essentially popish, and has it not led to unchristian animosities and dissensions in every age of the church, and thereby prevented the genuine influence of our holy religion among men?

It must then be a common object with all enlightened friends of christianity to remove this scandal from the church, and to promote an opposite spirit, the spirit of love and peace, which is the true badge of the disciples of Christ. This object, we may hope, will be advanced by every fair discussion, which tends to diffuse among christians correct knowledge as to the nature and foundation of their religious rights, and to lead them to the exercise of mutual candor, as to the motives and principles by which they are actuated in the enjoyment of them. We could not therefore doubt, even had you been silent on the subject, that you would accompany us with pleasure in this discussion, and receive whatever valuable information we may be able to collect and present to you, in the same christian spirit in which we hope to communicate it.

From the time of the primitive ages of christianity, the churches, which have been formed professedly upon its principles, have been prone to forget the design of their institution, and the laws to which they are subject, and to manifest a spirit directly opposite to that of Christ and his apostles. We have therefore proposed, before proceeding to consider the subject of your vote in particular reference to this church, to take a view of the duties of christian churches, and the principles which ought to govern them, more especially in their relations with each other, and in respect to the admission of members, and recommending them from one church to another.

The general duty of churches has been well stated by the late Robert Hall, who applied to this subject the full force of his clear and powerful mind. "The duty of churches," says he, "originates in that of the individuals of which they consist, so that when we have ascertained the sentiments and principles which ought to actuate the christian in his private capacity, we possess the standard to which the practice of churches should be uniformly adjusted.”* Here we see the obligation which rests upon all

* Reasons for Christian in opposition to Party Communion.

с

churches, not only to adhere strictly to the laws of Christ in eonducting their government and discipline, but to manifest, in all their conduct and proceedings, those sentiments and principles of justice, candor, charity, humility and good will, which the gospel so constantly enjoins upon the practice of individuals. Considering, indeed, that these virtues constitute so principal a part of the religion of Christ, and that churches are formed to promote this religion in the world, as well as for their own edification, it seems peculiarly incumbent on them to exhibit a bright example of all the christian virtues.

From the writings of the New Testament we must of course learn the nature, duties, and mutual connexion of churches. There we find that the word church, which is of the same import as assembly or congregation, is used to signify either the whole body of believers, the universal church, or those particular societies of christians, formed in different places, which together constituted the universal church, and sustained the same relation to Christ their common head and lawgiver. These of course were sister churches, a relation resulting from their very nature and condition. "However familiar," says the eloquent writer just referred to," the spectacle of christian societies, who have no fellowship or intercourse with each other, has become, he who consults the New Testament will instantly perceive that nothing more repugnant to the dictates of inspiration, or the practice of the first and purest age, can be conceived. When we turn our eyes to the primitive times, we behold one church of Christ, and one only, in which, when new assemblies of christians arose, they were considered, not as multiplying, but diffusing it; not as destroying its unity, or impairing its harmony, but being fitly compacted together on the same foundation, as a mere accession to the beauty and grandeur of the whole."

The same relation must still subsist among all christian societies, or particular churches, certainly all those which are formed after the primitive model, and built upon the principles of protestantism, or true principles of gospel liberty. Such churches are sister churches, whether they acknowledge the relation or not. Even should they so far forget it, as to indulge in unchristian

feelings and bitter recriminations towards each other, and make it a point of conscience to deny that they have any christian relation whatever; yet it remains a fact, independent of their will, that they are sister churches, having one common Lord and Master, who has enjoined upon them the same divine rules of faith and duty, and that they owe to each other all the courtesy and kindness which such a relation implies.

In the interpretation of the scriptures containing these divine rules, they have of course the same right of private judgment, are under the same obligation to use the reason which God has given them to ascertain their true meaning, and to follow the light of their own judgment and conscience, without submitting to any control or dictation from others, or attempting to interfere with them in the exercise and enjoyment of this common right. Differences of opinion, arising from an honest interpretation of these divine rules, are admissible upon the foundation principle of protestant churches; and a proper sense of the perfect equality which subsists among them as to their rights and duties respecting each other, will always be sufficient to secure mutual respect amidst diversity of sentiments, and to preserve "the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace."

