IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) k A ^/ .**i^ A* J ^ z 1.0 I.I I^IM |25 i« 12.0 ■u u IL25 i 1.4 i llllim 1.6 I f, i i Photographic .Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 \ % '£" ^ ' V ^^'.. ^>. '^ '9> ^ CIHM Microfiche Series (Monograplis) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographles) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / tnstitut Canadian da microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibli9«raphiques Th to The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Fej>itures of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur n Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restauree et/ou pellicula □ Cover title missing/ Le n n titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Caites giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or Mack)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge interieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais. lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ete filmees. L'Institut a microf ilmi le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-4*.re unique:, du poirt de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reprcduite, ou qui peuvent exiger una modification dans la mithode normale de f iln?age uont indiqufe ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagto □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurees et/ou pellicul^s Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages decclorees, tachet^es ou piquc-es □ Pages detached/ Pages d^tachtes 0Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualite inigale de I'impression □ Continuous pagination/ Pagination continue □ Includes index(es)/ Comprend un (des) index Title on header taken from: / Le titre de I'en-tCte provient: Th( poi of filn Ori be( the sioi oth firs sioi ori The sha TIN whi Mai difft enti begi righ reqi met □ Title page of issue Page de titre de la □ Caption of issue/ Titre de depart de la □ Masthead/ Ge livraiion livraison Generique (perioc^iqiues) de la livraison n Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplementaires: This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est f ilme au taux de reduction ir'*' ,je ci-dessous ^OX UX 18X 12X 16X 20X 22X / 26 X 30X 24 X 28X H 32 X u'il de vue t tion The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Nova Scotia Public Archivm The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover wher. apptopriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first pa^ie with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —^' (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning 'END"), whichever applies. I^^aps. plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hnnd corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grflce A la g;ipreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le oas: le symbols — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tnblaaux. etc.. peuvant dtre film^s d des taux de rMuciion diff6rents. Lorsqus le document est trop gcand pour Atre reproduit en un seul n\\ch6. il est film* d partir de I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n*cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 32 X 1 2 3 4 5 6 A CORRESPONDENCE BBTWIEN A COMMITTEE OF THE |ortl( |apii5t |krcf| M ^nmviik |t. |nptist |hurcf|, HALIFAX, RESPECTING A MEMBER OF THE FORMER CHURCH RECEIVED BY THE LAHER WITHOUT ANY LEHER OF DISMISSION FROM THE NORTH CHURCH. AUO, Tie »iit6 of tie Nortli cimrcli nmm tie Eejort of tleir Comlttee. -__ HALIFAX, N.S. ^H/iK "S^obn ^cotia IJrinting CTompanB. ^^QS 1872. ^^£%\ MINUTE OF MEETING. 'I At a Church Meeting held on the evening of Tuesday, 4th Juno, 1872, »n the Church Vestry, antist Church. Nov., 1871. Pastor, Officers !8 our authority ng consequences Hoir, referred to iet Church from church in good are and fellow- etter and asked llowship of the in the Book of [• lecture Mrs. B Church and of fellowship." harmony and mplary useful : day services, e Church, she orth became a iresent Pastor ws: H, 1867. ed attending t was willing lira. I have nacle. This ivenient for ain my dis- rih Church D. MoiB. This letter, as a matter of course, was brought under the notice and consideration of tho Church, and after delays and deferringa purposely extended and repeated as it appears, in order that our sister n)ight place herself in a relation to the church that would justify thi'ni in furnishing her the usual letter of dismission, tho Report subjoined and the Resolution ac- companying it passed, and arc to be found among tlio Church Records ae follows : — " NonxH Baptist Ciiubcii Vkstry, Friday Evening, 14//* Jantj. 1870. At the close of the regular prayer meeting, moved by Deacon McCulIy, seconded by Bro. D. McPherson and Resolved unanimously,— that tho Pastor of the Church, and Deacon David Thompson and tlie mover, be a Committee io report to this church at an early day, upon the case of sister M. C. Moir. REPORT. The Committee appointed as above, after inquiry and upon examination into the facts and circumstances in connection with sister Moir, Iior standing and relation to the North Baptist Church of this city, report as follows :— " They find on referring to the Records of the church, that sister Moir united with the church on the sixth day of Feb., 1857, having been received by letter. " They further report that her walk and Christian deportment were so far as they can learn exemplary and unblamable for many years. She with her husband and family attended public worship with punctuality. Her frequent presence in the social raectJMgs of the church, the active part taken by her occasionally in prayer anc? i.ference meetings, the liberality manifested in contributing towards the supnort of tho cause, gave good testimony of her real and fidelity in the Master's cause for a long time. " They find, however, that about the year 1865, for some cause unex- plained sister Moir to the deep regret of the brethren and sisters, voluntarily withdrew from the meetings, public and social, as well as from the Communion of the cimrch. " Shortly after this event, it came to the knowledge of members that sister Moir was in the habit of attending at other places of worship, and they were informed and believe that she was communing with another church, or other churches not of the same faith and order as that of which she was a member. Her continued absence and neglect of duty became the cause of painful reflections in the minds of thd brethren and sisters. Suitable means were adopted, and eventually a committee or committees, it would appear, from time to time waited upon her, and other efforts were exerted to win her back to the fellowship and communion of her church— for our sister was beloved and esteemed— but all proved unavailing. At rare intervals since she first systeiiiatically withdrew, sister Moir has appeared at our meetings, but these occasions have been very seldom indeed. " An application for a dismission to join the Granville Street Church was maffo hy letter addrowed tnth^ p-n-o?:\r:::;;:::;7^^ •j-^.a., ,.o. .