Kelly, James & John N. Darby (1864) - The Claims of the Church of England Considered

7/28/2019 Kelly, James & John N. Darby (1864) - The Claims of the Church of England Considered

1/102


2/102

\ STUDIA IN

Presented to

THE LIBRARYof

VICTORIA UNIVERSITYToronto

byMalcolm


3/102

THE CLAIMS

CHUECH OF ENGLANDCONSIDERED;

BEING THE CLOSE OP A CORKESPONDENCEBETWEEN

THE EEV. JAMES KELLY,Of Stillogan, Ireland,

J. N. DAE BY.

LONDON :W. H. BEOOM, 34, PATEENOSTEE EOW, E.G.


4/102


5/102

INTRODUCTION.

THE only thing necessary to "be explained in the publication of the following correspondence, is the fact ofits having been published after so considerable a lapseof time. It will be seen by the correspondence itself,that one of the parties declined pursuing it farther.*The other disliking contention, and weary of it, muchpreferring direct edification, had this additional motivefor not taking any positive step namely, an unwillingness, unless by what wa& identified with direct edification, to raise questions in public on what had thereputation of Protestant truth, in^e presence of error,which lifted up its head high enough.Some brethren in Christ who had seen the MSS. ofthe correspondence, urged by the actual state of thingsin England, desired particularly the publication of thelast letter, adding the last of Mr. Kelly s,! that it mightbe understood, or of all if that _were demanded.Under the circumstances, he wrote to Mr. Kelly, acquainting him with what lias just been mentioned, andasking permission to satisfy the wish expressed of publishing the two last letters. At first Mr. Kelly requiredthe publication of the previous part of the correspondence, which was acquiesced in, as indeed the other partywas naturally bound thereto if demanded; but in asubsequent letter Mr. Kelly declared his mind changedin this respect, and acquiesced in the publication demanded, the following communication being annexed.

* An additional letter has since been sent, which is added atthe request of Mr. Kelly,

t Now the last but one. A 2*-


6/102


7/102

To THE BEV. J. DAEBT.Stillogan Glebe, Dublin,

Jan. 28th, 1842.MY DEAR. SlR,In reply to your letter from Lausanne, which has

just reached me, I hasten to say that since our last correspondence I inquired after you several times as towhether you had returned to this country, with a viewformally to decline pursuing the subject of controversybetween us any further ; but hearing you were stillabroad, I did not think the matter of sufficient importance to communicate with you by a foreign post. Inow avail myself of this opportunity to let you knowmy decision. The grounds on which I have come to itare these : First, the inutility (in many of my respectedbrethren s estimation) of disputing with you. Second,the accession of care and occupation connected with myappointment to this parish, which I was led to reflectafforded more profitable exercise ofmy little talents thancarrying on a discussion with the leader of an extravagant class of schismatics. Third, the little hope Ientertained after reading your most diffuse and incoherent reply to mine of February 8th, 1839, of beingable to bring you to the real point at issue between us.As to the publication of the letters to which youallude, I can have no objection if you see fit, althoughI must confess I do not attach to them the importance


8/102

VI

which you do. I have only to request that you willannex to them the following observations by way ofexplanation of some passages in my letter which youhave misunderstood, and of final comment on somesentiments of your own.

I remain, my dear sir,Tours in Christian truth and love,

JAMES KELLY.The observations themselves, alluded to in this

letter of Mr. Kelly, are placed at the end, as comingthen naturally in their place after the letter onwhich they comment.With this brief introduction, acquiesced in by bothparties, as to what has led to the publication of them,these letters are now submitted to the reader, withthe desire that the Lord may use them for the establishment of truth, the strengthening of souls in it,and the refutation of error.


9/102

THE LETTERS.To THE EEV. J. DARBY.

Liverpool, Feb. 8, 1839.MY DEAR SIR,Though I might recount many other adequatecauses of my silence since I received your last, yetI must say my chief reason for not being moreprompt has arisen from the very uninteresting

reply you have given to mine of December 12. Itreally appeared to me evasive of discussion. I askedyou, in order that we might come to the argumentof the subject at once, to allege your grounds ofseparation from the communion of the Church ofEngland a very straightforward question methinks,and the import of which was very obvious. Butinstead of a plain answer, as might have been expected, you occupy a considerable portion of yourletter in making reflections on me as " an adversary,"as you call me, of whom you add " nothing " (Christian I suppose you mean) "is to be expected." Youthen quarrel with my assuming that you have forsaken the Church of England, as though this wasnot the case (remember, I did not say the Church, butthe Church of England] ; and, lastly, you give out


10/102

8

your impressions against the character of the Churchof England, erecting them into assertions, and dilating upon a new and better way, as you are pleasedto think adding in the meanwhile not one syllable,not even professing to do it, of argument to bearout your assertions. Now, my dear sir, I feel fromthis, as well as the loose character of your formercommunications to me, that it is vain to expect fromyou anything like an orderly and intelligible vindication of your views ; in this respect you seem towrite as you speak. I therefore propose for thefuture, without waiting for such, taking up just asthey come your aspersions of the Church of England,and the peculiarities of yourself and brethren as dissenters, sifting them as the Lord may enable me,and bringing out the truth as distinctly as I can, forthe perusal of all who may see our correspondence.

First, then, you say that the world is in the Churchof England. What do you mean by " the world" ?Is it the openly profane and ungodly? This wedeny : the Church recognizes as her members onlythose who are baptized into and make a solemn profession of " the truth as it is in Jesus," and all thosewho scandalize their profession by evil lives, are, bythe discipline of the Church, to be excluded from hercommunion. Do you mean earthly-minded professors ? In sorrow we assent to the sorrowful truthof this. St. Paul wept over such in the PhilippianChurch, and the same, we have reason to believe,abounded in the Church of Corinth. There neverhas been, and there is nowhere upon earth a pureChurch in the sense of excluding false, worldly-minded professors. Or do you say that the constitution of our Church, looking at our articles andformularies, is worldly ? This I deny, and call uponyou to prove the statement if you make it.


11/102

"Worldly professors, then, being in the Church ofEngland, which is all the amount of meaning thatyour charge has in it, what is the duty of God schildren who are also within her pale ? This is thefundamental point of difference between us ; this isthe question which, troubling the consciences of ourdear people, gave you the occasion which, alas ! youhave industriously improved to separate them fromus. You hold and teach that it is imperative on thefaithful to come out from the communion in whichare the unfaithful. To use your own words, they are" to cease from the evil ;" to more than this, in thefirst instance, it appears you do not aspire. Mr.Hargrove says, "Do you see the

evil? then ceasefrom it ; let that be your first step, God will showyou the next when you have taken that." In otherwords, we are to take a leap in the dark from theEstablished Church, not knowing where we shallland, nor why this course. Is there no evil bound upin the body of flesh which you carry about with you ?is it not even hindering the regenerate spirit, lustingagainst it, " a vile body," as the Scriptures call it,and to continue to the last ? And yet you do notrecommend the withdrawal of ourselves from thebody, i.e., suicide that be far from you; but whynot, according to your principle above laid down?are we not afflicted with an evil companionship, sothat by reason of it we often " cannot do the thingsthat we would " ?To such a proposal as this, of course you justlyreply, The word of God says we are to bear thisconflict between the flesh and spirit, wrestling withthe former, though in the flesh not walking according to it, which, so long as we attend to, we are toldit is no more we that do the evil, but "the sm thatdwelleth in us." Precisely similar, then, is what theA 3


12/102

10

Scriptures say in the case you put of Christiansbeing in a Church in which there is worldliness.Look at the declension on the part of the JewishChurch throughout their history. Behold also theprophets testifying against the evil, bid yet remainingmembers of that Church : and if we turn to the NewTestament Scriptures, what do we find there ? Theaccount of Churches which had become grievouslycorrupt; even exhortations to the faithful withintheir pale ; but in no instance separation enjoined.Take the Churches of Thyatira and Sardis for examples : in the former it appears a false prophetesswas allowed to assume to herself a commission fromGod, and to teach men to commit fornication, andjudgment is denounced in consequence. But whatis said to the remnant that preserved their allegiance ? Is it flee out of her form yourselves into anew Church? This would be your remedy; butsuch is not the injunction of Jesus ; it is simply,"That which you have already, hold fast till Icome" (EeV. ii. 25). As to Sardis, we read therewere but " few names left which had not defiled theirgarments ;" but even here there is no recommendation to separate (Quere Is not this the secret whyyou and your party deny the Church of England tobe a Church at all, to get rid of such passages asthese?). We do find separatists indeed spoken ofelsewhere (Jude 13) ; but it is in a bad connexionin company with " murmurers, complainers, andmockers" the inscription over whom is "sensual,having not the Spirit." I can readily conceive separation to be the easy course to take easy to fleshand blood ; just as in the degenerate Christian family,for the member who walks close with God, and isanxious that all the domestic arrangements should becharacterized by the spirit as well as the form of


