In order to elucidate the question before us, it will be proper briefly to state the different modes of proceeding adopted by the Jewish converts respecting the Mosaic ceremonies, at the earliest period of Christianity. That they were universally practised by believers of Jewish extraction is manifest from various parts of Scripture; and with respect to the church at Jerusalem, is expressly affirmed by St. James. Thou seest, brother," said he, addressing Paul, "how many thousand Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous for the law." The apostle of the gentiles, with all his zeal in the assertion of their liberties, conformed to them himself; partly from respect to the Jewish people, whom he was most anxious, by every lawful compliance, to conciliate, and partly from a tender consideration of the infirmities of his weaker brethren, not yet sufficiently confirmed in the freedom of the gospel. "To the Jews he became a Jew, that he might win the Jews." But while he displayed this amiable and condescending spirit, he never disguised his conviction that the obligation attached to the Mosaic rites was dissolved, and that the gospel was alone a perfect rule of faith and practice.

Thus far an attention to the law was justifiable, and founded on the most enlightened principles. Many, however, probably the great majority, proceeded a step further, and observed the legal ceremonies, not as the dictate of prudence or for the purpose of conciliation, but as matter of conscience, conceiving them to be still in force. These composed that class of believers who are denominated weak, whose infirmities the strong, Christians of a more enlightened order, were commanded to bear with. The error which these persons maintained was of serious magnitude; for in the very face of an inspired apostle, who affirmed the law of Moses to be abrogated and annulled by the advent of Christ, they still pertinaciously adhered to it as a matter of personal and indispensable obligation; and though they attempted to revive and perpetuate an antiquated system, an economy which the gospel had completely superseded, and which went by no circuitous route to impeach the sufficiency and perfection of the latter, their complete toleration was solemnly and repeatedly enjoined on their more enlightened brethren.

This error is compared by Mr. Kinghorn to an erroneous system of astronomy, and is consequently considered as totally indifferent. But how he could possibly believe this himself, or hope to obtrude it on the credulity of his readers, is astonishing. To attach the sanction of religion to a system which the Supreme Legislator had repealed-to scruple various kinds of meat, at the very moment that St. Paul was testifying the Lord Jesus had shown him that nothing was unclean of itself, and after Peter had proclaimed the vision by which he was instructed that the distinction of clean and unclean was abolished, betrayed a degree of superstitious weakness and pertinacity most foreign from a mistake on a merely scientific subject. Were a converted Jew at present to determine to adhere to the Mosaic ritual, I would ask Mr. Kinghorn whether he would consider his conduct as entitled to the same indulgence as though he scrupled to adopt the Newtonian system of the universe?

Still he will reply that his error is of a different kind from that of the Pedobaptists; he is guilty of no omission of a revealed duty, while they set aside a positive institute of Christianity. It is by this distinction, and by this alone, that he attempts to evade the conclusion to which this example conducts us. There is nothing, however, in reason or in Scripture, from which we can infer that to omit a branch of duty not understood is less an object of forbearance than to maintain the obligation of abrogated rites. Let him assign, if he is able, a single reason why it is less criminal to add to than to take away from the law of Christ, to revive an obsolete economy than to mistake the meaning of a New Testament institute. How will he demonstrate will-worship to be less offensive to God than the involuntary neglect of a revealed precept? It is so much more difficult to prove than to assert, that we commend his discretion in choosing the easier task.

