CHAPTER 5

With regard to the " Friendly Divisions," I must call attention to some principles enounced in the work which occupies us.
Mr. M.'s system is to recognize the division of the Church, and even further to subdivide it.
I pray the reader to remember that, according to Mr. M. the unity of the Spirit is only a community of feeling, which he puts in contrast with uniformity. The word of God speaks of the unity of the body of Christ. The practical spirit is called the bond of peace. This truth is set aside by Mr. M. There is indeed for him a universal Church; but Abraham is of it as much as we are, so that it has nothing in common with our actual duties. There are churches; but, at the same time, every division whatever, provided one is content therewith, possesses all the rights of the universal Church. These fractions may take what surnames they like; that changes nothing.
This system seems to me a system of sin, that is to say, it appears to me to sanction sin knowingly. The doctrine of the word is formally laid aside, and one may, with regard to these divisions, remain according to one's will in sin, provided that those who do it, be, whilst doing it, amiable towards one another, and that no hindrances be put in the way of those who do the same. Sanction us in sin, and we will leave you free to commit sin according to your will. Sin then, according to Mr. M. does not consist in acting against the will of God, but in doing it in a bad spirit, and in hindering others in doing it. The existence of evil being a necessity amongst men, we must put up with it. Not to be content with it, is only a generous but fatal idealism. To oppose sin engenders evil reports; what is essential is to pull together. The position is evil, without doubt; but the heart is good. This is the unity of the Spirit. Finally we must choose the road which demands the least degree of faith.
The reader shall judge for himself if I have exaggerated the principles enounced by Mr. M. I have given a summary of them and brought them together, that sound judgment may be formed on them. But the reader will find them all again in the extracts which I am going to communicate to him.
That one may be able to judge, I take for my point of departure the truth taught in the Epistle to the Ephesians: " There is one body and one Spirit." We are " builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit "-and Corinthians 12: " For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body."
Mr. M. admits the facts. He is ignorant, at least I hope so, of the root of the truth.
Here is what he admits:
" The Christians of a given locality are members of the Church of that locality, by virtue of the word of God, and not of their own will."
" All Christians, then, in every part of the earth, where there are any, are members of the same Church, whether they know it or not; for the Bible does not recognize any other division of the universal Church but that of place or time- that division, in a word, which renders communion of believers amongst themselves impossible."
I do not admit that the word of God recognizes members of a local church. This is a truth which Mr. Rochat himself has recognized. We are members of the body of Christ, which is a perfectly different idea. I confine myself now to pointing it out, without dwelling upon it longer.
Mr. M. admits that the Bible does not recognize any other division than that of places. That there are local churches (that is to say the gatherings of all the Christians of a place) is a truth which we all admit. I say then that, if Mr. M. recognizes others, he does it knowingly.
This is how he presents the principle of brethren on the subject:
" The meeting of all Christians as one single denomination is the only way of manifesting their unity in Christ."
Thus the reader clearly sees that Mr. M. here reduces carefully the scriptural idea of the unity of the body of Christ to the idea of being gathered in one single denomination. All this is very grave.
For myself, I would say, Christians are bound to respect this precious and capital truth established in the word, namely, the unity of the Church which is the body of Christ. If they come short of this, they sin.
But, for the moment, let us be content with his way of expressing it.
Mr. M. farther on, gives us the following declaration: " Primitively Christendom consisted of one single denomination."
Always debasing the truth! This is Christendom. The idea of the Church is set aside, and with it the doctrine of the word of God as to the Church. But whatever may be the terms used, at least we have the frank avowal that brethren recognize what the word teaches. There existed at the beginning but one denomination. This is what is scriptural, and it is that which brethren seek. It is admitted that this no longer exists. Mr. M. adds: Mr. Darby declares that the unity which ought to exist, that the world might believe, exists no longer. And it is what Mr. M. does not deny, for he says, " The outward unity is no more."
Here then is what I call speaking with knowledge of the matter; and I say, since it is so, let us recognize every Christian in the unity of the body of which he is a member; but let us never recognize the division which is not according to the word, since, as you allow, the Bible recognized no other division than that of time and place. These divisions, such as we find them, are a sin. They show that men are carnal, that they walk as men. This is the language of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. What is Mr. M.'s answer to it?
" Truth descends from heaven into a world of darkness and falsehood. Idealism, blind instinct of what ought to be, ignores this darkness. A degrading empiricism, which only sees what exists, accepts it (that is, this darkness). Christianity alone recognizes the hideous reality to oppose it."
Passing over this idealism which he accuses us of, and the degrading empiricism which is content with sects such as they are, let us examine the happy medium proposed by the author.
