When next I saw my Rev. Congregation-alist, I asked, "What of my article about the Plymouth Brethren?" "Oh," he said, "I really am ashamed, but it was not my fault." "Well," I replied, "but what of the article?" I at last learned the truth. The Editor had studied it and replied, "It will not do for us at all; for it is too favourable to the Brethren." I have never seen nor heard of it since. I suppose Mr. Guinness Rogers is the Editor. I did not risk my good temper in writing for the MS. J. Nelson Darby deserved my strong censure for harsh terms, which dared me to open a controversy in their body, because I pleaded to him my acceptance of the Nicene Creed (in 1833) as a sufficient defence. He replied, "The Nicene Creed was a great mistake." But I used it only in defence. This, and this only, forced me out from them. But forty years later, I thanked God for His kindness, which softened my feelings to him. But for him, I should not have learned higher and grander truth. But I regard him as the evil genius of this sect and the perverter of their noblest tendencies. It is with me a historical certainty that the Fourth Gospel is a romance and cannot be depended on for any deed, or word, of Jesus. I am quite out of Trinitarian contro-versy. I know, from 70 years past, all that you urge on me. Paul, in I Cor. viii. 6, is to me no higher than an Arian. I wonder that (with most Evangelicals) I was so slow to see this. I do not wish to pick up a controversy, but the Hebrew Writings show that their sages did not need any mediator, or any atonement. See Psalms 19 and 103 and 119. That is why a God, "whose mercy endureth for ever," satisfies me, and I think ought to satisfy all. I have read carefully your smaller pamphlet, and thank you for it. I believe that, in the past, nearly all wars in Christendom are morally censurable; yet many of them were resisting of the wicked foreigner; and I cannot censure them. God does not save the right by miraculous help. Therefore He bids the strong to help the weak. Bravery becomes a duty. Of English Capital Punishments, since Sir Samuel Romilly, we have made a great clearance. Of a few crimes, the word Murder ought not to be used; but I cannot at all approve of keeping men, or women, alive, who never can again be safe and trusty members of moral society. Insanity, if real, only makes human life cheaper. Thus I cannot, for a moment, wish a total sweep of life penalty. Yet the controversy is perhaps best carried on by the clashing of extremes. So at least our History suggests. Pray accept this long letter very kindly. The crusade will not stop. Yours sincerely,
P.S.—I fear I send you an unreasonably long letter, yet cannot see where to shorten it. The subject is important, misrepresentations great. The new generation has forgotten the events [of the Darby controversy], and I hope you will allow me to speak about them. You may count that 99 times out of 100 I am, and shall be, on your side as to War.
|