The above is the title of a leading comment of the “Christian Journal.” It is painful to be drawn from the simplicity and fullness of Christian enjoyment to contend with those who would reproach us for following our consciences. We do not doubt the editor of the “Christian Journal” is both wise and prudent; but, though he knows the world in all ages and the church in all ages, there are often things which the simple are taught, which are hid from the wise and prudent. That the evils of a depraved nature are attached to and to be contended with by the “separating brethren” is certainly not new; that they have to contend with the snare of the enemy, who would take advantage of their ignorance and weakness but for One who helps them is equally true, and they are in a measure conscious of it.
Of this part of the subject the editor of the “Christian Journal” in all his writings seems to be profoundly ignorant; and it is not to be wondered at, as he continues in a system of which he has seen the evil, which he has rejoiced at being shaken to the foundations, as a heretical system inconsistent with the progress of the gospel. The “separating brethren” believe this, and therefore they are dissociated from it. The editor of the “Christian Journal” believes it, and he is not dissociated from it. It cannot therefore be a matter of surprise to them, if his eyes are dim to other and greater evils. Acting on what we know is the real power of faith. Could the editor of the “Christian Journal” condemn any one for not being subject to that which he declares to be “inconsistent with the progress of the gospel?” One might suppose the answer would be easy; to a simple Christian it would be easy; he would not condemn them. The answer is, that he does condemn them, and approves of those who remain connected with it, and supports that which he says is so. What can his “separating brethren” see in this, but the spirit of the world? Nor is it anything else.
And since the editor cast off so distinctly his “separating brethren,” from whom he was not always so alienated, to throw himself into the hands of the worldly party in the church, it has been quite manifest to a discerning eye, that the spirit and character of the “Christian Journal” has quite changed; that it has become less spiritual and more worldly, less pressing separation from the world, and more sanctioning continuance in known evil; that it has ceased, comparatively, to press conformity to Christ in order to press conformity to the English Establishment. The latter purpose it may do well; and we will not compete with him in the pursuit of it. We would desire in peace to seek the former: to this the “Christian Journal” has ceased to be available. We should not have had formerly (as we have in the number, on the leading article of which I am now commenting) a sermon on the text, “Be ye conformed to this world” (signed “A Clergyman”). I do not deny that occasional articles of measured difference from the world may be introduced to suit the taste of all; but the character and tendency of the journal is in this respect wholly changed, and the reason is obvious. The editor, or others with whom he is associated, found that he could not press thorough nonconformity to the world without its producing nonconformity to the English Establishment, because the spirit of the world was in it. Not having faith to get over human support of circumstances, he chose to hold by the Establishment, and resume the spirit of the world it carried with it, rather than give up the world and the church that had identified itself with it. The article alluded to is adequately illustrative of this, and is very aptly signed “A Clergyman.” It is the expression of the claim of conformity to the world, and worldly station, which is implied in the maintenance of the system, symbolized by the signature of the paper; and I cannot but think that the pressing of that point in such a way would not at one time have met the approbation of the editor of the “Christian Journal.” But descent is gradual. I have but little hope of his present emerging from the system. When “Ephraim is joined to idols,” the word is, “Let him alone.” But I do think if the editor read the paragraph in that article “Our Gracious Savior,” his conscience would smite him on recurring to former thoughts; if not, I should grieve. The “separating brethren” have felt differently as to the question, and acted differently; they have felt, and sorrowfully felt, that they must (the necessity was not of their own making) leave the system the clergy sought to maintain, if they wished to leave the spirit of the world and to walk as Christians. They did so at cost and sorrow to themselves, the loss of friends and fortune, often of situations in life, and in many instances of home, and always at the cost of bitter and cutting reproach, none of which but wisdom and prudence is the character of those who remain. So long as “thou doest well to thyself, all men will speak well of thee.”
