THE
Drift of the
TIMESSOUND
THE ALARM !by Charles Haddon Spurgeon
[This article was written in 1888. It is
Spurgeon's statement as to why he sep-
arated from the compromising LondonBaptist Association.] SEPARATION
NOT ALONE OUR PRIVILEGE
BUT OUR DUTYFriends will have noticed with interest the repeated
debates in the London Baptist Association, as to
whether there should be "A credal basis" and what
that basis should be, if it were decided to have one.
There seems to be a current opinion that I have
been at the bottom of all this controversy, and if I
have not appeared in it, I have, at least, pulled the
wires. But this is not true. I have taken a deep
interest in the struggles of the orthodox brethren;
but I have never advised those struggles, nor enter-
tained the slightest hope of their success. My
course has been of another kind. As soon as I saw,
or thought I saw, that error had become firmly
established, I did not deliberate, but quitted the
body at once. Since then my one counsel has been,
"come [ye] out from among them[.]" (II Corinthians
6:17) If I have rejoiced
in the loyalty to Christ's truth which has been
shown in other courses of action, yet I have felt that
no protest could be equal to that of distinct separa-
tion from known evil.
I never offered to the Union, or to the Association
the arrogant bribe of personal return if a creed
should be adopted; but on the contrary. I told the
deputation from the Union that I should not return
until I had seen how matters went, and I declined to
mix up my own personal action with the considera-
tion of a question of vital importance to the com-
munity. I never sought from the Association the
consideration of "A credal basis," but on the con-
trary, when offered that my resignation might stand
over till such a consideration had taken place, I
assured the brethren that what I had done was
final, and did not depend upon their action in the
matter of a creed. The attempt, therefore, to obtain
a basis of union in the Association, whatever may
be thought of it, should be viewed as a matter
altogether apart from me, for so indeed it has
been.SHOULD THE ASSOCIATION BE
EXCLUSIVE OR INCLUSIVE?I may, however, venture to express the opinion that
the evangelical brethren in the Association have
acted with much kindness, and have shown a strong
desire to abide in union with others, if such union
could be compassed without the sacrifice of truth.
They as good as said--We think there are some few
great truths which are essential to the reception of
the Christian religion, and we do not think we
should be right to associate with those who repudi-
ate those truths. Will you not agree that these
truths should be stated, and that it should be known
that persons who fail to accept these vital truths
cannot join the Association? The points mentioned
were certainly elementary enough, and we did not
wonder that one of the brethren exclaimed, "May
God help those who do not believe these things.
Where must they be?" Indeed, little objection was
taken to the statements which were tabulated, but
the objection was to a belief in these being made
indispensable to membership. It was as though it
had been said, "Yes, we believe in the Godhead of
Jesus; but we would not keep a man out of our
fellowship because he thought our Lord to be a
mere man. We believe in the atonement; but if
another man rejects it, he must not, therefore, be
excluded from our number." Here was the point at
issue: one party would gladly fellowship with every
person who had been baptized, and the other party
desired that at least the elements of the faith should
be believed, and the first principles of the Gospel
should be professed by those who were admitted
into the fellowship of the Association. Since neither
party could yield the point in dispute, what remained
for them but to separate with as little friction as
possible?WHY SHOULD THE NEW RELIGIONISTS
AND BELIEVERS WISH TO BE TOGETHER?To this hour, I must confess that I do not under-
stand the action of either side in this dispute, if
viewed in the white light of logic. Why should they
wish to be together? Those who wish for the illimit-
able fellowship of men of every shade of belief or
doubt would be all the freer for the absence of
those stubborn evangelicals who have cost them
so many battles. The brethren, on the other hand,
who have a doctrinal faith, and prize it, must have
learned by this time that whatever terms may be
patched up, there is no spiritual oneness between
themselves and the new religionists. They must
also have felt that the very endeavor to make a con-
tact which will tacitly be understood in two senses
is far from being an ennobling and purifying exer-
cise to either party.THE BRETHREN IN THE MIDDLE
The brethren in the middle are the source of this
clinging together of discordant elements. These
who are for peace at any price, who persuade
themselves that there is very little wrong, who care
chiefly to maintain existing institutions, these are
the good people who induce the weary com-
