to apply to the smaller differences which may arise, but only to grave and weighty matters, such as the nature of a Christian ordinance, the obvious answer is, that it is of no consequence to us, for what it was designed; but whether it be sound and valid; in other words, whether it be a sufficient reason for a Pædobaptist's refusing to join with us, that in "so doing he allows himself to be considered as not so complete a disciple as he thinks he is." If it be, the consequences we have deduced, will inevitably follow.

Not satisfied, however, with denouncing the union of Pædobaptists with us as "undignified," and as placing themselves on terms of "inferiority," he begs them to consider whether it is not a "surrender of their principles in a manner altogether inconsistent with their views of the law of Christ." This surrender, he proceeds to inform us, consists in their "agreeing to be considered as unbaptized, which is contrary to the opinion which they entertain of themselves." We certainly make no scruple of informing a Pædobaptist candidate, that we consider him as unbaptized, and disdain all concealment upon the subject; but how his consent to join us on these terms, involves an unworthy surrender of his principles, is very mysterious. His principle is, that infant baptism is a part of the will of Christ; which we believe to be a human invention. Now how his allowing us to believe this, without breaking with us on that account, amounts to a dereliction of it, is a riddle, which it would require an Edipus to solve. May he not retain his sentiments, and believe us in an error; and is not his continuing unbaptized, a demonstrative proof that he does so? And while this is the case, and he manifests his opinion, both by words and actions, is he still guilty of this fearful surrender?

Besides, what will it avail him to leave our communion; since our opinion still pursues him, and though he should retire to the ends of the earth, we shall still continue to think "he has not fulfilled the law of Christ in the very point, in which he believes himself to have fulfilled it." There is no conceivable remedy; he must digest the affront as he can; but why he should feel it so insupportable, only in the case of our proposing to "receive" him, is passing strange, except the author supposes him to be of so canine a temper, as to be the most dangerous, when most caressed. It is amusing to see the happy versatility of the author, and with what dexterity he can adapt his viands to the taste and palate of every guest. When it was his object to load with all possible odium the conduct of the Baptists, in admitting the members of other denominations, he professes to discern an essential disparity betwixt their conduct and ours. We, he tells us, are "more to blame than the Pædobaptists that join with us; they surrender no principle; they do not unite with those whom they deem un

baptized." (Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 68.) He was then all intent on reproaching us; when he has to deal with the Pædobaptists, he feels no scruple in awarding them the same measure. The inquiry, he says, will irresistibly arise, if they really and heartily believe that infant baptism is an institution of Christ, why do they wish to unite with people by whom one of his institutions is in their view so manifestly opposed. How can they, in justice to their families, unite with Baptists? Let them, he says on another occasion, consider whether they act wisely, or consistently, if they join with Baptists, who receive them on these grounds. If on their part it is connected with a sacrifice of principle, they will confess that it is indefensible. (Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 114.) By these grounds, he means, on the supposition that baptism is not an essential prerequisite to communion, which he is aware is the principle on which we rest our vindication, and which is certainly perfectly consistent with their conviction of our being baptized; the very circumstance he urged before as a proof that they sacrificed no principle.

From the writer who so palpably contradicts himself, it were vain to expect any information on this branch of the subject; since it is impossible to conjecture whether the union of our Pædobaptist brethren does, or does not, involve a surrender of principle, in the judgement of him who affirms both. On impartial inquiry, it will probably be found that though no principle is violated on either side, as much candor is evinced on the part of Pedobaptists, in consenting to a union, as on ours. If we join with those whom we are obliged to consider as unbaptized, they unite with persons who in their judgement repeat an ordinance which ought to be performed but once; nullify a Christian institute, and deprive their children of the benefit of a salutary rite. And since the subjects of baptism are far more numerous on their system than on ours, why should they be less offended at our neglect of these, than we at their extending the ordinance too far? Whoever attaches importance to the covenant into which God is supposed to enter with the seed of believers, must highly disapprove the conduct of the parent who withholds from his offspring its instituted seal; nor is it possible for him to cherish the esteem due to him as a Christian, but by imputing his conduct to involuntary error. The supposed cruelty also of refusing to insert an innocent babe into the Abrahamic stock; the impiety of profaning a Christian sacrament by rebaptizing, might be made the subject of tragic declamation, with as much propriety as their want of “ the authority of Christ, and disobedience to the laws of his house." If we must tolerate none who are guilty of omitting a divine law, (which is the doctrine of Mr. Kinghorn) how is it possible for a

reverence to

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.