reversing the decision of the church that excluded him, and that, too, on ex-parte testimony. It would also be offering a gross indignity to the excluded church, which she could brook, but by the sacrifice of her own reputation for good sense and good manners. In the occasional communion of the brethren of sister churches, where it is not frequent, and the members are not intimately acquainted with each other, an invitation ought always to be tendered on the part of those who can testify of their character. This, in a well ordered church, should be made known to the elders; and they should introduce to the brethren the strangers, and invite them to a participation of the ordinances of the Lord's house. When, indeed, such visits are frequent, and the brethren are generally acquainted, it would be unnecessary to be thus formal.

If a member of one church has discovered any misdemeanor in the behaviour of a brother of another church, or has heard aught against his reputation from a credible source, he ought to inform the brother, and, in some cases, the church to which he belongs, that he may be admonished, if deserving an admonition, or defended against the malicious slanders of those without.

We owe to sister churches all respect, Christian affection, and cooperation as far as in our power, or as the exigencies of society require; and ought, therefore, to do unto them as churches, what we would wish them as churches, to do unto us: for this golden rule is as applicable to neighbouring churches as it is to our neighbours in our individual capaci

ties and relations.

DISCIPLINE-No. III. GOOD discipline is as essential to the moral health, peace, and prosperity of the church of Christ, as good doctrine. Without it no society can long subsist. The theory of discipline is not discipline itself; and,

therefore, it is not discipline in the book, nor in the letter, but in the church, of which we speak.

There are no laws, human or divine, which have as yet been divulged on earth, that can benefit mankind only in so far as they are obeyed. That lawgiver is yet to be born who can promulge a code of laws which will bless society whether obeyed or disobeyed. Jesus Christ has not done it. He promulged, or caused to be promulged, confessedly on all hands, the best system on earth; yet these laws improve and bless mankind individually and socially only so far as they are obeyed.

It belongs to the whole Christian community to submit to his government as supreme. To have his law magnified and honored by every citizen in his kingdom, is the paramount obligation of the whole church. Its obligations and loyalty to Jesus Christ as King and Lawgiver, most solemnly and perpetually bind the Christian community to unreserved obedience.

The church, in selecting bishops, has this ostensibly in view. She has as much respect to the ruling as to the didactic talents of those she honors with the episcopacy. She argues well, when, with the Apostle Paul she declares, by his choice, that the man who rules not well his own house, ought not to be trusted with the affairs of God's house. In ordaining her overseers, she lays her hands upon them as much to preside and rule over her, as to teach her more perfectly the way of the Lord. For this purpose, more than for simple teaching, it behoves her to have a plurality. One may sometimes teach, and one may at a single meeting preside with all dignity and propriety; but one cannot scripturally rule a congregation, if ruling be scripturally understood.

"To rule well," be it observed, is not to legislate for the church, nor is it to lord over God's heritage. It is not to command with authority, as an

absolute sovereign-it is not to dictate, as a pedagogue; but it is to have all laws of the Absolute Monarch fully and faithfully executed. It is to have the apostolic canons supremely regarded, and all their commandments exactly and constantly obeyed. It is to have all things done decently and and in order.

But, as has been observed in a former part of this essay, "to rule well" comprehends all the duties of watching over the flock, as well as correcting and removing offences when they occur. It may, perhaps, be said that watching to prevent the errors of the brotherhood falls not within our conceptions of ruling. But does it not fall within our ideas of authority? Who may watch over a flock without authority derived from the flock itself, or from the proprietor of the flock, and acknowledged by the people? And if the people confer authority on any persons to watch over them and to admonish them, the administration of that authority is with propriety regarded as a part of the duties of their office, as much as the application of the law to transgressors.

The best physicians are they who prevent diseases. In the same sense are they the best rulers who prevent errors and apostacies. The sovereign who, by his wisdom and timely precaution, prevents a revolt among his people, is more worthy of esteem than he who permits it to occur, though he should finally succeed in putting it down. They are the best bishops, who, by their watchful attention to the occasions of falling or apostacy, anticipate and prevent delinquencies -more to be admired and loved than they who even reclaim the sinner from the error of his way, or exclude the incorrigible offender from the communion of the faithful.

