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."

charity of the gosreach our peace

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 pel, and which we had hoped would not ful 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 scripWe 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

tures.

*Robert Hall-"Terms of Communion."

faithful in the study of the holy scriptures. Such differences of opinion do not necessarily bring reproach upon any party, nor need they occasion a breach of the great law of love and charity, which all will admit to be the fundamental law of christianity.

In answering and refuting so fully and so satisfactorily, as we believed, your charge respecting a disregard of your discipline, we indulged a hope that you would be led to a revision of your whole proceedings respecting Mrs. Baker's application, and to a retraction of both your charges. The principle which you avowed, as the basis of your proceedings, appeared to us so opposite to the meekness and charity of the gospel, so nearly akin to the spirit of popery, and so irreconcileable with the principles of the protestant faith, as well as the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, that we could not believe your more deliberate judgment would approve it. But being disappointed in this expectation, and finding that, so far from reversing your proceedings, you repeat your charge against this church in an aggravated tone and manner, we feel bound to enter into a full examination of the subject of your vote in all its bearings, as to the duty of churches towards each other and towards their own members, as to the rights of conscience, and as to the character and claims of this church. You will allow us to speak to you with freedom, as well as fullness, on this subject; but we would not do it so much in the tone of admonition, which the platform permits from one church to another, as in that of affectionate expostulation, accompanied by rational arguments, and weighty suggestions from the works of eminent christian authors, whose memory we all revere, though we do not regard them as of any authority in matters of faith, excepting as they accord with Christ and his apostles. We shall freely draw from the writings of such authors, especially those of an established orthodox reputation, or who were under no bias from the controversies of our time, to illustrate and enforce the great principles under discussion; knowing that whatever comes from such a source will justly have more weight with you, than any arguments which we might frame. Our sole object is to produce conviction in your minds, as to the truth of these great principles. We have no

disposition to a controversy with you upon any of the doctrines which you may be supposed to hold, however gratifying to us it might be to have you embrace those which we believe to be true. On the contrary, we would strenuously maintain your right to hold and avow them, or any which you may be led to adopt as christian doctrines, coupled only with the obligation to allow us the exercise of the same right without forfeiting our claim, as christians, to your charity. Why may it not be so? Why may not such an obligation be mutually felt and acknowledged? We enjoy each other's confidence, as members of the same community, in the civil and social relations of life, where we meet in the spirit of mutual candor, and appreciate integrity wherever it is found to exist. Why should it not be so in our religious relations? Why should we not here also regard each other in the true spirit of candor, and appreciate christian integrity as we find it exemplified in the life, and not according to speculative views, which, however erroneous they may seem to us, may have resulted from as honest and conscientious inquiries after divine truth, as we have been able to make in forming our own religious opinions? A disposition to receive the truth, and sincerity and faithfulness in seeking for it, are all that we can strictly call our own in this great concern. Infallibility appertains to no human being. The most exalted understanding may err, while the humblest may honestly seek for the truth, and thus commend itself to God, though it should miss of finding the truth.

Professing, as we do, to hold the same inspired volume as the standard of our faith and duty, and to be under the same obligation to examine it for ourselves, without attaching authority to any human interpretation, it seems necessarily to follow, that we ought to admit each other's integrity in this high trust, as readily as in lower ones, and recognize each other's christian claims accordingly. Shall we, instead of this, judge the integrity of others by comparing the result of their inquiries with that to which we have attained, and thus make our interpretation of scripture a test for trying their soundness in the faith, or their claim to our charity? Is not such conduct presumptuous and