integrity with which both parties maintained their respective opinions. Both were equally conscientious, and therefore, neither deserved to be treated with severity. "Wherefore receive ye one another," he adds, "even as Christ has received you, to the glory of the Father." When he thus commands Christians to receive each other, and enforces that duty by the example of Christ, it surely requires little penetration to perceive, that the practice enjoined ought to be commensurate to that example, and that this precept obliges us to receive all whom Christ has received. To interpret it otherwise, is to suppose the example irrelevant, and at once to annihilate the principle on which the injunction is founded. Having paved the way to the conclusion, to which we would conduct the reader, we have only to remark, that in order to determine, how far these apostolic injunctions oblige us to tolerate the supposed error of our Pædobaptist brethren, we have merely to consider, whether it necessarily excludes them from being of the number of those, whom Christ has received, to the glory of the Father; whether it be possible to hold it with Christian sincerity; and finally, whether its abettors will stand or fall in the eternal judgement.

If these questions are answered, in the way which Christian candor irresistibly suggests, and which the judgement of our opponents approves, they conclude in favor of the admission of Pædobaptists to communion, not less forcibly than if they had been mentioned by name; and all attempts to evade them, must prove futile and abortive. If it be asserted, on the contrary, that a mistake on the subject of baptism is not comprehended in the above description, the passages adduced must be acknowledged irrelevant, and the whole controversy assumes a new aspect.

In the same spirit, the Apostle earnestly presses on the Philippians, the obligation of maintaining an uninterrupted harmony, and of cultivating a fraternal affection for each other, even while he is contemplating the possibility of their entertaining different apprehensions respecting truth and duty. After proposing himself as an example of the renunciation of legal hopes, and the serious study of perfection, he adds, "Let us, therefore, as many as are perfect, as many as have obtained correct and enlarged views of the gospel, be thus minded; and if in any thing ye are otherwise minded, or rather, differently minded, possessing different views and apprehensions on certain subjects, God will reveal even this unto you.* Nevertheless, wherein we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.' Here, the case of a

*

* See an admirable criticism on this passage in Bishop Horseley's Sermons, where the word TEQons, which is the key to the whole passage, is most happily elucidated.-Vol. 2, page 358.

diversity of sentiment, arising among Christians, is distinctly assumed, and the proper remedy suggested, which is not the exercise of a compulsory power, much less a separation of communion, but the ardent pursuit of Christian piety, accompanied with a humble dependance on divine teaching, which, it may reasonably be expected, will in due time correct the errors and imperfections of sincere believers. The conduct to be maintained in the mean while, was a cordial co-operation in every branch of worship and of practice, with respect to which they were agreed, without attempting to effect an unanimity by force; and this is precisely the conduct which we contend should be maintained towards our Pædobaptist brethren. If they can be repelled from the Lord's table, without violating both the letter and the spirit of the preceding, and of similar admonitions, we are prepared, however reluctantly, to acquiesce in their exclusion; but if they cannot, it deserves the serious consideration of the advocates of that measure, how they can reconcile the palpable infringement of such precepts, with the scrupulous adherence to the dictates of Scripture, to which they make such loud pretensions.

It will surely not be denied, that the precepts of the gospel are entitled to at least as much reverence, as apostolical precedents, when it is remembered, that the language of the former, as is befitting laws, is clear and determinate, while inferences deduced from the latter are frequently subject to debate; not to remark, that if we consider the spirit of Scripture precedent, it will be found entirely in our favor.

When the abettors of exclusive communion are pressed with the conclusions, resulting from the passages we have quoted, and others of a similar tendency, their usual answer is, that the inspired writers make no mention of baptism on these occasions, and that no allusion is had to a diversity of opinion on the positive institutions of the gospel; which is perfectly true, and perfectly foreign to the purpose for which it is alleged; for 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 Pædobaptists. That it is so, that they are actually included, can only be denied, by affirming, that they are precluded from divine acceptance, since it is precisely on that ground, that St. Paul rests the plea of toleration. To object to the application of a general principle to a particular case, that it is not the identical one which first occasioned its enunciation, is egregious trifling, and would go to the subversion of all general principles whatever, and consequently put an end to all reasoning. When a doubtful point in morality is to be decided, by an appeal to a general principle, it

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.

66

way

Supposing, however," says Mr. Booth, "that there were no 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.