expression, of unhallowed weapons, and, by courting an alliance with error, degraded his cause.

It is probable he will attempt to justify his proceeding by saying he has merely availed himself of an argumentum ad hominem. But he has greatly exceeded the limits assigned to that species of argument, which may be very properly employed to repel a particular objection of an opponent, by showing that it recoils upon himself, but should never be laid at the basis of a process of reasoning, because the utmost it can effect is to evince the inconsistency of two opinions, without determining which, or whether either of them, is true.

The

But it is not merely to acknowledge errors that the author appeals, with a view to discourage our Pedobaptist brethren from uniting with us; he also endeavours to rouse into action a feeling which, whatever name he may think fit to give it, is, in my apprehension, neither more nor less than pride. He remarks, that in joining with us they must either "consider themselves as unbaptized, or satisfied with their own baptism, whatever we may think of it, or as agreeing with the maxim that baptism, in any form, is of no consequence to communion." first of these suppositions he very properly puts aside as impossible. The second he reminds them is "degrading, because they permit themselves to be considered as persons who have not fulfilled the will of the Lord, in the very point in which they believe they have fulfilled 'it. They consequently unite with us on terms of inferiority; and he who refuses to commune with us, because, in so doing, he tacitly allows himself to be considered as not so complete a disciple of Jesus as he thinks he is, acts a part which is justifiable and dignified."* The amount of this reasoning is, that whenever a Christian perceives that his brother entertains a less favourable opinion of his conduct in any particular than he himself does, he is bound to renounce his communion; because, in every such instance, he must be considered as not so complete a disciple as he thinks he is, and to allow himself to be 'so considered is a meanness. And from hence another consequence infallibly results, that no two Christians ought to continue in communion between whom there subsists the smallest diversity of judgment respecting any point of practical religion; for since each of them, supposing them sincere, must believe his own practice more agreeable to the will of Christ than his brother's, that brother must be aware that he is considered as not so complete a disciple as he judges himself to be, to which it seems it is degrading to submit. The author may be fairly challenged to produce a single example of a disagreement among Christians to which this reasoning will not apply; and, therefore, admitting it to be just, he has established a canon which prohibits communion wherever there is not a perfect unanimity in interpreting the precepts of Christ; which he who reflects on the incurable diversity of human opinions will acknowledge is equivalent to rendering communion impossible.

Although the instance under immediate consideration respects a point of practice, the conclusion will hold equally strong in relation to doctrinal subjects. For, not to remind the reader that different opinions on

Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 115, 116.

practical points are in effect different doctrines, and that the whole disagreement with our Pedobaptist brethren originates in these, it is undoubtedly true of points of simple belief, as well as of Christian duties, that whoever adopts a sentiment different from that of his fellow-christians must, by the latter, be regarded as in an error; and, since revelation claims faith as well as obedience, "not so complete a disciple as he thinks he is," to which, if it is degrading for him to submit, his only remedy is to depart and quit the communion. A fine engine truly for dissolving every Christian society into atoms, and for rendering the church of Christ the most proud, turbulent, and contentious of all human associations!

If it be alleged that Mr. Kinghorn's reasoning was not designed 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 Pedobaptist'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 Pedobaptists 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 Pedobaptist 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 Œdipus 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 between their conduct and ours. We (he tells us) are "more to blame than the Pedobaptists that join with us they surrender no principle; they do not unite with those whom they deem unbaptized." He was then all intent on reproaching us; when he has to deal with the Pedobaptists 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." 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 a 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 Pedobaptist brethren does or does not involve a surrender of principle, in the judgment of him who affirms both. On impartial inquiry it will probably be found, that though no principle is violated on either side, as much candour 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 judgment, 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 are 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 seed; 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 innoeent 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 "reverence to 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 Pedobaptist to bear with us,

Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 68.

Ibid. p. 114.

who live in the perpetual neglect of what his principles compel him to consider in that light.

In the judgment of all other denominations, while we neglect to dedicate our offspring to God in the solemnization 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 candour; 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 nor 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 the 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 favourable 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.* 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 Pedobaptists are in a state of salva

* Rom. xiv. 1-6.

tion, 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 iden tified 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.

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 Pedobaptists? 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." He then proceeds to investigate the precise nature of the dissensions which prevailed in the primitive churches; from whence he infers, that the disparity between them and our controversy with the Pedobaptists 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 Pedobaptists, 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 the 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." 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.

It was certainly not without reason that he apologized for taking different ground from Mr. Booth; for here he is directly at issue with the venerable apologist. He frankly acknowledges the fact which Mr. Kinghorn challenges us to prove; but attempts to evade the conclusion by remarking," that it is not every one is received of Jesus Christ who is entitled to communion at his table, but such, and such only, as revere his authority," &c. . Amid the contradictory statements of such formi* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 40. Ibid. p. 45.

Ibid. p. 62.