The

after"—(retained, indeed, in our phrase of pursuing a course)—you may see exemplified in 1 Tim. vi. 11. and 2 Tim. ii. 22. Lord's people are characterized in Is. li. I. as "following after righteousness," and we know this does not mean trying to become righteous-for they are righteous, justified from all things, and have peace with God: and they are addressed accordingly in the 7th and 8th verses. To us Ps. lxxxv. 13. may stand as a comment on the phrase. But do not unbelieving religionists similarly misinterpret, to their own destruction, the expression of "seeking the Lord," and every other in the Scriptures?

On churches, I hope your judgment is cleared from the clouds that raised. If two or three-including certainly one or more brethren-cannot lawfully come together on the first day of the week to break bread, because in the course of time none but the sisters may be found adhering to scriptural principles, and they cannot pursue church-discipline against their antiscriptural brother; is it not plain that the same objection might be raised against the lawfulness of a church of two or three and twenty? Are we to anticipate such circumstances, and on account of the possibility of such an occurrence, to abstain from walking together, as long as we can scripturally? Whoever hold Elders as necessary to administer the ordinances of Christ, or authorize disciples to observe them, hold, under the name of elders, the worst of the Antichristian principles of the clerical character and function. And as to preaching sermons-aptness to teach is certainly one of the characters, which those called to the eldership ought to have more or less manifested in the church: but it would be hard to say why an elder should teach, the week after his appointment, at greater length than he had taught the week before. In this, as in every thing, he is to be an ensample to the flock. When I deny that either the administration of ordinances, or preaching of sermons is any part of the elder's business, many would think that I leave them nothing to do. They would perhaps think otherwise if they witnessed our dear brother M- -'s occupation in the church in D—; or if they entered more into the import of the name, "overseers of the flock.' Very high do I hold the importance of having some specially charged with that watchful care, and acknowledged by the church as called to it, and given them for it by the great Head. Particularly as a church multiplies, I am sure it will be lacking in an important gift, if it remain long without elders; but I am as sure that, in general, the most important service of the elders is rendered not when the church is assembled. But I must have done. My love to all that are with you, though unknown in the flesh. Mercy and peace be multiplied. to you.

March, 1833.-Mercy and peace be multiplied to you from Him who is our peace, and from whom abundance of peace flows like a river making glad the city of God; and through whom abounding mercy reigns unto eternal life, where sin had reigned unto death! May you, and all that are with you, one in Christ Jesus, know more

and more of the blessedness bestowed on us in Christ; and be led by the great captain, with singing, unto the heavenly Zion, with songs and everlasting joy upon your heads ;-glorying in his holy name, and seeing there a sufficiency for any sinner upon earth to glory in, and nothing anywhere else for the most blessed saint to glory in. What else have I wherein to glory at this moment? when I am so incurably vile, and bent to backsliding "from the only true God," that, left but to myself, I would now turn aside from Him, forget his name, and go on to glory in vanity and lies;—yes, and pretend perhaps at the time that I was offering incense to Him. Truly, “it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps," Jer. x. 23. "Order my steps in thy word," Ps. cxix. 133. is a suitable prayer for us. May we be kept to the end under the abasing conviction of our own character, and the blessed discernment of His as the justifier of the ungodly, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Should I be living, when our sisters return to Dublin, you may be sure that I shall be ready to give them as much of my time and attention as they may desire, and as circumstances may admit. But it is not very likely that I should ever see their faces in the flesh. Blessed be the mighty God of Jacob, that He is the strength of our hearts and our portion for ever, even when flesh and heart fail. We have had several removals by death for some time past-all of them affording matter of praise ;—and some pleasing additions—the body here in general appearing to stand fast in the one faith and hopeand a very pleasing appearance in it of a young growth of promising olive-branches. "One generation shall declare thy name unto another." Ps. cxlv. 4. He who has spoken that word makes it good, in a world where otherwise the fire of his truth would have been long since extinguished. Farewell, my brother.

WHEN we recollect the character of the apostolic writings, as differing essentially in the form of their instructions from all abstract systems of human composition, we cannot wonder that no passage is to be produced laying down formally the general rule that, in all cases where a church is called to remove an offender from their fellowship, the brethren must avoid needless social intercourse with him in matters of this life-all that company-keeping which would indicate complacency in him.

No passage (I say) is to be expected formally presenting this abstract rule, even supposing it to be really conveyed in the mind of

the Spirit in the scriptures. And, therefore, our inability to produce such a passage forms no argument at all against the position, that this principle is really and sufficiently conveyed to us.

I have long conceived that this is obviously to be inferred from any one of those passages-1 Cor. v. 11. 2 Thess. iii. 6—14. or Rom. xvi. 17. But within these few days, the consideration of the three combined has struck me with wonder. How very far the Spirit of Truth has gone in condescension to our slowness and hardness of heart, so far as to repeat substantially the same rule in distinct application to each of the three cases, which can alone occasion exclusion from the fellowship of a Christian church!

For, while every case of discipline which terminates in that exclusion, must ultimately proceed upon one and the s me ground-the offender's refusal to hear the word of the Lord through his church, -and this, whatever form of evil occasioned the commencement of the discipline, yet it must be admitted that these forms are various. But, however varied, must they not all be reducible to three classes ? 1st. The evil may consist in some act or conduct violating what is called morality-contrary to the dictates of conscience, even in unbelievers. 2dly. It may consist in conduct contrary to the practical injunctions delivered to the churches by the apostles, the authority of which rests upon the Apostle's word, and may not be recognized by unbelievers. Or, 3dly, the evil may be something not immediately connected with the conduct-either with respect to morality or apostolic ordinance-but some falsehood of sentiment opposed to the apostolic doctrine or gospel.

