munity from legal observances. This formal determination, however, was far from putting an end to the controversy; the efforts of Jewish zealots were probably repressed for a time, but they soon recovered their resolution, and artfully propagated these doctrines with great success in various quarters, and especially among the churches planted in Galatia. On this occasion Paul expressed himself with great vehemence, telling the Galatians that he "could wish that those who troubled them were cut off." By inculcating the law as an indispensable prerequisite to salvation, they annulled the grace of God, subverted the truth of the gospel, and impeached the sufficiency and validity of the great propitiation. The attempt to place the rites of an economy, which while it continued was merely the shadow of good things to come, upon a footing with the living, eternal verities of the gospel, was in effect, to obscure its lustre, and debase its character. That no indulgence was shewn towards the inventors and propagators of this pernicious heresy, is admitted; but it is equally evident that he made a wide distinction between the deceivers and the deceived, between the authors, and the victims of delusion. With the last of these, he reasons, he expostulates; he warns them of the tendency of their errors, and expresses his apprehensions lest he had "bestowed upon them labor in vain." He indignantly asks who had bewitched them, that they should not obey the truth; that after beginning in the Spirit, they should end in the flesh; and when they had been replenished with the gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost,"return again to the weak and beggarly elements." in the midst of these pointed reproofs, as they were not fully aware of the consequences of their defection, as they were not in a confirmed state of heresy, he continued to treat them with the tenderness of a father, without uttering a breath that might seem like a threat of excommunication.

But

5. We shall not content ourselves with this answer. We accept Mr. Kinghorn's challenge, and engage to produce an instance of men's being tolerated in the primitive church, who neglected an express command of Christ, and that of the highest moment. We must only be allowed to assume it for granted, that the Apostles were entitled by the highest right to be considered as members of the Church which they planted, and of which they are affirmed to be the foundation. These very Apostles, however, continued for a considerable time, to neglect the express command of their Master, relating to a subject of the utmost importance. It will not be denied, that he expressly directed them to go forth immediately after the descent of the Spirit and to preach the gospel to every creature. Did they immediately attempt to execute this commission? From the Acts of the Apostles we

learn that they did not; that for a considerable period, they made no effort to publish the gospel except to the Jews, and that it required a new revelation to determine Peter to execute this order in its full extent, by opening the door of faith to the Gentiles. But for the vision presented at Joppa, from all that appears, the preaching of the word would have been limited in perpetuity, to one nation; and when Peter, moved by an immediate voice from Heaven, began to impart it to Cornelius and his family, he was vehemently opposed by the Church at Jerusalem. So far indeed were the primitive Christians from entering into the views of their divine Master, that when a "number of them were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, they went as far as Phænicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the gospel to the Jews only." That highly favored people, elated with the idea of its religious preeminence, looked down with contempt on other nations; while it appropriated the Kingdom of God to itself, as its exclusive patrimony, without suspecting, for a moment, that it was the design of the Almighty, to admit a different race of men, to an equal participation of the same privileges. Under the influence of these prejudices, the first heralds of the gospel, slowly and reluctantly imbibed its liberal and comprehensive spirit.

Nor is this the only instance in which Mr. Kinghorn himself will be found to approve of the toleration of such as have habitually neglected a positive command. The great majority of our own denomination, influenced principally by the writings of Gill and Brine, admirers of Crisp, held to a very recent period, that it was improper to urge sinners to repentance, or to enjoin upon them the duty of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.* Their practice, it is needless to add, corresponded with their theory, and they anxiously guarded against the inculcation of any spiritual duties whatever on the unconverted. My respectable opponent is, I am aware, at a great remove from these sentiments; and that the reason he would assign for rejecting them, is that our Saviour commenced his ministry by calling men to repent, and that "he commanded his Apostles to testify every where repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." But if these be his reasons, he must acknowledge that the eminent persons before mentioned, in declining to perform what our Lord commanded his Apostles, neglected, or broke a divine precept. But is he prepared to affirm that they were not members of the church? Will this sturdy champion of the strict Baptists be ungracious enough

It is but justice to the memory of the great and excellent Fuller, to observe, that it is to his writings chiefly our denomination is indebted for its emanci pation from these miserable shackles and restraints.

to pass a sentence of excommunication on the great majority of his precursors in this controversy? But unless he is prepared for this, he must acknowledge that the right of toleration extends to such as neglect, or violate a revealed precept. It is unnecessary to remind the reader of the magnitude of the error in question, which would at once have annihilated the apostolic commission, by rendering it impossible to preach the gospel to any creature, since there were in the Gentile world none to whom it could, on this principle, be addressed. The whole ceremony of baptism sinks into insignificance in the comparison.

In answer to this challenge we have produced two cases, in which toleration has been extended to such as neglect or violate a divine precept; the first taken from the holy Apostles, the second from our fathers and predecessors in our own denomination.

The reader is requested to advert to the interminable discord and dissension with which this principle is replete. The principle is, that whenever one Christian deems another to live in the neglect and violation of a positive command, however conscientious and sincere, he must renounce the communion of the party which he supposes erroneous. Who does not perceive that the application of such a principle will furnish a pretext for endless dispute and contention; that not only a different interpretation of the law of baptism will be a sufficient occasion of division, but that whoever supposes that any branch of the primitive discipline has fallen into disuse, will feel himself justified, nay compelled, to kindle the torch of discord, and to separate chief friends. If no latitude is to be allowed in interpreting the will of Christ, no indulgence shewn to such of the faithful, who, from a deficiency of light, neglect and overlook some part of his precepts, how is it possible the practice of reciprocal exclusion should stop within the limits which this author has assigned it? Are there two thinking men to be found, who are fully agreed respecting all the minuter details of Christian discipline and worship? Are they fully agreed on the question of what was the primitive discipline, much less how far a conformity to it is either proper or practicable? Who that is competent to speak on these subjects, is not aware, that there are no questions involved in greater obscurity than these, none on which the evidence is less satisfactory, and which more elude the researches of the learned, or administer more aliment of dispute to the contentious. One class of Christians believes that a plurality of elders is essential to the organization of a church, because the Scripture always speaks of them in the plural number; and confident that such is the will of Christ, he dares not recognize a church, in which that circumstance is wanting. Another attaches importance to weekly

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 communion. 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 Pædobaptists." 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 sanction us in departing from apostolical precedent," &c.