therefore I "refer to legal proceedings as a criterion for the Christian church," and would introduce the details of her processes into the Christian discipline? Have a bar, a jury, a court, attorneys, sheriffs, clerks, prisons, prisoners, and geographical boundaries to jurisdiction, such as Counties, townships, districts, and states! Really, much as we were prepared to expect, we had not supposed that the force of sophistry could carry any mind to such absurdities!

4. It would, indeed, be strange, as you say in a note, that you should be the accuser at one time, and then in a few minutes it should be the church at Bethany that is accusing brother Arny; but stranger is it to me that you should have troubled yourself to invent this wonderful case, and then perplexed youself wondering at it. Surely you do not mean to insinuate that I ever so represented matters. The church at Bethany accuses brother Arny of nothing; she only tries him upon your accusations. The church is bound to consider him innocent until he is proved to be guilty. When Paul stood before Felix, he did not regard him as his accuser, but as his judge. Paul says, "Neither can they," referring not to Felix, but Tertullus, the High Priest, and the Elders, "prove the things whereof they now accuse And again, referring to certain Jews from Asia who found him in the temple, he says, "Who ought to have been here before thee and object if they had aught against me. Or else let these same here say say if they have found any evil doing in me," &c. Now was the right which Paul claimed, that of confronting Felix as his accuser? Certainly not. It was that he should be confronted with those who had preferred charges against him. We need not waste time in running the parallel in order to show that in the case of brother Arny the church is not the accuser, but the judge, and that brother Hall is both accuser and witness.

me."

As to our not requesting the presence of brethren Moss and Mitchell, I presume we could have given you satisfactory reasons, had you asked for them, before you proceeded to argue yourself into the conclusion that "it looked a little suspicious that there was something more wanted in arraigning you before the Bethany tribunal, than simply to call forth the facts bearing upon the case of brother Arny." As it is, being the judges in this case, we must beg leave to exercise the privilege of deciding what is and what is not essential to the testimony. We cannot see how brother Moss's statement places brother Arny in a worse predicament than any thing you have published, when he only states one of the charges made by you, and almost in the same words. Perhaps, if you were present, you could throw some further light upon this point.

I received your letter to which I am now replying, one week ago, and concluded that, as the object for which we had commenced this correspondence had failed, it would be unnecessary to say any thing more upon the subject; but after further reflection, especially upon the concluding remarks of your letter, it appeared proper that I should make one more attempt, if not to induce you to come to Bethany, at least to disabuse your mind of the evil surmise which seems so unfortunately to have taken possession of it. Allow me to say, brother Hall, in all candor and good will, that your whole course in this correspondence has manifested a want of confidence in your position, or in us, or in both, entirely irreconcileable with the Christian spirit. Your fancy seems to have been troubled by visions of inquisitorial dangers, and the church at Bethany appears to be regarded as a tribunal before which a man cannot with safety appear, even as a witness. What makes the man, whom "all the attorneys on earth could not make swerve from his statements," so much afraid of a church hitherto known to be civil and unconvicted of any injustice to saint or sinner. We have had no purpose, as we have no desire to do you any injustice. On the contrary, even had you been a "subject of investigation" before us, I feel confident that we could have shown to you as impartial justice as to brother

Arny. We cannot see that you have given any just reasons for refusing to comply with our summons, but, on the contrary, think you have violated an important Christian principle, not only in imputing to us motives and purposes which we disclaim, but in acting upon your imputations as though they were proved to be true. We think you will also find, that in treating with contempt the call of a respectable congregation, made legitimately and for the peace and proper discipline of the church, you are not only injuring the cause, but incurring the censure of all lovers of law and order. What is the use of complaining about want of organization, when you yourself refuse the slightest act of conformity to the wishes of a respectable Christian congregation? But we have not room to discuss the question here. Still I do most sincerely wish you had not taken so untenable a position in church order, and one which, if generally acted upon, is so well calculated to disturb the harmony of the churches. I trust your better judgment will, even yet, triumph over your fears, and that you will see reason to change your determination, and before this matter goes further, submit yourself to the authority under which, as a member of the Christian kingdom, you are placed.

With the best wishes for a happy result to this affair, and with every determination to act justly towards all parties, I am your fellow-servant in the kingdom of Christ, W. K. PENDLETON, An Elder of Church at Bethany.

Report to the Church at Bethany touching the case of W. F. M. ARNY and ALEXANDER HALL, read 27th May, 1849.

The committee to which was referred the consideration of certain statements alleged by Alexander Hall to have been made to him by W. F. M. Arny, which statements have been published in the Gospel Proclamation, and involve the Christian character and standing of the parties to whom they refer, some of whom are members of this church, beg leave respectfully to report their proceedings in the case.

The committee would in the first place offer their apology for the delay that has occurred in presenting their report, that it having been judged necessary to a just understanding and settlement of the difficulty, that Alexander Hall, who has reported the statements referred to, should be present at their examination, a correspondence was opened with him upon the subject, the result of which we have been necessarily compelled to await.