The above distinction is not only unfounded in the nature of things, it is at direct variance with the reasoning of Paul on the subject. He enjoins the practice of forbearance on the ground of the conscientiousness of the parties concerned, on the assumption, not only of their general sincerity, but of their being equally actuated in the very particulars in which they differed by an unfeigned respect to the authority of Christ; and as he urges the same consideration as the ground on which the toleration of both parties rested, it must have included a something which was binding on the conscience of each, whatever was his private judgment of the points in debate. The Jew was as much bound to tolerate the gentile as the gentile the Jew. "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. He that observeth a day, observeth it to the Lord: he that observeth not a day, observeth it not to the Lord. He that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not; he that eateth, eateth to the Lord." Now in the judgment of the Jew still attached to the Mosaic rites, he who made no distinction of meats or of days must have been considered as violating or neglecting a precept still in force, or the injunction to refrain from judging him would have been devoid of meaning. He must have consequently been regarded by him in precisely the same light in which our Pedobaptist brethren are considered, that is, as violating, though not intentionally, a positive institute. Still St. Paul absolutely insists on the duty of forbearance; and arguing with him on his own principles, he tells him he has no authority whatever to "judge," or deem him unworthy of his fellowship, since he was accepted of Christ and acted with perfect good conscience in the particular which gave offence. I will leave the impartial reader to determine whether this is not a fair representation of Paul's reasoning, and whether, admitting this, it does not completely annihilate the distinction Mr. Kinghorn attempts to establish, and decide the present controversy as satisfactorily as if it had been penned for the purpose. It is scarcely possible to suppose he will stoop to avail himself of his only remaining subter. fage, by reminding us that in the instance before us the ordinance supposed to be violated was not a Christian one; since it is obvious that

the commands of God, supposing them still in force, are equally binding at whatever period they are promulgated or to whatever economy they belong.

It is not, be it remembered, by a peremptory decision of the controversy, or by assigning the victory to one in preference to the other, that the apostle attempts to effect a reconciliation. He endeavours to bring

it about while each retains his peculiar sentiments; from which it is manifest that there was nothing in the views of either party which in his judgment formed a legitimate barrier to union. The attachment of the Jew to the observation of the legal ceremonies was not in his opinion a sufficient reason for refusing to unite with him by whom they were disregarded. But in this case, the forbearance which he enjoins was exercised towards a class of persons exactly in the same situation, as far as its principle is concerned, with the modern Pedobaptists, that is, towards persons who violated a precept which was still supposed to be in force; and this consequence equally results, whatever statement may be made of the precise object of Jewish toleration, whether it involved disputed practices among the Jews themselves, or the neglect of the Mosaic ritual by the gentiles. Hence, in whatever possible view the controversy may be considered, the apostle's treatment of it goes to the complete annihilation of the distinction between the observation of what is not and the neglect of what is commanded; since the mutual toleration which was prescribed embraced both.

There was a third description of Jews-who attempted to impose the yoke of ceremonies on gentiles, assuring them that "unless they were circumcised and kept the law of Moses they could not be saved." It was this which occasioned the convention of the apostles and elders with the church at Jerusalem, where it was solemnly decided that gentile converts should enjoy a perfect immunity from legal observances. This formal determination, however, was far from putting an end to the controversy: the efforts of Jewish zealots were probably repressed for a time, but they soon recovered their resolution, and artfully propagated their doctrines with great success in various quarters, and especially among the churches planted in Galatia. On this occasion Paul expressed himself with great vehemence, telling the Galatians that he "could wish that those who troubled them were cut off." By inculcating the law as an indispensable prerequisite to salvation, they annulled the grace of God, subverted the truth of the gospel, and impeached the sufficiency and validity of the great propitiation. The attempt to place the rites of an economy which, while it continued, was merely the shadow of good things to come upon a footing with the living eternal verities of the gospel, was in effect to obscure its lustre and debase its character. That no indulgence was shown towards the inventers and propagators of this pernicious heresy is admitted; but it is equally evident that he made a wide distinction between the deceivers and the deceived, between the authors and the victims of delusion. With the last of these he reasons, he expostulates; he warns them of the tendency of their errors, and expresses his apprehensions lest he had "bestowed upon them labour in vain." He indig

nantly asks, Who had bewitched them, that they should not obey the truth; that after beginning in the Spirit they should end in the flesh; and when they had been replenished with the gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost, return again to the weak and beggarly elements." But in the midst of these pointed reproofs, as they were not fully aware of the consequences of their defection, as they were not in a confirmed state of heresy, he continued to treat them with the tenderness of a father, without uttering a breath that might seem like a threat of excommunication. We accept

