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.

Our disputes are, on the contrary, more concerning the right organization, than about any thing else. This constitutes a difference of circumstance between us and the primitive disciples, which (let the Brethren kick against the pricks as much as they please) makes it absolutely impossible for us to imitate the comprehensiveness of the apostolic churches. We are all of necessity sects, sections, or denominations, persuasions, if any prefer these softer terms. The Brother regards us as self-con'demned,' because we speak of dissenting sects. Does he forget

that we used the same term of the Brethren? It is an untractable phenomenon, that a Plymouth Brother cannot in conscience become a common Dissenter; nor can an Episcopalian become one of the Brethren; nor can a Quaker become an Episcopalian: and so on. A church constructed to offend in its organization the conscience of no one, cannot exist; as long as this stubborn fact subsists, the direct contrariety of consciences. The Brethren flatter themselves most egregiously, in pretending that they are all-comprehensive. They will admit, no doubt, any Christian who will submit to their regulations; and so will Independents or Presbyterians: but none of the three will break up their existing order to please an applicant for admission. The Brethren will not give up Open Ministry, and take to bishops and priests, to satisfy the conscience of an Episcopalian. Open Ministry then is their bond of union,' and it is a point of difference, not of agreement,' among the true people of God. By this Brother's own criterion, therefore (note, p. 494), his church is a sect. Shall we, then, have no churches at all, no order, no ministry, until we are agreed as to the right church order? Shall we, on the one hand, acquiesce, without grudging or murmuring, that each body should regulate its own concerns, claiming to be acknowledged as a church, yet allowing that other bodies are churches too? Or, on the other, shall each of us protest that his alone is the true church, and that all others are counterfeits, or (to use the Brethren's phrase) are apostate? Now to acquiesce under the overwhelming difficulty is generally_designated by agreeing to differ.' We had stated that the Brethren disapproved of this. This Brother' in name broadly denies it (p. 505); yet in a note he allows that it is highly probable that we have heard many of them speak to that effect; only (he thinks) meaning that they disliked indifferentism.' But he himself most fully warrants us in reasserting, that he regards it as a sin, to agree to differ at least concerning the constitution of churches; which is the most critical and important case. Again, we complained that they would not co-operate on neutral ground (p. 575), and that they pretended nothing was neutral (p. 586). Now on this the Brother remarks (p. 498), Neutral ground; 'THAT IS, ground which would involve a violation of principle, a

'sanction of evil, and defilement of conscience.' Do they not then practically regard nothing as neutral? that is, do they not think it wrong to agree to differ? And does not this Brother plainly avow that they will co-operate with no Christians except those of their own sentiments (p. 509)? He catches at our expressions; we look at the substance and meaning of their words and actions alike, and we find this clear result; that at a time when other dissenting bodies are learning more and more to avoid arrogant pretensions (the grand foundation of schism), the Plymouth Brethren, like the Church of England, avow and defend them. Nay, this Brother rebukes us for not doing the same. 6 • The 'Eclectic writer,' says he, p. 514, has no quarrel with them (the 'Brethren) for leaving other churches. He does not unite with the Churchman in the cry of schism.' [This, we are to suppose, would seem pardonable.] No, he is angry with them for molesting the peace of other churches,' &c. Most assuredly we are. We would not call our Brother a bigot, because we trust he has too many good elements of another kind in him; but we think, in so far as this point is concerned, he shows a bigot's sympathy with bigots. The Church of England declares she is the only church in England (says the Brother virtually); this is bearable; for so do we declare the same of ourselves. But the Eclectic Review says, Let each man obey his conscience, and unite himself to the best church he can find or make; but let no one disturb the peace of other churches by exclusive pretensions [these were our words, p. 583, though the Brother, inadvertently we presume, did not notice them]; now that is unbearable indif'ferentism and worldliness.'

We had believed that the Brethren had too much experience of the unjust pretensions of the Establishment not to understand the following sentence of ours, p. 573: If any one allege that 'herein consists our sin, that we are so ready to separate from 'one another, he will state a great truth; yet a truth which may ' easily be so used as to inculcate error and injustice.' We meant, as our next paragraph showed, that the separations of churches oftener took place in anger than in love; yet, that it is a gross injustice and absurdity to say, 'Our Lord would have us all to be of one mind; therefore it is your duty to be of our mind:' which is the common reasoning of Churchmen. This Brother instantly commits the very injustice which we deprecated; not perceiving that our sin' includes all Protestants.

