circumcised he was never to be circumcised again. It is the same with baptism. The bible gives us no account of re-baptizing those who had been baptized in the names of the Trinity. And from this, what are we to conclude, only, that rebaptizing is unscriptural. It stands in direct opposition to apostolic practice. The repetition of baptism is fraught with evil. For, if it be allowable in one instance, where are we to stop ? This undoing and doing over again, what had been once done, has no boundary. It is calculated to involve the minds of men with confusion on the subject, and to promote unbelief and contempt of the ordinance. While the practice fosters dissension, it tends directly to build up those who tolerate it in pride and vain glory, and to make them some how or other conceive, that they alone are right. It tends also to keep up and strengthen those separating walls between true christians, which ought to be demolished. At any rate, the practice is unscriptural and presumptuous. If we make rules to aid a party, or some particular interest, which God has not required at our hands, the matter will not end here, we must settle the account with God another day. Among us, let it never be named. Though a person should offer himself to this church, to become a member who had been baptized by a minister of suspicious character, must we rebaptize him? Say that the minister has since fallen under censure. What then ?-at the time he administered the baptism, he was a reputed officer in the church, and in good stand. ing. The baptism is then valid. If we should undertake to repeat baptism, with what face should we appear, if God at last should own the first baptism and condemn the second. Fear

and trembling becomes those, who deem them. selves righteous and despise others. We are to be judged by the gospel, and if contrary to this we proceed, where are we to stand? In the name of all that is sacred, touch not this unscriptural and unwarrantable practice.

SECTION X.

THE COMMUNION OF GOD'S VISIBLE PEOPLE TO BE REGULATED BY CHRIST'S PRECEPT AND EXAMPLE.

IT is a matter of lamentation and to be depre. cated, and for which Zion sits solitary and mourns, that so many of the various denominations refuse to commune together, even while they hold each other in charity as christians, united to one common Lord in bonds of indissoluble affection. When we see the real friends of Jesus not willing to meet each other at the feast to which, he invites his friends, indiscriminately, saying, "eat O friends, drink ye abundantly, O beloved," we cannot refrain the enquiry; is there a cause? In keeping from our embrace a brother-disciple, is there a good reason which we can avow in a dying moment, in our last prayer, in the open court of heaven, and at the redeemer's bar! Is there an intimation in either testament, that we should separate ourselves from the communion of those, who carry about with them the marks of their crucified Lord? I see nothing from the institution of the passover, in Egypt, to the crucifixion of our Lord, which ever separated the real friends of God at that søl

emn festival. That which at first glance contes nearest countenancing such a separation, is this scriptural interrogatory - ;—“ can two walk together except they be agreed?" Does this disagreement refer to modes and forms, or is it a dis.greement in the essentials of religion? Is it. a difference between two, who believe each other united to Christ by faith, or is it a difference existing between a saint and a sinner? Concord and harmony cannot exist between two of opposite characters. The friend and the enemy of Christ cannot walk together. But does the passage forbid communion between two, who hold each other as Christians, even though they may not see exactly alike in some certain outward forms? I think not. If this were the meaning of the inspired writer, or if it were his intention to discountenance our communion with any unless there should be an agreement between us and them in every minute particular, all our fellowship with christians would be at an end. Neither, this, nor any other passage in the old testament, so far as I have any recollection, intimates either expressly or by implication, that one visible saint is to thrust from his com munion another visible saint, while he holds him in the bosom of charity---a fellow worshipper of the same glorious king. In the new testameat we find nothing which separated from the most endearing communion the humble followers of the Lord. Being of one mind in whatever was essential to the christian character, they never suffered their charity to be interrupted by disagreements in the minor points of external practice. It is true, in the forms of worship, the primitive christians did not wholly agree. The Jewish converts from long custom, and the

reverence they entertained for the tradition of their fathers were peculiarly attached to certain parts of the Mosaic ritual. Though circumcision and the passover had been superceded by baptism and the Lord's supper, yet they could not at once be prevailed on to relinquish the observance of the former. The gentiles, who were converted directly from idolatry to christianity, though they gave the fullest credit to the old testament, felt themselves by no means bound to those ancient observances. But even this disagreement, though it was more than a mere matter of form, produced nothing like a schism in the church. A charity so expanded swallowed up those smaller differences, and bound the whole body of gentile and jewish converts, into one entire and grand phalanx against the common enemy. In this they have left us a noble example, an example we are bound to venerate and to imitate. We have on this subject the mind of Christ. He received all his friends, when he sojourned here below, to the bosom of his communion. Remember the woman of Samaria, and of Tyre, out casts, and despised by the favored nation. Jesus meets them, with all the blessings of his kingdom. Not one of his humble followers does he reject from his embrace. He honored them with his heavenly discourse, and admitted them to the most endearing intimacy. Christ's example in universally receiving his friends, weighs conclusively in favor of christians communing with one another at his table. How frequently did Christ astonish his disciples in admitting to his communion all who discovered the least pulse of spiritual life. St. Paul, whom the Saviour had inspired and commissioned to the gentiles, was enlarged by

H

the same abounding charity. In the practical part of his letter to the jews at Rome, in speaking on the subjectof christian forbearance, he says ... Now the God of grace and consolation grant you to be like minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God." Christ, receives his sons and daughters so soon as they close with him by faith. And from this what are we to gather, but to go and do as he hath done? And can we find a better rule than he has left us? If the redeemer should keep us from his table for faults of far greater magnitude, than any mode can be counted, we should never be suffered again to approach the ordinance of his dying love. And how must a christian feel in rejecting a brother from communion, for a fault, far less than he possesses himself. Let those who lay such stress on modes, seriously reflect that if Christ dealt by them as they do by others, for whom he bled and whom he loves, they would not have another moment's standing in his family. This visible separation, while it is opposed to Christ's precept and example, militates against all the feelings of a heart duly warmed with the love of God. Let the tide of christian affection rise to its due height and it will drown the forbidding disposition which had said, "stand off for I am holier than thou." Such separation for no scriptural pr solid reasons is against all the dictates of natural conscience. Let a person have no prejudices, and be of no party, and let conscience speak, and he will tell you, there are no grounds for one body of christians, however circumstanced,