communion, which he justly contends was the uniform practice of the Apostles, and of the primitive age; a conformity to which, in this particular, is with him an indispensable condition to commun ion. A third turns his eyes towards lay exhortations, the disuse of which he considers as practically superseding some of the plainest passages of Scripture, quenching the Spirit, and abridging the means of religious improvement; he consequently scruples the communion of those by whom this ordinance is neglected. A fourth, adverts to the solemnity with which our Lord exemplified and enjoined the washing of feet, and the frequency with which the Apostles inculcated the kiss of charity; and having no doubt that these injunctions are of perpetual obligation, feels himself necessitated to withdraw from such as by neglecting them "walk disorderly." A fifth contends for the total independence of churches, conceiving that the cognizance of ecclesiastical causes is by divine right vested in the people, who are to determine every thing by a majority of votes, in opposition to those who contend for a church representative; and believing such an arrangement to be an important branch of the will of Christ, he conscientiously refuses the communion of those societies which decline to adopt it.

These different systems are, no doubt, distinguished by different degrees of approximation to truth; but what is of importance to remark, however they may differ in other respects, they agree in this, that upon the principle we are attempting to expose, they furnish to such as adopt them just as reasonable a pretext for separate communion, as the disagreement respecting baptism; nor is it possible, if that principle be admitted, to reconcile the independent exercise of intellect with Christian unity. The instances already adduced are a mere scantling of the innumerable questions which would give occasion to a diversity of judgement, respecting the mind of Christ, and consequently necessitate the withdrawment of Christians from each other. The few societies who have attempted to carry this theory into practice, have already exhibited such a series of feuds and quarrels, as are amply sufficient to ensure its reprobation; and merely because they have acted more consistently, they have acted much worse than the greater part of the churches who practise strict communion. Let this principle be once established, and fairly acted upon, and there is no question but that divisions will succeed to divisions, and separations to separations, until two persons possessed of freedom of thought will scarcely be found capable of walking together in fellowship; and an image of the infinite divisibility of matter will be exhibited, in the breaking down of churches into smaller and smaller portions. An admirable expedient, truly, for keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace! That there is no hyperbole in this representa

tion will be obvious, if we do but consider the difficulty of procuring an entire unanimity in the interpretation of those parts of Scripture, which are supposed to relate to the will of Christ, in the organization and constitution of his church.

6. There is one important consideration to which the reader is requested to attend, before we dismiss this branch of the subject. My opponent affirms, that none besides our own denomination are comprehended within the clause, in which the Apostle affirms the reception of erring Christians. He acknowledges, that if it can be proved that they are included under that description, the precept of toleration extends to their case, and that the only question at issue is, whether they are so or not, which he, in opposition to Mr. Booth denies.* The reader is entreated seriously to consider the necessary result of this position, whether it does not amount to a repeal of the Scriptures, considered as the rule of faith and manners. It will not be denied that the promises and precepts of the New Testament are uniformly addressed to the same description of persons, with those particular injunctions under present discussion, and that under the terms strong and weak, by which are designated the two respective classes, who are commanded mutually to bear with each other. Nor can we hesitate whether the disputed phrase, God hath received him, ought to be interpreted in the same extent. As the inscriptions prefixed to the inspired Epistles determine to whom they were addressed, so that which is written to the Romans is inscribed to "all that be at Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints ;" and not a syllable is found in the precepts respecting mutual forbearance, comprised in the 14th and 15th chapters, which limits them to any particular part of that church, in distinction from the whole. They were intended for the universal regulation of the conduct of the members of that community towards each other.

The Epistles of the rest of the Apostles also, though directed to the inhabitants of different places from that to the Romans, are uniformly ascribed to the same description of persons, as will be manifest on their inspection; or in other words, the supposed genuine followers of Christ in that age, are the persons to whom the epistolary parts of the New Testament are directed; and, consequently, universal precepts enjoined on any one society, must have been considered as equally binding on all the faithful. On any

* The Author of Terms of Communion observes," that the question at issue 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 Pedobaptists." In reply to which, Mr. Kinghorn sets out with remarking: "I admit that is the question, and the decision of this question will determine, whether the precepts of the gospel will sanc< tion us in departing from apostolical precedent," &c.

other supposition, instead of the inspired writings at large, being regarded as the universal rule of faith and practice, each church would have possessed a distinct code. Hence it follows that the seven churches of Asia, as well as those who were scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, and Cappadocia, supposing them acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans, would have been under the same obligation of observing its injunctions, with the Christians at Rome. But among the various precepts, intended to regulate the conduct of Christians, comprised in the code of inspiration, such as enjoin mutual forbearance with each other's imperfections and infirmities, hold a conspicuous place, and the rule propounded on that occasion, we perceive to have been universally obligatory on believers of that generation.

When we propose to extend the same method of proceeding to our Pædobaptist brethren, in the present day, we are repelled; and my opponent reminds us that we are not authorized to assign, in the present case, the reason for forbearance which was urged by St. Paul, because they are not received in the sense which he intended. The reason itself, he acknowledges, would be a sufficient justification, could the fact on which it proceeds be established; but he denies the fact.

