truly there is reason to apprehend some great mistake in the mind of those, who repel that exercise of love as the attack of an enemy. P― seems to admit that we have scriptural authority for the idea of sister churches-i.e. churches so acknowledging each other as holding the same faith and walking by the same rule, that a member of one visiting the other, joins its fellowship of course, on being recognised as a member of the former. In fact, it is evident that the apostolic churches were generally thus connected: and the connexion naturally (I may say) arises from the nature and ground of Christian connexion. But according to the nature and ground of that communion, how can this connexion be scripturally maintained, without allowing the freest communication between them, on all things concerning the kingdom of God,—without the most open door to the interchange of Christian admonition and reproof: no more than the Christian fellowship of two individuals in the same church can be maintained, if either close the door against the other. It would be but the name of brotherhood that would then continue; and disconnected from all the grounds that are essential to its real existence. Is this less true of two collective bodies of Christians, than of two individuals? Is not mutual confidence as to the unity of their faith and way, essential to their acknowledged connexion? And does it consist with the maintenance of this confidence, that one of them should reject a Christian communication by letter from the other, and repel it indignantly as "a wanton creating of a cause of probable disunion?" Really, such conduct and such language invade every principle of Christian fellowship; and only prove that it was high time for us to adopt the course which we have taken.

But what reason had we to think it probable, that a disunion would be occasioned by our sending that letter of brotherly admonition to a body, with whom we professedly stood in Christian connexion? could we have calculated on such an unbrotherly rejection of it by all of them? I certainly should not have been surprised if the same party, who openly opposed the divine command, should also oppose the reception of our letter exposing their sin, and the sin of the adverse party, who had tolerated their rebellion for so many months; nor should I have been surprised if this had accelerated a separation, which ought to have taken place so long before. But that the nominal asserters of the command should also concur in rejecting our admonition, is what assuredly we could not have anticipated. And now who have made that letter the occasion of our disunion? We or they?

But how unfair and unfounded is P's representation, that we have cut them off for not reading that letter in the church assembled ! He seems to have penned that representation for the sake of the point, that "we admonished them for one offence, and cut them off for another." From my letter to M——— informing him of our procedure, P—, if he looked at it (but perhaps his indignation would not allow even this), must know that the ground of our procedure was, their non-repentance of the evils on which we admonished them. -(as far as M's reply conveyed any information of their mind; combined certainly with their closing the door against communica

tion with them as a sister church.) But if the language of M's reply had afforded any scriptural ground for hoping that they really saw the wickedness of the course in which they had been so long walking-instead of affording evidence to the contrary, would their mere refusal to receive our letter have led us, who reported the result to the church, to mark the course which we did, as that which alone remained, or have led the church to adopt it? You, my brother, know and can testify the contrary. Yet undoubtedly, even then, the rejection of our letter would have formed a subject of the most serious remonstrance and expostulation; nor could I think of continuing in connexion with any church, that would continue to adopt and vindicate such unbrotherly conduct. But certainly every communication which we have as yet received, affords accumulated proof that they remain utterly insensible to the radical evils on which we admonished them.

But what right have we "to proceed to an act of discipline to a distant church ?" An act of discipline! Shame that P- should employ the phrase in the way of mystery or charm, for beclouding a most simple subject. If we are warranted by the word to acknowledge a distant body of disciples as a sister church, must we not of necessity be warranted in declaring that connexion dissolved, when the grounds of it and of the brotherly confidence essential to it are removed? Or, having once acknowledged that connexion, must it continue of course for ever? No, P— himself says I that he would not absolutely charge us with evil, had we thought fit to withdraw from them three months ago."-(Why he fixes upon that period I know not, it being now more than five months ago since H. made his speech disowning the precept, and was tolerated in it.)-So, had we dissolved the connexion so long ago, without previously making any effort to recall them from their evil ways, all would have been well, in P's view. Not so in mine. I should never have consented to break off a connexion so close and of such long standing, without an attempt at reclaiming them by scriptural admonition. And what does P― mean by saying-" Do not think I dispute your right to take every means in your power to convey instruction to other churches, or to point out evils in which ye may find them walking." What more did we do in that admonitory letter, and from which he has chosen to be affronted, and which it is plain was rejected by the body through his influence and misleading? And now he raises an outcry against us for a rupture, of which he has been himself the author; which he appears so anxious to perpetuate, that he is about retiring from the Stafford Street body, because (it seems) they are about employing some means for healing the breach which he has occasioned! But really the more I examine the whole of that passage in his letter, the more inexplicable it appears,- or rather, the more irreconcileable with any true principles of Christian union. He goes on to say, "Had you sent us, instead of your admonition, information that you could not continue to countenance our course by walking with us,-you would have very speedily heard that we had put an end to this course, attended with probably as ample a confession of evil on our parts as you would have desired." Really! But

