their morals, I own so far as the sound members of Christ's body; I embrace them as my brethren, I will gladly communicate with them, and I will never debar them from my communion. And this I declare, without exception of any denomination or party of christians whatsoever, or whatever be the external disadvantages they are under, or opprobrious names that are given them. Hard names and party reproaches terrify me not. Without this latitude of principle, I can see no possible end to the divisions of the church; and if I should mark or avoid any christians who thus adhere to the only rule of christianity, I transgress this apos-tolical canon, and am myself chargeable with a schismatical and unchristian spirit."*

Will you not be animated by these noble sentiments to undertake an examination of this question? An impartial attention to the view we have now taken, especially to the fact, that nocreed more complex or abstruse, than those simple professions of faith which we have referred to, was ever made necessary by Christ or his apostles, on receiving believers into his church, could hardly fail to lead you to a correct judgment on the subject of christian communion. You could not, we think, avoid being brought to this conclusion, that all worshippers of God, in any congregation or society, where the christian ordinances are administered, who profess their faith in Jesus Christ, and desire to fulfil all their duties, and whose conduct is not inconsistent with their profession, have a right to the communion and participation of these ordinances, as well as all other privileges of the gospel, and that no church has authority under Christ to exclude them.

The same view points out the course, which a church ought to pursue in relation to those of its members, who may think it their duty to ask a recommendation to the communion of some other church. Various reasons, besides removal from the neighborhood of the church, may exist, to render this necessary and proper. New views of religious truth, whether on their part or that of their pastor, or an adherence on the part of the

*Case of Subscription, p. 39.

church to rules and practices, which appear to them unscriptural or oppressive, are among the causes which may prevent their edification in that church. Under such circumstances it becomes their duty to seek it elsewhere, for edification is the principal end of church communion; and it must be their right and duty to judge for themselves where they may hope to find it. The church, of which they take leave, can have no responsibility as to their decision of this question, but only as to the *truth of the recommendation required to be given; and it is not called upon to recommend the church to which they may think it their duty to go. Whatever difference of opinion, therefore, may exist between them and their brethren, as to the doctrines of the church whose communion they prefer, they are alike entitled to the recommendation which their christian character deserves. This difference of opinion, indeed, is the very reason which justifies their removing from the church; of course it cannot justify the church in attempting to prevent it by withholding what would otherwise be their acknowledged right.

"If my own conscience," says the learned and pious Matthew Henry, "be not satisfied in the lawfulness of any terms of communion imposed, as far as I fall under that imposition, I may justify a separation from them and a joining with other churches, where I may be freed from that imposition.-Is not the life, and health, and salvation of my immortal soul dearer to me than any other concern? Is not communion with God the sweetest and most precious of all my delights? Is it not the life of my soul and the crown of all my joys? And are not those administrations most desirable in which I find myself most edified ?”*

The several positions which we have now stated, are also sustained by the principles laid down in Dr. Owen's work before cited, to whom we thus repeatedly appeal, because, standing at the head of the old calvinist divines, he must be regarded as of the highest orthodox authority. He explicitly states, that communion with particular churches is to be regulated absolutely by edification; that no man can be obliged to abide in the commu

* Henry's Works. p. 664.

E

nion of any particular church any longer than it is for his edification, nor to forsake the conduct of himself in things divine and human, according to the light of his own conscience, by any engagement of blind obedience to others. "Whereas," says he, "the principal end of all particular churches is edification, there may be many just and sufficient reasons why a person may remove himself from the constant communion of one church unto that of another. And of these reasons he himself is judge, on whom it is incumbent to take care of his own edification above all other things. Nor ought the church to deny unto any such persons their liberty desired peaceably and according unto order."*

We have now finished what we proposed to say upon the duty of particular churches, in the several respects most nearly connected with our main subject, and have endeavored to confine ourselves to such views as appeared best calculated to lead you to reconsider your vote respecting Mrs. Baker's application, and to return to the ancient practice in such cases, and to the true principles of gospel liberty.