13/102

11

religion for him to withdraw himself from thesphere in which his bearing and long-sufferingtenderness, alternately with his faithfulness, is exercised, and either live by himself in solitary communion with (rod, or unite with more kindred spirits,

all this would be comparative enjoyment, but thenit would be a selfish enjoyment ; it would be a pleasing of himself a "looking on his own things, noton the things of others." He has left the familycircle which he should have dearly loved ; in which,as it was his duty, so God might have made it hisprivilege, to witness for His truth, and promote arevival of the power of vital godliness. Of course, ifthere were rules laid down for the regulation of thefamily, or doctrines professed by them at their familyaltar, at variance with the word of God, separationwould be lawful, though even then it should be resorted to only after the most patient zeal in strivingto effect a reformation. But I have supposed thefamily only to have declined in spirit, and that theirprofessed reverence for, and outward observance ofpiety still existed ; and under these circumstances itis plain that the rending the unity of the domesticcircle would be quite inexcusable. Though separationmight spare the individual in question many an exercise of his grace, yet it would be wrong.Now this, I conceive, aptly represents

the casethe Church of England and you separatists. Inerhas been a lamentable degeneracy among us thougn,praised be the Lord, a considerable alteration forthe better is taking place. But as a Church weprofess God s truth, which, handed down toour venerable formularies from apostles and martyrswho have gone before us, we have neither added tnor taken ffom. The deposit of Christian doctrmis with us as a Church, and our people (however


14/102

12

wayward they may walk) yet profess adherence to it.But how have you separatists acted? Instead ofresting the lever of your brotherly love and Christiandevotedness upon this important fulcrum of theChurch s still faithful profession, and bending allyour energies to effect a revival in the family, youhave selfishly withdrawn yourselves from us, and,aggravating the degeneracy in which you shouldhave sympathized as members of the body, have contemptuously left us under Grod s judicial sentence,"unnatural sons," says Bishop Hall, "that spit inthe face of the father that begot them, and themother that bore them."

Thus, my dear sir (I trust speaking the truth inlove), I have alleged selfishness of conduct againstyou and your party ; may it not be possible, I wouldadd, that there attaches pride to your procedure also ?We know how insensibly it works ; " a sin," as someone observes, "that rises from the ashes of othersins," mingled among a company whose title, manyof them, to the Christian character is almost defaced,except to the eye of charity which " hopes all things,"the shining graces of individuals are obscured ; butwhen they come out and stand apart in a little bodyby themselves, ah ! then they attract notice. Whilethey remain in the Church, " serving the Lord withhumility, supporting the weak, comforting the feebleminded, restoring the offender in the spirit of meekness," Christians are like the convalescent patients wesometimes see in an hospital tending their fellow-sufferers ; but these persons, we can imagine, mightget impatient of their charitable office, and, revellingin the consciousness of

strength themselves, mightnot brook being confounded longer with the diseasedand dying, and so depart from the asylum that hadbeen so blessed to themselves. Alas, my dear sir,


15/102

13while I write it, the apprehension of somethingsimilar having to do with the course you are pursuing, and persuading others to, growingly presses onme, I do not say this is the casa, and I heartilypray it may not be the case with any of you ; butyou must see how incident the evil is to the procedure you have adopted ; and as one who is in theflesh himself, I cannot but remark it. Would to Godthe people who have gone out from us would reflectupon this. They felt the cross of having to witnessfor Jesus, and keep their garments in the midst ofdeclension and inconsistencies around them, whichwas the school for them, and they were thriving init

; but, alas, they forgot that this might be the case ;and enamoured of the prospect of purer communion(apart from the embarrassing presence of the worldly) ,and of the conspicuous position they would thenstand in, they embarked in the enterprise of dissent.They know, perhaps with bitter disappointment, theresult that while the tares are more like wheat, theyare bound up with them still, only closer than before ;and that the liberty of ministry which you haveamong you is a sorry substitute for the solemn responsibility of office in securing edification. Wouldto God, I say, that with the experience to which Iknow some, not unlike your party, have beenbrought, you would all

" search and try your ways,"and see if the flesh, with its ten thousand labyrinths,has not betrayed you into your present position.Having thus briefly vindicated the Church ^ of

England against your sweeping accusation of beinga worldly system ; shown and that even when therehas a tide of corruption set in upon a Church separation is contrary to the mind of God; and having suggested some dangerous motives which may be operating upon you, I come to analyze for a moment your


16/102

14improvement, as you think, upon ordinary dissentfor you must know I cannot suffer you to disclaimaltogether affinity with common dissenters the onlydifference I see between you and them is that, according to the genius of the day, you are more latitudi-narian. Until your views came out, it was thoughtthat the dissenting bodies in this country had becomegrievously lax in their principles in order to effectunity : the followers of John Owen, for instance,changing pulpits with the followers of John Wesleyeach party for the time being keeping in abeyancethose doctrines which were obnoxious to the other.Even the heterogeneous materials of Calvinism,Socinianism, and Popery appeared not long ago combined on the subject of political agitation ; and at thismoment, in the national system of education for poorIreland, we see the sad spectacle of representatives ofthese several classes sitting in conclave to determinehow much of what each maintains to be truth is tobe sacrificed at the shrine of the popular idol unity.I, for my part, did not think that latitudinarianismcould go beyond this; but you and your brethrenhave found out a still more comprehensive ground ofunion : you propose to unite all classes, not by theold-fashioned way of endeavouring to banish " erroneous and strange doctrines " the fruitful parent ofstrife but by cushioning them, and inscribing uponyour standard only one or two articles of faith asessential : and really while I admit this, that youhave set your seal as a body to any truth, I do notknow that I am altogether right, for where is yourconfession of faith to be found ? If you say in thewritten word well, the Socinian professes to find histhere too, is he therefore admissible to your communion ? I believe not ; how then do you excludehim, since you have no defined standard of truth?


17/102

15Why it is by using a standard stealthily and in private, by secretly defining what is truth. You have yourtouchstone of error in each of your breasts; theleaders among you appeal to it as occasion requires,and thus the Socinian is excluded ; but, by the way,where is the securityfor your continuing to exclude him ?That touchstone of unrecorded opinions within youmay change, so that the sentiments which are notcongenial to you to-day may become so to-morrow.Not to diverge, however, from the point you do exclude the Socinian, though in an unsatisfactory way :do you exclude any others ? Roman Catholics. Howdo I know this ? Pascal and Fenelon and doubtless they have their successors in our day would beas devotional as any of you in speaking of and extolling Jesus ; if you have no other test than this, whythe wafer idolaters may come among you, and becalled brethren. If indeed you have your mentaltouchstone to apply to their views, you are free, I willsuppose, from the intrusion of both these obnoxiousclasses, though

I leave it to you to show your consistency in recognizing what is truth in their cases, andthen stopping short. Do you not see, my dear sir,that at the very point your recognition of truth ends,there your admission of error begins ? and here is yourlatitudinarianism. Let men but profess their belief,as your phrase is, " in the blood," and then, whateverbe their heterodoxy, they are admissible among youBaptists and Ptcdobaptists, Anninians and Calvinists,Millennarians and Anti-millennarians, Quakers, &c.Your cords of union are indeed lengthened, but, alas,how superficial the truth they circumscribe !ordinance of baptism, though a command, cannot beadministered among you; the doctrine of (rod aelecting love, the second advent, the agency ot 1Spirit in the Church, cannot be introduced at your


