can be made the basis of the communion of the Church on earth. There are those who hold the exact opposite, and believe that every effort to form a “pure” communion only results in a “mixed” one encumbered with the extra drawback, that to the unavoidable inclusion of the spurious is added the perfectly avoidable exclusion of the genuine. To exhort the faithful to seek an external unity before they have agreed as to what the external unity ought to be is now generally regarded as futile. Yet Darby affirms (p. 36) that “it is not a formal union off the outward professing bodies that is desirable; indeed, it is surprising that reflecting Protestants should desire it. … It would be a counterpart to Romish unity; we should have the life of the Church and the power of the word lost, and the unity of spiritual life utterly excluded.” But Darby might have recollected that many Christians hold that if the very scheme he denounces is ruled out, external unity is a chimerical project; and his ipse dixit would carry no weight with them.
Mr. Miller represents the tract as having produced startling results, but of this I cannot find any contemporary evidence. If it was so Darby’s appeal must have been strong in the reality of the sectarianism he reproved, and many devout hearts may have turned hopefully to a group of excellent men who believed they saw their way to a happier condition. In our own day the tract would not receive much attention; the question of which it treats has made too great an advance in the interval. Later Brethrenism leans for support much more upon “the liberty of the Spirit in the assembly”. On this, at the first, the Brethren had nothing to say. It is true that for some years after this, Darby’s tracts are chiefly concerned with lay-ministry; but the subject is not viewed in connexion with the order of worship.
