who live in the perpetual neglect of what his principles compel him to consider in that light.

In the judgment of all other denominations, while we neglect to dedicate our offspring to God in the solemnization of a federal rite, however conscientious we may be, we can but very imperfectly imitate the example of Abraham, of whom the Omniscient testified that he "would command his children, and his household after him, to keep the way of the Lord;" or that of Zechariah and Elizabeth, "who walked in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord blameless." On a fair comparison, it is difficult to determine which party is most entitled to the praise of candour; where both evince a noble oblivion of minor partialities and attachments, made to yield to the force of Christian charity, and disappear before the grandeur of the common salvation.

PART III.

IN WHICH THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE REPLY MR. KINGHORN HAS MADE TO THE PRINCIPAL ARGUMENTS URGED FOR MIXED COMMUNION IS EXPOSED.

CHAPTER VII.

His Reply to the Argument deduced from the Scriptural Injunction of Mutual Forbearance and Brotherly Love considered.

RELUCTANT as the author is to prolong the present controversy to a tedious length, he can neither do justice to his cause nor to himself unless he notices the attempt which his opponent has made to enervate the force of his arguments: and here he will be under the necessity of recurring to the principal topics insisted upon in the former treatise.

That dissensions in the Christian church were not unknown in the earliest period of Christianity is evident from the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul, who employed himself much in attempting to compose them; and the principal method he adopted was, to enjoin mutual forbearance, to inculcate the duty of putting the most favourable construction on each other's sentiments, and not suffer these differences to alienate their affections from each other, "whom Christ had received," who were his accepted servants, and would be permitted to share in his glory.* From these premises we argue thus: Since St. Paul assigned as a reason for the mutual forbearance of Christians, that they were equally accepted of Christ, it was undoubtedly a suffi cient one, and, admitting it to be such, it must extend to all who are in the same predicament (who are in the same state of acceptance); and as it is allowed on both sides that Pedobaptists are in a state of salva

*Rom. xiv. 1-6.

tion, and consequently accepted of Christ; the same reason which dictated the measure of toleration at that period must apply with equal force to the debate which at present subsists between us and other denominations. In this argument the conclusion seems so nearly identified with the premises, that we might suppose the most artful sophistry would despair of confuting it, and that the only objection it were liable to would be its attempting to prove what is self-evident.

Let us now turn to Mr. Kinghorn. It was observed in my former treatise, that the question is not, What were the individual errors we are commanded to tolerate? but, What is the ground on which that measure is enforced, and whether it be sufficiently comprehensive to include the Pedobaptists? After quoting this passage, he subjoins, "this is the question at issue, and the decision of this will determine whether the spirit of the precepts of the gospel will sanction us in departing from apostolical precedents, especially when such precedents arose from obedience to a Divine command."* He then proceeds to investigate the precise nature of the dissensions which prevailed in the primitive churches; from whence he infers, that the disparity between them and our controversy with the Pedobaptists is such, that the principle on which the apostles enforced toleration is not "applicable." The expression he here employs is somewhat equivocal. It may either mean, that the phrase "God hath received him," does not apply to the Pedobaptists, or that, supposing it does, it is not sufficient to sustain the inference we deduce, which is their right to fellowship. To interpret his meaning in the latter sense, however, would be to suppose him guilty of impeaching the validity of St. Paul's argument, who rests the obligation of forbearance with the party whose cause he advocates precisely on that ground. For God hath received him." It is also inconsistent with his own statement, as given in the following passage, where he paraphrases the words just quoted in the following manner :— "There is nothing in the gospel but what the Jews can believe and obey, though they retain their national partialities to the law; and, therefore, since God does not reject them, but receives them into the Christian dispensation, you should receive them also. But then, he adds, he receives them on their believing and obeying the gospel; and it is neither stated nor supposed that he receives them, notwithstanding they disobey it. And unless this be proved, the cause of mixed communion is not promoted." We have here an explicit avowal that he considers none besides the Baptists as received of Christ, in the sense the apostle intends, accompanied with a concession, that to prove they were would furnish an irrefragable argument for our practice.

66

It was certainly not without reason that he apologized for taking different ground from Mr. Booth; for here he is directly at issue with the venerable apologist. He frankly acknowledges the fact which Mr. Kinghorn challenges us to prove; but attempts to evade the conclusion by remarking, "that it is not every one is received of Jesus Christ who is entitled to communion at his table, but such, and such only, as revere his authority," &c. Amid the contradictory statements of such formi† Ibid. p. 45.