5. We shall not content ourselves with this answer. Mr. Kinghorn's challenge, and engage to produce an instance of men's being tolerated in the primitive church who neglected an express command of Christ, and that of the highest moment. We must only be allowed to assume it for granted that the apostles were entitled by the highest right to be considered as members of the church which they planted and of which they are affirmed to be the foundation. These very apostles, however, continued for a considerable time to neglect the express command of their Master relating to a subject of the utmost importance. It will not be denied that he expressly directed them to go forth immediately after the descent of the Spirit, and to preach the gospel to every creature. Did they immediately attempt to execute this commission? From the Acts of the Apostles we learn that they did not; that for a considerable period they made no effort to publish the gospel except to the Jews, and that it required a new revelation to determine Peter to execute this order in its full extent, by opening the door of faith to the gentiles. But for the vision presented at Joppa, from all that appears, the preaching of the word would have been limited in perpetuity to one nation; and when Peter, moved by an immediate voice from heaven, began to impart it to Cornelius and his family, he was vehemently opposed by the church at Jerusalem. So far indeed were the primitive Christians from entering into the views of their divine Master, that when a "number of them were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, they went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the gospel to the Jews only." That highly-favoured people, elated with the idea of its religious pre-eminence, looked down with contempt on other nations, while it appropriated the kingdom of God to itself as its exclusive patrimony, without suspecting for a moment that it was the design of the Almighty to admit a different race of men to an equal participation of the same privileges. Under the influence of these prejudices, the first heralds of the gospel slowly and reluctantly imbibed its liberal and comprehensive spirit.

Nor is this the only instance in which Mr. Kinghorn himself will be found to approve of the toleration of such as have habitually neglected a positive command. The great majority of our own denomination, influenced principally by the writings of Gill and Brine, admirers of Crisp, held, till a very recent period, that it was improper to urge sinners to repentance, or to enjoin upon them the duty of believing on the VOL. I.-G g

Lord Jesus Christ.* Their practice, it is needless to add, corresponded with their theory, and they anxiously guarded against the inculcation of any spiritual duties whatever on the unconverted. My respectable opponent is, I am aware, at a great remove from these sentiments; and that the reason he would assign for rejecting them is that our Saviour commenced his ministry by calling men to repent, and that "he commanded his apostles to testify every where repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." But if these be his reasons he must acknowledge that the eminent persons before mentioned, in declining to perform what our Lord commanded his apostles, neglected or broke a divine precept. But is he prepared to affirm that they were not members of the church? Will this sturdy champion of the strict Baptists be ungracious enough to pass a sentence of excommunication on the great majority of his precursors in this controversy? Unless he is prepared for this, he must acknowledge that the right of toleration extends to such as neglect or violate a revealed precept. It is unneces sary to remind the reader of the magnitude of the error in question, which would at once have annihilated the apostolic commission, by rendering it impossible to preach the gospel to any creature, since there were in the gentile world none to whom it could on this principle be addressed. The whole ceremony of baptism sinks into insignificance in the comparison.

In answer to his challenge we have produced two cases, in which toleration has been extended to such as neglect or violate a divine precept; the first taken from the holy apostles, the second from our fathers and predecessors in our own denomination.

The reader is requested to advert to the interminable discord and dissension with which this principle is replete. The principle is, that whenever one Christian deems another to live in the neglect and violation of a positive command, however conscientious and sincere, he must renounce the communion of the party which he supposes erroneous. Who does not perceive that the application of such a principle will furnish a pretext for endless dispute and contention; that not only a different interpretation of the law of baptism will be a sufficient occasion of division, but that whoever supposes that any branch of the primitive discipline has fallen into disuse, will feel himself justified, nay, compelled to kindle the torch of discord, and to separate chief friends? If no latitude is to be allowed in interpreting the will of Christ, no indulgence shown to such of the faithful who, from a deficiency of light, neglect and overlook some part of his precepts, how is it possible the practice of reciprocal exclusion should stop within the limits which this author has assigned it? Are there two thinking men to be found who are fully agreed respecting all the minuter details of Christian discipline and worship? Are they fully agreed on the question of what was the primitive discipline, much less how far a conformity to it is either proper or practicable? Who that is competent to speak on such subjects is

*It is but justice to the memory of the great and excellent Fuller to observe, that it is to his writings chiefly our denomination is indebted for its emancipation from these miserable shackles and restraints. The author might have added here the name of his excellent and venerable father.-ED.