I know it will be answered, the church (so-called) is abused on all sides; but that is a far different thing from personal reproach, and merely produces esprit du corps. The Lord's denouncements of Jerusalem were far different from the reproach which He suffered because He was a stranger to their ways, of which He says (how little we bear of it now, I well know!) “reproach hath broken my heart:” may we abound in it, if it is for His sake! Sufferings the Establishment is undergoing; but the question remains to be asked, are they suffering for righteousness' sake? Is it for the abundance of her labors, her bold testimony, her separation from the world, her intolerance of its evil? We may suffer for evil; and the hatred of the nations accrue, I read, against a corrupt church, for other reasons, than for its righteousness. “These shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire; for God hath put it in their hearts.” The clergy have suffered in Ireland; they have also suffered in France; they are suffering in Spain and Portugal. Is it for righteousness sake? I do not believe it is for righteousness' sake, but for unrighteousness' sake. The exertions of those who violate their own system and break through its authorities (in which exertions we may in a great measure rejoice, for every way Christ is preached) are not the cause of its sufferings, but quite the contrary; nor have they at all arisen from the order on which the system is based, but from an entire violation of it, as they will surely end in its destruction.
But I would advert as a passing service to the article, whose title is at the head of the present paper and the fairest way would be to give it in full. I cannot but remark that the style of our judges is very much altered. Heretofore we were “schismatics” and “enthusiasts,” and the Epistle of Jude applied to us and the like. Now we are “separating brethren,” and though there are some hints, in italics, about mental derangement, yet the great point to be pressed is, that holiness of life is not a sure preservative against error in judgment—a statement of most ambiguous and doubtful character.
But surely the editor of the “Christian Journal” wise and prudent as he may be, should at least, hesitate before “pride and peevishness,” if not pretended purity, be taken as the causes of the separation of those, of whom he declares the great majority are “Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile,” “more than ordinarily engaged in doing good.” We would have supposed there must have been something of the Spirit of Christ; not a “proud or peevish spirit” surely, though full of heaviness and scarce bearing the evil around Him, in those who are of such a character and activities. He was an Israelite indeed, in whom was no guile, and He went about doing good; and He, too, was “separate from His brethren,” and blessings descended upon His head. He was not, indeed, approved by the wise and prudent; none of the rulers nor of the Pharisees believed on Him, only the foolish people who, through grace, would not call evil good and good evil, nor put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter; to whom fellowship with guileless Israelites who went about doing good was more valuable, though wise and prudent people thought it error, than the charge of error from worldly-minded people was the occasion of fear. The rest saw that if they let Him thus alone, the Romans would come and take away both their place and nation. Little, little indeed, have we of His Spirit; hut if we are of this character, surely it is from His Spirit, and they who condemn should be cautious where the fruits are such, lest, where the Spirit of Christ so dwells, the separation may not come from the same cause. It is a circumstance singular and fatal to the established system, that those who separate from it should be habitually such.
But the editor of the “Christian Journal” seems habitually (I do not mean intentionally) to neglect the idea of the Spirit of Christ on the one hand, and the power of Satan on the other, and thus, while prudent as to circumstances, to be very little informed of God's estimate of the causes of things and of their real character. Thus, in any selected articles in the present number, you will find “Divisions of Parishes,” “Man Contemplated,” “The Power of the Press,” “The Calls are Many,” “Sales in a Great City,” “Hints to Clever People,” and “A Caution to Clergymen not to let Poor People to their Table,” but not one, save a feeble allusion of Coleridge's, of the selected articles, in which there is the smallest allusion to the Spirit of God or of Christ. Here is the real source of the difference between us. He looks to means of mending the world of human devisement, declaring it to be a “false fact,” that it is not actually getting better. We, foolishly no doubt, would desire to be “Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile, more than ordinarily engaged in doing good;” and are content if our Lord finds us so, and seek for His Spirit to enable us to be so, while we cannot help thinking that the world is, as it ever was, an evil and ungodly one, which is judged because it rejected Christ, crucified the Lamb of God. But smooth as the article may appear and kindly wise, it is indeed very bitter, and, I regret to add, very ignorant, or else full of what must be called chicanery; I do not doubt the former.
