To the Hon. Major Christie
Montreal, 17th March 1840
My Dear Sir,
Shortly after my return to this city on the 12th instant there was put into my hands a letter of yours addressed "to the Chairman of the Committee of the Montreal Auxiliary Bible Society", and dated the 29th ultimo. As that communication involves matters in which I am personally and officially concerned, I deem it a duty to make some observations upon it.
The first thing I would notice is, that you pass a gentle censure upon me for not having read to the aforementioned Committee your letter to me of the 11th January last. My answer to this is as follows. When I called on you on the same day the letter in question is dated, you told me you had a letter well on finished for me, but that you were glad to see me in order personally to tell me all its contents. You immediately related the whole subject to me about which you are writing: and at the close you said, I shall nevertheless of what I have now stated, finish my letter and send it to you. What I understood you wished me to do from these statements was, that I should as occasions offered explain the concerns in hand to any of the members of the Bible Society Committee in respect to your communications with Mr. Lapelletrie. This I did accordingly. On the 13th I think your letter came into my hands; and being hurried with some business at the time, and believing that I was already acquainted with all its contents, I did not read it till a day or two after, and then very cursorily owing to the impression before mentioned.
In the Committee on 21 January, when I found you there in expectation of your letter being read, I was sorry that I had it not with me, but offered to state at once its contents from memory as I knew well the substance of it. You said, No: it did not matter, it could be done at a future meeting, or something to that effect. In order that it might be read at the next meeting of the Committee I gave it to Dr. Holmes for that end when I went on my journey to Upper Canada. The other day I received it from Dr. Holmes, and looking it over in his presence I found this expression, "I therefore request you will submit the plain statement of facts to the Montreal Committee". From the manner, as above related, in which I first got the contents of this letter, and from the cursory manner in which I read it over after it came into my hands, I was really unconscious that this expression and request were in it. And finding it so, I confess at once, and most frankly, that I ought to have known that, as I should have read over your letter more carefully. Forgive me this error, and allow me to assure you that it was most unintentional, for I had not, that could have, the slightest difficulty or objection as to the reading of it to the Committee.
The next thing in your letter of the 29th February on which I would remark, is the expression, "The services of Mr. Lapelletrie were offered and accepted by me after his disengagement from the Bible Society". I necessarily suppose from this statement that Mr. Lapelletrie had in conversation given you to understand, that he had actually and duly resigned his connexion with the Bible Society. But he had not resigned when he offered you his services; nor does he himself say that he had in his letter to you, his expression is, "ne pouvant davantage appartenir á la Société Biblique". That he had not then resigned his connection with the Society is evident from the following circumstance. When I read over his letter to you which he showed me before he sent it, I rallied him on the impropriety of offering you services before resigning with the Society. His reply was, that he would be acting imprudently in giving up the one situation before he was sure of the other: for if he did, he said, he might be left destitute in a foreign land. I stated to him in answer to this, that he should do what was right, and leave results in the hands of God: but further, I added, you need not fear being left destitute in a foreign land, for the Bible Society will carry you back to your own country according to its arrangements. Of this conversation with Mr. Lapelletrie on the 10th January, I yesterday reminded him, and he acknowledged its correctness. This I consider a sufficient proof of his still being connected with the Bible Society when he wrote you. A further proof of the same is, that there is no document whatever from him to the Society as to resignation until the one lately given in, and dated the 2nd instant. Now it strikes me that you should yourself have seen a document of his resignation, or otherwise have been fully assured of its existence, before you received any letter from him containing offers of his service, or at all events before you accepted them. – As to what Mr. Lapelletrie says in his letter to the Bible Society Committee of the 2nd instant about his "dimision verbal" and about its being accepted "par plusieurs", and among others by myself, I would only say, that the conversation above related, which took place on the 10th of January and which he himself yesterday confirmed, is ample proof, so far as I am concerned, of his misstatement in the case made, it may be under forgetfulness.
