and impair the fruitfulness of this heavenly tree, forcibly to tear away from it some of its living fruitful branches? Christians are represented as a house, the workmanship of God, a spiritual temple, a habitation of God through the spirit. And can it be right to rend out of their places the living stones of which this spiritual temple is composed? Does not that man act the part of the destroyer, who thus disjoins from each other the different parts of this glorious edifice? Christians are represented as brethren, the household of God, the family of faith? And can it be God's intention that two of his children should disown one another for differences of sentiment, which do not prevent him from receiving and acknowledging both? Can God be willing that his household should be broken up, and the members of it set up separate and rival establishments? Ought any to be excluded from the family of faith who do not either in word or in practice deny the faith? Is it not rather a good and pleasant thing for brethren to dwell together in unity? Christians are described in the New Testament as the body of Christ, and members in particular. And is it a seemly thing for the hand to say to the foot, I have no need of thee, or for the eye to say to the ear, I can dispense with thee? Can it be pleasing to God to see the body of Christ torn limb from limb, and the mutilated fragments scattered here and there over the whole face of the earth? What, I ask, can be the meaning of those figures and representations, if it be right for Christans to expel each other from visible communion?

4. The very name by which we are all called should teach us to receive into communion with us all who truly bear that name. I know that there are other names by which the sects and denominations distinguish themselves. Catholic and Protestant, Calvinist and Arminian, Churchman and Dissenter, Baptist and Pedo-baptist, are all names assumed by the several denominations, in addition to the name of Christian. But tell any of them that they are not Christians, and they will at once be offended. And yet, is Christ divided? Ought not his name to be

more powerful to unite than any sectarian name to separate? And is it not plain that those who reject a Christian from their fellowship, because he cannot subscribe to the peculiarities of their creed, attach more importance to the name of Calvin, Luther, Fox, or Wesley, than to the name of Christ? They may say they do not: but this fact arrays itself against them. They do receive all those who truly bear the name of Calvinist, Lutheran, Friend, or Methodist; but they do not deem the name of Christ a sufficient passport to church membership without the other; no, not even when they are satisfied that the Christian name is truly and deservedly borne by the individual who seeks admission into their body.

5. To expel a Christian from the fellowship of saints is to pretend to greater strictness than is exercised by God himself. The various denominations do practically say when they expel those who are admitted by them to be Christians from within their pale, "We admit that they are not rejected by the Almighty; that he who is of purer eyes than to look upon sin, and who cannot approve of iniquity, receives them into his favour and family; but we are stricter than he is; they may do for him; but they will not do for us; he may tolerate them but we cannot!" And why not? Is it because you are wiser than God, or holier, or more deeply-interested in the purity of his church and the interests of his kingdom? Why is it? Alas for the man that pretends to be stricter than God himself!

6. To exclude a real Christian from church-fellowship involves this strange absurdity; that a man may be fit for heaven, but not fit to be a member of the church on earth. "We do not imagine that your views are such as to exclude you from heaven," say sectarians; and yet they are sufficient to exclude us from fellowship with them on earth! In heaven nothing impure can find a place; but the church on earth is acknowledged to be imperfect and yet those are not to be admitted into the imperfect church on earth, of whose admission into heaven, when they die, we cannot entertain a doubt! To what singular conclusions men come when

once they forsake God's order established in his word!

7. To expel a disciple of the Redeemer from church communion, is to throw down all distinctions between vice and virtue. Exclusion from its communion is the severest punishment that a church can inflict on the most flagrant offender against the laws of God. And when this punishment is inflicted on a Christian for honestly exercising his judgment in the fear of God, and in obedience to God's command, are not both placed on the same level, and represented to the world as alike deserving of censure and rebuke? And is there no difference between the act of adultery or murder, and the act of holding or avowing erroneous sentiments on the subject of baptism or predestination? Or, while there is such an universal, such an almost boundless difference between the two, ought there to be no difference in the treatment they receive? If the man, who in mistake gives a counterfeit shilling to a poor woman, were to be punished as severely as the man who extensively manufactures counterfeit coin for gain, would it not be manifestly unjust? And is there any more justice in the church of Christ punishing a mistaken Christian and a deliberate sinner!

I hope that it has now been proved, to the satisfaction of the reader, that if we ought to receive one another as Christ receives us; if we are bound by the command of Christ to love one another; if Christians be a brotherhood, a spiritual temple, the body of Christ; if Christ's name, in which all Christians agree, be more sacred and important than any of those names about which they differ; if man ought not to be stricter than God, and if he who is fit for the church of heaven be also fit for the church on earth; if there be any difference between vice and virtue; if an honest, sincere, but mistaken Christian ought not to be punished as severely as the man who deliberately perpetrates the most horrid crimes;-then no Christian ought to be excluded by his brethren from church membership.

