pendence. Even he most admired by those who share the honors and the immunities which he obtains or defends, knows not the name, feels not the impulse of that philanthropy which is essential to him who successfully pleads the cause of the Prince of Peace, and combats for an eternal crown.

This philanthropy is the love of man, irrespective of country, friends, interests, partialities, sects, divisions, casts. Its meets and boundaries are not leagues and commercial treaties, political alliances, the artificial ties of affinity, nor the stronger natural cords of consanguinity. It regards man as the workmanship of God, once erect in his image, yet capable of immortality, and of again reflecting the moral glories of his Maker, of blessing and being blessed in the fruition of a divine nature. It loves man purely for man's sake It is a transcript of that benevolence expressed in these enrapturing words, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him might not perish, but have eternal life."

This philanthropy, like the refiner's fire, takes away the dross of selfishness, and endows its subject with the lustre of elevated and disinterested enterprize. It awakens all the sympathies of our nature in argument, remonstrance, and exhortation. It meets indifference, ingratitude, and even opposition, with the expostulations of commiseration, and sheds the chrystal tear of sorrow over those whose blindness and obduracy shut it from their hearts. It is patient and persevering in all its efforts; and when it abandons all hope of conferring its blessings upon the objects of its solicitude, in turning away it casts "a longing, lingering look behind." Even when it threatens the vengeance of Heaven against the disdainful contemners of the warning voice, and with an unfaultering tongue pronounces the recorded judgments of God against them who refuse to obey the gospel, it mingles with these awful arguments the undisguised condolence of heartfelt interest, and would fain avert the threatened doom. It dwells not exultingly upon the errors and vices of mankind while it portrays, with the graphic pencil of Apostles and Prophets, the end of this sad delinquency, and the terrors which await the impenitent and irreclaimable.

Not so the zea! which emanates from the selfishness of a sectarian spirit. The native pride and selfishness of the human heart find ample play in the efforts of a proselyting demagogue. He fights not under the banner of the cross, but under the banners of some favorite dogma. In sustaining his darling shibboleth, he is carried into the confines of every opposing system, and feeds with a voracious appetite upon the faults and errors of others. He is all exaggeration. The excellencies of his own opinions, and the blemishes and frailties of those opposed to them, are all exhibited in hyperbole. Not content with the actual amount of obliquity and dereliction of sound principle in the system he impugns, he seeks to give greater amplitude to its errors; and the chief regret which he exhibits is the want of grounds of impeachment, or of ability to present in stronger colors the deformities which he would wish it to impress upon the imagination of

others. The spirit of such a preacher is proud, proscriptive and denouncing. To the discerning he is more alive to the maintenance of his opinions than to the salvation of sinners.

Therefore, the philanthropy which we claim for the christian preacher stands distinguished from any thing under this name ascribed to the patriot, the statesman, the soldier, and even the preacher of any sectarian peculiarities. But what shall we say of the philanthropy claimed by the moral and literary benefactors of men, the founders of the eleemosynary institutions, the abolitionists, and all that class whose objects are to improve the literary, moral, and temporal condition of men? What shall we say of the philanthropy of a Clarkson, a Lancaster, a Wilberforce, an Owen? It is a philanthropy so far as the animal nature and political condi tion of mankind is regarded. But it rises not to that which we claim for the christian preacher. This is heaven-born and heaven-descended, and contemplates man in all his relations to matter and mind, to time and eternity.

God, the universal father, is the supreme philanthropist. His Son, the well beloved, brought it down to the senses of mankind, and gave it a living form, a habitation and a name amongst men. The heavenly circles of intelligences, who are all of one mind, derive their views and feelings from the sempiternal fountain of love; and as regards this our race they are all philanthropy. So that man illumined by the day spring from on high, finds himself the focus, the centre of celestial philanthropies. These rays concentrating on his heart, dilate it by the ardor of their intensity with that wide wish and allcomprehending benevolence which regards every human being as a brother, as a fellow-sufferer in one common ruin, and as embraced in the undefined benevolence of all the hosts of supernal light and love. Thus finding himself caught in the arms of divine philanthropy, and saved from going down to the pit, to which he was fast precipitating himself in his wanderings from God, the christian preacher is impelled onwards as a co-worker with God, an adjutant of all the heavenly hosts, in awaking the attention of all his fellows to the voice of God, to the songs of angels, and the rejoicings of all the hierarchies of heaven. "Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and good will among men!"

This is the rationale, and it is the proof, and the only proof we wish to urge in support of this paper, which is, that the christian preacher must be a philanthropist, and that, too, in Heaven's own definition of the word. Paul himself, that great philanthropist, was stimulated in all his efforts by his views of this divine philanthropy. "After that the philanthropy of God our Saviour shone forth," says he, "he saved us according to his mercy."