18/102

16meetings, forsooth, because the moment you touchupon these topics your boasted unity is at an end.Doubtless it has happened because of the paucity ofyour numbers, and their select character, beingchiefly from the one communion, that you have hadsomewhat more of liberty than I have described asthe tendency of your system (though, by the way, Isaw myself the elements of discord working amongyou at Clifton) ; but according, I repeat, to your lati-tudinarian principle, coming together only as believers in the atonement, this liberty you have haddoes not legitimately belong to you. Just as in thenational system of education, when the teacher goesbeyond the books of extracts he transgresses the rule,so when in your assemblies for worship you touch onground other than what is common to you as Christiansof all denominations, you violate your principles. Theonly way you can fairly get out of this bondage is bydetermining your views of doctrine, and authoritatively setting them forth; then indeed your rankswill not present so party-coloured and motley a group,but they will be sadly thinned ; and if you have notyour Thirty-nine Articles, like the Church of England, which you aifect to despise, yet will you havesome " Shibboleth " which will get you the characteryou are now giving others. You see how involvedyou are in a dilemma : either you meet on the common ground of one or two truths, and then you cannot go beyond them in your teaching, or you have aregular system of doctrine, conformity to which isexpected, and then you are inconsistent, for yourepudiate all confessions and creeds.But now to another subject. You say that theHoly Ghost is not honoured in the constitution ofour Church. Your letter does not explain where thehindrance lies; I guess, however, what you mean,


19/102

17from your addresses which I have heard, ana yourbrethren s publications : it is because, it seems, weadmit an ordained ministry among us, i.e., by ordination we give authority in the Church to thosewhom we believe endued with the necessary gifts,and called by the Holy Ghost. Mark, we do notarrogate to ourselves in the first instance, as ourliturgy testifies, the selection of our ministers; butthose who appear by their solemn profession andexamination to be called by the Holy Ghost to takeupon them the office, we ordain to it. Why, mydear sir, you do yourselves something similar : thosewho commend themselves to you by their gifts, andas apt to teach, you yield submission to, and they actas pastors among you. I remember, at your latemeetings at Clifton, asking Mr. Hargrove how he tookupon him to expound Scripture to his assembled brethren one morning, and his answer was to this effect," You and some two or three others had arranged itpreviously." You see, then, you have authorityexercised among you, though in a covert way ; thedifference is, that -we demand from all candidates forthe ministry among us, Do they believe they aremoved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them thesolemn office ? and so far as man can go, we see thatwe are not imposed upon, by requiring that they bepersons well reported of, and of competent knowledge in the word of God ; whereas you, by a sort ofwhispering debate among those who are the managersof your party irresponsible persons, determine whoare fit to teach, and who not. There is with you nosolemn examination of the individual by those whohave authority given them in the Church ; there is nofasting or prayer previously, to implore the guidanceof the Holy Spirit ; but just according to the waythe individual pleases his hearers, and it might be by


20/102

18sparing their sins, your selection is made ; and then itis only for the time being, for you may supersedehim on the morrow and all this most inconsistently,for he may affirm that the Spirit has moved him tospeak just as confidently as you affirm you are movedby the Spirit to silence him. I ask, my dear sir, isGod a God of order ; and can you say that amidstthis confusion the Holy Ghost is honoured amongyou ? To sum up in a few words this part of thematter, there must be authority used in the orderingof the Church ; and while this is conformable to thegeneral rule laid down in the word, it is as absurd tosay that this introduction of it hinders the Spirit, asit would be to contend that the use of types, ink, andpaper is officious meddling on our part to preservethe Scriptures, and that it interferes with the agencyof the Spirit. Authority, I repeat, must be hadrecourse to ; and we maintain that ours is conformable to the general rule laid down in the word ofGod ; but while you have authority among you in acovert way, it is capriciously exercised according tono open acknowledged standard ; and thus while ourdear people whom you have got among you aretaught to flatter themselves that they are free fromthe yoke of man, you and the other managers ofyour party are virtually their lords ; and if your ownminds receive an evil impulse, God knoics what mischief you may inflict upon them ; or if you are preserved and I pray the Lord you may, and, further,be reclaimed from your present schismatic courseother leaders may arise among you, men of parts andambition, who may become the worst of spiritualdespots.On the whole, my dear sir, I think I have provedthat your system has not originated in obedience tothe word of God, and that its tendency is most per-


21/102

19nicious. Here I would be content to close my letterbeseeching the Lord to open your eyes, and theeyes of our dear people who have been decoyed awayfrom us by your vain, though, I admit, sincere representations but your letter turns to personal matters,upon which, lest you should be offended if I weresilent, I beg to spend a few words.

First. You reproach me for -challenging this discussion ; but this I leave. If I were in the strictsense of the term " the challenger" as I said before,it would be only conformable to my ordination vow.

Secondly. You go back to what transpired at theClifton meetings ; all I shall say to this is, that /am surprised at your venturing to allude to the subject, after your shrinking in the manner you havedone (I allude to our correspondence) from, on theone hand, the vindication of yourself from the un-charitableness which, on the testimony of your ownbrother, Hargrove. I alleged against you ; or, on theother hand, the honest confession of your fault as afollower of Jesus.

Thirdly. You do not understand, you say, myregretting that this is not a viva voce discussion,time, manner, and place being left entirely to me.On this I beg to observe that, independent of myunsettled circumstances in the ministry at that time,and which occurred to disturb my original designand wish, and of this you were duly apprised, whenI came maturely to reflect upon the novel position Ishould occupy in going to Hereford, or any otherplace where your party was, to argue against you, asthough my brethren in the ministry stationed therewere not fully competent, if they approved of such acourse, to enter upon it themselves, I recognized itas providential that the alternative of the press,through which without any indelicacy I could meet


22/102

20you, was suggested by you instead of the platform.Not but that if, in the providence of God, you orany of your party broaching your schismatical viewscame within the sphere of labour under my control,I would for a moment hesitate to challenge you tooral discussion. I think it a sad pity when it is alegitimate course to adopt, that my reverend brethrendo not pursue it, though, as I told you, a most valuedbrother said he thought it would be making topmuch of you.

Fourthly. With regard to the publication of ourcorrespondence, I shall go as far back as you please.It was really for your sake, your first letters were sounchristian and slovenly, as well as that they relatedto personal matter, that I proposed omitting them ;and if you name any medium in England throughwhich the whole correspondence can appear, / amperfectly content. I think the Statesman would beavailable for Ireland.

I remain, my dear sir,Yours in Christian truth and love,

JAMES KELLY.


23/102

21

Stafford, Feb. 26, 1839.DEAR MR. KELLY,I am glad we are at last launched in the

subject ; it is a great relief to my spirit, though not apleasant task in itself. I received your packet fromDublin in London, I suppose by private hand, and sitdown at once to answer it, having ran it over asI came down again here.Your letter has completely justified to me theground I took in my last letter to you ; satisfactory,if not to you, at least to others, whose minds wereanxious on the subject. All your present letter goeson the assumption exactly of what I refused toacknowledge in nay last no attempt being made onyour part to prove it. In replying to the question,Why I left the Church of England ? I replied, notthat the world was in the Church of England, as yousay no such thing at all; but that I found thesystem I was mixed up with to be the world, and notthe Church of God at all. That is a very distinctthing from worldly people being in the Church.I said to you very plainly that your questionassumed that the Establishment was the or a Church,which I did not admit. Now this is a very plainground ; it is to me precisely the ground of importance ; and a plain truth which, when once apprehended, frees the conscience of many an anxiousperson. The position in which you desired to placeme is also evident from the expression, you will takeup " my aspersions of the Church of England." I


24/102

22

have no pleasure in casting any aspersions on it ; tofree my own and others conscience from all that maybe, or tend to evil, I do desire. Further, sir, I haveto admit that the manifested progress of Popery, ofwhich the system of the Church of England is theinstrument, renders me less jealous and less anxiousto avoid the plain expression of what one may feelpainfully, and yet, from ten thousand associations, beunwilling to declare, lest some rude Edomite mightsuppose for a moment one felt with them. My mindhas long admitted its tendency, and I have acted onit. The signs of it are too publicly apparent not tocall forth at least some additional warning voice. Ifmine be so very feeble and despised, as I am sure itis, may the Lord give it truth and affection, andtherefore His own force. The Oxford tracts and theirprevalence cannot but have drawn your attention, asthey have of Bishops, and even newspapers ; andrecently wre have had a very remarkable sign of thetimes, the highest ecclesiastical authority in thecountry pronouncing a definite judgment thatprayers for the dead are not inconsistent with thedoctrines of the Church of England. You may saythis is not right : her godly ministers protestagainst it. Be it so. They cannot help it ; and ifthey say, we declare it is not right, then is the judgment of God on them, because they will not plainlyact on and abide by what is right, and renouncewhat is wrong. What is the resource from the evilproposed by the Record ? An appeal to the PrivyCouncil ! What a condition -for the Church of GODto be placed in, that when a heresy comes in, and issanctioned, its appeal is to the Privy Council to getrid of it ! But I allude to this merely as a sign ;and whether the Church exculpate herself or not, asign it is to them that have eyes to see.


