KINGDOM AND AGE
TO COME.
“And in their days, even of those kings, the God of heaven shall set up A KINGDOM which shall never perish, and A DOMINION that shall not be left to another people. It shall grind to powder and bring to an end all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.”—DANIEL.
THE
NEW JERUSALEM EXPLAINED.
“I will write upon him that
overcomes the name of New Jerusalem, the city of my God.”—Jesus.
Referring to Revelation 22: 2, 15, a correspondent inquires, “Now, provided the Sin-power be destroyed, and we have all the blessings described in the fourth verse of the chapter before, why do we need the Tree of Life; and why are dogs, sorcerers, &c., said to be without?”
The direct answer to this is, that we have no need; and that dogs, and sorcerers, do not then exist without. This answer, however, is on the hypothesis that “the Sin-power is destroyed,” and that “the blessings” indicated in Revelation 21: 4, are possessed by all the dwellers upon earth, when “the throne of God and of the Lamb” exists in the Age to Come.
But this hypothesis cannot be
sustained. The Sin-power is not destroyed until a thousand years after the
appearing of the Son of Man in power. It is bruised and chained at his
appearing, but not destroyed; as is evident from the prediction that, “when
the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and
shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the
earth, the Gog and the Magog, to gather them together for war; the number being
as the sand of the sea.”
“The blessings” referred to
are postmillennial. It is true, however, that the saints who possess the
kingdom will enjoy those blessings during the thousand years. But then
Revelation 21: 4, is not the passage that predicts their consolation. The
prophecy relating to them reads thus—“I beheld,” says John, “and lo,
a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kingdoms, and
people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with
white robes, and palms in their hands: and they cried with a loud voice saying,
‘The salvation (be ascribed) to him who sits upon the throne of our God,
even to the Lamb!’ These are they that came out of great tribulation, and have
washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Therefore are
they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple; and
he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hunger no
more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any
heat. For the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall
lead them unto living fountains of waters; and God shall wipe away all tears
from their eyes”—Revelation 7: 9-17. This multitude, whose representative
number is 144,000, and their representative measure 12,000 furlongs square
about, 12,000 furlongs high, and walled in by an altitude of 144 cubits, are
the gold, and silver, and precious stones, tried in the fire, of whom Paul
speaks in part in 1 Corinthians 3: 12, as “built upon the foundation of
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner”—Ephesians
2: 20—“a living stone, chosen of God, and precious” to them that
believe—1 Peter 2: 4, 7. These are the Lord’s in that day when he makes up his
jewels—Malachi
These sons and daughters of faith
and tribulation are those, who, in the days of their probation, love
This great multitude has a twofold
existence—first, as flesh and blood suffering tribulation; and secondly, as
palm trees flourishing in possession of the
“Jerusalem a rejoicing and her
people a joy,” compared with anything pertaining to her on former days, is
a new Jerusalem—he ano Hierousalem, “the higher, or more exalted,
Jerusalem;” and by virtue of her being the theatre of divine
manifestations, and “the throne of the Lord,” she is styled, “the
city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,” to which even now all
believers come by faith, and rejoice in hope of her glory, of which they are
joint-heirs with her “Great King.” This being their relation to her,
every one that inherits the glorious things spoken of her, is inscribed with
her name; as saith the Lord Jesus in these words, “Upon him that overcomes I
will write the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem, which descends
out of the heaven from my God.” Each of this great multitude, then, is named
after the Free Woman subsequently to his resurrection; for it is not till then
that their acceptance as those who have by their faith overcome the world’s
enticements, is declared. Now Paul teaches that this multitude of resurrected
and glorified saints will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air—1
Thessalonians
This city, or body corporate, of
Jehovah’s glorified sons and daughters, is representatively exhibited and
described in Revelation 21: 11, to 22: 5. It is set forth as a city having a
great and high wall of Jasper, in which are twelve gates of as many pearls,
with wall-foundations of choice stones, each one of the twelve being decorated
with all manner of precious stones. These rare and brilliant insets, which
highly adorn the State, are worked into pure crystal-like gold, by which the
city-multitude of its street, or broadway—hee plateia tees poleoos, is
represented. In the midst of this polity is the throne of God and of the lamb,
from which issues a life-inspiring stream that flows along the plateia,
refreshing and invigorating all the members of the State. There also stands “the
Tree of Life in the midst of the
THE NEW JERUSALEM WALL.
Such is the municipality of the
Kingdom represented by most expressive symbols, which I shall now briefly
explain. First, then, of the “great and high wall of Jasper.” The
wall is representative of a federal person; and the material, of that
person’s preciousness. That “wall” is used of person in Scripture
is evident from these texts—“What shall we do for our sister in the day when
she shall be spoken for? If she be a wall, we will build upon her a
palace of silver. I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in
his eyes as one that found favour.” This is a Bride that has found favour;
and she is styled a wall. The Lord said to Jeremiah, “I will make
thee unto this people a fenced brazen wall, and they shall fight against
thee, but they shall not prevail.” Speaking of
The enclosure of the New Jerusalem
community—the wall; and their “light”—the glory of God—are both
represented by transparent jasper stone. “I will be the glory in the
midst of her, saith the Lord;” that is, “I will be a stone most
precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal unto her.” And this
interpretation of the jasper-light of the commonwealth, is sustained by the
words of the angel, who says, “And the city had no need of the sun, neither
of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God lightens it, and the
Lamb is the light thereof.” This is taught without symbol in the
prophets. “The man whose name is the Branch,” says Zechariah, “shall
bear the glory, and sit and rule upon his throne.”—“Then,” says Isaiah, “the
moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall
reign on
The relationship of the Lamb and the
Bride in regard to the City Wall, will exemplify the idea of “no temple
being there.” The wall of a house or temple is the building itself; for no
wall, no building. Believers in Christ in the present evil world are styled in
scripture, “the house of God,” and “the
THE PEARL-GATES.
The Twelve Gates of pearls in the
wall represent the relationship subsisting between the New Jerusalem
Municipality and the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The names inscribed on the gates
show that they are representatives of the tribes; and that, consequently, the
members of the New Jerusalem community became such by adoption into the
The organization of the Israel of
God has relation, therefore, to the foundation of the
THE FOUNDATION-STONES.
Each foundation-stone of the city wall is a great precious stone, “a living stone”—and represents an apostle. Each polished gem would be beautiful alone; but how much more beautiful when decorated by all manner of precious stones beside! The meaning of this symbol is expressed in Paul’s words to those whom he had “sealed on their foreheads,” and brought into fellow-citizenship with the Saints of Israel. “What is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? Ye are our glory and joy.” They were not “wood, hay, and stubble,” but gold, and silver, and precious stones. There is no use for destructible materials, such as wood, hay, and stubble, in God’s municipality; it is only those who stand the fire can be admitted there. Such were many of the apostles’ converts to the faith. They will rejoice together in the presence of the Lord; and those who have been brought to the obedience of the faith by an apostle, will be to him the garnishment of precious stones in the holy city.
The elements of the wall and the precious stones, are built upon the foundation stones. The idea incorporated into this symbol is found in the words—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit;” which in the New Jerusalem association, issues from his throne, and flows through every member of it, as “ a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal.”
THE MAGNITUDE OF THE CITY.