I shall merely comment, I trust very calmly, on some of its statements. It disclaims the charge of pretended purity, but does charge real pride and peevishness. This his “separating brethren” must leave to God, conscious that there is everything in them which would lead to it. But, thinking it probable that in the abounding of evil they may have been sometimes guiltily weary in spirit, we will take courage from the warning and be bolder and more decided—more cheerful in our opposition for the future.
But there is a remarkable confession contained in the account. “In the majority of instances they are Israelites in whom is no guile, and, like the beginners of all other Christian sects, they are more than ordinarily engaged in doing good.” The character given them I pass by here, though we might fancy there was a little of that sort of peevishness, which is hard to please, in the characteristics of proud Israelites in whom is no guile, who are more than ordinarily engaged in doing good. Neither can we say that the “Christian Journal” (while hard to please, if such Christians as these he describes do not satisfy it) is empty of expressions of discontent at the “separating brethren,” though it may live more in expressions of self-satisfaction and at the world which denied Christ around it. But it is not this I would dwell on, but that the beginners of all other Christian sects are more than ordinarily engaged in doing good. Now this is surely an extraordinary circumstance, that invariably those who left the Establishment are more assimilated to Christ than others, than those who do not. Is not this an appalling circumstance in the character of the English Establishment, that those who are more than ordinarily engaged in doing good are somehow or other driven out of it—in other words, beginners of sects? Is the selfishness of the system insensible to the fact, that, as men become in all ages animated by the Spirit of Christ, they cannot remain in it? They may have failed in continuing their system in the same character it began. So did the apostles, because their work hung on the presence of the Spirit of God, and the spirit of the world came in and the church sank. So did not popery, so did not the English Establishment, because in various degrees they joined the world and were of its spirit, and the world owned them; and they went with the world, and continued as long as the world bore them and was satisfied with them. Hence, when the Spirit of God wrought, discontent arose because it would not bear with the spirit of the world; men became more than ordinarily engaged in doing good, and the church would not bear this; it was irregular, and they would not give it up, because the Spirit of Christ and the love of Christ constrained them, and they were the beginners of sects. The same platform soon held them again when they became worldly together. But, indeed, it was very evil that they separated from the established system; they troubled the ease of worldliness. This could be the only reason, for “they were Israelites in whom was no guile, more than ordinarily engaged in doing good,” and therefore not, it is to be supposed, worse Christians. They were better Christians but worse churchmen, and that was a very great evil. But, indeed, they were like to be reduced to atoms; if so, the “Christian Journal” should have in the use of its motto turned unto old Gamaliel, and taken his advice, and (after quoting kindly Swedenborgians and Quakers and Irvingites as the parallel cases of those Israelites in whom is no guile) have refrained from these men and let them alone. For if they are going to atoms by themselves, it is foolish to bind them by external compression and immortalize the ephemeral existence of the “separating brethren” in the “Christian Journal” when they will be so soon gone to atoms. I trust that, when they cease to be Israelites indeed in whom is no guile, more than ordinarily engaged in doing good, they will be remembered nowhere else and by no other testimony and go into atoms heard of no more, even as two together. Such is my earnest wish and sincere prayer to God, save as their portion is with Him, who coming shall not reject such as He finds so doing. Whom He would estimate, we would be; and not say, “My Lord delayeth his coming:” let us go on and live with the world.
But I repeat that it is a remarkable fact for the “Christian Journal” to attest that such has been the spirit of all separated from the English Establishment; and what does she care? We agree entirely “they went out from” her because they were not of her; but of the instances let us now inquire.
And we must confess, besides the spirit which would associate the “separating brethren” with Swedenborgians, there is not only no reference to God's Spirit in this article but a very fearful trifling with scripture.
