is an essential property of such a principle, to extend to more particulars than one; since, if it did not, it would cease to be a principle, and the point in question would be left to be decided by itself; and if not self-evident, could admit of no decision whatever. When Nadab and Abihu, intoxicated with wine, offered strange fire upon the altar, and were struck with instant death for their presumption, Moses, by divine command, prescribed the following general rule for the worship of God; "I will be sanctified of all them that draw nigh unto me, and before all the people will I be glorified?" Who can be at a loss to perceive the absurdity of limiting that precept to the prohibition of intoxication, the crime which occasioned its first promulgation, instead of extending it to every instance of levity and impiety, in an approach to the divine Majesty? My consciousness of the extreme weight of prejudice, which the truth has to encounter, together with the inaptitude of many, who are most interested in this controversy, to ascend to first principles, is my only apology for insisting upon a point so obvious; choosing, rather to hazard the contempt of the wise, than not to impress conviction on the vulgar.

With such as admit the possibility of Pædobaptists being saved, there remains, in my apprehension, no alternative, but either to receive them into their communion, without scruple, as comprehended within the apostolic canon, or to affirm that decision to be founded on erroneous grounds; which at once removes the controversy to a superior tribunal, where they and the Apostle must implead each other. Let us, however, briefly examine certain distinctions they have recourse to, in order to elude the force of these passages. In the first place, it has been alleged, that though we are commanded to receive our mistaken brethren, we are not instructed to receive them at the Lord's table, or into the external communion of the church; and that such injunctions are consequently irrelevant to the inquiry respecting the right of persons of a similar character, to those external privileges, of which they make no mention. "Is there no way, say our opponents, "of receiving him that is weak in the faith, but by admitting him to the Lord's table? Must the exhortation to receive a Christian brother be confined to that single instance of true benevolence?" (Booth's Apol. p. 101.) To this we reply, that we know of none who assert that the term receive must necessarily be limited to the single act of a reception at the Lord's table; but we affirm, without hesitation, that he is not received, in the sense of the Apostle, who is denied that privilege. Had the parties whom he addressed proceeded to an open rupture, in point of communion, would they, in the judgement of our op

ponents, have complied with the purport and spirit of his injunction? And if, after adopting such a measure, they had appealed to the Apostle, whether there "were no other way of receiving their brethren but by admitting them to the Lord's table," would he, or would he not, have considered himself as mocked and insulted? Mr. Booth enumerates many instances in St. Paul's epistles, in which he enjoins Christians to receive certain persons, such as Phoebe, Onesimus, Epaphroditus, and himself, where an admission to the Lord's table was not intended, but something which he informs us would manifest their love in a much higher degree. (Apol. p. 102.) What a convincing demonstration of the propriety of withholding from persons of a similar character, that lower, that inferior token of esteem which is included in Christian fellowship! And because the bare admission of all the persons mentioned, to the external communion of the church did not satisfy the ardent benevolence of the Apostle, without more decided and discriminate marks of attachment, nor answer, in the opinion of our opponents, to the full import of the word receive, the true method of realizing his intentions, is to reject the modern Phoebe and Onesimus altogether.

Supposing, however," says Mr. Booth, "that there were no way of receiving one that is weak in faith, but by admitting him to the Lord's table, this text would be far from proving that which our opponents desire; unless they could make it appear, that the persons of whom the Apostle immediately speaks, were not members of the Church of Rome, when he gave the advice." (Apol. p. 82.) If there be any weight in this argument, it must proceed on the supposition, that if the persons, whom the Apostle enjoins the Romans to receive, had not been already members, there is no sufficient ground for believing, notwithstanding the strain of his admonitions, that they would have been admitted. But is it possible to suppose, that he would have recommended a class of persons so earnestly, to the affectionate regards of a Christian society, whom he would not have previously deemed eligible to their communion; or that the primitive discipline was so soon relaxed, as to occasion the continuance in the church, of such, as would have been originally deemed unworthy candidates? Most assuredly, they, who, upon valid grounds, would have been rejected if they had not already been members, were never permitted to boast the protection and patronage of an inspired Apostle, after they became such. In every well-ordered society, the privileges attached to it are forfeited by that conduct in its members, whatever it be, which would have been an effectual obstacle to their admission; and to suppose this maxim reversed in a Christian church, and that an Apostle would caress, protect, and commend

persons, who might justly have been debarred from entering, is an absurdity, which few minds can digest. The necessity of recurring to such suppositions, is itself a sufficient confutation of the system they are brought to defend.

Our opponents still insist upon it, that no conclusion can be drawn from the command, to receive the weak in faith, unless it could be shewn, that they were unbaptized. But this mode of reasoning, pursued to its consequences, would annihilate all the general axioms of Scripture,* and considering the infinite diversity of human circumstances, render them a most incompetent guide. If the Holy Spirit has been pleased to command us, without exception, to receive the weak in faith, and instructed us in the grounds on which this decision proceeded, which is plainly the acceptance of such with God; if the Apostles, acting under his direction, governed the church on the same principles, and suffered no breach of communion to be effected, but on account of a vicious life, or fundamental error, the criminality attached to an opposite course of procedure will be very little extenuated by a circumstantial difference in its objects. Had those, whom the Apostles commanded their converts to tolerate, been unbaptized, the inference in favor of Pædobaptists would unquestionably have been more obvious, but not more certain, because nothing can be more evident, than that they urged the duty of toleration on a principle, which, even in the judgement of our opponents, equally applies to the Pædobaptists, which is, that the error in each case is compatible with a state of salvation, and may be held with an upright conscience.