The idea of “a great multitude
which no man can number” constituting the New Jerusalem society, is
represented by the symbolical magnitude of the city. Twelve is the radical
number, and multiplies by twelve. Twelve thousand were representatively sealed,
and identified as a tribe of the Israel of God. Twelve times twelve thousand
give the 144,000 on
NEW JERUSALEM THE MILLENNIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD.
Such
a community as this can need no lamp, or sunlight, to enlighten it; for “there
shall be no night there.” Every individual of it will “shine as the
brightness of the firmament; and those of it who have turned many to
righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” Being righteous, they shine
as the sun; for “the Lord God giveth them light; and they shall reign for
ever and ever.”
This saying proves that the New
Jerusalem is a community of kings—“they shall reign for ever and ever”—eis
tous aionas ton aionon, to the ages of the ages. Over whom shall
they reign, and where? “He that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the
end, to him will I give power over the nations; and he shall rule them with a
rod of iron:”—“He shall sit with me on my throne, even as I overcome and sit
with my Father in his throne.” In view of these promises the heirs of the
kingdom sing in their new song, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to
God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and
hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and we shall reign on the earth.”
And when the time comes for this to be fulfilled, John sees “thrones,”
and he says, “They sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them—and they
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” “And the nations of them that
are saved (survive the judgment of the saints) shall walk in the light
of it (the New Jerusalem government), and the kings of the earth
(the victorious saints) bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates
of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And
they shall bring the glory and the honour of the nations into it.”
“And judgment was given unto them;” that is, says Daniel, “to the saints.” This is their honour.
“Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in
their hand; to execute vengeance upon the nations, and punishments upon the
people: to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron:
to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints”—Psalm
149. But the sword only prepares the way for the world’s regeneration. It hews
down embattled hindrances to the improvement of mankind; but it adds nothing to
the spirituality and intelligence of them that escape. The mission of Christ
and his brethren, the saints, is to regenerate the world, as well as to “break
in pieces the oppressor;”—to heal the nations of all their maladies of
soul, spirit, and estate.
The agency by which this great work
is to be accomplished is the Spirit of God operating through Christ, the
Apostles, and the rest of the Saints—the New Jerusalem association of God’s
kings and priests. This idea is represented by the pure river of living water,
the Tree of Life, the twelve fruits, through one month yielding its separate
fruit; and the Leaves of the Tree for the healing of the nations. That “a
pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, issuing from the throne of God
and the Lamb,” is the symbol of the Holy Spirit may be perceived from these
words: —“I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon
the dry ground: I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing
upon thine offspring: and they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows
by the water courses.” “If thou knewest the gift of God, thou wouldest
have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.” “He that
believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of him shall flow rivers of
living water. This spake he of the Spirit, which they that believed
on him should receive.”
THE TREE OF THE KINGDOM.
What the Tree of Life represents may
be learned from the following texts. “Wisdom is a tree of life to them that
lay hold upon her.” “Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose
hope the Lord is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, which
spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat
cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the
year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.” “What is the
vine tree more than any tree?” This text from Ezekiel shows that in the
scripture style, the vine is regarded as a tree. “I am the true vine, and my
Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh
away; and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring
forth more fruit. I am the Vine,” continued Jesus to his apostles, “ye
are the Branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth
much fruit: for severed from me ye can do nothing.”
“In the Word was life; and the life
was the light of men.” That Word was made flesh,
and named Jesus, who proclaimed himself the resurrection and the life. Hence,
as the true vine, he is the Tree of Life, watered by the Spirit, which he
received without measure. He is “a tree of life to them who lay hold upon
him;” for he is “the power and wisdom of God unto them which are
called.” In the book of symbols, Christ on the throne of his kingdom, and
encompassed by the 144,000, is represented as “the Tree of Life in the midst
of the
To eat of this tree is to become one of the leaves of it; and to partake, consequently, of that nourishment which rises from the root through the stem and branches thereof. This life-sustaining and invigorating principle, is that “pure water of life” which issues forth from the throne, and maintains the tree in everlasting freshness and beauty. It is the Tree of the Kingdom to which Jesus referred when he said, “The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field; which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.” The birds of the air are the chiefs of the nations, which saved-nations seek its fruit from one new moon to another ministered to them by its healing leaves.
THE HEALING-LEAVES.
The Leaves of the Tree for the healing of the nations. That is, the water of life is health-imparting to the saved-nations through the Leaves of the Tree of Life. The apostles being the branches of the true vine-tree, those who are ingrafted into that vine by the obedience of faith through their testimony, are the leaves, or breathing organs, of the tree. The Spirit that issues from the throne of God and the Lamb will breathe upon the conquered nations through the Saints, who then “possess the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven.” He breathed upon the 3000 Pentecostians through the Apostles; and the result was, their acceptance of Jesus as King of the Jews, raised up from the dead to sit on David’s throne; and obedience to the kingdom’s gospel in his name. “He breathes where he pleases.” He breathed in Jerusalem of old; he will breathe thence anew; not upon a few thousand Jews only, and through twelve men of Israel; but through “a great multitude which no man can number,” upon all the millennial nations of the earth; so that as a consequence, “the knowledge of the glory of Jehovah shall fill the earth, as the waters cover the sea.” Then “shall the Gentiles come unto Him from the ends of the earth, and shall say, ‘Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.’”
That “a leaf,” or leaves,
when used metaphorically in Scripture signifies a person, will appear from the
following texts. Job, in his reasoning with God concerning his hapless
condition, says, “Wherefore holdest thou me for thine enemy? Wilt thou break
a leaf driven to and fro?” That is, “I am a leaf, as it were, driven
to and fro, wilt thou break me?” as it were, that is, metaphorically.
Isaiah addressing the transgressors in
There is a notable instance of this in Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar in a dream that he had, describes a tree he saw, saying, “I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and the altitude thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth: the leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and on it meat for all; the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was fed of it.” This tree was representative of “the kingdom of men,” on whose Chaldean throne Nebuchadnezzar reigned as king. Hence, Daniel said, in showing the significancy of the tree, “It is thou (or thy kingdom), O king, that art grown and become strong: for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.” The stump of the tree when felled, banded with brass and iron, was the kingdom of Babylon during the seven years of its king’s dethronement, made sure to him on the recovery of his reason. The fair leaves of this tree which were shaken off, were the nobles and dignitaries of the kingdom detached from all connexion with Nebuchadnezzar during the days of his calamity.
The passage already quoted from Jeremiah shows that a person is likened to a tree as well as a kingdom; and that his excellency is manifested in the condition of its leaf, and fruit-bearing quality. When a tree represents a body corporate, its foliage is generally expressed by the plural “leaves,” but when only one person is meant, the singular is used, as “leaf.” Thus, it is written in David, speaking of the man who is blessed, “He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not fade: and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.” This is predicable of the blessed men when he is a leaf among the leaves of the tree of life—whatsoever he doeth then shall prosper. By synecdoche, a leaf for a tree represents a man; as an eye in the apocalyptic living creatures symbolises an individual; the rule being, a part for the whole for the decorum of the symbol. A multitude of eyes, and a multitude of leaves, are a multitude of people, constituting a community, incorporated into a divine polity in that represented by the tree-stock, and the cherubic creatures—fire, light, and spirit, the symbols of the God-head in manifestation through body, styled “God manifest in the flesh.”
