Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/unityoffaithinitOOIeit 
 
THE UNITY OF THE FAITK. 
 
THE UNITY OF THE FAITH 
 
 IN ITS RELATION'S TO 
 
 TEE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE, THE SACREDNESS OF COXSCIESCE. 
 
 AND THE SUPREMACY OF CHRIST. 
 
 DEC 27 1910 
 
 REV. ALEXANDER LEITCH, 
 
 AUTHOR 07 "rURISTIAN ERRORS INTIDEL ARCUMENTS," "THE GOSPKL 
 AND THE GREAT APOSTACY." 
 
 EDINBURGH 
 ANDREW ELLIOT, 15 PllINCES STREET 
 LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. 
 1859 
 
" fiiao; ait a./^!^o-i^uv Ksixcfj ■!:a.O'/,ii. ' 
 
 Nazianzicn. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface, v 
 
 PART I.— AX EXPOSITION. 
 
 Section I. The Question Stated, 3 
 
 Section II. An Answer Proposed, 18 
 
 PART II.— A VINDICATION. 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 I. Conflictin<,' Convictions and Liberty of Conscience, G7 
 
 II. Toleration and Persecution, 80 
 
 IIL Cliarity, 103 
 
 IV. Conscientiousness in Outward Action, 114 
 
 DIALOGUE IL 
 
 THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OFINION. 
 
 I. Common Grouiid and Fundamental Trutli, 129 
 
 II. Tilings Indifferent,... 148 
 
 III. Love, and the Imperfection of the Human .Allnd, 175 
 
 IV. The Primitive Church, 190 
 
vi 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE DNIFORMITT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Ts Unity Independent of Uniformity ? 207 
 
 II. Can there be Separation without Schism ? 223 
 
 III. Chm-ch Government, 237 
 
 IV. The Lord's Supper, 244 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 I. Dr Balmer's Essay, 257 
 
 n. The Rev. J. A. James' Essay, 274 
 
 III. Dr King's Essay, 279 
 
 IV. Dr Wardlaw's Essay, 294 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 I. No Compromise, 310 
 
 n. Is the Alliance a Church ? 340 
 
 III. The Organization of the Alliance, 358 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 I. Historical, 377 
 
 II. Hortatory, 405 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The publication of this volume would not have taken place, 
 in all probability, at the present time, except for the 
 recent remarkable reUgious awakenings in this and other 
 lands, and the general proposal to celebrate the tricen- 
 tenary of the Scottish Reformation. But the occasion of 
 its publication is not to be identified with the circumstances 
 of its production. The Author's mind has been long and 
 deeply interested in the question of Christian Union ; and 
 the greater portion of the present work was actually 
 written, before his attention was attracted either to the 
 modern revival movements, or to the tricentennial anni- 
 versary of the Protestantism of his fatherland. When lu; 
 began to reflect on these occurrences, he almost instinc- 
 tively resumed his labour at the unfinished manuscript. 
 And now such as it is, though far from being what he 
 desires, and what the subject demands, he ventures to 
 
 a 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 S3nd it forth, in this solemn crisis of our religious affairs. 
 May the Lord of all not withhold His blessing. 
 
 The conception of a reviYal entertained by many is an 
 effervescence of the affections, a tide of the religious sen- 
 sibilities, a wave of excitement on the surface of society, a 
 swelling of the Church's bosom. Xo man, however, can 
 reflect on the subject without perceiving and feeling, that 
 excitement and commotion and awakening are valuable 
 and lasting, only in so far as they are based on knowledge 
 and truth, and directed and controlled by genuine spiritual 
 wisdom. 
 
 There are in fact two sorts of Christian revivals. One 
 sort is marked by the carrying home to men's consciences 
 known and recognised truths, so as to lead to practical 
 results. Such in the main was the character of the awak- 
 ening under Whitfield, the Wesleys, and the Ilaldanes, 
 and of the recent movement among our American brethren. 
 The gospel, not so much unknown, as forgotten, not so 
 much hidden, as disregarded, is brought from the back 
 ground, enunciated with plainness, and applied with a holy 
 fervid unction. Men begin to consider, and to wonder at 
 themselves, that they should have been so long and so 
 altstinately deaf to these sounds, and blind to these 
 sublime and eternal realities. 
 
 The Reformation from Popery in the sixteenth century 
 was, properly speaking, a revival. It was, moreover, the 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 most marked, and auspicious and extensive revival tliat 
 the Christian Church has as yet enjoyed. But it was 
 effected, under God, not so much by the practical apphca- 
 tion of an old or familiar truth, as by the exposition and 
 vindication of a truth, which was fresh and even strange 
 to the religious community of that day. " Justification 
 by faith alone," as proclaimed by Luther, Knox and their 
 compeers, took by surprise the mass of their contempora- 
 ries, and was unrecognised by the learned of that age. 
 Yet it was this truth, and it alone, that turned the flank 
 of the papal legions, and led the oppressed and enslaved 
 peoples of Europe to freedom and victory. It burst 
 almost as suddenly as a meteor on the ecclesiastical 
 firmament, and like an omen and instrument of doom, 
 flashed terror on the monastic orders and towering hier- 
 archy of the apostate church ; while it proved the early 
 dawn of a revival morning, and the bright harbinger of a 
 moral and religious renovation to the down-trodden mul- 
 titudes. 
 
 This truth, preached by all the heroes of the Reforma- 
 tion, was in one sense new and unexpected and abrupt; 
 but in another sense it was venerable from its very anti- 
 quity. It was cherished by the patriarchs when they 
 made their peace with God before the altar. It was the 
 centre of the Mosaic economy, it is emblazoned on the 
 pages of the New Testament. The primitive church lived 
 
VDl 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 upon it, and it never wanted witnesses ; for even one of 
 Luther's teachers knew it well. Nevertheless, it was not 
 only partially, but utterly and entirely forgotten, nay, 
 denied and denounced, by the Papal Church three centu- 
 ries ago. It appears, therefore, that the community may 
 be as truly revived by an increase of knowledge as by an 
 increase of grace — by adding unto faith, knowledge, as 
 by changing a dead into a living faith. The resurrection 
 of a powerful truth from the torpor of centuries forms as 
 genuine a religious awakening, as the pricking of lethargic 
 consciences by an appeal to what is more obvious or 
 ordinary. 
 
 The object of the following pages is to expound and 
 defend what seems to be a plain and potent truth, — to 
 protest against its common practical neglect and point out 
 the specious modes in which it is theoretically contra- 
 dicted, — to advocate its claims to be as old as a Divine 
 revelation, — to plead that, as an essential element of Pro- 
 testantism, pervading the words of Christ and the writings 
 of His apostles, it be no longer trampled under foot by 
 the men of this generation ; and thus to aim at the pro- 
 motion of a revival of the second sort specified. The 
 Reformers invariably had recourse to argument and dis- 
 cussion, no loss than to rhetoric and oratory, to accomplish 
 tlioir work. The Protestant Revival was cradled in con- 
 troversy, waxed strong by passing through stormy dc- 
 
PREFACE. ix 
 
 bates, and owed much of its gigantic vigour and propor- 
 tions to its polemical victories. We have no relish for the 
 asperities of controversy, nor for tempests of angi'j de- 
 bate, nor for the dust and turmoil of ecclesiastical dialec- 
 tics. For nothing have we laboured more, than most 
 rigorously to abstain from every sentiment and expres- 
 sion, that might be found at variance with the devoutest 
 godly fear and the tcndcrest brotherly love. For every 
 trespass of the kind, into which we shall be found to fall, 
 we will be most deeply grieved. 
 
 But we cannot help adding, that the present prevalent 
 feeling against every thing in the shape of discussion or 
 conference among evangelical Christians respecting the 
 points in which they differ, is essentially unprotestant. 
 The horror of religious controversy that pervades some 
 classes of society is a veritable monomania. There is a 
 fashionable and fastidious shrinkingr from honest and 
 honourable debate and rigorous argumentation, that is 
 nothing less than the treachery of indolence to the dig- 
 nity of Truth and the authority of the Bible. If our fore- 
 fathers erred in austerity, and in forgetting love when 
 defending truth, their descendants too often err in laxity, 
 and in degrading Truth when honouring love. If we 
 were all more afraid of perverting Scripture, and more 
 zealous for every Truth of God, than wc are, wo should 
 be glad to resort to any legitimate and effectual means by 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 which Truth may be elicited. Few means will be found 
 more successful than friendly conference and amicable 
 discussion. 
 
 Some may be inclined to think, that the form into 
 which the argument has been thrown in the second part, 
 is in itself objectionable. Had the body of the work 
 been composed more recently, it is not unlikely that 
 the Dialogue style would have been avoided ; although 
 this would have been done more out of deference to the 
 opinions of others whom the Author respects, than in 
 accordance with his own convictions. This style was 
 resorted to solely on the ground, that it was felt to be 
 best adapted to secure the purpose in view. It pos- 
 sesses peculiar facilities for extricating and expounding 
 Truth. That so much is being done to bring forth 
 fresh illustrations and kaleidoscopic views of the old, 
 familiar and elementary truths of the Gospel, is to every 
 pious mind a matter of deepest joy. It is gladdening to 
 the spirit to think that so many efforts are being made 
 to arrest the gay, to awaken the thoughtless and instruct 
 the ignorant, by appealing to their imaginations, exciting 
 their curiosity, and touching their sensibilities. There is 
 surely room also for an effort to find and defend impor- 
 tant and neglected Truth. It may not be altogether out 
 of place to write for reflecting and thoughtful Christians. 
 Both the pulpit and the press frequently form too low an 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xi 
 
 estimate even of the common understanding, and miss the 
 most effectual war of moving the heart. The best feel- 
 ings are most thoroughly and powerfully stirred by deep 
 and broad views of truth. 
 
 There is an urgent call for a revival inside the Chris- 
 tian community as well as outside ; and if the funda/- 
 mental truths of the Gospel be indispensable for the latter, 
 additional knowledge is as indispensable for the former. 
 It is well to see the profane and vicious converted, and 
 the formalists quickened ; but God's own people need to 
 be revivified, and for this purpose more light is as neces- 
 sary as more fire. The genuine disciples of Christ in 
 their present circumstances require more than evangeUcal 
 doctrine, or hereditary nostrums, or the hackneyed com- 
 monplaces of our political and religious sects, to enable 
 them to " quit themselves Uke men, and be strong." It is 
 at least a worthy aim to seek by temperate discussion for 
 clear and accurate views of that Truth, which the present 
 emergency demands; and thus help the brethren to be 
 " men in understanding," that having experienced the 
 strong and profound feelings, they may perform the 
 heroic actions of "good soldiers of Jesus Christ." 
 
 The Literary Dialogue is a powerful instrument, being 
 furnished with a sharp edge, and capable of economising 
 time and space. In selecting it for use, a writer has to 
 run the risk of being charged with temerity for grasping 
 
xii PREFACE. 
 
 a weapon which he is unable to wield. Being anxious to 
 discuss the whole question, thoroughly yet briefly, we 
 have had recourse to this hazardous experiment. To 
 exhaust the discussion, as far as practicable, requires not 
 only the examination of the various topics involved in 
 it, but also a review of those authors whose sentiments are 
 opposed. An endeavour has been made to attain both of 
 these ends. Selections from books have been introduced' 
 with the view of omitting nothing really relevant to the 
 argument, and at the same time avoiding any misrepre- 
 sentation of the opinions of their authors. 
 
 Although Melancthon had spoken in our own language, 
 instead of using the words of other men, what advantage 
 would have followed ? There would, on the contrary, have 
 been a serious drawback ; for we might have been ac- 
 cused of setting him up as a man of straw for the empty 
 pleasure of sti'iking him down. Quotations, indeed, might 
 have been added, to vindicate the sentiments and expres- 
 sions imputed to him ; but these must then have been in 
 smaller type, leaving little chance of their being read. It 
 may be questioned whether it be seemly in an author, to 
 set himself off" in larger type, than he allows to his friend 
 whose opinions he is controverting. By the plan now 
 adopted, the vindication of our own views is conjoined 
 with a criticism and exposure of the views of others. The 
 latter is as necessary as the former, to give something 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xiii 
 
 like completeness to the work, and to justify its pub- 
 licity. 
 
 It may be averred, that we have done injustice to the 
 authors, from whom we have quoted. The Dialogue form 
 does not at any rate necessitate injustice, which is often 
 grossly committed in the ordinary' method of reviewing. 
 It is not our design to review the books and addresses 
 referred to on all their merits, but only so far as they 
 discuss the points to which we desire special attention to 
 be directed. Accordingly, we have laboured to give a fair 
 and honest representation of the sentiments of others, on 
 the precise questions in connection with which their words 
 are introduced. While it has been our constant and earnest 
 aim to avoid any, even the least, infringement of the rules 
 of honourable and Christian argument. 
 
 Some readers may be at a loss to understand the exact 
 relation between the Author and the infidel and Popish 
 interlocutors. He holds himself responsible for the cor- 
 rectness of their reasoning. They say what, if they were 
 real parties, they might with perfect propriety and justice 
 be expected to express. But if he were speaking in his 
 own person, he certainly would not always use the lan- 
 guage attributed to them, because he is not one of them. 
 They are dramatic characters, and if these characters bo 
 consistently sustained, the important design for which they 
 are introduced is accomplished. It were easy, doubtless, 
 
xiv 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 to put into their mouths ungentlemanly remarks ; it is 
 equally easy to allow their observations to sink into utter 
 tameness. From olfensive extravagance, on the one hand, 
 and from weary dulness, on the other, he has wished to 
 escape, while trying to help Melancthon to see himself as 
 others see him. Let those who think that undue liberty 
 has been used with this respected name, consider the tenor 
 of his conduct in connection with the Confession and Diet 
 of Augsburg. 
 
 So far as we may have erred in giving a false impression 
 of others, or transgressed a respectful propriety in what 
 has been attributed to Lord Herbert and Bellarmine, we 
 will be unfeignedly grieved. If a single word has escaped 
 our pen, which is unbecoming our lofty theme, or unjust 
 or ungenerous to the great and good men with whom we 
 have had the hardihood to come into debate, we desire 
 that we could recall it, and cancel it for ever. On being 
 found guilty in this matter, we shall hasten to render 
 every reparation in our power. 
 
 It may be observed that some of the principles ex- 
 pounded in a former publication, are in this one occasion- 
 ally assumed as almost proved, and form the foundation of 
 the present discussion. At the same time, they will 
 receive a new and independent confirmation, so fixr as the 
 following arguments may be found to bo valid. The 
 Dialogues are intentionally constructed in such a manner, 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 as may enable a careful and candid reader to see more of 
 the real and deep and powerful principles both of Popery 
 and Infidelity, than he will easily learn from some other 
 sources. 
 
 The Author does not address those who are ignorant or 
 indilFercnt about the great theme of our Lord's intercessory 
 prayer. He is throughout writing on the supposition that 
 his readers are most deeply and devoutly impressed with 
 the scriptural injunctions and exhortations, which set forth 
 so calmly and clearly and authoritatively the urgent 
 necessity and holy propriety of Christian Union. The 
 views propounded in the following pages can only be car- 
 ried into practical effect, under the pervading and intense 
 influence of a high-toned spiritual affection — such a love to 
 the brethren, as can only be compared to the full and 
 fathomless love of Christ Himself. While even a quench- 
 less, self-denying love like this will be found, not unfre- 
 quently, at fault and astray, unless it be under the guid- 
 ance and control of unexceptive and unchangeable princi- 
 ples, such as it is our aim to find and unfold. 
 
 And Himself gave some to be apostles; and some, 
 prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and 
 teachers; to prepare the saints for work of service, for 
 the up-building of the body of Christ: till we all come to 
 the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, 
 to a full-grown man, to the measure of tlte stature of the 
 
xvi 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 fulness of Christ : in order that we he no longer children, 
 tossed to and fro and driven about udth every wind of doc- 
 trine, hy the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, luhereby 
 they lie in wait to deceive : but imbued with truth, that tve 
 should in love grow up to Him in all things, who is the 
 Head, the Christ : from whom the whole body fitly joined 
 together and compacted by every assisting joint, according 
 to the proportionate energy of every part, maketh increase 
 of itself unto its own up-building in love." — Eph. iv. 11-16. 
 
 Lest any one should accuse the author of uot acting consistently 
 with his avowed principles, it is proper to state that the following 
 overture was brought by him, before the Presbytery of which he is 
 a member, and was adopted, and transmitted to the Synod. 
 
 Overture to the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church from the 
 Presbytery of Carlisle anent Christian Union and the Tricentenary 
 of the Scottish Reformation. 
 
 WTiereas the Unity of the Faith and the Union of the Christian 
 Church are so reasonably to be expected and so ft-equently enjoined 
 in Holy Scripture ; are found occupying so prominent a place in the 
 intercession of the Lord Jesus Christ ; are so necessary and condu- 
 cive to the comfort and edification of the people of God and to the 
 conversion of the world ; whereas their attainment and mainten- 
 ance are thus highly obligatory upon all the jaofessors of Christi- 
 anity ; whereas, therefore, any rupture in the fellowship of Christ's 
 disciples or any breach in the unity of their faith is so sinful in itself, 
 so displeasing to Jesus the King of Saints and the Head of the 
 Church, so disastrous to the Christian Community, and so unduti- 
 ful and ungenerous to all tliat do not know or do not obey the 
 Gospel — 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xvii 
 
 And whereas, at this present time, the Evangelical Protestant 
 Church is torn by many discordant and incompatible beliefs and 
 rent into many incongruous and ill-assorted sects and parties, while 
 there is a peculiarly urgent and special call upon them to be of one 
 mind and of one accord in their sentiments and eflForts, on account 
 of the vast mass of heathenism yet unevangelized, the subtlety and 
 power and extent of modern Infidelity, the recent policy and pro- 
 gress and boldness of the Great Apostacy, the manifestly unscrip- 
 tural principles involved in some of the proceedings of the Supj-eme 
 Government of our native land, and the multitudes of our fellow- 
 countrymen who are notoriously living without God and without 
 hope — 
 
 And whereas there are schemes proposed for healing the divisions 
 of Zion, and effecting harmony among the distracted Churches of 
 the Reformation, which, however well iutentioned, are not in some 
 respects well founded — 
 
 And whereas one great support of schism is found in opposing 
 and irreconcileable interpretations of the Bible, (inasmuch as the chief 
 pretexts and pleas in defence of denominationalism would be extin- 
 guished, if jarring doctrines and duties were not drawn from the 
 Word of God), the recognition of the following principles seems to 
 be absolutely necessary, and that without any disparagement to the 
 place and power of charity and brotherly love, for the full accom- 
 plishment of a reasonable and scriptural Union among Ciiristians — 
 
 Tiiat tlic Bible is throughout in all its declarations perfectly con- 
 sistent with itself — 
 
 That since Protestants do agree in many of the lessons of tiie 
 Bible, they are able, if they use tlie right means, to come to an 
 agi'eemcnt, or at least to avoid contradiction, as to all tiie doctrines 
 and duties which arc enjoined by God — 
 
 That since conflicting inteiT)retations of the Bible by those who 
 profess to reverence and obey it as the Word of God are not, there- 
 fore, inevitable, but may be avoided, it is apparent tiiat in every 
 instance one or otiier of the conflicting parties incurs guilt in the 
 sight of the Most High — 
 
XVIU 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 That since of every pair of antagonistic interpretations fastened 
 upon tlie Bible one of them is nndoubtedly erroneous, it may be 
 affirmed tliat so long as snch interpretations prevail among Protes- 
 tants, the glory of their well -Avorn watchword, that "the Bible, and 
 the Bible alone" is their religion, ia sensibly tarnished, if its truth be 
 not seriously impaired — 
 
 Tliat the right of private judgment, though a grand and precioits 
 privilege, is liable to many giievous abuses, and that this inalien- 
 able prerogative of man is surely abused, when the exercise of it in 
 any case leads Christians deliberately to adopt and publicly avow 
 an en-oneous belief — 
 
 That every apology on behalf of both the parties who find incom- 
 patible doctrines or duties in the Bible practically sets aside the 
 authority of the Lord Jesus over his own Church, inasmuch as every 
 false interpretation is virtually either adding to the "Word of God, or 
 taking away from its contents — 
 
 That every attempt to palliate and excuse the conduct of both 
 parties who plead Scripture against each other, brings reproach and 
 Aveakness upon the cause of Christianity, for every such attempt 
 implies cither that the Bible is in itself defective and even erroneous, 
 or else that the human understanding, though aided l)y the Holy 
 Spirit, is not trust-worthy ; thereby supporting either a fundamental 
 error of Popery, or a fundamental error of infidelity — 
 
 And whereas the unprecedented religious awakening in America 
 may well be regarded, not so much as a complete and final blessing, 
 but rather as an instalment and pledge of a richer and more copious 
 eflusion of the Holy Spirit, so that many in Protestant Christendom 
 are now anticipating extraordinary times of refreshing and enlarge- 
 ment, and some new and signal development of the Kingdom of 
 Heaven, whereof Christ is the Governor, and which shall not be 
 destroyed — 
 
 And whereas the Synod did at its last meeting appoint a Com- 
 mittee, with the view of making arrangements with other denomi- 
 nations to observe the Tricentenary celebration of tiie Scottish 
 Reformation ; and whereas our existing evangelical sects and par- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xix 
 
 ties have sprung up stibsequcntly to that revival season from the 
 Lord, at which time, as well as in the primitive ages of the gospel, 
 our present sectarian nomenclature even was unknown, there appears 
 to be a most fit and auspicious opportunity now for the Synod of the 
 United Presbyterian Church to take up with renewed earnestness 
 and expectation the whole question of Christian Union — 
 
 It is therefore hun)bly overtured to the Synod, that they take the 
 premises into their serious and prayeiful consideration, and if they 
 shall see cause, declare it to be a fundamental principle, on which 
 all efforts for the promotion of Christian Union should be based, 
 namely, that conflicting and contradictory intei-pretations of the 
 Word of God may be avoided by Cliristians ; provided they will 
 examine and stud}- the Bible with due care and conscientiousness, 
 and in humble dependence upon the gi-acious aid of the Promised 
 Spirit of Truth. And, consequently, that in order to attain a sure 
 and healthy union, it is necessary, as it is obviously most becoming, 
 that those Cliristians, who find opposing doctrines or duties in the 
 Bible, endeavour by prayer and conference, and the large and con- 
 tinual exercise of fervent brotherly kindness and charity, to reduce 
 their diflerences, till they shall see eye to eye, and be united in the 
 one true meaning of the jiure word of the living God — 
 
 Finally, if the Synod shall think proper to adopt this declaration, 
 or any other of similar import, that they appoint a Committee to 
 make formal intimation of the same to the otlier Protestant Evan- 
 gelical Denominations, inviting them U) consider and adopt it also, 
 and to ajjpoint Committees to confer with the Synod's Committee as 
 to furtlier proceedings ; and if the Synod are not prepared at this 
 time to adopt the declaration and ajjijoint a Committee, that they 
 recommend tin; ])rinciple embodieil in (lie overtiwe as A\-ortliy of 
 public attention in connection with the Tricentenary Celebration of 
 the Kcformation in Scotland. 
 
 The following is tlie Minute of Synod in regard to the above : — 
 " After reasoning, the Synod, unanimously apjiroved of the spirit of 
 tlie overture, and remitted it to the Committee on the Tricentenary 
 
XX 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Celebration of the Reformation in Scotland, to avail themselves of 
 such opportunities as may occur in connection with the interesting 
 event refen-ed to, of giving effect in every scriptural way to the 
 known principles of this Church on the subject of Christian union." 
 
 WiGTON, Cumberland, 
 2d November 1859. 
 
PART I. 
 AN EXPOSITION. 
 
SECTION I. 
 
 THE QUESTION STATED. 
 
 The only question in connection with the union of the 
 Christian Church that presents a serious difficulty to the 
 understanding, and calls for laborious and prayerful 
 thought, is this : How is the oneness of the Church com- 
 patible, theoretically and practically, with difference and 
 conflict of sentiment among men who are called Christians ? 
 
 When the question is proposed in this form, there are 
 obviously involved in its statement certain limits, which 
 the answer should distinctly determine. To maintain that 
 Christians need not think alike on any one point what- 
 ever, is as extravagant as to maintain that they must 
 think alike on all points without exception. Seeing, then, 
 that it is about equally unreasonable to endeavour to ex- 
 clude cither all unanimity of opinion, or all diversity of 
 opinion, from the fellowship of Christ's followers, the great 
 problem to be considered and resolved is evidently this : 
 to determine how far unanimity must extend, and where 
 diversity may begin ; or to draw a line such, that on one 
 side of it harmony of opinion nnist bo found, to cement and 
 preserve from dissolution Christian brotherhood, and on 
 
4 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 the other side of it variety may be allowed, without any 
 damage to the integrity or cordiality of Christian com- 
 munion. 
 
 Till this problem be distinctly and satisfactorily an- 
 swered, it seems to be utterly vain to look for the realisa- 
 tion of Christian union in anything like an auspicious 
 form, or on an extended scale. Let us suppose, that in 
 a Christian society which has been established for some 
 considerable time, and been successfully engaged in the 
 prosecution of its high and holy purposes, there arise 
 amono: its members conflictino; sentiments on some im- 
 portant topic of the day. If this society does not clearly 
 know, or has no means of determining with certainty, on 
 which side of the line which has just been specified, the 
 point in dispute lies, they will feel entirely incapacitated 
 on this account to preserve " the unity of the Spirit in 
 the bond of peace." They are constrained from the prac- 
 tical necessities of the case to decide, that the matter in 
 debate is one of such a kind, that collision of sentiment 
 either is sufficient, or is not sufficient, to break up their 
 religious concord. It is unquestionably a choice of two 
 grave and urgent evils, to decide this point erroneously, 
 or to feel unqualified to decide it at all. Ilence any 
 Christian assembly which finds itself reduced to this 
 dilemma, if the finer sensibilities be not very much 
 blunted, will experience keen and poignant distress. 
 
 The question as it has now been proposed, however im- 
 portant it may be, does not seem to be hopelessly unman- 
 ageable ; while the necessity that calls for its solution is 
 equally obvious and pressing. IJcing unacquainted with 
 any well known and easily accessible work, in which an 
 
THE QUESTION STATED. 
 
 5 
 
 unambiguous and determinate answer is given to this ques- 
 tion, especially in its bearings on the present condition of 
 Christendom, and having felt our own mind directed to 
 some considerations that appear to us theoretically plain 
 and practically valuable, we do not feel at liberty to with- 
 hold them from the scrutiny of our brethren. Such as 
 they are, we now venture to bring them to the bar of 
 pubhc opinion. 
 
 There are two different ways in which the union of the 
 Christian Church may be broken. Schism has sprung 
 either from personal animosities or from antagonistic 
 principles. As to the first, there is no theoretical diffi- 
 culty in discussing or disposing of it, however many or 
 formidable may be the practical difficulties which it in- 
 volves. When two parties are formed, solely through 
 personal jealousies and individual enmity, without con- 
 flicting opinions on any doctrine or duty of Christianity, 
 there is no doubt that guilt is incurred, and that it lies 
 on those who have manifested an unholy temper. The 
 envies and rivalry of partizansliip may extend very widely, 
 and work most serious evil, without issuing in the open se- 
 paration of the Christian society into two permanent sects. 
 When such a separation takes place, however, and distinct 
 organizations are formed, these will bo neither extensive 
 nor of long continuance, unless they have something else 
 to sustain them besides personal " hatred, variance, emu- 
 lations, wrath, or strife." Before sects can be consoli- 
 dated, and transmitted from age to age, and transferred 
 from land to land, pi(pie and estrangement of feeling must 
 have been transmuted into conflicting opinions, or asso- 
 ciated in one way or another with marked diversity of 
 
6 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 judgment on some general matter of religious faith and 
 practice. 
 
 The second way in which two parties may be formed 
 among the disciples of Christ, is by their adopting contrary 
 opinions, on an item of their code or an article of their 
 creed. Opposite judgments have been formed and held, 
 we admit, without either party ceasing to love and respect 
 the other as fellow-disciples, as well as without a palpable 
 separation taking place into two distinct societies. If it 
 were maintained that this should be the case always — 
 that whatever diversity of sentiment may arise among 
 the members of one Christian association, such diversity 
 not only should not interfere with the cordiality of bro- 
 therly sympathy and affection, but also can never justify 
 an open rupture, then the question of Christian union were 
 most simple and easily disposed of. But the fact is, that 
 conflicting sentiments have not only interrupted and 
 marred the closest Christian intimacy, but have also irre- 
 sistibly compelled Christian men to separate, and to occupy 
 hostile positions. Moreover, whenever two parties are 
 formed, whether the alienation be merely perpetuated 
 within the same ecclesiastical pale, or whether separate 
 enclosures be formed, there would not be the shadow of a 
 plea either for the prolongation of the strife, or for the 
 erection of another pale, unless on some point of their 
 faith or practice the two parties had come to espouse 
 diverse conclusions. 
 
 The great fundamental question which has now been 
 stated, and on the solution of which the attainment of a 
 scriptural Christian union so unambiguously depends, in- 
 volves in itself several distinct and important elements. 
 
THE QUESTION STATED. 
 
 Each of these elements it will be proper to consider singly 
 and by itself. Inasmuch as this union implies unanimity 
 of sentiment on a few matters at least, it is to be inquired, 
 on what conditions can identity of opinion, even to some 
 extent, be secured without any infringement on liberty of 
 conscience or the right of private judgment ? Again, since 
 the identity of opinion requisite to union is admitted to be 
 partial and not universal, it has next to be considered, 
 how we are to distinguish between those topics on Avhich 
 identity of opinion is to be held as indispensable, and 
 those other topics in reference to which identity of opinion 
 is regarded as unnecessary. It is not unlikely that there 
 is a close connection between these two inquiries ; that is, 
 if we can determine precisely the conditions under which 
 men think freely and yet tliink alike, wo may thereby be 
 assisted in attempting to discriminate the points on which 
 we o^Kjht to agree, from the points on which lue may 
 differ. 
 
 Yet again, since Christian union, though it does not 
 consist in a punctilious starched uniformity, must bo visible 
 and palpable to the world, it has to be further investigated 
 how we shall distinguish a bagatelle of uniformity from an 
 important manifestation of unity. Here also it may be 
 noticed, that success in the two previous inquiries may 
 pave the way for success in this third one. If we can 
 clearly separate the matters in regard to which agi-ee- 
 ment is essential, from those in which agreement is not 
 essential, we may thereby be aided in distinguishing a 
 trivial nicety of external order from an actual infraction 
 of visible union. 
 
 The high [iroblem, then, How shall men think freely, 
 
8 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 and act independently, and yet coalesce In a visible and 
 indissoluble harmony — on the solution of which the attain- 
 ment of an union, that shall not be unworthy to be desig- 
 nated Christian, is undeniably suspended — seems to resolve 
 itself into three distinct, yet mutually related, questions. 
 The first of these may be stated thus : What is the nature 
 of that concord which does not damage the integrity, or 
 limit the exercise, of the strictest conscientiousness ? The 
 second question may be put in these words : What are the 
 limits of identity of opinion ? or thus, On what topics is 
 identity of opinion to be demanded, and on what topics is 
 it to be dispensed with ? The third and last question is 
 this : By what arrangement can Christian union be ren- 
 dered visible and definite, without insisting upon a need- 
 less sameness or similarity in external forms ? 
 
 We are not prepared to say that these significant ques- 
 tions have not yet received an unembarrassed and con- 
 clusive answer. But our present attempt will be fully 
 vindicated, if we can make it manifest, that a clear and 
 satisfactory answer to the above questions is not generally 
 known and appreciated by the Christian community of 
 the present day. Every thoughtful reader will see at a 
 glance how many, and how weighty are the disadvantages 
 under which any Christian society must labour, by whom 
 these questions cannot be resolved at all, or are resolved 
 on erroneous principles. Their solution, therefore, must 
 be found. May it be found speedily ! 
 
 A serious and patent evil, springing from loose and misty 
 views on the points now indicated, will be inability to 
 pronounce with any confidence in what circumstances 
 schism in the Church actually occurs, or on whom its guilt 
 
THE QUESTION STATED. 
 
 9 
 
 rightfully ftills. We are quite aware that there are many 
 who will see in this fact no detriment or drawback at all, 
 but rather a propitious ignorance favourable to charity 
 and kindly feeling. This were undoubtedly the proper 
 aspect of the case, on the supposition, which in its subtler 
 forms is, we fear, not uncommon, that all the sentiments 
 of every man are just, or nearly- so, and that, sometimes 
 at least, it is really necessary, though scarcely magna- 
 nimous, to slay truth to save charity from being wounded. 
 But we are not now holding a discussion with masked 
 scepticism. Our argument is not with those Avho, under 
 the microscopic lens of their false charity, would apply 
 some ingenious edge-tool to the thino; called " schism," 
 and pare it gradually away, till first it becomes like a 
 transparent cobweb, and then a gossamer thread, and 
 last of all an almost invisible point. One of the most 
 ominous features in the present condition of the Protest- 
 ant Churches is the mournful fact, that so many who 
 have the Bible in their hands, and even its open page 
 spread before their eyes, and its telling words sounding in 
 their ears, have managed to bring: themselves to think 
 that the guiltiness of schism is naught, or next to naught, 
 and that the individual who wishes to save his conscience 
 from its heavy burden and its crimson dye, is scrupulous 
 to a nicety, and a little crotchety in his conscientiousness. 
 
 If an ecclesiastical rupture, or a division in the Chris- 
 tian community, — that is, public and party strife, with its 
 sectarian consequences, — be that gigantic and unmitigated 
 evil which it is represented to be in the New Testament 
 Scriptures,' there cannot be a surer indication of spiritual 
 ' 1 Cor. iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21 ; Gal. v. 15-21. 
 
10 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 dimness, or a sadder manifestation of religious lassitude, 
 than the absence of a clear and precise knowledge of its 
 essential features. If Christian people feel themselves 
 puzzled in attempting to form an accurate conception of 
 what schism is, and consequently cannot with any cer- 
 tainty say, when it occurs, or how it is to be prevented, 
 or how it is to be healed ; they will either cease to trouble 
 themselves about the matter at all, and thus sink into 
 sceptical indifference, or they will settle the business 
 hastily and unsatisfactorily, and begin to hurl the bolts of 
 bigotry and fanaticism at random. In no case whatever 
 can guilt be annihilated by the Avhims or the fancies or 
 the errors of men. Hence, when the heinous guilt of dis- 
 membering the body of Christ is really incurred in some 
 society, and the party on whom it rests cannot be dis- 
 tinctly specified beyond all reasonable doubt. Christian 
 professors seem to be reduced to the painful necessity of 
 feeling and acting as if there were no alternative left, but 
 cither to treat it with a leniency which savours too 
 strongly of the deadly spirit of infidelity, or to impute it 
 with a rashness which betrays the equally fatal temper of 
 spiritual despotism. 
 
 That the Protestant Churches are still suffering, as they 
 have for a long time been suffering, deeply and extensively 
 from both these evil tendencies, will be doubted, we think, 
 by few who endeavour to estimate impartially the present 
 posture of affairs. Let any one watch attentively the 
 signs of the times in Reformed Christendom, and he will 
 be surprised to witness so many proofs of a tendency to 
 infidel latitudinarianism on the one hand, and on the other 
 of a leaning to Popish intolerance. Indeed very few sccni 
 
THE QUESTION STATED. 
 
 11 
 
 to have anything like an accurate or precise notion how 
 to steer clear at once of both these dangers. Conse- 
 quently, the public mind, in abhorrence of the one, rushes 
 toward the other ; and when men feel that they have gone 
 too far in that direction, they return whence they came. 
 They are entangled in both errors, and may be said to os- 
 cillate between them, rather than to pursue the high road 
 of truth, leaving the one on the right hand and the other 
 on the left behind. 
 
 In no question are both of these false and opposite prin- 
 ciples so frequently or so fully displayed, we apprehend, 
 as in the discussions and proceedings that regard the 
 union of the visible Church. There is one strain of argu- 
 ment which yields, and yields again, and would ever yield, 
 surrendering stronghold after stronghold, and fortress 
 after fortress of Truth, avowedly for the sake of forbear- 
 ance and peace, till at length it would leave nothing to 
 contend for, or nothing worthy of the conflict. When ac- 
 tion is taken on this principle, by the very effort to build 
 the temple of brotherly love, its foundations themselves 
 are sapped. There is another mode of reasoning, which, 
 by aiming at too much, runs the risk of losing all. In the 
 conflict with error, it would turn every mole-hill into a 
 point-d' appui ; and enthusiastically attempting to make 
 the building perfect and symmetrical, according to a fool- 
 ish model, stone after stone of the living temple is super- 
 ciliously rejected, so that material is found wanting to 
 complete the edifice. 
 
 Of both parties it may commonly be noticed, that nei- 
 ther the one nor the other seems to know where to stop ; 
 they have no plain canon or rule to fix their limits. This 
 
12 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 is emphatically what both stand in need of, and the one 
 seems to be as destitute of it as the other. The latitudi- 
 narian party, when they have once entered on their 
 course, are constrained either to come to a sudden and 
 arbitrary halt, and occupy a temporary post from which 
 the feeblest adversary can easily drive or draw them, or 
 they are forced, in order to maintain a wretched con- 
 sistency, to relinquish one point after another, till the 
 gospel itself is emasculated of its vigour, and shorn of its 
 glory. The intolerant party, in a similar manner, when 
 they have once fairly got some adherents into marching 
 order, are ever making new and further advances on the 
 liberties of men, till intelligent and free union is choked 
 by the unbending ordinances of a stringent uniformity. 
 The intellectual error, in both cases, is one and the same ; 
 the one party docs not know where to stop in his dis- 
 pensations, and the other does not know where to stop in 
 his demands. It seems plain as any thing can be, that the 
 knowledge which would guide the one how to limit his 
 concessions, would be equally available to the other in 
 guiding him to find the hrait of his claims. 
 
 If, without this knowledge, any effort be made to repair 
 the breaches of Zion, her wall may bo built again by such 
 effort, but it will be built only with unt^mpcrcd mortar. 
 If, without this knowledge, earnest men will attempt to 
 bind up the wound of the daughter of Jerusalem, they 
 may heal it slightly, but her running sore will never be 
 effectually stanched, and her strength restored. What 
 seems to be imperatively needed by the divided Protestant 
 Church, in its present circumstances, is the enunciation 
 and intelligent adoption of some broad and perspicuous 
 
THE QCESTIOX STATED. 
 
 13 
 
 principle, which shall enable us to settle definitely and 
 conclusively the terms of church membership, so as to 
 secure the purity and union of the Church. There is ur- 
 gently demanded some plain and unexceptionable rule of 
 procedure, by faithful attention to which the Church may 
 steer her course, so as to keep clear of the shoals and quick- 
 sands of sceptical indifferentism and free-thinking, on the 
 one hand, and, on the other hand, to stand far off from 
 the perilous rocks of religious intolerance and bigotry. 
 
 He would be a very heartless Christian, indeed, who 
 could feel contented to leave such a question in an unsettled 
 state, and attempt to congratulate himself merely on the 
 discovery and manifestation of the errors which have arisen 
 in its management. The following pages, therefore, are 
 offered, not simply as an exhibition of the Church's weak- 
 ness, but chiefly as a contribution towards the solution of 
 what seems to be the very greatest problem of our day. 
 A little advancement may perhaps be made in the right 
 direction, although our observations may not give a final 
 and satisfactory answer even to the mere intellectual phase 
 of this long-disputed and transcendently momentous ques- 
 tion. How is Christian union attainable ? For of this there 
 can be little doubt, that the question, as it has been now 
 stated, and as an investigation purely of the understand- 
 ing, must receive, sooner or later, a lucid and articulate 
 reply. Till then the association of Christians, one with 
 another, cannot be expected to rest on that consistent and 
 solid basis, which would be a pledge at once for the sym- 
 metrical erection, and for the enduring grandeur, of the 
 Living Temple of Evangelical Concord. 
 
 Nor arc wc enthusiastic enough to dream, that even 
 
14 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 when the problem, in its intellectual aspect, shall have been 
 fairly and for ever set at rest, no more will be needed to 
 secure the blissful consummation of an united Church, and, 
 as its consequence, of a converted world. However diffi- 
 cult it mav sometimes be to find truth, it is often much 
 more difficult to act upon the truth when found. However 
 difficult it may be to discover or point out the channel in 
 which love should flow, it is often much more difficult to 
 fill tliat channel with an overflow of o-cnuine affection. It 
 appears to us that presumptuous sin may be correctly de- 
 fined to consist in man's not acting according to the truth 
 tvhich he knows. By the application of this principle, the 
 mass of the heathen world will be condemned ; and on no 
 other principle could they with justice be found guilty, and 
 finally doomed. The application of the same principle to 
 the inhabitants of Christendom would involve too many in 
 a severer condemnation ; for the more we know, the longer 
 account we have to render. The copious source of evil m 
 the Church, as well as out of it, is just this, that men will 
 not walk by the light which they enjoy. Protestant schisms 
 are far more numerous and malignant than they would be, 
 if Protestants would " obey the truth," with which even 
 now they are familiar ; if they would cultivate, in a prac- 
 tical form, mutual love, according to their present know- 
 ledge. This giant mischief is to be overcome, not so much 
 by argument as by exhortation. This demon of strife is 
 to be exorcised, not so much by the printing press as by 
 prayer. It is the proper work of the pulpit, the platform, 
 and the prayer-meeting, to stimulate and induce Christian 
 men fully and constantly to act up to the truth, which is 
 generally known and recognised in the community of the 
 
THE QUESTION STATED. 
 
 15 
 
 faithful. Oh ! that it would please the Most High God to 
 send, at this time, a pentecostal blessing on His own Church, 
 and grant a new and a large instalment towards the full 
 accomplishment of His promise, — " I will pour out my 
 Spirit upon all flesh." 
 
 When an attempt, however, like the one which we now 
 essay, is made to open up new ground, to determine a 
 controverted question, and to extend the boundaries of 
 commonly acknowledged truth, the adventurer finds the 
 appropriate means in a published treatise. Every effort 
 of this sort must be based upon the deep conviction, that 
 notwithstanding the many who in practice disregard their 
 perceptions of truth, there are others, considerable in 
 number, influential in position, and still more influential 
 in character, who, to an earnest endeavour to hold the 
 truth in righteousness — that is, to obey the truth whereto 
 they have already attained — add an humble and honest 
 desire to know the truth more and more — ivho receive the 
 love of the truth. To the scrutiny of such minds we 
 commit the results of our investigation, believing that 
 whatever portion of truth may be developed, it will find 
 a cordial reception in congenial hearts, and, under the 
 blessing of the Lord, bear its appropriate part in hasten- 
 ing the reformation of the Church and the remodelling 
 of the world. 
 
 Wc here append an extract from Sir William Hamilton's Lcctiu-es, 
 as it not only expresses very forcibly the frame and temper of mind 
 in which the question that has now been stated should be discussed, 
 bnt also indicates the principl.e on the application of which the solu- 
 tion of that question depends. Speaking of the dispositions with 
 which Philosophy ought to be studied (Lect. 5), he says : — " In the 
 
16 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 first place, then, all prejudices— that is, all opinions formed on 
 iiTational grounds — ought to be removed. A preliminary doubt is 
 thus the fundamental condition of philosophy ; and the necessity of 
 such a doubt is no less apparent than is its diiBcuIty. AVe do not 
 approach the study of philosophy ignorant, but perverted. ' There 
 is no one who has not grown up under a load of beliefs — beliefs 
 which he owes to the accidents of country and family, to the books 
 he has read, to the society he has frequented, to the education he 
 has received, and, in general, to the circumstances which have con- 
 curred in the formation of his intellectual and moral habits. These 
 beliefs may be true, or thej' may be false ; or, what is more pro- 
 bable, they may be a medley of truths and errors. It is, however, 
 under their influence that he studies, and through them, as through 
 a prism, that he views and judges the objects of knowledge. Every 
 thing is therefore seen by him in false colours, and in distorted rela- 
 tions. And this is the reason why philosophy, as the science of 
 tiTith, requires a renunciation of prejudices (pnc-judicia, opiniones 
 prae-judicatJE) — that is, conclusions formed without a previous 
 examination of their gi-ounds.' — (Gatien-Arnoult.) In this, if I 
 maj', without iiTCverence, compare things human with things divine, 
 Christianity and Philosophy coincide — for truth is equally the end 
 of both. What is the primary condition which our Saviour requires 
 of his disciples ? That they throw off their old prejudices, and come 
 with hearts willing to receive knowledge, and understandings open 
 to conviction. ' Unless,' He says, ' ye become as little children, ye 
 shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Such is true religion ; 
 such also is true philosophy. Philosophy requires an emancipation 
 from the yoke of foreign authority, a renunciation of all blind adhe- 
 sion to the opinions of our age and countrj', and a purification of the 
 intellect from all assumptive beliefs. Unless we can cast oft' the 
 prejudices of the man, and become as children, docile and unper- 
 verted, we need never hope to enter the temple of philoso))hy. It 
 is the neglect of this primary condition which has mainly occasioned 
 men to wander from the unity of truth, and caused the endless variety 
 of religious and philosophical sects. Men would not submit to 
 approach the Word of God in order to receive from that alone their 
 
THE QUESTION STATED. 
 
 17 
 
 doctrine and their faith ; but they came in general with preconceived 
 opinions, and, accordingly, each found in revelation only what he 
 was predeteiTOined to find. So, in like manner, is it in philosophy. 
 Consciousness is to the philosopher what the Bible is to the theo- 
 logian. Both are revelations of the truth, — and both afford the truth 
 to those who are content to receive it, as it ought to be received, 
 with reverence and submission. But as it has, too frequently, fared 
 with the one revelation, so has it with the other." 
 
SECTIO^r II. 
 
 AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 I. 
 
 The first of the three questions, on the solution of 
 which the accomphshmcnt of a Christian union, — that is, a 
 free, manly, catholic union, — is dependent, may be given 
 thus : How shall concord he visible and unbroken, %vhile 
 every man's conscientiousness is left to spontaneous and 
 unfettered activity ? 
 
 To assert that the claims of conscience and the com- 
 pletion of union arc theoretically irreconcileable, (as, alas! 
 they have hitherto too generally been found to be prac- 
 tically incompatible), is to take up a position which, if it 
 were consistently adhered to, would prove fatal to Chris- 
 tianity and to all truth. It is, in fact, the stronghold of 
 the most desperate unbelief. When multitudes of men 
 are allowed free and full play in exercising the right of 
 private judgment, especially on such a subject as religion, 
 to suppose tliat it is utterly vain to expect that there will 
 be, to any considerable extent, unanimity of sentiment 
 and harmony of action, is not only to proclaim war 
 between conscience and truth, but even to legalise the 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 19 
 
 conflict. It matters not whether conscience or truth be 
 the first to fall in the strife ; the fall of either is equally 
 fatal, and irretrievably fatal. 
 
 Again, to regard the compatibility of a sensitive con- 
 scientiousness with the consummation of Christian union, 
 as even a questionable point, which is open to doubt and 
 discussion, is imphcit infidelity in one of its subtlest and 
 most deleterious forms. To pretend a calm and wise 
 uncertainty whether there be sucli a thing as truth at all, 
 or whether the honest and diligent inquirer can find ought 
 worthy of his search, and satisfying to his soul, is like 
 breaking the compass or unshipping the rudder of a noble 
 vessel, or unnerving those who man her. 
 
 These positions are so plainly right, that it is generally 
 admitted by the Christian community, at least formally 
 and in so many words, that there is no incongruity or 
 antagonism between the most unrestrained conscientious- 
 ness, and tlie most complete unanimity. But when in- 
 quiries are made as to what is meant by complete unani- 
 mity, some vague reply is given, such as this, — the utmost 
 unanimity that is desirable or attainable. And when the 
 matter is probed still further, and we venture to ask, 
 what amount of unanimity is attainable or desirable, the 
 number of diverse answers that are returned only serves 
 to stun our cars and to stagger our reason. Almost the 
 only impression loft upon the mind in the midst of this 
 confusion is something of this sort : The great principle 
 which affirms a harmony between the claims of individual 
 consciences and the realization of social union, and wliich, 
 we thought, liad boon immovably established, seems to be 
 shivered into pieces before our eyes, and its broken 
 
20 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 fragments to be strewed about us, bewildering our judg- 
 ment, and grieving our heart. 
 
 The principle under discussion has either no meaning 
 at all, or will most surely mislead us, unless, in speaking 
 of conscience, we mean, conscience rightfully med, and, in 
 speaking of concord, concord fairly expounded. It is 
 under this condition alone, that it can be maintained, that 
 there is no variance or conflict between the exercise of 
 conscience and the accomplishment of concord. Two 
 inferences are deducible from the principle as thus under- 
 stood, which are practically invaluable. The first is, that 
 the concord which is attained without the due and legiti- 
 mate employment of conscience, is not a proper or normal 
 concord. The second inference is equally plain, though 
 commonly disregarded, namely, that when concord is not 
 secured, but is obviously ruptured and lost, there must 
 have been an unlawful and culpable exercise of conscience. 
 While the principle now before us, therefore, may be 
 readily acknowledged and boasted of, in words and in 
 appearance, it may be really and disastrously set aside or 
 trampled on in two distinct ways. Some aim at concord 
 to the injury of conscience ; while others plead for con- 
 science to the injury of concord. 
 
 It hence appears, that whenever ecclesiastical union is 
 secured in any other way, than by the free and in- 
 dependent choice, the intelligent and willing acquiescence 
 individually, of those who are united, it is not of a genuine 
 kind. In so far as the members of a church are kept 
 together by the fear of change, or by respect for anti- 
 quity, or by the tics of property, or by hereditary pre- 
 possessions, or by the force of earthly authority, or by 
 
AN -INSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 21 
 
 any other such bonds, not to speak of baser ones, to the 
 same extent their union as Christians is defective or 
 damaged. When men are of one mind and of one heart, 
 because they agree in the truth, which they have found 
 after an honest and unbridled search, that is Christian 
 conscientious union. The notion of effecting, preserving, 
 or restoring union in religion, by fear or force in one 
 form or another, long pervaded the minds of the leading 
 men in Christendom ; and it is painful as well as noto- 
 rious, that most of the early Reformers themselves were 
 more or less entangled in this misconception. 
 
 Latterly, however, the majority of Protestants seem to 
 have been going over to the other extreme. If union was 
 everything formerly ; conscientiousness is everything now. 
 Conscience has been often made a sacrifice to union ; now 
 union is made a sacrifice to conscience. Is not the mind 
 of the Protestant community deeply imbued with some 
 such sentiment as this : thorough and extensive union is 
 a hopeless attainment amid the conflicts and confusion 
 entailed by the workings of conscientiousness ? If any 
 opinion is more surely believed among us than another, 
 or more oracularly delivered from platform, press, and 
 pulpit, is it not one that might be put into words thus : 
 The vigorous exercise of conscientious deliberation and 
 judgment on every question is one of the most serious 
 difficulties in the way of intimate Christian fcllowshij) 
 and universal philantlirophic co-operation? We appeal 
 to those who believe that Christian union — the visible 
 union of those who accept Christ as their Saviour — is both 
 a duty and a blessing, if such sentiments as the above are 
 not pregnant with unmistakcablo infidelity ? To admit or 
 
22 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 insinuate in any degree that the fullest attainment of 
 Christian union, as it is enjoined in the New Testament, 
 is in any way prevented, or its possession and security 
 endangered, by the most strictly conscientious search 
 after truth, is to reduce us to the dread dilemma of 
 scepticism; — that either there are no such realities as 
 truth and virtue in the world, or they are denied to 
 man. One trembles, and feels as if his faith were begin- 
 ning to be shaken, when he finds himself insensibly drawn 
 by the prevalent arguments and representations of his 
 Christian brethren, very near to the verge of the yawning 
 gulf of unbelief. 
 
 When the untrammelled exercise of private judgment is 
 spoken of as a difficulty or obstacle in the way of reaching 
 that degree of Christian combination which is admitted 
 to be desirable, and whose realization is to be ultimately 
 expected, this exercise of private judgment must be a pro- 
 per or an improper one. For surely no one will contend 
 that Conscience and Reason are not liable to be abused by 
 Christians as well as by other men, and on religious ques- 
 tions as well as on any question whatsoever. It is very 
 obvious, therefore, that an illegitimate use of the under- 
 standing, a feigned or counterfeit conscientiousness, may 
 prove an impassable barrier in the way of Christian union. 
 The plea of conscience, disingenuously urged, is, indeed, a 
 difficulty — a real and insuperable difficulty. Such a dis- 
 ingenuous plea, however, involves guilt — the very guilt 
 which is characteristic of schism. To whatever extent, 
 therefore, schism prevails among Christians, to the same 
 extent most certainly reason and conscience arc not dili- 
 gently used, or grievously perverted. For as union by 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 23 
 
 compulsion is proof of a languid, slumbering, torpid con- 
 scientiousness in the Church, so surely does a disjointed 
 shattered Church prove the existence of a feverish, mor- 
 bid conscientiousness in its members. If, in any circum- 
 stances, " a man proves unfaithful even for the faith, and 
 sacrilegious for rehgion," it surely is when he deceives 
 himself, and pleads a conscientiousness which he does not 
 possess. 
 
 When reason is not misused, when conscientiousness is 
 not pretended, but genuine, to suppose that then it can 
 in any measure stand in the way of a most thorough and 
 cordial union, is surely inadmissible. Yet this is the very 
 principle which is assumed, when it is maintained that 
 there may be a separation and division in a Christian 
 society without eitlier party incurring the guilt of schism. 
 This opinion is defended on the ground that both parties 
 may act from conscientious motives. The excellent men, 
 who have asserted that an open rupture in Christian fel- 
 lowship may take place and be continued without guilt, 
 on the ground that both parties in coming to conflicting 
 conclusions have followed conscience, have little considered 
 the import of their statement. If men may contradict 
 each other's views, as Protestants have contradicted each 
 other times without number, and it be admitted that 
 neither of them is resorting to the plea of conscience un- 
 warrantably, then we fear that the Church of Christ is 
 bemired inextricably in the slough of despond. She is, 
 by this admission, for ever deprived of any effective means, 
 whereby to dispel the delusions of infidelity, or to disin- 
 fect the abominations of Popery. If, in a single instance, 
 the plea of conscience can justify the institution of two 
 
24 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 separate and unconnected, not to sa,y rival or hostile 
 Christian societies in one neighbourhood, then is the 
 great principle of the compatibility of conscientiousness 
 and concord abandoned, and the claims of Christian 
 unity and truth are sacrificed to the empty vapouring 
 of a spurious conscientiousness. 
 
 If the Romanist has erected a high and irregular wall 
 around the sheep-fold, which affords more facilities to the 
 hirehng and the wolf than protection to the sheep, has not 
 the Protestant been covering the pasturage with a score 
 of little pens destitute alike of security and arrangement ? 
 What vast difference is there between these two parties, 
 especially since each of them, in following his own fond de- 
 vice, has been destroying or disregarding the only sure and 
 symmetrical, because divinely -instituted, fence of the fold ? 
 It can make but very little difference in the final issue of 
 events, whether we form a procrustean bed of pretended 
 union, and thereon rack and torture unto spiritual death 
 the consciences of men ; or, making an effigy of conscien- 
 tiousness our idol, in the madness of our zeal break into 
 pieces, as an offering before it, the Church — the body of 
 the Lord Jesus. We are at a loss to perceive what ad- 
 vantage there is, in protesting against the despotism that 
 would bind the thinking: soul in the chains of an iron uni- 
 formity, when immediately thereafter, in the license and 
 licentiousness of our thoughts, we rudely snap the very 
 bands of truth, and heartlessly sever the tcnderest cords 
 of love ! 
 
 Whoever, then, maintains that there is no opposition 
 or incongruity between the exercise of conscientiousness 
 and the establishment of Christian union, must, in order 
 
AN AXSWEK PROPOSED. 
 
 25 
 
 to be consistent with himself, hkewise maintain that an 
 honest and earnest conscientiousness, far from being, or 
 producing, any impediment to the fullest development of 
 Christian harmony, is one chief means by which it is to be 
 perfected. Consequently, when Christian union is in any 
 way interrupted, or marred, or broken, one cause of the 
 evil will invariably he found to be a defective or dis- 
 torted conscientiousness in one or other of the parties. 
 This inference cannot be disproved by the fact, that both 
 parties vociferously and dogmatically urge the plea of 
 conscience. 
 
 The conflicting sentiments of Protestants arc the only 
 or principal source of their endless sects. Of every pair 
 of these conflicting sentiments, one of them must be held 
 to be erroneous. Hence it follows, that if two conflicting 
 sentiments may be adopted conscientiously by both par- 
 ties, conscientiousness is incompatible with union, and 
 leads men to error as readily as to truth. But if con- 
 scientiousness docs not deceive us, and if an upright 
 conscience and concord be compatible, then an erroneous 
 judgment that causes a separation among Christian breth- 
 ren cannot, in the very nature of things, be, in the only 
 proper sense of the word, conscientiously espoused. 
 
 Such being the real state of the case, to be told by some 
 who set themselves forth as the expounders and defenders 
 of Protestantism in its purity, that " the existence of sec- 
 tarianism is a proof of moral integrity," (Poulter on Pusey- 
 ism, p. 173), involves an extravagance of subtle unbelief, 
 as false and dangerous as any of the absurdities cither of 
 Popery or infidelity. An extreme opinion like this would 
 not have been hazarded, if it were not iu unison with tho 
 
26 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 prevailing sentiments of the age. The existence of sec- 
 tarianism may be a proof of moral integrity in one of the 
 parties, but cannot, by any possibility, be evidence of such 
 integrity in both of two conflicting sects. This latter is 
 plainly what is often meant by such assertions. 
 
 11. 
 
 The second question which we are called to consider is. 
 What are the Hmits of identity of opinion ? This ques- 
 tion is commonly supposed to be satisfactorily answered 
 by the well-worn adage : in things necessary, unity ; in 
 things indifferent or unnecessary, liberty ; in all things, 
 charity. This statement is obviously of no practical use 
 whatever, unless we know what things are necessary, and 
 what things are indifferent. Nay, to plead this maxim, 
 so long as we cannot discriminate between things indif- 
 ferent and necessary, is worse than useless ; for in that 
 case it only adds confusion to confusion, by appearing to 
 solve a difficulty, which in reality it does not solve. Now 
 there are two ways in which things necessary might be 
 distinguished from things indifferent ; there might be an 
 actual specification of each of them respectively, or some 
 plain rule might be given to enable every man to make 
 the distinction for himself when called to do so in the 
 exigency of circumstances. 
 
 As to the first of these, or a detailed statement of the 
 things themselves that are necessary and that are indif- 
 ferent, we are acquainted with none that requires to be 
 noticed in this place. It is sufficient now to offer a few 
 general observations to the reader's reflection, which will 
 
AX AXS^VER PROPOSED. 
 
 27 
 
 tend to manifest the impracticability of every attempt to 
 make out the distinction in a satisfactory manner. 
 
 " Things indifferent," in the estimation of the individual 
 who adheres to the distinction in question, will either in- 
 clude propositions which he knows to he true, or will in- 
 variably exclude all such propositions, Whichever side 
 of this alternative is adopted, a very obvious and grave 
 difficulty presents itself. If you allow a matter to be 
 " indifferent," which at the same time involves in your 
 own judgment the obligation of duty, or the importance 
 and immutability of truth, what do you mean by styling 
 it indifferent ? Your language is liable to misconstruction, 
 and surely needs to be more explicit. On the other 
 hand, if you include in " things necessary " every thing 
 which is true, and demand actual and avowed unity in all 
 these as tlie condition of church-fellowship, you grasp an 
 instrument which, according to the temper and the circum- 
 stances of those who wield it, will either crush into the 
 dust the consciences of men, or shatter to pieces the con- 
 cord of the Church. If you call any one true thing " in- 
 different," you arc on the slippery slope of infidelity ; if 
 you make all true things " necessary," you are erecting 
 an altar to bigotry. 
 
 To escape from this dilemma, it will be said, by things 
 indifferent and necessar}^ we mean not things indifferent 
 and necessary as regarded in themselves, but such as are 
 so in regard to a man's personal salvation. 
 
 The distinction as thus interpreted seems to us to in- 
 volve two conse(iuences, both of which we cannot but 
 regard as unsound and disastrous. In the first place, it 
 seems to imply that of all the truths within the reach and 
 
28 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 cognisance of a man, some of them are indifferent to his 
 personal salvation, and that it is easy to distinguish such 
 from those that are necessary to his salvation. Now the 
 Bible, while emphatically testifying that sinners enjoy 
 peace with God when exercising faith in Christ, never 
 speaks of any truth as indifferent to our personal and 
 eternal salvation, but invariably urges us to increase and 
 grow in knowledge. This, then, is not a scriptural dis- 
 tinction. While those who hold to it cannot in any indi- 
 vidual case pretend to draw the line accurately, and are 
 constrained to admit that what they might consider indif- 
 ferent to one would not by any means be indifferent to 
 another. In the second place, the distinction, as it has 
 just been explained, will imply that all the truth which 
 the Cliurch is at any time called upon to maintain and dis- 
 seminate in her character as the Church of Christ, is only 
 'that amount of truth, and no more, which is affirmed to 
 be necessary for the salvation of any, the poorest and 
 lowest individual of the race. Granting that it were no 
 arduous business to determine correctly and clearly Avhat 
 those truths arc, which are represented as absolutely in- 
 dispensable to the salvation of one of the million, will it be 
 asserted that every thing else besides these is trivial and 
 destitute of all significance and weight, even to the indi- 
 vidual himself, and far less to the Church at large ? 
 When the Bible describes " the Church of the living God" 
 as " the pillar and ground of the truth," are we to under- 
 stand " the truth " here spoken of, as that truth only 
 which is supposed to be essential to the salvation of a 
 slave or a Hottentot, to the exclusion of all other truth ? 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 29 
 
 Let us take the case of Abel or of Joseph in remote 
 antiquity, or of a Caffre or a Hindu who has but recently 
 emerged from the gloom of centuries into the daylight of 
 Christianity. Supposing that the truths necessary to be 
 believed by such persons in order to eternal life could be 
 settled and determined beyond dispute, are these truths to 
 be regarded as the whole of the inheritance of the Chris- 
 tian Church ? Is it these truths, and these alone, which 
 the Church of the nineteenth or of the twenty-first cen- 
 tury is to hold fast, and hold forth to the world ? Is it 
 these truths, and these alone, just as they were appre- 
 hended and appreciated by Isaac or by the first Indian 
 convert, a belief of which, and of nothing more, is to be 
 declared essential to the salvation of a man, who has been 
 trained in an English or American congregation under an 
 able and devout ministry ? All such notions as these are 
 not only utterly incongruous, but also extensively detri- 
 mental. To tell any one that he knows already quite 
 enough, and that more knowledge is altogether unneces- 
 sary to his everlasting salvation, is to administer a spiri- 
 tual opiate, and pander to spiritual sloth. It were easy 
 to shew of any given truth which might be selected, that 
 while there are some men in whose case a belief in that 
 truth might be reasonably affirmed to be necessary to 
 their salvation, there are other men regarding whom this 
 assertion could not with justice be maintained. Can it be 
 affirmed even of a licathcn who never had an opportunity 
 of hearing tlie gospel, that belief in Christ is essential to 
 hia salvation ? Who is bold enough to consign to end- 
 less woe a brother man, solely and exclusiveli/, on the 
 
30 
 
 SECTIOX II. 
 
 ground that he has never hstened to the glad tidings of 
 great joy ? ^ 
 
 Some may now feel disposed to say that a meaning has 
 been put upon the word " indifferent," which it was never 
 intended to bear. What, then, does it mean ? If it docs 
 not indicate naked and absolute indifference, it can only 
 mean a less degree of necessity or importance. If this be 
 assumed as its import, we are as far as ever from the goal. 
 In order to apply this distinction to answer the question, 
 what are the limits of identity of opinion in the Christian 
 Church ? — we shall want two helps, neither of which we 
 know where to find. We shall want, in the first place, a 
 sliding scale whereby to measure the various degrees of 
 importance that may exist, for in various degrees of ne- 
 cessity we have no belief. And, in the second place, we 
 shall require a teacher (an infallible one, if possible) to 
 inform us at what point in this scale the so-called necessity 
 ends, and the so-called indifference begins. 
 
 We thus perceive that there is no likelihood of finding 
 any general rule, or explicit canon, by which we may be 
 guided in attempting to discriminate between things essen- 
 tial and things indifferent. Hence any detailed enumera- 
 tion of the things themselves supposed to be embraced in 
 these two classes, will be far from precise, or clearly inaccu- 
 rate. The maxim which we have been considering, therefore, 
 seems to be one of that delusive kind which arc too frequently 
 
 ' " Elfct infants, iy'nv^ in infancy, arc regenerated and saved by 
 Christ tiirough tlie Spirit, who worketh when, and wiiere, and how 
 he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable 
 of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word." — The Conf. 
 of Faith, ch. x. iii. 
 
AN ANSAVER PROPOSED. 
 
 31 
 
 current in society, whose very might Hes in their mistiness. 
 Men are ever ready to grasp the shadow of truth, rather 
 than take the trouble to seek the substance. The terms 
 " necessary" and " indifferent" are not so expUcit in them- 
 selves as they ought to be ; nor are they so ob\aously 
 co-relative, or mutually exclusive, as might be expected. 
 Besides, we have seen that the knowledge which may with 
 propriety be said to be necessary to one man's salvation, 
 cannot be said to be necessary to the salvation of another 
 man. It is also more than doubtful, whether the truths 
 that might with some plausibility be regarded as necessary 
 to salvation, are precisely those identical points on which 
 harmony of opinion is required, in order to secure a sub- 
 stantial and obtrusive Christian union. 
 
 We would not dismiss this part of the subject, without 
 attempting to give an answer to the all-important question. 
 What is necessary to salvation ? For our own sakes, for 
 the sake of our argument, and for the sake of our readers, 
 this unspeakably momentous point should be dealt with 
 plainly and explicitly. First, then, the objective ground 
 or reason on which alone salvation is within the reach of 
 any individual man, whether he be heathen or Christian, 
 whctlicr he be an infant or an adult, an ante-diluvian or a 
 post-diluvian, is one and the same, namely, the atoning 
 sufferings and death of the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, 
 the subjective condition of each one's personal and eternal 
 salvation consists in honestly and diligently seeking to 
 know as much truth as possible, and endeavouring, with 
 equal honesty and diligence, to act up to the truth when 
 found. The subjective condition of obtaining peace with 
 God, or a present salvation, is believing in Jesus Christ our 
 
32 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 Lord. If you can meet a heathen, a man living in the very 
 deepest darkness of idolatry, who is loving and obeying the 
 truth within his reach, it will be as hard to condemn him, 
 as it is easy to condemn those professing and highly- 
 favoured Christians whose mental indolence and facile 
 conscientiousness prove that they are not " of the truth." 
 
 We must now return to the question that led us into 
 this discussion, namely, What are those matters on which 
 identity of opinion is essential to cement Christian men 
 together in one society, as distinguished from those other 
 matters on which identity of opinion may be dispensed 
 with ? 
 
 The answer to this inquiry will be more readily found, 
 by stating the question itself in a more precise form. The 
 remarks which have been already made tend to shew that 
 the chief cause or occasion of permanent ecclesiastical 
 schisms is the presence of conflicting sentiments or antago- 
 nistic judgments among Christians. The main difficulty, 
 therefore, in answering the question proposed is, how to 
 avoid these intellectual conflicts, or how to deal with them 
 when they unhappily occur. The question now before us, 
 accordingly, is, properly speaking, threefold in its nature. 
 1. What are those matters on which a positive identity of 
 opinion, an actual and avowed agreement, in the exercise 
 of free and earnest thoughtfulncss, is necessary to Chris- 
 tian union ? 2. What are those matters on which there 
 must be a negative identity of opinion, an absence of con- 
 tradictory sentiments, so as to prevent the rupture of the 
 unity based on the positive identity of opinion ? 3. What 
 are those matters on which there may be that diversity of 
 opinion which does not amount to contradiction ? 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 33 
 
 Whether the above be in some measure a correct and 
 thorough mode of stating the question, may be tested by 
 appeahng to facts with which every one is famihar. 1. 
 Every page of church history proves that before there 
 can be anything hke Christian combination and fellowship, 
 there must be a felt ae;rcement on certain great leadinor 
 truths. 2. When this agreement is experienced, and con- 
 federation follows as a matter of course, separation has 
 taken place, again, and again, and again, and inevitably so, 
 because of the adoption of opposite views on some one par- 
 ticular point. 3. Every Christian society knows that there 
 are many things on which diversity of sentiment is not felt 
 to necessitate, and does not, in fact, produce separation. 
 
 The formation of a church has always pre-supposed, as 
 in the nature of the case it must do, palpable and unam- 
 biguous concord of sentiment on several important matters. 
 While this concord of sentiment is exhibited by practical 
 incorporation, sympathy, and co-operation, one sort of 
 question may arise, on which conflicting vicAvs will issue, 
 and properly and necessarily issue, in rending the Chris- 
 tian society into two hostile portions ; and another sort of 
 question may arise, diversity of sentiment regarding which 
 shall in fact leave, as it ought in fairness to leave, the Chris- 
 tian society, undisturbed, or at least unbroken. It seems, 
 then, to be beyond dispute, that there cannot be any Chris- 
 tian orij-anization at all without a distinct and avowed creed; 
 and, further, that there arc matters on which a conflict of 
 judgment will shatter this organization into pieces; while 
 there are other matters' on which variety of opinion will 
 allow this organization to continue unaltered and unshaken. 
 
 We shall take the last of tlie three questions iirst. To 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 answer it, a distinction will be found available, which all 
 may comprehend, and none, we think, will doubt. Every 
 man can appreciate the difference between those statements 
 or propositions which he clearly and certainly knows to be 
 true or erroneous, and those others about which he knows 
 something, but not enough to warrant their full acceptance 
 or unquahfied rejection. To distinguish the one sort from 
 the other, let us call the one certain, and the otlier pro- 
 bable. The answer, therefore, to the third question may 
 be given thus : Diversity of sentiment on matters of proba- 
 bility need not interfere with Christian union either in 
 marring brotherly love, or in rending social combination.^ 
 Probabilities do not directly oppose or destroy each 
 other. There is, therefore, appropriate scope in their 
 sphere for variety of sentiment ; for this variety will never 
 emerge in a distinct and peremptory contradiction. In 
 ssuch affairs it is not unreasonable to require, that a mino- 
 rity of any number of associated persons should submit to 
 the majority, when a practical decision is called for in pur- 
 suing any of the principal objects of the association. Sub- 
 mission and acquiescence in such cases is obviously necessary 
 to secure the preservation and efficiency of the society. 
 For example, when two individuals are proposed to fill 
 some office, the difference among those who have the privi- 
 lege of voting, though one of unqualified opposition as 
 regards persons, is, generally, not one of direct antagonism 
 
 ' If iiii)' Olio slioiild scruple to accept the above proposition, will 
 any Protestant object to the following one? Diversity of senti- 
 ments on matters, which are left undecided by the word of God, should 
 not interfere with Christian union, either in inajTing brotherly love, 
 or in rending social conibiuatiuii. 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 35 
 
 as regards principles. The two candidates may be acknow- 
 ledged by both parties to be well qualified for the appoint- 
 ment : but the one candidate seems to one of the parties, 
 and the other candidate to the other party, to have supe- 
 rior acquirements and higher claims. Moreover, neither 
 of the parties may be prepared to affirm, positively and 
 dogmatically, that their own man is really the better of 
 the two. In most cases of this kind, it is a matter of pro- 
 bability, and not of certainty, which of the candidates will 
 really, and in the end, turn out to be the best office-bearer. 
 We may feel perfectly and justly certain, so far as our 
 knowledge goes, in preferring James to Thomas ; but this 
 preference does not amount to the declaration that we in- 
 dubitably know that James would actually and ultimately 
 prove the better of the two. 
 
 If any one will argue that it is quite possible that one of 
 the candidates might, in point of fact, be really better 
 qualified than the other, and that this fact might be clearly 
 enough known to his supporters, and that, therefore, a fair 
 contradiction emerges, it may be rephcd thus : It is im- 
 proper to call such diversity a contradiction or antagonism 
 of sentiment, because it is only a contrast between what is 
 wise, and what is wiser, and not the opposition of right to 
 wrong, or of truth to error. In such a case the contra- 
 riety involves only the degrees of good, better, and best : 
 for both parties are supposed to be acting rightly, seeking 
 proper ends by suitable means, but only the one party is 
 more prudent than the other. The contradiction which is 
 properly so called, and involves a matter of truth and 
 error, or of right and wrong, is surely not only of a much 
 more serious character, but also of a very diflorent nature. 
 
36 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 For example, the proposal of a notoriously and grossly 
 immoral individual, to fill the office of the Christian minis- 
 try, presents a totally diverse case from the one formerly 
 supposed. Here the man is clearly and positively dis- 
 qualified for the situation ; and, consequently, if some of 
 the voters support him, ■while others shall prove faithful, an 
 important and real contradiction will be evolved, and a 
 separation •will be, or ought to bo, the consequence. 
 
 Let us take another example for illustration, — the 
 question of church government. Under certain conditions 
 this question can be conceived to be one of mutual for- 
 bearance, in wliich a minority should yield to a majority. 
 Thus, Avith diverse views, and various predilections for 
 Presbyterianism, Independency, and Episcopacy, the visible 
 unity of the Christian society might be undamaged. If 
 the form of church government be left open and undecided 
 in holy Scripture, and if the sentiments of diflferent 
 Christians amounted to no more than a preference on 
 grounds of probability of one mode of ecclesiastical rule 
 over another, then it would be the undoubted duty of 
 Christians in the same locality to associate with each 
 other, and allow the external form of their organisation 
 to be dotormined by the majority; just as a majority is 
 supposed to be fully compotont to decide the site where a 
 place of worship is to be built, and what shall be its size 
 and its shape. 
 
 Leaving, then, ample room for diversity of sentiment 
 on matters of probability, we proceed to the examination 
 of the second point, namely, on what topics must there be 
 found the absence of conti-adiction to preserve the har- 
 monious union of a Christian society ? The answer is 
 
AX ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 37 
 
 suggested by the remarks -which have been ah'eady made. 
 There cannot exist undisturbed Christian sympathy or 
 unbroken unity, except by the exclusion of all conflictiiig 
 or antagonistic opinions when truth and error, or right 
 and wrong, are implicated. When Christian directly 
 opposes Christian on some point of duty, or on some 
 principle of faith, to fancy that such a mutual opposition 
 may develop itself in the bosom of the Church without 
 producing the veritable phenomenon called scliism, with 
 all its evil and guilt, is a specimen of that excessive 
 credulity which some have imagined is found only in 
 sceptics. This schism may obviously be either an inward 
 disease, leaving the outside shell of visible union unbroken, 
 while eating within as doth a canker ; or it may asssume 
 the appearance of an external sore, speedily becoming 
 prurient and ulcerous. To under-estimate the malignant 
 blight of such a schism in either of its aspects, or attempt 
 to palliate its guiltiness, as lying upon one or other of the 
 parties, is a grievous departure from the simplicity of the 
 gospel, and seems to us to be one of the besetting sins of 
 the Christian community of this age. 
 
 The question of church government recently alluded 
 to will afford an apt illustration. A specific scheme of 
 ecclesiastical organisation is cither distinctly and authori- 
 tatively laid down in the New Testament for the guidance 
 of Christians, or it is not. This affirmation no one will 
 deny. When, therefore, one party asserts that a scheme 
 of church poHty is so laid down or enacted, and another 
 party maintains that ' no such scheme is set forth at all, 
 a pretty large amount of distrust and disaffection will in- 
 evitably arise, even though it should not come to an open 
 
38 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 rupture. Will it be asserted, or can it be imagined, that 
 Christian men who profess to be " born again," to have 
 " the eyes of their understanding enhghtened," and to be 
 led by the spirit of truth, with the Bible in their hands, 
 which is " a lamp unto their feet and a hght unto their 
 path"' — will err in such circumstances and on such a topic 
 unavoidably and innocently ? Is it no fault for Christ's 
 disciples to maintain, that their Master has ordained a 
 precise form of church order, if in fact He has not ? Is 
 it no transgression to maintain that He has not made any 
 such ordinance, if in fact He has ? Whoever decides this 
 point erroneously, must be regarded as culpable and 
 blameworthy in no small degree. When such a conflict 
 of judgment occurs in a company of Christians, the most 
 uneasy feelings will spring up ; which, if they do not lead 
 to an immediate separation, will probably gather strength 
 by being denied ventilation, and ultimately produce an 
 angry and violent rupture. 
 
 Lot us pursue this illustration a little further, and 
 assume for the sake of our argument, that there is a 
 divinely instituted form of church government and order 
 in the New Testament. Can it be imagined that this 
 heaven-ordained form is presented to us in the word of 
 God so vaguely and loosely, that really conscientious 
 readers of the law in which it is embodied may come to 
 conflicting conclusions as to its nature ? To hold such 
 an opinion is surely, and without much ambiguity or 
 hesitancy, to asperse the great Law-giver himself. When 
 Christian men plead holy Scripture for incompatible 
 schemes and doctrines, and add that they do it con- 
 scientiously, our reply is : " Let God be true and every 
 
AX ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 39 
 
 man a liar." It is better to hold that one party at least is 
 pleading conscience disingenuously, than to lose faith in 
 God, the creator of conscience and the author of the Bible. 
 
 We may take another case. One brother affirms that 
 for the civil government of a country to use means and 
 expend public money to instruct its subjects in religion is 
 a sin, and another brother affirms that it is a duty. To 
 believe that these two brethren have come to these con- 
 flicting conclusions by a strictly conscientious examination 
 of the question, is to abandon all faith both in conscience 
 and in truth. In this and every similar instance the alter- 
 native is before us, either to float down the stream with 
 the tide of infidelity and leave all the treasures of truth 
 behind, or boldly to charge one or other of the parties with 
 error and disingcnuousness, and as a consequence, with 
 the crime of schism. The practical inference from this 
 statement is invaluable ; truly godly and conscientious 
 men should leave no efi^ort untried, by prayer, diligence, 
 and humility, to avoid these collisions with each other. 
 To proclaim that these collisions involve no criminality on 
 either side, as is the fashion of our day, is a form of 
 infideUty that is laying waste the garden of the Lord.* 
 
 ' Some readers may be curious to know wliat are the author's 
 views on the controverted questions adduced in illustration. His 
 views on these questions are not of the slightest consequence in the 
 present argument. Let reviewers know, those of them at least 
 who will read thus far, (for one form of unconscieutiousncss is to 
 review books after skimming a few pages, and sometimes without 
 reading them at all), that tJie author does not maintain that those 
 who are opposed to him on any point under discussion are in error ; 
 but that cil/ier himself or his opponent is wrong and deficient in 
 sincerity on that point. 
 
40 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 It now appears, that when antagonistic views, such as 
 those that have been specified, arise among the associated 
 brethren of a Christian society, it is as impracticable to 
 debar heartburnings, ahenations, and open divisions, as 
 it is impossible to deny that there is error and guilt in 
 one or other of the two parties. The impracticability of 
 preventing the evil, and the impossibihty of doubting the 
 guilt, mutually explain each other. Accordingly, when- 
 ever an explicit contradiction arises among the members 
 of a church on a weighty matter of doctrine or duty, to 
 maintain that both parties may be conscientious and 
 innocent, and that Christian union is not thereby ipso 
 facto disturbed and broken, is to unsettle and overthrow 
 by a single stroke the veracity of reason and the authority 
 of revelation. For one or other of them is thereby 
 rejected ; and we knoio not which. If the Bible docs not 
 speak plainly enough for honest men to understand it, let 
 us forthwith recant our Protestantism ; if when the Bible 
 speaks plainly enough for honest men to understand it, 
 we have not intelligence enough to perceive its meaning, 
 let us exchange Popery for the most naked unbelief. It 
 is dangerous surely to let go our hold of reason in a 
 spasmodic effort to grasp a written revelation more firmly, 
 or to abandon a written revelation lest we make shipwreck 
 of reason ; but in the very same moment and by one act 
 to surrender them both, or let them slip, is an extrava- 
 gance reserved for this enlightened age. It is on this 
 perilous, this pernicious assumption, that the Protestant 
 Churches of our day are complacently reposing. 
 
 That the existence of our different denominations, based 
 though they be on contradictory judgments in regard to 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 41 
 
 matters of importance contained in the Word of God, does 
 not necessarily violate the visible unity of the Church, nor 
 impeach the sincere conscientiousness of either of the con- 
 flicting parties — is an opinion oracularly delivered and im- 
 plicitly received in modern Israel, from Dan to Beersheba. 
 Yet when it is closely examined, it does appear to be a 
 Pandora's box, filled, like the one of old, with the most in- 
 congruous evils — with the incertitude of free-thinkincr, and 
 the intolerance of Popery. For if the professed conscien- 
 tiousness of Protestants be trust-worthy, then the Protes- 
 tant Bible contradicts itself, and we might as well have 
 recourse to the papal decrees as to the Word of God. If 
 the Protestant Bible be self-consistent, Protestant conscien- 
 tiousness is a brittle thread, and religion is just what every 
 man pleases ; for though the Bible be the Word of God, 
 every one can make of it what he likes. Till Protestants 
 reform themselves in deeds, as well as words, so far as this 
 matter is concerned, they will nev^ entirely escape from 
 the defeat and the disgrace to which they have been so fre- 
 quently exposed, in fighting Popery with the weapons of 
 infidelity, and assailing infidelity with the shafts of Popery. 
 We profess to refute Popery by Scripture, and infidelity by 
 argument. But the fact is that the conflict with the first 
 actually hinges on the true interpretation of Scripture, and 
 with the latter on the inherent excellence of Scripture. 
 Our appeal to the Bible in both cases is invalidated by our 
 so-called conscientious coUisions. Consequently, wc can 
 oppose the papist only by a licentious right of private judg- 
 ment, and th(! infidel only by a purblind submission to 
 authority. 
 
 Our collisions of sentiment not only rend the Church, but 
 
42 
 
 SECTION 11. 
 
 prove the existence of an unfair use of conscience. To deny 
 both of these consequences is to set ourselves against both 
 reason and revelation. As to the latter, if Christian union 
 be not sorely damaged by the Protestant denominational 
 system, the K^ew Testament speaks only in enigmas. And 
 as to the former, we shall as soon believe two contradictory 
 propositions to be both true, as beheve two conflicting con- 
 sciences to be both honest so far as the matter in dispute is 
 concerned. It is our hope that a combination of two extra- 
 vagances like these will prove, from its very enormity, to be 
 more easily overthrown, than a single extravagance by itself. 
 
 It will not be difficult now to dispose of the third point, 
 namely, What are those matters on which a positive iden- 
 tity of opinion must be demanded as the basis of union? As 
 it is illusory to expect the same attainments, or an equal 
 amount of knowledge, in all men, the rule by which we 
 should be guided can be none other than this ; that every 
 member of the Church should believe and profess that 
 amount of Christian Truth, which his opportunities and 
 capacities have enabled him to acquire. If there be, in 
 this way, a certain amount, however small comparatively it 
 may be, of definite explicit truth possessed and avowed by 
 every brother, and, at the same time, the absence of every 
 error that could bring him into collision with the truths 
 embraced by his brethren who are further advanced than 
 himself, we gain the two pre-requisites to intimate and 
 enduring Christian fellowship. \Vc secure, firstly, a real 
 and substantial foundation, limited though it may be, on 
 which to build ; and, secondly, we exclude the chance of a 
 disruption or explosion, while the structure is being erected 
 or after it is finished. 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 43 
 
 These remarks imply that the Church has, and must 
 have, a creed. Is it not a fact that no Church has been 
 found without a creed, in one form or another ? Different 
 creeds have, of course, different values ; but if we get a 
 good creed, is it not better to have it reduced to writing, 
 than to leave it unrecorded '! 
 
 It also appears that the creed of the Church is likely to 
 embrace truths which every member of the Church has not 
 been able to grasp and appreciate. When a large majority 
 of the Christian community have obtained a clear and 
 vigorous hold of any truth, that truth may legitimately be 
 inserted in the common public creed or symbol. Inas- 
 much as this truth has become an item in the creed, no 
 member of the Church may be allowed openly to contra- 
 vene or deny it. If any one does so, his conduct must 
 become a matter of discipline, or may issue in schism. 
 While at the same time it is quite possible that not a few 
 " weak" brethren may be practically involved in the error 
 opposed to this truth, who have not had their attention 
 properly directed to it, nor enjoyed the means of illumina- 
 tion ; on whom, therefore, it would be unscriptural, autho- 
 ritatively and immediately to impose the Church's decision, 
 on pain of excommunication. Take any doctrine or duty 
 of Christianity, and in regard to it there might be found a 
 bold impugner of the truth, who ought to be summarily 
 excluded from fellowship ; while in regard to the same 
 point there might be found a " weak brother," in doubt 
 and uncertainty, who surely ought to be allowed time and 
 assistance and opportunity to examine, and judge and 
 approve. 
 
 Take, for example, the practice of slave-holding. That 
 
44 
 
 SECTION 11. 
 
 wilful covetous slave-holding is a crime, and ought to 
 exclude an individual from church communion, is now very 
 generally acknowledged, and may be regarded as an article 
 in the creed of Protestant Europe. But it is only within 
 a very recent date, that Christians became conscious of the 
 enormity of this sin. We must, therefore, beware of exer- 
 cising too stringent a discipline in dealing with it, as well 
 as of a laxity that would involve us in its criminality. On 
 the one hand, it seems to be perfectly legitimate and abso- 
 lutely necessary to hold no Christian fellowship with those 
 men now-a-days, who can come forward and unblushingly 
 justify and defend the right of man, Clu'istian man, to hold 
 property in his fellow-man. And, on the other hand, it 
 would be altogether unscriptural and suicidal to insist, that 
 no ignorant or benevolent holder of slaves, in a country 
 where slavery is law, can be a Christian, or a member of 
 the church. Such an assertion would unchristianize some 
 of the apostolical churches, and excommunicate the Father 
 of the Faithful himself. 
 
 It is as great an outrage upon conscience to conceal the 
 truth which we do know, as to profess the truth which we 
 do not know. The Church, undoubtedly, must enforce dis- 
 cipline upon those who openly gainsay and deny any Scrip- 
 tural truth whatsoever, else she would be guilty of hiding 
 the light ; but she must also exercise forbearance towards 
 the thoughtless and uninstructcd, else she would be asking 
 them to go where their conscience does not lead. 
 
 The Christian's creed, then, is not a stereotyped symbol, 
 fixed once and for ever ; it must be expected to receive ad- 
 ditions from time to time, as the Church " increases in 
 knowledge," and goes on unto perfection. As to the man- 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 45 
 
 ner of constructing her creed the, Church, perhaps, has yet 
 something to learn. It ought to be done in a business-hke 
 way ; it ought not to be woven with threads borrowed from 
 the web of an effete philosophy, nor hammered on the 
 anvil when red-hot from the fires of controversy. The 
 conclusions which shall be attained and established by calm 
 and prayerful study, and express the principles of a suc- 
 cessful ethical science, and of a Christian theology worthy 
 of the name — a theology as scriptural as it is philosophical, 
 and as philosophical as it is scriptural — a theology resting 
 on the two immovable pillars of an unexceptive meta- 
 physics and a complete exegesis, can alone be regarded as 
 the suitable items of a creed, which may challenge and se- 
 cure the adherence and approbation of a free united Catho- 
 lic Church. 
 
 III. 
 
 We come now to the third point involved in the great 
 problem of Christian union, namely, the limits of external 
 uniformity. As uniformity in every trifling detail is as 
 impossible as it is undesirable, so, on the other hand, 
 without some degree of outward conformity to a common 
 model, union can never be visible and manifest to the 
 world. What amount of external symmetry, then, is ne- 
 cessary to embody and preserve unbroken and unmarred 
 the spiritual fellowship of believers in Christ ? 
 