However systems and opinions may fluctuate, truth is eternal; and if these were solid grounds of mutual forbearance and indulgence heretofore, they must still continue such; but if they were not, St. Paul must be acknowledged to have reasoned inconclusively, and all idea of plenary inspiration must be abandoned. As the case stands, the advocates of exclusive communion must either assert, in direct contradiction to his statement, that the compatibility of an error with the state of salvation, and with what comes nearly to the same point, the perfect sincerity of its abettor, is not a sufficient reason for its being tolerated in the church; or consign the Pædobaptists, who die in their sentiments, to eternal destruction. In this dilemma, they are at liberty to adopt which position they please, but from both, it is impossible to escape.

"But admitting that to be a fact," says Mr. Booth, "of which there is not the least evidence, the conclusion drawn from the passage would not be just, except it were also proved, that the weak in faith were unbaptized, or at least so considered by their stronger brethren, for that is the point in dispute between us."-Apol. p. 104.

In order, as it should seem, to perplex the mind of the reader on this part of the subject, our opponents endeavor to confound that interposition of mercy, by which, impenitent sinners are introduced into a state of salvation, with the gracious acceptance of believers.*

With this view we are reminded, that God receives such as are dead in sins. Whether it be safe to assert, that God accepts the impenitent at all, while their impenitence continues, I shall not stay to inquire; it is certain, they are not received in the same sense as genuine Christians, nor in the sense the Apostle intended, when he enjoined forbearance towards the weak in faith. That Christ receives men in their sins, so as to adopt them into his family, and make them heirs of eternal life, is a doctrine offensive to pious ears, most remote from the language of Scripture, and from all sober theology. But if they intend something essentially distinct from this, for what purpose it is introduced, except with a view to shelter themselves under the cover of an ambiguous term, I am at a loss to conjecture. In the mean time, it is obvious, that the design of these contortions is to get rid, if possible, of a principle, which originated not with us, but with St. Paul, that we ought to accept those whom we acknowledge Christ to have accepted. This is still more evident, when we find them adducing the excommunication of unworthy members, such as the incestuous man at Corinth, who, it is asserted, was all along an object of divine favor, as a proof, that the rule which that inspired writer has laid down, may be safely neglected. In reply to which, it is sufficient to ask-In what light was the incestuous person regarded by the Apostle,† when he declared his determination to deliver him to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh? Was it under the character of a member of Christ, or an enemy

* "Yet permit me to ask," says Mr. Booth, "is the divine conduct, is the favor of God, or the kindness of Christ in receiving sinners, the rule of our proceeding in the administration of positive institutions? Whom does God, whom does Christ receive? None but those who believe and profess faith in the Lord Messiah? Our brethren will not affirm it. For if divine compassion did not extend to the dead in sin; if the kindness of Christ did not relieve the enemies of God, none of our fellow race would ever be saved. But does it hence follow, that we must admit the unbelieving, or the unconverted, either to baptism or the holy supper? Our gracious Lord freely accepts all that desire it, and all that come; but are we bound to receive every one that solicits communion with us?"-Apol. p. 106.

"Besides, gospel churches," says Mr. Booth, "are sometimes obliged to exclude from their communion those whom he has received, as appears from the case of the incestuous person in the church of Corinth. And have those churches which practise free communion never excluded any for scandalous backslidings, whom, notwithstanding, they could not but consider as received of Christ?"-Apol. p. 106.

to the gospel? If we believe his own representation, he deemed it necessary for him to be expelled as an infectious leaven, the continuance of which would corrupt the whole mass; so that whatever proofs of repentance he might afterwards exhibit, these could have no influence on the principle on which he was excluded. When the professors of Christianity are guilty of deliberate violation of the laws of Christ, they are to be treated agreeably to the conduct they exhibit, as bad men, with a hope, that the severity of discipline may reclaim and restore them to the paths of rectitude.

To justify the practice of exclusive communion, by placing Pædobaptists, who form the great body of the faithful, on the same level with men of impure and vicious lives, is equally repugnant to reason, and offensive to charity; at the same time that it is manifest, from this mode of reasoning, that the measure contended for is considered in the light of punishment. Whether our Pædobaptist brethren are the proper objects of it, or whether it is adopted to promote the only legitimate ends of punishment, must be left to future inquiry.

SECTION III.

Pædobaptists a part of the true church, and their exclusion on that account unlawful.

Before we proceed to urge the argument announced in this section, it will be necessary to ascertain the precise import of the word church, as it is employed in the Holy Scriptures. If we examine the New Testament, we shall find that the term church, as a religious appellation, occurs in two senses only; it either denotes the whole body of the faithful, or some one assembly of Christians associated for the worship of God. In the former sense, it is styled in the Apostle's creed, catholic, or universal; a belief in the existence of which, forms one of its principal articles. In this sense, Jesus Christ is affirmed to be "Head over all things to the church, which is his body." It is in this collective view of it, that we affirm its perpetuity. When the term is employed to denote a particular assembly of Christians, it is invariably accompanied with a specification of the place where it was accustomed to convene, as for example, the church at Corinth, at Ephesus, or at Rome. Now it is manifest from Scripture, that these two significations of the word differ from each other only as a part differ from a whole, so that when the whole body of believers is intended, it is used in its absolute form; when a particular society is meant, it is joined with a local specification. It is never used in the New Testament as in modern times, to denote the