full propriety, in the requests founded on the implication of them? If the congregation is not expected to join, what shall they do with themselves, while the minister is confessing and praying aloud by himself? I would not have these remarks so applied as to exclude all implication of the preacher's need of assistance, or all prayer for his direction. I wish only to put it to the good sense and piety of those who are called to the responsible and difficult office of guiding our desires, and framing our petitions, and uttering them in our stead before the Majesty of heaven, whether all that is necessary and useful may not be attained without danger of the frequent improprieties, and the occasional scandals, that now disturb the devotions of Christian assemblies. E. K. IMPORTANCE OF UNION AMONG MIN ISTERS. THE Saviour and his apostles endeavor to inculcate the importance of unity of spirit among all those who constitute the household of faith. In the prayer of our Saviour, John xvii., we have this petition, That they all may be one, and in the Epistle to the Eph. iv. 3., the following injunction-Endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. He then proceeds to explain the reason for this injunction. There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. All that was Christian among believers proceeded from the same source, partook of the same nature, held a community of interest, and tended to the same end. It was very desirable, therefore, that all who were thus united in spirit, should not on ly cherish a union of feeling and sentiment as far as was practicable in this imperfect state, but that they should evince to the world, likewise, their oneness. But however important such a union in affection, interest, and exertion, may be among the followers of Christ in general, it must appear pre-eminently so among those whom Christ commissions to preach his gospel and to feed the flock of God. If One reason why Christians are to cherish this mutual affection is, that the reality and excellence of religion may be witnessed by the people of the world. Now this argument acquires strength proportionably as the members of Christ's church are elevated, and become conspicuous by their station in the church. Ministers occupy an eminence which not only enables them to take an extended and minute survey of their flock, but enables, also, their flock to view them, and not their flock only, but the world. ministers, therefore, maintain this Christian unity among themselves, the evidence of it must have a more extensive and benign influence upon others, than the same union could have among those who hold less conspicuous stations in the church. It would have the additional tendency of destroying the too prevalent opinion even among churches, that particular churches are not component parts of the same church; for when they saw ministers, watching over particular churches, exercising the same unity of spirit for one another, which the most faithful and affectionate in the same branch of the church general, exercise for each other, they would be induced to consider the cause of Christ one, and the spirit one. Local interests would not be regarded as the boundary of Christian unity, nor particular churches be looked upon as insulated bodies, in no sense one, except as they become so by mutual consent. Churches, which do not see their ministers thus united in Christian affection, do sooner, if we mistake not, result in this conclusion, than their ministers are aware. But Another reason for the injunction upon Christians to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, is the mutual benefit of believers. It is too often witnessed in churches, that where the unity of the spirit is impaired among the members, their graces languish, their enjoyment in divine things becomes feeble, and their prayers for each other are hindered Jealousies and animosities succeed, and the ways of Zion mourn. when mutual affection is cherished, they grow in grace, they are mutual helps, they are happy, and their profiting appears unto all. No less important in this respect is Christian unity among ministers. By their peculiar office, they seem to be as intimately connected with each other in the church general, as members of particular churches are, and this connexion is solemnly recognised on the day of their consecration to the sacred office. And such is their mutual dependency that a neglect among them to cultivate a oneness of spirit is even more prejudicial to their spiritual improvement, than a similar neglect among private members. So numerous and momentous are their duties, and so often are they involved in doubt respecting duty, that they need the counsel of enlightened and experienced triends, those who are elevated above the narrow principle of selfishness, ambition, or prejudice, and who can give advice with a genuine, fraternal affection, and a supreme regard to the glory of Christ. They need the prayers of those who can best understand their peculiar circumstances. And where shall the ministers of Christ find those counsellors, and from whom receive those prayers, unless they are found among their brethren? Another reason for Christian unity is, that the church of Christ may combine her influence and efforts against the common enemy. The spirit of the world is opposed to the true church of Christ, and it always will be. And it has always been an object of prime importance with the world to divide Christians in their affections and exertions, and when they have succeeded in this, they have always realized a temporary advantage. How necessary, then, is it for Christians to maintain the unity of the spirit in order to promote the interests of Zion in the world? Divided, they are overcoine and carried into captivity; united, they are invariably successful. Ministers