„...,. .over ,..„ '":!';• -"■•«" "pon Us vor, Lt U: ^ :t;;;r;' t" "- ^"'""' «'" ,, " S'«'cr Moir-s n„,„e under the , • ' '""' " '"'"'* "'" verncitr. Wi iMlut^., truthfulness and comity to ir '' """'•-*''='"''»/ consLstent beheve. bo afforded to enaUo ou si, "' . '""■■''"• ^^°"''' timdiv, we «.e part of the North Baptist a.urch l/ XT'T ^'^ ^"^^ "" -^' «» . " Your Committee reeon»men.I t..«. '^'^ '"^ '""'P^''*'^''^- Ail which 18 respectfully submitted, ''""*'''' "'«''• ^'^'*t"r. ^-.. ^^.. i^,... a..,, rfaufa. n!) '^-"-"'1 ''^"""■"^• ^ On reading the above report it If ''^'•" the same bo adopted, and 11^00.^02: * T"""' -d n^olved, that out by the Clerk of the Chu^h; nro" C" 'T 1 '"'"""'^•^ '^ -"-^ A copy of this report was dulv nroT , ^""''"'^ ^ '^'••««t«d. another furnished the Rev. Mr Ed T.' '"'■'""^'''^ *«> M.. Moir, and Jhurch as the undersigned arl'tllT' ?''" ""' '''' Granville S ree^ JVorth Baptist Church. ^ '" *** understand from the Clerk of the The unusual course of fumlai,- • ^ copy of the report was adopte one or be ng jes,rous of obtaining for Mrf ^^1 , " '' '" ^^"^ ^'°''-'« behalf, tojom the Granville Street cCh ^t. r'T"" '''^•" *'"^ ^o^th Church »he.rwayeIeartograntit. A Ttt'h " f ^^ ^''"-b oould o Church might suppose that ^ot^Z.Z^'':''^' ^'•^"^'"^ ^tr e^ exercsmg was unnecessarily seve^TT- ^ ^T'"'"' ^'P'"' Church were -.an.te_ethathad ev. Jlilj^^ til: S;^- nl'oiit tho r,th ,hi,' of tntion of tlio church, "npson and brother ^— who,Ji,j so— and ; '««iT of (lisniwsion 't^t return and be •'It Ifost a inunjber, I soever h.>r present '•Hi Iiii>ti.st Church '•J on belialf of th© ► want of veraeitj. ontinues upon tho (-'0 aneHe No.H Chu., ty„..., .^C rnuSr: to' 'l.an.ltheybelicTcby vli.lo thoy arc unwill- ^hurtl,, or any of iu, »uch proceedings, of ent case, „,«,„ being ed) that they cannct ability of such imme- ro'fttion timt has so oxclucJcd member of npp'ies to « church |»1 thence obtains a K we stop not here "tl« and or.Ier opens Jer discipline, the cannof, as wc view in the present case oin corroboration mittoo desirous of strong desire and GranvilJe Street I'alfofthe North '■I Committee 14th, 1871. ^ been p/aced ' sister Moir waa 'itist Church 0/ ''r is a member nest is hereby so united, her 5 Church, Ch. Clerk." ence to JVfrs. d there. No i 9 record ofhcrdisn.i«ion, however,!, in our ho<,ks, and we know no r«««.« why we cannot commend her to your fellowship. "p ^7" She was recoivod on the l.t S.,,(ember, and the followinrr record mide- least had been led to bcliev Lt tt v ifa , r n^T ''' "^ """" •"' "" "* the .lillicultv One of 1 1 1) f '"'' "'^''"'""/ b..t au.ioabl.v arranged H^ere wa. i;,^-::^^ tm^;: srir n ^^'^r ^* d.mi.ed from Sackville Church to join thoNort C.urr T, 7\^Z tonvtrsLd with the Pastor and one or more members of the Nnrtl. Pi u join ,„c G„„.;: ;:,::;. a,i°^*>'''« «■"'•'■ '"t-" i."»■ Committee. J. Parsons, ) HALirAX, March, 18th, 1872. Dfar SiR,-We regret that we have not been in a position to answer your last letter yet on Mrs. Moir's matter, not having any reply to our letter to the Sackville Church. We are writing them for a reply, and shall not delay our answer after receiving theirs. Yours truly, B. H. Eaton, /or the Committee. Hon. Mr. JtJsxici McCully. Halifax, April 3rd, 1872. To the Commute, appointed by the North Baptist Church relalioe to Mrs. Mnr: Dear BRETHRKN,-In replying to your second letter on this subject ,t is proper we should trace the steps which have caused the delay that has taken place since the receipt of your letter. That letter havmg rendered i Lessary that the matter should be more fully discussed than .t was m our reply to vour first communication, we thought right to interrogate the church Who had'dismissed M«. Moir to join with us, with a view to el.c.t more ful y the facts connected with the whole matter. In doing so we rtiought .t would not be fair to send our questions without first exh.b.tmg them to j on and giving you an opportunity of at the same time puttmg to the backv.lle Churfh such ciis-questions a. you might desire. Having subm.tted our questions to you with a request that you would furn.sh us with any cro^- questions you wished to put, and having received your rep y to the effect Siatyoudidnot desire to join with us in the foposed mterrogat.on (of ,,hich we shall have more to say further on) we forwarded our quest.ons to the Sackville Church, with a request that they would answer them at as «irly a date as might be convenient. After waiting a long t.me for a reply, without receiving any, one of our Committee below named addre...,l an in- Toll nr^neot- 'your number accounting for our delay in answering yoTr second letter, and at the same time also sent a note to the Clerk of he Sackville Church, requesting an early answer to our letter co then. Your leue" of the 12th March did not reach us until these two letters had been wr tten and sent. Having answered your letter of the 12th March, before it caCto our kntledge, w'edid not of course consider that any f-ther answer was neces«iry afler we had received it. We have since received a reply from 15 ! two City ;e may be mmittee. . 1872. 1 to answer o our letter i sliall not "Jommittee. , 1872. Mrs. M'>ir : subject it is at lias taken rendered it it was in our e the church it more fully [gilt it would I to yon, and he Saekville iiliinitted our th any cross- to the effect rrogation, (of : questions to : them at as le for a reply, Jre!?.^tHl an in- in answering B Clerk of the them. Your iters had been jrch, before it 'urther answer da reply from the Saekville Church, and are now in a position to go fully into the matters under consideration. We regret there should have been so much delay, but you will see that it has arisen through no fault of ours. Having thus briefly traced the steps which have been taken since the receipt of your second letter, we must turn our attention to the complaint with which your second letter cominences. We do not at ail regret that you have raised the point complained of, as in our view it is a matter of command- ing interest, involving consequences of great importance to all concerned. Your complaint is that we addreased cur reply to your first letter to the church and forwarded it to the clerk of the church instead of addressing and forwarding it to you, the committee appointed by the cliurch. In the first place let us assure you that in doing as we did we had no thought of ignoring your existence and functions. It was addressed and sent to the church with- out for a moment considering whether it should be sent to the church or to you. It