^i. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <d 
 
 
 ! ^ 
 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 •«• 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 *« 
 
 
 15 
 -o 
 
 
 
 
 (fl 
 
 
 
 4^,^ 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 iX 
 
 t-3 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 ***** 
 
 
 '-^- 
 
 
 
 «=^ 
 
 1Z5 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ■te 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 1 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 c 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 i 
 
 le 
 
 &H 
 W 
 
 ~ 
 
 ^ i 
 
 
 Q 
 
 Z3 
 
 ' 
 
 •o 
 
 125 
 
 g 
 fO 
 
 1^ t 
 
 
 H 
 
 00 
 2 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 5-, 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 J3 
 -D 
 
 5 
 
 v^ 
 
 
 <U 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 OJ 
 
 2> 
 
 -^^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 scc^ 
 
 rX 
 
..Z' 
 
A 
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REV. JOSEPH KINGHORN: 
 
 BEING 
 
 A FURTHER VINDICATION OF THE PRACTICE 
 
 OF 
 
 FREE COMMUNION. 
 By ROBERT HALL, M A. 
 
 " Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto 
 us who believed on the Lord Je=us Christ, what was I, that I should 
 withstand God." — ^cls \i. 17. 
 
 LEICESTER: PRIXTED BY THOMAS COMBE. 
 
 SOLD BY BUTTON AND SOX, PATER NOSTER ROW, 
 LONDON ; 
 
 DEIUIITON AND "SONS, CAMnRIDGE ; JAMES, BRISTOL; 
 AND COMBE, LEICESTER. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/replytorevjosephOOhall 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 After announcing an intention of replying to 
 Mr. Kinghorn, the Public seem entitled to 
 some account of the causes which have delayed 
 its execution so long. Various conjectures have 
 probably arisen on the subject. By many^ no 
 doubt;, it has been suspected that the delay was 
 occasioned by a perception of the difficulty 
 of constructing an answer which would be 
 deemed satisfactory^, and that the engagement 
 to reply was made^, without anticipating so 
 formidable an opposition. That the Author 
 was, to a certain extent^ deterred by a feeling 
 of difficulty, it is impossible to deny ; but the 
 reader is probably not aware in what the diffi- 
 culty lay. It had no relation to the argumen- 
 
IV 
 
 tative force of ]Mr. Kinghorn's production, in 
 whatever degree it may be supposed to possess 
 that attribute ; but solely to the manner in 
 which he has chosen to conduct the debate. 
 The perpetual recurrence of the same matter, 
 the paucity of distinct and intelligible topics 
 of argument, together Avith an obvious want 
 of coherence, and of dependance of one part 
 on another, give to the whole the air of a 
 series of skirmishing and desultory attacks, 
 rather than of regular combat, rendering it 
 difticult to impart that order and continuity 
 to a rej)ly, in the absence of Mhich, argu- 
 mentative discussions are insuiferably tedious. 
 With the eagerness of a professed pleader, 
 he has availed himself of every topic which 
 could aiford the slightest colour of support to 
 his cause, with little scrupulosity apparently, 
 respecting the soundness of the principles from 
 which he argues. In a word, he has conducted 
 his share of the warfare in a manner, ^^hich 
 renders him more formidable from the irregu- 
 larity and quickness of his movements, than 
 from the steady pressure of his columns. 
 
y 
 
 Though he has advanced some new, and as 
 they appear to me, paradoxical positions, the 
 space which ihey occupy is so small, compared 
 to that which he has allotted to arguments and 
 objections distinctly noticed and replied to in 
 my former tieatisc, that it seemed almost im- 
 practicable to answer the greater part of 
 the work, without a frequent recurrence to 
 what had been already advanced. But a writer 
 is never more certain of disgusting, than when 
 he is the echo of himself. 
 
 On these accounts, had my private convic- 
 tion dictated the course which it seemed proper 
 to pursue, the following work, instead of 
 swelling to its present bulk, would have been 
 limited to some short strictures on those parts 
 of his reply in which my respectable opponent 
 has quitted the track of his predecessors. But 
 to this there were serious objections. In the 
 estimation of multitudes, little qualified to ap- 
 preciate the weight of an argument, to be 
 brief and to be superficial are one and the 
 same thing; no publication is admitted to be 
 
solidly answered^ except the reply bears a 
 certain proportion to it in size and extent; 
 and whatever is not distinctly noticed and 
 discussed^ however irrelevant, or however trivial, 
 is instantly proclaimed unanswerable. These 
 considerations determined me rather to hazard 
 the imputation of tediousness, than to attempt 
 a very concise reply, which however cogent, 
 would be construed by many into a tacit ac- 
 knowledgment of my incapacity to combat 
 tlie reasoning of my opponent. Having, there- 
 fore, only a choice of evils, and necessitated 
 either to make a large demand on the patience 
 of the reader, or to incur the suspicion of 
 evading what could not be successfully en- 
 countered, I preferred the former; endeavour- 
 ing at the same time to shun, as much as 
 possible, a tiresome repetition of the same 
 topics ; with what success, the Public will 
 determine. 
 
 The preceding remarks will explain one cause 
 of delay ; to whicii may be added, a strong 
 disinchnation to controversy, the want of a 
 
habit of composition, repeated attacks of illness 
 at one period, and various avocations and en- 
 gagements at another, too unimportant to be 
 obtruded on the attention of the reader. 
 
 It may also be remarked, in extenuation of 
 the charge of procrastination, that the subject 
 is just as interesting and important as when 
 the controversy commenced. The evil in which 
 it originates is not local, nor of an ephemeral 
 or transitory nature : it will continue to sub- 
 sist, there is reason to fear, after the present 
 generation is consigned to the dust ; and even 
 the delay may not be altogether without its 
 advantages. Both parties will have had leisure 
 to reflect, the reasoning on each side of the 
 question time to settle, and to find its level 
 in the public mind, undisturbed by that dis- 
 position extravagantly to depreciate and to 
 extol respectively, the performances it has given 
 rise to, which almost invariably distinguishes 
 the outset of a controversy. Whatever appears 
 in the present stage, it is but justice to con- 
 sider as the result of more matured obser- 
 
Vlll 
 
 vation and inquiry, compensating in pertinence 
 and solidity, what it may want in vivacity 
 and ardor. 
 
 It is remarkable that without any previous 
 knowledge or concert, a discussion on the 
 subject of communion commenced nearly at 
 the same time on both sides the Atlantic ; and 
 the celebrated Dr. Mason, of New York, 
 justly regarded as one of the brightest orna- 
 ments of the Western hemisphere, was exerting 
 the energies of his most powerful mind, in 
 establishing tlie fundamental position of the 
 treatise On Terms of Communion, almost at 
 the very moment that treatise appeared. A 
 coincidence so rare, a movement so simultaneous, 
 yet so unpremeditated, we cannot but look 
 upon as a token for good, as an indication 
 of the approach of that period, so ardently 
 desired by every enlightened Christian, when 
 genuine believers will again be of ''•"one heart 
 and of one mind." Let us hope that America, 
 the land of freedom, where our pious ancestors 
 found an asylum from the oppression of into- 
 
lerance, will exert, under the auspices of such 
 men as Dr. Mason, a powerful reaction on the 
 parent state, and aid her emancipation from 
 the relics of that pestilential evil, still cherished 
 and retained in too many British churches. 
 
 Independent of other considerations, that 
 invaluable person possesses one obvious ad- 
 vantage over the Author of the following 
 performance. Disengaged from the spurious 
 refinements and perplexing subtleties which 
 arise from the subject of baptism, by which 
 our opponents attempt to evade the application 
 of his general principle, his movements are 
 in consequence more free and unfettered, and 
 his force operates in a more simple direction 
 than is compatible with the state of the ques- 
 tion as it respects the views of the Baptist de- 
 nomination. He fearlessly spreads his sails 
 to the winds, and triumphs on the elements 
 which is congenial to the amplitude and gran- 
 deur of his mind. Mine is a coasting voy- 
 age, in which the Author feels himself ne- 
 cessitated to creep along the shore, and to 
 
X 
 
 comply with all its irregularities^ in the midst 
 of flats and shoals, and exposed to perpetual 
 annoyance from the innumerable small craft 
 which infest these shallow waters. The ef- 
 fect of the different situations in which we 
 are placed, is to give a luminous simplicity 
 to his mode of conducting the argument, which 
 forms a striking contrast not only to the 
 tedious logomachies which I have been com- 
 pelled to encounter, '^ but the manner in which 
 I have attempted to confute them. It belongs 
 to a Pascal, and perhaps to a few others of 
 the same order of genius, to invest the se- 
 verest logics with the charms of the most 
 beautiful composition, and to render the most 
 profound argumentation as entertaining as a 
 romance. The Author makes no such pre- 
 tension : having confined his endeavours to 
 an attempt to establish his assertions by suf- 
 ficient proof, and to expose the sophistry 
 
 * Though Dr. Mason was not led by the course of his argument 
 to treat of the question of mixed communion in the usual import of 
 that phrase, his general principle not only necessarily infers it, but 
 I have the satisfaction of learning from his own lips his entire ap- 
 probation of the doctrine advanced in Terms of Communion. 
 
XI 
 
 of his opponent, he must be allowed to re- 
 mind his readers that no quality will be 
 found more necessary than patience. Truth, 
 as far as he knows himself, is his sole object; 
 and if they are actuated by the same dis- 
 position, though they will find little to amuse, 
 it is possible they may meet with something- 
 to instruct them. 
 
 It is surprising how little attention an en- 
 quiry into the principles which ought to 
 regulate our intercourse with other denomi- 
 nations, (a question of considerable moment 
 in whatever light it be viewed,) has excited. 
 Though it has given birth to a few pub- 
 lications at very distant intervals, none, as 
 far as my information extends, have produced 
 any deep impression, or any extensive and 
 permanent effects. On this subject a spirit 
 of slumber seems to have oppressed our fa- 
 culties, from which we have hardly ever com- 
 pletely awoke. From the appearance of 
 Mr. Bunyan's treatise, entitled Water Baptism 
 no Bar to Communion, to the publication of 
 
Xll 
 
 the celebrated Mr. Robinson, a whole century 
 elapsed, with few or no efforts to check the 
 progress of the prevailing system, which had 
 gained so firm a footing previous to Mr. Booth's 
 writing, that he felt no scruple in entitling 
 his defence of that practice. An Apology for 
 the Baptists. The majority appear to have 
 carried it with so high a hand, that the few 
 churches who ventured to depart from the 
 established usage were very equivocally ac- 
 knowledged to belong to the general body, 
 and seem to have been content to purchase 
 peace, at the price of silence and submission. 
 The most virulent reproaches were cast upon 
 the admirable Bunyan, during his own time, 
 for presuming to break the yoke; and whoever 
 impartially examines the spirit of Mr. Booth's 
 Apology, will perceive that its venerable 
 Author regards him, together with his co- 
 adjutors and successors, much in the light of 
 rebels and insurgents, or to use the mildest 
 terms, as contumacious despisers of legitimate 
 authority. Mr. Kinghorn in the same spirit, 
 evinces an eagerness, at every turn, to dis- 
 
Xlll 
 
 pute our title to be considered as complete 
 Baptists. In short, whether it is to be as- 
 cribed to intimidation, or to some other cause, 
 the fact is notorious, that the zeal evinced on 
 the side of free communion, has hitherto borne 
 no proportion to that which impels the ad- 
 vocates of the opposite system, whose treat- 
 ment of their opponents, in most instances, 
 bears no very remote resemblance to that which 
 moderate Churchmen are accustomed to receive 
 at the hands of their Hiah Church brethren. 
 
 ■O" 
 
 Another cause has probably co-operated to- 
 wards the production of the same result. Some 
 whose character commands the deepest respect, 
 are known to deprecate the agitation of the pre- 
 sent controversy from an apprehension of the 
 injury the denomination may sustain, by the ex- 
 posure of its intestine dissentions. For my own 
 part, I am at a loss to conceive the grounds on 
 which such a policy can be justified. Could 
 the fact that we are at variance among our- 
 selves on the subject under discussion, be 
 concealed, something might be urged in favor 
 
XIV 
 
 of the prudence of such a measure, nothing 
 certainly for its magnanimity. But since that 
 is impossible, and whoever is acquainted with 
 the state of the denomination, is aware of the 
 diversity which subsists in the constitution of 
 our churches in this particular, the true state 
 of the question is, whether that article of the 
 Apostles Creed which asserts the communion 
 of saints, is to be merged in an exclusive zeal 
 for baptism, and its systematic violation, in 
 our judgment at least, to remain unnoticed 
 and unchecked, in deference to party feelings 
 and interests. We are at a loss to conceive 
 how the association of truth with error, is 
 ^ capable of benefiting the former ; or how it 
 can be eventually injured by an attempt 
 (conducted in a christian spirit) to dissolve an 
 alliance, which resembles the junction of the 
 living with the dead. While the preservation 
 of peace is dear to us, the interests of truth 
 are still more so; and we would fix our eyes 
 on the order in which the attributes of that 
 celestial wisdom are enumerated, which is 
 "first pure, then peaceable. 
 
XV 
 
 Before closing* this preface, I must be al- 
 lowed to advert to a circumstance intimately 
 connected with the eventual success of the 
 cause in which I am embarked. It is the 
 general practice of our churches, whatever may 
 be the sentiments of the majority, to continue 
 the practice of strict communion, in almost 
 every instance, where the opposite system is 
 incapable of being introduced with a perfect 
 unanimity ; in consequence of which, it fre- 
 quently happens that the constitution of the 
 church continues to sanction strict communion, 
 while the sentiments of a vast majority of its 
 members are decidedly in favor of a contrary 
 system ; and in opposition to the usage which 
 obtains on other occasions, the private sen- 
 timents of the few, are made to regulate and 
 control the conduct of the many. Where, it 
 may be asked, is the propriety, where the 
 justice of such a mode of proceeding.? What- 
 ever respect may be due to the conscientious 
 though erroneous scruples of an upright mind, 
 it is not easy to perceive why these should 
 be permitted to prescribe to the better judg- 
 
XVI 
 
 ment of those whom we must necessarily con- 
 
 sider as more enlightened. 
 
 As the majority, convinced as they are sup- 
 posed to be, of the rigiU of all genuine Chris- 
 tians to communion, must necessarily regard 
 the dissentients as being in error, it deserves 
 to be considered in what manner error ought 
 to be treated. Ought it to be the object of 
 toleration, or should it be invested with do- 
 minion ? Surely all it can reasonably claim, is 
 the former ; but when in deference to it, the 
 far greater part of a society refrain from acting 
 agreeably to their avowed principles, and con- 
 sent to withhold from another class of their 
 fellow Christians, what they consider as their 
 undoubted right, they cannot be said merely 
 to tolerate the error in question : no, they in 
 reality place it on the throne — they prostrate 
 themselves before it. Yet, strange as it may 
 appear, such is at present the conduct of 
 Baptist societies. While there remains the 
 smallest scantling of members averse to open 
 communion, the doorS;, in compliance with their 
 
XVI I 
 
 scruples, continue shut, and Psedobaptist can- 
 didateSj however excellent, or however nu- 
 merous, are excluded. 
 
 Thus the intolerance of one class of Christians 
 is not only indulged, but pampered and ca- 
 ressed, while the relig'ious profession of another 
 is treated as a nullity. The incongruity of 
 this mode of proceeding- is also extremely 
 obvious in another view. The admission of 
 members in our societies, it is well known, 
 is determined by a majority of suffiages, where 
 the minority is expected, and that most rea- 
 sonably, quietly to acquiesce in the decision 
 of the majority. But in the case under pre- 
 sent consideration, where strict communion is 
 practised in a church, the majority of whose 
 members are of a contrary persuasion, the 
 eligibility, not of an individual, but of a 
 whole class of individuals, to an indefinite ex- 
 tent, is virtually determined by the judgment 
 of the smaller, in opposition to the larger party. 
 
 The injustice of such an arrangement will 
 
 A 2 
 
xvm 
 
 perhaps be admitted; but liow^ it will be asked^ 
 can it be remedied? Would it be proper to 
 exclude such as feel it impossible^ with a good 
 conscience^ to commune with Pa^dobaptists, in 
 order to make room for the latter? Nothing 
 is more remote from our intention. Without 
 inflicting the slightest wound on those amiable 
 and exemplary persons who scruple the law- 
 fulness of that measure^ the remedy appears 
 equally simple and obvious. 
 
 Whenever there is a decided majority in a 
 church, whose views are in unison with those 
 which we are attempting to recommend^ let 
 them throw down the barriers^, and admit pious 
 Psedobaptists without hesitation ; and let those 
 whose principles deter them from joining in 
 such a communion^ receive the Lord's Supper 
 apart;, retaining at the same time, all their 
 rights and privileges unimpaired. By this 
 simple expedient, the views of all the parties 
 will be met: the majority will exert their 
 prerogative, and act consistently with their 
 avowed principles: the Paidobaptists will ob- 
 
XIX 
 
 tain their rights; and the abettors of strict 
 communion >Yill enjoy that state of separation 
 and seclusion \\hich they covet. By this means 
 a silent revolution may be effected in our 
 churches^ unstained by a particle of violencCj 
 or of injustice. But ■while the present plan is 
 pursued^ while ^ve are waiting' for the last 
 sands of intolerance to run out^ the domination 
 of error and injustice may be prolonged to 
 an interminable period^ since of all creatures, 
 bigotry is the most tenacious of life. 
 
 Sudden and violent reformations are not 
 only seldom lasting, but the mischief which 
 results, and the disgust they excite, often pro- 
 duce a reaction, which confirms and perpetuates 
 the evil, they attempt to eradicate. For this 
 reason, great prudence and moderation are 
 requisite in every effort to meliorate the stale 
 of public bodies. He who aspires to remove 
 their prejudices, must treat them with tender- 
 ness and respect, urging them to no step, for 
 which they are not fully prepared, by a mature 
 and -widely extended conviction of its propriety : 
 
XX 
 
 for no innovations, however desireable in them- 
 selves, ^vill be permanently beneficial, tlie sta- 
 bility anci perpetuity of which is not guaranteed 
 by the previous illumination of those by whom 
 they are adopted. 
 
 Having' devoted more time and attention to 
 the present controversy alread}^, than many are 
 disposed to tliink it entitled to, it is by no 
 means my intention to renew it, conceiving it 
 a contemptible ambition to determine to have 
 the last word, which is nothing less than to 
 aspire at a pre-eminence in pertinacity. Rest- 
 ing* with perfect confidence on the truth, and 
 consequently on the ultimate triumph of the 
 principles, which I have attempted to defend, 
 the detection of incidental mistakes, and the 
 exposure of minor errors, will not disturb my 
 repose, however justly they may awaken a 
 feeling' of regret, that the powers of the advo- 
 cate were not more commensurate wilh the 
 merits of the cause. 
 
 If the author has been, on any occasion. 
 
XXI 
 
 betrayed Jn (lie ardor of debate, into language 
 which the reader may deem disrespectful to his 
 opponent, it \vili give Iiini real concern. He 
 knows none uhose cliaractcr entitles him to 
 higher esteem ; nor is he insensible to the 
 value of those expressions of personal regard 
 Avith whicli Mr. Kinghorn has honored him, 
 nor of that general mildness and urbanity, which 
 is at once the character of his mind, and of 
 his performance. Aware of the tendency of 
 controversy to alienate the parties from each 
 other, who engage in it, it is matter of regret 
 on that account, and on that onl}', that it was 
 my lot to meet with an antagonist in Mr. 
 Kinghorn. In every other respect, it is a for- 
 tunate circumstance for the cause of truth: for 
 while his temper affords a security from that 
 virulence, and those personalities, which are 
 the opprobrium of theological debate, his talents 
 ensure his doing justice to his cause, perhaps 
 beyond any other person of the same persuasion. 
 A very different performance in many respects 
 was anticipated, it is true ; nor could the ex- 
 traordinary assertions, not to say adventurous 
 
XXll 
 
 paradoxes he has hazarded, fail to excite sur- 
 prise ; although his character exempts him from 
 the suspicion of that arrogance and conceit, in 
 which they usually originate. They are rather 
 to be ascribed to a dissatisfaction (which he 
 dares not pretend to conceal) with former 
 Apologists ; and a determination, if possible, 
 to compass the same object by a ditferent route. 
 The intelligent reader will probably be of 
 opinion, that he has attempted to give an air 
 of originality to what was not susceptible of it; 
 and that aiming to enrich and support a most 
 meagre and barren thesis, by new arguments, 
 he is reduced to the same necessity as the 
 Israelites, of " making bricks without straw." 
 
 Having already made the porch too large 
 for the building, one additional remark only 
 is submitted to the attention of the reader, 
 previous to his entrance on the following dis- 
 cussion. The little success which has at- 
 tended our exhibition of the doctrine of bap- 
 tism, continued now for many generations, 
 deserves the serious consideration of every 
 
XXIH 
 
 intelligent Baptist. With all our efforts^, with 
 all the advantage of overwhelming evidence 
 (as appears to me) in favor of our vsen- 
 timents^ the prdspect of their reception,, (to 
 say nothing of established churches^ where 
 there are peculiar impediments to be encoun- 
 tered)^ the prospect of their reception by dis- 
 senting communities^ is as distant as ever: and 
 it may be doubted whether, since the recent 
 revival of religion, our progress is in a fair 
 proportion to that of other denominations. 
 It may be possible to assign the second causes 
 of this remarkable event; but as second causes 
 are always subservient to the intentions of 
 the first, it deserves our serious consideration, 
 whether we are not laboring under the sen- 
 sible frown of the great Head of the Church ; 
 and ''is there not a cause?" A visible infe- 
 riority to other Christians in zeal and piety 
 will scarcely be imputed ; nor have we been 
 left destitute of that competent measure of 
 learning and talent, requisite to the support 
 of our doctrines. The cause of our failure 
 then is not to be looked fur in ihat quarter- 
 
XXIV 
 
 But though we have not " drank with the 
 drunken/' if we have unwittingly " beaten 
 our £^llow servants/' by assuming a dominion 
 over their conscience ; if we have severed our- 
 selves from the members of Chiist^ and under 
 pretence of preserving the purity of Christian 
 ordinances, violated the Christian spirit; if 
 we have betrayed a lamentable want of that 
 " love which is the fulfilling of the law/' by 
 denying a place in our churches to those who 
 belong to the '' church of the first-born/' and 
 straitening their avenue, till it has become 
 narrower than the way to Heaven ; we may 
 easily account for all that has followed, and 
 have more occasion to be surprised at the 
 compassionate Redeemer's bearing with our 
 infirmities^ than at his not bestowing a signal 
 blessing on our labors. 
 
i\"a "^^ '^ x>\ a;\ 
 
 ^:^, 
 
 PART I. 
 
 The Fundamental Position; or, the supposed necessary 
 Connection between the two positive Institutes of 
 Christianity examined. 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 REMARKS ON MR. KINGHORn's STATEMENT OF THE CONTHOVERST. 
 
 Perfectly concurring in opinion with Mr. 
 Kinghorn that it is of importance that the 
 point in debate be fairly stated^ a few re- 
 marks designed to shew in what respects his 
 statement is inaccurate^ or defective, will not be 
 deemed irrelevant. He justly observes that the 
 question, and the only cjuestion, is whether those 
 who are acknowledged to be unbaptised ought 
 to come to the Lord's table. After stating the 
 sentiments of the Paedobaptists, he proceeds to 
 
observe that the '' Baptists act on a different 
 plan ; they think that baptism onght to be 
 administered to those only who profess re- 
 pentp»nce towards God^ and faith in our Lord 
 Jesus Christ ; and that it should be adminis- 
 tered to them on such profession by immersion. 
 And thcn^ and not before^ they consider such 
 persons properly qualified,, according' to the 
 New Testament;, for the reception of the Lord's 
 supper." The last position Mr, Kinghorn is 
 aware is not maintained by the Baptists as such, 
 but by part of them only : it may be doubted 
 whether it be the sentiment of the majority. 
 Why then identify the advocates of strict com- 
 munion with the body, as though the abettors 
 of a contrary practice were too inconsiderable 
 to be mentioned, or were not entitled to be 
 considered as Baptists ? 
 
 It is but just however to remark, that this 
 disposition to enlarge the number of his par- 
 tizans, is not peculiar to this Writer. Mr. Booth 
 when engaged in defending a thesis, about 
 which the Baptists had long been divided, chose, 
 in the same spirit, to denominate his per- 
 formance " An Apology for the Baptists."^ 
 
 * "Who would expect to find that a book entitled " Au Apology 
 for the Baptists," chiefly consists of a severe reprehension of the 
 principles and practices of a rcppectahle part of that body ? 
 
3 
 
 Our Author proceeds to observe, '' Here 
 arises a controversy between the two parties, 
 not only respecting' baptism, but also respecting 
 their conduct to each other on the subject of 
 communion." Where, let me ask, are the traces 
 to be found of this imaginary controversy be- 
 twixt Baptists and Psedobaptists on that subject? 
 That they have been often engaged in acri- 
 monious disputes with each other on the point 
 of baptism, is certain ; but of the history of this 
 strange debate about terms of communion, the 
 public arc totally ignorant. What are the 
 names of the parties engaged, and to what pub- 
 lications did it give birth? This Author had 
 informed us at the distance of a few lines that 
 the Paedobaptists in general believe that none 
 ought to come to the Lord's table who are not 
 baptized. If this is correct, we may indeed 
 easily conceive of their being offended with us 
 for deeming them unbaptised ; but how our 
 refusal to admit them to communion should 
 become the subject of debate is utterly mys- 
 terious. Did they, in contradiction to the fun- 
 damental laws of reasoning, attempt to persuade 
 us to act in contradiction to the principles 
 agreed upon by both parties ? The supposition 
 is impossible. The truth is — nor could the 
 Writer be ignorant of it — that the dispute re- 
 
specting communion existed in our own deno- 
 mination, and in that only. 
 
 An attempt is made to represent the advo- 
 cates of mixed communion as divided among 
 themselves, and as restini^ the vindication of 
 their conduct on opposite grounds. In stating 
 their views, Mr. Kinghorn observes " that as 
 their Paedobaptist brethren think themselves 
 baptised, they are willing to admit them on 
 that ground, since they do not object to baptism 
 itself, but only differ from others in the cir? 
 cumstances of the ordinance." 
 
 " Some," he adds, '' lay down a still wider 
 principle, that baptism has no connexion with 
 church communion ; and that in forming a 
 Christian church, the question ought not to 
 be, are these Christians who wish to unite in 
 church-fellowship haptised, whatever that term 
 is considered as meaning — but are they, as far 
 as we can judge, real Christians.'"" 
 
 Of this diversity in the mode of defending 
 our practice the Writer of these pages con- 
 fesses himself totally ignorant : and whatever 
 prejudices our cause may sustain, it has not 
 
 V '? Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 11, 12. 
 
5 
 
 yet been injured by that which results from 
 intestine dissention. Different modes of ex- 
 pression may have been adopted by different 
 writers, but a perfect accordance of principle, 
 a coincidence in the reasons alleged for our 
 practice, has pervaded our apologies. We have 
 not, like our opponents, professed to take new 
 ground : " we have not constructed defences so 
 totally dissimilar as the publications of a Booth 
 and a Kinghorn, where the argument which 
 is placed in the very front by the former, is by 
 the latter abandoned as untenable. It is easy 
 to perceive that the alleged disagreement in 
 our principles is a mere phantom. While we 
 universally maintain the nullity of infant bap- 
 tism, the persuasion which our Psedobaptist 
 brethren entertain of their being baptised, can 
 never be mistaken for baptism, and they, con- 
 sequently, cannot be received in the character 
 of baptised persons. Our constant practice of 
 administering immersion to such, on a change 
 of sentiment, would on that supposition convict 
 us at once of being Anabaptists. It is not then 
 under any idea that they have really partaken 
 
 * " The reader who is acquainted with the '■ Apology for the Baptists,'' 
 written by the late venerable Abraham Booth, will find that in the 
 following pages I have taken ground somewhat different from his. 
 I have adopted rather a different mode of defence." — Baptism a Term 
 of Communion, p. 8. 
 
6 
 
 of that ordinance^ more than the people called 
 Quakers^ that we admit them to our communion; 
 but in the character of sincere though mistaken 
 Christians^ who have evinced even with respect 
 to the particular in which we deem them erro- 
 neouSj no disposition to treat a Christian rite 
 with levity or neglect; and if there are those 
 who would refuse to commune with such as 
 reject the ordinance altogether^ it is because 
 they suspect them of such a disposition. As 
 there can be no degrees in nothing, they are 
 not so weak as to suppose that one class is 
 in reality more baptised than the other; but 
 one is supposed to mistake the nature of an 
 institute, which the other avowedly neglects. 
 In this case he who is prepared to believe 
 that the omission of Christian baptism from a 
 notion of its not being designed for perpetuity, 
 may consist with that deference to divine au- 
 thority which is essential to a Christian, will 
 receive both without hesitation : he who is 
 incapable of extending his candour so far, will 
 make a distinction : he will admit the PcTdo- 
 baptist, while he rejects the person who pur- 
 posely omits the ceremony altogether. Which- 
 ever measure we adopt, we act on the same 
 principle, and merely apply it with more or 
 less extent according to the comprehension of 
 our charity. If we supposed there were a 
 
7 
 
 nccessaiy unalterable connexion between the two 
 positive Christian institutes^ so that none were 
 qualified for communion who had not been 
 previously baptised, ue could not hesitate for 
 a moment respecting- the refusal of Psdobaptists, 
 without renouncing' the principles of cur de- 
 nomination. On the other hand, if among 
 such as are supposed to be equally unbaptised, 
 we admit some and reject others, this difference 
 must be derived, not from the consideration of 
 baptism, but of personal character ; in other 
 words from our supposing- ourselves to possess 
 that evidence of the piety of the party accepted, 
 which is deficient in the other. Hence it is 
 manifest that nothing can be more simple and 
 intelligible than the principles on which we 
 proceed, which are of such a nature as to pre- 
 clude every other diversity of opinion, except 
 what regards their application in particular 
 instances. 
 
