tion to the cause they had espoused! The Brother gratuitously ascribes to us the temper of a slanderous' partisan, and then looks on it as self-confuting that we do not act up to it. He also taunts us with inconsistency, because we do not contend that our systems are perfect, though he most gladly jumps at every concession which we make, or seem to make, on this side.

Some of the nonsense which he endeavors to extract from the opening of our article, is as follows: that we do as one who praises a servant for respectful submission to his master's authority, while he was breaking his commands: that we speak of primitive Episcopacy as the first departure from the divine order, and allege the necessity of the case; hereby casting a bold imputation of want of wisdom and forethought on God: that we confess, but coolly abide in, degeneracy of condition and apostacy from God's order that we declare, it is not right to desire, that which we avow it is our sin not to have; and that we ought to aim at things too hurtful to be desired.-Reasoning which we had addressed specially against the views of persons who from the days of Dr. Owen to the present,' aimed at imitating the ancient church in the number of presbyters, he represents as intended for a confutation of the Brethren's views. Having poured ridicule upon it with much appearance of justice, he then complains of our misrepresenting the question; as though what they cared for was merely the number' and not the principle! Afterwards (in a note to p. 513), he not obscurely imputes this to craft on our part, and remarks that we do not even attempt a vindication of close ministry.' Why is he determined that we shall quarrel with him here? Because he does not know what toleration means. That which in us is forbearance and a desire to grant our brethren their just freedom, he mistakes for hypocrisy. Our plain statements of that which is good in them (as, that they hold it right to do good in detail by preaching the gospel, feeding the hungry, tending the sick), he regards as a heartless sarcasm: and in every doubtful case interprets our words for the worse. He seems even annoyed that we are not dogmatic (note to p. 498): 'I cannot accuse this writer of dogmatism; his principles ' appear too lax and unsettled for that: and besides, as regards • himself and his associates, he only stands on the defensive.' Are we not then very cruel assailants?

*

His misrepresentation of our views concerning church order is (unintentionally) so erroneous, and so ingenious, that we must

We disapprove, indeed, of their total, schismatic isolation of themselves; and of their supposing that acts of parliament are indifferent to the morals and religion of a country; which is a most erroneous and hurtful opinion. The words, in detail, were intended to imply the contrast of private to combined or legislative acts.

explain ourselves more at large; after which we shall leave our readers to say whether we are so self-contradictory.

We hold that a church consists of true Christians, acting together for mutual spiritual profit, under different forms and modes, better and worse: that the inevitable intermixture of unsound with sound disciples will probably embarrass, but need not absolutely hinder, the general edification. We apprehend that a practical separation of all members into two classes, the teachers and the taught (often called laity and ministers), will ever take place for the ministry of the word is so absorbing and great a matter, that few can do it by halves; but he who begins to teach, (if qualified), soon gives himself wholly to it. No wall of partition between the two classes, we believe, exists: want of competence or of leisure, not want of any formality, excludes brethren from ministering. Thus far, we believe, the Brethren hold difference any with the writer; and he is not aware that there is of principle between them and common Dissenters. Yet for this Brother to paraphrase our words 'all professors of religion,' by 'Pharisees, covetous,' &c., appears to us unbecoming and absurd; when he knows that the apostles had no direct method of excluding such persons. Does he mean to make it an axiom, that there are no Pharisees, covetous,' &c., among his own party?

If the Brethren have found a new and better method of assist

ing the passage from the one class to the other (that is, of training teachers), viz., by the system of open ministry, let them come and teach us; or let them set the example in a friendly way, and, if it is really better, others will gradually follow it. But let them not meanwhile heap invective on the method, which we, in our ignorance, but with good intentions, follow. This Brother imputes to us the opinion that scholastic learning suffices to make a minister, and (although writing evidently under a great desire to moderate his expressions) appears to justify our strong statement, that they cannot allude to Dissenting academies without 'an ecstacy of scorn.' P. 495, The colleges would, I suppose, furnish any number of them' [teachers]; and, as to 'want of 'gifts, scholastic divinity and rhetoric would be a sufficient sub'stitute for these.' We know no Congregationalists who doubt whether the first qualification for ministry comes from the Spirit

of God.

We hold, farther, that the apostles adapted all their regulations to the immediate wants of their day. The widows were relieved by deacons in one place, in another they were under the management of Timothy, with special arrangements suggested by the progress of events. Presbyters or bishops at Philippi and Ephesus, but teachers and ministers of various sorts at Corinth, and probably at Rome, were raised up and acknowledged or appointed in office, with no exact uniformity at first. The framework of

the church, as the Brethren rightly teach, was moulded by the life within; so that it was a true representative of inward power or of deep-felt need. The evidence of the Apocalypse serves to convince the writer that primitive episcopacy (not diocesan) was becoming general in the lifetime of apostles; and the necessity ' of the case was one which acted as much in their presence, as behind their back. Nay, they themselves at Jerusalem recognized in James that priority, which other churches imitated, and soon learned to entitle Episcopacy. But the Brother imputes to us a statement that this was a departure from the divine order! and says we are boldly imputing to God a want of forethought.