I trust that the reader will now be
able to answer the question scripturally and rationally, “What is represented
by the apocalyptic city of gold and precious stones? And what by the throne,
the river, and the tree of life?” They are all things representative of Christ
and his breastplate-Saints * in their governmental relations to the millennial
nations. There is one point, however, I have only hinted at in my exposition,
which I will briefly notice here. The common version reads, “the tree of
life which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit
every month.” The words in bold type were inserted by the translators to
make out what they conceived to be the sense. Their rendering, however, is not
satisfactory. The words are, a tree of life, producing twelve fruits,
through one month yielding its separate fruit. In this rendering no
supplemental words are introduced. But what is the meaning of it? I believe
that it is symbolical of something already declared by the prophets; for the
whole book of the apocalypse is a symbolical representation of “the mystery
of God as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.” In these
writings he has promised blessedness and saving health to all nations; and we
read of them saying in their convalescence, “Come and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us
of his ways.” Who will teach them? He who is the tree of life in the
It will hardly be necessary, I think, after this exposition, to say much about the “dogs and sorcerers without”—the Gentiles and teachers which they have heaped up to themselves after their own lusts. It must be obvious to every one that there can be none such within: but that the words are strictly true in the very nature of things, that “there can in no wise enter into it anything that defileth; but only those written in the book of the Lamb’s life.” The Lamb’s life-community is the world’s unchangeable government for a thousand years. Flesh and blood cannot be a constituent of that government. It is “without;” and until that government is triumphantly established, it is in open rebellion, cursing, and wailing, and gnashing its teeth. But of this hereafter at a more convenient opportunity.
EDITOR.
* Aaron under his foursquare breastplate of judgment, the Urim and Thummim, the ephod, gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and fine twined linen in the most holy place, was a type of the New Jerusalem; that is, of Christ and his Saints in glory. Compare Aaron’s foursquare with the foursquare of the Apocalypse, Exodus 28. Concerning Christ as the precious seven-eyed stone “like a jasper and sardius to look upon,” Jehovah says, “I will engrave the graving thereof,” which graving is represented in the workmanship and names engraved on the gates and foundations of the city.
* * *
LETTER
TO ALESSANDRO GAVAZZI.
Modern Protestantism an interest, not a principle—Adverse Politicals advocate it, and flatter its enemies, for the sake of their votes—Lying the order of the day—The oldest Church of Christ in Rome, Jewish and not Italian—“Catholic” a name of faction—No “Catholics” in Peter’s day—The Church of Christ in Rome not the “Church of Rome”—The Catholic faction Paganised into the Catholic Church of Rome under Constantine—This Emperor Pagan, Pontiff, and Catholic Hierophant—Christianity defined—not intended for a political constitution—The Nations and their Governments the enemies of God—Popery cannot be annihilated till Christ comes—Signor Gavazzi and the mark of the Beast—The good news of the Gospel indicated—The Israelitish kingdom and empire of the future—Christ and his brethren to subdue the nations and enlighten the world.
Dear Sir—Though neither papist, protestant,
nor “Roman Catholic of Peter’s time,” I have not been altogether an unconcerned
observer of your endeavours in this great
In reading a brief report of your
speeches, I perceived that some things had fallen from your lips which evinced
that you were considerably in advance of the current Protestantism of this
cloudy and dark day. This discovery afforded me real gratification. The
Protestantism of this country is but a fashionable Demas, competing with popery
for the votes of the Democracy, which at heart they both cordially despise.
Soul-saving is the pretext; the loaves and fishes of the state, daily
sumptuousness, and power, the real end of the enlargement of their phylacteries
before the people. The Protestantism of Luther, Calvin and Wesley, has
doctrinally accomplished all it is capable of against Romanism in its papal
manifestation. “The Reformers” all erred in supposing that popery could be
reformed; and in admitting that the Roman Catholic church was ever a true
church. You admit this in part. In so far then we are agreed. No independent
mind enlightened by Moses and the prophets, Christ and the apostles, thinks of
paying any regard to an Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or Methodist protest
against popery; for if the papal church be the “Mother of harlots” as
they say, they are unquestionably “the daughters”—the “women” of
Revelation 14: 4. As you truly remark, therefore, “to protest against popery is
very little:” hence the position you have assumed is great and impregnable, to
protest against all sects, and to “preach Christianity as it was in the early
church.” This is what few can do. I have heard of no man in this city competent
to the task. There are many pretenders; but “a workman that needeth not to
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth,” is yet a desideratum for
this corrupt, blind, and demoralised community. The gospel preached by the
apostles is unknown, and supplanted by “philosophy and vain deceit” for
the entertainment of the “itching ears” which have heaped up to
themselves pulpit orators after their own lusts. Antique spiritual bazaars,
luxuriously embellished, whose pews are auctioned off to the highest bidder,
are the places of resort they call “churches”—places of spiritual merchandise,
where papist and protestant priests make long prayers, and wrest the scriptures
to please the taste of the sinners who hire them to cure their souls. This is
the “religion” of the world here—a religion of fashion, lust, and intense
selfishness, which leaves the people to “perish for lack of knowledge.”
It circulates the Bible indeed; but at the same time pronounces Moses and the
prophets unintelligible, and represses with bitterness all truth not
represented in their miserable sectarian creeds, and confessions of faith. From
such a system, gospel-liberty and enlightenment are not to be expected.
Fostered by such Protestantism as this, popery is a deadly viper warming into
virulence destructive of every good.
Your case, Signor Caro, would have
been a dead failure, if in the opening of your brief you had proclaimed
yourself the champion of Protestantism. If you had assumed this position you
would have been vulnerable at all sides, and could only have defended yourself,
as protestants do, by proving that of two blacks popery is the blacker most
intensely. So long as you advocate that Christianity found in the Bible without
regard to popery and Protestantism, Archbishop Hughes, the representative of
the Beast’s Image in this city will take special care how he troubles himself
with so inconvenient an antagonist. If I mistake not the man, he has assailed
Protestantism in newspaper controversy with a Presbyterian champion named
Breckenridge, whom he gained a decided advantage over on the question of
baby-rhantism, or sprinkling. This you know, Signor, is not taught in the
Bible, but is a dogma of the Apostasy established by papal authority. Hughes
maintained this, and urged truly that the protestant “baptism” was a popish
institution; and that if popery were proved to be a lie, baby-sprinkling was a
part of that lie; and as protestant creeds made it essential to salvation, as
proved by John 3: 5, no protestant could enter the kingdom of God; in which
conclusion more truth than fiction is contained. Hughes has the soul of a
Jesuit, and consequently all the serpent-cunning of that creature, but with
none of the harmlessness of the dove, where he can bite without being bitten.