 He who mistakes the nature of a positive 
 institute, is in a different predicament of error 
 from him who avov/edly rejects it altogether : 
 the imperfection which claims toleration in our 
 Paidobaptist brethren, is different in its nature 
 from that which attaches to such as are dis- 
 posed to set the ordinance aside. It is very 
 possible therefore that some may be willing to 
 
8 
 
 extend their indulgence to what appears to 
 them the least of two errors, while they refuse 
 toleration to the greater, and on this ground 
 admit a Paedobaptist, while they scruple to 
 receive him who does not even profess to be 
 baptized. But in making such a distinction, 
 no intelligent Baptist would be moved by the 
 consideration of one of these parties being 
 baptized, and the other not, (for this would be 
 admitting the validity of infant baptism,) but 
 solely by the different estimate he made of 
 the magnitude of the respective errors. Some 
 would probably consider each of them con- 
 sistent with a credible profession of Christianity ; 
 others might form a less favorable judgment. 
 In this case the parties would act difterently, 
 while they maintained the same principle, and 
 adjusted their practice by the same rule.'^ 
 
 •' The above remarks may enable the reader to judge of the justice 
 ■with which Mr. Kinghorn asserts or insinuates our total disagreement 
 respecting the fundamental principle on which we justify our practice. 
 " Among the Baptists," he says, " who plead for mixed communion, 
 I apprehend few will be found who would fairly take Mr. Hall's 
 principle in all its consequences. In general they palliate, and plead 
 that many good men think themselves baptised, and thej' are w illing 
 to accept them on that footing, leaving it to their own consciences 
 to decide whether they had received such baptism as the word of God 
 required ; and they will hardly admit the possibility of any case 
 occurring which should require their acting on a wider principle. 
 And here also, as far as my knowledge and observation have ex- 
 tended, I believe the cases are very few in which the position would 
 be fairly and boldly adopted, that Christian communion ought to be 
 
It is somewhat extraordinary that after stating 
 the principle on which m}^ Treatise on Com- 
 munion was founded, Mr. Kinghorn makes his 
 first appeal to the PeedobaptistSj and asks whe- 
 ther they are prepared to acknowledge that 
 baptism and the Lord's supper have no con- 
 nexion. I'o what purpose is a question referred 
 to a class of persons^ who as far as concerns 
 the interior regulation of their churches, have 
 no interest in the inquiry ; on whose practice 
 it can have no influence, and who are supposed 
 by both the parties concerned, to be in an 
 error respecting' the institution itself, which has 
 given occasion to the discussion. The confi- 
 dence with which he anticipates their favorable 
 suffrage, appears however to be ill founded; 
 
 held with those who dcDy altogether the obligation to attend to 
 Christian baptism." — p. 15. My opportunities of knowing the 
 sentiments of the liberal part of the Baptists must be supposed to be 
 at least equal to Mr. Kinghorn's; yet I have not heard a single 
 objection from them against the general principle. Exceptions have 
 been made (as might be expected) to particular parts, but none what- 
 ever to the fundamental position of the treatise. The reason he 
 assigns for supposing that many would not adopt the general prin- 
 ciple in its full extent, is inconclusive. To refuse the communion of 
 such as denied the obligation of baptism altogether, providing that 
 error was deemed of such magnitude as to induce a suspicion of the 
 piety of the part)-, would not be to contradict the principle in the 
 smallest degree; and I am persuaded that amongst the advocates 
 of mixed communion the refusal would proceed on no other ground. 
 It is one thing to reject a general principle, and another to differ 
 about the application of it to particular cases. 
 
 C 
 
10 
 
 and if the Evangelical Magazine for 1803 is 
 supposed to have insinuated sentiments cen- 
 genial with his own, the Author of the review 
 of the present controversy in the same pubH- 
 cation, distinctly and explicitly expressed his 
 approbation of the treatise '' On Terms of 
 Communion." I have no doubt the result of 
 an accurate and extensive inquiry into the pre- 
 vailing sentiments of such as adhere to infant 
 baptism would be found opposed to his doctrine; 
 and that such of them as might object to the 
 admission of a member avowedly unbaptised, 
 would be actuated by the consideration of the 
 magnitude of the error, and not by the con- 
 viction of a specific and essential connexion 
 betwixt the two ordinances in question. In 
 other words, they would decide on the case 
 upon principles common to the advocates of 
 mixed communion. 
 
 His pretence for calling in such a host of 
 disputants is that he may '' clear the field/' 
 which in my humble opinion will be best ac- 
 complished by confining the debate within its 
 proper limits ; regarding it agreeably to its 
 true nature, as a controversy which concerns 
 our own denomination alone, without attempt- 
 ing to extort a verdict from persons who have 
 not been placed in a situation to invite their 
 
11 
 
 attention to tlie subject. Fortunately for them, 
 they are under no temptation to treat their 
 fellovv-christians with indignity : whether they 
 would have maintained the stern inflexibility 
 which is prepared to sacrifice the communion 
 of saints, to an unfounded hypothesis, must be 
 left to conjecture. We indulge a hope that 
 they would have hesitated long ere they ad- 
 mitted a doctrine which draws after it such 
 consequences, that they would have judged 
 of the tree by its fruits, and have discovered 
 some better mode of signalizing their alle- 
 giance to Christ, than by the excision of 
 his members. The tenet to which we are op- 
 posed, produces an effect so contrary to what 
 the genius of the gospel teaches us to anti- 
 cipate, and so repugnant to the noblest feelings 
 of the heart, as to form a presumption against 
 it which nothing can surmount, but the utmost 
 force and splendour of evidence. How far it 
 is from possessing such support, or even that 
 preponderation in the scale of argument which 
 would produce conviction on the most trivial 
 subject, it is the business of the following 
 sheets to inquire. 
 
 In deciding the question whether persons 
 whom we deem unbaptised are entitled to ap- 
 proach the Lord's table, we must examine the 
 
12 
 
 connexion subsisting' betwixt the two positive 
 ordinances^ baptism and the Lord's supper. 
 
 Our opponents contend that there is such 
 a connexion betwixt these as renders them 
 inseparable ; so that ho who is deemed unbap- 
 tizedj is ipso facto, apart from any consideration 
 whatever of the cause of that omission^ dis- 
 qualified for approaching" the sacred elements. 
 We contend that the absence of baptism may 
 disqualify^ and that it does disqualify^ wherever 
 it appears to proceed from a criminal motive ; 
 that is, wherever its neglect is accompanied 
 with a conviction of its divine authority. In 
 this case we consider the piety of such a person 
 at least as doubtful ; but when the omission 
 proceeds from involuntary prejudice, or mistake, 
 when the party evinces his conscientious ad- 
 herence to known duty, by the general tenour 
 of his conduct ; we do not consider the mere 
 absence of baptism as a sufticient bar to com- 
 munion. On this ground we cheerfully receive 
 pious Paedobaptists, not from the supposition 
 that the ceremony which they underwent in 
 their infancy, possesses the smallest validity, 
 but as sincere followers of Christ : and for my 
 own part, I should feel as little hesitation in 
 fidmitting such as deny the perpetuity of bap- 
 
13 
 
 tism, whenever the evidence of their piety is 
 equally clear and decisive. 
 
 Tt is apparent that the whole controversy 
 turns on the connexion betwixt the two positive 
 institutes; and that in order to justify the 
 conduct of our opponents^ it is not sufficient 
 to evince the authority or perpetuity of each, 
 and the consequent obligation of attending to 
 both : it is necessary to shew the dependance 
 of one upon the other ; not merely that they 
 are both clearly and unequivocally enjoined, 
 but that the one is prescribed with a view to 
 the other. 
 
 There are two methods by which we may 
 suppose this to be effected ; either by shewing 
 their inherent and intrinsic dependance, or by 
 making it appear that they are connected by 
 positive law. Betwixt ritual observances, it is 
 seldom, if ever, possible to discover an inherent 
 connexion ; in the present case it will probably 
 not be attempted. If the advocates of exclu- 
 sive communion succeed, it must be in the last 
 of these methods; it must be by proving 
 from express declarations of scripture, that 
 baptism is an invariable and essential pre- 
 requisite to communion. A Jew would have 
 
14 
 
 found no difficulty in establishing this fact re- 
 specting circumcision and the passover : he 
 would have immediately pointed to the book 
 of ExoduS;, where we find an express prohibition 
 of an uncircumcised person from partaking 
 of the paschal lamb. Let some similar evidence 
 be adduced on the present subject — let some 
 declaration from scripture be exhibited which 
 distinctly prohibits the celebration of the Lord's 
 supper by any person who from a miscon- 
 ception of its nature has omitted the baptismal 
 ceremony;, and the controversy will be at rest. 
 The reader can scarcely be too often reminded 
 that this is the very hinge of the present debate^, 
 which (as appears from the title of his pamph- 
 let) Mr. Fuller clearly perceived^, however un- 
 successful he may have been in establishing 
 that fundamental position. Much that Mr. 
 Kinghorn has advanced will be found to be 
 totally irrelevant to the inquiry in hand ; and 
 in more instances than one, the intelligent reader 
 will perceive him to have made concessions 
 which are destructive of his cause. But let 
 us proceed to a careful investigation of the 
 arguments by which he attempts to establish 
 the aforesaid connection. 
 
15 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 ins ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH THE CONNECTION CONTENDED 
 FOR, FROM THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION AND PRIMITIVE 
 PRECEDENT. 
 
 My respectable opponent commences this branch 
 of the argument by quoting the apostoHc com- 
 missionj justly remarking that whatever may 
 be thought of John's baptism^ the ceremony 
 enjoined in that commission must belong, in 
 the strictest sense^ to the Christian dispensation. 
 The commission is as follows : — '' Go, there- 
 forCj and teach all nations ; baptising them in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe 
 all things whatsoever I have commanded you.'* 
 Matt. XXV iii. 19, 20. Or as it is recorded in 
 Luke — '' Go ye into all the world, and preach 
 the gospel to every creature. He that be- 
 lieveth, and is baptised, shall be saved." — 
 '' This," Mr. Kinghorn observes, " is the law; 
 
10 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles are a commentary on 
 that law ; not leaving us to collect from mere pre- 
 cedents what ought to be done^ but shewing us 
 how the law was practically explained by those 
 who perfectly understood it." He reminds us 
 " that in every instance where the history de- 
 scends to particulars^ we find they constantly 
 adhered to this rule ; and that when they taught 
 and men believed^ the Apostles baptised them^ 
 and then farther instructed them in the things 
 pertaining to the kingdom of God." 
 
 We are as ready to allow as Mr. Kinghorn, 
 that baptism was enjoined by the apostolic com- 
 mission ; we are perfectly agreed with him re- 
 specting the law of baptism^ and are accustomed 
 to explain its nature, and enforce its authority, 
 by the same arguments as he himself would 
 employ. We have no controversy with him, 
 or with his party, on the subject of baptism, 
 considered apart from the Lord's supper; and 
 were he disputing with such as deny its original 
 appointment, or its perpetuity, the passages 
 he quotes would be fully to his purpose. But 
 where the inquiry turns, not on the nature or 
 obligation of baptism, but on the nccessari/ 
 dependance of another institution upon it, we 
 are at a loss to perceive in what manner the 
 quotation applies to the question before us. 
 
 I 
 
17 
 
 To us it is inconceivable how any thing mores 
 is deducible from the law of baptism, than its 
 present and perpetual obligation. The exist- 
 ence of a law establishes the obligation of a 
 correspondent duty, and nothing more. The 
 utmost efforts of ingenuity can extort no other 
 inference from it, than that a portion of blame 
 attaches to such as have neglected to comply 
 with it, variable in its degree by an infinity of 
 circumstances, too subtle to be ascertained, and 
 too numerous to be recited. We feel no hesi- 
 tation in avowing our belief that Pa?dobaptists 
 of all denominations have failed in a certain 
 part of their duty ; for this is a legitimate in- 
 ference from the perpetuity of the baptismal or- 
 dinance, joined with our persuasion that we have 
 interpreted it correctly. But if we are imme- 
 diately to conclude from thence that they are 
 disqualified for Christian communion, we must 
 seek a church which consists of members who 
 have failed in no branch of obedience ; and must 
 consequently despair of finding fit communicants 
 apart from the spirits of just men made perfect. 
 Examine the idea of law with the utmost 
 rigour, turn it on all sides, and it will present 
 nothing beyond the obligation to a certain 
 species of conduct, so that if Paedobaptists are 
 really disqualified for the Lord's supper, it must 
 be for some other reason than their non-com- 
 
 D 
 
18 
 
 pliance with a law, or otherwise we must insist 
 upon the refusal of every individual who has not 
 discharged all his obligations. To expatiate on 
 the distinctness and solemnity with which the 
 baptismal ceremony was enjoined, is little less 
 than trifling, in a debate with persons who fully 
 accede to every part of the statement, and who 
 wish to be informed, not whether our Paedo- 
 baptist brethren are in an error, but whether 
 its moral amount, its specific nature, is such 
 as to annul their claims to Christian communion. 
 On this point, the passages adduced maintain 
 a profound silence. 
 
 If the practice of strict communion derives 
 no support from the law of baptism, it is im- 
 possible it should derive it from apostolical 
 precedent ; since the Apostles, as this Author ob- 
 serves, adhered constantly to the rule. They 
 did neither more nor less than its letter en- 
 joined : consequently we must be mistaken if 
 we imagine we can infer any thing from their 
 practice, beyond what a just and fair inter- 
 pretation of its terms would suggest. If the 
 Acts of the Apostles are, as Mr. Kinghorn as- 
 serts, '' a commentary on the law^ shewing us 
 how it was practically explained," it is impos- 
 sible it should contain a tittle more than is 
 found in the text. Let us see how the Apostles 
 
 I 
 
19 
 
 acted. " When they taught and men believed/' 
 says our Author, " the Apostles baptised them." 
 Whom did they baptise .^ Undoubtedly such, 
 and such only, as were convinced, not merely 
 of the truth of Christianity, but of the obli- 
 gation of the particular rite to which they at- 
 tended. This is precisely what we do. When 
 we have reason to believe that any part of our 
 hearers have received the truth in the love of 
 it, we proceed to explain the nature, and to 
 enforce the duty, of baptism : and upon their 
 expressing their conviction of its divine authority 
 we baptise them. Such a previous conviction 
 is necessary to render it a reasonable service. 
 We administer that rite to every description 
 of persons whom our opponents themselves 
 deem qualified, and withhold it under no cir- 
 cumstances in which the Apostles would have 
 practised it. Wherein tiien, as far as that 
 institution is concerned, does our practice differ 
 from that of the Apostles? Our opponents 
 will reply, that though in the administration 
 of that rite, our conduct corresponds with the 
 primitive pattern, yet it differs in this, that 
 we receive the unhaptised to our communion, 
 which was not done in the apostolic age. To 
 this we reply, that at that period no good men 
 entertained a doubt respecting its nature — that 
 it was impossible they should, while it was 
 
20 
 
 exemplified before their eyes in the practice of 
 the Apostles and the Evangelists — that he who 
 refused to abide by the decision of inspired 
 men^ would necessarily have forfeited his claim 
 to be considered as a Christian — that a new 
 state of things has arisen^ in which^ from a 
 variety of causes, the doctrine of baptism has 
 been involved in obscurity — that some of the 
 best of men put a different interpretation on 
 the language of scripture on this subject from 
 ourselves^ — and that it is great presumption to 
 claim the same deference with the Apostles^ 
 and to treat those who ditTer from us on the 
 sense of scripture, as though they avowedly 
 opposed themselves to apostolic authority. To 
 misinterpret is surely not the same thing as 
 wilfully to contradict : and however confident 
 we may be of the correctness of our own in- 
 terpretation, to place such as are incapable 
 of receiving it, on the same level with those 
 who withstood the Apostles, differs little, if at 
 ^11, from the claim of infallibility. 
 
 We reason, as we conceive conclusively, in 
 favor of adult, in opposition to infant baptism : 
 our Pasdobaptist brethren avow their inability 
 to discern the justice of our conclusion : and are 
 they on that account to be viewed in the same 
 light as though they intentionally rejected the 
 
21 
 
 decision of inspired men? Wlrat is tliis but 
 to set up a claim to inspiration, or to least to 
 such an infallible guidance in the explanation 
 of scripture, as is equally exempt from the 
 danger of error or mistake ? If we examine 
 it accurately, it amounts to more than a 
 claim to infallibility : it implies in the Paedo- 
 baptists a knowledge of this extraordinary fact. 
 The Apostles were not only inspired, and con- 
 sequently infallible teachers, but were known 
 and acknowledged to be such by the primitive 
 Christians: and before we presume to demand an 
 implicit acquiescence in our conclusions, and 
 to consider ourselves entitled to treat dissen- 
 tients as we suppose the opponents of the 
 Apostles would have been treated, it behoves 
 us to evince our possession of infallibility by 
 similar evidence. As 1 have not heard 
 of our opponents making such an attempt,, 
 I cannot sufficiently expre!?s my surprise at the 
 loftiness of their pretensions, aiid the arrogance 
 of their language. In their dialect all Chris- 
 tians besides themselves ere "" opposed to a 
 divine command,"^ '' refuse subjection to Christ, 
 and violate the laws of his house." ^ 
 
 The justice of their proceeding, founded on 
 
 " Booth. <■ Kinghorn. 
 
the pretension of apostolical precedent, is per- 
 fectly congenial with its modesty. Upon the 
 supposition that a professor of Christianity, in 
 the times of the Apostles, had scrupled the 
 admission of adult baptism, could he, we would 
 ask, in the circumstances then existing-, have 
 been considered as a good man, or a genuine 
 convert? The reply will unquestionably be, 
 no. " He," said St. John, " who is of God 
 heareth us : he who heareth not us, is not of 
 God : hereby ye know the spirit of truth, and 
 spirit of error." 
 
 In this case then, it is admitted that the 
 simple fact of rejecting adult baptism would 
 have been sufficient to set aside a pretension 
 to the Christian character. Is it sufficient now .? 
 Are the Paidobaptists to be universally con- 
 sidered as bad men, or at least as persons 
 whose Christianity is doubtful ? Nothing more 
 distant from the avowed sentiments of our 
 opponents. Where then is the justice of class- 
 ing together men of the most opposite de- 
 scriptions ; or of inferring, that because the 
 Apostles would have refused communion to an 
 unbaptised person, at a time when it is ac- 
 knowledged that none but false professors could 
 remain in that state, it is our duty to refuse it 
 to some of the most excellent of the earthy 
 
 i 
 
23 
 merely on account of the absence of that cere- 
 mon}- ? As it is admitted on all hands that 
 baptism was then so circumstanced that the 
 omission of it was inconsistent ^vith a credible 
 profession of piety^ nothing" more is necessary to 
 account for the precedent which includes it; it 
 was the necessary result of the then state of 
 thing's, and the Apostles, it is acknowledged, could 
 not have extended their communion beyond 
 the limits of that rite, without incorporating in- 
 sincere professors. But if this reason is suffi- 
 cient to account for it, it is unphilosophical and 
 unreasonable to seek for another. The sup- 
 posed inherent and inseparable connection be- 
 twixt the two positive institutes, is another, and 
 a totally different one, which is sufficiently 
 excluded by the preceding reasoning. 
 
 We presume it will not be doubted that 
 scripture precedent is founded on wisdom, 
 that it is not arbitrary and capricious. It 
 would betray great irreverence to suppose that 
 men acting under divine inspiration, were not 
 in every branch of their official conduct, es- 
 pecially in whatever related to the regulation 
 and government of the church, moved by the 
 strongest reasons. Hence the inquiry why 
 they acted as they did is essential to a rational 
 investigation into the force and authority of 
 
24 
 
 scripture precedent. Their procedings were 
 regulated by their judgment, or rather by the 
 wisdom of the Ho!y Spirit which enlightened 
 their minds, and directed their movements. If 
 the reason for rejecling unbaptised persons in 
 the primitive age apphes to the case of Paido- 
 baptists, the argument for strict communion 
 derived from tiie practice of tiie Apostles, is un- 
 answerable. But if the cases are totally dis- 
 similar — if our opponents can assign no such 
 reason for excluding their Christian brethren, 
 as might justly have been urged against the ad- 
 mission of the unbaptised in the times of the 
 Apostles, the argument is totally inconclusive. 
 
 It is decided by the express declaration of 
 our Lord, that he who refuses obedience to any 
 part of his will is not a Christian. '' Then," 
 saith he, " are ye my disciples if ye do whatsoever 
 I have commanded you." But while there was 
 no diversity of opinion on the subject, the volun- 
 tary omission of the baptismal ceremony could 
 arise from nothing but a contumacious con- 
 tempt of a divine precept, of which no sincere 
 Christian could be guilty. Here then we dis- 
 cover a sufficient reason for the matter of fact 
 urged by our opponents, without supposing an 
 intrinsic or invariable connection betwixt the 
 two ordinances. The principle of open com- 
 
25 
 munion would have compelled us to act pre- 
 cisely iu the same manner as the Apostles did, 
 had Ave been placed in their circumstances. 
 How vain tiicn tiie attempt to overthrow that 
 principle, by appealing- to a precedent which 
 is its legitimate and necessary consequence: 
 and how unreasonable the demand which urg-es 
 us to treat two cases as exactly similar, of 
 which our opponents, equally with ourselves, 
 are compelled to form the most opposite judg- 
 ment. Let the advocates of restricted com- 
 munion express the same opinion of the state 
 and character of those whom they now regard 
 as unbaptised, which we are certain they would 
 feel no scruple in avowing with respect to 
 such as had refused submission to that ordi- 
 nance in primitive times, and v/e shall deplore 
 their blindness and bigotry, but shall acknow- 
 ledge they reason consistently from their own 
 premises. But we will never submit to iden- 
 tify two cases which agree in nothing but the 
 omission of an external rite, while that omission 
 arises from causes the most dissimilar, and is 
 combined with characters the most contrary. 
 We will not conclude because the Apostles 
 could not bear with those that were evil, they 
 would have refused to tolerate the good ; or 
 that they would have comprehended under the 
 same censure, the contumacious opposer of their 
 
26 
 
 doctrines, and the myriads of holy men, \vhose 
 only crime consists in mistaking' their meaning 
 in one particular. 
 
 The remarks we have already made will 
 be deemed, we trust, a sufficient answer to 
 the triumphant question of ^Ir. Kinghorn. 
 '' How is it," he asks, " that with the same 
 rule for the guidance of the church, the 
 ancient Christians could not receive a person 
 to communion without baptism, if the modern 
 both can, and ought to receive him?"» The 
 answer is obvious. If the ancient Christians 
 had received a person without baptism, they 
 would have received a false professor : but when 
 we at present receive one whom we judge 
 to be in a similar predicament, we receive 
 a sincere, though mistaken, brother; we re- 
 ceive hiai who is of that description of Chris- 
 tians whom we are commanded to receive. 
 
 If it still be contended that the two cases 
 are so parallel that the proceedings of the 
 Apostles in this particular is binding as a law, 
 we would once more ask such as adopt this 
 plea, ^^hether they themselves form the same 
 judgment of the present Pa^dobaptists as the 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Communion." p. 29. 
 
 i 
 
27 
 AposUos would have entertained of such as 
 continued unbaptised in tlieir day. If they 
 reply in the atrirmative^ they nuist consider 
 them as insincere hypocritical professors. If 
 they answer in the nea;ative, since by their 
 own confession they look upon the persons 
 whom they exclude in a different hg'ht from 
 that in which the party excluded by the Apos- 
 tles was considered^ what becomes of the 
 identity of the two cases : and what greater 
 right have they to think differently of the 
 state of tlie unbaptised from what the Apostles 
 thought;, than we have for treating them dif- 
 ferently. They are clamourous in their charge 
 against us of wilful deviation from apostolic 
 precedents. But there are precedents of think- 
 ing' as well as of acting, and it is as much our 
 duty to conform to the sentiments of inspired 
 men as to their actions. The chief use indeed 
 which inspired precedents are of, is to assist us 
 to ascertain the dictates of inspiration. The 
 conduct of enlightened, much more of inspired 
 men, is founded on sound speculative principles. 
 If the advocates of strict communion uige us with 
 the inquiry — By what authority do you presume 
 to receive a class of persons whom you ac- 
 knowledge the Apostl<}s would not have re- 
 ceived ? we reply— By what authority do you 
 presume to deviate from the opinion of the 
 
28 
 Apostles respecting- that same class ? Many 
 •whom you exclude from your communion^ 
 as unbaptisedj you acknowledge as Christians, 
 and without hesitation express your con- 
 fidence of meeting" them in glory. Did the 
 Apostles entertain the same judgment respect- 
 ing sucii in their day ? Were they prepared 
 to recognize them as brethren, and to con- 
 gratulate them on their eternal prospects, 
 while they repelled them from communion ? 
 "Would they not without hesitation, have ap- 
 plied to them the language which our Saviour 
 uses, respecting such as refused to be baptised 
 by John, whom he affirms to have " rejected 
 the counsel of God against themselves?" 
 
 These questions admit but of one answer. 
 Here then is a palpable disagreement between 
 the sentiments of our opponents and those of the 
 Apostles, on the subject of the unbaptised; the 
 Apostles would have both rejected and con- 
 demned them : tliei^ reject them as members, 
 and embrace them as brethren. Were they 
 called upon to defend themselves from the 
 charge of contradicting the Apostles, they would 
 begin to distinguish betwixt the two cases, 
 and urge the diiferent circumstances which 
 accompany the omission of the same ceremony 
 
29 
 
 now, from what must be supposed to have 
 accompanied it in the times of the Apostles ; 
 in other words, they would attempt to shew 
 that a new case has arisen, which necessitates 
 them to form a correspondent judgment. — 
 They assume the same liberty with ourselves 
 of thinking diff^crenth/ of the state of the 
 many who continue unbaptised in the pre- 
 sent day, from what they are persuaded the 
 Apostles would have thought of such as had 
 remained in that situation in theirs ; and yet 
 ^vith strange inconsistency accuse us of a de- 
 viation from a divine precedent in not treat- 
 ing them both in the same manner, forgetting 
 that if the cases are parallel, they them- 
 selves are guilty of an avowed and palpable 
 contradiction to the sentiments of the Apostles. 
 
 When men differ in their views of one and 
 the same object, it will not be denied that they 
 contradict each other. We offer them the 
 alternative, either to deny, or to affirm, that 
 to be unbaptised at present is in a moral view 
 a very distinct thing, and involves very different 
 consequences, from being in that predicament 
 in the times of the Apostles. If they deny it, 
 they stand self-convicted of contradicting the 
 sentiments of inspiration, by speaking of that 
 class of persons as genuine Christians, whom 
 
30 
 
 they cannot but acknowledge the Apostles would 
 have condemned. If they adopt the affirmative^ 
 our practice by their own confession is not 
 opposed to apostolic precedent^ because that 
 precedent respects a difj'erent thing. 
 
 They not only depart from the precedent of 
 the Apostles^ in the judgment they form of 
 the unbaptised^ but in every other branch of 
 their conduct, Avilh the exception of the act 
 of communion. On all other occasions they 
 treat as brethren^ and frequently, and that much 
 to their honour, cultivate an intimate friendship 
 with persons whom they deem to be destitute 
 of that rite, the omission of which in the apos- 
 tolic age, would have incurred the sentence of 
 wilful impiety and' disobedience. What, we 
 ask, is more opposite to primitive precedent, 
 than the practice of including the same persons 
 within the obligations of Christian love and 
 friendship, whom they prohibit from commu- ' 
 nion ; of inviting them into the pulpit, and 
 repelling them from the table; uniting with 
 them in the most retired and elevated exercises 
 of devotion, and excluding them from the 
 church ? It is scarcely in the power of imagi- 
 nation to feign a species of conduct more 
 diametrically opposite to all the examples of 
 scripture ; and when they have reconciled these. 
 
31 
 
 and many similar usages^ with the practice of 
 the primitive age, they will have supplied us 
 with a sufficient apology for our pretended de- 
 viation from the same standard. 
 
 It Avill probably be thought enough has been 
 already said to demonstrate the futility of the 
 argument founded on original precedent : but 
 as this is considered by our opponents in 
 general^ as well as by Mr. Kinghorn in par- 
 ticular^ as the main prop of their cause^ we 
 must be permitted to detain the reader a little 
 longer^ while we enter on a closer examination 
 of his reasoning. 
 
 In order to shew that baptism is a necessary 
 term of communion, he labours hard to prove 
 that it is a term o^ profession. "It is obvious/' 
 he saySj " that their baptism (that of believers) 
 was the term of professing their faith, by the 
 special appointment of the Lord himself." To 
 the same purpose, he afterwards adds, " the 
 fact still exists that it pleased the Lord to 
 make a visible and ritual observance, the ap- 
 pomted evidence of our believing* on him. 
 If obedience to a rite be not a term of salvation^ 
 (which no one supposes) yet it was ordered 
 by the highest authority, as an evidence of our 
 subjection to the Author of salvation : and a 
 
32 
 
 Christian profession is not made in Christ's own 
 way without it." Recurring- to the same topic^'' 
 he observes, " Whatever may be the con- 
 ditions of salvation^ a plain question here occurs, 
 which is — Ought the tenns of Christian com- 
 munion to he different from those of Christian 
 profession ? The only answer which one would 
 think could be given to this question would be, 
 no: Christian communion must require what- 
 ever the Lord required as a mark of Christian 
 profession." 
 
 It is hoped the reader will excuse my ac- 
 cumulating quotations to the same purport, 
 which would have been avoided, were it not 
 evident that the Writer considered this as his 
 strong' hold, to which he repairs with a con- 
 fidence which bespeaks his conviction of its 
 being impregnable. AVe will venture, how- 
 ever, to come close to these frowning battle- 
 ments ; we will make trial of their strength, 
 that it may be seen whether their power of 
 resistance is equal to their formidable aspect. 
 We freely acknowledge that if the principle 
 can be established that baptism is invariably 
 essential to a Christian profession, the cause we 
 are pleading must be abandoned, being con- 
 
 " page 20. 
 
83 
 
 fident that a true profession of the Christiail 
 religion is inseparable from church communion* 
 
 Previous to entering on this discussion^ it 
 will be necessary to premise that the words 
 profession and confession, together with their 
 correlates^ are usually denoted by one and 
 the same word in the original^ and that they 
 are evidently used by the authors of the re- 
 ceived translation as synonymous.' Hence what- 
 ever is affirmed in the New Testament re- 
 specting the confession of Christy or of his 
 sayings^ may without hesitation be considered 
 as predicated of a profession ; since whatever 
 difference may subsist in the popular meaning 
 of the wordSj whenever they occur in scripture^ 
 they are merely different renderings of the 
 same term.'' 
 
 J The word in the original is oy^oKoyiCi, derived from Oy^oKoySbO, 
 & verb of the same import. 
 
 " See Matthew x. 32. Luke xii. 8. Matthew vii. 23. John ix. 22. 
 John xii. 42. Acts xxiii. 8, Acts xxiv. 14. Romans x. 9, 10. 1 John 
 iv. 13. 2 John vii. Rev. iii. 5. 1 Timothy vi. 13. TV]V KaAvjV 
 
 O^oKoyiUVj a good profession. English Translation. — Heb. iii. 1. TV? 
 CfJ^oKoyiug Vi[J^UV, of our profession, E. T.— Heb. iv. 14. rvj? 
 OfMoXoyiag V^/XWV^ our profession, E. T. — Heb. x. 23. TV]V O^J.O'KoyiClV 
 TV\i sX'KlZoQ «xAiVV)j the profession of our faith without wavering. — ■ 
 Matthew vii. 23. TOTS OIXOKoyviiTU CiVTOlQ, then will I profesa 
 
 unto them. In each of the preceding passages the same word, under 
 
 different inflections, is employed, and they contain all the passages 
 which relate to the absolute necessity of a religious profession. 
 
 F 
 
34 
 
 Now that the profession of Christ is an iii- 
 (lispensible term of salvation^ is so undeniably 
 evident from the New Testament, that to 
 attempt to prove it, seems hke an insult on the 
 understanding^ of the reader. I must crave his 
 indulgence, however, for recalling to his re- 
 collection a very few passages which will set 
 the matter beyond dispute. " Whoever/' said 
 our Lord, "shall confess (or profess) my name 
 before men^ him will 1 confess before my Father 
 which is in Heaven : and whoever shall deny 
 me before men, him will 1 also deny before 
 my Father which is in Heaven." — j\Jat viii. 32. 
 The same language occurs, with little variation, 
 in the gospel of St. Luke, xii. 8. In these 
 words we find an awful denunciation of the 
 rejection of every one, without exception, who 
 shall be found to have denied Christ ; and as 
 this denial is immediately opposed to confessing 
 him, it must necessarily attach to all such as 
 have not made a confession. If a medium 
 could be supposed betwixt the denial and the 
 open assertion of the doctrine of Christ, it is 
 precluded by the following sentence : — '' Who- 
 ever shall be ashamed of me, and of my words^ 
 of liim shall the Son of man be ashamed, when 
 he shall come in his own glory, and of the 
 Father, and of his holy angels." — Luke ix. 26. 
 Thence we may with certainty conclude that 
 
35 
 
 from whatever motives a profession of Chris- 
 tianity is, omitted or declined^ eternal perdition 
 is the consequence. Nor is this the doctrine 
 of the EvangeHsts only : it is repeatedly as- 
 sertedj and uniformly implied^ in the writings 
 of the Apostles. " If thou shalt confess (or 
 professj with the mouth/' saith St. Paul^ '' the 
 Lord JesuSj and shalt believe in thine heart 
 that God has raised him from the dead, thou 
 shalt be saved : for with the heart man be- 
 lieveth unto rig-hteousness, and with the mouth 
 confession (or profession) is made to salvation." 
 Romans x. 9. We find the same Writer on 
 another occasion exhorting Christians to hold 
 fast the profession of their faith without waver- 
 ing, when the previous possession of that is 
 necessarily supposed, a firm adherence to which 
 is inculcated as essential to salvation. " Let 
 us hold fast the profession of our faith without 
 wavering." — Hebrews x. 23. It is to the faith- 
 ful, considered as such, without distinction of 
 sects and parties, that St. Paul addresses the 
 following exhortation : " Wherefore holy breth- 
 ren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider 
 the Apostle and High Priest of our profession 
 Christ Jesus." — Hebrews iii. I. In the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews alone, the phrase our profession 
 occurs three times, and in each instance in such 
 
36 
 
 a connection as demonstrates it to be an attri- 
 bute common to all Christians.' 
 