25/102

23I believe, dear sir, this, that at the time of theReformation two great elements entered into the

composition of the Church of England, as it is called :one, the power of the Spirit of GOD in the preachedword, which was directed against the Church of England, or of Rome in England then subsisting, andwhich was carried on by a system of irregularitiesLatimer, Bernard Gilpin, and a host of others, manywhose names are better known in heaven than onearth, preaching and teaching all about the country,without regard to parish or any thing but whichwas the power of light against the power of darkness,and that was blest. The other element was partlythrough the fears of Churchmen, and mainly throughthe interference of the Crown and secular power asystem in which, in order to maintain unity in thewhole country, and that even to conciliate RomanCatholics for political purposes, under Queen Elizabeth, a vast mass of association with Roman Catholicforms and the value of ordinances was preserved andasserted, by which a connexion with the great apos-tacy was kept up ; which, although the power oftruth and the providence of God may have a longwhile hindered its effect, is now beginning distinctlyand publicly to show itself, and will, I have no doubtwoe isme that I should have to say it result in thisonce comparatively happy country being immersed inand given up to darkness and opposition to GOD.Can you suppose, sir, that this gives me satisfactionor pleasure in saying it? The Lord knows whogrieves over it most those who sanction the systemthat leads to it, or such as in sorrow of heart havegone out without the camp, though bearing his reproach, and in word and work become a witness,however feeble.A man cannot, while acting in and sanctioning a


26/102

24system which involves these evils, honestly bear witness against the evils he partakes of and upholds.The whole system is thoroughly woven together.He subscribes his assent and consent to all and everything contained in it. Satan, under divine permission, has been allowed to force the. adoption of all ornone ; and makes the single sentence, or word, oreven form of apparel, as necessary to unity, or toliving honestly in the Church, as justification byfaith or any thing else. This is the position of aminister of the Establishment : it cannot be denied.Mr. Head, near Exeter, is a public instance lately ofthe truth of what I say. But though the truthmight be preached by individuals, which I do notcontrovert, the consequence of the preservation ofthis Popish parochial unity was the entire forfeitureby the Establishment of the title to being a Churchat all not merely by accident, but by its veryessence and system. There was a transfer of all theinhabitants of a parish to a Protestant form from aPopish, but no gathering of saints at all. It wasmatter of legal penalty not to go to church. Theparochial centre was there ; the minister the lawprovided was there ; the legal right to seats wasthere ; the whole framework of ordinances for thewhole

parishwas there ; and, I repeat, there was a

legal penalty for not attending. These are mattersof historical fact. The whole population, as such, weretransferred in geographical divisions to another formof worship, and there was no gathering of the saints,though there was, to a considerable extent, the truthpreached.

That was the system of the Church of England,not its abuse. Those who refused to come weretermed Popish recusants, and dealt with as such ; andthose whose consciences refused submission were very


27/102

25extensively subjected to punishment and imprisonment. And this is still the boasted principle of theEstablishment. The toleration that there is, forcedon by the consciences of others, has in nowise alteredthe principle of the Establishment. Her boast is,that she provides religious instruction for the wholepopulation of the country : the truth of this we mayshortly inquire, but it is her boast; but when Ibegin to seek what is meant by religious instruction,I find this a most deceptive and inadequate statement. Her system, be there instruction or not, bethere bad or good, is a system of ordinances bywhich the whole population are received as Christian,whether they believe or not, and are dealt with as suchby her ordinances, with which, according to herdirections, they are all bound to comply ; so thatthose who do not are called recusants, dissenters, andschismatics. So that it is really a provision, not forthe instruction of all, but for calling all Christians,whether they are so or not. Do I go into a town orcountry parish, if there should not be any dissentingbody, it would be the boast that they were all Churchof England people though a Christian ministerwithin her pale would perhaps avow he was satisfiedthere was not one who was a Christian, or knew theLord, amongst them, and would preach to them asentirely unconverted people, and often does so veryfaithfully.You say that discipline is to be exercised. In fact,it is not, nor could be scripturally : if it were, itwould be merely to make the world decent, not tokeep the Church holy ; and discipline with unbelievers is merely entirely deceiving the souls of allthe height of confusion and absurdity. My assertionthen is, that the Establishment is not, unless in self-assumed responsibility, the Church, or a Church at


28/102

26all, is not a body that God owns as such, save forjudgment. And yet she treats as schismatics thosewho separate from her pale.This short remark sets this clear. If a man leftthe Church of God, he was out of the manifestedbody of God s saved people altogether. But farther,if a man at Corinth left the Church of Corinth, heleft the Church of God he left God s assembly.Could that be said of the Church of England? Ifind no such thing as a national Church in Scripture. Is the Church of England was it ever God sassembly in England? I read of the Churches ofGalatia, which was a province or country that is,God s assemblies in that country ; but the very ideaof an assembly of God is lost in the claim and boastof the Establishment.Now, dear sir, instead of this being an aspersionon the Church of England, it is her boast. In her

effort to build new Churches now may the Lordturn it to blessing by sending the truth into them,for He is sovereign, and not tied to our ways or anybut His own her plea is to keep pace with the population, not with the growth and extension of theChurch of God. Such is the practical evidence of afact too notorious to require much proof.If you refer to the Irish canons, I think the sixth(I have but my Bible with me here and a borrowedliturgy), you will find that the parishioners are to goto the sacrament so often, or to be forced by penaltyof law. An analogous canon, but not quite so violentin form, but the same in principle, will be found inthe English collection. What has been the consequent history ? for I may be told that these are obsolete ; for when we turn to facts, we are told that theyare abuses ; when we turn to documents, we are toldthey are obsolete. But facts and documents alike


29/102

27

prove that in the principle of the Establishment,"

theChurch and State are but different aspects of thesame body," to use the expression of one of her distinguished defenders. Hence I am relieved from thethought altogether, save in sorrow for the saints inher pale, of leaving the Church of God, when I ceaseto be of the Establishment. If you are not theChurch of God in England and such a pretence isidle then, save the importance of avoiding thedeceiving myself and others, my having nothing tosay to you can be of no sort of consequence. Youtell me to remember that you did not say the Church.If you are not, as far as England goes, the sooner Ihave done with what pretends to be, and is not, thebetter. It seems to me to be an awful thing to pretendto be the Church of England, ifyou are not the Churchof God there. Whose Church are you ? or what newthing have you introduced ?These are questions which ought to be answeredbefore charges of schism and dissent are launched outso readily against those who cannot form their consciences on the model of a Church which is not theChurch of God. How is it schism to leave you, if youare not the Church of God ? What is schism ? Wouldit be schism to divide Turks, or to divide Christiansfrom them ? Would it be schism to seek the unityof all saints, apart from the world ? Were theEstablishment blameless, to force a weak Christian sconscience on an indifferent point would be schism.But what do I find in the history of the Establishment ? Why that in order to enforce unity, or ratheruniformity, and that even in apparel (and that canhardly be necessary for the unity of the Spirit),nearly two thousand of her godly parochial ministerswere rejected at once. If it be said, this was by Actof Parliament, not by the act of tb Church, I answer,B2


30/102

28then have you for secular reasons made yourselvesthe slaves, the helpless slaves, of whatever the worldchooses to impose upon you ; and that in the mostimportant point of ecclesiastical discipline. And theunhappy excuse what a plea for one who is jealousfor the actual real maintaining of Christ s honour inthe Church ! that the Parliament and King are partof the Church ! Who made them its judicial visitors ?But even this poor excuse is taken away now, andwe have the modern evidence that Roman Catholics,Socinians in short, the world, can dispose of thewhole ecclesiastical arrangements of the country ; anda Chancellor of the Exchequer can get up and sayhe has considered the state of the country, and itcan spare ten bishoprics, and they are taken away.This may seem to your minds order; but to usthe authority of Christ over His Church seems castto the winds by it, and His honour despised. AndI cannot but feel it preferable in ever so lowlyand despised circumstances, and that without thecamp, in ever so much acknowledged weakness,to wait humbly for the guidance of the Spirit,and the word of God, in the sorrow into whichall this worldliness has cast the Church of God.