Nor am I alone in holding these views. They have been maintained by some of the wisest, holiest, and most

useful men that ever lived. In substance they were held by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. I am aware that he did not invariably carry them out to their full extent, and consequently there was sometimes the appearance of inconsistency in his conduct; but that his great leading principles were in harmony with the views just unfolded, will be obvious enough to any one who examines his writings. Let any man read his sermon on a Catholic Spirit, and his sermon entitled, A Caution against Bigotry, and say whether this be not true. The text of the latter sermon is Mark ix. 38-39. "And John answered him, saying, master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us; and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, forbid him not." In discoursing on this text, he shows, first, in what sense men may, and do now, cast out devils. This he explains to mean, converting a sinner from the error of his ways. He says, 66 But what is a sufficient, reasonable proof that a man does (in the sense above) cast out devils? The answer is easy. Is there full proof, 1, that the person before us was a gross, open sinner? 2. That he is not so now that he has broke off his sins, and lives a Christian life? 3. That this change was wrought by his hearing this man preach? If these three points be plain and undeniable, then you have sufficient reasonable proof, such as you cannot resist without wilful sin, that this man casts out devils."

He next inquires what we may understand by the phrase "He followeth not us." This he shows may mean 1. That he has no outward connexion with us. 2. That he is not of our party. 3. That he differs from us, in our religious opinions. 4. That he differs from us in some points of practice. On this point he says, "Perhaps he may go farther from us yet: he may, from a principle of conscience, refrain from several of those which we believe to be the ordinances of Christ. Or, if we both agree that they are ordained of God, there may still remain a difference between us, either as to the manner of administering those ordinances, or the persons to whom they should be administered." 5, He

even explains the phrase as including those who are "of such a church as we account to be in many respects anti-scriptural, and anti-christian. A church which we believe to be utterly false and erroneous in her doctrines, as well as very dangerously wrong in her practice, guilty of gross superstition, as well as of idolatry. Wide as these differences are, he still supposes that persons who thus differ may agree in this, that they all cast out devils, or in other words, convert sinners from the error of their ways.

Wesley's words.

He next explains and applies the direction "Forbid him not." Amongst other things he says, "You forbid him when you show any unkindness toward him, either in language or behaviour." And can anything be more unkind, than to reject a man from communion with us? He says still further, "Yea, if you would observe our Lord's direction in its full meaning and extent, then remember his word, He that is not for us is against us; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. Then you will not only not forbid any man that casts out devils, but you will labour to the uttermost of your power to forward him in the work. You will readily acknowledge the work of God, and confess the greatness it. You will remove all difficulties and objections as far as may be out of his way. You will strengthen his hands by speaking honourably of him before all men, and avowing the things which you have seen and heard. You will encourage others to attend upon his word, to hear him whom God hath sent. And you will omit no actual proof of tender love, which God gives you an opportunity of showing him," And how can all this be done if we renounce all fellowship with him?

66

"Search me," cries the venerable man, Search me, O Lord, and prove me; Try out my reins and my heart! Look well if there be any way of bigotry in me, and lead me in the way everlasting. In order to examine ourselves thoroughly, let the case be proposed in the strongest manner. What if I were to see a Papist, an Arian, a Socinian, casting out devils? If I did, I could not forbid even him, without convicting myself of bigotry." These are John

ren.

66

But every man must judge for himself, as every man must give an account of himself to God." "I dare not, therefore," says he, 'presume to impose my mode of worship on any other. I believe it is truly primitive and apostolical. But my belief is no rule for another. I ask not, therefore, of him with whom I would unite in love, Are you of my church? Of my congregation? Do you receive the same form of church government; and allow the same church officers with me? Do you join in the same form of prayer, wherein I worship God? I inquire not, Do you receive the Supper of the Lord in the same posture and manner that I do? Ñer, whether in the administration of baptism, you agree with me, in admitting sureties for the baptised? In the manner of administering it? Or the age of those to whom it should be administered? Nay, I ask not of you, (as clear as I am in my own mind,) Whether you allow baptism and the Lord's Supper at all? Let all these things stand by: we will talk of them, if need be, at a more convenient season. My only question at present is this, "Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?"`

In his sermon on the "The Church," he avows similar principles

"Whoever they are," he says, "that have one spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one God and Father of all, I can easily bear with their holding wrong opinions, yea and superstitious modes of worship. Nor would I, on these accounts, scruple still to include them within the pale of the Catholic church. Neither would I have any objection to receive them, if they desired it, as members of the church of England.”

Such were the views of this distinguished man; and indeed it was on principles like these that the Methodist societies were formed. All were eligible for admission into those societies who had a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and who manifested this desire by a corresponding course of conduct. I remember hearing the late Valentine Ward, a highly-esteemed minister among the Methodists, say, when commenting on this feature of Methodism, that if a Roman Catholic were to request admission into one of their societies, he would not be required to renounce his peculiar views, nor embrace the views that prevail amongst the Methodists; all that would be required of him would be, a desire to flee from the wrath to come, proved to be genuine by abstaining from all known sin, doing good to the utmost of his power, and diligently attending the means of grace.

Such are the views advocated also by Chillingworth, the great champion of Protestantism; by Jeremy Taylor, who, in his Liberty of Prophesying, says, "Whoever deserves excommunication, deserves damnation ;" by Robert Hall, who wrote a treatise to prove that nothing should be made a term of communion by the church, that has not been made a term of salvation by Christ; by Harris, who has written an excellent work to hasten the visible union of all the sincere followers of Christ; and, in short, by all the most distinguished friends and advocates of religious liberty in every age. If space should permit, the testimonies of some of these eminent men on this subject may be published in a future number of this work.