 It would be trifling with the readers' patience 
 to multiply proofs of a position so evident from 
 scripture^ as the inseparable connection betwixt 
 a genuine profession of Christy and future sal- 
 vation. But if this be admitted, what becomes 
 of the principal argument urged by Mr. King- 
 horn for strict communion, which turns on the 
 principle that ^' baptism is the term of Christian 
 profession ? " Who can fail to perceive that 
 if this proposition is true, the Paedobaptists are 
 on our principles cut off from the hope of 
 eternal life, and salvation is confined to our- 
 selves ? The language of our Saviour and his 
 Apostles is decisive respecting the necessity of 
 a profession in order to eternal life : this Writer 
 affirms that baptism, as we practise it, is an 
 essential term of profession. By comparing 
 these propositions together, a child will per- 
 ceive that the necessary inference is the restric- 
 tion of the hope of future happiness to members 
 of our own denomination. This in truth is 
 the conclusion to which all his reasoning tends ; 
 it meets the intelligent reader at every turn ,' 
 
 ' Hebrews iii. 1. iv. 14. x. 13, 
 
37 
 
 but when he expects the Writer to advance 
 forward and press the fearful consequence, he 
 turns aside, and is afraid to push his argument 
 to its proper issue. He travels in birth, but 
 dares not bring forth ; he shrinks from the sight 
 of his own progeny. Sometimes he seems at 
 the very point of disclosing the full tendency 
 of his speculations, and more than once sug- 
 gests hints in the form of questions which 
 possess no meaning, but on the supposition 
 of that dismal conclusion to which his hypo- 
 thesis conducts him. Let the reader pause, 
 and meditate on the following extraordinary 
 passage : — '' If baptism,'' he says, '' was once 
 necessary to communion, either it was then 
 essential to salvation, or that which was not 
 essential to salvation, was necessary to com- 
 munion. If it was then essential to salvation, 
 how can it be proved not to be essential now.?""" 
 Again he asks, '^ what is the meaning of the 
 term condition ? In whatever sense the term 
 can apply to the commission of our Lord, or 
 to the declarations of the Apostles respecting 
 repentance, faith, and baptism ; is not baptism 
 a condition either of communion, or of salvation, 
 or of both ? Do the conditions either of sal- 
 vation, or of communion, change by time ? 
 Are they annulled by being misunderstood r"° 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 19. " p. 20, 
 
38 
 
 Whatever of argument these passages may be 
 supposed to contain^ will be examined hereafter ; 
 the design of producing them at present, is to 
 shew the tendency of the principle : and the 
 reader is requested to consider whether they 
 are susceptible of any other sense, than that 
 the terms of salvation and of communion are 
 commensurate with each other ; that whatever 
 was once essential to salvation, is so still ; and 
 that baptism is as much a condition of sal- 
 vation, as faith and repentance. But if these 
 are his real sentiments, why not speak plainly, 
 instead of ^' uttering parables ;" and why mingle 
 in the same publication, representations totally 
 repugnant, in which he speaks of such as 
 dissent from him on the subject of baptism, 
 as persons of the most distinguished character — 
 persons whom God will undoubtedly bring to 
 his kingdom and glory .° The only solution 
 this problem admits, is to suppose (what my 
 knowledge of his character confirms) that to 
 the first part of these statements he was impelled 
 by the current of his arguments ; to the latter 
 by the dictates of his heart. But however that 
 heart may rebel, he must learn either to subdue 
 its contumacy, or consent to relinquish the 
 principal points of his defence. He has stated 
 
 ° " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 21. 36. 
 
39 
 
 that the hmits of communion must he the 
 same Vi ith (Iiofc of profession ; that the Psedo- 
 baptisLs have none^ or at least none that is 
 valid ; and that on this account^ and for this 
 reason, they are precluded from a title to 
 christian fellowship. But tlie -word of God, 
 as we have seen, repeatedly insists on men's 
 professing Christ, as an indispensible requi- 
 site to salvation. How is it possible then, 
 if iMr. Kinghorn's position is just, to evade 
 the consequence, that those whom he would 
 exclude from communion, are excluded from 
 salvation ? 
 
 " If obedience to a rite," he observes, "' be 
 not a term of salvation, (which no one sup- 
 poses) yet it was ordered by the highest au- 
 thority, as an evidence of our subjection to 
 the Author of salvation : and a christian pro- 
 fession is not made in Christ's oicu lua?/ with- 
 out ity If the open acknowledgment of Christ 
 by the Paedobaptists is not to be esteemed a 
 real and valid profession, the inevitable con- 
 sequence is, for reasons sufficiently explained, 
 that they cannot be saved ; but if it is valid, 
 (however imperfect in one particular) it is so 
 far made in Christ's own way. The express 
 
 ' " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 18. 
 
40 
 
 sion which he employ's to depreciate it, has 
 either no meaning, or none that is relative to 
 the object of the Writer. The scope of his 
 argument obliged him to prove that adult bap- 
 tism is essential to a christian profession : he 
 novr contents himself with saying, that without 
 that ordinance, it is not made in the right way^ 
 which may with equal propriety be affirmed 
 of every deviation from the doctrine and pre- 
 cepts of the gospel. Just as far as we suppose 
 a person to depart from these,, we must judge 
 his profession not to be made in ChrisVs own 
 way : nor will any thing short of a perfect 
 profession, or in other words, a perfect com- 
 prehension, and exhibition of the will of Christ, 
 exempt him from such an imputation : so that 
 in this sense, which is the only one applicable 
 to the case before us, to make a profession 
 of the christian religion in Christ's own 
 way, is not the lot of a mortal. But though 
 this is the only interpretation consistent with 
 truthj we cannot for a moment suppose that 
 such was the meaning of the Writer. He must 
 have intended to assert that the parties to 
 whom they are applied, fail to make what 
 Christ himself would deem a profession. This 
 supposition is forced upon us by the scope 
 of his reasoning, which went to prove that 
 baptism is necessary to communion, because 
 
41 
 
 it is necessary to a profession. Tliis supposed 
 necessity must consequently relate^ not to its 
 completeness, or perfection, but to its essence: 
 he must be understood to affirm, that they have 
 not exhibited, what Christ w ill consider as a pro- 
 fession. But as he has solemnly affirmed his 
 determination to reject such as are destitute 
 of it, Nve ask again how Mr, King-horn will re- 
 concile this with the salvability of Paedobaptists? 
 
 Whatever it seems o'ood to infinite wisdomi 
 to prescribe as an indispensible condition of 
 future happiness, we must suppose that it 
 exactly corresponds to its name : it is true and 
 genuine in its kind, and wants nothing which 
 constitutes the essence. If an open acknow- 
 ledgment of Christ is the prerequisite demanded 
 under the title of a j)rofession, it would seem 
 strange to assert that something less than what 
 is correctly denoted by that expression, is after 
 all sufficient to satisfy the condition. This 
 however is what Mr. Kinghorn must assert, 
 to be consistent with himself: for he will not 
 deny that the advocates of infant sprinkling- 
 have exhibited something lifce a profession; 
 but as they have not made it in CkrisVs own 
 way, it is not, strictly speaking, entitled to that 
 appellation, and consequently cannot claim the 
 privileges it secures. But if the case is as he 
 
 G 
 
42 
 
 states it, he must either confine the iiope of 
 salvation to his own party, or admit that in 
 the solemn denunciations before recited, it is 
 not really a profession of Christ which is re- 
 quired, but merely something' which resembles 
 it. Whether the use of language so replete 
 with ambig-uity, or collusion, is consistent with 
 the character of the " true and faithful witness," 
 we leave to the decision of the reader. Ac- 
 cording to Mr. Kinghorn, while there are two 
 modes of avowing- our Christianity, one so 
 essentially defective as not to deserve the name 
 of a profession, the other sound and valid ; 
 when the Supreme Legislator thought fit to 
 enjoin the profession of his name, under the 
 sanction of eternal death, he intended to insist 
 on the first, in distinction from the last of 
 these methods. Let him who is able, digest 
 these absurdities ; from which, whoever would 
 escape, must cither abandon the ground which 
 Mr. Kinghorn has taken, or consign the Paido- 
 baptisls to destruction. 
 
 It is time however to recur to the questions 
 with which he has urged his opponents, and 
 which he supposes it impossible to solve on 
 ray principles. " If baptism," he observes, 
 " was once necessary to communion, either it 
 was then essential to salvation, or that which 
 
43 
 
 was not essential to salvation was necessary 
 to communion. If it was then essential to sal- 
 vation^ how can it be proved not to be essen- 
 tial now ? If it be argued that it was not 
 essential to salvation then, it must either be 
 proved that communion was held without it, 
 or JMr. Hall's position must fall.'"* 
 
 Of the preceding dilemma, I embrace with- 
 out hesitation, the affirmative side^ and assert 
 that in the apostolic age, baptism icas necessary 
 to salvation. To the query which follows,, 
 how then can it be proved '' that it is not 
 essential now, I reply that it is unnecessary to 
 attempt it, because it is admitted by Mr, 
 Kinghorn himself; and it is preposterous to 
 attempt the proof of what is acknowledged by 
 both parties. It is very astonishing, after he 
 had so clearly avowed his conviction of the 
 exalted character, and uncpiestionablc piety of 
 many PEedobtiptists, he should ask the question : 
 but he was probably so dazzled with the seeming 
 subtlety and acumen of these pointed inter- 
 rogatories, as not to perceive their total irre- 
 levance. If he feels any hesitation in affirming 
 that baptism was essential to salvation in pri- 
 mitive times, he entertains a lower idea of its 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 19. 
 
44 
 
 importance than liis opponents ; but on the con- 
 trary supposition, unless he totally retracts his 
 liberal concessions, he must acknowledge that 
 which was 07ice necessary to salvation is not 
 so now. The difficulty attending the suppo- 
 sition of a change in the terms of salvation, is 
 urged with little propriety by one to whose 
 hypothesis they apply in their full force ; nor 
 are they, when fairly examined^ at all for- 
 midable. Owing to the incurable ambiguity of 
 language, many truths founded on the clear- 
 est evidence, assume an appearance of pa- 
 radox ; and of this nature is the proposition 
 which affirms that the terms of salvation are 
 not unalterable : which may with equal pro- 
 priety be affirmed or denied, in different senses. 
 Since the fundamental laws of the kingdom 
 of God are of equal and invariable obligation, 
 a cordial compliance with which is essential 
 to eternal felicity — since faith and repentance 
 are at all times, and in all places^ indispensible 
 prerequisites to a justified state; in popular 
 language there would be no impropriety in 
 asserting that the conditions of salvation, under 
 the gospel, remain the same from age to age. 
 
 But if this proposition is taken in its utmost 
 rigour, and applied to every particular, con- 
 nected with the faith and practice of Christians, 
 
45 
 
 it is manifestly false. There are certain parts 
 of Christianity, which as they exhibit tiie basiS;, 
 and propound the conditions of the new cove- 
 nant^ belong' to its essence ; certain doctrines 
 which are revealed because they are necessary; 
 and others which are necessary only because 
 they are revealed : the absence of which impairs 
 its beauty, without destroying its being. Of 
 this nature are its few and simple ceremonies. 
 But while this distinction is admitted, it will 
 not be denied that the wilful perversion of 
 the least of Christ's precepts, or the deliberate 
 and voluntary rejection of his instructions in 
 the smallest instance, would betray an insin- 
 cerity utterly inconsistent with the christian 
 character. " He who shall break the least of 
 these my commandments, and teach men so, 
 he shall be of no account in the kingdom of 
 Heaven." *^ The truth or precept in question 
 may be of such an order, that a simple igno- 
 rance of it may not be fatal, yet to resist it, 
 knowing it to be of divine authority, would be 
 pregnant with the highest danger. The great 
 Head of the Church will not permit us to set vo- 
 luntary limits to our obedience : we must consent 
 to receive all his sayings, or none. But it must 
 be manifest on reflection, that on its first pub- 
 
 ■■ Campbell's Translation. 
 
46 
 
 lication, the visible appendages of Christianity 
 were exhibited with a lustre of evidence^ which 
 no honest mind could withstand ; and that no 
 pretence for their neglect could subsist among* 
 such as possessed religious integrity. Such 
 was eminently the case with the two institutions 
 which have occasioned the present controversy. 
 The constant practice of the Apostles ap- 
 pealing to the senses of men^ and illustrating 
 the import of their oral instruction, made the 
 point of duty so plain, that its omission in such 
 circumstances could be ascribed only to volun- 
 tary corruption. 
 
 Nor is this the only example which mig"ht 
 be adduced. By orthodox Christians the ex- 
 plicit belief of the doctrine of the atonement 
 is now considered as indispensibly necessary 
 to salvation : but that the immediate followers 
 of Christ were during his personal ministry 
 so far from embracing this truth, that they could 
 not endure the mention of his death, without 
 expressing the utmost impatience, and knew 
 not what was intended by his resurrection, is 
 an undeniable fact. The full development of 
 the gospel scheme, made at a subsequent 
 period, has in this instance rendered that es- 
 sential to salvation, which could previously 
 subsist without it. 
 
47 
 
 It may also be observed^ that a diversity of 
 sentiment has arisen among- Christians^ from 
 different modes of interpreting the word of 
 God;, which has given birth to various sects 
 and parties, unknown in primitive times. On 
 many of these points^ it is impossible to suppose 
 but that the sentiments of the inspired writers 
 were expressed with sufficient perspicuity to be 
 perfectly understood by the parties^ to whom 
 they were originally communicated; and who 
 having- repeatedly attended their ministry^ had 
 heard those particulars more fully illustrated 
 and confirmed,, which are briefly touched upon 
 in their writings. Who can doubt that the 
 true idea of election, whether it intends, as 
 the Arminians assert, the distinction conferred 
 on some, above others, in the collation of ex- 
 ternal benelits, or the pre-ordination of indi- 
 viduals to eternal life, was clearly ascertained 
 by the primitive Christians, so as to exclude 
 the possibility of controversy and debate. The 
 Arminian will contend that the first Christians 
 entertained his notion of election and ffrace : 
 the Calvinist, with ecjual confidence, will main- 
 tain that the true and primitive interpretation of 
 scripture is in favour of his hypothesis : and 
 neither of them can consistently admit that 
 the members of the primitive church adopted 
 a different system, from that which they re^ 
 
48 
 
 spectively embrace. One of the parties will 
 contend that the apostolic church consisted en- 
 tirely of Arminians ; the otiier that it included 
 none but Calvinists. 
 
 Were it allowed that some variety of opinion 
 on this mysterious topic^, might subsist even 
 amongst the earliest converts^ it is impossible 
 to suppose there were none at that period 
 who understood the doctrine of St. Paul: it 
 would be most injurious to the reputation of 
 that great writer, to suppose he expressed him- 
 self with an obscurity, which uniformly baffled 
 the power of comprehension. J^et his meaning-, 
 for argument's sake, be supposed to agree with 
 the arminian system, the adoption of that hy- 
 pothesis was on this supposition essential to 
 the salvation of him who was acquainted with 
 that circumstance. For such a person to have 
 embraced the calvinistic sentiments, would have 
 been to pour contempt on the apostolic doc- 
 trine, and to oppose his private judgment to 
 the dictates of inspiration. If we invert the 
 supposition, the result is a similar conclusion, 
 in favor of the Calvinist. Were these parties 
 to exclude each other from communion under 
 pretence that the primitive Christians were 
 all Calvinists, or all Arminians ; were the Cal- 
 vinist to assert that he dares not sanction so 
 
49 
 
 serious a departure from truths as the denial 
 of election^, and that to receive such as were erro- 
 neous in this point would be to admit a class 
 of persons who liad no existence in the pri- 
 mitive cliurch, lie would argue precisely in 
 the same manner as jMr. Kinohorn. How 
 would our Author repel this reasoning, or 
 justify a more liberal conduct? lie certainly 
 would not allege the original obscurity of the 
 apostolic injunctions, and the possibility of 
 primitive converts mistaking their meaning: 
 he would unquestionably insist on the different 
 degrees of importance attached to revealed 
 truths, and the palpable difference betwixt mis- 
 taking the meaning, and avowedly opposing 
 the sentiments of inspired writers. But this 
 is precisely our mode of defence. 
 
 When a dispute arose on the obligation of 
 extending the rite of circumcision to the Gen- 
 tiles, a counsel consisting of the Apostles and 
 Elders was assembled to determine the question. 
 Their decision was, that the Gentiles should 
 no longer be troubled on that head, but that 
 they should be strictly enjoined among other 
 things, carefully to abstain from things strangled, 
 and from blood. It is universally acknowledged 
 that it was the design of this injunction to 
 prohibit the use of blood in food. This pre- 
 
 H 
 
50 
 
 cept was enjoined expressly on the Gentiles, 
 without the slightest intimation of its being- 
 of temporary duration ; nor did it commence 
 with the Jewish dispensation, but was in force 
 from the period of the deluge. I have not the 
 smallest doubt that it is of perpetual force, 
 however httle it may be regarded in modern 
 practice ; and were the observation of it pro- 
 posed as a term of communion, I am not aware 
 of a single argument adduced by our opponents 
 for their narrow exclusive system, which might 
 not with superior advantage be alleged in 
 favour of such a regulation. If it be urged 
 that there never was a period when it was not 
 the duty of believers in Christ to be baptised, 
 it may be asserted with equal confidence that 
 the precept of abstaining from blood was inva- 
 riably observed by the faithful from the time 
 of Noah. If it be urged that the primitive 
 church consisted exclusively of such as were 
 baptised, it is equally certain that it consisted 
 only of such as abstained from blood. That it 
 was " once a term of communion" none will 
 deny : '' how then comes it to cease to be such } " 
 In this case there is no room to allege a mis- 
 apprehension of the meaning of the precept: 
 it is susceptible but of one interpretation ; and 
 if the terms of communion are not " annulled 
 
51 
 
 by being- misunderstood/'" much less when there 
 is no such pretence. The only perceptible 
 ditlercnce in the two cases, is that the precept 
 respecting" blood was not promulgated by the 
 Saviour himself; but it resulted from the solemn 
 and unanimous decision of his Apostles^ and 
 is of more ancient origin than any other 
 christian institute. If our opponents attempt 
 to depreciate its importance by asserting that 
 it is merely ritual and ceremonial, so is bap- 
 tism ; and as they v.ere both enjoined by the 
 same authority, both universally maintained in 
 the primitive church, if the absence of one 
 of these observances constitutes a church of 
 different materials, so must the neglect of 
 the other. 
 
 Such as violate the abstinence in question 
 will not pretend that they observe the prohi- 
 bition ; they satisfy themselves with ass€iling 
 their conviction, (a conviction not sustained 
 by a syllable of scripture) that it is only of 
 temporary obligation ; and as Pffidobaptists pro- 
 fess their conscientious adherence to the bap- 
 tismal precept, which they merely demand the 
 right of interpreting for themselves ; upon 
 what principle is it that a mistake in the 
 
 ' " Baptism a Ti rm of Couiinunion,"' p. 20. 
 
52 
 
 meaning' of a positive injunction^ i& deemed 
 more criminal than its avowed neolect: or 
 why should an error of judgment which 
 eqiiall}^ effects the practice in both cases, be 
 tolerated in one, and made the ground of ex- 
 clusion in the other? This reasoning, it is ac- 
 knowledged, bears with the greatest weight 
 on such as conceive the prohibition of blood 
 to be still in force ; who if they adopt the 
 principle of INIr. Kinghorn ought to be con- 
 sistent, immediately to separate themselves from 
 such as are of a contrary judgment. The same 
 argument equally applies to laying on of hands 
 after ordination and baptism. It is acknow^- 
 ledged that this rite was universally practised 
 in the primitive times, that it claims the sanc- 
 tion of apostolic example, and it is enumerated 
 by St. Paul amongst the Jirst principles of 
 christian doctrine. Wherever that practice is 
 laid aside, it may with equal truth be affirmed, 
 that the church consists of different materials 
 from those admitted by the Apostles ; and it 
 may be asked with an air of triumph, in the 
 words of this Writer, by what authority we 
 presume " to make a scriptural rite of less 
 consequence in the church of Christ than it 
 >Yas once.'" 
 
 "■ " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 92. 
 
 J 
 
 f 
 
53 
 
 Thus much may suffice for the viudication 
 of our pretended departure from ancient usage 
 and apostolic precedent. But as this topic is 
 supposed to include the very pith and marrow 
 of my opponent's cause, the reader must ex- 
 cuse my replying- to some other parts of his 
 reasoning. Confident of the soundness of our 
 principles^ it is my anxious wish that nothing 
 may pass unnoticed that wears the shadow of 
 argument ; and that no suspicion be afforded 
 of a desire to shrink from any part of the 
 contest. 
 
 '' If an obedience to a rite," says our Author, 
 '' be not a term of salvation, (which no one 
 supposes) yet it was ordered by the highest 
 authority, as an evidence of subjection to the 
 Author of salvation."' He repeatedly asserts 
 that it was prescribed as an evidence of faith 
 in him. In another place he styles it " the 
 appointed evidence of our putting on Jesus 
 Christ/' and affirms that '■ the church of Christ 
 acting upon the rule he has laid down^ cannot 
 recognise any person as his disciple who is not 
 baptised in his name." * 
 
 Let us first ascertain the precise meaning 
 
 ' " Baptism a Term of Couiinunion," p. IS. ' p. 140. 
 
54 
 
 of these remarkable passages. He cannot be 
 supposed to assert that baptism is of itself a 
 sufficient evidence of saving faith : Simon 
 Magus was baptised, who had no part or lot 
 in the matter. His meaning must be, that the 
 ordinance in question forms a necessary part 
 of the evidence of faith, insomuch that in the 
 absence of it, our Lord intended no other should 
 be deemed valid. That this was the case in 
 the primitive age, we feel no hesitation in 
 affirming ; we have also shewn at large the 
 reason on which that conclusion is founded. 
 But in no part of scripture is there the slightest 
 intimation that it was more specifically in- 
 tended as the test of faith, than compliance with 
 any other part of the mind of Christ ; or that 
 it was in any other sense an evidence of the ex- 
 istence of that attainment, than as it was neces- 
 sary to evince the possession of christian sincerity. 
 Thus much we are most willing to concede, 
 but are at a loss to know what is gained by it, 
 unless our opponent could demonstrate that it 
 occupies the same place at present, and that 
 it is still necessary to constitute a valid evidence 
 of faith in the Redeemer. If this is what he 
 means to assert, (and nothing beside has the 
 least relation to his argument) how will he 
 reconcile it with the confidence he so often 
 expresses of the piety of the Ptedobaptists .^ His 
 
objection to their communion^ he elsewhere 
 informs us, " does not arise from suspicions 
 attaching to their christian character/" to which 
 he trusts he is always willing to render ample 
 justice. He has no suspicion of the piety of 
 those who are destitute of that which Jesus 
 Christ prescribed as the evidence of faith, 
 and whom he affirms " it is impossible for 
 the churchy acting on the rule which he has 
 laid down, to recognise as his disciples." I am 
 at a loss to conceive of a more palpable con- 
 tradiction. 
 
 If there be any meaning in terms, the word 
 evidence means that by which the truth of a 
 fact or a proposition, is made manifest, and 
 the absence of which induces either hesitation 
 or denial. Its place in the intellectual world 
 corresponds to light in the natural ; and it is 
 just as conceivable how an object can be be- 
 held without light, as how a fact can be ascer- 
 tained without evidence. Mr* Kinghorn it 
 seems however has contrived to solve the pro- 
 blem ; for while he affirms that the patrons of 
 infant baptism are destitute of that which in- 
 finite wisdom has prescribed as the evidence 
 of faith, and by which we are to recognise 
 
 ^ " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 67. 
 
66 
 
 his discipleSj he expresses as firm a conviction 
 of their piety as though they possessed it in 
 the utmost perfection. Let me ask on what 
 is his conviction founded — will he say upon 
 evidence? But he assigns as a reason for re- 
 fusing" their fellowship, that they are destitute 
 of that which Christ prescribed for that pur- 
 pose. Will he disting'uish betwixt that pri- 
 vate evidence which satisfies his own mind^ 
 and the sort of evidence which Christ has de- 
 manded and enjoined.^ But what unheard-of 
 presumption to oppose his private judgment 
 to the dictates of Heaven ; and while the Head 
 of the Church has appointed the performance 
 of a certain ceremony to be the invariable cri- 
 terion of discipleship, to pretend in its absence^ 
 to ascertain it by another medium! To attempt 
 to prove that every thing* reall}- is what God has 
 appointed it^ and that infinite wisdom where 
 figurative language is excluded, calls things 
 by their proper names, would be to insult the 
 understanding of the reader. If compliance 
 with adult baptism is in every age the ap- 
 pointed evidence of faith in Christ, it un- 
 doubtedly is what it pretends to be ; and to 
 ascribe faith to such as are destitute of it, 
 is a sort of impiety. 
 
 'No church," he assures us, ''acting' agree- 
 
57 
 
 abl}' to the rules of Christ, can recoi^nize them 
 as his disciples." "^ What strange magic lies 
 concealed in the word church ! This writer 
 in a multitude of places makes no scruple of 
 avowing his attachment to the members of 
 other denominations ; he even anxiously guards 
 against the supposition of his indulging a 
 thought to the prejudice of their piety; and 
 the sentiments which he entertains himself, he 
 must be supposed to recommend to the adop- 
 tion of his brethren. In his individual cha- 
 racter, he feels no objection to recognise them 
 to the full as Christians ; nay, he expresses the 
 sentiments of recognition in a studied variety 
 of phrase; but the moment he conceives him- 
 self in a church, his tone is altered, and he feels 
 himself compelled to treat them as strangers 
 and foreigners. Why this contradiction betwixt 
 the language of the individual, and the language 
 of the church ? If they are Christians, why 
 should the knowledge of the fact be sup- 
 pressed there ? We are taught by St. Paul to 
 consider the church as the pillar and ground 
 of the truth ; where she is supposed to exhibit 
 as in a focus, the light and love which ac- 
 tuate her respective members ; and instead of 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Commuuioii." p. 140. 
 
58 
 dissonance betwixt her public principles^ and 
 the private sentiments of her members, we 
 naturally look for a perfect harmony, or rather 
 for a more illustrious exhibition of what every 
 one thinks and feels apart — for a great and 
 combined movement of charity, corresponding 
 to her more silent and secret inspirations. But 
 we are doomed to anticipate it in vain : for 
 while the advocates of strict communion are 
 shocked at the idea of suspecting the piety of 
 their Pa^dobaptist brethren, they contend it 
 would be criminal to recognise it in the 
 church. What mysterious place is this, in which 
 we are forbidden to acknowledge a truth pro- 
 claimed without scruple every where else ; which 
 possesses the property of darkening every object 
 inclosed within its limits, and of rendering 
 Christians invisible and impalpable to each 
 other ! In the broad day light of the world, 
 notwithstanding their minor differences, they 
 are recognised with facility ; but the moment 
 we enter the sombrous gloom of a baptist 
 church, we are lost from each others view ; 
 and like those who visited the cave of Tri- 
 phonius, return pale, dejected, and bewil- 
 dered. Of such societies we might be almost 
 tempted to exclaim — " My soul, come not thou 
 into their secret, and to their assembly be 
 
 ( 
 
59 
 
 not thou united !" Shocked as we are at such 
 iHiberality^ we suppress the emotions which 
 naturally arise on the occasion,, remembering 
 (strange as it may seem) how often it is as- 
 sociated with talents the most respectable^ and 
 piety the most fervent. 
 
60 
 
 CHAP III. 
 
 THE SUPPOSED NECESSARY CONNECTION BETWIXT THE TWO 
 POSITIVE INSTITUTES FARTHEPv DISCUSSED^ WHEREIN OTHER 
 ARGUMENTS ARE EXAMINED. 
 
 The reader can scarcely be too often re- 
 minded that the present controversy turns 
 entirely on the supposed necessary connection 
 betwixt the two positive christian institutes ; 
 the recollection of which will at once con- 
 vince him of the total irrelevancy of much 
 which it has been customary to urge on the 
 subject. Our opponents frecjuently reason in 
 such a manner as would lead the reader to 
 suppose we were aiming to set aside adult 
 baptism. Thus they insist on the clearness 
 with which it is enjoined and exemplified 
 in the sacred volume, contend for its perpe- 
 tuity, and represent us as depreciating its value 
 and dispensing with its obligation ; topics which 
 might be introduced with propriety in a dispute 
 
61 
 
 with the people called Quakers, or with the 
 followers of Mr. Emlyn ; but are perfectly irre- 
 levant to the present inquiry. It surely requires 
 but little attention to perceive that it is one 
 tiling to tolerate, and another to sanction ; that 
 to affirm that each of the positive rites of re- 
 ligion ought to be attended to ; and that they 
 are so related, that a mistake respecting one^ 
 instantly disqualifies for another, are not the 
 same propositions. An attention to that dis- 
 tinction would have incredibly shortened the 
 present debate ; and shewn the futility of 
 much unmeaning declamation, and even of much 
 unanswerable argument. We wish if possible 
 to put an end to this aniop^uxix, this fighting 
 with shadows and beating the air ; and to con- 
 fine the discussion to the i^eal question, which 
 is, whether the two positive ordinances of the 
 New Testament are so related to each other, 
 either in the nature of things, or by express 
 command, that he whom we deem not bap- 
 tised, is, ipso facto, or from that circumstance 
 alone, disqualified for an attendance at the 
 Lord's table. This, and this only, is the 
 question in which we are concerned. 
 
 That there is not a necessary connection 
 in the nature of things betwixt the two rites, 
 appears from the slightest attention to their 
 
62 
 
 nature. It will not be pretended that the Lord's 
 supper is founded on baptism^ or that it re- 
 cognises a single circumstance belonging to it ; 
 nor will it be asserted to be a less reasonable 
 service^ or less capable of answering the design 
 of its appointment^ when attended to by a 
 Psedobaptistj than by persons of our own per- 
 suasion. The event which it '^'^ shews forth" 
 is one in which all denominations are equally 
 interested ; the sacrifice which it exhibits;, is 
 an oblatioU;, of whose benefits they equally 
 partake ; and so little affinity does it bear to 
 baptism^ considered as a ceremony, that the most 
 profound consideration of it will not suggest 
 the idea of that rite. As far as reason is 
 capable of investigating the matter, they appear 
 separate ceremonies, no otherwise related, than 
 as they emanate from the same source, and 
 are prescribed to the same description of persons. 
 In a word, judging from the reason of the case, 
 we should not for a moment suspect that the 
 obligation of commemorating the Saviour's death 
 depended upon baptism : we should ascribe 
 it at once to the injunction — " Do this in re- 
 membrance of me." Since positive duties arise 
 (to human apprehension at least) from the mere 
 will of the legislator, and not from immutable 
 relations, their nature forbids the attempt to 
 establish their inherent and essential connection, 
 
 i 
 
63 
 
 In the present case it is sufficient for us to 
 know, that whatever God has thought fit to 
 enjoin, must be matter of duty ; and it Httle 
 becomes weak and finite mortals to Hmit its 
 sphere, or explain away its obhgation, by re- 
 fined and subtle distinctions. 
 