 The first principle on which Christian association is 
 founded may be expressed thus, — that the disciples who 
 live in the same neighbourhood, and have the moans, con- 
 sequently, of becoming personally acc^uaintod with each 
 
46 
 
 SECTION II, 
 
 other's character, should recognise each other as brethren. 
 Such a recognition, which is not only agreeable to Bible 
 precepts, but also the spontaneous expression of Christian 
 feeling, is quite impossible, in man's present condition, 
 without some sensible or bodily sign. The act of joining 
 together in social worship is not sufficient for this purpose ; 
 for the door of the pubhc sanctuary is open to all, and to 
 it the impenitent are specially invited, that they may hs- 
 ten to " the glad tidings of great joy." The proper and 
 peculiar badge of Christian discipleship undeniably con- 
 sists in sitting down together at the Lord's table, there 
 solemnly and affectionately to " remember Him," and pub- 
 licly " shew forth His death." 
 
 Since it is so plain that there cannot be visible and ob- 
 vious union at all among Christians in the same locality, 
 without some points of external uniformity, it appears to 
 be just as plain that a conjoint participation in the Lord's 
 Supper is one of the most essential of these points. Hence 
 it follows, that when any professing Christian does not ha- 
 bitually take his place at the common communion table 
 with his neighbouring brethren, whether this arises from 
 a refusal on his part to come, or from a prohibition on 
 their part forbidding him, we have a su^e indication of 
 schism, or of something worse. If either of the parties 
 become apostate, professing " another gospel which is not 
 another," denying some of the most characteristic and fun- 
 damental doctrines of Christianity, the other party will 
 feel constrained, and is bound to separate. This separa- 
 tion will be effected either by withdrawal or exclusion. 
 But this kind of separation is not schism, for one of the 
 parties concerned is no longer Christian. Again, if either 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 47 
 
 of the parties deny some secondary and important truth, 
 which the other holds, they will likely feel necessitated to 
 separate. This separation is schism, because the severed 
 parties are both Christian, and the guilt of the schism 
 must lie on the party who is in error. It is of great im- 
 portance to notice what has been often strangely forgotten, 
 that schism loses all its distinctive meaning, unless the two 
 parties concerned are both recognised as Christian. Hence, 
 allowing due weight to all that has been written and 
 preached about want of love being a cause and distinguish- 
 ing feature of schism, still the definition of schism, which does 
 not give prominence to contradictory judgments on subsi- 
 diary yet weighty matters as an essential clement thereof, 
 is defective and inaccurate. It is these contradictory 
 judgments alone that perpetuate, even when they do not 
 originate, separate communion tables in the same neigh- 
 bourhood. To speak of healing schism, then, while leaving 
 these conflicting opinions untouched and unreduced, which 
 is the most approved plan of our modern skill, is like at- 
 tempting to cure a wounded limb by leaving it alone, and 
 putting the plaster on a sound one. 
 
 It would appear, therefore, that whenever there arc two 
 communion tables set up near each other, for any other 
 reason than simply to accommodate the growing number 
 of Christians, either one of these tables is apostate and 
 antichristian, or the visible Church of the living God is 
 rent in twain. And if there be no sutHcient and just 
 cause for Christians separating from each other in the 
 most affecting and distinguishing act of their worship, we 
 can conceive of none to justify their separation in any of 
 their religious social services whatever. Those parties who 
 
48 
 
 SECTION II, 
 
 unite intelligently and cordially as Christian brethren] in 
 openly commemorating their Saviour's dying love, are 
 surely bound by every tie, as they should be always pre- 
 pared, to unite with each other in every other public act 
 of devotion, and in every effort of evangelistic philan- 
 thropy. Hence there cannot be a more manifest incon- 
 sistency, or a more painful impropriety, than for those 
 who have taken their places side by side at the board 
 covered with the symbols of their Redeemer's broken 
 body and shed blood, declining, under any pretext what- 
 ever, to associate together in prayer, or in praise, or in 
 any service whose design is to disciple their fellow-men, 
 whether at home or abroad. 
 
 Can any plea be urged to explain or vindicate the incon- 
 sistency now hinted at ? Two men profess the warmest 
 attachment and most devoted obedience to the Lord Jesus, 
 and the most affectionate conlidencc in each other, and 
 they both set their seal to this profession by a joint pubhc 
 and reverential participation in a heart-stirring communion 
 service ; — can it be imagined that these same two individuals 
 shall be disqualified or indisposed, shortly afterwards, 
 either to bend their knees in concert, imploring a divine 
 blessing on themselves and others, or to engage hand in 
 hand, and heart with heart, in any " work of faith or 
 labour of love?" Such disqualification or indisposition may, 
 indeed, spring from unholy passion, or conflicting senti- 
 ments, but will not be produced by the mere lapse of time 
 since the solemn communion day, or by removal to a dis- 
 tance from its hallowed scene. Whatever reason may be 
 adduced to palliate or justify the separation of Christians 
 from each other, while they are engaged in examining the 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 49 
 
 Scriptures, or choosing pastors, or designating mission- 
 aries, the same reasons, if they he scriptural or valid, will 
 have ten-fold greater force in vindicating the erection 
 of a separate inclosure for the observance of the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
 It has been our design to shew that nothing can justify 
 the institution of two communion boards in the same neigh- 
 bourhood, except a sufficient increase of numbers. And 
 when there are two eucharistic tables in one neighbour- 
 hood for any other reason whatever, either one of them is 
 not Christian, though it may be called so, or the Church 
 is in a state of schism. We have also seen that when there 
 is no reason to have separate communion services, there 
 can be none to separate in any other service of Christianity. 
 Hence our conclusion, that nothing can fairly warrant 
 Christian brethren who are living near each other, and 
 are not too many to form one congregation, in separating 
 from each other, with the view of instituting or perpetuat- 
 ing different societies or meetings for the service of God in 
 any of its manifold aspects. Consequently, whenever such 
 different societies or meetings are either originated or con- 
 tinued, the culpability of schism is surely incurred by one 
 or other of the parties. It may very easily happen, as we 
 behove it has happened very frequently, that both of the 
 divided parties arc involved in this guilt. If anything but 
 guilt in one of the parties could necessitate a separation, or 
 vindicate the innocence of the other party, when a sepa- 
 ration takes place, then visible union is not a duty to be 
 enforced on all Christians. And consequently the accom- 
 plishment of union must be regarded as an accident or a 
 miracle ; and schism itself is not a sin, but a misfortune. 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 SECTION 11. 
 
 Let it be once allowed, then, that in every instance in 
 which a party-wall is constructed to sever Christian 
 brethren in carrying out the precepts of their common 
 Master, both sides are not, and cannot be, free from 
 criminality. Is it not abundantly evident that the guilt 
 which can and should effect a severance and prevent them 
 from working or worshipping in company, will be felt, or 
 ought to be felt, most keenly and powerfully, when a joint 
 communion service is proposed ? Now, our denominational 
 differences either are, or are not, of such a nature in 
 themselves, as to necessitate and justify their respective 
 adherents in totally refraining from all mutual fellowship 
 at the eucharistic table of their common Lord. If these 
 differences are essentially and inherently of such a re- 
 pellent nature, then some of the recent and delightful 
 and auspicious movements that have taken place, avowedly 
 to promote union, are really of a retrograde character. 
 The warm-hearted brethren, who have left for a short 
 season their respective denominational inclosures to 
 witness for Christ, their one and only blaster, over the 
 symbols of His atoning death, have been grievously 
 mistaken. They have not effected a triumph, as they 
 fondly imagined, of evangelical love over party zeal, but 
 rather of weak sensibility over eternal truth. But then, 
 on the other hand, if our denominational peculiarities be 
 not intrinsically of such an import as to reprobate and 
 forbid all inter-denominational or mixed communion ser- 
 vices, neither are they such as legitimately to permit or 
 warrant anything like permanently separate societies or 
 distinct organisations at all. 
 
 In reply to this argument, many voices arc ready to 
 
A^" AXSTTER PROPOSED. 
 
 51 
 
 exclaim : Our denominational churches do exist, and it is 
 a most difficult and hazardous, if not an impossible, task 
 to take them all to pieces, with the view of reconstructing 
 the material into a new ecclesiastical framework of sup- 
 posed greater symmetry. It is amply sufficient for all 
 practical purposes, and for all sober-minded men, to cul- 
 tivate, so far as circumstances will allow, mutual sympathy 
 and occasional communion and co-operation. An inter- 
 denominational communion observance, now and again, 
 will accomphsh the object as well, if not better, than more 
 frequent fellowship. Its very rarity will attract consi- 
 derable attention, while all are left free to follow each his 
 own judgment in questions of subsidiary importance. 
 
 This representation proceeds on the supposition, that 
 there is no breach of union, no guilt of schism, in our 
 present denominational net-work of Christian societies ; 
 that even the most distant incorporation of the present 
 various sections of the Church is not to be expected, as 
 being in truth undesirable ; that matters in this respect 
 are now as well as they can be, or ought to be. For is it 
 not unchristian, nay absurd, to attempt to justify the 
 neglect of one duty by the performance of another ? If 
 our denominational piebald organisations involve no dis- 
 union, no fracture in the temple, no wound in the body, 
 no gash in the vine, then it is idle to think of vindicating 
 them. But if their character be really culpable, and their 
 consequences really evil, then to endeavour to extenuate 
 or excuse or defend tlieir continuance, on the gr«und that 
 their respective members cultivate intercourse with eacli 
 other, bv occasional comnmnion seasons, and bv cncacinfr 
 together in this and the other good work, is a sort of 
 
52 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 logic that deserves to be fully exposed and severely 
 reprobated. 
 
 We can well understand how an intelligent Christian 
 might occupy some such position as the following. Chris- 
 tianity is certainly disfigured by the prevalence of so 
 many sects, whose existence cannot be fully reconciled 
 with the genius of the gospel, or with the commands of 
 Christ, or with the wants of the age, or with the yearn- 
 ings of the regenerated soul. But I do not precisely see 
 on whom the guilt incurred lies, or by what practical 
 measures the evil is to be remedied. Meanwhile, therefore, 
 I can only endeavour to cultivate Christian fellowship 
 with brethren of other denominations, as circumstances 
 permit, and seek for further light on this momentous and 
 difficult question. 
 
 But this is not the ground which is generally taken by 
 the leading Protestants of the day. It is affirmed, over 
 and over again, that our denominational patch-work in 
 itself is not an illustration of schism, or a number of rents 
 in the unity of the Church ; that schism, scripturally 
 understood, is not developed except in the unholy feelings 
 which may arise in consequence of, or in connection with, 
 our ecclesiastical divisions. It is maintained that the 
 Church has no need of further light on the principles of 
 Cliristian union ; that every one should be a staunch 
 adherent of his own party, reserving the residue of his 
 love to bo divided among all the other parties ; that this 
 is, practically at least, the beau ideal of Bible unity for 
 the present age ; and that if something better be in store 
 for our descendants, something like an universal incor- 
 poration, or a Catholic Church, it will be brought about 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSKD. 
 
 53 
 
 by a miracle of grace, or, at all events, by some means of 
 which we have not, and indeed cannot now have, the most 
 distant conception. 
 
 This opinion is highly conservative, and thus approves 
 itself to many. It has a savour of modesty, to recommend 
 it to others ; we know not what great things the Lord 
 will yet do for his people ! It answers the purpose of an 
 extinguisher, to be placed upon every spark of rash 
 innovation ; and is a bridle in the mouth of every one 
 that is given to change, and that would make the allowed 
 imperfections of the Church a pretext for agitating some 
 sinister scheme. But, at the same time, this opinion is an 
 effectual barrier to all progress and improvement ; so long 
 as it is held by the community, our ecclesiastical condition 
 is a fixture, having its faults and blemishes stereotyped, 
 like hieroglyphics graven in the rock forever. It is, 
 therefore, of the very utmost importance to inquire, 
 whether the above view of the case is indeed the richt 
 one. The question is simple, as it is weighty. 
 
 lias our denominational system of ecclesiastical pad- 
 docks, of fragmentary churches, of sects whose name is 
 " Legion," no faults or blemishes, — no heavy faults, no 
 malignant blemish ? Does it involve no serious error, no 
 pernicious sin ? Has it not sprung from, and does it not 
 still nurse, many unchristian feelings ? 
 
 It is not our immediate design to reason out this point 
 fully. But we may ask the individual, who would answer 
 these questions directly and unequivocally in the negative, 
 is there any limit to these denominational divisions and 
 sub-divisions ? May the Church of Christ \w severed in 
 its outward form till it become a confused heap, appar- 
 
54 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 ently at least, of fragments and fractions, and chippings 
 and clippings, and all the while not lose its true unity ? 
 Or we might request such a one to explain those texts of 
 Scripture which inculcate Christian concord, and which 
 are in everybody's mouth. Or we might demand a re- 
 futation of the principle which we have already endea- 
 voured to estabUsh, namely, that if there be no valid 
 cause to prevent two Christians from recognising each 
 other's discipleship at the communion ordinance, there is 
 none such to keep them separate in any act of worship or 
 any effort of love. 
 
 Assuming, then, that the Church of the Uving God is 
 rent by our denominational sections, that the unity of the 
 faithful is broken by our canonical castes and clans, that 
 " the pillar and ground of the truth" is marred and shaken 
 by our ecclesiastical cracks and splinters, to attempt to 
 buttress a rotten falling system, or to extenuate the errors 
 and guilt involved in supporting such a system, on any 
 plea whatever, is any thing but genuine wisdom or single- 
 eyed Christianity. 
 
 An examination of the pleas that have been used will 
 fully expose their futility. Is it said, we know not what 
 to do ? This plea is of no force to vindicate what is bad, 
 or to uphold what is unscriptural ; it should be used to 
 stimulate to true humiliation, earnest prayer, and diligent 
 inquiry. When man is in an extremity and at his wit's 
 end, to sit down in the listless contentment of despondency 
 is characteristic of the spell-bound apathy of the unbeliever; 
 it savours not of the freedom and power of the Gospel. If 
 the crew of a vessel be threatened with shipwreck, to aban- 
 don all thought and action, and resign themselves to an 
 
AX AXSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 55 
 
 ignoble and sluggish patience, betrays the cowardly temper 
 of fatalism. They who know the heaven-bestowed energy 
 Avithin them, and who trust in an over-ruling Providence, 
 will cease to act, and cease to hope, only with their latest 
 dying breath. If our denominational organisations be un- 
 scriptural and schismatical, they are destined to perish, and 
 will be, ere long, shipwrecked among the breakers a-head 
 of us. Knowing this, to pretend that nothing can be done, 
 because we have not, immediately, a clear perception of 
 what should be attempted, is unmanly folly and unchristian 
 suUenness. Such a sentiment comes not from a heart that 
 appreciates and trusts the promise of our Lord, " To him 
 that believeth all things are possible." 
 
 Another plea is this, that whatever disadvantages or im- 
 perfections may exist in our present divided state, they are, 
 or might be, counterbalanced and obviated by the absence 
 of all schismatical feehng, and by occasional co-operation 
 and intercommunion. We could scarcely have believed it 
 possible, that thoughtful Christian men would have used 
 such an argument as this, unless we had heard it, and read 
 it, times without number. Is this not identically the old 
 and oft-explodcd fallacy of Xaaman, the Syrian, (2 Kings 
 V. 18), on which so many Christian homilies have been 
 penned and preached ? The world knows, if the Church 
 does not, that the performance of some duties cannot var- 
 nish or whitewash the stain ijicurrcd by the neglect of 
 other duties. 
 
 There is, besides, a peculiar aggravation in the worthless- 
 ness of the plea as used in the present instance. When 
 the fact of inter-denominational communion in the ordi- 
 nance of the Supper, more or less frctjuent, is urged in 
 
56 
 
 SECTION ir. 
 
 extenuation of our sectarian fabrics, and as a sufficient 
 evidence of our Christian union, the inconsistency is no 
 less painful than palpable. There is something like infatua- 
 tion manifested, when men can plead in their defence the 
 very circumstance which most emphatically condemns them. 
 Will a brother venture to exculpate or palliate his habitual 
 acts of injustice and unkindness towards his own mother's 
 son, under the pretence that he is his brother, and that he 
 loves him ? Just so is it with the Christian, who would 
 justify his denominational palisades which keep him at an 
 habitual distance from his ransomed and renewed brother, 
 by the allegation that now and again he embraces him as a 
 brother over the memorials of Emmanuel's sufferings. Is 
 it not the very fact that they are brethren, — companions 
 once in the same woeful ruin, sharers in the same won- 
 drous mercy, emancipated at the same nameless price, 
 sanctified by the same Divine Spirit, expectants of the 
 same glory — all of which endearing intimacy is symbolized 
 and sealed and published, by taking their places together 
 at the table of their Lord ; — is it not all this that renders 
 our denominational fences and inclosuros so unintelligible, 
 so unseemly, such a scandal to our religion, such a stum- 
 bling-block to the infidel, such an impediment to evange- 
 listic work, such a restraint upon prayer, such a grief to 
 the Spirit of all grace ? Is it conceivable, then, that a 
 stinted acknowledgment and partial obedience to these 
 very considerations which shew the odiousness and guilt 
 and pernicious tendency of our sectarianism, should be 
 bi'ought forward, so frequently and confidently, to gloss it 
 over, and prop it up? 
 
 There is yet a more startling infatuation in the plea. 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 57 
 
 For who wishes all these denominational fences to be pre- 
 served ? Every one, in wishing his own perpetuated, 
 wishes those of his neighbour to be burned. There is a 
 vast majority of Christians opposed to each one of our 
 denominational peculiarities, taken by itself. To vote for 
 the continuance of them all in the slump, therefore, is 
 nothing but a disingenuous collusion. We would take the 
 very extremity of our evil as an omen for good. The folly 
 of our age is surely near its culminating point, and a time 
 of repentance near ; for can Christians desire to perpetuate 
 an ecclesiastical system, every separate item of which is so 
 clearly and emphatically condemned by an overwhelming 
 majority of the community ? Will their ablest leaders con- 
 tinue to plead in support of that system no better argu- 
 ment than this : We admit it to be a partial, and uphold 
 it because it is not a complete, barrier, to the expression of 
 brotherly love ? 
 
 IV. 
 
 Hitherto our remarks have been made chiefly in refe- 
 rence to the case of one congregation or assembly of Chris- 
 tians. And we have endeavoured to shew how division or 
 schism may be prevented from arising among its members, 
 by practical attention to the following i)rinciplcs. 1. The 
 really conscientious exercise of the right of private judg- 
 ment, being the only way in which men can attain an 
 intelligent conviction of the truth, will never lead them to 
 conflicting conclusions. 2. There arc matters of probabi- 
 lity, expressed in propositions which cannot be aflirmed 
 confidently to be either true or erroneous, on which diver- 
 sity of opinion, as distinguished from contradiction, may 
 
58 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 legitimately and innocuously arise. 3. When a contradic- 
 tion occurs on any matter of truth and error, or right and 
 wrong, a schism, more or less manifest, is inevitable, the 
 guilt of which rests on those who are in error, because they 
 are in error through a lack of conscientiousness. 4. No 
 member of the Church should be required to profess more 
 truth than what he clearly comprehends, and yet he must 
 be free from such decided and erroneous judgments as con- 
 tradict the truths held by his better informed brethren. 
 5. When a congregation is formed on the above princi- 
 ples, a joint visible participation in the ordinance of the 
 Lord's Supper is the proper public mark of unity, and 
 is the pledge of the most unrestricted social fellowship 
 in every act of worship, and in every effort of benevo- 
 lence. 
 
 Supposing, now, that a considerable number of such 
 Christian congregations are formed, the question remains, 
 What relations do they sustain to each other, so as to 
 secure their visible union without encroachino- on each 
 other's liberties and rights? The problem is before us, 
 How far churches can be each independent or equal, and 
 at the same time all of them associated together ? The 
 following principle will afford considerable facility in 
 attempting to solve this question ; namely, Avhatevcr rela- 
 tion an individual Christian bears to his brethren in the 
 same congregation, a similar relation precisely will a single 
 congregation bear to the other congregations near it. 
 
 Hence if there is to be a visible union of congregations, 
 as well as a visible union of individual Christians, there 
 must be an association of congregational ofHcc-boarers cor- 
 responding to the association of individual believers in the 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 59 
 
 primary congregation. In this case it must be an associa- 
 tion of office-bearers, or representatives, because of the im- 
 possibility of all the members of the churches meeting 
 together. If this primary representative assembly, as 
 well as any others which it may be found desirable to 
 institute, be constructed and conducted on the principles 
 which have been already set forth, we shall have the 
 same security for visible union and internal harmony, 
 combined with individual freedom of thought and action, 
 in the constituents of such an assembly, as we have seen 
 is guaranteed by these principles in each represented 
 congregation. 
 
 As the size of a primary congregation is determined 
 solely by the circumstances of its locality, in like manner 
 should the size of a representative assembly be settled by 
 the circumstances of the country in which the represented 
 churches are scattered. And as, according to the prin- 
 ciples which have been enunciated, the authority of a ma- 
 jority of the congregation, or of its office-bearers, will 
 rightfully extend, or be felt to be needed, only in mat- 
 ters of probabihty, involving affairs of taste, propriety, 
 economy, convenience, and the like, such also will be the 
 limits of the authority of a majority of the representa- 
 tive assembly. For on all other and more important 
 topics, unanimity, or at least the absence of contradiction 
 and opposition, is presupposed. When the exercise of 
 authority is supported by the consentaneous judgment of 
 all the members of the church or churches, it can occasion 
 no difficulty. Moreover, it is only some matters of pro- 
 bability, or those which plainly concern tho business of 
 the congregation, as a congregation, or tho business of tho 
 
60 
 
 SECTION' II. 
 
 representatiye assembly, as such, on which the authority 
 of a majority of the one or the other should be exercised. 
 
 It has been said, " no church has a right to interfere 
 with the internal concei'ns of another church." There is 
 no more, and just as much truth in this statement as in 
 the following one : no individual Clirlstian has a right to 
 interfere with the private concerns of another Christian. 
 To whatever extent each of us should be his brother's 
 keeper, to the same extent should each congregation be 
 the guardian of a neighbouring congregation. We heartily 
 respond to the sentiment, that " the spiritual affinity of 
 sister churches is such that, unless forcibly prevented, 
 they cannot choose but seek each other's welfare, honour, 
 peace, and prosperity." If there be danger to liberty 
 from the representative assembly overstepping its limits, 
 there are also dangers from the want of a visible and 
 recognised union of churches, such as, " that of silent 
 ahenation — allowing grounds of dissatisfaction to remain 
 unexplained — taking no pains to clear up alleged matters 
 of complaint, but secretly indulging a grudge, or a dislike, 
 manifested only by a cessation of intercourse. This evil 
 may be found in both parties, and then, as the unbrotherly 
 feeling is reciprocal, there will be neither the offer of kind 
 offices on the one hand, nor the rejection of them on the 
 other, but a state of cold unapproachable aversion." This 
 is just as plain as that, though a congregation's authority 
 is liable to be abused, the exercise of such authority is 
 absolutely necessary to its existence and prosperity .as a 
 church. This inference, then, cannot be gainsaid, '•' that 
 whatever evil connnitted l)y a member of a church would 
 warrant bis exclusion from its fellowship, a similar evil, 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 61 
 
 committed by a church or churches, would equally involve 
 the forfeiture of the right to it, or them, to the confidence 
 and fellowship of other churches." 
 
 We here append, in the fonn of a note, an extract from Guizot's 
 History of Civilization, translated by Hazlitt. Bogue, London, 
 1846, vol. ii. p. 20-23. The sentiments are remarkably well ex- 
 pressed, and strikingly confirm the preceding views : — " A common 
 conviction, that is to say, an identical idea acknowledged and re- 
 ceived as true, is the fundamental basis, the secret tie of human 
 society. One may stop at the most confined and the most simple 
 association, or elevate oneself to the most complicated and exten- 
 sive ; we may examine what passes between three or four bar- 
 barians united for a hunting expedition, or in the midst of an assem- 
 bly convoked to treat of the affairs of a great nation ; everywhere, 
 and under all circumstances, it is in the adhesion of individuals to 
 the same thought, that the fact of association essentially consists : 
 so long as they do not comprehend one another, they are mere 
 isolated beings, placed by the side of one another, but not holding 
 together. A similar sentiment and doctrine, whatever may be its 
 nature and object, is the fii'st condition of the social state ; it is in 
 the midst of trutii only, or in what they take for truth, that men be- 
 come united, and that society takes birth. And in this sense, a 
 modern philosopher (M. I'Abbe de Lamennais) was right in saying, 
 that there is no society except between intellects ; that society only 
 subsists upon points and within limits, where the union of intellects 
 is accomplished ; that where intellects have nothing in common, 
 there is no society ; in other words, that intellectual society is the 
 only society, the necessary element, .and, as it were, the foundation 
 of all external and visible associations. 
 
 " Now, the essential element of truth, and precisely what is, in 
 fact, the social tie, par excellence, is unity. Truth is one, therefon?, 
 the men who have acknowledged and accepted it are united ; a union 
 which has in it nothing accidental or arbitrary, for truth nrither de- 
 pends upon the accidents of things, nor upon tiu; unci^rtainties of 
 men ; nothing transitory, for truth is eternal ; nothing confined, for 
 
62 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 truth is complete and infinite. As of truth, then, unity will be the 
 essential characteristic of the society which shall have trutli alone 
 for its object ; that is to say, of the purely religious society. There 
 are not, there cannot be, two spuitual societies ; it is, from its nature, 
 sole and universal. 
 
 " But imity of truth in itself is not sufficient for the rise and sub- 
 sistence of the religious society ; it is necessary that it should be 
 evident to minds, and that it should rally them. Union of minds, 
 that is to say, spiritual society, is the consequence of the unity of 
 truth ; but so long as this union is not accomplished, the principle 
 ■wants its consequence, spiritual society does not exist. Now, upon 
 what condition do minds unite themselves in truth ? Upon this 
 condition, that they acknowledge and accept its empire ; whoever 
 obeys truth without knowing it, from ignorance and not from light, 
 or whoever, having knowledge of the truth, refuses to obey it, is not 
 part of the spiritual society ; none form a part of it if they do not see 
 nor wish it ; it excludes, on one side, ignorance, and on the other 
 constraint ; it exacts from all its members an intimate and personal 
 adhesion of intellect and liberty. 
 
 " Many centuries were necessary to bring out the true nature of 
 spiritual society, its complete nature, and the harmony of its ele- 
 ments. It was long the general error to believe that the empire of 
 truth — that is, of universal reason — could be established without the 
 fi"ee exercise of individual reason, without respect to its right. Thus 
 they misunderstood spiritual society, even in announchig it ; they 
 exposed it to the risk of being but a lying illusion. The employ- 
 ment of force does far more than stain it, it kills it , in order that its 
 unity may be not only pure but real, it is necessary that it shine fortli 
 in the midst of the development of all intellects and all liberties. 
 
 " It will be the honour of our times to have penetrated into the 
 essence of spiritual society much further than the world has ever yet 
 done, to have much more completely known and asserted it. We 
 now know that it lias two conditions: 1st, the presence of a general 
 and absolute truth, a rule of doctrines and human action ; 2d, the 
 full development of all intellects, in face of this truth, and the free 
 adhesion of souls to its power. Let not one of these conditions ever 
 
AN ANSWER PROPOSED. 
 
 63 
 
 allow us to forget the other ; let not the idea of the liberty of minds 
 weaken in iis that of the unity of spiritual society : because indivi- 
 dual convictions should be clear and free, let us not be tempted to 
 believe that there is no universal truth which has a right to com- 
 mand ; in respecting the reason of each, do not lose sight of the one 
 and sovereign reason. The history of human society has hitherto 
 passed alternately from one to the other of these dispositions. At 
 certain epochs men have been peculiarly struck with the nature and 
 rights of this universal and absolute truth, the legitimate master to 
 whose reign they aspired : they flattered themselves that at last 
 they had encountered and possessed it, and in their foolish confi- 
 dence they accorded to it the absolute power which soon and inevit- 
 ably engendered tyranny. After having long submitted to and 
 respected it, man recognised it ; he saw the name and rights of 
 truth usurped by iguorant or pen erse force ; then he was more 
 irritated with the idols than occupied with God himself ; the unity 
 of divine reason, if I may be permitted to use the exjiression, was 
 no longer the object of his habitual contemplation ; he above all 
 thought upon the right of human reason in the relations of men, 
 and often finished by forgetting, that if it is free, the will (reason ?) 
 is not arbitrary ; that if there is a right of inquiry for individual 
 reason, it is still subordinate to that general reason which serves for 
 the measure and touchstone of all minds. And even as in the first 
 instance there was tyranny, so in the second there was anarchy ; 
 that is to say, the absence of general and powerful belief, the absence 
 of principles in the soul, and of union in society. One may hope 
 that our time is called to avoid each of these sand-banks ; for it is, 
 if I may so speak, in ])ossession of the chart which points them both 
 out. Tlu! dev(^lopnu'nt of civilization must be accomi)lislied here- 
 after, under the simultaneous influence of a twofold reverence ; uni- 
 versal reason will be sought as the supreme law, the final aim ; 
 individual reason will be free, and invoked to develop itself as the 
 best means of attaining tlie universal reason. And if si)i)itual 
 .society be never complete and pure — the imperfection of humanity 
 will not allow it — at least its unity will no longer run tlie risk of 
 being factitious and fraudulenf." 
 
64 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 Imperfect though humanity may be, if there be truth in 
 the word of God, or efficacy in Emmanuel's blood, or 
 power in the Spirit of all grace, spiritual society, even on 
 earth, may become so complete and pure, that the mem- 
 bers of the Christian Church shall be one, substantially 
 and visibly, one in their views of truth and duty, and con- 
 sequently one in all their works of faith and labours of 
 love, so that the world shall be constrained to admire 
 their harmony, and be persuaded to adore and serve their 
 Lord. 
 
PART II. 
 A VINDICATION. 
 
There were three acquaintances who had often talked casually 
 about one of the topics of the day. Ilaviug resolved to hold a more 
 formal debate, they united in requesting a common friend to sit as 
 arbiter. In the following report of the proceedings the different 
 parties have received names, by which the reader will be able to see 
 what are their general opinions and mental tendencies. The name 
 of Melancthon, who was born in 1-195, is used as the representative 
 of Evangelical Protestants in the present age. Lord Hekbert was 
 born in 1581, and his name serves as an index to the arguments of 
 scepticism. The objections and appeals urged on behalf of the 
 Papal Church are preceded by the name of Bellarmine, who re- 
 ceived a cardinal's hat in 1599. Theophilus, as a lover of God, 
 endeavom's to discriminate between the true and the false while the 
 discussion proceeds. 
 
DIALOGUE I. 
 
 CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 I. — Conflicting Convictions and Liberty of Conscience. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Before one body of Christians can be 
 justly charged with being schismatical in relation to 
 another, it must be shewn that they have been guilty of 
 a breach of charity, which, it should never be forgotten, 
 is schism. But a breach of charity cannot consist in 
 Christians peaceably declining to adopt the opinions of 
 men falhble as themselves, against their solemn convic- 
 tions — the result of devout examination of the word of 
 God, and of any evidence of its meaning that is within 
 their reach." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Have the goodness, then, to inform me, 
 if the unbeliever in Christianity is culpable of a breach of 
 any law, human or divine, in " peaceably declining to 
 adopt the opinions of men fallible as himself, against his 
 solemn convictions ?" 
 
 3Ielancthon. — The unbeliever rejects the truth, on the 
 reception of which the union of the Church is based. 
 '' The true unity of the Church reigns through the 
 
 ' Scliism, as opposed to the Unity of the Clmrcli. Loiulon : 1839. 
 A Prize Essay, by Ilcv. Trof. lioppus, p. 3U'J. 
 
68 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 medium of the Truth, received by faith." i " In the first 
 churches, the truth was one and the same to all be- 
 lievers."^ " Both love and holiness flowed from obeying 
 the truth." ^ " Truth was the animating principle of 
 love ; but error proved to love as the touch of a tor- 
 pedo."* 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Let me ask you this question : Does a 
 man's " solemn convictions" ever mislead him ? If you 
 .say no ; then the opinion or judgment of a "fallible" 
 man, which is based upon such a conviction, is in fact 
 infallible ; and the supposition that the solemn convictions 
 of one man may be directly hostile to those of another 
 man, cannot by any possibility be realised. Again, if you 
 admit that a man's solemn convictions may sometimes be 
 erroneous, then the truth on which the unity of the 
 Church is built is a mere quicksand, unless you can 
 distinguish between the solemn convictions which are 
 treacherous and those which are not, or unless you attain 
 that truth in some other way than by the use of your 
 intelligence. Tell me, now, may the solemn convictions 
 of one man be directly opposed to those of another 
 man ? 
 
 Melancthon. — Of course they may. " Episcopacy has 
 her list of sufferers for conscience sake, as well as non- 
 conformity. The candid Dissenter must acknowledge 
 that a man may be a ' Churchman, ' without being a 
 ' Vicar of Bi-ay ;' and that multitudes have given the 
 strongest evidence of their sincerty, by preferring 'loss' 
 to change of profession. And there arc those who peace- 
 ably hold the contrary sentiments, with equal evidence of 
 ' Schism, p. 185. ' lb. p. 188. ' lb. p. 189. « lb. p. I'JO. 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 69 
 
 honest purpose ; who, without wishing to interfere with 
 the rehgious freedom of other Christians, calmly and 
 solemnly declare their own belief, that national religious 
 establishments are a corruption of the Church,"' and so 
 forth. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — You admit, I suppose, that these con- 
 tradictory judgments cannot both be true. You confess, 
 then, that a man may take what is erroneous to be true, 
 at the very time that he is " giving the strongest evidence 
 of sincerity," and " of honest purpose," and " while calmly 
 and solemnly declaring his belief." What confidence, 
 then, can such a man have that he has found the truth on 
 any question ? For aught that you can allege either to 
 convince yourself or me to the contrary, your solemn 
 conviction, as to the truth on which the unity of the 
 Church rests, may be delusive. Why, therefore, should 
 you not be contented " calmly and solemnly to declare 
 your own belief," " without wishing to interfere with the 
 religious freedom of other" men, such as ourselves ? 
 
 Melancthon. — We have no wish to interfere with the 
 religious freedom of any man. " Who is the true sectarian, 
 but he who denounces all as sectaries, who are not of his 
 sect? Who is the 'fanatic,^ if not he who sees fanaticism 
 everywhere but in his own party spirit ? Who is the 
 ' enthusiast,' but the man who makes a god of externals 
 and non-essentials, while he finds ' enthusiasm' in those 
 only who are in earnest respecting the grand objects of 
 religion ? Where is the ' schismatic, ' if not among those 
 who term everything schism which docs not accord with 
 their own opinions, who are ready to reproach as ' pha- 
 ' Schism, p. 340. 
 
70 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 risees,' or ' hypocrites,' those whose conscientious scruples 
 they know not how to appreciate?'" 
 
 Lord Herbert. — To be " in earnest respecting the 
 grand objects of religion," is the most fruitless and 
 harassing toil, if " pious and sincere men may hold schis- 
 matical opinions, and pursue a conduct which tends to 
 foster schism,"^ that is, if a man may conscientiously adopt 
 schismatical or erroneous sentiments ; and if the basis of 
 Christian union be, that when Christian contradicts Chris- 
 tian on matters of so much moment as to cause a separa- 
 tion, they " shall do justice to each other, as to the feel- 
 ings and motives with which they maintain their respective 
 peculiarities,"^ by admitting as " much high integrity of 
 purpose'"^ on the one side as on the other. Having thus 
 conceded that your sincerity and conscientiousness may 
 deceive you, you have no means left of attaining a certain 
 knowledge of the truth ; and having thus eliminated from 
 conscientiousness — not a pretended, but a genuine con- 
 scientiousness — everything like authority and rectitude, 
 you arc the very party who " know not how to appreciate" 
 another man's " conscientious scruples ;" and you have no 
 resource left but the miserable subtcrfuo'c of " denouncina: 
 all as sectaries who arc not of your sect," and " terming 
 everything schism," or heresy, or unbelief, " which docs 
 not accord with your own opinion." 
 
 Bellarmine. — It is notorious that Protestant is con- 
 tinually contradicting and opposing Protestant, not only 
 on the important points which lead to the institution of 
 diflfcrent denominations, but on other weighty matters 
 also. When in justification of their heresy in leaving the 
 ' Schism, p. 341. ^ lb. p. 445. = lb. p. 446. ^ lb. p. 447. 
 
CON'CORD .VSD CONSCIEXTIOUSXESS. 
 
 71 
 
 true Church, they plead the right of private judgment, 
 this plea manifests its worthless infidel character in the 
 way just pointed out. 
 
 Melancthon. — We, as Chi'istians, do not claim conscience 
 entirely to ourselves ; we allow it both to the unbeliever 
 and the Romanist. In " Romish ceremonies and errors," 
 " conscience, however erroneous, is concerned," and these 
 ceremonies and errors, therefore, " taken as a whole, are 
 matter of remonstrance, rather than of contempt."' 
 
 Bellarmine. — When two Protestants come to conflicting 
 opinions, the conscience of one of them is, of course, 
 erroneous. The infidel has, I suppose you admit, a con- 
 science too, and ife is erroneous. Our conscience, — you do 
 not deny its existence, but it is erroneous. Then, pray, 
 how am I to know, or how do you know, the difference 
 between an erroneous and a truthful conscience ? Your 
 conscience is erroneous, and yet you think it truthful. 
 My conscience is erroneous, and yet / think it truthful. 
 Our friend's conscience here is erroneous, and yet he 
 thinks it truthful. Verily, this right of private judgment, 
 as you have now explained it, is like a deceitful morass, 
 and the Bible, when intrusted to it, becomes " a nose of 
 wax," " a shoe that will fit any foot." My friend, it is 
 full time you came back to the bosom of the infallible 
 Church. 
 
 Theophilus. — That would be to exchange one evil for a 
 worse. IIow do you know, without the exercise of reason 
 and conscience, that your Church is infallible? Conscience 
 and reason, if fairly and legitimately consulted, never 
 deceive men. Possession of the truth is a test of xinceritt/: 
 ' ScUiaiii, p. 336. 
 
72 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 sincerity is the means, and the only means, of attaining 
 truth. In professing any truth, it is iinphed that he who 
 denies it is insincere ; in this sense, that he has not 
 examined the matter in hand with due candour and 
 dihgence. As it is utterly impossible for the Christian 
 and the infidel, as well as for the Protestant and the 
 Romanist, to admit that each other is equally and 
 thoroughly sincere in adopting their respective and con- 
 flicting tenets, so is it completely unreasonable and suicidal 
 for Protestant schismatics to talk of each other, as if in 
 taking opposite sides on important questions, they were 
 both equally honest and honourable, either in the sight of 
 man or of God. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Is not hberty of conscience a funda- 
 mental ?" ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Truly it is. But why do you claim it 
 so loudly and frequently for yourselves, — that is, Hberty 
 to contradict each other ; and so sternly refuse it to us, 
 to contradict you all ? 
 
 Melancthon. — We yield to you the same liberty of con- 
 science which we demand for ourselves, namely, that no 
 man be exposed to punishment or loss on account of his 
 opinions, whatever they may be. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Loss of goods or pain in the flesh were 
 nought, compared with the charge of guilt which you pre- 
 fer against mc on the ground of my rejection of Chris- 
 tianity. Now, I do not deny that when a man is proved 
 to be a criminal, it is perfectly right to speak of him as 
 such ; but what I wish to know is this : IIow can you 
 s])eak of infidel and llonianist errors as culpable, and of 
 * Schism, p. 379. 
 
CONCORD ANT) COXSCIEXTIOUSyESS, 
 
 73 
 
 Protestant errors as innocent ? If " liberty of conscience " 
 can excuse the error of setting one Scripture against 
 another, why may it not excuse my alleged error in set- 
 ting reason against Scripture ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " There are only two cases in which the 
 right of private judgment, as to rehgious opinions, can be 
 superseded. One is, when there is either an express reve- 
 lation from God as to the point in question, or a precedent 
 so evidently intended (all circumstances taken into the 
 account) to have the force of divine law, that it becomes 
 virtually a revelation. The other case is, when God has 
 delegated authority to man to decide. In the former, there 
 is no room for private judgment, because the will of God, 
 when known, is final." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Yes ; but you maintain, if I mistake not, 
 that two men may innocently contradict each other as to 
 what God says, and other two cannot innocently contra- 
 dict each other as to when God speaks. Admitting that 
 " the will of God, when known, is final," how are we to 
 know that it is known ? Allowing that an express reve- 
 lation from God " can settle any question, what is to be 
 done when I claim liberty of conscience to deny the Bible 
 to be " an express revelation from God," and when you 
 and your neiglibour claim liberty of conscience in extract- 
 ing conflicting commands from what you both call an 
 " express revelation ?" 
 
 Melanctlion. — Protestant Christians do not always, and 
 never should, draw contradictory precepts from the Word 
 of God. " If individuals (and there have been many), 
 eminent for piety, learning, and talents — whose motives 
 ' ScUiiin, pp. 101, 1U2. 
 
74 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 appear to have been as pure as can actuate man, and 
 who have shown the greatest anxiety to discover truth — 
 have, nevertheless, formed different conclusions respecting 
 church government, does not this very circumstance, even 
 in itself, amount to a considerable presumption that, ac- 
 count for it as we may, the Scriptures are less explicit on 
 this point, than on those respecting which these men have 
 been agreed ?" ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Instead of answering ray question, or 
 removing the difficulty which I have pointed out, you only 
 plunge yourself by these remarks into deeper perplexity. 
 You infer from the fact that the most honourable men 
 have " formed different conclusions" on a certain point, 
 that, therefore, the " Scriptures are less explicit " on it 
 than on the other points on which these same men are 
 agreed. In the first place, this inference is not allowed 
 by the men themselves to whom reference is made. There 
 have been many most eminent and respected doctors in 
 the Christian Church, who have maintained that the Bible 
 speaks as explicitly and distinctly, though not so copiously, 
 on the matter of church government, as on that of salva- 
 tion. In the second place, admitting that there is " a 
 considerable presumption," when respectable men contra- 
 dict each other, that the truth on the contradicted point is 
 really not known, still this presumption is nought against 
 a dogmatic assertion on their part, that on that point the 
 truth is known. Their assertion must be examined and 
 refuted, to show that the truth is not known, unless you 
 take refuge in the sceptical stronghold, that the very 
 existence of conflicting sentiments proves truth to be un- 
 ' Schism, p. 57. 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 75 
 
 attainable. Your presumption, then, is wortliless, unless, 
 on the one hand, you make common cause with us ; or, 
 on the other hand, undertake to evince, in every instance, 
 that when good and learned men do contradict each other, 
 the controverted point is not clearly or surely known to 
 either party. To choose the second side of the alternative, 
 and undertake such a task, is surely not to be preferred 
 to the short and safe run from every difficulty which we 
 have discovered, by asking, What is truth ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " When any matter that may be in ques- 
 tion, relating to religious practice, is regarded by any 
 individual concerned, as a direct affair of conscience, to 
 conscience alone must be the appeal. For (as an example 
 of my meaning, I may refer to the power sometimes 
 claimed for civil rulers) though a power absolutely discre- 
 tionary, to decree the conditions of visible unity in the 
 Christian Church, be not contended for, it is evident the 
 proviso that nothing is to be commanded which is repug- 
 nant to the Word of God, is of little avail, unless each 
 individual, who is to be bound by the decisions of the 
 magistrate, is himself allowed to form his own judgment — 
 whether, or not, these decisions are in harmony with the 
 divine record. Everything short of this amounts to an 
 infringement of that private judgment and conviction 
 which are necessary to entire moral accountablcness. 
 AVithout this liberty, all that remains is blind submission 
 to an infallibility like that claimed by the Church of 
 Eome." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert — Tlio principle you have now laid down 
 will land you in the scheme of a thousand petty infallible 
 * Schism, p. 174. 
 
76 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 churches, or send you afloat on the ocean of scepticism. 
 Your assumption is this, •' when any matter that may be 
 in question, relating to rehgious practice, is regarded by 
 any individual concerned, as a direct affair of conscience, 
 to conscience alone must be the appeal." You and your 
 neighbour contradict each other on the doctrine of election. 
 It is a matter of rehgion ; it is regarded by each as a 
 direct affair of conscience ; to conscience alone the appeal 
 lies ; no power, absolutely or partially discretionary, can 
 step in and settle the dispute. To admit such a power, 
 would be to recognise the great principle of Popery. But 
 do you not see, that in pleading for this unlimited liberty, 
 you are at one with us. You and I contradict one another 
 as to the claims of the Bible ; — it is a matter of rehgion ; 
 it is regarded as a direct affair of conscience by you and 
 me ; to conscience alone, therefore, the appeal is made ; 
 no power, absolutely or partially discretionary, can inter- 
 pose to arbitrate between us. You hold your opinion, and 
 I hold mine ; and there the matter ends, and must for ever 
 end, on the principles which you have now stated. And it 
 really comes to the same thing at last, whether we say, 
 every man's conscience is right, or every man's conscience 
 is wrong ; whether we affirm that every opinion is true, 
 or every opinion is false ; or that there is no such thing 
 as truth or error, right or wrong ; — whetiier you borrow 
 the logic of Pope Ilildobrand, and constitute every way- 
 ward conscience a little infallible church, or, abstracting a 
 shaft from our quiver, leave, as some of your friends would 
 say, truth bleeding and dying of the wound you have 
 inflicted. 
 
 Bellarmine. — There is, too obviously, no permanent 
 
COXCORB AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 77 
 
 resting-place between infidelity and infallibility. This 
 Protestant claim of liberty of conscience, with its comple- 
 ment, that there is no authority on earth to judge and 
 decide among the endless so-called conscientious squabbles 
 and scruples and conflicts of its supporters, does most 
 surely prove that there is no foundation for truth and 
 religion in human society, but the infalhbility of the Holy 
 Catholic Church. Men may oscillate between the doubts 
 of atheism and the uncertainties of private judgment ; they 
 may hurry to and fro between the swamp of scepticism 
 and the quicksands of Protestant confusion ; but since they 
 cannot find an enduring dwelling-place in the one or in the 
 other, they will ultimately, from pure necessity, return 
 one and all to the one true unerring Church, against which 
 the gates of hell cannot prevail. 
 
 Theophilus. — There is, undoubtedly, no proper or secure 
 halting place between the abyss of unbehef and the ground 
 of a firm and unwavering assurance of infallible truth. 
 Truth, though infallible in itself, is nought to us, unless 
 we can obtain a most certain, or, if you choose to call it, 
 an infalUble, grasp and hold of it. Now, this subjective 
 infallibility, or clear and unembarrassed certainty, cannot 
 be conveyed directly to any person by a purely objective 
 Church or Bible, even though infalhble in itself. I must 
 know that the Church or the Bible is infalUblo before lean 
 trust either as such ; and tlicrefore, if my knowledge be 
 not infallible, the infallibility of the one or the other is 
 nothing to me. The one party denies the infallibility, or 
 certainty, or truth, of my knowledge, by asserting that 
 the Church alone is infallible, and denying to nic the right 
 of private judgment. The other party denudes uiy sub- 
 
78 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 jective knowledge of certainty, if they affirm that there is 
 no certainty but in the objective Bible, and if they main- 
 tain that contradicting interpretations of the Bible are, or 
 may be, equally conscientious. Both the Papist and the 
 Protestant boast that they have each an infro.ngible lever, 
 by which they can elevate human society ; but in rejecting 
 the validity of the human understanding, they reject the 
 only fulcrum on which any such lever can work. 
 
 The will of God cannot be known to an intelligent per- 
 son in any other way, except by the exercise of his private 
 judgment. In order to know the will of God, therefore, 
 our understanding must be trust-worthy ; and there can- 
 not be, in the very nature of the case, more trust-worthi- 
 ness in any manifestation of the will of the Most High, 
 whether that manifestation be claimed for an unerring 
 volume, or for an impeccable corporation, than there is in 
 our own understanding. Our understanding or reason, 
 however, can be certainly trusted only when it is legiti- 
 mately used. To seek the truth, therefore, on any given 
 point, honestly and diligently, is to save ourselves from 
 self-deception, as well as from the deceptions of other men 
 on that point. Hence it appears that whenever two indi- 
 viduals search for truth on any controverted question dili- 
 gently and Jwnestly, they will not, and cannot, come into 
 direct and hostile collision on that question. For there is 
 a Power " to decree the conditions of visible unity in the 
 Christian Church," or, in other words, the conditions of 
 harmony among free intelligent beings. The power of 
 Truth, or its unity, makes these conditions possible and 
 practicable. The almighty power of the God of Truth 
 has rendered these conditions binding upon man to fulfil 
 
CONCORD AND COXSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 79 
 
 them at his peril. And the power of perceiving and ap- 
 preciating Truth, conferred upon the human mind by our 
 Creator, and aided by the Spirit of Truth, whose grace is 
 the purchase of Emmanuel's blood, leaves every bold 
 errorist and wilful schismatic without the vestige of an 
 excuse. 
 
 Truth is ever in harmony with itself. Hence those be- 
 ings who have the faculty of knowing truth and rejecting 
 error will, if they use this faculty aright, always be in 
 harmony with each other. It is the most extravagant 
 unbelief to doubt that there is a power on earth which 
 discriminates, and can discriminate infallibly, between 
 error and truth, and between right and wrong, — even the 
 power of the human mind, when it is simply and strenu- 
 ously following after what is true. It is only on this sup- 
 position that we can account for the alienation and rup- 
 ture which invariably occur between men who find them- 
 selves opposing one another on some momentous topic. In 
 such cases, it is an indisputable fact, that one or other of the 
 two parties (if it be not so with both) has not, with all care 
 and conscientiousness investigated and weighed the topic 
 before them. And there is, besides, a deep and indestruc- 
 tible consciousness of this fact in the minds of both parties, 
 which alone gives life to discussion, and meaning to oppo- 
 sition. 
 
 It is a common ruse of scepticism to insinuate that the 
 existence of contradictory opinions on any point proves 
 that the truth on that point cannot be known, at least with 
 much certainty. The constant occurrence of collision of 
 sentiment in human society is a loud warning to exercise 
 the utmost caution in judging and determining contro- 
 
80 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 verted matters. This is the proper and wholesome influ- 
 ence which the painful fact referred to should have upon 
 the mind. Its more common effect is to seduce men to indif- 
 ference and thoughtlessness, and then drive them to rash 
 and bigoted decisions. But the right of private judgment 
 becomes a bane, and not a privilege, unless we suppose that 
 it never misleads us in its proper and sober exercise, when 
 equally removed both from intellectual licentiousness and 
 from mental sloth. This right implies, not only that there 
 is truth, but also that truth is to be certainly, yea, infal- 
 libly found, and that error may be as certainly and in- 
 dubitably avoided. It would be rash to affirm, that 
 intellectual harmony and concord of man with man on any 
 question proves that error has been eschewed and truth 
 embraced. But if union be not a positive, it is, at any 
 rate, a negative test, of the presence of truth in the com- 
 munity. Though the existence of catholic unanimity on 
 any matter in a society of sinful men cannot warrant the 
 conclusion, that it is in the truth that they are thus har- 
 moniously united, the absence of catholic unanimity, on a 
 question of some moment, manifests most incontestabLy 
 the presence of error. No man has a right to do what he 
 pleases, or to think as ho chooses, unless he pleases to do, 
 and chooses to think, what is right. 
 
 11. — Toleration and Persecution. 
 
 Melanctlwn. — " The very term toleration is a mark of 
 power existing, like the emblem of the Roman dominion 
 at Jerusalem, ' in the holy place, where it ought not ; ' for 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 81 
 
 what mortal can have a right to determine in what man- 
 ner men may worship God, so long as their religious prac- 
 tices do not interfere with social order and morals?" ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — You are now using, in your own cause, 
 the very fallacy which you formerly exposed in one of 
 your opponents. Stillingflect contended for the power of 
 the magistrate to legislate in the Church, " on the pre- 
 sumption that the Protestant magistrate would command 
 'nothing repugnant to the word of God.'"^ To which 
 you replied, that this proviso " is of little avail, unless 
 each individual who is to be bound by the decisions of the 
 magistrate is himself allowed to form his own judgment, 
 whether or not these decisions are in harmony with the 
 divine record." Now, your own proviso about the magis- 
 trate's power, that he has authority to prohibit men's reli- 
 gious practices, when they " interfere with social order 
 and morals," is fatal to your doctrine of religious liberty, 
 " unless each individual who is to be bound by the decisions 
 of the magistrate is himself allowed to form his own judg- 
 ment, whether or not these decisions are in harmony " with 
 social order and morals." 
 
 Melancthon. — It were absurd to exclude human autho- 
 rity from the kingdoms of tliis world, but it ought to be 
 excluded from the Cluirch of Christ. " In proportion as 
 human institutions arc identified with Christianity, human 
 authority is put on a level with the commands of God ; the 
 unity of Christians is treated as dependent on the will of 
 man ; the professed Church spurns from her society some 
 of the most conscientious servants of Christ ; the immortal 
 axiom, that " THE Biulk, and the liini.E alone, is the 
 
 ' Schism, p. 182. = lb. )). 177. lb. p. 171. 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 religion of Protestants," is infringed ; the riglit of private 
 judgment, the fundamental principle of the Reformation, 
 is relinquished ; and the main pillar of Romanism, man's 
 dominion over conscience, is retained, as a prop to the Pro- 
 testant Church." 1 
 
 Bellarmine. — Is human authority to he excluded, eJi^ireZy 
 and unconditionally, from ecclesiastical affairs ? 
 
 Melancthon. — There should be " as little of mere human 
 legislation as possible in the Church." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This is no answer at all ; but it is quite 
 as good as a more definite answer would have been, when 
 judged by your own principles. Supposing that you had 
 said specifically, this or that human authority is admissible 
 on this and the other question — as that deacons may decide 
 such and such matters, and presbyters all other matters — 
 where would "liberty of conscience" be, " unless each indi- 
 vidual who is to be bound by the decisions is himself 
 allowed to form his own judgment, whether or not these 
 decisions are in harmony" with the principle laid down ? 
 Protestant liberty of conscience is thus, in fact, the very 
 same as what you call infidel liberty of conscience ; inas- 
 much as, according to it, no answer is as good as any. It 
 is thus impossible to distinguish between one thing and 
 anothci', as between human and divine authority, which are 
 thus "put on a level;" for, indeed, in this way, you give 
 us your best assistance in reducing every thing to the same 
 dead level. 
 
 Bellarmine. — You said, that by the admission of human 
 authority, " the professed Church spurns from her society 
 some of the most conscientious servants of Christ." Now, 
 ' Schism, pp. 183, 184. » lb. p. 183. 
 
CONCORD AXD CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 83 
 
 when two sects or denominations are formed, we shall sup- 
 pose, according to your own statements, that there are 
 " most conscientious servants of Christ" in both of them. 
 Hence, by the formation or continuance of these two sects, 
 each of which is " a professed Church," the charge which 
 you bring against others recoils upon yourselves. For it is 
 plain that in this case, " the professed Church," that is, 
 each Protestant denomination, " spurns from her society 
 some of the most conscientious servants of Christ." If 
 each sect does not spurn those of another sect, it puts them 
 out, and bars the door against them, else there would be 
 no occasion for more than one sect. It thus appears that 
 it is not only the sects which introduce the civil magis- 
 trate's power into the Church of God, that are leaning on 
 " the main pillar of Romanism," but 'also any party who, 
 shutting themselves up in some cramped inclosure, shall 
 call themselves the Church, or a portion of the Church, 
 while yet they admit that they exclude Christians as con- 
 scientious as themselves. Is it not an attempt to exercise 
 " dominion over conscience," when you say to your neigh- 
 bour, your conscience is as good as mine, and your opinion 
 is formed as conscientiously as mine, — nevertheless so long 
 as you hold a certain opinion, I shall do everything that 
 lies in my power to debar you from the privileges of 
 church fellowship? In tliis way you have most obviously 
 availed yourselves of the principle, which you falsely im- 
 pute to us, man's dominion over conscience, to prop up the 
 crazy scaffolding of your Protestant denominations. 
 
 Tlieophilus. — If " the Bible, and the Bible alone, be the 
 religion of Protestants ;" and if " the right of ])riv:it(' judg- 
 ment be the fundamental principle of the Kcforniution," 
 
84 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 then nothing can be more dangei'ous to the Reformation, 
 or more dishonouring to the Bible, than to force one of 
 these into conflict with the other. If two men, in the 
 legitimate or conscientious employment of their private 
 judgment, may inevitably come to espouse opposing doc- 
 trines, the one asserting that this passage of Holy Writ 
 teaches precisely the reverse of what, the other asserts, is 
 taught by that passage, or both extracting from the very 
 same passage antagonistic tenets or contrary commands, 
 does it need words to prove that this result is, sub- 
 stantially, altogether equivalent to setting conscience 
 against the Bible, or the Bible against itself? But a 
 house divided against itself cannot stand. It thus appears 
 that Protestant Christians must, by a more cautious and 
 devout exercise of the right of private judgment, disencum- 
 ber themselves of their conflicting convictions, and, as the 
 consequence of this, abandon their denominational distinc- 
 tions, if they would realize anything like a reasonable or 
 scriptural union, or wield, as one body, an eff"ective weapon 
 against either infidelity or Popery. The present condition 
 of the Protestant Church thus appears to be most anoma- 
 lous and precarious ; for while all denominations resort in 
 self-defence to a sceptical liberty of conscience which sets 
 truth at defiance, each sect institutes for itself narrow and 
 unscriptural and intolerant terms of communion. Some 
 truths are treated as errors, (which is scepticism), out of 
 deference to a pretended conscientiousness; and some errors 
 are treated as truths, (which is the essence of Popery), to 
 support sectarian fal)rics. The outworks and organiza- 
 tions of the Protestant commonwealth are thus resting on 
 a grotesque conglomerate of popish and infidel principles. 
 
COXCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 85 
 
 As to the extent of human authority in the Church of 
 Christ, we shall slip into the most disastrous confusion, un- 
 less we always discriminate between matters of certainty 
 and matters of probabihty — between cases which do in- 
 volve, and cases which do not involve, directly, truth and 
 duty — between affairs of principle and affairs of expe- 
 diency. In dealing with matters of expediency, we must 
 do so on principle. Every action involves, as we think, 
 contrary to the common doctrine about indifferent actions, 
 a question of duty. Hence we have said " cases which do 
 involve, and cases which do not involve, directly, truth and 
 duty." For example, fixing the sphere of a foreign mis- 
 sionary, or determining his salary, or, we are bold to add, 
 introducing instrumental music into churches — are, in 
 themselves, and within certain limits, questions of proba- 
 bility — of expediency, in which truth and duty are not 
 immediately implicated. Still these questions ought to be 
 discussed and settled under the control of high and holy 
 principles. But as these principles themselves are not then 
 under discussion, only the extent of their application, and 
 the balancing of one with another in practical details, there 
 is, no doubt, legitimate room for variety of opinion, with- 
 out coming to conflicting judgments. Within certain 
 limits, we have said; for it is easy to turn any question 
 of expediency into one of principle. In fixing the sphere 
 of a missionary, or determining his salary, it is just possible 
 to do a most criminal d(!od. It is also easy to assume a 
 position with respect to the use of music in divine worship 
 most erroneous and schismatical. The views which we are 
 advocating demand from the Church, in a normal condi- 
 tion, or when its members are prepared to act up to their 
 
86 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 profession, unanimity of judgment in matters of prin- 
 ciple, and in alfairs of expediency, submission on the part 
 of a small number to the prevailing sentiments of their 
 brethren. Hence it appears that nothing so much under- 
 mines and weakens the authority of the Church as schism. 
 For it is nothing else but resistance to her lawful authority 
 by persons within her own precincts. When the Church's 
 proper and rightful authority is disputed and disowned by 
 some of her own members, how can it be expected that 
 those who are without will hold it in respect and honour ? 
 
 Whenever a case occurs in which duty or doctrine or 
 sacred principle is involved, the power of the Church in 
 such a case lies, and can lie nowhere else, but in her una- 
 nimity on the question. If her testimony to the truth be 
 harmonious and unbroken, it will be unassailable as a rock, 
 and potent as fire. But if there be discord in the camp, 
 even though it do not proceed to an open rupture and per- 
 manent division, the truth will be thereby veiled or dis- 
 torted, and, consequently, the proper influence of the 
 Church, which is the influence of truth, will be proportion- 
 ally lost. 
 
 Again, when a case of mere expediency arises, in which 
 probabilities, not principles, are immediately concerned, if 
 the minor part yield to the majority, in the event of dis- 
 agreement, so that all petty details and outside arrange- 
 ments are amicably settled, the Christian society presents 
 an unmarrcd and uninterrupted front to the world ; which 
 thus learns to admire and fear the men, whose quickened 
 and well-regulated conscience leads them on questions of 
 truth to a real and indistructiblo unanimity, and on ques- 
 tions of expediency or probability to a self-denying and 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 87 
 
 reasonable forbearance. But if a portion of the Christian 
 society become wilful and insubordinate, and turning a 
 petty question into one of principle, refuse to submit, a 
 division will arise. Thus the due authority of the Church 
 will be disputed and resisted, by persons who were bound 
 to proclaim and uphold it. Consequently, it Avill be 
 seriously damaged, if not entirely overthrown. 
 
 Schism, then, whether it spring from the recklessness of 
 a discontented party, refusing the legitimate authority of 
 the major portion of the brethren on a matter of expe- 
 diency, or whether it be the result of opposite and antago- 
 nistic judgments on a point of principle — in either case is a 
 dangerous rock on which the authority of the Church is 
 sure to suffer shipwreck. This authority is, like some 
 other good things in the world, not only valuable or power- 
 ful, but also delicate ; wliose very influence depends upon 
 the entire preservation of their exactitude and refinement. 
 The lancet with the finest edge is the best instrument; 
 but the finer the edge, the more easily is it turned. If the 
 beautiful and perfect niiri-or of a reflecting telescope be 
 stained or cracked, as it may so readily be, it is thereby 
 rendered useless. The chronometer, on whoso precision to a 
 second or two the safety of a vessel, with all its cargo of 
 merchandize and souls, does sometimes depend, has to be 
 watched with special care, and shielded from every trifling 
 disturbance. 
 
 If the Christian Church were what she ought to be, and 
 what she might be — what God commands and Christ 
 expects her to be — and what she will yet become — her 
 authority would be sharp and terrible as a burnished glit- 
 tering sword, because her character would be a worthy 
 
88 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 reflection of her Saviour and her Lord, and because all her 
 movements and operations would be in harmony with each 
 other, and in accordance with the laws of Heaven. Now, 
 the full efficiency of the Church's power clearly depends 
 upon this accordance being maintained undisturbed, and 
 this harmony unlost, and the reflected image of her Lord 
 unmarred ; while all of them are constantly exposed to 
 frequent and serious injuries. 
 
 The authority of the Christian Church, and the integrity 
 of Christian union, are identical. And as nothing is more 
 powerful on earth than the one, neither is anything more 
 delicate than the other. When the Church's unity is im- 
 paired, her authority is shaken ; when her unity is broken, 
 her authority is overthrown. The maintenance of Chris- 
 tian union — that is, the fact of many men, with all the infir- 
 mities of humanity, and all the temptations of this world, 
 coming to be, and continuing to be, " of one mind and one 
 accord," — may seem like the nourishing of a lovely exotic in 
 an uncongenial clime. And so it is. It is the very work, 
 however, which our Father has given us to do. Perish the 
 thought that He has sent us a warfare at our own charges ! 
 
 Alas ! that evangelical Christendom should have failed so 
 greatly hitherto in doing this work. Even in regard to 
 those truths in which lue are all really agreed, this agree- 
 ment, in consequence of our schisms, is not visible and 
 patent to the world. Men have too much ground, if not to 
 deny, certainly to call in question that agreement. These 
 great and shining truths are not indeed deprived of their 
 own inherent brightness ; but they are not supported in 
 the face of the unbeliever, and carried home to his con- 
 science, by the Church's authority. The want of this 
 
COXCORD AXD COXSCIEXTIOUSNESS. 
 
 89 
 
 authority does certainly leave him some shadow of an 
 excuse. Then as to the points on which Protestants are at 
 variance and discord — and some of them are weighty 
 enough — the world has only to set Christian against Chris- 
 tian, and then stand by smiling at the tragic sport, and 
 presently thereafter pursue its godless path unchecked and 
 unreproved. Who has not, moreover, mourned over the 
 relaxation of Christian disciphne in our various churches ? 
 Even if the sects were striving to be as rigid and uncom- 
 promising in enforcing the great principles of morahty and 
 reUgion as they are in maintaining their own pecuharities, 
 the multiplicity and consequent unavoidable jealousy of 
 rival societies, would defeat their best intentions, and re- 
 duce us, as at present, to a condition of extreme laxity. 
 The slackened rein of church discipline, and the remissness 
 of the grasp with which it is held, are not less clearly a 
 marked feature of Protestantism, than they are a sure in- 
 dication of shattered and enervated authority. 
 
 Melancthon. — It is purely ridiculous for " erring man to 
 assume the air of infaUibility." 
 
 Lord Herbert. — But who is the party that assumes this 
 air, if it be not those who call their fellow-men, on account 
 of their unbelief, graceless and wicked. Free-thinking is 
 the only consistent scheme of non-infallibility. 
 
 Bellarniinc. — If so, it must be thorough free-thinking, to 
 which every opinion is alike. For if you beheve anything 
 whatever, even a negative— if you deny and refuse our 
 claim to infallibiUty — you cannot do so without assuming, 
 not merely the air, but some of the pith and marrow of 
 infallibihtA*. 
 
 Theophilus. — Clearly bo. But there is an important dif- 
 
90 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 ference between maintaining that all the opinions of any 
 individual or any body of men are right, and that every man 
 is capable of forming a right opinion. No one man is infalli- 
 ble ; because every man is responsible, and may abuse his 
 responsibility. But the human intelligence of any man, if 
 rightly used, is infallible ; else the man is not even responsible. 
 
 Melancthon. — Well, I never meant to deny this ; but 
 seeing that men, even Christians, are constantly abusing 
 their responsibility, nothing else can be done but to live 
 at peace with each other, and abstain from all mutual per- 
 secution. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — If you really think, as your language 
 seems to imply, that Christian union may be realised, even 
 while Christians are abusing their responsibility, why may 
 not we get to your heaven on the same principle, even 
 admitting that we are abusing our responsibility while 
 remaining in unbehef ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — But what do you mean by persecution ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " When exclusiveness and imposition are 
 found in alliance with authority, the result is seldom con- 
 fined merely to the denial of spiritual privileges ; but is 
 developed in the attempt to tyrannise over con- 
 science, BY penally enforcing CREEDS, FORMULARIES, 
 AND VARIOUS ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS."' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — You assert a distinction between the 
 denial of spritual privileges and tyranny over conscience 
 by penal enforcements, allowing the exorcise of the one, 
 and forbidding the other. But your distinction " is of 
 little avail, unless each individual who is to be bound by 
 the decisions, is himself allowed to form his own judgment, 
 ' Schism, p. 307. 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 91 
 
 whether or not these decisions" carry a bare denial of 
 spiritual privileges or a penal enforcement. " Everything 
 short of this amounts to an infringement of that private 
 judgment, and conviction, which are necessary to entire 
 moral accountableness." What you call a " denial of 
 spiritual privileges," the sufferer may consider " a penal 
 enforcement." So long as he thinks so, are you not]^tyran- 
 nising over his conscience ? 
 
 Mclancthon. — " What scenes has not the Church of 
 Christ presented when groaning under the yoke of man ? 
 What deeds have not been perpetrated in the name of 
 religion — in the name of the benevolent Saviour ? What 
 furious and blood-stained schisms have raged among the 
 professed peace-makers of the earth in the anti-Christian 
 strife for power ? Let all the wars and persecutions that 
 have been carried on under the alleged sanction of injured, 
 hbelled Christianity, recount the dreadful tale ! Let the 
 fire and the flood tell it — the dungeon and the scaffold — 
 the rack and the wlieel — the sword and the gibbet ! Let 
 the rocks and the caves — the forests and the mountain- 
 snows repeat it — more hospitable to the outcast wanderer 
 than the heart of man caUing himself Christian. Let the 
 burning stake declare it — where Catholic and Protestant 
 have mingled their ashes together for denying tlie supre- 
 macy of a fallible man over mind and conscience."' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — " The man who would deprive me of 
 my substance, or of my personal liberty, as the punish- 
 ment of my religious peculiarities, is not more certainly a 
 persecutor tlian is the person who, for the same reason, has 
 endeavoured to lower my reputation, or to inflict an un- 
 ^ Schism, pp. 3C8, 3G'J. 
 
92 
 
 DIALOGUE I, 
 
 necessary wound upon my feelings." " The man who 
 wounds the spirit of another unnecessarily, is a persecutor, 
 as surely as the individual who would maim his person ; 
 and the mind which can employ itself to blight the just 
 reputation of a religious opponent, is precisely that mind 
 which, in another age, would not have hesitated to load 
 him with chains, or to burn his flesh." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — If you deprive a man of " spiritual privi- 
 leges," do you not " injure his reputation," and " wound his 
 feelings" too? The distinction, then, between spiritual 
 privileges and civil rights in relation to the present ques- 
 tion is nothing but a Protestant fallacy. And to deny 
 that error — no error — is to be punished in any form 
 whatever, is the wildest licentiousness of unbelief. And 
 if error may be punished, then the worst error should be 
 punished most severely. Hence it is the highest wisdom 
 of true mercy to visit all heresy and damnable error, 
 Avhereby the souls of men are endangered and lost, with 
 torture and death. If you abandon this position you 
 have no resting place, but in the Protestant and sceptical 
 doctrine of liberty of conscience, which, after it has divided 
 the Church into a thousand contending sects, leaves the 
 last and least of these sects, as well as all the rest, exposed 
 every moment to " contentious tempers" under " the pre- 
 text of Christian libeuty." " The lawless schismatic," 
 to use your own words, " has ' a right, he says, ' to 
 express his mind.' He is dissatisfied ; and in his vocabu- 
 lary, ' Christian liberty' is but a euphemism for the in- 
 subordination of a democrat, who fancies that he is entitled 
 
 ^ The Christian AVarfare. By Robert Vaughan, D.D. Loudon : 
 Religious Tract Society. 1838. Pp. 140, 144. 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 93 
 
 to embroil a whole fratei'nity." ^ This person, whom you 
 call "a lawless schismatic," is the cleverest Protestant 
 among his brethren, and shows he has learned and under- 
 stood his own creed, better than some of his teachers. 
 
 Melancthon. — We protest against intolerance and per- 
 secution in ever}' form, but especially against spiritual 
 despotism. And " it is by no means uncommon for schism 
 to manifest itself in a condemnatory, presumptuous, 
 ANATHEMATIZING SPIRIT."^ "He wlio is influenced by 
 the unsubstantial dream of exclusive ' divine right,' or by 
 the more tangible and earthly vision of human supremacy 
 in the Church, hesitates not to ascend the throne of Christ 
 — to grasp the thunders which are reserved for the last 
 judgment ; and having laid his brother under an interdict 
 while living, to threaten him with an awful doom here- 
 after." * " Is not he, then, the true schismatic, who, 
 trampling on the liberty wherewith Christ has made his 
 people free, would consign to ' uncovenanted mercies,' 
 or even to ' eternal wrath,' those who differ from himself, 
 on points which the Scriptures have not made a con- 
 stituent part of religion ; but which he presumes to de- 
 clare essential t"* 
 
 Lord Herbert. — It is a fact that Christians do anathema- 
 tize us unbelievers. You all re-echo the statements of 
 your Bible ; " lie that believeth not is condemned already ;" 
 " if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be 
 anathema." Now, if you have good reasons for anathema- 
 tizing us, may you not also have good reasons for anathe- 
 matizing each other ? Your brother Christian of another 
 
 ' Schism, pp. 418, 41,9. » Schi.sni, p. 341). 
 
 ' lb. p. 342. « lb. p. 354. 
 
94 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 denomination claims an " exclusive divine right" against 
 you ; for if he did not, there would be no place for two 
 denominations ; and you tell him that he is " influenced by 
 an unsubstantial dream." I do not see how this claim on 
 his part, and your counter-claim, can he reconciled with 
 your theory about liberty of conscience, unless this liberty 
 mean license to every man to condemn his neighbour as a 
 rebel, and, at the same time, to love him as a friend. And 
 if this reconciliation could be effected on any intelligible 
 principle, on the same principle it could be shewn, that we 
 are justified in calling the Christian claim of an exclusive 
 divine right against us, an unsubstantial dream. Your fel- 
 low-believer consigns you to " uncovenanted mercies ;" and 
 you protest that he is " trampling on the liberty where- 
 with Christ has made his people free." But he replies, I 
 am acting according to conscience. We charge you, there- 
 fore, with trampling on the liberty wherewith Ood has 
 made his creatures free, in " consigning us to eternal 
 wrath," because we " differ from you on points which God 
 has not made a constituent part of religion ; but which i/ou 
 presume to declare essential." 
 
 Bellarmine — It thus appears that the doctrine of Pro- 
 testants about liberty of conscience, as commonly held, and 
 consistently explained, deprives them of all power to pro- 
 nounce or declare an anathema against any individual, 
 however wicked or heretical he may be. Thus there is no 
 foundation whatever left for rehgion in any form, and the 
 first principles of allegiance to the Most High are set aside 
 at the call of a spurious conscientiousness. If there be an^- 
 religion at all, there must also be an " exclusive divine 
 right" somewhere, and if there be, there must also be 
 
CONCORD AXD CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 95 
 
 found in some party authority to enforce or maintain that 
 right which they truly possess. And when this exclusive 
 divine right is vindicated and defended against those who 
 oppose it, nothing else could be expected but that these 
 opponents should complain of the presumption that dares 
 to trample on their liberty. 
 
 Melancthon. — If I do not answer your arguments, I can 
 tell you what is the cure of schism, and of persecution also. 
 
 " The CULTIVATION OF THE SPIRIT OF BROTHERLY LOVE, 
 
 as a vital principle of Christianity in the heart, will tend to 
 destroy schism in its original source. For though schism 
 is the ' pestilence and blasting,' the ' mildew' and the 
 ' locust' of the Church — every Christian must look well to 
 the healing of the mischief as the ' plague of his own heart' 
 Charity, alive and vigorous in many minds, would prove a 
 diffusive principle of life and health to the Church. For 
 every one whose heart is the abode of love, and whose 
 conversation is peaceable and brotherly, is in himself a 
 perpetual rebuke to schism, and a living witness for unitv, 
 among all with whom he associates. Even where any may 
 err in the matter of charity itself, let charity still be the 
 interpreter of their conduct. Let due allowance be made 
 for varieties of mental character, of natural disposition, of 
 acquired knowledge — above all, of education and training, 
 of association and habit. Some good men may act 
 towards otlior Christians more exclusively than they would 
 desire to do, in consequence ot the trammels of the svs- 
 tem to which they may be pledged — trammels which they 
 do not sec how they can break through, unless they de- 
 part from what appears to them to be the path of duty 
 Others may, with a high-toned conscientiousness, hiivc. 
 
96 
 
 DIALOGUE I, 
 
 unequivocally sacrificed self-interest to conviction. Let us 
 not be ready to judge the former, if, in consequence of 
 their not possessing our libei'ty of action, they cannot go 
 all our lengths in free Christian association ; and let us not 
 make the latte,r offenders for a word, if they should occa- 
 sionally allow a strong expression to escape them, with 
 regard to what they deem abuses in religion. The more 
 fully conscious we are of the rectitude of our own course, 
 the more candidly may we afford to listen to the reasonings 
 of those who differ from us. And before we cast a stone 
 at them, let us be quite sure that in forming our own reli- 
 gious connexion we ourselves have been guided by a 
 regard to the will of God, as deliberate, pains-taking, self- 
 denying, and conscientious, as they may have evinced." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This reasoning proceeds on the assump- 
 tion that " charity" can, and always does, discriminate 
 between heresy and orthodoxy, and between right and 
 wrong, in the thousand questions that have agitated, do 
 still agitate, and wnll yet agitate the Christian Church. If 
 charity be thus unerring, and next to omniscient, your 
 exhortation is pointed and satisfactory. But if charity 
 have no such power, and no such pretensions, how can 
 it prevent a schism among Christians when they contra- 
 dict each other on a point of what is called faith or duty, 
 except on the principle that it should prevent a schism be- 
 tween them and us, who are brother-men, when we and 
 they are mutually opposed ? To admit that Christians 
 " may err in the matter of charity itself," — that is, we shall 
 charitably suppose, after they have done all that in them 
 lies to guard against error, and then constitute this same 
 ' Schism, p. 4:G3-iG5. 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 97 
 
 erring charity " the interpreter of their conduct," and 
 to offer this prescription as the cure of schism, is to trifle 
 with yourselves and your subject too. To suppose that 
 there are " some good men," who are prevented from act- 
 ing out Christianity as they desire, by the " trammels of a 
 system" which they cannot break through, except by 
 departing from the path of duty, is surely a discovery ; for 
 I never could have imagined that, in a good man, duty 
 would be found clashing with duty. " The more candidly 
 we listen to the reasonings of those who differ from us," 
 and " the more fidly conscious we are of the rectitude of 
 our own course," the more fully conscious shall we be of 
 the error of those who contradict and oppose our course; 
 as you Christians are constantly telling us unbelievers. 
 And if it be an evil, as we have often seen and experienced, 
 tliat stones are cast at their opponents by men who have 
 not been guided in forming their religious opinions, by a 
 " deliberate, pains-taking, self-denying, and conscientious" 
 " regard to the will of God;" it is an evil tenfold more disas- 
 trous to suppose, as you seem to do, that two men may 
 be equally guided by a " dehberatc, pains-taking, self- 
 denying, and conscientious" " regard to the will of God," 
 and yet be led to form respectively separate " religious 
 connexions," which are so far antagonistic as to require 
 distinct organisations. If a deliberate, pains-taking, self- 
 denying, and conscientious regard to the will of God, can- 
 not unite those who cherish and practise such regard on all 
 matters of practical importance, truth is a vanishing 
 vapour, or conscientiousness is a cruel delusion. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Charity 'm good, only when it is well di- 
 rected. Minf/nided charity is the source of endless confu- 
 
98 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 sion, and becomes a perversion of truth and righteousness. 
 And since the charity of Protestantism has confessedly 
 no guide, as has been just now so clearly pointed out, 
 man can only escape from intellectual and moral anarchy, 
 by submitting to the direction of the Apostolical See. It 
 is ridiculous enough to talk of the infallibility of the Bible, 
 and then subject that Book to the uncontrolled private 
 judgment of every individual ; it is still more ludicrous to 
 introduce charity as the umpire in every dispute, when 
 there is confessedly notliing but charity, to meet the aber- 
 rations of charity. Our Church is consistent with herself ; 
 she adopts a system of " education and training, of asso- 
 ciation and habit," fitted to bring into one mould all 
 " mental character, natm-al disposition, and acquired know- 
 ledge." Those minds that Avill not bend, must, in charity 
 to others, be broken. Our ecclesiastical decrees are the 
 embodiment of " the will of God," and to talk of a deli- 
 berate, pains-taking, self-denying, and conscientious oppo- 
 sition to them, is pure absurdity and open rebellion. 
 
 Theopliilus. — It is impossible to draw anything hke a 
 clear line of distinction between intolerance and persecu- 
 tion ; for persecution is the natural development of into- 
 lerance. There is no doubt a valid ditferencc between 
 civil rights and spiritual privileges, but this difference will 
 not help us to define persecution. The most cruel and 
 criminal pei'sccution may be perpetrated, without desccnd- 
 ins: to the vulsrar atrocities of robbci-v and murder. This 
 distinction, however, between spiritual and civil claims, 
 together with every other distinction, as well as every 
 attempt to define intolerance or persecution, or anything 
 else, is utterly futile and preposterous, unless the human 
 
COXCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 99 
 
 understanding has the faculty of discriminating accurately 
 and infallibly between truth and error, and unless each 
 individual who is responsible, can legitimately attain, by 
 dihgent integrity, a full and veracious assurance that he 
 has found the truth in particular instances. 
 
 Persecution is intolerance full blown, and intolerance is 
 persecution in the bud ; and it is impracticable, perhaps, 
 to say where the one begins and where the other ends. 
 But without a definition which shall accurately specify 
 both, it is vain to reason about liberty of conscience and 
 Christian union. To understand their nature, we must 
 refer to a principle which is deeply involved in every 
 moral and religious question, namely — a penalty is at- 
 tached, in the providence of God, to every error, theo- 
 retical or practical, which is embraced by a responsible 
 being. Nay, more, in many instances there is a penalty 
 attached to error, which is, and ought to be, inflicted on 
 the crrorist by his fellow-men, under these conditions, 
 that the penalty be in kind suitable to the error, and that 
 it be not excessive in degree. For instance, a thief suffers 
 a penalty at the hand of a magistrate ; a liar is sometimes 
 exempt from official control and award, but in the loss of 
 confidence he suffers punishment at the hands of his 
 fellow-citizens ; a man of whims and fancies becomes a 
 laughing-stock ; a rude man docs not escape his recom- 
 pense, for he becomes a bore ; a heresiarch is expelled 
 from tlic fellowship of the Church ; and in every society 
 he who disregards its laws endures the consequence of liis 
 transgression. To wink at error or vice, — to fail to visit 
 tliem with an appropriate penalty, — is to connive at them, 
 and become inimical to virtue and truth. 
 
100 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 It is not accurate, therefore, to affirm that persecution 
 consists in inflicting civil pains and penalties on account of 
 a religious or conscientious conviction. A man may hold 
 an opinion which he regards as religious and conscientious, 
 which yet ought to subject him to civil disabilities and 
 even to positive punishment. For example, while a nation 
 is carrying on a most righteous war, some of the people 
 might refuse to contribute to its expenses, under the plea 
 of religion and conscience. In such a case the law should 
 take its course upon the recusants ; and it is unquestion- 
 ably just that he who declines to pay his share of taxation 
 should be punished. 
 
 Intolerance or persecution, then, consists in inflicting 
 upon an errorist a penalty unsuitable in kind, or excessive 
 in degree, or in treating one who holds truth as if he were 
 in error. It will be said, this statement leaves the matter 
 altogether indeterminate and loose. On the principles 
 commonly received it may be so, but not on the principles 
 which we are endeavouring to establish. On commonly 
 received principles, every statement is utterly vague and 
 worthless. For if liberty of conscience mean liberty to 
 every man to think as he likes, and if the plea of con- 
 science be always held legitimate, then every proposition 
 is equally true and stable, or equally untrue and unstable. 
 If there be a limit to liberty of conscience — a point which 
 Protestantism has too frequently left undetermined, what 
 can that limit be but trutli ? To affirm that truth forms the 
 boundary of our right of private judgment, is equivalent 
 to saying, that he who deliberately and honestly adopts 
 his conclusions will not err. On the supposition that m'c 
 are speaking to those who can distinguish one thing from 
 
COXCORD ANT) COXSCIEXTIOUSXESS. 
 
 101 
 
 another, and who will not err in making their distinctions 
 if they will be sufficiently careful, there is nothing vague 
 or unsettled in our statement, that truth should never be 
 treated as if it were error ; and while every error is 
 visited with a penalty, that penalty should never be in- 
 ordinate in measure nor inappropriate in its nature. 
 
 Hence in every instance he who holds the truth really 
 possesses an "exclusive divine right" against those who 
 deny that truth, or who embrace its opposing error. Nor 
 may a Christian shrink from taking up, in the spirit and 
 temper of Christ, the anathema of the Bible against every 
 one who loves not the Lord Jesus. Every one who pro- 
 claims the gospel faithfully, consigns to " eternal wi-ath" 
 the impenitent and unbelieving ; and on such an awfuUy 
 momentous question an error on either side is equally 
 fatal to truth and to charity. If you profess to state the 
 marks by which the sheep are distinguished from the 
 goats, and if you err in your statement, the error is disas- 
 trous, whether the result of it be to place some of the goats 
 among the sheep, or some of the sheep among the goats. 
 In both cases truth is equally injured ; while in the former 
 case love is prostituted to the unworthy, and in the latter 
 case it is withheld from the worthy. 
 
 For this endless talk about charity, whether within or 
 without the pale of the Christian Church, whether in 
 high-wrought paragrajjhs from the press, or in the swell- 
 ing oratory of the platform and the pulpit, is far wide of 
 the mark, so long as the declaimer does not carry along 
 with him, or as he goes does not faithfully apply, the 
 principle which distinguishes between the affection, com- 
 placency, and love which the godly, the virtuous, the 
 
102 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 truthful feel towards each other, and the commiseration, 
 pity, and charity which these feel for the ungodly, the 
 vicious, the erring. Hence it appears, that the only 
 foundation on which the Christian Church can be built, 
 in harmony at once with truth and charity, is this, that 
 when Christ's professed followers are really guided by 
 " a regard to the will of God, deliberate, pains-taking, 
 self-denying, and conscientious," there will be manifested 
 as the result only one " religious connexion." 
 
 If, now, it be true, that " schism has been the grakd 
 
 SOURCE OF MISCHIEF IN THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL,"' and if 
 
 this be pre-eminently and palpably true in regard to the 
 Protestant Church, is it not high time for every right- 
 hearted follower of the Lamb to re-examine the principles 
 of his own denomination, resolutely and penitently deter- 
 mined that he will neither overlook nor spare ought that 
 is justly a stumbling-block in a brother's way ? Let us 
 remember that " the tendency of the opinions and prac- 
 tices of some, is more schismatical than their dispositions ; 
 and that we are as responsible to God for the former as 
 for the latter." ° How, then, can a conscientious Christian 
 enjoy peace of mind, till he has done his utmost to discover 
 and renounce and condemn those " opinions and practices" 
 in his own sect whoso " tendency is schismatical ? " Some 
 one may ask, but are you sure that there are any opinions 
 and practices characteristic of my denomination with a 
 sectarian bent and influence ? 
 
 Let it be assumed that a Christian whose conscience is 
 really honest on a particular topic, and consequently has 
 attained on that topic true knowledge, or, at all events, 
 1 Schism, p. 427. » lb. p. 437. 
 
CONCORD AXD CONSCIESTIOUSNESS. 
 
 103 
 
 freedom from error, must feel it to be bis duty, and 
 rigbtly so, to separate bimself from a society wbose terms 
 of communion oppose bis upright and true conviction, and 
 tbat sucb separation is not schism on his part. But, then, 
 is it not most obvious that if separation on the part of 
 such an individual be not schism, the guilt of schism is 
 incurred by those who impose terms of communion which 
 compel such an one to separate? The question, therefore, 
 which every denominationalist has to ask himself is this, 
 Are there no opinions or practices, virtually ov formally 
 imposed as terms of communion in my own sect, which 
 are not scriptural, and which therefore may compel a 
 man with sincere and enlightened conscience to separate 
 from us, or continue separate ? Till a denomination can 
 answer this question in the negative, it cannot fairly plead 
 " not guilty " to the charge of schism, — of intolerance, — 
 of persecution, — yea, of spiritual despotism. 
 
 III. — Charity. 
 
 Melancthon. — Well, then, seeing that there arc serious 
 difficulties in strictly defining persecution, and in all strin- 
 gently logical arguments on this and similar questions, and 
 since your definition is only one among many others, let 
 us take broad practical rules for our guidance. 
 
 Tlicophilus. — It is for broad practical rules that we are 
 in search. Would you call that a broad or a good practi- 
 cal rule, which has an inconsistency on its fore-front ? But 
 let us hear your practical canon. 
 