Alexander Hall having finally refused to attend at Bethany, as will be seen by the correspondence referred to, the committee proceeded to make careful inquiry of the party accused touching the statements in question, and to deduce such conclusions as the nature of the evidence appeared to warrant. Aware that verbal statements are peculiarly subject to misconstruction, we have endeavored to elicit a minute detail of the circumstances connected with them, and have propounded to W. F. M. Arny the specific interrogatories, and have received from him the precise answers which

follow:

1. Question. After having read Mr. Hall's reply to your letter to him, published in the Proclamation for February, 1849, do you re-affirm all the statements and explanations made in your letter?

Answer. I do.

2. Ques. You are represented as having been guilty of a breach of confidence in publishing the conversation with Mr. Hall respecting the expected profits of the Christian Register. What response do you make to

this?

Ans. I did not understand that conversation to be confidential, for I had inferred from his publications that his object was to save his subscribers,

or prevent them from discontinuing, which I knew many of them were doing.

3. Ques. Did you understand that Mr. Hall was to send you the proof sheet of the second form of the Register, and delay the printing of it till he could receive your corrections by mail, which he affirms generally requires ten days or two weeks?

Ans. I did so understand him, for I did not think it would occasion much delay. If a letter is mailed at Bethany or Loydsville on Tuesday, it will reach either place the same night, and an answer can be returned on the Thursday following. This I stated to brother Hall, and he agreed to send the proof, and I was to correct and return it by the following mail; which would make the form stand only three days, instead of ten days or two weeks, as Hall represents.

4. Ques. How could you understand that the corrections you had made on the proof sheet of the first form were to go into the Register, when that form was already in press?

Ans. Brother Hall agreed that he would print my corrections of that form on the cover of the Register, as errata, which he did not do.

5. Ques. Mr. Hall says, that when he told you that brother Campbell was opposed to the Register, you remarked with a smile," the Bishop would kick against any thing that did not start at Bethany." Do you recollect any thing of this?

Ans. I never made such an expression, as that brother Campbell "would kick against any thing that did not start at Bethany."

6. Ques. Mr. Hall ropresents you as saying that brother Campbell had tried to get up a work of a similar kind to the Register, and had failed, and that this was the ground of his opposition to him. What is your reply to this? Ans. I never made such a statement, and could not, with truth; for, so far as I know, brother Campbell never made, or intended to make, any attempt to publish a Register. I told him I had tried (not brother C.) some years ago to get up a Register, and had failed. I told him this to dissuade him from publishing the "Register." I said nothing about brother C.'s opposition to him.

7. Ques. Mr. Hall represents you as speaking "of the probabilities of success, if you and he should unite together in conducting the Proclamation," and as saying that you "had been a slave to the Bishop a number of years, and was not a whit better off than when you commenced." Will you state what you remember concerning this conversation?

Ans. These, as well as the rest, are perversions of conversations had with brother Hall. Brother Hall made several visits to my house, and so far as I can remember, all of them were without any solicitation on my part, but only for the furtherance of his own plans. I did not seek these interviews with brother Hall. In April, 1847, he applied to get me to furnish him with the names of the subscribers of the Harbinger, and said if I would give them to him, he would pay me for my trouble. I refused, and told him he must ask brother Campbell, which he said he would not do. Some time after this I met brother Hall in Pittsburg, when he was getting from brother Scott's sons, in the absence of brother Scott, the names of the subscribers to the Unionist, and in the presence of brethren Scott and Baxter, he spoke of my having refused him the names of the subscribers to the Harbinger. In June, 1848, brother Hall again came to my house, for the purpose of inducing me to go into partnership with him in the publication of the "Gospel Proclamation" and the "Great Western Book Establishment," which he proposed to start. On this occasion he used every argument he could to induce me to agree to ask brother Campbell to let me off from my engagement with him, so that we might unite our efforts. I told him, as well as I can recollect, that I had served the Bishop for a number of years, nearly fifteen, and although I was no better off, in a pecuniary point of view, than when I commenced, I had acquired business talent and become acquainted,

especially with periodical and book business, so as to be able to command a good salary, which I would not relinquish, unless I was satisfied that I could do more good for the cause and make more money than at present. 8. Ques. In this conversation, did you intend to convey to Mr. Hall the idea that brother Campbell had dealt unjustly or unfairly by you?

Ans. Of course not, as I always made my own bargain with brother Campbell, and he had always complied fully with the terms of our contract. 9. Ques. Mr. Hall represents you as saying to him, that you had, when in Missouri, sent home false reports of your collections, "in order to make the Bishop and the trustees dissatisfied with you, and turn you off before your time was out." Did you say this?

