rantable, no less inconsistent with your own character as protestant professors, than it is injurious to ours as christian believers.

The hope of thus leading your minds into more enlarged and just views of the rights and duties of christians, in respect to each other, will be our principal motive in going into a far more extended consideration of the subject, than the immediate occasion requires.

Your charge respecting the christian character of this church was originally stated as in the first part of the following vote :— "Unanimously Voted, That this church cannot grant the request of Mrs. Martha Baker, for the reasons following, viz :

First, Because this church cannot consistently recognise any church as a "sister church," which, in our judgment, rejects those doctrines that we feel bound to receive as the fundamental doctrines of christianity; and

Secondly, Because this church cannot consent to hold fellowship with any church which manifests an entire disregard to the discipline of this church, and which, by readily admitting to its communion those who have been excommunicated by us, virtually declares the disciplinary acts of this church to be null and void.” ”

You justly regard the charge first alleged here, especially as now represented by you, to be "far weightier" than the other, for so it certainly is as it respects the responsibility of those who make such a charge; but to those who think it " a very small thing to be judged of you, or by man's judgment," it is, indeed, light. We differ from you no farther than you do from us; and if we are to be judged as rejecting fundamental doctrines, because we adhere to the bible alone, exclusive of all human systems of divinity, you, for coupling such systems with the bible, may be judged as "receiving for doctrines the commandments of men," and "making the word of God of none effect,” through your unscriptural creeds and confessions. "Let us

not, therefore, judge one another any more." If we are conscientious in our opinions, no error in our respective views of christian doctrine can be so great as that of uncharitably judging and condemning each other. The following passage from a dis

course of the amiable and learned Seed, a very orthodox clergyman of the English Church, deserves the serious attention of all those who are liable to fall into this great error. "Whether a good man," says he, "who is a misbeliever in some points, without any faultiness or irregularity of will, will be damned for his erroneous way of thinking, may be a question with some people; but I think it admits of none, that a man will be damned for an uncharitable way of thinking and acting."* And this, you will perceive, is but a comment upon the apostle's declaration, that although he might understand all mysteries, and have all faith, and yet have not charity, he was nothing.

We beg leave, in the first place, to make a few remarks upon certain statements in your Rev. Pastor's letter communicating the vote of your church respecting Mrs. Baker. This vote appears to us to present a rule of proceeding as novel as it is extraordinary; but your Rev. Pastor states that it "is not regarded as presenting any new view of the principle on which, in relation to other churches, you have long felt it your duty to act." This representation, we think, must have proceeded from a misrecollection, or inexperience, as to the past history and affairs of your church; for so recently as since the settlement of our junior pastor, an instance has occurred of a recommendation from this church to yours, which we have always understood was received with the usual courtesy. And it is deserving of remark, that, in considering Mr. Brown's application to be recommended by you to this church, you do not appear to intimate that there was any question about recommending him, on account of the church to which he wished to become united. On the contrary, the question, at that time, seems never to have been raised. This church certainly, during its existence of more than two hundred years, has known of no such principle, as you now set up, in its intercourse with other churches, either in receiving or granting recommendations of members who wished to transfer their connexion to or from this church. Within our own knowledge, repeated instances of this kind of christian courtesy, both in re

"Discourses"-Vol. 2, p. 81.

commending and receiving members, have taken place between this and other churches, of as high reputed orthodoxy as your church, and whose pastors are in full fellowship with your pastor. It is but a few years since, that a member of the Third Church in this town, who for some time had worshipped with us, and who requested of that church "a dismission and recommendation to the First Church," was, agreeably to his request, "unanimously recommended to the christian watch and fellowship of the said First Church." This recommendation was signed by the present worthy pastor of the Third Church, who in so doing did but act in conformity to immemorial christian usage, and in that spirit of "orthodoxy and charity united," which led the excellent Dr. Watts to exclaim, "I see, I feel, and am assured, that several men may be very sincere, and yet entertain notions in divinity all widely different."

