counteract the false impressions which they are continually receiving. The soldiery cannot even attain to the splendid vice of worldly patriotism, for they are unable to decide on which side of a pending contest equity utters her voice. Thus they become, in the hands of ambitious and bloodthirsty leaders, the soulless machinery of death. Thus minds, which, by proper training, might have been taught to enlist their energies in behalf of interests fair, sublime, and enduring, are overgrown with poisonous weeds, which increase in rankness and size just in proportion to the poverty of the soil. For this remorseless waste and perversion of God's wonderful boon of mind, a heavy responsibility rests somewhere; and, though unfelt now, it will one day crush the guilty parties lower than tophet, and lead them to wish that the morning had been blackness which opened its eye upon their existence.

Eighth. War is the parent of revolt and anarchy. The money expended in feeding and clothing soldiers; in providing and repairing the apparatus of destruction; in securing the co-operation of efficient allies; in aggrandizing ambitious leaders; does not fall from heaven in golden showers-is not scattered by benevolent fairies-or wafted on the wings of south-sea breezes-does not even grow on the land, saturated by the blood of its inhabitants. No! it is wrung from the vitals of ceaseless industry-it is torn from the sinews of hopeless labour, by means which legal enactments can never hallow. Thus, among the producing classes, there is produced a spirit of discontent, which broods, with an evil eye, upon all established institutions, good or evil.

Nineth. War is the parent of slavery: and the cub adds to the features of its dam a horror peculiarly its own. War allows the warriors to fight upon equal terms; but slavery allows one man to turn others into chattels-to yoke them like oxen, and drive them like asses. This awful vice, which blots the annals of all nations, ancient or modern, can never be totally destroyed, while war continues; for conquerors will be masters, and captives must be slaves. And those who can shed blood in furtherance of ambition and revenge, will not scruple to enslave in promotion of avarice.

Tenth. But the most solemn consideration remains. If the God, the judgment seat, the heaven, the hell of the Bible be serious realities, how melancholy the condition of those, who rush into the invisible world from riot and revel in all the feelings and deeds upon which the eternal God has graven his reprobation. Spirits of darkness! were it not prohibitory, by the sternness of your laws, to blab the secrets of the unseen world-you could tell us something about the glory of war, which would silence each resounding chivalrous lyre, and hush the exciting voice of the political orator.

But, to conclude this sketch, by returning to the epistolary strain, we desire to inform you, dear sirs, that we are interested in the progress of peace principles, and will be glad to hear from you at any time on the subject. At the same time we may state, that we would prefer facts to dissertations; for then we could combine or moralize in our own fashion. With much sympathy in your labours of love, Sincerely yours,

JAMES WALLIS,

GEORGE GReenwell,

}

CO-OPERATION OF CHURCHES.

To the Editor of the Messenger.

Editors.

THE Co-operation of churches is a subject, whose study must have occupied the serious attention of every Christian, who has at heart the prosperity of the visible church of Christ. Misconception and ignorance of this subject have led to incalculable mischief. I address you at present on the subject, in consequence of perusing the Messenger of September last, and of your reply in January number to the communication of G. D.

Earnestly desirous to ascertain what the will of God is on the subject in hand, I feel no disposition to bitterness towards any who may espouse either one side of the question or the other. Indeed, the history of the state of my own mind on the subject, sufficiently warns me of the folly of speaking with arrogance. In early life I was quite delighted with the scheme of churches co-operating, holding "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." I thought I saw in the union an advance made towards the accomplishment of our Lord's desire, that his people might "all be one." I thought that the union of churches in a district was setting the light on a higher hill, and thus causing greater glorification to our Father in heaven. I thought that the wisdom and experience of one congregation might, by the co-operation in question, be made available for healing the moral diseases in another. But it was not long ere I beheld these high early expectations blasted. I found that the co-operation under notice soon made rapid strides in its character towards the union so much boasted of by the Romish church-a union upheld by spiritual bondage, and conservative only of error and of the soulless form. True Christian unity was not promoted. The true light was not exhibited to the men of a district; but, in its place, a light exhibited, enkindled by the bigotry and wrath of man, and resembling, in its nature and appearance, the flame which burns in the regions of woe. You will perhaps think I speak strongly and too figuratively. But I speak strongly, because, truth requires it; and I speak figuratively, because, in present circumstances, it may not be expedient to use greater plainness of speech.

In the circumstances already explained, I began to suspect that I, with many others, had trusted to my own understanding, in place of submitting myself, as a little child, to be guided by the wisdom of

God; and that the bitter fruits produced were the product of man's folly. A show of wisdom had deceived. I therefore came to the law and the testimony, and inquired-Do I find in the New Testament any warrant for the relationship of the churches of Christ, for the co-operation now under view-a relationship with which I have been so much pleased in prospect, and so much disappointed in result? The answer at which I arrived was in the negative.

You somewhere observe, that we are not to look into the Bible in expectation of finding a specification of mere minutice; that we are not, for instance, to find directions in Scripture as to the number and length of our devotional exercises. It is evident, that in such matters, circumstances must, to a certain extent, direct. But it is also evident that the co-operation of churches in the relationship contended for, does not come under the description of minutice. Indeed, in communions which have adopted the relationship, it has been found to exert a greater control over the individual co-operating churches, than is exerted by the organization in these churches sanctioned by Jesus Christ.

