Pædobaptist to bear with us, who live in the perpetual neglect of what his principles compel him to consider in that light.

In the judgement of all other denominations, while we neglect to dedicate our offspring to God in the solemnities 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 candor; 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, or 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 a 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 favorable 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. (Romans 14: 1-6.) 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 sufficient 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 Pædobaptists are in a state of salvation, 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.

66

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 Pædobaptists. 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." (Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 40.) He then proceeds to investigate the precise nature of the dissensions which prevailed in the primitive churches; from whence he infers that the disparity betwixt them, and our controversy with the Pædobaptists 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 Pædobaptists, 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 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." (Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 45.) 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.

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 that is received of Jesus Christ, who is entitled to communion at his table, but such, and such only, as revere his authority," &c. (Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 62.) Amidst the contrary statements of such formidable 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 Pædobaptists 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 favor, 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."*

*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 di

rected.

"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 be granted that the expression 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 or 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.

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

1. Whatever disparity may be contended for between the ancient dissensions, and the modern dispute with the Pædobaptists, 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 Pædobaptist 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. The 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.

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 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 Pædobaptists 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 himself done so, he would not have penned this passage.

3. As he must on his system distinguish betwixt 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