" Let us remember that the Church of God could not remain in the dust of this earth without losing its primitive beauty and order." That is to say, that, man being wicked and spoiling that which God has placed in his hands in a perfect state, we must reconcile ourselves to it.
Let us remember here, that it is not a question of the darkness and falsehood of the natural state of man, on one hand, and on the other, of a Christianity which recognizes them and opposes them; but that the question is concerning a thing which God has established in the midst of this evil, and which He clothed with the beauty of its Head by the power of His Spirit- a thing the unity of which was to be a testimony in the midst of the evil. This thing is the Church of God. On the avowal of Mr. M. it has lost its primitive beauty and order. What is to be done? We must know it could not remain on earth without losing them. That may be true. Neither could man remain on earth without losing his primitive state. Is that a reason to be satisfied with it? Ought he, although unable to get out of it, to reconcile himself with a state so sorrowful? Now, I do not admit, as regards the Church, that it cannot get out of its state of disunion, because the Holy Ghost suffices to produce the unity which is the object of His presence; whereas the object of His presence in us, individually, is to mortify the flesh, to crucify it, but not to remove it.
But ought man to reconcile himself to his state, whatever it may be, so as to remain there and add to it more?
Here is Mr. M.'s answer:
" We must distinguish that which may be guilt in our hearts from that which is humbling and enfeebling in our position. To wish to do away at once with denominations, and to rank schism with material division, instead of ranking it with moral separation, is to fight against facts... is to deceive oneself in the direction of the employment of one's strength, and to expose oneself to fall into the sin of schism whilst one strives uselessly against the humiliation of ecclesiastical dispersion."
Let us remember that the author tells us that the Bible does not recognize this division; but, he adds, it exists, and one struggles in vain: it is to fight against facts.
But ought I to recognize and accept this division since the Bible does not recognize it? Yes, according to Mr. M., it is a fact (that is to say, the sin is a fact), against which we must not fight. And that of which they accuse brethren, is fighting against this sin, not recognizing that which the Bible does not recognize. According to Mr. M. the evil lies in the bitterness which may be produced by the testimony rendered to misunderstood truth; and schism with him consists, not in material division, but in moral division. So then, accept the division which the word does not recognize, and agree with others to commit this sin, and all will go well!
That is exaggerating the thought of Mr. M., people will exclaim.
This you will soon see. Let us listen to him:
" I do not conceal," says he, " that in saying that one must accept our present division, I bind myself implicitly to accept new divisions... if then you are convinced... make a trial of it; with this object form a distinct assembly... that liberty which you refuse to all, we allow to each."
In his accusation against brethren, he says "According to them, since every division into separate bodies springs from the sin of schism, in one way or another, they can only separate for the purpose of fulminating against each other; and yet they separate on slighter ground than those who admit a friendly division! " The italics are Mr. M.'s.
As Mr. M. does not quote a single example of the fact which he imputes to us, I do not answer his accusation.
I believe, in effect, that every such dividing into separate• bodies springs from the sin of schism, if that from which I separate is really the Church or is on the footing of the unity of the Church, even if there should be but a small number of persons.
But Mr. M. admits the " friendly divisions." That is to say, he admits that souls are not exercised as to this, and agree to remain in a position which the word of God does not recognize; he admits that, because, being on earth, this sin must necessarily have come in.
I do not attack other Christians; I find that it is a bad system. But to recognize, admit, accept, that which the word does not recognize, I confess that I am not altogether come to this, and that I am not come to say that outward sin is nothing, if the heart is not in it.
It is going too far, you will say, to consider the thing thus. This is what I read in Mr. M.'s tract:
" The reminiscences of Babel are become the organs of the Holy Spirit." It is, in effect, a special and magnificent token of the grace of God. What application does Mr. M. make of it? " May it be so still! The Church cannot begin its history again, and recover the unity which exists no more. All the efforts made to reunite Christians, in beginning by that which is outward, have only increased the bitterness of those differences which exist, or created additional sects. We cannot escape from our humiliation; but, by the grace of God, we can avoid the sin which has associated itself therewith. Let us be but of one heart and one soul; it little matters then that we are no longer one single denomination [that is to say, the thing which, according to Mr. M.'s own avowal, God has established, and which alone the Bible recognizes]: Grace has no need to overthrow the walls of separation, which it can rise above."
This does not mean, have brotherly love towards every Christian, and receive him with open arms-language to which the heart should freely respond. It is to say, that we should remain in that which is contrary to the word of God, in outward sin, and that grace, without removing it, will rise above it!
And it is not the notion that, little by little, this division will cease: a false principle, because we are not to do evil that good may come. Nothing is more dangerous for the conscience, nor more destructive of all blessing, because this puts God aside.
The thought of Mr. M. is to accept the state which the word does not recognize, and then to expect blessing.