 It remains to be considered whether the 
 necessary connection we are seeking-, can be 
 found in positive prescription. We, again 
 and again, call upon our opponents to shew 
 us the passage of scripture which asserts that 
 dependance of the i^ord's supper on baptism, 
 which their theory supposes ; and here when 
 we ask for bread, they give us a stone. They 
 quote Christ's commission to his Apostles, where 
 there is not a word upon the subject, and 
 which is so remote from establishing the essen- 
 tial connection of the two ceremonies, that the 
 mention of one of them only is included. They 
 urge the conduct of the Apostles, though it is 
 not only sufficiently accounted for on our prin- 
 ciples, but is such as those very principles 
 would, in their circumstances, have absolutely 
 compelled us to adopt ; and surely that must 
 be a very cogent proof that the Apostles were 
 of their sentiments, which is derived from a 
 matter of fact, which would undeniably have 
 been just what it is, on the contrary sup- 
 
64 
 
 position. They baptised^ because they were 
 commanded to do so ; they administered the 
 Lord's supper^ because our Saviour enjoined 
 it on his disciples ; and both these duties were 
 prescribed to the societies they formed^ because 
 the nature and obligation of each were 
 equally and perfectly understood. AVhat is 
 there in this, we ask, which our hypothesis 
 forbids us to imitate, or which had we been 
 in their place, our views would not have 
 obliged us to adopt ? 
 
 The late excellent Mr. Fuller, whose memory 
 commands profound veneration, attempts in his 
 po^humous tract on this subject, to establish 
 the connection betwixt the two rites, by the 
 joint allusion made to them in the Epistles of 
 St. Paul. From their being connected together 
 in his mind, on those occasions, he infers an in- 
 herent and essential connection. With this view, 
 he adduces the tenth chapter of his first letter to 
 the Corinthians, which asserts that the ancient 
 Israelites had a figurative baptism " in the cloud, 
 and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiri- 
 tual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual 
 drink ; for they drank of that rock which fol- 
 lowed them and that rock was Christ." "If the 
 Apostle," he remarks, '' had not connected 
 baptism and the Lord's supper together in his 
 
65 
 
 mind, how came he so pointedly to allude to 
 tliein both in this passage ?" He brings for- 
 ward also another text to the same purpose, 
 where St. Paul affirms we are all " baptised 
 into one body, and are all made to drink into 
 the same spirit." It is freely admitted that 
 these^ and perhaps other texts which might be 
 adduced^ afford examples of an allusion to the 
 two ordinances at the same time^ whence we 
 may be certain that they were present together 
 in the mind of the writer. But whoever 
 considers the laws of association^ must be 
 aware how trivial a circumstance is sufficient to 
 unite together in the mind^ ideas of objects 
 among which no essential relation subsists. 
 The mere coincidence of time and place 
 is abundantly sufficient for that purpose. In 
 addressing a class of persons distinguished 
 by the possession of peculiar privileges^ what 
 more natural than to combine them in a joint 
 allusion, without intending to assert their rela- 
 tion or dependance; just as in addressing a 
 British audience on a political occasion, the 
 speaker may easily be supposed to remind them 
 at the same time of their popular representation, 
 of the liberty of the press, and the trial by 
 jury, without meaning to affirm that they are 
 incapable of being possessed apart. In fact 
 the warmest advocates of our practice would 
 
 K 
 
66 
 feel no sort of difficulty in adopting- the same 
 style^ in an epistle to a church which con- 
 sisted only of baptists : consequently nothing 
 more can be inferred^, than that the societies 
 which St. Paul addressed were universally of 
 that description : a fact we have already fully 
 conceded. The only light in which it bears 
 upon the subject is that which makes it per- 
 fectly coincide with the argument from pri- 
 mitive precedent, the futility of which has 
 been sufficiently demonstrated. 
 
 The unities which the Apostle enumerates 
 as belonging to Christians, in his Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, are also set in opposition to us. 
 " There is/' saith he, " one body and one 
 spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of 
 your calling ; one faith, one baptism, one 
 God and Father of all, who is above all, 
 and through all, and in you all.'' That 
 this text is irrelevant to the present argument, 
 will appear from the following considerations. 
 Since no mention is made of the Lord's supper, 
 it cannot be intended to confirm, or illustrate, 
 the relation which baptism bears to that or- 
 dinance, which is the only point in dispute. 
 Next, it is very uncertain whether the Apostle 
 refers to water baptism, or to the baptism of the 
 spirit ; but admitting that he intends the latter. 
 
67 
 
 he asserts no more than we firmly behevCj that 
 there are not twO;, or more valid baptisms under 
 the christian dispensation, but one only; a de- 
 viation from vvhichj either with respect to the 
 subject^ or the mode^ reduces it to a nullity. 
 Lastly, since his avowed object in insisting upon 
 these unities, was to persuade his reader to 
 maintain inviolate that unity of the spirit, to 
 which they were all subservient, it is extremely 
 unreasonable to adduce this passage in de- 
 fence of a practice which involves its sub- 
 version. "^The same fountain/^ St. James tells 
 us, '' cannot send forth sweet waters and bitter :" 
 but her€ we see an attempt to deduce discord 
 from harmony ; and to find an apology for di- 
 viding the mystical body of Christ, in the most 
 pathetic persuasive to unity. The celebrated 
 Whitby, a Pasdobaptist and an Episcopalian, 
 appears to have felt the full force of this ad- 
 mirable passage, when he deduces from it the 
 tljree following propositions: 1st. ''That sincere 
 Christians only, are truly members of that 
 church cathohc, of which Christ is the Head. 
 2dly. That nothing can join any profcessor of 
 Christianity, to this one body, but the partici- 
 pation of the spirit of Christ. 3dly. That no 
 error in judgment, or mistake in practice, 
 which doth not tend to deprive a Christian of 
 the spirit of Christ, can separate him from the 
 
68 
 
 church of Christ."" Thus it is^ that this lear- 
 ned commentator conceives himself to have 
 discovered a demonstration of the principles 
 we are abetting-, in the very words our oppo- 
 nents urge for their overthrow. 
 
 Such is the substance of Mr. Fuller's argu- 
 mentation on the subject ; and on a basis so 
 slight^ did he attempt to rear the edifice of 
 strict communion. In how ditferent a light 
 will he be viewed by posterity, as the victorious 
 impugner of socinian and deistical impiety ; and 
 who on looking back on his achievements in 
 that field, and comparing them with his feeble 
 efforts in the present, but must exclaim with 
 regret, quantimi mutatus ah illo ! Whether 
 he felt some distrust of the ground he 
 was treading, which for several reasons I 
 strongly suspect ; or whether it is to be as- 
 cribed to the infelicity of the subject, it is not 
 easy to say ; but his posthumous pamphlet gn 
 communion, will unquestionably be considered 
 as the feeblest of all his productions. The worthy 
 Editor probably calculated on great effects to 
 arise from the dying suffrage of a man so highly 
 esteemed ; but before he ventured on a step so 
 injurious to his fame, he should have remem- 
 
 * Whitby in loco. 
 
69 
 
 bered, that we live in an age not remarkably dis- 
 posed to implicit faith^ even in the greatest names. 
 
 But it is time to return to ]\Ir. Kinghorn, 
 with whose management of the subject we are 
 at present more immediately concerned. As 
 bold a polemic as Mr. Fuller was generally 
 considered, he was pusillanimity itself com- 
 pared to my present antagonist ; who in the 
 ardour of combat, has not scrupled to remove 
 land marks which he, 1 am well persuaded, would 
 have considered as sacred. It cannot be de- 
 nied that he has infused by these means some 
 novelty into the discussion, and that many of 
 his arguments bear an original stamp ; but whe- 
 ther that novelty is combined with truth, or that 
 originality is such as will ultimately secure 
 many imitators, or admirers, is another question. 
 
 Having already shewn that no inherent con- 
 nection subsists betwixt the two rites under 
 discussion, it remains to be considered, as we 
 have already remarked, whether they are con- 
 nected by positive law. Is there a single word 
 in the New Testament which, fairly interpreted, 
 can be regarded as a prohibition of the admis- 
 sion of unbaptised persons to the Lord's supper.^ 
 
 Let Mr. Kinghorn answer this question for 
 
70 
 
 us : '' The New Testament," he tells us, '' does 
 7iot prohibit the unbaptised from receiving 
 the Lord's supper, because no circumstance 
 arose Avhich rendered such prohibition ne- 
 cessary/' ^ Whether a prohibition was ne- 
 cessary, or not, involves a distinct inquiry ; 
 we request the readers attention to the impor- 
 tant concession, that it does not exist. The 
 reason he assigns, however, for its not being" 
 necessary is, that " it is acknowledged the law 
 of baptism was clearly understood, and that the 
 unbaptised could not be received into the 
 church." '' There was therefore," he adds, 
 *' no reason why a prohibitory declaration should 
 exist." We fully agree with him, that at the 
 period of which he is speaking-, the law of 
 baptism was fully understood ; and on that 
 account, we sa}^, such as refused to obey it, 
 could not be received into the church. We 
 also admit that while there was this clear under- 
 standing-, no such prohibition, as we demand, 
 was requisite. But if it was rendered unneces- 
 sari/ because of this clear understanding, as 
 this writer informs us, must it not by his own 
 allowance become necessary, when that under- 
 standing ceases ? If the presence of one thing 
 Quakes another unnecessari/, must not the ab- 
 
 > " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 32. 
 
71 
 
 seiice of the same things restore the necessity? 
 
 In the present instance the onli^ reason he 
 assigns for an express prohibition not being 
 then necessary^ is, that the ordinance of bap- 
 tism was perfecili/ understood ; surely if this 
 be the onli/ reason, tiie necessity must return 
 when that reason ceases ; in other words, there 
 will be a necessity for an express prohibition 
 of the unbaptised, whenever the precept re- 
 specting- baptism, ceases to be understood. Has 
 i{, or has it not, ceased (in our apprehension) 
 to be understood by modern Peedobaptists ? 
 If it be admitted that it has, then, on his own 
 principle, an express prohibition of the unbap- 
 tised to receive the Lord's supper has become 
 necessary. But he ackno'.vledges none exists ; 
 whence the only conclusion to be deduced, 
 is, eitiier that the word of God has omitted 
 what is necessary in itself, or (which is 
 rather more probable) what is necessary to 
 support his hypothesis. The word of God, it 
 should be remembered, makes adequate pro- 
 vision for the direction of the faithful in every 
 age, being- written under the guidance of that 
 Spirit, to whom the remotest futurity was pre- 
 sent ; and though it was by no means requi- 
 site to specify the errors, which were fore- 
 seen to arise, it is not a sufficient rule, unless 
 
72 
 
 it enables us to discover which of these are, 
 and which are not^ to be tolerated in the 
 church. The doctrine which asserts that bap- 
 tism is an indispensible requisite to com- 
 munion, this Writer expressly informs us 
 was not promulgated to the primitive Christians, 
 because they did not need it : their clear under- 
 standing of the nature of the ceremony, was 
 sufficient of itself to secure an attention to it, 
 in the absence of that doctrine. This is equi- 
 valent to an acknowledgment, if there be any 
 meaning in terms, that if they had not had the 
 clear comprehension of the ordinance which 
 he ascribes to them, they would have needed 
 that truth to be propounded, which in their 
 situation was safely suppressed. But if the 
 primitive Christians would have found such 
 information necessary, how is it that the 
 modern Paedobaptists, who are, according to 
 our principles, precisely in the situation here 
 supposed, can dispense with it ? What should 
 prevent them from turning upon Mr. Kinghorn, 
 and saying — We judge ourselves baptised; b«t 
 supposing we are not, you assert that there is 
 no scriptural prohibition of the unbaptised ap- 
 proaching the Lord's table, which you yet ac- 
 knowledge would have been necessary to justify 
 the repelling of primitive Christians from that 
 privilege, had it not been for their perfect 
 
73 
 knowledge of the nature of baptism. But a 
 you will not assert that ice possess that know- 
 ledge, how will you defend yourself in treating 
 us in a manner which, by your own concession, 
 the Apostles would not have been justified in 
 treating' their immediate converts. 
 
 It was generally supposed that the abettors 
 of strict communion imagined some peculiar 
 connection betwixt baptism and the Lord's 
 supper beyond what subsists betwixt that 
 ceremony, and other parts of Christianity. 
 Our present opponent disclaims that notion. 
 '' If the above evidence/' he says, '• be justly 
 stated, there is a real instituted connection be- 
 tween baptism and the whole of the succeeding 
 christian profession. So that there is no reason 
 why. the connection between baptism and 
 the Lord's supper should be more distinctly 
 marked, than between baptism and any other 
 duty or privilege."^ But if this be the case, 
 why do they confine their restriction to the 
 mere act of communion at the Lord's table ? 
 In every other respect they feel no scruple in 
 acknowledging the members of other denomi- 
 nations as Christians : they join with them in 
 the most sacred duties ; they interchange devo- 
 
 ^ " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 30, 
 L 
 
74 
 
 tional services; they profess to value, and not 
 unfrequently condescend to intreat, an interest 
 in their prayers. In a ^vord, no one who had 
 not witnessed their commemoration of the Lord's 
 supper, would suspect they made any dis- 
 tinction. There are a thousand acts which 
 they perform towards such as practise infant 
 sprinkling-, which would be criminal and absurd 
 on any other supposition, than that of their 
 being- members of Christ, and coheirs of eternal 
 life. By the mouth of our Author, whom they 
 are proud of considering as their organ, they 
 inform us that every other duty and privilege 
 is as much dependant on baptism, as the cele- 
 bration of the Eucharist ; yet it is this duty 
 and this privilege alone, in which they refuse 
 to participate with Christians of other per- 
 suasions. How will they reconcile their prac- 
 tice and their theory ; or rather, how escape 
 the ridicule attached to such a glaring con- 
 tradiction } The Sandemanian Baptists have 
 taken care to shelter themselves from such 
 animadversions, by a stern and consistent pro- 
 cess of intolerance ; but the English Baptists 
 appear to resemble Ephraim, who mixed himself 
 with the nations, and was a cake half turned. 
 Is there no duty, is there no privilege, charac- 
 teristic of a Christian, but what is included in 
 receiving the sacrament ? How is it that they 
 
75 ■ 
 
 have presumed to break down the sacred fence, 
 to throw all open, and make all things 
 common, with the exception of one narrow in- 
 closure ? What in the mean time becomes 
 of apostolic practice, and ancient precedent ? 
 How admirably are these illustrated by their 
 judicious selection of the Lord's table, as the 
 spot over which to suspend the ensigns of party. 
 
 When we read of Priscilla and Ac|uila taking 
 Apollos home, and instructing him in the way 
 of the Lord more perfectly, we give full credit 
 to the narrative ; but had we been informed 
 that these excellent persons, after hearing him 
 with great delight, refused his admission to the 
 supper of the Lord, on account of some diver- 
 sity of opinion, or of practice; the consent of all 
 the manuscripts and versions in the world, would 
 have been insufficient to overcome the incre- 
 dulity arising from an instantaneous conviction 
 of its total repugnance to the maxims and 
 principles of primitive Christianity. Yet this 
 would have been nothing more than an anti- 
 cipation of the practice of our opponents. 
 
 They attempt to justify themselves in this 
 particular, on two grounds ; first, that they " do 
 nothing more than their opponents;" and "where 
 their conduct is deemed the most exceptionable. 
 
76 
 
 they only cop} the example which the Pa^do- 
 baptists set before them^ and suj)port by pre- 
 eminent talents."^ They do nothing more than 
 their opponents. What then ? we hold no 
 principle inconsistent with our practice ; loe 
 have not confined the profession of Christianity 
 to ourselves ; much less are we accustomed 
 to make a practical distinction betwixt the par- 
 ticipation of the Eucharist, and other duties 
 and privileges, after stating in so many words^ 
 that the scripture authorises no such distinction. 
 The plea derived from the disposition of Paedo- 
 baptists to cultivate a religious intercourse, 
 we leave to be answered by himself, who has 
 told us that " we meet on unequal terms." 
 '^^ The latter (Ptedobaptists) surrender no prin- 
 ciple, they do not unite with those whom they 
 deem unbaptised.'"' 
 
 Their otiier pretence is, that '' prayer and 
 praise are not exclusive ordinances of the 
 church ; that they were in being before it was 
 formed, and have been parts of true religion 
 under every dispensation.'"' But is it not the 
 peculiar prerogative of the faithful to offer 
 acceptable devotion ? Is not prayer in the 
 name of Jesus a peculiarity of the new dispen- 
 
 * "Baptism a Term of Coumiunion," p. 173. '' p. 64. "^ p. 175. 
 
77 
 sation^ and is not the requesting a Psedobap- 
 tist to present it on our behalf, as clear an ac- 
 knowledi^ment of his Christianity^ as admitting 
 him to communion ; and consequently as in- 
 compatible with his own maxim : that the 
 " church of Christ acting upon the rule he 
 has laid down^ cannot recognize any person 
 as his disciple,, who is not baptised in his name." 
 
 Mr. Kinghorn is bound by his own decla- 
 ration in his treatment of other denomina- 
 tions^ to abstain from every action which will 
 imply an explicit acknowledgment of their 
 being Christians ; so that as far as he is con- 
 cerned;, it is of no consequence whatever, 
 whether prayer or praise belong to natural, 
 or revealed religion, or whether they are, or 
 are not, exclusive ordinances of the church : 
 the only question is whether the reciprocation 
 of such services with other denominations, be 
 not a recognition of their Christianity. If it 
 be, he is by his acknowledgment as much 
 obliged to abandon it, as the practice of strict 
 communion, and exactly for the same reason ; 
 since he informs us that his objections to that 
 practice are not founded on any peculiar^ con- 
 nection betwixt communion and baptism, but 
 on the common relation which the latter bears 
 to '' all the duties of Christianity." 
 
78 
 
 The preceding remarks are more than suf- 
 ficient to evince his inconsistency with liimself ; 
 \vhich, however glaring, is not more so than 
 his deviation from ancient precedent. That 
 the first Christians did not interchange reli- 
 gious services, with those, with whom they re- 
 fused to communicate; that they did not coun- 
 tenance in the exercise of their ministry, men 
 "whom they refused to acknowledge as members 
 of the church, it would be ridiculous to attempt 
 to prove ; the fact will be instantly admitted. 
 Let it be also remembered, that this deviation is 
 of far greater magnitude, than that with which 
 we are accused. Who that remembers that 
 the Kingdom of God is not meats or drinks, that 
 its nature is spiritual, not ritual, can doubt that 
 the moral duties of religion, the love of the 
 brethren, with its diversified fruits and effects, 
 taken in their whole extent, form a more im- 
 portant object than the single observation of 
 the Eucharist. 
 
 Mr. Kinghorn himself deprecates the very 
 suspicion of placing even baptism, in point of 
 importance, on a level with the least of the 
 moral precepts of Christ. But with respect 
 to the whole of these, they allow themselves 
 to depart as far from scriptural precedent, in 
 its literal interpretation, as ourselves. In the 
 
79 
 
 affair of communion, they lioast of adhering 
 (o " that plain rule of conduct (to adopt my 
 opponent's words) so did the Apostles, and 
 therefore so do we."^ But here their con- 
 formity stops : in every other branch of so- 
 cial religion^, in whatever respects the inte- 
 rior of the kingdom^ they claim the liberty 
 of treating- the unbaptised in precisely the same 
 manner with members of their own denomina- 
 tion ; wherein they pronounce their own con- 
 demnation ; for what should prevent us from re- 
 torting^ ''so did not the Apostles, but so do ye?" 
 
 The distress and embarrassment which the 
 consciousness of this glaring inconsistency oc- 
 casioned the venerable Booth, are sufficiently 
 depicted in his Apology. The sturdy saint 
 perfectly reels and staggers under its insup- 
 portable weight ; which^ to use the language 
 of Archbishop Tillotson^ is a millstone round 
 the neck of strict communion, which will 
 inevitably sink it into perdition ; an incongruity 
 which the most obtuse understanding perceives, 
 and no degree of acumen can defend ; and 
 which so totally annuls the plea of original 
 precedent, which is their sheet anchor, as to 
 leave it doubtful whether its advocates are most 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Communion." p. 9S 
 
80 
 at variance with the Apostles, or with them- 
 selves. The venerable apologist has recourse 
 to the same distinctions with the present Writer; 
 but with so little success^ and apparently with 
 so little satisfaction to himself, that if the spirit 
 of controversy did not blunt our sensibility, 
 we should sincerely sympathise with his distress. 
 It is humiliating- to see the manly and majestic 
 mind of a Booth stooping to such miserable 
 logomachies. 
 
 The advocates of the restrictive system must 
 change their ground ; they must either go 
 forwards, or backwards. They have already 
 conceded so much to the members of other 
 denominations, that if they would preserve the 
 least show of consistency, they must either 
 concede more, or withdraw what they have 
 granted. They have most unreasonably and 
 capriciously stopped, and fixed their encamp- 
 ment where no mortal before ever thought 
 of staying for a moment. They have already 
 made such near approaches to the great body 
 of those whom we deem unbaptised, as places 
 them at an unmcasurable distance from the 
 letter of the apostolic precedent, though in perfect 
 harmony with its spirit; while they prepos- 
 terously cling to that letter, as the reason for 
 refusing to go an inch farther. They remain 
 
81 
 
 immoveable (to chang-e the figure) not be- 
 cause they rest on any solid basis^ but because 
 they are suspended betwixt the love of the 
 brethren, and the remains of intolerance; just 
 as Mahomet's tomb is said to hang betwixt 
 two magnets of equal powers^ placed in op- 
 posite directions. 
 
 The Scottish Baptists (as I have been in-' 
 formed) act consistently. Conceiving with 
 Mr. Kinghorn that immersion on a profession 
 of faith;, is a necessary introduction to the 
 christian profession^ they uniformly abstain 
 from a participation in sacred offices with the 
 members of other societies, and without pre- 
 tending to judge of their final state, treat them 
 on every occasion as men, whose religious pre- 
 tensions are doubtful. Whoever considers the 
 import of the following passage, will be sur- 
 prised Mr. Kinghorn should feel any hesitation 
 in adopting the same system. '' It is granted," 
 says our Author, " that baptism is not expressly 
 inculcated as a preparative to the Lord's supper; 
 neither is it inculcated as a preparative to any 
 thing else. But the first act of christian obe- 
 dience, is of course succeeded by the rest ; 
 and the required acknowledgment of our faith 
 in Christy in the nature of things, ought to 
 
 M 
 
82 
 
 precede the enjoyment of the privileg-es vvliich 
 arise from faith." ^ 
 
 By the first act of christian obedience, he 
 unquestionably intends tlie reception of bap- 
 tism ; and the meaning of the sentence turns 
 entirely on the word first. He designs to 
 assert;, that such is the prescribed order of 
 religious actions — that unless that ordinance 
 is first attended to, every other performance 
 is invalid ; that whatever it may be in itself^ 
 not occupying its proper place, it cannot lay 
 claim to the character of a duty. We should 
 be extremely concerned at imposing a false 
 construction on his words ; but if this is not 
 his meaning, we despair of discovering it. But 
 if our interpretation is just, unless we can con- 
 ceive of a religion availing for eternal life, 
 in the total absence of duties, it is equivalent 
 to asserting, that none besides our denomination 
 possess true religion. He expressly tells us 
 every other duty must succeed, that is, must 
 come after baptism^ which with respect to 
 Paedobaptists, is impossible on our principles ; 
 whence it necessarily follows, that while they 
 retain their sentiments, they are disqualified for 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 30, 
 
S3 
 
 the performance of duty. The only conceivable 
 method of evading this conclusion, is to make 
 a distinction, and to affirm that though baptism 
 ought, agreeably to the institution of Christy, 
 to precede the otiier branches of religion^ yet 
 that Avhen it is omitted from a misconception 
 or mistake^, the omission is not of such mag- 
 nitude as to prevent their being accepted- 
 But should our Author explain himself in this 
 manner, he will not only coincide with us, 
 but his argument for strict communion is re- 
 linquished. Having acknowledged that '' the 
 connection between baptism and the Lord's 
 supper is 7iot tiiore distinctly marked in scrip- 
 ture, than between that ordinance and any 
 other duty,*^ were he now to make a distinction 
 in favor of the sacrament, and confine their 
 discjualification to that particular, he would be 
 guilty of an express contradiction. Nor are 
 his words susceptible of such an interpretation. 
 The assertion he makes is in the form of a 
 general proposition ; which is that all the duties 
 of Christianity must succeed baptism, in con- 
 tradiction to going before it ; and the dis- 
 qualification for the Lord's supper, which he 
 represents the Pa^dobaptists as lying under, 
 
 ' " Eaptigm a Term of Communion." p. 30. 
 
84 
 is inferred solely from the consideration of iu 
 constituting a part of those duties. 
 
 Thus much for the duties ; let us next hear 
 what he says of the privileges of Christianity, 
 Baptism, which he styles '' the required ac- 
 knowledgment of our faith in Christ/' he tells 
 us, " oug-ht to precede the enjoyment of the 
 privileges which arise from faith." They ought 
 to precede, but do they in fact ? Is it his 
 opinion that all other sects, as a punishment 
 for their disobedience in one particular, are 
 left destitute of the spiritual immunities which 
 flow from faith? If it is not, it behoves him 
 to reflect on the presumption of such a mode 
 of speaking, which is little less than arraign- 
 ing the wisdom of the great Head of the 
 Church, who dispenses his favours in a man- 
 ner so different from that which he ventures 
 to prescribe. Should he rep]}', that Jesus 
 Christ, as a Sovereign, is at liberty to act as 
 he pleases, but that we are under an obli- 
 gation of adhering to the settled order of his 
 house ; it is easy to perceive that this evasion 
 is neither consistent with truth, nor sufficient 
 to establish his consistency with himself. Are 
 not his partizans in the daily habit of exhi- 
 biting towards the members of other societies. 
 
85 
 
 tokens of their fraternal regard^ of inviting them 
 to every branch of christian fellowship^ short 
 of admission to the sacrament : will they deny 
 that the communion of saints, even in the 
 absence of that institution, is an important 
 privilege ? 
 
 In the next place, to represent the bestow- 
 ment of spiritual blessings on the great body 
 of the faithful, through the lapse of fifteen 
 centuries, Avhose salvability, it is confessed, is 
 capable of demonstration from scripture ; to 
 speak of this, as an extraordinary and extra- 
 judicial procedure, is to confound the most 
 obvious distinctions. 
 
 The terms of salvation, which are radically 
 faith and repentance, are clearly propounded 
 in the word of God ; and surely it will not 
 be doubted that multitudes out of the pale of 
 our sect, have exhibited such proofs of their 
 possessing these qualifications, that their en- 
 joyment of the divine favour is not to be 
 ascribed to a secret economy, similar to what 
 has been conjectured by some to extend to 
 virtuous Pagans. Where revelation is silent, 
 it becomes us to copy its reserve : but in the 
 present instance, so far is this from being 
 the case, that few propositions are more sus- 
 
86 
 
 ceptible of proof from that quarter, than that 
 an error with respect to a positive rite is not 
 fatal ; whence the necessary inference is, that 
 the bestowment of his favours on such as labour 
 under that imperfection, is a known part of his 
 conduct : that it is not only his intention so to 
 act, but that he has taken effectual care to inform 
 us of it; not, we presume, for the purpose 
 of enabling us to contradict it, but as a pat- 
 tern for our humble imitation. 
 
 When the Holy Ghost fell upon the Gentiles 
 assembled in the house of Cornelius, though 
 he had a short time before doubted the law- 
 fulness even of eating- with them, he considered 
 it as such a seal of the divine approbation, that 
 he felt no hesitation in immediately admitting 
 them to all the privileges of the church. 
 He did not presume (with reverence be it 
 spoken) to be stricter or more orderly than God, 
 " Forasmuch," said he, "' as God gave them 
 the like gift as he did unto us who believed, 
 who was 1 that I should withstand God ? " a 
 question which we presume to recommend to 
 the serious consideration of Mr. Kinghorn and 
 his associates. The principle on which he jus- 
 tified his conduct is plainly this, that when it 
 is once ascertained that an individual is the 
 object of divine acceptance, it would be impious 
 
87 
 
 to witlihold from liim any religious privilege. 
 Until it be shewn that this was not the prin- 
 ciple on which he rested his defence^ or that 
 the practice of strict communion is consistent 
 with it, we shall feel ourselves compelled to 
 discard with just detestation, a system of action 
 Avhich St. Peter contemplated with horror, as 
 withstanding God: and when 1 consider it in 
 this just and awful light, 1 feel no hesitation 
 in avowing my conviction that it is replete 
 with worse consequences, and is far more of- 
 fensive to God, than that corruption of a 
 christian ordinance, to which it is opposed. 
 The latter affects the exterior only of our holy 
 religion, the former its vitals ; where it inflicts 
 a wound on the very heart of charity, and puts 
 the prospect of union among Christians to an 
 interminable distance. 
 
 This new doctrine, that the tenure by which 
 religious privileges are held, is appropriated 
 to the members of one inconsiderable sect, 
 must strike the serious reader with astonish- 
 ment. Are we in reality the only persons who 
 possess an interest in the common salvation ? 
 If we are not, by what title do others possess it? 
 Certainly not in consequence of their faith, 
 for we are expressly taught by this Writer, 
 that baptism must precede the enjoyment of 
 
88 
 the privileges which arise from faith;" in which 
 however he expressly contradicts himself, for 
 he assures us that none are fit subjects of 
 baptism,, who are not previously believers in 
 Christy and justified in the si^ht of God hy 
 their faith. He must either say then, that 
 they lose their justification, unless they comply 
 with that ordinance; or present us with the 
 portentous doctrine of a justification which 
 stands alone, a widowed and barren justification, 
 productive of no advantage to its possessor. 
 
 Let it also be seriously considered, whether 
 the positions we have been examining-, do 
 not coincide with the doctrine of the opus 
 operatum, the opprobrium of the Romish 
 church. But as some of my readers may not 
 be acquainted with the meaning of those terms, 
 it is proper to remark, that the church of 
 Rome attributes the highest spiritual benefits 
 to certain corporeal actions, or ceremonies, in- 
 dependent of the character and disposition of 
 the performer. For example, she believes that 
 the ceremony of baptism, secures to the un- 
 conscious infant by its intrinsic efficacy the in- 
 fusion of regenerating grace, without regard 
 to the intention, or disposition of the parties 
 
 * " Baptism a Term of Communion." p. 30 
 
89 
 
 concerned ; and that the element of bread in 
 the sacrament,, operates in the same manner 
 in procuring the pardon, and augmenting the 
 grace of the communicant. Hence the mem- 
 bers of that church, lay little stress on the 
 exercise of faith, and the cultivation of holy 
 dispositions, compared to the dependance they 
 place on "' bodily exercise," on masses, pe- 
 nances, auricular confessions, and a multitude 
 of external observances, which form the 
 substance of their religion. Consistent Pro- 
 testants on the contrary, while they con- 
 scientiously attend to every positive insti- 
 tute, according to the measure of their light, 
 look upon the few and simple ceremonies of 
 the gospel, as incapable of affording the 
 smallest benefit, apart from the dispositions and 
 intentions with which they are performed ; 
 agreeably to the doctrine of our Saviour, who 
 tells us, that " God is a Spirit, and they that 
 worship him, must worship him in spirit and 
 in truth." To expatiate on the incalculable 
 mischiefs which have arisen from this doctrine, 
 is foreign to our purpose ; suffice it to remark 
 that it is held in just detestation by all en- 
 lio'htened Christians. 
 