There is no defining nor circumscribing the achievements of a christian preacher, taught, impelled, and animated by this divine and celestial principle. When he rises in the radiance of this heavenly light, in the strength of Judah's Lion, as the sun goes forth from the chambers of the East, he advances, borne on the wings of the angels

of the New Covenant, and transported by the choral symphonies of their triumphant songs, feeling himself uttering the voice of God and the voices of angels, prophets, and apostles, he smites with a rod more potent than that of Moses, the rocky hearts of sinners; and by this heavenly rhetoric, upborne by the Holy Spirit, he opens in their hearts a well of water springing up into eternal life. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are with him in this work. The prayers of all saints, the martyrs of Jesus before the throne, all heavenly tongues bid him God speed. Thus inspired are all they who successfully announce the glad tidings of great joy to all people. Converts, the fruits of such a ministry, are converts to God and to the Lamb.

"These weapons of the holy war,
Of what almighty force they are,
To make our stubborn passions bow,
And lay the proudest rebel low.

The Greeks and Jews, the learn'd and rude,

Are by these heavenly arms subdu'd;

While Satan rages at his loss,

And hates the preaching of the cross.

EDITOR.

DIALOGUE ON RE-IMMERSION.

SINCE the remarks made in reply to an objection urged by Andrew Broaddus, in the 11th number, vol. 2, page 481 of this work, sundry letters have been received; some expressing doubts; some, objections; and others, difficulties arising from that paper, and from other causes. New difficulties have also arisen on the subject of re-baptism, practised in sundry places and on diverse occasions by the Regular Baptists, as some call themselves. These documents to hand are too numerous for our pages, and some of them not of much interest. We have concluded upon the whole premises, to throw their contents into the form of a dialogue, in which all the difficulties, and questions shall be introduced and examined. When we are got through, if any difficulty or objection remain unnoticed, we will, on special request, attend to it. The minds of the disciples, we trust, and the public, will be benefited by the discussion.

ALEXANDER AND RUFUS.

[Rufus speaks for all the doubting and embarrassed. He urges their plea. The Editor, under the name of Alexander, attends to all he says ]

Alexander.-I am not a little disconcerted, friend Rufus, to learn that the Regular Baptists are in some places re-immersing some who have been persuaded to separate themselves from the disciples of Christ.

Rufus.-Have there been many instances of this sort?

A.-I have heard of only a few; but these are enough to establish the principle.

R.-I know more than a few of the Regular Baptists who have been reimmersed by the disciples, and I presume it is in the way of reprisals or retaliation that the Baptists re-immerse those of whom you have heard.

A.-Strange, indeed, if any persons professing faith in God's word could so trifle with his name and institutions as to convert them into mere instruments of retaliation!

R.-Perhaps I wrong them. However, I hope these incidents will cause you to re-consider what you have written in the 11th number, vol. 2, on re-baptism. There was a petitio principii (a begging of the question) in that piece, which I

regretted to see; and give me leave to add, I was displeased with both the matter and the manner of that article; and I am glad that you have given me an opportunity to tell you of it.

A.-Please tell me what have you to say against the manner. I know not how that can be offensive to you.

R.-I. complain because you wrote it in the manner of a reply to Andrew Broaddus; and it was evident to me that you had others, perhaps, myself in your eye; and over the shoulders of your friend Andrew you gave me and some others a few good philippics. And my evidence, I candidly tell you. is this: You introduce into the body of that piece matters and remarks which were wholly uncalled for, in your reply to the objection extracted from his pamphlet.

A.-I admire your candor, and thank you for the opportunity you have given me to explain. And first let me tell you that I never thought of you at the time of writing that essay, and only intended to show reasons full and satisfactory why I could not be charged with the difficulties which Andrew had created. Besides this, I must also inform you that sundry questions on that subject, from different persons, forwarded to me, led me to give a greater range to my remarks than was absolutely necessary to meet the objections of my friend Broaddus.

R-This is satisfactory as to the licence you took. But had you not at that time heard that I was, as you call it, re-baptized?

A.-No; nor till this moment. Have you really been re-baptized?

R.-Not re baptized in my sense of the word; for I regard my former baptism as nothing better than infant sprinkling.

A.-If no better than infant sprinkling, you certainly ought to have been baptized. But you must mistake the meaning of that essay, if you suppose it regarded infant sprinkling as christian immersion. It applies not to such a hypothesis. What I designate re-immersion, is the immersion of one a second time, who had voluntarily and understandingly confessed Jesus to be the Messiah, the Son of God; and as such cheerfully submitted to him, and was immersed into his name as Mediator, as Prophet, Priest, and King. Were you not immersed upon such a professiou some ten years ago?

