which brings out his imperfect conception. 'We,' says he (and, by
the way, if _Phil._ is _we_, then it must he my duty to call him
_they_), 'we do not propose to defend the varieties of _doctrine_
held by the different communities of Protestants.' Why, no; that
would be a sad task for the most skilful of funambulists or
theological tumblers, seeing that many of these varieties stand
related to each other as categorical affirmative and categorical
negative: it's heavy work to make _yes_ and _no_ pull together in
the same proposition. But this, fortunately for himself, _Phil._
declines. You are to understand that he will not undertake the
defence of Protestantism in its _doctrines_, but only in its
_principles_. That won't do; that antithesis is as hollow as a
drum; and, if the objection were verbal only, I would not make it.
But the contradistinction fails to convey the real meaning. It is
not that he has falsely expressed his meaning, but that he has
falsely developed that meaning to his own consciousness. Not the
word only is wrong; but the wrong word is put forward for the
sake of hiding the imperfect idea. What he calls _principles_
might almost as well be called _doctrines_; and what he calls
_doctrines_ as well be called _principles_. Out of these terms,
apart from the rectifications suggested by the context, no man
could collect his drift, which is simply this. Protestantism, we
must recollect, is not an absolute and self-dependent idea; it
stands in relation to something antecedent, against which it
protests, viz., Papal Rome. And under what phasis does it protest
against Rome? Not against the Christianity of Rome, because every
Protestant Church, though disapproving a great deal of _that_,
disaproves also a great deal in its own sister churches of the
protesting household; and because every Protestant Church holds
a great deal of Christian truth, in common with Rome. But what