So admirable is his self-satisfaction that after accepting our statements concerning the divisions of the churches, he adds, And if this (the Brethren's) remonstrance be ALMOST 'UNIVERSAL in its aspect, it is accounted for by our opposer, 'when he says, that this bad and degenerate state of things is the case not of Congregationalism, but of Protestantism.' Thus the

Brother even forgets that he is a Protestant, and looks on our words as a justification of his sect! He regards his party as something so unique as to fall under no category. It is excluded from all common terms, such as Separatists, Dissenters, Protestants; and, naturally, it has exclusive privileges to correspond. They are pet lambs of God, who are permitted to butt with all their might at any one who enters his house, but whom no one can touch without impiety.

Perhaps he will say, that it is the possession of the truth which justifies him and his church, and makes them to be catholic and others to be sects. We hold that it does not justify any assumption of superiority. Each church believes that it possesses the truth; but which is true, God has given no earthly judge. We must meanwhile live on terms of equality. If any Christian be 'weak' in conscience, and through over-scrupulosity cannot bear close ministry, while his fellow Christians can bear either the close or the open, he might plead with them for enlargement on this ground; and those who look on it as entirely a question of expediency, might be able to effect some compromise. Patient representations, and truth to back them, work wonders in a church not nailed down by endowments. If the Brethren be really the 'strong' ones, this would enable them to bear up against ignorance, prejudice, love of traditionary customs, or any of the other things, which (with much or little grounds) they often impute to common Dissenters. But unhappily these Brethren allow no neutral ground on these matters, and abhor compromise; which abhorrence must to others mean, that they are determined to have all their own way.

6

The

But we must proceed to our alleged misstatements. Brother has here got up a case against us by a variety of methods. First, whereas we had again and again declared that they violently disapproved of creeds and test articles, he has represented us as pretending that they enforced all the opinions of which we spoke; and when he has nothing else to object against our statements, he alleges that the opinions are freely held.' Yet he clearly discerned that we were not writing their creed, for he remarks that all essential articles of the faith are omitted; while he actually imputes this to us as a fault. We are not absurd enough to imagine that a creed can be enforced' on any mass of men, much less on English seceders. Nay, in Popery as in corrupt Judaism, it has always been, My people love to have it so.' Coercion falls on the units, not on the multitude. Secondly, some opinions are checked and corrected by others; so that two combined make a different thing from two viewed separately and that which is in theory contradictory is harmonized in practice. This happens peculiarly with the Brethren, from their habit of very broad and exaggerated statement. Now in such cases, this

6

Brother represents us as confuting ourselves!' Equally undiscerning is he as to the real contradictions; the fault of which lies at the Brethren's door, not ours. Moreover, when we believed that they were not wholly agreed among themselves, we did not feel it right to force and pinch their views, so as to produce an unreal harmony. A great and substantial agreement there is, as this Brother indeed boasts; but we did not pretend that it was perfect, especially as to the minutiae of interpretation which have no immediate result. Thirdly, we warned our readers that the phraseology into which we translated their language would often be disowned by the Brethren; yet he has criticised it word by word, as though we had alleged it all to be theirs. Fourthly, we did not pretend to exhibit doctrines held or believed by them all, but currently taught and inculcated; and in drawing general conclusions we never adverted to the points of detail, as though these were believed generally. For instance, the important point is, not whether they all hold a special exposition of the Old Testament, but whether they all assent to the principle on which such exposition rests, when it is an extravagant one; or dictate concerning it in a haughty tone, when this is the thing which we were exhibiting. Every part of our account is drawn either from their books or from the life; but we have done as a painter in drawing a national likeness, viz., in selecting strong and well developed features, thoroughly characteristic. In this way the spectator best apprehends the style of countenance, and gains what we called a substantially faithful' impression, as a whole.' But we spoke of many individuals, as having but par'tially imbibed or understood the system.' This Brother, therefore, deals unfairly, in pretending that we attributed all these opinions to every one. Fifthly, he has greatly misrepresented us, in suppressing the fact, that we ourselves informed the reader that Mr. P. Hall disavowed the statement that the government of the world is under the devil's guidance. That which we alleged must logically follow from Mr. H.'s views, and is essentially implicated in them, this Brother by partial quotations pretends that we impute as Mr. H.'s explicit doctrine; and then adduces quotations from Mr. H. which add nothing to what we have already said. Sixthly, he speaks as though we were holding up Mr. H. personally to odium, as the supporter of ungodly and wicked' doctrines (such are the Brother's words); as if we pretended Mr. H. to desire a dissolution of civil society! And then, our declaration that the Brethren were practically support

6

6

6

* It is not wonderful that he does not notice all of these; for instance, that it is lawful to lend, but unlawful to borrow;' an impossible union of correlatives, as we think.