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. 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. 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. 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 de'parted 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. 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. 6 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. 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. : 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 de'parted 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. |