If I be asked by what authority I do these things,my answer is an appeal to the plain righteousness ofthe case, and the refusal on such a charge as schismto reply to the inquiry whether the Establishmentis the Church of God or not, or even give a plainanswer whether they consider her baptized childrenregenerate or not. If I be told as to the Act ofUniformity that it has ceased to be binding, I ask bywhat authority ? Is schism to be permitted by Actof Parliament ? When the Act of Uniformity, thatgreat public act of schism, was found politicallyintolerable, the authority which had tried to force


31/102

29

unity in a worldly way, sanctioned, according toChurch, notions, schism in a worldly way.Such is the history of the Church of England. Toturn to Scripture or its idea of a Church, no onething the least like it can be traced in the New Testament, or Old either. When you speak of theworld being in the Church, in the sense of it asreferred to in Scripture, it could not be in the Establishment. I admit there were false professors buthow was this ? While the Church was in a statewhich Scripture recognized at all, I read of falsebrethren coming in unawares : this could not happenin the Establishment. There is nothing for them tocome into unawares. All, false and true, are boundto go there ; and if they preserve a good worldlycharacter, welcome in theory, and without it even inpractice. In Scripture I find a within and withouta direction to judge them that are within. This stateof things does not exist in the Establishment. Heraim and boast is to have the whole population icithin.I repeat, there is no pretence of being a Church at all.And really, sir, when you deny that the openly profane and ungodly are in the Church of England, inyour own sense of it, you make an assertion of avery strange character to those who are familiar withfacts. People s consciences must answer this forthemselves. Will you allow me to ask you, and begyou to read it over, Is the Commination Serviceintended for the members of the Church of England,or for those without ? for believers or unbelievers ?for people under the law or gospel ? But I will notsuffer myself, in the Lord s mercy, to be led awayfrom great principles. I believe it was meant inhonest hatred of sin. I honour this. But on whatground it can be defended by a minister of theChurch of England now, it is hard to tell. Were I


32/102

to use an argumentum ad hominem, I could remindyou that, in the homilies, the right use of ecclesiastical discipline is one of the three marks whereby th(true Church may be known. How this consists witl^the Church of England being a true Church, ancavowing what it does in the Commination Service, i:hard for a simple mind to tell.You can now pretty well understand why I speaknot of the world being in the Church of England, butof its being the world, and not the Church at all. Itis notorious that, if they be not actually dissenters,the population of a parish, town, or county, if theybe in pitch darkness, are all members of the Churchof England, so called. They would call themselvesso. They are called so, and boasted of by theirministers as such. They are entitled to be receivedas such, if not notoriously profligate, though theymay not be able to tell you who Jesus was, and denyin their ignorance every truth of the Gospel. Andthat this is a fact, and not a fiction, is known toevery one acquainted with the state of the country :that is, the world behaving themselves so as not toshock public decency, are entitled to be received atcommunion, because the system rests on ordinances,not on faith. And a minister faithful as to the truthhe preached would address the whole congregationin the services of the Church of England as his brethren and as the Church ; and when preaching tothem, perhaps honestly and faithfully tell them theywere all unconverted, and unless they repented theywould all perish. In a word, he would address them,when he told his own mind, as faithfully servingChrist in the Spirit, as unbelieving sinners; andwhen he recited the Church s forms, and told hers,as congregated saints. Which is right ? But, first,which is true ? Who is the faithful minister (I put


33/102

31it to your own conscience), the man who in a darkparish, or as to the great body of every parish,preaches the Gospel to them as sinners poor, lost sinners, or the minister who treats them all as the congregated Church of God ? The latter minister, onyour own statement, and the clear avowal of thePrayer Book, acts in the mind of the Church ofEngland.The truth is, you have two irreconcileable elements at work within her pale truth in the heartsof many of her ministers, and in a feeble measure inher Articles ; and a system of old bottles, which cannot bear the new wine of the kingdom. In thesetimes of God s dealings they cannot both go ontogether.I say, then, that the constitution is worldly, becauseshe contemplates by her constitution it is her boast

the population, not the saints.If circumstances have driven many outside her pale,she treats them as dissenters and schismatics, and sodo you, and therefore in principle avow and admitthe charge. The man who would say that the Churchof England is a gathering of saints, must be a veryodd man, or a very bold one. The parishioners arebound to attend by her principles. Are they all

saints in theory ? If you say yes, I answer, then itis not God s theory, and judgment is pronounced onthe question.But there are other points connected with thispoint, of theory and discipline, which are to mevery important.We are habitually told not to judge, and thissounds well ; but it is a very awful and anti-gospel,and at the same time a very hollow principle. Trueit is that I am not to pass a human judgment on abrother, as regards God s final estimate of him ; nor


34/102

32to say, he being before me as such, as to God s present acceptance of him. This is clear ; but to treatall as Christians because they have been baptized intheir infancy, and connected with the formularies, isa very uncharitable deception, and you know that asa Christian minister you do not. The system ofyour Church may do it, but I am persuaded yourheart does not. It could not if the Spirit of Christ slove be there, neither then should our acts or words.They forget that Christianity begins with this, " Thelove of Christ constrains me, because ice thus judge,that if one died for all, then were all dead." And ifa system of ordinances have concealed these truths ;if the Church has learnt to rest in the ordinances inlieu of life and its necessity ; it is just in the practicalstate of apostacy from which I have to flee, in loveto my own soul and that of others.

Next, I believe that the notion that I cannot recognize brethren, as such, is an abominable delusion ofSatan, to the destruction of the grand witness ofChrist on the earth. I am told not to judge who areand who are not. I answer, the practical recognitionof them is the principle of the dispensation. Knowing that all are dead, the recognition that any arealive is the joy of charity. Their corporate union andworship is Christ s witness in the earth, "thatthey may be one, that the world may believe thatThou hast sent me." And though the disregardof the unity of worship of the saints, known to eachother as such, may seem to a carnal man as charity,it really destroys all the first springs of holy affection. What would come of family affections if all werereduced to uncertainty as to who was a brother andwho was not ? How can I greet with cordial affectionas of one heart and one mind my brethren in theLord, if I do not and am not to know who they are ?


35/102

33Is there not, according to Scripture, to be some setof people who are all of one heart and one mind ? Isnot charity injured, and God s witness of love fromeach injured and destroyed by this cold and heartl< ssdoctrine, that I am not to judge who are brethrenand who are not ? Love the brethren, says the Spiritof Grod. Nay, I am told you must not judge whoare and who are not. The first precept of charity isannulled by this system, " Hereby shall all menknow that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one toanother." How can this great witness and test ofdiscipleship be manifested if there be not a mutualrecognition by the disciples of the Lord as such?This fair form of worldly charity is, I believe, a veryevil delusion of the enemy. And is it not the factyou do judge, you preach to many as unconverted,and you converse with others as saints ? You mustdo so if you have the Spirit of Christ.

Further, as to discipline, there is not otherwise abody capable of discipline as led of the Spirit of Grod,by which alone it can be rightly exercised. Discipline by a body of unconverted persons is ridiculous. A remark of your friend Mr. M Neil is anevidence of this. He says, speaking of those whocomplained of mixed communion, " Have you followed the Scriptures? If your brother has drivenyou from participating in this ordinance, he has certainly trespassed against you." This is a poor andstrained way of taking a brother s trespass againstme, and it is besides a piece of sophistry ; for mydifficulty is not that my brother has trespassed, butthat you have by your system gathered a heap ofpeople who are not brethren at all, and would rejectand scorn the title of saints in heart and life, so thatit is a very poor sophistry. But let that pass.