was done without thought or consideration, and the only reason we can give why it happened to be addressed to the church and not to you is that we presume we were acting simply from the force of habit — a habit •which had been contracted from following principles which we regarded as •ound and scriptural. But had the question then arisen in our minds whether we should address our letter to you or to the church, though we might have concluded to address it to you, we should certainly have expressed our surprise that we had been addressed upon a matter, such as the one under consideration, by a committee of the church, and not by the church itself. And our attention having been so pointedly turned to this matter by you let us further say in this connection that the powers granted to you by the North Church are so indefinite as in our view to render it impossible to ascertain what they are. You are appointed a committee " to conduct a correspondence." This is what you are pleased to term your " plenary powers." Had we at once informed you we declined to di«cuss this matter with a committee whose powers, though they may be " plenary," are yet so indefinite and uncertain as not to be ascertainable from any sources open to us, we believe we should have only done what correct principles would guide ns to do. Take one point for example from your second letter. In that letter you, a committee of the North Church, call upon us to restore you and Mrs. Moir to the status a quo, and we presume you expect from us in reply a definite answer on that point. It does not appear that you were commis- sioned to make this demand, and upon your reporting to the North Church it may be they will never make such a demand. If we answer your letter we may therefore be refusing to do what the North Church has not and may never ask us to do. We should not be placed in this position, and yet we shall, as we go on, answer your letter on all points, regarding this as under the circumstances the best way of arriving at an understanding upon the questions involved. But before quitting this point let us ask you if we might not make the same complaint which you have made. Our reply to your first letter was not the reply of a comir'^tee. It was, it is true, prepared by a 16 committee, but as soon as tbey had submitted it to us, and it was adopted by us, the committee were no longer any more responsible for what it contained than any other member of our body— and yet in the same letter in which you complain of being ignored you seek to fix the authorship of our letter on a committee. You have only to read over your reply again to see how unfair this is. , • , I, Having said so much on this matter which, though not connected with the main questions at issue, is yet one of so much importance, and one which we beg to commend to your mature consideration, we shall proceed to one or two other preliminary matters, hastening to the main points with all reasonable dispatch. We must express our surprise that in your second letter you entirely ignore some things we had written concerning our reception of Mrs. Moir. In regaid to that reception without first communicating with you, we admitted that " it might have been more prudent for us to have deferred receiving sister Moir till we had ascertained that the Sackvillo Church and the North Church had formally settled the matter of Mrs. Moir's membership, as some of us at least had been led to believe that they had informally but amicably arranged the difficulty." You write as if you had never read this language and complain that we did not delay the matter. It is difficult after all how- euer, to see what good could have resulted from delay. And we are not sure that we should have treated the Sackville Church properly by delaying for an hour the reception of one who came bearing a letter of dismission from that church, drawn in the ordinary and regular form. We were either bound to act at once upon that letter or throw it back in the face of our sister church. We presume that those of our number who did not know the particulars of the dispute as to the membership of Mrs. Moir, acted upon the letter as upon any other letter of a similar kind, and that those who were aware of the facts connected with that dispute believed as we told you in our last letter that the difficulty had been informally and amicably arranged, and that the course that was then being pursued in receiving Mrs. Moir was in fact the very course that had thus been informally agreed upon as the best to be taken under the circumstances. Coming then to the main point in issue, your complaint is that we being a church belonging to the same Association as the church whose Committee you are, received into our communion and fellowship as a member without any letter of dismission from the North Church, one who was a member of the North Church and under its discipline. Now, if such a complaint as this could be established we at once admit th.tt we should have to acknowledge our wrong and do what we could to make amends, but we are fully convinced and shall endeavor to show you that no such complaint can be fairly laid at cm; doors. And the complaint, we shall endeavor to show, fails lo h:?ve any force because it rests upon the assumed fact that Mrs. Moir was a member of the North Church which we belive we can show is not the fact. Among Baptists associated as the churches of our Associations are, five 1 17 things necessarily combine to constitute a complete transference of a member from one church to another. In the first place, the member who seeks to terminate his connection with thecliurch to which he belong*., requests a letter of dismission to join another church. Upon due consideration the church grants him a letter of dismission. With tliis letter application is made to be admitted a member of another church. The application is granted, and in the last place and to complete the transfer the second church notifies the first of the reception of the applicant. The transfer is then complete to all intente and purposes and twl till then. Now, keeping these points before us, let us see if Mrs. Moir ever was a member of the North Baptist Church of Halifax. Did she ever apply to the SackviUe Church for a letter of dismission to join any other-church ? She informs us she never did. The letter she actually got affonls stron.