We never saw it before. The evils opposed, we oppose. But there is no more authority for officers of different congregations to assemble in a meeting or convention to oppose and provide a remedy for these sins of individuals and churches, than there is for individuals and church representatives to assemble to oppose and provide a remedy for the failure of Christians and churches to evangelize the world. This was a convention of the elders to oppose and remedy one class of evils. The society is a convention to oppose and remedy another.

Then they say: "We state we are impelled, from a sense of duty, to say that all such as are guilty of teaching or allowing and practicing the many innovations and corruptions to which we have referred, that, after being admonished and having had sufficient length of time for reflection, if they do not turn away from such abominations, that we can not and will not regard them as brethren."

This was signed by the elders and members of six churches. This looks very much like a convention unknown to the New Testament exercising judicial and executive functions to oppose error and maintain truth, and it looks very much like doing the thing they condemn. It has been the besetting sin of Christians, when they start out to oppose a wrong, to commit another wrong to oppose this. There is no more authority for that convention of elders to rectify these wrongs, than of the convention to rectify the wrongs of Christians and churches in failing to preach the gospel.

Bro. Sommer delivers a long lecture to the Advocate on its failure to be settled in the truth and be satisfied therewith, which we duly appreciate. But, Bro. Sommer fails to quote a single scripture we violate or fail to teach. Bro. Sommer's opinions as to mass meetings and such things are not law and gospel. We shall dissent from them when we deem their influence dangerous.

He makes three complaints against the Advocate:

1. We published the card directing those wishing to attend the late Convention how to write to get entertainment. Bro. Sommer knows no one was led by this to think we approved the Convention. It may not have been according to Bro. Sommer's taste. But we must remind him that his taste and his opinions are no part of the law of God. And he must allow others to exercise their own taste and judgment. Bro. Sommer published at one time that he intended to attend. Was not this advertising the Convention? If he could attend, we do not see why it was a crime for us to tell him and others how they could find entertainment, as requested by the managers.

2. The next complaint is the statement that the Advocate has steadily spoken against it (the Sand Creek Address) and all other unauthorized conventions.

We prefer, for the present, to let the matters involving the use of public questions for personal ends rest, though ready at any time to give reasons for the charge.

D. L.