 •o' 
 
 Our business is to shew the coincidence of 
 
 N 
 
90 
 
 Mr. Kingborn's principles, with that most dan- 
 gerous and exploded tenet. He contends that 
 the mere absence of a ceremony, or if you 
 please, an incorrect manner of performing' it, 
 is of itself sufficient, exclusive of every other 
 consideration, to incur the forfeiture of chris- 
 tian privileges; of the pi^hileges in general 
 which arise from faith. "^ It is not, according 
 to him, merely the forfeiture of a title to the 
 Eucharist wbich it involves; that he informs 
 us is not more affected by it than ani^ other 
 privilege: it is the universal privation of 
 •christian immunities which is the immediate 
 consequence of that omission ; and as he ac- 
 knowledges that many to whom it attaches, 
 are regenerated, they must consequently be 
 endowed with right dispositions. For what is 
 that renovation of mind which can exist 
 without them ? But if such as are possessed 
 of these in the most eminent degree, which he 
 acknowledges is the case with some Paedo- 
 baptists, are yet debarred from spiritual pri- 
 vileges, wherein does this differ from ascribing 
 that efficacy to an external rite, which is sup- 
 posed in the doctrine of the opus operatum : 
 and if those who have faith are not entitled 
 
 '' " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 30. 
 
91 
 
 to the benefits which result from it, because 
 a certain ceremony is wanting^ how is it pos- 
 sible to ascribe more to that ceremony ? 
 
 Whatever dei^ree of prejudice or inattention 
 we may be disposed to impute to some of the 
 advocates of infant baptism, it would be the 
 highest injustice to comprehend them all, under 
 the same censure. There are those no doubt, 
 who, without adopting our views, have exer- 
 cised as much thought, and exerted as much 
 impartiahty on the subject, as our observation 
 authorises us to expect from the brightest 
 specimens of human nature : nay, this Author 
 admits that '' it is possible they may be some 
 of the most exalted characters in point of 
 piety."' But it surely cannot be doubted that 
 they who merit this encomium, are as con- 
 scientious in their performance of infant, as we 
 in the administration of adult baptism ; and 
 as they are, by the very supposition, actuated by 
 dispositions exactly the same, the pure intention 
 of pleasing and glorifying God ; if we still 
 conceive them deprived of the privileges which 
 we possess, the difference must be ascribed 
 merely to a ceremony, and the opus operatuiii 
 
 J " BapUsm a Term of Commnnion," p. 
 
92 
 
 returns in its full force. This however is too 
 faint a statement. It returns in a form more 
 aggravated ; for the Papist only contends for 
 a mysterious union betwixt the outward rite 
 and the inward grace, to which the regenerating- 
 influence is immediately ascribed, and from 
 which it is considered as inseparable ; whereas 
 on the present hypothesis, regeneration and 
 faith are supposed to exist in the absence of the 
 ceremony, but to be deprived of their pre- 
 rogatives. The system of the Papist exalts 
 the ritual part of religion to an unwarrant- 
 able height, without depreciating the spiritual 
 and internal ; the system of my opponent 
 does both. 
 
 Thus I have endeavoured to examine with 
 the utmost care and impartiahtV;, whatever our 
 Author has advanced, in order to prove the 
 necessary connection betwixt the two positive 
 ordinances under consideration. My apology 
 for extending the discussion to a length tedious^ 
 it is feared, to the reader, is that this is the 
 point on which the whole controversy hinges. 
 As far as its real merits are concerned, I might 
 therefore be excused from pursuing the sub- 
 ject farther. If the arguments of Mr. King- 
 born, on this head, are satisfactorily refuted. 
 
93 
 
 and the contmdictions and absurdities into 
 which he has fallen, laid open to the reader^ 
 he is already sufficiently answered. That he 
 has taken dilTerent ground from his venerable 
 predecessor, will not be disputed. He has 
 argued from premises, and adopted principles^ 
 to wliich tiiat excellent person made no ap- 
 proach. Mr. Booth, whatever was his success^ 
 remained on terra firma : our Author has 
 attempted a flight beyond '' the diurnal orb," 
 but approaching too near the sun, his pi- 
 nions arc melted ; and his fall will be con- 
 spicuous, in exact proportion to the eleva- 
 tion to which he has aspired. He was de- 
 termined to give the controversy a new and 
 imposing aspect ; and conscious that the prac- 
 tice which he undertook to defend, had been 
 hitherto rested on no very distinct basis, he 
 determined to dig deep for a foundation, and 
 in so doing, has disturbed the most received 
 opinions, and endangered the most momentous 
 truths. Were I permitted to prognosticate 
 his fate, I should say that his paradoxical mode 
 of defence, whatever applause it may meet with 
 at present, will, in the end, be of infinite injury 
 to the cause; and his treatise, like the little 
 book in the Apocalypse, be '•' sweet in the 
 mouth, and bitter in the belly.'' 
 
94 
 
 But though what has ah-eady been advanced, 
 may be considered as comprehending- all that 
 is essential in the controversy ; as he has 
 thought fit to introduce other topics, the 
 reader is requested to exercise his patience, 
 while we reply to his most important obser- 
 vation, on each of these ; after which we shall 
 endeavour to shew the futility of the answer 
 he has attempted, to the principal arguments 
 adduced in favour of our practice. 
 
95 
 
 PART II. 
 
 The Collateral Topics introduced hy Mr. Kinghorn, 
 considered. 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 THE CHARGE OF DISPENSING WITH A CHRISTIAN ORDINANCE, 
 CONSIDERED. 
 
 Among the various objections to the system 
 we wish to see universally adopted in our 
 churches^, there is none more frequently in- 
 sisted upon, than that of its implying a right 
 to dispense with a command of Christ.' Though 
 the treatise on terms of communion^ contains 
 a clear answer to this accusation, yet as it is 
 again brought forward by our Author, with 
 
 ' Here the following question deserves our serious regard, first, 
 Have we any right to dispense with a clear command of Christ ? 
 — Bapthm a Term of Communion, p. 90. 
 
96 
 
 unabated confidence, a fuller reply may be 
 deemed requisite. 
 
 This writer supposes that the expression '^"dis- 
 pensing power" so often used in this contro- 
 versy, was first suggested by the conduct of 
 Charles the Second, in granting indulgence to 
 the dissenters beyond the allowance of law, a 
 measure which was afterwards adopted for si- 
 milar purposes, by James his Successor. It 
 is surprising a person of Mr. Kinghorn's ac- 
 knowledged learning, should fall into such an 
 error; that he should not know that the doctrine 
 of dispensation, was familiar to preceding ages, 
 and was the subject of much subtle disquisition, 
 and of many refined distinctions among legal 
 writers. It is impossible but that he must have 
 read in ecclesiastical history, of the power of 
 dispensation assumed by the Pope, which formed 
 a principal branch of the papal revenue, and 
 the exertion of which, was regulated by the dic- 
 tates of the most artful policy. He cannot 
 surely have forgotten, that the refusal to ex- 
 ercise this prerogative, when it was demanded 
 in order to gratify the capricious passions of 
 Henry the Eighth, was the immediate occasion 
 of the reformation in England. 
 
 The power of dispensation, is the power of 
 setting aside the law in a particular instance. 
 
97 
 
 It may be exerted by the legislature^, or by the 
 executive branch of government^ under certain 
 reg'ulalionsj and to a certain extents previously 
 settled, and provided for, by the original con- 
 stitution of the state' As the operation of law 
 is general, and the actions to which it applies 
 are susceptible of endless modifications and 
 varieties, some such power may be occasionally 
 requisite to adopt it more perfectly to unex- 
 pected emergencies, and by a deviation from 
 the latter, to secure its spirit and design. 
 There is one circumstance, however, which is 
 invariably attached to the exercise of this pre- 
 rogative, which shews the impropriety of making 
 it the ground of accusation, in the present con- 
 trovers}^ It always implies a known, and 
 conscious departure from the law. He Avho 
 claims a dispensing power, asserts his right to 
 deviate from the letter of legal enactments ; 
 but whoever merely misinterprets their meaning, 
 and on that account applies them to a case 
 which they were not designed to comprehend, 
 or neglects to carry them into execution within 
 their proper sphere ; ( as his conduct is con- 
 sistent with the utmost reverence for the law,) 
 is at a great remove from exerting a dispensing 
 power. He betrays his ignorance, but usurps 
 nothing. 
 
98 
 
 When the Pope granted a dispensation, en- 
 abling- certain persons to marry, ^vithin the pro- 
 hibited degrees, he sanctioned an acknowledged 
 violation of the ecclesiastical canons; just as 
 Charles the Firsts and James the Second^ in 
 their respective proclamations of indulgence to 
 tender consciences, proceeded in direct oppo- 
 sition to existino" statutes. But we are con- 
 scious of no such procedure : if we err, we err 
 from ignorance. We contend that the law is 
 in our favor; and challenge our opponents to 
 prove the contrary : we ask what prohibition 
 we violate by the practice of admitting good 
 men to communion, though they are not sup- 
 posed to be baptised ? This writer acknowledges 
 there is none, but attempts to supply the defect 
 by general reasoning, which appears to us in- 
 conclusive. Such is precisely the state of the 
 dispute ; not whether we have a right to de- 
 part from the law, but whether there be any 
 law, to which our pmctice is opposed. We ac- 
 knowledge the immersion of believers in the 
 name of Christ, is a duty of perpetual obliga- 
 tion ; we are convinced of the same respecting 
 the commemoration of our Saviour's passion. 
 Both these duties we accordingly urge on the 
 followers of Christ, by such arguments as the 
 scriptures supply ; but when we are not so 
 happy as to produce conviction, we admit them 
 
99 
 
 without scruple to the fellowship of tlie church, 
 not because we conceive ourselves to possess a 
 dispensing' power,, a pretension most foreign 
 from our thoughts, but because we ^ sincerely 
 believe them entitled to it, by the tenor of the 
 christian covenant, and that we should be guilty 
 of highly otfending Christ by their refusal. The 
 law which we are supposed to violate in this in- 
 stance, we affirm is a mere human invention;, 
 a mere fiction of the brain, entirely unsupported 
 by the word of God ; which distinctly lays 
 down two positive institutes, baptism and the 
 Lords supper, but suggests nothing from which 
 we can conclude that they rest upon each other, 
 rather than that the obligation of both, is 
 founded on the express injunction of the legis- 
 lator. It is our opponents, we assert, who in 
 the total silence of scripture have presumed to 
 promulgate a law, to which they claim the 
 submission, due only to the voice of God. Hence 
 the charge of usurping a dispensing power 
 is most preposterous, since it is incapable of 
 being sustained for a moment, until it is de- 
 monstrated that the law is in their favor ; and 
 ■when this is accomplished, we pledge ourselves 
 to relinquish our practice immediately ; but 
 till it is, to assume it as a medium of proof, is 
 a palpable petitio princlpii, it is begging the 
 question in debate. 
 
100 
 We repeat again^ what was observed in the 
 former treatise, that this charge owes its plau- 
 sibihty entirely to the equivocal use of terms. 
 As we do not insist upon baptism as a term 
 of communion, we may be said quoad hoc, 
 or so far, to dispense with it; just as our op- 
 ponents may be said to dispense with that 
 particiilar opinion, the doctrine of election for 
 example, which, while they firmly adhere to 
 it themselves, they refrain from attempting' to 
 force on the consciences of others ; on which 
 occasion a rigid Calvinist might with the same 
 propriety exclaim that they are guilty of dis- 
 pensing* with the truth of God. 
 
 So remote is our practice from implying* the 
 claim of superiority to law, that it is in our 
 view the necessary result of obedience to that 
 comprehensive precept — " Receive ye one ano- 
 ther, even as Christ has received you to the 
 glory of the Father." If the practice of tole- 
 ration is admitted at all, it must have for its 
 object some supposed deviation from truth, or 
 failure of duty ; and as there is no trans- 
 gression where there is no law, and every such 
 deviation must be opposed to a rule of action, 
 if the forbearance exercised towards it, is as- 
 suming' a dispensing' power, the accusation 
 equally lies against all parties, except such as 
 
101 
 
 insist upon an absolute uniformity. In every 
 instance, he who dechnes insisting- on an 
 absolute rectitude of opinion or practice, as 
 the term of union, is liable to the same charge 
 as is adduced against the indulgence for \vhicli 
 we are pleading. If the precise view which 
 each individual entertains of the rule of faith 
 and practice, is to be enforced on every member 
 as the condition of fellowship, the duty of 
 " forbearing with each other" is annihilated : 
 but if something short of this is insisted on, 
 what is wanting to come up to the perfection 
 of the rule, is in the sense of our opponents, 
 dispensed with. Behold then the dispensing 
 power rises in all its terrors ; nor will it be 
 possible to form a conception of an act of to- 
 leration where it is not included. Such is the 
 inevitable consequence, if the charge is attached 
 simply to our not insisting upon ^vhat we 
 esteem a revealed duty ; but if it is sustained 
 on the ground of the necessary dependance 
 of one christian rite upon another, it is plainly 
 preposterous, since this is the very position 
 we deny ; it forms the very gist of the dispute ; 
 the proof which will at once consign it to ob- 
 livion. The objection, in this form, is nothing 
 more than an enunciation, in other terms, of 
 our actual practice. 
 
102 
 
 In every controversy, the medium by which 
 a disputed point is attempted to be disproved, 
 should contain something- distinct from the 
 position itself, or no progress is made. There 
 may be a shew of reasoning, but nothing more. 
 It is also necessary, that the medium of proof, 
 or confutation, should contain some proposition, 
 about which both parties are agreed. But 
 what is the case here ? Our opponents object 
 that we exercise a dispensing power. Hov<r 
 does this appear? Because while we acknow- 
 ledge baptism to be a duty, we do not invari- 
 ably demand it as a preliminary to church fel- 
 lowship. Now let me ask, is this statement 
 any thing more than a mere definition, or des- 
 cription of the practice, which is the subject 
 of debate ; so that if an enquiry were made, 
 what we mean by open communion, in what 
 other terms, could the answer be couched ? 
 The intelligent reader will instantly perceive, 
 that the medium of proof involves, neither more 
 or less, than the proposition to be refuted. Per- 
 haps they will reply no: you are guilty of dis- 
 pensing with the law, not merely because bap- 
 tism is a duty, but because the Head of the 
 Church has made it an indispensible prere- 
 quisite to christian fellowship. Here the medium 
 is indeed sufficiently distinct from the propo- 
 sition which it is intended to confute, but it is 
 
103 
 
 so far from being agreed upon between tlie 
 parties, that it forms the very subject of debate. 
 In other words, they take for granted the very 
 position on which the controversy turns, and 
 then convert their arbitrary assumption, into 
 an argument. Thus in whatever light it is 
 viewed, the odious imputation with which they 
 attem}5t to load us, falls to the ground ; and 
 merely shews with what facility they can dis- 
 pense with the rules of logic. 
 
 Near akin to this, is the charge of '' sanc- 
 tioning" a corruption of a christian ordinance. 
 But how the mere act of communion with a 
 christian brother, whose practice we judge 
 to be erroneous in a certain particular, can be 
 justly considered as conferring a sanction on 
 his error, is not a little mysterious. If this 
 is a fair construction, it must proceed upon 
 the general principle, that communion sanctions 
 all the imperfections, speculative and practical, 
 of the members whom it includes ; and thus our 
 opponents must be understood to approve all 
 the perverse tempers, and erroneous views, of 
 the individuals whom they receive into fellow- 
 ship. Wdl they abide by this consequence ? 
 But how is it possible to escape it, if to tolerate 
 and to sanction, to forbear and to approve, 
 are the same thing ? Will they assert that 
 
104 
 
 St. Paul was prepared to exclude the members 
 of the church at Corinth^ ag-ainst whose irre- 
 gularities he so warmly protested ; or affirm 
 that by declining" such a step^ he sanctioned 
 the schisms and tumults^ the backbitings^ whis- 
 perings/ and swellings^ which he reproved 
 with so much severity. The idea is too ridicu- 
 lous to be entertained for a moment^ but not 
 more than the present allegation. 
 
 Were an impartial spectator to witness the 
 celebration of (he sacrament by persons of dif- 
 ferent denominations^ wiiat would he infer .^ 
 That they considered each other as beings '' with- 
 out fault before God/' with nothing in their 
 sentiments liable to correction^ or in their cha- 
 racters susceptible of improvement ? No : The 
 only conclusion which he could consistently draw 
 would be^ that they looked upon each other as 
 pardoned sinners^ washed in the same fountain, 
 sanctified;, though imperfectly^ by the same 
 Spirit;, and fellow-travellers to the same ce- 
 lestial city. 
 
 We must either seek a church such as is not' 
 to be found upon earthy or be content to as- 
 sociate with men compassed with infirmities ; 
 prepared to exercise towards others the for- 
 bearance and indulgence which we need, and 
 
105 
 
 to exhibit on every occasion the humility be- 
 coming those who are conscious that in "^many 
 
 things we all oii'end." 
 
 Besides as our author acknowledges that 
 baptism is not to be '' compared in importance 
 with the least of Christ's moral precepts/' 
 against which men of unquestionable piety are 
 perpetually offending, to a greater or less ex- 
 tent ; where is the consistency of being more 
 solicitous to avoid the appearance of sanctioning 
 ceremonial^ than moral disobedience ? 
 
 The following sentiment^ marked in italics, 
 and delivered with the solemnity of an oracle^ 
 is characterised by the same spirit of extrava- 
 gance. '^'The supposition itself/' our author 
 says, ""^that toleration and forbearance will jus- 
 tify us in allowing an omission of any law of 
 Christ in his church, operates as a repeal of 
 that law, and would generally be deemed un- 
 reasonable.'"" As all duty bears respect to a 
 law, it is impossible to conceive of its omission, 
 without supposing an equal omission of the law. 
 
 He illustrates his assertion by referring to 
 the legal qualification, in landed property, re- 
 
 '' " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 53. 
 P 
 
106 
 
 quired in a candidate for a seat in parliament; 
 where it is evident that to render the cases 
 parallel, it must be assumed, that baptism is 
 by the appointment of the Head of the Church, 
 the necessary qualification for the rights of 
 fellowship, which is the very point in debate; 
 so that we have here another instance of that 
 habit of begging' the question, with which he 
 is so familiar. On what occasion has he found 
 us concede what is taken for granted in this 
 illustration ; or who would be so absurd, after 
 such a concession, as to pursue the argument 
 any further? 
 
 The proposition itself is as untenable, as its 
 illustration is irrelevant If every rule of action 
 is repealed, the moment its omission, whether 
 partial or total, whether occasional or habi- 
 tual, whether intentional or unintentional, is 
 the object of forbearance, a repeal is the ne- 
 cessary concomitant of every conceivable in- 
 stance of toleration. For say, on supposition^ 
 the will of Christ were perfectly complied 
 with, in doctrine and in practice, wljat pos- 
 sible room would there be for mutual for- 
 bearance ? What, to speak of forbearance, 
 when all is right ! Is perfection then the 
 object of toleration? But just in proportion 
 as imperfection exists, some law, some rule 
 
107 
 
 of conduct, must be neglected, " for where 
 there is no law, there is no transgression." 
 AVill it be affirmed, that when St. Paul cen- 
 sured with so much severity, the swellings, 
 the tumults, the whisperings and the back- 
 bitings, which prevailed in the church of Co- 
 rinth, who were ready to devour each other ; 
 when he found it necessary to remind them, 
 that the unjust should not inherit the Kingdom 
 of God, did he after all perceive in them no 
 omission of a law of Christ.? This surely none 
 will affirm ; and as he still continued to exercise 
 forbearance, without the slightest intimation 
 of an intention to exclude them, he was guilty, 
 on Mr. Kinghorn's principles, of repealing the 
 commands of God. As the evils tolerated Avere 
 of a moral nature, and he tells us, that he is 
 far from '' equalising baptism with the least of 
 Christ's moral precepts ;" if in spite of his 
 own concession, he r.ow assigns it a superiority, 
 what is this but a palpable contradiction ? But 
 to say that a mistake respecting the nature of 
 a christian ordinance, is not to be borne with 
 in religious society, while evils of a moral kind 
 are, and must be tolerated, is to mark its 
 pre-eminence, in a manner the most unequivocal. 
 
 The mistakes into which he has fallen in 
 this short passage, are so gross and so many. 
 
108 
 
 that they deserve a distinct enumeration. First, 
 By affirming that to endure, under any cir- 
 cumstances, the omission of a rule of action, 
 is to repeal it, he has reduced the very con- 
 ception of toleration to an impossibility. Se- 
 condly, As there can be no moral imperfection, 
 but what involves, at least, an occasional omission 
 of a moral precept, the least of which he affirms^ 
 is of greater moment than baptism ; he must 
 either contend for the propriety of setting- 
 aside forbearance altogether, or must be under- 
 stood to select for its object the greater, in 
 preference to the least of two evils. Thirdly, 
 In assuming it for granted, that there is a law 
 in existence, which universally prohibits the 
 unbaptised from communion, he assumes the 
 whole question in debate; and if no such 
 rule is admitted, how is it possible we 
 should be guilty of repealing it. Fourthly, 
 In stigmatising the practice of not invari- 
 ably insisting on a compliance with primitive 
 baptism, in order to fellowship, as a virtual 
 repeal of the precept which enjoins it, while 
 we inculcate it as a divine command, and 
 testify our disapprobation of its neglect, is a 
 strange abuse of terms, founded on the follow- 
 ing principle ; that whatever is not absolutely 
 and invariably required as a term of com- 
 munion, is virtually repealed ; whence it ne^ 
 
109 
 
 cessarily follows, that the whole of that duty 
 in which the church of Corinth was defective^ 
 that ^vhole portion of the mind of Christy which 
 they failed to exemplify^ was considered by 
 St. Paul as no longer binding-^ since however 
 it might excite his concern, and draw forth his 
 rebuke, the want of it^ it is evident, did not 
 prevent his forbearance. Will he abide by this 
 inference? If he declines it, let him shew, if 
 lie is able, why it is less applicable^ to the con- 
 duct of St. Paulj than to ours ? 
 
 That we do not repeal the ordinance, by 
 which our denomination is distinguished, con- 
 sidered as a duti/, is a fact, of which we give 
 ocular demonstration^ as often as it is cele- 
 brated. True, say our opponents, but you re- 
 peal it, as a necessary preliminary to the Lord's 
 supper. To which the answer is obvious : first 
 prove that it is so, and then should we con- 
 tinue obstinate, load us as much as you please, 
 with the opprobrium of abrogating a divine 
 command. But cease to run round this mise- 
 rable circle, of first assuming the existence of a 
 law, confining communion within certain limits, 
 then accusing us of repealing it, and lastly of 
 finding us guilty of transgressing the pre- 
 scribed bounds, on the ground of that repeal. 
 
110 
 
 He who repeals a rule of action, reduces (he 
 system of duty to exactly the same state, as 
 though it had never existed. Whenever we 
 are convicted of doing- this, whenever we 
 teach the nullity of baptism, or inculcate a habit 
 of indifference, respecting either the mode, or 
 the subject of that ordinance, we will bow to 
 the justice of the charge; but till then, we feel 
 justified in treating it with the neglect due to 
 an attempt to convince without logic, and to 
 criminate without guilt. 
 
 The TTi^ccTov -^ev^og, the radical fallacy of the 
 whole proceeding, consists in confounding an 
 interpretation of the law, however just, with 
 the law itself; in affirming of the first, what- 
 ever is true of the last; and of subverting, 
 under that pretext, the right of private judg- 
 ment. The interpretation of a rule is, to him 
 who adopts it, equally binding with the rule 
 itself, because every one must act on his own 
 responsibility; but he has no authority whatever 
 to bind it on the conscience of his brother, 
 and to treat him who receives it not, as though 
 he were at direct issue with the legislator. It is 
 this presumptuous claim of infallibility, this as- 
 sumption of the prerogative of Christ, this disposi- 
 tion to identify ourselves with him, and to place 
 our conclusions on a footing with his man- 
 
Ill 
 
 dates, that is the secret spring' of all that 
 intolerance ^vhich has so long' bewitched the 
 world with her sorceries, from the elevation of 
 papal Rome, where she thunders and lightens 
 from the Vatican, down to baptist societies, 
 where '' she whispers feebly from the dust." 
 
 This Writer has, with the best intentions I 
 doubt not, drag-ged from its obscurity a principle 
 whose thorough application and development 
 would doom not our societies alone, but every 
 church in the universe, to a confusion of minds 
 and of tongues, a state of discord and anarchy, 
 the healing of which would soon find him 
 other employ than that of attempting to defend 
 the petty and repulsive peculiarity to which 
 he iias devoted his labours. 
 
 Before I close this chapter, it is proper to ob- 
 serve, in order to obviate misconception, that no- 
 thing is more remote from ray intention than to 
 plead for a icilful omission of any part of the 
 will of Christ. His honour, I trust, is as dear, 
 his prerogative as sacred, in the eyes of the ad- 
 vocates of christian, as it is in those of sectai^ian 
 communion. Let each in the regulation of his 
 own conduct, pay the most scrupulous atten- 
 tion to his orders ; and wherever he distinctly 
 perceives that a professor of religion indulges 
 
112 
 
 himself in a known and habitual violation of 
 Ihenij let him after seasonable and repeated 
 admonition^ ''' withdra\y from the brother that 
 ^valketh disorderly." But let him not presume 
 to control the sentiments and conduct of 
 others by his standard^ and treat as an enemy 
 or an alien^ that humble follower of Christy who 
 is as sincerely devoted to his will as himself; 
 and whOj however he may mistake it in some par- 
 ticulars^ would shudder at the thought of setting 
 voluntary bounds to obedience. If to tolerate 
 such^ must subject us to the reproach of re- 
 pealing the law of Christy let us remember we 
 are not the first who were condemned for under- 
 valuing' the ritual part of religion,, and for prefer- 
 ring mercy to sacrifice. As we must all appear 
 before the judgment-seat of Christy we await 
 with much composure and confidence^ his de- 
 cision ; without indulging the smallest appre- 
 hension that we shall meet with less com- 
 passion for having shewn it ; or that we shall 
 incur his displeasure for refusing to " beat 
 our fellow servants." 
 
113 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 AX INQUIRY HOW FAR THE PRACTICE OF MIXED COMMUNION 
 AFFECTS THE GROUNDS OF DISSENT FROM THE CHURCH 
 OF ENGLAND, AND FROM THE CHURCH OF ROME. 
 
 V 
 
 jMR. Kinghorn expresses his surprise that the 
 champions of the Hierarchy have neglected 
 in their controversy with dissenters^ to avail 
 themselves of the practice of strict communion. 
 For my part, I am only surprised at his sur- 
 prise. For supposing (what is most contrary 
 to fact) that it had furnished them with some 
 advantage against a part of tlVe Baptists, what 
 mighty triumph would it be to have proved,, 
 that a branch only of a denomination, by no 
 means considerable in their eyes, had been be- 
 trayed into an inconsistency. The abettors of 
 a splendid Hierarchy, were little likely to de- 
 scend to a petty altercation with the members 
 of one division of dissent, respecting a point 
 which could merely supply an argumentum 
 ad heminem, and about which their oppo- 
 nents are far from being agreed. 
 
114 
 
 To us however it is of importance to con- 
 sider whether the doctrine we have attempted 
 to establish^ is justly chargeable with infring- 
 ing on the legitimate principles of dissent. 
 With this vievvj we shall briefly examine the 
 substance of our Author's arguments on this 
 subject. 
 
 We are accused of inconsistency in ar- 
 raigning the Church of England " for intro- 
 ducina: rites and ceremonies which have indeed 
 no scriptural authority, but which are pleaded 
 for, merely as decent and venerable customs ; 
 while we ourselves tolerate in the church, the 
 neglect of an institution which we are con- 
 vinced was universally obeyed in the apostolic 
 times, and which was appointed by the highest 
 authority." ' To this we reply, that the cases 
 are not parallel ; that they differ in the most 
 essential particulars. 
 
 It is one thing to tolerate, and another 
 to practise. The la\/ of God invariably and 
 absolutely forbids the latter; that is, it uni- 
 formly prohibits the performance of a single 
 action which we esteem contrary (o his will, 
 but to say it in all cases forbids the former, 
 
 ' " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 123. 
 
I 
 
 115 
 
 '\s, to insist on an absolute agreement respecting 
 every brancli of piaclice. The objection is _ 
 brought Wi^dinst us who neither practice nor 
 sanction infant baptism, that \\e are chargeable 
 with the same criminality which is supposed 
 to attach to the introducers of human rites and 
 ceremonies in religion^ ceremonies which they 
 unquestionably both practice and approve. The 
 argument of the Writer reduced to the form of 
 a syllogism is as follows : 
 
 To practise human rites and ceremonies in 
 the worship of God is sinful ; 
 
 But the advocates of mixed communion suffer 
 to remain in the church, persons who practice 
 a certain ceremony of human invention ; 
 
 Therefore their conduct i^i sinful. 
 
 Who does not perceive that the second propo- 
 sitioU;, has no necessary connection with the first, 
 and that the argument is consequently invalid. 
 In order to establish his conclusion, it behoved 
 the Author to prove that we practise and approve 
 infant baptism, which he knows to be impossible. 
 If Paedobaptists required our concurrence in 
 what we esteem an erroneous practice, nay if 
 they refused us the liberty of protesting against 
 it, there would be an analogy betwixt the two 
 cases ; as it is, there is none. 
 
116 
 
 We are bound by an express law to 
 tolerate in the church those whom Christ has 
 received ; and he has by the acknowledgment 
 even of our opponents received the Paedobap- 
 tists. The first of these positions we feel our- 
 selves justified in affirming till it be disproved; 
 ■which this Writer is so far from having- done, 
 that no attempt, we shall plainly make appear, 
 was ever more unsuccessful. But whether it 
 be true, or not, that we are commanded to act 
 thus, such is our opinion ; and with this per- 
 suasion, we are not at liberty to act in a dif- 
 ferent manner. But will such as prescribe 
 human rites and ceremonies, pretend to act 
 under a similar conviction, a conviction that 
 they are bound by the law of Christ, to use the 
 cross in baptism, to bow to the East, to kneel 
 at the sacrament, and to exact as a term of 
 communion, a compliance with these and other 
 ceremonies, judged by themselves indifferent, 
 and by us sinful. The most zealous champions 
 of the Hierarchy make no such pretension, and 
 we may therefore very consistently censure them 
 for enforcing under such a penalty, the obser- 
 vation of rites for which no divine precept is ur- 
 ged, while we tolerate Ptedobaptists in obedi- 
 ence to a divine injunction ; unless it be the 
 same thing to practise in the worship of God, 
 what it is allowed he has not commanded, and 
 
117 
 
 to comply with an express proscription. If 
 the members of the establishment inquire on 
 what gTOund do you receive a Paedobaptist, 
 we reply, because we are expressly commanded 
 to receive him. But if we inquire in our turn^ 
 why do you kneel at the sacrament, and exact 
 that posture of all your communicants, is it 
 affirmed that they will reply in the same 
 manner? It is not true, then, that mixed 
 communion stands upon the same ground with 
 the rites and ceremonies of the Church of 
 England ; consequently, whatever be its merits 
 or demerits in other respects, it may be 
 maintained, in perfect consistence with the 
 principle of dissent. 
 
