On the 28th July, 1697, MR. JOHN KILLINGHALL was admitted a member, and on the 13th of the following October, he was set apart to the office of pastor. He was an excellent preacher, and for some time highly esteemed here. But in September 1699, the pleasing prospect became clouded by an incorrectness of conduct calling for the severest discipline of the church. {163} There was no attempt to palliate sin, though it had gained a temporary victory over one, whose degradation could not fail to bring discredit upon the christian profession. The church proceeded with awful firmness, though not without full proof and a due weighing of all circumstances, to show their obedience to Christ’s institutions, by excluding the offender from their communion. It has been said that some persons of the establishment considered him to have been too severely treated: it does not appear that he ever thought so himself. Deeply penitent, not only that he had “wronged his own soul,” but also that he had caused the good of others to be evil spoken of, he applied for some time to secular business, demeaning himself with great modesty and becoming remorse. These circumstances, combined with a desire on the part of the church to evince the utmost allowable tenderness towards an erring brother, led to his re-admission after the lapse of some months. These circumstances have long since been made public. Historical justice forbids their suppression. Nor is there any sufficient reason for adopting such a course. The individual himself has joined the assembly above, among whom “there is joy over a sinner that repenteth.” None who have any pretensions to justice or candour, will deny that occurrences like that in question are rare among the ranks of the dissenting ministry; and none that value the respect of reasonable and unprejudiced men, will turn the failings of an individual to the disparagement of a party, much less of its principles. “There are too many faults” (to adopt the language of one distinguished by a truly catholic spirit) “among all parties; but God knows it is fitter for us all to mend than to recriminate. ‘Yea, but the party we are of, professes not so much strictness.’ No? What party should you be of, that professes less strictness? What more lax rule of morals have you than other Christians? Do you not profess subjection to the known rules of the Bible concerning christian and civil conversation? You do not, sure, profess rebellion and hostility against the Lord that bought you? Doth not your baptismal covenant, which you are supposed to avow, bind you to as much strictness as any other Christian? . . . We that think we stand should take heed lest we fall. It is a costly admonition that is given us in such instances.” {165}