Their error, it is asserted, is of such a nature, that it places them totally out of the question, and whatever is said on the subject of mutual forbearance in the New Testament is, in the present state of things, to be considered as applicable merely to the conduct of Baptists toward each other; from which it necessarily follows, that no part of the precepts or promises of Scripture can be proved to apply to the great body of believers, at present, not even to such as appear preeminent in piety; for all these precepts and promises were originally addressed precisely to the same description of persons, with the injunctions in question; and as it is contended that these belong at present only to Baptists, by parity of reason the former must be restricted to the same limits. On this principle, there is not a syllable in the New Testament, from which a Pædobaptist can derive either consolation or direction as a Christian; not a single promise which he can claim, nor a single duty resulting from the Christian calling, with which he is concerned; for the class of persons to whom these were originally addressed, was one and the same with those on whom the duty of mutual forbearance was inculcated.

The inscription of the Epistle to the Romans is of the same extent with the injunctions contained in the 14th and 15th chapters, and no greater; the same description of persons are evidently addressed throughout; it was the saints, the beloved of God, mentioned in the beginning of the letter, who on account of their com

mon relation to the Lord, were commanded to bear with each other's infirmities. Now if it be asserted that infant baptism is an error so different from those which were contemplated by the author, in that injunction; that its abettors stand excluded from its benefit, how will it be possible to prove that they are saints, that they are beloved of God, or that any of the attributes ascribed to Christians in that epistle, belongs to them. Mr. Kinghorn may affirm, if he pleases, that the characteristic descriptions are applicable, while the injunctions under discussion are not. He may affirm, but how will he prove it, since both are addressed to the same persons, and the injunction of forbearance enjoined alike on

them all.

From a letter, consisting partly of affectionate congratulations, and partly of serious advice, both intended for the comfort and direction of the same persons, to infer that the congratulations apply to Christians of all denominations, and the advice to one only, is capricious and unreasonable. The same conclusion holds good, respecting the whole of the New Testament. Whatever is affirmed in any part of it, respecting the privilege of primitive believers, was asserted primarily of such only as were baptized, because there were no others originally in the church; all the reciprocal duties of Christians were in the first instance enjoined on these; among which we find precepts enforcing without a shadow of limitation the duty of cultivating Christian fellowship. But the last, our opponents contend, are to be restricted to Baptists; whence it necessarily follows, unless we had some independent evidence on the subject, that the former must be restricted in the same manner; and that consequently all other denominations, however excellent in other respects, are left without any scriptural proof of their interest in the divine favor, or any directions for that part of their conduct which concerns their Christian obligations. Were there indeed any other medium of proof, besides the writings of the Apostles, of equal authority, by which it were possible to supply their deficiency, the case would be different; from this independent source, we might possibly learn the fact, that other denominations also were included within the promise of eternal life; but while our knowledge on the subject is derived from one book, whose precepts for the regulation of the conduct of believers towards each other universally, are affirmed not to extend to our intercourse with Pædobaptists, it is impossible to establish that conclusion; for to attempt to limit the application of Scripture in one part, and to make it universal in another, where both were originally intended to be taken in the same extent, is plainly unreasonable.

CHAPTER VIII.

On the argument for mixed communion, founded on the Pædobaptists being a part of the true church.

THE author of " Terms of Communion" founded an argument for the admission of sincere Christians of every denomination, to the Lord's table, on their being a part of the true church. He remarked that whenever that term occurs in Scripture, in relation to spiritual matters, it constantly denotes, either members of a particular community, accustomed to meet in one place; or the whole body of real believers, dispersed throughout the world, but considered as united to one head; that this body, is expressly affirmed to be the body of Christ, of which every genuine believer is a member; that we are seriously warned against whatever tends to promote a schism in it; and that these admonitions are directly repugnant to the practice, under any pretext whatever, of repelling a sincere Christian from communion. If we allow the identity of the church of Christ with his body, which St. Paul expressly affirms, and which he assumes as the basis of his whole train of reasoning, the conclusion we have drawn, results from it so immediately, that the attempt to place it in a clearer light, seems a waste of words. If the alienation of affection which prevailed in the church at Corinth, was sufficient to constitute a schism, much more a rupture of communion. But a schism or division in the body, the Apostle deprecates as one of the greatest evils, as tending immediately to its destruction, as well as most repugnant to the scope and genius of Christianity. "Now this I say, that every one of you saith I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided ?" (1 Cor. 1: 12, 13.) "As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ." Here the unity of the church is most clearly affirmed; and whatever tends to divide it, is stigmatized under the notion of an attempt to divide Christ himself.

The reader will probably feel some curiosity to know, how Mr. Kinghorn will reconcile his hypothesis, with these statements; whether he is prepared, in contradiction to the Apostle, to deny the identity of the Church of Christ with his body, or whether acknowledging this, he will yet contend for the necessity of dividing it, in opposition to his solemn injunctions. He will be a little sur