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 Pædobaptist 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 Pædobaptists, with that of the primitive Christians, as well as with the marks and criterions, by which it has directed us to judge of a a state of salvation; so that the favorable 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 amongst 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 recognize 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 recognize 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 favorable 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 endeavors 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 adiagopa, 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 judgement, 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.*

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 peri

"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, pp. 49, 50.

od 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; but 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 shewn 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 Pædobaptist; 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 something which was binding on the conscience of each, whatever was his private judgement 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 judgement 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 Pædobaptist brethren are regarded, 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 subterfuge, 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 endeavors 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 judgement, 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 Pædobaptists, 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, betwixt 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 im