Christian Sects in the Nineteenth Century

by Caroline Frances Cornwallis

Archbishop Tillotson relates of Mr. Gouge, an eminent nonconformist, that he allowed men to differ from him in opinions that were “very dear to him;” and provided men did but “fear God and work righteousness,” he loved them heartily, how distant soever from him in judgment about things less necessary: “in all which,” observes the Archbishop, “he is very worthy to be a pattern to men of all persuasions.” “I abhor two principles in religion,” says William Penn in a letter to the same archbishop, “and pity them that own them. The first is obedience upon authority without conviction; and the other, destroying them that differ from me for God’s sake: such a religion is without judgment, though not without truth. Union is best, if right; if not, charity.”

I have given the opinion of these two eminent men of different persuasions, partly to show that the evil I complain of is one of long standing; partly to justify my own opinion as to the remedy; namely, the paying more attention to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; less, to those minor differences which, from the very obscurity of the texts on which they are founded, come more frequently under discussion, and thus, from a mental operation somewhat analogous to that of the laws of perspective, seem large and important because they are close under our eyes, though they are in fact minute in comparison with those which we have not been examining so closely. Thus men inadvertently reverse the order of things, and zeal for the maintenance of peculiar tenets too often supersedes the far more important virtue of Christian benevolence, to the scandal of all good Christians and the mockery of unbelievers.

The Quakers, in their address to James II. on his accession, told him that they understood he was no more of the established religion than themselves. “We therefore hope,” said they, “that thou wilt allow us that liberty which thou takest thyself:” and it would be well if we took a hint from this, and reflected that we differ as much from other sects as they do from us, [8] and that the greatest heresy is, as a Christian Father declared it to be long ago—“a wicked life.”

It is, however, needful to distinguish between the Christian spirit of forbearance towards those who differ from us in religious opinions, which Christ and his apostles so strongly inculcate, and the indolent latitudinarianism which induces many to declare that “a man cannot help his belief,” that “sincerity is everything,” that “all religious sects are alike,” &c.: positions which, as you well observed on one occasion, ought rather to be reversed; for when men are not sincere, all sects certainly are alike: for then it is but a lip service which will never influence the life, and it matters not what opinion is professed; it will be equally powerless.

Sincere belief must be the consequence of proof, without which we cannot believe truly; with it, we must. If then we content ourselves with the mere ipse dixit of others without seeking proof, our belief is the result of indolence, and for that indolence we shall be accountable when we are called on to give an account of the talent committed to our charge, if error has been consequent upon it. He, on the contrary, whose education or whose means have not put proof within his reach, although he may wish earnestly for it, may be wrong in understanding, but he will never be wrong in heart: his tenets may be wrong, but his life will be right. It behoves us therefore to be cautious how we pass sentence on one another in religious matters, since, as has been well observed, we are ourselves amenable to a tribunal where uncharitable conduct towards others, will bring down a just and heavy sentence on ourselves. We are not to erect ourselves into judges of other men’s consciences, [10] but leave them to the judgment and disposal of One who alone can see into the heart of men, and alone can ascertain the real nature and ultimate consequence of all questions which admit of “doubtful disputation.”

There will be some danger of losing our way among the almost numberless divisions and subdivisions of sects, which present themselves as soon as we begin to consider the subject at all narrowly. I therefore propose to simplify my task, and make our course a little plainer, by adopting the two great divisions into which the reformed churches may have been said to have arranged themselves at the era of the Reformation, as a foundation for the classification of Christian sects at present. Calvin and Melancthon may be considered as the prototypes and heads of these two divisions, which however they may sometimes vary and sometimes intermingle, are continually reproduced, because they are grounded upon two great natural divisions of human kind, the stern and the gentle. My own leaning is to the latter, because it appears to me most in accordance with the spirit of that gospel whose great Promulgator made universal benevolence the test of his disciples; but at the same time I must acknowledge, and shall indeed prove before I have done, that the sterner theoretical view may coexist in the mind with a large share of true Christian charity and benevolence. Be the abstract belief of the Christian what it may, if he be really at heart a disciple, the example of his mild Master will always influence his life and feelings, and he will tread in the steps of his Lord, even if his judgment should sometimes have mistaken the true meaning of some of his words.

These two views of the Divine dispensations towards man were first arrayed in actual hostility at the Synod of Dort in 1618, where the doctrines of James Arminius, professor of divinity in the University of Leyden, who had followed the opinions of Luther and Melancthon, were condemned, and those of the Calvinistic church of Geneva affirmed. From that time the various sects of the reformed church have generally been known as Arminian or Calvinistic, according as they embraced the peculiar tenets of either party on the subject of man’s salvation: I shall therefore thus distinguish the two classes into which I propose to arrange them, though they may not follow out either in the whole of their opinions.

I. Arminian.

1. Quakers.

2. Socinians and Unitarians.