- evidence she never did. In the second place, did the Sackvilie Church ever^grant her a letter of dismission to join another church ? It would have been strange If they had done so without being solicited, but the evidence it seems to us is overwhelmning that they did not. The letter which Mrs. Moir brou-^htto' the North Baptist Church, and upon which alone their claim to place her name on their books must rest, is as folio ws-mark its language well as this ii the pivot of the whole matter. " This may certify that the bearer, Mrs. Maria Moir is a member of good and regular standing with the Baptist Church in Sackville, N. S., and we hereby recommend her to the watch-care and fellowship of the sister churches m Hahfax. (Signed) T. H. Pobteh, Pastor." •*u^!f Al'"','/''^^'"''''*"'^ ^^ '* ^<'°*'*''> the slightest intimation either that Mrs. Moir desired to terminate her connection with the Sackville Church, or that the Sackville Church had consented to her joining another church ? And if it contains no such intimation, is not the presumption, irresistible that such termination of connection was not intended? Is the letter written by order of the chureh or does it bear the signature of the Clerk of the church? No. The letter is in the form and is what is uni- Tersally known among Baptists as a letter of recommendation, and it is given as such letters usually are by the Pastor. This letter does not purport to proceed from the church, and there b no likelihood that it did proceed from the church or that the church knew that it had been given to Mrs. Moir. Could the North Church upon such a letter proceed to receive Mrs. Moir as a member of that body? Even in secular mattera where we are guided so much by mere human legislaton rights, are not so easily transferred as they would be m such a case, supposing reception to have proceeded on such a letter. A servant bound to his master by articles desires to visit another town or city, and obtains from his master a letter certifying him to be a good servant and recommending him to the kind attention of those to whom the letter might be presented. Would such a letter give that servant any right to enter into the service of another master and repudiate the articles binding M 18 4 !••« f„ i,;« first master ? Would not all the obligations which existed between Sse:^ t an rfilt master remain intact unless that mas^r and the v„n7L,l mutually consented to dissolve these obligations .' A. says to B. r aLu tr e" ve this neig^^^^^ for a season, I would thank you to haTe nte o -^ ^^^'^^- '"^^'f ^"^^ " "' would Bh-e to enter that field and on A.'s return withhold the possession Tn from him or if A. meanwhile had conveyed his t.tle to C. what nght would B ha "'^ s evidence of no more rnthatThe thought .he was a member. And yet at every step you urge Sra^P caton^^^^^^^^ fact that she was a member of the North Church and voa persistently keep out of sight the explanation which we «ve you which was that mL Moir wrote that application through the over- r«uL.on ot those who thought it more likely that she should be m«takcn, than that the North Church should be. Here then in regard to this second requisite to the vahdity of transfer, weSethe'rhrq^estion turns. It is a question of title. You, in fact. riVto us claiming title to Mrs. Moir. It is for you to show your title. You Tus J^trTyoVan^ Mrs. Moir to your .taius a ,no. There existed no "a Jlil we have disturbed. If she was your member a year ago, she „ trmemtrnow; inasmuch a. in becoming your m-ber, she must have c^to bl the member of the SackviUe Church, who then had no nght to ceasea to oe ^^eption of her under such circumstances would be JZoZ I Tff^ VrL asking us to restore that which we have not :'rirnot S^way from you. You had no right a year ago to d.«..p. r„«M« Moir which vou have not now. You have to^ay the same nght ^•Twwhhal the pains and penalties known to Baptists as you ever L"t a yT^ng w^^^^^^^^ ^the Sackville Church should convey V. ustLeG^d gefstreet Baptist Chapel, or '^-^^ ^r^lw w^ihS; Ldd we have any more right than before to enter into it and hold wo»hip 19 tliero to your exclusion ? By no mi-ans. Your title remains m stata quo. So the Sackv.lle Church having terminated its connection, as it must have done with Mrs. Moir, if you were in a position to receive her as a member, had no right to dismiss her to us, and our vote on such dismissioH is not worth the paper it is written on. Our claim to Mrs. Moir as a member is no stronger than the validity of the Sackville letter. Believing, as we do, so strongly that you could not receive Mrs. Moir as ft member on the letter of recommendation which she brought, it is scarcely worth while to consider whether the remaining requisites of transfer were complied with. Indeed, they could not be vali«^ «" °f our questio»8 as specially objeetioBable. It is this, "was the said letter (the let er 03 which hVNortl Baptist Chu«)h claim to have received Mrs. Moir) iTv n by tur late Pastor witoutthe vote of the chnrch, and .f so given, what Au IL in a\v\nii it r Do you suppose that by that question we were m ::"wr.sr« .o^d *»« e*. ■«. p».or. of *« ^^^^ 21 Ungnngo in which you respectfully rlcclino to intorrogatc respecting the " motivefl of a Pastor whose praiso is still in many of the churches, anil "who has long since gone to his reward," is out of place on any other supposition. We have not forgotten the virtues and the labors ot'our late brother, and did not imagine for a moment that he had any end in view but simply that of commending Mrs. Moir to the North Church and to us. but we desired to ascertain what in the opinion of the Sackville Church was the full meaning of the letter. Our answer is before you, and our brethren of the North Church will no doubt carefully review the whole matter. If their conclusion shouM be that Mrs. Moir never was a member of the North Church (and we do not see how it can be other than that) thoy will doubtless acknowledge their error. If on the contrary the conclusion should be that Mrs. Moir was and is a member, then they will either condemn the Sackville Church or the Granville Street Church, we leave them to determine which. Little needs to be said in regard to the desirability of harmony and co- operation existing as heretofore. It must bo assumed that both the North Church and ourselves desire that our relations should be of the most friendly character. That is a matter which does not gain by mention, for we would be unworthy the name of Churches if we did not most heartily desire it. We have given our views plainly and clearly. It is matter of regret to 119 that we difTer on the facts of the case, but such difference we found un- voidable, and this difference is not confined to the statements whoee correct ness we have had to call in question in this letter. We trust our correspondence will result in a better understanding of th« two important points discussed in this letter, namely, the functions of com- mittees, and the transference of members from one chureh to another. W« cannot well over-estimate the importance of arriving at a proper understand jng of the principles which sliould guide us in these matters. On behalf of the Granville Street Church. E. M. Saunders, y Alkx. Robinson, }■ Committee. Brenton H. Eaton. > Halifax, 