“Beloved Brother: * * * I write to you, August 5, 1836, in the seventieth year of my age, and in the fiftieth of my ministry, after conversing much with ministerial brethren, earnestly desiring to see our associational union brought into action by representatives of the churches, with a view to promote a determination,—1. To bear each other’s burden more efficiently in the denomination to which we belong. I lament the deficiency in this point, and ardently wish to see it effectually remedied. 2. To watch over and promote a holy conversation among all the members and all the preachers in a more efficient manner, to prevent persons of unbecoming conversation from obtaining privileges in any church, when they have been excluded in another, for that would occasion spots and blemishes to appear on the bright countenance of the ministry. The associational union, in which all the churches of the same faith and order join, should be a defence of the independence of the churches through their representatives: it should also operate as a sort of check upon independency, lest it should become opposed to the general good, and frustrate the co-operation of the whole body. _That they may all be one_, is the motto. “Respecting church discipline. We cannot be certain that we are doing right by administering the same punishment to all offenders, even for the same offence; for the general character weighs heavily in the balance of discipline. Also a distinction should be made between the seducer and the seduced; and between being overcome, or falling into sin, and living habitually in sin, and following it as a slave following his master. The denial of Peter, from weakness, and without previous deliberation, was very different from the betrayal of Judas, and his intentional selling of Christ. The different characters of Saul, king of Israel, and that of David, required different treatment in discipline on account of their offences. The Lord’s discipline upon Saul was that of a rod of iron, but upon David the correcting rod of a father, for his good, that he might be a partaker of his holiness. “There are two things, brother, which we ought to avoid in the exercise of discipline. 1. We should avoid too great severity on the one part, and 2, too much leniency on the other part. Wisdom is necessary here to distinguish the different characters, those who require severity, and those who claim tenderness: the two are to be found blended in the principle of evangelical discipline. A difference is to be made betwixt some who may have been companions in the same crime; snatching some of them as brands from the burning. The ground of the distinction lies in the different amount of guilt which subsists between the seducer and the seduced.