ation from their ancient friends. After the case of Mrs. Fuller was over, he presented his compromise and explained its nature, and Wednesday evening next was assigned for its consideration. It will be found in our next chapter.

Adjourned.

CHAPTER XVI.

"I am for peace: but, when I speak, they are for war." Ps. cxx, 7. "They shut up EAR-GATE, they barricaded it up, they kept it locked and bolted, they set a guard thereat." Bunyan's Holy War.

Wednesday evening, August 5th. The PASTOR read Judge Redington's proposition, of which the following are the outlines.

It commenced with a preamble, setting out that a complaint had been made and was then pending against Mrs. Weston, Mrs. Fuller and D. C. Weston;-that since the filing of said complaint, Judge and Mrs. Weston had caused to be placed upon the records, a paper by which they claimed to have withdrawn from the church, and had not since attended with them the ordinances of the gospel;-that there was no hope of their being reconciled to the church;-and that in a case of secession of this kind, ecclesiastical usage authorized the church to declare itself discharged of all farther oversight over the persons seceding. Therefore

Resolved, That in coincidence with their wishes, this church declares itself discharged of all supervision and oversight of Hon. Nathan Weston, and his wife Mrs. Paulina B. Weston.

The proposition concluded with another Resolve,

recommending these persons to the great Head of the church.*

J. L. CHILD. Is there any propriety in introducing the names of D. C. Weston and Mrs Fuller?

Judge RedinGTON'S REMARKS.

JUDGE R. then rose and said, that in reply to the inquiry of Mr. C. he would remark, that the reason of introducing those names was that the proceedings of this meeting might be connected with the complaint, which was one, and embraced all the names.

The church had not made much progress in the case before them. There seemed to be presented two essential points. The first was, that Judge W. and his wife had deliberately declared their connection with this church dissolved;

The second-that they had abstained from attending with them, the ordinances of the gospel. They had undertaken to secede from the church, and there was no hope of their returning. Why then should they discuss minor points as to the "spirits" of people, while the fact was before them that they had withdrawn from the society? He had looked into the subject. The "Saybrook platform" recognized the principle that when a member of a church withdrew from its communion, and there was no hope of regaining him, it was proper to declare that the oversight of the church over that individual was at an end. He would pass then, over everything to the secession. They thought that step perfectly justifiable, and there was no hope of their returning. Let the church then discharge itself of any farther oversight of them. The proposition that he offered, he offered as a compromise. Judge W. and Mrs. W. had read it and concurred in it.

It was a point, in which they should all agree, that this controversy ought to be closed. It was unprofita

*The original paper has been mislaid, but the proposition is given substantially.

ble. This measure, if adopted, would close it as to two, The complaint against one had been dropped, and he should be glad if it could be closed as to all. He repeated that he presented this as a compromise, a mere compromise. He felt disposed to encourage religious freedom, and could see no good that would result from the continuance of the relationship. They would all agree that the further holding of these persons, could not possibly benefit them. That family felt aggrieved, and wronged. In their inmost consciences, they believed themselves unjustly assailed and oppressed. They believed that the church had acted without authoritythat they had come down upon that household without cause that the church had introduced a new article into the creed, that was intended to operate upon the oldest members—that was intended to bear upon that family. These feelings could never be removed, and hence no benefit could result from a continuance of their connection with this church, They felt cut to the quick, and there could be no spiritual relationship, even if it continued in name.

How far it was proper to advert to public sentiment, he did not know. The position of the church, however, was well understood. Would the cause of religion be benefited by keeping up the excitement? If not it was their duty to end it, and from the fulfilment of duty, good would of course result.

He had come to the conclusion that no benefit, in any point of view, could result from holding on to those persons, for the great object of keeping them there had ceased to exist. Would not this severence place them where they would be spiritually improved? And should not people be let off when they could derive no benefit from the connection ?

A good deal was said in the Bible about putting away &c., but those expressions did not seem to apply to this It seemed to him a little singular that they should put away persons who had already gone. This rather applied to those who wished to remain.

case.

Was the complainant injured by the course proposed ? He did not know but there was some force in that; but then the complainant was not acting for his own benefit, Would he object on account of a stain upon his character? It could have no unfavorable bearing upon him, for the church would not decide, by this, that the complaint was unfounded. This measure rode over the complaint. And after the complainant was satisfied that it could do no good to the accused, would he insist that the case should be farther pursued?

Would the church be injured in reputation? The church had expressed no opinion; and here, when the difficulty could not be settled, and the parties said, let us bury the hatchet, he did not see how this course could injure them.

Was the church desirous of victory? What! The church of Him who inculcated humility, who has commanded us to become as little children! Does it require victory? A crown of laurels? He was gratified at the exhibition of penitence at the last meeting. Happy would it be if that was but the commencement of a series of such emotions in us all. Did the church wish their records to show that they had been injured, and that they had had revenge? When their heads were under the sod, did they wish their children to read that such and such persons treated them wrongfully, and had to smart for it? Would it not be better to see more of the feeling of last evening? When he had felt no bitterness towards any one, he experienced an elevation of character. At that time he did not know of an individual against whom he cherished a single feeling of unkindness. Can I, said, he, not forgive an injury, before I have had acknowledgments? I have not so understood the injuctions of Christ, and am not prepared to throw away my former opinion. Suppose these persons have injured us, must we have them before us as suppliants? Cannot we forgive till then? I am not yet prepared to receive this doctrine. I hold that forgiveness may be granted by one person to another before the

offending party is conscious of error. Then suppose the church is wronged, can it not forgive like an individual, long before that individual has repented? If the church can forgive, ought it not to do so. What is more satisfactory, more elevating, than the exercise of these feelings! The individuals concerned do not think they are wrong, and if they are, let the mantle of charity be thrown over them: but do not let a self-denying, cross bearing people contend for victory! These persons do not think they are guilty, and never will; and if we expect acknowledgments from them, we shall have to wait till our children, and our children's children, are under the sod.

But it is said the church have been treated thus and so, and some severe sentence must be passed. Members think Judge W. used harsh and severe language. He thinks it was a matter of duty to protect his family. When lighter words would not do, he felt himself justified in using those that were more scorching, in making use of sarcasm, to repel aggression. He considers that the cause of Christ demanded it-that any other course would have been inconsistent with that manly independence, that it was his duty to assert. I did think that more severity was used than was proper, and have told him so. He denied it, and thinks differently. Let others go and do likewise, I had no unkind feelings about it, but went to him as became my own character.

The church had the power to proceed to excision, but, he insisted, they were not obliged to do so. He should like it if these individuals could go without a single word of censure. He was distrustful whether it could be done, but it would give him pleasure to say that the twenty or thirty years connection should be pleasantly, and harmoniously dissolved. Such was the desire of these per

sons.

The church had declared their secession improper.

They planted themselves behind the oppression of the church. They declared that it was a necessary, essential, inherent right to withdraw under the circumstances