To the actual discipline of the church, in its social and public capacity, belong only the offences which are committed against the whole

community. Private trespasses between two or more individuals are not to be laid before the congregation until they become public offences. The commandments of the Saviour found on this subject in the 18th chapter of Matthew (and they are in accordance with our very best conceptions of propriety and expediency) go to prevent, if posible, private trespasses on the rights of individuals from becoming public offences. When those directions are faithfully regarded, it is but seldom that a private trespass comes before the congregation, or terminates in a public offence.

By a public offence, we mean every transgression that puts the congregation to shame-every transgression which brings a reproach upon the Lord or his people. Of course such transgressions are generally more or less known to those without the community. But should they not be known to any out of the church, if they be such, as when known, would bring reproach on the holy religion of the Redeemer, then are they to be regarded as public offences, and to be treated accordingly.

The Christian church is "the pillar and support of the truth," the patroness of piety, righteousness, and holiness. She must never lose sight of her "high and holy calling" and must, therefore, have "no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness." She must not only be pure in doctrine, but irreproachable in character. Her profession and her works must agree.

That she may sustain her moral dignity, she must never display any partiality for evil doers, nor leniency for transgressors. She must never pity the sinner so much as to forgive him to the dishonor of her Lord. Those who put her to shame, she must put to shame before she receive them into the bosom of her sympathy and affection. must have inscribed upon her shield, and displayed upon her ensigns, as her motto, "Without holiness no man

She

the nature and tendency of the offence, and the occasion or temptation that led the way to it; and will also, with all earnestness and affection, admonish, beseech, and exhort to that watchfulness, meditation, and prayer, which alone can give him strength to moderate his passions, restrain his appetites, and overcome temptation.

Their

The Apostle Paul allows the church to appoint a committee in some cases of misunderstanding among brethren, whose judgment of the points at issue shall be final. These secular seats of judicature are necessary when the church in the aggregate are so unacquainted with the matter as not to be able to decide with judgment. Persons competent to arbitrate the case are selected by the parties or by the congregation. To these the matters in debate are referred. report when presented to the church, and approved, must be final. So Paul taught the Corinthians, in his first Epistle, chap. vi. 1-5. The party that will not acquiesce in the decision of one or two committees thus chosen and appointed, is worthy of censure. The difference between misrule, ruling ill, and ruling well cannot fail to be most apparent, and to be fully appreciated in the respective effects of a good and a bad administration. Under a prudent and righteous administration of the affairs of the church, the purity and excellency of the Christian institution will be sustainedoffences and apostacies will be of rare occurrence. The congregation, like a well ordered family, will move in harmony and affection-will not only grow and increase in the knowledge of God, but in favor and usefulness among the people. Its numbers will be increased, and its influence in the community will be sensibly and extensively felt. The imputation of licentious and unsound doctrine will be impotent, and the ignorance of foolish and wicked revilers will be put to shame and silence.

But when every one does what is

right in his own eyes, and feels himself responsible to the oversight of no person; at liberty to absent himself from the brethren as often and as long as he pleases, despising government and the restraints of Christ; mingling in the society of them who profane that sacred name which he professes to worship and adore - indulging in loose behaviour and inattention to the study of God's book—preferring the company of the enemies of the cross, the world that crucified his Saviour, to the society of those who fear God and keep his commandments, and still regarded as a brother in Christ: the zeal of Paul, and the eloquence of Apollos, would fail to sustain the gospel in the midst of such disorder and licentiousness.

Add to this the incompetency and unfaithfulness of those who preside, winking at open transgression, and strongly sympathizing with what they "charitably" call the frailties of their brethren, fearful of exercising discipline; and when some flagrant outrage occurs, allowing it to be brought into the congregation as a subject of inquiry and discussion, putting the law to vote whether it shall be executed, instead of proving by testimony the fact, and faithfully applying the law; disposed rather to commisserate the offender and connive at his offence, than to honor the King and sustain his law; and, perhaps, in the absence of the delinquent, judging his case by proxy; and on some slight concession putting to vote the propriety of receiving him without a public acknowledgment or admonition, displaying more passion or feeling than judgment, good sense, and faithfulness to God or man; and worse than all, either putting into office, or retaining in a conspicuous station in the church, those who have, not many months or years since, been a scandal to the Christian name by some gross immorality. Were the twelve Apostles to preach the gospel to a community intimately acquainted