23rd Mat, 1872. To the Granville Street Church, Pastor and Members : Dear Brethren,- Yours of the 3rd April the undereigned received on the 8th of same month. For reasons which we need not here detail, this our reply has been un- *xpectedly delayed. The Nor.h Baptist Church complained that the "branv.Ile Street Church their near neighbours in violation of well cst.iblishcd pnnc.ples had received into their Communion Mrs. Moir, a member of the North Church, without the usual or customary letter of dismission, knowing l<»ng before the date ot her reception and at the time, that she was under the 22 dig* »*ne o< tlio North Cliureh. That, ncconlinK to the Roconln of the North Churcl. si.e ha.l united with them on the Cth of Fubruary, 18S7,an.lha(l In^cn oontinuouily from that tin»c for upwards o^ fourteen years n momln'r nn.l in thoir Communion, exc-pt perhaps for the sho-t period while under di?.:.ph.io. AU tliifl with full particulars having hwn fully and faithfully eomuuinc.a.jd to the (iranville Street Church, by a formal written doccuPicm or rrj.ort, adopted by the North Church January, 1870, and forwardo*! to your present Pastor, lltv. Mr. Saunders, ius therein set forth, for thoir inlormn ton. See report on Mrs. Moir's case of above date, and copy set forth in our letter to you of 30th November, 1871. The undersigned by a resolution of the North Church, November, 1871, a copy of which was also furnished, were authorized to conduct a corres- pondimce with the Granville Street Church on the subject, and report to the North Church as occasion might require. The reply of the Granville Strec- Church April 3rd, to our several com- munications, contains so much that is iuunaterial to the single point under consideration, presenting so many side issues altogether foreign to the meritB of the matter, with arguments and illustrations drawn from secular sources— witlinuc application, having no bearing, as the undersigned respecttuUy con- ceive on the case, they trust they may be pardoned if they decline to allow their attention to be diverted beyond what is indispensiblo from the one sing'e point in controverey, namely, the right of one Baptist church in the light of the disclosures produced by this correspondence, to treat another of the same faith and order, as has been done in the present case. The first page and half of your letter is taken up with explanations on the subject of delay, &c. The remainder of the second, third and fourth are devoted to the subject of the powers conferral upon the undersigned by their constituent the North Church, and the manner of their exercise. We had described them as " plenary " for correspondence, and nothing more wa» pretended or attempted. IT mI the Granville Street Church chosen to ignore the existence of such a coinmiLte,t . aud the actio- of the No.ih Church in appointing it, perhaps it i <,•' . :.a " en open to i;.em to do so, and they would have borne the responsibility. But when they decided to reply to the committee's letter, it was but courteous, that they should address the committee and not the church appointing them. The undersigned having however expitjssely waived all objection to the informality of your addressing the church on the occasion, not them, aud the correspondence having since pro- gressed in doe form, they can see no occasion now for the dissertation referred to, or for further remarks thereon. The fifth page of your letter is occupied with an expression of " regret and surprise " that " some things " in your previous correspondence had been ignored, &c. The "some things" if wo understand rightly here referred to, is a statement by a Deacon of the iNorth Church, alleged to have been made to your Pastor that there wa» nothing in their (the North Baptist Church) books to show that sbter Moir 23 had ever l-on dijinisjiod, &e. As i . fliia matter, m (ar from ifimriuff or not rcplyiiij; to it. in our li-ttur of aSth IK'C, in aimwer to yourtt ol UtI-. we wrote as follow!., " Till) un(K'r>iKtU!.l rofiMTin« ajjain to tlie cunvfrhalioi, >,..,ki;n of as \nM with iiastoiu, or iIuiu'oih, or nu-ii)bvn«, wish it to be cKiiirly iiiui. tuod, that the chiircih iht-y ri'i)r»'(ti'nt H|K«ak only by its Clerk, fa-." A word, howeviT, now as to this. Tlu! Di-acon tl.at was, »>ut is no lon(|»r such, havinjr been excluded from the (eliosvshijt of the North (hureh It rcftgons in no way connected v-th this matter, either knew or he lul not know wh.it the records of the North IJ.kj.ti.st Church containe,| in i rence to Mrs. Moir. It matters little which, in one a.spuct— for th. recor peak for them.sdve.s, and they f;ivc hin statem.'ut a tiat ontradiet, ii, The.s jiive the date of Mrs. Moir'.s reception, wiMi full particulars, entered 5th February, 1857, at a time and uniler eircumstancis, when there could be no niotl - miflead or misrepresent. IJiit wli;ite\ r tiiis so-called Deacon may have as remarked already, matters little— fiecause, eifrhteen months before Moir was received by you, namely, in .'iimary, 1870, your ehureh and p., knew (hat the Xorlh IhiUist Church rcco U contained an entn/ on the subjec. A report of that date, adopted by the t urch, a coj)y of which was furnishe, you by order, among other things, cont.iined the following —" They (tfc. committee reporting) find, on reference to '//(; recordu of the church, that sister Moir united with the church on the 6th d;.y of February, 1857 having been received by letter." And you were then turther informed, that for" eight years, or until 18C5, her walk and Christiiin deportment were i xcmplary and unexceptionable. That she then absented i rself and entered u|)on a t'areer of irregularity described, and that suital e means were resorted to for reclaiming her, by connnittees waiting upon ' er and otherwise. Let it not, therefore, brethren, be again pretended tha the Granville Street Church were not fully aware of the facts of the case ; ct no further attemj)! be m.adc then to discredit the records of the church, i; )r the church itself, that by adopting made the report its act, merely I cau.se a refractory member chooses to deny what a ho.st of living witness^ (all the contemporary mem- bers of the North Church) know to be true. In your letter of the 14th December, 1871, seeking to defend Mrs. Moir 1 in the. conse(piences of her own acts, in applying under date ot Gth Decemuur, 1867, to the llev. Mr. Goucher, cur pastor, for a letter of dismission from the North Church, you there, referring to this letter, state that " our (Granville Street pastor) and others who assumed that she (Mrs. Moir) had fbrjotten the occasion of her reception, overpersuaded her to apply to the NortI Church for a dismi.ssion." And yet the North Church is asked to treat its )wn records as a myth to substitute Mrs. Moir's memory instead— to believe that " the pastor of the