"

Haveyou gone to him alone?" says Mr. M Neil, "thenB 3


36/102

34taken two or three more ? and, if that failed, thentold it to your minister ?" "Why " your minister " ?because the use of the scriptural direction wouldhave laid bare the inconsistent and absurd positionhe was in. If he had said, tell it to the Church orassembly, every straightforward person would haveseen its absurdity : there was really no Church to tellit to. But to be in a position which obliges one tochange the word of God, is just the expression ofunwilling consciousness that the word of God condemns my position. It condemns it in the verypoint at issue between us. Thus holy discipline isdestroyed, as well as charity, by the world beingcalled the Church; and "put out from amongyourselves that wicked person " is as impracticableas " love the brotherhood." Everybody knows thefact.Now as to one or two objections you make. First,you refer to Israel. There was abuse, you say, butthey were not to leave it. In the first place, we arenot Jews, but Christians. Judaism was an electnation ; there could be no such thing as leaving it :Christianity is not, but a gathering of saints. Godhas not recorded His name in the English nation ;but wherever two or three are gathered together inHis name, there is Jesus in the midst of them.What the temple was to a Jew, the gathering of thesaints is to me. My complaint of the Establishmentis that it is not, and never was, a gathering of saints.If a man ceased to be a Jew, he ceased to be of God speople altogether. That nation and its ordinanceswere wholly, solely, and exclusively God s people,sanctuary, and place : to leave them was to apostatizefrom God. They were gathered, not in spiritualworship, but to carnal ordinances, imposed not byconversion of heart, but by Jewish parentage. The


37/102

35Church of God alone is analogous in one place. TheEstablishment has no pretence to be what Israel wasas God s only place of abode. Where Judaism andChristianity are entirely different from each other inprinciple, in naturalism, and obligation of carnalordinances, there it has followed Judaism, and thenuses this as an argument why it should not be left.If this argument proves anything, it proves itsapostacy. Two or three gathered together in Christ sname has the authority of unity which Israel had ofold, not a sorry imitation of that which the Gospeltreats as beggarly elements, and now equivalent toidolatry (see Gal. iv.) and carnal ordinances. Israel,I repeat, was a national election ; Christianity is not.The laws of the country were God s own laws, thepresence of God was there, and the abuses and corruptions did not alter that. A person could not leaveit, and be in the place of God s worship and God sordinance. Now the place of God s worship andGod s ordinance is where two or three are gatheredtogether in Christ s name, and this the Establishment is not, but a provision of ordinances for thepopulation in confessed imitation of Judaism.Next you refer to the seven Churches. This thereis more occasion to answer specially, as it is thecommon resort of argument on the question. Thesimple answer is, they were God s Churches or assemblies in the place mentioned, and they could not beleft ; corruptions are no ground for leaving theChurch of GOD. The Church of GOD cannot beleft, and a man be in the path of salvation in sodoing. These were the Churches of GOD theassemblies of GOD in those different towns gatherings of saints, although carelessness had introducedcorruption. The Establishment is not this at all.Were the Apostle to address an epistle to the Church


38/102

36of GOD which is at Liverpool, or London, there isno gathered body distinct from the world who couldreceive and act upon the letter. Where the epistlesays, Ye have among you such and such, and callsfor repentance, were they not to put them out, orwould they otherwise have repented ? Where is thebody, then, which could act thus, when you arepreaching to an indiscriminate heap of unconvertedpeople ? In a word, there was a known body whichcould act by the leading of the Spirit of GOD. Therewas no direction to leave these Churches, becausethey were Churches. The Establishment has no suchclaim, and I do not leave it properly, but have nothing to say to it, because it is not one. The Establishment does not, nor ever did, stand on the groundof these Churches or local assemblies of God at all,and has no principle of their structure, order, or constitution. I should think it a great sin to leave aChurch of God because corruptions were found in it ;but the Establishment is a great national, secularsystem, and not the Church of God at all.Another assertion you make is, I have evil inmyself, and that I cannot leave, and therefore it is ahopeless thing to seek purity. This, forgive me forsaying it, is an ugly argument. There is no hope :we will continue to do evil. But it is a poor pieceof sophistry. I cannot leave the evil in my flesh, soI remain in the body. I can leave the evil aroundme, so I am to remain in that too. You will admitthis is not very strong reasoning. But more plainly,the Lord says, " Come out from among them, and beye separate,

and touch not the uncleanthing ;

and Iwillreceive you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters,saith the Lord Almighty." He does not say, Comeout from your body. The Lord says, "If a manpurge himself from these, he shall be a vessel made


39/102

37unto honour, fit for the master s use." I cannothave done with my body, though I may mortify itand treat it as dead, through grace and infinitemercy. The Lord says, " From such withdraw thyself." I cannot from my body. The Lord says,speaking (I believe you will agree with me) of theselatter days days it may be not fully ripened, stillthey are now the last days " From such turn away."From my body I cannot turn away. The answersimply then to this is, that the Lord has commandedme to come out and be separate from the world ; Hehas not commanded me to come out of my body. Isyour argument really a righteous one in this ?One only remark I believe remains in this part :your objection to ceasing to do evil before we knowto do good taking, as you call it, a leap in the dark.Is it taking a leap in the dark for a Christian ceasingto do known evil, because he does not yet know allthe Lord s subsequent will concerning him? Arewe to say, I will not act on what I do know, till youtell me all my course on to glory ? I have seen theLord thus continually exercise His children, givinglight enough to make a thing a matter of plainChristian obedience, and not show all the happy, andblessed, and full consequences, till faith acted onthat. It is just a holy and excellent trial of faith.He says, in principle, I am the door. The mind maysay, where to ? The Lord answers, / am the door :and wherever the soul finds Christ or the will ofChrist, it, if walking in faith, trusts that, and theblessing follows. It soon goes in and out, and findspasture. You seem to forget the praise of Abraham sfaith was, He went out, not knowing whither he went.It is better to trust God in doing His will, than theconsequences which doing His will may produce,however blessed. Now surely it is of Christ and the


40/102

38will of Christ to cease from known evil. If you callthis taking a leap in the dark, Christ s will andsurely it is His will to leave known evil is not darkness to us, but light, for which our poor foolish soulsare thankful. Nor shall he that followeth Him walkin darkness, though he may only know that in thevery next footsteps Christ has gone before him.And if you would know our experience, sir, we havenot found it darkness, but blessed light ; we havefound our own weakness, and the poverty and ruinof the Church ; but we have found marvellous andabundant light in the Lord, though light afflictionfor a moment might accompany it.As to the Corinthians, though the principle isunaffected by it, it is perfectly plain that the worst

among them was a Christian, though a fallen one.The habits of the Establishment seem to have confounded decency of morals and deportment withthe very faith of the Church of GrOI). As to thePhilippians, that corruption

and apostacy were thenrapidly flowing in on the Church of Grod is unquestionable. I do not see that these people were atPhilippi, and therefore there is no consequence to bedrawn from the passage. With regard to Jude (ifyou do not believe that we are wandering stars,reserved for the blackness of darkness for ever, ungodly men before ordained to this condemnation,turning the grace of Grod into lasciviousness) , you arenot forgive the saying so quite honest in quotingit. Do you believe this ? But there is a little circumstance in this epistle to which this convenientword " separate themselves " seems to have blindedthose who quote it in the Establishment ; and this is,that these persons had crept in, not gone out. Thisyou will admit is a material point. They were cor-rupters come into the once pure Church, not saints


41/102

39gone out. They feasted with them. They werespots in their feasts of charity. Your charge againstus is that we are gone out. Yea, and because wefeared to feed ourselves without fear where evil was.I think if you examine the word " separate themselves " (a7roiO|Otov7-e) with the context, you will finda very different force in it from that which youattach to the English one, as a convenient placard tothe eye, against those whom you condemn to a well-instructed mind one of no great difficulty.And why do you say you find separatists in badcompany ? I read, " These be they who separatethemselves, sensual, having not the Spirit." Do youbelieve in fact, as an honest man, that these lattercharacters apply to the greater majority amongstourselves, or the professed members of the Church ofEngland ? And just allow me to ask you also, whyyou state in the outset that I complain of the world sbeing in the Church, when you, in speaking of theseven Churches, give a reason why " our party

"

saythe Establishment is no Church at all? All thecharacter you give yourself of alternate tendernessand faithfulness, and our comparative enjoyment byselfishly quitting the family, I pass by ; great comparative enjoyment indeed I believe we have had,not in selfishly pleasing ourselves. But the point is,What is God s will ? One charge is, that you havecalled that the family which is not the family at all.And if you have lifted up your eyes and seen theplain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere,and then found yourselves in Sodom vexing yourrighteous souls, for such I admit there are, you havenothing to boast of in that sort of patience. Weprefer the place of Abraham, and give it all up toyou, trusting that the Lord will deliver you too ;but see no motive to follow your example, or to