He fears you doubtless as you now stand. Beware, however, of the protestant
Jesuitism of the political press. If dagger “John” of New York, Cardinal
expectant, make any move against you, it will probably be by setting his
underlings to work upon the fears of the editors, who, instead of being the
enlightened leaders of the people in the way of truth and righteousness, are
the mere breath of political factions, whose “principles” are summarily
expressed in the proverb “to the victor belong the spoils.” The popish vote in
this city is very great, and can be controlled here as in other parts of
Papaldom, by a corrupt and vicious priesthood. In view of this influence the
party editors are cap in hand to the priests especially, whose motto is that
also of the clergy of all sects, “disturb not that which is quiet.” Hence they
are very sensitive on the subject of religious controversy. They readily
endorse that maxim of a rotten cause so ardently cherished by all who live by
it, that “controversy is dangerous to religion.” The political editors know how
repugnant it is to the priests or clergy of the Old Mother and her Daughters to
have their creeds and confessions unceremoniously scrutinised and tested by
scripture; they therefore repress all such investigation with the understanding
that they will direct their pious influence in the true channel of political
orthodoxy. Do you think that a Whig editor’s sympathy for human liberty and
detestation of Austrian and papal cruelty is so hearty and disinterested that
he would do and say in
This is the philosophy of that
denunciation you recently experienced from these same editorial partisans for
stripping off the veil from the hideous idol to which they burn incense for the
votes of its besotted worshippers, but whose idolatry they neither love nor
venerate. You say truly that “popery is essentially against all freedom, and
therefore against all republics.” I endeavoured to convince the citizens of
You are reported to have said, that
you are “not a protestant in any sectarian sense, and wish to be called rather
by the name of Roman Catholic.” But why by this? “Because,” say you, “the Roman Catholic
church is the most ancient church in
When the mystery of the
Fellow-heirship of the Gentiles with Christ was revealed, they were admitted to
the fellow-heirship of believing Jews in
In 251, a schism occurred in the
church at Rome by means of Novatian, one of its elders. Many drew off with him,
and formed a community entirely distinct from that which fellowshipped the
bishop. Their adversaries confess they were sound in the faith, though
excessively rigid and severe. The seceders (and you call yourself a “Seceder,”
Signor) were called “Cathari,” or pure, because they contended for virtue,
innocency, and purity in the lives of all who belonged to the christian church;
the contrary of which obtained in the generality to a lamentable degree. It was
now that the distinction arose which has continued to this day. The majority
who courted popular applause, and sided with the chief bishop, or elder of the
church, were called Catholic, and those who seceded, no matter on what
account, were styled Heretic.
In consequence of this division,
instead of there being a church of Rome, there were TWO RIVAL CHURCHES IN ROME.
This was in A.D. 251, nearly two hundred and twenty years after the
introduction of the gospel to that city by the Jews, who had heard Peter on
Pentecost. There was no Catholic Church heard of until this date. The chief
overseer, who afterwards grew into a full-blown Pope by favour of Justinian,
Phocas, and Charlemagne, was the Head of the Catholic Party. Now you reject
that head, how then can you claim to be a Catholic? If you contend for
fellowship with the most ancient church in Europe, you must renounce the Roman
Catholic, and identify yourself with the older body existing there before any
Gentiles or Italians were admitted to its fellowship. This was the church in
Rome in Peter’s time; a church that knew nothing of Popes, Cardinals,
Archbishops, Monks, Friars, Nuns, or priests’ harlots, or any other hypocrisy
and abominations. The Saints in Rome were all God’s clergy or lot; his sons and
daughters, without distinction of clergy and laity, “kings and priests”
elected for the kingdom soon to be established on the ruins of the kingdoms,
empires, and republics of the world.
It is unnecessary for me to trace
minutely the history of the Novatian Church and the Catholic Church in Rome. In
their beginning they were neither of them “the Church of Rome,” because the
Italians of that city were catholically, or generally, pagans, the christians
indeed and in name being only the exception to the rule. If you were settled in
New York as pastor of a congregation of two or three hundred Italians, would
you be justified in calling your little flock “the church of New York,”
by which it would be understood that all its citizens belonged to your church,
or that you claimed jurisdiction over them as the pastor or “Archbishop,” or
Pope of New York? Would not all your contemporaries here hold your pretensions
in perfect and well-merited contempt? It would have been so with the Novatian
and Catholic Churches in Rome had they either of them in their beginning
assumed the title of the Church of Rome. There was no Church of Rome claiming
ecclesiastical jurisdiction over its citizens in A.D. 251. If the title “Church
of Rome” be admissible at all, it is only in a pagan sense of the term. The
Emperor being ex officio “supreme pontiff,” was the head of that church
which, at that time, was the true church in the estimation of all Italians,
save the comparatively few, identified with the proscribed faith.
But the Church of Rome did not
always continue strictly pagan. Its constitution was modified by the revolution
which changed the form of the Roman Government in A.D. 312. Till this date all
its pontiffs, from Julius Caesar to Maxentius, were priests of Jupiter and his
companion gods, to whom they sacrificed hogs, fit emblems of the worshippers.
The God of Israel, and his King, the crucified Nazarene, found no favour in
their eyes; but were the objects of persecution and hatred in the persons of
the saints. But in the beginning of the fourth century an Emperor appeared,
whose admiration for Apollo and Christ, the Gods and the Martyrs, was pretty
nearly balanced, but leaning rather more towards Christ and the Martyrs than
towards the others. This man, styled Constantine the Great, was reputed a
christian by the Catholic party for fourteen years, although he was not
immersed until three days before his death. As a proof of his
double-mindedness, I would remind you that he enjoined the solemn observance of
the Lord’s Day, which he called the day of the sun, Die Solis, after his
favourite god; and in the same year, A.D. 321, directed the regular
consultation of Auruspices; and during all this time he was permitted to enjoy
most of the privileges of the Catholic Church, praying with the members,
preaching on theology, celebrating with “sacred rites” the vigil of Easter, and
publicly announced himself not only a partaker, but, in some measure, a priest
and hierophant of the “christian mysteries.”
Thus, the Roman World now saw for
the first time a “Pontifex Maximus” who officiated for Israel’s God, and the
sun, &c.! Subsequently to his imperfect proselytism to Catholicity, he
caused his son Crispus, of whom he was jealous, to be put to death. Here, then,
we have a semi-pagan and a murderer placed by a successful revolution at the
head of the pagan church of Rome. He was the type of his body the church, as
Christ is of his. The revolutionised church of Rome was a den of thieves and
murderers, robbers, and slayers of heretics, as before the revolution it was of
all who professed Christianity of any kind.
Now, Signor Gavazzi, which of the
two schisms in Rome expanded into the church of Rome, the Novatian or the
Catholic? You will, doubtless, answer—the Catholic. You are right. The
Novatians separated from the Catholics before they assumed that name, because
of their having abandoned “the love of the truth,” and the practice of
it. So that catholic is but another term for apostasy. It has always
been associated with sin in all its manifestations of superstition, bigotry,
hypocrisy, cruelty and crime. The best men having seceded from the church in
Rome, the vicious majority that remained had free scope for the next sixty
years to mature their ambitious projects; which was, by the strengthening of
the catholic influence, through the proselyting of multitudes, and the favour
of infidel politicians, with whom paganism and catholicity, as popery and
Protestantism are now, were but tools that knaves do work with, to make such a
revolution as would give the Catholic Clergy the loaves and fishes of the
State, then monopolised by their rivals and persecutors, the priests of Jupiter
and his court. From A.D. 270, to the end of the century, “ecclesiastical
discipline,” says the historian, “which had been too strict, was now relaxed
exceedingly: bishops and people were in a state of malice; endless quarrels
were fomented among contending parties; and ambition and covetousness, had, in
general, gained the ascendancy in the Christian Church. Notwithstanding this
decline both of zeal and principle; notwithstanding this scarcity of
evangelical graces and fruits, still Christian worship was constantly attended,
and the number of nominal converts was increasing; but the faith of
Christ itself appeared now an ordinary business.” Eusebius the historian,
himself a catholic of that period, says, “We heaped sin upon sin, judging, like
careless Epicureans, that God cared not for our sins, nor would ever visit us
on account of them. And our pretended shepherds, laying aside the rule of
godliness, practised among themselves contention and division.” A perfect type
of things existing now.
