ther less, cannot alter the nature of their relation to their bodies respectively. The principle is one; the analogy perfect; and the conclusion irresistible. This conclusion is, that to maintain the necessity of amalgamating different sects into one sect in order to communion between their members, is to maintain, at the same time, the necessity of amalgamating different congregations into one congregation, in order to communion between their members: And, that there is no argument for the communion of different congregations founded upon their union in one sect, which is not equally good for the communion of the sects themselves on account of their union in one church-catholick.

Christian communion, therefore, may subsist in purity and power between different sections of the church-catholick, without any such union as the objection requires. However desirable such an union be in itself; and how extensively soever it shall be effected when "the Lord shall build up Zion and appear to men in his glory," there is room at least to doubt whether it would now be expedient were it even practicable, Practicable and expedient in some degree it probably is at the present hour; and is well worth the consideration of them who perceive "how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together

in unity." On a large scale the churches are not ripe for it. There are opinions, feelings, habits, which must be reduced much nearer than they are to some common standard, before it could be attempted without the danger of doing more harm than good. But this is no reason against the cultivation of friendly intercourse-against what may be called church-hospitality—against the most ungrudging fellowship in holy ordinances, as opportunity serves. They who should live very uncomfortably together under the same roof, may yet be excellent neighbours; firm friends; studious in the exchange of kind offices: and their civilities, in process of time, may improve into alliances of mutual benefit.

Under this head, viz. the necessity of union in sect as a basis of church-communion, there has been started a difficulty of so singular a cast, that one hardly knows whether to pass it by with a smile, or to give it a serious answer. The former is best merited; the latter more respectful.

It is said, then, that "by admitting to our fellowship persons who are not members of our church, we make an unjust and invidious distinction in their favour. Our own members being subjects of our discipline; the others not. So that we exact harder conditions of communion from our own family than we do from strangers."

God has put his chastisements, whereof the discipline of his house administered for edification and not for destruction is a part, among the privileges of his people. Art thou not surprised, Christian reader, to hear it mentioned as an hardship? I see the blush mantling on thy cheek: and shall spare thee the pain of dwelling on so unseemly an imputation.

But there is a mistake. If by dishonouring their high vocation, your guests should deserve to be excluded from the communion of the faithful, what is to hinder their exclusion from yours? This would be decisive discipline, and as easily exercised towards them, as towards your own members. And whence arose the notion that an offending brother cannot be disciplined by any authority but that of the particular congregation or sect to which he more especially belongs? When he can be referred thither without much inconvenience, it is altogether preferable. But how did he acquire a right to transgress with impunity, and be from under the coercion of his master's law, every where but within his own precincts? And when did the church-catholick lose the right of restraining a disorderly member by the agency of any one particular church in which he may have enjoyed her communion? No man, whom she has once acknowledged, can

free himself from his responsibility in any part of the world. A single act of communion in her peculiar mercies binds him as firmly to her authority as ten thousand. And there can be no reasonable doubt that an individual wearing and disgracing the Christian name, provided his church-membership be ascertained, may, according to the statutes of the Redeemer's kingdom, be called to account, reproved, excommunicated, by any Christian church on the spot where he happens to be, even without an act of formal communion there; much more then after such an act. Our confusion, perplexity, errours, weakness, unfaithfulness, on this and other great points of Christian order, we owe to our schisms: which, if they have not banished the doctrine, have nearly obliterated the sense, of the church's UNITY.

VII. It is objected that "whatever may have been the condition of primitive times," (in which church-communion was Catholick-communion,) "the state of the church is so greatly altered as to make the imitation of them inexpedient, if not impracticable, now."

That the imitation is not "impracticable," appears from the complaint against some evangelical churches at New-York and elsewhere-their offence consisting precisely in the fact of such

imitation. That it is "inexpedient," is thus far refuted by experience. No measure of more auspicious influence within its sphere was ever adopted. Ask the Christians immediately concerned.

To ground the impropriety of Catholick communion upon the difference between the present and primitive state of the church, is either to betray lamentable ignorance; or to convert sin into an argument for its own justification.

It has been demonstrated over and over, that there existed in the primitive, and even apostolical church, causes of separation much more weighty than those which some denominations now assign for refusing the communion of others. Yet no separation took place: no communion was refused; except by some who were held to be deserters from the "city of God," and whose "memorial has perished with them."

"But we are separated-we are broken up into a variety of sects-we have ceased from such catholick fellowship; and our circumstances, in this view, are materially different from those of the primitive church”

True: and the difference is your reproachyour shame-your crime. You have violated the commandment of your Lord and Saviouryou have conspired against the unity of his