 Melanctlion. — " Schismatical contoution, whether iden- 
 
104 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 tilled with persecution or not, prevents the growth of that 
 A ery unity which is its avowed aim ; — for it is strange that 
 unity is often the chief burthen of the strife of schism ! 
 Agreement in opinion, however, is in all cases much more 
 likely to take place in connection with mutual candour and 
 toleration, than where this agreement is made a prerequi- 
 site to all visible unity. Hence it is remarked by Robert 
 Hall, when speaking of the means of promoting the recep- 
 tion of the truth, that ' it is of the greatest moment to 
 present it in a manner the least likely to produce the col- 
 lision of party ; for the prejudices of party are always 
 reciprocal, and in no instance is that great law of motion 
 more applicable, that reaction is always equal to action, 
 and contrary thereto.' The truth of this remark has been 
 but too abundantly exemplified in the history ef religious 
 controversies. For while schism itself would seem to have 
 been proposed as the cure of ' schism,' (as though the 
 doctrine of homoeopathy were to be applied to morals as 
 well as medicine), the remedy has proved worse than the 
 original disease ; and the result has been a lasting ahena- 
 tion of Christians from each other. A more than Jewish 
 wall of partition appears sometimes to have existed be- 
 tween them. For inveterate as were the prejudices of the 
 Jew, his exclusivcncss gave way to the spirit of the gospel. 
 The Jew forgot his nature, and hailed the Gentile as a 
 brother. But the party-walls which Christians have 
 erected between each other, have hitherto defied the force 
 of charity to break them down." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — In these remarks there is more than 
 one inconsequential argument, and there is a statement 
 1 Schism, pp. 427, 428. 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 105 
 
 not consistent witli facts. The latter consists in saying 
 that *' unity is the avowed aim of schism," and that 
 '• schism has been proposed as the cure of schism." That 
 does not seem to us to be a true account of the matter as 
 it is found among Christians. Truth has generally been 
 the chief acknowledged aim of the schismatic, and unity 
 only as dependent upon truth. Truth being the avowed 
 aim of schism, amid an endless multitude of schismatics 
 such as Christendom presents, truth is clearly imperilled, 
 if not absolutely lost. If you maintain that unity at any 
 price is the propci- aim of man, you are, whether you 
 know it or not, a convert to our creed. " Agreement in 
 opinion," you say, " is in all cases much more likely to 
 take place in connection with mutual candour and tolera/- 
 tion, than where this agreement is made a prerequisite to 
 all visible unity." If it be so " in all cases," as you 
 affirm, why did you protest and leave the fellowship of 
 the Church of Rome, and why do you exclude us from 
 your fellowship ? If visible unity comes first in the nature 
 of things, and agreement in opinion follows in its wake, 
 the boasted reformation of the sixteenth century was a 
 grand mistake, and the modern crusade against Deism and 
 Romanism should face about without delay. We arc the 
 true apostles of unity ; for we would make everyt/iincf, 
 especially those whims which are called religious doctrines, 
 subordinate to its attainment and consolidation. 
 
 We are not surprised that charity has not force enough 
 to break down the party walls of Christendom, We are 
 surprised that you should expect it to do so. These party 
 walls, if wo can believe those who have built them, are 
 coustructed with stones of truth, and ceuientcd with tiio 
 
106 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 mortar of conscience. The charity that would overturn 
 such walls must have a savour of the infernal regions. If 
 you are prepared to assert, that charity ought, and can, 
 and will break down these walls, the case is worse with 
 Christians than even their enemies supposed. For, in the 
 first place, if charity have such power — if it is her proper 
 ofiice to sweep away these rueful partitions — we are un- 
 wiHing to estimate the awful amount of guilt noAv resting 
 upon the Christian Church for perpetuating them so long. 
 And, in the second place, to maintain that charity alone is 
 competent to effect this work, will imply that the walls to 
 be destroyed are not really built of the materials specified, 
 and consequently the pica of truth and conscience in the 
 Christian community has been very often nothing else 
 than the bold-faced cry of hypocrisy. 
 
 Bellarmine. — If charity can heal schism, it ought to 
 have prevented the original Protestant schism. Holy 
 Mother Church allows the utmost possible latitude of 
 opinion to the faithful within her bosom. She would 
 tolerate everything to preserve visible unity, except con- 
 tumacious heresy. This she cannot tolerate, just because 
 it destroys visible unity. Such is her policy, just because 
 visible unity promotes agreement in opinion. The reaction 
 of parties that does not disturb the visible unity is whole- 
 some ; otherwise it is pestilential and deadly. Too true 
 it is, that " schismatical contention prevents the growth 
 of unity we shall unfeignedly rejoice, if Protestant schis- 
 matics have, by their bitter experience, at length begun 
 to learn this painful lesson, and arc thinking of a recanta- 
 tion of their errors, while suft'ering under a conviction of 
 their guilt. 
 
CO^X•ORD AND CONSCIENTIOrSXESS. 
 
 107 
 
 Melancthon. — In the remarks which fell from me, refer- 
 ence was intended to Evangelical Christians, and to them 
 alone. We appeal to other principles in refuting the 
 claims of those who reject or corrupt the gospel. " If, to 
 use the language of the Saviour himself, the ' eye be 
 single' — if the conscience be thoroughly enlightened, and 
 the heart sound — the ' whole body will be full of hght,' 
 and the Christian will be secure from serious error." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — The course which you pursue is one of 
 which we have good reason deeply to complain. We de- 
 sire to meet you on common ground. This you refuse ; 
 and have one set of principles for yourselves, and another 
 set for us, and a third set, I suppose, for our friend here. 
 Now this see-saw between exoteric and esoteric principles, 
 in the nineteenth century, and in the disciples of the New 
 Testament, is absolutely intolerable. But let us look at 
 the latest edition of your own ultimatum, — " the Christian 
 is secure from serious error." The Christian is described 
 as one whose " eye is single," and " whose whole body 
 is full of light;" and of such an one it is affirmed that 
 " he is secure from serious error." The Church, you say, 
 consists of such, or ought to consist of such ; and this you 
 assume in every argument. The assumption, as you state 
 it, seems to be perfectly worthless. If wc had some un- 
 failing means of determining what is serious error, then 
 when we found any one free from it, we should infer, on 
 your principle, that his eye was single. Or again, if we 
 could inspect any man's lieart, and observe present in it 
 the single eye, wc might then believe that such an one 
 was free from serious error. Ihit so lon<r as the latter is 
 ^ Schism, p. (32. 
 
108 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 impossible, and the former impracticable, your principle is 
 at best an empty truism. Only this much is evident as 
 the sun, that so long as Christians seriously contradict 
 each other, one party is not free from serious error, and 
 consequently, on your own hypothesis, is destitute of the 
 single eye. 
 
 Bellarmine. — There is no ambiguity about our princi- 
 ples. The identity of the one holy Catholic Church can- 
 not be mistaken. He who believes what the Church 
 believes cannot be wrong. The Christian is, indeed, free 
 from serious error. The charity expected from one Chris- 
 tian to another cannot be extended to the heretic who is 
 involved in serious and damnable error. So far the Pro- 
 testant is right. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — I congratulate him on the company 
 which he keeps. 
 
 Melancthon. — It is, nevertheless, true that genuine 
 Christians do recognise each other when they become 
 acquainted with each other's character. Charity must 
 be the unfailing remedy of schism ; since schism is no- 
 thing but the breach of charity. What, for instance, 
 can be a greater outrage upon charity than to regard 
 schism as hereditary ? " In modern ecclesiastical phra- 
 seologly, those are often called ' schismatics,' who have 
 never actually divided from any Church or denomination, 
 but who have remained attached, from mature conviction, 
 to that form and order to which they have been accus- 
 tomed from their earliest years. Schism is thus consi- 
 dered as a kind of original sin. It is supposed to taint 
 the posterity of those who first incurred the charge of 
 being guilty of it. It flows iu the veins of their successive 
 
COXCORD AND COXSCIEXTIOUSXESS. 
 
 109 
 
 descendants from age to age ; and thev are regarded in 
 the light of a race of men among whom there constantly 
 exists an infectious disorder, and who ought to be put 
 under a perpetual quarantine."' 
 
 Bellarmine. — If schism be nothing more than the ebuli- 
 tion of an uncharitable temper (an opinion which will be 
 fully exposed hereafter), your reasoning is good enough 
 in itself, provided it would quadrate with undoubted facts. 
 It is certainl}' irrelevant, unless you maintain that there 
 is no such thing, as a Church or denomination, whose very 
 constitution is schismatical in the pi'inciples of its construc- 
 tion, as you affirm of the Church of England, as well as 
 of the holy Catholic Church itself. Consequently, al- 
 though a man may be brought up in a Church schismati- 
 cally constituted, if he in his riper age adhere to such an 
 ecclesiastical constitution, is he not clearly guilty of schism? 
 If we thoughtlessly embrace a hereditary error or heresy, 
 are we not, therefore, culpable ? 
 
 Lord Herbert. — But our friend does not suppose the 
 case of an individual tlioufjhtlesshj adhering to the Church 
 of his fathers, but that of one who has done so " from 
 mature conviction." This qualification of the statement 
 seems to me only to make the reasoning more ])repos- 
 terous. For what do we find, when we look at the matter 
 in hand in all its aspects ? We see a goodly nundjcr of 
 distinct Christian organisations, whose constitutional prin- 
 ciples are mutually and sharply antagonistic on several 
 very important topics. To question this averment, and 
 insist that denominations differ only on trifles, is to pass 
 upon them a sentence of severest reprobation. \ow this 
 ' Schism, p. 245. 
 
110 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 decided and signal opposition, manifested by the diverse 
 ecclesiastical societies towards each other, proves that 
 many of them, if not all of them, are " m serious error." 
 How then can we take any one individual's dictum as true, 
 when he proposes to enlighten us by saying, " the Chris- 
 tian will be secure iVora serious error." 
 
 Again, we are told that Christian men support these 
 conflicting denominations " from mature conviction." If 
 human beings may be found pursuing, _/ro?7i mature con- 
 viction, a course of serious error, your argument is no- 
 thing better than a moveable platform, leading you into 
 our boat, of whose sea-worthiness you have no high 
 opinion. But if human beings who act from mature 
 conviction will be preserved from serious error, then, 
 not only your argument, but the entire organisation of 
 the Protestant Churches, calls for revision and thorough 
 reformation. 
 
 Theophilus. — In noticing your more recent remarks, 
 my friends, it seems impossible to deny that visible wiity 
 among intelligent beings must invariably be based upon 
 a certain amount of agreement in opinion. To determine 
 what those opinions are in the agreement of which the 
 Church of Christ is founded, is the question that awaits 
 us in our next discussion. 
 
 Charity has immense influence both in human society 
 generally, and in the Christian community. But what 
 power can she exert over two men, who have adopted 
 conflicting judgments on a significant and critical question, 
 except to soften their manners, and lead them to the throne 
 of grace, to seek, in the joint perception of the truth, a 
 termination of the conflict ? How can bare charity other- 
 
CONCORD AXD COXSCIEXTIOUSXESS. 
 
 Ill 
 
 wise interfere to heal that conflict, or unsting it, with- 
 out herself coming into conflict with truth ? If once truth 
 give place to charity, we are indeed committed to the 
 principle that visihle unity promotes agreement in opinion, 
 — a principle which in the hands of infidelity eviscerates 
 truth of all its force and beauty, and which in the hands 
 of the Romish Church rifles conscience of all her integrity 
 and independence. 
 
 The phrase, a Christian is secure from serious error, is 
 too vague and unguarded to be of effective use in contro- 
 versy. It is a clumsy and objectionable mode of state- 
 ment, implying, however, the need of something similar, 
 but more definite and correct. An adequate and precise 
 principle of this sort will be found, we apprehend, in the 
 position which we have been led to adopt. When any 
 man comes to a conclusion on a particular topic from a 
 really mature conviction, his conclusion on that topic will 
 be free from error. By taking such a position, we pro- 
 ceed to erect the fabric of human knowledse and religion 
 on a double foundation, which is accessible to all men. 
 Wc thus assume the immutability of truth, and the valid- 
 ity of the human understanding when it is honestly and 
 diligently employed in the search of truth. 
 
 From this principle it follows, that when two Christians 
 contradict each othci- on a serious matter, one of them at 
 least is certainly in a serious error. And if he rc-cxaniinc 
 this serious error with " a single eye," he will assuredly 
 be led to perceive what it really is, and to abandon it. 
 
 That many of the " serious errors" in which professing 
 Christians arc entangled, are hereditary, will be ques- 
 tioned by none. That these errors involve us in ti-ans- 
 
112 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 gression, and form an element of original sin, seems to be 
 self-evident. But, if it be true that man cannot embrace 
 or support any serious error from mature conviction, then 
 is there opened up to us a plain and practicable road-way, 
 by travelling on which the Christian Church may, with 
 the blessing of her Divine head, escape from the confused 
 chaos of conflicting sentiment in which she has been so 
 long befouled and weakened. Let it be once conceded 
 that a mature conviction of the genuine sort on any 
 question is compatible with serious error on the very same 
 question, and not only will the schisms of the Protestant 
 community be hopelessly perpetuated, but also the heresies 
 of Popery will be the same as if they were indeed infallible 
 doctrines, and the sophisms and fallacies of free-thinking 
 will fittain an amount of vigour far exceeding the expec- 
 tation of their abettors. If a man cannot without culpa- 
 bility and danger reject the Bible and become a disciple 
 of secularism ; if another man cannot without culpability 
 and peril corrupt the glorious gospel, and yield himself a 
 victim to Romish superstitions ; so neither can a third 
 man without blame and hazard espouse an error which 
 rends the body of Christ, and become a supporter of 
 Protestant schism. If a ripe and honestly attained con- 
 viction may be only a grievous mistake, we have indeed a 
 shield under which the Protestant denominationalist can 
 find sufficient shelter ; but then it is a shield broad enough 
 to protect also, and almost as efficiently, the unbelieving 
 or superstitious crrorist, even the most extreme. How 
 can we successfully expose the foults of others, while 
 palliating our own under the very plea which we pretend 
 to assail ? That there arc several grave and signiticant 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 113 
 
 errors in judgment, which are pervading the Christian 
 community, and which form the actual buttresses of our 
 party-walls, and prolong the alienation of our hearts, 
 none, we think, will deny. We say to the infidel and the 
 Romanist, a diligent and conscientious search for truth 
 will deliver you from your errors. Will it not do as much 
 for ourselves ? Let us take home the retort with humility 
 and shame to our inmost thoughts. The schisms of Pro- 
 testant Christians are founded on errors. The prevalence 
 of these errors prevents the realisation of union. The 
 delay of united feeling and action is an arrest on the pro- 
 gress of the gospel. The overthrow of the great apostacy, 
 the defeat and confusion of scepticism, and the conversion 
 of the nations, all depend upon the purgation of those 
 errors, — the removal of those schisms, — which would 
 prove like the opening of a mighty flood-gate, to give 
 scope to the pentr-up waters of Christian activity and 
 benevolence. Upright and earnest and solemn inquiry 
 can dispel these deleterious, destructive, schismatic errors. 
 May the Lord hasten the day of this consummation ! 
 
 It were easy to grant that there is a charity which can 
 cure schism ; but it is a charity of a rare and peculiar kind. 
 Its foundation is laid in a deep and holy reverence for 
 truth. Its first manifestation consists in a devout personal 
 consecration to the whole law of Christ. Its normal 
 development is found in such a strong and tender aflTec- 
 tion for our brother-Christians and our fellow-men, that 
 constrains us to spare no effort, and nurse no prejudice, 
 and hesitate at no sacrifice, while labouring to know and 
 to obey all our Master's will. For we cannot doubt that it 
 is only in full and unreserved conformity to that will, that 
 
 H 
 
114 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 we can avoid placing an unnecessary stumbling-block in 
 the path of the unconverted, or offering a real offence to 
 the weakest of the brethren. Charity is the robe of 
 Truth. As truth unclothed, without her natural drapery 
 of love, may be constrained to blush, so inflated charity 
 without the body of truth will speedily collapse. 
 
 IV. — Conscientiousness in Outward Action. 
 
 Tlieopliilus. — I suppose, my friends, you will admit that 
 it is fair to judge of a tree by its fruits? 
 
 Melanctlion. — Most certainly. No one who is acquainted 
 with the unhappy consequences of infidel and popish prin- 
 ciples upon the state of society will hesitate in condemning 
 them. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — But which of two men is worse; he who 
 acts upon the principles which he behoves (even admitting 
 them to be wrong), or he who does evil in the face of the 
 principles which he professes to believe ? Are not the 
 Protestant Churches overrun with numbers who are worse 
 than their principles ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — It is even so ; and how can we regard 
 those who are so unconscientious in acting upon their 
 avowed principles, as conscientious in adopting them ? 
 
 Melanctlion. — If men arc wicked in si)ite of their good 
 principles, how much worse do they become when their 
 principles are false. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — The individual who holds an opinion 
 and acts upon it, can with some plausibihty and con- 
 sistency plead his conscientiousness ; but he who acts 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 115 
 
 contrary to his creed plainly makes shipvpreck of his 
 conscience. 
 
 Bellarmine. — For this reason we regard the infidel and 
 heathen as better than Protestant schismatics. The latter 
 know their Master's will, and do it not ; the former will 
 be able to plead in extenuation of not having done their 
 Master's will, that they knew it not. 
 
 Melancthon. — Do unbelievers and implicit believers not 
 know that they are doing ivrong, when they revile and 
 ridicule the Bible, the glorious gospel, and the faithful 
 followers of Christ ? 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Do Protestants not know that they are 
 doing vjrong, when they revile and ridicule each other? 
 " The epithets, Puritans, Methodists, Sectarians, Schis- 
 matics, Saints, Evangelicals, Voluntaries, Compulsories, 
 have each in turn been pressed and sworn into the service 
 of party. They are so easily remembered and expedi- 
 tiously applied, compared with an argument, that num- 
 bers who could neither comprehend nor employ the lat- 
 ter, arc retained in the cause of faction by means of the 
 former." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — " And having once employed these epi- 
 thets tlieir anger rises, and their contempt of those against 
 whom the epithets are cast increases in exact proportion 
 to the frequency with which they are repeated. And 
 besides inflaming the passions of those who employ them 
 by excitement, they wound and irritate those who are 
 their objects by insult." ^ Protestants arc thus convicted, 
 
 ' Union; or, tlic Divided Clim'cli niadu one. By Rev. John Harris. 
 Second Tliousand. London, "Ward and Co. P. 150. 
 ■-' Union, pp. 150, 151. 
 
116 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 on their own testimony, of some of the grievous charges 
 which thev brine: ajrainst us. 
 
 Melancthon. — Do Popish priests not know that they are 
 doing ivrong, when they hurl their curses from the altar 
 against the innocent and pious ? Or if they do not know, 
 are they not on this very account the more guilty, as 
 thus proving themselves reprobate ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — Do Protestant schismatics not know that 
 they are doing wrong, when, " on both sides, historical 
 facts are distorted, Scripture is misquoted and misapplied, 
 faults are blackened and magnified into startling crimes, 
 the rules of argumentative justice are grossly violated, 
 obnous mistakes are eacrerlv seized and agorravated into 
 intentional falsehood, candid admissions are taken advan- 
 tage of and turned into grave accusations, the sanctity of 
 private friendship is profaned, old and one-sided informa- 
 tion is received and employed in preference to that which 
 is more recent and complete, seeming inconsistencies en- 
 larged on as real contradictions, parts of statements quoted 
 as the whole, and citations perverted so as to convey a 
 meaning contrary to the intention of the author, and of 
 truth?" 1 
 
 Lord Herbert. — And is there not at the same time a 
 large admixture of that powerful ingredient which is stig- 
 matised under the name of hypocrisy, as the worst form 
 of infidelity, when " all this is done, too, in the name of 
 the God of Truth and Love — with a plausible atfcctation 
 of sincere concern for the prosperity of religion." ^ 
 
 Theophilus. — What is one of the strongest reasons 
 which you can adduce to shew the blameworthiness of the 
 ' Uuion, pp. 152, 153. » lb. p. 153. 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 117 
 
 more intelligent Roman Catholic and the intellectual free- 
 thinker ? 
 
 Melancthon. — The most convincing reason that now 
 occurs to me is, unquestionably, their careless and cul- 
 pable ignorance of what Christianity really is. Many have 
 never given the gospel a fixir hearing at all, and many 
 others have looked at it under the influence of such deep 
 dark prejudices as to render it impossible for them to per- 
 ceive its glory. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Physician heal thyself. Do you deny 
 that " a large proportion of the rehgious public confines 
 its readings and intercourse exclusively to its own party ?" ' 
 You charge us with not seeking the truth ; but " if truth 
 were preferred to triumph, you would remember that it is 
 not the monopoly of a party ; and on enlarging the sphere 
 of their reading and observation, sectaries would find much 
 to question where they had hitherto placed implicit confi- 
 dence, and much to approve where they had previously 
 bestowed all their suspicions and censures." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — You taunt us with looking on every one 
 outside our pale with jaundiced eyes. But it is notorious 
 that Protestants " are content to hear faults imputed to 
 each other without any examination, and praise lavished 
 on themselves witli little quahfication ; until, having heard 
 for years of nothing concerning their own party but its 
 excellence, nor of their opponents but their errors and 
 evils, it ceases to be wonderful that they should identify 
 all goodness with the former, and feel as if the greatest 
 virtue next to loving and applauding it must consist in 
 vilifying and opposing the latter." ^ Is this charge of 
 ' Union, p. 154. » lb. p. 154. » lb. p. 154. 
 
118 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 insincerity and partizanship urged so freely against us 
 because it is so rife among yourselves 1 
 
 TheopJulus. — What is the exact nature of the charge 
 which you would bring against the well-informed deist or 
 ultramontane, Avho in these days of development and pro- 
 gress should continue to reject the Bible and oppose the 
 gospel of Christ ? 
 
 Melancthon. — Nothing less can be said of the individuals 
 who, with a knowledge of what criticism has done for the 
 word of God, and what history has unfolded of the work- 
 ings of Popery, yet cling to the sophisms of Voltaire or 
 to the infallibility of the Pope, than that they are harden- 
 ing their hearts, and searing their consciences as with a 
 hot iron. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — What less can be said of any Protestant 
 Church or individual who, with all the divisions, rancorous 
 and multiplied, of the present day full in his view, and with 
 all that the New Testament labours to inculcate respecting 
 union, and with all the guilt and evil which every one 
 knows, and believes, and admits is attached to schism, 
 before his open eyes, has nevertheless to be " respectfully" 
 asked, " wliether he has ever considered the possibility — 
 the bare possibility — of his being a schismatic ? or whether 
 he is prepared to admit the possibility thai the Church to 
 which he belongs may be in any degree amenable to the 
 charge?" ' Until " a loud and irresistible cry shall be 
 heard in every Church, calling not merely for individual 
 scrutiny, but for the instant, impartial, and prayerful 
 examination of each Church in its collective capacity," ^ 
 and until this mighty cry shall burst the fetters of sec- 
 1 Union, p. 157. ' lb. p. 155. 
 
CONCORD AXD CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 119 
 
 tarianism, and issue in some movement towards a practical 
 union, such as Jesus Christ is represented as commanding 
 and expecting, we must throw back upon the Protestant 
 community the accusation of " a seared conscience." 
 
 Bellarmine. — And so must we. For Protestant Chris- 
 tians either know the scriptural nature and guilt of schism, 
 or they do not. If they do not know them, with the Bible 
 in their hands and their boasted right of private judg- 
 ment, it is plain as noonday that having eyes they see not, 
 and having ears they hear not, If they do know the cri- 
 minality and evil of schism, and continue to practise it so 
 unblushingly, are they not " holding the truth in un- 
 righteousness ? " Ai'e they "receiving the love of the 
 truth?" 
 
 Melancthon. — We charge the unbeliever with taking 
 away from the word of God, and the papist with adding 
 to it. But every Protestant believes and professes that 
 his own particular church is founded upon and is agreeable 
 to the word of God. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Do you really mean to assert, or expect 
 us to believe, that every Protestant has " examined the 
 constitution, history, and state of the Church to which he 
 belongs by the standard," ' to which he professedly aj)- 
 peals, and to which he desires to make us conform ? " Is 
 he satisfied," after sufficient investigation and on palpable 
 grounds, " that were all books except the Bible lost fnmi 
 the earth, his church would find its entire constitution 
 sanctioned and supported by the facts and principles re- 
 corded there?" 2 Is every one who professes to be so 
 satisfied, without having attained the reality, or having 
 ' Union, p. 159. ' lb. p. 159. 
 
120 
 
 DIALOGUE I, 
 
 attained it sluggishly, and summarily, and illegitimately, 
 not " feeding on ashes ? " 
 
 Bellarmine. — We are condemned most peremptorily for 
 professing infallibility ; but is there not " a class amongst 
 you who persuade themselves that their Church is perfect, 
 — that Infinite Perfection could not say to it, ' I have some- 
 what against thee?'"i And of those who have not this 
 persuasion, is every one " searching for the beam or the 
 mote ? Does he deplore it ? and is he ready to assist in 
 casting it out ? " ^ If any one does not so act, he condemns 
 himself in the thing which he allows. Now, point, if you 
 can, to the Protestant Church which does not either con- 
 fess to imposing unscriptural terms of communion, and thus 
 seals its own condemnation, or pleads that it is perfect, and 
 that nothing can be found against it. 
 
 Melanctlion. — Infidelity, by taking away religion, saps 
 the very foundations of morality ; and Popery, by its mul- 
 titudinous edicts, brings dark confusion over the whole code 
 of morals. Both are thus found approving and sanction- 
 ing offences, which otherwise would only be connived 
 at. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — The charge again recoils upon your- 
 selves. " AVhile schism is branded by universal consent, 
 and while parties have been bandying the charge, and 
 criminating each other, anxious only on which the charge 
 should finally settle, how insensible have they been to the 
 fact that they were meanwhile familiarising themselves, in 
 common, with the sin itself, drinking into its spirit, pre- 
 senting to the world a spectacle of ridicule and reproach, 
 and frustrating the very ends for which a Church has been 
 » Union, p. 159. » lb. p. 159. 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOCSSTESS. 
 
 121 
 
 instituted, and for which Christianity is continued on 
 earth."! 
 
 Bellarmine. — We are accused of cancelling the second 
 commandment of the decalogue ; but " a spirit of conten- 
 tion and division is, in effect, a repeal of the whole evan- 
 gelical law. In six of the epistlos it is affirmed, that ' love 
 is the fulfilling of the law.' The law of love to God and 
 man, which was proclaimed from Sinai, has been repub- 
 lished from Calvary, enforced by more appropriate and 
 powerful motives, and constituted the grand practical cha- 
 racteristic of the Christian economy. But schism is the 
 breach of Christian love, and consequently a violation of 
 the whole Christian law." ^ We, surely, are innocent, when 
 compared with such wholesale rebellion ! 
 
 Melancthon. — It is a monstrous logic that would asso- 
 ciate the evils of Protestant schisms with the horrors of 
 the French atheistic revolution, or with the atrocities of 
 the Inquisition, or the abominations of cloistered hypo- 
 crisy. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Let the question be settled on your 
 own principles. " The scriptural classification of this sin 
 illustrates its vile and aggravated nature, for it stands 
 associated, both in its origin and tendencies, with many of 
 the principal sins. 1 Cor. iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20 ; Gal. v. 
 15-21. Here, its origin is imputed to carnality, to the 
 lusts of the flcsli, to the prcdoniincncc of the sinful and 
 worldly over the renewed and spiritual part of our nature ; 
 many of the baser passions are found in its company, either 
 as its offspring or congenial associates ; and it is repre- 
 sented as degrading its victims, in some respects, below 
 ' Union, p. 171. ^ Ilj. p. 173. 
 
122 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 the mere level of humanity, into beasts of prey, who return 
 bite for bite, and are ' consumed one of another.' " ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — Protestants are indignant against us, be- 
 cause the Catechism of Trent declares that the priest, in 
 the confessional, is in the place of God. Now, it is plain, 
 as has been already seen, that to make any one thing a 
 term of Christian communion, for which there is not ex- 
 press divine authority, is schismatical. What Protestant 
 Church is guiltless of this charge ? It " amounts to a vir- 
 tual usurpation of the, throne of Christ, and of his highest 
 prerogative as Lord of conscience. Rom. xiv. ; James iv. 
 11. According to these scriptures, among the highest 
 rights which Christ has acquired by his sacrificial death, 
 are those which relate to the conscience, so that to attempt 
 to impose our appointments on the conscience of another, 
 or to denounce him for not subordinating his conscience to 
 ours, is to ascend the tribunal, displace the Saviour, put 
 on the brightest of his many crowns, and tyrannise where 
 he should rein;n, — an invasion of his throne which he will 
 not fail to resent." ^ We are guiltless of this heavy accu- 
 sation, inasmuch as Christ's vicegerent is at our head. 
 
 Melancthon. — You now assume that the Pope is really 
 the vicegerent of Christ Jesus our Lord. To admit this is 
 to wreath around our limbs the chains of spiritual despot- 
 ism. " Man's faith, or his worship, can approve itself to 
 God as an expression of love, only in so far as it approves 
 itself to his own conviction as that which the word of God 
 requires. To form and follow his own convictions of the 
 revealed will of God is an inalienable right, of which no 
 human being can justly deprive him, and an imperative 
 1 Union, p. 174. ^ lb. pp. 174, 176. 
 
CONCORD AM) CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 123 
 
 duty, from which no created authority can absolve 
 him." » 
 
 Lord Herbert. — And in the exercise of this " inahen- 
 able right," " to form and follow your own convictions of 
 the revealed will of God," your different denominations 
 find their origin and support. Elsewhere you maintain, 
 that " losing sight of the common interests of the Chris- 
 tian Church, each party appoints terms of communion with 
 itself, which disparage and virtually repeal the bond of 
 scriptural union." ^ Now, this perpetual appeal, some- 
 times to conscience, and sometimes to the Bible, we could 
 well understand, provided conscience and the Bible were 
 always at one. But to be urged in one paragraph to fol- 
 low our own convictions, and anon to be told that they 
 who are supposed to be following conscience arc repealing 
 the law of God, is as dark a confusion, and as sore a per- 
 plexity, as any of the difficulties of infidehty. We profess 
 to obey conscience in rejecting the Bible. You profess to 
 be the disciples of both, but by bringing them thus into 
 collision, both are utterly degraded. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Our Church union and fellowship is depre- 
 ciated, and censured as being that of slaves, with an out- 
 ward fence constraining to an apparent harmony, while 
 inside the inclosure all is variance and turmoil. But what 
 better is the state of so-called Evangelical Christendom ? 
 By " each party appointing terms of communion with itself 
 which disparage and virtually repeal the bond of scriptu- 
 ral union," " the brotherly love tuhich ought to subsist be- 
 tween the Churches of Christ is made impossible, and a 
 masked affectation of charity passes in its stead. It would 
 * Union, pp. 219, 220. » lb. p. 181. 
 
124 
 
 DIALOGTJE I. 
 
 be a self-contradiction for children of the same parent to 
 profess that they cherish a very tender affection for each 
 other, and yet refuse to sit at the same table, or to ex- 
 change the mutual expressions of fraternal love. And 
 equally absurd and hypocritical is it for the members of 
 different Churches to pretend that their attachment to real 
 Christians, of whatever name, is sincere, and yet withhold 
 from them the obvious and natural evidences of love. They 
 mistake worldly politeness for the sanctified ardour of 
 Christian love. Instead of cordially welcoming them to 
 the table of the Lord, and to the intimacies of Christian 
 fellowship, they content themselves with the bare avoid- 
 ance of rudeness, and say, ' Depart in peace.' Instead of 
 pouring in oil and wine into their smarting wounds, they 
 consider it praise-worthy forbearance that they do not 
 inflict an additional stab, and ' pass by on the other side.' 
 How cutting the sarcasm which should now say, ' See how 
 these Christians love,' when they have only just religion 
 enough to hate ; when they call on Christians to come out 
 from their fellow-Christians, and to come over to them- 
 selves, as loudly as they call on the irreligious to come 
 out from the world, and be separate; when they rejoice in 
 an instance of proselytism more than in a conversion ; 
 when the sect of the schismatical, including members of 
 all Churches, is the most active, numerous, and extending 
 sect of the day ; and when a scant and gauzy affectation 
 of charity is supposed to be an adequate substitute for the 
 warm and ample robe of Christian love." ' 
 
 Melancthon. — We sorrowfully admit that the excesses 
 which have now been specified have too frequently oc- 
 ' Union, pp. 182, 183. 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, 
 
 125 
 
 curred, and have no wish to paUiate, far less justify them. 
 But the principle on which we desire to take our stand is 
 at least sound. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Granting, for the sake of argument in 
 the meantime, that your principle is unassailable, what 
 shall be said, if the majority of Protestant Christians, 
 habitually and generally, set it at defiance? Is it not 
 time that the minority were preparing a second Protest, 
 as the precursor of a second Reformation ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — And, of course, till this be done, the first 
 Protest of the sixteenth century is ignored, or rather re- 
 pudiated. But what is your principle ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " In the common reception of the Bible 
 as the Word of God, and in the acknowledgment of its 
 supremacy, together with the consequent duty of every 
 man to follow his conscientious views of its dictates, is laid 
 the foundation, and the only foundation, on which can be 
 built the temple of Christian peace." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — Very fair indeed. But when men, follow- 
 ing each " his conscientious views of the dictates of the 
 Bible," come into collision with each other on momentous 
 and vital points, where is the foundation for the temple of 
 peace ? Experience shows us only explosions and earth- 
 quakes. 
 
 Melancthon. — M^- reply is twofold. On vital matters 
 Christians are at one. And, secondly, " should a differ- 
 ence of opinion obtain concerning the interpretation of 
 any part (of our authorised guide, God's Word), we ought 
 to regard each other as following his conscientious views 
 of that authority, and love each other on that account." * 
 ' Uuiou, p. 221. ' lb. 221. 
 
126 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Waiving any answer to your first re- 
 mark, which will come to be fully discussed hereafter, as 
 to the second, it may be observed, that if " the difference 
 of opinion " be in regard to some trifle, it cannot justify, 
 or with any show of reason occasion, denominational forti- 
 fications, or alienation of heart. But if it Involve such 
 weighty matter as necessitates any sort of separation be- 
 tween the dissentient parties, then how they can " love 
 each other on that account " passes comprehension. If it 
 be said they love each other, because each believes his 
 neighbour to be " following his conscientious views," then 
 how can you believe in conscience at all, or in truth, or in 
 God, if, on important questions, one man's conscience 
 comes inevitably into conflict with the conscience of another 
 man ? 
 
 Bellarmine Besides, even supposing that separation 
 
 could be at first vindicated on such weak principles as 
 have now been adduced, this separation would not meet 
 the evil, or mend it. The evil would thereby only be 
 aggravated, and extended, and prolonged. " It is in the 
 nature of things, that those who differ from each other, 
 and who have proclaimed that dift'erencc to the world by 
 taking their stand in separate parties, should be anxious 
 to justify their respective grounds of difference. But by 
 shutting themselves up in separate enclosures, they deprive 
 themselves of the opportunity, and even lose the desire, 
 of mutual explanation ; and, by shutting others out, they 
 prejudice them against their peculiar sentiments, even 
 though founded in truth. ' The wall of separation is con- 
 tinually strengthened, each party fortifying it on his own 
 side.' Their pride is engaged to maintain their respective 
 
CONCORD AND CONSCIENTIOUSNESS. 
 
 127 
 
 opinions ; for, having avowed them, their surrender would 
 be deemed a surrender of honour. The Bible itself is 
 made a partisan ; ground for new discrepancies are there 
 fancied or descried ; and, consequently, additional reasons 
 for receding a step farther off. New subjects of contention 
 arise ; new antagonists rush to the conflict ; new materials 
 for continuing and extending the war are collected ; and 
 each party would fain enforce the law of Solon, compelling 
 every one to range under one or other of the contending 
 banners, till the whole Church should be embroiled." ' 
 
 Theophilus. — The issue of this part of the discussion 
 appears to be, that the principles of Christian union, so 
 far as they are commonly understood and generally recog- 
 nised, are, to a large extent, and often in a very shameless 
 manner, practically disregarded and disobeyed. To what- 
 ever extent this practical neglect and defiance of the first 
 great law of Christianity prevails in the Protestant com- 
 munity, to the same extent is this community inconsistent, 
 and powerless in all its assaults either upon the despotism 
 of liomc, or the delusions of scepticism. Nay more, this 
 broad and palpable, because practical, inconsistency, exerts 
 an invisible, perhaps, but certainly an inevitable and most 
 pernicious reaction upon the efforts of the holiest men, 
 and upon the measures of the dcvoutcst wisdom. 
 
 Furthermore, as to the principles of union now more 
 immediately under review, we are led to the same conclu- 
 sion as before. \Vc have found it to be a first and un- 
 questionable position, that concord and conscientiousness 
 arc never at variance ; in other words, the men who legiti- 
 mately, that is, honestly and diligently, use their under- 
 ' Uuiou, pp. 183, 181. 
 
128 
 
 DIALOGUE I. 
 
 standing in forming their convictions on all matters of 
 truth and duty, will not come into contradiction and con- 
 flict, such as to endanger the unity and harmony of the 
 body of Christ. Unless this be assumed as a fundamental 
 and all-pervading principle, we shall seek in vain for any 
 place of refuge strong enough to enable us to defy, at once 
 the wild wastino- suro-es of unbelief, and the envenomed 
 shafts of spiritual tyranny. 
 
 Let this principle be granted, and we can perceive 
 something like a suitable and stable foundation among 
 intelligent beings, whereon to erect an altar of peace and 
 a shrine of unanimity. For whenever the olive branch is 
 removed from that shrine, or broken at that altar, the 
 criminality of the outrage lies on some individual, who has 
 in its perpetration not only offended against external order 
 and sacredness, but also against the venerable monitor 
 within his own bosom. 
 
DIALOGUE 11. 
 
 THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 I. — Common Ground and Fundamental Truth. 
 
 Theophilus. — The question which is now to be consi- 
 dered is this, How shall we distinguish between those 
 matters on which unanimity of sentiment is necessary to 
 Christian fellowship, and those other matters on which 
 identity of opinion may be dispensed with '! 
 
 Melancthon. — Our answer to that question is at hand, 
 and seems to be perfectly satisfactory. " Unity in essen- 
 tials ; in non-essentials liberty ; in all things charity." 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Your answer is by no means satisfac- 
 tory till you have pointed out the difference between 
 essentials and non-essentials. 
 
 Melancthon. — Essentials may be characterised as " the 
 
 MAIN DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL."' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Then are Christians universally agreed 
 as to what those things are which constitute " the main 
 doctrines of the gospel ; " or can you state any canon or 
 rule, by the application of which these "main doctrines" 
 may be surely discriminated from the secondary or non- 
 essential points? 
 
 • Schism, p. 390. 
 I 
 
130 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Many who call themselves Christians are 
 by no means agreed as to what they believe to be " the 
 main doctrines of the gospel." But Christians, who are 
 not heretics, are agreed in all the doctrines of our holy 
 religion. For this distinction between essentials and non- 
 essentials is a Protestant device to paUiate and defend 
 endless divisions. For whatever properly belongs to reli- 
 gion is truly sacred ; and to attempt to introduce among 
 sacred things a lower and a higher grade, is virtually to 
 desecrate them altogether. 
 
 Melancthon. — You must admit at all events that you 
 have taught us the lesson. Tour distinction between 
 venial and mortal sins does indeed amount to an authori- 
 tative sanction on the part of your Church in favour of 
 iniquity. The ancient theory about the purity of celi- 
 bacy, moreover, which your councils have endorsed, really 
 throws discredit upon tlie honour and hohness of matri- 
 mony, and opens a wide door for licentiousness. There 
 are no such evil consequences attached to the principle 
 which separates essentials and non-essentials, as it is held 
 in Protestant Christendom. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — If the principle be indeed unsound and 
 illusory, you will not deny that its bitter fruits will sooner 
 or later appear. That it is unsound, or at least incon- 
 sistent with some of your other principles, requires little 
 argument to make manifest. You maintain that all Scrip- 
 ture is given by inspiration of God, — that whatever the 
 Bible inculcates is clothed with Divine authority. What- 
 ever rests upon this authority is surely obligatory in the 
 same degree or to the same extent. Among doctrines 
 which are all equally true, or among commands which 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 131 
 
 are all equally binding, bow can some be essential, and 
 otbers non-essential ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " Happily, Christians have now no excuse 
 for standing aloof from each other, on the plea that there 
 is ' no neutral, or common ground.' If such a plea were 
 ever tolerable, that time has passed away — and may it no 
 more return ! But such a plea was never valid, either in 
 the court of heaven, or in that of conscience. No com- 
 mon ground among Christians ! May the peculiarities 
 that distinguish them, then, never be forgotten in the dis- 
 charge of common duties, and the defence of fundamental 
 truths? The truth itself is common ground.'" ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — These remarks do not remove the diffi- 
 culty which has been pointed out. They reiterate the 
 distinction between what is common to all and what is 
 peculiar to each ; but they do not help us to determine 
 whether or not in a special case a peculiarity should he 
 common, or what is called common is really only peculiar. 
 When a sect maintains that its peculiarity belongs, or 
 should belong, to the common ground, how is the claim to 
 to be disposed of? Is this common ground always un- 
 changeable, or is it hable to diminution or increase ? And 
 again, is there not common ground between you and us, as 
 well as between your own rival sects ; and if there be, why 
 should not you unite with us in the discharge of common 
 duties and the defence of fundamental trutlis ? Besides, 
 you have not even attempted to reconcile the inconsis- 
 tency which was already noticed. 
 
 Bellarmine. — One thing is enough at a time. We might 
 join issue on the single statement, " the truth itself is com- 
 ' Scliism, p. 391. 
 
132 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 mon ground." This is our maxim, which Protestants have 
 sadly abused. We understand it to mean, that the com- 
 mon ground is all truth, and truth only. Hence the 
 creed of the Catholic Church contains all that is to be 
 believed, and only what is to be believed. But you Pro- 
 testants, in asserting that there is a common ground on 
 which you stand, which you call the truth, assert also, 
 each of you for himself, that there is truth in his own 
 peculiarities, as good and valid truth as what is found in 
 the common ground. Hence it is incorrect to say, that 
 " the truth itself is common ground" to Protestants. 
 
 Melanctlion. — The truth, in which we are all agreed, is 
 surely common ground. 
 
 Bellarmine. — But that statement is a mere tautology. 
 
 Melanctlion. — Well, then, Protestant Christians are 
 agreed, as formerly stated, in things essential. And 
 " the more any speculations, true or false, which form 
 no part of the essential doctrine of salvation, are insisted 
 on as important, the more numerous are the sources of 
 schismatical division." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — But do you not see that such a wise 
 caution is wide of the mai-k, till you shall be pleased to 
 tell us, what is " the essential doctrine of salvation," or 
 how we shall be able to determine it ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — And how can you maintain that what is true 
 is not important ? You elsewhere speak of " a forbearing 
 mutual indulgence up to the last limit of truth." ^ Here 
 you must mean, I suppose, essential or important truth. 
 So that Protestant liberty becomes a license to trifle with 
 certain truths, by calling them non-essential or unhnportant. 
 > Schism, p. 343. 2 lb. p. 6C. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPIXION. 
 
 133 
 
 Melancthon. — " The tendency to indulge, beyond the 
 letter of Scripture, in positive declarations respecting what 
 is to be believed, ill becomes fallible mortals, though no 
 period of the Church has been exempt from this evil. 
 Even venerable antiquity, and the desire to guard the 
 truth against heresy, will not consecrate any approach 
 towards the confines of presumption."^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This seems to me to be giving up the 
 whole question. According to this statement it follows, 
 that whoever professes to adhere to " the letter of Scrip- 
 ture" is to be regarded as embracing " the essential doc- 
 trine of salvation," and occupying " the common ground !" 
 What is this but implicit faith ? 
 
 Bellarmine And if it be "presumption" "to indulge 
 
 in positive declarations" " beyond the letter of Scripture," 
 is it not an equal presumption to go amongst the letters 
 and words of Scripture, and indulge a tendency to call 
 some of them important and essential, and some of them 
 indifferent ? Is this, indeed, Protestant reverence for the 
 Word of God? 
 
 Melancthon. — " As private friendship consists harmo- 
 niously with benevolence towards all mankind ; so a con- 
 scientious attachment to those modes and forms which we 
 judge most in accordance with the will of God, receives a 
 beauty and a grace when accompanied with a brotherly 
 affection for the whole Church of Christ. For those to 
 unite in stated worship who most agree in rites and 
 church order, is a proceeding which human imperfection 
 seems to call for, and which is most calculated to promote 
 edification. But, surclyi he whoso heart is the abode of 
 * Schism, p. 344. 
 
134 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 charity — the grand principle of the Christian reh'gion — 
 will seek to carry union with other Christians to the 
 utmost possible extent. His preference for any particular 
 mode of church government and worship, will not be 
 allowed to interfere with his intercourse and Christian 
 co-operation with those who entertain other views. In- 
 stead of manifesting towards them a distant behaviour — 
 much less a decided aversion, or a marked hostility — will 
 he not embrace opportunities of recognising them before 
 the world as his brethren, disciples of the same Master, 
 and having the same ends in view — human happiness, and 
 the Divine glory ? Will he not rejoice when occasion 
 offers — nay, will he not seek occasion to engage with them 
 in some good work, sacrificing all external differences at 
 the shrine of Christian love, and for the sake of the gospel 
 itself r'l- 
 
 Lord Herbert. — The climax of your argument, then, is 
 this : to " sacrifice all external differences at the shrine of 
 Christian love, and for the sake of the gospel itself." 
 These " external differences," however, involve matters 
 of duty and truth. This is obvious from your own lan- 
 guage, when you speak of " a conscientious attachment to 
 those modes and forms which you judge most in accord- 
 ance with the will of God." It is further obvious from 
 the nature of the case ; for if there be neither truth nor 
 duty implicated in these " external differences," then they 
 should not exist at all. Now, what do you mean by talk- 
 ing of the sacrifice of any iota of truth or duty " at the 
 shrine of Christian love, and for the sake of the gospel 
 itself.'"' I always thought that Christians boasted of the 
 J Schism, pp. 390, 391. 
 
TUE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINIOX. 
 
 135 
 
 purity of Christian love, and of the harmony between the 
 gospel and truth ! But now it would appear that they are 
 not only to " embrace opportunities," but to rejoice when 
 occasion offers, nay to seek occasion, that they may sacri- 
 fice duty at the shrine of love and truth for the sake of 
 the gospel ! Is this not setting ecclesiastical law against 
 moral and divine law — one of the foulest manifestations of 
 Popery ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — Nay, rather, is it not a deep delusion of 
 infidelity, which attains its deadly purpose, by arraying 
 one truth against another truth, and duty against duty. 
 To say that a man's " preference for any particular mode 
 of church government and worship will not be allowed to 
 interfere with his intercourse and Christian co-operation 
 with those who entertain other views," is thorough trifling. 
 It does so in fact ; it cannot but do so. If men hold con- 
 flicting views about church government and worship, or 
 even if they act upon their " preferences for particular 
 modes," is it not a necessary and invariable consequence, 
 that their religious intercourse and co-operation are re- 
 stricted and curtailed, and a leash of prejudices is let loose 
 on both sides? If, then, you are drawn by one set of 
 conscientious principles to harmony and communion with 
 each other, and by another set of conscientious principles 
 restrained and embarrassed in your intercourse, you are 
 no better than the sceptic. For my own part, I had rather 
 believe nothing at all, than be racked and torn by conflict- 
 ing beliefs. To plead that " human imperfection seems to 
 call for such a proceeding," is to resort to the pantheist's 
 argument, that whatever is, is right. 
 
 Tkeophilus. — It is unquestionably correct to say, that 
 
136 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 there is " common ground " belonging to the various Pro- 
 testant sects. But it is also true that there is common 
 ground to the Christian and the infidel, as well as to the 
 Papist and the Protestant. When there is no common 
 ground to two parties, there can be no argument between 
 them ; the one has no means of convincing, or confuting, 
 or gaining the other. The determination of the limits of 
 this common ground in each of the cases now specified, 
 and in a precise and accurate form, is of the very utmost 
 consequence. Supposing that the common ground at pre- 
 sent occupied by Protestant denominations were correctly 
 delineated, this delineation would not necessarily include 
 all essential truth, and only essential truth ; neither would 
 it heal the divisions produced by contradictory judgments, 
 nor could it prevent or medicate in an efficient manner the 
 grievous evil of these divisions. 
 
 What is common ground at any one time, may not coin- 
 cide with what ought to be common ground, which some 
 might designate essential truth, but which may be more 
 appropriately called fundamental truth. But our know- 
 ledge of this common ground, or fundamental truth, must 
 ever continue vague and unsatisfactory and useless for 
 social purposes, if we are debarred from all " positive 
 declarations of what is to be believed," " beyond the let- 
 ter of Scripture." Unless the Church has some means or 
 other of generalizing the statements of the Bible by com- 
 paring fact with fact, and oracle with oracle, and unless 
 these generalizations may be legitimately embodied in 
 definite propositions, in which all true disciples may rea- 
 sonably be expected to acquiesce, the Christian faith can 
 never be expected to become universally and manifestly 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 137 
 
 prevalent among intelligent men, nor can it ever cope 
 with and overcome completely the intellectual forms of 
 infidelity. 
 
 The distinction between things essential and non-essen- 
 tial is one obviously liable to serious objections, some of 
 which have been already stated. This point is not imme- 
 diately before us at present, but one thing begins to be 
 apparent from what has been advanced, namely, that if the 
 identity of opinion which is indispensable to Christian fel- 
 lowship be limited to essential truths, as they are called, 
 Christian union cannot be expected to acquire consolida- 
 tion, and advance towards maturity, without a distinct and 
 satisfactory enunciation of these truths. Another thing is 
 equally apparent ; the Christian Church, it is said, is 
 founded on the conscientious agreement of its members on 
 these essential truths ; while it is maintained, at the same 
 time, that there is no such thing as a conscientious disbe- 
 lief or rejection of these truths, or, if there be, it is 
 blameworthy. Now, then, it must be shown, how there 
 can be a conscientious and blameless rejection or denial 
 of non-essential truth, while there can be no such con- 
 scientious and blameless denial or rejection of truth that 
 is essential. 
 
 Ilcncc the defenders of the distinction between essen- 
 tials and non-essentials, so far as it bears upon our present 
 discussion, are called not only to prove tlic reality of this 
 distinction, and state precisely what is its character, but 
 also to show that it is of such a nature, that while there is 
 room for conscientious or innocent contradiction in regard 
 to the one class of truths, there is no room for such con- 
 tradiction in regard to the other class. 
 
138 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 Melanctlion — " The foundation of a scriptural union 
 among Christians is laid in the belief of those truths which 
 are essential to our union with Christ. But how are these 
 truths (it is asked), few and simple as they may be, to be 
 discriminated and determined ? Had this question never 
 engaged our attention before, we should naturally adopt 
 some or all of the following methods ; we should inquire 
 whether, on a devout and careful perusal of the gospel as 
 a whole, Christians generally have received an identity of 
 impression as to its scope and design; — whether it con- 
 tained within its pages anything professing to be an epi- 
 tome or abridgment of the system which it reveals ; — 
 whether the apostolic preaching contained any one leading 
 feature ; — or, whether the question of fundamental truth 
 was ever agitated in apostolic times, and determined by 
 apostolic authority ? Now, on adopting this course of 
 inquiry, we not only obtain rephes, — and these replies 
 not merely agree, — but, by the unanimous verdict of the 
 orthodox Church, they all prove to be one; and that one, 
 the doctrine of justification by faith in the atoning sacrifice 
 of Christ." 1 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Allowing your statement to be per- 
 fectly accurate so far as it goes, a word of explanation is 
 still required. Supposing several Christians to take up a 
 common position on the truth now specified, there are two 
 distinct senses in which that truth may be regarded as 
 fundamental. This fundamental truth may be considered 
 either as the sum total of what is necessary to be held in 
 common, allowing diversity or contradiction on every other 
 subject ; or it may be regarded only as the starting point, 
 1 Uuioii, pp. G5, 6C. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 139 
 
 by advancing from which Christians shall come to una- 
 nimity of sentiment on many other topics. If a harmo- 
 nious belief in this fundamental truth be asserted to be of 
 itself sufficient to secure a desirable Christian union, not- 
 ivithstanding any other conflicting sentiments that may 
 prevail in the associated community, we shall, then, have 
 to look narrowly to its definition and meaning, and may 
 find serious difficulties in coming to a clear and satisfactory 
 settlement of the question. If, on the other hand, this 
 fundamental truth be held only as the first article of 
 agreement, to which, from time to time, others may be 
 expected to be added, then there is less occasion for 
 any rigid examination of this first article ; but still we 
 are as far as ever from the answer to the inquiry with 
 which we have now to do. What is the limit of the 
 identity of opinion which is needful to ensure Christian 
 union ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — As no Protestant will be bold enough to 
 say, that all Christian truth may with any plausibility be 
 included in the dogma just announced, it follows, that to 
 build the Christian Church not only 07i this truth alone, 
 but with this truth alone, allowing within the Church scope 
 for every heresy not directly opposed to it, is to make the 
 Church a scandalous receptacle for many sorts of error, as 
 the holy Catholic Church has been falsely accused of 
 doinw. And if this boasted article of a falling or a stand- 
 ing Church be admitted to be only the beginning of Pro- 
 testant unanimity, it may fairly be questioned whether or 
 not the unanimity has yet really begun. For every one 
 that has read Protestant theologians must know, that 
 around their fundamental assumption of justification by 
 
140 
 
 DIALOGUE 11. 
 
 faith alone, several keen and weighty controversies have 
 long been, and still are, pending. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Here is an apostolic canon (Rom. xiv. 3, 
 XV. 1-7) for the regulation of the conduct of such Christians 
 as fundamentally agree, while they differ on points of 
 subordinate importance — a canon which imperatively re- 
 quires them to exercise a reciprocal toleration and indul- 
 gence — to give each other credit for a conscientious defer- 
 ence to the will of Christ — to view each other as mutually 
 received of God — and all this that they may on no account 
 proceed to an open rupture. So that all the parties which 
 at present divide the Church, owing to diversities of opinion 
 which are not inconsistent with salvation, exist in open 
 violation of this sacred canon, impeach the inspired wisdom 
 which enjoins it, and repeal all those commands of mutual 
 toleration which harmonise with its spirit." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — If we do not greatly misunderstand this 
 language, it urgently contends for a principle which was 
 formerly denied, and severely condemns the mass of Pro- 
 testant denominationalists. It shows that when denomi- 
 nations can plead in defence of their existence only 
 " diversities of opinion which are not inconsistent with 
 salvation," they are unscriptural, schismatical, and highly 
 criminal. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This language also shows in which of 
 the two senses specified agreement in fundamental truth 
 is taken. Fundamental agreement is here regarded as 
 final and definite, not initiative and progressive. Since, 
 then, you regard the fundamental harmony of which you 
 speak as something precise, settled, and unchanging, we 
 I Union, p. 277. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDEXTITT OF OPINION. 
 
 141 
 
 beg to press the inquiry, in what does it consist ? Does 
 it include nothing else but " the doctrine of justification 
 by faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ ?" 
 
 Melancthon. — " This parent truth necessarily involves 
 in it, (according to our apprehension), the divinity of 
 Christ, the necessity of renewal and sanctification by the 
 Holy Spirit, and whatever is commonly called evangelical 
 in doctrine ; while it sprinkles the path of duty with 
 atoning blood, and is the seminal principle of universal 
 holiness. But whatever the precise amount of truth 
 which it may comprehend, it is evidently the doctrine by 
 the humble and hearty belief of which a man becomes 
 united to Christ, and consequently one with his people. 
 Whatever variety of sentiment he may hold on subor- 
 dinate points, the cordial reception of ' redemption through 
 the blood of the Cross' unites him to ' the Head of the 
 body, ' and through the Head to the body itself. What- 
 ever the order and discipline of the particular Church to 
 which he may belong, his union to Christ, being derived 
 from an independent and superior source, is left untouched, 
 as well as his union to the body of Christ. And that 
 Church itself, teaching this faith, and composed of such 
 members, is a true Church, and an integral part of the 
 great Christian community."' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — In the first place, this is not answering 
 the question which is before us, and which, we have seen, 
 must be answered, if we would converse intelligently about 
 Christian union. This union, you aflfirm, consists in iden- 
 tity of opinion on some points, but not on all points, of 
 faith and practice. The question is, what arc the points 
 ' Union, p. G8. 
 
142 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 on which identity of opinion is indispensable ? Your 
 reply is, " whatever is commonly called evangelical in 
 doctrine ! !" And you speak as if no one had fixed, and 
 no one could fix, " the precise amount of truth which it 
 may comprehend ! " 
 
 In the second place, you reason on the supposition, that 
 no man who is " united to Christ" can incur the guilt of 
 schism. You affirm that there is one doctrine, the doctrine, 
 which, if a man humbly and heartily believe, he is thereby 
 united to Christ himself, and to the Church, the " true" 
 Church, " whatever variety of sentiment he may hold on 
 subordinate points," and " whatever the order and disci- 
 pline of the particular Church to which he may belong." 
 In this statement you virtually deny that there can by 
 any possibility be such a thing as schism. For if an 
 individual do not believe this doctrine of which you speak, 
 he is not united to Christ, and therefore not a Christian, 
 I suppose. Hence he cannot be a party at all in a schism ; 
 in your language he is a heathen man and a publican, an 
 alien and an outcast. On the other hand, if any one does 
 believe this doctrine, he is thereby not only a Christian, 
 but a member of the true Church ; consequently, he is 
 not a schismatic ; and, therefore, there is no room for 
 schism at all. If you shall say that you mean he is a 
 member of the true invisible Church, but not necessarily 
 of the Church visible, your argument falls to the ground. 
 
 Bellarminc. — That is precisely our doctrine. On our 
 principles a man cannot leave the holy Catholic Church, 
 which is undoubtedly the only true Church, without 
 ])ecoining a contumacious heretic, and forfeiting all title to 
 be recognised as a Christian, in the proper sense of that 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 143 
 
 designation. There is, however, a notable ditference be- 
 tween us and Protestants, namely, that we hold this prin- 
 ciple in harmony with the other principle " that unity is 
 a sign of the true Church." ' They, on the other hand, 
 cannot hold both principles, except each denomination shall 
 claim to be the true Church alone and entire. And the 
 sect which claims to be the only true Church unchristian- 
 izes and unchurches all other sects. If a man cannot be 
 united to Christ without beino; at the same instant united 
 to the visible body of Christ, and if there be good and 
 genuine Christians in the different Protestant sects, then 
 is unity no longer a sign of the true Church ; and the 
 author that has been quoted might have spared his empty 
 flourish, " that unscripturally to expel a single Chris- 
 tian, or to disturb the harmony of a single church, is 
 to break the peace of the universe." The unscrip- 
 tural expulsion of a Christian is inconceivable on his 
 ])rinciples. 
 
 Melancthon. — " The only plan which now remains for 
 the Church to pursue, proceeds on the Catholic principle 
 of uniting on the great basis of evangelical doctrine, in 
 which we already agree, and of exercising mutual forbear- 
 ance on all subordinate matters. This is the scriptural 
 plan." 3 
 
 Lord Herbert, — This is only an iteration of your opi- 
 nion. We perceive no attempt fairly to meet the difficulty 
 which it obviously involves. 
 
 Bellarmine. — But is the statement now made really 
 consistent with facts ? If there be a " great basis of evan- 
 gelical doctrine in which all Protestants arc already 
 ' Union, p. 5G. ' lb. p. 56. » lb. p. 235. 
 
144 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 agreed," it surely would not be very difficult to produce 
 it in a tangible or visible form before the world. 
 
 Melancthon " Excellent documents have been drawn 
 
 up from time to time by the healing spirits of the Church, 
 under the names of ' Declarations,' ' Comprehensions,' 
 and ' Forms of Agreement ' — to be subscribed by the 
 Christians of different persuasions as the basis of their 
 union. We confess, however, that we have no faith in the 
 utility of such measures as the means of promoting union. 
 That union, to be scriptural, must be the effect of love : if 
 that love exists already, such subscriptions are unneces- 
 sary : and if it do not, subscription is a poor substitute for 
 it. Besides which, such documents themselves are almost 
 certain, sooner or later, to become the occasions of con- 
 tention." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — I humbly apprehend that you have 
 changed ground. We Avere first told that " evangelical 
 doctrine" is the great basis of union. Now you assert 
 that union must be " the effect of love ;" and if " that love 
 exists already," " subscription " to a form of doctrine is 
 " unnecessary." Nor do you favour us with a hint respect- 
 ing any other plan, by which agreement in doctrine may 
 be secured, or tested, or proclaimed. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Besides, the large majority of Protestant 
 denominations make subscription to doctrinal articles im- 
 perative. This proves that the general opinion among 
 them is, that such subscription is necessary to the realiza- 
 tion of union. When such documents become the occasions 
 of contention, this may arise either from the errors of a 
 particular document, or from the extravagance of the con- 
 ' Uuion, p. 237. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPIXIOX. 
 
 145 
 
 tenders. The propriety and necessity of using such docu- 
 ments, therefore, seem to be unquestionable. 
 
 Theophilus. — It is vain to talk of Chi-istian union, as if 
 it could be " the effect of love," independently of, or 
 severed from, agreement in doctrine. It is equally futile 
 to suppose that this union could consist in doctrinal har- 
 mony without the cement of affection. Its basis must be by 
 " speaking the truth in love," to " grow up into Him in 
 all things, which is the head, even Christ." What is 
 spoken may, of course, be written. There does not seem, 
 therefore, any reasonable prospect of a general, long-con- 
 tinued, satisfactory, and palpable union, apart from some 
 acknowledged Confession of Faith other than the Bible. 
 
 So far as an acknowledged Confession of Faith contains 
 error, or a positive denial of any truth whatever, it be- 
 comes a culpable cause of schism. The Confession of 
 Faith, therefore, which will be the proof and pledge of 
 union — the palpable development of an union already 
 attained, and the means of securing, perpetuating, and 
 extending that union, ought to admit of no corrections ; 
 though, at the same time, it may clearly be susceptible of 
 many additions. For there is no doubt that there are 
 certain fundamental truths on which the association of 
 Christian men with each other must be based. These 
 truths must be understood by every member of the asso- 
 ciation, or the association is not one of intelligent beings. 
 Hut truths which are understood admit of being expressed 
 in language. Nay, unless they are expressed in language, 
 they cannot become the common bond of a iiumorous 
 society. 
 
 The basis of Christian union, then, must be agreement 
 
 K 
 
146 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 in certain great truths, clearly stated and cordially ac- 
 cepted. The statement of such truths ought to be accu- 
 rate so far as it goes, but it need not be exhaustive. The 
 truths which are embodied in such a statement will be the 
 conditions of fellowship, so that the denial of one or more 
 of them will necessarily exclude the party who makes the 
 denial from Christian communion. As the disciples grow 
 in knowledge by the full meaning of Scripture being 
 elicited, and the ways of Providence understood, nothing 
 seems more reasonable than to expect, that new articles 
 shall be added from time to time to the recognised creed 
 of the Christian community. 
 
 Every matter which is not explicitly determined in this 
 creed, ought to be one of mutual forbearance. By mutual 
 forbearance, we mean something very different from what 
 is commonly understood by those terms. They are often 
 supposed to mean, that when the parties contradict and 
 oppose each other on some weighty question, both parties 
 are to hold each his own opinion most tenaciously, and at 
 the same time to respect his neighbour as much as if 
 there was no such ditference between them. Such a 
 method of procedure is altogether incongruous, and can be 
 palliated only on sceptical principles. The reasonable and 
 scriptural forbearance that is expected from Christian 
 men towards each other, in regard to questions of moment 
 on which thoy are not at one, is chiefly to avoid on both 
 sides hasty and dogmatic conclusions. 
 
 The avoidance of ill-considered and positive assertions 
 imphes the practical observance of two distinct principles. 
 In the first place, when we arc in danger of coming into 
 collision with any of our Christian brethren on an aflair of 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 147 
 
 truth or duty, we ought to be specially careful and con- 
 scientious in the examination of that affair, as well as slow 
 in making up our judgment, and cautious and moderate in 
 the manner of announcing it. In the second place, when 
 we have found the truth, we ought sedulously to distin- 
 guish between those who merely dotibt the propriety 
 or rectitude of our views, and those who openly and di- 
 rectly deny it. In both these ways there is abundance of 
 opportunity for the exercise of meekness and long-suffer- 
 ing among Christians, with the view of preventing schism. 
 When schism is actually accomplished, a precious season 
 for the manifestation of forbearance is irrevocably past ; 
 and schism is actually developed when two brethren take 
 up, openly and decidedly, conflicting and antagonistic 
 views on any grave question of doctrine or duty. 
 
 When schism thus occurs an open rupture is almost in- 
 evitable ; or, if it be prevented by inferior motives or 
 external circumstances, there will be a secret rupture 
 equally disastrous to every Christian interest. Hence 
 there are no points of such subordinate or inferior import- 
 ance that Christians may conscientiously and innocently 
 contradict each other thereon. If the points are really 
 subordinate, involving only matters of probability, there is 
 no place for so-called conscientious collision, and no plea 
 for separate organizations, for the minority should in all 
 such cases yield to the majority. If the points imply a 
 revealed docti-ine or a moral obligation, then collision, as 
 we have seen, cannot arise without culpability attaching to 
 one of the parties. It is this circumstance which renders 
 separation necessary, and at the same time stamps it with 
 the guilt of schism. 
 
148 
 
 DIAiOGUE II. 
 
 Nothing can be more extravagant than to suppose that 
 a man who is a true or genuine disciple of Christ cannot 
 commit the sin of schism ; or, in other words, to imagine 
 that the guilt of schism inevitably dooms every one who 
 may be involved in it as a reprobate or an apostate. 
 Hence, to speak of those truths which unite a man to 
 Christ, or are essential to his salvation, as if they were the 
 very same as those on which identity of opinion is indis- 
 pensable to Christian union, is really to mistake the ques- 
 tion at issue. In regard to the great truth of justification 
 by faith alone, we can say of it even, that it is essential to 
 salvation only in a modified sense. For the modern 
 Christian Church has a much clearer and firmer hold of it 
 than had the ancient Christian Church. While the Jewish 
 Church before Christ, and the antediluvian Church, must 
 have had less full and definite views regarding it. And 
 we have yet to learn that it is altogether impossible for a 
 heathen to be saved who is unavoidably ignorant of it. 
 This same truth is, no doubt, one of those on which Chris- 
 tian union must be based, and is expressed, perhaps, with 
 sufficient accuracy for the present time, if it be taken not 
 as a complete and definite statement of the basis of union, 
 but as one article among several, to which also additions 
 must be made in process of time, as the Church " groweth 
 unto a holy temple in the Lord." 
 
 II. — Tldngs Indifferent. 
 
 Melanctlion. — " The Apostles valued not indifferences 
 at all, and those things it is evident that they accounted 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 149 
 
 such, Avliich whether men did them or not, was not of con- 
 cernment to salvation." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — Is this text not in tlie Protestant Bible — 
 " Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye 
 do, do all to the glory of God?" Or is coming short of 
 the glory of God " not of concernment to salvation 1" 
 
 Melancthon " Without all controversies, the main in- 
 let of all the distractions, confusions, and divisions of the 
 Christian world, hath been by adding other conditions of 
 church-communion than Christ hath done." 2 
 
 Lord Herbert. — What denomination is there in the whole 
 Christian world that has not instituted, or dares deny that 
 it has instituted, " other conditions of church-communion 
 than Christ hath done 'i " 
 
 Melancthon. —Let me explain my moaning by adducing 
 an example : — " St Paul, in the case of the Jews, treated 
 the Mosaic rites as things indifferent, declaring that ' cir- 
 cumcision is notl'.ing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but 
 the keeping of the commandments of God.' — 1 Cor. vii. 
 19." 3 
 
 Lord Herbert. — When you state that " the Mosaic rites 
 were treated as things indifferent," your words are sus- 
 ceptible of two meanings. You may mean that circum- 
 cision, and such like, in so far as tlunj are mere bodily 
 exercises, are in themselves of no moral or religious value. 
 You cannot intend to affirm that the oI)scrvance of the 
 ceremonial law, as commanded by God, was a matter of 
 indifference or a non-essential to the Jews before Christ 
 came. The second meaning which your words will bear 
 is this, that to the Jews who lived immediately after 
 • Scliism, p. 373. » lb. p 373. * lb. p. 69. 
 
150 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 Christ, and before the destruction of their temple, it was 
 optional to observe the law or not, as they chose. Inas- 
 much as Christ had come, circumcision, you say, was 
 abolished ; but inasmuch as any one was a Jew, he might, 
 if he desired, observe the ceremonial law himself, pro- 
 vided he did not attempt to force others, especially Gen- 
 tiles, to conform. 
 
 Now, in which of these senses do you affirm that your 
 denominational peculiarities are matters of indllFcrence ? 
 If they be optional, and involve no obligation as of truth 
 or duty, which is universally binding, it is surely making 
 too much of them to represent them as constraining your 
 consciences, and compelling you to make them terms of 
 communion. Again, if in themselves they be indifferent, 
 like some mere bodily act, and if there be no Divine com- 
 mand respecting them to clothe them with spiritual import- 
 ance and authority, then the sooner they sink into their 
 native insignificance and totally disappear, the better surely 
 it will be. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Circumcision was ordained by God, as all 
 the world owns. But when will Protestant sectaries per- 
 suade each other, or the world, that all their endless isms 
 have been commanded by the Most High ! If circumcision 
 may be regarded in any sense as a thing indifferent, their 
 self-invented and fantastic sectarisin is surely tenfold more 
 indifferent still. 
 
 MelanctJwn. — Let us take another example. " Some 
 of the Hebrew Christians at Rome supposed the meats pro- 
 hibited in the Mosaic law to be unclean in themselves, and 
 therefore not to be eaten. They also believed that the 
 Jewish festivals ought still to be observed. The Gentile 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 151 
 
 believers, on the other hand, regarded these observances 
 as part of an economy that had passed away. Hence, 
 harsh judgments arose on both sides. But St Paul ex- 
 horted all to mutual forbearance and charity, every one 
 being at liberty, in such points, to follow his own convic- 
 tions of what was right, and bound to leave his brother to 
 do the same, since any other course would lead to sin and 
 strife. ' To his own master,' said St Paul, ' every one 
 standeth or falleth.' Christ is the only Lord of con- 
 science, and the usurpation of his throne in the Church, 
 by an authoritative decision in things which he has left in- 
 different, is one characteristic of the grand apostasy, per- 
 sonified as ' the man of sin,' who ' commanded to abstain 
 from meats.' " ' 
 
 Lo7'd Herbert. — Your position, as I understand it, is 
 this: — There are certain things "left indifferent" by 
 Christ, the only Lord of conscience, such as " the meats 
 prohibited in the Mosaic law." These meats, you say, 
 were not left indifferent to the Jews before the time of 
 Christ, but since then they are loft indifferent to Chris- 
 tians. These two remarks occur to me. First, it is not 
 only " in such points," but in all points, that " every one 
 is at liberty to follow his own convictions, and bound to 
 leave his brother to do the same ;" and therefore you 
 should leave me, and our friend beside me, to follow our 
 own convictions, just as you leave your brother Protestants 
 to do. Secondly, if the external diversities of the Pro- 
 testant Church involve such points only as arc " left in- 
 different" by Christ, how can they legitimately affect the 
 conscience ? 
 
 ' Sclii-sm, pp. 70, 71. 
 
152 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 Melancthon. — They legitimately affect the consciences 
 of those on whom they are imposed as terms of com- 
 munion ; for thus what is indifferent in itself is errone- 
 ously obtruded as if it were essential. " Calamy shews 
 that the Nonconformists not only felt insuperable con- 
 scientious objections to many things that were enjoined, 
 but also to the principle of imposing what Christ had not 
 instituted ; as ' they thought making it necessary, is a 
 manifest encroachment on the kingly power of our 
 Saviour ; as it is making new terms of communion, in 
 which they durst not concur.' " ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Very well. The diversities between 
 one Protestant denomination and others are things indif- 
 ferent, or they are not. If they are not, but essential, 
 then Protestants contradict and oppose each other on the 
 very essentials of religion. If these diversities be indeed 
 things indifferent, then no two separate denominations can 
 be organized except on " the principle of imposing what 
 Christ has not instituted." For all the denominations 
 have the same " terms of communion," or they have not. 
 So many as have tlie same terms of communion, have no 
 occasion or pretext whatever to continue separate from 
 each other. And, therefore, there cannot by any possi- 
 bility be two distinct denominations, or two separate 
 churches, without the one or the other " making new 
 terms of communion." 
 
 Bellarmine. — The argument is conclusive. Hence, the 
 charge of spiritual despotism, so freely launched against us 
 by the protesters, rebounds upon every one of their num- 
 berless and almost nameless sects, except the one, if such 
 1 Schism, p. 300, 3G1. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION'. 
 
 153 
 
 can be found, in whose terms of communion there is no- 
 thing neiv. 
 
 Melancthon. — " All parties have erred,, more or less, in 
 thus rendering imperative the ' commandments of men.' 
 Even granting tliat the traditionary evidence for any sup- 
 posed apostolic usage may be so overpowering to me, that 
 although I am obliged to admit that it is not actually 
 found in the Scriptures, I can still conscientiously adopt it 
 for myself, as virtually of divine authority ; granting that 
 I cannot sympathise with my brother Christian in his 
 scruples, — that they seem to me to arise from prejudice, 
 or possibly from some obtuscncss of intellect which ren- 
 ders him less alive to the force of evidence; shall I, even 
 then, build compulsory uniformity on this ground, the 
 ground of my own private conviction 1 Shall I make his 
 yielding Ids opinion to me an essential to my visible one- 
 ness with him in Christ?"^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This argument is of equal force against 
 separate denominations, as it is favourable to Christian 
 fellowship. Every separate denomination builds compul- 
 sory uniformity (compulsory in a spiritual sense, which is 
 the worst sense), on the ground of the private conviction 
 of its adherents. If, then, the reasoning be sound, it goes 
 to the overthrow of existing denominations. But is it 
 sound? What ground have you for believing in Chris- 
 tianity but your " own private conviction?" Do you not 
 make my yielding my opinion to you an essential to our 
 mutual visible oneness? If your private conviction may 
 mislead you in one thing, " in conscientiously adopting for 
 yourself, as virtually of divine authority," what is perhaps 
 ' Schisin, pp. 79, 8U. 
 
154 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 not precisely of divine authoritj, then may it not mislead 
 you in a second or a third thing ? Besides, what you 
 " conscientiously adopt for yourself, as virtually of divine 
 authority," cannot be a matter of " indifference" to you. 
 
 Bellarmine. — It thus appears that heretics have not an 
 inch of ground which they can make good as theirs. In 
 practice they act on the very principles which they con- 
 demn in us ; for in excluding each other from their com- 
 munion, they arrogate the power of Chi'ist, and of Christ's 
 vicar upon earth. In theory they espouse the subtlest 
 form of infidelity ; for while they have nothing to fall 
 back upon but " private judgment," this private judgment 
 is ever and anon treated as a broken reed. 
 
 Tlieophilus. — If by things "indifferent" be meant mat- 
 ters on which no decision is given in the Word of God, it 
 is plain, that the conflicting sentiments and denominational 
 controversies of the Protestant Churches do not refer to 
 such matters. The very admission that they do refer to 
 matters undecided in Scripture is at least fatal to our sepa- 
 rate organizations. 
 
 Those things which are alleged to be " indifferent," are 
 so only in a limited degree. For example, eating meats 
 offered to idols is declared by the Apostle to be lawful. 
 The inspired author did not leave the controversy un- 
 settled, while he exhorted the disputants to charity and 
 forbearance.' There is, then, a right and a wrong in many 
 things usually adduced as indifferent. Besides, no action 
 of any man is Indifferent to the man himself. For in per- 
 forming the action, he believes it to be right, or he docs 
 not. If he does not believe an action to be right, he 
 I Rom. xiv. 14, 20 ; 1 Tim. iv. 4. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 155 
 
 ought not to perform it; inasmuch as " whatsoever is not 
 of faith is sin." If a man beheves his action to be right, 
 while it is wrong, he incurs indirect guilt ; it is " a sin of 
 ignorance." 
 
 It is our conviction that no action is in itself entirely 
 destitute of the ethical element. There is a relation be- 
 tween the action done and the constitution of the being 
 performing it, which determines it to be proper or im- 
 proper. Eating meats offered to idols, and partaking now 
 of the flesh of animals prohibited to the Jews of old, are in 
 themselves perfectly legitimate and becoming. But an 
 action may be right or proper without being obligatory. 
 The agent's view of his own doing brings another and 
 more powerful ethical element into every human action. 
 To plead, therefore, in regard to any religious question, 
 that it respects a " thing indifferent," in the proper and 
 distinct meaning of that word, is contrary to the first prin- 
 ciples of morals and religion. Besides, if this plea were 
 actually true in regard to the matters which give occasion 
 to the existence of our various denominations, it could not 
 be received in their defence; it is utterly subversive of 
 these denominations. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Where do we find, in the precepts of 
 Christ or his apostles, anything which condemns diversi- 
 ties in modes and customs, not affecting the substantial ele- 
 ments of the Christian character ? Can the passage bo 
 produced ? Where do the apostles authorise us to con- 
 sider the want of outward uniformity as an offence?" ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — When you shall tell mo what are " the 
 substantial elements of tho Christian character," it will bo 
 ' Schism, p. 4tU4. 
 
156 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 time enough to answer vour first question. And as to your 
 last inquiry, do you really require me to point to passages 
 in your New Testament to convince you, that the external 
 separation of Christians from each other, and the forma- 
 tion of distinct communion tables, mutually exclusive, is 
 an offence? You have yourself admitted this, even though, 
 in the admission, you endeavour to soften it down, when 
 you say, " it is a mark of infirmity, — of imperfect appre- 
 hension of truth, — that it is undesirable?" ' 
 
 Melancthon. — Granting, then, that when we use the 
 words " indifferent," and " non-essential," we do not em- 
 ploy them in their extreme meaning, we shall rest the 
 defence of denomiuationalism on the distinction between 
 what is more important and what is less important. " Even 
 if it could be indirectly proved from reasoning on Scrip- 
 ture that, on some point not affecting Christian morals, in 
 which all agree, our brother were in error, is it not a 
 greater error to number him, on this account, among the 
 notoriously Avickcd ; to treat him avowedly as a ' hea- 
 then man and a publican,' and to make no distinction be- 
 tween him and an apostate ? ' Why bcholdest thou the 
 mote in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam 
 that is in thine own cj'c?' The schismatical spirit would 
 act on the principle of the laws of Draco, n.aking no diffe- 
 rence between the highest crimes and the slightest mis- 
 demeanours." 2 
 
 Lord Herbert. — I am at a loss to perceive whether this 
 argument be for or against you. You employ it to con- 
 vict those who, having formed or joined a distinct denomi- 
 nation, reserve their sympathies for those who arc within 
 1 ydiisiu, p. 302. * lb. p. 404. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDEXTITT OF OPINION. 
 
 157 
 
 it. Admitting that such parties are wrong, they are more 
 consistent than you are. They, in their profession of 
 purity, would exclude both high crimes and slight mis- 
 demeanours, because both are worthy of exclusion, — an 
 opinion which does not in itself by any means support the 
 inference which you draw from it, that both are culpable 
 in an equal degree. Now, you maintain that you may con- 
 sistently support one denomination without unchristian- 
 izing another denomination, while you have also maintained 
 that the Church should be free to all Christians, without 
 exception, — which, in plain words, just means, that you can 
 treat the same individual, " avowedly," and in the same 
 breath, both as a " brother" and as " a heathen man and 
 a publican." In supporting your own denomination, whose 
 terms of communion exclude him, you treat him as " a hea- 
 then man and a publican." In caUing him a Christian, 
 you rcyard him as a " brother in Christ." 
 
 Bellarmine. — You spoke of " Christian morals, in which 
 all agree." This is only an evasion ; for it is notorious 
 that there are several momentous points of " Christian 
 morals," in which Protestants are far indeed from being 
 agreed. When the question is what we are now consider- 
 ing, namely, how to distinguish between the more import- 
 ant and the less important, or tlic matters in which Chris- 
 tians must agree, and those in which they may differ, any 
 vague assertion, such as the above, is surely out of place. 
 Hut the conti'oversy will terminate, if you will condescend 
 to draw the line between high crimes and slight misde- 
 meanours. 
 
 Melancthon. — " We think it best to content ourselves 
 with, and to persuade others unto, an unity of character. 
 
158 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 and mutual toleration, seeing that God hath authorized no 
 man to force all men to imiti/ of opinion."^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — But since there can be no " unity of 
 character" without " unity of opinion," to some extent at 
 least, we wish to know what that extent is, or how we are 
 to discover and determine it ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — If God docs not force men to receive cer- 
 tain opinions, he assuredly punishes those who refuse to 
 receive them. Let Protestants say at once that heresy is 
 to be tolerated, because it does not infringe the unity of 
 Christian character, or tell the world where heresy ends, 
 and where mutual toleration begins. Then, it would fol- 
 low that all heretical denominations should be regarded as 
 unchristian, or, as they might designate them, antichris- 
 tian ; and hence also all denominations not tainted with 
 heresy should be immediately merged in one. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Much as the separations that have taken 
 place among orthodox Christians have, unhappily, been 
 blended with strife and faction, it will scarcely be con- 
 tended that a breach of charity must necessarily arise from 
 their differences of opinion. If the all-wise Head of the 
 Churcli has been pleased to leave many points so treated 
 of in the New Testament, as that men may be genuine, and 
 even intelligent Christians, and yet not view those points 
 in the same light ; and if some may be sincere in adopting 
 forms and modes which others are equally sincere in de- 
 clining, then considerable diversity of practice, in this 
 respect, may surely consist, as in tlio case of the Jewish 
 and Gentile converts, not only with fidelity to Christ, but 
 also with charity to ' the brethren.' And if there be no 
 ^ Schism, p. 279. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPIXION. 
 
 159 
 
 schism in the diversity itself, there needs be none in the 
 name which designates it, provided this name be not as- 
 sumed in a party spirit." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Where there is no schism, there is not 
 necessarily a breach of charity. But the question still 
 remains, whether or not there is both schism and a breach 
 of charity in those " differences of opinion," which form 
 the occasion or cause or assigned reason for the existence 
 of separate and distinct denominations of Christians ? It 
 is of no use to plead that these differences refer to points 
 which " genuine, and even intelligent Christians " do not 
 view in the same light, unless you assume the principle 
 that no genuine and intelligent Christian can by possibility 
 incur the guilt of schism. And even though you did as- 
 sume this principle, it would not extricate you from your 
 present difficulty ; it would only bring you into this mono- 
 tonous circle : where there are none but inteUifrcnt and 
 genuine Christians, there is no schism, and where there is 
 schism, there are some who are not genuine and intelligent 
 Christians. 
 
 Bellarmine. — We liavc the same circle in another form, 
 when it is said, that " among orthodox Christians," schism, 
 or a breach of charity, does not " necessarily arise from 
 their differences of opinion." Orthodoxy is here limited 
 by these differences of opinion ; and to explain the one by 
 the other, while neither is separately defined, may bo very 
 convenient, but is not very fair or profitable. The diver- 
 sity of practice, in the case of the Jewish and Gentile con- 
 verts in the primitive age, to which reference has been 
 made, did not lead to ecclesiastical separations similar to 
 ' Schism, pp. 301, 302. 
 
160 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 modern denomiaationalisra. The assertion that " some 
 may be sincere in adopting forms and modes, which others 
 are equally sincere in declining," savours strongly of infi- 
 dehty, without helping your argument. It certainly is a 
 sceptical axiom, as was formerly proved, to maintain that 
 a man may be sincere in error. Besides, if you adopt 
 forms and modes which another Christian equally sincere as 
 yourself cannot adopt, and thereby exclude him from your 
 communion, you must confess yourself a schismatic. Thus 
 you yourself have reasoned, — " if a church, supposed to 
 want nothing necessary, require me to profess against my 
 conscience that I believe some error, though never so small 
 and innocent, which I do not believe, and will not allow 
 me her communion but upon this condition, in this case 
 the church, for requiring this condition, is schismatical, 
 and not I, for separating from the cliurcli." ' 
 
 Melancthon. — Notwitlistanding all that can be said, 
 charity is the chief requisite. " Should even essential 
 truth be the object, unless the truth be pleaded for, oi- 
 promoted, ' in love,' zeal for it is no longer a Christian 
 virtue, but a mere gust of passion, or the efflux of bigotry 
 or party feeling." ^ " Mistaken zeal may also sacrifice 
 the peace of the Church, by dignifying with the name of 
 important truth, things indifferent, or doubtful, or at least 
 not essential. Or zeal may be expended on matters which 
 involve a perversion of the simplicity of tlic gospel, and 
 which tend to pain and to repel all sober minds." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — The question before us is still unan- 
 swered. But let us assume the distinction which you take 
 
 ' Chillingworth, quoted in Schism, p. 278. 
 
 - Scliii-iii, p. oDG. ■■' lb. p. o97. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 161 
 
 for granted without proving or explaining, and apply it to 
 your party segregations. If your sects differ from each 
 other on essentials, then Protestants have shown too much 
 " love " for each other's denominations, or too little love 
 towards us. If your sects are based on " things indifferent, 
 or doubtful, or at least not essential," then, in constructing 
 and continuing these sects, you are " dignifying " these 
 non-essentials " with the name of important truth." 
 
 Bellarmine The fairness of the last inference is clearly 
 
 confirmed by the following words : — " Though there be 
 such agreement in the main as to doctrine, that a ground 
 exists for a large degree of Christian union, schisms and 
 divisions may be produced by the imposition of terms 
 
 OF COMMUNION, WHICH ARE NOT PRESCRIBED IN THE NeW 
 
 Testament, as conditions of salvation. It is clear that 
 the plea on which the Apostle Paul founded his exhorta- 
 tions to the Romans, res|)ccting mutual toleration between 
 the Jewish and Gentile converts, was, that each was ac- 
 cepted of God on the broad principles of the gospel : for 
 ' Ood hath received him.' In his epistle to the Philippian 
 Christians, also, the apostle assumes, that although they 
 were so far ' -perfect,' as to have rightly received all fun- 
 damental truth, there might still be some things in respect 
 to which diversity of opinion existed. The legitimate 
 method of obtaining a nearer coincidence of views on these 
 subordinate ])oints, was devoutly to seek the Divine guid- 
 ance. In the meantime, they were to bo cordially united 
 in the ordinances and the practice of the gospel, up to the 
 last limit which conscience would allow. ' Let us, there- 
 fore, as many as be perfect, bo thus minded : and if in any 
 thing ye be otherwise (differently) minded, God shall re- 
 
162 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 veal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto ive have 
 already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind 
 the same thing.' — (Phil. iii. 15, 16)." ' Now it is not 
 alleged in this statement, that the apostle sanctions those 
 who hold " diversity of opinion " " on these subordinate 
 points," to form or support distinct denominations. To 
 do so is wholly contrary to the apostle's views, and is evi- 
 dently condemned by the language of the author who has 
 just been quoted. For two denominations cannot continue 
 in separate existence without one or other of them " im- 
 posing terms of communion which are not prescribed in 
 the New Testament." And whenever this is done, subor- 
 dinate topics, to use your own language, are dignified as if 
 they were fimdamental. 
 
 Melancthon. — You have forgotten or overlooked a por- 
 tion of the passage quoted, namely, " they were to be 
 cordially united in the ordinances and the practice of 
 the gospel, np to the last limit tvhich conscience would 
 allmv." 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Protestants do, indeed, talk of the limit 
 which conscience sets to their union. But docs Paul, or 
 any other of those whom you look up to as inspired, speak 
 of this limit, or define it ? Certainly there is nothing said 
 about it in the verses alluded to from the Epistle to the 
 Philippians. On the contrary, Paul's exhortation is based 
 upon the supposition that there is no such limit ; when he 
 says, " if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall 
 reveal even this unto you." 
 
 Bellarmine. — It is now made manifest, that Protestants 
 arc baffled in defending or excusing their variegated deno- 
 ' Schism, pp. 358, 359. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 163 
 
 minationalisra, whether they urge the claims of conscience, 
 or plead the distinction between essentials and non-essen- 
 tials. When driven from one of these arguments to resort 
 quietly to the other, as is constantly done, is a patent and 
 unworthy subterfuge. 
 