Such was the Catholic church in
Rome, and indeed the Catholic faction or schism throughout Italy and Gaul, when
the ambitious Constantine conceived the project of becoming sole emperor of the
Roman world. Himself a fugitive in Britain from imperial designs upon his life,
he naturally entertained a fellow feeling for others similarly circumstanced.
He became therefore a banner for the disaffected unfurled for a revolution the
most remarkable in the history of the empire. His armies were crowded with
Catholics, whose champion he had become, and it soon became manifest, that the
real struggle was between that corrupt party and the partisans of the pagan
church for ascendancy in the State. The catholic woman and her man-child
triumphed; and being therefore enthroned, they seized upon the temples of the
gods, and ejected their priests. They superseded the gods by the ghosts of the
martyrs, to which they dedicated the temples, and appointed the catholic clergy
to officiate at their altars in the character of priests. Thus, instead of
Christianising paganism, Catholicism was paganised, and expanded into the
church of Rome; which in the fulness of its development, and loaded with the
fruit peculiar to it, stands before the nations as “the Mother of Harlots, and
of all the abominations of the earth.”
From what has been said, then, it
has been made to appear clearly, that you are mistaken in the supposition, that
the Roman Catholic church is the most ancient church in Europe; and that there
were any Roman Catholics in Peter’s time. Such a church, and such Catholics,
were altogether unheard of and unknown. Their church is a schism, and
themselves Schismatics. I trust, therefore, you will renounce “Roman Catholic”
as a name, as well as papist. Bible names for Bible things; no human nomenclature
can better designate the things of the Spirit than the Spirit’s own words and
phrases.
New Testament Christianity was not
promulgated as a civil and ecclesiastical constitution for peoples and nations.
It appears to me, from the reports of your speeches, that you think it was.
Hence, you talk about “Italians being Roman Catholics because they are
Italians,” by which you intimate that they are Christians of the early church,
because they are Italians. But, as I have shown, Christianity is not a specialty
of Italians, though Roman Catholicism is. This is the mother schism, and
peculiar to Rome. Lutheranism is German popery Lutheranised; Presbyterianism,
Scotch popery Calvinised, and so forth. These modifications of Romanism are all
political systems, and constitutionally suited to English, German, and Scotch
peoples, as civil and ecclesiastical constitutions. But it is not so with
Christianity, which is utterly at variance with them all in doctrine, aim, and
practice. CHRISTIANITY is “the Gospel of the kingdom” for the
obedience of faith, with the “all things” enjoined upon the baptised by
the apostles. This is the best definition I can give in Bible terms to a
word which does not occur in the Scriptures. The Gospel of the kingdom is an
invitation to Jews and Gentiles to become heirs of God’s kingdom and glory, on
condition of believing “the things of the kingdom of God and the name of
Jesus Christ,” and being immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit— Acts 8: 12. They are invited to separate themselves from the
institutions of the nations, which are of no spiritual account in the affair of
salvation. In believing and obeying the truth, this separation is effected; and
though the believers live under the schismatic constitutions of the Gentiles,
as Jewish Christians in Palestine lived under the Mosaic constitution, they
have no use for them as spiritual institutions. You may see from Acts 15: 7-19,
that God sent the Gospel invitation to the Gentiles “to take out of them
A PEOPLE for his name.” If there be a hundred bushels of grain, and I “take
out of them” ten quarts, that is surely very different to taking the whole
bulk. God sent the Gospel to Rome, not to take all Italians for his people; but
to take out from among them some who by obedience should become his people. The
Italians are constitutionally the Pope’s people, as the Turks are Mohammed’s,
and the Greeks are the Russian Autocrat’s. If Italians would become people of
God, they must separate themselves from every form of Roman Catholicism by
believing the gospel of the kingdom and obeying it. Let me press this point
upon you, Signor. “If judgment begin at the house of God,” says Peter, “what
shall the end be of them who obey not the gospel?” Hear what Paul
says in answer to this question. “The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from
heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them
that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” A man may protest against popery, or he may annihilate it; he may
by his eloquence create a sympathy for the down-trodden of all nations, and
kill his ten thousands of the Philistines in battling for liberty and the
rights of man—but what of all that? Is he therefore justified from all his past
sins, and has he thereby acquired a right to the kingdom and eternal life? By
no means. These are only to be obtained by believing the gospel and obeying it,
and thenceforth living a sober, righteous, and godly life in this present evil
world.
I would enquire, how can one of
Peter’s church, or rather Christ’s in Peter’s time, scripturally become the
advocate either of peoples or of their oppressors? The peoples of the world are
sinners by nature and practice, living in their sins, and therefore enemies of
God. These sinful peoples constitute the world; and the Scripture saith, “the
friendship of the world is enmity with God. Whosoever, therefore, will be a
friend of the world is the enemy of God.” Again, “If any man love the
world, the love of the Father is not in him.” “Whosoever is born of God
overcometh the world; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even
our faith.” And again, “If I yet pleased men (the world), I should not
be the servant of Christ.” This separation from sinners is a great
principle of Christianity, and quite incompatible with the christian’s advocacy
of the people’s cause against their oppressors. A christian can only lawfully
plead the cause of God and the Gospel, against which both oppressors and the
oppressed are united in the strictest fellowship and alliance. They may hate
one another cordially, but they do not therefore love God the more; for, saith
he, “if ye love me, do what I command you;” for “love is the
fulfilling of the law.”
I am glad to see, Signor Gavazzi,
that though mistaken on some important points, you are in advance of
protestants generally upon others. You believe in the personal appearing of
Jesus Christ to establish in Palestine a kingdom of universal dominion and
justice; also in the restoration of the scattered tribe of Israel to their
fatherland; and that the time is fast coming when all denominations will
disappear. These points believed, and added to your desire to “preach
Christianity as it was in the early church,” “to preach the religion of Christ
among the American people,” with your recent quotation of the condition of
salvation, that “he who believes the gospel and is baptised shall be saved”—give
me great hopes of you, that you are capable of receiving the way of the Lord
more perfectly; and may be turned from the bootless effort of annihilating
popery, and pleading the hopeless cause of sinners with sinners against their
oppressors, to the more exalted mission of beseeching your hearers to be
reconciled to God upon the stipulations presented in the Gospel of the kingdom.
But to qualify one’s self for this
mission, we must understand and obey the truth ourselves. Pardon me when I say
that I am apprehensive that you are deficient in this particular. If by a
“Roman Catholic,” I am to understand one, who has no other “baptism” than what
babies in Italy receive at the hands of Italian priests, I am certain that you
have not obeyed the truth. Christians of Peter’s time were justified by their
own faith; not by the credulity of ignorant godfathers and godmothers. Hear
what Paul says, “Ye are all the children of God by faith which is in Christ
Jesus.” Suppose we ask Paul, “What evidence is there that we are his
children by faith?” Now, just attend to what he says in the next verse in
answer to the question. —“Because,” says he, “as many of you
(believers) as have been baptised (immersed) into Christ have put on
Christ.” Thus, you perceive, that being intelligently immersed into
Christ is the evidence of our being God’s children by faith, and if his
children, then heirs of the promises made to Abraham and his seed.
