citizens to pass righteous laws for earth. This is all the more striking, because the inner and private life of the Clapham sect was extremely like that of the Brethren. There was the same social austerity, tempered by the same domestic geniality, the same abstention from most of the public amusements, the same discountenance of novel-reading, the same genuine love of literary culture.[1]
Nor was it merely the employment of political agencies that the Brethren condemned. They held that it was not lawful for Christians to unite in the most strictly non-political efforts to promote popular liberties, the emancipation of slaves, the suppression of drunkenness. These things were as the dead burying their dead; it was for the Christian to preach the Gospel. Philanthropy generally was under their ban. It aimed, as they held, at “making the world better,” and this apparently innocent object was their special bugbear. Of course no body of humane men could carry out such principles consistently; but the Brethren at least avoided countenancing anything that could be called a philanthropic movement. I have heard as good a man[2] as ever adorned their ranks distinguish between one of their leaders and a well-known philanthropist bearing the same name, but belonging (if I remember rightly) to the Society of Friends, in the following extraordinary terms: “Oh, no! not that Mr. X., quite another; a very spiritually-minded man—not at all a philanthropist”. If it were pointed out
- ↑ This last was a real mark at least of a certain circle of Brethrenism as I knew it. Darby’s early principles should have led, it would seem, to a different result. He may have modified his views; but I am disposed to attribute a good deal to the broadening influence of Mr. Kelly, whose abilities made him, while he was still comparatively young, an easy second to Darby amongst the Exclusive Brethren.
- ↑ It is an interesting circumstance that he was an Open Brother.