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 40.

Ibid. p. 62.

dable champions, who can only agree in their censures of us, while they are at variance among themselves respecting the most fundamental points; where one tells us we are not to commune with other denominations, though they are received by Christ, and the other because they are not received, what course must he who looks up with profound veneration to these great authorities take? Where both propose to conduct him to the same place, but one directs him to the east, the other to the west, my humble advice is, to believe neither, but to exercise that liberty of thinking for himself to which he is strongly invited by the perplexity and confusion of his guides.

Our present concern, however, is with Mr. Kinghorn, who denies that Pedobaptists are received by Christ in the sense which St. Paul intended in the passage under consideration; while he agrees with us that it is upon that principle that primitive toleration rested.

Let it be remembered, that while Mr. Booth interprets the word received as signifying received into the Divine favour, Mr. Kinghorn contends for its meaning admitted into the church. But since many things must of necessity precede the act of external communion, and every believer must be supposed, in some important sense, to be previously received of Christ, he qualifies, or explains, his former language by adding, "he receives them into the Christian dispensation."*

Let me crave the indulgence of the reader, while we endeavour to sift this matter to the bottom.

1. Whatever disparity may be contended for between the ancient dissensions and the modern dispute with the Pedobaptists, it can by no means amount to a proof that the latter are not comprehended under the clause in question (God hath received him). To reason thus, there were certain errors among the primitive professors which did not bar their admission into the church, but the error of the Pedobaptist is of a very different kind, and therefore it must have that effect, would be to reason most inconclusively, since all that can be justly inferred is, that it possibly may have that effect, though the former had not. utmost point to which the argument, from the dissimilarity of the two cases, is capable of being carried is, that the latter may possibly not be comprehended under the same rule; but whether our author has not disqualified himself from urging it will be the subject of future inquiry.

The

2. The medium by which he attempts to establish his conclusion is manifestly untenable, unless he chooses to retract a large portion of his treatise. His argument is this, that God receives "such, and only such, as believe and obey the gospel;" but other denominations disobey

*For the satisfaction of the reader who may not possess Mr. Kinghorn's book, it may be proper to give the whole passage to which my reply is directed.

"Besides, the expression, God hath received him, ver. 8, deserves consideration. It clearly applies, as it is stated by the apostle, to the reception of the gentiles; and is an argument with the Jewish Christians, not to reject those brethren who eat all things. And suppose it to be granted that the expres sion applies to both parties (which appears intended in chap. xv. 7), the sense, then, is evidently this, God receives not gentiles only, but also Jews into the Christian church, though they are encumbered with their Jewish prejudices. There is nothing in the gospel but what Jews can believe and obey, though they retain their national partialities to the law; and, therefore, since God does not reject them, but receives them into the Christian dispensation, you should receive them also. But then he receives them on their believing and obeying the gospel, and it is neither stated nor supposed that he receives them notwithstanding they disobey it. And unless this be proved, the cause of mixed communion is not promoted.”—Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 45.

it, and are therefore not entitled to that privilege. Here, however, he is at issue with a greater than Booth-with the apostles themselves, one of whom declares that Christ "will appear in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that obey not the gospel ;" and another classes such as obey it not among the "ungodly and sinners," whom he solemnly warns of their fearful end. Either, then, the apostles were wrong in denouncing destruction on such as do not obey the gospel, or Mr. Kinghorn in loading the Pedobaptists with that charge, while he expresses a confidence of their salvation. Nor will it avail him in the least to say they do not obey it perfectly; for we should feel no hesitation in retorting the charge, and affirming that had he done so he would not have penned this passage.