Here arises a natural inquiry, why these principles, sustained and recommended, as we have seen, by the most learned and venerated protestant writers, and by the alarming consequences of ecclesiastical usurpation, should not have become more completely established in the churches of this land of boasted light and liberty. There might be various causes assigned for this, which we shall not undertake to enumerate; but there is one source of error and delusion on this subject, to which we would call your particular attention.

Mistaken ideas attached to certain scripture terms, of which heresy and schism are perhaps the most remarkable, appear to us to be among the principal obstacles to the progress of christian truth and liberty. The distortion of these terms from their true scriptural meaning, has led many pious christians to visit with all the persecution in their power to inflict, the sincere and even laudable opinions of other christians equally pious as them

* True Nature of a Gospel Church, &c. p. 225.

selves, believing perhaps that they were thus doing God service, while they were committing the very offence which they intended to punish. It cannot then be unseasonable here to inquire particularly into the true import of the words heresy and schism, as used in scripture, which, in the judgment of the most learned of all denominations, are now considered as having no reference to the mere belief and profession of conscientious. opinions, or a peaceable separation from any particular church communion, but to pravities of the will, and actions tending to strife and divisions in the church. As the subject is important, and as we shall endeavor to give you briefly the results of the investigations of learned commentators and biblical writers, we hope the inquiry will not be tedious to you.

The excellent Dr. Campbell, a Scotch divine, and Principal of Aberdeen College, in the dissertations prefixed to his translation of the Four Gospels, has critically and fully examined the scriptural meaning of schism and heresy. As to the first, he observes, that though in the original Greek the word frequently occurs in the New Testament, it has but once been rendered 'schism' by our translators, yet its frequent "use among theologians has made it a kind of technical term in relation to ecclesiastical matters, and the way it has been bandied, as a term of ignominy, from sect to sect reciprocally, makes it a matter of some consequence to ascertain the genuine meaning it bears in holy writ."

Speaking of Saint Paul's use of this term, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, Dr. Campbell says, "in order to obtain a proper idea of what is meant by a breach or schism in this application, we must form a just notion of that which constituted the union whereof the schism was a violation. Now the great and powerful cement, which united the souls of christians, was their mutual love. This had been declared by their master to be the distinguishing badge of their profession.-As this, therefore, is the great criterion of the christian character, and the foundation of the christian unity, whatever alienates the affections of christians from one another, is manifestly subversive of both, and may consequently, with the greatest truth and energy, be denominated schism."

Having observed "of those differences among the Corinthians, to which Paul affixes the name 'schisms' or divisions," that they had "not the least relation to the doctrines of religion, or to any opinions that might be formed concerning them," Dr. Campbell proceeds, "the fault which the apostle stigmatized with that odious appellation, consisted, then, solely in an undue attachment to particular persons, under whom, as chiefs or leaders, the people severally ranked themselves, and thus, without making separate communions, formed distinctions among themselves, to the manifest prejudice of the common bond of charity, classing themselves under different heads. Now this, I say, adds the apostle, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.""

After remarking upon the little importance attached by the apostle to "the differences among the Roman converts concerning the observance of days and the distinction of meats, which we should think more material as they more nearly affect the justness of religious sentiments," while "he is greatly alarmed at the differences among the Corinthians," Dr. Campbell observes, that "it was not without reason that the apostle made this distinction. The hurt threatened by the latter was directly against that extensive love commanded by the christian law; but not less truly, though more indirectly, against the christian doctrine and manners. By attaching themselves strongly to human, and consequently fallible, teachers and guides, they weakened the tie which bound them to the only divine guide and teacher, the Messiah, and therefore to that also which bound them all one to another." Having spoken of the consequences and probable cause of these differences among the Corinthians, Dr. Campbell adds, "Thus it is incontrovertible, in the first place, that the accusation imports that the Corinthians, by their conduct, had given a wound to charity, and not that they had made any deviation from the faith; and, in the second place, that, in the apostolical acceptation of the word, men may be schismatics, or guilty of schism, by such an alienation of affection from their brethren as violates the internal union subsisting in the hearts of christians, though there be