 To the objection that it was as much un- 
 known in the apostolic age as the ceremonies 
 in question, we have already replied, that at 
 that period it was impossible there should be 
 any controversy on the subject of baptism, 
 which was so recently instituted and so fully 
 exemplified in the conduct of the Apostles; but 
 that now, when a question has arisen, what is 
 baptism, a new case occurs, in the deter- 
 mination of which we must be guided by the 
 precepts respecting mutual forbearance. To 
 this the Author replies in behalf of the Church- 
 man, " very well, and when the Emperors and 
 
118 
 
 Kings of former days were converted to the 
 christian faith, and were desirous of sanctioning' 
 the g-ospel by their character, their property 
 and their influence, another neiv case occurred 
 of which Apostohc times knew nothing. When 
 nations became generally christian, other new 
 cases arose out of the new events of the 
 time.""" To this I answer, it is very possible, 
 undoubtedly, for a churchman to utter the 
 same words, and say a new case has arisen ; 
 but unless he can say it with the same truth, 
 it will be nothing to the purpose. There is 
 no reason why we should not assert what is 
 true, merely because a false assertion respecting 
 another subject, may be couched in the same 
 words. Is it true, or is it not, that a refusal 
 to comply with a precept, knowing it to be 
 a command of Christ, is a very different thing" 
 from a mere misconception of the nature and 
 import of that command : if it be, will it be 
 asserted that such as had refused to make a 
 profession of his religion, in the way which 
 they were conscious he had appointed, would 
 have been just as excusable as the most candid 
 and impartial of modern Paedobaptists ? Unless 
 he will assert this, the Author must acknow- 
 ledge that here is a new case, and that the 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Communion", p. 124. 
 
119 
 
 question how we should treat the wilful con- 
 temner of legitimate authority, and the erroneous 
 interpreter of scripture, involves separate in- 
 quiries. From a multitude of passages it is mani- 
 festj that he himself forms a very different opinion 
 of the present Paedobaptists, from what he 
 would entertain of such as knowingly and 
 deliberately resisted a positive command. He 
 professes to give them entire credit for their 
 sincerity, and to entertain a firm persuasion 
 of their ready admission into the kingdom of 
 Heaven ; which would be absurd on the latter 
 supposition. In maintaining a different con- 
 duct towards two descriptions of persons, be- 
 tween which there is acknowledged to be a 
 total diversity of character^ we are perfectly 
 consistent; unless it be asserted that judgment 
 ought to have no influence on conduct, nor 
 action be controlled by principle. 
 
 Let the impartial reader judge for himself 
 whether it is possible, by any fair mode of 
 argument, to infer from these premises the 
 lawfulness of making the conversion of Kings 
 to Christianity, a pretext for placing them at 
 the head of the churchy or of acknowledging 
 their right to model the worship of God at 
 their pleasure. Yet this is asserted, and these 
 portentous consequences are said necessarily to 
 
120 
 
 flow from our principles. It is a matter of 
 some curiosity^ what kind of syllogism will 
 fairly connect the two following propositions. 
 It is lawful to admit a pious Padobaptist to 
 communion^ because we are commanded to 
 receive such as Christ has received. There- 
 fore it is lawful to acknowledg-e a pious Prince 
 as Head of the Church, and to allow him to 
 model its worship as he pleases. We quoted 
 a scriptural precept for the former; will Mr. 
 Kinghorn favour us with something equivalent 
 for the latter ; or will he remind us of the 
 passages which assert Christ to be the Head 
 over all things to the church, or those which 
 command us to call no man master upon earth ? 
 His reasoning in this, as in the former instance, 
 is clogged with a two-fold absurdity : first he 
 confounds toleration with concurrence ; for they 
 who contend for the right of a King to be 
 Head, I presume acknowledge him as such : 
 secondly, because we may innocently do what 
 is commanded, or rather are not permitted to do 
 the contrary, he with great simplicity infers 
 we may lawfully venture on what is forbidden. 
 
 The same reasoning applies to the intro- 
 duction of ceremonies, and completely invali- 
 dates his conclusion, that because we tolerate 
 infant baptism, which we consider as a human 
 
121 
 
 invention, wc cannot consistently depart from 
 the Established Church on account of the in- 
 trod uc I ion of rites, which we deem super- 
 stitious. He represents a Churchman as ad- 
 dressing us in the following manner. "^ Is not 
 forbearance to be granted to us also in what we 
 deem right and expedient. Suppose that we 
 are weak brethren, as weak as you choose to 
 represent us; why should you not, even in 
 pity to our weakness, tolerate us in adding 
 a few things to the original institutions of 
 the Lord^ rather than leave us, and by schism 
 rend the seemless garment of Christ." ° In 
 reply to this let me ask, is the toleration of 
 objectionable ceremonies, sufficient to constitute 
 a churchman ; or are we invited to be mere 
 spectators of these observances, without joining 
 in them .? But do the Paedobaptists when thei/ 
 propose to commune with us, expect us to join 
 with them in their practice of infant baptism ? 
 How futile then is it, to conclude, that because 
 we are not to do evil, that good may come, we 
 must on no occasion bear with the imper- 
 fections we cannot remedy. 
 
 He largely insists on the superiority of 
 his system to ours, on account of its being 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 125. 
 R 
 
122 
 
 at a gTcater remove from the principles of the 
 Estabhshed Church. " The strict Baptist/' he 
 observes, " can set the Churchman at defiance, 
 vvliile he tells him respectfully, but plainly, 
 that his church is wrong- in its very consti- 
 tution ; that it is formed of materials different 
 from those used by the Saviour, and that these 
 materials are united tog-ether in a way totally 
 diverse from that of his institution."" 
 
 Had he succeeded in shewing that his prac- 
 tice is alone consistent Avith the principles of 
 dissent, his argument would have been to 
 the purpose. But to found a claim to pre- 
 ference, merely on a wider deviation from the 
 Established Church, is to take for granted, 
 what is palpably false, that the Established 
 Church, like the kingdom of darkness, is a 
 mere mass of corruption and error, from which 
 the farther we recede, we necessarily approach 
 nearer to rectitude. That it comprehends many 
 abuses, we sufficiently attest our conviction 
 by our dissent; but as it contains a mixture 
 of good and evil, if we suffer ourselves to 
 look with a more favourable eye upon a doc- 
 trine, merely because its admission will remove 
 us farther from the Establishment^ we may 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Ci)inniuuion," p. 127. 
 
123 
 
 fall^ ere we are aware, into die gulph of per- 
 dition. Upon tills principle, we may embrace 
 Socinianism ; for Socinians are unquestionably 
 farther removed from the Church, than orthodox 
 Dissenters. We may embrace Popery, since 
 all good Catholics consider the Church of 
 England as being- in a damnable state. We 
 always supposed it was the agreement of a 
 doctrine with the scriptures, not its disagree- 
 ment with any human system, which forms 
 its true recommendation ; and that to consult 
 our antipathies in the choice of a religion, 
 was equally unchristian, and unsafe. 
 
 Besides, the objection which he makes to 
 the constitution of the Established Church, is 
 as consistent with our principles, as with his. 
 Where a societ}- embraces a whole nation, 
 and recognises as her members, all who are 
 born within certain geographical limits, Imany 
 who are openly wicked must necessarily be 
 included ; and the materials of which it is 
 composed, essentially dilTerent from those which 
 formed the primitive church, wliich consisted of 
 such as were " called, and chosen, and faithful." 
 Of such an assemblage, it is not too much to 
 say, in the words of this Writer, '' that the 
 whole body, taken in the aggregate, are of a 
 different character from that which is in the 
 
124 
 
 New Testament called a church of Christ:"'' 
 and as this reason for dissent^ deduced from 
 the indiscriminate mixture of good and bad, 
 is not weakened, or impaired, by the practice 
 of open communion, we are as much entitled 
 as he is, to all the advantage it affords. 
 
 But when we are accused of using* different 
 materials in the erection, from those which 
 were originally admitted into the fabric, be- 
 cause we admit some, who in our judgment 
 are not baptised, we deny the charge, and ac- 
 knowledge ourselves at a loss to conceive how 
 living stones, built on the only true foundation, 
 can essentially differ from each other, on 
 account of a transient ceremony ; unless it is 
 affirmed, that sanctifying grace is a less power- 
 ful principle of attraction and assimilation than 
 an external circumstance, and that Simon Magus 
 bore more resemblance to the primitive Chris- 
 tians, than Richard Baxter. We are at an 
 equal loss to discover how a ceremony can 
 impress a character. That immersion leaves 
 no permanent corporeal mark, our senses 
 assure us : is this character then impressed on 
 the understanding, on the heart, or imagination ; 
 for the idea of a character which modifies and 
 
 P " Baptism a Term of Communion", p. I'i7. 
 
125 
 
 changes nothing-, is as unintelligible to me 
 as the doctrine of transubstantiation. 
 
 What the Writer means by appropriating 
 to himself and his brethren the exclusive right 
 of setting a Churchman at defiance;, is equally 
 mysterious, especialh' as clogged with this con- 
 dition, '' as long as he can establish his pro- 
 positions by sufficient proof. A wonderful pre- 
 rogative indeed ! By setting him at defiance, 
 he intends that he is secure of confuting his 
 arguments, which it seems he is able to effect 
 so long as he can establish the opposite pro- 
 positions, by sufficient proof. What is this 
 more than affirming, that he is certain of being- 
 able to prove, what he can prove ; and as the 
 Churchman can certainly do the same, they 
 may each enjoy, upon this principle, the pleasure 
 of mutual defiance and mutual triumph. 
 
 He either insults the understanding of his 
 readers by the enunciation of a truism, or he 
 means to assert that the practice he has under- 
 taken to defend, is so identified with the prin- 
 ciples of dissent, that it is incapable of being 
 maintained without it. The falsehood of this 
 assumption has been sufficiently evinced al- 
 ready ; in addition to which, the reader is re- 
 quested to reflect on the extreme imprudence 
 
126 
 
 of attempting- to rest a controversy of such 
 magnitude^ on so precarious a basis ; and to 
 divide and distract a common cause, by en- 
 cumbering- it ^vitll the debate on baptism^ and 
 •the verbal subtleties of strict communion. To 
 such a mode of defence, the Churchman might 
 justly reply — Physician, heal thyself: convince 
 your own denomination of the correctness of 
 your reasoning, before you presume to trouble 
 us with the mysteries of your cabala. 
 
 Mr. Kinghorn, in his zeal for baptism, in- 
 timates his conviction that the admission of 
 infants to that ordinance, will at once legi- 
 timate the constitution of the Established 
 Church, and render a secession from it indis- 
 pensible. He quotes ^\ith apparent appro- 
 bation a long passage from Bishop Hall, in- 
 tended to shew that if the baptism of the 
 Church is valid, its constitution must be so also, 
 which he prefaces by applauding that Prelate's 
 discernment, in seeing- clearly their intimate 
 connection. " All your Rabbins," says the 
 Bishop," cannot answer the charge of your 
 rebaptised brother. If we be a true church 
 you must return ; if we be not (as a false 
 church is no church of God,) you must re- 
 baptise : if our baptism be good, then is our 
 
127 
 
 constitution g'ood.'"^ Nothing can be more 
 futile tlian this mode of arguing", which merely 
 proves that the good Bishop, with all his 
 brilliance of genius, was but an indift'erent 
 reasoncr. lie thought himself justified in dis- 
 senting- from the church of Rome, notwith- 
 standing- her baptism was ever esteemed valid. 
 By the ancient church, through all successive 
 ages from the Council of Nice, the rebap- 
 tization even of Heretics was condemned; 
 though Heretics were certainly not esteemed 
 a part of the church. The very society of 
 which the Bishop was a member, has always 
 professed to consider baptism, administered 
 by every class of dissenters, in the name of 
 the Trinit}^, as valid ; so that if the reasoning 
 extolled by jMr. Kinghorn is just, he was guilty 
 of schism, in refusing to unite it at one and the 
 same time, with Heretics, Roman Catholics, and 
 Dissenters. 
 
 Not satisfied with asserting that our prin- 
 ciples militate against the lawfulness of dissent, 
 he maintains that they are inconsistent with 
 Protestantism, and that by necessary consecjuence 
 they convict Luther and his associates of schism 
 and rebellion. In the treatise on Terms of 
 
 '' " BapUsm a Term of Commuuioi)," p. 122. 
 
128 
 
 Communion^ it had been urj^ed,, that if we 
 believe our Pa^dobaptist brethren to be in 
 a state of salvation, we must acknowledge 
 them as a part of the true church, and that 
 to refuse them communion, is to create a 
 schism in the body. Applying- this reasoning 
 to the case of the Roman Catholics, he attempts 
 to repel it, by remarking that if '' we have no 
 right to refuse their communion with us, till 
 they conform to what we are convinced is the 
 will of Christ, we had no right to leave them 
 because they deviated from his will. The 
 ground is in both cases the same. Once take 
 away the obligation of conforming to the 
 will of Christ, and the reformation is declared 
 a mischievous insurrection in which all Pro- 
 testants are involved as aiding and abetting 
 a needless, and schismatical project. '"^ 
 
 To this I reply, that to suppose us to take 
 away the obligation of conforming in our own 
 persons to the will of Christ, is to suppose 
 us no lonsrer Christians. For to deny the ob- 
 ligation of obedience, is at once to deny his 
 authority, which is ec^uivalent to a formal re- 
 nunciation of Christianity. But if he means 
 that we are obliged to demand in others a 
 
 * •' Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 5S. 
 
129 
 
 perfect compliance with bis will, as a term of 
 commiinioiij he takes away the possibility of 
 toleration ; for wc can be said to tolerate no- 
 thing but what we disapprove^ and we can 
 assign no other reason for our disapprobation, 
 besides its apparent repugnance to the mind 
 of Christ. His argument^ therefore, is entirely 
 nugatory. It is acknowledged that the law- 
 fulness of admitting a Roman Catholic to our 
 communion, supposing him to be a real Chris- 
 tian, is a necessary inference from our prin- 
 ciples ; but to conclude from thence that we are 
 obliged to adhere to his, is demonstrably false 
 and sophistical; nor is there the least pre- 
 tence for asserting that the " ground in both 
 cases is the same." Of two actions which 
 involve consequences infinitely different, it is 
 impossible the ground should be the same. 
 To receive a pious Roman Catholic to our 
 communion, implies nothing more than an 
 acknowledgment of his being a member of 
 Christ, which is true by the supposition : to 
 commune with him in the rites peculiar to the 
 Romish Church, is to be guilty of gross idolatry 
 and superstition, which however pardonable 
 it may be in him, whose conscience is unin- 
 formed, in me who have no such plea, would 
 be damnable. Luther was necessitated to de- 
 part from the external communion of the 
 
 s 
 
130 
 
 Church of Rome, if he would not partake in 
 her corruptions, because her communion formed 
 a principal part of those corruptions. Besides, 
 since that church maintains the infallibility of 
 all her decisions, and whoever ventures to pro- 
 mulgate a doubt respecting' a tittle of her 
 doctrine, is ipso facto, excommunicated till he 
 recants, when the light of truth revealed to 
 Luther her enormities, it was not left to his 
 option to continue in her society, or not, unless 
 he would involve himself in the guilt of 
 most horrid prevarication. He never pretended 
 to depart from the Romish Church absolutely, 
 and in every thing', but in those particulars 
 only, in which she had corrupted the doctrine 
 of the gospel, and adulterated the worship of 
 God ; and however highly he might estimate 
 the advantages of unity, he could not purchase 
 them at the expense of a good conscience, nor 
 dare by assenting to error, or concurring- in 
 superstition and idolatry, " to do evil that good 
 might come." But if a Catholic, of whose 
 piety he entertained no doubt, had offered 
 himself for communion with him, without re- 
 canting Popery on the one hand, or proposing' 
 to innovate in the worship of God, on the 
 other, on such a supposition, if Luther had 
 refused to receive him, his conduct might have 
 been justly censured. Now, I would put it 
 
131 
 
 lo the conscience of any impartial person^ to 
 determine whether Luther would have had pre- 
 cisely the same reasons for dechning this act 
 of toleration, as for refusing his approbation 
 of indulgences, or his adoration of the mass. 
 In exercising- the forbearance in question, he 
 would have merely attested the piety of the 
 communicant; in the other case, he would 
 have directly countenanced and supported what 
 he esteemed impiety and idolatry. With 
 him who is prepared to assert, that each of 
 these methods of proceeding are equally cri- 
 minal, it is in vain to dispute ; but if they 
 are not, the assertion that the ground in both 
 cases is the same, is undeniably false. 
 
 Having detected the palpable sophistry, by 
 which my opponent would evince the incon- 
 sistency of our principles with the cause of 
 protestantism and of dissent, it remains only 
 for me to remind him of the facility w ith which 
 the argument may be retorted, and of the 
 striking resemblance between the system of 
 strict communion, and that which is maintained 
 by the Churches of England, and of Rome. 
 
 1. The Romish Church, it is well known, 
 pretends to an absolute infallibility ; not, how- 
 ever, in such a sense as implies an authority 
 
132 
 
 to introduce new doctrine^ but merely in the 
 proposal of apostolic traditions, and in the in- 
 terpretation of scripture. While she admits the 
 scripture to be the original rule of faith, she 
 requires,, under pain of excommunication, that 
 the sense she puts on its words, should be re- 
 ceived with the same submission with the 
 inspired volume. In what respects, let me ask, 
 is the conduct of the strict Baptists different ? 
 A controversy arises on the extent of a po- 
 sitive rite, whether it should be confined to 
 adults, or be communicated to infants. Both 
 parties appeal to the scripture, which the 
 Baptist interprets (in my humble opinion) cor- 
 rectly, in such a manner as to restrict it to 
 believers ; the Paedobaptist, with equal sincerity, 
 supposes it to include infants. While the former 
 in his own practice confines it to the descrip- 
 tion of persons to whom he judges it to belong-, 
 he acts with unexceptionable propriety ; but 
 when not satisfied with this, he insists upon 
 forcing his interpretation on the conscience of 
 his brother^ and treats him precisely in the 
 same manner, as though he avowedly contra- 
 dicted Christ and his Apostles, what is this but 
 an assumption of infallibility? All that infal- 
 libility which the Church of Rome pretends 
 to, is the right of placing her interpretation of 
 scripture, .on a level with the word of God : 
 
133 
 
 she professes to promulgate no new revelation^ 
 but solely to render her sense of it imperative 
 and binding : and if \sc presume to treat our 
 fellow Christians^ merely because they differ 
 from us; in their construction of a positive 
 precept, as unworthy of being- recognised as 
 Christ's disciples^ (the very words of this 
 Writer) and disqualified for the communion of 
 saints; if we allow them ''faith/' while ^ye 
 deny them '" obedience/' and affirm them 
 not to '' revere Christ's authority_, submit to 
 his ordinances, or obey the laws of his house/' 
 we defy all the powers of discrimination to 
 ascertain the difference of the two cases, or to 
 assign a reason why we must ascribe the claim 
 of infallibility to one, and not to the other. 
 
 On another occasion iNIr. Kinghorn observes/ 
 that the strict Baptists shew they understand the 
 distinction between judging for others, and 
 acting on their own responsibility. But in im- 
 posing their own sense of scripture on their 
 brethren, and affirming that on account of 
 their differing from them, they do not '' revere 
 the authority of Christ," is either judging for 
 others, in every possible sense of the words, or 
 the Writer has made an impossible supposition. 
 He adds, they allow that the Pa?dobaptists, on 
 
 ' " Bapii>in a Term of Communion,' p. 67. 
 
134 
 
 their own principles, do right in forming them- 
 selves into churches, and in commemorating the 
 death of their Lord. And must they not do 
 equally right, on their own principles, in bap- 
 tising infants, unless he w\\\ assert that the pro- 
 priety of baptising infants is not their principle. 
 If judg-ing- for others is supposed to involve a 
 claim of infallibility, and on that account, and 
 that alone, to be shunned, to attempt' to vindi- 
 cate the practice of our opponents from that im- 
 putation, ^vill baffle the acutcst intellect. 
 
 2. We have already observed the coincidence 
 of our opponent's system with the doctrine of 
 the opus operatum, or the intrinsic and me- 
 chanical efficacy of religious rites, independent 
 of the intention and disposition of the wor- 
 shipper. Tlie Roman Catholic attaches such 
 importance to the rite of baptism, as to believe 
 that when duly administered, it is necessarily 
 accompanied with the pardon of sin, and re- 
 generating grace. The strict Baptist maintains 
 that its absence, where all other religi(nis qua- 
 lifications are possessed in the highest per- 
 fectionj which human nature admits, deprives 
 the party of '^'^ the privileges of faith,"' and 
 renders him an alien from the christian 
 church. 
 
 * " Baptism a Term of Communion", p. 30. 
 
135 
 
 Both the Church of Rome, and the Church 
 of Enj^Iand, have devised terms of communion 
 of their own, and rendered it necessary for 
 the members to comply with innumerable 
 thing's, besides those which Christ has en- 
 joined as requisite to salvation. The law- 
 fulness and propriety of doing- so, is the pal- 
 marium argumenlum, the main pillar and sup- 
 port of strict communion. Let this principle 
 once be abandoned, and the present contro- 
 versy is at an end, unless our opponents chuse 
 to assume new ground, by affirming the neces- 
 sary connection between baptism, as they ad- 
 minister it, and the attainment of eternal life; and 
 that they should not perceive the absolute neces- 
 sity of proceeding so far, in order to be con- 
 sistent, seems to approach to a judicial infatuation. 
 
 3. The adherents to the Papal power claim 
 to themselves the exclusive appellation of the 
 church : the arrogance of which pretension, 
 is faithfully copied by the advocates of strict 
 communion. The former however, by con- 
 fining salvation within her own pale, avoid the 
 absurdity into which the latter fall, who while 
 they affirm the great body of the faithful are not 
 entitled to that appellation, are obliged to dis- 
 tinguish between the mystical body of Christ 
 and his church, which the scriptures expressly 
 affirm to be one and the same. 
 
136 
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 THE PROPRIETY OF APPEALING IN THIS CONTROVERSY TO TH^ 
 PECULIAR PRINCIPLES OF THE P^DOBAPTISTS, BRIEFLY EX- 
 AMINED AND DISCUSSED. 
 
 It is due^ in my apprehension^ to the majesty 
 of truths that she should be defended only by 
 truth, and that we should on all occasions 
 abstain from attempting to increase her par- 
 tizans, by corrupt suffrages. Such are the suf- 
 frages she may accidentally gain^ by the in- 
 fluence of error. As she scorns to employ 
 the aid of violence^ which is foreign to her 
 nature, so much less will she condescend to 
 owe any portion of her ascendancy to falsehood, 
 which it is her eternal prerogative, to confound 
 and to destroy. He who wishes to enlighten 
 the human mind, will disdain to appeal to its 
 prejudices, and will rather hazard the re- 
 jection of his opinion, than press them as a 
 necessary corollary from misconceptions and 
 mistakes. If the decision of controverted ques- 
 
137 
 
 tions is to be subjected to vote_, and a supe- 
 riority of numbers is to pronounce a verdict^ 
 the njoaiis by whicli they are procured is a 
 matter of indilVcrence : lie Avho is most suc- 
 cessful in enlisting popular humours and pre- 
 judices on his side^ Avili infallibly secure the 
 victory. To all legitimate argument, however^ 
 it is essential for the parties concerned to reason 
 on principles admitted by both ; to take their 
 stand upon common ground, and to adopt no 
 medium of proot^ of the truth of which, he 
 who suggests it is not satisfied. 
 
 How far Mr. Kinghorn's management of the 
 controversy corresponds with these just re- 
 quisitions, the impartial reader will be at no 
 loss to determine. In his zeal to increase the 
 number of his partizans, he makes frequent 
 and urgent appeals to the Paedobaptists, with 
 whom the point at issue can rarely, if ever^ 
 become a practical question, and who are 
 therefore little interested in its decision. As 
 they admit, without hesitation, the validity of 
 our baptism, the question whether the right 
 administration of that ordinance, be an essen- 
 tial requisite to communion, has no immediate 
 relation to the economy of their churches : 
 it interests them only in the case of those 
 individuals who may be desirous of com- 
 
 T 
 
138 
 
 muning" witli Baptist societies. As far as it 
 concerns the necessity of that particular rite 
 by whicli we are characterised^ it is a contro- 
 versy in which we are the only parties ; and 
 however much we venerate the judgment of 
 the religious public^ we cannot forget that their 
 motives to a rigorous examination of the ciucs- 
 tion, bear no proportion to ours. To them 
 it is a theoretical enquiry^ to us a practical one 
 of the most serious moment. If in appealing 
 to them, however, he had constructed his rea- 
 soning" on principles common to Baptists and 
 Pasdobaptists, there had been no room for 
 complaint. But instead of this, he enumerates 
 and marshals with such anxiety, all the appen- 
 dages of infant baptism, all it assumes, and all 
 it infers, as so many irrefragable arguments 
 for his hypothesis, that were we to judge 
 of his sentiments from these passages alone, 
 ■we should suppose him as tremblingly alive 
 to the consistency of Paedobaptists, as Eli to 
 the preservation of the Ark. He adjures them 
 by evcr}^ thing which they deem sacred in 
 their system, not to forsake him in the con- 
 flicl, reminding them that if they do so, they 
 must abandon a multitude of positions, which 
 they have been accustomed to maintain against 
 the Baptists, (that is, against himself) and be 
 compelled to relinquish the field. He there- 
 
139 
 
 fore exhorts them to be faithful unto deaths in 
 the defence of error^ and to take care that no 
 artSj blandishments, or artifices, seduce them to 
 concessions, which would embarrass them in 
 their warfare, and render the cause of infant 
 baptism, less tenable. Thus he reminds them 
 that by admitting' the principle for which we 
 contend, they must relinquish their plea for 
 baptising infants, on the ground of its '^giving 
 the seed of believers a partial membership, 
 which is recognised and comi)lcted when they 
 profess their faith in maturer years. Thus 
 one leading popular representation of its utility 
 is given up." This infant membership, how- 
 ever, he elsewhere exclaims against, as the 
 very precursor of Antichrist^ the inlet to almost 
 every abomination ; and this popular representa- 
 tion, he considers as a most dangerous fiction." 
 He tells them that were he a Pa^dobaptist, 
 and disposed to adopt my theory, he should be 
 afraid of being pressed with tlie question, of 
 what use is infant baptism?" It is unnecessary 
 to remind the reader, that in the opinion of 
 Mr. Kinghorn it is of none whatever, but a 
 most pernicious abuse of a christian ordinance. 
 But, what is more lamentable sli!!„ he warns 
 them that if " they enter into tlie spirit of our 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Comiuuiiion,"' i>. 17. " p. 22. 
 
140 
 
 representation, they will be in danger of neg- 
 lecting- it altogether, and consequently either 
 abandon tlie whole institution, or be induced 
 by the examination of scripture, to become 
 Baptists," that they will be ''guilty of a com- 
 plete deviation from the principles of their pre- 
 decessors ; that they must find new arguments 
 for their infant baptism; and that without at- 
 tempting to divine what they may be, their 
 cause will be materially injured by the ac- 
 knowledgment of the necessity of adopting 
 new modes of defence." All this appears very 
 strange from the pen of a zealous Baptist, who 
 contemplates every one of the doctrines which 
 he appeals to, with unqualified abhorrence; 
 and who must be aware that just in proportion 
 to the degree of their repugnance to the prac- 
 tice of mixed communion, is the presumptive 
 evidence in its favor. To attempt the recom- 
 mendation of his theory, by insisting on the 
 impossibility of reconciling it, with Avhat is 
 in his o})inion a system of delusion, indicates 
 something nearly resembling the unrestrained 
 impetuosity of a mind so intent upon the end, 
 as to be indilferent about the means, and 
 savours more of the art and sophistry of a 
 pleader, than of the simplicity which charac- 
 terises a sober inquirer after truth. My know- 
 ledge of the Author forbids the slightest susr 
 
141 
 
 picion of any deliberate intention to mislead, 
 but in my humble apprehension he has been 
 betrayed by the ^varmth of debate, and the in- 
 temperate sallies of his zeal, into the use, to 
 adopt the mildest expression, of unhallowed 
 weapons; and by courtiu"" 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 argiimeyiium ad hominem. But 
 lie has greatly exceeded the limits assigned to 
 that species of argument ; which may be very 
 properly employed to repel a particular ob- 
 jection of an opponent, by shewing 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 de- 
 termining which, or whether either of them, 
 is true. 
 
 But it is not merely to acknowledged errors 
 that the Author appeals, with a view to dis- 
 courage our Pffidobaptist 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 iio;- less than pride. He remarks. 
 
142 
 
 that in joining with us, they must either '' con- 
 sider themselves as unbaptised, 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/' The first of these suppositions, 
 he very properly puts aside as impossible. The 
 second, he reminds them, is ''degrading, be- 
 cause they permit themselves to be considered 
 as persons who have not fulfilled the will of 
 the Lord, in the very point in which they be- 
 lieve 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 con- 
 sidered 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 
 
 " ''Baptism a Term of Communion," p, 115, 116. 
 
143 
 
 two Christians ought to continue in communion^ 
 between Avhom there subsists the smallest diver- 
 sit}^ of judgment^ respecting" any point of prac- 
 tical 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 amongst Christians, 
 to which this reasoning will not apply ; and 
 therefore admitting it to be just, he has esta- 
 blished 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 con- 
 sideration, respects a point of practice, the 
 conclusion will hold equally strong, in relation 
 to doctrinal subjects. For not to remind the 
 reader that dilVerent opinions on practical points, 
 are in etfect ditferent doctrines, and that the 
 whole disagreement with our Pa;dobaptist bre- 
 thren originates in these, it is undoubtedly true 
 
144 
 
 of points of simple belief, as well as of christian 
 duties, that whoever adopts a sentiment dif- 
 ferent 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 Avhich, 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 rea- 
 soning- was not desig-ned to apply to the smaller 
 difterences which may arise, but only to g-rave 
 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 Paedobaptist'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 
 
14: 
 
 union of Paedobaptists with us as '' undignified/^ 
 and as placing- themselves on terms of ''in- 
 feriority/' he begs them to consider Avhether 
 it is not a ''surrender of their principles in a 
 manner altogether inconsistent with their views 
 of the law of Christ." This surrender, he pro- 
 ceeds to inform us, consists in their " agreeing 
 to be considered as unbaptised, which is con- 
 trary to the opinion which they entertain of 
 themselves." We certainly make no scruple 
 of informing a Paedobaptist candidate, that 
 we consider him as unbaptised, and disdain ail 
 concealment upon the subject ; but how his con- 
 sent to join us on these terms, involves an un- 
 Avorthy surrender of his principles, is very 
 mysterious. His principle is, that infant bap- 
 tism 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 de- 
 reliction of it, is a riddle, which it would re- 
 quire an Edipus to solve. May he not retain his 
 sentiments, and believe us in an error; and is 
 not his continuing unbaptised, a demonstrative 
 proof that he does so ? And while this is the case^ 
 and 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 
 u 
 
146 
 
 communion; since our opinion still pursues 
 him^ and though he should retire to the ends 
 of the earthy we shall still continue to think 
 " he has not fulfilled the law of Christ in the 
 vei-y 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 denomi- 
 nations, he professes to discern an essential 
 disparity betwixt their conduct and ours. We, 
 he telis us, are '• more to blame than the 
 Pa?dobaptists that join with us : they surrender 
 no principle; they do not unite with those 
 whom ihe^ deem unbaptised."" He was then 
 all intent on reproaching us : when he has to 
 deal with the Pa^dobaptists, he feels no scruple 
 
 * " Baptism a Term of Commuuion,'" p, 68. 
 