On the supposition that you are a
Roman Catholic, and therefore a schismatic from the church in Peter’s time,
allow me to say, that your Italian “baptism” and “ordination,” are nothing more
than “the Beast’s mark” and license to sell in what you truly call “the
pope’s shop.” For as the scripture foretold, that pontifical power “causes
all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in
their right hand or on their foreheads; and that no man might buy and sell save
he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
Now, Signor, you were once a popish priest, and sold spiritual merchandise in
the bazaars of guardian saints to them who were privileged to buy. Confession,
baby-rhantism, burials, marriages, masses, and so forth, were some of those
wares you exchanged with purchasers for gold, and silver, and tithes, and
divers other contributions. Could you have sold those things to the Italians,
if you had not been signed with the mark, character, or sign of the cross on
your forehead, and not been cruciated with the same mark in your right hand at
your ordination as a seller of wares in the Pope’s shop? And could an Italian
have purchased of you a burial in “holy ground,” if the deceased had not been
signed with the sign of the cross in baby-rhantism? The affirmative to these
questions being granted, I would just refer you to the sentence pronounced upon
all such as do not take proper steps for the obliteration of so ignominious a
mark as that of the “accursed tree.” Here it is. “If any man worship the
beast and his image, and receive a mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the
same shall drink of the wine of God’s wrath, which is poured out without
mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented in fire and
brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.
* * * And they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image,
and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” Here is the secret of
Italy’s woes made patent to every reader. The Italians have sold themselves in
past ages to imperial popery, and they are now reaping the bitter fruits. But
the cup of suffering is not full yet. The mark of the Beast is upon them all,
and what the malignity of Austria, Naples, and the pope has left unfinished,
the just vengeance of the Lamb upon them for the murder of his saints and their
hatred of the Bible, will be fully accomplished. But after judgment, then comes
the blessing of Abraham upon all nations.
Will you, Signor, continue to wear
the livery of the beast’s image, and his mark, and to labour to excite sympathy
for them whom God hath doomed? America can do nothing for Italy. The only hope
for Italians is to leave Italy to France, Austria, and the Pope; and in
believing the gospel and obeying it, to wash out the beast’s mark in the blood
of the lamb. Being desirous to assist them in this work, I have addressed
myself to you, in hope of putting you right, that being rectified yourself, you
may be able to promote the good work in relation to them in England and the
United States. To make this more practicable, I have sent you herewith a copy
of Elpis Israel, published by me in London and New York; with the first and second
volumes of the Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, a periodical I issue
every month in this city. What you will find in Elpis Israel, and the Herald,
will, I doubt not, give you a view of what the Bible teaches in relation to
salvation by the gospel of the kingdom, and to the future of Italy, Hungary,
Turkey, France, Austria, Russia, Britain and the Jews, that will not be thrown
away upon a man of your independence of thought, word and deed. You will find
also some copies of a letter addressed to Louis Kossuth when in this city, and
which has been republished in some of the English papers, and is about being
issued in Edinburgh in pamphlet form.
In view of all that has been said,
it is certainly an important question, “What is the gospel?” It is the good
news that God purposes to send Jesus Christ to Palestine to re-establish the
kingdom and throne of David there, and in accomplishing this to restore the
twelve tribes of Israel; break in pieces the Gentile governments; cut up and
disperse all their armies; annex the dominion of the whole world to the kingdom
of Israel; enlighten the nations, and establish the authority of God on the
final ruin of Greek and Latin popery, Mohammedanism, paganism, and
Protestantism of every name and denomination. So that then shall come to pass
the prophecy of Jeremiah saying, “In the day of affliction the Gentiles
shall come unto thee, O Lord, from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely
our fathers have inherited lies, vanities, and things wherein there is no profit.”
And “at that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all
the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord unto Jerusalem;
neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart. In
those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they
shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given
for an inheritance unto your fathers.” When these promises become
accomplished facts, AN ISRAELITISH KINGDOM AND EMPIRE will exist upon the
earth, transcending in the greatness of its power, the extent of its dominion,
the splendour of its majesty, and the justice and beneficence of its rule, any
sovereignty existent since nations occupied the earth. This is that dominion of
which the gospel of the kingdom treats.
But, it might be asked, What good
news is that to us who may die before it is established? It is good news in
this respect—that Christ and the Apostles say to us, that if we will believe
the things testified in Moses and the prophets concerning it; recognise the
claims of Jesus to the throne of the kingdom as son of David and of God, admit
the doctrine of his death and resurrection as a propitiation for the sins of
believers, and be immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—if
we will believe and do these things, and lead a holy and righteous life in hope
of the kingdom and its eternal attributes, although we may die before the
kingdom and dominion are established, Christ will raise us from the dead,
associate us with himself in the work before him, and give us a share in all he
shall possess. Hence an Apostle says, “God hath chosen the poor in this
world, rich in faith, to be the heirs of that kingdom which he has promised to
them that love him;” and when the kingdom is ready, Jesus will say to his
saints, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world.”
In conclusion, Signor, I would
suggest that you are too belligerent for a christian of Peter’s time. You glory
in having borne arms against the Austrians, and are here preaching a crusade
against him, and execration against French interference. Christ says, “love your
enemies,” though I admit not his; “bless and curse not.” A
spirit of cursing and hatred is not a right spirit. In the absence of Jesus, we
are to do good to those who despitefully use us; and are forbidden to avenge
ourselves. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” The time
is not come till he returns, for the saints to draw the sword. Till then, the
weapons of their warfare are not bayonets and artillery; but reason and
testimony. These are mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds. “Though
we walk in the flesh,” says Paul, “we do not war after the flesh;
casting down reasonings, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the
knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the
obedience of Christ.” When he comes the saints will have fighting to their
heart’s content; as it is written, “the little Horn (imperial popery) made
war upon the saints, and prevailed against them until the Ancient of Days came,
and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came
that the saints possessed the kingdom.” Referring to this time, David says,
“Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds. Let
the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their
hands, to execute vengeance upon the nations, punishments upon the people; to
bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute
upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints.” Thus, you
will perceive, that the honour of liberating mankind from the tyrants that now
heel them in the dust, is reserved of God to a superior order of beings to
those who are now the champions of liberty and the rights of men—it is an
honour reserved for those who have acquired the mastery over themselves in “bringing
every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” That you and I
may share in this honour, is the earnest desire of, dear Sir,
Yours faithfully, —JOHN THOMAS.
Mott Haven, Westchester, N. Y.
April 9, 1853.
* * *
OUR VISIT TO BRITAIN.
Baby-sprinkling in Aberdeen at two and sixpence a head—The gospel of the kingdom gets a footing among the Campbellites—Visit to Plymouth—The pamphlet exposing the folly of the clergy excites the pious horror of one fishing for a call—Apostasy for a mess of pottage—Elpis Israels gambled for, and condemned to be burnt—Its author a serpent of the latter days—Liverpool visited.
As already stated, I journeyed to
Dundee from Aberdeen. The “gospel of the kingdom,” preached in this city
of the north, was not without effect. The audiences were large, but not to be
named after those of Glasgow. The attention of the people was strict, and, I
suppose, the impression somewhat more than superficial. I come to this
conclusion from the following words in a letter from that city—“Friend H—had
two Sundays hard labour after you left to undo what you had done in his
tabernacle. He was making a sore handling of matters, as I am informed. Poor
gentleman, he could scarcely crow in his own Zion, though there were none to
oppose him.”