The third thing I would notice in your letter of the 29th February is, what you say indicating that Mr. Lapelletrie was sent out of town seemingly with the purpose of preventing him from seeing the Bishop. It is necessary that I mention facts and occurrences in this matter, and by which it will be seen whether there was any intention of preventing the interview in question. After Mr. Lapelletrie had sent you his letter of the 9th January, he began to see that he had done wrong in regard to the Bible Society by offering you his services, and certain difficulties he had being removed as to his movements in the Society's work, he signified his hearty intention of continuing his Bible labours. At this time he was under an engagement to drink tea with you he told me, on the evening of Saturday 11th January, and then and there to see the Bishop. On the afternoon of this day, at Mr. Milne's house and in Mr. Milne's presence, Mr. Lapelletrie begged me to go on his part to see you and to prepare the way for his coming to you in the evening, by stating all that had recently occurred as I have just now related it, and that he was going out with Mr. Milne on Monday morning to join Mr. Hibbard. I called on you accordingly, and told you all, saying that Mr. Lapelletrie had desired me to do so, before he should come to drink tea with you that evening, and see the Bishop. At the time I stated to you Mr. Lapelletrie's impression that he was to see the Bishop on Saturday evening, all having been arranged for his going off on the morning of the following Monday. This shows therefore that there was no attempt made to hinder him from seeing the Bishop according to the hint to that effect in your letter. On my mentioning to you on that same Saturday afternoon all the arrangements in Mr. Lapelletrie's case, you acquiesced in them as far as I could judge, and gave no intimation to me that you wished Mr. Lapelletrie to delay his journey on Monday morning until after he had seen the Bishop: nor did I wonder at this, as the arrangements of which we had treated altered the circumstances for the time for which the interview between the Bishop and Mr. Lapelletrie was wished. Further, on the Saturday evening when Mr. Lapelletrie was in your house according to appointment, you never told him that you expected him to come to your house on Monday morning to see the Bishop. This I had from Mr. Lapelletrie yesterday: and he added, that he only knew this your wish by a note sent by your servant to him on Monday morning at the moment he was setting off for L'Assomption, and at which hour I was on my way to St Eustache.
In the fourth place, I would make a remark on what you say of Mr. Lapelletrie's remaining in town "doing the work of an evangelist which is not that of the Bible Society." The distinct arrangement made with Mr. Lapelletrie when it was agreed that he should remain in town, was that, each day immediately after breakfast he should on the part of the Bible Society visit from house to house disposing of the Scriptures until three or four o'clock in the afternoon; and that he should begin at one end of St. Antoine's Suburbs on one side going regularly through it, then the other side, then another street, and so on, and that he should note down the number of houses visited and the number of Bibles and Testaments distributed daily. Thus was the day's work to be given to the Bible Society. The rest of his time was of course his own. If Mr. Lapelletrie was not fulfilling this arrangement as you indicate, then the blame is his, and he was acting the part of an unfaithful servant. When I mentioned to Mr. Lapelletrie yesterday this arrangement made with him, he fully concurred with its being the rule that had been laid down to him. To this I may add, that if previous to the time here referred to, Mr. Lapelletrie acted inconsistently, with the rules prescribed to him by the Bible Society it was not from want of due notice of what was his duty, but from inobedience on his part, or from some sort of idea that he had liberty to act as he did.
I would now beg leave to notice an expression or two in your letter of the 11th January. These expressions are, "I replied, that if his engagements were at an end, and he would state the circumstance to me in writing, I would give him employment." – "Yesterday morning I received a letter confirming his statement of having left the service of the Bible Society, and repeating his offer to myself."
It was proper to require from Mr. Lapelletrie a statement in writing of his engagement having terminated with the Society before you at all treated with him about employment as indicated in the first of these quotations. In the second you say that his letter confirmed his verbal statement of his having left the society. The expression in his letter as I remarked before, will not bear out this view: he only says "ne pouvant davantage appartenir á la Société Biblique", which indicates rather an intention on purpose than an act of resignation; and in fact, as before stated, he had not then resigned, nor intended to do it, according to his own confession, till he saw that his offer to you was accepted: and but for this offer from you, he would I believe have continued with the Society.
In Mr. Lapelletrie's of the 2nd instant he says that his conscience was very much troubled for his not having fulfilled his offer made to you. I should be glad to recognize the tenderness of conscience he here speaks of, were it general instead of being on one side only. Previous to his having made you an offer of his services, namely on the 8th of January Mr. Lapelletrie actually did cast lots as to what he should do in his perplexity. This he did solemnly with prayer, and with the purpose and resolution before God of fallowing what the lot should bring out, considering the decision to be the voice of God to him. Well, the lot came out, that he was to obey the Bible Society. This is lot I have in my possession in his own handwriting, and it runs thus, as a voice and direction from God to him. "Obeis á la Société, tel est mon plaisir".