As to Thomas Fuller, I will not question his piety, though much more remarkable for a very tenacious memory, and a strong adherence to all the corruptions which the editor of the “Christian Journal” would reform. His acuteness in the paper in question at any rate entirely failed him; for, having resisted all reformation such as the editor would seek, he was deprived; and, when the gross corruptions were entirely restored, he got his share of them again, and was only prevented by death from being one of the hierarchical system (inconsistent with the progress of the gospel), on account of his staunch support of the corruptions. A reformation, however, of the Church of England took place, such as the editor desires, and it lasted about ten years. When it ceased to exist, which it did soon after their close, the atomic separatists remained on the restoration of Charles II. a widely extended body, to which the remnants of the reformed Church of England of the day (being turned out by the new Church of England, under the monarchy, by the Bartholomew Act of 1666) attached themselves, and were lost amongst them under the general title of Nonconformists, those who were distinctly such having for the most part in late years turned Socinians, the ultimate result of the improved Church of England. On Thomas Fuller's character I do not think it necessary to comment. But it is beyond controversy that the reformed or improved Church of England was lost or remains in Socinian deputies, and the atoms of separatists form the active extended bodies of Independents and Baptists, a result I have no desire the “separating brethren” should ever arrive at. Thomas Fuller's sentiments may be excellent, and none can read them without perceiving their applicability; but unfortunately, though they may serve the editor of the “Christian Journal” as a prophecy, they have been sadly falsified. At any rate it is too bad to be blamed for studying divine prophecy, which is surely true and given us to study, and to bring out human prophecy which has proved all false and helps only to prove the present editor's prophecies false with it, which I pray the readers of the “Christian Journal” to note.
And now of the other instances. First of the Swedenborgians, to which the editor so kindly compares his “separating brethren;” he has reason to believe Baron Swedenborg was an eminently devoted man. “His tenets are drawn from the scriptures, and supported by quotations from them.” What does the editor mean? The Swedenborgians deny the Trinity, the atonement, and almost every sound Christian doctrine, and draw their notions from a vision of Baron Swedenborg in a coffee-house in London, and subsequent revelations. Was the editor aware of these things, when he said his tenets are drawn from scripture and supported by quotations from them? Surely his jealousy of his “separating brethren” has carried him beyond the bounds of prudence, when he asserts that the tenets of those who deny the Trinity, the atonement and the like Christian doctrines, and who hold Swedenborg's revelations exclusively as to the other world, are drawn from scripture and supported by quotations from them. Probably he was quite ignorant of what he spoke; but scripture ought not to be thus trifled with, however his “separating brethren” may.
As to George Fox, I do not doubt he was a pious man, wrong as I think the system he founded; but here we are told again, “drawing his doctrine from the pure source of religious truth, the New Testament,” &c. Does the editor believe this? Does he know that the Quakers, though the Lord is now working very extensively amongst them, would not as a regular thing read the New Testament; and trusted to everything spoken as they supposed by the Spirit as of equal authority, looking to the living word and the inward light and not simply to the New Testament for guidance; though they thought that might be uttered or written from the same inward light, and therefore so far had authority with them, but, in fact, was very little attended to by them as the shell of the letter: the disregarding of the letter of scripture being a distinguishing mark of old Quaker habits? But, wild as many of them ran, as surely they did, when following this supposed light, as separating from and testifying against the English Establishment, very few of their testimonies failed to take effect. The system they might afterward set up might be very defective, as it undoubtedly was, and their doctrine most defective as not founded on scripture, but their open testimony against the English Establishment was often with much serious power, and the things took place. No one can read George Fox's Journal but must see that he was remarkably sustained before the persecuting magistrates of the day, who sought to support the Church of England against them; and that it is in their great declension which has kept the Quakers together. They might be without a rudder, but the shore they had left behind them was in a ruin from which they had escaped.
(To be continued)