 Theopliilus. — It appears from what has been advanced, 
 that we have not as yet found a clear and valid distinc- 
 tion between essentials and non-essentials, or between high 
 crimes and shght misdemeanours, or between the more 
 and the less important — such as may be available to secure 
 and vindicate the proper union of Christians while sanc- 
 tioning their distinct organizations. This last mode of 
 stating the distinction as between what is more and less 
 important or weighty, appears to be the only correct mode, 
 and the one to which all the others are fairly reduced in 
 the course of discussion. But it is the one most rarely 
 resorted to, for it is obviously least available in the argu- 
 ment, being in appearance, as well as in reality, loose and 
 unsatisfactory for that purpose. In whatever way, how- 
 ever, this distinction is regarded or expressed, it is of no 
 force to palliate denoininationalism but by the sacrifice of 
 Christian union. 
 
 Melancthon. — Quite the reverse. For different oi-gani- 
 zations leave room for diversity of sentiment ; and if those 
 are supported by their respective members in a Christian 
 spirit, visible union may be secured. It is not separation 
 that is evil, but ahcnation of heart. " How can it be 
 shown, that by maintaining estrangement of feeling and 
 behaviour towards Christians of another name, ' wc arc 
 but bearing a becoming testimony against what is wrong." 
 He who cherishes this estrangement ought surely to have 
 
164 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 fully convinced himself, from the word of God, that these 
 Christians are living in serious error of doctrine or prac- 
 tice : — but does their general spirit and character bear out 
 the charge? Even if he be right in his distinguishing 
 peculiarities, (and may he not be wrong?) are not their 
 peculiarities rather infirmities than heinous sins ?" ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — So you are back to the old oscillation — 
 of two opposing sentiments no one knows which is right ! 
 
 Theophilus. — Is it not equally true respecting the main- 
 tenance of open separation, as " of estrangement of feehng 
 and behaviour," that we are justified in neither, till we 
 have fully convinced ourselves, from the word of God, 
 that the parties from whom we separate, or are estranged, 
 " are living in serious error of doctrine or practice?" Is 
 it necessary to prove that nothing can vindicate an open 
 separation, which would not also occasion such an estrange- 
 ment? Or will the fact be questioned, that our existing 
 system of denominations actually necessitates a certain 
 amount of " estrangement of feeling and behaviour " 
 among Christians, while it occasions and fosters a great 
 deal more? Denominationalism cannot hold up its head 
 for a moment, if it abandon the plea of " bearing a be- 
 coming testimony against what is wrong." And the breast, 
 in which an estrangement of feeling and behaviour towards 
 those who do what is wrong, does not arise, is not regu- 
 lated by the principles of the New Testament. 
 
 Exclusion from the visible Church can never be held as 
 equivalent to exclusion from heaven at last. If any man's 
 peculiarities be mere " infirmities," they do not call for 
 ecclesiastical discipline, nor for a separate denomination. 
 ' Schism, p. 408. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 165 
 
 But if they involve " a serious error of doctrine or prac- 
 tice," the individual cannot, in the very nature of things, 
 be regarded and treated in all respects as a brother, even 
 though he be a brother, but should be excluded from all 
 Christian communion till he abandon his error. He is not 
 to be transhipped to another denomination of God's people, 
 but debarred from the fellowship of all the faithful. If 
 what is called a wrong be only an " infirmity," and not a 
 " heinous sin " — if a man be " a weak brother," surely it 
 were wiser and more kindly to draw him more closely to 
 your bosom, and avoid the least appearance of alienation, 
 than to banish him to the precincts of another denomina- 
 tion as a sort of semi-penal settlement. 
 
 Different denominations of Christians cannot exist, as 
 has been remarked, without the peculiarities of each being 
 virtually, if not formally, imposed as terms of communion. 
 Now " the real question at issue — the momentous principle 
 at stake — is, whether God or man is to bo the lord of con- 
 science ? Arc the things imposed ' indifferent,' " or non- 
 essential or less important ? " Then, what man, or what 
 body of men, has a right to make them essential, by de- 
 claring them indispensable terms of communion ?" ' It is 
 not, therefore, " the violent schismatic" alone, of whom it 
 is true that he " presumes to be arbiter of all truth." 
 For every denominationalist, who contends for the con- 
 tinuance of his own sect, while at the same time he allows 
 that its peculiarities arc non-essential, or not expressly 
 commanded in Scripture, is, not only virtually, but openly 
 " assuming the right to' pronounce where revelation is 
 silent — to give law to conscience, where apostles would 
 ' Schism, p. 3C0. 
 
166 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 have left it (and did leave it) free, to condemn, where 
 angels might applaud." ^ 
 
 You can scarcely, perhaps, inflict upon yourself or your 
 brother Christian a greater spiritual wrong, than in un- 
 warrantably withholding from him your fullest religious 
 sympathy and communion. Hence no more powerful 
 constraint can be exercised over the mind of an intelli- 
 gent and genuine believer, than the fear of justly forfeit- 
 ing the unfettered and cordial fellowship of his brethren. 
 And no one thinks of denying that the prevailing polity 
 of sectarianism most seriously limits the expansion, and 
 chills most ominously the warmth, of Christian affection 
 in the community. That so many professing disciples of 
 Him, who loved us, and gave Himself for us, can continue 
 to support a system by which such a large portion of the 
 rich blessings of Christianity and the noblest enjoyments 
 of human nature is restricted and lost, while the}'^ seem 
 almost unconscious and unconcerned about this heavy 
 deprivation, is surely a sad symptom of spiritual relaxa- 
 tion and decrepitude. 
 
 It is plainly indisputable that if any professing brother 
 be entangled in wrong-doing or heinous sin, in a serious 
 error of doctrine or practice, he ought to be cut off from 
 the fellowship of the Church — he is to be regarded by 
 those who continue faithful as a heathen man and a publi- 
 can. If he be indeed a genuine Christian, this treatment 
 will generally have the effect, as it is intended to have, of 
 working repentance in his mind, which will lead to his 
 restoration, and thus the visible unity of the Church be 
 preserved uninjured. But if he do not return to the 
 ^ Schism, p. 442. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 167 
 
 bosom of the Church, and gather others around him to 
 form a new society, its character will depend on the 
 quality of the errors in which it is involved. We believe 
 in the distinction between fundamental and non-funda- 
 mental doctrines. But instead of building the union of 
 the Church on this distinction, which would require its 
 most accurate and rigid enunciation, we apply it to discri- 
 minate a heretical from a schismatical church, in which 
 case no interest of practical value is made to be dependent 
 upon its precise and unerring application. 
 
 The deliberate and avowed denial of fundamental truth 
 involves the guilt of heresy ; the formal and public rejec- 
 tion of truth that is not fundamental implies the guilt of 
 schism. An honest mind will be anxious to avoid both sorts 
 of sin, and need not be too curious to know where the one 
 begins and where the other ends. It is vastly otherwise 
 to admit that any truth or duty whatever is non-essential 
 or indifferent. If we speak of truth as truth, or of duty 
 as duty, — that is, if we speak of thom in their catholic 
 relations to all intelligent and responsible beings, then 
 beyond doubt all truth and all duty are equally necessary 
 and essential. There cannot, indeed, be different degrees 
 of the essential or the necessary. To affirm that any pre- 
 cept of the Most High is non-essential, or unnecessary, or 
 indifferent to those on whom it is enjoined, is an open 
 avowal of unqualified rebellion. In a similar way all truth 
 is easily shown to be in itself essential. To suppose that 
 an intelligent being is at liberty to disregard or set aside 
 any truth whatever — that he may trample on the smallest 
 truth and incur no penalty, is to ju-epare a fissiirc in the 
 tree of knowledge and place in it the wedge of scepticism. 
 
168 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 There are, doubtless, particular truths and duties which 
 may be more or less important and urgent to certain par- 
 ties at special times. But then it is always difficult to 
 appreciate correctly the distinction between a less and a 
 greater significance or value, which depends upon a con- 
 siderable number of various circumstances, and for the 
 measurement of which no sliding scale has been devised. 
 The difi'erence between what is more and less important in 
 Christian duty and doctrine depends so entirely, upon the 
 character and circumstances of the persons whose case may 
 be under consideration, that it can never be reduced to a 
 general formula or principle which shall remain unchanged, 
 and bo always applicable to the ever-varying events of 
 human society. 
 
 In illustration of our remarks, we may refer to the pro- 
 gressive character of Christianity as it is developed among 
 men, both socially and individually. It is required of 
 every Christian that he grow in grace and increase in 
 knowledge ; while theology as a science has certainly 
 made some advances during the last eighteen centuries. 
 We are all looking for a revival of religion in the Church, 
 as a prelude to its victories in the world. This revival 
 will include both a clearer and a fuller hold of Christian 
 truth, as every one but the veriest enthusiast will admit. 
 Progress, then, is an essential element of the gospel, as it 
 is manifested in the beliefs of its disciples. Improvement 
 and advancement are necessary characteristics of subjective 
 Christianity. It is, therefore, impossible to find, and 
 perilous to fancy, a sharp and well-defined line of sepa- 
 ration in the actual or attainable stock of knowledge 
 belonging to Christian people, which divides essential 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION, 
 
 1G9 
 
 from non-essential duty, or necessary from indifferent 
 truth. 
 
 But, it will be said, Is not the knowledge of Christ 
 Jesus essential to a sinner in an emphatic sense, in which 
 nothing else can be said to be essential or necessary ? In 
 reply, it is needful to inquire, what is meant by the 
 knowledge of Christ? Is it that amount of knowledge 
 which was possessed by Enoch, or by Abraham, or by 
 Zaccheus, or by Luther ? In each of these cases the 
 knowledge of Christ the Saviour was certainly different 
 in amount. 
 
 What we are disposed to regard as essential and indis- 
 pensable to every man's salvation may be stated thus : 
 that he use with all assiduity and candour every means 
 that may be within his reach to acquire knowledge re- 
 specting the character and laws of God his Maker and 
 Christ his Redeemer, and that he earnestly seek the help 
 of his Father in heaven to act up to the knowledge which 
 he possesses. There is no doubt a peculiar and precious 
 blessing attached to a knowledge and belief of the gospel 
 — a blessing which cannot be attained except through that 
 knowledge and belief, and which is too frequently missed 
 by professing Christians, inasmuch as they fail to make a 
 proper use of their knowledge of the Saviour, — even the 
 unspeakable blessing of a present salvation, the enjoyment 
 of peace with God. 
 
 Melancthon. — " From llom. xiv. we learn that in things 
 indifferent Christians should not condemn each other." ' 
 " Let us ask ourselves if, in the church to which we be- 
 long, Christian union is built on evangelical doctrines 
 ' Uuiou, p. 2b. 
 
170 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 alone ; and, if it be not, let us remember that, in propor- 
 tion as we increase tlie number of requisites to com- 
 munion, we multiply the occasions of dissension and divi- 
 sion. That union is not likely to be firm and lasting, the 
 centre of which is a trifle, or which even includes trifles. 
 While the more we reduce the number of those things 
 which the gospel warrants us to regard as essential to 
 Christianity, the more attractive and binding the centre of 
 our unity, the larger the sphere of our Christian charity, 
 and the greater the number of Christians and of Chris- 
 tian churches comprehended and embraced in our views 
 of the brotherhood." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — When did the holy Catholic Church ever 
 lay claim to such a dispensing power, or such a stretch of 
 indulgence, as that which you have now challenged for 
 every petty Protestant denomination : a power to " re- 
 duce the number of those things which the gospel warrants 
 us to regard as essential to Christianity !" 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Is every thing which docs not form an 
 evangelical doctrine " a trifle ?" If not, how do you dis- 
 pose of those things which lie midway between trifles and 
 evangelical doctrines ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " Let us aim to acquire clear and en- 
 larged views of the great central truths of religion, that 
 every thing else may appear comparatively trivial, and 
 that our differences respecting them may become trivial 
 also." 2 
 
 Lord Herbert " That every thing else may appear 
 
 comparativchj trivial;" very guarded language indeed. 
 lJut guarded though it be, it is inconsistent with other of 
 ' Union, p. 2i4. " lb. p. 247. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 171 
 
 your statements, such as these following. " If the Bible 
 be a revelation from God, its authority, on every sub- 
 ject to which it relates, must be regarded as para- 
 mount." ' Does the Bible relate to no subject but " the 
 great central truths of rehgion?" Again, "we must 
 know that there is nihil minimum — nothing little in 
 rehgion." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — Here, then, Protestants are convicted of 
 a double inconsistency, when they assert that their deno- 
 minational differences refer to matters trivial or indifferent. 
 The assertion is inconsistent, as has just been pointed out, 
 with their avowed principles respecting the supreme au- 
 thority of the Bible, and the native importance of every 
 rehgious question. Again, the assertion is self-condemna- 
 tory. To use their own words and arguments : " True 
 it is that all churches must have some terms of com- 
 munion ; but that any society assuming the name of a 
 church, should establish conditions, distinct from those en- 
 joined by Christ and his apostles, is, one would think, 
 sufficiently presumptuous." ^ And what Protestant deno- 
 mination is there that does not act thus presumptuously ? 
 " That these terms should consist, partly, of things which 
 the imposcrs themselves acknowledge to be ' indiftei'ont 
 and insignificant,' seems to add folly to presumption." * 
 And what denomination of Protestants does not to pre- 
 sumption add this folly ? " But that these insignificant 
 things should be enforced, on men who conscientiously 
 object to them, on pain of temporal ruin, seems to be an 
 act conceived in the spirit of pure intolerance." ^ 
 
 ' Union, p. 218. » Unrnn, p. 136. * Union, p. 1:56. 
 * lb. p. 136. » lb. p. 136. 
 
172 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 Melanctlion. — Take that last remark home to your own 
 holy church. We enforce nothing " on pain of temporal 
 ruin." 
 
 Bellarmine. — But you do worse; you enforce, — that is, 
 there is not a single denomination that does not enforce, 
 or attempt to enforce, — such things as you have now been 
 describing as insignificant or indifferent trifles, on pain of 
 spiritual loss and damage, if not ruin. Bear with me 
 while I finish my quotation : " The inflicting spiritual 
 censures upon them that cannot do so much violence to 
 their understanding as to obey, is ineffectual and unjust." ' 
 " The less they (your differences) are, the greater the sin 
 to make them necessary, to hang so great things upon 
 them, break the Church's peace and unity by them, and 
 of them to make a new gospel, new terms of life and 
 death, a new way to heaven." ^ What Protestant sect 
 does not, judging them by commonly received principles, 
 perpetrate this folly and incur this guilt ? Supporting a 
 denomination whose terms of communion include some- 
 thing unscriptural, or something trifling, " is in effect to 
 say, If you will not take Christianity with these additions 
 of ours, you shall not be Christians ; you shall have no 
 Christian ordinances, no Christian worship : we will, as far 
 as in us is, exclude you from heaven itself, and all means 
 of salvation. And upon the same ground on which they 
 may be excluded one communion by such arbitrary mea- 
 sures, they may be excluded another also, and be received 
 nowhere. And if the terms of these communions differ, 
 they all exclude one another ; and hence so many churches, 
 so many Christendoms. If this be sinful, it is a sin of the 
 
 * Bishop Taylor, quoted, ib. Lb. ^ Howe, quoted, ib. ib. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION, 
 
 173 
 
 deepest die. And if the Holy Scriptures speak with such 
 severity, as we know they do, of the altering of man's 
 landmarks, what may we think of altering God's ! " ' 
 
 Melancthon. — " Although the first separatists from a 
 church may have been schismatical, those who continue 
 the separation may not be so. ' They who alter, without 
 necessary cause, the present government of any state, 
 civil or ecclesiastical, do commit a great fault ; yet they 
 may be innocent who continue this alteration .... when 
 continuance of time hath once settled it.' Tliey may per- 
 petuate it conscientiously and amicably, so as to endear 
 themselves to the community left, and to identify them- 
 selves with the universal Church." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This reasoning is legitimate only on the 
 supposition, that the guilt of schism in the first separation 
 lay, not at all in the act of separation, but entirely and 
 solely in the manner of effecting it. Which is the same 
 thing as saying, that the crime of murder has nothing 
 whatever to do with the taking of a man's life, but consists 
 solely and entirely in the use of poison, or daggers, or 
 some other lethal instrumentality. 
 
 Bcllarminc. — Let the author quoted from answer him- 
 self. " Ever let us remember that the Christian Church, 
 in its scriptural state, contains nothing but pure and catho- 
 lic principles of all-embracing love. The exclusive spirit, 
 therefore, is the schismatic spirit ; and he who prescribes 
 a term of communion with it of his own devisins; — however 
 simple in itself, and plausible in its appearance — is putting 
 a price on the bread of hfc, and throwing a bar across the 
 entrance to a city of refuge ; and they who continue that 
 ' Howe, quoted in Union, p. 137. ' lb. p. 100. 
 
174 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 term share his rcsponsibiUty, and are chargeable with 
 perpetuating the schism of intolerance." ^ If this state- 
 ment be correct, it is plain that there is only one Church, 
 or one denomination, that has not terras of communion of 
 its own devising. There cannot be more than one such 
 denomination. And if the guilt be the same to continue 
 and perpetuate these humanly devised terms of com- 
 munion, as to make them, then is it as manifest as lio;ht 
 itself, that the great and vastly preponderating majority 
 of Protestants are " putting a price on the bread of life, 
 and throwing a bar across the entrance to a city of re- 
 fuge." 
 
 Theophilus. — It thus appears, that the plea so often 
 resorted to about things indifferent, is of no avail to defend 
 or save our modern denominationalism. If our argument 
 be not invalid, no truth can with propriety be regarded as 
 unnecessary or unessential. Hence Christian union can 
 be effected and consolidated only by a positive agreement 
 in several truths, and schism can be avoided only by avoid- 
 ing contradiction on any truth whatever. If, then, any 
 matter be really a trifle, a point of indifference, a question 
 of probabiUties, it is surely the height of exti-avagance to 
 constitute it the characteristic feature of a separate deno- 
 mination of Christians. If our denominational differences 
 be trivial, denominationalism is without even a plausible 
 excuse; if they he important, they are so many schisms in 
 the Church, the body of Christ. 
 
 ' Union, p. 139. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 175 
 
 III. — Love, and the Imperfection of the Human Mind. 
 
 Melancthon. — " The splendid hope which some enter- 
 tain, that Christianity will ultimately unite the whole 
 Church in every article of faith and practice, in inward 
 sentiment as well as outward form, is only, it is to be 
 feared, a visionary prospect ; though the fact that the 
 Gospel should have awakened such an expectation, pro- 
 claims aloud its concihatory spirit. There is, however, 
 a union which its subjects pray for, and its promises 
 secure, a union of affection, which, ' linking heart to 
 heart, shall leave the judgment free, and, out of the 
 varying tones of many minds, shall form one harmonious 
 whole."" 
 
 Lord Herbert. — I shall thank you to reconcile these 
 statements with the following, from the same pen : — 
 " Most freely do we admit that nothing connected with 
 religion is unimportant, or absolutely iiiditfercnt ; and that, 
 important as the harmony and peace of the Church may 
 be, the interests of truth and holiness are still more so ; 
 partly, because they arc the only foundation on which the 
 temple of peace can be built. And most earnestly do we 
 deprecate that latitudinarian indifference which would 
 attempt reconciliation at the expense of truth, as evil in its 
 origin, and highly dangerous in its tendency. The prin- 
 ciples of revelation are innnortal and immutuablc ; and lio 
 who fancies ho has a dispensing power here, or who acts 
 as if he had, by making a single concession to an object or 
 a party at the expense of truth, from that moment writes 
 ' Union, p. UU. 
 
176 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 himself traitor to her throne, and becomes disqualified for 
 her service." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — So far as I can understand language, the 
 one passage gives a clear and decided pre-eminence and 
 power to " love," or " affection," in accomplishing union ; 
 vrhile the other passage as decidedly and unequivocally 
 subordinates this love or affection to intelligence and 
 truth. 
 
 Melancthon. — " ' I,' said Baxter, — and the sentiment 
 was worthy the inspired pen of the seraphic John, — ' I 
 can as willingly be a martyr for love as for any article of 
 the creed.' " ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This sentiment will be a frequent source 
 of anguish to the individual, who is conscious to himself of 
 being unable to distinguish between those " articles of faith 
 and practice," on which Christian union is based, and those 
 on which it has no dependence. For while he is seeking 
 " a union of affection, which, linking heart to heart, leaves 
 the judgment free, and, out of the varying tones of many 
 minds, forms one harmonious whole," he Avill, at the very 
 same time, be filled with trembling, lest in so doing he 
 practise that " latitudinarian indifference wliich would at- 
 tempt reconciliation at the expense of truth." 
 
 Bellarmine. — Moreover, if " the appointed channel in 
 •which religion flows is through the understanding, to the 
 heart," ^ 1 must knoiu whom I am to love, and what I am 
 to love, before I can become an intelligent or praise-wor- 
 thy martyr even to love. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Having erected our standard of union, 
 we must not expect that any one party will concede more 
 ' Union, pp. 207, 208. = lb. 209. « Ji,. p. 179. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 177 
 
 than ourselves, in order to meet it. If, in order to reach 
 it, sacrifices are necessary, these sacrifices must be mutual. 
 We must be prepared to give as much as we ask ; and, 
 instead of waiting till others move, we must ourselves set 
 the example of concession, in the hope of being followed. 
 The glory of leadimj here is, in some respects, greater 
 than that of the martyr's crown." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — The standard of union which you have 
 been setting up is too indistinct in its colours, and too in- 
 definite in its watchword, to rally around it earnest and 
 intelligent men. Besides, what sacrifices and concessions, 
 let me ask, do you expect each other to make ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — The question is most apposite, since we 
 were so recently told, that " he who makes a single con- 
 cession at the expense of truth, from that moment wites 
 himself traitor to her throne, and becomes disqualified for 
 her service." 
 
 Melancthon. — " Let it be observed, — a truth which we 
 have often repeated already, that we do not ask any 
 one to sacrifice his opinions, but only his unchristian 
 bigotry." 2 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Pray, what, merit is there in such a 
 concession, or what glory in such a sacrifice ? Besides, if 
 you do not ask Christians to sacrifice any of their present 
 opinions, how, in the ample range of possibility, can Chris- 
 tian union ever be cff'ccted ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " We do not ask the Independent to be- 
 come an Episcopalian, nor the Episcopalian to become an 
 Independent. We do not ask the Calvinist to change sides 
 with the Arminian, nor the Baptist with the I'aido-bap- 
 1 Union, p. 215. ' lb. p. 208. 
 
 M 
 
178 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 tist ; but only to exchange the visible expressions of that 
 love which they ought mutually to cherish as heirs toge- 
 ther of the grace of life." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — But it is manifest as the brightness of noon- 
 day, that if the Indpendent, the Calvinist, and the Baptist, 
 each maintains that his peculiar views are true and obli- 
 gatory, being enjoined in the divine oracle, and if the 
 Episcopalian, the Arminian, and the Paedo-baptist, each 
 maintains also the same respecting his peculiar views, 
 one of the parties in each dispute (if not both) is misinter- 
 preting the word of God, and " teaching for doctrines the 
 commandments of men." By thus " rejecting the com- 
 mandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition," 
 ye are also ruthlessly and endlessly rending the Church, 
 the body of Christ Jesus. 
 
 Melancthon. — All the world sees the folly of so acting, 
 as in effect to say, " The grand doctrines of salvation are 
 nothing as a basis of Christian union, unless their recep- 
 tion be accompanied by certain shades of opinion which I 
 myself have adopted." ^ " The truth as it is in Jesus is 
 not to be reduced to a level with truth as it is in a 
 party." " By indulging attachment to particular shades 
 of opinion, at the expense of all that large portion of the 
 Bible which inculcates love to the brethren, we arc sacri- 
 ficing truth." * It is absurd to " defend some little angle 
 or ornament in the temple of truth at the expense of one 
 of the pillars." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — What more reasonable, then, or neces- 
 sary, than our reiterated request, which has never yet 
 
 ' Uuion, p. 208. » lb. p. 208. ' lb. \). 209. 
 
 * Union, p. 209. * lb. p. 209. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 179 
 
 been met, to know how to distinguish between the " grand 
 doctrines of salvation" and " certain shades of opinion," 
 between " the truth as it is in Jesus" and " the truth as 
 it is in a party," between " the angles and ornaments" 
 and " the pillars" of the temple of truth. 
 
 Bellarmine, — Besides, these " particular shades of 
 opinion," the denominational peculiarities recently speci- 
 fied, and such like, are either a portion of the truth, the 
 angles and ornaments of the temple, or they are not. 
 If they do not belong at all to the temple of truth, — 
 if " the truth as it is in a party " be only a counterfeit 
 or spurious truth, then why should the world have been 
 made to ring with the controversies that have risen 
 about these non-truths, — these trifles ; and why should 
 the Church have been rent by them so frequently and 
 so grievously ? 
 
 Lord Herbert And if these " particular shades of 
 
 opinion" be indeed " the angles and ornaments of the 
 temple of truth," then are we reduced to the conclusion 
 that the temple of truth is not in harmony with itself. An 
 attempt to strengthen its foundations, or support its co- 
 lumns, disturbs its embellishments, and mars its beauty ; 
 or, on the other hand, an elFort to retouch its decorations, 
 or perfect its proportions, endangers its very existence ! ! 
 If such be a Christian's ideal of the temple of truth, we 
 may well ask, What is ti-uth 't 
 
 Theopldlus. — The question may be more thoroughly 
 sifted, if we have before our minds some of the evils en- 
 tailed by want of love among Christians. 
 
 Melancthon. — Lack of charity, or intolerance, " still 
 looks on the reformer who only ventures humbly to 
 
180 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 suggest, and mildly to plead, as a schismatic and a 
 foe." 1 
 
 Lord Herbert. — I understand you to mean by " the 
 reformer," a member of some particular denomination, 
 who proposes some change in the principles or peculiari- 
 ties of his denomination. Now, does not a man by the 
 very act of joining a denomination pledge himself to all 
 its peculiarities 1 And does not this pledge legitimately 
 debar him from even proposing a reformation ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — The case is most obvious. The speciali- 
 ties of the denomination have been honestly and diligently 
 investigated, and conscientiously adopted by its members, 
 we are told. If so, he who among themselves proposes 
 an alteration is justly enough regarded as a sectary and 
 an enemy. If the peculiarities of the denomination have 
 not been in a sufficient and satisfactory manner exa- 
 mined and embraced, it ought never to have existed at 
 all. 
 
 Theophilus. — Hence we perceive the obligation, that 
 rests upon every denomination carefully to revise its pre- 
 sent creed, and upon each individual to profess to believe 
 only what he has thoroughly examined. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Intolerance still clings, if not with 
 greater, at least with equal, tenacity to its own little 
 devices and ceremonial additions, as to the great veri- 
 ties and ordinances of heaven ; enforcing them all as of 
 equal authority. " ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — And is not everything which God en- 
 joins " of equal authority ?" And if " these little devices 
 and ceremonial additions" be not commanded, it is the 
 1 Union, p. 12G. ' lb. p. 126. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 181 
 
 very height of intolerance to make them distinguishing 
 marks of a denomination. And after constituting them 
 such distinguishing marks, to speak of them thus dis- 
 paragingly is a two-fold inconsistency. 
 
 Lord Herbert — And so long as different denominations 
 do exist, Christians will appear to cling with equal tenacity 
 to all their little devices and ceremonies, as to the great 
 verities and ordinances of heaven ; and thus their actions 
 tend to shake what they call the foundations of truth, and 
 consequently to contradict their professions. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Angels rejoice over one sinner that 
 repenteth ; but, in every religious community, the spirit 
 of intolerance exults more in a proselyte from another 
 church, than in a convert from the world." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — In continuing to be separate from that 
 other church, you profess your belief that it is a schis- 
 matic church. For if it be not a schismatic church, you 
 are a schismatic in not uniting with it. And if that other 
 church be involved in the guilt of schism, its extinction or 
 extermination as a church is one great means to convert 
 the world. The world, you believe, is to be brought over 
 to Christianity when the Church becomes one ; but its 
 unity depends upon its purity,^ and unless your church 
 be purer than others, you liave not the shadow of a reason 
 for remaining separate. A conversion from the world to 
 a schismatic church, therefore, is surely on these princi- 
 ples, a matter of less congratulation than an addition to 
 the one true and pure Church, on which alone all the 
 hopes of the world are suspended. 
 
 Theophilus. — From such reproaches and perplexities 
 1 Uuiou, p. 127. » lb. p. 31. 
 
182 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 we can escape, only by the realization of one undivided 
 Christian Society. 
 
 Melancthon. — We never would assert that the Pro- 
 testant " is quite invulnerable to the charge of sectarian 
 assumption. As often as he dogmatises on the minute 
 particulars of the apostolic pattern ; denounces as unsound 
 and unsafe whatever is not at the farthest possible remove 
 from certain supposed errors ; demands that every church 
 on earth should be moulded according to his notions of the 
 primitive model ; and, in the pride of his heart, anticipates 
 the universal extension of his favourite government unim- 
 proved and entire ; he is making an additional remove from 
 the enlarged and enlightened charity of the gospel, is an 
 active agent of dissension, and is proving himself nearer 
 of kin than he imagines to the intolerants of Oxford and 
 of Rome."' 
 
 Bellarmine. — A national or dissenting denomination 
 which does not " demand that every church on earth 
 should be moulded according to its notions of the primi- 
 tive model," is an obvious self-inconsistency. We respect 
 ourselves in maintaining, that the distinguishing features 
 of the holy Catholic Church are according to the primi- 
 tive model, or are right in themselves, or are ordained of 
 God, and so are fitted for " universal extension," " unim- 
 proved and entire." But when a Protestant contends for 
 this and the other point, as a distinguisldng pecnliariti/ of 
 /lis denomination, and at the same time admits that it is not 
 fitted, or may not be fitted, " for universal extension," 
 " unimproved and entire," he convicts himself of that 
 very intolerant assumption which ho charges upon us. 
 ' Union, p. 148. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 183 
 
 Lord Herbert. — And in attempting to defend his incon- 
 sistency under the shield of an " enlarged and enlightened 
 charity," the shaft which he has often discharged against 
 us recoils and wounds himself :^he plants charity on the 
 ruins of truth. 
 
 Theophilus. — It certainly does require some attention 
 and discrimination to fix the limits of truth and love, so as 
 to keep them from mutually infringing the province of 
 each other. The necessity of so doing is the more 
 apparent, when we find, as in the present discussion, that 
 the claims of truth are admitted to be paramount, and 
 soon after made to succumb to charity. These limits will 
 be fixed, when the question now before us is satisfactorily 
 answered ; nor does it appear how they can be fixed in 
 any other way, but by answering that question, or show- 
 ing what are the matters on which identity of opinion is 
 necessary to Christian union, and what are the matters 
 on which that identity of opinion may be dispensed 
 with. 
 
 When this question is answered, the standard of union 
 will be erected ; for that standard is not the property of 
 one party or another. To rally round that standard, the 
 conflicting hosts of Christendom may have to act as if they 
 were making nmtual concessions and sacrifices ; but this is 
 not the full or most correct statement of the case. They 
 do not so much make concessions to each other; but in 
 rendering homage to the truth, abandon, each for himself, 
 what the truth condemns. If one adopts what another 
 has already espoused, he- docs so, not because it is his 
 brother's, but because it is right in itself. Hence to speak 
 of our being " prepared to give as much as wo ask," is to 
 
184 
 
 DIALOGUE ir. 
 
 misunderstand the matter altogether, and to compare the 
 investigation of eternal truth and the Divine law, to a bar- 
 gaining about huckster's wares. 
 
 If it be said that Christian union does not require " any 
 one to sacrifice his opinions," the difficulty immediately 
 emerges, what sort of Christian union is that which admits 
 of contradictory opinions on a hundred questions of re- 
 vealed truth and practical importance ? If a man's opinion 
 be erroneous, is he not bound to sacrifice or abandon it ? 
 Who dare give him an indulgence to adhere to it ? So 
 long as there are conflicting opinions in the Christian com- 
 munity, there are of necessity also as many erroneous 
 opinions ; and if the Bible does not require every man to 
 forsake all his errors, it cannot have come from the God 
 of truth. Varying opinions on matters of probability are 
 properly points of forbearance and concession, to be settled 
 by the minority yielding to the majority. But such con- 
 cession is morally wrong and religiously dangerous, when 
 our opinions concern questions of truth or duty. 
 
 Applying this principle to the question of church govern- 
 ment, it may be settled in one of two Avays. If there be a 
 form of church government divinely instituted, is it un- 
 reasonable to expect that Christians should come to an 
 agreement as to what that form actually Is ? If there be 
 no such form divinely appointed, then there is no sufficient 
 reason to make church government a ground of denomi- 
 national organization ; but every open rupture and secret 
 heart-burning on this topic may be prevented by mutual 
 concession and long-suffering. 
 
 So also should the dispute be settled between Arminians 
 and Calvinists. So far as these parties contradict each 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 185 
 
 other, one of them is undoubtedly in error ; to cling to 
 that error is to rend the Church of Christ. The Calvinist 
 must cease to deny, directly or by irapUcation, the free 
 agency of man ; and the Arminian must cease to deny, 
 immediately or mediately, the fore-knowledge and sove- 
 reign supremacy of the Most High. 
 
 And as to infant baptism, if it be, indeed, a Divine ordi- 
 nance, Christians should be able to agree about its Divine 
 authority, and they will agree if they truly seek Divine 
 guidance. If it be not divinely appointed, why may not 
 every one follow his own view, without originating or sup- 
 porting on this account separate denominations ? 
 
 While the several parties now referred to continue to 
 oppose each other as they have been doing, and to give 
 perpetuity and publicity to their mutual conflict by sepa- 
 rate organizations, it seems to us utterly impossible for 
 them " to exchange the visible expression of that love 
 which they ought mutually to cherish as heirs together 
 of the grace of life." At least the visible expression of 
 this love caimot be so full and cordial as it should be, nor 
 so palpable as to produce an impression on the world, till 
 these disputes arc settled. We have ventured to suggest 
 a plain and practical principle, by acting on which their 
 adjustment may be eifccted. 
 
 Nothing is more dangerous, as has been often remarked, 
 than representing, in a certain way, some doctrines and 
 duties as more important or essential than others. Wo 
 may not disparage or trifle with the least. But then 
 there is a clear diff"ercnco between what wc know to be 
 true, and what wo regard as only probable. In ])robabili- 
 tics there caimot bo a contradiction. In certainties, how- 
 
186 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 ever trivial apparently, there must be the absence of con- 
 flicting sentiments, if we would preserve the unity of the 
 faith, and the harmony of Christian love, unbroken and 
 undisturbed. 
 
 If, then, the pecuHarities of a denomination be such 
 matters only as are really true and obligatory upon all, 
 they cease to be the peculiarities of a sect; they are, in- 
 deed, the enduring and unalterable features of the one 
 true Church, separation from which is schism. Whenever 
 there is positive harmony among men on the most patent 
 and momentous points of faith and practice, and in regard 
 to the remainder of these things all absence of conflict and 
 opposition, there may well be exercised a mutual yielding 
 generosity and conceding love, on questions which involve 
 no manifest and weighty principle. A society of Chris- 
 tians organized in accordance with these suggestions is 
 obviously adapted for " universal extension ;" for the only 
 improvement of which it is susceptible is a fuller develop- 
 ment of that very truth, which it already holds fast, and 
 holds forth. To afllrm that no such organization is attain- 
 able, or to charge such an organization when it shall be 
 attained with intolerance for claiming universal adoption, 
 is not to plead the cause of a wise and magnanimous 
 charity, or of long-suffering truth, but is to drive both 
 truth and charity into one common hopeless wreck. 
 
 3felancthon. — All this sounds very well ; but " let us 
 consider the natural history and necessary imperfections 
 of the human mind. IIow impotent is our reason, how 
 dark our understanding, how wayward our ])assions, how 
 deeply rooted our prejudices. IIow more tlian probable 
 is it that no two individuals pass through precisely the 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDEXTITT OF OPINION. 
 
 187 
 
 same process in reaching their rehgioiis conclusions — that 
 early propensities, prescribed courses of study, domestic 
 and local impressions, artificial habits of thought, physical 
 temperament, future prospects, and the infinite comphca- 
 tion of influences through which we pass, make it impos- 
 sible for any two persons ever to see the same object from 
 the same point of view, or through exactly the same 
 medium, so that, in effect, they never see absolutely the 
 same object. How more than probable is it that a slight 
 change in our circumstances would have produced a great 
 change in our opinions; and that if the judgment of any 
 one is to be a standard to the world, there are thousands 
 more eligible than ours. So that unless we can show that 
 by some magic charm, or miraculous exemption, we have 
 escaped the disturbing influences incident to humanity, 
 and can claim perfection, we need the forbearance of our 
 fellow-Chi'istians ; and the tenderness we need for our- 
 selves, we shall feel bound to extend to others." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Why do you refuse to extend this ten- 
 derness to us? We only ask for ourselves at your hands 
 that same " forbearance," which you have now claimed 
 for each other. If your " reason " is " impotent," and 
 your " understanding " " dark," and your " passions " 
 " wayward," and your " prejudices " " deeply rooted," 
 how do you know that Christianity is true ? Should we 
 not be as half-witted as yourselves, if we trusted the know- 
 ledge of such dark and impotent minds ? If it be " im- 
 possible for any two persons ever to sec the same object 
 from the same point of view, or through exactly the same 
 medium, so that, in efi^ect, they never sec absolutely the 
 1 Union, pp. 2:39, 240. 
 
188 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 same object," by what " magic charm " do you reach 
 that " substantial oneness of faith," of which we hear so 
 much, but which, Uke a shadow, is ever eluding our 
 grasp ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — If it be true that " a slight change in our 
 circumstances " may produce " a great change in our 
 opinions," and if it is only " by some magic charm, or 
 miraculous exemption," that we can " escape the disturb- 
 ing influences incident to humanity," then is j^our vaunted 
 right of private judgment something worse than a mere 
 myth of fairy-land ; it is a mischievous deception. 
 
 Theophilus — The depravity of human nature, and the 
 validity of the human understanding, must both be held, 
 without allowing the one to infringe upon or impair the 
 other. By the latter is meant the power of the human 
 reason, when honestly and diligently exercised on any 
 particular subject, to avoid an erroneous judgment on that 
 subject. The depravity of our nature is developed in such 
 facts as these : the entire loss of any comfortable sense of the 
 Divine favour, the erroneous beliefs of our education, the 
 relaxed sensibility of conscience, the disorder of our afi'ec- 
 tions, and the comparative weakness of volition. Without 
 any help at all from the Holy Ghost, the purchase of 
 Christ's death, the natural mind is so dim and dead as, 
 pei'haps, to be not even responsible. But, if so, every 
 man must be regarded as receiving so much aid from the 
 common operations of the Spirit, as to render him amen- 
 able to law. 
 
 In regard to the point more immediately in hand, we 
 perfectly agree with the author to whom reference has 
 been so frequently made, if he would only agree always 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 189 
 
 with himself. He says, " Among the many important 
 reflections suggested, the following seem almost forced 
 upon our attention : — 1. That the additions which man has 
 made, from time to time, to the ordinances of God, have 
 been the most fruitful sources of agitation and quarrel. 
 2. That even these have not led to actual separation, until 
 they have been authoritative!}' enforced, and made indis- 
 pensable. 3. That neither the one nor the other could 
 have taken place, if the authority of the Bible had been 
 revered and regarded as paramount." ' It seems all but 
 self-evident, that if " no additions were made to the ordi- 
 nances of God," no contradiction would arise among Chris- 
 tian men on religious topics. It is quite as evident, that 
 if no party made such additions " indispensable," and all 
 abstained from attempting " authoritatively to enforce " 
 them, that there could be only one denomination. Nor is 
 more needed for the accomplishment of such a happy and 
 grand consummation, than practical deference to the autho- 
 rity of the Bible, by giving to every question a careful 
 and conscientious examination. 
 
 We verily believe that a spirit of concihation would of 
 itself do as much towards the adjustment of disputed 
 points, as the many treatises which they have ever called 
 forth. Mutual explanation, carefully and courteously 
 sought, and promptly and patiently given, would remove 
 many a stuml)ling-bIock, and prove that many a difficulty, 
 which has been deemed insuperable, is almost unfounded, 
 or highly exaggerated. If the transcendently great ob- 
 jects of the Christian reli|];ion, such as the yearning ten- 
 derness of our Iloaveuly Father, the unutterable love of 
 ' Union, p. 128. 
 
190 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 His Son, our Saviour, the worth of a human soul, the 
 woes of the lost, the bliss of the saved, were to engage 
 more general attention, and diffuse their hallowed influ- 
 ence more effectually over the hearts of Christ's professing 
 people, some of the points now contested, hotly and dis- 
 astrously, would disappear, and be for ever forgotten. 
 Others would immediately lose the heavy mists that had 
 so long enshrouded them, and emerge into view, in bold 
 relief, free from all indistinctness and ambiguity, bathed 
 in the clear and serene atmosphere of truth. The remain- 
 ing topics of controversy might be held in suspense, while 
 Christians examined and prayed, and prayed and exa- 
 mined them, till the Spirit of Truth should descend to 
 bless our examinations in answer to our prayers, by lead- 
 ing us into all truth. 
 
 IV. — The Primitive Church. 
 
 Melancthon. — But let us take the apostolic churches 
 for our examples. " Faith and love are evidently the 
 only bond which existed, or which could have existed 
 among the Christians of the first churches. In the order 
 of nature the object precedes the act — the truth to be 
 behoved precedes the act of believing it. But it was by 
 simply believing the gospel — the doctrine of redemption 
 through the atonino; sacrifice of Christ — that the first 
 Christians became eligible to form a church : — the object 
 of their faith preceded their existence as a church, and 
 was the condition and reason of their organization : while 
 the mode of conducting their worship, the form of churcli 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPINION. 
 
 191 
 
 government, and every opinion independent of and subor- 
 dinate to that great doctrine were, in the order of nature, 
 subjects for subsequent consideration. As far indeed as 
 these were prescribed by apostolic authority, they were to 
 be received as imperative, because divinely inspired. But 
 their very prescription supposed a church already in ex- 
 istence ; or, at least, the existence of Christian men eli- 
 gible to become a church. Now that which was sufficient 
 to render them eligible for membership, and to bind them 
 together as a church, must be still adequate for the same 
 purposes." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — There are two distinct questions sug- 
 gested by these remarks, to both of which I should like to 
 have an explicit answer. First, were there among the 
 first Christians any contradictory and conflicting senti- 
 ments similar to those which are now prevalent among 
 Protestants? Secondly, do you really mean to asseit 
 that the extent of harmonious sentiment, sufficient to pre- 
 serve the unity of the Church in certain circumstances, 
 will be sufficient in all circumstances to prevent a ru])- 
 ture ? 
 
 Bellarmine — As to the first of these questions, which- 
 ever answer be given, it will condemn Protestant denomi- 
 nations. If there were among the primitive disciples con- 
 tradictions at all akin to those of Protestantism, then 
 since they existed without splitting the Church into distinct 
 sections, why not now as well as then ? And if it be said 
 there were no such conflicting sentiments in those days, 
 why cannot Christians ia these days get quit of their 
 contradictory opinions ? 
 
 ' Union, pp. 73, 74. 
 
192 
 
 DIALOGUE U. 
 
 Melancthon. — " An attempt was made by certain erring 
 members of the church at Antioch to compel others to con- 
 form to their prejudices .... Paul and Barnabas, had they 
 obeyed their early prepossessions, would have sided with 
 those who attempted the imposition, but this their fidelity to 
 their Lord, and to Christian hberty, forbade. Or, in the 
 exercise of that high authority which they possessed, and of 
 the great influence they had acquired, they might have put 
 their veto on the attempted imposition ; but this they for- 
 bore.'" 
 
 Bellarmine. — You must admit that the council which 
 assembled soon after in Jerusalem did put a •' veto on 
 the attempted imposition." And if the originators of the 
 attempt had, after that veto, adhered to their purpose, 
 there would have been a conflict of sentiment, and, as the 
 result, an open rupture, — a schism, — just like your Pro- 
 testant schisms. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Or perhaps a secret rupture, just like 
 your Romanist schisms. 
 
 Melancthon. — " K a church is to be a society of think- 
 ing as well as of " faithful" men, a perfect and universal 
 identity of sentiment is neither to be expected nor desired ; 
 nor docs the Bible demand it. This is evident from the 
 language of the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans. 
 ' Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to 
 doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he ma.y cat 
 all things ; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not 
 him that eateth despise him that eateth not ; and let not 
 him who eateth not judge him that eateth : for God hath 
 received him,' (xiv. 1-3.) Here arc two classes of Chris- 
 ' Union, p. 25. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDEXTITT OF OPIXIOX, 
 
 193 
 
 tians, in the same church, differing on a doubtful point. 
 And the fact to be remarked is, that the Apostle does not 
 disclose which was right, by deciding the question at issue. 
 But, denouncing their mutual want of charity, he approves 
 the conscientiousness of each, encourages both to retain 
 their respective opinions, and exliorts them, notwithstand- 
 ing this diversity, to be united and one ; assigning as the 
 great reason why each should receive the other, that Gou 
 
 HATH RECEIVED HIM." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — " The fact" which you say is " to be 
 remarked, that the Apostle does not disclose which was 
 right, by deciding the question at issue," is not a fact at 
 all, but your assertion of it is a palpable mistake ; for in 
 verse 14 of the same chapter I read thus: — " I know, and 
 am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing 
 unclean of itself;" and again, in verse 20, " All things, 
 indeed, are pure." Hence it appears that he does not " en- 
 courage both to retain their respective opinions." This 
 apostolic decision must have immediately removed collision 
 of judgment between the parties, even if it existed before 
 the decision was given. 
 
 liellarmine — It is true that he " exhorts them, notwith- 
 standing tliis diversity, to be united and one;" and the 
 reason is, that this diversity did not involve in itself a col- 
 lision or contradiction. One party believed that they 
 might lawfully cat herbs only, and the other party that 
 they might eat anything. This latter party, however, 
 pleaded only for the lawfulness, not for the oblitjation, of 
 ating all things. Correctly speaking, therefore, their 
 >entiinents were not practically in conHiot, and t1>c Apostle 
 ' Uiiimi, pp. 03, Gl. 
 
194 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 could with great propriety urge those who felt their liberty 
 to use all meats, to suspend that liberty for the sake of 
 weak brethren. In caUing these brethren weak, he vir- 
 tually " decides the question at issue." And the for- 
 bearance and self-denial which Paul enjoins loses all its 
 meaning, except we suppose that the stronger brethren 
 abstained on the grounds of love from what they might 
 otherwise have freely partaken of. 
 
 Melancthon. — " During the early ages of Christianity 
 the Church visibly and really maintained its intended unity ; 
 and ought not this consideration to exercise a healing influ- 
 ence on Christians of the present day ? With a thousand 
 reasons for division, of which we happily know nothing, 
 the first Christians were one. The petty bickering which 
 occasionally disturbed the peace of a particular society, did 
 not affect the union of the general Church. ' They who 
 are at Rome,' said the Bishop of Cjesarea, in a letter to 
 Cyprian, ' do not entirely observe all things which have 
 
 been handed down from the beginning So likewise, 
 
 in a very great number of other provinces, many things 
 vary according to the diversity of place and people ; but, 
 nevertheless, their variations have at no time infringed the 
 peace and unity of the catholic Church.' Converging 
 from the most opposite points, Christians met together at 
 the cross, and the principle which drew them to that bound 
 them also to each other. And shall that example exist for 
 us in vain? Shall we tempt the world to infer that the 
 Gospel exhausted its benevolent power in its first efi'orts ? 
 that its uniting power is irrecoverably lost ? Of this we 
 may be assured, that until wc practically regard the unity 
 of the primitive Church as obligatory on ourselves, its 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITT OF OPINION. 
 
 195 
 
 history exists only to aggravate our guilt, and to increase 
 our condemnation," ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — You involve yourself in this aggravated 
 guilt and increased condemnation. You have failed to 
 shew that any collision of sentiment, similar to those that 
 spUt Protestantism into its denominations, was found in 
 
 the primitive Church, and yet you have maintained that 
 these Protestant contradictions are compatible with church 
 union. The union which you contend for, therefore, is 
 essentially different from the union of the primitive Church. 
 The " things handed down from the beginning, which they 
 at Rome did not entirely observe," could not have been 
 regarded by those who did observe them as divinely sanc- 
 tioned, and obligatory upon all, or a schism would imme- 
 diately have taken place. The " variations" which pre- 
 vailed in " other provinces," " according to the diversity 
 of place and people," must have been held by all con- 
 cerned as matters, not only of less importance, but such 
 as left all points of duty and doctrine untouched, else the 
 unity of the cathoUc Church would have been neither 
 " visible nor real." 
 
 Bellarmine. — This view of the case is confirmed by the 
 fact, that as soon as collision or contradiction in sentiment 
 developed itself, the Church was rent. Thus " the great 
 sect of the Donatists maintained that their own Church 
 was the only true, uncorruptcd, universal Church." ^ And 
 as to the other early sects, it has been remarked : — " It 
 would seem, we must allow, but an ill augury for denomi- 
 national distinctions that the first bodies of professed ad- 
 herents to the religion of Christ, who bore any other name 
 
 ' Union, pp. 275, 27G. ^ lb., p. 98. Sec pp. 1 13, 114. 
 
196 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 beside that of ' Christians,' ^yerc corrupters of the gospel. 
 
 Such were the Gnostic and Ebionite heretics The 
 
 subsequent extensive separations or ' schisms' of the Nova- 
 tians and Donatists, however, were not attended with any 
 departure from the Christian doctrine, but related to the 
 grand controversy respecting the manner of deahng with 
 the ' Lapsed,' and to the question, what constitutes the 
 idea of a true Church." ^ Of course, if no contradiction or 
 collision of opinion had been evolved on these last named 
 matters, there would have been no such thing as a pro- 
 longed or extensive separation. There seems to be little 
 doubt that the decision of the Jerusalem Synod, and the 
 authoritative announcement of Paul (Rom. xiv. 14) pre- 
 vented the development, in both instances, of an incipient 
 collision and rupture. 
 
 Hence it is manifest that the Protestant Churches have, 
 in this vital point, departed as far from the primitive 
 Church, nay, have in their practice as directly opposed 
 the example of the early Church, as it is alleged ive have 
 been guilty of doing in other essential matters. For it is 
 true that, " during the early ages of Christianity, the 
 Church visibly and really maintained its intended unity 
 and it has just been shewn that this means, there was no 
 separation, and no collision of judgment, which is sure to 
 produce separation. Now, not only is there among Pro- 
 testants such collisions and such separation, but, incredible 
 as it may appear, some of the ablest and most earnest ad- 
 vocates of union have gone the length of contending that 
 these are no breach of union, — that " Calvinist and Armi- 
 uian, Presbyterian and ^Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist, 
 ' Schism, p. iUS. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPIXIOX. 
 
 197 
 
 and Independent, are specific names, innocent in them- 
 selves ; only let love subordinate them to the generic name 
 of Christian, and it will be seen that variety of sect is per- 
 fectly compatible with the unity of the Church ! ! " ^ You 
 ask us sometimes to return to the model of the primitive 
 Church, Avhile you seem to forget that example is better 
 than precept. 
 
 Theophilus. — There was another question proposed, 
 namely, is that amount of identity of opinion which is able 
 to unite Christians and prevent schism, under a certain 
 combination of circumstances, sufficient to secure the same 
 blessing amid the varied changes of Christian society ? 
 
 Melanctlion. — " Faith and love form the apostohc terms 
 of communion with the Christian Church, the means and 
 substance of its prosperity, and the grand chatholicon for 
 all its maladies." * '■' And as any additions to faith and 
 love have at times been found impracticable, so arc they 
 always unnecessary." ^ " From the combined influence of 
 this faith and love, it follows that this holy and visible 
 union was universal. As it did not orio-inate in a cause 
 peculiar to any particular portion of the Christian 'Church, 
 but in one common to the whole, it necessarily embraced 
 the entire body. ' We know,' says the Apostle John. 
 ' that we have passed from death unto life, because we 
 love the brethren ;' we love them as brethren, on account 
 of their spiritual relationship to Christ, their attachment 
 to him, and the traces they e.\hibit of his Divine image ; 
 and therefore, wherever we behold a genuine Christian, 
 we recognise a brother,— a member of the family of 
 Christ. And hence they (the first believers) exhibited a 
 
 ' Union, p. 101. » lb. p. 7o. ' lb. p. 7(5. 
 
198 
 
 DIALOGUE n. 
 
 uaion not merely of individual Christians, but of churches. 
 Having professed by baptism their faith in Christ, they 
 were cordially received to the communion of the Lord's 
 Supper, and having joined in that feast of Christian fellow- 
 ship with one church, they were deemed ehgible to com- 
 munion with every other church. Tokens of Christian 
 salutation, and offices of brotherly love, were famiharly 
 interchanged. They were ready to unite in the Church 
 on earth with all with whom they hoped to meet and 
 
 mingle in the worship of the Church in heaven K 
 
 ever the prayer of Christ, ' that they all might be one,' 
 was answered, it was then ; when, whatever the internal 
 state of particular churches, they exhibited to the world 
 the subhme and glorious spectacle of a universal agapa, to 
 which every Christian brother, on presenting the tessera 
 of cUscipleship, received the cordial welcome of a friend of 
 Christ." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — These remarks contain, no doubt, a 
 direct answer, or what appears such, to the question pro- 
 posed. But before inquiring whether they contain the 
 right answer, a prehminary question occurs, — are they 
 intelligible or self-consistent ? If that faith in Christ 
 which constitutes a man a true Christian, as you speak, 
 be all that is necessary to secure his continuance in the 
 true Church, and hence to preserve its unity unbroken, 
 then how can there be such a thing as schism at all t If 
 an individual be a true Christian, you say, he is on that 
 account alone a member of the Church. So long, then, 
 as he is a true Christian, he cannot be a schismatic ; and 
 if he is not, or cease to be, a true Christian, neither can 
 ^ Union, pp. «0-»2. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPIXION". 
 
 199 
 
 he be a schismatic ; he is, then, a heretic or an unbe- 
 Uever. 
 
 Melancthon. — Please to Hsten to what my explanation 
 of schism is. " As the union of the Christian Church is 
 twofold, consisting of faith in Christ and love to the 
 brethren, it is evident that it must be capable of a twofold 
 rupture. The breach of the former is heresy or apostacy, 
 the violation of the latter is schism. But as apostacy, or 
 a departure from God, necessarily includes schism, or a 
 departure from the brethren, so schism, in its scriptural 
 import, argues an impaired state of faith in Christ, and 
 tends to impair it still farther. Schism, therefore, is to 
 be regarded as the breach of the unity of the Church." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Faith in Christ and love to the brethren 
 form, as you assert, the terms of communion, to which any 
 additions are at once " impracticable " and " unnecessary." 
 You have said also that " the breach " of faith, which is 
 heresy or apostacy, " necessarily involves schism, or a 
 departure from the brethren." In like manner, it appears 
 to me, that schism necessarily involves apostacy, inasmuch 
 as you hold that " love is the natural result of faith," ^ 
 and as the very scripture which you lately quoted asserts; 
 " he that loveth not his brother abideth in death." — 
 (] John iii. 14). Whereas you have just said, that 
 " schism argues an impaired state of faith in Christ." 
 Now this " impaired state of faith in Christ " is that 
 faith in Christ which is one of the terms of communion, 
 or it is not. If the schismatic's faith is so much impaired 
 as to bo destroyed, then schism involves apostacy, and as 
 apostacy also involves schisim, they can never be found 
 ' Union, p. Ho. ' lb. p. 77. 
 
200 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 developed separately, and for all practical purposes the 
 distinction between them vanishes away. If now you 
 affirm that the schismatic's faith is only damaged, but not 
 destroyed, you must also tell us to what extent faith may 
 be damaged or impaired without being altogether ruined, 
 before your definition of the terms of communion has any 
 theoretic meaning, or any practical value. 
 
 Bellarmine. — If it be true of the early Christians, that 
 " they were ready to unite in the Church on earth with all 
 with whom they hoped to meet and mingle in the worship 
 of the Church in heaven," and if their example be binding 
 upon all believers, it is plain as language can speak, that 
 schism argues not only an impaired, but even an extinct 
 faith. If "faith in Christ" be the " tessera of disciple- 
 ship," which entitles every individual who possesses it, to 
 " the cordial welcome of a friend of Christ," both by the 
 " Church on earth," and " the Church in heaven," then 
 I long to hear the distinction between heresy and schism. 
 
 Melancthon. — "Truth is one and indivisible; but the 
 introduction of error is an introduction of an element of 
 division. Christian love, the product of that truth, is 
 one ; and is meant to place us in harmony with all that 
 receive it ; but to make that which is not essential to sal- 
 vation essential to Christian communion is erroi% and 
 as such is an element of division in the Christian 
 Church."' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — In the tirst place, I have never yet 
 heard of any Protestant denomination which professes to 
 make its terms of communion identical with what it con- 
 siders to be the terms of salvation. By this canon of 
 ^ Union, p. lU. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPIXIOX. 
 
 201 
 
 vours the Protestant Churches are all condemned, and the 
 I'hurch of Rome stands acquitted. In the second place, 
 since " the introduction of error is an introduction of an 
 element of division," it follows that there is an element of 
 division in every case of conflicting judgments or contra- 
 dictory opinions. For in every such case one of the par- 
 ties is necessarily in error. 
 
 Melancthon. — By " truth," I mean Christian truth, that 
 " substantial oneness of faith" which is essential to union. 
 •' While more than substantial agreement is unnecessary 
 and unattainable. But this is not only attainable, it 
 already exists. Justification by faith in the atoning 
 sacrifice of the Son of God, together with the doctrines 
 which it necessarily involves, is held alike by Episco- 
 paUan and Presbyterian, Independent, Methodist, Bap- 
 tist, and Friend, and by all the orthodox sections of which 
 the Christian community consists." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — How can any man believe the two affirma- 
 tions which we have now heard ? First, " To make that 
 which is not essential to salvation essential to Christian 
 communion is error, and as such is an element of division 
 in the Christian Church" — an error and element of divi- 
 sion, which plainly pervades Protestantism ; for if it did 
 not, her denominations would immediately merge into one. 
 And, secondly, in direct opposition to the above statement, 
 it is affirmed, that " substantial oneness of faith," and 
 " substantial agreement," more than which " is unneces- 
 sary and unattainable," " is not only attainable, but 
 already exists," among those different denominations ! ! 
 
 Melancthon. — To heal the breaches of the Church, we 
 ' Union, p. 22i'. 
 
202 
 
 DIALOGUE n. 
 
 do ask " Protestants, " that they will cease to treat the 
 great principles which they hold in common as trifles, and 
 to exalt trifles into the throne of great principles — . . . 
 that they will remember that there is a principle of union 
 existing between the pious Churchman and the pious Dis- 
 senter infinitely more intimate and binding than there is 
 between either of these and the irreligious of their respec- 
 tive communities, that while the bond which unites the 
 one is accidental and temporary, that which unites the 
 other is fastened by the hand of God himself, and fas- 
 tened for eternity — that they will bear in mind that, as 
 Christians, they belong properly to no one external com- 
 munion, but that whatever they have or are in this capa- 
 city, they possess only in common with the entire body of 
 the faithful." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — There is scared}' anything in this 
 statement but what has been already exposed. No truth 
 is a trifle ; and if it be only on trifles that Protestants 
 differ, their divisions are the greatest scandal. If the 
 principle of union " between the pious Churchman and 
 the pious Dissenter" be indeed " infinitely more intimate 
 and binding" than that between Churchmen simply as 
 Churchmen, and between Dissenters solely as Dissenters, 
 then surely would both church and dissent be rent in 
 pieces, that " the pious" on both sides might meet and 
 mingle together. 
 
 Bellarmine. — If Christians, " as Christians, belong pro- 
 perly to no one external communion," then whoever be- 
 longs to an external communion belongs to it improperly ; 
 and there can be no such thing as a visible church at all ; 
 ' Union, p. 272. 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OF OPIXIOX. 
 
 203 
 
 and what " the entire body of the faithful possess in com- 
 mon" is something so impalpable that it cannot be made 
 manifest to the world. 
 
 Theophilus. — The position that the same identity of 
 opinion which preserves the union of the Church in some 
 circumstances is sufficient to preserve it always, has cer- 
 tainly not been made good by argument. It is assumed 
 in these appeals to the primitive Church on the question 
 of union, but scarcely an eifort has been made to prove it. 
 If, as has been said, faith and love were the terms of Chris- 
 tian fellowship, the position would be tenable ; but we have 
 seen that this definition of the terms of communion proves 
 too much. Schism and apostacy must be carefully distin- 
 guished ; for schism means a rent in the Church, so that 
 both parties can make good their claim to discipleship. 
 To attempt, therefore, to identify the terms of communion 
 with the terms of salvation is a palpable mystification of 
 the whole question. 
 
 Since " truth is one and indivisible ; and the introduc- 
 tion of error is an introduction of an element of division ;" 
 it would appear that as error is multiform, the sources of 
 schism are numerous ; and, consequently, the amount of 
 truth known at any particular period, though sufficient to 
 expel and dissipate the errors of that period, might not be 
 sufficient to neutralise the errors of a subsequent time. 
 Many questions have agitated the later Church which 
 were never proposed or thought of in the early Church. 
 Such questions may, therefore, become occasions of schism 
 in modern days ; while the early Church was not exposed 
 to the temptation of falhng into such schisms, nor was it 
 in the possession of that knowledge, which alone, by solv- 
 
204 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 ing the agitated questions, can effectually prevent oi' heal 
 tlie schisms which they occasion. Inasmuch as contradic- 
 tion among Christians on any matter of doctrine or duty 
 invariably produces schism, in the form either of an open 
 rupture, or of a secret mutual distrust and opposition, ac- 
 companied in both instances by ahenation of affection, while 
 yet both parties may be genuine believers, it appears that 
 such schism or contradiction, as it arises from time to time 
 on a vast variety of subjects, can only be obviated or re- 
 paired by Christians increasing in knowledge. 
 
 In the work of sanctifying human society, which the 
 Christian Church is appointed by God to perform, and 
 destined to achieve, she finds ever and anon in her path 
 new difiiculties and fresh perplexities, springing up from 
 the complicated relationships of life. As she pursues her 
 onward course, " turning the world upside down," she is 
 again and again beclouded with the dust of demohshed 
 strongholds, and involved in all the turmoil of a revolu- 
 tion. She can perform her part aright amid this ever- 
 changing and trying scene, only by depending on " the 
 Spirit of truth," and by " giving all diligence to add to 
 her faith virtue, and to virtue knoivledye.'' If at the 
 crisis of a nation's history, or amid the throes of a labour- 
 ing community, the Church shall be divided in sentiment 
 in regard to the special truth, which can alone pilot the 
 nation securely over the crisis, or in regard to the special 
 duty whose performance shall effectually relieve and help 
 the community in its travail, who does not perceive that 
 in a Church so situated there is a schism, as palpable in 
 its manifestation, as it is painful and perilous in its conse- 
 (piences ? Ilencc the validity of our conclusion will api)ear, 
 
THE LIMITS OF IDENTITY OP OPINION. 
 
 205 
 
 that the only way to avoid schism is to avoid conflicting 
 opinions on questions of duty and truth. 
 
 This conclusion would be set aside, if it could be shewn 
 that in the primitive Church such conflicting sentiments 
 found a place without damaging or endangering her union. 
 Keasons have been assigned for asserting that the variety 
 of sentiment found in the early Christian community was 
 plainly and decidedly difi"ercnt from the contradictions 
 that rend the modern Church. While, therefore, the 
 maintenance of its real and visible union by the primi- 
 tive Church is an example 'which we should follow, and 
 which ought " to exercise a healing influence on Christians 
 of the present day," it may still be true that amid the new 
 and complex and entangled interests of our own times, a 
 considerably greater degree of knowledge, — a clearer view 
 and a firmer hold of certain principles, than the ancients 
 possessed, — may be altogether indispensable to the cordial 
 union and co-operation of modern Christians. 
 
 Are the terms of Christian communion, then, it will be 
 asked, to vary from age to age ? Variation of an un- 
 worthy kind is not implied in anything that has been 
 advanced. The principle which regulates the terms of 
 communion remains unchanged during the whole history 
 of the Church. But this principle implies and demands 
 from Christians advancement in knowledge or a more inti- 
 mate accpiaintance with truth. And does not every gonnitio 
 Christian desire such progress? Is it not enjoined in 
 Scripture? Is it not illustrated by the history of the past, 
 and required by the urgency of present circumstances ? 
 lias not the Holy Spirit been promised to lead the dis- 
 ciples into all truth ? It is plainly the duty, therefore, of 
 
206 
 
 DIALOGUE II. 
 
 every Christian diligently and honestly to seek to know 
 the truth more and more, as well as to endeavour to obey 
 all the truth which he does know. The Christian com- 
 munity will thus be distinguished by growth in grace and 
 increase in knowledge. Every one who acts consistently 
 upon this principle will suspend his judgment on any ques- 
 tion till he has bestowed upon it mature and conscientious 
 investigation, and will profess to believe as true only what 
 he has found by such investigation to be true. Conflicting 
 and incompatible opinions on matters of truth and duty 
 would thus disappear, like so inany portentous clouds, from 
 the atmosphere of the Church of Christ. And that atmo- 
 sphere, henceforth untroubled by the stormy and deso- 
 lating schisms which these clouds discharge, would be 
 irradiated by the light, and warmed by the beams of 
 the Sun of Righteousness, in all the salubrity and glory 
 of his unveiled splendour. 
 
DIALOGUE III. 
 
 THE milTS OF VISIBLE UNIFORSOTY. 
 I. — Is Unity Independent of Uniformity ? 
 
 Melanctlion. — " As ecclesiastical laws have no power to 
 sway the secret convictions and dispositions of men, out- 
 ward uniformity is the utmost which they can eflfect ; and 
 this may consequently exist in the absence of those ele- 
 ments of character which are indispensable to Christian 
 unity. This unity, on the other hand, is independent of 
 uniformity in outward observances which Christianity has 
 not made binding, as clearly apjjears from the facts relat- 
 ing to the diversities of practice which existed in the 
 apostolic age in regard to the Mosaic ritual. The attempt, 
 therefore, to render outward observances essential to visi- 
 ble unity, is an innovation on the laws of Christ." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — I am sorely puzzled to understand how 
 visible unity can be altogether independent of outivard 
 observances. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Our friend did indeed conclude with a 
 statement to that effect. But did you not notice that he 
 had qualified his statement in a former sentence thus : 
 ' Schism, p. 183. 
 
208 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 " Outward observances which Christianity has not made 
 binding ?" 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Very good. The question is now so 
 simple and clear that a child can understand it. What 
 are those outward observances which Christianity has 
 made binding ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " That one individual was of the Jewish, 
 another of the Proselyte, or a third of the Gentile denomi- 
 nation of Christians, was no lawful obstacle to entire unity 
 of heart," ^ in the primitive age. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — We have already seen that there were 
 no denominations of Christians in the first ages, in the 
 same sense, or any thing approaching it, as there are now. 
 
 Bellarmine. — And so the Jewish, Proselyte, and Gentile 
 denominations just spoken of were not only " no lawful 
 obstacle to entire unity of heart," but no actual obstacle 
 to entire visible unity. 
 
 Melancthon. — " The kingdom of God was ' not in meat 
 and in drink, but in righteousness, and peace, and joy in 
 the Holy Ghost.' It did not consist in things external, 
 but in things spiritual."' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — When Christians " had all things com- 
 mon," that was not an external ! 
 
 Bellarmine. — When the brethren in one locality " as- 
 sembled with one accord," that was not an external! 
 
 Melancthon.--" Its genuine subjects were to be known 
 by their cherishing a certain delicacy of feeling respecting 
 each other's conscientious scruples, on points not affecting 
 the essence of Christianity ; and they were to reverence 
 each other's liberty, as a trust belonging to those who 
 ' Sclii.sin, p. 73. ^ lb. p. 7;l. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY. 
 
 209 
 
 must each ' give an account of himself to God.' ' Xo man ' 
 was ' to put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in 
 his brother's way.' ' Every man' was to be ' fully per- 
 suaded in his own mind' that his peculiar observances were 
 his duties in the sight of God ; and all were to ' follow 
 after the things which make for peace, and things where- 
 with one may edify another.' Xow do not these apostolic 
 facts and testimonies (Rom. xiv. 1 Cor. viii. x. 25-29) 
 furnish, in themselves, a strong presumption that the 
 essential unity of the Christian Church is independent of 
 uniformity in things external. Where is the evidence to 
 the contrary ?" 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Evidence to the contrary has just been 
 alleged. Though it had not, it were unfair in you to throw 
 off the burden of adducing positive proof in defence of 
 your own assertion, and call upon us for negative proof to 
 overthrow it. If the Bible really teaches that " every 
 man is to be fully persuaded in his own mind that his 
 peculiar observances are his duties in the sight of God." 
 we shall forthwith register that book in a conspicuous 
 place in the catalogue of our hbrary, and display it on our 
 shelves. We only hope that, in future, it will teach Chris- 
 tians " to respect our conscientious scruples," and to " re- 
 verence our liberty." It is utterly vain to assert that, in 
 these statements, you refer only to " points not affecting 
 the essence of Christianity." For, in the first place, you 
 must then tell us distinctly, and without ccpii vocation, and 
 without an et cetera at the end of your statement, vhat 
 are the points that affect, the essence of Christianity 
 And, in the second place, you must explain how and why 
 it is, that when these points arc concerned, you exclude all 
 
 o 
 
210 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 that reverence for liberty, and that respect for conscien- 
 tious scruples, which you contend for so strenuously on 
 every other point ? To both these questions we look in 
 vain for an answer. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Besides, there has been an apparently 
 dexterous shifting of ground. The question was : AVhat 
 are those external observances which Christianity has made 
 binding ? Instead of hearing what these are, the discus- 
 sion is turned to " points not affecting the essence of 
 Christianity." At best, this is only a negative answer to 
 the question. It is, moreover, an evasion, unless it can be 
 shewn that Christianity makes binding those points only 
 which affect its essence. 
 
 Melanctlwn. — " Men of various religious denomina- 
 tions, including persons of the highest eminence, both 
 clerical and lay, and the most celebrated divines of the 
 Reformation, have held the principle that the external 
 form of the Church is not essential to its nature. Into the 
 merits of the grounds and hearings of their respective 
 opinions it is not necessary to enter. Some arrived at 
 their conclusions by a different road from others, and few 
 thoroughly understood the true character of that religious 
 freedom (freedom from responsibility to man for religious 
 faith), which many have claimed in opposing Rome. But 
 the intellect and piety of the Reformation, and of the de- 
 nominations which sprang out of it, including the Church 
 of England in particular, have, for the most part, given 
 their suffrage, theoretically at least, to the a.\iom, that 
 the Church of Christ may exist under different outward 
 forms." ' 
 
 1 Schism, pp. 97, 98. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY. 
 
 211 
 
 Bellarmine. — This is an appeal to human authority, at 
 which I am a little surprised ; and the more so, that your 
 authorities, as you acknowledge, arc at variance among 
 themselves in their deeper views of the question, on 
 which they professedly agree ; — a circumstance which 
 you never fail to use, when you can, in your assaults 
 upon us. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — But this axiom, if properly understood, 
 carries a conclusion exactly the reverse of that, which it is 
 adduced to support. The axiom, as held by the Reformers, 
 and by the Churches of the Reformation, and by " the 
 Church of England in particular," means that the Church 
 of Christ may exist, in different countries, or in different 
 ages, under different outward forms. It is not licld by 
 the Church of England in any of her authorised symbols, 
 nor by any church that we know of, as a church, that the 
 Church of Christ may lawfully exist, in the same place, 
 and at the same time, under different outward forms. 
 When the Church of Christ is found under different out- 
 ward forms in the same place, schism is developed. If, in 
 this statement, I misrepresent the true ideal of the Cliurch, 
 or the real nature of schism, I shall be glad to be cor- 
 rected. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Schism is directly opposed to mutual 
 Christian sympathy and love — to visible unity and union. 
 Its germ is found in estrangement and alienation of heart 
 among Christians, from whatever cause this may arise ; 
 and it is manifested by disregard to each other's feelings 
 and welfare, for the sake of .sonic selfish end, which is in- 
 consistent with charity, and witli tin? peace and harmony 
 of the Church. This alienation of mind, when it has 
 
212 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 reached a certain stage, tends directly to impair the 
 visible uriity of a Christian society, by the exhibition of 
 an uncharitable spirit, through all its degrees, from exclu- 
 siveness and reserve, to the altercation and strife of party 
 and fiiction. A dividing spirit in the Church (where cha- 
 rity should reign) is the spirit of schism." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — Well, I cannot perceive and appreciate 
 " visible unity and union," when, in the very same neigh- 
 bourhood, the Church exists " under different outward 
 forms." " These different outward forms" certainly pro- 
 duce, and they have generally originated in, " estrange- 
 ment and alienation of heart." Besides, these different 
 outward forms " are surely evidence incontestable of sepa- 
 ration or division ; and you have just said, that " a dividing 
 spirit in the Church is the spirit of schism." 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Even admitting that a few select in- 
 stances could bo adduced, in which different outward forms, 
 or separate organizations, in the same place, had no con- 
 nection whatever, cither in their origin or continuance, 
 with " estrangement and alienation of heart among Chris- 
 tians," still it might be shown that the existence of deno- 
 minations involves the criminality of schism, if it be true, 
 that " the schismatical conduct of many good men is 
 founded on misconception ;" and that " this will never be 
 remedied by any means that are not adapted to convince 
 the judgment, and to soften prejudice." ^ 
 
 Melaiicthon. — There may be schism without actual sepa- 
 ration ; but I do not see that schism is necessarily involved 
 in actual separation. 
 
 Bellarmine. — What, then, is your notion of a church, — 
 1 Schism, pp. 218, 21'J. ^ lb. p. 460. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY. 
 
 213 
 
 that is, of a congregation which forms an integral portion 
 of the Church ? For, I suppose, we are agreed in holding 
 that there is but one true Church. 
 
 MelanctJion. — " We may define a visible Church of 
 Christ, in the language of the ' Articles of Religion,' ' a 
 body of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is 
 preached, and the sacraments be duly administered, ac- 
 cording to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of 
 necessity are requisite to the same.' " ' 
 
 Lord Herbert — If this definition applies equally well to 
 two denominations, then " visible unity and union " is 
 marred, if not destroyed, for these reasons : — 1. There is 
 no palpal)le and unambiguous mark or sign of visible unity 
 and union. 2. The separation or actual division between 
 two denominations is a strong presumption, if not full evi- 
 dence, of schism. 3. This presumption or evidence seems 
 insuperable, on the ground that, in free countries, there 
 is no other way to distinguish externally between the 
 orthodox and the heterodox. If one body of Christians 
 shall regard another body of men, who also call themselves 
 Christians, as denying some of what they call the essen- 
 tials of their religion, they have no other way to mark 
 tliis all-important difference, as they say, than emerging 
 into two separate denominations. It does seem strange, 
 then, that they should take the very same step in mani- 
 festing their 7(o?j-cssential or trivial differences. Again, 
 supposing that there were no force in these objections, and 
 that denominationalism is legitimate — that there may be 
 j/iany denominations which shall all agree to the above 
 dijfinition, without any prejudice to their " visible unity 
 ' Scliisin, p. ;59. 
 
2U 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 and union " — the question deserves to be considered and 
 answered, What are the limits of this denoniinationahsm ? 
 Is the erection of a new denomination always to be a mat- 
 ter of purest accident, or frivolous whim, or conceited 
 caprice, or angry passion ? It surely is not irrelevant to 
 inquire, What are the points on which a difference of 
 opinion will justify a separate denomination ? For if 
 every non-essential variety of sentiment can justify such 
 a step, we might awake some morning to find " every two 
 or three who meet together " constituting themselves into 
 a denomination ! And to look in such circumstances for 
 an undoubted proof of " visible unity and union," would 
 be like seeking rest on the troubled sea. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Taking the above definition of the Church 
 of England, it seems undeniable that, if we really abide 
 by it, we are constrained to acknowledge there can be 
 only one visible Church ; and if it be visibly divided, that 
 division is schism. For if there be a body of men in which 
 the pure Word of God is not preached, and the sacraments 
 be not duly ministered,' in any one thing that of neces- 
 sity is requisite to the same, then that body of men is not 
 faithful, and they are not a visible Church of Christ. 
 Whereas, if there be two bodies of faithful men, in both 
 of which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacra- 
 ments be duly ministered in all those things that of neces- 
 sity are requisite to the same, then indeed they are both, 
 accordine; to the definition, visible Churches of Christ. 
 But it is just as evident, that inasmuch as they are not 
 
 1 Tlie word is " ministered " in the symbolical books of the 
 Chnrch of Enfrland, and not " administered," as in the quotation 
 from "Schism." 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UXIFORMITT. 
 
 215 
 
 visibly one, by reason of their separate organizations, the 
 visible Church of Christ is in a state of schism. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Something more than externals is neces- 
 sary to. constitute the Church of Christ." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This imphes, what you overlook, but 
 cannot deny, that some externals are necessary. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Different views and practices may pre- 
 vail among Christians on the subject of church government, 
 (for instance), without any detriment to unity, or to the 
 highest fraternal love. This love, they hold, may be 
 demonstrated to the world by means of mutual Christian 
 intercourse, by co-operation in doing good, by occasion- 
 ally worshipping together in public, or even uniting in the 
 eucharist. For they judge that unity of heart and union 
 of effort practically answer all the most valuable purposes 
 of uniformity. Thus making a virtue of necessity, in the 
 best sense, they wish to render diversity of opinion an 
 occasion of charity."^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — Well, then, let us take an example, and 
 suppose two congregations in one town, a Presbyterian 
 and an Independent one, which, as congregations, cultivate 
 respectively Christian intercourse with Presbyterians and 
 Independents elsewhere, but little or none with each other. 
 Is there in this fiict no " detriment to visible unity, or to 
 the highest fraternal love?" Each of these two congre- 
 gations seeks and obtains — with other congregations at a 
 distance, of whom they must know less than they know 
 of each other — more visible unity and a higher fraternal 
 love than they share with each other. The just interpro- 
 tiition of this state of mattcTS is, that the mutual religious 
 ' Scbism, p. 42. ' lb. p. 42. 
 
216 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 intercourse between Independents, as Independents, and 
 between Presbyterians, as Presbyterians, and so on, is of 
 a more close and endearin<x character than that between 
 Christians, as Christians. But then, you will say, this is 
 counterbalanced and obviated by their " co-operation in 
 doing good, by occasionally worshipping together in pubhc, 
 or even uniting in the eucharist. " This co-operation in 
 doing good must, in the circumstances, be necessarily 
 limited, as we see it is so in fact, and this worshipping 
 together in public only occasional, as you are candid 
 enough to grant. Hence the inconsistency of their mutual 
 conduct, and the presence of schism in the visible church, 
 are more strikingly displayed. You speak of " unity of 
 heart and union of effort," as attainable without " unifor- 
 mity ;" but it is plain in this case that the absence of a 
 certaiii degree of uniformity is equivalent to a deficiency 
 in " union of effort," and both of these prove, as they 
 spring from, a lack of " unity of heart." There is only 
 one good sense in which men can make a virtue of neces- 
 sity, — namely, by acting honourably in a trying posi- 
 tion. This is very different from attempting to conceal 
 a dishonourable division under an honourable name, or 
 making our abundant charity atone for our defective 
 I'cctitude. 
 
 Theophilus. — The depreciation of outward observances 
 and external uniformity, which is so frequently resorted 
 to in order to conceal the undoubted truth that some 
 amount of visible conformity is indispensable to visible 
 union, and in order to evade the distinct and important 
 (jucstion, what precisely is that amount ? is a course of 
 l)rocceding most unworthy of this high subject. We are 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY. 
 
 217 
 
 surprised to find it so frequently adopted, and by men of 
 so much eminence. 
 
 As to the hinging question in this controversy, may the 
 Church of Christ exist under different outward forms ? it 
 is necessary to attend to the distinctions ah-eady adverted 
 to. This question, if it is to be held relevant in the pre- 
 sent discussion, must be understood to mean, may the 
 Church of Christ, at the same time and in the same place, 
 exist under different outward forms, ivithout the guilt of 
 schism being incurred ? This question ought, we think, 
 to be answered in the negative, for some reasons which 
 have been already assigned, and for others which may 
 yet be brought forward. In respect to the special point, 
 what deliverance on this question has been given by " the 
 intellect and piety of the Reformation, and by the de- 
 nominations which sprang out of it," we would now offer 
 a few remarks. Wc doubt not that it is the opinion of 
 the Protestant world, that the Church of Christ may 
 exist, in different places and in different times, under dif- 
 ferent outward forms ; but we as little doubt that a verdict 
 may be obtained from the Protestant Churches in favour 
 of the view which wc are now advocatins:. 
 
 To begin with the Church of England, the nineteenth 
 "Article of Religion," which has been already quoted, 
 most certainly supports our position, by an obvious impli- 
 cation which Bcllarminc has clearly stated. All doubt 
 upon the matter, however, is removed when we turn to 
 the " Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical." Let any 
 one read the first twelve of these, and say, if the question 
 is left in the slightest ambiguity. For example, No. 11 
 runs thus ; " Whosoever shall hereafter affirm or maintain. 
 
218 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 that there ai'e within this realm other meetings, assemblies, 
 or congregations of the king's born subjects, than such as 
 by the laws of this land are held and allowed, which may 
 rightly challenge to themselves the name of true and law- 
 ful Churches ; let him be excommunicated," &c. This is 
 an inference from the assertion in No. 3, that " the Church 
 of England is a true and Apostolical Church" For where- 
 ever there is a true and Apostolical Church, and at the 
 same time. Christians who live in the same place and 
 are not in communion with it, there most indubitably 
 schism is incurred on the part of one or other of the 
 parties. 
 
 Let us now hear what the Confession of Augsburg says, 
 which was presented to Charles V. in 1530, by the pro- 
 testing princes and states of Germany. " For the true 
 unity of the Church, it is sufficient to agree upon the doc- 
 trine of the gospel, and the administration of the Sacra- 
 ments." ' Now, many denominations that are even called 
 evangelical do not agree upon the doctrine of the gospel, 
 when their views are stringently examined. But, passing 
 that, how can it be maintained that two denominational 
 congregations in one locality " agree upon the administra- 
 tion of the Sacraments?" Two sacramental boards arc 
 erected, not because one cannot accommodate all the com- 
 municants, but because one party, however few in number, 
 is Independent, and another party, however few, is Epis- 
 copalian or Presbyterian. Even though these two parties 
 should agree as to the times and mode of observing the 
 ordinance, and a hundred other minutite, such acts of uni- 
 formity are worthless, so long as they practically insist 
 1 Art. 7. 
 
TUE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY. 
 
 219 
 
 upon having two tables, simply and solely because they 
 differ on the matter of church government. Inasmuch, 
 then, as they differ, so palpably and so painfully, upon the 
 administration of this Saci'ament, the unity of the Church 
 is broken. 
 
 The former Confession of Helvetia dates from 1536, and 
 was presented to the Assembly of Divines at Wirtemburg. 
 The year following it was allowed of the whole assembly 
 of Smalcald, includins all the divines and dcjirees of Pro- 
 testants. This Confession says : — " The which Church, 
 though it be manifest to the eyes of God alone, yet is it 
 not only seen and known, by certain outward rites insti- 
 tuted of Christ himself, and by the AVord of God, as by a 
 public and lawful discipline ; but it is so appointed, that 
 without these marks no man can be judged to be in this 
 Church, but by the special privilege of God." ' Here it is 
 plainly enough taught that the Church is only seen and 
 known by " certain outward rites," which are consequently 
 an indispensable part of the visible Church ; and it is fur- 
 ther affirmed that, in ordinary circumstances, no man can 
 be regarded as belonging to the Church if he practically 
 disregard these marks, or, in other words, neglect to ob- 
 serve the Sacraments. What, then, can be a surer indi- 
 cation of schism than separate ecclesiastical organizations, 
 which would indeed cease to be separate, if the respective 
 parties were at one in the ministration of the New Tes- 
 tament rites? The very existence of a denomination de- 
 mands a separate font and a separate eucharist. This 
 diversity and mutual opposition in the observance of those 
 very outward rites, on which the visibility of the Churcli 
 
 ' Art. 14. 
 
220 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 immediately depends, is unmistakeably schism, if schism 
 be not the shadow of a shade. 
 
 The Confession of France was presented to Francis the 
 Second in 1559, in the French language. It was published 
 in Latin, in 1566, by the pastors of the French Churches, 
 with a Preface to all other evangelical pastors. Article 26 
 declares, " that it is not lawful for any man to withdraw 
 himself from the congregations, and to rest in himself, but 
 rather that all men are to defend and to preserve the unity 
 of the Church, submitting themselves to the common in- 
 struction, and to the yoke of Christ, wheresoever God doth 
 appoint that true ecclesiastical discipline, although the 
 decrees of magistrates should gainsay it ; from which order, 
 whosoever do separate themselves, they do resist the ordi- 
 nance of God." If, then, there be, as is here affirmed, a 
 true ecclesiastical disciphne, separatists from which do 
 resist the ordinance of God, there cannot be two denomi- 
 nations in one place, except by one or other of them resist- 
 ing a divine ordinance. 
 
 The latter Confession of Helvetia was framed in 1566, 
 and approved and subscribed, not only by the Churches of 
 that country, but also by those of Geneva, Savoy, Poland, 
 Hungary, and Scotland. It affirms " that such as would 
 be saved must in no wise separate themselves from the 
 true Church of Christ." This might lead to the purest 
 ultramontanism, if this Confession did not teach in the 
 same chapter, the seventeenth, that " there have at all 
 times been great contentions in the Church ; and the most 
 excellent doctors of the Church have, about no small mat- 
 ters, diifered in opinion, yet so as, in the meantime, the 
 Church ceased not to be the Church, for all these conten- 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE CXIFORMITT. 
 
 221 
 
 tions." We infer, from these two statements, that since 
 there is but one true Church, out of which salvation is 
 difficult, if not impossible, when contentions arise, or doc- 
 tors differ in opinion, so as that the Church, without ceas- 
 ing to be the Church, exists under different outward forms 
 in the same place, its unity is broken, though its essential 
 character is not destroyed. 
 
 The Confession of Belgia was first issued in 1566, in 
 French, and, tliirteen years afterwards, being translated 
 into the Belgian tongue, it was confirmed by the Synod of 
 Belgium. It declares, that " whosoever do either depart 
 from the true Church, or refuse to join themselves unto it, 
 do openly resist the commandment of God." And again, 
 after specifying the marks of the Church, affirms, " by 
 these notes, I say, it is certain that the true Church may 
 be discerned. From the which it is not lawful for any man 
 to be severed." These statements support the inference, 
 that if there are two or more denominations in one place, 
 and each of them has the marks of the true Church, then 
 cither there is more than one true Church, or that one 
 Church is in that place in a state of schism. 
 
 Other Confessions might have been quoted, but, to avoid 
 repetitions, we refrain. Our last reference is to the West- 
 minster Confession, and F'orm of Church Government. In 
 chapter xxvi. of the Confession, it is said, " Saints by pro- 
 fession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and 
 communion in the worship of God." This statement is 
 obviously applicable to " saints by profession," who are 
 living near each other, as is still more fully manifest, from 
 what is added in the same section : — " which communion, 
 as God offcreth opportunity, is to be extended unto all 
 
222 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord 
 Jesus." No language could have been used which would 
 have more expressly condemned our prevailing denomina- 
 tionalism. In the present state of matters, Independents by 
 profession " maintain an holy fellowship and communion 
 in the worship of God," and so do Presbyterians and Epis- 
 copalians and Baptists. In order that " saints by profes- 
 sion" may maintain an holy fellowship and communion in 
 the worship of God, these distinctions must be effaced from 
 the escutcheon of the Church. 
 
