3 John, 9, 10. "Before honor is humility." "Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud." Prov. xvii. 19. "He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city." Prov. xvii. 32. "Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof when thy neighbor hath put thee to shame." Prov. xxv. 2. I ask, What conviction will such quotations make in the mind of the reader, and what kind feelings in the party to which they are applied? As much certainly as the five aphorisms at the head of the pamphlet addressed to me.

These brethren have as much mistaken me as they have the right of appeal, when they construe my remarks into an ex-parte reprobation of their course. I am not apt to do such deeds. I have long disapproved the course pursued by some that meet in North street, both from what I saw and what I heard, not merely of late, nor from these four brethren whom they excluded contrary to the first of their own five proof-texts. John vii. 51. Not only in proof of this fact, but also of my entire impartiality, I will state that in 1838 I passed through the city of Baltimore without entering the house of a single disciple in the city; preferring the hotel to the hospitality which I knew many of them would gladly have extended to me. The reason was, their unhallowed partyism. I would not associate with either party, and I could not speak to the world over the voices of those who were crucifying my Master's cause by their unchristian bickerings and strifes.Again, in the month of July last I sojourned one night nine miles ont of the city, rather than to enter it-for the same reasons; and that, too, before they had laid violent hands upon these brethren. I stood aloof because I knew, and learned from numerous sources-from residents of Baltimore, and from strange brethren that occasionally attended their meetings, that the humility, condescension, and love of Christ's family did not appear among them. And finally, when I was constrained to allude to them in the October number, I did not pass any sentence or give any opinion condemnatory of one party, nor exculpatory of another. I simply stated the fact, which they themselves allow in the pamphlet before ine, that they had, in the absence, and without the defence of four brethren of good standing with the Christian public, as persons of intelligence and moral worth, as good as themselves, excluded them from the family of God, and given them over to Satan as factionists. I did not then, nor do I now, say, that these excluded brethren were wholly right in all their views and proceedings; nor that those who excluded them were altogether wrong in the whole procedure: but I regarded it as a proper example of the

necessity and propriety of some provision in Messiah's kingdom by which a case of that sort could be reconsidered by a more competent and more impartial tribunal. So stands the case and my relations to it first and last.

I may concede a great deal of what is said in this pamphlet, both as to the indiscretions and even improprieties of some of those named in it, though I know little or nothing about the precise verity of the matter; but I will take the testimony of the elders whose names sanction it, and from their own showing I must declare my fears that those in North street have sinned against the constitution of Christ's kingdom in excluding those brethren, and in retaining persons in office as incompetent to the exigence of the church, as they are evidently destitute of some essential qualifications, and inacceptable to those whom they have at sundry times and in divers manners driven from their communion.

Brother Sweeney may be that rash and precipitate man of which they speak, and some of the other brethren may not always have spoken, written, or acted with infallible correctness; but who has!? Still they have been most cavalierly treated, and those who have so unceremoniously excluded them cannot be justified by all that they have alleged in their own justification. But of this I may say something when next I take up the subject. Meantime, I am called upon to be more explicit upon the subject of appeals.

That an appeal is necessary and a tribunal, I need not prove to those brethren in North street. They have made an appeal themselves. The pamphlet before me is palpable proof of it. They say, "It remains only for us to state in conclusion, that we are aware that the length of this communication and the arrangements of the Harbinger will necessarily prevent its appearance there for some time: we intend to have a number of copies printed and sent to our brethren: for we cannot consent to remain deprived of their love and confidence so long as the tardy movements of a periodical would subject us to. We look, however, to you, sir, to do us the earliest justice in your power by placing our defence on your pages, that the antidote may have a circulation coextensive with the poison." The words which we have italicised, are unquestionably an appeal. They appeal through the pamphlet, and through the pages of the Harbinger, to sister churches! Their words in another section are, "Let our sister churches also understand that we publish this defence not through fear, but love." p. 23. The love of their approval is a very good reason. An appeal is clearly made; but is it made scripturally? I allege that it is not. My reasons are two: First, it is without any scriptural authority; and, second, it asks

for justification on ex-parte testimony. It asks for the approval of the churches on the testimony of one of the parties. "Doth our law condemn any person before hearing him?" And would the brethren in orth street ask the churches to condemn those brethren and justify hemselves without hearing those brethren? Certainly they do this, by making an appeal to an improper tribunal, in the manner of making that appeal, and by asking that tribunal for a decision on the testimony of one of the parties.

They not only make an appeal, and to an unauthorized tribunal, but they agree to abide by its decision. But they are too acquiescent when they say as they do in another paragraph: "If any of our sister churches should desire to admit to their communion these factionists, we shall find no fault," This is too liberal for the New Testament. They are, however, obliged to this course when they refuse a rational and scriptural appeal. Any other course would be a full refutation of their views of discipline. The case is this: In the name of the Lord they have expelled certain brethren from their communion. Now should any other church receive these expelled brethren in the name of the Lord, they would commune with that church; for they find no fault with it. It is blameless. But this reminds me of a judgment which the Lord once pronounced. It is equivalent to this: If Christ cast out Christ, how then shall his kingdom stand? This he alleges would destroy Satan's kingdom. And have we not in the reasonings of these brethren a case of Christ casting out, and again receiving Christ? In the name of the Lord certain brethren are excluded, and when another church receives them in the name of the Lord, they will recognize that church as blameless, and commune with her!! If such be the issue of the views of discipline preached and practised by these brethren, is it not most evident that there is a radical mistake on the whole subject of the communion of churches?