" No disunion," says he, " can subsist before Him [the Holy Spirit].... Let the congregations of different faithful denominations [for multitudinist Christians must always remain outside] be united in their Christian sympathies, as much as are the congregations of the same denomination; thus is the unity of the Spirit substituted for the uniformity of men."
And as to the unity which God had established (the only one which the word recognizes) to speak of that is embittering. Let us leave it alone. It cannot be re-established here below. The Church of God was doomed to lose its primitive beauty and order. Is not this the exact meaning of Mr. M.'s expressions?
It is fatal idealism after all, if it be not generous; an idealism without conscience, which sets aside the word and shuns the humiliation of the conviction of sin.
And what is the argument by which Mr. M. sustains this principle?
God, in the plain of Shinar, judged the perverse and rebellious unity, which natural man was using to exalt himself against God, and to make himself a name, to the end that there should be no dispersion. The diversity of nations was and remains the. result of this judgment of God. By the presence of His Spirit on earth, God has established a precious unity. Man, by his sin, has destroyed it; divisions and sects have taken the place of that unity. Let us place, according to Mr. M., the result of the judgment of God on a level with the sin of man, and let us keep both, as being equally His will. For what is the history of which Mr. M. speaks? By His power Jehovah confounded the folly of man; and the diversity, the confusion of tongues, which stamped upon it the name of Babel, recalls the judgment of God. The Holy Ghost finds men in this state. For a long period, one race alone worshipped Jehovah, the praises of whom rose up to Him in one language only, praises limited even by the restriction of the blessing which united, round an earthly temple, a people who were not allowed to penetrate the veil, which hid their God from them. A perfect and eternal redemption has been accomplished, and the love of God flows out on every side, embraces all races of men, calls them to worship in the heavenly sanctuary, where the glory is manifested in the Person of Jesus with unveiled face, where the love of the Father does not hide itself, where it attracts and reveals itself. The Holy Ghost comes down to bear witness of it. He addresses Himself to all in all tongues. Grace adapts itself to man, to his heart as it is, by putting over and going beyond the barriers of legal ordinances. Lovely spectacle, in truth! Touching testimony of the heart of our God! A testimony which spoke a language that told everything to all. In the very effects of His judgments God finds the opportunity for the exercise of His grace.
But God did not stop there. The effect is stated in His word. In the sanctuary of God, in Christ, in the Church, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, nor bond nor free, nor Scythian nor barbarian. All are one. Providence has not changed the outward state of man. By the power of the Holy Ghost grace has united the redeemed in one body. The Church on earth is the result, in unity, of the presence of the Holy Ghost, which gathers together the redeemed. Man, wicked and perverse, has dispersed by his selfishness those whom God had gathered together. In other words, sin has done, as to the unity of God, that which the judgment of God had done as to the unity of man.
And they have the inconceivable boldness to bring these two things together, and to say, as regards the effect of sin, " Let it be so still!" Let the sin abide, in order that its results may become the organs of the Holy Ghost! And people have come to this.
Our adversaries mutually overthrow each other. The journal " La Reformation " and Mr. M. overthrow the anonymous author of the tract " Are Elders to be Established? " and his commandments.
The anonymous author, in his turn, accuses the system upheld by " La Reformation," of disobedience. The minister of Neufchatel and Mr. M. mutually overthrow each other, and so with the others, and that too on the very points on which they attack brethren. I have but one counsel to give brethren: it is to leave these gentlemen to fight out these things between themselves, and to remain quiet, blessing God for His goodness, which gives them peace, and with all their heart to follow after Christ and His presence.)
" Mankind," says Mr. M. again, " have divided into many nations as Christendom into many churches. One common design, a providential design, shows itself, I think, in this double division." " The evangelical communions, notwithstanding the scandal of their differences, present a living Christendom, enclosed in the nominal Church, as the Japhetic races offer, in the midst of fallen humanity, a type less degraded than the others."
May God keep me from that philosophy in the things of God, in virtue of which one is taught to find in the patience of our God-who knows how to bring good out of evil-a justification of our sin; a philosophy which places the sad fruits of our sin, which has marred the work of God in its beauty and order, on a level with the judgment of God, which has confounded the insolence and perverse unity of man: which debases the grace, which has surmounted the barriers, which this just judgment had raised between men, and places it on a level with the perseverance of man in sin, a sin which subsists in the barriers and divisions, which man has established in the Church; a philosophy which casts back all this on Providence and which adds, " Let it still be so "; which, if we are not willing to accept this state of sin, calls it taking no account of that which God has already done; a philosophy, in fine, which says that sin does not consist in the fact that there are two congregations, but in the jealousy which possesses them; that is to say, that the sin committed is nothing and that it is to the heart one must look.