 In " the Form of Church Government adopted by the 
 Westminster Assembly, there is the following section, en- 
 titled, " of particular congregations : " — " It is lawful and 
 expedient that there be fixed congregations ; that is, a 
 certain company of Christians, to meet in one assembly 
 ordinarily for publick worship. When believers multiply 
 to such a number, that they cannot conveniently meet in 
 one place, it is lawful and expedient that they should be 
 divided into distinct and fixed congregations, for the better 
 administration of such ordinances as belong unto them, and 
 the discharge of mutual duties. The ordinary way of 
 dividing Christians into distinct congregations, and most 
 expedient for edification, is by the respective bounds of 
 their dwellings. First, Because they who dwell together, 
 being bound to all kind of moral duties one to another, 
 have the better opportunity thereby to discharge them ; 
 which moral tye is perpetual ; for Christ came not to de- 
 stroy the law, but to fidfil it. Secondly, The communion 
 of saints must be so ordered as may stand with the most 
 convenient use of the ordinances and discharge of moral 
 duties, without respect of persons. Thirdly, The pastor 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UXIFORIIITT. 
 
 223 
 
 and people must so nearly cohabit together, as that they 
 may mutually perform their duties each to other -with 
 most conveniency." Here we have a precise principle laid 
 down to direct us in the formation of separate congrega- 
 tions. If it be alleged that it is not an exclusive principle, 
 — that an increase of numbers is declared to be simply 
 " the ordinary and most expedient way," to this we reply, 
 that denominationahsm introduces a principle not here 
 nor elsewhere recognised, — a principle which not only re- 
 quires yet to be clearly announced and satisfactorily de- 
 fended, but which also, so far as we can judge of it by its 
 fruits, may be shewn to be sometimes opposed to the rule 
 given by the Westminster divines. If their method be the 
 most expedient, as they assert it is, it has very frequently 
 been set aside for another, which must be regarded in their 
 judgment as less expedient; for again and again, and a 
 thousand times, has a distinct and fixed congregation been 
 formed in a town, not as the result of " beUevers multiply- 
 ing" there to such a number that they could not conve- 
 niently meet in the places of worship already erected, but 
 as a testimony in behalf of some denominational peculiarity. 
 In all such cases, " the ordinary way of dividing Chris- 
 tians into distinct congregations, and most expedient for 
 edification," is undoubtedly disregarded. If the liberty of 
 acting thus be denied to denominationahsm, it will receive 
 its fatal wound. 
 
 II. — Can there be separation icithout Schism ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " The ecclesiastical idea of schism, is sepa- 
 ration from a particular Christian assembly, and from its 
 
224 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 pastor or pastors, for some cause supposed by that Church 
 to be insufficient or unlawful. That such a separation 
 may proceed from a schismatical or contentious spirit, is 
 unquestionable. When thus arising from an uncharitable 
 temper, manifesting itself in faction, pride, self-sufficiency, 
 or envy ; separation may, in perfect accordance with the 
 spirit of the scripture testimony, be regarded as a 
 Jinished act of schism. Still, it is obvious that every case 
 of separation from a Christian Church must be judged of 
 by its own merits ; and a complication of circumstances 
 may often require to be taken into the account, before we 
 are entitled to pronounce a given instance of separation 
 schismatical, as arising from a state of mind at variance 
 with the charity of the gospel."' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This appears to me to be a very 
 strange mode of reasoning. For, in the first place, if the 
 guilt and error of schism lie entirely in " a state of mind 
 at variance with the charity of the gospel," then separa- 
 tion never can in any instance be a Jinished act of schism. 
 In the second place, since separation must be acknowledged 
 in some cases at least to be an essential part of schism, its 
 " finished act," just as the taking of life is the finished act 
 of murder, it is necessary, and may be practicable, to dis- 
 tinguish between separations from pure accident, and 
 separations by negligence, and separations by design, as 
 murder is distinguished from manslaughter, and both from 
 accidental death. If a separation of Christians arise by 
 accident, it need not, perhaps, be called schism ; but then 
 it is plain that there is, in this instance, no ground to 
 justify it, and no reason whatever for its continuance. If 
 * Stliisui, p. 260. 
 
THE LlillTS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITT. 
 
 225 
 
 the separation occur through thoughtlessness and indis- 
 cretion, is there no guilt of schism in it ? Are there no 
 evil consequences ? May it not, ought it not, to be 
 healed ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — It thus appears that " the complication of 
 circumstances," under cover of which separation is pal- 
 liated or defended, may be so exposed as to manifest the 
 inexcusableness of separation on any possible supposition. 
 If the separation spring from a decided and obdurate 
 unchristian temper, it is schism of the worst type. If the 
 separation be the result of haste, negligence, and impru- 
 dence, the sooner it is repaired the better. And, lastly, if 
 it be a separation of pure contingency and merest accident, 
 there is not the shadow of excuse for its prolongation. 
 You admit that " separation" is in itself an evil. ^ 
 
 Melancthon. — " So long as human authority and tradi- 
 tion are placed on a level scarcely inferior to that of in- 
 spiration, partial and unscriptural views respecting schism 
 and unity, will continue to prevail ; we shall still hear of 
 some one denomination of Christians claiming to be ' the 
 only true Church ;' while all the other Christian bodies in 
 a nation are ' sects ;' their members ' sectarians,' ' sepa- 
 ratists,' and ' schismatics ;' and the most conscientious and 
 peaceable maintenance of their own church-form and 
 order is ' sectarianism' and ' schism.' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — A better vindication of what you some- 
 times call latitudinarianism I have never heard. If every 
 man's " own church-foi'm and order" is right, because he 
 1>lcads that he is conscientious, and maintains it peaceably, 
 then we are as right as you. But again, if your dcnonii- 
 ' Schism, p. 207. - lb. p. 211. 
 
226 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 nation be not " the only true Church," it is because you 
 have added to the legitimate terms of communion, terms 
 of your own, based on "human authority or tradition." If 
 the terms of communion in your denomination be those 
 enjoined in Scripture, and those only, then all who 
 separate from you must be " sectarians," " separatists," 
 and " schismatics." 
 
 Bellarmine. — It thus appears that the formation of 
 separate denominations necessarily involves that profane 
 assumption of authority which is falsely charged upon the 
 Vicar of Christ ; while the attempted defence of these 
 denominations lands their advocate in the mire of scep- 
 ticism. 
 
 Melancthon. — " It may safely be affirmed, that where- 
 ever separation in ivorship and communion takes place in 
 an xincharitable spirit, it cannot fail to involve more or 
 less of ivhat may be termed schismatical."^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — It is a miraculous charity that can 
 believe that a "separation in worship and communion" 
 can take place among neighbour Christians, without im- 
 pairing or damaging what they call their brotherly love 
 and affection. 
 
 Bellarmine. — It is manifest, therefore, that, on this 
 principle every separation in worship and communion, 
 except when demanded by an increase of numbers, is 
 schismatical. 
 
 Melancthon. — " That there arc cases in which voluntary 
 withdrawment from communion is not schism is allowed on 
 all sides, whatever differences of opinion may exist as to 
 the circumstances under which it is innocent."" 
 ' iicliism, p. 2G8, 269. ^ lb. p. 276. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UXIFOR-MITT. 
 
 227 
 
 Lord Herbert. — When voluntary withdrawment is not 
 schism on the part of those who withdraw, it is schism on 
 the part of those who remain. For they who witlidraw 
 without a good and sufficient reason, are schismatics ; or 
 they who remain are schismatics, if they afford a good 
 and sufficient reason to any for withdrawing. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Hence this non-schismatical voluntary 
 withdrawment is a mere subterfuge. Since one party in a 
 separation cannot be excused without the other party 
 being blamed. And " the all sides " on which you say 
 this principle is allowed do not include the opponents of 
 Christianity, nor the adherents of the holy Catholic 
 Church, but only denominational Protestants. They are 
 forced to allow it in self-defence ; but like many other 
 unserviceable weapons, it wounds those who wield it. 
 
 Melancthon — " If St Paul countenanced Jewish devo- 
 tional rights, in which Gentile Christians were excused 
 from uniting, the principle that cases of voluntary separa- 
 tion in worship may occur without sin on either side, and 
 therefore without schism, would seem to be established." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Were there Jewish and Gentile deno- 
 minations in the days of Paul ? 
 
 Bellarmine Nothing of the kind. There was no sepa- 
 ration in Christian fellowship and worship, as in the Pro- 
 testant Churches. While maintaining unbroken union in 
 public worship, and the observance of the Lord's Supp<>r, 
 the Jew was circumcised and the Gentile was not. Pe- 
 sides, if there may be separation " without sin on either 
 .side," 2 what can be your reason for saying that " a cer- 
 tain degree of separation may be the best choice among 
 ' Schism, pp. 291, 292. « lb. p. 292. 
 
228 
 
 DIALOGUE ni. 
 
 evils," ' and " separation should be carried to the least 
 possible extent,"^ or in what way is it " undesirable ?" * 
 
 Melancthon — I never meant to say that there were such 
 separations as our denominations in the early age of Chris- 
 tianity. " Diversities of rite and custom, being matter of 
 liberty, were, as we have seen, no bar to unity ; and the 
 same may be said in reference to church government, in 
 
 the most primitive times Notwithstanding any such 
 
 diversities as these, it does not appear that they were the 
 occasion of formal distinctions of communion, like those of 
 our modern denominations, which take their name from 
 some peculiarity not essentially connected with the doc- 
 trine or the morals of Christianity." * 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Here, then, you renounce your own 
 argument in support of the principle, that there may be 
 denominational " separation without sin on either side." 
 
 Bellarmine. — And Protestantism is proved to be a de- 
 parture, so far as this matter goes, from the primitive 
 model of Christianity. 
 
 Theophilus. — Can you account for the fact that has 
 been admitted, that in spite not only of diversities of 
 opinion, and variety in church government, and consider- 
 able disorders and corruptions in the early Church, there 
 was no such thing as denominational separation ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " The reason may be, that great as were 
 (these diversities and) the delinquencies of many who be- 
 longed to these Churches, nothing was imposed as a term 
 of union and communion — nothing required, in any way, 
 to be done or sanctioned, personally, by any one, as a 
 
 ' Schism, p. 292. * lb. p. 292. ' lb. p. 292. 
 
 * lb. pp. 294, 296. Soe also p. 467. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY. 
 
 229 
 
 member of the body — which pained, or rendered uneasy 
 the conscience of a Christian, whose mind was mainly in- 
 fluenced by devotion, by the sincere love of truth, and by 
 charity." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Why could the same plan not be adopted 
 and followed by Christians noiv ? You acknowledge that 
 denominations " take their name from some peculiarity 
 not essentially connected with the doctrine or the morals 
 of Christianity." And it follows from what you have just 
 said, that denominations could have no existence as such, 
 unless these peculiarities were made " terms of union and 
 communion." In doing so, there is an undisguised " as- 
 sumption of spiritual power." You ought, therefore, to 
 take to yourself a rebuke which you penned on behalf of 
 others. " Our brother may err in laying too great stress 
 on minor points, either through ignorance, weakness of 
 faith, or even a somewhat uncharitable tenacity, and love 
 of independence ; but we may err far more, and may be 
 said to lay still greater stress on these very points, by de- 
 manding conformity with our own practice as the price of 
 unity. Our brother's fault may be a ' weak conscience ;' — 
 ours would be presumption." * 
 
 Melancthon. — " If we must wait till men of all varieties 
 of education, prejudice, and part}', think alike on all the 
 points at issue, — what prospect (humanly speaking), but 
 that the disunion of the professing Church will be per- 
 petuated ; that it will never cease — no, not even before 
 her Master's second coming." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — But we have just seen that the primitive 
 disciples did not " think alike on all the points at issue," 
 ' Schism, p. 296. * lb. pp. 293, 294. » lb. p. bb. 
 
230 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 nor was the Church then spht into several denominations. 
 As an illustration, take the case which you yourself have 
 given. " On a visit which ' the blessed Polycarp' made 
 to Rome, many ' little discussions ' arose between him and 
 Anicetus, and especially the question respecting the dif- 
 ferent modes of observing the Paschal feast. Polycarp 
 appealed to the practice of St John, and Anicetus to the 
 example of those whom he had succeeded in the church of 
 Rome, and who professed to follow St Paul. The conclu- 
 sion was, that as the apostles had not been anxious for 
 uniformity in these outward observances, a diversity of 
 custom ought not to interfere with unity " (which we have 
 seen means, should not lead to separate denominations). 
 " ' They did not,' says Iren?eus, ' indulge a contentious 
 spirit ; for though Polycarp could not persuade Anicetus, 
 nor Anicetus Polycarp, they partook of the communion 
 together ; and, in the church, Anicetus gave place to 
 ]*olycarp in the administration of the eucharist, by way of 
 honouring him ; and they parted in charity ; and the 
 whole Church maintained peace, whether observing the 
 same rite or not.' " ^ When Protestants shall go and do 
 likewise, their protest will be worthy of consideration. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Moreover, there is a marked difference 
 between " thinking alike on all points," and " contradict- 
 ing each other on a point of importance." This distinction 
 is, constantly and perversely (shall I say ?) overlooked. 
 
 Melancthon. — " May not denominational Christianity, 
 maintained with charity, be regarded as a certain species 
 of Christian friendship ? Friendship is founded on some- 
 thing more than even grand common principles ; it in- 
 * Schism, pp. 84, 85. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY. 
 
 231 
 
 volYes a somewhat minute peculiarity of tastes — similar 
 characteristic predilections and objects of pursuit. Let 
 Christian denominations, therefore, be conceived of under 
 the idea of societies of private friendship, selected from the 
 universal Church, and founded on coincidence in minor 
 opinions and practices, chiefly regarding external points. 
 Now since but few, comparatively, can meet for public 
 worship under the same roof, there must, of necessity, be 
 different places of assembly. May not Christians, then, 
 avail themselves of this unavoidable separation, and asso- 
 ciate together, according to similarity of sentiments and 
 views ; — still preserving unity of spirit ; union of effort in 
 doing good ; and, to the utmost limit allowed by conscience, 
 occasional interchange and union in worship and com- 
 munion ? Christians must worship locally apart ; — why 
 may they not so worship, as that the consciences of all 
 may be satisfied — that all may ' be fully persuaded in 
 their own minds' — that all may be 'edified?' Let all 
 enjoy this privilege of predilection and selection — yet 
 let all be one. Let their union, in all other respects, 
 be as great as possible — unity of heart being entire. 
 On what just principles can any one here discern 
 schism ? ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — If separation be in itself an evil, as 
 you have admitted, this mode of reasoning is essentially 
 jcsuitical. To represent denominationalism, in one place, 
 as undesirable, as needing to be restrained as much as 
 possible, as possessing " redeeming circumstances," ^ and 
 so forth, and in another place to plead its cause under the 
 sacred name of private friendship, is a specimen of tergi- 
 ' Schism, pp. 305, 30G. » lb. p. 3U7. 
 
232 
 
 DIALOGXTE III. 
 
 versation, worthy only of what you call ' the apostate 
 church.' Inasmuch as denominationalism institutes a re- 
 ligions distinction between those who are, or ought to be, 
 rehgiously one, and inasmuch as the force of the illegiti- 
 mate distinction proves stronger than the legitimate bond 
 of unity and love, it ought rather to be designated a species 
 of Christian caste. 
 
 Bcllarmine. — It has been shewn that it is impossible to 
 preserve denominationalism, and at the same time " union 
 of effort in doing good." " Union of effort in doing good" 
 being infringed and impaired, " unity of spirit " will ne- 
 cessarily be marred, if not broken. The conscience which 
 allows and sanctions " occasional interchansje and union in 
 worship and communion," and forbids common and usual 
 interchange and union in rehgious services, will require an 
 indulgence of some sort or other. When you go the ex- 
 treme length of maintaining that denominationalism exists, 
 " that the consciences of all may be satisfied," we shall 
 reply in your own words : " Let it not be forgotten that 
 the law of Christ is paramount to all human rubrics, 
 canons, articles, creeds, confessions, or church covenants 
 whatever, and that this law is the law of Love. If any 
 conventional enactments are obstacles to its exercise, it is 
 surely high time for us to pause, and to revise our system ; 
 to remember that we ought to obey God rather than men ; 
 and to cast this Achan from our camp ! Are we living in 
 the violation of the grand precept of the Christian code, on 
 the plea of subjection to certain human regulations ? — 
 what is this short of treason against the Head of the 
 Church ? Will such a plea avail, another day, in arrest 
 of judgment for the crime of agreeing to annul the laws of 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY. 
 
 233 
 
 Christ ? If we have, by any means, really brought our- 
 selves under what we feel to be obligations, habitually to 
 disregard the great fundamental principle of Christ's king- 
 dom ; the sooner we release ourselves from this thraldom 
 the better — cost us what it may." ' There, especially in 
 the last sentence, you clearly point out the peril of dis- 
 pleasing God to " satisfy conscience ! " 
 
 Melancthon, — " It is an apostolic injunction, that all 
 things are to be ' done decently and in order.' If, there- 
 fore, Christians mmt difiFer as to modes of worship and 
 government ; and if they have no right from Christ to de- 
 cide these points for each other ; — it becomes necessary 
 that those who concur in believing certain practices to be 
 most agreeable to the will of God, should be at liberty to 
 adopt them, without imposing them on their fellow Chris- 
 tians : for, since different rites and forms cannot co-exist, 
 it is thus, alone, that order, and edification, and Christian 
 freedom, can be maintained." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Necessity is a common and convenient, 
 but inconclusive plea. Why must Christians differ as to 
 modes of worship and government ? If your Master has 
 given directions, why can you not agree as to their mean- 
 ing ? — and if He has given no directions, why cannot the 
 minority yield to the major part? Again, though you 
 profess that you " have no right from Christ to decide 
 these points for each other," there is no denomination that 
 has not assumed this right, as was formerly shown. In 
 making some of these points denominational peculiarities, 
 or, which is the same thing, terms of ordinary communion, 
 you not only adopt them, but " impose them on your fcl- 
 ' Schism, p. 412. ' lb. p. 308. 
 
234 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 low-Christians," on pain of spiritual deprivation. — (See 
 Dialogue 11. Sect. II.) 
 
 Bellarmine. — It is, indeed, undeniable that " different 
 rites and forms cannot co-exist," and if it were as unde- 
 niable that " Christians viust differ " as to these, then 
 " order " would be truly, what Protestants have misrepre- 
 sented it to be, disorder, and " edification " would be 
 turned into perversion, and " freedom " into license. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Until it be shown that modes, and forms, 
 and church order, are, in Scripture, put on a level with 
 the great doctrines and precepts of the gospel, every one 
 must, on these points, be left at liberty to follow his own 
 course, without being supposed, for so doing, to have for- 
 feited the affections of his fellow-Christians. If this liberty 
 involve schism in one party, it must do so in another, and 
 in all. Every denomination must be guilty of as many 
 schisms, as there are denominations beside itself ; and the 
 whole Protestant Church is one mass of schisms. This 
 can be denied, only on the principle of a clear divine pre- 
 scription, or a divinely delegated authority. To separate 
 from a church so sanctioned, would doubtless be nothing 
 short of rebellion against Christ. But where is this pre- 
 scription? — where arc the credentials of this authority?" 
 
 Bellarmine. — In the holy Catholic Church, of course. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Those who can believe that, may. But 
 there is another mode by which the Protestant Church 
 may be, as surely, proven to be " one mass of schisms." 
 It needs no words to show this, on the supposition 
 that " modes, and forms, and church order," arc really 
 enjoined in the Bible, even though thoy arc not put " on a 
 level with," what you style, " the great doctrines and 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY. 
 
 235 
 
 precepts of the gospel." On the other supposition, that 
 " modes, and forms, and church order," are not enjoined 
 in your Scriptures, it seems to me to be demonstrable that 
 such things should not be the occasion of erecting separate 
 denominations, but ought to be points of forbearance in 
 this sense, that one man should practically yield to 
 another ; for in no other conceivable way can unity be 
 preserved in regard to such matters. The Protestant 
 community has scarcely ever acted thus, and the 
 consequence is, that it is in a shamefully schismatic 
 condition — " one mass of schisms." 
 
 Theophilus. — It is a very common, but false notion, 
 that because schism does not necessarily involve separation, 
 therefore separation does not necessarily involve schism. 
 The guilt of deception does not necessarily involve the 
 uttering of a lie with the lips ; but it would be a most 
 absurd inference from this to assert, that the uttering of a 
 lie with the lips does not necessarily involve deception. 
 We have found nothing that has been hitherto advanced 
 of sufficient force to set aside the opinion, that at first 
 sight seems to be the correct one, that, if the Church of 
 Christ is required and expected to be at one with itself, 
 separation unavoidably brings home the charge of schism 
 to one or other of the separating parties. It follows from 
 this obvious and fundamental position, that when one 
 congregation, or several, in an associated capacity, claim 
 and profess to be a part of the one true catholic Church, 
 this claim and profession involve the responsibility, not 
 only of watching over the character of the members of the 
 association, but also of abstaining from imposing any un- 
 scriptural terms of communion. If such an association 
 
236 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 shall so abstain, no Christian can have a good and valid 
 reason for separating from it. If it shall not so abstain, 
 but shall impose any illegitimate terms of communion, 
 ipso facto it becomes schismatical. If such a schismatical 
 association shall arrogate to itself the character of the true 
 Church, and charge all besides itself as schismatics, a 
 course which has been often pursued, a double criminahty 
 is incurred. On the other hand, if an association be 
 indeed a part of the true Church, and act consistently, 
 then separatists from her are indeed schismatics, and she 
 is called upon to assert her rightful claim. 
 
 If this view of the case be correct, then it follows, not- 
 withstanding the many weighty considerations that may 
 be advanced to palliate or disguise the actual state of the 
 Churches of the Reformation, that they are in a very cul- 
 pable and dangerous position. Making every reasonable 
 allowance for the plea of conscientious diiferences, and 
 redeeming circumstances, and healthful rivalry, and the 
 apologue of private friendship, and so forth, it is a sad con- 
 clusion to which we are forced, that the Protestant com- 
 munity is in her present shattered and enfeebled state 
 through carelessness and folly. The more sorrowfully, 
 however, any one feels at the contemplation of our melan ■ 
 choly position, the more readily should he join any proper 
 effort towards effecting an amchoration. How anxious 
 and diligent should we be to learn what arc the causes 
 which have produced or occasioned this backsliding of the 
 disciples of Christ, and to discover and apply such reme- 
 dies as may prove effectual in healing the dissensions of 
 Israel. May the Lord himself interpose with a mighty 
 hand to turn back the captivity of his people, by promot- 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY. 
 
 237 
 
 ing the purity, and hastening the union of " the Church of 
 God, which he hath purchased with his own blood!" 
 
 III. — Church Government, 
 Melancthon. — " It is sufficient to shew that no one form 
 
 OF GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO BE INSISTED ON, TO THE EX- 
 TENT OF MAKING IT ESSENTIAL TO THE VISIBLE UNITY OF 
 
 THE Church of Christ ; nor should we refuse to main- 
 tain a catholic and open union with Christians who, we 
 have reason to believe, conscientiously adhere to other 
 modes." i 
 
 Bellarmine. — The question of church government seems 
 to be of such a nature, that you cannot insist upon it at 
 all, unless you make it essential to the visible unity of the 
 Church. If Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Indepen- 
 dents would allow the question to be decided practically 
 by a majority of votes, each man must be prepared to 
 yield his own opinions, so far as their practical application 
 goes at least ; but if all parties will not do this, but insist 
 upon each having a form of government according to his 
 own notion, then the visible union of the Church must be 
 broken, as we see it is broken in the hands of Protestants. 
 To talk of " a catholic and open union" among those who 
 are thus proved to be schismatics, is like talking of honour 
 among a band of thieves ! 
 
 Lord Herbert. — If the plea of " conscience" be held 
 valid in defence of schism,. that same plea must be admitted 
 on behalf of unbelief. 
 
 ' Schism, p. 87. 
 
238 
 
 Mdanrthcm. — " It is not neeeasary that we idioald hold 
 aD kinds of eharefa gorennnent to be eqnalty agreeable to 
 the Xew Testament. Eren if we aHov tiiat one fusiu voij 
 be more readSj dedaeed from Seriptnre than another, and 
 diat the Tahie of a sjstan does not eooast entirelj' in the 
 menmar ofiig admmi^ratiiyn, jet, if the Divine Word hare 
 not treated the sobjeet of dmrdi gorenunent in soefa a 
 vaj as to render agreement on this point esaaOial (Eke 
 the faith and morab of the gospel), no mere ktamam power 
 has a right to make it so." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Do yoa mean that two, or more, forms 
 of church goremmoit maj be " readilj dedoeed from 
 Scripture," and that one is onlj " mors reacEly'' deduced 
 than another ? Do joa b^ere that yoor Scriptures can 
 be said, in anj Talid and intdhgiUe sense, to sanction 
 and approve two distinct forms of goremment ? And if 
 there be one form of ehnreh gOTcmment readilj- deduciUe 
 from the Bibk^ to isSL os that agreement in Idiat form thus 
 sanctioned and sopported bj dmne authoritr, as jou be- 
 bere^ is not esgential^ is to fall into the rerj impaety whidi 
 70a so frequently diarge again^ us. 
 
 Bdlanmne. — And if there be no farm of goremment 
 sanetiMied in the Bible, then ererj denominaticm whidi 
 makes its own form a term of c ommunio n (and every ex- 
 yang denomination does habitually do so^ with few excep- 
 tions, if any), assume an authority whi^ belongs to '' no 
 mere human power." 
 
 Mdametkon. — " Aiimii tcLit tat-re niight h*: Uria diversity 
 on this suljeet among Chri>tLan5, ix' ail wore diligent and 
 eager in studying it as related to the divine will, and with 
 ^ Schiam, p. 88. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UXIFORMITT. 
 
 239 
 
 less of prejudice, or passion, or party-feeling, or worldly 
 motive ; still, can we suppose that uniformity in the frame- 
 work of church government was intended by Christ to be 
 an indispensable element of visible unity ? Had this been 
 his design, surely the whole order of the Christian sanc- 
 tuary would have been laid down in the New Testament, 
 with scarcely less exactness than the structure of the 
 tabernacle, the functions of its officers, and the entire de- 
 tail of its services, were prescribed in the Levitical law." ' 
 Bellarmine. — Tliis inference will hold good only on the 
 supposition that men were always to continue " under 
 tutors and governors," " under a schoolmaster," even after 
 faith was come. 
 
 Lord Herhei-t. — The inference is nugatory ; for what 
 can be plainer than this principle, which I am almost 
 ashamed to be called upon to repeat so frequently, namely, 
 that, so far as your professed divine authority does extend, 
 to that extent you Christians ought to be at one, and 
 when you feel yourselves free from that authority, you 
 ought peaceably to yield to one another ? 
 
 Theophilus. — Denominationalists seem to have no es- 
 cape from this dilemma. Their inconsistency is sadly 
 intensified, when we are told that " it will be admitted by 
 every denomination of Christians that they themselves 
 have, more or loss, adopted regulations for which no pre- 
 cise parallel can be found in Scripture. Tlic utmost that 
 can often be contended for is, that the practice pursued is 
 useful, and that, in the judgment of those who follow it, it 
 is not inconsistent with any divine law or precedent." * It 
 is bad enough to plead divine authority for something des- 
 ' Scliism, pp. 8B, 89. » lb. pp. 86, 87. 
 
240 
 
 DIALOGUE III, 
 
 titute of that authority, and under that plea make it a 
 term of communion, or a denominational peculiarity. For 
 nothing can be a denominational peculiarity or characteris- 
 tic, unless it be a term of communion in that denomination. 
 How much ■worse is it to constitute anything a denomina- 
 tional term of communion, without even professing to be- 
 lieve, or rather professing to disbeUeve, that it is directly 
 or positively enjoined in the Holy Scriptures ! ! This extra- 
 vagance culminates to its apex, if it be true that " no one 
 party have been entirely unanimous as to the principles 
 on which they found their own practices." ' 
 
 Melancthon, — If any one maintain that any form what- 
 ever is essential to the Church, our reply is this : — " God 
 hath instituted no one form of church government as ne- 
 cessary." ^ And if it be said that the Church " without a 
 form" '•' is not a complete Church,"^ that were to adopt 
 the monstrous conclusion, that " God made or instituted 
 no such thing as a complete Church." * How, then, can it 
 be " any great matter to separate from a church form 
 which God never made ?" ^ On the assumption, therefore, 
 that no form of church government is clearly and autho- 
 ritatively instituted in the New Testament, no form can 
 be essential, except on the supposition that " Christ has 
 given power to man to frame new terms of union and 
 communion." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — You again assume, what certainly needs 
 proof, and what you have not attempted to prove or ex- 
 plain, that the Church may exist, and be visible, without 
 any form of government whatever ! This is a point I can- 
 
 i Schism, p. 88. lb. p. 285. » lb. p. 285. 
 
 < Schism, p. 285. » lb. p. 286. « lb. p. 286. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UXIFORMITT. 
 
 241 
 
 not possibly understand. And till you effectually remove 
 this difficulty, the monstrous conclusion that " God has 
 not instituted a complete Church" fixes itself on every one 
 who maintains, like yourself, that God has not instituted a 
 form of government. Your argument appears to me to be 
 highly ludicrous; it is this: — No form is enjoined by 
 Christ, therefore none is needful or essential, and there- 
 fore every Christian, or every party, may adopt which he 
 chooses, and thereby split the Church into a thousand frag- 
 ments ! 
 
 Theophilus. — But to go without any form of government 
 is impracticable ; and if tlie Lord Jesus had left no provi- 
 sion for church government, the Church, as instituted by 
 him, would certainly have been incomplete. This provi- 
 sion does not necessarily consist in a well-defined platform 
 of externals. lias not the Church power to determine its 
 own outward form ? To suppose that Christ has instituted 
 his Church without any form, and, therefore, incomplete, 
 because he has not authoritatively commanded some special 
 form in all its details, is to overlook a most palpable and 
 important consideration. In every well regulated society, 
 there arise necessarily various distinctions of office. There 
 cannot be order, unless some be superior and some subor- 
 dinate. The freedom of the Christian community docs not 
 imply perfect sameness of function, or unbending equality 
 of position, among all its members. Whatever external 
 form the Church may be supposed to assume, its pe.u o 
 will inevitably be broken by insubordination to lawful 
 authority, legitimately exercised. Wilful inattention to the 
 proprieties of the position which any one may occupy may 
 readily enough lead to schism. Is he not, therefore, to bo 
 
 Q 
 
242 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 regarded as a schismatic, who in the Church of Christ re- 
 fuses duly to " obey them that have the rule?" If these 
 remarks be true, the Church has power and authority to 
 settle such necessary things as her own external forms, if 
 these have been left undetermined by the Master, and to 
 vary them, from time to time, with changing circum- 
 stances ; and it appears to be schism to deny or dispute 
 the lawful exercise of her lawful authority, as it is unques- 
 tionably schismatical to exercise that authority imlaw- 
 fully. ' 
 
 Melancthon. — '' Episcopalians are now the only British 
 Protestants, so far as we are aware, who are found for- 
 mally maintaining that those who differ from them in 
 church government are ' schismatics.' For though Pres- 
 byterians see, in their oiun form, that brotherly equality 
 of ministers, which they regard as the image of the Apos- 
 tolic Church, while as yet ' presbyters^ and ' bishops' were 
 but different names for the same office ; and Congrega- 
 tionalists hold sacred what they deem the rights and dis- 
 cipline of the Christian assembly, according to apostolic 
 precept and example; yet no Christians belonging to 
 either of these communities, or to those of the Wesleyans, 
 or the Friends, discover a disposition to pronounce other 
 Christian bodies differing from them in church govern- 
 ment ' schismatics,' and ' cut off from the Church of 
 Christ.' The charge of ' schism' is not heard to sound, 
 either from the Kirk or the Secession, from the L nion or 
 the Conference, or the Yearly Meeting, or even from tla- 
 Synod of the Episcopal Moravians ; it proceeds from the 
 Established Episcopal Church alone." ' 
 ' Schism, pp. 290, 291. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UNIFORMITY, 
 
 243 
 
 Thcophilus. — Granting this representation to be accu- 
 rate in point of fact, it is of the utmost importance to un- 
 derstand what is the legitimate and valid inference to be 
 drawn. The Established Episcopal Church has added, or 
 has not added, terms of communion of her own to those 
 enjoined by Christ. If she has not, the claim she makes is 
 reasonable and scriptural and just. K she has made such 
 additions, her claim savours rankly of Popery. As to the 
 other denominations, either they have made, or they have 
 not made, additions to the Bible-sanctioned terms of com- 
 munion. If they have done so, there is too good an 
 excuse for them in abandoning this claim ; and they have 
 work before them to relieve themselves of their unscrip- 
 tural bui"dcns. If there be any denomination which has 
 made no additions, then they are the true Church ; and to 
 draw back in asserting their rightful claim, looks as if 
 they were ashamed of the Truth, and savours strongly of 
 infidelity. If the Presbyterian form be, indeed, " the 
 imago of the apostohc Church," and divinely sanctioned, 
 then to separate from it is schism ; if that form be not all 
 this, why should any Christian maintain that it is? If 
 " the riglits and discipline of the Christian assembly, 
 according to apostolic precept and example," be, indeed, 
 what the Congrcgationalists deem them to be, then the 
 Congregationalists arc bound to treat those who oppose 
 them on those rights and that discipline, as schismatics ; 
 but if Congregationalists deem these things to be what 
 they are not, this deeming of theirs is a very fountain- 
 head of schism. 
 
244 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 IV. — The Lord's Supper. 
 
 Melancthon. — " In some periods and sections of the 
 Church, attempts have been made to blend Christians into 
 one body by enforcing universally the same discipline, 
 government, and ceremonies of worship. This was mis- 
 taking uniformity for union. This our Lord himself for- 
 bore ; and forbore as inconsistent with the universal design 
 of his new economy. For, while a minute and unbending 
 ritual, like that of the Jewish, is admirably adapted to 
 distinguish a people from the rest of the world, the system 
 that proposes to unite all nations in a common brother- 
 hood, should possess the simpUcity and self-adjusting 
 nature of a general principle." ' 
 
 Theophibis. — Do you not see that the principle of de- 
 norainationalism, if it involve any principle at all, is very 
 far from being of a simple and self-adjusting nature? If 
 every man must stickle for his ism, so that it shall become 
 the watchword of a party, does he not, in doing so, pro- 
 ceed on the assumption that that same ism is to become 
 universal ? Whereas, if his peculiarity of government or 
 worship is not to distinguish the catholic Church, for that 
 very reason it ought not to occasion a denominational 
 division among Christians. AVhat, now, is your simple 
 and self-adjusting principle? 
 
 Melancthon. — ' By this,' said Christ, ' shall all men 
 know that 3'e are my disciples, if ye have love one to 
 another,' — intimating that, while other signs might iden- 
 tify thcin as belonging to a party, this alone would mark 
 ' Union, p. 60. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UN'IFOEMITY. 
 
 245 
 
 them out as belongrino; to him, and would soon come to be 
 recognised as a leading feature in the great Christian 
 family." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Very good. But can this brotherly 
 love exist without manifestino; itself in outward acts ? 
 
 Melancthon. — By no means. " This love will neces- 
 sarily discover itself in appropriate acts and expressions ; 
 and thus the union will be made visible to the tuorld." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — Pray, what are some of those appropriate 
 acts and expressions ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " One of these visible expressions of love 
 to each other, the Head of the Church has himself speci- 
 fically appointed in the ordinance of ' the Lord's Supper.' 
 Though this, indeed, is not, as some seem to imagine, the 
 whole of Christian fellowship, it is a most vital and im- 
 portant branch of it ; and though it denotes also com- 
 munion with God, it does not the less imply communion 
 with each other." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert — Let mc now ask you tliis simple and 
 decisive question : Do Christians observe the Lord's Sup- 
 per as a mark of their mutual affection, or as a badge of 
 their denominational divisions? 
 
 Bellarmine. — It cannot for a moment be denied, that 
 whatever Protestants may say about observing it as a 
 mark of their common Christian discipleship, in point of 
 fact it has become in tlicir hands a badge of party. For 
 is it not self-evident that, as soon as any denomination 
 ceases to treat its specialties as terms of communion, it 
 will cease to be a distinct denomination ? 
 
 Melancthon. — There are several denominations tliat do 
 ' Union, p. 72. ' lb. p. 224. ^ lb. p. 224. 
 
246 
 
 DIALOGUE ni. 
 
 not by any means require, from every one who is admis- 
 sible to their communion table, a full and positive pro- 
 fession of behef in all that is held to be distinctive of these 
 denominations respectively. 
 
 Bellarmine. — But such denominations, as you now re- 
 fer to, deprive their ordinary members of all power and 
 influence in regulating the affairs of the denomination, or 
 limit the exercise of their power to the election of office- 
 bearers, who must be pledged by solemn oath to uphold 
 the denomination's peculiarities. Since, then, the mem- 
 bers can receive the eucharistic elements only at the hands 
 of such office-bearers, the observance of this ordinance 
 becomes most indubitably, even though Ave admit it to be 
 indirectly, a signet and criterion of sect. The moment 
 that the eucharistic board of any party shall become as 
 free and open, truly and as a matter of fact, to those who 
 reject its pecuharities as to those who espouse them ; or, 
 in other words, whenever all the members of a denomina- 
 tion — and no one is surely regarded as a member who 
 often neglects to be present at the observance of the com- 
 munion — are treated on equal terms in every matter, whe- 
 ther or not they can " frame to pronounce Shibboleth 
 right," that moment its denominational existence is doomed 
 to extinction. 
 
 Melancthon. — " However we may deplore what we may 
 deem unscriptural in the constitution and usages of other 
 churches, we should never contemplate their conformity to 
 OUR model without much self-distrust." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — If it be consistent with Christianity to 
 pi'ofess and promulgate and practise " a model" which 
 1 Union, p. 236. 
 
THE LLMITS OF VISIBLE UXIFOUMITT. 
 
 247 
 
 you " distrust," such proceeding is not sanctioned by our 
 reason or our conscience, depraved as you so frequently 
 represent them to be. 
 
 Bellarmine The condition of Protestants is truly deplo- 
 rable. They deem this and the other thing to be imscrip- 
 tural, but cannot feel sure that they are not mistaken. 
 
 Melancthon. — " ^or would we advocate the formation 
 of a new denomination — includino; Christians of various 
 persuasions — as a means of promoting union. As far as 
 such a step may be the result of mutual love, it would 
 assuredly occasion joy among the angels in the presence 
 of God. But if adopted formally, as an experiment or a 
 means, it would want the cordiality — the central fire of 
 love — which would be necessary to fuse the parties into 
 one consolidated whole, and to convince the world that 
 they were one in more than in name." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Then is it most obvious that you do 
 advocate the formation of a new and universal denomina- 
 tion. You plead for love, mutual love, among Christians; 
 and you look forward to the institution of one denomina- 
 tion as the result of this love. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Consequently, when this one Protestant 
 denomination shall emerge upon the scene, we shall admit 
 that the observance of the Lord's Supper is a pledge and 
 symbol of their union and mutual affection as co-religionists. 
 But till that improbable supposition be realised, we shall 
 hold, that so abandoned are those Protestant heretics, that 
 thoy have been left to the awful criminality of turning the 
 tiiblo of the Lord itself into a public voucher and exponent 
 of their mutual distance and alienation. 
 
 ' Uuion, jip. "-'ns. 2">!). 
 
248 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Xever does the Christian Church appear 
 more distinctly in its proper character as the family of 
 God, than when it is observing this ordinance." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — We may well ask, in the language of 
 the author who has been quoted : " Is it from this family 
 feast that the children are to be excluded ? " ^ Excluded 
 some of them must be, so long as two denominations exist 
 in -which the members recognise each other as brother 
 Christians. 
 
 Bellarmine. — " This ordinance," to use the words of the 
 same writer, " is (or should we not rather say ought to he) 
 an epitome of that heavenly multitude, in wliich ' all na- 
 tions, tribes, and tongues,' breathe the same spirit, and 
 appear in the same character — that of redeemed sinners." ^ 
 Alas ! as it is commonly observed amongst Protestants, it 
 not only comes far short of this conception, but even tra- 
 verses and burlesques it. For the severe reproof which 
 follows is most plainly applicable to every one who attempts 
 to defend the propriety or reasonableness of two or more 
 denominations of Christians. " Is it the harmony of such 
 a scene that we would mar by the enforcement of our 
 peculiarities ? Shall the great symbol of our common 
 Christianity be degraded into the badofc and criterion of a 
 party ? Shall the rite which more than any other is 
 adapted to cement mutual attachment, and which is in a 
 great measure appointed for that purpose, be fixed upon 
 as the line of demarcation to separate and disjoin the fol- 
 lowers of Christ?"^ There is, indeed, no other possible 
 way in which Christ's followers, or those who possess the 
 slightest pretence to that honourable appellation, can 
 ' Uuion, p. 225. - lb. ib. ^ lb. ib. « lb. ib. 
 
THE LntlTS OF VISIBLE CNIFORMITY. 
 
 249 
 
 manage to effect a disjunction and separation from each 
 other than by some visible perversion of that most solemn 
 and hallowed rite. God has thus hedged up the way of 
 his people to preserve their unity ; alas, for those who 
 have broken through that hedge. The following state- 
 ment from your own pen is enough to remove all ambi- 
 guity and uncertainty from this point. " A union which 
 should propose to omit the communion of Christians, or of 
 churches, in this ordinance, would be radically defective 
 and unscriptural ; and the church which intentionally 
 places an obstacle in the way of such communion, or know- 
 ingly allows it to remain, is obviously opposing the will of 
 God." ' 
 
 Theophilus. — The most elementary and fundamental 
 notion involved in Christian union, is, as it appears to us, 
 the communion of Christians in the ordinance of the Lord's 
 Supper. To talk of the communion of churches in this 
 ordinance seems like a solecism in religion. For there 
 should not bo tiuo churches till some natural necessity arise 
 to prevent all that are Christians from communicating at 
 once and together. When we find associations, which 
 style theiliselvcs churches, occasionally and with much 
 ado communicating, and lutlritualhj refusing to communi- 
 cate with each other in this ordinance, what is this but to 
 seal and publish their own inconsistency? It may even 
 well bo questioned, whether any two churches of different 
 denominations have ever, as churches, communicated with 
 each other. It docs appear to us to be plain, as any thing 
 well can be, that when a denomination institutes terms of 
 communion not sanctioned by Holy Scripture, and thero 
 ' Union, pp. 22b, 220. 
 
250 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 cannot be tiuo denominations unless one of them do so, it 
 is placing an obstacle, if not " intentionalbj," yet really, in 
 the way of the communion of saints, and " is obviously 
 opposing the will of God." The same guilt attaches to 
 every denomination which allows such an obstacle to re- 
 main. 
 
 Melancthon. — " The removal of denominational distinc- 
 tions, or the absorption of all sects by one, is by no means 
 necessary to extinguish schism." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — It is for you to reconcile this statement 
 with other sentiments to which you have given utterance. 
 You do not deny that the termination of schism is in fact 
 the very same thing substantially as the removal of those 
 distinctions, or the emergence of only one Christian asso- 
 ciation, our arguments, at least, very frequently lead 
 to this conclusion. For example, when you say, " The 
 great Intercessor, when only a step from the cross, com- 
 prehending his people at a glance in all the nations of the 
 earth, and all the ages of time, prays that they all may be 
 one — incorporated in one body, animated by one spirit, 
 united in that love which is the bond of perfectness : — 
 that they may be one as we are one, as thou Father art in 
 me and I in thee — closely, spiritually, indissolubly ; how 
 intimate and sacred the union of which the mysterious 
 trinity in unity is the heavenly pattern : — that they may 
 be made perfect in one, their oneness is necessary to their 
 perfection Ills cross, like the ark in the wilder- 
 ness, is the centre around which his people are to encamp, 
 so that they cannot separate into factions, or withdraw 
 from each other, without retiring at the same time fi-oin 
 ' Union, p. 100. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UXIFORMITr. 
 
 251 
 
 the presence of the cross." ^ In the very next page, you 
 properly connect the visibility of this union with the ob- 
 servance of the eucharist. " The one loaf, and the one cup, 
 of ■which all partake, however numerous, is an evidence 
 and sign that there is but one body of which they are all 
 members. So that as long as these ordinances arc admi- 
 nistered in His Church, our Lord is virtually calling on His 
 people to be one." 
 
 Lord Herbert. — It seems to me beyond dispute, there- 
 fore, that to maintain the legitimate existence of different 
 denominations, and, at the same time, the obligation of 
 the members of these different denominations to cultivate 
 Christian fellowship as far as their circumstances will 
 allow, " makes that sacred spot which (as you have 
 argued) should be the rallying point of all the faithful, 
 the point of their repulsion and separation." 2 
 
 Melancthon. — " The union which we advocate, so far 
 from requiring the subjugation or absorption of any one 
 section of the faithful, guarantees the integrity and secu- 
 \ rity of each by seeking the fellowship of all." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — But how can you hope to attain " the 
 fellowsliip of all,'' except by removing and purging from 
 every section in detail, whatever has a tendency to hinder 
 or mar that universal fellowship 1 Is such a process of 
 purgation and winnowing needed to any extent by the 
 different sections of the Protestant community ? 
 
 Melancthon Alas, it must be acknowledged, that for 
 
 thirteen or fourteen hundred years the Church hath been 
 gradually growing a multiform, mangled, shattered, and 
 most deformed thing ; broken and parceled into nobody 
 
 ' Union, pp. 20, 21. Mb. p. 119. = lb. p. x. 
 
252 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 knows how many several sorts of communions. . . . 
 Carnality bath become, and long been in it, a governing 
 principle, and hath torn it into God knows how many 
 fragments and parties ; each of which will now be the 
 Church, enclose itself within its own peculiar limits, and 
 claim and appropriate to itself the rights and privileges 
 which belong to the Christian Church in common." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Is it not manifest, then, that if " the 
 sections of the faithful" be, as you have now conceded, 
 "torn fragments," the "broken and parceled" portions 
 of a whole, which you characterise as " a mangled, shat- 
 tered, and most deformed thing," a vast deal of work in 
 refitting, and chiseling, and clearing out will have to be 
 executed before a stately and imposing temple can be 
 raised from such ruins ? How then can you, except by 
 hoping to effect an impossibility, promise to " guarantee 
 the integrity and security of each" party, while seeking, 
 or by seeking, the union of the Church ? It seems most 
 obtrusively plain, taking the case on your own representa- 
 tion, that by seeking the fellowship of all, you seek the 
 disintegration and dissolution of the sections of Protes- 
 tantism as they at present exist. If you once begin the 
 work of union on anything like an intelligent principle, or 
 in a business-like way, you cannot stop but in " the subju- 
 gation or absorption" of all the sections into one. To dis- 
 avow this intention, and plead for union, is to make much 
 ado about nothing. 
 
 Melancthon. — " If wc do not plead, that Christians 
 should be one in name, it is not because we regard such 
 oneness as unini])ortant, or as ultimately unattainable ; 
 ' llowe, quoted in Uuiou, p. 171. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE TNIFORMITY. 
 
 253 
 
 but because we believe that it will be among the latest 
 triumphs, if not the very crowning act, of brotherly love. 
 Whereas the unity which we would now inculcate seems 
 more proximate, and would of itself be sufficient to render 
 Christians, though still distinct in name, in substance one. 
 What is of much more immediate importance, and more 
 easily attainable, and more urgently enforced in Scripture, 
 is, that the union of Cliristians should he visible. . . . 
 Evidence must be given to the senses of men, that not 
 merely in profession, but in heart and object, we are one. 
 The fact should be too plain to be misunderstood ; and too 
 palpable to remain a secret." ^ 
 
 Bellarniine. — You formerly admitted, that " the Head 
 of the Church has himself specifically appointed (for his 
 people) in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper one visible 
 expression of love to each other ;" and that this is " a most 
 vital and important branch of Christian fellowship." Wc 
 have also seen that denominationalism does, practically and 
 habitually, turn this ordinance into a badge of party. Now 
 where is your authority for dispensiny with, for an inde- 
 finite time, this " most vital and important branch of Chris- 
 tian fellowship?" You contend for visible union, and yet 
 coolly allow one visible expression of love, ivhich the Head 
 of the Church has himself specijically appointed, not 
 simply to fall into disuse, but actually to be perverted to 
 a pur[)ose exactly the reverse of that, for which it was 
 ordained ! ! 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Besides, if to be one in name, or, in 
 other words, to be emancipated from denominational 
 nomenclature and narrowness, be, indeed, " important, 
 ' Union, yi. 'J;JO. 
 
254 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 and ultimately attainable, and the very crowning act of 
 brotherly love," and if evidence of union must be given to 
 the senses of men, then will the visible union of Christians 
 continue to be indistinct and questionable, and their bro- 
 therly love mutilated and doubtful, so long as denomina- 
 tions are perpetuated. For they most effectually prevent 
 this union from being so " plain" as not " to be misunder- 
 stood," and so " palpable" as not " to remain a secret." 
 
 Theophilus. — Moreover, the union which the Bible en- 
 joins is a thorough union in name and in everything else, 
 or it is not. If the union which is compatible with deno- 
 minational institutions, be all that the word of God com- 
 mands, or that the Son of God expects, then let us cease 
 to labour, or pray, or long for any fuller or nobler develop- 
 ment of social Christianity. But if the abolition of deno- 
 minations be truly involved in the Saviour's injunction 
 addressed to his people to be one, let every disciple be- 
 ware of tampering with that injunction, or attempting to 
 paUiate its transgression. Does the Scriptures leave us in 
 doubt as to what the sin of schism precisely is ? 
 
 Melancthon. — Schism is an evil, the existence of which 
 is iindeniahle, and the degrees of ichich, iji every age, are 
 strictly definable.'' ^ " The law of Christ on the subject is 
 so definite, that we can lay our finger, so to speak, on the 
 very point where the sin of schism begins ; and, by com- 
 paring the existing state of the Christian Church with the 
 express requirements of that law, we can determine, with 
 all the exactness of a chemical analysis, the places and tlie 
 degrees in which it exists." * 
 
 Bellarmine. — Well, there cannot be the least difiiculty 
 ' Union, p. 2. - lb. p. 3. 
 
THE LIMITS OF VISIBLE UXIFORMITY. 
 
 255 
 
 in telling us, whether denominational distinctions be schis- 
 matical or not. K they be not, avow it plainly ; and assure 
 us that your ecclesiastical patch-work, albeit it be not 
 primitive or patristic, is normal and scriptural Chris- 
 tianity. But if your modern denominations he schisms, 
 then how is it that Protestants do not blush, while they 
 proclaim that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is their 
 religion ? 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Have you ever compared " the existing 
 state of the Christian Church with the express require- 
 ments of the law of Christ " on this point ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " Can any representation of the internal 
 state of the Christian community be greatly exaggerated, 
 when its external state is so rent and dismantled ? Re- 
 member the all-pervading unity of affection which the 
 Saviour required in his Church ; contrast that oneness 
 with its actual condition at this moment; and then say, 
 whether the alarming degree, in which Christian union is 
 wanting in the Church, would not justify the utmost fears 
 concerning the absence of hberality and devotion also '/ 
 What can we expect from a church whose members, in- 
 stead of worshipping together in one spirit — laying all the 
 fuel of its affections upon one altar — withdraw, and sepa- 
 rate into parties, and erect each its distinct altar, one on 
 Mount Gcrizim, and another on Mount Zion — what, but 
 that the fires on each should burn dimly ? What can you 
 expect from the man who lovcth not his brothcr-chris- 
 tian whom he hath seen, but that he cannot love God 
 whom he hath not seen?"' ' 
 
 Tlieophilus. — Such, alas, is too accurate a description 
 ' Uuiou, p. 5. 
 
256 
 
 DIALOGUE III. 
 
 of the real state of matters at present ; and the picture Is 
 all the more painful, since, as we have found, there can be 
 no separation from a church without the guilt of schism 
 being incurred by one party or the other. There cannot, 
 in the very nature of the case, be distinct denominations, 
 without each having its own " distinct altar ;" and if it be 
 a self-evident and scriptural principle, that " for the same 
 reason that we combine as Christians to form a particular 
 church, we should unite as churches and denominations," ' 
 then there is no prospect of the heavenly fire burning 
 brightly and purely on the altar of the Church, till our 
 " distinct altars " have been laid in ruins, and the work 
 of constructing a common altar has been heartily com- 
 menced. 
 
 If separation by itself involve not some of the essential 
 evil of schism, then the Church of Christ is as well in a 
 state of division as of union. Was it then a mere chance 
 that our Lord and his apostles instituted one visibly 
 united Church, and not so many distinct and rival socie- 
 ties like our Protestant denominations ? Is sectarianism, 
 if not an improvement on the original constitution of 
 the Christian Church, a second edition thereof in all 
 respects equal to the first? Is the prospect of the final 
 union of the Church a dream of Utopia, or a matter of 
 absolute indifference? Nay, is the Church, even now, 
 sufficiently divided? If the division of the universal 
 Church, as a whole, involve no damage and entail no dis- 
 advantage, why should the separation of any particular 
 Clu'istian community be feared as an evil, or felt as a 
 calamity ? 
 
 » Union, p. 22C. 
 
DIALOGUE IT. 
 
 ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 I. — Dr Balmer's Essay. 
 
 Tlieophilus. — It is now proposed to discuss some of the 
 sentiments which are expressed in the volume of Essays, 
 composed by ministers of different denominations, and 
 published some few years ago.' 
 
 Melancthon. — I am somewhat at a loss to distinguisli 
 between your views and the plan which is based on " abso- 
 lute uniformity of opinion and practice." 
 
 Theophilus. — Some such uniformity there must be, and 
 the scheme which we have ventured to propound attempts, 
 in something like a definite form, to settle the limits of that 
 uniformity. 
 
 Melancthon. — " But there is no subject so likely to occa- 
 sion a variety of sentiment as religion ; for though its 
 fundamental doctrines are comparatively few, and abun- 
 dantly obvious, there is no subject which presents in its 
 subordinate details such a multiplicity of intricate and diffi- 
 cult questions, none that has been so much perplexed by 
 controversy, none more likely to awaken prejudice and 
 ' London : Ilainiltou, Adam?, .'C; Co. 1845. 
 
 K 
 
258 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 passion, and none for the investigation of which the human 
 faculties labour under a stronger indisposition or inapti- 
 tude. Reasoning a priori, then, we might confidently 
 have anticipated, that on many points in religion men 
 would adopt various and even opposite sentiments." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Are you not entangled in the old fal- 
 lacy of confounding variety and opposition of sentiment? 
 If a question be " intricate and difiicult," suspend your 
 judgment ; if it be perplexed by controversy," wait till 
 the mists shall have cleared away ; and among those who 
 shall act thus opposition of sentiment cannot arise. Do 
 you mean to say, that the influence of " prejudice and 
 passion," or the " inaptitude of the human faculties," will 
 justify or excuse an erroneous judgment, — a denial of the 
 truth ? But what is your plan 1 
 
 Melancthon. — " Its characteristic feature is forbearance : 
 and the essence of it may be expressed in a single sentence. 
 All true Christians ought to walk together in all things in 
 which they are agreed ; and as the points on which they 
 differ, though some of them may be very important, can- 
 not be essential to salvation, they ought to make these 
 points matters of forbearance." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — Be so good as to tell me how I am to 
 know, or how you distinguish, a " true Christian" from 
 other men ? 
 
 Melancthon. — A " true Christian" is the man in whom 
 are found the things " essential to salvation." 
 
 Bellarmine. — What, then, are the things that are essen- 
 tial to salvation ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " We may see the Divine wisdom in with- 
 ' Balmcr's Essay, p. 3C. ■ lb. p. 87. 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 259 
 
 holding what many are apt to desiderate a catalogue of 
 necessary or essential truths." ' But '■' all genuine Chris- 
 tians, as their very name imphes, and has already been 
 stated, have ' one faith.' There are certain truths in 
 which they are united, truths which it is not necessary, 
 and which it would not be wise to attempt accurately to 
 enumerate." * 
 
 Bellarmine. — Your plan being thus, in its very state- 
 ment, loose and undefined, the execution of it can be, and 
 has been, nothing better than guess-work. For so long 
 as every attempt at union must hinge upon these essential 
 truths, and so long as the question, what are these essen- 
 tials, is left unsettled, the whole business will be little bet- 
 ter than a game at children's see-saw. 
 
 Melancthon. — We are not to be driven from our posi- 
 tion by such a quibble. " The idea to be conveyed is, 
 that while there are some facts and truths in Christianity 
 which, in ordinary cases, must be known and beheved in 
 order to salvation, there arc others which, though con- 
 ducive to edification and comfort, are not thus essential ; 
 ignorance of which, or the misapprehension of which, is 
 not incompatible with a state of grace. The distinction, 
 when thus ex])lained, seems so evident as* to be altogether 
 incontrovertible ; and the denial of it will lead to consc- 
 (|ucnces the most appaUing." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine — We do not den}' the correctness of this 
 statement. But we beg to pi-ess the inquiry,- — of what 
 avail is this distinction in explaining the true principles of 
 Christian union, if these essentials cannot be precisely 
 specified, because they arc different in different individual 
 ' Balnicr's Essay, p. 88. * lb. p. 38. ' lb. p. 85. 
 
260 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 men, and in diiferent ages of the Church ? Are they so, 
 or are they not ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " There may be truths, or views of truths, 
 which are essential to one man and not to another, in con- 
 sequence of the diversity of their means and privileges ; 
 and it is essential to the character of a Christian, to re- 
 ceive with docility every doctrine of Christ, and to aim at 
 a cordial compliance with every requirement clearly per- 
 ceived to be a commandment of Christ," ^ 
 
 Theophilus. — This admission explains the reason, why 
 it is impossible to specify in detail essential truths, and at 
 the same time shews, that it is of no avail to attempt to 
 build the temple of Christian concord on the sole founda- 
 tion of what are vaguely called essential doctrines, to the 
 exclusion of what are styled non-essentials, though confes- 
 sedly important. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Allowing that the distinction cannot be 
 drawn with unerring precision, it will not follow, either 
 that it is purely imaginarv, or that the principle implied 
 in it is one on which it would be uniformly impossible or 
 unwarrantable to act. The colours of the rainbow run 
 into each other, so that no human eye can determine with 
 infallible accuracy whore one ends and another begins. 
 But does it follow from this, that we are unable to distin- 
 guish red from green, or that to make the distinction is of 
 no practical utility ? The night and the day arc divided 
 by the twilight, which partakes of the nature of both. 
 But does it follow from this, that there is no difference 
 between light and darkness, or that it would be as safe 
 and agreeable for a man to walk in the night as in the 
 ' Balmer's Essay, p. 87. 
 
ESSAYS ON CIIKISTIAN UNION. 
 
 261 
 
 day ? Something similar holds in religion. There are 
 truths which, in reference to our powers of perception, 
 occupy an intermediate position between those which are 
 fundamental and those which are not ; we know not whe- 
 ther to class them among the former or the latter. But 
 there are others, with respect to which we feel no such 
 perplexity, and with respect to which it is of high impor- 
 tance to make the distinction." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — You surely do not intend to compare 
 any truth, even the least important, or the farthest re- 
 moved from the essential frontier, to the darkness of 
 night ! Besides, the distinction between red and green is 
 in itself invariable, although the line of demarcation be- 
 tween them may, by the gradation of tints, be scarcely dis- 
 cernible ; whereas the distinction to which it is compared, 
 you have already admitted to be variable, inasmuch as 
 what is essential to one man may be non-essential to his 
 neighbour. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Ilcncc of whatever " high importance " 
 respect to this distinction may be, it can be of none in 
 regard to the union of the Church. This will be more 
 abundantly obvious, when it is considered that the very 
 points with which Protestant divisions and sects are con- 
 cerned are found in that " intermediate position between 
 those wliich are fundamental and those which are not." The 
 very scandal and condeiiuiation of Protestantism is, that 
 you " know not whether to class them among the former or 
 the latter." If you class them among the latter, your sepa- 
 rations arc a disgrace ; if among the former, you should 
 treat each other as you treat me and my acquaintance here. 
 ' IJaluier's Essay, j)]). 80, 87. 
 
2G2 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 Melancthon. — Your dilemma misses the mark ; we make 
 these points " matters of forbearance," for this very reason, 
 that they are " important," and yet " not essential to sal- 
 vation." If they were essential to salvation, they could 
 not be matters of forbearance, as being so highly impor- 
 tant ; if they were mere ti'ifles, pure indifferences, there 
 would be no occasion to forbear. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Pray observe how you have changed 
 your ground. Your first remark was that " to our powers 
 of perception" certain truths occupied an intermediate 
 ])osition ; that is, the truths themselves were undoubtedly 
 fundamental, or not fundamental, but loe could riot tell 
 which. It is plain, then, that in this state of ignorance 
 you may easily enough treat a fundamental, as a non- 
 fundamental, and a non-fundamental as if it were a 
 genuine fundamental. If Christian union be harmony in 
 fundamentals, in this state of ignorance it never can be 
 realised. Your second assertion is, that there is, not sim- 
 ply to your perceptions, but in reality, an intermediate 
 position. In this intermediate state you group certain 
 denominational differences, and argue that because they 
 are in this state, they are to be matters of forbearance. 
 This last is based on a denial of your first assertion. You 
 now assume that you can distinguish fundamentals, while 
 before you pled that you could not. 
 
 Melancthon " The very persons who reprobate the 
 
 distinction between those thin2;s in rclij^ion which are 
 essential and those which arc not, virtually recognise it, 
 and act upon it. In admitting to the communion of the 
 Church, these persons universally, or almost universally, 
 demand, as a necessary qualification, what they are accus- 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION'. 
 
 263 
 
 tomed to designate a competent measure of Christian know- 
 ledge. They assume, then, that there are thmgs in Chris- 
 tianity necessary to be known, and things not thus neces- 
 sary. Now, by what criterion do they ascertain that 
 exact amount of knowledge which constitutes a competent 
 measure ?" ' 
 
 Tlieopldlus It has been already conceded that what is 
 
 a competent measure to one individual is not so to another 
 with superior advantages. This competent measure, then, 
 depends upon circumstances, and is constantly varying with 
 the progress of society. To determine it from age to age, 
 as well as in regard to different members of the same 
 community, requires wisdom in the office-bearers of the 
 Church. But a variable quantity like this, can never 
 become an element in the universal and unchanging prin- 
 ciples on which (Hiristian union must be based. 
 
 Melancthon. — Then the terms of communion are con- 
 stantly changing, and so also must the terras of salvation 
 be perpetually altering ; if these two are identical, as has 
 generally been supposed ! See where your argument leads 
 you. 
 
 Thmphilus. — That the terras of Christian comra union, 
 wJien viewed in their details, have, as a matter of fact, 
 been subject to modifications, there can be no doubt. Nor 
 is there in this fact any impropriety, although wo formerly 
 saw that the terms of connnunion may be so stated, as to 
 bo invariable; — that is, tlie shifting details depend upon 
 an unchanging principle by which they are determined. 
 There is every reason to bcheve that polygamists and 
 slaveholders were admissible to the communion of the 
 ' liahucr's Essay, pp. 87, 88. 
 
264 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 apostolic churches. He is a bold man who will assert, 
 that now in our own country such ought still to be re- 
 ceived. Allowing that the admission of such is a doubtful 
 point in regard to some of the present infant churches of 
 Pagan lands, is it so in regard to the future discipline of 
 Christendom ? 
 
 The facts now referred to seem to afford an instructive 
 illustration of the views which we are advocating. The 
 Apostles do not appear to have made it imperative on all 
 those who gave evidences of regeneration, and were re- 
 ceived into the bosom of the Church, to adopt immediately 
 correct views on polygamy and slavery, and reduce these 
 views to practice. At the same time the Apostles did 
 teach, plainly enough, the truth in respect to these abomi- 
 nations. What, then, would the Apostles probably have 
 done, if any member of the Church in their days had, not 
 only quietly lived in the practice of slavery or polygamy, 
 but had begun to vindicate their lawfulness and defend 
 their consistency with the gospel ? Such parties would, 
 doubtless, have been rebuked, and their continued contu- 
 macy would have led to their expulsion. Hence we infer 
 that the terms of Christian communion are twofold — posi- 
 tive and negative. First, a competent measure of scrip- 
 tural knowledge and obedience, the amount of which must 
 be determined in every individual case by a careful consi- 
 deration of its special circumstances. Secondly, there must 
 be the absence of contradiction and opposition to that 
 amount of Christian knowledge which has been attained 
 by other members of the Church. 
 
 As to the terms of salvation, if by salvation be meant 
 justification, or a full and immediate forgiveness and con- 
 
ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAN UXION, 
 
 2G5 
 
 sequent peace with God, it is received by faith alone. 
 " Believe, and thou shalt be saved." " He that beheveth 
 is not condemned." When a man's life is prolonged after 
 accepting Christ as his Saviour, the terms of his final sal- 
 vation, and heaven's eternal blessedness, are not only to 
 believe in Christ, but also to reduce that belief to habitual 
 practice, — to " hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing 
 of the hope firm unto the end." ' 
 
 The terms of communion with the Church on earth are 
 not identical with the terms of everlasting salvation, for 
 these reasons : — 1. A man may be saved without having 
 communicated. 2. The office-bearers of the Church mav 
 have no right to exclude an individual who yet may be 
 far from salvation. 3. A genuine Christian may justly 
 forfeit his church privileges for a time without forfeiting 
 his final salvation. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Does it not savour of intolerable pre- 
 sumption and impiety to reject those whom God has re- 
 ceived? If they are qualified for communion with Ilim, 
 arc they unfit for communion with us? Are we holier 
 than He?" 2 
 
 Theophilus — Does God not chasten his backsliding 
 people without casting them off for ever ? Did not Paul 
 call upon the Corinthian Church " to deliver such an one 
 unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit 
 may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus?" 
 
 Melancthon. — According to the principles which you 
 are advocating, there is no occasion for the exercise of 
 forbearance at all. " IntQllcctual errors and infirmities 
 seem to be the most proper of all objects of forbearance. 
 ' Ilcb. iii. (i. • Biilincr's Essay, p. 45. 
 
2G6 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 . . . This forbearance is to be exercised not only in 
 reference to things allowed on both sides to be indifferent, 
 (for this scarcely deserves the name of forbearance), but 
 in reference to opinions deemed to be unscriptural, and to 
 practices considered to be wrong, provided these opinions 
 and practices are not thought incompatible with a state of 
 grace and salvation." ^ 
 
 Bellarniine. — But ivhat sort of forbearance ought to be 
 extended to the opinions and practices that have just been 
 specified ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " Not but that wc are to use assiduously 
 all legitimate means to reclaim our Christian brethren 
 from their errors, and to induce them to relinquish prac- 
 tices which to us seem sinful ; but that wc are not to eject 
 them from the Church, or to exclude them from our pri- 
 vate intercourse or our fraternal love. If they ' hold the 
 liead,' they cannot be chargeable with vital or essential 
 error ; and, though the points in which they agree with 
 us may be few in number, they must be greater far in 
 magnitude and importance than the particulars, however 
 numerous, in which they differ from us. If, then, we 
 separate from them, or compel them to separate from us, 
 by making our differences terms of communion, we are 
 guilty of schism — of a causeless and unwarrantable rup- 
 ture in the Saviour's mystical body. ' When the lovers 
 of Christ,' says a late excellent author, Dr Lawson, who 
 will not now be suspected of unscriptural laxity, ' When 
 the lovers of Christ cannot sit down at the same holy table, 
 the blame of schism must rest with those whose sentiments 
 oi- behaviour is the cause wliy they cannot do it.' " ^ 
 ' Balmcr's Essay, p. 50. ■ lb. p. 51. 
 
ESSAYS OK CHRISTIAN UNION, 
 
 267 
 
 Lord Herbert. — It is an irrefragable inference from 
 wliat you have now advanced, that there cannot be two 
 denominations of Christians without one of them at least 
 being guilty of schism. 
 
 Bellarmine. — There is another inference equally irre- 
 fragable, which is too much for Protestantism. If those 
 only who are " chargeable with vital or essAtial error " 
 may be legitimately excluded from the Church, then it fol- 
 lows not only that there ought to be but one Church, but 
 also that out of that one Church there can be no salvation. 
 When you assume that the terms of church communion 
 and the terms of eternal life ought to be precisely the 
 same, you return to a principle against which you have 
 often protested. When you contend that it is unlawful to 
 exclude a man from the Church, except for opinions so 
 erroneous, and practices so flagrantly wrong, as to be 
 incompatible with salvation, you not only outlaw the vari- 
 ous self-styled evangelical denominations, but you also 
 identify, as we do, schism and heresy, visiting both with 
 the heaviest woe. If any denomination has the boldness 
 to change the divinely-instituted terms of communion, 
 inasmuch as that is equivalent to changing the terms of 
 salvation, as wo believe, and as you have now confessed, 
 its guilt is, not schism in the diluted and Protestant sense 
 of the word, but schism in the proper sense of the word, 
 as dotcnnincd by the holy Catholic Church, even damnable 
 heresy and profanity. 
 
 Melancthon. — " In the present divided state of opinion, 
 a complete amalgamation of religious parties is not to be 
 expected ; the diversity of sentiment which exists resi)ect- 
 ing various questions of ecclesiastical order and disciphne 
 
268 
 
 DIALOGVE IV. 
 
 necessitates the continuance of separate, though not hostile, 
 associations." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — I perceive how certain diversity of sen- 
 timent necessitates separate associations ; but what, I should 
 like to know, necessitates such diversity of sentiment ? 
 
 Melandhon. — Christians may be forced to separate, 
 " not from Caprice or jealousy, but with reluctance and 
 grief, and only in obedience to the high and peremptory 
 requirements of principle and conscience." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Is separation forbidden by Him whom 
 you call your Lord and Master ? 
 
 Melancthon Most certainly. " When the question is 
 
 put, ' Is Christ divided V it is assumed that discord or 
 separation among his followers are things incongruous and 
 monstrous, as well as criminal." ^ 
 
 Lord Herhert.—Vs then, your Bible commands a 
 moral impossibility, if in any case separation be, on both 
 sides, " in obedience to the high and peremptory require- 
 ments of principle and conscience ;" and, moreover, on the 
 accomplishment of that moral impossibility is suspended 
 your expected conversion of the world ! 
 
 Bellarmine. — But, perhaps, your motto is, " Co-opera- 
 tion without incorporation," the half-way house of a proud 
 penitent Protestantism. 
 
 Melancthon. — Xo ; my motto is, " Co-operation imme- 
 diately, with a view to incorporation hereafter." * The 
 former has a natural tendency to lead to the latter. And 
 " natural tendency would infallibly be reinforced by super- 
 natural influence. Christians would then occupy that posi- 
 
 ' Balmer's Essay, p. 93. * lb. p. 77. 
 
 » Balmer's Essay, pp. 23, 24. * lb. p. 73. 
 
ESSATS OX CHRISTLiX CXION". 
 
 269 
 
 tion, in which, if Scripture be true, the misapprehensions 
 which divide them would be dissipated by divine illumina- 
 tion. They would be complying with the precept which 
 enjoins them, ' Whereto they have already attained to 
 walk by the same rule, to mind the same thing ;' and ' the 
 God of love and peace ' would not be tardy to fulfil the 
 promise of * revealing to them the things about which 
 they were variously-minded.' " ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — The alleged necessity for such diversity 
 of sentiment as necessitates separation, has then completely 
 disappcared like a morning cloud ! You seem to me to 
 profess contradictories ; which of them do you really be- 
 lieve ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " It may be asked, whether it would be 
 requisite for the various sections into which the Church 
 is divided to resolve themselves into their intecral elements, 
 and to attempt the formation of one vast community, com- 
 prehending the good of every name and every sect ? 
 Sujtposing it practicable, would it be desirable to demolish 
 all existing Christian structures, that out of their ruins 
 might be reared one spacious and magnificent temple — to 
 throw all our present churches into a crucible, as it were, 
 ill whicii they may be fused and purified, and out of which 
 they will come forth consolidated into one form of surpass- 
 ing beauty and loveliness? To this question it may be 
 answered, that nothing so extravagant is contemplated for 
 a moment.' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Then are you already false to the 
 maxim which you recently adopted : " Co-operation ini- 
 luediatcly, with a view to incorporation hereafter." All 
 * Balmer's Essay, p. 7'J. ' lb. p. 66. 
 
270 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 the extravagance from which you shrink is involved in 
 incorporation. Besides, you have acknowledged that 
 separation is " monstrous, as well as criminal ;" that the 
 Bible frequently and strongly condemns it ; and that there 
 is no necessity for its prolongation. " If the principle be 
 a scriptural one," to use your own words, " the sooner it 
 is adopted the better ; nor can the adoption of it be post- 
 poned for a year or a month, but guilt must attach to those 
 who cause the delay." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — It appears to me that the difficulties in 
 the way of effecting anything like a habitual or systematic 
 co-operation and intercommunion among different denomi- 
 nations, arc not much less formidable than incorporation 
 itself. If co-operation, on your principle of the right of 
 private judgment, is to be more than a mere name, you 
 must have some standard or confession, conformity to 
 which win be the condition of admittance to co-operation. 
 A similar remark apphes to intercommunion, as you have 
 yourself clearly stated. " Much as intercommunion among 
 all Christians is to be desired, it is not desirable that inter- 
 communion among all Christian denominations should be 
 commenced, unless they first agree on the substance, at 
 least, of a common system of discipline to be fearlessly and 
 scrupulously enforced." ^ If, then, different denominations 
 cannot attain co-operation and intercommunion, " unless 
 they first agree on the substance, at least, of a common si/.i- 
 tcm of discipline," and also of a common si/sterjt of belief , it 
 does not appear that more is needed to lay the foundations 
 of incorporation itself. The latter, therefore, seems to be 
 as easy and likely as the former. But we believe the fact 
 ' Baliuer's Essay, p. 74. ' lb. p. 99. 
 
ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAN CXION. 
 
 271 
 
 to be, that Protestantism will wrangle itself to death, 
 before it can attain either the one or the other. 
 
 TJieophilus. — That denominational incorporation is an 
 immediate duty, is an assertion which will startle thou- 
 sands. Let all who are disposed to regard the assertion 
 as extravagant, weigh well the arguments which have been 
 advanced in its support, and also the following senti- 
 ments : — " Such are the fulness and riches of Scripture, 
 that there are many important principles in it — some of 
 them probably at no great distance from the surface — 
 which remain yet to be discovered ; and such is the weak- 
 ness of the human mind, and such its inaptitude to discern 
 spiritual things, that even the wisest and best of men 
 labour under much ignorance and many misapprehensions. 
 It is, then, eminently probable, that there are opinions 
 entertained, and practices followed by Christians, and by 
 Christian churches in the present age, which, at no distant 
 period, will be viewed with emotions of wonder and sorrow, 
 similar to those with which we survey the former apathy 
 of the Protestant churches to the spiritual miseries of 
 heathen nations." ' 
 
 Nor need any one be alarmed at the thought of a uni- 
 versal confederacy, whose power shall be concentrated in 
 an individual head, or in an aristocratic conclave. This is 
 no more implied in the incorporation of several congrega- 
 tions into one Christian community, than it is implied in 
 the incorporation of several individuals into one church or 
 congregation. If the formation of one Christian assembly 
 docs not lay the foundatioii of spiritual despotism, neither 
 will the abohtion of sects and denominations do so. ]}y 
 ' liabiicr's Essay, p. 81. 
 
272 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 enrolling ourselves as members of a Christian cong-reffa- 
 tion, we do not surrender our own liberty, nor endanger 
 that of the world ; we only improve the one and promote 
 the other. 
 
 The conditions of church-memborship, we have seen, 
 are, first, positive agreement with the church in some of 
 the leading doctrines of the gospel, with the absence of 
 contradiction on any truth held by the church ; secondly, 
 submission to the majority in cases of jiractical necessity 
 and probability, with habitual obedience to the truth pro- 
 fessed. Supposing these principles or conditions adhered 
 to on both sides, what is the authority which the church- 
 meeting, or session of the congregation, exercises over the 
 churcli member ? Each party has certain functions to per- 
 form, and to watch over the other to see that these functions 
 are performed. If either party espouses and advocates 
 error, schism will be the result, or a spiritual declension and 
 relapse worse than schism. So will it always be, when- 
 ever profession and practice are at variance, either among 
 the office-bearers or the members. When all are doins: 
 their duty, there will be no occasion for the exercise of 
 authority ; and even when authority is exercised, it is only 
 the authority of truth. If ecclesiastical authority be ever 
 anything else than the authority of truth, clearly and 
 manifestly so, the church is then degenerate. This 
 authority, consequently, will carefully abstain from inter- 
 fering witli petty details. The cliurch-mceting or session 
 should never condescend to notice the conduct of a parti- 
 cular member, unless that conduct refer to some impor- 
 tant matter in which the character and well-being of the 
 church itself are plainly concerned. The officc-bearci's of 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 273 
 
 a congregation have nothing to do with the colour of a 
 man's coat, or the construction of his house, or the jour- 
 neys which ho may make, or the books which he may buy. 
 In hke manner, when a single congregation becomes a 
 member of a large Christian corporation, the authority of 
 tliat corporation in primary matters, or those of duty and 
 faith, ought to be nothing else than the authority of mani- 
 l'(,'st truth, to which each congregation cheerfully bows. 
 In secondary matters, or matters of probable knowledge, 
 tlie authority of the incorporated or united churches 
 -liould not be extended to the details of congreo-ational 
 worship or management. This were indeed to confound 
 uniformity with union. It should interfere in those con- 
 gregational matters only, which bear directly on the im- 
 mediate business of the churches in their associated capa- 
 city ; such as deciding on the fitness or unfitness of candi- 
 dates for the holy jninistry, preparing or revising trans- 
 lations of the Scripture, and conducting foreign missions. 
 While each congregation could at any time avail itself of 
 tlie wisdom of the associated churches in any of their per- 
 plexities, that wisdom might be so exercised as to be a 
 light to direct, and not abu.sed, and made a flame to scorch, 
 besides the incorporation of churclies need in no instance 
 be carried to a further extent than is plainly demanded by 
 some practical necessity. If there were again an oecumeni- 
 cal council, it need not be either annual or perpetual, but 
 only occasional, and for tlio transaction of special business. 
 If any one object, that even then it would be liable to serious 
 abuse, let it be remembered, that the best thin(;s are liable 
 to the worst abuse ; and if we are to enjoy nothing but 
 those things which cannot be abused at all, wc must seek 
 
 s 
 
274 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 a place of exile somewhere out of this Avorld, which 
 God in His unerring wisdom and boundless goodness has 
 created. 
 
 II. — Tlie Rev. J. A. James" Essay. 
 
 Melancthon. — " The scheme that would be wide enough 
 to comprehend all, and amalgamate all denominations into 
 one, can in fact be satisfactory to none, and would in- 
 volve a compromise which a due regard to truth should 
 not allow us to make." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — To amalgamate all, Avhile their senti- 
 ments continue as they are, is simply impracticable. But 
 I do not see how " a due regard to truth" can be said to 
 have ought to do in preventing it. For you tell us that 
 "different rehgious opinions" "cannot all be true, inas- 
 much as they are opposed to each other," ^ "A due 
 regard to truth," we cannot but think, should keep Chris- 
 tians, especially Protestants, from embracing as true what 
 is not true ; and thus instead of being a hindrance to uni- 
 versal amalgamation, might be the very power to melt all 
 denominations into one. 
 
 Melancthon. — " The term denominational is employed 
 as simply indicating certain peculiarities of opinion, and 
 in this sense implies nothing wrong." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — Allow me to answer you in words which 
 your own pen has traced. " The New Testament is surely 
 not so obscure a book, that, were its contents to fall into 
 the hands of a hundred serious and impartial men, it would 
 j)roduce such opposite conclusions as nmst necessarily issue 
 
 ' James' Essay, p. 153. -' lb. p. 208. ' lb. p. 151. 
 
ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 275 
 
 in the forming of two or more separate communions. A 
 larger communication of the Spirit of truth would insensibly 
 lead Christians into a similar train of thinking ; and being 
 under the guidance of that infallible Teacher, they would 
 gradually tend to the same point, and settle in the same 
 conclusions." ^ If these remarks be true, there is some- 
 thing wrong in denominational differences. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Let it, however, be inquired, when de- 
 nominational distinctions are in one view considered as the 
 result of human corruption, and in another the cause of 
 its increase, whether it is not an evil which God has over- 
 ruled for the greater good and purity of the Church upon 
 the whole?"* 
 
 Lord Herbert, — I am afraid you are borrowing a leaf 
 from some Jesuit's production. Have you forgotten 
 Romans iii. 7 and 8 ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " How blessed a report would it be to go 
 forth from hence, that in England, free England ! great 
 and mighty England ! the different denominations of 
 professing Christians had agreed together to retain their 
 principles, but to abandon their prejudices, and had deter- 
 mined to subscribe the Apostle's declaration, that of the 
 Christian graces, the most eminent is charity."-' 
 
 Bellarmine If denominational principles be, as you 
 
 have admitted, sometimes opposed to each other, of those 
 in opposition to each other one-half must be erroneous. 
 Is an erroneoics principle not a prejudice ? You might as 
 well, therefore, think of travcUing to the moon, as retain- 
 ing your denominational principles, and abandoning your 
 prejudices. Now, charity is truly the most eminent grace ; 
 ' Hall, quotfd by James, p. 208. ' lb. p. 155. ' lb. p. 158. 
 
276 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 but if your charity be based upon a confusion of the false 
 and the true — of prejudices and pi'inciples, then it is a 
 poisoned charity. 
 
 Theophilas. — In the essay that has just been referred 
 to, there are two arguments used towards the close which 
 do not well cohere together. 
 
 The first is sound and conclusive. It is said, " all hope 
 of closer union that is not founded on a sincere and general 
 determination to make the word of God the sole arbiter of 
 our religious diflFerences, is vain and delusive." ' It is 
 almost immediately added : " The multitude have never 
 searched the Scriptures for themselves, and are therefore 
 following in the track of their leaders ; but when they shall 
 turn from these to the lively oracles, and shall be found 
 listening to their inspired and infallible responses, instead 
 of prostrating their understandings before the creeds, 
 catechisms, and articles of fallible men, they will be 
 astonished to find how rapidly and how closely they can 
 be made to approximate to each other. They will then 
 discover that during the long night that has fallen upon 
 them, and by the deceptive lights of human authority that 
 have glimmered on their path, they have all more or less 
 mistaken their way. The entire submission of our minds 
 to the teaching of the truth and its divine author, will be 
 like the rising of the sun upon our wanderings, to conduct 
 us all back to the right road." 
 
 No more is asked by us than what is clearly expressed 
 or fairly implied in this beautiful statement. It loses all 
 its force and point and value, if we deny that there is 
 something decidedly wrong in our denominational distinc- 
 ' James' Kssay, pp. 209, 21U. 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 277 
 
 tions. And if there be something unscriptural in them, 
 then we ought to aim, not only at their ultimate, but at 
 their immediate overthrow. If there be nothing essen- 
 tially evil in them, why sliould their abohtion be even an 
 " ultimate object of our desire and pursuit?" These dis- 
 tinctions must be not only palliated, but justified and 
 defended as unexceptionable and perpetual fences in the 
 garden of the Lord, or their extirpation should become 
 the immediate and proximate care of the evangehcal 
 churches. When the battle of slave emancipation was 
 being fought in this country, and when we were in the 
 very crisis of the conflict, the watchword of the contending 
 liosts was not slavery on the one hand, snxd freedom on the 
 other. The battle was so far won, that bare, naked, 
 slavery was abandoned, as beyond all argument — as 
 bankrupt of every plea. The watchwords were, when 
 the struggle was the fiercest, immediate or gradual aboli- 
 tion. So will it ever be. Wo must defend our denomi- 
 national landmarks as scriptural and valid, or proceed 
 forthwith to effect their removal. 
 
 If there be any force in these remarks, the other argu- 
 ment of the essayist will not be of much avail in reference 
 to the point in hand. He says : " Next to this (the former 
 argument) is a due estimate, never yet, perhaps, correctly 
 made, after all that has been said upon the subject, of the 
 incomparable superiority of those points of doctrine in 
 wliich we are agreed over those on which we differ ; and 
 connected with this, a disposition to make the former, 
 rather than the latter, the topics of our habitual and 
 delighted reflection." ' If indeed, we could, forget the 
 ' Jauicu' Essay, p. 211. 
 
278 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 latter altogether, this plan might be successful. If the 
 points on which we differ were really trivial, unconnected 
 with the glory of our Redeemer, and the welfare of the 
 Church, and the conversion of the world, it would be a 
 graver offence and a more arrant folly than schism itself, 
 to lose or disturb our refreshing spiritual meditations by 
 submitting to the intrusion of such annoyances. But the 
 fact is, we cannot forget the points on which we differ ; 
 they are practical and important ; they nearly concern 
 our duty ; they touch the glory of our Master ; they tell 
 upon society. AVe cannot by any possibility evade their 
 discussion or decision. Herein lies the very aggravation 
 of schism, the harshness of its jarring notes, the bitterness 
 of its rent fellowship, the misery of its results. We agree 
 on certain momentous topics ; through this agreement we 
 hold elevated converse and seraphic communion with each 
 other. By and by we differ, and differ on such a matter, 
 that our fervid fellowship is interrupted, our visible union 
 is broken, our harmony grows into dissonance, and we 
 become a wonder to ourselves, as well as a scandal to 
 others. 
 
 " There should be in us," it is urged, " such an ineff- 
 able delight in the fundamental truths of Christianity, such 
 an exaltation of their glory and importance, as shall make 
 us determined to know nothing among men but Jesus 
 Christ and him crucified. This will make us love with an 
 unquenchable and truly fraternal affection all who partake 
 with us in the same views." ' When those who have ex- 
 perienced this " unquenchable and truly fraternal affec- 
 tion," come to oppose and contradict each other in inter- 
 * James' Essay, p. 212. 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 279 
 
 preting their Lord's will, and in seeking to make others 
 participant in this " ineffable delight," there -will arise a 
 pang of grief, an agony of sorrow as deep and inconsolable 
 as their love is unquenchable. And if such a result be 
 equally unavoidable on both sides, then dire, indeed, is 
 the calamity, and the cup of Christian sympathy and joy 
 but a mixed and jumbled potion after all. If such a result 
 be not unavoidable ; if integrity and uprightness can pre- 
 serve us from such a fell disaster ; if it be true, that " as 
 piety becomes more purified and strengthened, it will 
 draw, and must of necessity draw, all classes of Christians 
 nearer to each other, until an external and visible unity, 
 as well as an internal one, shall be formed, and all its ex- 
 pected results shall be accomplished," ' then, surely, every 
 Christian professor, who does aught to keep his brethren 
 aloof from him, or who keeps aloof from them without just 
 cause, incurs guilt of a crimson dye. 
 
 III. — Dr King's Essay. 
 
 Melancthon. — Is this not pushing the argument too far ? 
 *' The disciples were found censurable in prohibiting one 
 who walked not with them from casting out devils in the 
 name of Christ, and were instructed by their Master to 
 infer, from the very works which they interdicted, that the 
 person performing them could not bo against them, and 
 must, by consequence, be on their side (Mark ix. 38, &c.) 
 If, then, a visible separati()n from the Ai)ostles. whon they 
 were presided over by the incarnate Saviour himself, con- 
 ' James' Essay, p. 214. 
 