batants to repeat the futile attempt at a coalition,
which, in the nature of things, must break down. If
both sides could be unfaithful to conscience, or if
the glorious Gospel could be thrust altogether out
of the question, there might be a league of amity
established; but as neither of these things can be,
there would seem to be no reason for persevering
in the attempt to maintain a confederacy for which
there is no justification in fact, and from which
there can be no worthy result, seeing it does not
embody a living truth. A desire for unity is com-
mendable. Blessed are they who can promote it
and preserve it! But there are other matters to be
considered as well as unity, and sometimes these
may even demand the first place. When union
becomes a moral impossibility, it may almost drop
out of calculation in arranging plans and methods
of working. If it is clear as the sun at noonday that
no real union can exist it is idle to strive after the
impossible, and it is wise to go about other and
more practicable business.SEPARATION A DUTY
Numbers of good brethren in different ways remain
in fellowship with those who are undermining the
Gospel; and they talk of their conduct as though it
were a loving course which the Lord will approve of
in the day of His appearing. We cannot understand
them. The bounden duty of a true believer towards
men who profess to be Christians, and yet deny the
Word of the Lord, and reject the fundamentals of
the Gospel, is to come out from among them. To
stay in a community which fellowships all beliefs in
the hope of setting matters right is as though
Abraham had stayed at Ur, or at Haran, in the hope
of converting the household out of which he was
called.Complicity with error will take from the best of men
the power to enter any successful protest against
it. If any body of believers had errorists among
them, but were resolute to deal with them in the
name of the Lord, all might come right; but con-
federacies founded upon the principle that all may
enter, whatever views they hold, are based upon
disloyalty to the truth of God. If truth is optional,
error is justifiable.THE ARMY OF INTERMEDIATES
SHOULD CEASE BEING POLITICThere are now two parties in the religious world,
and a great mixed multitude who from various
causes decline to be ranked with either of them. In
this army of intermediates are many who have no
right to be there; but we spare them. The day will,
however, come when they will have to reckon with
their consciences. When the light is taken out of its
place, they may have to mourn that they were not
willing to trim the lamp, nor even to notice that the
flame grew dim.Our present sorrowful protest is not a matter of this
man or that, this error or that; but of principle. There
either is something essential to a true faith--some
truth which is to be believed; or else everything is
left to each man's taste. We believe in the first of
these opinions, and hence we cannot dream of
religious association with those who might on the
second theory be acceptable. Those who are of our
mind should, at all cost, act upon it. The Lord give
them decision, and wean them from all policy
and trimming!THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY GOSPEL
NOW DERIDEDThe party everywhere apparent has a faith fashioned
for the present century--perhaps we ought rather
to say, for the present month. The sixteenth cen-
tury Gospel it derides, and that, indeed, of every
period except the present most enlightened era. It
will have no creed because it can have none; it is
continually on the move; it is not what it was yes-
terday, and it will not be tomorrow what it is today.
Its shout is for "Liberty," its delight is invention, its
element is change. On the other hand, there still
survive, amid the blaze of nineteenth century light,
a few whom these superior persons call "Fossils";
that is to say, there are believers in the Lord Jesus
Christ who consider that the true Gospel is no new
gospel, but is the same yesterday, today, and
forever. These do not believe in "Advanced views,"
but judge that the view of truth which saved a soul
in the second century will save a soul now, and that
a form of teaching which was unknown till the last
few years is of very dubious value, and is, in all prob-
ability, "another gospel: Which is not another[.]"
(Galatians 1:6-7)It is extremely difficult for these two parties to
abide in union. The old fable of the collier who
went home to dwell with the fuller is nothing to it.
The fuller would by degrees know the habits of his
coaly companion, and might thus save the white
linen from his touch; but in this case there are no
fixed quantities on the collier's side, and nothing
like permanency even in the black of his coal. How
can his friend deal with him, since he changes with
the moon? If, after long balancing of words, the two
parties could construct a basis of agreement, it
would, in the nature of things, last only for a season,
since the position of the advancing party would put
the whole settlement out of order in a few weeks.