Now, I do think it worthy of most serious remark, and of our thankful admiration, that while this threefold classification comprises every case of evil in which the discipline of a church can originate, we have substantially the same direction three times repeated, but applied distinctly to such a class of evils, enjoining much the same course towards the person put away-the avoidance of companykeeping with him.

I repeat it, however, that when we consider the obvious ground of this injunction, as connected either with true love towards the offender, or with godly jealousy over ourselves, we ought to have been forward to draw the general conclusion from any one of the particular cases. But now, I really know not what more of detail or explicitness we could reasonably look for.

We surely should think it most unreasonable to maintain, that we are at liberty to hold convivial intercourse with a man removed from our fellowship as a thief, and to vindicate such a liberty by urging, that theft is not among the evils mentioned in 1 Cor. v. 11. But would this be more unreasonable than the attempt to confine the direction in 2 Thess. iii. 6. to the idler, as if the only tradition received from the apostle was against idleness?

CLX.

TO THE SAME.

Sept. 18, 1833. I WRITE immediately to remove a mistake under which I believe you lie as to my meaning. I am informed (whether correctly or not) that you conceived, from my language on Sunday, that I declined hearing you farther on the subject of discussion. Believe me, nothing could be more remote from my real meaning; though I did and do consider it quite unsuitable to continue any debate about it in our assembly on the first day of the week. But so far from wishing to withdraw from the discussion impatiently, while any matter of difference remains, I deprecate such a termination; and shall rejoice to resume the subject with you in any other circumstances most convenient to you. Indeed, it would be strange if I were not cut to the heart by the idea of any ultimate difference with a brother, so much and so long endeared, and to whom I am in various ways so deeply indebted; or if I were not anxious to employ every means for averting such a termination.

I have felt, indeed, very desirous to have further communication with you on the subject, from having failed last Sunday to catch the precise meaning of several things that fell from you. For instance, when you expressed yourself as if you considered that the command in 1 Cor. v.-" with such not even to eat," is in all cases to be taken literally; and as if you thought I was frittering it away, by interpreting it as forbidding all unnecessary intercourse. Surely, you would not consider a Christian woman warranted in declining to eat at the same table with her husband, because he had been removed from the christian fellowship for covetousness. I confess, I should be much afraid of such an apparently strict adherence to the letter of the command; because I think it would go in practice to set it aside altogether, and certainly would set aside its spirit. I should as little think the precept violated by my happening to dine at the same ordinary with such a person, or as a common guest at the table of one, who had never been in Christian fellowship with us. In such cases a disciple, acting under the spirit of the precept (i. e. its real import), will, I conceive, be at no loss to see his way; and I should be very far from desiring to draw a more distinct line. Now, if the thing really forbidden in Corinthians be any of that familiarity, which would be at once injurious to the offender and dangerous to myself, as importing complacency in him, and either originating in such complacency or calculated to ensnare me into it; I am quite at a loss to conjecture what difference you design to mark between the course enjoined in Corinthians, in Thessalonians, and in Romans. Do not suppose that, in saying this, I mean to say, that I regard with the same eye all persons removed from the body; or that I

То

would conduct myself towards all of them in precisely the same way. say the former, would certainly not be true; and the latter (I conceive) would, in some respects, not be consistent with the scriptural principles, which should regulate my estimate of charactersmy hopes and my fears about them. But I am fully persuaded, that it does not consist with the principles of either godly fear or christian love, to continue to maintain habits of familiar social intercourse with any who have walked with us in the fellowship of the gospel, but who have been removed from that fellowship, for whatever evil— under the authority of our Great Head.

If you agree with this general and broad position (and some of your language would lead me to hope that you do), I know not any ground of variance remaining between us. I certainly do not consider as such our removal of ; even if we acted in this under an erroneous impression of her sentiments. In the course of any week, that error may be corrected, on finding that her avowed sentiments accord with the truth. But I own that, at present, I am persuaded we did not mistake her, though I should rejoice to discover that we did. How loosely poor S― must have held his Christian connexion, when he could break off at once on such a ground, and on statements received altogether from herself.

It pains me to occupy so much of your time, my brother. But I trust you will give this note an attentive reading, and that you will suggest some arrangement for a little conference viva voce. May our great and gracious Lord " stablish, strengthen, settle you;" and not suffer any weapon formed by the adversary against his church to prosper!

!

Ever in true affection, &c.

CLXI.

TO THE SAME.

Sept. 23, 1833.

Do not suppose, my dear M-, that I mean to weary you because I write so soon again. But the fact is, I wish you should have before you all I desire to say, before you make any reply. It is not much I am now going to add. Your argument, from the singular form of the word tradition, 2 Thes. iii. 6. as confining the direction given us in the 14th verse to the one case of those who will persist in leading idle lives, has always appeared to me so weak, that I did not venture to encounter it. But I noticed, yesterday, a passage that I think must satisfy yourself at once of its inconclusiveness. I refer to Mark vii. 2-13, in reading which I wish you to attend particularly to the 8th and 13th verses. The word tradition