Such facts and such incidents have never attended any precept delivered by the God of heaven to man. Do you wonder, then, that as a preacher of the gospel expecting to be condemned or acquitted by the teaching of the Apostles, I should lay such stress upon this divinely appointed, divinely expressed, and divinely authorized precept of that economy of Christ, which promises to sinful man forgiveness and eternal life upon the condition of faithful obedience? Will you, my dear Sir, ponder these reasons, and then allow me to ask in turn the following questions:

Do you believe that any man can clearly and conscientiously discharge his duty as a preacher of the gospel, and not give prominence to this precept? And

Secondly. Can you reasonably expect the forgiveness of your sins without complying with its requisitions? Please give me a full, definitive, and candid answer; and may God protect the right.

With becoming respect, yours sincerely, J. B. F.

THE LORD'S SUPPER. How often should we partake of the Lord's Supper? N.

I will let a learned and pious Baptist answer, for he gives his answer from the word of the Lord:

When the Apostle says, "As OFTEN as ye eat this bread and drink this cup," &c. he intimates, that this ordinance must be often celebrated; and the expressions, "when ye come together into one place, to eat the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi. 7, 20, 33), plainly import, that one main end of their coming together was to observe this ordinance. And if it be asked, how often they assembled for that purpose? the example of the church at Troas will solve this question: "Upon the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, when the disciples came together to

this passage proves that the first churches statedly assembled for worship every first day of the week, as is clearly admitted, it proves more clearly that it was for the purpose of breaking bread. Accordingly, we find that the church at Jerusalem continued as stedfastly in the breaking of bread as in the other social ordinances of divine worship, (Acts ii. 42.) And if we only consider the nature and ends of this comfortable institution, it cannot well be conceived how any real Christian should object to its frequency, or think it either burdensome or improper to observe it every Lord's day.

The Lord's Supper does not, like baptism, belong to single individuals by themselves, for it is an ordinance of visible communion. Nor does it belong to a number of disciples occasionally meeting, and not properly united or set in order; nor to parts of a church meeting in different places; but only to a church regularly constituted as a visible body, with its proper officers, and coming statedly together into one place to eat it. The bread and cup are the communion, or joint participation, of the body and blood of Christ; and as the bread is one, so the many who all partake of that one bread must be one visible body, (1 Cor. x. 16, 17.) And this body is described as organized like the complete body of a man, and furnished with all the necessary parts for performing the various offices, (chap. 12.)-M'LEAN.

PRIVATE OFFENCES.

Ir is not uncommon to find members of churches, who, whenever they meet with any thing that offends them in the conduct of their brethren, or hear of such a thing in the form of surmise, immediately withdraw from the communion till their difficulties be removed. Now, this practice appears totally indefensible, from

any thing either in the express precepts or general spirit of the word of God. What has come to the knowledge of an individual may not yet have come to the knowledge of the church. If so, the communion of the church is not defiled; and we are not to renounce the communion of the whole church on account of what we know about one of their number. If, from unavoidable circumstances, a case of discipline be delayed, the spirit of the gospel seems to require that I consider my brother innocent till he be proved guilty. We may here remark, however, by the way, that churches ought to guard against any unnecessary delays in following out cases of discipline; and where the guilt is manifest and gross, exclusion should not be delayed at all. If there is want of a person's criminality, we have already seen a church cannot proceed. If there is evidence, and the law of Christ is applied, as soon as that evidence is brought forward, no plea of partially withdrawing from the communion is to be found.