Now human nature being ever in the main like itself, and the first anomalies of the ancient church having so soon disappeared, that we can speak of one particular form, viz., Congregational Episcopacy, as the primitive one; it is a fair presumption, that the nearer our system is to the apostolic, the better. Moreover, it is highly inexpedient, and therefore wrong, capriciously to deviate from that model: for the following of precedent (in civil or ecclesiastical matters) is most valuable to save disputes concerning indifferent things. The burden of proof, therefore, rests with him who vindicates a departure from apostolic precedent. He has, as it were, to apologize, and to establish that we cannot or ought not to adhere to it, owing to our change of circumstances. It was in this apologizing tone that we wrote the opening pages of our former article. But on the other hand, we think the Brethren to be decidedly and mischievously wrong in teaching that the apostolic regulations are our law for imitation; a law by which the Brethren themselves must inevitably be condemned. We believe that the grand universal precepts, and the spirit of Christianity itself, diffused through the apostolic writings, are our eternal law but that their conduct in its detail cannot always be wisely imitated. When they adopt rules for churches possessed of miraculous gifts, to imitate them might be absurd, if we have no such gifts to lay hands, as they did, on newly baptized adults, or even to anoint the sick, might in us be an act of presumption. It is useless to imitate their forms, where it is undeniable that we cannot realize the spirit and inward substance of those forms. It is better to have our church a living reality, adapted to the wants and circumstances of the nineteenth century, than a stuffed image of the first.

But to be set on having many presbyters in every church, barely to imitate the outside of the apostolic arrangements, when we cannot imitate apostolic unanimity, might be but a sham reformation. If brought about by the actings of the legal principle, (as though it were an abstract duty), we rather contemplate mischief from it. By establishing so strongly the importance of a FORM, it might once more elevate church officers into an over

ruling caste. Hence (we suggested) 'perhaps it is not much to 'be lamented that we cannot.' In the providence of God, evil is neutralized by evil. Nothing here is perfect, but if errors be opposite in character, they usefully balance each other. It is imperfection (and it is ordinarily connected with sin), that strong intellectual differences exist. Yet while perfection is not attained, it is possibly seen by the All-Wise to be better that we err in many ways, than all in one way. On the other hand, it appeared to us that there is no real and powerful impediment to a greater measure of co-operation among Dissenting churches than generally exists, and that many advantages might accrue from a greater blending of them. Reunions produced by the acting of a freer and larger spirit, not by imitating an antique exterior, but by developing a modern reality, would be accompanied with an establishment of the right limits of private judgment and mutual toleration. It would set up union and peace on the basis of justice and freedom and be in little danger of rivetting upon us mere chains of formality. It ought not to be aimed at in order to produce a fine show of presbyters' (for in such words we indicated our fear that one zealous for antiquity + might gain only an empty parade), but for its intrinsic advantages. If we discuss with such an one the accomplishment of his end, we must discuss it as an outward thing to be brought about by direct outward effort, and it appears to us greatly to resolve itself into a question of pounds, shillings, and pence.' We may be wrong in all this; but a person who can turn it into such nonsense as was above produced, shows a want of common sense himself.

6

The Brother is offended that we do not maintain our churches to be true counterparts of the apostolic system; which he holds to be a perfect model. He regards it as our duty to maintain this, or else, quit our position as untenable. We have seen,' says he, p. 497, aggravated evil coolly confessed and coolly vindicated.' This aggravated evil' is, the sin generally accompanying separation and schisms; such, for instance, as the separation of the Brethren from all other churches. The Brother cannot embrace, at least cannot retain, so strange a thought as that we included the formation of the Plymouth body among separations? He thinks we are as it were complimenting them by comparison. Again, p. 494 [the Eclectic reviewers], have admittedly departed from the apostolic model, which, as regards ecclesiastical order, is simply APOSTACY.' The admissions which we made

Who art thou that judgeth thy brother?' &c., is a principle, the letter of which is familiar to all; but which this brother sufficiently shows he does not practically understand.

Highest antiquity [why not Scripture?] says our acute critic.

6

include the Brethren and all other churches; inasmuch as, we conceive, nothing but sects can now possibly exist. Yet farther, p. 512, If the writer does not regard [the Establishment] as apostate, he is guilty of sin in not living within its pale.' We differ widely from this Brother. If of two churches, one is illmanaged and opposes vast obstacles to change, while another is somewhat better ordered, and presents inferior impediments; we hold ourselves at liberty to move from the worse to the better, in spite of all this fulmination; though we may neither believe the former to be apostate, nor the latter to be perfectly apostolic. We believe that this Brother speaks the sentiments of his whole body, in allowing nothing between these extremes. Forsooth, we may not go out, unless a church be apostate; and may not come in unless its constitution be perfectly apostolic. A singular dilemma.

He attributes to us a confession of degeneracy; and after various severe deductions, asks whether we were intending to prove that it was no degeneracy at all. Great acuteness was not needed to see that we laid no vehement stress on the matter in question, and, indeed, had no very fixed opinion; but supposed another person, zealous for the highest antiquity,' to consider us degenerate. He imagines that we as it were envied the 'fine 'show' of presbyters, if we understand his italics. At a later part (p. 513) he strangely gives it as our opinion, that the Dissenting churches grieve and quench the Spirit; and that this is to be lamented. He has seized upon a supposed incautious admission. We merely imagined (p. 586) a Plymouth Brother to allege this, and for arguments sake admitting it, we urged that, even so, it did not justify them in refusing to unite in charitable and religious societies, outside of all churches. But here, as elsewhere, it is clear that this Brother holds all churches, but his own, to be guilty of this sin (churches known and unknown to him) by virtue of their mere constitution. The churches over which Baxter, Howe, Owen, Doddridge presided (honored names with the Brethren, we believe), were all apostate; for they had departed from the divine order and appointment! We confidently ask, Is not this, under the pretence of honoring the Spirit, a shocking over-valuing of outward form; the very essence of high Church error?

He calls our phrase, attraction of cohesion,' a new name for Christian love. A little attention to our argument, or a slight knowledge of church history, would have shown him that we spoke of cohesion without love; which was common in the church for fifteen centuries. Christians generally quarrelled within the pale, but none were willing to go out of it. They might dispute who should be bishop, but they did not dispute whether bishops ought to exist. No one dreamed of changing the organization; hence secessions did not take place.