I am not disposed to approve of this way of deciding matters. But by the view with which he took of it, and his thus formally asking counsel of God, I conceive that he should have considered himself bound in conscience by it, and more especially as the path thus pointed out to him was all in favour of his fulfilling a work for which he was expressly sent to this country. Now, where I ask is his extreme tenderness of conscience in this promise and engagement with God, much more solemn than was a obligation he believes himself to have contracted with you: and what is of importance, in the case, the engagement with God was prior to his engagement to you? I do not see well how he can settle this case of conscience.
If he really is tender in conscience before God let it be here manifested. In truth he has acted in this matter, in my opinion exactly as the Jews did as mentioned in the 42nd and 43rd chapters of Jeremiah: and this I set before him distinctly at the time.
These obligations of Mr. Lapelletrie thus solemnly contracted before God by the lot were mentioned in your hearing and Dr. Holmes's on the10th January; and hearing them, you should, as it appears to me have been very careful in receiving any offers from him, and cautious as to afterwards urging them upon him as obligations.
In drawing this letter to a close, allow me to say what in my humble opinion you should have done, and that is cleaned in statistical this to you, talk of the Society for your service. You should I think as a member of the Bible Society, as a member of the kingdom of heaven, and as a father to him, have rallied him as to his duty to the Bible Society, for though the Society gave him an opening to leave, they certainly never counted on his acting on it as he has done and especially in so short a time. You should, I think, have encouraged him to go on and be faithful in his work is a good servant and for his own character's sake, besides the stronger reasons, whilst you might at the same time have signified that at the close of the two years' obligation, if not at the close of one year, (the special approbation of the Society obtained,) he might be employed in the way he preferred as an evangelist.
This step of Mr. Lapelletrie and your concern in it, will I conceive operate very unfavourably on the Bible Society at home in the sending out of other colporteurs; possibly it may stop them from sending a single one more: and indeed from this example what is to be expected, but that the same thing would be acted over again by other colporteurs on any occasion that should offer. Had Mr. Lapelletrie continued his two years in the service of the Bible Society, even at the cost of some present disadvantage to the Canadians, and then entered the field as an evangelist it would certainly have been better in every way, and not the least for the Canadians themselves. In that case, another and another colporteur from the Bible Society would have come out, and after a two years service each have become evangelists if found qualified, and would have devoted the rest of their lives, say, to the evangelization of the poor Canadians; and in this manner the necessary labourers would have been furnished for this country to the full extent of its wants. But by the present step and operations this cheering prospect is, I may say stopped, and the Canadians will suffer the most from it. Thus it always happens in all over haste about any concern. There is no speed in it, and real retardation is the result. You know well how I feel for that the poor Canadians: and the first is, that for their sakes personally as well as for the Bible Society interest in which I am officially concerned, I regret and greatly the movements referred to in this letter.
Before finishing this letter I would quote an expression from the beginning of your letter to me on the 11th January, and make an observation upon it in your favour. You say, "The first opportunity I had of seeing Mr. Lapelletrie was when you introduced him to me; and you may remember that I then inquired of him, if he knew any young man in France, or elsewhere like minded as himself; for I would gladly employ him as colporteur in my Seigneuries, which you know it has long been my interest to do, as soon as I could meet with a suitable one." Some, if not several individuals officially connected with us in the Bible Society here have construed this expression to your disfavour, as I suppose you are well aware. My own view of it completely justifies you of all blame in it; and thus I endeavour as I thought to show to others. I may however at the same time mentioned that it was I suppose this expression which led Mr. Lapelletrie to apply to you in the hope of employment. Nevertheless, I conceive you were entirely innocent of any improper intention in the case.
I have thus, My Dear Sir, thought it my duty in the way of business to make this communication to you in regard to this whole concern. You will, I am sure forgive my frankness, and not let it interfere with our personal friendship. Fidelity to the Society I represent has laid me under an obligation to write as I have done, but I have written, I trust in the spirit of Christian brotherhood.
I remain,
My Dear Sir
Very Truly Yours,
James Thomson.
P.S. Mr. Lapelletrie says in his letter of the 2nd March, "Je reconnais que je n'on pas considéré qu'il n'etait pas en mon pouvoir de renouveller mon engagement avec la Société Biblique sans premiérement obtenir le consentement de Mr. Christie."
This consent you could easily have given him, and in my opinion should, under all the circumstances of the case. But instead of relieving Mr. Lapelletrie. In this matter, you seem rather to have urged him upon the point. If Mr. Lapelletrie had come not to you as he did for the Bible Society, would you have been quite satisfied if the Bible Society here had obtained his services exactly as you have now obtained them? I think you would not.