cise. Baptism on profession of faith was, I believe, the custom of the sect, as it was also of almost all the early Brethren.[1]
Brethrenism cannot in any proper sense be affiliated to either of these movements; indeed, there is not a word in the narratives of any of the early Brethren to indicate that they consciously received any influence from them. But that such movements existed is proof of the wide diffusion of the ideas that went to form Brethrenism, and to which Brethrenism in its turn was destined to give a far more durable embodiment, and a far more extensive influence. On all hands, probably, the prevailing Erastianism was quickening in fervent spirits the aspiration after a pure communion. In not a few cases, also, the jealous isolation of the different sects and their intense preoccupation with denominational interests were kindling an aspiration no less ardent after a genuine catholicity.
These two aspirations were the foundations of Brethrenism. The true idea of the Church was to be expressed. A circle was to be drawn just wide enough to include “all the children of God,” and to exclude all who did not come under that category. Of the two the aspiration after catholicity took the lead. Union was the Brethren’s avowed object. Purity was an older ideal, and still remained the professed aim of the Independent Churches. The root of both is to be sought in the strictly primary postulate that the true children of God can for all practical purposes be discriminate from the mass of nominal profession. This position, which may perhaps be called the common ground of extreme Evangelicalism,
- ↑ My knowledge of Kellyism was derived from a friend who was associated with one of its local churches about the year 1840.