Here was an example worthy of your imitation. Why should it not have been followed in the case of Mrs. Baker? It seems to have been the plain, natural, and christian course for you to pursue. We regret that your Rev. Pastor should see occasion so emphatically to state to us, that in taking a directly opposite course, there was "not the slightest hesitation or difference of opinion, on the part of the church, as to the course proper to be pursued." For this seems to indicate that you had already yielded to the influence of that exclusive sectarian spirit, which is at war with the charity of the gospel, and which we had hoped would not reach our peaceful community. How otherwise can we account for such unanimity, upon such a question, and under such circumstances? Could it have resulted from a dispassionate exercise of your reason and judgment upon the merits of the question? Could you have been thus unanimous, had you impartially examined the subject in all its important relations? Could you, in that case, have wholly set at nought the claims of the First Church to your christian candor and courtesy? Should you have regarded as nothing its ancient foundation in Christ, its devotion to the bible alone as the rule of faith and worship, and its uniform support of the great principles of christian truth, freedom and

charity? Could you have established a precedent so adverse to the christian liberty of your own members, had you well considered that it is their individual right and duty, whenever conscience enlightened by divine truth shall require it of them, to leave your communion for such as may be more conducive to their edification? And could you have been wholly indifferent as to the influence of your example upon the peace and harmony of the christian community? We feel persuaded, had you thus considered the subject, you would have doubted the soundness of the principle upon which you proceeded; and had you considered also that the great responsibility, which rests upon us all, respects not the faith of others so much as our own practice, you would have chosen to err, if err you must, on the side of christian charity and peace.

If our apprehensions as to the influence of such an exclusive spirit among you be well founded, suffer us to entreat you to resist and suppress it, as the deadliest foe to the true christian spirit. Freed from this influence, you might enjoy that divine charity, which would restrain you from charging us with a "dereliction from the great doctrines of christianity," and might possibly be led into that free and impartial inquiry after truth, which would enable you to see those doctrines in the same light with us. For, as the venerated Baxter says, "be you never so peremptory in your opinions, you cannot resolve to hold them to the end; for light is powerful, and may change you whether you will or no; you cannot tell what that light will do which you never saw. But prejudice will make you resist the light, and make it harder for you to understand.'

"The only means by which religious knowledge can be advanced," says Bishop Lowth, "is freedom of inquiry. An opinion is not therefore false, because it contradicts received notions; but, whether true or false, let it be submitted to a fair examination. Truth must in the end be a gainer by it, and appear with greater advantage."†

* 1 Baxter's Works, 42.

+ Visitation Sermon, 1758.

"Truth and error," says a late eloquent orthodox divine, "as they are essentially opposite in their nature, so the causes to which they are indebted for their perpetuity and triumph are not less so. Whatever retards a spirit of inquiry, is favorable to error; whatever promotes it, to truth. But nothing, it will be acknowledged, has a greater tendency to obstruct the exercise of free inquiry, than the spirit and feeling of a party.”*

The vote of your church, containing your "weightier charge," and exhibiting the main principle upon which you refuse to recommend Mrs. Baker to the First Church, is indeed important in a general view, and deserves from you, certainly, a fuller consideration than you appear to have given it. This principle in its operation concerns not merely the First Church, and the Tabernacle Church, but other churches also, and affects the rights of the individual members of your church, and of all churches which may be influenced by the example of yours. The subject thus becomes identified with the great cause of christian truth and liberty, as well as with that of christian peace and charity, and acquires an importance which could. not attach to the particular question which has led to this discussion. But it did not appear to affect the character of this church so directly, or make it so incumbent upon us to reply to it, as your more specific charge of a wanton disregard to your rules of discipline.

It could not appear to us of any great consequence, as respects our christian standing, that you should judge us to have rejected what you deem fundamental doctrines, while we are conscious of retaining all which we deem fundamental, and are not charged with unfaithfulness in the use of the scriptures. We know that wise and good men, in all ages of the world, have differed in opinion, especially on the subject of religion, which, probably, from the very constitution of the human mind, must always be the case, and that, while some christians embrace certain doctrines as fundamental, others will reject them as erroneous, who are equally conscientious and

*Robert Hall-" Terms of Communion."