Granville Street Church and others" would ask her to stultify herself, connnit a fraud on the Granville Cimrch : and that she, willing to do so. actually wrote ti.e letter of the tJth December, 1867, asking a dismission from a church of which she never was. and if we are to believe the representations in your hist letter, she never considered herself to be a member ! Is this, then, the 24 only means of escape available from the dilemma into which your church seems to be placed? We dwell on this branch of the case, because it brings concession in writing, proof home that " the pastor and other mem- bers of the Granville Street Church with a knowledge of the facts as to the correspondence on our part presents them, received into membership with out a letter ot dismission, one wliom, not the North Church only, not herself only, but one whom they themselves— &i least those so persuading her— in December 1867, regarded as (and in December, 1869, were, by a written report informed was) a member of the North Church ! Knowing, too, that she was under discipline, and could not, while in that state, properly be dis- missed. Iklore than this, Granville Street Church and its Pastor, knew what the offences were for which the North Church was disciplining its memder, they knew that she did not deny the charges, and yet without further inquiry than the paper given by the Sackville Church,— given, they and we now know exactly under what circumstances and with the postscript meaning much, as it did, attached (for the previous pastor of Granville Street Church as you admit had applied to Sackville for such a letter once before, and it was refused.) Under such circumstances, we say, without notice to the North Church, or hearing what they might have to object, Granville Street Church receives Mrs. Moir, and maintains that such conduct is courteous, and respecttul and proper towards a sister Church ! Before passing away from this part of the case, a word as to the conversation alleged to have been held by the Pastor of the North Church and one or more members with the Pastor of the Sackville Church. We refer to this reluctantly, because for reasons already given, casual conversations with members should not be used, we think, in cases like this. And we now thus explain only lest un- favourable inference might be drawn if we passed it over in silence, and because some grave misapprehension evidently exists. The pastor of the North Church who has taken no part in this controversy nor seen this corres- pondence, on having his attention called to the paragraph referring to him, authorizes this committee to say, that although he well remembers the con- versation alluded to, and the particular? of it, yet he affrms, that he must have been altogether misunderstood, for whatever the impression received he cer- tainly gave no opinion, and had no intention of expressing any, as to what " the better way would be for the Sackville Church to act in this case." No other name being given we are not able to furnish further explanation under this head. The 6th page of your letter, and all of the 7th, 8th, 9th,10th,llth and 12th with part of the 13th are devoted to the ta.-^k of proving what constitutes a letter ot dismission from one Baptist Church to anotlier, and that the requisites as between Sackville and the Nortli Cimrcli in Mrs. Moir's case were not complied with. Tlifc illustrations and reference to caFes of apprenticeship and conveyance of real estate smack of tiie world, and worldly things, far too much, to afford any argumen t, even under any of the five requisites enumerated, to weigh with a Christian church, in dismiss- 25 ing and receiving members. But the dogma upon which the argument is based that " among Baptists associated as the Churches of our associations are, five things necessarily combine to constitute a complete transference of a mem- ber from one Church to another," lacks this essential element, that, no authority is given, and none exists which the undersigned as representing an independ- ent Baptist Church, are willing to acklowledge, or recognize. Every case rests on its own peculiar merits. After Paul's conversion, " he went up to Jerusjilem and essayed to join himself to the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple, but Barnabas took him and brought him to the Apostles, &c., &c. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem." This is probably the first reception recorded of a member of a Christiiin Church coming from another locality — for he had just arrived from Damascus, where he had been preaching, and came away somewhat in haste. The apostle himself, however, on one occasion wrote a letter in which Timothy joined to the brethren and church worshipping in the house of Philemon, and by it he dismissed Onesimus, who, we may assume, was duly received. Whether any answer was returned, or any, or all of the other requisites ac- cording to Granville Street Church, were complied with, the record saith not. Conceding to every other what they claim on behalf of the North Church, the undersigned in the most unequivocal manner here once for all deny the right of Granvillee Street or any other church to decide whether the North Church exercised sound discretion as to the nature and amount of evidence that justifies the reception of a member, whether appearing before them with documentary papers in the nature of letters of dismission, or on oral state- ments. That a member received fourteen years ago and upwards, who had walked in harmony with the North Church for eight long years, and then falling under its discipline, shall be permitted to deny the entries of her membership made in the church records of those dates — deny what the church knows to be true, viz : that she was a member during this period, enjoyed all the privileges of any other member, thus corroborating the church entries and records — if they needed it — and that a sister church apprised of these fac*s, should side with her, and declare and try to maintain that she had never been dismissed or received, or if so, only upon informal and insufficient documents, and so endeavour to defeat the discipline of the North Church, and discredit and falsify her records, is a proceeding so unkind, so irregular, so unlike the christian comity that obtains among Baptist churches, that a spark of respect entertained for herself, her existence, independence, and proceedings compels the North Church to take measures to submit this controversy for decision to some impartial tribunal — come wliat may. The ppeeial pleading paraded, and based upon the letter of the Sackville Church — issued under a mistake, as will presently be seen, with its qualifying portscript already referred to, is too transparent, and one would have thought that with the information previously possessed, this