The gentleman referred to in this
extract was formerly in the British army; but at the termination of the contest
with Napoleon, was discharged with many others on its reduction to a peace
establishment. In consequence of this, he changed the weapons of his warfare,
and unfurled his flag in Aberdeen. Finding an unoccupied conventicle, he rented
it on his own responsibility for “public worship.” It is styled, I think, “the
Christian Chapel,” and is capable of holding several hundred people. The odour
of sanctity in Aberdeen is not supposed to be intensified by any fragrance
exhaling from his institution. The clergy there do readily detect most
unsavoury perfumes when their orthodoxy occasionally snuffs the wind of his
divinity. At least so it is said. Having ordained himself to the totality of
the chapel offices, he can have no part with them in their apostolic
successorship. The holiest hands laid upon his head were his own, so that
whatever spirit was imparted to him by that formality emanated from himself;
and being equally pious as they, or their ordainers, is as much the spirit of
God as any that they can boast of. It is thought, however, that the alienation
between him and the clergy is more to be attributed to his underselling them in
the soul-market, than to his lack of due presbyterial ordination. They will not
sprinkle babies for regeneration unless the parents are what they call
“believers;” but this, I am told, is no obstacle in the way of Mr. H—. He
grants the babe a dispensation for rhantism without faith, and performs the
ceremony for unbelievers’ babes at two shillings and sixpence sterling a head.
Now there are many infidel husbands and wives in Aberdeen, who still have a
superstitious reverence for this “church ordinance.” They want their children
to appear like other children, who are considered more respectable than those
who have not been sprinkled with the church water at the hands of “the
minister.” Now, Mr. H—, it is presumable, having as little respect for
baby-sprinkling as an apostle, who says in regard to God’s creatures, that “without
faith it is impossible to please him,” considered it a public grievance,
that babies should suffer in their respectabilities for the short-comings of
their parents, which they could in no wise prevent. He saw clearly, that
believers’ babies had no more faith than infidels’ babies. To his mind there
was no room for question or dispute upon this point. He very acutely perceived,
therefore, that all babies were babies, and had an instinctive desire for no
other milk than their mother’s. For “the unadulterated milk of the word,”
he was intuitively and logically sure they had no more longing than for the
Pope’s tiara, of which they had never heard. Hence, he perceived that the
clerical requisition for parental faith did not evade the apostolically stated
impossibility; for, however pleased with the parents, it is obvious God could
not be with the babies, who were perfectly indifferent to the milk of his word.
He placed all babies, therefore, in the same category; and practically rejected
the clerical sprinkling, as having no superior efficacy to his own. If the
parents’ faith in the Assembly’s Catechism was a good substitute for the
babies’ ignorance thereof, his faith was as good a proxy for the parents’ lack
who became his customers. Mr. H—was, therefore, the catechism become flesh. He
believed it with faith enough for all infidel Aberdonians; and could
consequently sponsorise all the babes in Aberdeen in the event of all
church-goers honestly avowing their babylike indifference to “the milk of
the word.” Was it not a public benefaction, the preservation of the
respectability of multitudes of the rising generation at the low price of half
a crown a head? It is said to have been so considered by many. The clergy
thundered, but Mr. H—pocketed the lightning. His speculation succeeded. His
bazaar was well frequented, and riches increased. Compared with his competitors
in trade, his wares are as genuine, and his drafts upon heaven’s bank as likely
to be honoured, as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s or the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland’s. As may be supposed, he is liberal withal. He will not
close the doors of “the Christian Chapel,” against heterodoxy, if a penny can
be safely turned by the opening of them. This is not the case everywhere.
Orthodoxy loves money and is very prudent—wise as the serpent in all its
doings. It will not let you into its houses for money, lest the heresy taught
should alienate its customers, and so diminish its power and receipts. But Mr.
H—, having been a soldier, was brave, and had no such fear. Pay him for present
accommodation, and he would run the risk. On this principle my friends obtained
the use of his chapel. It was convenient, “the minister” polite and friendly,
and the risk not over hazardous, considering the faithlessness of the times,
and the constitution of the audiences addressed.
The reverend gentleman having
succeeded, I suppose, in undoing the little mischief I had done among his
flock, all things relapsed into their former sheolite condition. This was not
the case, however, with “the Campbellite church,” as it is called there. A
correspondent, writing from Aberdeen, says, “the dust has been raised among us
since you left. The teaching of ‘the things of the kingdom of God’ gave
offence to some of the friends, and to one of our elders who is Campbellised,
and spiritualised with a double distillation. He could stand it no longer, and
therefore gave in his resignation. He could sustain his theory by neither
scripture nor reason. He went privately to all the members he thought favourable
to his notions, and got about half the congregation to side with him. We told
them they could please themselves. If they thought fit they could go; but for
ourselves, we were resolved to teach what we believed to be the truth, and were
willing that they should exercise the same right: but we would not be
restricted by the elder in question. By advice of some of his party he gave in;
but he next made a proposition that no brother should speak longer than a
quarter of an hour at a time. This, however, did not take. He lost his
proposition, and in the meantime we are settled down; and I have hope that the
most of his friends will in the course of time come to see the truth. He did
them great evil, I fear; nevertheless, I think there are some of them beginning
to see things in their true light. But, let the result be what it may, we are
determined to be faithful. They are the intelligent and talented of the
congregation that contend for “the gospel of the kingdom.” Of this there
can be no doubt; for it is only such that have the sagacity to discriminate
between things human and divine.
On the night before I bid adieu to
Aberdeen, I met about a hundred persons, I think, at a soirée, to which
I was invited. This was a farewell tea-drinking, at which “all and singular”
were at liberty to ask any questions concerning the things I had introduced to
their notice, and the contents of the Bible generally. The time was occupied in
this way till past eleven. The minister of the chapel we had occupied was among
the guests. He would have asked some questions, but it was then too late, and
he had not wished to prevent others from questioning by occupying the time. He
thought they were all under great obligation to me for subjecting myself to a
public cross-questioning upon so many topics, and for so long a time. He
confessed that he should not like to go through the same ordeal. After a few
more remarks in this strain, he concluded, and the soirée was closed.
Through friends in Nottingham, I
became acquainted with a preacher residing in Plymouth, whom I will name Wood.
He was formerly a zealous Millerite, or Anti-Jewish Restorationist. This
crotchet, I think, he never got rid of; at least, so long as I knew him. In
other respects, he receded from the Millerism of which Mr. Himes of Boston, is
the incarnation, and became what I am unable to define. He was the pastor of a
church in Plymouth, consisting of about seventy members, from whom he drew his
support, which was restricted and precarious. They generally believed in the
speedy personal appearance of Christ Jesus, which was the one idea defining
their belief; but as to any other particular articles of faith distinguishing
them from other professors, I am not aware that they possessed them.