The sum of what has been urged in answer to the fourth objection is this, that all real Christians should

be admitted into the church of Christ; and that none should be rejected from that church but those who are rejected by Christ himself.

Obj. 6. But I am not satisfied with this. I am afraid that on this principle it would be impossible to keep Unitarians out of the church.

Ans. Suppose the case of a church acting on these principles; a person holding Unitarian views offers himself as a candidate for membership. That church either regards this applicant as sincere, or it does not. If he be regarded by the church as sincere, then of course the principles for which I plead, and which were laid down by John Wesley, require his admission. But if the believers with whom he seeks to be united do not regard him as a Christian, as far as he has light and understanding; if they believe that the truths he rejects are so plainly revealed in Scripture, that no one, under any circumstances, can have any sufficient, reasonable excuse for dissenting from them; if they believe that it is not from circumstances, but some criminal defect in the man's character, that occasions his mistake; if they believe, in short, that he is not influenced by love to God, and love to truth, and a sincere determination to do God's will; but by some selfish, sinful consideration, and that he is, in consequence, a stranger to real religion, then, of course, they are bound to reject him; and, in doing so, they do not violate, but carry out, the principles for which I plead.

Obj. 7. But this does not satisfy me either. What would you do if a Socinian were to seek admission into the church? If the case were left to your decision, what decision would you come to?

Ans. What my views are on this or any other subject is a matter of little importance indeed; the question, as far as Unitarians and their admission into the church are concerned, is plainly this,-What course do the principles unfolded in these articles, and as laid down by John Wesley, require a church, acting on those principles, to take in the matter? This question has been fully answered in the preceding section; and I leave the matter here, merely adding,

1. In the first place, I beg it to be distinctly understood that I have no sympathy myself with Unitarian sentiments, commonly so called. I believe in the proper Godhead both of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit, as well as in the other great doctrines dependent on these; the doctrines of atonement by the Saviour's death, justification by faith in that atonement, and regeneration by the power of the Holy Spirit. And in declaring my belief in these doctrines, I use no disguise, equivocation, or mental reservation: I use the words in just that sense in which they will naturally be understood by my readers.

2. In the second place, I believe that the manner in which these doctrines have often been explained, has tended not a little to bring them into disrepute. Instead of confining themselves to what is plainly revealed in Scripture, men have sought to be wise above what is written; they have endeavoured to explain what God has left unexplained, and instead of simply stating facts as they are stated in the word of God, they have endeavoured to account for those facts, and have thus darkened counsel by a multitude of words without knowledge. The most absurd dogmas have been uttered and written on these points; uttered and written too with all the confidence, if not with all the authority, of inspiration. And I have no doubt whatever but that the statements and reasonings of many who hold these doctrines have done more to bring them into discredit than all the efforts of their opponents.

3. In the third place, it will not be denied, I should suppose, that there has been less disposition generally to tolerate differences of sentiment on these subjects than on others. Of all the questions that have agitated the Christian world, none have given rise to such warm disputes and bitter animosities as the questions at issue between Unitarians and those who differ from them in doctrine. On no subject has there been such a disposition to crush inquiry, and to proscribe all differences of sentiment as on this. Propositions the most contradictory to each other, and to the plainest dictates of common sense, have been placed on

a level with the testimony of Scripture, exalted into articles of faith, and used as tests of orthodoxy and ultimate standards of appeal. All who could not at once subscribe to these dogmas, some of which were repugnant to the convictions of their minds, have been proscribed, persecuted, hunted down, and treated as a man would treat some ravenous beast of prey. To this day the same spirit of unrelenting, prosecuting zeal, is cherished by multitudes.

It is to this substitution of mere human explanations for the plain testimony of God's word, and these unchristian attempts to bind such human explanations on the consciences of men, that the hetrodoxy in question mainly owes its existence.

4. When I consider these things, when I think of the confesedly mysterious nature of the subjects, about which Unitarians and their opponents differ; the absurdity of many notions which have been embodied in human creeds and confessions of faith on these subjects; and the extent to which the real statements of the Bible on these points, are lost sight of, in idle, angry, controversy, about human additions to those statements; when I think of the spirit of unmitigated, unrelenting intolerance, which has been almost uniformly manifested towards persons holding certain opinions, by those who differ from them in their views: when I remember how much men's views depend on early prepossessions, and associations of thought and feelings; when I consider the power of educational prejudices over men who have been trained in particular sentiments, as well as of the repulsive, (I had almost said revolting) and disgusting aspect, in which orthodox evangelical doctrines have been presented to their minds; when I consider how much, in consequence of these things, may be said on both sides of the question, and how apt men are, on all sides, to interpret Scripture according to their views, instead of testing their views by the Scriptures; when I consider these things, I can easily conceive how a man who loves the truth, and is sincerely disposed to do God's will, may still be in error, at least for a time, as to some particular sentiments. And I, for