The adjustment of difficulties would be a task
forever beginning, and never coming to an end. If
we agree, after a sort, today, a new settlement will
be needed tomorrow. If I am to stay where I am, and
you are to go traveling on, it is certain that we can-
not long lodge in the same room. Why should we
attempt it?DIFFERENCE OF SPIRIT
BETWEEN NEW RELIGIONISTS
AND OLD BELIEVERSNor it it merely doctrinal belief--there is an essen-
tial difference in spirit between the old believer
and the man of new and advancing views. This is
painfully perceived by the Christian man before
very long. Even if he be fortunate enough to escape
the sneers of the cultured, and the jests of the
philosophical, he will find his deepest convictions
questioned, and his brightest beliefs misrepre-
sented by those who dub themselves "Thoughtful
men." When a text from the Word has been pecu-
liarly precious to his heart, he will hear its athen-
ticity impugned, the translation disputed, or its
Gospel reference denied. He will not travel far on
the dark continent of modern thought before he
will find the efficacy of prayer debated, the opera-
tion of divine Providence questioned, and the spe-
cial love of God denied. He will find himself to be a
stranger in a strange land when he begins to speak
of his experience, and of the ways of God to men. In
all probability, if he be faithful to his old faith, he
will be an alien to his mother's children, and find
that his soul is among lions. To what end, therefore,
are these strainings after a hollow unity, when the
spirit of fellowship is altogether gone?The world is large enough, why not let us go our
separate ways? Loud is the cry of our opponents for
liberty; let them have it by all means. But let us have
our liberty also. There is a right of association
which we do not forego, and this involves a right of
disassociation, which we retain with equal tenaci-
ty. Those who are so exceedingly liberal, large-
hearted, and broad-minded might be so good as to
allow us to forego the charms of their society with-
out coming under the full violence of their wrath.SEPARATION
THE ONLY COMPLETE PROTESTAt any rate, cost what it may, to separate ourselves
from those who separate themselves from the truth
of God is not alone our liberty, but our duty. I have
raised my protest in the only complete way by com-
ing forth, and I shall be content to abide alone until
the day when the Lord shall judge the secrets of all
hearts; but it will not seem to me a strange thing if
others are found faithful, and if others judge that for
them also there is no path but that which is pain-
fully apart from the beaten track."Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which
cause divisions and offences contrary to the doc-
trine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (18)For
they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ,
but their own belly; and by good words and fair
speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (19)For your
obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad
therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you
wise unto that which is good, and simple concern-
ing evil. (20)And the God of peace shall bruise Satan
under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with you. Amen." (Romans 16:17-20). pA FAITHFUL MESSAGE
FROM THE PAST
and
A TIMELY WORD
FOR THE PRESENT"For there is some danger of falling into a soft
and effeminate Christianity, under the plea of a
lofty and ethereal theology. Christianity was
born for endurance; not an exotic, but a hardy
plant, braced by the keen wind; not languid, nor
childish, nor cowardly. It walks with strong step
and erect frame; it is kindly, but firm; it is gentle,
but honest; it is calm, but not facile; obliging, but
not imbecile; decided, but not churlish. It does
not fear to speak the stern word of condemna-
tion against error, nor to raise its voice against
surrounding evils, under the pretext it is not of
this world; it does not shrink from giving honest
reproof, lest it come under the charge of display-
ing an unchristian spirit. It calls sin sin, on
whomsoever it is found, and would rather risk
the accusation of being actuated by a bad spirit
than not discharge an explicit duty. Let us not
misjudge strong words used in honest con-
troversy. Out of the heat a viper may come forth;
but we shake it off and feel no harm. The religion
of both Old and New Testaments is marked by
fervent outspoken testimonies against evil. To
speak smooth things in such a case may be sen-
timentalism, but it is not Christianity. It is a be-
trayal of the cause of truth and righteousness. If
anyone should be frank, manly, honest, cheerful
(I do not say blunt and rude, for a Christian must
be courteous and polite); it is he who has tasted
that the Lord is gracious, and is looking for and
hasting unto the coming of the day of God. I
know that charity covereth a multitude of sins;
but it does not call evil good, because a good
man has done it; it does not excuse inconsisten-
cies, because the inconsistent brother has a high
name and a fervent spirit; crookedness and
worldliness are still crookedness and worldli-
ness, though exhibited in one who seems to
have reached no common height of attainment."--Horatius Bonar
[ Christian Helps Ministry (USA) ] [ Christian Home Bible Course ]