now (this is the necessary supplement intended) ye shall have no confession of evil from us, but we shall stand on our defence and on a vindication of our evils, because ye presumed to offer us brotherly admonition upon them! And this man talks of the evil of making Christian fellowship turn upon straws! Had we merely given them the information that we could not continue the connexion, without endeavouring to point out the evils to their attention, Pmight have had some pretext for charging us with employing a threat, as he does now for accompanying our admonition upon them with a remark, that their continuance would be inconsistent with continuance of our connexion as sister churches. As to his accusing us of knowing, when we sent the admonition, that "the distracting matter was just arriving at its close," I must tell him that we knew it not, either when the admonitory letter was ordered by the church, or when it was dispatched by us. But I must tell him further, that we know it has not arrived at a scriptural close to this day,-unless some great change has taken place since the writing of his letter, of which we have had no telegraphic account. The really distracting matter has been their profanation of the divine commands, by tolerating for more than five months the open disavowal of subjection to one of them in an individual member, and the progressive spreading of that rebellion through a majority of their body, as well as the turning of the Church of God into a school of disputation. For these evils we neither knew of any symptom of repentance, when we admonished them on the subject, nor do we know of any now, but have lamentable evidence of the contrary in P's letter. In the last of these evils, indeed, P— seems to glory; when he boasts that himself and A. B. all along stood unflinching in the fore-front of the hot battle;" and declares that "it ought to sink deep in our consciences," that such fine combatants should now (through their own pertinacity in evil) be likely to be separated from the Stafford Street body. I am sick of his letter, and drop it with one more remark. I have held P— very, very dear, for the truth's sake: and it will relieve my heart from a load of pain, if he ever be restored to the same place in my brotherly affection or confidence which he has formerly possessed. But reflecting on the course, in which he has been, and is still engaged, I cannot at present regard him with any complacency.

CXXXVII.

TO THE CHURCH IN DUBLIN.

June 8, 1829.

That

VERY DEAR BRETHREN,-Much endeared to us by the manifestation of the mind of Christ in your letter of the 3rd instant. letter was marked with such Christian honesty and explicitness of

candid acknowledgment, that we could not hesitate to lay it before the church, which we did on yesterday; and the church with as little hesitation joyfully declared the connexion restored between them and your body as sister churches, and gave us the pleasing commission to inform you of this with their most Christian salutations. Blessed be the good shepherd who is faithful to that promise-" I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken and will strengthen that which was sick.' Ezek. xxxiv. 16. We doubt not but, through his powerful blessing, what has passed (though for the time not joyous but grievous indeed) will prove abundantly useful for knitting us together more closely, and leading us to watch over each other in love more faithfully. Excuse us for writing so short a letter at present. We are much occupied, and unwilling to delay sending this. Poor P― will shortly receive a paper of remarks on a most painful letter lately received from him. That paper we wish you to see after he has done with it. And now, dear brethren, grace be with you, and keep us all walking in that heavenly wisdom all whose paths are peace."

P. S.-Unity of mind is so essential to real Christian union, and any concealed difference of mind, covered up by a laxity of principle, is so surely productive in the end of every evil, that we think it at least safe (though perhaps not necessary) to state to you distinctly, that we hold it lawful for a Christian to employ any means that come within the compass of his ability and opportunity, for exposing and refuting antichristian lies, by putting forward scriptural truth in opposition to them, either privately or publicly, either by speech or by writing. If you note the terms we use, you will see them adapted to mark the legitimate use of scripture towards them that are without, in contradistinction to that which is illegitimate and evil. We should wish the church in Stafford Street to be clearly acquainted with our mind on this subject. If any hold that to be actually unlawful, the lawfulness of which we assert-(while we do not urge upon any, exertions which may seem to them inexpedient)-such persons certainly could not honestly walk with us. They would be tolerating in us what they think evil. If, as we trust, there is no such discordance of mind between us here, you will probably see it needful to use caution, in the reception into your body of others whom you may suspect to differ from us on this subject. You know the lengths to which some in Ireland have lately gone upon it.

CXXXVIII.

TO MRS. B

June

1829. THANKS to my dear Mrs. B— for so promptly sending me so satisfactory a letter-satisfactory, as giving me the information I desired, and, as part of that information, the restoration of the D to your fellowship, and the greenness of Mrs. N's old age. My heart's love to her. I should be ungrateful if I were not ready, as far as I can, to communicate my sentiments on any subject upon which you and M desired to know them; but I believe I need not say that I fully concur with you in holding it unlawful for us to read the scriptures to or with unbelievers, in any way that implies or involves religious intercommunity with them. But I confess I wonder that this has been agitated so exclusively as to reading the scriptures, there being so many other ways in which we may fall (and are in fully as much danger of falling) into the same evil;-for instance, joining them in that kind of vague religious talk and observation, which they are forward to introduce as good and spiritual. I wonder also that, if nothing more was originally meant than is now stated to have been intended, the church in Dublin should have been kept in hot water for so many months, by the discussion of a principle which at once commends itself to the conscience of every one, who knows and hallows the name of the Lord. I wonder also that the subject has been dropped in Dublin, without some more marking of the way in which, and the purpose for which, we may lawfully read the scriptures to unbelievers every day in the yearnamely, for the express purpose of proving their disbelief of those scriptures which they profess to own as the oracles of God-exposing and refuting from the scriptures their ungodly misinterpretations of it. Does this involve or imply any religious intercommunity with them? Nay, the very reverse. The more we are faithfully engaged in such an use of the scriptures, the more shall we be considered "men of strife and contention," opposed to all the world in our religion. I do wonder, also, at many things, which I really cannot reconcile with the principles of common sense or common honesty, in those whom I have most highly esteemed. For instance, I wonder that P― should now say he never thought of laying down a law for us, when he opened the subject in his first letter to Mr. C -in these words:" It is unlawful for a Christian to read the scrip. tures to or with unbelievers; this we are prepared to maintain :" and when, in his last letter to Mr. C, he declares that the terms which he there employed had been stated and canvassed "in various private assemblages," before they were brought forward; and emphatically protests against the supposition that he does not still adhere to them to the very letter. I do wonder that P -, whose