280 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 sisted with a spiritual and essential unity ; and if, even in 
 these circumstances, a connection with the true Church 
 was more to be determined by a Christian conduct than 
 by a joint profession, it is easy to see that persons who 
 walk not with us in our forms and regulations, but who 
 are instrumental in casting out Satan from his sovereignty 
 over men's minds, ought to be hailed by us as fellow- 
 citizens in all that is essential to Zion's welfare ; and 
 instead of being frowned upon as adversaries or aliens, 
 should be claimed, and encouraged, and honoured, as 
 brethren. The application of these remarks is obvious. 
 That Scottish Christians, all doing the work of Christ 
 with more or less fidelity and power, are not to be held 
 as really disunited, because in doing the same work they 
 walk apart, but are to be classed on the same side, and 
 as all belonging to the one Church of Christ in Scot- 
 land." 1 
 
 Bellarmine. — Your argument is built upon an illustra- 
 tion, and both fall to the ground, unless you maintain that, 
 in the case referred to, " the visible separation " was sub- 
 stantially the same as that found among Protestant deno- 
 minations. That it was so has not been proved, and is by 
 no means likely ; it was probably a merely temporary or 
 accidental separation. When you affirm that " a visible 
 separation consists with a spiritual and essential unity," 
 you may mean that these two consist witli each other Iciji- 
 timately, or possibly, and (juiltily. If you moan the latter, 
 your affirmation is contradicted by your illustration ; and 
 if you mean the former, you deny the oft-repeated maxim, 
 that the terms of connnunion ought to be the same as the 
 ' King's Essay, pp. 232, 233. 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION 
 
 281 
 
 terms of salvation. And hence if " Scottish Christians 
 are to be classed as all belonging to the one church of 
 Christ in Scotland," that one church is not such a church 
 as is described in the New Testament, and was exemplified 
 in the primitive age. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Your very assertion that Scottish Chris- 
 tians all belong to one church, proves that their visible 
 separations are schisms, and attended with all the guilt 
 and disaster of schism. 
 
 Theophilus. — The aphorism, " He that is not against 
 us is on our part " — (Mark ix. 40) — must be taken in con- 
 nection with that other, " lie that is not with me is against 
 me" — (Matt. xii. 30). These two Scriptm-es cannot be 
 understood and explained in mutual harmony, except by 
 determining the very questions which have been engaging 
 our attention — the limits of identity of opinion and of uni- 
 formity among Christians. If a man behove no Christian 
 truth which has been set before him, and bold no com- 
 munion with Christians around him, though he practise 
 nothing openly against Christ, he must be held to be 
 Christ's enemy. But, again, if an individual does give 
 proof of attachment to Christ, however far short he may 
 come of the attainments of others, he is to be regarded as 
 a genuine disciple. And so long as he is tiot against any 
 Christian truth or institution, he is to be reckoned a true 
 and valuable member of the Church. In the circumstanees 
 of our Lord's disciples alluded to above, the first and sure 
 indication of schism was the attempted prohibition on their 
 part. 
 
 Melancthon. — It was formerly coiiteiidod, that in order 
 to Christian union there must be the absence of contradic- 
 
282 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 tion on any important question. Now, I think, I can 
 adduce a case in which union might be effected, notwith- 
 standing such a contradiction. I refer to the Free Church 
 and the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland. 
 
 Bellarmine. — I shoukl Hke to hear how you can make 
 that out. 
 
 Melancthon. — " Perhaps it might be found in a friendly 
 conference that the difference was not so formidable as has 
 been sometimes alleged ; that the Free Churchman has no 
 wish to secularize religion by connecting it with the State, 
 and the Voluntary Churchman just as little design, through 
 a dissolution of this connection, to make Governments in- 
 fidel." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — If, indeed, the conflicting sentiments 
 could bo subjected, with the approbation of their sup- 
 porters, to some such pruning or softening process as that 
 just indicated, the contradiction would be in fact removed. 
 It is quite another business to construct and consolidate an 
 union, with a contradiction, such as the one in question, 
 working in the minds of those who profess to be united. 
 
 Melancthon " On both hands it mio'ht be allowed, 
 
 that Christ is head over the nations ; and that, if there be 
 any question, it does not respect the fact, but only the 
 mode of his rule." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — There is no dispute between you and us 
 about the fact of Christ's rule ; the controversy refers only 
 to its mode. Is his Holiness the Pope Christ's vicar, or 
 is he not ? On the principle now announced you might as 
 readily agree with us, as agree among yourselves. 
 
 Melancthon. — " It might appear, that if neither the 
 ' Kiiig'8 Essay, p. 257. = lb. p. 257. 
 
ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAN UNIOJT. 
 
 283 
 
 Establishment principle nor the Voluntary principle were 
 made a term of office, a mutual forbearance respecting 
 them would not obstruct the discharge of any present 
 duty." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — The subject at issue, taken broadly and 
 substantially, seems to be this : — The duty of a Govern- 
 ment towards its subjects in the matter of religion. Now 
 Christians will find themselves, in regard to this question, 
 in one or other of the following positions : — 1. They may 
 refuse to answer the question in any shape. But this is 
 to confess, that the Bible and reason taken together are 
 not a suflicient rule of faith and duty. 2. Their answers 
 may be substantially harmonious and free from conflict, as 
 we should expect them to be. In this case, the question 
 cannot become an occasion of schism, whether it he, or be 
 not, introduced into the terms of communion, or the terms 
 of office. 3. Their answers may be conflicting and dis- 
 sonant ; in which case, even though the question be ex- 
 cluded from terms of office and terms of communion, it 
 will undoubtedly become a source of heart-burning, dis- 
 trust, and alienation, if not, in the course of time, the cause 
 of an open rupture. 4. It may be maintained, as you 
 have now done, that, in certain circumstances, and to cer- 
 tain parties, it is not at all a practical question, and may, 
 therefore, be most wisely let alone. But you must per- 
 ceive that tliis is cutting the knot, not untying it. You 
 propose a temporary truce, if not a compromise. The 
 moment, therefore, circumstances change, the schism will be 
 developed. Is this the way of healing schism, that is sanc- 
 tioned by the Bible, or approved by the understanding? 
 ' King's Essay, p. 257. 
 
284 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 Melancthon. — Notwithstanding the many and weighty 
 matters in which we are harmonious, " are we to strike 
 and spUt for ever on this question of the magistrate's 
 power ? — and even as an abstraction, as a constituent of 
 naked theory, is it to prolong and multiply our actual 
 dismemberments ? " ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — I cannot see how this question is, or can 
 be, " an abstraction, a constituent of naked theory." If 
 a magistrate were a member of your church, which you 
 cannot but desire, might he not very reasonably expect 
 you to be able to instruct him in this part of his duty ? 
 
 Lord Hcrhert. — And, therefore, however numerous the 
 matters of agreement may be, and however momentous, if 
 there be a question of human duty, and of heaven's ordi- 
 nance, on which Christians differ, not simply by less or 
 more, but by conflicting judgments, as in the case before 
 us, there is schism in all its deformity and evil. 
 
 Theophilus. — Admitting that the question between the 
 two churches in Scotland referred to, in regard to Govern- 
 ment endoimng religious teachers, could be satisfactorily 
 disposed of, the matter is far from settled. There is a 
 schism in the evangelical community of Great Britain 
 respecting the magistrate's power and duty, which is not 
 distinctly marked by two denominations, but which is 
 working extensive, and, we fear, incalculable evil. AVe 
 refer to the business of national education. There are 
 apparently three parties in the dispute ; but we shall en- 
 deavour to shew that there are only two in reality. There 
 arc those who contend that Government should provide 
 secular, without religious education. If there be any force 
 ' King's Essay, p. 258. 
 
ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAN UXION. 
 
 285 
 
 in the statement, that man must have a religion of some 
 sort from the nature of the constitution which God has 
 given him, then the absence of the true religion implies 
 the presence of a false religion. This conclusion is amply 
 confirmed by facts, and by the statement of our Lord, 
 " He that is not with me is against me." Hence it is im- 
 possible to separate secular and religious education. Every 
 believer in the Bible will admit, that whatever obligations 
 rest upon any individual to secure a secular education to 
 the young, the same obligations, enhanced a thousand fold, 
 rest upon him to secure their religious instruction. These 
 views are confirmed by the actual proceedings of the 
 Government of this country. They profess to aim at the 
 promotion of secular education, and to act impartially 
 towards all religious sects. But professed neutrality in 
 religion is essential hostiUty to the true religion. Li fact 
 they patronise all religions ; in words they patronise none. 
 To treat all religions alike is equivalent to affirming that 
 there is no true rehgion. It appears to us, then, that 
 tlicre are 07ily two parties ; the one affirming, and the 
 other denying, the duty of Government to attend to the 
 education of the young. 
 
 This division in the camp of evangelical Protestants 
 puts them to a serious disadvantage in the presence of 
 their Romanist and infidel opponents ; the more especially 
 when we consider that there are a great number of camj)- 
 followers, many of whom are all but infidels, and the re- 
 mainder all but Romanists.' It is this division which affords 
 occasion and pretence for the Government to pursue its 
 actual infidel policy ; — a policy which is, indeed, distasteful 
 to every party, not excepting our legislators themselves, 
 
286 
 
 DULOGUE IV. 
 
 who tolerate it only on the transparent principle of a 
 wretched expediency. This policy is tolerated by infidels 
 as the semi-triumph of their views, and by Romanists as 
 a stepping-stone to a higher vantage ground ; while it is 
 mourned over by every sound-hearted Christian. 
 
 If, now, the inteUigent and devoted followers of Christ 
 were united as one man, they might put an end to this 
 miserable tergiversation ; or, at all events, protest against 
 it in such plain and emphatic terms as would brand it with 
 reprobation. But those who are, in their general charac- 
 ter, conscientious adherents of Truth, can unite on a spe- 
 cial point only in the truth regarding that point. So long 
 as the two parties in this case hold their conflicting senti- 
 ments, all compromise is impossible, either by the silence 
 of one, or of both of them. It is a question of duty ; some- 
 thing, therefore, must be done, or left undone. To refuse 
 to decide a question of obligation, is quite as bad as to 
 decide it erroneously. Hence the only method in which 
 this contest can terminate is by both sides finding tlie 
 truth. Opposition to the present Government scheme, 
 when the opposing party is so grievously divided as to the 
 scheme that should be substituted, seems to be captious, 
 and is practically ineftectual. 
 
 This schism in the evangelical Church is painfully mani- 
 fested in regard to Ilindostan. All of us disapprove of 
 the policy which lavishes in that vast empire large sums 
 of money on schemes of education, from which Christianity 
 is sedulously excluded. We go together to the govern- 
 ment, and show them how inconsistent, how dangerous, 
 how criminal are their proceedings. But when we, their 
 reprovers and advisers, arc asked, What should bo done ? 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 287 
 
 we immediately begin to reprove and criminate each other. 
 The ultimatum of the British Protestant Church, taken 
 collectively, on the question, — What should the Christian 
 Government of India do to educate the youth of that hea- 
 then land ? is thus expressed by the Evangehcal Alliance, 
 " the Government, if it interfere at all, ought neither to 
 institute, continue, nor contribute to any school or system 
 of public instruction whatever, from which the inspired 
 word of God is excluded." On a great practical question 
 to unite in telUng our ruJers, what they ought not to do, 
 and confess our inability to shew them what should be 
 done, and get confused and contradictory when requested 
 to do so, is to expose our weakness and cover ourselves 
 with shame. 
 
 It needs no prophetic wisdom to declare, that the welfare 
 of the British empire at home and abroad is identified with 
 the prosperity of her Protestant evangelical churches. Nor 
 does it require the eye of a seer to discern that the internal 
 prosperity and external power of these churches depend 
 (m their ceasing to be like a house divided against itself, 
 and effecting an union on scriptural principles by coalesc- 
 ing in the truth on grave and momentous questions. 
 
 Let the men amongst us, then, who have consciences, 
 while they revere the Bible and groan over our social 
 miseries, begin to confer anew with their consciences and 
 with their IViblcs, in their closets and on tlicir knees. Then 
 if truth be no vanishing star, and conscience no market- 
 able commodity, and the promise of the Spirit of truth and 
 grace no forged warrant on the resources of heaven, and 
 the intelligible union of Christian men no day-dream of 
 enthusiasm, wc may soon expect to see the ciders of the 
 
288 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 people, and the people too, coming to be " of one accord "' 
 on great social and religious questions. Though the genuine 
 Christians in Great Britain were only a tithe in number of 
 what they are, yet if, on a matter of such transcendent im- 
 portance as the one lately referred to, they were united and 
 unanimous, and their union and unanimity were based upon 
 the truth, they Avould then undoubtedly hold the helm of 
 affairs in their own hand, and might guide the now drift- 
 ing and labouring vessel of the State safely and success- 
 fully, not only through her more immediate perils, but 
 also through the breakers and beyond the rocks, that are 
 looming before her so threateningly in her course. 
 
 As to the union of the Free and the United Presbyterian Churches 
 in Scotland, it is undoubtedly the duty of each to originate a pro- 
 posal to the other, with a view to a fuller measure of present 
 co-operation, and the ultimate incorporation of the two bodies. 
 Inasmuch as the difference of opinion that prevails in the two 
 bodies, and is felt to be an obstacle to more perfect co-operation 
 and actual union, refers chiefly, if not solely, to the duty of the civil 
 magistrate in regard to religion, any proposal that may be made 
 ought to embrace the following suggestions : — 
 
 I. That it is the duty of the Government to recall and cancel imme- 
 diately and entirely all sums of public money that have been granted 
 in any \\a.y to the agencies of the Church of Rome. The apathy of 
 evangelical I'rotestants in regard to the Popish tendency and pro- 
 gress of the civil power is most criminal and niosl alarming. 
 
 II. That it is the duty of Government to abandon, as unprin- 
 cipled and pernicious, the whole system of Privy Council grants 
 in aid to schools of any and every religious character; and also, 
 since education ought not be severed from religion, and since one 
 gi-eat obstacle to a national system of education is the manifold divi- 
 sions of the Protestant Evangelical Church, that it is the duty of the 
 two bodies to seek, with an especial view to a system of National 
 Education, not only to be united with each other, but also to extend 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 289 
 
 a scriptural uniou among all those whom they regard as their Chris- 
 tian bretiiren. 
 
 ni. That it is the dut}' of Government to discontiuue all connection 
 with the idolatries of the people of India ; and, for this purpose, to 
 alienate all the revenues that are set apart to the support of idola- 
 trous worship under Government sanction, whether this sanction be 
 found in grants of j)ublic money either under heathen or Christian 
 rulers, or be manifested in the fact that Government has acted as 
 trustees or guardians of these revenues from time immemorial, — 
 reserving always the life interest of present incumbents. The hal- 
 lucination that prevails in the public mind on this topic is most deep 
 and marvellous. There is no possible way in which Government 
 connection with Indian idolatry can cease, but by the alienation of 
 these revenues. No other method has been pointed out. The pub- 
 lic zeal, then, that vociferoiish' calls for severing the vessel of the 
 State from the dang(!rons and doomed hulk of Hindoo idolatry, while 
 at the same time it confesses its inability to i)oiut out the way in 
 which this is to be done, and shrinks from the very mention of the 
 only measure by which it can be effected, can scarcely be anything 
 else but an object of derision to our better informed statesmen. 
 
 IV. That it is the duty of Government to enforce on the whole 
 community in this country (and so far as practicable on professing 
 Christians in India) cessation from all secular labour throughout the 
 entire Sabbath-day ; and es])ecially to secure, in connection with the 
 executive departments of the State, the Sabbath's unbroken rest, — as 
 lor example,' by the di.scontinuance of Sunday mail trains. The buttle 
 about the .sanctity of the Sabbath, like most of our religious battles, 
 has been one of outworks. These Sunday mails have so long accus- 
 tf)med us to a (lama;;('d day of rest, and liave so familiarised the com- 
 munity to the insertion of the wedge, that only tlie grossest outrages 
 now startle, and these startle only a few. The Sabbath post has 
 run so long unchallenged by the Christian Church in this land, and 
 is now .so generally connived at, if not approved, that our efforts in de- 
 fence of the L(;rd's-(lay are ])araly,<e(l, and our arguments and appeals 
 fall to the ground freipiently like pointless arrows or spent shot. 
 
 But supposing that these four suggestions were adopted aud acted 
 
 T 
 
290 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 upon, not only by the Christian community, but by the governors 
 of the huid (that they are not acted upon is oui' indelible disgrace), 
 the work is less tlian half done. Government must knoAv what to 
 do, as well as what to leave undone. Hence — 
 
 V. It is the duty of the ministers, and elders, and members, of the 
 two bodies, to endeavour, by means of an unprejudiced rcperusal of 
 the word of God, by mutual explanations and friendly conferences, 
 and above all by seeking an eiFusion of the Holy Ghost, the Spiiit 
 of Truth, in answer to continued supplications, to come to be of one 
 mind and of one accord in those things in which they are now un- 
 happily' otherwise minded. 
 
 VI. As to a basis of future negotiations and hamony, reference 
 may be made to the following statements in the Testimony of the 
 United Associate Synod of the Secession Church, adopted in 1827, 
 namely, — " The Chmx-h and the State are entu-ely distinct, capable of 
 existing without the slightest intrusive interference with the proper 
 province of each, and ought not so to interfere." And again, — " The 
 Church and the State owe mutual duties to each other, and, acting 
 according to their sphere, may be signally subsen'icnt to each other's 
 welfare." For it might be granted, on the one hand, that it is not the 
 dutj' of the Civil Magistrate to provide temporal maintenance for the 
 pastors of Christian congregations ; and on the other hand, that it 
 is not true, when stated without any qualification, that Government, 
 as sticJi, have nothing to do with religion. 
 
 YII. It onl}' remains to add, that the two bodies should, in the 
 meantime, resolve and practically endeavour, through Diviue grace, 
 that whereto tliey have already attained, they shall walk by the 
 same rule, and mind the same thing. 
 
 The i)lan of procedure thus indicated seems to us to be one wliich, 
 if acted upon, will extricate this empire from its present national 
 perplexities, and save the churches from participating in the guilt 
 and doom of idolatry. Popery, and infidelity. To take an example, 
 there is, to an attentive observer, a double inconsistency in the 
 recent demonstrations elicited, by the jjublication of Lord Stanley's 
 despatch, enforcing the exclusion of the Bible from the Govern- 
 ment schools in India. 
 
ESSAYS ON* CHRISTIAN UXIOX. 
 
 291 
 
 In the first place, this is only one flagrant act among many, in 
 which the authority of God's word is openly set at defiance, and the 
 hononr of God's name trampled in the dust by the Government of 
 Great Britain. Now it is a principle as clear as it is sure, that if 
 any individual will come forward as the champion of right in one in- 
 stance, and wink hard at unrighteousness in another; if he will 
 reprove the drunkard, and let the liar go from his presence unre- 
 buked ; if he will defend the Bible, and let the Sabbath be polluted ; 
 his zealous testimony in such cases really goes for very little, except 
 to bring down reproach upon his own weak and vacillating endea- 
 vours. The witness-bearing of the Christian community against the 
 profanity and godlessness of the Government, is so imperfect and so 
 fickle ; it is so arbitrary and so wayward ; it swallows so many 
 ; amels and strains at so many gnats ; that in the loss of its consis- 
 ;cucy and earnestness, it loses much power, and fi-equently all 
 respect. 
 
 In the second place, it is unmanly and unchristian to go to any 
 one, and chide him harshly for doing wrong, while you profess your- 
 self unable to tell him what is right. This is the very course which 
 is frequently pursued by the Cliristian people of this land towards 
 their rulers. It was boasted again and again, that the movement 
 against Lord Stanley's despatch was not denominational, but catho- 
 lic ; that both Churchmen and Voluntaries could with propriety act 
 in harmony together on such a question. Let us, then, snppose 
 that the petition agreed to by both parties is taken to his Lordship. 
 His Lordship might say, " You tell me what I must not do ; please 
 to tell me what I must do. Yon may assume a negative position in 
 vouchsafing your advice ] I cannot do so, but must take a positive 
 position in action. The Government may, indeed, say nothing 
 officially about any religious books at all. But, then, if we leave 
 each teacher to take his own way in teaching religion, we virtually 
 sanction what each docs. For so long as the schools are supported 
 and superintended by Goveniment, we arc really responsible for 
 every book that is used, and for every lesson tliat is taught. In 
 fact, tlierefore, .so long as we have schools, we arc under tlic most 
 unavoidable necessity to sanction all religions, or only one, or none 
 
292 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 at all. AVlien we sanction all religions, vre are assailed as latitudi- 
 narian and sceptical. If we were to sanction none, we should be 
 accused of rankest infidolitj-. If we supported only one reliction, we 
 should be sneered at and distrusted, as intolerant. Pray, then, what 
 are we to do ? " 
 
 The plain and only answer to this question is, that Goremment 
 must either abandon the worlv of education entirely, or, in can-ying 
 on that work, must sanction the one true religion, and it alone. 
 And until a majority, at least, of earnest men in this country can 
 agree what that one true religion is, and be united visibly as one 
 man for its defence and its ditfusiou, there is no possible means of 
 unravelling the present tangled skein of our national affairs. For, 
 to pursue the argument in the special case already noticed, it may 
 be m-ged upon the Voluntary or Dissenting Cliurchman, who has 
 signed the petition to remove the ban from the Bible in India, 
 " Suppose your petition were granted, and the interdict were re- 
 moved. Government then, really and virtually, sanctions the teach- 
 ing of the Bible, — that is, takes the money of the Hindoos to instnict 
 them in Christianity, which, according to your principles, is the 
 essence of persecution." In the same way, it may be objected to 
 the State Churchman, " You support this petition, indeed ; but it 
 expresses only a fractional part of your demands. You think Govern- 
 ment oiitjht to do a great deal more in connection with this very 
 business ; 3'ou are, therefore, guilty of a culpable reserve." Hence 
 it would aj^pcar that, in such circumstances, and on such a question, 
 to approach Government with onli/ a negative petition, is to avoid 
 the real difficulty ; it is to profess to be wise, and, in truth, to be 
 weak and foolish ; it is to attempt to instruct our rulers, when we 
 need to be instructed ourselves. 
 
 In settling the question of education in India, Government must 
 act on the Voluntary i)riuciplc, or on its contrary. Those who hold 
 either of these two conflicting principles to be scriptural, do ■wTong 
 to approach Government on a question whose solution necessarily 
 involves these princi/jles, while they keep each his own principle in 
 abeyance, in order to act for tlie moment with those who deny it. 
 The Voluntary is iucousisteut and culpable in petitioning Govera- 
 
ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAN UNION". 
 
 293 
 
 ment on a point which his peculiar principle goes to settle : for he 
 sets aside that rerv principle at the verv time he should bring it 
 forward, that he mar co-operate with those who totally reject it. 
 The same remark holds true of the Churchman. Instead of bringing 
 forward his darling ecclesiastical principle to secure a thorough reli- 
 gious education for Hindustan, he shelves it at the very instant he 
 should table it, and that for the sinister purpose of securing a trivial 
 victory in company with those who heartily oppose his pet dogma. 
 The Government, therefore, have reason to say to both parties, — 
 " Ton are combining together in a factious manner against our pro- 
 ceedings. You have no right on such a question to keep back your 
 denominational or sectarian principles ; for those principles are inter- 
 woven with the whole texture of the matter in hand. It is incon- 
 sistent with your Christian profession, and the avowed sacredness of 
 these principles, to pnt them under a bushel, especially w hen that is 
 done at the very crisis when they should be made obtrusive and 
 prominent, and when the result of such a coui-se on your part is not 
 to help us in our arduous work, or remove obstructions ; but when 
 its obvious eflFect is only to complicate and retard the business of the 
 State, and perplex her Majesty's Ministers. Xo, gentlemen, if you 
 wish us to act consistently with Cliristian principles, be so good as 
 to shew us the example." 
 
 Moreover, it is proper not only to notice the fact, that the peti- 
 tioners against Lord Stanley's despatch, while professing themselves 
 to be the reprovers of the Government, cannot conceal tlicir incom- 
 petency to direct and advise as to a positive action, it will be also 
 instructive to inquire more particularly into the explanation of this 
 fact. The petitioners form two clas.ses, as we have seen. It is only 
 in their conjuined capacity, that they cannot give a definite and dis- 
 tinct direction for tlie future. Separately, each feels perfectly con- 
 fident and competent to pronounce a judgment. But here is the 
 secret, their respective judgments are in fair collision. Their com- 
 mon incompetency thus resolves itself into a deep and direct contra- 
 diction. Of the two j)arties each professes to know, clearly and 
 surely, what should be done ; but their respective dogmas are 
 mutually destructive. And to make matters as bad as possible, 
 
294 
 
 DIAIiOGUE IV. 
 
 both parties dogmatically plead the authority of Sacred Scripture 
 for their incompatible and op})osiug doctrines. They have fiercely 
 contended with each other, and have been hurling against each 
 other's assertions the texts of God's holy word. How can those 
 who take such opposite views of the magistrate's duty, advise the 
 magistrate what to do ? If they were constituted magistrates them- 
 selves, they could not with these antagonistic principles govern the 
 nation for a month. And what is now to be speciallj' noticed, when 
 these conflicting views of a most important and urgent duty are 
 professedly based upon the Bible, the Bible is practically set at 
 variance with itself. Is this not an indignitj' and insult otfered to 
 the sacred volume, and offered, too, in the very house of its friends? 
 Is this not virtually dethroning the Bible from its supremacy ? A 
 great deal has been said, and well said, about the shameful incon- 
 sistency of the Government acknowledging itself to be Christian, 
 and then treating the Bible with insolent disparagement. Have we 
 not proved, that the self- constituted accusers of the Government, on 
 this very point, are in the very utterance of their accusation, as 
 palpably, if not as gi'ossly, inconsistent as Lord Stanley himself? 
 
 IV. — Dr Wardlaw's Essay. 
 
 Melancthon. — " While we insist upon conscientiousness, 
 we do plead for catholicity and union." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — Very good. But on what principle are 
 the two compatible ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " The principle on which fellow-christians, 
 entertaining different sentiments on points which do not 
 affect the foundation truths of Christianity, ought to 
 cherish a catholic spirit, and maintain free communion with 
 one another, is precisely that on which Paul enjoins the 
 maintenance of communion between the two parties — the 
 strong and the weak — in the Church at Kome. It is 
 ' Wardlaw's Essay, p. 318. 
 
ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAN DSIOX. 
 
 205 
 
 simply this, — the mutual concession amongst them of the 
 claim of conscientiousness. It is not that the weak should 
 conform to the practices of the strong, or the strong to 
 those of the weak ; — it is not that any one of either party 
 should surrender his judgment to another — that the strong 
 should allow ' his liberty to be judged by another man's 
 conscience' — or that the weak should surrender their con- 
 scientious scruples to what appeared to them the unwar- 
 ranted liberties of the strong; — it is, that ' every man 
 should be fully persuaded in his own mind.' " ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — I never thought the Protestant Bible to 
 be so scandalously wrong. Our Bible represents the 
 Apostle as exhorting all to he fully persuaded in tlieir own 
 minds ; he never says anything to imply, that those who 
 opposed each other in sentiment were both fully persuaded 
 in their own minds. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — If Paul had inculcated the pi-inciplc 
 which is here alleged to be his, namely, that the abettor 
 of error is equally conscientious as the adherent of truth, 
 I should on that very ground have questioned his claim to 
 divine inspiration. 
 
 Theophilus. — Stay, my friends, there may be some mis- 
 take here. You would never deny that an individual who, 
 from his general character, is entitled to be called and 
 regarded as a conscientious upright man, may yet be in- 
 volved in several serious errors. 
 
 Melanctlion. — That assertion is not what I mean ; for it 
 would be of no avail in the present argument. Aly opinion 
 may be stated thus : — " There is one form in which, espe- 
 cially, justice to our fellow-believers demands the exercise 
 ' Wardlaw's Essay, p. .'527. 
 
296 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 of a Ciltholic spirit, — I mean confidence in their integrity, — 
 in regard to tliose parts of the mind and will of our com- 
 mon master on which they differ from us. This is very 
 commonly designated charity," ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This is plain speaking. But if two 
 Christians can take the same text of their Bible, and ex- 
 tract from it contradictory and conflicting meanings, and 
 then exercise " confidence in each other's integrity " in 
 regard to that very matter, Christian integrity is weak 
 and worthless as a broken reed. 
 
 Bellarmine. — To identify Christian charity with such a 
 spurious Protestant integrity is downright impiety. 
 
 MelanctJion. — But if we look again to the Epistle to the 
 Romans (ch. xiv.), we shall find, that " on the single 
 ground of a mutual admission of each other's conscien- 
 tiousness in their respective views and practices, they are 
 both enjoined to maintain the cordiality of Christian com- 
 munion : — ' Let every man be fully persuaded in his own 
 mind.' " ^ For this reason : — " In every case it Avas neces- 
 sary that there should be this ' full persuasion,' else the 
 particular case would have come under the condemnation 
 involved in the apostolic maxim — ' Whatsoever is not of 
 faith ' (that is, whatsoever is not done from conviction, 
 from a conscience satisfied of duty) ' is sin.' " ^ 
 
 Tlieophilus. — This reason assumes, that whenever we 
 do a thing " of faith," we are always " fully persuaded 
 in our mind ;" and that the Apostle used the two expres- 
 sions as indicating exactly the same thing. This assump- 
 tion seems to us to be more than doubtful. There is, we 
 think, a plain practical distinction between believing or 
 1 Wardlaw's Essay, p. 290. » lb. p. 324. » lb. pp. 327, 328. 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 297 
 
 thinking an action to be right, and being fully and tho- 
 roughly and satisfactorily persuaded that it is right. 
 Indeed, if there were not, there would be no room for the 
 Apostle's exhortation, which is evidently intended to warn 
 us against that easy belief, and slip-shod conviction, on 
 matters of duty, that are so common, and to stir us up to 
 a wakeful and searching sincerity. 
 
 Besides, your argument, as we understand it, goes on 
 the supposition that it is true, not only that " whatsoever 
 is not of faith is sin," but also that whatsoever is of faith 
 is not sin. For you reason thus : if either of the two par- 
 ties were acting, not of faith, or unconscicntiously, that 
 party would be doing what is sinful ; and, of course, the 
 two parties could not admit each other's conscientiousness 
 and innocence. But if both parties are acting of faith, 
 then they arc both free from sin, and consequently can 
 respect each other's conscientiousness. 
 
 Now, if you maintain that everything that is of faith is 
 not sin, that is, that when a man believes what he is doing 
 to be right, it is on that account to be held to be right, 
 you shake the temple of morals to its very foundation. 
 Nothing can be more palpably extravagant than to invert 
 the Apostle's words, and contend that a man's opinions 
 justify his unrighteous deeds. While the Apostle's state- 
 ment is ccpially weighty and evident, that if a man act 
 contrary to his own opinions, even though they be easily 
 adopted and loosely held, and erroneous too, he is verily 
 guilty. 
 
 But now if we distinguish between a full persuasion and 
 a bare belief— hotw em a conviction which is the result of 
 intelligent, patient, and upright investigation, and a con- 
 
298 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 ventional credence that has been accepted on insufficient, 
 though plausible, grounds — between the plerophory of a 
 sound and vigilant understanding, and the presumption of 
 a slumbering and morbid temper of mind — we shall not 
 only perceive the necessity that called for the exhortation, 
 " Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind," 
 but we may also find a deeper meaning than before in the 
 maxim — whatsoever is not of faith is sin." They, at 
 least, who would regard as the same the act that is of 
 faith, and the act that is of a full persuasion, would be 
 constrained to acknowledge this conclusion, that to act 
 from opinions lightly adopted, and to be guided by senti- 
 ments hastily embraced, is sin, — such a mode of proceeding 
 being opposed to the precept, " prove all things ; hold 
 fast that which is good." 
 
 Further, the exhortation to be "fully persuaded" is 
 unworthy of a heathen sage, not to say an inspired 
 Apostle, if it be conceded that a man may be fully per- 
 suaded, and yet be in error on the very point on which he 
 has attained this full persuasion. But, perhaps, you can 
 favour us with a definition of conscientiousness. 
 
 Blelancthon. — It is " a sincere and earnest desire to 
 know the mind and the will of the Lord, and to hold as 
 truth whatever he teaches, and practise as duty whatever 
 he enjoins. The term, indeed, defines itself. It consists 
 in feeling the conscience hound by every intimation of that 
 mind and will." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — But your definition is loose at the very 
 point where it should be accurate, so fiir as the present 
 argument is concerned. Granting that a man in his 
 * Wardlaw's Essay, p. 29G. 
 
ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAX UXION. 
 
 299 
 
 general character and conduct is conscientious in the sense 
 now given to the term, does it follow that he is so in every 
 particular act of his life ? Take a special point, and can 
 it be said that a man has " a sincere and earnest desire to 
 know the mind and the will of the Lord " on that point, if 
 he does not examine that point with all diligence and 
 lionesty ? Or will you affirm that men may thus " prove " 
 one of the " all things," and yet fail in " holding fast 
 that which is good?" While an individual is conscien- 
 tiously proving something with the view of holding fast 
 that which is good, may the good elude his grasp, and his 
 hand fill witli ashes ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — Allow me to answer these questions in the 
 words of the Essayist. He first specifies a subject, namely, 
 what relates to the constitution and ordinances of the 
 Christian Church, and declares that, in regard to that 
 subject, there ought, among the true disciples of Jesus, 
 to be conscientiousness, — that is, they should be as much 
 in earnest in seeking to ascertain their Divine Master's 
 will respecting this as respecting anything else." ' A few 
 pages afterwards he remarks : — " It is when any one 
 embraces a sentiment difi^ercnt from our own, and, it may 
 be, from a favourite one of our own, that the spirit of 
 catholicity is put to the test. That is the truly catholic 
 spirit, which, instead of immediately frowning such a one 
 away, and banishing him beyond the pale of our inter- 
 course, continues to give him the heart of love and the 
 liand of fellowship, for the sake of ' the truth as it is in 
 Jesus,' wliich he still retains, and for the sake of the 
 very conscientiousness, which, as we reckon it a virtue in 
 ' Wardlaw's Essay, p. 298. 
 
300 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 ourselves, we cannot but approve of his holding sacred 
 too." 1 
 
 Here, then, we have a case where two individuals are 
 supposed to examine a special topic conscientiously, that 
 is, they have been " as much in earnest in seeking to 
 ascertain their Divine Master's will respecting it as 
 respecting anything else." Notwithstanding this earnest 
 search they come to irreconcileable and conflicting con- 
 clusions, and the true catholic spirit finds the fulcrum of 
 its operation in the persuasion that these two parties shall 
 each regard his own and his neighbour's conscientiousness 
 as virtues, and hold them sacred ! ! The conscience or con- 
 scientiousness of one of them has most certainly proved 
 itself a false guide ; and if the other be no better, Avhat 
 can we know ? Do heretics get hold of " the truth as 
 it is in Jesus" without conscientiousness? Or how can 
 they trust their conscientiousness once, if they cannot 
 trust it always? Save me from the infidelity of Pro- 
 testantism. 
 
 Melancthon. — Are there, then, no such things as " in- 
 voluntary mistakes ? " ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert Can there be a mistake without thought- 
 lessness ? I never heard of a mistake that did not imply 
 carelessness of some sort. Would you affirm that con- 
 scientiousness may land us in an " involuntary mistake," 
 and thus deceive us ? If so, you arc more a sceptic than 
 I am. 
 
 Melancthon. — " We must have no charity for errors 
 that are subversive of the fundamental principles of the 
 gospel." ^ 
 
 1 Wardlaw'i Essay, p. :30G. » lb. p. 294. ^ lb. p. 31C. 
 
ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAN UNIOX. 
 
 301 
 
 Bellannine. — But for minor errors, the venial sins of 
 Protestantism, you would have charity ! Justice to the 
 erring conscientiousness, we were told, is charity ; and 
 charity to the conscientious error is, I suppose, justice ! 
 
 Melancthon. — Don't misunderstand me. " Would you 
 think your cliild had correct conceptions of the way in 
 which his love to you should he expressed, if he felt 
 himself at liberty to pick and choose amongst your 
 orders, doing such as he reckoned worth the doing, and 
 leaving others undone, — saying to himself, These are 
 but little matters, and therefore it is of no great moment 
 whether they are done or not? If a parent, you would 
 hardly, I ween, be satisfied with your child's taking the 
 liberty of so reasoning and so acting ; nor, if he did 
 take it, would you think his heart quite in the right 
 place." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — The case of such a child is exactly 
 your own case, when you talk of extending charity to 
 some errors, and withholding it from others ; or, in other 
 words, when you cannot get far enough away from the 
 abettor of one kind of error, while as to the abettor of 
 another sort of error, you cannot take him close enough 
 to your bosom. 
 
 Bellarraine. — And your inconsistency is truly striking, 
 and even ludicrous, when we consider your own mode of 
 reasoning, namely, tliat, " in a certain sense," attention to 
 the smaller (command) is a stronger and a surer test of 
 affection than the most zealous execution of the greater." * 
 Therefore, " in a certain sense," you should have more 
 forbearance to the errors of us, whom you regard as anti- 
 ' Wardlaw's Essay, p. 302. ' lb. p. 303. 
 
302 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 christ, or to those of profone unbelievers, than to those of 
 your Protestant brother denominationahsts. 
 
 Melancthon. — But you are speaking of one thing, and 
 I am speaking of another ; and I have reason to main- 
 tain, that, " if it be at all a correct principle, that the less 
 in intrinsic magnitude, and the less in imperative obliga- 
 tion, the prescribed actions are, considered in themselves, 
 the clearer and the stronger is the proof of love in the 
 conscientious doing of them, — those Christians had need 
 to set about the dut}' of self-examination, as to the indif- 
 ference with which they treat all questions relative to the 
 outward order of the Church of Christ." ' 
 
 Theophilus. — Is this same principle, whose soundness 
 we admit, and in your application of which we acquiesce, 
 not equally potent against some of your former positions ? 
 Does it not follow, that the error of the atheist or the 
 Romanist is not such a clear and strong proof of the 
 absence of love, as the error of the denominationahst ? 
 Whether are those Christians who treat certain questions 
 as indifferent, declining to answer them in any shape, or 
 those Christians who answer them erroneously, and by 
 adhering to their errors rend the Church, the more 
 worthy of blame, and the more obviously convicted of 
 defective or perverted love ? Are you, then, prepared to 
 take up the position, that you can trust your conscien- 
 tiousness in examining the evidences of the Bible, but not 
 in interpreting its pages ? This would save you from the 
 abyss of unbelief only to consign you to the bondage of 
 Rome. Or will you resort to the subterfuge, that you can 
 trust your conscientiousness in understanding one chapter 
 Wardlaw's Essay, p. 304. 
 
ESSAYS OS CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 303 
 
 of the Bible, but not in understanding the next to it ? 
 This may preserve you from the fangs of spiritual 
 tyranny, only, however, to leave you on the very yerge 
 of scepticism ; or rather, perhaps, it fixes you on the 
 boundary line between the domain of despotism and that 
 of infidelity, where you will constantly be exposed, without 
 any adequate protection, to the shafts of both parties, and be 
 too ready to enhst them by turns on your side to defend 
 yourself against the other. Such is the wretched policy 
 Protestantism has too often been constrained to adopt, as 
 we have seen in the special case before us. 
 
 There is only one way of avoiding this evil. There is 
 only one plan by which we may escape the danger and 
 the disgrace of hurrying to the Vatican to borrow Roman 
 shields to quench the fiery darts of infidelity, and at 
 another time, betaking ourselves to the waste howling 
 desert of scepticism to fly from the fierce assaults of 
 inquisitors and cardinals. It is this, — acknowledging and 
 acting upon the principle, that the conscientiousness, which 
 alone is worthy of the name, will never deceive us, either 
 in examining the evidences of Christianity, or in interpret- 
 ing any, even the smallest portion, of its inspired record. 
 Such a conscientiousness does not exclude ignorance, but 
 it would certainly exclude error. Acknowledging this 
 principle would make us all thoroughly ashamed of our 
 denominational schisms ; acting upon this principle would 
 speedily and surely heal them. 
 
 Melancthon. — " The case is simple. Wc say we are 
 conscientious; and we insist upon having credit for it. 
 Have we, then, any peculiar right to claim for ourselves 
 that which wc withhold from others ? Have we a monopoly 
 
304 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 of conscientiousness ? Our fellow-Christians assure us they 
 are conscientious ; what better title have we to be beheved 
 by them than they have to be believed by us?" ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Do you admit the Papist to be as con- 
 scientious as the Protestant? 
 
 Bellarmine. — Do you allow the infidel to be as con- 
 scientious as the Christian ? 
 
 Theophilus. — They who are conscientious have a mo- 
 nopoly of truth ; and they who embrace the truth intelli- 
 gently have a monopoly of conscientiousness. To allow 
 two men — we care not who they are — to have equal con- 
 scientiousness in the same matter, while yet one of them is 
 in error as appears by their mutual opposition, just because 
 they both claim conscientiousness, is that sort of charity 
 which " thinketh no evil," even when the evil is reeking 
 and fuming before it. 
 
 MelanctJwn. — " Suppose it admitted, that there can be 
 no such thing as perfectly innocent error, Is it safe, — nay, 
 is it consistent with the sclf-diffidence and humility of the 
 Christian character, — to assume our own infallibility, — not 
 our own exclusive conscientiousness merely, — but the abso- 
 lute impossibility of the error lying with us ; as if we, of 
 all Christians on earth, were altogether beyond the reach 
 of any perverting or biassing influence." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — " The self-diffidence and humility" that 
 aUcays shrinks from the assumption of conscientiousness, 
 and consequently from the assertion of truth, is the sure 
 characteristic, not of the Christian, but of the sceptic. 
 
 Tlieophilus. — It is one thing to maintain that in a given 
 dispute or controversy, the one or other of the parties must 
 1 AVardlaw's Essay, p. 331. = lb. p. 332. 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UXION. 
 
 30o 
 
 be wrong and blameable, because tbey contradict each 
 other ; and quite another thing to decide who is the guilty- 
 party. Xow here is the scandalous disgrace and ruinous 
 folly of our Protestant schisms, that we hastily, and rashly, 
 and boastingly, come into colhsion with each other in inter- 
 preting the Scriptures ; and we come into collision in this 
 temper, just because we think collision may take place 
 without blame on either side. Whereas if this truth were 
 diffused among us, and felt in its searching power, that 
 such collisions as issue in the organization and maintenance 
 of different denominations, cannot occur without a want of 
 conscientiousness on the one side or the other, wc should 
 come to rc2;ard the Bible with far hio-her and holier reve- 
 rence, and our brother-christians with a more tender and 
 warm affection, A colhsion of sentiment, and a schism in 
 the Church, instead of being considered as a matter of 
 course, or an inevitable event, or a thing to glory in, 
 would excite the most poignant Christian grief, and every 
 true-hearted disciple would labour and deny himself to the 
 last, in order to prevent the advent of this ecclesiastical 
 plague, and the occurrence of this moral earthquake, as 
 well as to repair their ravages when nothing could arrest 
 their work of desolation. 
 
 Melancthon. — Well, argue as you may, it is abundantly 
 obvious, that " while there are conscientious Presbyterians, 
 there must be a Presbyterian denomination ; and while 
 there are conscientious Independents, there must bo an 
 Independent denomination ; it being impossible that the 
 same clmrch can be governed upon both the Presbyterian 
 and the Congregational model." ' 
 
 * Wardlaw's Essay, ]). 
 u 
 
306 
 
 DIALOGCi: IV. 
 
 Theoplulm. — When these two systems of church govern- 
 ment are dispassionately examined, and extreme views on 
 either side are excluded, it is by no means easy to find a 
 plain and important principle, which is denied by the one 
 party and afiirmed by the other. We do not then admit 
 that Presbyterianism and Congregationalism are in them- 
 selves utterly or practically irreconcileable. K they are, 
 only one of them can possibly be scriptural. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Let us, for the sake of argument, suppose 
 that they are, as aflBrmed by our friend here, totally in- 
 compatible ; I should hke to hear his definition of a con- 
 scientious Independent. 
 
 Melancthon. — There is a statement in the preface to 
 the treatise on " Congregational Independency," ' which 
 may answer your question. " Had the case been one 
 that depended, at every turn, on minute etymological and 
 exegetical distinctions, I should have felt my ground too 
 narrow and tremulous to warrant confidence. All that I 
 have aimed at, and all, therefore, that my readers have to 
 look for, is a plain, straightforward, Bible argument ; re- 
 quiring no more, in order to a clear apprehension of it, 
 than an ordinary amount of discriminative sagacity, and 
 of its patiently thoughtful application." 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Your meaning is, if I have not entirely 
 misapprehended your language, that if a Christian will 
 read his Xcw Testament, or your treatise on church 
 government, with " an ordinarv amount of discriminative 
 sagacity, and of its patiently thoughtful application," or 
 simply, with common honesty and dihgcnce, he will be 
 neither an Episcopalian, nor a Presbyterian, but a Con- 
 By Dr Wardlaw, Glasgow, 1848, pp. vii. viiL 
 
ESSAYS OX CHRISTIAN CXION. 
 
 307 
 
 gregational Independent. I am altogether at a loss to 
 perceive how, after such an explicit statement, you can 
 with any pretence to consistency, speak of a sincere or 
 conscientious Presbyterian or Episcopalian ; for they are 
 men who hold to ce.rtain opinions, which they maintain 
 the Bible sanctions ; and now you have affirmed of these 
 men, that they have adopted these opinions and contended 
 for them to the rending of the Church, while all the time 
 they have not consulted the Scriptures on these points 
 with ordinary integrity ! 
 
 Bellarmine. — Besides, you have never brought, you can- 
 not bring, a hea^ner charge against Socinian heretics, or 
 against ourselves, than what you have now brought against 
 Episcopalians and Presbyterians, namely, putting a mean- 
 ing on the words of the Bible which they will not bear, 
 or bandaging the eyes not to see their true import. And 
 if they err on a minor point, and we on a graver one, that 
 does not exculpate them ; it rather, if you adhere to one of 
 your former arguments, enhances their guilt. To treat 
 fJiem, therefore, as your fellow-christians, and us, as repro- 
 bates, is capricious and offensive in the extreme. 
 
 Melancthon. — Waiving theoretical difficulties, I am free 
 to acknowledge, that " if a Presbyterian and a Congrcga- 
 tionalist, or a Baptist and a Pa^dobaptist, object to sitting 
 down with each other at the table of the Lord, one of two 
 inferences must follow, — either they must, on account of 
 their difference of sentiment as to the government or rites 
 of the Church, question each other's Christianity ; or it 
 must be, not as believers — disciples — Christians, but as 
 Presbyterians or Congregat'ionalists, Baptists or Pajdo- 
 bi^jtists, that they, respectively, consider themselves as en- 
 
308 
 
 DIALOGUE IV. 
 
 titled to a seat at the feast ! And is there any one bearing 
 the name of Jesus now to be found, who holds and will 
 defend so anti-scriptural and narrow-minded a position ? 
 Let it be remembered, reader, it is not oi<r table, — it is 
 the Lord's table ; and shall we, then, consider ourselves as 
 entitled to shut the door of admission to it against any 
 whom, there is every reason to beheve, the Divine Master 
 of the feast would himself receive ? Is there no presump- 
 tion in this ? It is not a Presbyterian table, or an Inde- 
 pendent table — it is a Christian table." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — This is precisely my argument against de- 
 nominationalism. Whilst different denominations do exist, 
 intercommunion among their respective members can only 
 be occasional and rare. As soon as Protestants cease to 
 make it the rule of their ordinary procedure to take their 
 places at the eucharist, not as Presbyterians, or as Epis- 
 copalians, or as Independents, &:c., but as Christians, from 
 that moment denominationalism becomes extinct. If there 
 be few or none who will " defend so anti-scriptural and 
 narrow-minded a position," certain it is, that the Pro- 
 testant Church, as a body, has made it, practically, her 
 dwelling-place. If some do, on a special occasion, get up 
 an inf^r-communion, and then once in a lifetime, perhaps, 
 or in a decade, sit down at the Lord's table, as Cliristians, 
 this fact only manifests more clearly, and rebukes more 
 sharply, the habitual and universal sii. of the Protestant 
 community in this matter. It is plain, therefore, as lan- 
 guage can make it, that so long as your separate denomi- 
 nations confront each other, it is worse than empty talk 
 for Protestantism to protend to have the Lords table. 
 1 Wardlaw's Essay, pp. 338, 339. 
 
ESSAYS ON CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 309 
 
 Each petty ecclesiastical caste, each sectarian clan, has, 
 and has no more its own tabic. An impartial onlooker 
 can see Presbyterian tables, and Independent tables, and 
 60 forth, in rank abundance, and in envious rivalry, if not, 
 as aforetime, in fierce defiance, of each other. Where, 
 then, can you find a Christian table, but within the pale 
 of the holy Catholic Church ? 
 
 Lord Herbert — That is not the present question, else I 
 should give you an answer. As to the point in hand, your 
 statement indicates the actual and morbid condition of 
 Protestantism, judged by its own profession. To be told 
 by Protestants, in the same connection, that there must 
 be this and the other denomination, because there is this 
 and the other conscientious contradiction of sentiment, 
 savours of that sort of infidelity which turns conscience 
 into a laughing-stock. 
 
DIALOGUE V. 
 
 THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 1. — No Compromise. 
 
 Melancthon. — The Evangelical Alliance is, doubtless, one 
 of the greatest and happiest manifestations of Christian 
 union that the world has ever seen. 
 
 Bellarmine. — This will best appear by examining and 
 weighing some of its principles and proceedings. 
 
 Melancthon. — One of the principles of the Alhance may 
 be expressed in two words, " no compromise." 
 
 Lord Herbert. — That is, if I understand it aright, all par- 
 ies are resolved to adhere to their own peculiar opinions, 
 •)wever notorious it may be to the unbelieving world, as 
 ,0 are styled, that one-half of these opinions at least, 
 being contradicted by the other half, are false and anti- 
 christian. 
 
 Melancthon. — The principle may bo better explained 
 thus, in the words of one of the speakers ^ at the Liver- 
 pool Conference in 1845 : — " Since it must be a union in 
 iaith, it must be a union without compromise. I perfectly, 
 1 Hon. and Rev. B. W. Noel. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 311 
 
 and most heartily, concur in every word that has been 
 spoken upon that point to-day, — that no foundation of 
 union can be laid in the smallest compromise. Nay, I go 
 beyond Dr Cox. I am not prepared to sacrifice anything 
 important and essential ; but more than this, I fully agree 
 with my friend, Dr Wardlaw, that we cannot sacrifice an 
 iota of what we believe to be truth. I agree with Dr 
 Brown, in saying, that I am not even prepared to conceal 
 an iota of truth ; nor can I call on any of my brethren to 
 do what I would not do myself, abandon what he believes 
 it to be a duty which he owes to his God and Saviour to 
 maintain." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — It does strike me that the Alliance thus 
 described is rather a curious one. There are " important 
 and essential " contrarieties of sentiment held by its mem- 
 bers ; for if there were not, this flourish about " 7iot sacri- 
 ficing " them were surely out of place. Moreover, these 
 " important and essential " contradictions are felt to be 
 nearly and powerfully related to the object of the Alliance, 
 namely. Christian union, inasmuch as they possess an in- 
 herent and mighty tendency to dissension and division. 
 Else why speak of them at all at meetings of the Alliance? 
 Now, if not one iota of these is to be sacrificed, no, nor even 
 " concealed," what can such an association be, but the very 
 temple of discord, or a scene of real, though silent, com- 
 promise. If you will not " abandon what you believe to 
 bo a duty" how can the man who calls it a sin, and rc- 
 
 * Conference on Christian Union. Xarrativc of tlie Proceedings 
 of the Meetings held in Liverpool, October 1845. London. P. 23. 
 This document is refciTcd to afterwards, for Ijrcvity's salve, thus : 
 " Liverpool Conference." 
 
312 
 
 DIALOCrE V. 
 
 gards it as a serious obstacle to Christian union, fraternise 
 with Tou in efforts to promote that union, except on prin- 
 ciples which are hopelessly unintelligible, or which re- 
 semble those recognised and adopted by unscrupulous 
 partizans, who make religion and morality bend to the 
 accomplishment of their designs. 
 
 Bellarmine. — All the men concerned in the formation of 
 this AUiance were not so destitute of discernment and sen- 
 sibility as to be indifferent to this consideration. One said, 
 " he regarded ' no compromise,' as one of the Alliance 
 conditions, as our deepest humiUation ; because it neces- 
 sarily implies, that through the imperfection of our know- 
 ledge, and the weakness of faith in us, though studying 
 the Word of God, we have not come to the same mind, and 
 the same conclusions. And if we are at all acquainted 
 with the human heart, we must justly charge it on our 
 natural blindness, and our natural corruption. In this 
 respect, I believe our avowal of ' no compromise ' is our 
 weakness, our infirmity, our humiliation before God." ' 
 
 Melancthon. — " If called on, for the sake of Christian 
 union, to do anything, however small, which my Divine 
 Master interdicts me from doing, or to decline doing any- 
 thing which my Divine Master commands me to do, I 
 must decline doing the one, or refraining from the other ; 
 because I should then be adopting one of the principles of 
 that very system of superstition we seek to oppose, ' of 
 doing evil that good may come,' saying, ' my sin is for the 
 benefit of the Church.' " 2 
 
 * Rev. E. Bickerstcth. The Evangelical Alliance ; its Origin and 
 Development. By Dr Massic. London, 1847. Pp. 237, 238. 
 
 * Rev. R. Wardlaw, Liverpool Coufereuce, p. 10. 
 
THE ETAXGELICAL ALLIAXCE. 
 
 313 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Exactly so. And when one member 
 of this Alliance declares that his Divine Master forbids 
 him to do the rerv same thing, which another member 
 asserts that Divine Master commands, if there be no com- 
 promise of either of these conHicting views, it does seem 
 plain even to a sceptic that there is here a compromise of 
 truth. Both of these men know that one of them must be 
 wrong, and the foundation, " no compromise," just means 
 that he that is wrong shall adhere to his en-or. 
 
 Bellarmine. — With what consistency, then, could it be 
 said by a member of the Alliance, " I deeply feel that 
 truth alone can unite us ; and that, in proportion as we 
 get more truth, we get full and entire union.'" • K " no 
 compromise," as just explained, be one of the principles of 
 union, that union is endently based on a mixtm-c of truth 
 and error. IIow can it be said then, that " truth alone " 
 unites vou. How severe are the followintr remarks of the 
 same speaker. " Whether we will admit it or not, it is not 
 necessity, but sin, that keeps us asunder ; and to cherish 
 error on the one hand, and to stretch out the other for 
 union, is a solecism and contradiction." - 
 
 TTieophilus. — When the same honoured individual im- 
 mediately asks — Here, then, is our great difficulty — who 
 shall decide what is truth in things in which we differ, " — 
 had he and all his learned and pious associates forgotten 
 the Divine exliortation — '• Prove all things ; hold fast that 
 which is good;" and the Divine Promise — " Howbeit 
 when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you 
 into all truth?" If the Evangelical Alliance were, not 
 merely in profession, but in reality, based upon the passage 
 
 * Rev. E. Bickerstcth, Liverpool Couf., p. 11. * lb. p. 1 1. 
 
314 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 (Phil. ill. 15, 16) so frequently referred to, instead of pro- 
 claiming no compromise of contradictory sentiments, its aim 
 ■would have been to seek diligently and hopefully, for their 
 reconciliation. Till this watch-word of " no compromise" 
 be silenced, the reduction and reconciliation of differences 
 cannot even be attempted. Let Mr Thelwall's suggestion 
 be broadly denied, or fully carried into practice, namely, 
 "that if all entirely submitted to the Bible, some would 
 know less, and some would know more, but there would 
 be no direct collision. They should desire more and more 
 to subject their whole souls to the teaching of God's 
 Word, and to avoid bringing their own notions into the 
 Bible, or explaining away anything contrary to their 
 present circumscribed notions." ' 
 
 Melanctlion. — It is true that " we should not seek union 
 at the cost of requiring a man to forego anything which 
 he believes to be a part of the will of Christ, or to do 
 anything which he believes to be contrary to that will. I 
 fully concur in that sentiment, but fear we may somewhat 
 misapprehend each other in respect to it. Were we to 
 wait till we met with a system, in all respects, to our 
 judgment, I presume few of us would connect themselves 
 with any system existing. In order to our union, we 
 only need look on the systems of each other with the 
 same charity, wherewith we look each upon his ovm. I 
 look on this meeting with great interest, as the begin- 
 ning of that better tone of thinking and feeling, with 
 which Christ is about to bless the Church — of a sanctified 
 manhood — of the sort of mind, which fits a man for look- 
 ing at all sides of a truth — taking a comprehensive view 
 ' Liverpool Conference, p. 12. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 315 
 
 of it — giving all the parts their proper place and apportion- 
 ment. I think there has been a miserable one-sidedness 
 among us, in respect to questions of this nature. A one- 
 sided man is only half a man ; it is your whole man who 
 looks at truth all round. I would that we were smitten 
 with a passion for concord, as deep and habitual as our 
 passion for liberty. I see much beauty in a band of men, 
 capable of subordinating lesser things for agreement in 
 greater things, . . . Oh, sir, it is no time for us to allow 
 trifles to keep us asunder, to prevent us from acting in 
 concord in relation to the great interests we love." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — The mind of this speaker evidently felt 
 uncomfortable under the " no compromise principle." He 
 could not, of course, openly controvert it, but he adroitly 
 sets it aside. While modestly guarding against a mere 
 misapprehension of its meaning, he surely glides into a 
 contrary principle. lie certainly insinuates that what a 
 man believes to be the will of Christ, may not be the will 
 of Christ ; or that the man may attach far more conse- 
 quence to the matter in question than Christ does ; which 
 is just another form of stating the opposition between 
 Christ's will and the man's belief. He asks his associates 
 to look at " all sides of a truth, giving all the parts their 
 proper place and apportionment," which, as we have just 
 seen, the " no compromise" principle obviously prevents by 
 making error as good as truth. Having thus virtually 
 set aside this principle, he must substitute another in its 
 place ; and ho does so. " I see much beauty," he remarks, 
 " in a band of men, capable of subordinating lesser things 
 for agreement \n greater things;" " Oh, sir, it is no time 
 ' Dr Vaugban, Liverpool Confcreucc, pp. 13, 14. 
 
316 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 for trifles to keep us asunder." It is clear as a sunbeam 
 that men do not quarrel about anything, at the very time 
 hotli of them acknowledge it to be a trifle. If trifles only 
 have kept Protestants asunder, the talk about " no com- 
 promise" is ridiculous. Hence it is obvious that what 
 others regarded as " important and essential," this speaker 
 is disposed to characterise as " trifles," and " lesser 
 things." If it be the same differences among Protestants 
 to which he would apply his principle of " subordination," 
 and they would apply their principle of no compromise, 
 then the two principles are diverse and irreconcilable. If 
 the two principles be not applied to the same differences, 
 the one cannot be said even to prevent a misapprehension 
 of the other. Here then is a schism or rent in the very 
 foundation of this Alliance. 
 
 Bellarmine. — This view of the case is confirmed by the 
 remarks of another speaker, ' who is reported to have 
 said, " If we had the magnanimity, which, recollecting 
 that ' the kingdom of God is not meat and di'ink, but 
 righteousness, and peace, and joy,' would receive ' him 
 who is weak in the faith, but not to doubtful disputations' 
 — 'and the charity which suffereth long and is kind' — 
 we should all be in the fair way to an effective measure of 
 Christian union. Magnanimity ; because. Sir, conscien- 
 tiousness (which is an essential of Christianity) is only a 
 complete blessing, when it goes along with comprehen- 
 siveness of vision." ^ These last words seem to me to be 
 a soft way of saying, that misdirected conscientiousness, 
 which calls for a " no compromise" pledge, is a great evil. 
 To have spoken thus plainly might, perhaps, have dis- 
 ^ Dr James Hamilton. - Liverpool Conference, p. 15. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 317 
 
 turbed the harmony of the proceedings. But this would 
 have been better than to have wellnigh mangled both 
 truth and Divine authority at one stroke, as there is a 
 tendency to do in the same address. For in the next page 
 we read thus : " There are here jus divinura Congrega- 
 tionalists, f^piscopalians and Presbyterians ; but I hold 
 that we are all jus divinum unionists. I believe there is 
 as much authority, and as much urgency, in the command 
 to contend earnestly for Christian love, as to contend for 
 our denominational peculiarities." The Congregationalist 
 who claims Divine authority for his peculiarity should look 
 upon the Episcopalian who makes the same claim for his 
 specialty, and so on through all the Jus divinum sects, as 
 a very antichrist ; for he clothes a fancy of his own in the 
 august authority of heaven. This proceeding, to use 
 common but expressive phraseology, is " rank popery." 
 Jt is truly something like the acme of extravagance, to 
 behold a large number of these jus divinum denomina- 
 tionahsts meeting together, and, instead of denouncing 
 each other for committing one of the greatest crimes, "in 
 teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," which 
 they must verily believe that each other has been guilty 
 of, if they have any belief in truth at all, shaking hands 
 heartily and saying many prayers, and styling themselves 
 "jus divinum unionists." lias it not been shewn, that 
 " to contend for denominational peculiarities is to pour 
 cold, icy water upon (Christian love ?" If then there be as 
 much divine authority to contend for the one as for the 
 other, that authority is divided against itself. The same 
 speaker concluded thus : " Let us agree, not to give up 
 anything, but to go forth and do something." If the 
 
318 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 members of the Evangelical Alliance give up nothing, and 
 base their union upon the resolution to gix^e up nothing, 
 no, not even the errors which are proved to exist among 
 them by their palpable contradictions, their association 
 will be like the feet of Nebuchadnezzar's image, which 
 were " part of iron and part of clay." From any such 
 amalgamation of heterogeneous materials our holy Catholic 
 Church has little to fear. 
 
 Melancthon. — " What we have to do is surely this, — 
 to abandon the consideration of our peculiar systems, 
 whether true or false, as the ground of our association in 
 this brotherhood of Christian love and pious action. " ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — I do not wonder that you should aban- 
 don these peculiar systems as the ground of your union ; 
 I rather wonder you should have felt it necessary to make 
 such a disavowal. What surprises me is, that you consti- 
 tute the abandonment of the consideration of your peculiar 
 systems an indispensable condition of your association. Is 
 it not a fact, which has been acknowledged over and over 
 again, that these " •peculiar systems " have been a chief 
 cause in delaying the realization of " this brotherhood," 
 such as it is, and are also in powerful action at the present 
 time, cramping and distorting its development and pro- 
 gi'ess? Hence to contrive a scheme of Christian union, 
 which is avowedly based on a forgetfulness and disregard 
 of these peculiar systems, seems to resemble the conduct 
 of a pilot who, when called to steer his vessel through a 
 narrow rocky channel, should begin by throwing his chart 
 into the fire. 
 
 Melancthon. — " We must come together as brethren, 
 ' Dr Cox, Liverpool Conference, p. 20. 
 
TnE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 319 
 
 leaving our parties, not abandoning our systems ; retain- 
 ing our systems in the convictions of conscience, and the 
 firmness and consistency of rchgious action ; but, at the 
 same time, shaking hands and shaking hearts together, as 
 raen and as Christians, — determined to carry out the essen- 
 tial principles of New Testament Christianity in our own 
 conduct, and to carry them forth, as far as practicable, 
 everywhere, even to the ends of the earth." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — I confess I am puzzled to understand how 
 you can " leave your party," and, at the same time, " re- 
 tain your system in the convictions of conscience, and the 
 firmness and consistency of religious action." It is surely 
 impossible to do both. It may be an " essential principle" 
 o{ Protestant New Testament Christianity, to grant plenary 
 indulgences to self-styled conscientious errors, and allow 
 conflicting parties to be both equally right, and equally 
 upright, in each claiming a jus divinum ; but as such a 
 notion is opposed to common sense, not to speak of Chris- 
 tianity, to carry it to the ends of the earth, is only to make 
 it more ridiculous. 
 
 Melancthon. — I should urge divided Christians to culti- 
 vate union by such appeals as this : — " You differ about 
 forms of church government. Very well ; stand as far 
 apart one from the other as you will, and in proportion to 
 the real importance of these forms — step ! march ! You 
 agree in respect of your sin and misery ; your hope of 
 salvation ; your great object in this world; and your ever- 
 lasting home. Now como as close together as your agree- 
 ment therein demands. Why, sirs, these points on which 
 you agree are infinitely more grand and sublime than 
 ' Ur Cox, Liverpool Confurcucc, p. 
 
320 
 
 DULOGUE V. 
 
 those in which you differ. And if you unite, in proportion 
 to your agreement, it would be so closely, that your differ- 
 ence and distance would be reduced almost to an imper- 
 ceptible point." ' 
 
 Loj-d Herbert. — It is unnecessary to dwell on the incon- 
 sistency of representing any of your denominational differ- 
 ences as waning to an almost imperceptible point ; it has 
 been so frequently exposed. But do you not perceive that 
 your statement overlooks entirely the real difficulty of the 
 question ? It is your very differences on lesser matters 
 that stand in the way, and necessarily prevent you from 
 coming together so closely as your asserted agreement on 
 important matters demands. A neck of land can separate 
 two seas. As the land must be cut before the seas can 
 meet and mingle, so your contradictions must be removed 
 and cancelled to allow all the love you talk of to form one 
 ocean, or flow in one channel. But when will that be ? 
 
 TheopJiilus. — Sooner than some of us, perhaps, expect. 
 If it be once perceived and acknowledged generally, that 
 the resolution of our denominational contradictions is the 
 only road to the accomplishment of Christian union, and 
 that the resolution of them is a practical attainment, on 
 the ground that reason conscientiously employed never 
 misleads, and that the promised Spirit is " the Spirit of 
 Truth," then, with the divine blessing, mountains of ob- 
 struction might speedily disappear. The union which is 
 desired by every intelligent disciple is " a thorough union ; 
 an exceedingly complete one ; one actuating us constantly ; 
 a permanent union " not a holiday union, not a plat- 
 form union ; but sucli a union as our Lord contemplated, 
 1 Mr Iliuton, Ur Massie's vol. pp. 227, 228. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 321 
 
 ■vvlien he said, ' That they all may be one,' — such a union 
 as shall dazzle the world, and disconcert those who predict 
 that we cannot unite." ' How can such a union be brought 
 about, except it be not only founded upon agreement in 
 some great leading truths, but also exclude conflicting 
 judgments on important points of faith and duty ? Ac- 
 cordingly when Christians seek to be united on perspicuous 
 and permanent principles, instead of beginning by a mutual 
 pledge of " no compromise " on those points on which they 
 are at variance, the}-^ will make these very points the object 
 of their first attention, and take their stand together on a 
 penitent and hopeful resolution to seek by prayer and 
 patient diligence for the reduction and removal of their 
 conflicting sentiments. 
 
 Melancthon. — The adoption of these views would alter 
 entirely the aspect and position of the Evangelical Alli- 
 ance. 
 
 Theophilus. — It is not impossible that that noble insti- 
 tution may be sailing on the wrong tack. 
 
 Melancthon. — " An increasing class have felt that Chris- 
 tian concord can never be effected by civil compulsion on 
 the one hand, nor by a scheme of giving and taking on 
 the other. They feel that Christian union is an affair of 
 neither legislation nor logic ; but, as in the beginning, 
 must be the result of love. Intelligent enough to distin- 
 guish the outward differences of his brethren, but perspi- 
 cacious enough, through all peculiaiities, to discover their 
 vital identity, — magnanimous enough to overlook much 
 that he may reckon odd or erroneous, for the sake of more 
 that he deems noble and ri<>;ht, — full of that rcirenerati? 
 ' The Hon. and l{cv. 15. W. Noel. 
 
322 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 instinct which hails the Saviour's imasre rather than his 
 own fac-simile, and shining in those holy beauties which 
 win each Christian heart, — so amiable as to make his fel- 
 lowship an object of desire, so cordial and cathohc that he 
 rejoices to give it, but withal, so loyal to the truth, and so 
 explicit in his conduct, that he can give it, without sus- 
 picion of his personal soundness, — his is the right attitude 
 for Christian union, whose personal piety is constantly 
 attracting brotherly love, and whose prompt affection in- 
 stantly reciprocates each overture of brotherly kindness. 
 In heahng the dissensions of a divided Church, legislation 
 will fail, and logic will fail, but love will never fail." * 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Is it not plain that, when these " dis- 
 sensions " are based on conflicting opinions, love cannot 
 by any possibility heal them, except by " compromise?" 
 Hence this beautiful paragraph virtually denies, and most 
 surely sets aside, all that has been advanced about " no 
 compromise," I should like, moreover, to understand 
 how an honest man, who is " loyal to the truth," can be 
 " magnanimous " in " overlooking much that he may 
 reckon erroneous." 
 
 Bellarmine. — The whole statement is satisfactorily an- 
 swered in these words of another document : — " No pro- 
 fessing Christian can avowedly ridicule Christian union ; 
 but there are not a few who disparage all attempts made 
 to advance it. They hint that sameness of oi)inion cannot 
 be forced, — that combination, in being pushed, may peril 
 independence ; and that, if each cherish in his own bosom 
 true allegiance to Christ and benevolence to his neighbour, 
 
 * Au Addi'css on bclialf of the Loudon Branch of the Provisional 
 Coiimiittcc, p. 4 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 323 
 
 he carries out a good principle to its utmost attainable 
 extension. All bejond this is doubted of, or scoffed at as 
 extravagant and Utopian. 
 
 " But the Word of God speaks a different language. 
 It teaches us that, if we sincerely seek, we shall certainly 
 reach a perceptible agreement, and enjoins the acquisition 
 of it as an imperative duty. ' Be kindly affectioned one 
 to another with brotherly love ; in honour preferring one 
 another.' — (Rom. xii. 10.) ' Be of the same mind one 
 toward another.'— (V. 16.) ' Now the God of patience 
 and consolation grant you to be hke-minded one toward 
 another, according to Christ Jesus ; that ye may with one 
 mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another, 
 as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.' — (Rom. 
 XV. 5-7.) ' Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, 
 and that there be no divisions among you ; but that ye be 
 perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same 
 judgment.' — (1 Cor. i. 10.) Citations like these might be 
 indefinitely multiplied, and it will not be found easy to 
 peruse them with candour, and suppose them to be gene- 
 rally exemplified in the mutual bearing of Christians. 
 There is verily a fault among us, that exhortations so 
 explicit, solemn, and numerous, are so lightly evaded." ' 
 
 Theophilus. — Let those who flaunt the banner of " no 
 compromise," and those who oppose and supersede it by 
 the banner of an imbecile love, — let both parties hear 
 again, and inwardly digest, what they have both often 
 
 • Statement of the Scottish Delegates. Appendix to Liverpool 
 Couference, p. I'i 
 
324 
 
 DIALOGUE V 
 
 disregarded. " Tlie Wordvf God teaches iis that, if we sin- 
 cerely seek, u'e shall certainly reach a perceptible agreement, 
 and enjoins the acquisition of it as an imperative duty." 
 
 Melancthon. — " I am looking around upon this splendid 
 building (the Free Trade Hall. Manchester), and see it 
 illuminated by various lamps, of different sizes, and dif- 
 ferent forms, and in different positions ; some less, and 
 some greater ; some more, and some less ornamented. 
 But there is gas in each ; and it is the gas that illuminates 
 the building ; and perhaps we should find it difficult to sav 
 which of them sends the most light into the room ; they 
 are all contributing it together ; and we are rejoicing in 
 the splendour of the effect from a common gasometer. 
 And, sir. what is our Alliance ? What are our different 
 churches but so many lamps ? There is gas in each ; the}' 
 are of different sizes, and they are of different forms, and 
 in different positions ; some give greater, and some less 
 light to our dark world ; but they have all the funda- 
 mental truth of the gospel ; and the true member of each 
 values his church, not for the sake of its polity, but because 
 that pohty, in his view, is most adapted to hold up the 
 tiHith to the world." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — But the large lamp does not say to the 
 small one, nor the small lamp to the large one, you are 
 wrong ; as the Independent says to the Episcopalian, and 
 tlie Episcopalian to the Independent. The oi-natc lamp 
 on the east side docs not say to the plain lamp on the west 
 side, you are acting contrary to a divine command, as the 
 Christian of one polity says to his brother of another polity. 
 If each one values his church, because its " polity, in his 
 ' The Rev. J. A. James, Dr Massie's vol. p. 232. 
 
TUE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 325 
 
 view, is most adapted to hold up the truth to the world." 
 his view must rest upon grounds of mere expediency, or 
 upon an alleged divine institution. If the superiority of 
 any polity rest in the view of its supporters only upon 
 grounds of expediency, the adherents of such a polity, 
 who, to preserve it, erect or support a distinct denomina- 
 tion, are transgressing the great command regarding love 
 and unity out of deference to their own private opinions. 
 If a divine institution be alleged for incompatible polities, 
 then is one party culpable ; and you are brought back 
 again to the slough out of which you have in vain at- 
 tempted to extricate yourself. 
 
 Bellaitnine. — Hence it was a vain boast when you said, 
 " We are not here to burn our creeds, and dance with 
 maddened enthusiasm around the bonfire ; but we are here 
 to hold fast what we believe to be truth ; but, at the same 
 tune, to hold it fast in love." ^ Since what some of you 
 believe to be truth, others of you believe to be error, you 
 would all, most certainly, have acted a more reasonable 
 part, if you had met together to b urn the erroneous por- 
 tions of your respective creeds. 
 
 Mflanctlion. — It was unanimously agreed as the dehbe- 
 rate conviction of the London Conference — " That, in this 
 Alliance, it is distinctly declared that no compromise of the 
 views of any member, or sanction of those of others, on the 
 points wherein they diifcr, is either reipiired or expected ; 
 ljut that all arc held as free as before to maintain and ad- 
 vocate their religious convictions with due forbearance and 
 brotherly love." ^ 
 
 ' Tlie Rov. J. A. James, Dr Massif's vol. p. 231. 
 
 " Abstract of tlic Proceedings aud Final Resolutions of the Con- 
 
326 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Is it not a fact that the gentleman ^ 
 who moved the adoption of that resoultion spoke in the 
 following terms? — with what consistency I leave you to 
 judge : — " There is a mode of speaking on this subject 
 which, I confess, I do not like. There is a talking for- 
 getting our differences, and hanisliing our differences ; and, 
 as some express it, merging our differences. I go further 
 than all these : I want the differences to be done away 
 with altogether. I am afraid that, if we merely agree to 
 forget them, it will not be long before something forcibly 
 reminds us of them. I am afraid, if we merely banish 
 them, like some old culprits, they will find their way back 
 before the time of punishment has expired. 1 am afraid, 
 if we only merge them, there will be some sectarian anti- 
 quary who will invent a diving-bell to bring them up from 
 the bottom of the ocean. I think the best way, therefore, 
 is to get rid of them, altogether ; and I have very great 
 confidence in the moral influence of this Alliance, in finally 
 disposing of our differences altogether. It is not the ina- 
 bility to place our distinct opinions in a clear light, that 
 keeps us from seeing eye to eye ; but there is a worldly 
 feeling — a prejudice — in our breasts, that prevents us 
 from doing justice to our own intellects and judgments ; 
 and until such an influence as that I have adverted to is 
 exercised, we shall never be able to see these things alike. 
 There is a beautiful passage in one of the Prophecies, tliat 
 I have been delighted to dwell upon, in connection with 
 this movement — ' Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice ; 
 
 ferencc held ia Freemasons' Hall, London, on August 19, 1846, and 
 I'oUowing days, pp. 7, 8. 
 ' Dr W. Symington. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIAXCE. 
 
 327 
 
 with the voice together shall tliey sing ; for they shall 
 see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion.' 
 Here is the order of things — ' They shall lift up the voice,' 
 as we have been doing ; ' With the voice together they 
 shall sing,' as wc have been doing for days together. 
 And then the mists and darkness will clear away, and 
 we shall ' see eye to eye ;' and then ' the Lord shall 
 bring again Zion,' — bring back the hallowed days that 
 are past, and which we are so desirous of seeing 
 again." ' 
 
 If I understand aright the argument of this speaker, it 
 amounts to this : that if Christians were in fact " to main- 
 tain and advocate their rehgious convictions with due for- 
 bearance and brotherly love," these religious convictions 
 would cease to be antagonistic, and consequently there 
 would be no room for a resolution about " no com- 
 promise." 
 
 Melancthon. — The Conference itself was not altogether 
 insensible to the force of these considerations. In testi- 
 mony whereof I may refer you to the following resolution. 
 
 " That this Conference, while recognising the essential 
 unity of the Christian Church, feel constrained to deplore 
 its existing divisions, and to express their deep sense of 
 the sinfulness involved in the alienation of affection by 
 which th^y have been attended, and of the manifold evils 
 which have resulted tlierefrom ; and to avow their solemn 
 conviction of the necessity and duty of taking measures, 
 in humble dependence on the Divine blessing, towards 
 
 ' Report of tlio Proceedings of the Conference held at Freemasons' 
 Hall, London, from Angiist liltli to September 2d inclusive, 1846. 
 Published by order of the Conference. P. l'J7. 
 
328 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 attainino; a state of mind and feelins: more in accordance 
 with the word and spirit of Christ Jesus." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — You recollect the facts connected with the 
 adoption of that resolution. One speaker, Rev. W. Ander- 
 son, "thought it deficient, — inasmuch as it made no 
 provision for bringing Christians into more full agreement 
 in the Truth ; " and moved that an addition be made to it 
 as follows : " And to seek that God, of His infinite mercy, 
 may pour forth more abundantly of His Holy Spirit, as 
 the Spirit of truth, of love, and of holiness, that all the 
 churches may be brought into a nearer conformity to the 
 Word of God in all things, that the friends of the Re- 
 deemer may be thoroughly united in Truth and Love." - 
 This amendment was seconded by Rev. James Begg, who 
 said : " The resolution as it now stood is decidedly defec- 
 tive. In the first part, the existence of divisions in the 
 Christian Church is deplored, and I think justly ; and, 
 wherever these divisions exist, there is culpability ; wher- 
 ever they are there is sin somewhere. They did not 
 exist in the church of Christ from the first ; they are not 
 in the Word of God ; but they arise from human sinful- 
 ness. Therefore the resolution, most properly, deplores, 
 not only the alienation of afiection arising from these 
 divisions, but the divisions themselves : but herein it is 
 defective, since it merely aims at the removal of the alien- 
 ation of the affection, without aiming, in any measure, at 
 the removal of the divisions themselves." ' Dr Alorison 
 replied : " He was certain that neither the Committee nor 
 the Conference would have thought it sufficient, had not 
 the idea referred to been contained in it : but he believed 
 
 ' Abstract, &c., \). 7 - Kci)ort, &c., p. b'd. * lb. p. GO. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 329 
 
 it would be found in the last line but one of the resolu- 
 tion as proposed by the Committee — ' towards attaining a 
 state of mind and feeling more in accordance with the 
 spirit of Christ Jesus ?"' ^ With this understanding the 
 resolution was adopted, with a slight addition to bring out 
 more fully the meaning — " towards attaining a state of 
 mind and feeling more in accordance with the word and 
 spirit of Christ Jesus." 
 
 Taking then the resolution as it stands, and more espe- 
 cially looking at it in the light of this commentary, does 
 the Evangelical Alliance mean to tell the world, that it is 
 consistent with their other resolution formerly adduced ? 
 While " no compromise of the views of any member, or 
 sanction of those of others, on the points wherein they 
 differ, is either required or expected," what sort of " mea- 
 sures" can they take, individually or socially, " towards 
 attaining a state of mind more in accordance with the 
 word of Christ Jesus ?" What do they mean by " avowing 
 their solemn conviction of the necessity and duty of tak- 
 ing such measures, in humble dependence on the Divine 
 blessing ? " Have any such measures been taken ? 
 
 Lord Herbert. — If these things be so, the former reso- 
 lution ought to have run in some such terms as these : — 
 
 That whereas the members of this Alliance entertain 
 conflicting views on several important topics, it is required 
 and expected that each member, under a solemn convic- 
 tion of the necessity and duty of doing so, shall seek, in 
 humble dependence on the Divine blessing, to bring his 
 own views into harmony with " the word and spirit of 
 Christ Jesus," so that the views of all the members may thus 
 ' Report, &c., p. GU. 
 
330 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 be brought into harmony with each other ; and thus truth 
 be no longer compromised, as, alas ! it has been so fre- 
 quently and painfully. After joining this Alliance, its 
 members cannot be held free to maintain and advocate all 
 their religious convictions as heretofore, because so many 
 of these religious convictions are palpably erroneous, and 
 because an intelligent being, such as man, and especially 
 a redeemed and regenerated man, such as a Christian pro- 
 fesses himself to be, cannot be held free to maintain and 
 advocate what is erroneous and unscriptural under any 
 pretence whatever. 
 
 Such a resolution would have been like a bomb-shell on 
 the platform of the Alliance. 
 
 Melancthon. — These sentiments were not generally en- 
 tertained, and your proposal is utterly impracticable. 
 One Doctor in speaking remarked : " He had at one 
 moment some misapprehensions. He thought he saw 
 something like a cloud gathering ; but he thanked God it 
 was dispersed. The key-note had again been given — the 
 right note, — and they now all understood each other. 
 They were not come to ascertain and decide upon the 
 merits of Episcopacy, or of Presbyterianism, or of Dissent, 
 or of Wesleyanism, a system which might, perhaps, be 
 found to occupy a different position from all the rest. 
 They came not to surrender any thing which they con- 
 scientiously maintained. They met without compromise — 
 without violating any one honest conviction of their minds. 
 It was now clear, that unity might exist with diversity ; 
 and that, because, if they differed on five points, they 
 agreed on five hundred." ^ 
 
 ^ ])r Newton, Liverpool Conference, p. 30. 
 
THE EVAXGELICAL ALLIAXCE. 
 
 331 
 
 Lord Herbert. — You surely will not deny that schism 
 and division depend much more upon the nature of your 
 differences, than upon their number. While it is obvious, 
 from your own remarks, that even the five points of dif- 
 ference which are acknowledged to exist, are of a some- 
 what inflammable material, since the very idea of meeting 
 " to ascertain and decide upon their merits," was hke a 
 thunder cloud on your horizon : Is it really " a honest 
 conviction of your mind," that the opposite sides on each 
 of these five points are both right ? Is it the " honest con- 
 viction of your mind," that it matters not whether 3'our- 
 self or your brother remain in error ? Can you ask the 
 world to believe in your brotherly love towards each 
 other, when the very mention of meeting to ascertain and 
 "decide upon the merits of your respective peculiarities, 
 inspires a nervous trepidation? Your own language 
 tempts me to speak of your association as "a holiday 
 union," " a platform union." For so long as this Alliance 
 is made the means, as it has often been, not only of pro- 
 claiming afresh the existence of your denominational con- 
 flicts, but also of asserting in reference to both sides their 
 strict conscientiousness in these very party collisions, 
 intelligent men will smile at your simplicity. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Such strange sentiments as have now been 
 commented on were not uttered by some members of the 
 Alliance, without being satisfactorihj refuted, though only 
 indirectly^ by other members. F or example, Dr Buchanan 
 of Glasgow is reported to have said at one of the meet- 
 ings, — " In truth, the very idea of the unity of the 
 Church of Christ had been wellnifrh lost. Professing 
 Christians, yea, true Christians, had forgotten that they 
 
332 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 had one Lord, and one faith, one baptism, one God and 
 Father of all, who was above all, and through all, and in 
 them all. And I repeat, the humble, but high and glorious 
 aim of this proposed Evangelical Alliance, is to bring the 
 Church humbly and prayerfully to meditate upon these 
 things. True, indeed, in our Alliance, in fulfilling this 
 our commission, wc do not renounce any of those points in 
 which we continue to disagree ; but, Sir, 1 am sure I can 
 say for every member of that Conference, we glory not in 
 them. We must look upon them as evidences of the re- 
 maining blindness and perversity of our hearts and minds." 
 Mark especially the words that follow. " On these points 
 there is truth, as well as in those greater matters in which 
 we are agreed; and our blessed hope is, that just by our 
 agreement in the greater truths, and the love towards 
 each other which these truths have begotten, and are 
 cherishing in our souls, we shall be enabled with a single 
 eye, and therefore a whole body full of light, to look to 
 those other things ; so that while up to the points where- 
 unto we have attained, wc arc now walking by the same 
 rule, and minding the same things ; we are trusting that 
 even in those matters in which we are still otherwise 
 minded, God will yet reveal even these unto us." ^ 
 
 Melancthon. — " It was felt and allowed that important 
 diversities of sentiment exist among those who give every 
 evidence of sincere disciplcship ; and it was also felt that 
 it would be a happy day which witnessed the melting of 
 these diversities into a blessed unanimity. But then it 
 was equally acknowledged that some other things must 
 first be clFcctcd, and it was for one of these anterior things 
 ' J)r aiassie's vol. i)p. 23-1, 235. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 333 
 
 tliat the Conference had now assembled. It was not met 
 for the discussion of dogmas, but for the diffusion of bro- 
 therly love. It was not to sit as a reconciler of conflict- 
 ing sentiments, but as the restorer of ancient affections. 
 It did not arbitrate denominational differences, but it 
 sought the outlet and increase of Christian charity. It 
 rejoiced to fiml that the points were many and momentous 
 on which all present agreed ; but it neither said that the 
 points on which they dissented were trivial, nor that these 
 disagreements could be discussed and settled there. It 
 allowed that all the members might be equally sincere in 
 their creed, and honest in their peculiarities ; and not 
 wishing any man to abandon his convictions till he could 
 abandon them conscientiously, it left all to keep intact and 
 inviolate their respective opinions, till the flow of mutual 
 love had increased tlieir common Christianity." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — It seems to me somewhat difiicult to 
 heap together more confusion in the same space, than is 
 found in this flowing paragraph. First, — It is admitted 
 to be a happy day which shall witness the melting of 
 diversities into a blessed unanimitv, and it is acknowledged 
 that the Alliance is to attempt one of those things which 
 must be effected before the reahzation of this blessed 
 unanimity, and we suppose, witli a view to it. Now the 
 Alliance, instead of making the attainment of this " blessed 
 unanimity" one of its objects, has, as we shall shew, posi- 
 tivpjij refused to do so ; and has taken up a position, on its 
 " no compromise" principle, antagonistic to that unanimity. 
 Secondly, if by " dogmas " be meant the empty themes of 
 
 ' An Address on Ix half of the London Brandi of tlic Provisional 
 Committee, 1815, p. 7. 
 
334 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 logomachy, then who ever pretended that the discussion 
 of such would promote "the diffusion of brotherly love?" 
 But if by " dogmas" be meant doctrines, trutlis, then the 
 Evangelical AUiance itself has confessed that it could not 
 move one step in the diffusion of brotherly love, till some 
 such dogmas were discussed, or settled without discussion. 
 Thirdly, " the restorer of ancient aifections" is both 
 blear-eyed and lame, unless he be at the same time " a 
 reconciler of conflicting sentiments." Fourthly, denomi- 
 national differences constitute a great dam that closes the 
 floodgates of Christian love, how then can the Alhance 
 seek intelligently " the outlet and increase of Christian 
 charity," and politely decline to " arbitrate denominational 
 difterences?" Lastly, it is implied that convictions may 
 be abandoned, when this can be done conscientiously. I 
 am not unwiUing to I'isk the whole argument on the an- 
 swer to this one question : Can the same conviction be 
 conscientiously adopted, and by and bye conscientiously 
 abandoned 1 If such be the nature of religious conscien- 
 tiousness, save me from its snare. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Protestant conscientiousness, if you please. 
 The conscience that submits to the infallible Church is 
 rescued from such tergiversation. We thank the Evan- 
 geUcal iVlliance for " allowing all its members to be equally 
 sincere in their creed, and honest in their peculiarities," 
 and thus " leaving all to keep intact and inviolate their 
 respective opinions" for an indefinite period. The Alliance 
 is thereby stereotyping every Protestant error, and becom- 
 ing itself a buttress to every Protestant schism. What has 
 any one to fear from a hundred-headed monster, whose 
 heads are opposing and counterworking one another 'i 
 
THE EVAKGELICAL AtLIAXCE. 
 
 335 
 
 Melancthon. — It is altogether an unwarranted assertion 
 that the EvangeUcal AlUance is doing aught to stereotype 
 prevaihng errors, or has positively refused to embrace 
 among its objects the attainment of unanimity of senti- 
 ment. At the very first meeting of the great London 
 Conference, the chairman. Sir C. E. Smitli, in his opening 
 address, said, " Brethren, there is another dehghtful feel- 
 ing in my mind to-day, and that is, that, if we succeed in 
 this experiment, the Church will be entering upon a new 
 course. It is the first experiment which has been made 
 to combine together the interests of Truth and of Love. 
 In former times endeavours have been made to maintain 
 the interests of Truth ; but never yet has there been a 
 systematic endeavour to combine the interests of Truth 
 and those of Love, — as I hope they will be combined on 
 this occasion." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Has the AUiance, then, succeeded as 
 an experiment, to combine the interests of Truth and of 
 Love ? The second resolution defining its objects, runs 
 thus : — " That the great object of the Evangelical Alli- 
 ance be, to aid in manifesting, as far as practicable, the 
 unity which exists amongst the true disciples of Christ ; 
 to promote their union by fraternal and devotional inter- 
 course," &c. An amendment was proposed and seconded 
 that the last quoted clause should stand thus : " to pro- 
 mote their union in judgment and affection by fraternal 
 and devotional intercourse." This amendment was put 
 and negatived ; but when the assembly divided the num- 
 bers are never given in the Report of the Conference. 
 One of the speakers who opposed the amendment said : 
 ' Report, &c. p. b. 
 