 \ 
 
147 
 
 in awardino- them the same measure. The 
 inquiry, lie 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 in- 
 stitutions is in their view so manifestly opposed, 
 flow 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 Bap- 
 tists, 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 suppo- 
 sition that baptism is not an essential pre- 
 requisite to communion, which he is aware 
 is the principle on which we rest our vindi- 
 cation, and which is certainly perfectly con- 
 sistent with their conviction of our bein«- 
 baptised ; the very circumstance he urged before 
 as a proof that they sacrifitced no principle. 
 
 From a AVriter 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 Paedobaptist brethren does, or does not, 
 
 '' " Baptism a Term of Communion", p. 114. 
 
148 
 
 Involve a surrender of principle, in the judg- 
 nient of him \vho 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 Pcedobaptists, 
 in consenting' to a union, as on ours. If we 
 join with those whom we are obliged to con- 
 sider as unbaptised, 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 at their extending the ordinance too far.^ 
 Whoever attaches importance to the covenant 
 into which God is supposed to enter with the 
 peed of believers, must highly disapprove the 
 conduct of the parent who withholds from his 
 off*spring 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 innocent babe into the 
 Abrahamic stock ; the impiety of profaning a 
 christian sacrament by rebaptising, might be 
 made the subject of tragic declamation, with 
 as much propriety as their want of " rcye- 
 
149 
 
 rence to the authority of Christ, and dis- 
 obedience to tlie 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 Psedobaptist 
 to bear with us, who live in the perpetual 
 neglect of what his principles compel him to 
 consider in that light. 
 
 In the judgment of all otiicr 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 ; Avhere 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. 
 
150 
 
 PART 111. 
 
 In ■which the Insufficienci/ of the Reply Mr. Kinghorn 
 has made to the Principal Arguments urged for 
 Mixed Communion, is exposed. 
 
 CHAP. 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 dissentions in the christian church 
 were not unknown in the earliest period of 
 
151 
 
 Christianity, is evident from the Acts of the 
 A])osties, and the Epistles of St. Paul, who 
 employed himself much in attemptini^" to com- 
 pose them ; and the principal method he adopt- 
 ed, was to enjoin mutual forbearance, to in- 
 culcate the duty of putting' the most favourable 
 construction on each other's sentiments, and 
 not suffer these differences to alienate their af- 
 fections 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 suf- 
 ficient one, and admitting- it to be such, it 
 must extend to all who are in the same pre- 
 dicament, (who are in the same state of ac- 
 ceptance), and as it is allowed on both sides, 
 that Paedobaptists 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 
 
 * Romans xiv. 1 — 6. 
 
152 
 
 might suppose the most artful sophistry would 
 despair of confuting- it, and that the only ob- 
 jection it were liable to, would be its attemptins," 
 to prove, what is self-evident. 
 
 Let us now turn to Mr. Kinghorn, It was 
 observed in my former treatise, that the ques- 
 tion 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 Paedobaptists. 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 dissentions which prevailed in 
 the primitive churches ; from whence infers 
 that the disparity betwixt them, and our con- 
 troversy with the Paedobaptists is such, that 
 the principle on which the Apostles enforced 
 toleration, is not " applicable." The expres- 
 sion he here employs, is somewhat equivocal. 
 It may either mean, that the phrase " God 
 
 '^ " BapUsm a Term of Communion," p. 40. 
 
153 
 
 hath received him/' does not apply to the 
 Pa?dobapti>;ts, or that supposing- it does, it is 
 not sufficient to sustain the inference we de- 
 duce, which is their right to fellowship. To 
 interpret his meaning in the latter sense^ how- 
 ever, would be to suppose him guilty of im- 
 peaching 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 fol- 
 lowing manner : — " There is nothing in the 
 gospel, but what the Jews can believe and 
 obey, though they retain their national par- 
 tialities to the law ; and therefore since God 
 does not reject them, but receives them into 
 christian dispensation, you should receive them 
 also. Rut then, he adds, he receives them 
 on their believing and obei/ing 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 Christy 
 
 * " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 45. 
 X 
 
154 
 
 in tlie sense the Apostle intends^ accompanied 
 with a concession that to prove they were, 
 would furnish an irrefragable argumeiit for 
 oar practice. 
 
 It was certainly not without reason that he 
 apologised for taking different ground from 
 Mr. Booth ; for here he is directly at issue 
 with the venerable Apologist. He frankly ac- 
 knowledges the fact which Mr. Kinghorn chal- 
 lenges us to prove ; but attempts to evade the 
 conclusion 43y 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. Amidst 
 the contradictory statements of such formidable 
 champions, who can only agree in their censures 
 of us, while they are at variance among them- 
 selves respecting the most fundamental points ; 
 where one tells us we are not to commune with 
 other denominations, though they are received 
 by Christ, and the other because they are not 
 received, what course must he who looks up 
 with profound veneration to these great au- 
 thorities, take ? Where both propose to con- 
 duct him to the same place, but one directs 
 him to the East, the other to the West, my 
 
 '• " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 62. 
 
155 
 
 Iiumble advice is, to believe neither, but to 
 exercise that hbcrty of thinking for himself, 
 to which he is strongly invited by the per- 
 plexity and confusion of iiis guides. 
 
 Our present concern, however, is with Mr. 
 Kinghorn, who denies that Paedobaptists are 
 received by Christ, in the sense which St. Paul 
 intended in the passage under consideration ; 
 while he agrees with us, that it is upon that 
 principle that primitive toleration rested. 
 
 Let it be remembered, that while Mr. Booth 
 interprets the word received, as sionifyins: re- 
 ceived into the divine favour, Mr. Kinghorn 
 contends for its meaning- admitted into the 
 church. But since many things must of ne- 
 cessity precede the act of external communion, 
 and every believer must be supposed, in some 
 important sense, to be previously received of 
 Christ, he qualifies, or explains his former lan- 
 guage, by adding, " he receives them into the 
 christian dispensation.'"" 
 
 ' For the satisfaction of the reader who may not possess Mr. 
 Kingliorn's book, it may be proper to give the whole passage, to 
 which my reply is directed. 
 
 " Besides the expression God hath received him, ver. 8. deserves 
 consideration. It clearly applies, as it is stated by the Apostle, 
 to the reception of the Gentiles ; and is an argument with the Jewish 
 
156 
 
 Let me crave the indul<^eiice of the reader, 
 while we endeavour to sift this matter to the 
 bottom. 
 
 1. Whatever disparity may be contended for 
 between the ancient dissentions^ and tlie modern 
 dispute with the Paedobaptists, it can by no 
 means amount to a proof that the latter are 
 not comprehended under the clause in question 
 (God hath received him.) To reason thus, 
 there were certain errors among- the primitive 
 professors which did not bar their admission 
 into the church, but the error of the Paedobaptist 
 is of a very diiferent kind, and therefore it must 
 have that effect, would be to reason most in- 
 conclusively, since all that can be justly inferred 
 is, that it possibly maij have that effect, though 
 the former had not. The utmost point to which 
 
 Christians, not to reject those brethren who eat all things. And 
 suppose it be granted that the expression applies to both parties, 
 (which appears intended in chap. xv. 7.) the sense tlicn is evidently 
 this, God receives not Gentiles only, but also Jews into the chris- 
 tian church, though they are encumbered with their Jewish pre- 
 judices. There is notiiing in the gospel, but what Jews can believe 
 and obey, though they retain their national partialities to the law ; 
 and therefore siiice God does not reject tiiem, but receives them into 
 the christian dispensation, you should receive them also. But then 
 he receives them on their believing and obeying the gospel, and it is 
 neither stated or supposed that he receives them nolwithstanding they 
 disobey it. And unless tliis be proved, tlic cause of mixed communion 
 ib not promoted," — Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 45. 
 
157 
 
 the argument, from the dissimilarity of the 
 two cases, is capable of being' carried, is, that 
 the latter may possibly not be comprehended 
 under the same rule; but whether our Author 
 has not disqualified himself from urging it, 
 will be the subject of future inquiry. 
 
 2. The medium by which he attempts to esta- 
 blish his conclusion is manifestly untenable, 
 unless he chooses to retract a large portion 
 of his treatise. His argument is this, that 
 God receives " such, and only such, as believe 
 and obey the gospel ;" but other denomi- 
 nations disobey it, and are therefore not enti- 
 tled to that privilege. Here, however, he is 
 at issue with a greater than Booth — with the 
 Apostles themselves, one of whom declares that 
 Christ "will appear in flaming fire, taking ven- 
 geance on them that obey not the gospel;" 
 and another, classes such as obey it not, among 
 the " ungodly and sinners," whom he solemnly 
 warns of their fearful end. Either then, the 
 Apostles were wrong, in denouncing destruc- 
 tion on such as do not obey the gospel ; or 
 Mr. Kinghorn in loading the Paedobaptists with 
 that charge, while he expresses a confidence 
 of their salvation. Nor will it avail him in the 
 least, to say they do not obey it perfectly; for 
 we should feel no hesitation in retorting the 
 
158 
 
 charge, and affirming that had he done so, 
 he would not have penned this passage. 
 
 8. As he must on his system distinguish betwixt 
 being in a state of salvation, and "being re- 
 ceived into the christian dispensation," there 
 are a few questions, to which we should be 
 giad to receive an explicit answer. He will ac- 
 knowledge, we presume, that every believer is 
 first united to Christ, and received by him, 
 before he is entitled to the external commu- 
 nion of his church; that his right to the latter 
 is founded on the credible evidence he gives of 
 his interest in the first of these privileges. If 
 this be admitted, it must hold equally true res- 
 pecting the Jewish and gentile converts, whose 
 mutual toleration is enjoined in the passage 
 under dispute. Now I ask, according to zjohat 
 dispensation were these primitive believers united 
 to Christ, and accepted of him, previous to their 
 external communion : was it according io the 
 Christian dispensation, or some other? If the 
 reply is, the Christian ; I ask again, are our 
 Pa^dobaptist brethren in possession of the same 
 privileges, as were enjoyed by the primitive con- 
 verts, before their external communion with the 
 church.'' If they are not, they are not entitled 
 to the appellation of Christians in any sense, 
 and consequently could not be admitted to com- 
 
159 
 
 mil n ion, even tboui^li they were baptised. If 
 on tlic other hand, it is acknowledged that 
 they are possessed of the same privileges, the 
 question returns, hij what dispensation are they 
 held ? If he denies it to be by the christian, 
 I ask once more, how he acquired this per- 
 suasion of their possessing the privileges in 
 question ? He surely vv ill not pretend to have 
 obtained it in any other way, than by an atten- 
 tive perusal of the New Testament, by com- 
 paring the character of pious Paedobaptists, 
 with that of the primitive christians, as well 
 as with the marks and criterions, by which it 
 has directed us to judge of a state of salvation; 
 so that the favorable opinion he professes to 
 entertain, must rest on the evidence, which the 
 principles of the christian dispensation supply. 
 But to say that the maxims of that dispen- 
 sation oljlige him to believe that a class of 
 persons are interested in its promises, whom 
 that very dispensation does not comprehend, 
 although they live under it, is a contradictioa 
 in terms. It is equivalent to asserting, that the 
 gospel economy passes opposite sentences on 
 the same persons, and affords evidence for their 
 seclusion and admission, at one and the 
 same moment. It seems evident to a demon- 
 stration then, that agreeable to his own conces- 
 sions, other denominations, as well as our 
 
160 
 
 own, are received into the christian dispensa- 
 tion^ that by virtue of its essential principles 
 they are entitled to its immunities and privi- 
 legeSj and have consequently a right to the 
 external communion of saints, on a double ac- 
 count, first, because such communion is one 
 of its distinguishing- benefits, and next, because 
 as they are included amongst the persons whom 
 the Head of the Church has received, which 
 our Author interprets, by being admitted into 
 the christian dispensation. 
 
 For the same reason, all that he has said 
 elsewhere, of our not being authorised by the 
 New Testament to recognise them as the dis- 
 ciples of Christ, necessarily falls to the ground ; 
 for since he can have no pretence for "believing 
 them in a state of salvation, except on the infor- 
 mation derived from the New Testament, which 
 certainly promises salvation to none but Christ's 
 disciples ; we are not only allowed, but im- 
 pelled by that highest authority, to recognise 
 them under that character. His attempt to 
 nullify their profession, is also rendered com- 
 pletely abortive : for not to repeat what was 
 before urged, since they profess neither more, 
 nor less, than to adhere to the christian dis- 
 pensation, it will not be denied, that if they are 
 actually received into it^ that profession is valid. 
 
161 
 
 Let it be remembered,, that in deducing these 
 consequences, we have allowed him to inter- 
 pret the disputed phrase in his own way, 
 without contending- for the sense which is most 
 agreeable to the context, as well as most fa- 
 vourable to our hypothesis ; and without at- 
 tempting to impugn the accuracy of his re- 
 presentation, of the dissentions and disputes, 
 which occasioned the injunction, and gave scope 
 to the exercise of primitive forbearance. 
 
 3. Though that inquiry might be well spared, 
 without injur}' to our argument, yet his account 
 of these ancient controversies is so egregiously 
 partial, so palpably designed to serve an hy- 
 pothesis, that truth forbids me to suffer it to 
 pass without animadversion. In a long and 
 perplexed dissertation, he endeavours to esta- 
 blish a distinction between indulging a needless 
 scrupulosity in doing what is not commanded, 
 and disobeying an express precept; contending 
 that the errors which St. Paul tolerated v?ere 
 of the former sort, and that as they merely 
 respected certain observances and customs nei- 
 ther forbidden nor enjoined, they were to be 
 considered as u^iuOo^u, things indifferent, about 
 Avhich the christian religion is silent. He com- 
 pares them to disputes about the planetary 
 system, where it is free for every person to 
 
 Y 
 
162 
 
 form his own judgment^ and either to beh'eve 
 with the vulgar^ that the sun literally moves 
 round the earth every four and twenty hours, 
 or the earth round the sun, agreeable to the 
 principles of modern astronomy.*^ 
 
 In order to elucidate the question before 
 us, it will be proper briefly to state the different 
 modes of proceeding adopted by the Jewish 
 converts respecting the mosaic ceremonies, at 
 the earliest period of Christianity. That they 
 were universally practised by believers of Jewish 
 extraction, is manifest from various parts of 
 
 ■^ " The case is very similar," he says, " to the following: At no 
 great distance of time back, the popular opinion was, that the earth 
 was a fixed body, and that the sun and stars made not an apparent, 
 but an actual revolution round the earth. The contrary appeared 
 so unlikely, so contrary to daily observation, that numbers knew not 
 how to admit it. Some reasoned ; others took a shorter way, and 
 laughed at what they thought was absurd ; another party appealed 
 to the Bible, as settling the point, by asserting that the sun did rise, 
 and did set, and one distinguished daj' was commanded to stand still. 
 Good men were to be found on both sides of the question. Suppose 
 now that some serious characters in a christian church, tenacious 
 believers that the earth stood still, and that it was the sun that moved, 
 bad occasioned a little unpleasant controversy, with some of their 
 brethren that were better informed; and the latter, provoked at 
 their remarks, were for excommunicating them, for want of sense, 
 if not for want of religion, how fitly would the Apostle's reasoning 
 apply. It might be said exactly on these principles, these good 
 men are not chargeable with breaking ant/ divine law: their whole 
 crime is, that they are bad astronomers, and talk nonsense ; but 
 'God hath received them;' do you therefore receive them in the 
 spirit of meekness and love," — Baptism a Term of Communion, p, 49, 50. 
 
163 
 
 scripture ; and with respect to the church at 
 Jerusalem, is expressly affirmed by St. James. 
 '' Thou seest brother/' said he, addressing Paul, 
 " how many thousand Jews there are who 
 believe, and they are all zealous for the law." 
 The Apostle of the Gentiles, with all his zeal 
 in the assertion of their liberties, conformed 
 to them himself; partly from respect to the 
 Jewish people, whom he was most anxious, by 
 every lawful compliance, to conciliate, and 
 partly from a tender consideration of the in- 
 firmities of his weaker brethren, not yet suf- 
 ficiently confirmed in the freedom of the gospel. 
 " To the Jews, he became a Jew, that he 
 might win the Jews." But while he displayed 
 this amiable and condescending spirit, he never 
 disguised his conviction that the obligation 
 attached to the mosaic rites was dissolved, and 
 that the gospel was alone, a perfect rule of 
 faith and practice. 
 
 Thus far an attention to the law was justi- 
 fiable, and founded on the most enlightened 
 principles. IMany however, probably the great 
 majority, proceeded a step further, and ob- 
 served the legal ceremonies, not as the dictate 
 of prudence, or for the purpose of conciliation, 
 but as matter of conscience, conceiving them 
 to be still in force. These composed that class 
 
164 
 
 of believers who are denominated weak, whose 
 infirmities the strotig, Christians of a more 
 enlig^htened order^ were commanded to bear 
 with. The error which these persons main- 
 tained was of serious magnitude ; for in the 
 very face of an inspired Apostle, who affirmed 
 the law of Moses to be abrogated and an- 
 nulled^ by the advent of Christ, they still per- 
 tinaciously adhered to it, as a matter of personal 
 and indispensible obligation ; and though they 
 attempted to revive and perpetuate an anti- 
 quated system, an economy which the gospel 
 had completely superseded, and which went 
 by no circuitous route, to impeach the suffi- 
 ciency and perfection of the latter ; their com- 
 plete toleration was solemnly and repeatedly 
 enjoined on their more enlightened brethren, 
 
 This error is compared by Mr. Kinghorn 
 to an erroneous system of astronomy, and is 
 consequently considered as totally indifferent, 
 But how he could possibly believe this himself, 
 or hope to obtrude it on the credulity of his 
 readers, is astonishing. To attach the sanc- 
 tion of religion to a system which the Supreme 
 Legislator had repealed — to scruple various kinds 
 of meat, at the very moment that St. Paul was 
 testifying' the Lord Jesus had shewn him, that 
 nothing' was unclean of itself; and after Peter 
 
165 
 
 bad proclaimed the vision by Avhich he was 
 instructed, that the distinction of clean and 
 unclean, was abolished, betrayed a degree of 
 superstitious weakness and pertinacity, most 
 foreign from a mistake on a merely scientific 
 subject. Were a converted Jew at present 
 to determine to adhere to the mosaic ritual, I 
 would ask Mr. Kinghorn whether he would 
 consider his conduct as entitled to the same 
 indulgence, as though he scrupled to adopt the 
 Newtonian system of the universe:' 
 
 Still he will reply, that his error Is of a 
 diflferent kind from that of the Pa^dobaptists : 
 he is guilty of no omission of a revealed duty ; 
 while they set aside a positive institute of 
 Christianity. It is by this distinction, and 
 by this alone, that he attempts to evade the 
 conclusion to which this example conducts us. 
 There is nothing", liowever, in reason or in 
 scripture, from whicii we can infer, that to 
 omit a branch of duty, not understood, is less 
 an object of forbearance, than to maintain the 
 obligation of abrogated rites. Let him assign, 
 if he is able, a single reason why it is less 
 criminal to add to, than to take away from the 
 law of Christ, to receive an obsolete economy, 
 than to mistake the meaning of a New Tes- 
 tament institute. How will he demonstrate 
 
166 
 
 will-worship to be less offensive to God^ than 
 the involuntary neglect of a revealed precept? 
 It is so much more difficult to prove, than to 
 assertj that we commend his discretion in 
 chusing' the easier task. 
 
 The above distinction is not only unfounded 
 in the nature of things ; it is at direct variance 
 with the reasoning- of Paul on the subject. 
 He enjoins the practice of forbearance, on 
 the ground of the conscientiousness of the 
 parties concerned, on the assumption not 
 only of their general sincerity, but of their 
 being equally actuated in the very particulars 
 in which they ditfered, by an unfeigned res- 
 pect to the authority of Christ ; and as he 
 urges the same consideration as the ground, 
 on which the toleration of both parties rested, 
 it must have included a sojnething which was 
 binding on the conscience of each, whatever 
 was his private judgment of the points in de- 
 bate. The Jew was as much bound to tolerate 
 the Gentile, as the Gentile the Jew. '' Who 
 art thou, that judgest another man's servant? 
 to his own master he standeth or falleth. One 
 man esteemeth one day above another ; another 
 esteemeth every day alike. He that observeth 
 a day, observeth it to the Lord : he that ob- 
 serveth not a day, observeth it not to the 
 
167 
 
 Lord. He that cateth not, to the Lord he 
 eateth not ; he that eatelh, cateth to the Lord," 
 Now in t!ic judgment of the Jew, still at- 
 tached to the mosaic rites, he who made no 
 distinction of meats, or of days, must have 
 been considered as violating-, or neglecting a 
 precept still in force, or tlie injunction to re- 
 frain from judging him, would have been devoid 
 of meaning. He must have consequently been 
 regarded by him, in precisely the same light 
 in which our Paedobaptist brethren are con- 
 sidered, that is, as violating, though not in- 
 tentionall}^ a positive institute. Still St. Paul 
 absolutely insists on the duty of forbearance ; 
 and arguing with him on his own principles, 
 he tells him, he has no authority whatever to 
 ''judge," or deem him unworthy of his 
 fellowship, since he was accepted of Christ, 
 and acted with perfect good conscience in the 
 particular which gave offence. 1 will leave 
 the impartial reader to determine whether this 
 is not a fair representation of Paul's reasoning, 
 and whether, admitting this, it does not com- 
 pletely annihilate the distinction Mr. Kinghorn 
 attempts to establish, and decide the present 
 controversy as satisfactorily as if it had been 
 penned for the purpose. It is scarcely pos- 
 sible to suppose he will stoop to avail himself 
 of his only remaining subterfuge, by reminding 
 
168 
 
 us that in the instance before us, the ordinance 
 supposed to be violated was not a Christian 
 one; since it is ojjvious^ that the commands 
 of God^ supposing- ihem still in force^ are equall}^ 
 binding", at whatever period they are pro- 
 mulgated, or to whatever economy they belong". 
 
 It is not, be it remembered, by a peremptory 
 decision of the controversy, or by assigning the 
 victory to one in preference to the other, that 
 the Apostle attempts to eftect a reconciliation. 
 He endefivours to bring' it about, wiiile each 
 retains his peculiar sentiments; from which it 
 is manifest that there was nothing in the 
 views of either party, which in his judgment, 
 formed a legitimate barrier to union. The at- 
 tachment of the Jew to the observation of the 
 legal ceremonies, was not in his opinion a 
 sufficient reason for refusing to unite with him, 
 by whom they were disregarded. But in this 
 case, the forbearance which he enjoins was 
 exercised towards a class of persons exactly 
 in the same situation, as far as its principle is 
 concerned, with the modern P^edobaptists, that 
 is, towards persons who violated a precept 
 which was still supposed to be in force; and 
 this consequence equally results, whatever state- 
 ment may be made of the precise object of 
 Jewish toleration^ whether it involved disputed 
 
169 
 
 practices among the Jews themselves or the 
 neglect of the mosaic ritual by the Gentiles. 
 Hence in wliatever possible view the con- 
 troversy may be considered^ the Apostle's treat- 
 ment of it goes to the complete annihilation 
 of the distinction,, betwixt the observation of 
 what is not, and the neglect of what is com- 
 manded ; since the mutual toleration which 
 was prescribed^ embraced both. 
 
 There was a third description of Jews who 
 attempted to impose the yoke of ceremonies 
 on GentileSj '"assuring them that unless they 
 were circumcised and kept the law of Moses^ 
 they could not be saved." It was this which 
 occasioned the convention of the Apostles 
 and Elders with the Church at Jerusalem^ 
 where it was solemnly decided that Gentile 
 converts should enjoy a perfect immunity 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 pro- 
 pagated their 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 
 
 z 
 
170 
 
 those who troubled them were cut off." By 
 inculcating' the law as an indispensible pre- 
 requisite 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 in- 
 dulgence was shewn towards the inventors and 
 propagators of this pernicious heresy, is ad- 
 mitted ; 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 labour 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." But in 
 the midst of these pointed reproofs, as they 
 were not fully aware of the consequences of 
 
171 
 
 their defection, as they were not in a con- 
 firmed 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. 
 
 4. We shall not content ourselves with 
 this answer. We accept Mr. Kinghorn's chal- 
 lange, and engage to produce an instance of 
 men's being tolerated in the primitive church, 
 who neglected an express command of Christy 
 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 niiembers of the Church 
 which they planted, and ot 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, reJatinc; to a subject of the utmost im- 
 portance. It will not be denied, that he ex- 
 pressly directed them to go forth immediately 
 after the descent of the Spirit and to preach 
 the gospel to every creature. Did they im- 
 mediately 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 etfort to publish the gospel ex- 
 cept to the JewSj and that it required a new 
 
172 
 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 pri- 
 mitive Christians from entering into the views 
 of their divine Master, that when a ''^ number 
 of them were scattered abroad upon the per- 
 secution that arose about Stephen, they went as 
 far as Plia^nicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preach- 
 ing 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 appro- 
 priated 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, tlie first 
 heralds of the gospel, slowly and reluctantly 
 imbibed its liberal and comprehensive spirit. 
 
 Nor is this the only instance in which JMr, 
 
173 
 
 Kinghorn himself Avill be found to approve 
 of the toleration of such as have liabitually 
 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 ver}^ recent 
 period, that it was improper to urge sinners 
 to repentance, or lo enjoin upon them the 
 duty of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.'' 
 Their practice, it is needless to add, corres- 
 ponded with their theory, and they anxiously 
 guarded against the inculcation of any spiritual 
 duties whatever on the unconverted. My re- 
 spectable opponent is, I am aware, at a great 
 remove from these sentiments ; and that the 
 reason he would assign for lejecting them, is 
 that our Saviour commenced his ministry by 
 calling men to repent, and that " he com- 
 manded 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 
 
 '' 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 emancipation from these miserable shackles and 
 restraints. 
 
174 
 
 to affirm that they were not members of the 
 church? Will this sturdy champion of the 
 strict Baptists be ungracious enough to pass 
 a sentence of excommunication on the great 
 majority of his precursors in this controversy? 
 Unless he is piepared for this^ he must ac- 
 knowledge that the right of toleration extends 
 to such as neglect^ or violate a revealed precept. 
 It is unnecessary to remind the I'eader 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 worlds none to whom it could, 
 on this principle be addressed. The whole 
 ceremony of baptism sinks into insignificance 
 in the comparison. 
 
 In answer to his challenge we have produced 
 two caseS;, in which toleration has been ex- 
 tended 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 dissention with which 
 this principle is replete. The principle is, that 
 whenever one Christian deems another to live 
 
175 
 
 Ml the neglect and violation of a positive com- 
 mand, however conscientious and sincere, he 
 nmst renounce the communion of the party 
 which he sup{)oses erroneous. Who does not 
 perceive that the application of such a prin- 
 ciple, will furnish a pretext for endless dis- 
 pute and contention ; that not only a different 
 interpretation of the law of baptism, will be 
 a sufficient occasion of division, but that who- 
 ever supposes that any branch of the primi- 
 tive 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 de- 
 tails 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 
 
176 
 
 than thcsej none on ^vllich the evidence is 
 less satisfactory, and which more ehide the 
 researches of the learned, or administer more 
 aliment of dispute to the contentious. One 
 class of Christians beHeves 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 
 recognise as a church, iu which that cir- 
 cumstance is wanting. Another attaches im- 
 portance to weekly communion, which he justly 
 contends was the uniform practice of the 
 Apostles, and of the primitive age : a confor- 
 mity to which, in this particular, is with him 
 an indispensible condition to communion. A 
 third turns his eyes towards lay exhortations, 
 the disuse of which he considers as practi- 
 cally superacding some of the plainest passages 
 of scripture, cjuenching the spirit, and abridg- 
 ing 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 wash- 
 ing of feet, and the frequency with which 
 the Apostles inculcated the kiss of charity : 
 and having no doubt that these injunctions 
 arc of perpetual obligation, feels himself ne- 
 
177 
 
 cessitatcd to withdraw from such as by neg- 
 lecting' them " walk disorderly." A fifth con- 
 tends for the total independence of churches, con- 
 ceiving" that the cog-nizance 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, dis- 
 tinguished by different degrees of approximation 
 to H'uth ; 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 re- 
 specting baptism ; nor is it possible, if that 
 principle be admitted, to reconcile the inde- 
 pendent 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 
 judgment, respecting the mind of Christ, and 
 consequently necessitate the withdrawment of 
 
 2a 
 
178 
 Christians from each other. The few societies 
 who have attempted to carry this theory into 
 practice^ have ah'eady exhibited such a series 
 of fends 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 scarcel}^ 
 be found capable of walking together in fel- 
 lowship ; and an image of the infinite divi- 
 sibility of matter will be exhibited, in the break- 
 ing 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 
 representation 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. 
 
 5. There is one important consideration to 
 which the reader is requested to attend, before 
 
179 
 
 we dismiss tliis branch of the subject. My 
 opponent aflirms, that none besides our own de- 
 nomination 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 ex- 
 tends 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 intreated 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 uniform- 
 ly addressed to the same description of per- 
 sons, 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 mu- 
 tually to bear with each other. Nor can we 
 
 * The Author of Terms nf Coinmunion ohserva, "that the question 
 at issue is not what were the iudividual errors, we are commanded 
 to tolerate, but what is the ground on which that measure is en- 
 forced, and whether it be sufficiently comprehensive, to include the 
 Papdohaptists." In reply to which Mr. Kinghorn sets out with re- 
 marking. "I admit that is the question, and the decision of this 
 question will determine, whether the precepts of the gospel v^ill 
 sanction ns in departing from apostolical precedent," &c. 
 
180 
 liesitate 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 was written 
 to the Romans is inscribed to "' all ihat 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 dis- 
 tinction 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 pre- 
 cepts enjoined on any one society, must have 
 been considered as equally binding on all the 
 faithful. On any other supposition, each church 
 would have possessed a distinct code, instead 
 
181 
 
 of ihe inspired writings at large, being re- 
 garded as the universal rule of faith and 
 practice. Hence it follows that the seven 
 churches of Asia, as well as those who were 
 scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, and Cap- 
 padocia^ 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 con- 
 duct 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 tiie rule pro- 
 pounded 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 Psedobaptist brethren, 
 in the present day, we are repelled ; and my 
 opponent reminds us that we are not autho- 
 rised 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 justifi- 
 cation, could the fact on which it proceeds be 
 established, but he denies the fact. 
 
182 
 Their error, it is asserted, is of such a na- 
 ture, that it places them totally out of the 
 question, and whatever is said on the sub- 
 ject of mutual forbearance in the New Tes- 
 tament is, in the present state of things, to be 
 considered as applicable merely to the con- 
 duct of baptists toward each other ; from which 
 it necessarily follows, that no part of the pre- 
 cepts 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 Pasdobaptist can derive either conso- 
 lation, 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 
 
183 
 
 is of the same extent with the injunctions 
 contained in the I4th and 15th chapters, and 
 no greater; the same description of persons 
 arc evidently addressed throughout : it was the 
 saints, the beloved of God, mentioned in the 
 beginning" of the letter, who on account of 
 their common relation to the Lord^ were com- 
 manded to bear with each others inlirmities. 
 Now if it be asserted that infant baptism is 
 an error so different from those which were 
 contemplated by the Author, in that injunc- 
 tion ; 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 as- 
 cribed to christians in that epistle, belongs to 
 them. Mr. Kinghorn may affirm, if he pleases, 
 that the characteristic descriptions, are appli- 
 cable 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 affec- 
 tionate congratulations, and partly of serious 
 advice, both intended for the comfort and di- 
 rection of the same persons, to infer that 
 the congratulations apply to Christians of all 
 
184 
 
 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 baptised, 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 con- 
 tend, are to be restricted to Baptists ; whence 
 it necessarily follows, unless we had some inde- 
 pendent evidence on the subject, that the former 
 must be restricted in the same manner; and 
 that consequently all other denominations, how- 
 ever excellent in other respects, are left 
 without any scriptural proof of their interest 
 in the divine favour, or any directions for 
 that part of their conduct which concerns their 
 christian obligations. Were there indeed any 
 other medium of proof, besides the wTitings 
 of the Apostles, of equal authority, by which 
 it were possible to supply their deficiency, 
 the case would be different : from this inde- 
 pendent source, we might possibly learn the 
 fact, that other denominations also, were in- 
 
185 
 
 eluded within the promise of eternal life ; but 
 while our knowledge on the subject is derived 
 from one book, ^Yhose precepts for the re- 
 gulation of the conduct of believers towards 
 each other universally, are affirmed not to 
 extend to our intercourse with Paedobaptists, 
 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. 
 