42/102

40associate ourselves with, that on which the Lord sjudgment is coming and coming on it you yourself,I bless Grod, do not deny that it is.I have now, in reply to the earlier part of yourletter, spoken of the great principle on which I rest,as an obedient servant of Christ, in not recognizingthe Establishment as the Church. I must now amuch more disagreeable and painful task refer to theplainer facts of the case, and some of your own documents, showing its working, and how it is mixed upwith the canonical principles of the Establishment.I have preferred resting first on the great principle,partly because I am replying to your letter, whichdoes so, and partly because the plea of there beingabuses does not enter into the question. The realsubject is fairly before us ; and effects, what you callabuses, act most directly upon the conscience, andtherefore are most material in this question ; for allhealthful action is action by a conscience led of Grod sSpirit and the Word. And if, in the whole arrangements of a system, there be a constant violation ofthe laws of Christ and His will and righteousness inthe Church, it becomes impossible for a righteousman to act in it or with it. This, I repeat, is amuch more painful part of the subject. It is plea-santer far oh, how much so to keep the soul in theunsullied regions of Christ s blessedness ; and onehas to watch one s treacherous heart, lest one shouldbegin to rejoice in iniquity, because it proves oneagainst whom we are contending to be in the wrong ;and I feel that one is not fit to speak of evil toanother, unless we can bear its burden in sorrow ofheart before the Lord, as our own burden in theirbehalf, at least for those that are saints, beloved ofGrod, the pure and holy One. Controversy tends todestroy estimate, and to make us prove rather than


43/102

41

cover the sins. Still you have compelled me to statethe facts, which are plainly inconsistent with God srighteousness in the Church of God.In the first place, then, pastorships, or what holdtheir place in the system, are publicly bought andsold, or at least the right to appoint them. At thismoment the Corporation livings are on sale. I remember a town where the next presentation to aliving was sold to enable the Corporation to build(or pay for) a theatre. I have one now with mecopying this, for whom a living was bought as provision for him as a younger son, and he then of courseto be brought up at a University for the ministry.But the placards of auctioneers and the advertisements of newspapers are evidence that the pastorships of the Church of England are bought and soldin the market like other property ; nay, if I am tobelieve Mr. M Neil, they are consequently appointedbecause they are unfit (see his letters on the Church,in a note I think to page 104). Do you think thisconsistent with the order of the Church of God ?You will tell me this is an abuse. Is it not sanctioned by the courts of law, by the ecclesiasticalcourts, by the institution of the bishops, so that theChurch of England treats any one else but theperson so holding it as an intruder and schismatic ?It is the consequence of that organized connexionwith the State which makes it the National Churchthe Establishment.

There is another thing beside that : some one hasa legal secular right so to present, giving secularadvantages, and therefore temporally cognizable as aright by the State. It is the horrid price you payfor your specific and formal character. I do notunderstand how, if all the spiritual and temporalauthorities of the system treat as an intruder and a


44/102

42

schismatic any one else than the person so appointed,the appointment can be called an abuse. If you sayit is, comparing it with the Church of Grod as displayed in the word, we are agreed indeed ; but thenit is in this abuse that the system and order of theEstablishment are entirely, and fatally for its character as a Church, at variance with what we find inthe word of Grod. But this is exactly what presses,and justly presses, on the consciences of the Lord speople, and compels them to disown her authorityand her state. You may tell me that such or suchinstances are abuses ; but I say that it is just asabhorrent to the principles of the Church of theliving

Grod to have a good man or a society buy uplivings as to have an infidel do so. Do you thinkan infidel ought to have the right to present any oneto the pastorship of a place ? Perhaps indeed by thesystem of the Establishment there may be no saintthere, but by the system of the Establishment it isperfectly competent for him to do so : he may beseized of or purchase the advowson, and the bishopmust admit his right, and institute his nominee, andtreat all else as schismatics and intruders. You willsay his nominee must be a clergyman be it so ; butby reason of the system of national advantage, thebishop is bound to ordain, if there be no legal reasonto the contrary : and supposing the clergy to be allfaultless, do you think it is the system of the Churchof Grod that an infidel should have the right ofchoosing the pastor of a place ? How would sucha system have appeared at Corinth or Ephesus ? Isit in principle I do not talk of abuses the systemof the Church of God ? But it is the system of theChurch of England. Her system is a system of parochial geographical divisions, to which certain legalrights, privileges, and emoluments are attached. This


45/102

43is her boast as contrasted with what she calls dissent,by reason of which the appointment to these geographical divisions is vested as a right or privilege insome one or another, it matters not who. Now I saythis, let it be ever so well ordered, is not the systemof the Church of Grod at all. Mr. M Neil says this isa disgusting ingenuity of abuse. How is the legalauthorized system of the Church as such ? I leavethe hard words with him ; I have only to say if thisbe the system, it is not the system of the Church ofthe living Grod.And now, sir, will you show me one document orformulary of the Church which says the patronage oflivings and other benefices, or the sale of advowsons,is an abuse, or disallowed by the Establishment ? Ifyou can, I can only say, to gain the world s advantages you have reduced yourself to an impotency ofdoing right, and that is no place for a Christian toremain in. Further, I have heard it asserted, asa matter of triumph by evangelical ministers, thatthere are probably near three thousand evangelicalministers now in England that is, ministers who,they reckoned, held the Grospel of Christ, and wereChristian men. There are, I suppose, about twelvethousand ministers in England, more or less. Nowwhat is the nature of the system which, under pleaof providing instruction for all, and charging all notwithin her pale as schismatics, has, when her statewas boasted of as remarkably improved and underblessing, provided that three-fourths of the populationshould be taught contrary to the Gospel ? and thatwhoever did, under the blessing of Grod s holy Spirit,go and preach it, these should be denounced asschismatics and intruders ? that three-quarters of thepastors of the Church of Grod, according to them (ifnot, avow you are not the Church of Grod, and cease to


46/102

44talk of schism and dissent) should not be Christiansat all. These are things inexplicable as a state consistent with being the Church of God, to one whohas read the word of God, and drawn his ideastherefrom, and not from habit or tradition. Indeed,sir, there are little expressions habitual with ministersof the Establishment which show they are not conversant with the idea of ministering in the Churchof God. I read, " our people," " our dear people,"and hear, " my flock," and " why do you intrude onmy flock?" Who made them your people, or yourflock ? An apostle would not, nor the Spirit ofGod, have called them so. He would have spokenof the Lord s people, and the flock of God. Howcould a servant of Christ, ministering holily in whatever gift God had given him an Apollos at Corinth,or Priscilla and Aquilla at Ephesus, or anywhere elsehave been intruders on the flock of Christ ? Theywere part of it, wherever they were, and to serve init as able and bound so to do. But all is altered withyou. You have not even forgive the word theideas connected with it ; your speech betrays you.And why ? because you are a minister, even if true,of such a parish in the Church of England yourflock perhaps not Christian, nor the Church of Godat all not a minister of the Church of God. Again,sir, Who appoints the chief pastors of the Church ofEngland ? In fact, the Prime Minister of the day,for any reason perhaps that suits his convenience ;the fact is well known, and facts, sir, are importantto conscience. The Church of God ought not to betrifled with by theories, while the sheep of Christ areactually scattered. It seems to me to be a very evilsign, when the Spirit is pressed by the actual scattering and wrong done to Christ s sheep, to be toldthere is such a document which shows the theory of


47/102

45

my system is quite right : these are abuses. TheSpirit of Christ cares for the sheep of Christ, dearsir, and not for neglected scraps of paper. But Itake the theory, for I wish to avoid resting at all 011abuses. The king appoints them. If you tell methere is a conge d elire, Mr. M Neil shall answer youin the note previously quoted, that the king doesreally appoint, for by the theory he nominates theperson to be so elected. In Ireland they are appointed directly by the king s letters patent. Whatpart of the system of the Church of God is this ?And let me here remark, that an appeal to Churchof England documents is in many respects a veryfallacious mode of judging, for the most material anddistinctive characteristics of her system are not foundthere at all. The work of ordering, governing, anddirecting the Church is entrusted to persons chosenby the head of the secular authority of the country ;and here, again, the whole principle and theory of theChurch of God is contravened and set aside, not bythe abuses, but by the order of the Establishment.How can I own them as bishops (supposing me arigid Episcopalian) appointed by God, when I knowthey have not been in theory so appointed ? thatthe whole is a mere secular affair? You tell methey must be clergymen, and be thirty years of age.Is every clergyman of thirty competent to be thechief director of the Church of God ? Is that God stheory, or is He the endower with needful gifts forHis own work ? One who believes, then, God to bethe author and gatherer of His own Church, and thedivine orderer of its government, can find neitherthe body nor the guidance or order of that Churchin the system of the Establishment ; and, as Mr.M Neil justly says, no reform remedies this, whilethe principle continues. The effects shock the con-


48/102

46science ; the principle is judged by the spiritual mindtaught by and formed on the word of God.