was a case calling for 26 great care and caution on the part of a friendly sister chtucli. That if room for the shadow of a reasonable doubt existed; Pastor ami members would hesitate long before taking action condemnatory of, and (uerruling the dis- cipline of the North Church — before treating her records as unfaithful and unreliable, her meniberhood and their votes as unworthy of respect. Hiiving already received Mrs. Moir into your communion, knowin- all the while the irregularity of her walk, whether a member of the Saekviile or the North Church, and which she has never denied, though it be but a mere waste of words here, it is nevertheless our duty to inform the Granville Street Church that her statement that she was not attempted to be (l!sei|)lined till she applied for her dismission, is a statement entirely destitute of truthfulness, and unworthy of credit. The North Church has commaml of ample testi- mony to that clTecit. If we may be permitted to illustrate our views by ar<:;iiii!ents drawn from familiar relations in life — relations much more apposite aud i>[)propriate and to the point than any reference to t}ie law of apprenticesliip or that of the transfer of estates, we should say that in all its leadinj^ features this case might aptly be likened to one where a wife deserts the husband to whom she had been married, and with whom she had lived for a decade and upwards. And when reuionstrateil with for her infidelity she undertakes to shelter herself— and her new-found friends assist in defending her — upon the ground that the niJirriage certificate cannot be found, or the witness is dead, or the record is defective, or the banns had not been published tlic number of times required by law, or some equally futile plea. The result, were such reason ing to find fivvour, would not be more scandalous or disastrous to public morals, we think, than they will be found damaging and destructive to all Baptist polity if the defence now set up by Mrs. Moir and backed by Hali- fax Granville Street Baptist Church, were to prevail. The 15th page of your letter is devoted to the subject of the examination of the Saekviile Church by Interrogations with remarks quite irrelevant to the merits of the matter in hand. What that questioning brought to light seems to be designedly suppressed, at least has not been submitted. We have it now, however, from Saekviile. Had this case restdl upon tne facts as appearing in tlie records of the North Church, and the full and thorough knowledge of them brought home to the Granville Street Clmreh, of the true state of things, how unfair, how unkind it was to intervene between a church and its erring member, or even one they thought and believed to be, and had treated as a member for so long a time ! But what have the Granville Street Church to say to the recent discoveries made by Saekviile Church on further search among their records ? Since the receipt of your letter of 3rd April, the undei-signed have ascer- tained from the officers of the Saekviile Church that tliey liave now discovered a document among their records containing a list of members, with remarks, &c. On that list appears the name of Mrs. Maria Moir, and 27 opposite it, a note, thus : — See page 65 of Church Book. On turning to page 65, were found, the minutes of a church conference and the following entry : " Sister dismissed to join North Church, Halifax^." This entry, the undersigned are given to understand, the Sackville Church, though having overlooked, admit, affords pjoo/conciusiVe, that Mrs. Moir was duly dismissed by them to join the North Church, as contended by the latter throughout. In reply to the questions propounded by Granville Street Church to Sackville Church, among other things this new discovery we are informed, was made and a copy or extract was forwarded to you. If so, this important information was in possession of the Granville Street Church on the 3rd April, the date of your last letter, and yet you make no reference to the fact If it were, then the omission to refer to a link of testimony so conclusive, from your standpoint — that Sackville, that once before refused an application of your previous pastor for a letter, had now acted under a mistake — would be the strangest of all the strange things characterizing this correspondence. If the contention on the part of Mrs. Moir, adopted and defended by Granville Street Church, adopted by them as the basis ot their proceeding, in receiving her into fellowship be true — then, among the consequences inevitable flows the following, namely : — The entry on the North Church books, tliat she was received as a member, and had the right hand of fellowship extended to her (by the Rev. Mr. Bently, then pastor), is false, if not fraudulent. But the clerk of the church of that day, 1857, now its Senior Deacon and Chair- man of the Committee addressing you, made the entry himself 't is in his own handwriting, and he knows "nd now testifies in signing this letter that the entry is true : and having been an active leading member of the church up to the present, he now declares that he never heard it mentioned or whispered, that Mrs. Moir cliiimcd not to be a member of the North Church, until somewhere in the year 1871, shortly before or about the time he heard she had been received by Granville Street Church. It was thoughtful on your part to suggest that the charges against Mrs. Moir should be, under such circumstances, withdrawn, and an acknowledgement be made by the North Church, or their Committee accordingly f Whether intended as a candid exposition of sentiment, or as irony, or as satire matters not much. If this committee, or the church they represent, were to discover that they had erred through mistake or otherwise, we hasten to assure you that they would need no invitation or suggestion from any source to make the amend without delay. And if the church addressed takes that course, and acts on that principle, we predict for this correspondence an early friendly and satisfactory termination. From England under date of 21st of March, 1872, George Robins, Clerk of the Royal Engineer Department, who filled the office of Church Clerk succeeding Deacon McCuUy, (being superintendent of the Sabbath school as well), a gentleman well known to both ehurehea, and who was one of the visiting committee associated with Deacon Thompson (one of the committee addressing you) to wait on Mrs. Moir, writes in reply to a letter addressed to him on the subject as follows. We premise however by quoting in contrast 28 the unauthentic statement of Granville Street Church touching a matter of which she could know nothing except by mere hearsay — " Her, Mrs. Moir't conduct was so exemplary as to cailse no question concerning her at all, but had the question been raised you would have discovered that