are interested in an eminent degree in these truths. If it is a grand object with the enemy to lead captive the church, it is of no less importance in their view, to assail, divide, and subdue her ministers. The first, the last, and the greatest efforts are made to this end. And if ministers are alienated from one anoth er in their affections, and do not strive to act in concert and to support each other in the general cause, the church suffers as the consequence. If union among ministers be so blessed to themselves, and so detrimental to the adversaries of the church, we see the propriety of considering what means ought to be used by them to promote it. The principle of Christian unity results from love to God. It never exists where love to God does not exist, and it can never be wholly absent where love to God does exist, and, in general, it rises or falls as love to God flourishes or declines in the soul. The direct course, then, for ministers to pursue in order to cherish and perpet uate Christian unity among themselves is to maintain a fervent love for God, to feel their obligations to Christ, and to contemplate the importance of his cause in this that they should ever indulge in free reflections, or dark insinuations, upon the character and conduct of those, of whom they can have, perhaps, but an imperfect knowledge, as it respects their peculiar circumstances and motives, and against whom they can advance no weightier objection, than that they conscientiously deviate from them in the mode of communicating religious instruction, or in the manner of their regulating their social intercourse with the world. We say such a course is to be lamented, because it tends to impair the confidence, which ministers ought to possess in each other, and to alienate their affections; and should this spirit of criticism extend to all the internal regulations of their brethren in their respective parishes, not suffering even their gestures to escape censure, it would naturally, and perhaps unavoidably, render the Christian tie but feebly opera tive. Such a consequence must be viewed with deep regret by all who hold Zion's interests paramount to all other considerations. Were they to do this, and to consider how much depended on their union as saints and ministers; were they to contemplate the blesseduess of their union in heaven, and how soon they will be forever one in the services and praises of heaven, they would, most assuredly, feel the influence of Christian affection here, and never would this heaven-born principle suffer less worthy passions to rise and weaken the bond of their union. It seems highly important, also, that they should feel bound to pray for each other, for their personal growth in grace, and their success in the ministry. Were they to feel more their mutual dependence, they would, undoubtedly, love more. Mutual dependence between parents and children tends to increase mutual love. It is the same, in a greater or less degree, with all connexions and associations in life. This is a wise regulation in the kingdom of nature, and is doubtless so in the kingdom of grace. And in this state of imperfection with the believer, ministers ought to cherish a spirit of forgiveness toward each If ministers would by all means other, as well as toward all men, keep the unity of the spirit among when occasional differences arise, themselves, they ought to be peculor when remarks are made concern- iarly watchful against attempting ing each other in the hurry of innovations upon the established thought, or business, which neither usage of their brethren in their prudence nor brotherly love would respective parishes, when they are dictate. This spirit of forgiveness on exchanges, or are otherwise ministers inculcate upon their flocks, called within the acknowledged juand they realize how difficult it is risdiction of their brethren, and for any church to dwell together in against affording their advice upon unity, and not exercise it; but it is ex parte evidence to the disaffected no less necessary for ministers to of the flocks over which their brethdo the same, one towards another, ren are placed. It is well known in order to secure among them the that great evils have originated from unity of the spirit. But it is vastly this source. Not only churches important that ministers should not have been rent by it, but neighdepend so much upon obtaining the bouring watchmen, have had their forgiveness of their brethren for in- affections cooled towards each othjuries sustained, as upon giving no er, and they have ever after walked occasion for the exercise of it. It as though jealous of each other's is lamentable that they should ever motives and influence. It is natural be unsparing of the feelings and for disaffected members in a church good influence of their brethren; to endeavour to strengthen them selves by making an impression favourable to their cause on the minds of the clergy in their vicinity. They resort to them in apparent concern to know what is duty under such and such circumstances. They wish to be told where the evil exists. Ministers thus addressed, may say no more perhaps than that "if this is the true statement of facts, there must be wrong in the church or minister," not intending by any means to forestall judgment in the case, or to give advantage in a party. But advantage is made of it by the disaffected: they return and report the saying without any of its qualifying terms; many are induced by this to co-operate with them; the opposition is strengthened, and the pastor and church are often too much inclined to attribute this advice to a criminal officiousness, or want of love in the brother minister, and their Christian union is impaired. That these evils may never rise, ministers ought to be watchful on such occasions, and not wittingly or unwittingly, become the instruments of promoting dissensions in churches, or cooling the affections of the brethren. We not only perceive, then, that Christian unity among ministers is of the first importance to the cause of Christ, and to themselves, but that it can be maintained only by cherishing the supreme love of God, by mutual prayer for each other, by exercising an expansive benevolence towards our fellow men, and by avoiding all those things which we would not have others do to us, things which tend to weaken and destroy the tie, by which grace has united the hearts of believers for the most ex alted purposes. Let us, then, endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. N. N. EXPOSITION OF 1 CORINTHIANS XV. 29. Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 1 Corinthians xv. 29. MANY explanations have been given of this passage of Scripture. Spanhemius, in his celebrated disputation on the subject, which was originally written in Latin, and an English translation of which was published in the year of Christ one thousand six hundred and eighty five, recited fifteen different expositions of the text, from as many commentators, who had gone before him. These commentators he divided into three classes. The first class contained all, who adopted the opinion, that the Greek verb βαπτιζεσθαι, which occurs in the text, is there used to signify sacramental baptism. The second embraced all who contended that it is used to denote ablution, cleansing, or washing. common And the third included all who supposed it to mean baptism of blood, afflictions, the cross, martyrdom. He enrolled himself in the first class, and expressed his own opinion in the following words. "Those dead persons, on whose account some may be said to have been baptized, to wit, many martyrs, and other saints deceased, who received with a courageous, constant, and cheerful mind, all kinds of punishment, yea death itself, whether violent, by persecution, or natural, by sickness, in hope of a blesWhich fortitude sed resurrection. and constancy of mind in these dead, who so died in the Lord, while many beheld with their eyes, and resolved in their minds, observing no such thing in the Gentiles, they were thereby induced to embrace the faith of Christ, and desired to be baptized." Some of this class have supposed that by those, who were "baptized for the dead," were intended all who have been baptized in the name of Christ since his death. Others have believed that they are intended, who are now dead, and who, while living, were baptized in the name of Christ. Others again have believed that the apostle had reference only to the resurrection of Christ; and that the text was introduced to show the absurdity of those who are baptized in the name of Christ, and yet deny his resurrection. If Christ has never been raised from the dead, why should we be baptized in his name? Hammond believed that it intended the profession of fath concerning the resurrection of the dead, which was required of persons at their baptisms, which represented, as he thought, the burial and resurrection of Christ. Beza supposed that the apostle intended the washing of dead bodies, among the Jews and Christians before they were buried, which he thought was a profession that they expected to be raised from the dead. Haweis gave the following paraphrase of the text, "Else what shall they do, who are baptized? If there be no resurrection, how absurd and strange would it be to take up the Christian profession, when, if they had nothing in prospect after death, and here stood exposed to every misery, and the danger of daily martyrdom, they would seem merely baptized for the dead, and to be, of all men, most miserable, if the dead rise not at all. Why are they then baptized for the dead? Who, with such a prospect, would ever be prevailed on to embrace Christianity?" Sir Richard Ellis, and Dr. Doddridge, and Mr.Scott, supposed that "the apostle refers to the case of those, who presented themselves for baptism immediately after the martyrdom of their brethren, or at their funerals; as if fresh soldiers should enlist and press forward to the assault to supply the places of those who had fallen in battle. Thus they professed their faith in Christ, and ventured the rage of their enemies, at the very time when others had been put to death for the gospel. But what advantage could they propose to themselves from such a conduct, if there were no resurrection? Or what wisdom could there be in so doing? For in their case, Christianity itself would lose the great evidence of its truth: even the immortality of the soul might be called in question; believers were yet in their sins; and they, who had died as martyrs, had lost their souls as well as their lives. Mr Locke, when speaking of the text, said, "What this baptizing for the dead was, I confess I know not, but it seems, by the following verses, to be something wherein they exposed themselves to the dangers of death." Dr. James Macknight, who was one of the ablest commentators of the last century, considered the text as very elliptical; and having supplied the ellipsis with the words s avarraσews, he thus translated the whole passage. "Otherwise what shall they do, who are baptized for the resurrection of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? and why are they baptized for the resurrection of the dead?" Having also adopted the sentiment that the baptism to which the text alludes, was a bap tism of sufferings, and not of water, he gave of the text the following paraphrase. "Otherwise, what shall they do to repair their loss, who are immersed in sufferings for testifying the resurrection of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? And what inducement can they have to suffer death for believing the resurrection of the dead?" To this |