.336 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 '■ K you adopt it, you completely alter the whole charac- 
 ter of the Alliance. Unity in judgment is most desirable : 
 but the great object of the Evangelical AUiance is, to 
 promote union and love, in spite of differences in 
 judgment. If you say, that the great object is to pro- 
 mote union and judgment, it may be right ; but it is 
 not what we mean." ^ 
 
 On the same occasion the following was proposed for 
 adoption : — " That a further object of the Evangehcal 
 Alliance be, to promote, as far as in them lies, a more 
 extensive agreement of views, as it regards those parts of 
 their Lord's will concerning which the brethren united 
 in this Confederation at present differ ; and that this end 
 be sought, — not by any attempt on the part of some of 
 the brethren to impose their views on others of the 
 brethren, nor by erecting among themselves any tri- 
 bunal for the determination of matters of doctrine and 
 discipline : but, First, by cherishing individually a just 
 sense of their need of a more perfect knowledge of the 
 will of their Divine Redeemer : Secondly, by earnest, 
 behoving, united, and persevering prayer and supplication 
 for ' the Spirit of Truth,' to ' guide them into all Truth ;' 
 and. Thirdly, by mutual conference from time to time, as 
 suitable opportunities may arise." ^ This motion was put 
 and negatived ; the state of the vote is not recorded. 
 
 Bellarmine. — It is undeniable, then, that the Alliance 
 has deliberately and distinctly rejected a proposal " to 
 combine the interests of Truth and those of Love." She 
 has drawn her sword against every error of those outside 
 
 ' Rev. W. W. E\\ bank, Report, &c. p. 232. 
 
 ^ Rev. li. VV. Oveibury, ib. p. 234. See also pp. 352, 35.'). 
 
THE EVAXGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 337 
 
 her pale, and throTrn her shield over every error of those 
 ■Nvithin her pale ! She cannot make error infallible ; but 
 she has done what she could to make Protestant errors 
 immutable ! 
 
 Melancthon. — " I think our brethren must feel," said 
 one, " that, as a matter of practical wisdom and common 
 prudence, it is not wise to commit ourselves to a resolu- 
 tion, which would set live hundred gentlemen of different 
 opinions discussing ad infinitum:' ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Will it require discussions ad infinitum 
 to come to an agreement as to what your " Lord's will 
 really is ? The same speaker said on another occasion : 
 " Discussions await us to-day. Let us not be too sensitive 
 about them. It seems to me to be a decided benefit that 
 we should go through them. Did we entertain opposite 
 opinions, and had we no opportunity of comparing them, 
 but were under the necessity of carrying them back with 
 us to our various places of abode ; they would ferment in 
 our minds, and become sources of future discord of the 
 most serious kind. But, if every one speaks his mind, 
 80 that everything erroneous may be met, and everything 
 sound acceded to, we are laying the foundations deep for 
 permanent Union." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — If we have cause to rejoice at the course 
 which the AUiance has pursued, some of its own friends will 
 be bitterly disappointed. Those, for example, must grieve, 
 who sympathised with M. Vernct when he remarked : — " It 
 has been said, that one intended action of this Alliance 
 will be to resist Popery. But it will also have operations 
 of a different kind ; and the most important in the esti- 
 * Report, &c. pp. 236, 237. - Keport, &c. p. 272. 
 Y 
 
338 
 
 DIALOGUE Y. 
 
 mation of some, ■will be, the action it will have on our own 
 hearts. It is a sort of sword, which God has put into our 
 own hands ; but we must turn it against ourselves ; and, 
 by its means, destroy those evil habits and antipathies, by 
 which we are often set in opposition one to another." ' 
 
 Theophilus. — If evangelical Christians cannot meet to- 
 gether to discuss their differences in a forbearing and 
 friendly temper of mind, how can they expect the world 
 to believe in their professions of mutual affection ? If it 
 be indeed true, that mutual conferences by the members 
 of the EvangeHcal Alliance, to promote a more extensive 
 agreement of views in regard to their Lord's will, " be 
 incompatible with the grand object," and would be felt 
 " to embarrass the movement," then most assuredly is that 
 Alliance beside the mark, and will ultimately prove a 
 signal fiiilure, judged by its professed aim. If that aim 
 be Christian Union in an intelligible and scriptural sense, 
 such mutual conferences, instead of being regarded " as 
 hazardous," would be felt to be absolutely necessary ; and 
 would be hailed and enjoyed by right minded men as 
 scenes of sympathy as deep, of affection as intense, of 
 faith as strong, as were ever experienced in hearing the 
 most eloquent addresses or in uniting in the most ardent 
 prayers. The AUiance, as it is constituted, is Christian 
 love in profession ; these mutual conferences would be 
 Christian love in action. It were easy to mismanage 
 such conferences, as it is easy to spoil the finest me- 
 chanism ; and the finer it is, the more easily it is marred. 
 
 Let them be entered upon after suitable prepai-ation ; 
 let each party try to dismiss prejudice, and devoutly and 
 ' llcpoii, &c. p. 53. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 339 
 
 diligently re-examine the point to be discussed ; and let 
 the meetings be conducted in a holy humble temper of 
 heart. " To the upright there ariseth light in the dark- 
 ness." If such conferences be indeed impracticable in the 
 present age, or after trial be found unsuccessful and un- 
 profitable, then the immediate prospects of Christian 
 union, we fear, are but indifferent. If the men of this 
 generation have not faith enough to gird up their loins 
 to fight the giants of sectarianism that are in possession 
 of the land, — if they quail at the very thought of sub- 
 duing our denominational differences, — and will not, 
 through sheer dread, even look their foes in the face 
 then they must be content to leave their bones in the 
 wilderness, as unworthy to enter and possess the pro- 
 mised Canaan of Christian Unity. But let them know 
 that God will raise up unto himself a people better than 
 their fathers. For when men shall come too-ether to con- 
 fer about their conflicting views of what the Bible enjoins, 
 and shall compare their respective opinions with each 
 uther, in the presence of the Divine Majesty, and under 
 tlie shadow of the Redeemer's cross, believing in the fiery 
 baptism of the Holy Ghost, yearning over a divided 
 Church and a perishing world, and anticipating the day 
 when all shall stand together before the great white 
 throne, they will soon begin to see the mountains of sepa- 
 ration shaking, and removing, preparatory to being cast 
 into the sea. Such conferences would as surely issue in 
 rich and manifold and unexpected blessings, as the return 
 of spring sends gladness over the earth. 
 
340 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 II. — Is the Evangelical Alliance a CJturch ? 
 
 Theophilus. — We have already found reason to affirm, 
 that terms of Christian communion on earth are not to be 
 considered as identical With, the terms of personal and 
 everlasting salvation. Has the Evangelical Alliance acted 
 or not on this principle ? 
 
 Melancthon. — They have undoubtedly proceeded on this 
 principle. They do not unchristianize those who decline 
 to unite with them. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Admitting that the Alliance has taken 
 up the right position as regards this topic, these three 
 things are worthy of notice : — 1. There was marked and 
 weighty opposition to this view being carried, on the part 
 of many leading members of the London Conference. 2. In 
 so far as the Alliance holds and acts upon this principle, so 
 far is she precisely what the Church, it is said, ought to be. 
 3. But in carrying out this principle of being a society based 
 upon, and testifying for triith, she has not attempted on 
 any definite principle to say what is the amount of truth 
 for which she ought to testify, and the truth for which she 
 does profess to testify is regarded by many of her friends 
 as both meagre in extent and loose in expression. 
 
 Bellarmine. — Here, then, is an illustration, that this 
 Alliance has its members bound together more by an out- 
 ward uniformity than in an inward union. And I rejoice 
 to understand that so many within its bosom still adhere 
 to the doctrine of our Church, that the terms of Christian 
 communion are the very terms of salvation itself. On these 
 our hopes do rest. 
 
THE EVAXGELICAL ALLIAXCE. 
 
 341 
 
 Melancthon. — The principle on which the AUiance acted 
 was thus explained by Mr Bickersteth : — " What then," 
 he said, " has been the general plan which has guided 
 our minds in compiling this summary of principles ? It 
 was this — that it should be general enough to include 
 the great proportion of real Christians ; not all real 
 Christians, for this was impossible, without sacrificing 
 important truths Avhich ought, we believed, to be con- 
 fessed." 1 
 
 Lord Herbert. — If one real Christian may be ex- 
 cluded by confessing one truth, why may not another 
 real Christian be excluded in order to confess another 
 truth ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " All will see and feel, that there are 
 truths more or less vital in the divine word ; some of 
 which may be held in due subordination, — the less to the 
 greater, — the secondary to the primary, — things important 
 in themselves, to things essential. It is on this principle 
 that the resolution is proposed." * 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Are there then some trutiis which you 
 may sacrifice in order to include a greater number of mem- 
 bers in your Alliance ? If your association is based on the 
 principle of including real Christians, it ought to include 
 t/iem all ; but if it be based on the principle of testifying 
 for the truth, it ought to testify for all the truth that it 
 knows. As Dr Cox of New York said : — " I am bound as 
 a Christian, as a member of this Alliance, and more, as a 
 minister of Christ, to tell men, with the voice of a trumpet 
 that gives no uncertain sound, the difi'crcncc between 
 truth and error — between Christianity and a mistake. . . . 
 
 * Keport of the London Coufereucc, p. 7«. * lb. p. 78. 
 
342 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 It is necessary to take truth as good enough for every 
 man." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — By professing to testify for some revealed 
 truth, but not for all revealed truth, the Evangelical 
 Alliance is herself acting on the principle of reserve, which 
 Protestants have so often and so strongly reprobated, at 
 least in vrords. By this proceeding she also enervates 
 her testimony even so far as it does extend ; as was re- 
 marked by one : — " I do not attach so much importance 
 as some members of the Conference do to this basis ; just 
 because I have felt, that while there are differences 
 amongst us, any testimony we can bear to truth must be, 
 to a large extent, defective." * 
 
 Theophilus. — In so far then as the Evangelical Alliance 
 is a witness for truth, it agrees with what the Christian 
 Church ought to be. To settle the question before us, — Is 
 the Alliance a church ? — it will be necessary to inquire, 
 Who are its members, and what are its objects ? 
 
 3Ielancthon. — It was settled by the Conference at Lon- 
 don, — " That this Alliance is not to be considered as an 
 alliance of denominations, or branches of the Church, but 
 of individual Christians, each acting on his own responsi- 
 bility." 3 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Was it necessary to state so formally, 
 that it was not " an alliance of denominations ?" An alliance 
 of denominations as they at present exist ! You might as 
 soon mix oil and water and quicksilver permanently to- 
 gether. Pray, what is a church, if it be not an alliance, 
 
 1 Report, &c. pp. 88, 89. 
 
 * Dr Cunningliani, Kcport, <S:c. p. 101. 
 
 ' Abstract, &c. p. 7. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 343 
 
 or society, " of individual Christians, each acting on his 
 own responsibility ?" 
 
 Melanctlion. — " I think it is exceedingly difficult strictly 
 to define a Church of Christ ; for there is a meaning of the 
 Church, in which I should be very sorry to deny that we 
 are a church ; because I know that, wherever two or three 
 are met together in the name of Christ, there is our Lord 
 and Saviour in the midst of tnem." ' " I avow my con- 
 viction, that there is no such thing as a visible Church."^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — Well, I know, that the nineteenth article 
 of the Church of England says : — " The visible Church of 
 Christ is a congregation of faithful men," iS^ow, I should 
 very much like to have an answer to this question, — "What 
 qualifications ought to be required from a member of the 
 visible Church of Christ, which arc not required from a 
 member of the Evangelical Alliance ? Or, What qualifica- 
 tions are required of a member of the Evangelical Alliance, 
 which ought not to be required of a member of the visible 
 Church of Christ ? 
 
 Melancthon. — Well, I do not know that the Evanwchcal 
 Alliance itself has directly answered this question. It 
 does not unchristianizc those who do not enrol their names 
 on its register ; but it always supposes that only those who 
 are members of the Church of Christ are fit to be mem- 
 bers of the Alliance. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Is it not its professed design to embrace 
 as many as possible, if not all, the members of the Chris- 
 tian Church ? 
 
 Melancthon. — Undoubtedly. " In the character, simply, 
 
 * Rev. W. W. Ewbank, Report, &c. p. 203. 
 ' Hon. and Rev. B. Noel, ib. p. 207. 
 
344 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 of believers, lowly and spiritual followers of the Lamb of 
 God, are we to recognise one another in this Evangelical 
 Alliance ; and it is never once to be asked, as to any in- 
 fluence the inquiry may have upon our mutual love, what 
 church we belong to, or whether we belong to any church 
 at all. We are not about to form an ecclesiastical institute, 
 a church incorporation, or a confederation of churches ; 
 but, overlooking all ecclesiastical distinctions, we fix upon 
 Christian character, the elements of vital and experimental 
 godliness, as, at once, the only, and the necessary, pre- 
 requisites to the fellowship we desire to realise." ^ 
 
 Bellarmine. — If anything else besides " Christian cha- 
 racter," " the elements of vital and experimental godli- 
 ness," and conduct consistent therewith, be necessary to 
 membership in any " ecclesiastical institute or church in- 
 corporation," such institute, or such incorporation, is not 
 a church according to the New Testament and the Thirty- 
 nine Articles. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — You have said, that it is " in the cha- 
 racter, simply, of behevers, lowly and spiritual followers of 
 the Lamb of God, you are to recognise one another in this 
 Evangelical Alliance." In what other character do you, 
 or ought you, to recognise one another in " the visible 
 Church of Christ ? " If the Alliance be not a church, tell 
 us wherein it differs from a church. If it be a church, let 
 it be called by its right name. 
 
 Melancthon. — It was determined by the Conference 
 which assembled in London, — " That it is not contem- 
 plated that this Alliance should assume or aim at the cha- 
 racter of a new ecclesiastical organization, claiming and 
 * Dr Stcaiic, Liverpool Couforciice, p. 41. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 345 
 
 exercising the functions of a Christian church. Its simple 
 and comprehensive object, it is strongly felt, may be suc- 
 cessfully promoted without interfering with, or disturbing 
 the order of, any branch of the Christian Church to which 
 its members may respectively belong." ^ 
 
 Lord Herbert — This is no answer to the plain question 
 that was proposed. Besides, if there had been in existence 
 any " ecclesiastical organization," which was found " claim- 
 ing and exercising the functions of a Christian church " 
 rightfully and scripturally, would there have been any 
 occasion, or any room, for this Evangelical Alliance? Is 
 it not most undeniably and palpably the fact, that the 
 Alhance has been called forth, because the existing eccle- 
 siastical organizations, by their claims and their proceed- 
 ings, are regarded as neglecting or perverting to a great 
 extent the functions of a Christian church ? 
 
 Bellarmine. — The Alliance may not be a " new " eccle- 
 siastical organization of the same sort as the old Protestant 
 ones, but it may be one of another sort, equally bad. If 
 your denominational churches were churches, in the pro- 
 per sense of the word, the institution of the Evangelical 
 Alhance would have been irrelevant — a work of superero- 
 gation. To inaugurate that association, then, instead of 
 making your professed churches real churches — such as 
 they ought to be, is attempting to serve God, while set- 
 ting aside His plan and mode of service, and resorting to 
 a self-devised scheme of your own. If this Alliance be not 
 a church professedly and nominally, it really and truly 
 embraces the most essential element of a church. But let 
 us hear what " its simple and comprehensive object" is, that 
 1 Abstract, <fcc. p. 8. 
 
346 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 ■we may judge whether or not It " may be successfully pro- 
 moted without interfering with, or disturbing the order of. 
 any branch of the Christian Church." 
 
 Melancthon. — This is stated in the following words : — 
 " That the members of this Conference are deeply con- 
 vinced of the desirableness of forming a confederation, on 
 the basis of great evangehcal principles held in common 
 by them, which may afford opportunity to members of the 
 Church of Christ of cultivating brotherly love, enjoying 
 Christian intercourse, and promoting such other objects as 
 they may hereafter agree to prosecute together ; and they 
 hereby proceed to form such a confederation, under the 
 name of ' The Evanfjelical Alliance.' " ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — What is the basis of any Protestant 
 church, professedly at least, but these same great evan- 
 gelical principles? 
 
 Bellarmine. — We are now told authoritatively that 
 " the simple and comprehensive object " of the Alliance, 
 is to " afford opportunity to members of the Church of 
 Christ of cultivating brotherly love, enjoying Christian 
 intercourse," &c. Did the Lord Jesus Christ not insti- 
 tute Tlis Church for the express purpose here specified ? 
 Has the Church, as instituted by Christ, fiiiled in afford- 
 ing sufficient opportunity for the accomplishment of one of 
 its own chief designs ? If not, to establish a novel confe- 
 deration in order to secure the very same object, is to dis- 
 honour, surely, the original institution of our Lord and 
 Master. This statement of the design of the Alliance 
 obviously implies, what is an undeniable fact, that the 
 Protestant churches in their present condition do not 
 ' Abstract, &c. p. 7. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 347 
 
 afford the opportunity here specified, but rather create 
 drawbacks and impediments to the free flow of Christian 
 fellowship and sympathy. 
 
 In these circumstances, what does this Evangelical Alli- 
 ance, judging it by its own professions and principles, step 
 forth to accomplish ? It first attempts to throw a veil of 
 concealment, and even a shield of defence, over the sad 
 corruptions and direful schisms whose existence it dare 
 not deny, owing to them indeed its own origination. This 
 it does by proclaiming " no compromise " as its watch- 
 word, and also by distinctly disavowing every intention, 
 even the most remote, " to interfere with, or disturb the 
 order of," the churches as they are at present constituted 
 and administered, impure and woeful though their condition 
 be. And, secondly, while loudly and emphatically pro- 
 testing that the Alliance is no church, and shall exercise 
 none of the functions of the Church, it really and virtually 
 constitutes itself, as the Church is, or should be constituted, 
 assumes not a few of the Church's privileges, and takes up 
 several of the Church's primary and most weighty engage- 
 ments. The Alliance, indeed, is not a church, but it is 
 an unauthorised and defective substitute for the Church. 
 It is a plausible and showy contrivance, whose actual in- 
 fluence will prove somewhat different from what its origi- 
 nators intended and its supporters desire. It is a strong 
 and skilful outwork of defence to the schismatic Protestant 
 camp ; and while it lasts, the quarrels of that camp will bo 
 prolonged, and its divisions consolidated and extended. 
 
 Melancthon. — It is going too far to say that the Alli- 
 ance disavows every intention to disturb the existing state 
 of denominations. For example, Mr Ewbank said: — " If 
 
348 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 there be anything positively wrong in the order of any- 
 church, — anything positively opposed to the command of 
 Christ, then, I hope, this Alliance will, indirectly, at least, 
 interfere with that church." ' And Dr King remarked : 
 " Our work is Union : but I just as firmly believe as 
 earnestly hope, that one of its effects will be Incorpora- 
 tion. We meet to shake hands across the partition-walls : 
 and the agreement is, that the partition-wall is not to be 
 disturbed. But when we shake hands, what if the parti- 
 tion-wall will not bear shaking ? What if, in some cases, 
 it begins to yield and bend, and fall, and disappear, and 
 leave nothing but the recollection, to fill us with shame for 
 causeless differences that are gone, and make us grateful 
 to God for succeeding identification." 2 
 
 Lord Herbert. — These sentiments were materially mo- 
 dified, if not expressly controverted, by other speakers. 
 And it is for these gentlemen themselves to reconcile the 
 opinions which have been just quoted as theirs, with the 
 part which they took in organising the Alliance such as 
 it is. 
 
 Melancthon. — It is certainly a mistake to suppose that 
 the members of the Alliance were indifferent to the pre- 
 vailing anomalies in the Protestant Church. Mr Bicker- 
 steth has well said : — " It is a humbling and affecting 
 thought that those blessed appointments of Divine mercy 
 and love (the Christian ministry and the ordinances of 
 Baptism and the Lord's Supper), which were specially 
 intended to gather the Church of Christ together, and 
 establish and promote the unity of his people, to baptise 
 them into the one name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
 1 Report, &c. p. 204. - lb. p. 205. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 349 
 
 and to give them the communion of one body and one 
 blood, that they might manifestly be one, have, through 
 our blindness and corruption, been abused to divide and 
 separate faithful Christians." ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — If these words do not libel your denomi- 
 national Christianity, what ought Protestants to do, if 
 they be really desirous to set matters right ? Does not 
 the only straightforward mode of proceeding consist, in 
 ceasing to abuse " these blessed appointments of divine 
 mercy and love ? " To have set about doing so would 
 have been good and valid evidence to all men, that Pro- 
 testants were repenting of their " blindness and corrup- 
 tion." Whereas to institute a new-fashioned confederation, 
 which, while proclaiming in several ways the general pre- 
 valence of this shameful and inveterate abuse, protests 
 against the smallest direct effort to rectify it, and pro- 
 poses to accomplish by a merely human plan the very end 
 which this acknowledged abuse of the Divine plan defeats, 
 is certainly something not unhke a denser blindness and a 
 more intense corruption. 
 
 Melancthon. — It should never be forgotten that the 
 members of the AUiance have always proceeded upon the 
 principle, of simply seeking to make manifest a union 
 which already existed. " If we were to define," said one, 
 " the object of our meeting, and then keep it before us, it 
 would facilitate our movements. The object is a simple 
 one. First of all, it must be kept in mind that, apart 
 from the essential union which exists among the godly, 
 we do not look for union beyond a particular point. We 
 have no idea of interfering with denominational pccuhari- 
 ' Dr Massie's volume, p. 3G5. 
 
350 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 ties. But it so happens, that a vital and essential union 
 positively exists among all God's real children. There is 
 an agreement on certain great principles which unite their 
 hearts. And if we can just gather these up, and thus 
 embody a union which, in matter of fact, already exists, 
 the great difficulty is over — so far as a basis is concerned. 
 We have not first to set that basis forth, and then to per- 
 suade one another to adopt it ; but we have rather to re- 
 tire into ourselves, and see what are the points on which 
 we do agree. There are peculiai'ities, which every one 
 will feel to be peculiarities." ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This is overlooking the real point of 
 the question, which may be stated thus : — Are not these 
 " denominational peculiarities," which " every one feels to 
 be peculiarities," and of interfering with which there is 
 not even an idea, both a serious drawback to your pre- 
 sent union such as it really is, and almost a death-blow to 
 an unambiguous and full manifestation of Christian union ? 
 Since it is notorious that your denominational peculiarities 
 not only enervate and damage such union as does now 
 exist among you, but also render its public manifestation 
 next to impossible, it follows that the formation of this 
 anomalous Alliance is not the proper way either to tighten 
 the bonds of your mutual union, or to evince its existence 
 openly to the world. 
 
 Melancthon. — " The great object, majestic for its sim- 
 plicity, yet unattractive to worldly minds for its spiri- 
 tuality ; the great object often lost sight of amidst 
 the clouds and noise of controversy, and unappreciated 
 because not enjoyed, and because as a thing of heaven 
 * Dr Young, Liverpool Coulcrciicc, p. 9. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 351 
 
 hardly fit to be clothed in words of flesh ; more an 
 ethereal, spiritual, and invisible element, than any other 
 of the bonds of Christian brotherhood ; the great object 
 of the Evangelical Alliance, to which it was becoming that 
 every other design should be subordinated, has been de- 
 scribed to be ' to aid in manifesting, as far as practicable, 
 the unity which exists amongst the true disciples of 
 Christ.' " ' 
 
 Bellarmine. — But is not this a very lame conclusion, if 
 it be indeed a fact, that " the unity which exists amongst 
 the true disciples of Christ," is very far short of what 
 ought to be, and 7night be, found existing among them ? 
 Besides, the conclusion is lamer still, if this " great object" 
 is pursued in a manner clearly illegitimate and suicidal, by 
 virtually superseding the method of manifesting unity, 
 which is enjoined in Holy Scripture and is agreeable to the 
 nature of the case, namely, church organization. Fur- 
 thermore, if this be indeed the great object of the Evan- 
 gelical Alliance, it seems to me to have outwitted itself 
 by extending a silent sanction and semi-official patronage 
 to those very denominational peculiarities, which are at 
 once the bane of any union that may already exist 
 amongst its members, as well as an insuperable impedi- 
 ment to the full growth and development of that union, 
 and also an extinguisher to its visible manifestation. 
 
 Melancthon. — Notwithstanding every subtle objection 
 and metaphysical juggle that can be urged against the 
 Evangelical Alliance, it is a noble institution and substan- 
 tially right What Christian heart does not thrill a re- 
 sponse to such a resolution as the following : — 
 ' Dr Massic, p. 309 of his vol. 
 
352 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 " That, inasmuch as this proposal for Union originated, 
 in a great degree, in the sense very generally entertained 
 among Christians, of their grievous practical neglect of 
 our Lord's 'new commandment' to his disciples, to 'love 
 one another,' in which oifence the members of the Alliance 
 desire, with godly sorrow, to acknowledge their full par- 
 ticipation ; it ought to form one chief object of the Alli- 
 ance to deepen in the minds of its own members, and, 
 through their influence, to extend among the disciples of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ generally, that conviction of sin 
 and shortcoming in this respect, which the blessed Spirit 
 of God seems to be awakening throughout his Church; in 
 order that, humbling themselves more and more before 
 the Lord, they may be stirred up to make full confession 
 of their guilt at all suitable times, and to implore, through 
 the merits and intercession of their merciful Head and 
 Saviour, forgiveness of their past offences, and Divine 
 grace to lead them to the better cultivation of that bro- 
 therly affection which is enjoined upon all who, loving the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, are bound also to love one another, for 
 the truth's sake which dwelleth in them." ^ 
 
 TheopJdlus. — We would allude to these solemn state- 
 ments with all reverence and all humility ; but for the 
 Truth's sake we cannot refrain. They do not seem to us 
 to contain a "full confession of guilt." These acknow- 
 ledgments proceed upon the supposition, that no guilt of 
 schism attaches to the Protestant community, except what 
 is involved in the tardy formation of this Alliance and the 
 personal alienation of individual Christians. Judging of 
 this expression of " godly sorrow," in connection with the 
 ^ Abstract, &c., p. 9. 
 
THE EVAXGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 353 
 
 principles and proceedings of tlie Alliance, there seems to 
 us to be a silent, but emphatic denial of any sectarianism 
 in the constitutions of our various denominations. That 
 our denominational churches are for the most part schis- 
 mntically constituted, has never, so far as we are aware, 
 been expressly or formally denied by the Alliance. We 
 have seen it denied now and again by some individual 
 members ; whose views on that point have been shewn, we 
 think, to be inconsistent and unscriptural. The Alliance 
 in its collective capacity, has shrunk, as well they might, 
 from avowedly committing themselves to the hazardous 
 opinion, that there is nothing essentially schismatic and 
 unchristian in our endless ecclesiastical organizations. 
 They have, nevertheless, by their studied silence on this 
 vital topic, and their profession of niaking a full acknow- 
 ledgment of transgression, virtually and substantially 
 avowed that there is no "sin and shortcoming:" in our 
 ceaseless sects themselves ; and that all that is needed, in 
 their judgm.ent, for " the better cultivation of that bro- 
 therly affection which is enjoined upon all who, loving the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, are bound also to love one another, for 
 the truth's sake which dwelleth in them," is simply to 
 work diligently the machinery of the Evangelical AUiance, 
 and " love one another" over the party-walls of our sec- 
 tarianism, — forgetting or denying that these party-walls 
 arc nothing but revolutionary barricades in the " city of 
 truth," which, so far as this Alliance is concerned, may 
 stand untouched for ever. 
 
 The Evangelical Alliance may, indeed, reiterate her 
 declarations that she has nothing whatever to do with our 
 denominational partition- walls, — that, as she is not called 
 
 z 
 
354 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 either to defend or assail them, she will simply let them 
 alone. But assuming such a position as tliis, in her cir- 
 cumstances, is a shallow pretence. For she has been con- 
 strained by certain influences seriously to abjure every 
 attempt and intention even to attack or shake or approach 
 these walls of separation. Again and again has she pledged 
 herself, that, within the range of her direct activities, 
 denominational peculiarities shall ever be regarded as a 
 sort of preserve sacred from intrusion. And yet, we have 
 found reason to affirm, that our ecclesiastical segregations 
 are, in fact, some of the ripest fruits of discord, yielding a 
 concentrated essence of schism and strife. Consequently, 
 if the Evangelical Alliance would prove true to her own 
 better principles, and ivoulcl not falter at the difficulties 
 before her, her chief business would lie with these very 
 segregations, and her more immediate object should bo, 
 not so much to dilute the poison, as to uproot the tree 
 from which it is distilled. Moreover, if confession of sin 
 must be full in order to be acceptable, and if it must be 
 followed by immediate and unswerving amendment, that it 
 may not become an awful mockery, let the Evangelical 
 Alliance come before the world and deliberately declare, 
 that there is no schism in the denominational frame-work 
 of Protestant Churches ; or, if she cannot and will not 
 make this open declaration, let her cease forthwith to put 
 a finger to the work of Christian Union, of whose first 
 principles she thus acknowledges herself to be profoundly 
 ignorant ; or, what would be best of all, let her recast her 
 confession of sin and shortcoming, and reform the plan of 
 her operations. Let the world know whether our deno- 
 minational inclosurcs are schismatical or not. If they arc 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLLUSXE. 
 
 355 
 
 not, and if conscientious Christians may multiply denomi- 
 national variety, as clever connoisseurs multiply the 
 shapes and shades and patterns of fashion, then, indeed, 
 has the Evangelical Alliance mistaken its vocation, and 
 sounded a false alarm to Christendom. But if there is to 
 be, and ought to be only, " one fold," as there is but 
 " one shepherd," then lot the unauthorised and party- 
 fences which separate the sheep, and disfigure the pastur- 
 age, and displease the great Lord of all, be assailed imme- 
 diately with the weapons of Truth and of the Bible ; and 
 let the Evangelical AUiance be the first to strike the 
 blow. 
 
 Melancthon. — This is misunderstanding the design of 
 the Alliance altogether. Please to give due attention to 
 its own well weighed statements. " That the great object 
 of the Evangelical Alliance be, to aid in manifesting, as far 
 as practicable, the unity which exists amongst the true 
 disciples of Christ; to promote their union by fraternal 
 and devotional intercourse; to discourage all envyings, 
 strifes, and divisions ; to impress upon Christians a deeper 
 sense, of the great duty of obeying their Lord's command 
 to 'love one another;' and to seek the full accomplish- 
 ment of His prayer: 'that they all may be one, as thou, 
 Father, art in me, and I in thee ; that they also may be 
 one in us : that the world may beheve that thou hast sent 
 mc.' " ' 
 
 Theophilus. — \Vc never hoard of any one who dis- 
 tinctly professed to believe, that "the /w/^ accomplish- 
 ment" of our Lord's prayer now quoted, is comj)atiblo in 
 any sense with the continuance and integrity of the cxist- 
 * Abstract, tie, p. 9. 
 
356 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 ing ecclesiastical organizations. Besides, as it is generally 
 admitted that the prevalence of schism called forth the 
 Evangelical Alliance, it is a natural inference, that the 
 Alliance will cease to be, when schism shall have been ex- 
 terminated from the Church of Christ. 
 
 Now it is doing; no violence to the language of the 
 resolution before us, to suppose that the Alliance is a 
 church. The language rather suggests such an idea. It 
 seems to us, as has been already remarked, that it is one 
 of the peculiar and indefeasible functions of the Church to 
 make " manifest the unity of Christ's true disciples." 
 What occasion then for a new device "to aid" this mani- 
 festation ? Not certainly because the original constitution 
 of the Church is defective in this point; but because that 
 original constitution, suitable and adequate though it be, 
 is now under a practical abeyance and suspension. Not 
 to return without delay to that constitution, seeking to 
 be conformed to it in all its integrity and beauty, but to 
 invent a remedy of our own for the evils under which we 
 are groaning by the injuries done to that very constitu- 
 tion, is to attempt to cure one disease by inducing another, 
 or to cover an old transo-ression bv committing a fresh 
 offence. We might suppose the orginators of the Alliance 
 to be too wise to fall into such a mistake ; and that their 
 design was neither more nor less than to revert to the 
 ])rimitivc and New Testament model of the Church. This 
 charitable supposition, however, is rudely dispelled by 
 unwelcome facts. 
 
 Because, if the Alliance has for its " great object," " to 
 promote the union of the true disciples of Christ by fra- 
 ternal and devotional intercourse ;" and " to seek the full 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 357 
 
 accomplishment of Christ's prayer, — ' That they all may 
 be one,' " &c. ; there are only two ways in which this 
 object can possibly be attained. In the first place, the 
 Alliance may constitute itself a church, and grow, and 
 prosper, till it shall become the one only universal 
 Church. Or, secondly', the Alliance may exercise such 
 an influence upon existing churches as shall persuade 
 them to unite and form one church. If the Alliance 
 adopted the former mode, it must try to sweep away 
 before it existing institutions, and consigning them to 
 their place among the rubbish of the past, endeavour to 
 occupy their room to better purpose. If the Alliance 
 were to follow the second plan, it must aim at removing, 
 or causing to be removed, sectarian landmarks, and moun- 
 tains of prejudice, so as to fill up the valleys between one 
 party and another, — and it must labour to straighten what 
 is crooked and smootli what is rough, in our denomina- 
 tional polities. Now, it is remarkable that the ]"]vangeli- 
 cal Alliance refuses to take either of these plans for the 
 accomplishment of her object. She professes to seek the 
 realisation of Christian Union in its full and scriptural 
 sense, and at the same time disavows the use of the very 
 means by which alone that union can bo accomplished. 
 She is not to be regarded as a church, where the scat- 
 tered and distracted disciples might rally, and recognise 
 each otiicr, and avow and seal their union ; neither will 
 she lay her hand upon one of those many and unscrip- 
 tural innovations and traditions, by which the disciples arc 
 thrown into confusion and discord, and the Church of 
 Christ rent into unnumbered pieces ! She is wishing, and 
 labouring, and praying, that (Jod's children on earth may 
 
358 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 be assembled in one bappy housebold ; but sbe is not to 
 be considered tbe bouse where the alienated members of 
 this noble family may embrace each other, never more to 
 separate ; nor will she move a step to repair and refit the 
 old family mansion on its original homestead, among the 
 dilapidations and ruins of which the children are often seen 
 suspiciously and enviously watching each other ! She is 
 longing, and toihng, and interceding, that the sheep of the 
 Good Shepherd may be, ere long, gathered together into 
 one rich, green, and commodious fold ; but she protests 
 that she is not that fold, and that she cannot tell where it 
 is, or how it is to be found ; nor will she give her sanction 
 or assistance to overthrow the divisions which she laments, 
 and clear the ground of lumber, that the rain of heaven 
 may fall on a prepared soil, and the wilderness begin to 
 rejoice, and blossom as the rose. 
 
 III. — The Organization of the Alliance. 
 
 Melancthon. — The Evangelical Alliance is an association 
 of Christians, who live not in one locality only, but in 
 " many and remote parts of the world." 
 
 Lord Herbert. — An extensive, and especially an oecume- 
 nical, association cannot, in the nature of things, be one of 
 individuals, but must be one of branch or affiliated asso- 
 ciations. 
 
 Bellarmine. — And it seems undeniable, that on what- 
 ever principles an association of individuals is constructed, 
 on the same principles should an association of associations 
 be founded. 
 
 Melancthon. — Most certainly. We must seek not only 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 359 
 
 a union of individuals in one church, but also some visible 
 and effective union among these local churches — " such a 
 union as renders a member of one virtually a member of 
 all ; the whole of them in Judea and Samaria, in Asia and 
 Europe — ' from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyri- 
 cum' — beint; linked too-cther in one extensive and harmo- 
 nious brotherhood ; independent societies, yet acknow- 
 ledging one another as 'all one in Christ Jesus ;' separate 
 flocks, each with its own appropriate pastors, but all the 
 joint property and the constant and equal care of the 
 ' Good Shepherd, who gave his life for the sheep.' Let 
 us beware of running to an unscriptural extreme of so 
 completely disuniting and insulating churches from one 
 another, as to present to view a number of Christian 
 societies, each in itself thoroughly organized, but without 
 any bond or feeling of mutual connection ; so, instead of 
 the lovely harmony of reciprocal confidence and friendly 
 intercourse, we should behold each church, like a separate 
 fortress, surrounded with its walls and ramparts, with 
 spies on the battlements, and sentinels at the gates, watch- 
 ing with anxious jealousy to prevent the entrance of in- 
 truders from the rest. If it be at all possible that any 
 disciple of the Lord Jesus should relish such a state of 
 things, or entertain a single wish for anything resembling 
 it, let him never mention his desire to see Christians re- 
 turning to primitive simplicity and apostolic order ; for, 
 in truth, that to which his wishes are directed is as unlike 
 the condition of the churches in the times of the Apostles 
 as division is to unity, or hatred and hostility to affection 
 and peace. His desire, were it gratified, would realise a 
 scene which we cannot too devoutly deprecate ; and to 
 
3G0 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 which it would be oui' duty to submit, ' no, not for an 
 hour.' " ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — But is not this scene which you so 
 deprecate precisely the one, that has been for so long a 
 time presented by many different Christian denominations 
 towards each other ? Consequently these denominations 
 in their present condition are standing in the way of such 
 a union of churches as you have now described. 
 
 Bellarmine. — No one surely will maintain that the Evan- 
 gelical Alliance, even though it were universally adhered 
 to, is anything like a " return to primitive simplicity and 
 apostolic order." We are not aware that the fohowing 
 sentiment, expressed by its historian, has been contro- 
 verted by any of its supporters : — " If all the Churches of 
 Christ were in a healthful and vigorous condition — if all 
 Christians were enlightened, active, and consistent in their 
 profession and discipleship — other agencies or combina- 
 tions would not be required, either for the diffusion of the 
 gospel, or the conversion of mankind ; either for the pro- 
 motion of Zion's peace and security, or for the exhibition 
 and maintenance of fraternal communion and catholic unity. 
 
 . • The warmest friends and advocates of the Alli- 
 ance look forward to, and wait for, a blessed and joyful 
 consummation of such labours and associations ; and, 
 therefore, adhere to it as a temporary provision, which 
 the wants of the world, and the shortcomings of the 
 Church of Christ, have rendered expedient." ^ 
 
 Theophilus. — But the Alliance itself does not take this 
 view of its own constitution. Evidence has been already 
 
 1 Dr Wanllaw, ])r IMassie's vol. p. 128. 
 * Dr Massie's vul. pp. :350, 3ol. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLL\NCE. 
 
 361 
 
 adduced, shewing that the Alhance has decidedly nega- 
 tived the proposal of its being " a temporary provision," 
 with a view to the amalgamation of churches. If the Alli- 
 ance were, indeed, simply a provisional expedient to secure 
 the accomplishment of a scriptural union, enough has been 
 advanced, from time to time, to prove that its motto, " no 
 compromise," should be exchanged for some other, such 
 as " denominational demolition." And instead of profess- 
 ing to be " no church," it ought to aim either at effecting, 
 or at itself becoming, " a union of churches." 
 
 Melancthon. — But this is to misunderstand the question 
 of Christian union altogether. " We lay the basis of the 
 unity of the Church in the unity of the faith ; and that 
 faith we find in the reception of the atoning sacrifice and 
 the sanctifying spirit. Whatever individual has this faith, 
 experimentally and spiritually — whatever else he has, or 
 whatever else he has not — is one with Christ, as a vital 
 member of his mystical body ; whatever individual clearly 
 and credibly professes this faith — whatever else he pro- 
 fesses or denies — is a proper subject for admission into 
 any particular church ; and whatever church explicitly 
 retains and teaches this faith, without corrupting and 
 destroying it by superadded perversions, is a true Church, 
 and ought to be recognised as a part of the visible Chris- 
 tian community. This faith may consist with every pos- 
 sible form of discipline and oi dcr, and therefore no par- 
 ticular form of order and discipline, in connection with 
 which it does exist, can be properly considered as subver- 
 sive of a character derived from something distinct from 
 both, and sui)erior to cither." ' 
 
 ' Tlic Kev. T. Uiuuey, Dr Massic'a vol. p. 7b. 
 
3G2 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This clever statement overshoots the 
 mark. It does not secure union, but IcgaHses division. 
 May not the true Church be in a state of schism ? If there 
 be something which, by itself alone, at once makes a man 
 one with Christ and a member of his Church, then schism 
 is not defined or prevented, but anniliilated. For if an 
 individual has not this one thing, he is not a Christian, 
 and cannot, therefore, be a schismatic. And so long as he 
 possesses this something, if he be thereby a member of the 
 one true Church, he cannot, of course, be a schismatic in 
 this case either. To assert that the faith on which the 
 unity of the Church is based, " may consist with every 
 possible form of discipline and order," is almost equivalent 
 to saying that every Christian may be a church to himself 
 if he chooses. 
 
 Theophilus. — It seems needful to reiterate the senti- 
 ment, that true Christians may be guilty of schism, and a 
 true Church be enfeebled by division. While the true 
 Church may exist in different places and ages under vai'i- 
 ous outward forms, yet if Christians, living together in the 
 same neighbourhood or parish, cannot agree upon the 
 same form of order and discipline, a schism is most un- 
 doubtedly developed. When a professed follower of Christ 
 is not a member of the Christian Church which has been 
 formed in his own locality, there is plainly culpability rest- 
 ing upon it or upon him. 
 
 This culpability may be twofold in either case. The 
 Church may be cither apostate or schismatical ; and so 
 may the individual. If the fundamentals of Christianity 
 1)0 denied by cither party, and another gospel embraced, 
 there is no schism properly so called. If the Church holds 
 
THE EVANGELICAI/ ALLIANCE. 
 
 363 
 
 the gospel in its purity and integrity, and the individual 
 rejects it, he is rightfully excluded and regarded as an 
 " unbeliever." And if the Church denies the truth, while 
 the individual confesses it, he justly leaves the corrupt 
 society, and becomes the nucleus of a genuine Christian 
 Church, as Luther did when he stood almost alone in the 
 earlier stages of his career. But when both parties are 
 acknowledged to be true Christians, and yet cannot asso- 
 ciate in church-fellowship, then is schism manifested ; and, 
 as has been often remarked, the guilt thereof must rest 
 upon the Church or the individual, according as the one 
 or the other has given way to unholy dispositions, or 
 espoused the error which rends the society into twain. 
 
 The Church has two grand aims to keep in view, — to 
 admit all Christ's true disciples, if possible, and at the 
 same time testify to all the Truth. To throw one of 
 these aims into conflict with the other is as common as it 
 is disastrous. To construct the gate of entrance to the 
 Church such, that the weakest and most ignorant Christian 
 shall not be excluded, while by his admission no iota of 
 truth shall be compromised, is the great practical problem 
 to be solved. If, on the one hand, you reduce the testi- 
 mony of the Church to the smallest possible dimensions, so 
 that every erring brother may easily find admission, then 
 does the Church cease to exercise her function as witness 
 for God, — as the pillar and ground of the Trutli. If, on 
 the other hand, the confession of the Church be amplified, 
 and positive approval thereof be demanded from every 
 one as the condition of admission, then a stumbling-block is 
 thrown in the way of many of the most estimable and 
 conscientious. If in constructing the terms of communion 
 
364 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 in their details, tlie question be, not how many points of 
 truth can we include, but how few will suffice, ever}'' one 
 will perceive that we are takinjf a position on most un- 
 stable and slippery ground. If, again, in dealing with 
 individual souls, we shall regard none as worthv of the 
 fellowship of the Church, but such as have nearly ap- 
 proached the stature of perfect men in Christ Jesus, we 
 shall soon find ourselves entangled in the meshes of spiritual 
 despotism and all uncharitableness. If the Evangelical 
 Alliance had but solved this problem in a practical foi*m, 
 it would have performed a great achievement. 
 
 The Alliance by adopting even its limited and modified 
 Confession of Faith has knowingly and deliberately ex- 
 cluded from its pale, some whom it hesitates not to recog- 
 nise as true Christians. If this principle be sound, as we 
 think it is, the Alliance would be justified in going much 
 further in testifying for truth than it has done. It has 
 stopped at a point, that has been fixed in a most arbitrary 
 manner. Denominations go further, and arc justified in 
 going further ; but they too often mix error with truth in 
 their testimony. Every error introduced into an ecclesi- 
 astical symbol, is, of course, an clement of schism. Besides, 
 both our various denominations and the Evangelical Alii- 
 ance have failed to bring out, broadly and practically, the 
 distinction between suspense of judgment on any topic, 
 and avowed active opposition to some truth. 
 
 The real and efl^ective bond of Christian Union is, and 
 can be, nothing else than the truth, the whole truth, and 
 nothing but the truth. When the Church of God would 
 proclaim her faith to the world, it is equally hazardous, 
 because equally criminal, to exclude one known truth, as 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 36o 
 
 to admit one error. It seems perfectly consistent, on the 
 principles which we advocate, with the most ample testi- 
 mony for truth, to have a wide and open door for every 
 honest and diligent inquirer, however ignorant he may at 
 first be. For the door should be closed only against such 
 as distinctly and doggedly oppose some portion of the 
 Church's articulate confession. It seems to us to be indu- 
 bitable that every vigorous abettor of any error, or, which 
 is the same thing, every active opponent of any truth, is 
 ipso facto a schismatic. There must ever be a painful and 
 perplexing compromise between the claims of truth and 
 charity, unless the Church invariably distinguish between 
 the ignorant and the erring. The Evangelical Alliance is 
 the victim of this compromise. Some of her members 
 deeply regret that so many true Christians are excluded 
 from her fellowship ; while others regret as deeply that 
 so few truths have received her testimony. If the Church 
 will put nothing but truth into her confession, she need 
 not be afraid of enlarging it to the very utmost. And if 
 slic will welcome all the doubting and anxious and thought- 
 ful to her lucid instructions, meeting them not in dictato- 
 rial arrogance, but in tender love, she will infringe no 
 canon of charity, but only prove faithful to her trust, when 
 excluding from her pale every bold impugner of any truth 
 whatever. 
 
 If a man can find any one Scripture truth, he need 
 not err, though ho may be ignorant, as to any other Scrip- 
 ture truth. If the Church be bound to hold forth one 
 doctrine of her Master, she is equally bound to Imld them 
 all forth, as from time to time she leai-ns them. If a 
 Christian severs his connection with his brethren by deny- 
 
3G6 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 ing any one statement of the Bible, why may he not do 
 so by denying any other statement ? To attempt to 
 found the Church on other principles than these, is to oc- 
 cupy ground, which very soon in practical details and 
 difficulties bofjins to shake and feel boo-cry under our feet. 
 
 Melancthon Grant at least to the Evangelical Alliance 
 
 the substantial merits which belong to it. 
 
 Theophilus. — We admit that its aim is most magna- 
 nimous and Christian, and admire the wisdom of many of 
 the means which have been adopted for its accomplish- 
 ment. But we must be allowed to point out at the same 
 time what appear to us to be its serious defects and 
 blemishes. 
 
 Melancthon. — Allow me to remind you that the Evan- 
 srelical Alliance is not an alliance of denominations, or 
 branches of the Church, but of individual Christians, each 
 acting on his own responsibihty. 
 
 Bellarmine. — This notion that advocates Christian 
 union, and rejects a union of churches, is a favourite one 
 with the members of the Alliance. Any unsophisticated 
 mind, who is uninitiated in Protestant logic, would cer- 
 tainly conclude that the union of Christian men and the 
 union of Christian churches should not be incompatible the 
 one with the other. For what is a Christian church, but 
 a union of Christian men, as such ? And what does the 
 Evangelical Alliance profess to be but a union of Christian 
 men, as such ? Why then should the one union be so de- 
 sirable and advantageous, while the other is regarded as 
 so impracticable and inexpedient ? 
 
 Melancthon. — " Let us follow this rule : those whom 
 Christs accepts, wo will accept. Oh that we may breathe 
 
TUE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 367 
 
 that Spirit ! And, though every man must have a connec- 
 tion with some of the tribes of the great commonwealth of 
 God's Israel, yet let that connection be on the maxim, — 
 ' Preference, not exclusion.' " ' 
 
 Lord Herbert. — If Christians formed and maintained 
 their denominational connections on this maxim, there 
 would be no demand for such an institution as the Evan- 
 gelical Alliance. When one man prefers to be a chemist, 
 and another prefers to be a mathematician, and there is 
 no exclusion or condemnation of the one by the other, 
 there is also no alienation or rivalry between them, re- 
 quiring to be softened or removed. But such is not tho 
 case with denominational Christians. Their respective 
 peculiarities are notoriously exclusive of each other. Does 
 Arminianism not exclude Calvinism? And of the various 
 forms of church government, each jus divinum form most 
 certainlv excludes all the rest. If at union meetings the 
 maxim be, " Preference, not exclusion," at denominational 
 meetings the maxim is reversed, and becomes " Exclusion, 
 not preference." Such tergiversation would be insuflfer- 
 able in infidels or Papists ! 
 
 Theophilus. — We need no stronger proof of the corrupt 
 state of our affairs than the fact, that while an aUianco 
 of individuals from various churches is practicable, any 
 alliance of these churches themselves seems to be so 
 utterly hopeless. In this critical emergency the Evan- 
 gehcal Alliance steers a middle and unworthy course. 
 She is not satisfied with things as they are, and yet she 
 will not profess reform in a decided and unambiguous 
 tone. She feels that something must be attempted in the 
 ' Dr S. II. Cox, licxjort, ic. p. 477. 
 
368 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 way of progress and improvement. But to expect deno- 
 minations as they are to amalgamate, would be to expect 
 " the wolf to dwell with the lamb, and the leopard to lie 
 down with the kid," while the wolf retained his ferocity, 
 and the leopard his savage wildness. In these circum- 
 stances the Alliance desires and aims at I'eform, but in 
 reality (we do not say, intentionally), pursues a syco- 
 phantic conservative policy. She professes to meet and 
 remove the evil of schism in the Church, while in fact, so 
 far as the present question is concerned, she succumbs and 
 yields to it. This is a now phase of our social malady, 
 and it is a symptom not a little alarming. 
 
 Melancthon. — No other course was open to the origina- 
 tors of the Alliance, unless they had acted on the principle 
 of representation. For this the mind of the community is 
 not nearly ripe. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — I always understood it to be a professed 
 principle of Christians, that they should do, not what is 
 expedient, but what is right. And if any man does not 
 know his duty, the best kindness that can be shewn him 
 is to teach him his duty. 
 
 Bellarmine. — But the Alliance has not totally rejected 
 tlie principle of representation. 
 
 Melancthon. — If you mean that the appointment of 
 committees and office-bearers proceeds on a representative 
 principle, your remark is undoubtedly correct. For the 
 absolute exclusion of all representation would utterly 
 prevent union and alliance in any form. But you are 
 aware that the different district organizations of the 
 Alliance arc in a great measure independent of each 
 other. 
 
THE EV.VN'GELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 369 
 
 Lord Herbert. — What, then, is the relation which they 
 hold to each other ? 
 
 Melancthon. — The following are the resolutions which 
 were adopted in reference to this matter : — 
 
 " I. That whereas brethren from the continents of 
 Europe and America, as well as in this country, are 
 unable, without consultation with their countrymen, to 
 settle all the arrangements for their respective countries, 
 it is expedient to defer the tinal and complete arrange- 
 ment of the details of the Evangelical Alliance, of which 
 the foundation has now been laid, till another General 
 Conference. 
 
 " II. That the Alliance consist of all such members of 
 this Conference, and members and corresponding mem- 
 bers of the divisions of tlie Provisional Committee, as shall 
 adhere to tlie principles and objects of the Alliance. Per- 
 sons may be admitted to membership of the Alliance by 
 consent of all the district organizations, or by a vote of a 
 General Conference, and to membership of any district 
 organization by such mode as each district organization 
 may determine. 
 
 III. That the members of the Alliance be recom- 
 mended to form district organizations in such manner 
 as shall be most in accordance with the pccuhar circum- 
 stances of each district : Provided, however, first, that 
 neither the AUiance, nor tlie respective district organiza- 
 tion, shall be lield responsible for the proceedings of any 
 district organization ; secondly, that no member of any 
 district organization shall, as such, be a member of the 
 Alliance ; and, thirdly, that whenever a district organi- 
 zation shall be formed, the members of the Alliance, 
 
 2 A 
 
370 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 within that district, shall act collectively in its forina- 
 tion." 1 
 
 Lord Herbert. — This is a rare and curious constitution. 
 Each district organization has full power to admit its 
 own members, but then membership in a district organiza- 
 tion does not constitute membership in the Alliance ! The 
 reason of this must of course be, that a General Conference, 
 or the organizations in distant districts, have more means 
 of knowing and judging of a man's character than his own 
 immediate neighbours ! The members of this Alliance 
 surely wish themselves to be regarded as the very elite 
 of the world, when the district organization of a whole 
 empire is not intrusted with the prerogative of adding one 
 to their number. 
 
 Bellarinine. — This is the modern Protestant version of 
 " primitive discipline and apostolic order ! " In those 
 days the member of a church in one place was hailed by 
 all churches as a member of the one catholic Church ; and 
 on his removal to a new locality, he needed no more than 
 hi.s credentials of membership from the church he was 
 leaving, to be received as a brother by Christians any- 
 where and everywhere. Protestant doctors thus profess 
 themselves to be wiser than the founders of the Church. 
 Each district organization is an independent and isolated 
 association ; while the Alliance will not hold itself impli- 
 cated in any of their respective proceedings. There is a 
 semi-connection, which looks somewhat like a sham ; for 
 there is a virtual and palpable want of union. What has 
 never been united cannot be said to be severed. The 
 Evangelical Alliance and its organizations, therefore, can 
 ' Abstract, &c. p. 8. 
 
THE EVAN'GELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 371 
 
 scarcely be likened to anj'tliing more coliercnt than a 
 rope of sand. I never saw or heard of a tree, -whose stock 
 was independent of its branches, and the branches dis- 
 sociated from the stock. The very conception of such a 
 tree baffles my imagination. 
 
 Melancthon. — Well, the fact is, that such was not the 
 organization originally proposed, which was free from the 
 objections that have now been offered. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — Was there any particular circumstance 
 that led to the adoption of such an anomalous constitu- 
 tion ? 
 
 Melancthon. — The circumstances were these. A dis- 
 cussion arose on the question of slavery, some wishing to 
 exclude, and some being desirous of admitting, slave- 
 holders as members of the Alliance. Many efforts were 
 made, — prayerful, and protracted, and earnest endeavours 
 were put forth to solve this grave question, and get suc- 
 cessfully over this formidable difficulty. At last, in answci- 
 to fervent supplications, and as the result of the most un- 
 wearied assiduity, the Confei-ence at London was led to 
 the adoption of the organization above described, not 
 merely as the only outlet from their perplexity, but also 
 as what appeared to them, a satisfactory deliverance from 
 their dilemma. 
 
 Bellarmine. — As I understand the matter, the opposite 
 parties on the (juestion of slavery acted on the principle, 
 which has been the fruitful source of Protestant sec- 
 tarism, — When they could not agree, they agreed to 
 differ. Now, they ought to have agreed. The (jucstion 
 of slavery is a most momentous one. To affirm that both 
 parties sought the truth, as they might have done, and 
 
372 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 ought to have done, and yet came to their conflicting 
 conchisions, is to teach undiluted scepticism. The party 
 that held the truth ousht not to have been afraid or 
 ashamed to treat the other party as in error. But for 
 both parties in such a question to agree to difi^er, is to 
 deck treason to trutli with the trappings of a sentimental 
 charity. 
 
 Lord Herbert. — It thus appears that in the very corner- 
 stone of the Evangelical Alliance itself — the institution 
 which was to heal ecclesiastical schisms, and promote and 
 accomplish Christian concord, — there is found a most pal- 
 pable and ominous fissure. 
 
 Theophilus. — The exact point at which the divergence 
 took place in the discussion on slaveholding was the fol- 
 lowing, — whether or not the Alliance should affirm this 
 resolution : — " And, in respect especially to the system of 
 slavery, and every other form of oppression in any coun- 
 try, the Alliance are unanimous in deploring them, as in 
 many ways obstructing the progress of the gospel ; and 
 express their confidence, that no brancli will admit to 
 membership slaveholders, who, by their own fault, con- 
 tinue in that position, retaining their fellow-men in slavery, 
 from regard to their own interests." ^ 
 
 Though the preparation of this resolution in the above 
 form was the result of long and anxious deliberation, it 
 did not secure harmony. For, in the first place, the 
 American brethren felt oft'endod that the subject of 
 slavery should be specified at all in the resolutions of 
 the Alliance. And, in the second place, some of them 
 thought that this resolution went too far, while not a 
 ' Report, &c. p. 371. 
 
THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE. 
 
 373 
 
 few of the British members thought that it did not go 
 far enough. 
 
 The reconciliation of these conflicting views being 
 found impracticable, a compromise was effected by the 
 plan of organization which was at last adopted, as given 
 above. 
 
 If we were now asked to state, in illustration of the 
 principles which wc have been asserting, in what way this 
 compromise could have been avoided, and harmony in 
 opinion and action secured, we should reply thus : — Firstly, 
 the friends from America had some ground of complaint 
 in regard to the introduction of the topic. But Christian 
 magnanimity might have led them to overlook the oficnco. 
 If their besetting sin were brought forward for discussion 
 by the British brethren, the most Christian course would 
 have been for them to have met it in a proper spirit and 
 disposed of it in a scriptural manner ; and then they 
 might have called attention to some besetting sin of those 
 on this side the Atlantic, and thus the whole Christian 
 community been improved and benefitted. Wc do not, 
 th-erefore, sympathise with the American friends in the 
 extreme sensitiveness with which they shrunk from the 
 very mention of slavery. 
 
 Secondly, the first difliculty just specified would have 
 soon been removed, but for the substantial difference of 
 opinion that lay beyond it. The j)roposal already quoted 
 was too stringent for some members of the Alliance, and 
 was too lax for others. It appears to us to express in a 
 very admirable manner the precise ground on which they 
 ought to have united and coalesc(Kl. It follows, if this 
 view be adopted, that the l*hangelical Alliance, with its 
 
374 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 district organizations mutually independent and irrespon- 
 sible towards each other, is only a fresh manifestation of 
 our inveterate schisms, and is a society, regarded in this 
 aspect, as destitute of reasonable, as it js of scriptural and 
 traditional support. 
 
 We assume as a fundamental principle, that the respon- 
 sibihty of one Christian assembly to another Christian 
 assembly, is substantially the same as the responsibility of 
 one Christian individual to another Clmstian individual. 
 A member of any particular church is responsible for the 
 conduct of his brother-members, to this extent, that if any 
 of them act inconsistently with their Christian profession, 
 he is bound to see, directly or indirectly, by his own 
 efforts or by means of the elders (or deacons) who are his 
 representatives, that the inconsistency shall be made a 
 matter of church discipline, and be righteously dealt with. 
 In like manner, if the union of churches is to be a fact — 
 if Christian concord on a broad and firm basis is not to be 
 for ever lost in empty talk and sentimental meetings — 
 then one Christian congrogatiou must be hold responsible 
 for other Christian congreo-ations in a well-defined and ira- 
 portant sense. The moment that one church, amongst a 
 number of affiliated churches, does any thing as a church, 
 to damage Christianity by coming short of its own Chris- 
 tian reputation and character, all the associated Churches 
 are bound in vindication of themselves and their cause to 
 take action in regard to the offending society. So long as 
 the associated Churches do nothing that mars or disturbs 
 their professed union, they must be regarded as virtually 
 and in fact homologating each other's proceedings ; and, 
 more especially, membership in any one must be held to 
 
THE EVAXGELICAL ALLIANCK. 
 
 375 
 
 be equivalent to membership in any other, unless their 
 alleged union be no more than a shallow pretence. 
 
 It does not, then, appear to be so very difficult to say, 
 what means should be adopted to heal the manifold and 
 mischievous divisions of the Christian Church. Let the 
 disciples living in one parish form a congregation — let the 
 representatives of a convenient number of such congrega- 
 tions form a society, to meet monthly for the management 
 of its affairs. While the representatives of a larger num- 
 ber of congregations should form an association to meet 
 yearly or half-yearly. The limits of time and place are 
 obviously the conditions on which such associations should 
 be constructed. Any other representative assembly would 
 be uncalled for in ordinary circumstances. If any emer- 
 gency arose demanding ought approximating to an oecu- 
 menical council, such council ought to be held only ichen 
 such an emergency was pressing, and ought to sit only 
 for the transaction of its special business. 
 
 Wc do not regret, therefore, that the cecumenical orga- 
 nization of the Alliance has proved a failure. It ought 
 never to have been attempted. Christian union should not 
 be identified with a universal confederation, and its neces- 
 sary concomitant of centralised power. 
 
 The theory now propounded is, as a theory, simple, 
 scriptural, and reasonable. If it be assailed as Utopian 
 and impracticable, it is so just because the Chi-istian graces 
 of intcgi'ity and meekness may also be characterised as 
 Utopian and impracticable. Whatever difficulties attach to 
 this scheme are difficulties of our own makiii":. Honest v 
 in forming our opinions, and forbearance in our conduct, 
 arc no more than what is expected from us all, as men, 
 
376 
 
 DIALOGUE V. 
 
 not to say as Christians. These virtues would untie the 
 gordian knot, which is now a scandal to the intelligence 
 of the Protestant Churches ; while they would, more 
 obviously and not less surely, medicate and heal the 
 alienations which are the canker-worm of our Christian 
 charity. 
 
coxcLusio:^. 
 
 I. — Historical. 
 
 Before finally closing the argument, it is desirable to 
 glance at the historical aspects of the question. The con- 
 clusions to which we have been led are these : — 
 
 1. While men may be ignorant of many things, or form 
 doubtfid hypotheses to aid their investigations, or be en- 
 tangled in practical fallacies which they have not had 
 adequate opportunity to examine, yet when they use their 
 reason conscientiously, in the only valid and genuine sense 
 of the term, on any special point, they will not form on 
 that point a deliberate and erroneous judgment. 
 
 2. Hence the only reasonable and scriptural basis for 
 Christian union is agreement in interpreting the Word of 
 God on every point of faith and duty. When the inter- 
 pretations are not positively harmonious, they must at 
 least be negatively such, or non-conflicting. 
 
 3. The outward bond of Christian brotherhood, — the 
 visible badge of discii)lesliip, being siumltancous com- 
 munion in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, two or 
 more communion tables cannot be legitimately erected, 
 except to suit the convenience of the brethren, on account 
 of their distant residences, or growing numbers. 
 
378 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 These topics have come up before the minds of the 
 Christian community of the present age, in a shape and 
 attitude and combination of circumstances, which are quite 
 unparalleled in the history of the Church. Hence, when 
 we look into the opinions of those who have gone before 
 us, we may not readily find distinct or frequent expressions 
 of sentiment, bearing directly upon the question, in the 
 precise form in which it has now been put. If, to supple- 
 ment this deficiency, we begin to compare the current 
 views of this generation with those of preceding periods, 
 inferentially and by way of good and necessary conse- 
 quence, then a very wide field of discussion is opened up. 
 AVc need not be surprised if we find in such an inquiry, 
 what has been often found, that both the conflicting parties 
 have substantial reasons for referring to the writino's of 
 the very same celebrated and honoured men in support of 
 their respective tenets. It has even happened that oppo- 
 site views have been sustained by quotations from different 
 pages of the very same volume. The Papists and the 
 Protestants have appealed against each other to the post- 
 apostolic fathers in vindication of their hostile systems ; 
 and in not a few instances the appeal and the counter- 
 appeal, in the very same issue, are about equally valid. 
 The explanation of this strange phenomenon lies in the 
 fact, that the primitive Church, while holding fast the 
 great truths of the gospel, was at a very early period 
 deeply tinged with the subtler errors of Romanism. 
 
 So far as our observation has extended, more can be 
 alleged in defence of the views propounded in these pages 
 than against them, out of the records of the past ; and 
 therefore the opinions opposed, rather than those advo- 
 
CONCLUSIOX. 
 
 379 
 
 catcd here, seem to wear an aspect of novelty in the his- 
 tory of Christianity. In the volumes to which frequent 
 reference has been made, there are not only the distinc- 
 tive opinions which have been commented upon, but there 
 is also the absence of any clear and firm enunciation of the 
 principle on which alone Christian union can rest, not to 
 speak of its vigorous defence or pointed application. That 
 there is much that is excellent in these writers, as well as 
 in the Evangelical Alliance, and that they have done much 
 good, we rejoice in believing. AVe feel assured that their 
 advocacy of brotherly love, and their efforts for its pro- 
 motion, have been richly and largely owned and blessed 
 of God, and have prepared the way for something better 
 still. 
 
 That the principle of Christian co-operation, as now set 
 forth, is not altogether an unrecognised or unsupported 
 dogma in ecclesiastical literature, let the following quota- 
 tions, as specimens gathered in a historical excursion, bear 
 testimony : — 
 
 The reader will recollect, that the Evangelical Alliance 
 deliberately refused to sanction conferences among its 
 members, with the view of promoting concord in inter- 
 preting the word of God. John Kno.x, in a short piece, 
 entitled " A Most Wholesome Counsel Touchino; God's 
 Holy Word," remarks : — 
 
 " I tliink it nc'cessiuT, tliat for the confeioncc of Scri|iturcs, 
 assemblies of bretlneu be liad. ... By lieaiiiig, reiidiiig, and 
 comparing tiie Scriptures, in the assembly, the whole body of the 
 Scriptures of God shall become familiar; the judgments and spirits 
 of men shall be tried, their patience and modesty shall be known, 
 anil finally tlieir gifts and utterance shall appear. Multiplication of 
 words, perplexed interpretation, and wilfulness in reasoning, is to 
 
380 
 
 COXCLUSIOX. 
 
 be avoided at all times, and iu all places, but chiefly in the congreg:a- 
 tion, where nothing ought to be respected, except the glory of God, 
 and comfort and edification of our brethren. If anj thing occnr 
 within the text, or yet arise in reasoning, which your judgments 
 cannot resolve, or capacities apprehend, let the same be noted 
 and put in ■vmting, before ye dejiart the congregation, that when 
 God shall offer unto you any interpreter, yom- doubts being noted 
 and known, may have the more expeded resolution. . . . For it 
 shall gi-eatly comfort you, to hear that harmony and well-tuned 
 song of the Holy Spirit speaking in our fatliers from the beginning. 
 It shall confirm 3-ou in these dangerous and perilous days, to behold 
 the face of Christ Jesus' loving Spouse and Kirk, from Abel to him- 
 self, and fi'om himself to this day, in all ages to be one." 
 
 Nothing was evidently further from the thoiiglits of 
 John Knox, than the idea of Christian brethren remaining 
 contented, each with his own opinion, when it is so evident 
 that each opinion cannot be in Scripture. Verily our 
 modern perplexed interpretations" albeit they be set 
 forth under the seal of conscience, have been making sad 
 havoc with " the harmony and tcell-tuned song of the 
 Holy Spirit." 
 
 Let us now look into Calvin's Institutes. The perspi- 
 cuity of Scripture is stated with great precision and force, 
 as well as our oblii>'ation to adhere to the Divine oracle in 
 every particular. If tliese two truths be intelligently 
 embraced and consistently adhered to, the idea of two 
 parties occupying hostile positions, and pleading the au- 
 thority of the Bible each in his own defence, and at the 
 same time respecting each other's conscientiousness and 
 uprightness in so doing, is surely inadmissible. 
 
 " It is a most vain fancy, that the power of judging ScrijUurc 
 lies with the Cliurch ; so that tlic certainty of the former should be 
 
COSCLUSIOX. 
 
 381 
 
 supposed to depend npon the consent of the latter. Though the 
 Church receives the Bible, and seals it with her approbation, this 
 does not make it authentic against doubts and controversies : she 
 only devoutlv and without dubietv renders it homage, acknowledg- 
 ing it to be the truth of God Himself. But it is asked, whence are we 
 persuaded that it comes from God. unless we betake ourselves to the 
 Church's decision ? This is the same as asking, IIow do we learn 
 to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from 
 bitter ? For Scripture carries with it a conviction of its truth not 
 less distinct than do white and black objects of their colour ; sweet 
 and bitter, of their taste." — (Lib. I. vii. 2.) " The Lord hath 
 joined the certainty of His Word and Spirit by a mutual bond ; so 
 that the sound religion of the Word sinks into our hearts, when 
 the Spirit shines and enables us to see the fiice of God there ; so 
 that we then embrace the Spirit without any fear of deception, when 
 we recognise Him in His own image, that is, in the "Word." — (Lib. 
 I. ix. 3.) Then again, when expounding Christian liberty, he de- 
 clares, — " Let the readers be sure of this, that notwithstanding all 
 the stumbling-blocks by which Satan and the world may endeavour 
 to tarn us from the precepts of God. or to hinder us from prosecut- 
 ing wiiat He enjoins, it must nevertheless be diligently performed; 
 and whatever dangers may threaten, we are not at liberty to depart 
 a hair's-breadth from the command of God. nor is it lawful to attempt 
 anythingwhich He has not sanctioned." — (Lib. III. xix. 13.) '• Since 
 in those ordinances which seem to belong to the spiritual (as opposed 
 to the political or civil kingdom), there may arise some mistake, it 
 is proper to distinguish among these also, which may lawfully be 
 observed as in harmony with the word of God; and which ought 
 not to be allowed among the godly." — (lb. 15.) 
 
 Calvin is not satisfied with the mere general statement 
 of these principles ; he carries them out consistently to 
 their consequences, and applies them to special cases and 
 individual parties. lie enters into many details to show 
 that the same law was binding on patriarchs, prophets, 
 
382 
 
 COXCLUSIOX. 
 
 apostles, evangelists, and modern ministers. That law lie 
 thus enunciates : — 
 
 " The power of the Church, therefore, is not unlimited, but it is 
 in subordiuation to the word of the Lord, and is as it were contained 
 in it." — (Lib. IV. viii. 4.) "Let this then be an established prin- 
 ciple, that nothing is to be regarded as the word of God, to which 
 respect is to be rendered in the Church, but what is contained either 
 in the law and the prophets, or in the apostolic writings ; nor is 
 there any other proper manner of instruction in the Church, except 
 by the command and rule of that Word. Hence also, we infer that 
 the Apostles had no promise, which the Prophets had not formerly 
 received ; namely, that they should expound the Old Testament, 
 and show that all thiugs therein delivered arc fulfilled in Christ. 
 This work, however, they could not fulfil except by the Lord's help, 
 — tliat is, by the Spirit of Christ leading them, and in a manner 
 suggesting words. For by this rule Christ limited their mission 
 (Matt, xxviii. 20), when he directed them to go and teach, not 
 whatever things they might rashly invent, but whatsoever He had 
 commanded them." — (lb. 8.) " Thus Peter, instructed most wisely 
 by the Master, shows that notliiug is left to himself or others, how- 
 ever gi'cat his own privileges might be, but to minister the doctrine 
 delivered by God. ' If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles 
 of God ' (1 Pet. iv. 11.) ; that is, not doubtfidly, as the;/ who are con- 
 scious of evil are wont to tremble, but wiili exulted confidence, irhich is 
 becomintf the servant of God intrusted icith an indisputable charge.'''' — 
 (lb. 9.) "Therefore if faith relies on the Word of God alone, and 
 regards and rests npon it only, what room now is left for the word 
 of the whole world? Nor can any one hesitate here who really 
 knows what faith is ; for it must be upheld with such power, as to 
 enable it to remain unconquered and unahirmed against Satan, 
 and all the enginery of devils, and the whole world. We shall not 
 find this power anywhere but in the Word of God. Accordingly 
 tlie law, to wliicli we refer, is universal ; God has taken away from 
 men the liberty of introducing a new dogma, that He alone may be 
 our Master in spiritual doctrine : as He alone is true, and cannot 
 
coxcLusroy. 
 
 383 
 
 lie or be deceived. This law applies not less to the whole Chiu'cli 
 than to every one of the faithful." — (lb. 9.) 
 
 If language has any meaning, it follows most obviously 
 from these statements, that for any individual or any sect, 
 to put forth as Scripture what in fact is not scriptural, is 
 a grievous offence. And it is just as obvious that this 
 heinous transgression is committed by at least one of the 
 parties, whenever there is a visible separation among the 
 professed followers of Christ. But let us listen to Calvin 
 again : — 
 
 " The Lord is constantly present with His people, and governs 
 them by His Spirit. His Spirit is not one of error, ignorance, lying, 
 or darkness ; but of sure revelation, wisdom, truth, and light, by 
 whom they unerringly learn to know what things are freely given to 
 them (1 Cor. ii. 12) — that is, what is the hope of their calling, and 
 what the riches of the glory of God's inheritauce in the saints. — 
 (Eph. i. 18.) And as to those believers who feel in the flesh the 
 beginnings, and at least some taste, of that Spirit, as well as those 
 who receive gifts more excellent than others ; their chief concern 
 should be, conscious of their own weakness, carefully to restrict 
 themselves within the boundaries of God's Word, lest, wandering too 
 far under their own guidance, they straightway depart from the 
 right road, when they are without that Spirit, by whose teaching 
 alone the true and the false are distinguished. For all confess with 
 Paul (Phil. iii. 12), that they have not yet reached the goal. There- 
 fore they are striving for daily progress, rather than glorying in per- 
 fection." — (Lib. IV. viii. 11.) "You must hear the Church, the 
 Romanists say. AVho denies it ? when she afhrnis nothing but from 
 the Lord's Word. If they demand anything more, let tliem know 
 these words of Christ arc of no avail for anything else. I wish not 
 to appear too disputatious, yet I must urgently insist upon this, 
 that the Church cannot allow any new doctrine, — that is, teach 
 anything, and hold it as a diviue oracle, which the Lord has not 
 revealed in His Word. For sober men will j)erceive how much 
 
384 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 danger will arise, if such a right be once allowed to men. They will 
 also see what a large inlet will be opened for the mockery and 
 tanuts of the ungodly, if we concede that a human opinion is to be 
 regarded by Christians as an oracle of heaven." — (lb. 15.) 
 
 In the last part of this quotation, the great Reformer 
 seems, by a prophetic touch, to describe the state of 
 matters in tlie present day. We may now refer to the 
 opinion held by Calvin and many others, that nothing can 
 justify separation from a particular church, but its full 
 and open apostasy. This opinion is certainly more in 
 favour of our sentiments than of those we are opposing. 
 But it is based upon the popish dogma, in which the Pro- 
 testant Church seems to be still entangled to a (jreat 
 extent, that the terms of ecclesiastical communion and 
 those of eternal salvation are identical. After quoting from 
 Cyprian to justify his own opinion, Calvin states the 
 matter thus : — 
 
 " Let both of these points be regarded as settled, that there is no 
 excuse for him who wilfully forsakes the external communion of the 
 church, in which the AVord of God is preached, and the sacraments 
 administered : and secondly, that the faidts, whether of many or few, 
 are no obstruction to tlie right i)r()fe.ssion of our faith there in di- 
 vinely instituted ordinances : because the godly conscience is not 
 violated by the unworthiness either of the pastor or a private mem- 
 ber, nor are the mysteries (ordinances) less pure or wholesome to 
 the holy and upright man, because they are at the same time 
 handled by the impure." — (Lib. IV. i. 19.) 
 
 Now it seems to us plain, that the conocicncc may be 
 violated often and grievously before the church becomes 
 as corrupt as the Church of Eomc. No Christian ought 
 to remain in any connnunion, where his conscience is 
 otfcndcd. But if he leave an existing communion, plead- 
 
CON'CLVSIOX. 
 
 385 
 
 ing conscience unwarrantably and erroneously, he is a 
 schismatic. The following sentence, especially when 
 taken in connection with all the preceding extracts, ap- 
 pears to us to be of some weight. 
 
 " Wc must adhere to the sentiment which we have quoted from 
 Paul (2 Cor. iv. 5, 6), that the Church camiot be edified, but by 
 external preaciiing, nor can believers be kept together by any bond, 
 except while with one accord, by learninij and advancing to perfection, 
 thty observe the order of the church ordained by God." — (Lib. IV. i. 5.) 
 
 In vindication of the manner in which the question was 
 stated by us at the outset, and of the method in which 
 the whole discussion has been conducted, wc close our ex- 
 tracts from Calvin by the following : — 
 
 "Augustine takes this distinction between heretics and schisma- 
 tics ; the former corrupt the purity of the faith by false dogmas ; 
 the latter sometimes also retaining the siniilarit}- of the faith break 
 the bond of society. This, however, is to be noticed, that this union 
 of love is so connected witli the unity of the faith, that the latti r 
 ought to be tlie beginning, end, and indeed the only rule of the for- 
 mer. Let us therefore remember that as often as ecclesiastical 
 union is enjoined upon us, this ought to be our aim, that having our 
 understandings at one in Christ, our affections also be joined to- 
 gether in a mutual endearment in Clirist. Wherefore Paul, when 
 exhorting us to the latter, lays this foundation, that there is one 
 God, cue faith, and one baptism (Ei)h. 4. 5 ) Yea, whenever lie 
 instructs us. to think alike, and desire alii<c, he always adds, in 
 Christ, or after Christ (Pldi. ii. 2 and 5) ; meaning that it is a fac- 
 tion of the un^^odly, not an association of believers, which is orga- 
 nised independently of tiie Word of tiie Lord" — (quii! fit extra ver- 
 bum Domini.) — Lib. IV. ii. 5. This language plainly implies, that 
 any society is a church of Christ only so far as it is constituted 
 according to his Word. 
 
 As to John llowe, the greatest of the Puritan Divines, 
 "1 u 
 
386 
 
 CONCLUSIOX. 
 
 though he was entangled in the error that confounds the 
 terms of church-fellowship with the terms of final accept- 
 ance before God, we can appeal to him in support of the 
 main positions of our argument. 
 
 " But you will say, What is to be done ? or what would I per- 
 suade in this case of diifering apprehensions and ways still remain- 
 ing among Christians ? In answer, Not presently to unbelieve all 
 that ever a man hath believed before ; or to abandon on the sudden 
 his former sentiments, or to find fault with himself for having 
 thought them right. For 'tis a contradiction to be of any opinion, 
 and not then to think it right. Nor, therefore, is it scepticism, by 
 any means, that I would advise to ; as if there were nothing to be 
 thought certain, but this ; that whereas the greatest and most ne- 
 cessary things in religion are most plain, that is, either most plain 
 in themselves, or most expressly revealed in the Word of God. 
 Here let us be stedfast ourselves, without being severe towards 
 other men. Other things, that are more matter of doubt and dis- 
 pute, by how much the less plain they are, we should count so 
 much the less necessary. In reference therefore to these less mo- 
 mentous things, about which there is with us most of jangling, there 
 ought always to be great modesty, and distrust of our own under- 
 standings, and a continued readiness to receive information, with con- 
 stant looking vp to t/ie Father of li'jlits for further illumination, and 
 a resolution, wherein we, with others, have attained, to walk by the 
 same rule," &c. — Sermon II. on Gal. v. 16. 
 
 In the same sermon, after blaming certain modes of discussion 
 and angry disputes, he observes, — " Though yet the endeavour of 
 solving difficulties that occur, by earnest prayer, diligent study, and 
 by amicable and placid collation among brethren, or comparing of 
 sentiments, sincerely designed for a clearer understanding the frame 
 of the Gospel truth, or how it may be with most advantage repre- 
 .sented to men for the promoting of the common salvation, can be 
 liable to no just reprehension, being managed with that reverence 
 that so sacred things challenge, and with a due sense of our own 
 ignorance and imperfection." 
 
CONCLUSION, 
 
 387 
 
 Some might be disposed to quote Howe against us. 
 when he says, that " truly Christian love would do all 
 that it can, supplying the rest by grief that it can do no 
 more ;" and among other things that " it would certainly 
 make us abstain from mutual censures of one another as 
 insincere for our remaining differences." 
 
 "If truly Cliristiaii love, oi- even justice itself, did take place as 
 they ought ; it would be considei'ed what these several ditFeriug 
 parties have to say for themselves, what reasons they may allege, and 
 whether though they be not sufficient to justify their several opinions 
 and practices, (as all cannot be in the right), they be not such as by 
 which a conscientious man, a sincere fearer of God, ma}' be swayed, 
 so as to take the way which he is fonnd in by the ducture of an up- 
 right (though misguided) conscience, and not as being under the 
 government of depraved vicious inclination." — Sermon on Col. ii. 2. 
 
 All that seems to be meant by these statements is, that 
 a man, though wrong in one or more of his judgments, 
 may yet be an honest and upright individual in his gene- 
 ral character. Howe would have shrunk from the bold 
 and open avowal of the sentiment, that a man's conscience, 
 may be misguided in its decision of any question, after it 
 has been upright in all its dealings with that very ques- 
 tion. He elsewhere says : — 
 
 Conscience doth import a power of judging, or an ability to judge 
 about such and such matters." " The matter of which conscience is 
 to judge is of this kind ; to wit, what we arc to do, or our actions as 
 they are future, or to be done, must be taken with a latitude; so as 
 not barely or cliiefly to concern our external actions, the actions 
 of the outward man ; no, nor merely or only to concern those ac- 
 tions of the inward nian, that proceed immediatiily from the will and 
 from the affections, and from the executive power in the first rise of 
 it ; but also so as to comprehend and take in too, the actions of the 
 
388 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 mind and understanding; all this is within the compass of this 
 matter, about which conscience is to be exercised." — Sermon I. 2 
 Cor. iv. 2. 
 
 " If conscience were not a capable principle of judgment, when it 
 is applied unto, when appeals are made to it, it would be the vainest 
 thing in all the world to talk of commending ourselves to the con- 
 sciences of men, in the sight of God, as the Apostle here speaks. 
 Why to their consciences ? It were as good do it to anything else 
 as conscience,^ — if conscience be not a jmnciple susceptible of con- 
 viction, when it is applied unto. Therefore now let it be considered, 
 that conscience is a judije wherever it hath place and is applied unto ; 
 it doth (as it were) keep its power ; and, indeed, it is capable of sus- 
 taining several parts : where there is a judicatm-e, there is a registry 
 too ; and it is as well capable of recording things as of judging them." 
 — Sermon IV. 2 Cor. iv. 2. 
 
 If any one will again bring forward this author's expres- 
 sion " an upi'ight (though misguided) conscience," without 
 undertaking to vindicate altogether his consistency, we 
 should answer in his own words : — 
 
 "The great business of the Gospel ministry doth very principally 
 lie in a transaction with men's conscience. And this transaction 
 doth lie (among other things) in endeavouring to awaken conscience, 
 sujiposing it drowsy and somnolent, as, God knows, it is too much 
 with the most; when we have appealed to conscience, to appeal 
 again, as that petitioner did to that great prince: M appeal from 
 thee,' said she. ' From me !' said the prince, ' Whither wilt thou 
 appeal '?' ' I appeal,' said she, ' from you asleep ; you were asleep 
 ju.-t now, v/hile I was telling my story: I appeal from you asleep, 
 to you awake.' So we are to appeal from conscience to con- 
 science ; from conscience asleep to conscience awake." — (lb.) 
 
 We have no other appeal on earth ; wc can have no 
 other ; we need no other. 
 
 Let us now consult the works of one of Howe's contem- 
 poraries, Turrettine, who flourished in another land. 
 
COXCLUSIOX. 
 
 389 
 
 TiuTcttine says : " When a dispute arises respecting the true in- 
 terpretation of any passage of Scripture, it is not necessary that 
 there be some visible infallible Judge beside Scripture ; _/br vS'cn/><ttre 
 interprets itself; and although man brings out such interjirctation, 
 it must not be supposed that he is the author of it ; because he 
 mixes with it nothing of his own, adds nothing to Scripture, but 
 only draws and takes out of Scripture what was lying bid in it, as 
 he who legitimately deduces a conclusion from premises, does not 
 arbitrarilj' invent it, but draws it from the admitted premises and 
 as lying hid in them." — Loc. II. Qu. xx. xxii. 
 
 The inference from this statement is as plain as pos- 
 sible, that to put a wrong interpretation upon Scripture, 
 then plead conscience in its defence, and then rend the 
 Church in support of it, is most unwarrantable and crimi- 
 nal. 
 
 Again he writes : " The Bereans did not first inquire, whether 
 Paul who was addressing them were moved by the Holy Ghost, 
 because this was manifest to God only, wiio knoweth the heart, but 
 whether Paul spoke according to the Scriptures ; and tiiey inferred 
 from his conformity with Scripture, that he spoke not of himself, but 
 by the Holy Ghost. We conclude in the golden words of Basil : 
 ' Let tiie divinely inspired Scripture, therefore, judge for us, and 
 with whom shall be found doctrines agreeable to Scripture, witli 
 them surely let there be the decrees of truth.' " — lb. xxxv. 
 
 The above seems to us to be e.xplicit enough, and 
 should put to shame our modern maxim, that his own in- 
 terpretation of the Bible is to every man the right one ; 
 but the following quotation will put the matter beyond all 
 dispute : — 
 
 " It is one thing to talk of the ignorance and blindness of man ; 
 and another tiling of the obscurity of Scripture. Tlie former is 
 often dwelt upon in Scripture. But the latter is ditVerent, nor does 
 
390 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 the one follow legitimately from tlie other, any more than that the 
 sun is obscure, because it is not seen by a blind man. Hence when 
 David and other believers pray that their eyes may be opened to 
 see the wonderful things of God's law, the obscurity of Scripture 
 cannot on that account be asserted, but only the ignorance of man. 
 And here we are not inquiring whether men need the light of the 
 Holy Spirit to understand Scripture, which we willingly allow ; but 
 whether the Scriptures be obscure to a believing and enlightened man. 
 We distinguish also between theoretical and practical enlighten- 
 ment ; as well as between its first degree, and its future increase. 
 David seeks not the former, but the latter. "When Christ is said to 
 have opened the understanding of the disciples to understand the 
 Scriptures (Luke xxiv. 45.) this indeed is implied, that man cannot 
 of himself without the aid of grace perceive the meaning of the 
 Scriptures ; but no one can forthwith deduce from this the obscurity 
 of Scri]iturc, nor refer to Scrijiture the darkness which was in the 
 minds of the disciples." — Loc. U. Qu. xvii. xiii. xiv. 
 
 Some one may now say, all tliis is very true, if applied 
 to those fundamental truths of the gospel, which are 
 necessary to salvation. Turrettine and the Keformed 
 Churches had a different notion of the things necessary to 
 salvation from what is now held by many : — 
 
 " Whatever causes are alleged by our adversaries for the obscurity 
 of Scripture, they cannot prove tliat it is so obscure in things ncces- 
 sarj' to salvation, as to set it aside as a complete 7~uk of faith and 
 manners, and that it is necessary in order to surmount them to fly 
 to .some infallible ecclesiastical authority and its pretended tribunal. 
 For we are never referred to any thing of this sort, and besides 
 these (causes) are not such that they cannot be surmounted by due 
 attention, and the statements of Scri])ture referred to are either not 
 necessary to salvation, or if in one or two places they be somewhat 
 obscure, they are elsewhere more clearly unfolded."— lb. xxi. 
 