3. As he must, on his system, distinguish between being in a state of salvation and "being received into the Christian dispensation," there are a few questions to which we should be glad to receive an explicit answer. He will acknowledge, we presume, that every believer is first united to Christ, and received by him, before he is entitled to the external communion of his church; that his right to the latter is founded on the credible evidence he gives of his interest in the first of these privileges. If this be admitted, it must hold equally true respecting the Jewish and gentile converts, whose mutual toleration is enjoined in the passage under dispute. Now I ask, according to what dispensation were these primitive believers united to Christ, and accepted of him, previous to their external communion? Was it according to the Christian dispensation, or some other? If the reply is, the Christian; I ask again, are our Pedobaptist brethren in possession of the same privileges as were enjoyed by the primitive converts before their external communion with the church? If they are not, they are not entitled to the appellation of Christians in any sense, and consequently could not be admitted to communion, even though they were baptized. If, on the other hand, it is acknowledged that they are possessed of the same privileges, the question returns, by what dispensation are they held? If he denies it to be by the Christian, I ask once more, how he acquired this persuasion of their possessing the privileges in question? He surely will not pretend to have obtained it in any other way than by an attentive perusal of the New Testament, by comparing the character of pious Pedobaptists with that of the primitive Christians, as well as with the marks and criterions by which it has directed us to judge of a state of salvation; so that the favourable opinion he professes to entertain must rest on the evidence which the principles of the Christian dispensation supply. But to say that the maxims of that dispensation oblige him to believe that a class of persons are interested in its promises, whom that very dispensation does not comprehend, although they live under it, is a contradiction in terms. It is equivalent to asserting that the gospel economy passes opposite sentences on the same persons, and affords evidence for their seclusion and admission, at one and the same moment. It seems evident to a demonstration, then, that agreeable to his own concessions, other denominations, as well as our own, are received into the Christian dispensation; that by virtue of its essential principles

they are entitled to its immunities and privileges, and have consequently a right to the external communion of saints on a double account; first, because such communion is one of its distinguishing benefits, and next, because they are included among the persons whom the Head of the church has received, which our author interprets, by being admitted into the Christian dispensation.

For the same reason, all that he has said elsewhere of our not being authorized by the New Testament to recognise them as the disciples of Christ necessarily falls to the ground; for since he can have no pretence for believing them in a state of salvation, except on the information derived from the New Testament, which certainly promises salvation to none but Christ's disciples, we are not only allowed, but impelled by that highest authority to recognise them under that character. His attempt to nullify their profession is also rendered completely abortive for, not to repeat what was before urged, since they profess neither more nor less than to adhere to the Christian dispensation, it will not be denied, that if they are actually received into it that profession is valid.

Let it be remembered, that in deducing these consequences we have allowed him to interpret the disputed phrase in his own way, without contending for the sense which is most agreeable to the context, as well as most favourable to our hypothesis; and without attempting to impugn the accuracy of his representation of the dissensions and disputes which occasioned the injunction, and gave scope to the exercise of primitive forbearance.

4. Though that inquiry might be well spared, without injury to our argument, yet his account of these ancient controversies is so egregiously partial, so palpably designed to serve an hypothesis, that truth forbids me to suffer it to pass without animadversion. In a long and perplexed dissertation, he endeavours to establish a distinction between indulging a needless scrupulosity in doing what is not commanded, and disobeying an express precept; contending that the errors which St. Paul tolerated were of the former sort, and that, as they merely respected certain observances and customs, neither forbidden nor enjoined, they were to be considered as adiapopa, things indifferent, about which the Christian religion is silent. He compares them to disputes about the planetary system, where it is free for every person to form his own judgment, and either to believe, with the vulgar, that the sun literally moves round the earth every four-and-twenty hours, or the earth round the sun, agreeable to the principles of modern astronomy.*

"The case is very similar," he says, "to the following:-At no great distance of time back, the popular opinion was, that the earth was a fixed body, and that the sun and stars made not an apparent, but an actual revolution round the earth. The contrary appeared so unlikely, so contrary to daily observation, that numbers knew not how to admit it. Some reasoned; others took a shorter way, and laughed at what they thought was absurd; another party appealed to the Bible, as settling the point, by asserting that the sun did rise, and did set, and one distinguished day was commanded to stand still. Good men were to be found on both sides of the question. Suppose now that some serious characters in a Christian church, tenacious believers that the earth stood still, and that it was the sun that moved, had occasioned a little unpleasant controversy with some of their brethren that were better informed; and the latter, provoked at their remarks, were for excommunicating them, for want of sense, if not for want of religion, how fitly would the apostle's reasoning apply! It might be said exactly on these principles, these good men are not chargeable with breaking any divine law; their whole crime is, that they are bad astronomers, and talk nonsense; but God hath received them; do you therefore receive them in the spirit of meekness and love."-Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 49, 50.