R.-I was about that time immersed without understanding the meaning of it, and had no respect to the remission of my sins in immersion: for I believed that I was forgiven six months before my immersion, through faith in the blood of Jesus.

A.-You had faith, then, in the blood of Jesus, and consequently regarded him as the Messiah

R.-Yes: I had faith in him, indeed: but I was not immersed for the remis sion of my sins. I was immersed because Jesus was immersed in the Jordan, and because he commanded all believers to be immersed.

A-And such a baptism as this you now say is no better than no baptism or than infant sprinkling. Does an infant act at all, does its understanding, will, affections, or conscience feel or act in reference to the example, authority, command, or promise of Jesus Christ? Surely you confound things that differ, the breath and length of heaven?

R-Oh! there is some difference, indeed! But as touching the remission of sins, an infant as much expected it in its sprinkling, as 1 in my first immersion.

A-That may be; for you say that you thought; nay, were assured, that your sins were remitted six months before you were immersed. But this, in my judgment, constitutes no reason why you should, after ten years citizenship in the kingdom of Christ, be again immersed When I was naturalized a citizen of these United States, there were certain immunities and privileges attached to citizenship which I had not in my mind at that time, nor were they any inducement to me to be naturalized, any more than to that child now sleeping in the arms of its mother. But did that circumstance annul my naturalization, and leave me an alien?

R. —Here now again appears the pet tio principii, the sophism of begging the question, which matters i had intended to compla n of, as well as of the manner the deceitful analogy, and a too great reliance upon your own reasoning in your former essay

A-Well, censure, but hear me; and I hope I shall be as able satisfac orily to defend the mutter as I have been, yourself being judge, the manner of that address. But let me just say, in regard to the use of reasoning on this question, that it is a question which must be decided wholly by reasoning: for you will no doubt cheerfully admit, that in the New Testament we have not one command to immerse any person a second time into the death of Jesus. And there is no example in all the New Testament of any person having been a second time immersed in the name of Jesus, not even of an apostate on his return The Scriptures are as silent as the grave upon such an occurrence. It is therefore to be inferred from the premises. it is wholly the work of reason, ing But as you have now twice told me of begging the question, or of taking for granted what was not proved, please present your specifications.

R. -You assume that baptism administered by Baptists introduces the subjects of it into the kingdom of Jesus Christ This I see runs through your essay. And what is nearly the same thing, though ufficie tly distinct t make a second specification, you assume that a person may be "intelligently immersed into the faith that Jesus is the Messiah," and have no regard to the rem ssion of sins in his immersion. These I shall now urge as two assumptions-as begging the question twice. Had it not been for these assumptions your reasoning and your analogies would have been good and valid But, as the case is they do not apply; and therefore, I have taken the liberty to say in your absence to our common friends, tha your essay was sophistical

A—in your judgment no doubt, it appeared so, else you would not have said it. I am pleased to see so much independence manif sted by those whom I have myself been, in the hand of God, the humble instrument of bringing into the fold of Jesus I claim no infallibility nor authority over the faith of any disciple, and never will impose my reasonings or my opinions upon any. The motto of every paper which I published for the firs seven years in pleading this reformation, prohibits my elf, as well as Luther, Calvin, or Wesley from being the master of the faith of any christian I own that some young con. verts carry their notions of independence into an abuse of liberty, and claim for their crude and undigested opinions an authority which they are unwilling to allow to others. But of this I do not accuse you: for your age and experi ence secures to your opinions a respect which is not due to theirs.

R.-True, this is my opinion; I present it as an opinion. But I feel much confidence that it is a correct opinion These are assumptions, in my judgment, and I have, at least, the concurrence of some others, for whose judgment 1 entertain a great respect. But let me hear your defence.

A-I will proceed in order. You say that I assume that "the baptism administered by the Baptists introduced the subjects of it into the kingdom of Christ.” I do, indeed, assume this under certain qualifications. But I would not say

that the baptism administered, as you call it, by myself, or by the Apostles, always introduced the subjects into the kingdom of Christ. Much depends upon the faith and intelligence of the subject. But I do think that every one immersed by the Baptist preachers, or "laymen," who really believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth that Jesus is the Messiah, understanding the meaning of what he says, is introduced into this kingdom. This I know leads me to what you call my second assumption. But of this I will not now speak, I shall yet take it for granted that some may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and yet not regard immersion for the remission of sins But before proceeding farther I will ask you what you mean by the kingdom of Christ.

R-I mean that "reign of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit called sometimes "the kingdom of God within men;" and I mean that assembly of persons on earth, the whole aggregate of the disciples of Jesus, who ac knowledge Jesus as the only mediator, prophet, priest, and king, and obey