Appealing then to the New Testament for direction in this matter, I could find no authority for the relationship which your correspondents desire. I very anxiously went over the present communications on the subject to find if there existed in the New Testament the authority for which I myself had there sought for in vain. Your correspondent in your September number, does not quote a single text of Scripture under the head of "co-operation." The writer rises no higher then his own dictum. Your correspondent G. D. rises one step higher. He has ascertained that the system has the seeming concurrence of the leading brethren in the congregations of Cupar, &c. It does not seem to enter into the conceptions of G. D. that he requires to make. any appeal to the New Testament. The leading brethren give their concurrence, and that is enough for him. You yourself, in your reply to G. D., do not found your opinion of the wisdom and prudence of inviting the interference of one congregation with another, on any portion of the Holy Book, with the exception of the indefinite proverb, "In the multitude of counsellers there is safety."

The absence of all Scripture authority for the relationship of churches which your correspondents desire, can be accounted for only in one way, and it is this: that the Great Head of the church, in the exercise of his infinite wisdom, made such relationship no part of the organization which he willed to be established for the existence and prosperity of the churches of his people.

It was enough for setting my mind at rest on the subject, that there lacked Scripture authority for the relationship of churches advocated. But matters do not rest here. There seems to exist strong presumptive authority against the relationship. He who holdeth the churches in his right hand, did not (as you yourself bring under notice), require or suggest that the wisdom and experience of Smyrna should be called into request for the healing of the moral diseases in the other six Asiatic churches. One might run over the Epistles written by Paul, and make a similar observation with reference to other churches.

In no one case was a church required to give its wisdom and experience for the correction of evils in another. Any one proposing that there should now be a new order of things, a new relationship amongst the churches, must be prepared to give sufficient reasons for the important change.

The relationship in question among the churches, robs the Lord Jesus Christ of the headship thereof to a certain extent. Every Christian ought to know and feel his decided responsibility to his Lord. The deceitful heart would fain forget and escape from such responsibility. The health of the soul requires that it should be felt yet more and more. Now the scheme under view obscures the vision with reference to the said responsibility by removing it to the distance. The persons invited by the congregation requiring interference will, for the time, occupy the eminence, and be the heads, the prophets, and priests, of that congregation; and the principal object of the individual members will be, not to please the Lord Jesus, but to please the great personages who stand forth bodily before them, killing or saving alive as their wisdom, their ignorance, or their caprice, may direct. Lead me not, O Lord, into such temptation! But may Ì, with greater singleness of soul, strive to please thee in all things!

Viewing the present question on the ground of expediency, and waving the consideration, that in matters of this kind nothing can be expedient which the authority of God does not uphold, I find that a fundamental error is invariably committed. It is always taken for granted that perfection is ever at command, on the one hand, to deal with evil on the other. Experience shows the folly of such an assumption. In place of the invited brethren being invariably possessed of wisdom and experience, it not unfrequently happens that they are ignorant, imprudent, vain, and domineering, and their being called on such a mission has a strong tendency to exalt them above measure, and to whisper to their vain hearts that they have attained to the rank of G. D's leading brethren. Invited brethren would require to be possessed of consummate prudence, consummate wisdom, consummate patience, consummate humility. Let any one of experience compare the reality with the beau ideal, and he will be so petrified with astonishment, that he will be unable to move for a space of time.

I am curious to know how the leading brethren are to punish contumacy? and I am not left unanswered. If incorrigible, all other Christian communities must treat the contumacious as religious lepers, as separated or cut off from the congregation of the Lord. The leading brethren are not to be furnished with an inquisition prisonhouse; but they are to be armed with the power of casting any who will not worship them into a kind of city of the plague, and from thence to be delivered only on consenting to bow the knee in meek submission to the leading brethren. From such bondage of the soul, good Lord preserve me! And may G. D. and the leading brethren never attain to a power which has been found in the past history of the church to turn the fruitful field into a lifeless desert.

Yours in the bonds of the Gospel,

Perth, January 21, 1846.

W. TAYLOR.

REPLY TO W. T.

To Mr. W. TAYLOR.

Nottingham, March 16, 1846.

Dear Sir.-After carefully reading over your article addressed to me on the co-operation, or rather the non-co-operation of Christian churches, I have concluded to give it a place in the Messenger-except one short paragraph, which, in my judgment, is too personal and vindictive, and the insertion of which would contradict the statement "that you feel no bitterness towards any who may espouse either one side of the question or the other." This, on further examination of your present state of mind, you will find not to be correct. I have, therefore, as the responsible person for the proper conducting of the Messenger, omitted it altogether.

In referring to your past experience, you speak of having from early life been connected with a system of co-operation, which if your description of it be true, was certainly much more in accordance with the principles of fallen humanity, than with the Oracles of God and the Spirit of Christ. Such a system must have originated from that wisdom which is earthly, sensual, and devilish—otherwise it could not have "conducted the freeman of Christ back again into spiritual bondage, or destroyed the unity it was designed to promote, or put out the true light of the Gospel in the district where it existed, or enkindled the wrath and bigotry of man, so that it resembled in its nature and appearance the flame that burns in the regions of woe." Certainly, whether you have "spoken strongly" or not, if this be the truth, such a system of co-operation is not to be found in the Bibleexcept when referring to the kingdom of darkness, of which it sometimes speaks. No: the co-operation of the "one body" of Christ is founded in that wisdom from above, which is, indeed, first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be persuaded, full of compassion and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by them who practise peace.

But you say you can find no Scripture proof for the co-operation of churches in either of the articles to which you refer. Neither A. Campbell, who wrote the essay on organization in our September number, nor G. D's favourable remarks on that essay, nor in my observations on G. D., is there any proof whatever, except one indefinite proverb. You then applied to the New Testament for direction on this subject, but could find no authority for the relationship contended for by the correspondence.

It is not for me to say what part of the New Testament you examined, or to speak of the manner in which you performed the exercise, but certain it is, that the Christian brotherhood, or community, is set