Supposing a child of God in a parish where thesystem of the Church of England has placed aminister who does not know the Gospel, but quitepreaches the contrary ; and in the communion of theChurch there is no one who owns the Gospel onwhich communion is founded : here are the effectswhich try the spirit. But the person is bound toabide and hear error taught and souls deceived, andto own as one body, and thereby help to deceivethem, those who are entirely unconverted, because bythe theory of the Church of England he is Christ sminister and they are the Church. If such a persondoes not, he is a schismatic and dissenter. Supposingtwo or three in the same circumstances, and theycease to own them who by their profession of doctrineare not believers, as ministers and the Church, andthey meet because Christ has said, " wherever two orthree are gathered together in my name, there am Iin the midst of them," theywould be set down as wilfulschismatics ; but according to the word of God, theywould be really the Church of God in that place, letthem be ever so feeble, and have no minister at alldespised perhaps by those who had thousands to filltheir aisles, and the respectability of ecclesiasticalassociations to clothe their forms, but not of God.The promise of the Lord outweighs to faith allthese charms on the imagination these goodly stonesand gifts ; and how strong they are my own heartwell knows. I speak not, then, of abuses ; but will

you say that it is the theory of the Church of Godthat the King should appoint the chief pastors orbishops of the Church of God by his letters patent ;or whether it be the system or principle of theChurch of God, or compatible with it, that the ap-


49/102

47

pointment of the pastors should be in Landlords,Corporations, Universities, the Grown, or whoevermay buy them; and whether you are to be contentwith the scattering and grieving of Christ s sheepproduced by such a system a system sought to beenforced by the secular arm, to the expulsion ofthousands of devoted ministers ; and then what iscalled schism tolerated by Act of Parliament, becausethe social effects were mischievous a system whichcontemplates not the Church of God, but the population, and secularizes the Church of God, by forcingthe population to be all one with it ? And let meadd this question : Can you, while I do not admitthe propriety of staying a day in connexion withsuch evil in a system, by your own confession not theChurch of God, can you give the smallest rationalhope of the change of the principle and theory fromwhich all the evil flows that the king nor the landlords, shall not nominate the pastors, nor advow-sons sold ? Can you say that such a system is thesystem of the Church of God, according to the wordof God ? But I have said enough to show the principle on which, in conscience before God, I act, andmust disown it as standing before me as the Churchof God ; and to dispel, I trust, however feeble mythought (and I admit it humbly and sorrowfullybefore God), the prestige of a sort of hallowedobscurity, soon to merge, I am fully persuaded, inthe darkness of Popery, which, perhaps, by its claimsand influence, may deliver the nominal Church fromthe incubus which presses down the Establishmentas it is, and satisfy the desires of the Puseyite schoolmen who, though I believe honest (for I knowtheir views well), are as inconsistent as they aremischievous ; for the secular bondage of the Churchis a very Babylon in the mind of an honest theoretic


50/102

48successionist. I would add a little word to them aswell as to you, that it is all but perfectly certain thatthe root of the English succession was an uncon-secrated man. I once pursued the point with a gooddeal of research, and thus by their system they willbe easily thrown when it is pressed home, and theyripen a little, into the necessary arms of undisguisedPopery. Such is the prospect which your cherishedEstablishment is engendering for us not willingly, Ifreely admit, in the minds of many of her members,but helplessly, because she has tied herself to thecar of the State, not to dependence upon GOD ; andwherever its interested or careless wheels roll on, shemust go, or cease to be the Establishment. Herefforts, therefore, are to control the State, not tofollow God, because she is bound and governed by itnot obedient in freedom and simplicity to Him." She is my sister, not my wife," acquired Abrahamcattle and Egyptian riches in abundance.I would now turn to the documents of the Establishment on the two main points connected with thesubject I am upon the constitution and membershipof the body, and the ordering of the ministry. Ihave already referred to the Canons, with which theRubrics concur, which require the attendance of theparishioners " every parishioner " at the Lord sSupper

so often in the year, and treat as recusantsand schismatics all absenting themselves or impugning any part of the system. But there is a pointwhich lies deeper than this, and gives not its relativebut positive character to the system those documents which describe its members, those within, notthose without, the assumption of which was quitenecessary to the other. Now these documents showthat the ecclesiastical system of the Establishment isfounded on the efficacy of ordinances, not of faith,


51/102

and thus is enabled in theory to embrace the wholepopulation, and treat them as Christians, withoutreference to faith at all ; and that any operation ofthe Spirit of God in the heart, save as communicatedby an ordinance, does not come within its scopeof instruction, or introduction to full membership.If I am told it cannot judge but by fruits, be it so ;but these do not either form any part of the questionof membership : a member who is a notorious evilliver, is refused communion in theory, but that is all.First, as you are aware, the child is pronouncedregenerate by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes it isattempted to say that this is a change of state, not ofpersonal condition. This is an idle effort. Were Itold, according to the fathers, regenerate means baptized though abuse of words produces much mischiefif it were merely meant to say they are baptized,and thereby personally admitted into the pale of thevisible Church my present argument would not hold :baptized persons are certainly baptized. But I saythis is an idle effort. The congregation are to praythat God will grant to the child that thing which bynature he cannot have; that he may be baptizedwith the Holy Ghost an expression itself full ofconfusion, but certainly something positive, and personally spiritual : again, that he may be sanctifiedwith the Holy Ghost, that he, being delivered fromGod s wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ sChurch, and being steadfast in faith, &c. : again,Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, that he may beborn again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation.The congregation are told they have prayed God torelease him of his sins, sanctify him with the HolyGhosfc, and give him the kingdom of heaven andeverlasting life ; and Christ, they are told, has promised to grant them : and passing by other consis-c


52/102

50tent expressions, after the rite, it is stated, the childis regenerate ; and they pray he may lead the rest ofhis life accordingly, and then give hearty thanks thatit has pleased the Father to regenerate the infantwith the Holy Spirit, and to receive him for His ownchild by adoption. What other terms could you usefor a saint quickened by God, and made actual partaker of divine life ? The prayer is changed whenthere has been previous private baptism into " thathe being born again Give that he may be ;" and itis then stated that he is by baptism regenerate. Inthe former service the expression is used, that he mayreceive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration :again, confusion of thought as to an infant, but definite in the extent of what is attributed to baptism.The baptism of such as are of riper years seems to meto seal the confusion, but that is not the question nowto occupy us. In the Catechism the child is taughtthat he was made a member of Christ, a child of God,and that by baptism ; and therein it was promised heshould believe the Scripture saying we are childrenof God by faith, not by ordinances. The child confesses he is bound to believe, and keep God s holywill and commandments, which he will, and thanksGod he is in this state of salvation. Now here faithin certain articles, and keeping the commandments,are obligations on the child, he being (on the proxiesundertaken for him) made a child of God by thebaptism itself already, where he assented too unqualifiedly that he would keep the commandments. Andthe promise of faith, afterwards they are stated tobe bound to perform. The Sacrament also he istaught expressly was the means by which he receivedthe inward and spiritual grace (are not these wordsplain ?) of a death unto sin, and a new birth untorighteousness ; and this, anomalous and inconsistent


53/102

51as it is, is clearly the doctrine of the framers of theseservices and this system; for the strict sense anddefinition of a sacrament is declared in the homiliesto be, that the forgiveness of sins is annexed and tiedto the visible sign. It is there said that absolution isnot a sacrament, because though there is forgivenessof sins, there is no visible sign instituted by Christ ;ordination is not, because though there is a visiblesign, there is no forgiveness of sins ; and that thereare only properly two sacraments, because there areonly two where the forgiveness of sins is annexed andtied to the visible sign.Let me call to your memory that I am not adducing these statements to prove the faults of theLiturgy, but the principle on which the Establishment incorporates the whole population into Christianmembership, believing or unbelieving, affirming themto be regenerate by the ordinance, and then makingthe belief of certain articles incumbent on them onanother s promise.

Next, the child is to be brought to be confirmed sosoon as it can say the Creed, the Lord s Prayer, andthe Ten Commandments, in the vulgar tongue, and isable to answer the Catechism set forth for that purpose. That Catechism sets forth and has taught himthat he is a child of God by baptism already, andacknowledges he is bound to believe and to do as hasbeen promised for him articles which, though ofcourse containing facts of Christianity, tell himnothing really of the way of a sinner s salvation atall, for even in the interpretation he is taught thatall mankind are redeemed, and clearly they are notall saved ; and he is made to rest on the promiseswhich ruined Israel under Mount Sinai : " All thatthe Lord hath spoken we will do " an undertakingwhich, because of its perfection, works death to thec 2

Documents

Kelly, James & John N. Darby (1864) - The Claims of the Church of England Considered