In arraying the Christian Baptist against the Harbinger, they again demonstrate a want of correct conceptions of our views of an appeal. In the Christian Baptist, in the passage copied, certain questions from the Religious Herald were discussed. I then objected, and still object, to Baptist Associations and Councils as proper tribunals to decide matters of belief, matters of opinion, and cases of discipline. We hope to show a more scriptural and a more rational way of ascertaining truth and exercising Christian discipline.

Their critique upon how many fallibles would make an infallible, evinces a similar mistake. We do not say that we ought to have an infallible tribunal on earth. But we said that a church that refuses an appeal from her decisions ought to possess, as she certainly does pro

fess, infallibility. Our friends in North street speak as if, indeed, they claimed for their decision some peculiar authority. They disavow that they are a church, and claim to be the church-"the pillar and support of the truth;" and that, too, as if their opposing an individual must necessarily put him down. There must be a mistake in their minds, or in that of the Printer, who made two paragraphs of one. See sections 2d and 3d. I will not take any advantage of this error of the Elders or of the Printer. One of them is certainly at fault. They are not the church of Christ-not even of the United States, Maryland, or the city of Baltimore-much less of the world. They are only a church, a congregation, a community-and fallible at that.* But I hasten to greater matters.

As preparatory to a full examination, I submit the following five propositions:

I. The kingdom of Christ, sometimes called his church, is one great community composed of all the particular communities and individual persons that have acknowledged and received Jesus of Nazareth as the Son and Messiah of God-as the only Head, King, Lawgiver, and Arbiter of angels and men.

II. All the particular congregations that compose this great congregation, this general assembly, called "the kingdom of God," "the holy nation," are responsible to one another and to the Lord, as much as the individual members of any one of them are to one another and to the Lord.

III. Congregations therefore are under certain obligations and owe certain duties to one another, the faithful discharge of which is indispensable to that free and cordial communion and co-operation essential to the holiness of the church and the triumph of the gospel in the world.

IV. Among these obligations and duties are, the maintenance of the doctrine and discipline of Christ's kingdom, and a due regard for all the acts and decisions of one another; because a neglect of the former, and a disparagement of the latter, would necessarily destroy that union, communion, and co-operation essential to the designs of Christ's kingdom.

V. When, then, any particular congregation offends against the constitution of Messiah's kingdom by denying the doctrine, by neglecting the discipline, or by mal-administration of the affairs of Christ's church, essentially affecting the well-being of individual members or other congregations, then said church is to be judged by the eldership of other churches, or by some other tribunal than her own, as an accused or delinquent member of a particular congregation is to be tried by the constituted eldership of his own congregation.

This last proposition being the only one in doubt amongst us, we shall proceed to its examination. The first four are regarded by our

The article the and the place attached to a community, makes it particular, and not general. The state of Ohio and the church of Corinth, are neither the state nor the church-as they of North street seem to imagine.

communities as indisputably plain and settled. Should any one, however, have reflected so little upon the subject as to deny any of them, let him place them in the negative form, and by a single glance of his mind he will detect his error-as, for example, the third:Congregations are under no obligations and owe no duties to one another; therefore nothing can mar their free and cordial communion, &c.

The reader will please here pause and read again the fifth proposi tion. Let him then place it in the negative form, and read it as follows:-When any congregation offends against the constitution of Messiah's kingdom by denying the doctrine, by neglecting the discipline, or by mal-administering the affairs of Christ's church, essentially affecting the well-being of individual members or other congregations, then said church is not to be judged by any tribunal on earth, but to be held in as high esteem as before.

No one so ignorant as to assert this proposition. But, says another, there is no tribunal before which she can appear; therefore let her alone, but fellowship not her acts. And what is that but to judge and condemn her without even the form of a trial! Tried she must be. I repeat it again, tried she must be. No man of reflection can doubt it. The only question then is, By what tribunal shall she be tried? By every man's own opinion, or by a properly constituted tribunal? There is no other alternative: there is no third way. An invincible necessity has so decreed.

Every church that departs from the faith or from the discipline of Christ's kingdom, or that unrighteously and unwisely administers its affairs to the great detriment of individual members, a particular congregation, or the whole church of Christ, must be tried by some tribunal. Any one that pushes his notions of independency so far as to deny this, is deluded by a word which he does not understand; as mach as he who makes his little borough, city, or county, so independent as to deny the supervision and jurisdiction of the nation, kingdom, or state to which it belongs.

The tribes of Israel were independent tribes, as Moses and Aaron were independent persons; but yet these independent tribes were all under one another as members of the commonwealth of Israel. They were, indeed, equal to one another in rank while under one another as constituent members of the nation.

But in illustrating what I mean by independence and subordina tion through the well-known figures of a borough, a city, a county, or a tribe, I do not intend to institute a comparison in every point between any one of these and a particular church, as standing in connexion with the whole elect nation of Christ. Churches are all