Two passages of scripture have sometimes been urged in defence of this practice. The one is, 1 Cor. xi. 17, where the members of the church at Corinth, when they met under the pretence of eating the Lord's Supper, are said to come together, not for the better, but for the worse. But this has no connection with the point before us. What the apostle is here condemning, is the irregular and tumultuous manner in which they assembled, and by which they perverted a solemn ordinance of Christ to a scene of feasting and drunken

offended with another, he is called to stay away from the communion till his offence be removed. The import, however, of the leading clause in this passage is overlooked. It is not said, and there rememberest that thou hast aught against thy brother, but that thy brother hath aught against thee. It points out the propriety, not of the offended party abstaining from the communion of the church, but of one who has given cause of offence to another going immediately and having it removed. If any one has done so, we will allow he can with no propriety join in the communion while this plain duty is neglected. But if he should do so, the guilt lies with himself. The offended party is not to blame in being there, nor is the church blameable in the offender being present, while they are either ignorant of the offence, or, after they know it, lose no time in getting it substantiated if it can be proved, and in applying to the delinquent the discipline of the word of God. In this way the passage before us very much corresponds with the admonition the apostle gives to the church at Corinth, 1 Cor. v. 8, "Therefore, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

There appears, then, to be no scriptural authority for occasionally withdrawing from the communion of a church. If we are connected with a professedly Christian society, we can only withdraw from it from a conviction that it is not a church of Christ; that it is a society either originally resting on an unscriptural foundation, or whatever it may have been at first, that it is now incorrigibly obstinate in neglecting or opposing some of the commandments of the Lord Jesus.

In such a case,

we are called, not occasionally to abstain from its fellowship, but completely to separate from it, that

men's sins.

We need hardly remark how unseemly it is to see brethren absent from the communion, while few or none knew the cause of it; and how little this is calculated to exhibit to the world that mutual affection, harmony, and confidence, which a church of Christ ought to present. Nay, it ought to be remembered how much such a practice may tend to impair the discipline of a church. If we inquire after one who is absent from carelessness, is there not something very wrong if such a person can find a cloak for his carelessness, by quoting the example of others, who are frequently absent likewise, though their absence may arise from another cause? We hope, then, that Christian brethren, who have hitherto proceeded on the supposition that such a practice was a proper one, (and I have no doubt many have observed it conscientiously), when they find it unsupported by scripture, and apt to be accompanied with consequences so pernicious, will feel their obligations unreservedly to relinquish it. W. I.

BAPTISM.

A VERITABLE CONVERSATION BETWEEN A DISCIPLE OF CHRIST AND A PIOUS METHODIST.

DISCIPLE. Did you not tell me, brother M. that you believed in baptism?

METHODIST.-Yes; but I do not believe that God has appointed it for the remission of sins.

D.—Pray, then, should a man be baptized after he has obtained remission? If so, how soon?

M.-Certainly he should, and so soon as his heart is changed by God's spirit.

D.-For what purpose should he be baptized?

M.-For the answer of a good conscience.

D.-Were you ever baptized?
M.—O yes; my parents were un-

D.-In infancy! For the answer of a good conscience in infancy? M. Hem! I don't know.

D.-Had you then a change of heart? If so, it must have been from good to evil-from a state of infantile innocence to that of sin and reprobacy.

M.-I didn't visit you to argue. Good morning!

D.-Stop; do not be hurried. Had you a change of heart before you were baptized? Were you baptized for the answer of a good conscience?

M.-I can't stop. All the religion of your people is in their heads. Good morning!

D.-Farewell. I hope to see you again when your reflection will give me a candid and serious answer. J. B. F.

HOME.

WHAT a solace there is in a cheerful home! The bright fire-side, if it be made bright but by a single pineknot-the cleanly spread table, if it contain but one dish-the contented wife and happy children, made so by the kindly tone of the father, who in his business transactions may be hard, cold, stern, yet correct! How cheaply may such a home be purchased, by a uniform show of kindness, or sympathy, and by a slight yielding to the whims and caprices of its inmates. That man who makes his will law, and exacts implicit obedience to it, has no home, properly so called, but merely a petty kingdom, of which he is the ruling tyrant.

What a thrill of pleasure is given by words of kindness spoken by one whose heart is full of the true milk of humanity! Happy the children who have such a father, and joyful the wife with such a husband! But there is no man without his "crusty"