GENERAL BOOTH'S ALLEGED ANTINOMIANISM. - [To TIM EDITOR or THE "
SPEOTATOR.'1 SIR,—An overwhelming majority of your readers will' share your estimate of the gravity of the charge brought
against General Booth by Professor Huxley, on the authority of the General's ex-private secretary, Mr, S. H. Hodges ; and. additional importance is given to it by the fact that the' public recognises in Professor Huxley a man who would not be at all likely to make such an accusation unless he had pre- viously satisfied himself of the trustworthiness of the original accuser. 'You very justly remark that if General Booth. really believes himself justified in doing "for God and the Army things which even honourable worldly men would not consent to do," he is "unfit to be the head of any religious organisation whatever, and especially ought not to' be entrusted with a great expel:43251A in philanthropy." Equally just, and not less generous, is your expression of doubt as to whether the General's words have been accurately reported ; but is there not something ineffective in your sug- gestion that the charge could be disposed of by the denial of the accused person P General Booth's speech or silence will matter nothing to those who at the present moment have confidence in him ; and those whose confidence is shaken or destroyed might see in his most explicit repudiation only a putting into action of the. immoral principle which he is charged with holding. If for the sake of "God and the Army" he may do what is usually deemed dishonourable, he may tell a lie to save the reputation. of the head of the Army from absolutely ruinous discredit.. What is believed by a shrewd man like Professor Huxley is. probably believed by many others ; and the truth concerning' the matter—which is of great and pressing importance—can only be arrived at by a careful sifting of the evidence, There. must be answers found to such questions as these :—Is Mr.. Hodges a man of known veracity Has he any personal feeling against General Booth ? Assuming his veracity and disinterestedness, are his intelligence and culture such as to. renderimprobable any unconscious misrepresentation of" General Booth's meaning ? Is there any corroborative evidence of the charge,—that is, has the General, on any other occasion than that referred to, expressed in speech or - writing opinions resembling or identical with those now attri- buted to him ? These questions are perfectly proper ; they are also easily answerable, and answers to them ought to be at once given.
With regard to a much less important matter, I may.
observe, in answer to the concluding paragraph of your. article in the spectator of December 27th, that reporters are surely justified in putting Mr. Booth's self-assumed title- between quotation-marks. The facts that his organisation is. called an "Army," and that his subordinates bear military titles, suffice to prove that his own designation is intended to bear a military, not an ecclesiastical, signilication.—I am, Sir,,.
Previous page