 The Confession of Bohemia, speaking of accessories, or 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 391 
 
 things indifferent, says, "they must always be kept with 
 this caution, and within these bounds, that they be not 
 taken for foundations whereupon salvation must stay itself, 
 or for a worship which is appointed of God without any dif- 
 ference," (aut pro cultu, qui a Deo sine ullo discrimine con- 
 stitutus sit). — Chapter 15. Turrettine complains that the 
 more rigid Lutherans turned things indifferent into things 
 necessary, in order to prove that their opponents dis- 
 agreed in fundamentals. — Loc. I. Qu xiv. ii. In the next 
 page, he remai-ks, " that all the truths which are revealed 
 in Scripture are necessary to be believed as divine and 
 infallible, though all are not equally necessary." It was 
 certainly far from the thoughts of any of the Protestant 
 Fathers, to allow that anything revealed in the Bible is in- 
 different ; — or that Christian concord and conscientiousness 
 are compatible with conflicting interpretations of the Word 
 of God on any topic whatever. For example, Turrettine, 
 having reiterated the sentiment, " that Scripture suffi- 
 ciently interprets itself, and requires no interpreter beyond 
 itself, who shall establish its meaning," goes on to say : — 
 
 " Reason illiiminiited by the Holy Spirit througli the Word, is able 
 to consider and determine out of tlie Word itself according to rules 
 of good and necessary consequence, how the parts of a doctrine 
 cohere anipng themselves, and what follows from them, and what 
 docs not follow. The gi-ounds of this arc these: 1. Because Scrip- 
 ture more than once enjoins this judgment. — ^latt. vii. 5, et xvl. 
 G; Col. ii. 8; 1 Thess. v. 21 ; lleb. v. 14. 2. It is confirmed by 
 good exani])les. — Acts xvii. 11 ; 1 Cor. x. 15. .3. It is consonant 
 to the end or aim of the Rible, which is the perfection of the man 
 of God in knowledge of the truth, and in the conviction of gain- 
 sayers — 1 Tim. iii. Ifj ; Tit. i. 9— which without this cannot be at- 
 tained.. 4. It is proved by the exercise of reason, whose fuuctiou 
 
392 
 
 CONCLUSIOX. 
 
 consists in affirming or denying proposUions, and in the nse of con- 
 tradiction, to wliicli the decision of reason has regard; and iniless 
 this be allowed and settled, the widest door will be opened to here- 
 tics and fanatics of every kind, to thrust forth their fancies and 
 monstrous opinions, nor could there ever be any true contradiction, 
 (that is, everything would be unsettled, and scepticism universal) . . 
 Reason can not only judge of a direct and formal contradiction, 
 which appears in the same terminology and in express affirmation 
 and negation, but also of that which is indirect and implied, and 
 is deduced by necessarj' consequence : Such as, Christ's blood 
 cleanses us fi'om all sin, therefore there is no purgatory ; Christ (his 
 bodv) ascended up to heaven, therefore he (as man) is not in every 
 place. . . . Although many things may appear contradictory to 
 diverse persons, which are not so in themselves ; it does not folhio 
 that ani/ thing ivill appear to be trkat it is not to men ivlio ttsc their under- 
 standing properly and think legitirnntehj. . . . We distinguish be- 
 tween reason sound and renewed, in the abstract ; and the same in 
 the concrete, as it is found in one and another depraved pei*son : Not 
 in the latter sense, but only in the former, do we assign to reason the 
 power of decision." — Loc. I. Qu. x. iii. iv. ix. xi. xii. 
 
 "The abuse of reasoning is not to be confounded with the use of 
 it, . . . else the use of Scripture itself would be condemned, because 
 many heretics abuse it. . . . As Scripture is explained by Scripture, 
 it is enough that Scripture supply grounds and reasons to the inter- 
 preter in the context, parallel passages and general scope, &c., by 
 wiiich he may fetch out the true sense of Scripture, and manifest it 
 to others even to their conscience — . . . When we affirm that our 
 inferences (from Scripture) are evident, we do not mean in tliis 
 sense, that they will be denied b_y no one, and that they will be 
 readily accepted without any consideration and study ; but we mean 
 that they are evident to those who render vigilant attention and duo 
 consideration, or that they are such, that if any one docs not see them, he 
 cannot have a good conscience."' — Loc. I. Qu. xii. xxiv. xxxi. xxxiv. 
 
 " Scripture has a theological and infallible certaintj', which can- 
 not mislead the believing man who is enlightened hy the Spirit of 
 God." — Loc. n. Qu. iv. xxii. 
 
COXCLUSIOX. 
 
 393 
 
 We cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of transcribing 
 the following remarks, from the address given by an emi- 
 nent divine^ at the Bicentenary of the Westminster Assem- 
 bly ; nor refrain from expressing our regret, that he did 
 not devote his Essay on Christian Union to a vindication 
 and development of the sentiments which he so ably set 
 forth on that occasion. His subject was — " The import- 
 ance of adhering to sound Scriptui'al Standards, and aim- 
 ing at Union on that basis." 
 
 " If the Church were a mere voluntary association, or mere 
 society of individuals, associated spontaneously for certain purposes 
 on certain terms, then the Church might be entitled to take up per- 
 emptory ground and say, ' You will not consent to our terms, and 
 therefore we will not admit you into our society.' But if the Church 
 be a divine institute, ai)pointed and ordained by God, then she is 
 bound to act on the principle that all have a right of admission to 
 the Church, unless she can shew cause to the contrary from the 
 AVord of God. Hence, beyond all doubt, if an allegation be made 
 by any individual to any Church, that certain points in their articles 
 and standards are contrary to the AVord of God, she is bound to listen 
 to the allegation, she is bound to look into the matter, and she is 
 also bound, if she is satisfied that the articles are ciToneous, to make 
 
 the required change The Church is bound always to 
 
 act as if she were the sole Church of all Christendom." 
 
 " Amidst all the varieties of mind and opinion of the Westminster 
 Assembly, there was an entire unanimity as to the system of doc- 
 trine ; tliiis affording the strongest of all proofs that it is (jnite pos- 
 sible for Christian men, by prayer and consultation together, to 
 come to an agreement, not only on the broad general principles, but 
 even on the details of the Christian system, so that they may be of 
 one mind and heart, not only on certain general jiropositions, but on 
 the whole tenor of their confessions before God and man."' 
 
 " As I have said, the Assembly also attempted to promote union 
 
 ' The Rev, R. Candlish, D.D. 
 
394 
 
 CONXLUSION*. 
 
 by full and deliberate conversations ; and in this tliej' were tlnvarted 
 by Influence from without. Xo one can read the proceedings of that 
 Assembly M-ithout seeing that the blessing of God was CTidently 
 resting on the attempt of men of diflferent minds to come to a mutual 
 understanding. Xo man who is familiar with these proceedings but 
 must have been struck with the closer ajiproximation « liich jiarties 
 differing on religious grounds seemed to be making, as the discussion 
 went on daily, towards a complete agreement. How nearly, for 
 instance, did the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, widely as 
 they differed afterwards, — how nearly did they come to a practical 
 understanding, and to the adoption of common measures I " 
 
 In connection with the history of the Westminster As- 
 sembly, the following statements are worthy of being pon- 
 dered. They are found in a sermon that Avas preached 
 by Alexander Henderson, minister at Edinburgh, before 
 the House of Commons, 17th December 1643, from Ezra 
 vii. 23 — " Whatsoever is commanded by the God of 
 Heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the 
 God of Heaven ; for why should there be wrath against 
 the Realm of the King and his Sons ?" 
 
 " They are Precisians, indeed, who are liberal in the matters of 
 God, and can find in their hearts to dispense with his commands, 
 his truth and worship ; but will not be content to want the least 
 complement of their own worldly honour and dignity, nor the smallest 
 penny of their gain and worldly commodity. Although it be true, 
 that some things in religion be fundamental and absolutel}- necessary 
 unto salvation, and other things not so, yet to be obstinate against 
 revealed truth, or to misregard or despise smallest matters of religion, 
 which arc necessary to be i-eceived, if not for themselves, yet for the 
 authority of Scripture (as some make the distinction), bringeth as 
 certain a curse and condemnation, as iguorauce and error doth in 
 
 matters more substantial Shall not the domestics of 
 
 the house of God observe the commandments of God, or shall they 
 
COXCLUSIOX. 
 
 395 
 
 not be gi-icved when tliej' transgress, aiul observe them not? . . 
 . . It is a danin;il)le and cursed policy, by disjicnsing ^\ itli any 
 tiling which God hath commanded to be done for his house, to seek 
 after peace and deliverance. // was the policy of Jeroboam, and it 
 turned to his ruin. It was the policy of the Jews, and it brought their 
 city and nation to desolation. In this thou walkest contrary to God, 
 and therefore God •will walk contrar}- to thee. Thou thinkest to 
 turn away wrath by the neglect of religion, and of the House of God ; 
 but God hath said, that wTath shall be upon the kingdom, unless 
 what he hath commanded be done for his House. Art thou wiser 
 than he / or art thou stronger than he ? Wilt thou against the will of 
 God, against the experience of all ages., against thy own conscience, 
 run in a way contrary to God''s way? Salvation shall come to the 
 people of God, and his house shall be built; but thou and thy house 
 which thou makest an idol, and deferrest to the House of Goi), shall 
 certainly perish; God will not be mocked." 
 
 There is thus a niarkod contrast between the spiritual 
 tone of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and tliat 
 of the nineteenth, in speaking of the meaning of the Word 
 of God. Tlie bare possibihty of conscientious and con- 
 flicting interpretations of that Word on any point whatever, 
 never seems to have flaslied across the minds of tliose jriant 
 worthies. In those days men were accustomed to speak 
 of all that was in tlie Bible, and was obligatory upon us, 
 as being, to the honest mind, immutable as the everlasting 
 mountains, clear as the sunshine of noon, and incorrujjtiblc 
 as the atmosphere of heaven. In their vocabulary, thoy 
 had only one method of interpretation, tlic conscientious 
 and the true one. In these days, it would appear, that 
 every man has a right to have his own interpretation, 
 whatever it may be. There are commands, it would secra, 
 in the statute-book of Iloavon, and in the code of tho 
 Cliristian commonwealth, .wliich arc as shiftinsr as tho 
 
396 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 sands, or as murky as a winter cloud, or as convertible in 
 their substance and principles as commercial paper is 
 transferable from hand to hand. These remarks will be 
 confirmed by tlie following quotations from the earlier 
 Confessions of the Reformed Churches, to which attention 
 is solicited, before noticing the deliverance of the West- 
 minster Assembly itself, on the matter in hand. The 
 Confession of Sueveland, in treating of Human Traditions, 
 declares : — 
 
 " But oftentimes there is disputing about tliis : What tradition is 
 profitable, what not; that is, what doth set forward godliness, what 
 doth hinder it. But he that shall seek nothing of his own, but shall 
 wholly dedicate himself to the public profit, he shall easily see what 
 things are agreeable to the law of God, what not." — Chapter 14. 
 
 The same Confession, in vindicating the proceedings of 
 the Protestant ministers, observes, — 
 
 " No ecclesiastical person may justly complain of us, or object to 
 us, that we are not sufficientl}' obedient to them, or that we do de- 
 rogate any thing from their authority ; seeing that the thing itself 
 doth tvitncss, that we have attempted and done all those things accord- 
 ing to the will of God, which we have undertaken against the will 
 of Ecclesiastical persons." — Chapter 13. 
 
 In the Confession of Augsburg, we find these state- 
 ments, — 
 
 " God will have his Church governed by his Word, which Christ 
 and his Apostles have left unto the Church ; and he will ha\ e this 
 his voice to sound in the Church by the mouths of his ministers. 
 And though it do contain a wisdom that is far from reason's reach, 
 yet the word of the Prophets and Apostles is sure, and not doubtful. 
 Therefore Peter saitli, ' Ye do well in attending to the word of the 
 Prophets, as to a light in the darkness ' — 2 Pet. i. 19. Besides, the 
 
COXCLUSION. 
 
 397 
 
 Clmi-ch liatli tlie giftof inteqnctation, — that is, the understaudiiig of 
 the heavenly doctrine ; but tliat is not tied to the name or degree of 
 Bisliops ; and therefore there is no power of interpreting, lil^e to the 
 power of a Prince, or higiicst judge. But those that are learned in 
 the Word of God, and bora again by his Spirit, in what place soever 
 they be, they assent unto the Word of God, and understand the 
 same, some more some less." — Art. 14. 
 
 Let us suppose another clause added to bring up this 
 old document to the measure of the enlightenment of this 
 age, and consider how the old and the new would cohere 
 together. 
 
 Moreover, on account of the remaining corruption of the human 
 heart, it will be inevitable that those that are learned in the Word 
 of God, and bora again by his Spirit, will sometimes understand it 
 in contradictory senses ; and they will also be conscientious and un- 
 blamable in so doing. 
 
 The Confession of Wirtemburg thus testifies : — 
 
 " Now that which is affirmed, that tlic Church hath authority to 
 bear witness of the holy Scripture, to interpret the Scripture, and to 
 judge of all doctrines ; it is not so to be understo(jtl, that the Church 
 hath ab.solute authority to determine what she listetli, and also, if 
 it please her, to change the Scripture, and to feign a new doctrine, 
 and to appoint new worships of God ; but that the Church, as the 
 spouse of Christ, ought to know the voice of her husband, and thiit 
 she hath received of her husband a certain rule, to wit, the Prophe- 
 tical and Apostolical preaching, confirmed by miracles from heaven, 
 according to the which she is bound to interpret those places of the 
 Scripture wiiich seem to be obscure, and to judge of doctrines." 
 After fjuoting Fathers and texts in support of these views, the 
 article concludes, — " Wherefore the Church hath so far authority to 
 judge of doctrine, that, notwithstanding, she must keep herself 
 within the bounds of the holy Scripture, which is the voice of her 
 husband, from which voice it is not lawful for any man, no not for 
 angel, to de])art." — Art. 32. . 
 
398 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 All this solemn statement is obvious trifling, if men have 
 not the means of knowing, and knowing with certainty, 
 when they use aright these means, what Scripture really 
 teaches. We find no trace in the Confessions of the Re- 
 formed Churches of the distinction between essentials and 
 non-essentials as among the contents of the Bible ; on the 
 contrary, it seems to be decidedly set aside, for they held, 
 that every thing revealed or enjoined by God is supremely 
 obligatory upon every church and every individual. For 
 example, the Confession of Bohemia states the matter 
 thus : — 
 
 " Because it is a true ami sure testimony, and a clear proof of 
 God's favourable good- will, which he hath revealed concerning him- 
 self ; without which revelation of Scripture, there is no wholesome 
 knowledge, nor faith, nor access to God. — Heb. xi. 1, &c. For in 
 this, such things as are necessarj' to doctrine, to discipline, and govern- 
 ment of the holy Church, for all and singular persons in the ordi- 
 nary ministry of salvation, (whence also springeth true faith), in 
 this, I say, are all such things fully, absolutely, and so far forth as 
 is requisite, as in a most excellent and most exquisite M'ork of the 
 Holy Ghost, comprehended and included ; tlian which no angel 
 from heaven can brings any thing more certain ; and if he should 
 bring any other thing, he ought not to be believed." — Chapter I. 
 
 We might go on, quoting to the same cifect from other 
 Confessions, but nuist forbear ; we can ma,kc room only for 
 one more from the Confession of Scotland, and for a por- 
 tion of the XX. Article of the Church of England : — 
 
 " When coutrovcrsy, then, liappenctii for the right uu(l(>rstanding 
 of any place or sentence of Scriptiu'C, or for the nfonnation of any 
 abuse within the Church of God, we ought not so nnich to look what 
 men before us have said or done, as unto that which the Holy 
 Ghost uniformly speaketh within the body of the Scriptures, and 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 399 
 
 unto that which Christ Jesus liimsclf did, and commanded to be 
 done. For tliis is one thing universally gi-anted, that the Spmt of 
 God, which is the spirit of unity, is in nothing contrary to himself. 
 — 1 Cor. xii. 4-6. If, then, the interpretation, determination, or 
 sentence of any Doctor, Church, or Council, repugn to the plain 
 Word of God, witten in any other place of the Scripture, it is a 
 thing most certain that there is not the true understanding and 
 meaning of the Holy Ghost ; although that Councils, and Realms, 
 and Nations have approved and received the same." — Article 18 of 
 Confession of .Scotland, 1560. 
 
 " The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and au- 
 thority in controversies of faith ; and yet it is not lawful for the 
 Clinrch to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, 
 neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant 
 to another.'''' — Article xx. of Church of England. 
 
 From this it is abundantly obvious, that when two inter- 
 pretations are mutually exclusive and destructive, " it is a 
 thing most certain " that one of them " is not the true un- 
 derstanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost ; " and if the 
 Christian conscience cannot in such a case distinguish with 
 certainty the true from the false, it were all the same to 
 the Church, if the Holy Ghost had never spoken, or 
 spoken self-inconsistently, within the body of the Scrip- 
 tures. The Westminster Divines, having enumerated the 
 Books of the Old and New Testaments, add, 
 
 " All which arc given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of 
 faith and life."— Ch. I. II. 
 
 " The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is tlie Scripture 
 itself ; and therefore, when there is a (piestion about the true and 
 full sense of any Scrijjture, (whicli is not manifold, but one), it 
 must be searched and known by other places that speak more 
 clearly." —IX. 
 
 •'The Supreme Judge, by which ail controversi(?s of religion are 
 to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient 
 
^00 
 
 COXCLUSIOX. 
 
 writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, 
 and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no otlier but the Holy 
 Spirit speaking in the Scripture." — X. 
 
 Let these statements now be compared with Chapter xx. 
 Section II. 
 
 " God alone is lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from 
 the doctrines and commandments of men whii'h are in anything con- 
 trary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So 
 that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out 
 of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience ; and the re- 
 quiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is 
 to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also." 
 
 These two quotations will bear this inference, that to 
 profess to believe " out of conscience." that to be taught 
 in the Bible which is not taught there, " is to betray 
 true liberty of conscience." To admit that in one case 
 we may believe, unavoidably, that to be taught in the 
 Word of God which is not taught there, is to destroy all 
 confidence of having in one instance obtained the true 
 interpretation. 
 
 There appears, therefore, to be some reason for affirm- 
 ing, that the current notion which pleads that contrary 
 interpretations of the Word of God may be both con- 
 scientiously adopted, — that both of them may on that ac- 
 count be blameless and legitimate, and hence offer an 
 unexceptionable or justifiable basis for the formation of 
 diverse Christian denominations, is most probably a recent 
 and strange dogma in ecclesiastical history. Whatever 
 the standard authors of the Church may have written to 
 sustain this notion, they have written more to invalidate 
 and overthrow it. In its full modern development it is 
 
CONCLUSION". 
 
 401 
 
 entirely new. Even though it were old, and hoary, and 
 catholic, to declare it to be false, is demanded by the fun- 
 damental axiom of Protestantism, by the primary convic- 
 tions of the human mind, and by " the first principles of 
 the oracles of God." Any other view of the matter is 
 entirely incompatible with such Scriptures as the follow- 
 ing: — And this I pray, that your love may abound yet 
 more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that 
 ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may 
 be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ." 
 Phil. i. 9, 10. 
 
 To practise what is wrong, is not so bad as delibcrateh' 
 to defend it. The fallacy which has been too long charac- 
 teristic of the practice of the Protestant community, has 
 become characteristic of the principles of the Evangelical 
 Alliance. This great institution has come forward in the 
 nineteenth century, and after challenging the attention of 
 Christendom and the world, has by her constitution and 
 proceedings, as we have seen, endorsed and sanctioned the 
 transparent error, which till then was acted upon, but 
 scarcely or seldom advocated. This too she has done, in 
 the professed and well-meant endeavour, not only to expose 
 the practical evils of this common prejudice, but even to 
 emancipate the Church from thcii- thraldom. 
 
 When the early Reformers denied the infellibility of 
 the Church of Rome, they could not, and they felt that 
 they could not, have stood before their adversaries in 
 argument for a single hour, unless they had not only 
 asserted the objective infallibility of the Word of God, but 
 also shown in what way a subjective infallible interpreta- 
 tion of the Word can be obtained. This way thcv i)ointed 
 
 2c 
 
402 
 
 CON'CLTJSIOX. 
 
 out, as we hav^e just seen, by maintaining, that the honest 
 and diHgent study of the Bible, with the gracious aid of 
 the Holy Spirit, would undoubtedly and invariably lead to 
 the assured knowledge of its true meanint;. Their doc- 
 trine was, that every man and woman enjoyed the privilege, 
 and lay under the obligation, of attaining by the direct 
 personal perusal of the Holy Scriptures such an interpre- 
 tation thereof as. thouo-h not extendins: to all the meaning 
 in the Bible and therefore complete or perfect, would be, 
 so far as it did extend, absolutely infallible. This was 
 Avhat was meant by their common maxim, " The Bible is 
 its own interpreter," — a maxim, which cannot be construed 
 to mean anything less than this, but which has of late 
 been almost forgotten ; since the truth that it embodies 
 has been so often impugned. This fact is perhaps charac- 
 teristic of the religion of the age. At any rate, to con- 
 tend for the right of private judgment is beating the air, 
 unless it be true that the due exercise of that right leads 
 to an unerring interpretation of the Bible. These were 
 the sentiments of the men who gave liberty to Europe. 
 The self-interpreting power of the Scriptures, as involving 
 the infallible interpretation thereof by the conscientious 
 reader, they held, not merely as an empty theory, or as 
 a dialectical foil, but as an incontrovertible and inestim- 
 able f;\ct, — as indeed the very strength and marrow of 
 their life in Christ. 
 
 Such being the aspect of the case, a sure and decisive 
 criterion or test of the genuineness of any asserted unerr- 
 ing interpretation will most plainly be found in the har- 
 monious judgments of honest, and independent, and devout 
 minds. " The sense of Scripture is not manifold, but one." 
 
CON'CLUSIOX. 
 
 403 
 
 That one authentic sense may be missed or unknown for 
 a season, but cannot be perverted or reversed by any 
 reader of single eye, and of good and honest heart, who 
 depends upon Divine assistance. This position, be it re- 
 membered, is the very corner-stone of Protestantism ; and 
 was professed to be such by tJie very men who laid its 
 foundations. Hence the interpretations of those who read 
 their Bibles aright must be so far at one and harmonious, 
 as to be free from jarring and discordant notes. 
 
 Moreover, the Bible is not simply a revelation of a few 
 elementary truths, which some persons have thought 
 proper to denominate essentials, or things necessary to 
 salvation. The Word of God is a rule of faith and 
 life, the only rule, a complete rule, an infallible rule ; 
 not, however, as superseding, but as supplementing con- 
 science. Whatever in the Bible is mysterious, let it be 
 known and acknowledged to be mysterious. Whatever 
 is difficult, to be difficult; whatever is doubtful, to be 
 doubtful ; whatever is clear, to be clear. But to admit, as 
 is so connnonly and so easily done, now-a-days, that in- 
 terpretations of Scripture, which have been found by those 
 who read it as they can, and as they ought to read it, 
 may run counter to each other, and come into collision, is 
 ingloriously to strike the flag of the Reformation in the 
 very sight of the Papal host, — it is not merely to leave 
 the well-contested and impregnable citadel of the Protes- 
 tantism of the si.xteenth century ; it seems almost like the 
 infatuation of firing the magazine, and exposing that very 
 citadel to the dan<;er of total ruin. 
 
 It does, indeed, seem to be high time that the sons of 
 Zion should gird themselves to the present conflict. Let 
 
404 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 the old banners be unfurled : Christ the King and Head 
 of the Church, — whose laws are embodied in the Bible, 
 and in the Bible alone. The Bible., and the Bible alone, 
 — the rule of faith and life, — the religion of Christians, — 
 which is accordingly to be examined and studied by every 
 man in the exercise of the right of private judgment. The 
 Right of Private Judgement, — which is only a false and de- 
 ceptive light unless exercised conscientiously and in depen- 
 dence on JJivine aid ; but which, when so exercised, leads 
 to an assured belief in the Bible, and to its infallible inter- 
 pretation, for, to the candid and upright, the Bible is its 
 own witness and its own interpreter. 
 
 Hence, if the right of private judgment be abused, and 
 men profess conscientiously to find in the Bible what 
 is not there, conscience is thereby dishonoured, and the 
 integrity of the Bible is virtually impaired, and the supre- 
 macy of Christ is, in fact, invaded. To preserve the King- 
 ship of tlio Saviour untouched, to maintain inviolate the 
 autliority of Ilis Word, and to keep the sacredness of con- 
 science undefiled. Christians must avoid contrary and con- 
 flicting interpretations of the Scriptures ; in other words, 
 they must march togcthci' under the one banner, which is 
 the complement and combination of every other that has 
 ever led them on to victory, — bearing this inscription : — 
 
 The Unity of the Faith. 
 
CONCLUSION'. 
 
 405 
 
 II. — Hortatory. 
 
 The argument is now closed. It has been our aim to 
 express, briefly yet distinctly, the sentiments which we 
 have been led to adopt. We have also sedulously endea- 
 voured to meet with all fairness every objection or diffi- 
 culty, with which we are acquainted, and which is appa- 
 rently at variance with these sentiments. 
 
 The great practical design, with a view to which we 
 liave been labouring, is to persuade our fellow-Christians 
 to reperuse their Bibles, under the conviction, that as the 
 Bible does not contradict itself, incompatible interpreta- 
 tions of the Bible may be, and ouglit to bo, avoided. 
 
 We may again reiterate the statement that this conclu- 
 sion is not opposed to the maxim, " Unity in the midst of 
 diversity but is intended to place that maxim in its own 
 proper light, and to set around it due limits. Thei-e are, 
 we admit, a thousand varying circumstances all exercising 
 a certain control over our opinions. From the influences 
 that country, climate, temperament, education, and so 
 for til, hold over our minds, in moulding our prevailing 
 sentiments and directing our tastes and habitual feelings, 
 it were vain to expect to escape, and as fooHsh as it is vain. 
 But there is abundance of room for the manifestation of 
 an indefinite amount of diversity, not only in the in- 
 numerable questions that the human mind cannot precisely 
 determine, and in those which in their very nature do not 
 admit of a categorical and rigid determination, but also in 
 the mode of dealing with those truths which are clear as 
 
40G 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 the sun, and, while more enduring than the mechanism of 
 the heavens, are as definite and exact as its movements. 
 The same truth may surely be viewed in different rela- 
 tions ; it may be seen in various aspects ; it may be illus- 
 trated and adorned by a tliousand colourings and by ten 
 thousand phases. But if diversity be consistent with 
 unity, unity must be held intact. To allow that variety in 
 the human constitution, or diversity of situation, can legi- 
 timately sanction the confounding of right with wrong, or 
 truth with error, is to leave us only a maimed, and shri- 
 velled, and Avorthlcss unity. 
 
 When we contemplate the face of nature, we are im- 
 pressed with the conviction, that it displays " Unity in the 
 midst of diversity." Every leaf resembles its brother-leaf, 
 and yet no two are perfectly identical. All the fishes of 
 the sea have certain properties in common, and each has 
 something; that can be called its own. The stars are all 
 glorious, but one star differeth from another star in glory. 
 Shape and colour are common to every material existence ; 
 but who can delineate the endless forms, or paint the 
 countless colours, of the material universe. So it is, so it 
 will be, so it ought to be in morals and religion. Every 
 man Avill have his own way of marshalling the details of a 
 long argument, of acting out a particular principle, of 
 stating a fact, of urging an appeal, of telling a story, of 
 expressing his love, and so on, without limit. But to 
 affirm or insinuate, that the beautiful diversity to be ex- 
 pected in morals and Christianity includes contradictory 
 opinions and clashing sentiments on affiiirs of moment, is 
 more extravagant far, and far more disasti'ous and dis- 
 firraccful too, than to affirm that there is no difference 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 407 
 
 between the fowl and the fish, or no diversity between 
 water and fire. 
 
 The human mind is hke the human countenance. The 
 features of each man can be distinguished from the fea- 
 tures of every other man. Marvellous wisdom ! Millions 
 and milhons and millions of the human face divine, all 
 alike, and yet all perceptibly different ! How absurd, then, 
 to think of fashioning in one mould, or grinding to one 
 angle, or measuring by one line, living and immortal 
 souls, when the material and perishing index of that soul 
 is so unceasingly metamorphosed by change of colour, size, 
 shape, and proportion. This is an absurdity so great, that 
 there are not many others to be compared with it. There is 
 at least one other as great, and that is, to confound the face 
 of a brute, with the face of a man. To pretend that anta- 
 gonistic convictions in regard to Scripture doctrines and 
 sacred duties are only like the diverse features of the 
 human countenance, is about as reasonable as to identify 
 mankind with the monkeys, and baboons, and orangs of 
 the African desert. 
 
 Our Conclusion, then, it will be said, is nothing more 
 than an empty truism. It needs no explanation and no 
 defence; it is the acknowledged opinion of universal Chris- 
 tendom. We could not have spoken so boldly, if wc had 
 not been deeply persuaded, tliat the pi-inciple on which 
 the whole of our argument hinges, is as unassailable as it 
 is perspicuous; that it is in fact a fundamental truth of 
 Christianity and common sense. 
 
 We now ask the careful and impartial reader to judge 
 for himself, before coming to the conclusion that we have 
 been only lashing the waves, whether or not we have sue- 
 
408 
 
 COXCLtSIOX, 
 
 cceded in proving, that this same clear and incontrovertible 
 and elementary truth has not been forgotten when it 
 ought to have been remembered, ignored when it ought 
 to have been acknowledged, and denied when it ought to 
 have been defended, by many of the most intelligent and 
 influential men in the Christian community. Our princi- 
 ples forbid us to ask any quarter for our own errors ; but 
 let no one quarrel with our discussions, or harp on some 
 minor faults found in our method of procedure, if it has 
 been shewn that there is some accuracy in our averment, 
 that this catholic, and cardinal, and primary, and trans- 
 parent truth, is not only set aside, and set at naught, 
 perverted, distorted and traversed by the habitual secta- 
 rianism and spiritual sloth of the great mass of our Pro- 
 testant people, but also, and as one chief cause of this 
 general degeneracy, that it has been cleverly mangled 
 and ingeniously mystified (we do not say intentionally, 
 God forbid) by those, who have become the guides of the 
 unlearned and the expounders and advocates of Christian 
 Union. And let it also be noted, that all this grievous 
 outrage on a great first principle not only of the oracles of 
 God, but of human reason itself, has been perpetrated, 
 and is to this hour vindicated, under the august and sacred 
 plea of conscience and conscientiousness. 
 
 May we be allowed, before finally parting with our 
 readers, to press the argument home to a practical and 
 personal issue. Those who can agree as to the import of 
 some portions of the word of God, arc under no necessity 
 to disagree and oppose each other as to the meaning of 
 any portion whatever. When human minds can freely 
 and intelligently coalesce in what the Bible afiirms re- 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 409 
 
 specting the person of Christ and the perfection of His 
 atoning sacrifice, there is no vahd and sufficient reason 
 why they should come into collision in regard to what the 
 Bible teaches respecting the duty of the civil magistrate. 
 Critics may, indeed, entertain diverse, and even conflict- 
 ing, views as to the interpretation of 1 Cor. xi. 10, and 
 such like passages ; but who would rest an item of his 
 creed or a rule of life on texts so hard to be understood, and 
 what sensible commentator would assert positively and 
 dogmatically that his interpretation is the only true one ? 
 In such cases, wise men content themselves with indicating 
 ■where they think the highest probability lies. 
 
 An intelligent and responsible creature, because he is 
 finite, must always be ignorant of many things, but he will 
 err on no point, so long as he is free from sin. Liability 
 to sin and err and contradict each other belongs, not to 
 our reason itself, but to us as accountable beings, a main 
 part of our accountability consisting in the use, right or 
 wrong, which we make of our reason. If reason itself 
 were fallible, we could not be held responsible for the ex- 
 ercise of it. This liability to err is strongly and grievously 
 enhanced by the depravity of human nature; but to 
 change this liability or tendency, however strong it may 
 be, into a rigid necessity and irresistible pronenoss, even 
 on one question, is to extinguish man's intelligence and 
 rob him of responsibility. 
 
 Man's responsibility extends to every action of his life, 
 and God's authority encircles every expression of His will. 
 If men are to be held culpable for misreading any one 
 text, they cannot be innocent when misreading any other ; 
 unless wo have a second revelation to teach us how to 
 
410 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 divide or bisect the first. To pervert what God affirms of 
 human nature in its sinfulness is blameworthy ; — how then 
 can he be exculpated who perverts what God has declared 
 about the government of His Church ? No one can plead 
 holy Scripture in defence of any error, without distorting 
 some of the words of the Most High. Every act of such 
 distortion is not, of course, equally criminal ; but the very 
 least transgression of the kind is heinous enough. Such 
 criminality is plainly incurred by the one or the other of 
 the two parties who appeal to the Bible against each 
 other's principles or practice. Unless then we reject the 
 Bible as palpably delusive or hopelessly dark, — unless wo 
 are prepared to abandon our profession of Christianity, on 
 the ground that men cannot intelhgently concur in the 
 meaning of its inspired document, we must admit that it is 
 within the power of Christ's disciples, and therefore obli- 
 gatory upon them all, to unite in the one true reading or 
 import of every doctrine which God has revealed for their 
 instruction and of every command which He has issued for 
 their obedience. 
 
 The plea of human weakness and corruption cannot ex- 
 cuse the sceptic for treating the word of God like the 
 shastres of Hindustan or the alcoran of the Arabian pro- 
 phet. This plea will not avail the Papist in placing the 
 canons of Trent on a level with the counsels of Jehovah. 
 Nor will it prove valid in the hands of sectarian Protes- 
 tants to justify them in upholding the antagonistic conclu- 
 sions which they profess to draw from the pure and per- 
 fect record of Divine revelation. 
 
 No man, we most assuredly believe, can disentangle 
 liimself from any of his religious errors without the hea- 
 
CONCLUSION'. 
 
 411 
 
 venly aid of the Holy Spirit. The infidel cannot detect 
 the fallacies of his reason which have been leading him 
 captive, nor break through the adamantine crust of icy 
 prejudice within which his soul has lain congealed, till the 
 Spirit of grace rectify and strengthen his understanding, 
 and send a vital glow of spiritual health through his torpid 
 sensibilities. The slave of priestly despotism cannot throw 
 off the incubus of ecclesiastical tradition that has been 
 steadily accumulating through many generations, nor 
 emerge from the dark dungeon of papal superstition that 
 has been dug by the toil of emaciated devotees and is 
 locked by the key of infallibility, until the good Spirit of 
 the Lord infuse a higher life into his frame and now vigour 
 into his limbs, and pour into his heart " the light of the 
 knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 
 The poor heathen idolater cannot understand the invisible 
 things of God, " even his eternal power and Godhead," by 
 the things that are made, nor open his shrivelled heart to 
 " the glad tidings of groat joy," except the Holy Ghost 
 rend the thick veil of centuries from his eyes, purge his 
 mental vision, and swell his contracted spirit with the ex- 
 panding hopes of a blessed immortality. Neither the crea- 
 ture of fashion nor the victim of vice can break the silken 
 cords of their fascinating thraldom, unless they be en- 
 dowed with power from on high. And so likewise, most 
 undoubtedly, the followers of the Lamb, — those who have 
 been baptized into His sufferings and made conformable 
 unto His death, cannot extricate themselves from one of 
 their remaining errors, nor explore a new turn in the 
 labyrinth of their own heart's deoeitfulnoss, nor expose 
 and expel one single prejudice from their understanding. 
 
412 
 
 COXCLUSION. 
 
 except in so far as they know the power of Christ's resur- 
 rection, when His flesh Avas " quickened by the Spirit." 
 1 Pet. iii. 18. 
 
 But, then, if " the power of the Holy Ghost," be avail- 
 able, most freely and without any restriction of time or 
 place, to the sceptic whose heart is like the trodden way- 
 side, or to the ultramontanist who has drank deeply of the 
 wine of spiritual fornication, or to the deluded polythcist 
 who professes to believe in three hundred and thirty mil- 
 lions of gods, or to the man who is bankrupt in social 
 character, or to the most respectable devotee of the world 
 in civilized life — is the same power of the Holy Ghost less 
 available, — less frequently or less fully available to those, 
 who believe that " God is, and that he is the rewarder of 
 them who diligently seek Him," who have never tasted of 
 " the golden cup fall of abominations and filthincss," Avho 
 worship "the living and true God" "in spirit and in 
 truth," who keep themselves unspotted from the world, 
 because " the love of Christ constraineth " them, that they 
 " should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him 
 which died for them, and rose again?" 
 
 And if " the power of the Spirit of God" be sufficient, 
 and much more than sulRcicnt, to take away the stone 
 from the place where the sjjiritually dead are lying ; if at 
 the word of the Lord God, breath comes from the four 
 winds, and breathes upon the slain that they live ; is that 
 same power not sufficient to give more vitality and fresh 
 vigour to the souls which it has already quickened ? " For 
 if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by 
 the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, wo 
 shall be saved by his life." (Rom. v. 10.) is it no longer 
 
CON'CLUSION. 
 
 413 
 
 true that the disciples of Christ receive of His fulness, 
 even grace in addition to grace? (See John i. 16). Have 
 modern professors of the gospel never possessed, or have 
 they lost, the assurance of T\'hich Paul speaks so emphati- 
 cally — " Being confident of this very thing, that he which 
 hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until the 
 day of Jesus Christ?" 
 
 If Divine grace can soften and remove the hard and 
 obdurate prejudices of the atheist against his Maker and 
 Redeemer and effect a hallowed reconciliation, can it 
 not dissolve and dissipate every prepossession and mis- 
 conception that alienate from each other the hearts of 
 brother-believers ? If the Spirit of Truth can undo the 
 tense warping and rectify the stubborn bias of the 
 priest-ridden soul, persuading the perishing sinner will- 
 ingly to cast away the brittle thread of human tradition 
 and decrees as unable to save him from sinkino- into 
 the depths of perdition, and gladly to embrace the hope 
 set before him in the gospel, can that truth-teaching 
 Spirit also not correct the errors of the freemen of the 
 Lord, untwisting the cords of bigotry by which they arc 
 still fettered, and refuting the foregone conclusions by 
 which they arc separated from eacli other? The life- 
 giving Spirit of God can renew the gross heart of tlie 
 iMohammedan fatalist, and the proud spirit of the Hindu 
 IJrahmin, and the savage nature of the Australian can- 
 nibal, and dispose them to love the Christian Scriptures, 
 and enable them to draw thence life and peace and salva- 
 tion. Shall it be said that the same Divine agent must 
 leave his sacred work on the human heart unfinished? Is 
 He not able, and ready too, to carry on the process of 
 
414 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 renewal in every heart in which it has hcen begun, to 
 such a degree, that liis sanctified people shall read the 
 Bible with so much veneration and devout conscientious- 
 ness, as to refrain from imputing to God what God has 
 not spoken ? No more is needed than this, along with an 
 extensive and deep diffusion of brother]}' love, to restore 
 concord to the distracted counsels of the Church, and heal 
 every breach in her visible unity. 
 
 Seeino; then that it is altogether within the limit of the 
 capabilities of Christians, with the offered help of the 
 Holy Ghost, to abstain from turning their own opinions 
 and fancies into pretended oracles of heaven, so to abstain 
 is clearly and strongly obligatory upon them all. If this 
 abstinence were universally practised, conflicting and jar- 
 ring interpretations of the Holy Scriptures would cease to 
 prevail. There might be, and there would be, different 
 degrees of knowledge and attainment, and varying aspects 
 of the same topic, but antagonistic conclusions on weighty 
 questions would disappear. For in every pair of antago- 
 nistic conclusions one of them must be wrong. And to 
 plead Divine authority and inspiration in support of what 
 is not really found in the Bible, because God never put it 
 there, is surely not unlike the act of one putting himself 
 in the place of God. So long, therefore, as contradictory 
 and clashing interpretations of the Bible, (one half of 
 which at least must be erroneous) arc found extensively 
 among evangelical Protestants, it is plain that no small 
 portion of their religion, as it actually exists, is not drawn 
 from the inspired volume. It is no doubt the profession 
 of the Reformed Churches, that " the Bible, and the Bible 
 alone, is their religion." To a very great extent, we re- 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 415 
 
 joice to say, is this profession carried out vigorously and 
 consistently into practice. It is, doubtless, the paramount 
 wish of every honest and intelligent Protestant to carry it 
 out unswervingly in every action of his life. In the strong 
 assurance of this, we make our present appeal to every 
 brother who adheres to the Protest against Popery. Let 
 our profession of absolute subjection to the word of God 
 become a gi-eat and visible reality. Let us shew that we 
 reverence the Bible, by ceasing to hurl its texts, as weapons 
 of war, against each other. Let us prove that we believe 
 the word of God to be throughout and entirely self-con- 
 sistent, by the mutual consistency of our interpretations. 
 In basing our incompatible dogmas on the Bible, we in 
 effect make it contradict itself. 
 
 The very dullest of our adversaries know that there 
 can be only one divinely instituted form of church govern- 
 ment, that both Calvinism and Arminianism, as commonly 
 taught, cannot both be inculcated in the Word of God, and 
 that the duty of the civil magistrate in regard to Chris- 
 tianity is so impoi-tant, that if tlie Bible does not speak of 
 it, and speak of it plainly too, the Bible cannot be a per- 
 fect rule of faith and life. Now then so long as those who 
 boast of following the Bible, of following it only, and of 
 following it fully, shall continue to adhere to their present 
 irreconcilcable and exclusive sentiments on these grave 
 questions, and shall at the same time cast defiantly against 
 each other's positions tlie living oracles of God, it is not 
 quite fair for them to join together and exclaim : " Tiie 
 Bible, and the Bible alone, is our religion." They cannot 
 make this their watch-word and battle-cry, in advancing 
 together against their common foes, without bringing i-c- 
 
416 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 preach upon their cause, since their conflicts so often bring 
 confusion into their counsels. 
 
 If Protestant Christians, then, would recommend the 
 sacred volume in all its untold preciousness and stainless 
 glory to the heathen world ; if they would do what they 
 can to rescue it from the flippant blasphemy of the vulgar 
 scorner, and from the subtle poison of the learned sceptic, 
 and to recommend it to the jaded eye of fashionable frivo- 
 lity ; if they would exert themselves to expunge the Bible 
 from the index expurgatorum, till that index shall be ob- 
 literated altogether, and elevate the record of truth im- 
 measurably high above papal briefs and ecclesiastical 
 canons— let them diligently see to it that they make the 
 oracle of God utter but one response. Let the Protestant 
 evangelical Church cease to be, to any large extent, a 
 second Babel. Let their " conversation be as it becometh 
 tlie gospel of Christ, . . . standing fast in one spirit, with 
 one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel." 
 PhiL i. 27. 
 
 But it )iiay now be said, that in the fervour of appeal 
 the right of private judgment is forgotten. The high 
 prerogative which every man possesses of judging in 
 every question for himself is not overlooked, but vindi- 
 cated. The sacredness of this prerogative is not dese- 
 crated by our argument, but displayed and defended : 
 while its obligation is not impaired, but enhanced. It is 
 an equal folly to squander an estate piecemeal on trifles, 
 as to sell it all at once for a bauble. The pruning-hook 
 may as well, (if not better) lie and rust in inactivity, as 
 cut off" from the stem fruit-bearing branches. What 
 honourable diff'erencc is there between prostrating our 
 
CONCLUSION'. 
 
 417 
 
 private judgment before a disciplined priest, and prosti- 
 tuting it to a hereditary' prejudice ? 
 
 When the right of private judgment is not used dis- 
 creetly and devoutly, its abuse entails guilt upon its pos- 
 sessor, and becomes a bane to the community. It is easy 
 to aver that this right has been honestly employed, when 
 it fact it has been dishonourably betrayed. It were better 
 with the papist avowedly to disown both its privilege and 
 obligation, and to glory in the certainty and security of 
 impUcit faith, than with many a Protestant to boast of 
 the privilege and to profess fidelity to the obligation, and 
 then in actual conduct to disobey the one and to disgrace 
 the other. 
 
 To affirm that the prerogative of private judgment, 
 rightly used, may mislead an individual, is to empty it of 
 all honour and eviscerate it of all authority. Let men be- 
 lieve as the Church believes, rather than by mental tra- 
 vail seek for wisdom as silver in the mine of inspiration, if 
 indeed it be true that at the very time they trust their 
 own judgment most securely, they may be most sorely 
 deceived. A man must repose confidence in his own un- 
 derstanding at least sometimes. When he is prepared to 
 do so, as having no other alternative, he should exercise 
 his intellectual powers with due caution. Assured trust 
 in our own judgment is not at variance with the injunc- 
 tions of sacred Scripture. It is true that " the way of 
 man is not in himself," Jcr. x. 23. And there is much 
 need for the exhortation : " Be not wise in your own con- 
 ceits," Rom. xii. 16. These and all similar passages refer 
 to the forming of opinions in a careless and indevout tem- 
 per of mind. We arc to. beware of leaning unto our own 
 
 2 D 
 
418 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 understanding, without trusting in the Lord with all our 
 heart. But while trusting in the Lord with all our heart, 
 we have nothing else to lean unto but our own under- 
 standincf. 
 
 Private judgment, then, when exercised in a godly and 
 conscientious manner must be trusted sometimes at least, 
 otherwise religion and truth and duty are all a troubled 
 dream or a tragic myth. When private judgment is 
 exercised in the same godly and conscientious manner, 
 why should it misguide us at all — why may it not be 
 trusted always ? There does not, therefore, appear to be 
 any way of avoiding the inference, that when Christians 
 oppose each other in their religious convictions, and drag 
 the Word of God into the conflict to support their anta- 
 gonistic views, one or other, at least, of the two parties 
 must be held as blamably abusing the right of private 
 judgment. 
 
 When, it will be asked, will the generalitj' of professing 
 Christians exercise their conscience and judgment, in so 
 careful and devout a manner, as to avoid collision on any 
 of the doctrines or duties of their holy faith as taught in 
 Scripture ? A previous question is, ought they to do so ? 
 Some will be ready to reply, admitting that they ought, 
 they cannot, and a perfect church is not to be expected 
 upon earth. This plea is equally available for every in- 
 firmity of human nature ; and has in fact been used times 
 innumerable, by individuals in the church and out of it, to 
 defend their conduct, when the veil of self-deception woven 
 around their besetting sin has been torn away. The 
 drunkard ought to reform, but he cannot. The back- 
 slider ought to repent, but he cannot. The heretic ought 
 
COXCLUSIOX 419 
 
 to recant, but he cannot. The sceptic ought to believe, 
 but he cannot. The Protestant who wrests some portions 
 of the Word of God, ought to read them aright, but he 
 cannot. " Behold, there was a man which had his hand 
 withered." He could not, therefore, lift it up for good or 
 evil. But the Lord Jesus said unto him : " Stretch forth 
 thine hand." How readily might the man have answered : 
 " Because thou commandcst me, I ought ; but since my 
 hand is withered, I cannot?" Had this been his reply, his 
 hand would never have been " restored whole, like as the 
 other." In his effort to obey the command of Christ, 
 Christ communicated the requisite power. It is true of 
 every sinner in regard to his every duty, that he cannot, 
 while yet he can. In himself he cannot ; in Christ, he 
 most assuredly can. 
 
 Even though the Protestant Churches were to begin 
 generally and in right good earnest to-day, to endeavour to 
 eliminate from their respective creeds and customs every- 
 thing anti-scriptural — and every thing anti-scriptural is 
 clearly schismatical — the work would not be finished by 
 one generation. Any honest attempt at a commence- 
 ment of such an arduous and honourable achievement 
 would itself ensure a rich and immediate and extensive 
 and enduring blessing. Who, then, has the sanctified 
 ambition to be first ? 
 
 That the reader may be stimulated to gird up his loins 
 with the intent of taking part in this great work, lot him 
 ponder such considerations as the following, in addition to 
 what has been already advanced. 
 
 Infidelity would invalidate the claims of the Bible to 
 be the Word of God by invalidating the powers of the 
 
420 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 human mind, which, by God's appointment, are called to 
 pronounce a verdict on those claims. The trained priest- 
 hood of Rome having questioned and set aside the suffi- 
 ciency of Holy Scripture, are constrained in self-consist- 
 ency to deny the trustworthiness of private judgment, to 
 which the Bible is constantly appealing. Thus the goal 
 of priestcraft is the starting point of scepticism ; and the 
 goal of scepticism is the starting point of priestcraft. We 
 cannot defend the authority and integrity of the Bible, if 
 the unerring accuracy of a genuine conscientiousness be 
 repudiated. Men who dislike the Bible can make an 
 apparent escape from its obhgations only by the sacrifice 
 of their own intelligence. So deeply do many hate God's 
 Word, that they hesitate not at this extravagant sacrifice. 
 It matters little whether this sacrifice be offered at the 
 altar of a corrupt church, or at the altar of a sham philo- 
 sophy. It is nearly the same thing to reject the Bible 
 on account of the incompetency of reason, as to cashier 
 reason of her competency after rejecting the Bible. As 
 to the modern notion which would render the Bible 
 unnecessary through the superabounding resources of 
 reason, it is a mere intellectual escapade. It is a 
 gourd that has grown up in a day, and will perish in 
 a night. 
 
 To defend the present system of Protestant denomina- 
 tionalism, or, to exculpate both parties who find or fancy 
 irreconcileable mandates in tlie statute-book of heaven, is 
 clearly to leave the narrow road of truth, and to get en- 
 tangled among the delusions of those who have room 
 enough in the broad road of error to play at sec-saw be- 
 tween scepticism and superstition. The infallibility of 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 421 
 
 God's Word and the validity of man's reason must ever go 
 hand in hand. The sacredness of conscience and the suffi- 
 ciency of the Scriptures cannot be divorced. If conflict- 
 ing convictions which are both avowedly based upon the 
 Bible be innocent and legitimate, this divorce is pro- 
 claimed and effected. Then conscience has lost her hon- 
 our, and the Bible is bereft of authority. Both fall by 
 tlie same blow. When the Christian community, then, is 
 distracted and torn, as it is undoubtedly at present, by 
 contradicting interpretations of the Word of God in re- 
 gard to weighty questions, the assaults which may be 
 directed against the strongholds of the Man of Sin, with 
 the efforts which may be made to reclaim the swamps of 
 infidelity, will not only be seriously diverted, or even 
 sometimes paralysed, but will also divulge the shame and 
 weakness of the professing Church. 
 
 Moreover, when the Word of the Most High God is 
 bandied about by contending factions in support of their 
 respective dogmas, where is, practically, the acknowledg- 
 ment of Christ's headship over the Church ? To distort or 
 dispute the commands and lessons of the Bible is virtually 
 to set a.side the supremacy of Christ Himself. To paUiate 
 the conduct, and plead for the genuine conscientiousness, 
 of both the parties in any such case, is by the most ob- 
 yious inference, tantamount in fact, to insubordination to 
 tlie crown rights of Emmanuel. When two Christians, 
 then, stand before the world, in opposition to each other, 
 each challenging for his own cause and peculiarity the 
 august sanction of God's written revelation, to defend and 
 exonerate both of them is in effect the same, though it 
 may not be intended, as to tarnish the glory of Christ's 
 
422 
 
 CONCLUSIOK. 
 
 mediatorial crown, and to restrict the sway of His benig- 
 nant, blood-bought sceptre. 
 
 The Unity of the Faith, as we have been endeavour- 
 ing to expound it, thus appears to be identified with every 
 high and holy Christian interest. While Christian Union 
 is indispensable, as is now generally admitted, to the ex- 
 tension and security, no less than to the symmetry, of the 
 hving temple, our aim has been to show that in order to 
 a sure and healthy union, it is necessary, as it is obviously 
 most becoming, that those Christians who find opposing 
 doctrines or duties in the Bible, endeavour by prayer and 
 conference, and the large and continual exercise of fervent 
 brotherly kindness and charity, to reduce their difi'er- 
 ences, tiU they shall see eye to eye, and with the gracious 
 aid of the promised Spirit of Truth, be united in the one 
 true meaning of the pure Word of the hving God. 
 
 To be content to attempt nothing for the promotion of 
 harmony and combination among the distracted followers 
 of the Lamb, in these perilous times, betrays either the 
 apathy of spiritual torpor or the cowardice of an unbeliev- 
 ing backsliding heart. To endeavour to promote Chris- 
 tian union in contravention of the principle that has been 
 advanced, seems to us to be little better than consohdating 
 our divisions, and sowins: fresh seeds of discord. 
 
 When the disciples shall fully awake to a sense of their 
 lofty privileges and large responsibility ; when they shall 
 begin to revise all their old beliefs, as well as to form their 
 future opinions, under the solemn conviction that if they 
 take due care and cordially believe and plead " the pro- 
 mise of the Father," they will not err ; a new era will 
 dawn upon Christendom. Let error in the exercise of 
 
CON'CLVSIOX. 
 
 423 
 
 private judgment when learning the lessons of the Bible 
 be sedulously shunned, under the salutary fear that every 
 error of interpretation tends, in proportion to its intrinsic 
 force, to overthrow the supremacy of our kingly Mediator, 
 to damage the consistency and completeness of the written 
 word, and to disparage the trust-worthiness of the undei- 
 standing, not merely of infidels or idolaters, but of those 
 who have received life and light from the Spirit of the 
 Lord. So long as this principle is not candidly recognised 
 and acknowledged, or so long as a vigorous and honest 
 beginning is still to be made to carry it into practical 
 operation, the Church of the living God will be rent by 
 the collisions of hostile parties, and will consequently 
 be feeble in the presence of her adversaries, and ham- 
 pered and disorderly in her evangehstic and missionary 
 efforts. 
 
 But let Christians begin to retire to their closets and 
 return to their Bibles, with more intelligent and earnest 
 longings for a rich and large effusion of the Holy Ghost ; 
 let them reperuse the Scriptures under a fresh and en- 
 hanced conviction that the Bible has but one meaning, 
 and that no honest heart or single eye need miss it ; let 
 each one feel that by the way in which he personally 
 understands every message of his Master, he either hin- 
 ders or hastens the kingdom of glor}' — he either betrays 
 or defends the cause of his crucified Lord before scorners 
 and apostates. A vigorous and ingenuous effort of this 
 sort, steadily made by a few hundred disciples, who should 
 fear a mutual collision in regard to any iota of their Lord's 
 will, far more than they fear poverty or persecution, 
 would be, to the scattered tribes of Israel, like cold water 
 
424 
 
 CONCLUSION'. 
 
 to a thirsty soul. It would be a genuine and mighty 
 revival. 
 
 Fellow-christians ! fellow-protestants ! begin without de- 
 lay this hallowed work, this arduous enterprise. To be 
 cordially united in action, we must be honestly one in 
 sentiment. To banish factions from the camp, we must 
 expel divisions from our counsels. " Now, I beseech you, 
 brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye 
 all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions 
 among you ; but that ye be perfectly joined together in 
 the same mind, and in the same judgment." — (I Cor. i. 
 10.) 
 
 The Unity of the Faith, and the Union of the Christian 
 Church, are enjoined in the sacred volume in the most 
 express, reiterated, and emphatic terms; as they are, in 
 the estimation of impartial men, most earnestly to be de- 
 sired, and most reasonably to be expected. No other 
 topic occupies so prominent a place in our Lord's interces- 
 sory prayer, as the oneness of His disciples ; nor ever 
 seemed to be so weighty a burden upon His spirit, when 
 he " offered up prayers and supplications with strong 
 crying and tears." The unbroken harmony of Christians, 
 or the visible union of the Church, is by the testimony of 
 holy Scripture, and the verdict of all experience, by far 
 the mightiest instrument in reviving the community of 
 believers, and in gathering back the wanderers to tho 
 fold. 
 
 How can we, collectively, adorn any doctrine of God 
 our Saviour, so long as wo do not agree, but rather con- 
 tradict each other, as to the meaning of that doctrine ? 
 It cannot but be expected that God will have a contro- 
 
coxcLrsioN. 
 
 425 
 
 versy with the Protestant Churches, while so many of 
 their leaders and adherents are disingenuously pleading 
 conscience, and Scripture, and obedience to Christ, for 
 various opinions and practices which Christ in His AVord 
 actually condemns, and about which conscience was never 
 fairly consulted. When we send a messenger from the 
 schools of the prophets to the heathen, or a Christian 
 apostle to the Mohammedans, or an evangelist to the 
 Jews ; when we attempt to purify the moral cess-pools of 
 civilization, or to instruct and elevate the labourers on the 
 line, or the soldiers in the trench, or to cheer the heart of 
 the despairing slave ; when we approach the hall of legis- 
 lation or the executive government with the complaint of 
 some religious grievance; whenever we build a place of 
 worship, or print a tract, or translate the Bible, or discuss 
 an ecclesiastical question, our watchword is ever the same, 
 our motto is never changed — Conscience, Scripture, Christ. 
 These three words are virtually, if not audibly re-echoed 
 from our barracks, hospitals, workhouses, and jails. They 
 arc stereotyped on every religious hand-bill, and em- 
 blazoned on every copy of the Bible. They are voci- 
 ferated by the 'preaching artizan, and melodiously articu- 
 lated by our mitred and lawn-clad clergy. They take 
 precedence in every sect of its shibboleth or sibbolcth. 
 They are taught in our Sabbath schools, expounded in 
 our colleges, and enforced from our pulpits — Conscience, 
 Scripture, Christ ! 
 
 If then with such a fair form of godliness, we be con- 
 victed of a sad deficiency of its power ; if it be a fact that 
 multitudes of the professors of the gospel are in direct 
 hostility to each other, on several momentous questions, as 
 
426 
 
 CONCLUSION'. 
 
 to what Christ really commands them, and what Scripture 
 really teaches them, and that both parties are pleading 
 conscience in support of their conflicting opinions, how can 
 it be surprising that the enemies of the gospel should 
 take occasion to plead conscience too for their denial of 
 Christ and their rejection of Scripture ? When conscience 
 is thus abused, and Scripture turned against itself, and 
 Christ the Lord deeply oifended, is it wonderful that He 
 should restrain the effusion of His grace, or that the Holy 
 Spirit, the author of the Bible, and the purifier and paci- 
 fier of the conscience, should be sorely grieved? The 
 world must see the Church practice, as well as hear her 
 preach, fealty to conscience, reverence for Scripture, and 
 obedience to Christ. 
 
 This, then, is the work that is to be done ; to roll away 
 a heavy reproach from the Bible, and wipe off a foul stain 
 from the Protestant conscience, and render due homage 
 to the one great head of the Church, by ceasing to throw 
 Scripture into conflict with Scripture, and conscience 
 into conflict with conscience. An obvious and mighty 
 urgency arising from present circumstances and passing 
 events, calls loudly that this work be done, and done with- 
 out delay. While the Protestant Evangelical Churches 
 are torn by many discordant and incompatible beliefs, and 
 rent into many incongruous and ill-assorted sects and 
 parties, her adversaries are alert and enterpnsing. There 
 is not, indeed, much vitality or vigour in heathenism, but 
 its enormous extent gives it a momentum of resistance 
 which sorely tries the strength and patience of its assail- 
 ants. To leaven that corrupt mass of hundreds of millions 
 of idolaters requires not only the associated exertions of a 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 427 
 
 united Church, but much more that effectual blessing 
 which the supplications of an undivided Church can alone 
 procure. The modern phases of infidelity are as refined 
 and subtle perhaps as in any former time, and have met 
 with proportionate popularity. A fatal scepticism is work- 
 ing powerfully and unseen in most numerous and influen- 
 tial quarters. Without any professed or apparent opposi- 
 tion to rehgion or Christianity, our hterature is steeped in 
 its insinuating spirit ; philosophy and science have to a 
 large extent come under its withering blight ; fashionable 
 life takes a tone from its approved maxims ; and politics 
 are its favourite game. The opinion, so rife among Chris- 
 tians, that conflicting views of truth and duty may be 
 conscientiously espoused and held, has given such a sanc- 
 tion to scepticism and such an impetus to its progress, that 
 for the present it seems almost hopeless to attempt to 
 stem the rolHng tide. 
 
 It is difficult to say whether some of the avowed princi- 
 ples and many of the practices of the Government of Great 
 Britain, may more correctly be called infidel or popish. 
 To profess sometimes that they will know no difl'erence 
 between Christ and ilohammed, between Jehovah and 
 Brahra, between the Bible and the papal decrees, is the 
 essence of rankest unbelief. At other times to call upon 
 the nation to fast and pray, or give thanks, before God 
 Almighty on account of providential occurrences, is only 
 to add gross inconsistency to unblushing impiety. And 
 then again to obey the behests of a donuneering priest- 
 hood, and acknowledge the power and succumb to tlie 
 terrors of an apostate hierarchy, and that too in Enghmd, 
 where we had thought, the proud pretensions of Komo 
 
428 
 
 COXCLUSION. 
 
 were long ago extinguished in the blood of her martyred 
 sons, manifests a degree of vassalage to spiritual despot- 
 ism, which every right-hearted patriot will regard as 
 truly alarming. 
 
 The multiplicity and variety of the Church's evangelis- 
 tic machinery is one of the characteristics of the age. 
 We have richly endowed colleges, recondite studies in our 
 universities, and ragged schools for the castaways. There 
 are pithy pointed tracts, in every language and of every 
 form, strong in every argument and winning in every 
 illustration. We have tracts which turn the post-office 
 into a pulpit. The Bible itself has become the'commonest 
 and the cheapest book under heaven. The word of God 
 is familiar to children, favoured by the great, fragrant to 
 the good, and fresh to the learned. We have Bibles ac- 
 cessible to the poor, and legible by the blind. There are 
 missionaries sent to every foreign clime, and to every class 
 of the home population. Our benevolent societies have 
 been multiplied, till no case of destitution, and no instance 
 of oppression, and no victim of vice or crime, seems to be 
 excluded from their generous and ample sphere. 
 
 This varied and precious instrumentality is by no means 
 fully equal to the work which lies before the Christian 
 community. It doubtless admits of indefinite extension 
 and of much improvement. Nevertheless its existence, 
 even as it is, is a stupendous and auspicious fact. It is 
 unparalleled in the history of mankind ; and forms one of 
 the greatest and noblest monuments that will ever adorn 
 this world. Nor have the results of the past working of 
 this machinery been insignificant or worthless. It has by 
 no means proved a failure. Its achievements are numcr- 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 429 
 
 ous and striking and beneficent. On every shore its 
 triumphs arc conspicuous and captivating. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, it seems to be deeply felt by 
 God's people at the present time, that the Divine blessing 
 is palpably restrained. In proportion to the amount of 
 means now employed, it sometimes appears unaccount- 
 able that success should be so limited. Looking to the 
 quantity and quahty of our outward agencies, we have 
 reason to ask, especially when comparing our circum- 
 stances with some past eras in the Church, or with the 
 promises of God recorded in the Bible, how is it that our 
 progress is so slow, the conversion of the ungodly so back- 
 ward and the spirituality of the converted so tame and 
 unimpassioned? 
 
 Now if the Bible frequently and forcibly enjoins union 
 upon the disciples of Christ, and plainly intimates that the 
 renovation of society is suspended on the realization of a 
 Christian unity, will it be denied that whatever other 
 causes may be in operation now to check the full eflfusion 
 of the Holy Spirit, the prevalence of schism and sectarian- 
 ism in the Protestant community is not one of the least ob- 
 trusive or obstructive ? When the prophet said of old : 
 " Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there 
 may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, 
 saith the Lord of hosts ; " be may have referred directly 
 to the tithes and offerings of corn and wine and oil. But 
 we know that the ancient Jews were much more prone to 
 come short in the spirituality of their services, than in the 
 perfunctory fulfilment of rituahsm. " To obey is better 
 than sacrifice." AVhatcver pungency there may be in an 
 appeal levelled against a dereliction in minor duties, is pro- 
 
430 
 
 CONCLUSIOX. 
 
 portionally enhanced when applied to higher and weightier 
 claims. If then it be an admitted fact that the evangelic 
 and unapostate Churches of the present day have been 
 robbing God of Ilis revenue of glory, by rending the 
 body of Christ, and by recoiling from each other, it needs 
 no straining of the prophetic word to apply it to ourselves. 
 We would take the rebuke humbly, that we might appro- 
 priate the promise boldly; " Be of the same mind one to- 
 ward another," (Rom. xii. 16.) " Be ye all of one mind, 
 having compassion one of another ; love as brethren, be 
 pitiful, be courteous," (1 Pet. iii. 8.) "And prove me 
 now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open 
 you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, 
 that there shall not be room enough to receive it." 
 (Mai. iii. 10.) 
 
 It will be stoutly maintained that the scheme which 
 proposes to effect, not a compromise, but a rcconcihation, 
 between the conflicting sects of Christendom, is the wild- 
 est and most impracticable, that has yet been suggested in 
 this age so prolific in extravagancies. To fancy that Cal- 
 vinists and Arminians may be brought to harmonize in 
 the teaching of Holy Scripture, regarding those topics 
 which have been so long and so keenly contested, will 
 seem to many utterly ridiculous. Nor will it appear less 
 preposterous to desire, that Episcopalians, Presbyterians 
 and Congrcgationalists, should overcome their hereditary 
 and acquired prejudices and read their Bibles with a single 
 eye, so as to lay aside their differences and be united in 
 the one will of their Master regarding church govern- 
 ment. And it will be stigmatised as the very height of 
 folly, that the Christians of Great Britain should bo en- 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 431 
 
 joined and expected to be of one mind and one accord re- 
 specting the duty of the civil magistrate in regard to the 
 education of the people. 
 
 Some may be waiting for the expression of the author's 
 opinion on these disputed points. They may be thinking 
 that he will say, Now, here is the truth involved in these 
 controversies, I have found it. Let all agree with me in 
 the conclusions to which I have come. To assume such a 
 position as this would only expose us to the just scorn of 
 all intelligent men. How is it that the members of the 
 Evangelical Alliance are united harmoniously in the state- 
 ments contained in their doctrinal basis ?_^"' Was it because 
 a Protestant pope arose amongst them, and oracularly de- 
 livered his responses, to be re-echoed by ten thousand 
 followers ? Is not each member of that Alhance supposed 
 to have personally examined the Bible devoutly and dili- 
 gently ? Is the agreement of all of them in the same 
 truth not accounted for by the fact, that that truth is in 
 the Bible, and that they have all found that truth in the 
 Bible by socking it there each for himself? To attribute 
 the present accordance and union of evangelical Christians 
 to any other cause, were to invalidate their creed or slan- 
 der their character. If Christian men, therefore, can 
 attain by due care a certain amount of harmony of opi- 
 nion as to what their Lord's will really is, why can they 
 not by the same care attain more and more harmony of 
 view in interpreting their blaster's precepts, " till wo all 
 come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the 
 Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of tlio 
 stature of tlie fulness of Christ ? " 
 
 You interpret the Scriptures in one way," said Queen 
 
432 
 
 CONCLUSION". 
 
 Mary to John Knox, " and thev (the pope and cardinals) 
 in another : whom shall I believe, and -who shall be 
 judge?" "You shall beheve God, who plainly speaketh 
 in his Word," replied the Reformer, " and farther than 
 the Word teacheth you, you shall believe neither the one 
 nor the other. The Word of God is plain in itself ; if 
 there is any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, who 
 is never contrary in himself, explains it more clearly in 
 other places, so that there can remain no doubt, but unto 
 such as are obstinately ignorant." The very same mode 
 of disposing of weighty disputes applies to the Protestants 
 of the present day. 
 
 If Arminians and Calvinists cannot come to an agree- 
 ment, and emerge from a long dark night of bitter contro- 
 versy into the day-light of Bible truth, it must be either 
 because there is not light in the Bible, or because they 
 will not see that hght. The same alternative meets us 
 whatever be the topic in dispute. So far as God has com- 
 manded a form of ecclesiastical rule, if we cannot coincide 
 as to what that form is, we make shipwreck either of 
 Christ's command or of the Christian conscience. If a 
 member of her Majesty's Government were to consult his 
 pastor, as to what his duty is in advising the Queen about 
 popular education, and if a pastor in such circumstances 
 could give no advice, it must be either because the Word 
 of Gcd is not a complete canon of faith and duty, or be- 
 cause that pastor is an incompetent expounder of the 
 Word. The Word of God, we may easily assume, does 
 give a distinct and valuable utterance as to what the ma- 
 gistrate may dutifully undertake on behalf of the un- 
 educated masses. Till a considerable majority of Christ's 
 
CONCLUSIOX. 
 
 433 
 
 professing people come to unanimity of sentiment as to 
 what that utterance actually is, there seems to be no pos- 
 sible egress from our present dead-lock of confused coun- 
 sels, and consequent damage to the common\Yealth. 
 
 It docs not become us to profess to solve these ques- 
 tions so as to reduce to harmony the conflicting opinions 
 of colleges and of centuries. But we do feel called upon to 
 urge on our fellow-Christians this consideration, that it is 
 at once ruinous and scandalous for the disciples of Christ 
 to be perpetually disputing about the meaning of their 
 Master's instructions, and that such disputes may, and 
 ouffht to be abandoned. These controversies will termi- 
 nate by the truth being elicited and established, just in 
 proportion to the spiritual and consistent conduct of the 
 members of the Church. A be^inninn: in this direction 
 ought to be made. It is not too much to expect a distinct 
 and emphatic confession of sin in respect to this specific 
 point, from both sides of the respective controversies. 
 True confession would surely be followed by earnest 
 prayer, for such a degree of enlargement and enlighten- 
 ing as would dispel the clouds of error and prevent the 
 shock of opposing parties. And where the minds of mi- 
 nisters and others are not proj)arcd for humble holy con- 
 ference as to the topics of dirt'erence, conjoint acknowledg- 
 ment of transgression, and fervent supplications at the 
 common throne of grace, would soon prepare the way for 
 unreserved and cordial communion as to every iota of dis- 
 crepance between them. 
 
 Is such a proposal as the above really impracticable ? 
 Is it too nmch for poor human nature ? It may be, it is, 
 far too nmch for human nature by itself. But is it too 
 
 2 K 
 
^34 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 much for human nature, redeemed by the precious blood 
 of Emmanuel? Is it too much for human nature, sancti- 
 fied and strengtlicned by the good spirit of the Lord ? 
 
 Admitting that this scheme were, at the present time 
 and in sober reality, impracticable, there are some im- 
 practicabilities, the urging and attempting of which are of 
 all things the most honourable. To vindicate the truth 
 against a ponderous and overwhelming mass of error, or 
 to defend the right against a crushing tyranny, or to con- 
 tend for liberty against a triumphant despotism, though 
 unsuccessful, is noble and heroic. The more impracticable 
 the effort, if it be well directed and honestly sustained, the 
 more illustrious will be the amaranthine wreath that will 
 deck the prostrate victor's brow ; for in virtue's cause we 
 conquer, when we fall. Leonidas and his three hundred 
 comrades failed in their brave and patriotic attempt. But 
 their defeat at Thermopyko has done more good to the 
 world, than their success would have done to Greece. 
 Their death-daring courajie in a righteous cause still 
 thrills through every land of liberty. 
 
 The rising at Pentland, and the battle of Bothwell, by 
 tlie Scottish Covenanters, Avere impracticable outbursts of 
 zeal. That too is the worst charge that can be brought 
 against tliem. If those abortive efforts of our martyi'ed 
 sires are to be condemned, it can only be on the ground 
 that they were unsuccessful at the time. They Avere ulti- 
 mately crowned with success. We verily believe that the 
 patient endurance of bloody deaths and cruel tortures by 
 our forefathers, numbering 18,000 who suffered by fine, 
 or iuiprisonincnt, or exile, or death, during twenty-eight 
 years, did far more to bring about tlie revolution of 1088, 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 -135 
 
 than the arms of the Prince of Orange, or the time-serv- 
 ing tergiversation of the bishops and nobles and people, 
 who swore and foreswore, as the tide of power or feeling 
 ebbed and flowed. If Cameron and Renwick were sub- 
 stantially wrong, then was the revolution itself a crime, 
 and the league of Smalcald in 1530, which proved the 
 foundation of German liberty and religion, was treason 
 and apostacy combined. But the Cameronians were un- 
 successful. Their schemes were ill-timed and ill-conducted. 
 True ; but this does not prove them guilty. If we admit 
 that they were sometimes imprudent, we claim a higher 
 meed of praise to their memories, for their noble daring 
 and their martyr-spirit, which at such fearful odds, and 
 under such accumulated and aggravated wrongs and cala- 
 mities, maintained to the last the cause of truth and 
 honesty. Their chief encomium lies in this, that by their 
 attempting what was impracticable, and perishing in the 
 attempt, they made it practicable to others. 
 
 Granting, then, that it is utterly and entirely impractic- 
 able at present to got Christians to treat the Bible as they 
 ought to do, to take out of it only what God has put into 
 it, the object is so simple and so good and so beneficial, 
 that in labouring for it, there is honour and happiness ; 
 every defeat and every difficulty will only enhance the re- 
 ward of the faithful labourer ; and if success bo delayed, 
 its attainment will be all the more certain, and its glory 
 all the more refulgent when it is vouchsafed. 
 
 But there are some things that, though impracticable 
 in appearance, are not so in reality. We have been col- 
 lecting arguments to shew that such is the nature of the 
 proposal now made, that the soldiers of the Cross should 
 
43G 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 cease to debate about the meanino; of their marching; 
 orders. Wliile they all profess to believe that there is 
 neither ambiguity nor inconsistency in these orders, as 
 issued by the captain of their salvation, is it indeed extra- 
 vagant to expect that they should all read them as they 
 are written, and understand them as tliey were meant? 
 When the stripling David went against the giant Goliath, 
 his attempt seemed impracticable. But it was not ; the 
 stone from the brook was mightier than the spear like a 
 weaver's beam. When Luther went to the diet at Worms, 
 his attempt appeared impracticable and hopeless to every 
 one but himself. It was in reply to the expostulations 
 of Spalatin, the confidential adviser of the Elector of 
 Saxony, that Luther said — " Go tell your master, that 
 though there should be as many devils at Worms as there 
 are tiles on its roofs, I would enter it." Though he had 
 presently to flee for his life from W^orms, he was the con- 
 queror at the diet. W'hen Carey, the poor uneducated 
 shoemaker, attempted, on behalf of India, what was for- 
 bidden by Government, and neglected by those who 
 claimed to be the successors of the Apostles, and ridiculed 
 by the learned and influential, and had been abandoned 
 by others as hopeless, his enterprise seemed to be most 
 wild and desperate. What enterprise has proved more 
 sober or successful ? Even in matters of smaller import, 
 the apparent and the actual are often opposed. The Bri- 
 tish House of Commons laughed to scorn the locomotive 
 projects and predictions of George Stephenson, as unheard 
 of and unattainable ; and in a very short time the laugh 
 was turned against that Honourable House of Legislation. 
 In like manner, ivhatever apparent impracticability there 
 
COXCLUSION. 
 
 437 
 
 may be in the proposal to guide the vessel of the Christian 
 Church by the chart of revelation, and to expel denomina- 
 tionalism from the vast and growing empire of Emmanuel, 
 and to exorcise the demons of strife that are so numerous 
 in Protestant Christendom, the seeming impossibihty of 
 doing all this is not a reality and a substance, but only a 
 mist, a vapour, a delusion. 
 
 To every one who would excuse or shield the present 
 state of the Church, without answering or refuting the 
 preceding arguments, because of the difficulties and em- 
 barrassments involved in effecting an improvement, might 
 be addressed the words which Samson is represented as 
 using to Delilah : — 
 
 " Weakness is thy excuse, 
 And I believe it ; weakness to resist 
 Philistian gold : if weakness may excuse, 
 Wliat murderer, what traitor, parricide, 
 Incestuous, sacrilegious, but may plead it ? 
 All wickedness is weakness ; that plea, therefore, 
 With God or man will gain thee no remission." 
 
 The Church, alas ! has oftentimes, like Samson, lost her 
 greater than a giant's strength, through sloth and low 
 indulgences and self-elation ; while rebuking them that 
 may have tempted her, let her be as honest as the Wind 
 and fallen hero of Israel was, and say, — 
 
 " I gave, thou say'st, the example, 
 I led the way; bitter reproach, but true; 
 I to myself was false, ere thou to me ; 
 Such pardon, therefore, ap I give my folly. 
 Take to thy wicked deed." 
 
438 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The achievement for which we are contending is possible. 
 It is practicable ; but only to them that believe. " To 
 him that believeth all things are possible." To the ten 
 spies and their fellow-countrymen it seemed impracticable 
 to conquer the Canaanites, with their giant defenders and 
 their towns walled up to heaven. And because it seemed 
 impracticable, it luas impracticable. Their bodies fell in 
 the wilderness, and their bones were left to bleach there, 
 because of their unbelief. Joshua and Caleb alone, among 
 the armed and marshalled multitude, saw nothing imprac- 
 ticable in the stature of the Anakim and their proud forti- 
 fications, and to these two heroes alone, of all their com- 
 peers in the desert, a triumphant entrance was given to 
 the possession of the promised land. 
 
 Shall we, then, believe in one divinely-appointed Church, 
 or in a multiform party-Church ? Shall we believe in a 
 divided caste-Church, or in the united CathoHc Church ? 
 Shall we believe in the communion of rival classes, or in 
 the communion of loving Christians ? Shall we beHeve 
 in the communion of sectaries, or in the communion of 
 saints ? 
 
 I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholic Church, 
 the communion of saints. Lord, help thou mine unbelief! 
 
 PltlN ri:i) l!Y JOHN IKJfJIir.S, TIIISTLE .sTUKICT, KniNUUHHH. 
 
BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 Crown 8vo, cloth, 7s. Gd. 
 
 CHRISTIAN ERRORS INFIDEL ARGUMENTS; 
 
 OB, 
 
 SEVEN DIALOGUES 
 
 SDGGESTED BY 
 
 THE BURNETT TREATISES, THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE 
 PRIZE ESSAY, AND OTHER APOLOGETICS. 
 
 CONTENTS:— 
 
 IV. Mystery and Contradiction 
 
 V. Practica] & Scientific Knowledges. 
 VI. Certainty and Probability. 
 VII. Tlie Standard of JloiiUity. 
 Their Claims without Conflict 
 
 MMARY OF THE ABGCMEMT 
 
 I. Trutli and Error. 
 II Knonledgc and Belief. 
 111. Belief and Kesjionsibdity. 
 
 Rkason a.vo Faith : 
 
 " Such a work was much needed ; and the author has done much both to point 
 out, distinctly, and to correct and supjily satisfactorily, the important mistakes 
 and defiricncies in some of tlie later and abler wi iters on Christian evidences. Dr 
 Brown heartily desires the success of the publication, tliough he is afraid the 
 Christian public must become more philosophical, and the philosophical public 
 more Christian, belore full justice be done to it. The book lias a decided ten- 
 dency towards the production of a consummation so devoutly to be wished for." — 
 Rkv. John Biiow.v, D.U. 
 
 " The argument is throughout conducted in a most able manner — power of 
 grasp and fineness of touch being singularly couibini'd. There is no obscurity 
 ot' siatement — no eluding a difricuity — no timidity in stating deliberately ac- 
 cepted results. We conclude by thanking the author for bis work, and by 
 commending it to all reflective men." — Noinu Bkitisu Kkvikw. 
 
 " A full discussion of so much as one point taken up in this profound and mas- 
 terly work, is bey<»inl our limits. In every reperusal of any of its (-liajiters, our 
 seiiso of its value has been de(;idedly enlianced." — Rkfok.med Prksb. MagaZINk. 
 
 " The excellent spirit and masculine ability which the author of this 
 work has brought to his task." — Co.m.monwi.:ai.th. 
 
 " Of the fair and earnest s]>irit in which his inquiries have been conducted, 
 e\ (;ry paragraph he ha.s written liears visible impress. . . . Its peculiar merit is, 
 tlmt it is an a<'Ute and powerful discussion of fundamental questions on which the 
 advocates of natural and revealed religion must understand ea<'li other before they 
 c m make a united assault on the ranks of infidelity." — 1"mti.u Piiksh. .Maoazi.nk. 
 
 •' We regard this work as a singularly fresh and able producliim, and eminently 
 worthy the attention of all students of apologetics.". — Chuisi ia.n Tkkascky. 
 
 " Contains much good thinking, and many sound and valuable observations." — 
 Scoisman. 
 
 " We have only to reiterate our emphatic approval of the philoso]ihical acumen 
 displayed throughout the entire volume." — Scottish Phk.ss. 
 
 ** No language can adcfpiately describe the iniiiortance of counsels like those 
 given by this accomplished (;liristian philosopher." — Cukistian Ti.Mfji. 
 
 " The whole seven dialogues are replete with matter for grave thought and 
 nice discrimination and enlightened judgment . . . We have read them with 
 great care, with high respect for the talents of the \inUnt>wti auihor, with cordial 
 approbation of his |ii'iiiciples generally, and with a conviction thai tlie (ciii/tiiey of 
 the book is wholesome and good " — SuoiTisii Co.vum o vTnjN ii, Maih/.ink. 
 
 " The author has done good service in the best cause, and has jirodiiced a bn<ik 
 worthy to he in every library, but peculiarly valuable to young men of an.\iuUii 
 and inquiiing minds." — Co.nuiikuational Pllpit. 
 
 AXDUKW ELLIOT, 15 Princes Street, Edinbuiuwi. 
 
BOOKS PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Second Edition, Post 8to, Cloth, price 7s. 6d. 
 
 PILGRIMAGE FROM THE ALPS TO THE TIBER. 
 
 BY J. A. WYLIE, LL.D. 
 
 This volume contains a full expos?, from undeniable facts, of the present awful 
 oppression of Ital.v, and especially of the total ruin of Trade and Liberty at Rome. 
 
 " Dr Wylie's sketches of Austrian and Papul Italy are replete with interest." — 
 Athenaeum. 
 
 Third Edition, Demy 8vo, Cloth, price 8s. 6d. 
 
 THE PAPACY: 
 
 ITS UISTORY, DOGMAS, GEXIUS, AND PROSPECTS. 
 
 BY THE REV. J. A. WYLIE, LL.D. 
 
 Foolscap 8vo, Cloth limp, price Is. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM: ITS NATURE AND OBJECTS. 
 
 BY PROFESSOR LUMSDEN, Aberdeen. 
 Demy 8vo, Sewed, price Is. 
 
 THE EXEGETICAL STUDY OF THE 
 ORIGINAL SCRIPTURES, 
 
 CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
 TRAINING OF THEOLOGICAL STUDENTS. 
 BY ALEXANDER BLACK, D.D. 
 
 Crown 8vo, Cloth, price Is. 
 
 RELIGION IN EARNEST: 
 
 TALES ILLUSTRATIVE OF CHRISTIAN LIFE IN GERMANY. 
 Translated from the German by MRS STANIiEY CARR ; With 
 
 rREFATOKV NoTE BY DR llANNA. 
 
 18mo, Cloth, price 2s. (M. 
 
 INFANTS ASLEEP IN JESUS: 
 
 OR, LIGHT ON LITTLE GRAVES. 
 BY REV. ALEX. CUTHBERT. 
 
 Foolscap 8vo, Cloth, price Is. 4d. 
 
 THE GATHERING STORM; 
 
 OR, U R I T A I N '.S 11 O M E W A R D C A R E E U. 
 BY DR EDWARD M. DILL. 
 
ANDREW ELLIOT, 15 PRINCES STREET. 
 
 Foolscap 8vo, price 2s 6d. 
 
 THE MYSTERY SOLVED; 
 
 OK, Ireland's miseries : the grand cause and cure. 
 
 BY DR EDWARD M. DILL. 
 
 Foolscap 8vo, Cloth, price 2s. 
 
 HYMNS AND POEMS. 
 
 BY THE REV. J. C. FAIRBAIRN, Allanton. 
 
 Foolscap 8vo, Cloth limp, price 9<I. 
 
 SABBATH SCENES AND MEDITATIONS. 
 
 BY THE REV. J. C. FAIRBAIRN, Allanton. 
 
 Foolscap 8vo, Sen ed, price 6d. 
 
 REVIVAL LESSONS. 
 
 BY THE REV. J. W. ALEXANDER, D.D., 
 
 New York. 
 ISmo, Sewed, price 2d. 
 
 THE LORD'S TABLE: 
 
 WHY IT IS SPREAD, AND WHO ARE INVITED. 
 BY REV. DU iMORGAN, Belfast. 
 
 18mo, Sewed, price 2d. 
 
 YOUR CHILD'S BAPTISM: 
 
 AN ADDRESS TO PARENTS. 
 BY REV. DR MORGAN, Belfast. 
 
 Third Edition, ISmo, TmI.; Cloth, Is. 
 
 ALTAR-G OLD; 
 
 OR, THE WORTHINESS OF THE LAMB TlUT WAS SLAIN TO 
 RECEIVE RICHES. 
 BY THE REV. DR MACFARLANE. 
 
 Crown Hvn, ('lotli, price .'U. 
 
 SERMONS. 
 
 BY THE REV. ANDKKW ELLIOT. 
 With .Mkmoiu, !)}• Rev. .1. I,vw, Iiiiiorloitlicn ; and Ui.MiNistiENCEs. 
 By Rev. Wmj.iam Andeiison, OKI Caliiliar. 
 
Nesv and Enlarged Edition in Crown 8vo, Cloth, Price 5s. 
 
 OUTLINES OF DISCOURSES, 
 
 DOCTRINAL AND EXPOSITORY. 
 BY THE LATE REV. JAMES STEVVART. 
 
 Minister of Free South Churcli, Aberdeen. 
 
 " A book full of profound views of truth, of vigorous thinking, and sound theology ; 
 it is characterised, in short, by a manliness and a ripeness rarely seen in our supVr- 
 ticial day." — Witness. 
 
 " Display an extraordinary amount of thinking, and profound views of the deep 
 things of God." — Aberdeen Journal. 
 
 " The plans present a rich variety of precious truths, carefully thought out, closely 
 pertinent to the text, and fehcitously as well as accurately expressed. The work has 
 our warmest recommendation." — United Presbyterian Magazine. 
 
 Seventh Edition, Small 8vo, 4s. 6d. 
 
 OUR FRIENDS IN HEAVEN: 
 
 OR, THE MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF THE REDEEMED IN GLORY 
 
 DEMONSTRATED. 
 
 BY THE REV. J. M. KILLEN, A.M., Comber. 
 
 " It is a Scriptural .argument for the mutual recognition of the redeemed in glory, 
 and the fullest popular statement of the grounds and lessons of tlie doctrine, with 
 which we are acquainted. It is written in a tender, atfectionate spirit, and has been 
 idready blessed to the comforting of many.". — Rev. A. Cameron in " The Family 
 Treasury." 
 
 " The work sheds a fresh and peculiar interest on many passages of the Word of 
 God." — News of the Churches. 
 
 " Mr Killen argues on right principles, and comes to a right conclusion." — Church 
 of England M.igazine. 
 
 " The thinking of Mr Killen is strongly distinguished by originality. There is, 
 moreover, a dash of poetry in him which enables him to depict objects so vividly as 
 deeply to impress. His book is by far the most comprehensive and complete pub- 
 lished on this subject." — The Christian Witness. 
 
 " A full, earnest, and conclusive investigation of the entire subject." — British and 
 Foreign Evangelical Review. 
 
 "Mr Killen has established this important doctrine on the surest basis; and we 
 recommend the mourning Christian to read his pages, and be comforted." — Clerical 
 Journal. 
 
 " This delightful volume will be welcomed by many a bereaved heart. The aceom- 
 pushed author was just such a man as could undertake successfully the preparation 
 of such a work." — English Presbyterian Messenger. 
 
 " Mr Killen bus not indulged in any fanciful or dream-like speculations on the 
 subject. His object is steadily kept in view, and thoroughly accomplished. The 
 character of his volume is pre-eminently that of Scriptural sobriety." — Edinburgh 
 Witness. 
 
 Second Edition, Demy 8vo, Sewed, price Is. 
 
 A VINDICATION OF NATURAL THEOLOGY, 
 
 ON GROUNDS OF REASON, SCRII'TURE, AND ORTHODOXY. 
 BY THE RKV. JAMi:S MACGREGOR, 
 
 Free Church, Harry. 
 
 " AVc consider the author of this pamphlet entitled to the warmest thanks of the 
 Christian community for bringing forward so opportunely, and so clearly and satis- 
 factorily, the present truth, and supporting it so ably by argument, and by Divine and 
 human testimony."— Scottish Press. 
 
 ANDREW ELLIOT, Princes Street Edinburgh.