Ans. I said no such thing. It is a very unlikely story, that when he was negotiating with me to become his partner, I would represent myself as so dishonest! I told him, that while I was absent on my last trip, I had propositions made to me to take the Christian Book Concern in Cincinnati, and that I had thought of getting the agency of the American and Foreign Bible Society and the Baptist Publication Society, which were offered to me some time before, and unite them together with brother Campbell's publications, if I could procure them, and an agency for our religious periodicals; that I thought a concern of this kind would do much good, and that I could make as much at it as I was then making, and would not be required to be absent from my family so much. I told him, that while I was in St. Louis, Missouri, I wrote to brother Campbell to get him to let me off from my contract before my time was out, telling him that I thought my collections would not justify him in keeping me out as agent, and referring him to my reports of collections in Illinois and Missouri as evidence of it, and that when I spoke to brother Campbell on my return, he refused to release me, so I would be compelled to remain as agent for college and brother Campbell till Feb. 1st, 1850, when my contract would expire. Had I made false reports, it would of course have been detected.

10. Ques. Mr. Hall represents you as speaking "of getting the Hymn Book out of the Bishop's hands, to be published by a committee and sold at cost," and as saying that it was not right for the Bishop to monopolize the sale of that work. Did you use this language?

Ans. With reference to the Hymn Book, brother Hall puts into my mouth what he said himself. He remarked that he thought all our publications should be issued as they were by the Methodists, and not monopolized by an individual, especially the Hymn Book, which was the property of the brethren." I told him he was mistaken, for the Hymn Book was the property of brother Campbell; that it was his by purchase, and that he had appropriated about two thousand dollars of the proceeds of the book to educate and sustain Evangelists. I did say that I thought it was not right for any individual to monopolize a religious book, especially a Hymn Book; that I knew many brethren thought brother Campbell was doing this, but if they knew as much of him as I did, they would change their views of him with regard to that matter.

11. Ques. Mr. Hall says you stated that "the Bishop's opposition to the Christian Bible Society at Cincinnati, grew out of his fear that Cincinnati would become the Jerusalem of this Reformation. Did you make such a remark to him?

Ans. Not as he represents it. When brother Hall presented to me in the beginning of our conversation the prospectus of his "Great Western Book Establishment," stating that the object of his visit was to get me to go in with him, I asked him where "Great Western" was. He replied, It is the place I live at, this side of Loydsville." I then, in a joking way, remarked, "You are going to have a Jerusalem of the Reformation at your place, and so we will have three contending for a great Book Concern As some say, brother Campbell at Bethany, brother Hall at Great West

ern!' and the Christian Bible Society at Cincinnati." This is all I recollect saying to brother Hall upon the subject.

12. But Mr. Hall says, "he can prove that you said to others the same thing, and having been called upon, has furnished us with the testimony of J. J. Moss and J. G. Mitchell to that effect. What response do you make to this?

Ans. Whatever conversation I may have had with these brethren upon this subject, occurred in November, 1845, when they visited Bethany, brother Moss as agent of the A. C. B. Society. It is so long since that I have no distinct recollection of what was said. If I ever used the language attributed to me by brother Hall, it must have been IRONICALLY spoken to a person or persons like brother Hall, who had charged brother Campbell with being actuated by such base motives as some persons did about the time that society first came into existence, as is well known to many in various places visited by the first AGENTS of that society; for I could not, in EARNEST and LITERAL language, say such a thing, as I had no evidence to induce me to attribute to brother Campbell any but GOOD and SINCERE MOTIVES in his opposition to that society.

13. Ques. Mr. Hall says when he told you that brother Campbell had said, while conversing with him on the subject of the Register, that he (brother C.) could sit down in his house and guess it up more correctly than Hall himself, with all his correspondence to help him. You laughed at the idea of his guessing, and said there was scarcely a preacher in the Reformation so ignorant of such matters as the Bishop. Do you remember having said this?

Ans. I recollect this remark, but it had no reference to the Re

gister. The conversation was about "church organization.”Brother Hall said he hoped brother Campbell would say something on the subject, but feared brother Campbell did not feel the importance of the subject. I remarked that any of our small preachers had a better opportunity of knowing the state and condition of the churches of the Reformation than had brother Campbell; for when he went to a place the brethren would manifest a zeal and attention in his presence that was not exhibited before others.

14. Ques. Mr. Hall says you "promised to use your influence with 'the Bishop' to keep him from saying any thing in the Harbinger about the Register," and that he has been informed by a private letter from a friend in Bethany, that you stood by at the time brother Campbell wrote his article and urged him on; spoke of it as just the thing, and at the same time running down the Register in the strongest terms. What is your recollection on this point?

Ans. This statement IS NOT TRUE, and, I am informed by the writer of that letter, is an exaggeration of the language used in it. I did not "stand by when brother C. wrote his article and urge him on." Neither did I "speak of it as just the thing." I went into brother C's study (after the article was written) in company with two other brethren, and brother C. told us he had just written a notice of the Register and would read it to us. I spoke of it as too severe. Brother C. said he did not wish to be too severe, and asked me wherein I thought it so. I named a passage, which he erased. It is true I did "condemn the Register," but not in "the strongest terms" as stated.