Mr. M. will say that all Christians of the same locality cannot meet in a place too small to hold all. Do they form, then, in this case, different denominations? Come! let us be straightforward.
This is the summary of these sad pages.
" The differences of denomination will subsist then as the differences of tongues subsist; but divine grace may make them harmless by restoring to the Church the consciousness of its unity." This is saying that the judgment of God and sin are one and the same thing, and that while always keeping sin, sin will be made harmless by the grace of God.
It is no wonder that with such principles, they make an attack on brethren. And, surely, whatever may have been the principles of our dissenting brethren, I cannot attribute to them such thoughts. And if even there were schism in theory, if even no one were admitted but on narrow views, and thus charity would suffer from it, this sin (schism) must be sought for where we look for all others, in the heart, not in theories. It is not a question of bearing with them, or non-intervention; sin is to be accepted and recognized. " In the present state of things, all Christians are forced to belong to sects in the ordinary sense of the word."
For Mr. M., the state of Christendom in general is, " everything well considered, below that of the Jews at the time of the Lord." He is " ready to call their state ruin, apostasy, or by any other term that you may choose in any language.
" The Gentiles have not continued." " Christendom is an army which no longer knows the voice of its Head; and Dissenters, as faithful soldiers, have quitted the ranks to place themselves under the order of Jesus.... Without doubt, it is a deplorable confusion." " When is it," he exclaims again, " that we shall learn all the extent of the universal disorder which surrounds us? " Mr. M. says that one might just as well look for sacrifice in paradise as to look for dissent in the apostolic churches: " For there is disorder in dissent-innocent disorder, become inevitable, in order to avoid culpable disorder. It is a violent remedy, and every serious remedy is a factitious evil inflicted to cure an illness still more serious."
And what do these violent words lead to, a few lines further on-words which, like an overflowing torrent, overthrow everything, and even dissent itself? Look at this: " We should like... to walk under our banners and surround our Head; but, if that be no longer possible, let the letter perish provided the Spirit remains." The italics are Mr. M.'s.
For my part, I believe that to follow the Lord Jesus, does not prevent obedience to his word; and that, much to the contrary, it is the word which directs us in obedience by following it closely.
As to the comparison which Mr. M. makes of the relations between the churches, with those which subsisted between the tribes of Israel, my answer is short and easy. It is God who divided Israel into tribes, and it is sin which has made the divisions which Mr. M. calls churches, which call themselves denominations, a word which Mr. Beverley agrees with everybody to call sects. I do not recognize, then, these churches in any way, for the reason which Mr. M. himself gives for it, namely, that the Bible recognizes no other division than that of time and place. Consequently, I have no altar to recognize. My altar is set up, not as a memorial, but for the enjoyment of that which God has established-the unity of the Church-an enjoyment, which, in His great grace, the Lord has connected with even two or three met in His name.
In the following words the system of this tract reveals, as regards the Christian walk, a looseness of principles, which alone would be enough to condemn it. " We have not always a choice between positive evil and positive good; on the contrary, it may often be pleasing to the Lord that we should accept, because of our relationship with others, that path which is not altogether the best. You at every step confound moral questions with questions of judgment; you think that to make everything a matter of conscience is the way to do everything conscientiously."
I think that when the will of God is known, and on those points where it is known, we must needs follow it, and that then it cannot be a question of choice. I think that if, because of our relationship with others, one dispensed with doing the will of God, it would be to prefer man to God, it would be a sin produced by the fear of man. And although it is very important to remember that we are called to liberty, the liberty which Jesus gives us does not exempt us from seeking in all things the will of God; but it sets us free to do it, free in the accomplishment of it, because we love His will as well as the things He wills, being made partakers of the divine nature, which, in man, makes itself known by obedience, and by its affection for the things of the Spirit; the Holy Ghost Himself being the power which gives liberty in virtue of the redemption accomplished by Jesus. " The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free."
I will notice in passing that Mr. M. condemns in brethren that which he seeks to justify here in others, as regards the duty of seeking spiritual profit. There are besides, a crowd of these things which I have had no desire to take-up.
In that which Mr. M. says, with the desire of turning away souls from the walk of faith, he shows a levity which is excessively painful; and which betrays the source of all this system. Here is an example: " If there had been a bridge over the Jordan, its waters would not have stopped to let Israel pass over dryshod."
I confess that such a way of speaking of the admirable ways of our God, the perfection of wisdom and goodness, is to me exceedingly repulsive. I keep away from principles and from a system which keep me, as it appears to me, far from God, and which have their origin in a spirit so at variance with Him; for near Him, there is not that want of reverence for His ways. I deplore it in any one I have known as I have known Mr. M.