whole proceeding; and especially for his last act, in obstinately refusing to hear the church. It is his neglecting to "hear the church," more, apparently, than for his private offence, that our Savior requires his excommunication. For by this last act of perverseness, this pertinacious, if not contemptuous, disregard of the sentiments and christian endeavors of the brotherhood, he shows himself no longer worthy, nor indeed capable, of their communion.

If the offending member refuse to appear before the church, being duly notified, he of course refuses to hear the church, and the church must proceed accordingly.

It may be also observed here, that the offender ought to forestall this whole process, by going of himself to the injured party. Matt. v. 23, 24.

3. With regard to the member aggrieved, it should be remembered that his duty is explicit and imperative. He is not at liberty to neglect the course prescribed, nor to substitute some other; but is bound to take

the precise steps, and all of them, should it be necessary, which the rule requires.

You may say, if your brother has injured you, it is his duty to come to you and acknowledge it. And this is true; it is his duty; but if he does not do so, it is yours to go to him.

You may choose rather to put up with the injury, or pass it over, than be at the trouble of such a process. But your of fending brother is concerned in the thing, as well as you, and more than you; for it is a greater calamity to have done the wrong, than to have suffered it and though you may be willing to bear the injury in silence, you may not suffer the sin upon him. He has done a thing which he ought to repent of; and must repent of, to be forgiven of God. Not only his character as a Christian, but his hopes as a Christian, demand this of him. And you are the person best fitted by the circumstances, as being concerned in the injury, and specially required by Christ, to endeavor to bring him to such repentance. You

owe this to him. You owe it to the church; the sins of whose members you are not at liberty to be indifferent to in any case, and particularly in this. And you owe it to yourself; for your feelings can hardly be right to sit down with this brother, nor his towards you, probably, till the fault is acknowledged, and confidence restored.

4. The duty of the church is likewise explicit and imperative. It is bound to receive the complaint when regularly brought before it, and to dispose of it according to the will of Christ.

Such is our Savior's rule. And let us observe how strictly in this, as in other things, the Congregational system has conformed itself to the scriptures. There are systems of church order which are incompatible with this rule. A private member, under those schemes, may, if he choose, (but it is not, I believe, expected of him,) take the first and second steps; but what then? Shall he "tell it to the church?"

But the church has no cognizance of the matter. The power to discipline is not in the church, but in the hands of the clergy alone; or, in some cases, of the clergy and subordinate officers. He may tell it to the rector; or to "the preacher in charge,” if he will; but these are not the church; and this is not the rule. Besides, if the church should be destitute of a minister, as often happens, what then? The process stops, (supposing it to have been commenced ;) a thing which can never occur under the Congregational system; because the church, though destitute of a minister, is still competent to discipline; though the presence and aid of a pastor is very desirable.

Is it said that the rector, or preacher, is the representative of the church; or that he acts for the church, and in its name and behalf? The answer does not satisfy us. He is not the church; nor is the discipline proceeding from his authority the same thing, either to the subject of it, or to the church, as when it expresses the voice of the brotherhood.

Where the scriptures have laid a duty directly upon a private member, or upon the church as a body, it does not satisfy the scriptures, that another person, or number of persons, should undertake that duty for him, or them. Take, for example, those passages where the church as a body, the brethren, in so many words, are charged with the business of discipline; as 1 Cor. v. 4-7, 13; 2 Thess. iii. 6. It is plain enough that the preacher, or rector of the church, cannot discharge the duty, and exonerate the church; inasmuch as he cannot be "gathered together" for the church; nor fulfill the injunctions, "Put away from among yourselves that "Brethren, withdraw

wicked person; yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly." They only upon whom the duty is imposed are competent to discharge it.

By what authority then has this express and salutary rule of Christ been laid aside? How comes it to have been formally laid out of the schemes in question; and to be