But if," adds the same admired writer on this subject, "amidst the infinite diversity of opinions, each society deems it necessary to render its own peculiarities the basis of union, as though the design of christians in forming themselves into a church, were not to exhibit the great principles of the gospel, but to give publicity and effect to party distinctions; all hope of restoring christian harmony and unanimity must be abandoned. When churches are thus constituted, instead of enlarging the sphere of christian charity, they become so many hostile confederacies."* What a dereliction is this from every principle of protestantism, as well as gospel liberty and peace! Nothing can be clearer, than that receiving the scriptures as the common standard of faith, with the acknowledged right of private judgment, involves the obligation of mutual candor and charity, in our endeavors to understand them and ascertain the truths which they reveal. "Can any man," says Dr. Dod

*Terms of Communion.

dridge, "with the least color of reason, pretend that I have a right to judge for myself, and yet punish me for using it? That is, for doing that which he acknowledges I have a right to do. To plead for it would be a direct contradiction in terms.”*

You will find in the works of this learned author, who was not less catholic than orthodox, much that is calculated to subserve the cause of christian peace and charity. “Union of affection, amidst diversity of opinions,” appears to have been his motto. In explaining the apostolic direction, “be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind," he says, “be unanimous in affection, if you cannot be so in opinion, agree on cultivating the same love, however your judgments, yea, and in some instances your practices, may be divided.” "The best of men differ, their understandings differ, various associations have been accidentally formed, and different principles have been innocently, and perhaps devoutly admitted, which, even in a course of just and sensible reasoning, must necessarily lead to different conclusions. Accordingly we find that the wisest and the best of men have pleaded the cause on either side of various questions, which to both have seemed important, without being able to produce conviction.-Let us be greatly upon our guard that we do not condemn our brethren, as having forfeited all title to the name of christians, because their creeds or confessions of faith do not come up to the standard of our own."t

A learned contemporary author, and of the like catholic spirit with Doddridge, has also well described that kind of union, which it is the duty of churches to cultivate in order to christian harmony and intercourse. “Herein it is,” says he, "that true christian unity does consist; not so much in uniformity of opinion as in unanimity of affection, in love and peace, in mutual charity and good will, and in all kind and friendly offices, as it becometh brethren in Jesus Christ. We are therefore exhorted as christians, to keep, not an unity of opinion in the bond of ignorance, nor an unity of profession in the bond of hypocrisy, but an unity of spirit in the bond of peace.”‡

* Works, 4v. 473. Idem, 282. True Doctrine of the N. T. 16.

Another contemporary and kindred genius, the distinguished Dr. Foster, observes: "If we are contented with the scripture rule, we may unite in affection and brotherly communion, though we cannot in opinion." "To agree in opinion is entirely out of our power; to profess alike, while we believe differently, is base and dishonest, and destructive of the most sacred obligations, and upon that account, ought never to be the matter of our choice; so that neither of these can be any part of that unity which we are bound to cultivate as a religious and moral duty; but the whole sum of it must be resolved into this, that condescension, mutual forbearance, and an harmony of mild, benevolent affections, supply the place of that uniformity of faith and profession, which is, morally speaking, impossible."*

The learned Howe, author of "The Living Temple,” and one of the very excellent among the old orthodox divines, speaks as follows of the wisdom of the apostolic practice upon this subject. "The case was at that time urging and important. A great and numerous party was formed of such as did nauseate the simplicity of the christian religion, and the true design of it. All the care was, what course was most proper and suitable to preserve the rest. Counsel was not taken to this effect; let us bind them by certain devised preter-evangelical canons to things never thought to be enjoined by Christ himself, severely urge the strict and uniform observance of them, make the terms of christian communion straiter than he ever made them, add new rituals of our own to his institution, and cut off from us all that never so conscientiously scruple them. No; this was the practice of their enemies, and it was to narrow and weaken the too much already diminished christian interest."

"Yea, the attempt of imposing any thing upon the disciples, but what was necessary, is judged a tempting of God; a bringing the matter to a trial of skill with him, whether he could keep the church quiet, when they took so direct a course to distemper and trouble it. The prudence and piety of those unerring guides of the church, themselves under the guidance of the spirit

* Discourses on Natural Religion and Social Virtue-v. 2. p. 331.