she never dreamed that she was your member during these years." In direct contradiction, hear now, what our late brother Robins who had the means of personally knowing says : " I have a distinct recollection of twice being appointed by the Church with Deacon D. Thompson, to wait on Mrs. Moir with reference to her connection with and conduct towards the North Church, and I can positively affirm that on neither of these occasions did Mrs. Moir affirm that she was not a member of the Church, but the contrary, and on my informing her of the decision of the Church after our visit, she expressed her gratitude that the church had been so lenient towards her by allowing her name to stand on the Church Record." Fnrther on, "Mrs. Moir knows well that she did then join the church, and always recog- nized herself as a member in every conversation I ever had with her." P'S- — " I think brother Thompson will bear me out in saying, that at our last visit which was in the winter season, Mrs. Moir repeatedly said she had no ill-feeling toward any member of the North Church, but her health did not admit her to walk so far just then, and all her friends attending Granville Street, made her wish to go there also. We on our pr.rt assured her that none in the church had any ill-feeling toward her, and would gladly welcome her back, but there was a duty for her to perform to the church af>er her conduct for so long a time in walking disorderly toward it, and which must be done before a dismissing letter could be given her to unite with Granville Street." All this so far as Deacon Thompson is referred to, he now by his signature to this paper corroborates and solemnly affirms to be true. Will the Gran- ville Street Church in the face of this testimony venture to repeat tliat " you never attempted to discipline her (Mrs. Moir) till after she asked for a dismission ? The recklessness of such a statement is amazing ! And then is added, " You had no right to discipline Mrs. Moir which you have not still." This must bo intended for biting sarcasm. What avails discipline when another church of the same fiiith and order, has the recalcitrant nieniber in full communion, defending her conduct and defiantly denouncing such disci- pline ? It requires little consideration to notice how lightly church discipline seems to be regarded where such ideas are entertained, and what is thought of the relationsliip which exists or ouglit to exist, between and artiong Baptist churches. To go through the form of excluding Mrs. Moir, now that she is a member of Granville Street Church, and yjt take no cognizance of the church's action in receiving and defending he:-, would be a solemn mockery offensive to God, and obnoxious in the eyes of Christian men. If anythinir could surprise, such an utterance coming from the Granville Street Church might well do so. , 29 The desire to maintain amicable, kind, and fraternal relations,has prompted this Committee thu8 representing the North Church, to use all the argu- ments and persuasion at command, to avoid, it possible, an open rupture — a breach, destructive of relations easy to wound, difficult to heal. To witness estrangements among Baptist Churches, their Pastors and members, carried to such an extent as recently occurred at Sackville, where delegates from Dartmouth, (Jranville Street Church (and elsewhere) were congregated on invitation to comprise a Council, Pastors and delegates refus- ing to greet or speak to each other, and yet proceeding with, and taking part in the Solemn Act of laying on of hands to ordain a Christian Brother to the ministry, was an event so painful, so revolting in the eyes of spectators and professing Christians to whom it became known, that we have felt, and feel the force of the exhortation. " These things ought not so to be." And yet if one Baptist Church ignores, and sets at naught the discipline of another, what else need be expected. Brethren, we feel that it involves the very existence of the North Church, that her records and proci edings should be honest in the sight of God and man, and capable of being defended before the denomination and the world. " The Church of God (says an Apostle) is the pillar and ground of truth." If it be not such, it is nothing. The undersigned have ^-^d no mere victory in view in this correspondence. Expostulation strong and earnest, as your Pastor and Senior deacon are aware, was resorted to with them by the Chairman of this Committee in pres tmceof the Pastor of the North Church, and Bro. Parsons, another of the Committee, before the North Church took action or directed a correspondence to be opened on this subject, and it was then asked and roost earnestly en treated that Granville Street Church herself should take the Initiation and correct her mistake. They were then told plainly, though uneiBcialy, as was explained, that the North Church could not consent to have its discipline trodden down and disregarded by any sister church. Bat all to no purpose. This Committee believes, and they think that impartial christians will concur in the view, that their church records and the corroborating facts and testimony uncontradicted, (except by Mrs. Moir, the delinquent disciple) without the recent discovery made by Sackville Church, were abundant or ample to convince any but the most sceptical — such as are unwilling to be convinced — that truth, candour, and the merits of this ease throughout have been and are with the North Church, and that she has good cause to feel aggrieved. But in the light of the recent important discovery, there ii no longer room for doubt. Desirous of not laying themselves open to the charge of a want of respect towards a sister Church, their arguments or positions advanced, this Committee have found it necessary to extend their comments to an undesirable length. so But they novf on their part, propose to close the correspondence, unless something unexpected should make further reply necessary. Remaining yours, ' &c., J. McCuLty, D. Thompson,^ Committee. 3. Parsons. ••! The SackvUle (]^. S.) Baptist Church, to the North Baptiit Church, Halifax : Dear Brethren,— In reply to your letter respectingthe membership of Mrs. William Moir, we beg to make the following (among other) statements* We had found no record on our books of her being dismissed from us. On further search of our books, however, we found a record of our dismissing Mrs. Moir to unite with you. After due consideration, however, we deem it expedient to rescind our motion dismissing her to Granville Street Church. In taking this step we have been influenced by a desire for peace and the enforcing of proper discip- llae in our churches. In behalf of the Church. „,.,.,, F. Wbbber, Church Clerk SackviUe, June lilh, 1872. unless Mee. ilifax : ihip of imentst us. On ig Mrs. id our ep we discip" ierk