and the society, instruction, and friendship, of Christians. This profession was, therefore, the only term of communion. No precept, no fact, can be alleged, to prove that more than this was required.

It is abundantly demonstrated in Locke's "Reasonableness of Christianity," that this profession alone constituted a Christian. Every Christian was a member, as his abode might change, of every Christian Church. There was no such thing as admission into a particular church, distinct from admission into the general body of believers. The modern practice of refusing such admission, or of defining Christianity, or of making more than being a Christian necessary for Christian fellowship, is altogether without scriptural warrant.

It

Converts were generally baptized, but not in consequence of the requirement of churches. was an individual concern, with which they had nothing to do.. "We affirm," says Robinson, "that baptism is not a church ordinance, that it is not naturally, necessarily, and actually, connected with church fellowship, and, consequently, that the doctrine of initiating into the Christian Church by baptism, is a confused association of ideas, derived from masters whose disciples it is no honour to be.-Into what church did the disciples of John enter by baptism? Was Jesus Christ admitted a member of a Christian Church by baptism? Or into what church did the eu

nuch enter, when Philip alone baptized him in the desert?-It is remarkable, that this positive law of baptism is not enforced by any penalties, and herein it differs from all other positive institutes. By what right, then, do we affix to the breach of it such a severe penalty as exclusion from church fellowship?" (Works, III. 170—172.) I allude more particularly to this subject, because the Baptists, who hold strict communion, are the only denomination of Christians who can plead for their restriction any thing like scriptural authority.

These converts might be in gross ignorance, or error, on many subjects: the apostles were, when first associated with their Master. But when once a belief in Jesus, as the Messiah, was produced, the rest was left for further instruction; and though a considerable diversity of opinions might remain, yet that diversity was not deemed inconsistent with their claim to the Christian character, and all its privileges.

To this argument from facts, no objection can be raised from directions for pursuing a different course in the more matured state of Christian society. No such directions can be produced. The permanent law of religious association is, "Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." (Romans xv. 7.) "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to

doubtful disputations. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" (Romans xiv. 1, 4.)

Immorality, persisted in, disqualifies for the purposes of religious society; and for this cause, and this alone, the founders of Christian Churches gave them authority to exclude. They have no right to do so on any other pretence whatever. The heretic, (Titus iii. 10,) who was to be rejected" after the first and second admonition," appears evidently, from the use of that term, the connexion of the passage, and the declaration "he that is such, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself," to be, not the conscientious holder of erroneous doctrines, but a partisan, one wishing to form a clan, and raise dissension, and employing means, or pursuing an object, of the wickedness of which he was conscious.

- Christians of different opinions are, doubtless, at liberty to associate for the promotion of those opinions, and to exclude from such combinations those who do not think with them. They may unite to recommend Calvinism or Arminianism, Adult Baptism or Pædobaptism, Trinitarianism or Unitarianism; they can then frame what laws they please but they ought never to identify these associations with Christian Churches, in which they are not authorized teachers, but fellow-disciples; and where they have no right to

legislate, nor any discretionary power of admis sion, rejection, or excommunication.

1. The first violation, therefore, of religious liberty, and which leads to all the rest, is that of particular societies infringing on the right of individual members, by defining Christianity. A Christian Church is only a body of disciples; all are to obey the Master, but they are not to obey one another. The majority has no more right than the minority to erect a standard of faith. Those who cannot, or will not, worship with them, they have no power to retain; but those who can, or wish to do so, they have no authority to reject. He who believes the divine mission of Christ, and acts accordingly, ought not to be kept out of any church professing to be Christian. This was the case originally, and consequently there were neither sects, nor parties, nor party names. When opinions were made a test, and believers were named from some doctrine or leader, then,

2. Churches lost their liberty-the reign of Sectarianism commenced. Those who agreed as to some disputed tenet, had a stronger affinity with each other, than with the rest of the Christian body: they united for the sake of strength in this internal warfare. Hence, meetings and councils of their pastors and leaders; and at length, authority to enforce the decisions of such

meetings upon the whole sect; so that the church which had tyrannized over the individual, was, in turn, tyrannized over by the party. To this succeeds,

3. The successful appeal of some one sect or party to the civil magistrate, who declares that party to be the exclusive possessors of Christianity, bestows upon them wealth and honours, and brands their opponents with disgrace, deprives them of their rights, perhaps sends them to the dungeon or the scaffold. There was but another step in the ascent, when

4. The Church itself became a temporal power, making monarchs and nations bow to its decrees. This is the mode in which believers lost "the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free," and just in the inverted order has its restoration proceeded. The Reformation broke off so many limbs from the temporal sovereignty of Rome, but left the magistrates of each country lords of their subjects' consciences, and used their authority to patronize one sect at the expense of all others. The Presbyterians countenanced this usurpation as completely as the Episcopalians. The Assembly's Confession declares, that "the civil magistrate hath authority, and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church; that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be sup