By this Mr. Wood I was induced to
visit Plymouth. What his motive was for urging me to it, I know not. I supposed
it to be referable to a desire for the diffusion of as much knowledge as
possible of the scripture testimony concerning the times, and the crisis
connected with the personal advent of Jesus. He was friendly, promoted the sale
of Elpis Israel, and quite zealous in getting the people to hear me. The
Mechanics’ Institutes at Plymouth and Devonport were hired for lectures, which
I delivered at intervals during the eighteen days of my sojourn. At the latter
place, the audiences were quite large—several hundreds; but at Plymouth not so
many. The hearers seemed deeply interested; but, save the sale of forty-six
copies of Elpis Israel and a very animated soirée before I left the town,
I have no means of knowing what faith the gospel of the kingdom commands in the
hearts of those that heard it.
On my way to London it was that the
conversation occurred, which set me to writing the pamphlet afterwards
published as “The Wisdom of the Clergy proved to be Folly.” About twenty-five
of them were sold in Plymouth by Mr. Wood, whose mind had undergone a
remarkable change, apparently, at least, since the soirée, at which Mr. Wood
made a speech which left the impression upon my mind that he was not far from
the kingdom of God. But by a letter I received from him, expressing his opinion
of the pamphlet, I clearly perceived that his mind had been alienated to
something else. A thousand copies of that brochure have been sold, with
the exception of a few copies in Britain, and more are demanded, but cannot be
supplied there without a reprint. Speaking of it, Mr. Wood says, “For myself,
while I know assuredly to my great grief, that many things therein stated are
but too true, I am constrained, with painful reluctance, to differ from you
upon various matters; —with reluctance, because I would that we all had the
truth and the mind of God, and could see alike, —with pain, because I cannot
but feel really horrified at some of your conclusions.”
Mr. Wood’s pious horror originated
from my strict construction of “the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus,”
who before his crucifixion, said, “This gospel of the kingdom must be
preached to all nations;” and added, after his resurrection, “He that
believes and is baptised shall be saved, and he that believes not shall be
condemned.” Like the serpent in the garden, he would have it that this was
not true without exception. He maintained that multitudes “who believe not”
shall not surely be excluded from eternal life, or “be condemned,”—they
“shall not surely die.” The idea that they should, was too repugnant to
his fleshly feelings, or something else, to be entertained for a moment. He
wanted a doctrine more in harmony with “the thinking of the flesh,”
forgetting that God’s system of truth is an embodiment of principles the very
reverse of what the natural feelings of sinful flesh respond to. “My
thoughts,” saith he, “are not as your thoughts, nor your ways as my
ways.”
The other point of horrification
related to “the ministerial ordinances of the Lord’s house.” The
pamphlet “irreverently” demonstrates “with ungodly levelling,” as he thinks,
that the existing orders of priests, clergy, and ministers, popish, national,
and dissenting, as distinguished from “the laity,” are the servants of
anti-christ, and not of God. That their united establishments are Babylon, and
Rome the mother of them all. He called these “sacred things of the Lord’s
house,” and thought that what Paul says in Ephesians 4 about “apostles,
prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers,” was a plain and complete
refutation of my assertions and reasonings; as if what Paul writes of these
appertained to the ecclesiastics of Catholicism, Protestantism and dissent, who
presumptuously assume those titles! I did not then know that posthumous
Irvingism operating upon his necessities ill supplied by his flock, had turned
his head. Such I afterwards learned to be the fact. Had I known it when I
received his letter I should have felt no surprise. I could have accounted for
his new-born zeal in babyism, and ministerial ordinances! What a trying thing
is poverty. What will not some men do for a crust of bread! This surely is the
reason why God has chosen the poor to be the heirs of his kingdom—the natural
tendency of poverty to test principles. Jesus and his apostles were
pre-eminently poor and needy men; but they braved all necessity, and adhered to
the gospel of the kingdom. But all cannot do this, and Mr. Wood was among the
number. After my return to this country I received a letter from Plymouth which
drew aside the veil and exposed to view the ugly features of the case. The
writer says, “Feeling a deep interest in the truth you so ably advocated in
this place, I embrace the present opportunity of sending you some information
in relation to its fortunes here. I grieve, however, to say that it is very
discouraging in its especial relation to the person (Mr. Wood) who many of us
thought would be its greatest advocate. The cause in this place is all but
gone. Soon after the issue of your pamphlet, he went to Nottingham, Leeds, and
adjacent places. On his return, I discovered that the sentiments he had
entertained respecting some of the truths contained in your works were changed,
though he had privately held the very same. About six months since he stood up
in his place, and declared that his views were entirely altered respecting
baptism, and that sprinkling was as much a baptism as immersion. In after
lectures he said that infants were proper subjects for baptism; that there
ought to be at the present, and that there is a fourfold ministry in the Church
of Christ, namely, apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors. A few months
since he denied any man’s claim to apostleship, though he now affirms that
apostles ought ever to have been in the church. He is now for every Christian
paying the tenth of his earnings into the treasury, and maintains that there
ought to be a regular succession of priesthood as in the Jewish system, of
which Christ should be the chief. The result of his lecturing is, that most of
his congregation have left him, myself and a very few others remaining to give
him a full and impartial hearing. After the defection of so many, he declared
that he had been preaching errors, although while uttering them he said he was
taught by the Spirit. He now intends to join the people at the Central Hall,
and invited us to go with him, and hear for ourselves, which a few did. We
found the performance conducted much after the Roman Catholic fashion, the
prayers read being the English liturgy. On inquiring their views, we were
introduced to Mr. Walker the “evangelist,” who commenced a course of private
lectures to us, refusing to admit married females and all young persons without
their husbands’ and parents’ consent. These private lectures were similar to
Mr. Wood’s, but with some additions. They profess to be the church of the
living God, and refuse all sectarian names as an abomination. They are in fact
Irvingites. They decry Luther’s reformation exceedingly as being man’s work,
and not God’s. They denounce the Bible as a cursed idol, because Dissent says
it can read for itself; and in the next breath pronounce it a most Holy Book.
They forbid men to interpret for themselves, and command them to receive the
church’s dictum; and consider that the tolerance of fox-hunting parsons in the
established church is no sufficient ground of separation from it. On the second
Sunday after our chapel was closed, Mr. Wood and three others were admitted by
the “angel-evangelist” to the Irvingite fellowship, in laying his hand on their
heads, and reading a prayer. The Sunday after the children were sprinkled, and
what they call “the Lord’s Supper” administered to them. This they are to
receive three times a year, because the Jewish males went up to Jerusalem
thrice annually to eat the Passover!! They contend that the sacrament has
superseded the Passover, and baptism circumcision, and that therefore children
are fit subjects to partake of both the ordinances. Yet they refused to admit
us who were members of Mr. Wood’s to partake until we were admitted members
with them; and meanwhile desired us to go to our parish church and take
sacrament there. They desired us, however, to pay the tenth of our earnings
into their treasury before we became members. But our intention is not to
embrace error if we know it.
“All their ministers, they say, are directly called of God. Mr. Wood is trying to get in as a minister, constantly writing manuscripts as specimens of grace. The apostle, who brings his prophet with him, is expected here soon, when it is augured that he will prophesy that Mr. Wood is called of God to the ministry in his house. Since his change of views, Mr. Wood has declared that Elpis Israel is blasphemy; and the angel evangelist has desired the members to burn or destroy their copies. But some of us here prize that work next to the Bible. We do not intend to yield our obedience to any thing unsupported by the word of God. Elpis Israel has been the means of enlightening many minds in this place; though on some topics we still wish for more light. We are now cast upon the world as s