 2B 
 
186 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 ON THE ARGUMENT FOR MIXED COMMUNION, FOUNDED ON 
 THE P^DOBAPTISTS BEING A PART OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 
 
 The Author of "Terms of Communion" founded 
 an argument for the admission of sincere Chris- 
 tians of every denomination^ to the Lord's table^ 
 on their being a part of the true church. He re- 
 marked that whenever that term occurs in scrip- 
 ture, in relation to spiritual matters^ it constantly 
 denotes, either members of a particular commu- 
 nity, 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 
 
187 
 
 pretext whatever;, of repelling- a sincere Chris- 
 tian from communion. If we allow the iden- 
 tity of the church of Christ with his body, 
 which St. Fiiul 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 i clearer light, seems a waste of 
 words. If th? alienation of affection which pre- 
 vailed 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 ApoUos, and 1 of Cephas, and I of 
 Christ. Is Christ divided?"* '" 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 stigmatised under 
 the notion of an attempt to divide Christ himself. 
 
 The reader will probably feel some curiosity 
 
 ' 1 Corinthians i. I'i, 13. 
 
188 
 
 to know, how Mv 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 di- 
 viding it, in opposition to his solemn in- 
 junctions. He will be a little surprised at 
 finding" that he makes no reply whatever, 
 that he is speechless, and without attempting 
 to rebut the argument, turns aside to other 
 subjects, on which he contents himself with 
 repeating what he has already asserted, times 
 without number. For what purpose he announced 
 his intention to discuss this topic, it is not 
 easy to conjecture; unless he flattered him- 
 self with the hope of finding some good na- 
 tured readers, who would give him credit for 
 having done, what he avowed his intention of 
 performing. Be this as it may, not a word 
 escapes him throughout the chapter, from 
 which it is possible to learn, whether he con- 
 siders Paidobaptists as a part of the Church, 
 or not; the affirmation, or denial of which, 
 is essentially involved in the discussion. 
 
 The only answer he attempts to the 
 preceding reasoning is included in an asser- 
 tion, the fallacy of which, has already been 
 
189 
 
 amply exposed. 'Once lake away llic ob- 
 ligation/' saith he^ "^of conForminjz; to the will 
 of Christ, and the Reformation is declared a 
 mischievous insurrection, in Avhich all parties 
 are involved, in aiding' and abetting a needless 
 and schismatical project. But if it be right 
 to leave good men, because they have left Jesus 
 Christ, it is right not to admit his terms till they 
 come to them.'" To which it is sufficient to 
 reply, that to leave good men, that is, to re- 
 fuse to join with them in those particulars^ 
 in which we suppose them to have deviated 
 from the will of Christ, is the necessary dic- 
 tate of allegiance; but to refuse to walk with 
 them as far as we are agreed, to repel them 
 from our communion, on account of errors 
 and corruptions, in which we are under no 
 necessity of participating, is a very different 
 affair; it is an assumption of infallibility, and a 
 deliberate invasion of the rights of conscience. 
 
 The logical force of Mr. Kinghorn's con- 
 elusion, is exactly on a footing with that of 
 the following argument. If it be right to 
 leave my friend when he repairs to the gaming' 
 table, it is right not to admit him into my 
 house, till he has relinquished the practice of 
 
 ' " Baptism a Term of Communioj)," p. 55. 
 
190 
 gaming. If 1 must not go with him to the 
 theatre^ I must renounce all sort of inter- 
 course with him, until he has abandoned 
 theatrical amusements : a conclusion to which 
 a stern moralist may easily be supposed to 
 arrive, but which no correct reasoner will 
 attempt to deduce from these premises. 
 
 That the mystical body of Christ is one 
 and one only, and that all sincere believers 
 are members of that body, is so clearly and 
 unequivocally asserted in the sacred scriptures, 
 that it would be trifling with the reader to 
 enter into a formal proof of a proposition, 
 so obvious and so undeniable. The wildest 
 heretical extravagance has never proceeded so 
 far, as to ascribe two or more mystical bodies 
 to the same Head, or to deny that Christ is 
 in that character really and virtually united to 
 all the faithful. It is equally certain that the 
 term Church, when ever it is applied to de- 
 note the whole number of believers diffused 
 over the face of the earth, is identified in 
 scripture with the body of Christ. The Church 
 is in more passages than one affirmed to be 
 his body. "He is the head of (he body, the 
 Church. Who now rejoice," saith St. Paul, 
 "in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which 
 is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my 
 
191 
 
 f\esh,for his bodies sake, ichich is the Church.^" 
 
 In the language of scripture, two classes 
 of men only are recognised, believers and un- 
 believers, the Church and the World ; nor is 
 it possible to conceive, in consistency with 
 the dictates of inspiration, of a third. All 
 Avho are in Christ are in a state of salvation; 
 all who belong to the world, in a state of spi- 
 ritual death and condemnation. "The former 
 are in him that is true, even in his son Jesus 
 Christ; the latter, the ichole icorld, lieth in 
 the wicked one." If we allow ourselves to 
 imagine a description of persons, who though 
 truly sanctified in Christ and united to him 
 as their Head, are yet no parts of his Church, 
 we adopt a Utopian theory, as unfounded and 
 extravagant as the boldest fictions of romance. 
 It is the Church, and that only, if we believe 
 the inspired Writers, which '^"Christ so loved 
 as to give himself for it, that he might sanc- 
 tify it and cleanse it ; it is that alone, which 
 he will present to himself, a glorious Church, 
 not having spot, or wrinkle. "'' 
 
 It is strange that Mr. Kinghorn should not 
 
 e €olo3. i. 10 23. Eph. v. 23, 30, 32. 1 John iii. 19, 20. 
 " Ephesians v. 27. 
 
192 
 
 explicitly inform us, whether Pasdobaptists 
 are, or are not, to be considered as a part 
 of this universal Church, This he ought cer- 
 tainly to have done^ or have declined entering- 
 on a branch of the controversy, which he must 
 be aware, hinges entirely on that point. If 
 they are admitted to be a part of his Churchy, 
 and he still contends for their exclusion, this 
 is formally to plead for a schism in the body ; 
 it is to justify the forcible separation of one 
 member from another^ and to destroy the 
 very idea of its unity. On this principle, the 
 pathetic exhortations to perfect cooperation, 
 and concord, drawn from the beautiful analogy 
 betwixt the mystical and natural body, in- 
 sisted upon in the first Epistle to the Co- 
 rinthians, are completely superseded ; and one 
 member instead of being prohibited from saying 
 to another, "^'I have no need of thee/' is taught 
 to shrink from its contact, as a contamination. 
 Whenever we are invited to concur in prac- 
 tices, which we esteem erroneous, or corrupt, 
 our refusal to comply is justified by a prin- 
 ciple the most obvious and the most urgent, 
 the previous obligation of obeying God, rather 
 than man ; but if we object to a transient act 
 of communion, with a member of the body of 
 Christ, on account of those errors, or cor- 
 ruptions in which we are not called to par- 
 
193 
 
 ticipalCj Vie are guilty of dividing" that body. 
 The reason of my adverting to a transient act, 
 is that I am supposing the cause of separation 
 to rest with us, and that a member of a dif- 
 ferent community proposes merely to unite 
 in an occasional commemoration of the inef^ 
 fable love of the Redeemer,, without either a 
 formal renunciation of the pecuharities of his 
 sectj or an attempt to introduce them. In 
 such circumstances, occasional fellowship is 
 all that can be looked for ; the adoption of 
 different modes of worship^ a predilection for 
 different rites and ceremonies^ will naturally 
 dispose him to prefer a permanent union with 
 professors of his own persuasion. While in 
 the mutual intercourse of such societies^ a 
 disposition to recognise each other as Chris- 
 tians is cultivated^ the unity of the body is pre- 
 served, notwithstanding their disagreement in 
 particular points of doctrine, or of discipline. 
 Owing to a diversity of judgment, respecting 
 the proper organization of cliurches, ob- 
 stacles, at present invincible, may prevent their 
 incorporation ; and it is left to the conscience 
 of each individual to determine, to which 
 he will permanently unite himself. An en- 
 lightened Christian will not hesitate for a mo- 
 ment, in dechning to join with that society. 
 
 2C 
 
194 
 
 whatever be the piety of its individual mem- 
 bers, in which the terms of communion involve 
 his concurrence in religious observances^ of 
 whose lawfulness he entertains any doubt. 
 Hence arises, in the present state of religion^, 
 an impassable barrier to the perfect inter- 
 community of christian societies. But it is 
 not upon this ground that my opponent ob- 
 jects to the practice for which we are con- 
 tending". He rests his refusal to commune 
 with members of other denominations, on the 
 principle of their not being entitled to be 7'e- 
 cognised as Christians. He protests against 
 a union with them, not on account of any 
 erroneous or superstitious observances, with 
 which the act of fellowship is necessarily com- 
 bined, but considers them as personally dis- 
 qualified. His hypothesis is indeed so wild 
 and incoherent, that it is difficult to state it 
 with accuracy, or to preserve a steady con- 
 ception of it in the mind. According- to his 
 theory, the Pasdobaptists occupy a station the 
 most anomalous and extraordinary, that ever 
 entered the human imagination. INIany of 
 them are genuine believers, of whose exalted 
 piety he avows the fullest conviction, yet they 
 are not to be recognised as Christians, they 
 are members of the mystical body of Christ, 
 
k 
 
 195 
 
 or they could derive from him no saving in- 
 fluence or benefit, yet are excluded from all 
 the advantages resulting' from the union and 
 cooperation of the several parts of which it 
 consists ; and though as a portion of the 
 mystical body, it is impossible to deny them 
 a place in the one catholic or universal church, 
 yet it is the duty of every particular church, 
 to disown, and exclude them. In short, the 
 great majority of the sincere followers of the 
 Saviour, whose names are written in the book 
 of life, are totally disqualified for performing 
 the duties, and enjoying the privileges, which 
 distinguish the church from the world; betwixt 
 which they occupy some intermediate place, 
 some terra incognita, whose existence it is 
 as difficult to ascertain, as the limbiis patrwn, 
 or a mansion in the moon. In the present 
 state of the christian church, that extensive 
 portion of the New Testament, which was 
 designed to cement the aifections, and to re- 
 o'ulate the conduct of the faithful towards each 
 other, is superseded; its precepts are in a state 
 of suspension and abeyance, and in the midst 
 of Egyptian darkness, which envelopes the 
 christian world, the Baptists alone dwell in 
 the light of another Goshen. However strange 
 these positions may appear, they form but a 
 
196 
 
 part of the absurdities which necessarily flow 
 from our Author's theory ; nor is there any 
 possible way of evading- them^ but by denying 
 that Paedobaptists belong to the mystical body 
 of Christ, or demonstrating the consistency of 
 their exclusion with the union and co-operation, 
 which St. Paul enjoins; or by asserting the 
 existence of more mystical bodies than one^ 
 destined to subsist apart. 
 
197 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 THE INJUSTICE OF THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER DENOMINATIONS, 
 CONSIDERED AS A PUNISHMENT. 
 
 In the treatise '' On Terms of Communion/' 
 it was urged^ that as exclusion from the com- 
 munion of the church is the highest eccle- 
 siastical censure^ which it is possible to inflict, 
 it can only be justified, on the supposition 
 of a proportional degree of demerit in the ob- 
 jects of it. If the moral turpitude inherent 
 in the practice of infant baptism, is of an order 
 which entitles it to be compared to the ha- 
 bitual indulgence of vice, or the obstinate 
 maintenance of heresy, it is but fit it should 
 be placed on the same level, and subjected 
 to the same treatment : but if the under- 
 standing, and the. heart equally revolt at such 
 a comparison, that method of proceeding must 
 be allowed to be unjust. To this our Author 
 
198 
 replies^ by denying the propriety of applying 
 the term exclusion to a bare refusal of ad- 
 mission. '' Words/' he informs us, '' must 
 strangely have altered their meaning, before 
 such an application of the phrase in question 
 can be justified." To be compelled to dispute 
 about the meaning of terms is always humili- 
 ating, but that his assertion is unfounded, is suf- 
 ficiently evident, from the authority of the most 
 eminent critics. Our great Lexicographer, 
 under the word exclude, defines it thus, '' to 
 shutout, to hinder from entrance, or admission ;" 
 exclusion he defines, '' the act of shutting out, 
 or denying admission." Thus much for his 
 accuracy as a grammarian. Let us next ex- 
 amine his reasoning. 
 
 He denies that the act of debarring every 
 other denomination from admission is a punish- 
 ment — " it is not considered as such by sen- 
 sible Pa?dobaptists." ' But why is it not ? 
 Solely because the baptist societies are too few 
 and too insignificant to enable them to realise 
 the eftects of their system, in its full extent. 
 Their principle involves an absolute interdict 
 of church privileges to the members of every 
 other community ; but being an inconsiderable 
 
 ' " Baptism a Term of Comniuniou," p. 60, 
 
199 
 
 minority^ thcie are not wanting numerous and 
 respectable societies^ who stand ready to give 
 a welcome reception to the outcasts^ and to 
 succour the exiles. That their rejection is 
 not followed by its natural consequence, a total 
 privation of the communion of saints, is not 
 to be ascribed in the smallest degree to the 
 liberality or forbearance of our opponents, but 
 solely to their imbecility. The celebration of 
 the Eucharist they consider as null and void, 
 when attended to by a Picdobaptist ; his ap- 
 proach to the table is absolutely prohibited with- 
 in the sphere of their jurisdiction ; and should 
 their principles ever obtain a general prevalence, 
 the commemoration of the love of a crucified 
 Saviour would become impracticable, except to 
 persons of their own persuasion. Instances 
 have often occurred, where the illiberal practice, 
 against which we are contending, has been felt 
 to be a punishment of no ordinary severity ; 
 where eminently holy men have been so situ- 
 ated, that the only opportunity they possessed 
 of celebrating the passion of the Redeemer has 
 been withheld, and they have been compelled, 
 most reluctantly, to forego one of the most 
 exalted privileges of the church ; nor has it 
 ever been known, that compassion for the pe- 
 culiar hardship of the case, was suffered to 
 suspend the unrelenting severity of the sentence. 
 
200 
 
 Let me ask the advocates for the exclusive 
 system^ whether they would be moved for a 
 moment to extend their indulgence to a solitary 
 individual^ who differed from them on the 
 subject of baptism, although he was so cir- 
 cumstanced as to render a union with other 
 classes of Christians impossible ? 
 
 This Writer affirms, it is not intended as 
 a punishment by the Baptists, and strongly re- 
 monstrates against the confounding it with the 
 sentence of excommunication, on account of im- 
 moral delinquency. He concurs with the Author 
 of Terms of Communion in admitting- that in 
 these instances, its " accordance with the 
 moral nature of man^ may and does give it 
 authority and weight ; in such an instance as 
 the incestuous person at Corinth, it becomes 
 an instrument of punishment. He was in the 
 church, and could be expelled from it. But 
 which way the censure or punishment of ex- 
 communication and expulsion can take place 
 in one who never was in a society, the strict 
 Baptists," he tells us, "have yet to learn."-' 
 
 In reply to this, I shall not descend to a 
 tedious logomachy, farther than just to remark, 
 
 ■• " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 60. 
 
201 
 
 that this Writer has on this occasion fallen 
 into a similar error^ respecting- the meaning" 
 of words with his former. Excommunication 
 is synonymous with exclusion ; and is defined 
 by the highest authority^ " an ecclesiastical in- 
 terdict ; exclusion from the fellowship of the 
 church."'' The punishment it involves is ex- 
 actly proportioned to the value of the pri- 
 vilege it withholds; and therefore to affn^m that 
 it is not a punishment^ is equivalent to the 
 assertion that the fellowship of the church is 
 not a benefit. To withhold privileges and 
 immunities from him who is legally entitled 
 to their possession, must be supposed to be 
 felt with a severity proportioned to the justice 
 of his title^ and the magnitude and extent of 
 his privations. 
 
 By refusing to admit a Pa^dobaptist to the 
 privilege of communion with us, we in fact 
 affirm his incompetence to commune any where; 
 we deprive him, as far as our influence ex- 
 tends, of all the advantages which result from 
 the fellowship of the saints ; and that he is not 
 reduced to the situation of an outcast and an 
 exile from the church, is in no degree to be 
 imputed to the lenity of our decision, but to 
 the limitation of our power. It is surely not 
 
 ^ See Johnson. 
 2 D 
 
necessary to multiply words to prove^ that the 
 equity of every judicial sentence must be as- 
 certained by considering it, as it is in itself; 
 by exploring- its tendency ; not by adverting to a 
 fortuitous concurrence of circumstances, which 
 may possibly mitigate or extinguish the evils 
 with which it is fraught. In the present in- 
 stancCj we must, in order to form an accurate 
 judgment, make the supposition, that the sen- 
 tence of excommunication actually operates in 
 its full extent, so as to deprive the subject of 
 it of all the consolation and benefit resulting 
 from the union of Christians : we must suppose 
 that no asylum is left to which he can retreat, 
 no community remaining, where he can hide 
 his humiliation and his shame. For that there 
 is any, is solely to be ascribed to the prevalence 
 of a system which our opponents are accus- 
 tomed to stigmatise as erroneous, and for the 
 existence of which, it is not to be imagined, 
 therefore, they will assume to themselves the 
 smallest credit. Let us imagine, what JMr. 
 Kinghorn will probably be among the first to 
 anticipate, that the sentiments of the Baptists 
 triumphed to such an extent, as to be embraced 
 by dissenting churches in general, and that 
 the opposite views were retained only by a 
 few individuals — let us suppose one of the 
 latter description to possess the zeal, the hu- 
 
203 
 
 mility, the devotion of a Brainerd ; and that 
 on account of his being- unable to perceive the 
 nullity of infant baptism, he \vere shut out 
 from every religious society within his reach, 
 though acknowledged to possess an elevation 
 of character^ which threw the virtues of others 
 into the shade; would there be no hardship, 
 no injustice in this case ? Would it be suf- 
 ficient to silence the murmurs of indignation 
 to remark, that it was not intended as a pu- 
 nishment, that he had nothing to complain 
 of; for "^^ as he was never in the church, he 
 could not be expelled from it ?" Would such 
 cold and trivial subtleties, were they as correct 
 as they are erroneous, quell the instinctive 
 cry of justice, demanding a satisfactory reason 
 for placing the friend, and the enemy of God, 
 the devoted servant of Christ, and the avowed 
 despiser of the great salvation, on the same 
 level, and comprehending* them in one and 
 the same sweeping censure ? If these cha- 
 racters are totally opposed, not merely by 
 the contrast exhibited between the vices of 
 the world, and the virtues it is most prone 
 to admire; but in consequence of the pos- 
 session, by one of the parties, of supernatural 
 and sanctifying grace ; where is the equity of 
 confounding them together by the interdict 
 of religious privileges : and if the door is opened 
 
204 
 
 at the same time for the admission into the 
 church, of persons of a character decidedly in- 
 ferior, how can impartial justice be asserted 
 to hold the scale, and determine the merits 
 of the respective candidates; justice, whose 
 office it is to appreciate the rival claims of com- 
 petitors, and to impart to every one his due ? 
 The iniquity of such a mode of procedure is 
 so obvious and striking-, that it is no wonder 
 we find our opponents exert their ingenuity 
 to the utmost^ in attempting' to palliate and 
 disguise it; though the issue of their attempts 
 is only to plunge them deeper in perplexity 
 and contradiction. 
 
 The Author of '" Terms of Communion," had 
 remarked, " that there was no difference with 
 respect to the present enquiry, betwixt the re- 
 fusal of a candidate, and the expulsion of a 
 member, since nothing could justify the former 
 of these measures, which might not be equally 
 alleged in vindication of the latter. Both 
 amount to a declaration of the parties being 
 unworthy to communicate." To this Mr. King- 
 horn replies, by observing that " in one case 
 the party is declared unworthy from moral 
 delinquency ; in the other, he is not declared 
 unworthij, but unqualified." Here it is plainly 
 conceded that Pa^dobaptists are not refused 
 
\ 
 
 205 
 
 on a moral ground ; -wlienre it necessarily 
 follows, that even supposing they ^vere acquitted 
 from all blame in practising- infant baptism, 
 their exclusion would still be justifiable. They 
 are not repelled from the sacrament, it seems, 
 on account of any breach of duty of which 
 they are guilty ; for to assert this, would be 
 to contradict himself, by resting their exclusion 
 on their vioral delinquency. They incur the 
 forfeiture of all the privileges of the church, 
 for no fault whatever ; and whether they be 
 perfectly free from blame or not, in the adop- 
 tion of an unauthorised rite, is a consideration 
 totally foreign to the question, and it is not to be 
 taken into the account, in assigning the reasons 
 for their non-admission. Let the reader seri- 
 ously ponder this extraordinary concession ; let 
 him ask himself, whether he is prepared to be- 
 lieve that, in consistence with the genius of 
 the gospel, the most extensive forfeiture of re- 
 ligious immunities can be incurred Avithout 
 guilt, and the heaviest ecclesiastical censure in- 
 flicted on the innocent. He will doubtless reject 
 such a supposition with un mingled disgust : he 
 will feel no hesitation in deciding that the 
 error which prohibits a church from recog- 
 nising the person to whom it is ascribed, 
 as a Christian, which Mr. Kinghorn expressly 
 applies to infant baptism, must incur a high 
 
206 
 
 degree of culpability in the eyes of him who 
 judgeth righteous judgment. 
 
 The glaring inconsistency of this whole 
 statement, with the preceding assertions of 
 the same Writer, is palpable and obvious. 
 He entirely concurs with INIr. Booth, in cha- 
 racterising Paedobaptists as persons, '' who do 
 not revere Christ's authority, submit to his or- 
 dinances, nor obey the laws of his house." 
 But will he attempt to distinguish this charge 
 from that of moral delinquency ? Again, 
 quoting the declaration of St. Paul, that ''the 
 kingdom of God consists in righteousness, 
 peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost;" he adds, 
 '^'^now as far as the kingdom of God consists in 
 righteousness, it must include obedience to 
 practical precepts, both moral, and positive.' 
 We have an eminent instance, of submission 
 to John's baptism being called righteousness 
 by our Lord." But if the Paedobaptists are 
 justly chargeable with want of righteousness, 
 and on that account, are not entitled to chris- 
 tian fellowship, they must certainly be excluded 
 on the ground of moral delinquencj/. If on 
 the other hand, ti)e deficiency of righteousness 
 involved in the practice of infant baptism, is 
 
 ' " Baptism a Terai of Comimuiion," p. 46. 
 
207 
 
 not sufficient to justify such a treatment^ the 
 reason iny,- in the above passage is utterly futile. 
 By denying that they are excluded on the 
 ground of moral delinquency, at the same time 
 that he imputes to them^ conduct highly cri- 
 niinalj he has involved himself in inextricable 
 difficulties; since supposing it could be proved 
 to a demonstration, that they did " not revere 
 the authority of Christ/' &c. he has deprived 
 himself of the power of urging it in vindi- 
 cation of his system, by protesting against the 
 supposition of his resting its operation on 
 moral considerations. But if no guiit is im- 
 plied in these charges, why are they adduced ; 
 and if tiiere be^ how is that to be distinguished 
 from moral delincjuency ? He tells us they are 
 not unworthy, but only disqualified ; whence it 
 follows, that in his opinion, he may be worthy 
 of communion, who "^^ does not revere the 
 authority of Christ;" nor would it be possible 
 to dispute his title, were he but qualified. 
 
 In adopting this system, he professes to 
 obey the directions, and to imitate the con- 
 duct of the Supreme Legislator, whom he 
 affirms not to have received the unbaptised, 
 into the gospel dispensation. If this profession 
 is sincere, he surely will not deny that it is 
 his intention to proceed on the same grounds. 
 
208 
 
 r 
 Head of the Church. 
 
 and act from the same motive, with the iireat 
 
 But when by refusing- to admit them into the 
 christian dispensation, he virtually declares them 
 disqualified, which is the doctrine of this 
 Writer, is it under the character of innocent 
 persons, or of delinquents ? Will he affirm 
 that the benefits of that economy are with- 
 held from any who have, by no act, deserved 
 that privation ? Is the sentence by which 
 their disqualification is incurred, capricious and 
 arbitrary, or is it merited ? To say it is not, 
 would be impious; and to affirm that it is, 
 is to contradict himself by founding it after 
 all on moral considerations, or which is per- 
 fectly equivalent, on "' moral delinquency," 
 
 The distinction then which he has attempted 
 to establish betwixt being' unworthij, and being 
 disqualified, is perfectly nugatory ; and the 
 persons to whom it is applied, though they 
 may not be unworthij in other respects, must 
 be acknowledged to be such, on account of 
 that particular instance of disobedience, for 
 which they are disqualified. Their disobedience 
 places them on a footing with other classes of 
 delinquents, by shutting them out from the 
 communion of saints. They incur the same 
 
209 
 
 forfeiture^ and for the same general reason^ 
 want of practical compliance with the will of 
 Christ. They are defective, to use this Author's 
 own language, in the righteousness of the 
 kingdom ; and though they possess faith^ they 
 fail in exhibiting obedience. 
 
 The objections formerly urged against this 
 system, consequently return in their full force* 
 Since the exclusion of Pgedobaptists must, after 
 every possible evasion, be founded on their 
 supposed demerits, if these are necessarily and 
 intrinsically equal to the moral imperfections 
 which are tolerated in baptist societies, it is 
 just. If among the millions who have prac- 
 tised infant baptism, the most eminent saint 
 whom past ages have produced, is to be con- 
 sidered as more criminal on that account, than 
 the crowd of imperfect Christians whom we 
 admit without scruple into our churches, the 
 charge of injustice must be relinquished. Unless 
 this can be sustained, it remains undiminished 
 and unimpaired. 
 
 The method by which Mr. Kinghorn attempts 
 to parry this reasoning is a recurrence to his 
 old sophism, which consists of confounding 
 together things totally distinct, namely, a re- 
 fusal to partake in objectionable rites, with the 
 
 2 E 
 
210 
 
 exclusion of such as embrace thertij from our 
 communion. Here he takes occasion to affirm 
 that the same objection may l)e made to our 
 secession from the Romish^ as from the Esta- 
 bhshed Church." 
 
 Did we repel men of unquestionable piety 
 on account of their avowed attachment to the 
 peculiarities of a sect or party^ there would be 
 a propriety in identifying' our practice with 
 that of our opponents ; for in that case we 
 should both act on the same principle. But in 
 refusing to join in a communion, accompanied 
 by appendages which we conscientiously dis- 
 approve, we proceed on a totally difjerent 
 ground. We recede just as far as a moral 
 
 " "The imposition of rites, says IVfr. Kingliorn, which Christ 
 has not commanded, and the combination of those sentiments, with 
 the structure of the Church, which we think injurious to its nature, 
 and contrary to the will of the Lord, have rendered it necessary for 
 us to establish a separate communion. Here the fact is, that we feel 
 ourselves called upon to say, that we can have no fellowship with 
 them, in communion at the Lord's table. On this ground, it would 
 be a very easy thing to represent the conduct of Protestants, and 
 of Protestant Dissenters, in the same dark colouring, as Mr. Hall 
 has applied to the strict Baptists. Let a man of talent exclaim 
 against them for departing from the true church; and represented their 
 conduct in establishing a communion of their own, as declaring in 
 the strongest form, that they deem others unworthy of their society, 
 and that in so doing, they pronounce the sentence of expulsion &c. 
 and he will do no more than Mr. Hall has done, in the whole of 
 this part of his reasoning." — " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 63. 
 
211 
 
 necessity dictates^ and no farther. Nor is it 
 true^ as tiiis \Vrlter asserts, that this mode of 
 proceeding implies as severe a censure on the 
 societies from which we dissent,, as the prac- 
 tice which we are opposing, inflicts on Paedo- 
 baptists. He who conceives that the posture 
 of kneehng- is an unauthorised innovation on 
 the primitive mode of celebrating' the eucharist, 
 must necessarily dissent from the church which 
 prescribes it : but will it be affirmed that his 
 doing so, implies a conviction that the adherents 
 to that rite are universally disqualified for fel- 
 lowship, that they are not entitled to be acknow- 
 ledged Christians, or that they are so deficient 
 in the righteousness in which the kingdom of 
 God consists, as to invalidate their profession, 
 and exclude them from the christian dispen- 
 sation? But these are the charges ur^ed 
 against the Paedobaptists. Let the smallest 
 error imaginable be so incorporated with the 
 terms of comn)union, that an explicit assent 
 to it is implied in that act ; and he who discerns 
 it to be an error, must, if he is conscientious, 
 dissent, and establish a separate communion : 
 but are there any prepared to assert, that this 
 is precisely the same thing as to repel the 
 person w ho embraces it, from the Lord's table ? 
 I am weary and ashamed of being under the 
 necessity of occupying the reader's attention. 
 
212 
 
 with the exposure of such obvious fallacies. 
 Suffice it to remarkj once for all^ that our dissent 
 from the Establishment is founded on the ne- 
 cessity of departing- from a communion, to 
 which certain corruptions, in our apprehen- 
 sion, inseparably adhere ; while we welcome 
 the pious part of that community, to that cele- 
 bration of the eucharist which we deem unex- 
 ceptionable. We recede from their commu- 
 nion from necessity, but we feel no scruple 
 in admitting' them (o ours; while our strict 
 brethren reject them, as well as every other 
 description of Paedobaptists, altogether. On 
 him who has not discernment to perceive, or 
 candour to acknowledge, the difference betwixt 
 these methods of proceeding, all further rea- 
 soning would be wasted. 
 
 One more evasion must be noticed before 
 we conclude this part of the subject. " The 
 Pasdobaptists are represented as chargeable with 
 nothing- more than a misconception of the 
 nature of a positive institute. But this, it 
 is observed, is not the question before us : 
 the present controversy relates to the institute 
 itself. It is not whether the members of a 
 church have fully and properly conceived the 
 nature of the institute, to which they have sub- 
 mitted. If this were the case, we migiit be 
 
213 
 
 represented as expelling the ignorant and the 
 Aveak^ instead of instructing- and encouraging 
 them. But it is whether an institute delivered 
 by Christ, is to be maintained, or to be 
 given up."" 
 
 To this I reply — The advocates of infant 
 baptism are either sincerely of opinion that the 
 rite in question ought to be extended to infants, 
 or they are guilty of prevarication. If there 
 be any of the last description to be found, they 
 are entirely out of the question, for supposing 
 their character ascertained, they have never been 
 contemplated as proper objects of toleration. 
 With respect to the former, who sincerely be- 
 lieve it was the intention of our Lord to 
 extend the rite of baptism to the infant seed 
 of believers, is it possible for them to act 
 otherwise than they do ? With what then are 
 they chargeable, except with a misconception 
 of a positive institute ; and if we are not to 
 repel the ignorant and the weak, we must 
 cither affirm that they are not ignorant in this 
 particular, and thus accuse them, contrary to 
 the supposition, of wilful prevarication, or we 
 must tolerate them. Though we are far from 
 insinuating that our Psedobaptist brethren are in 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of Communion," j). 65. 
 
214 
 
 g-eneral either ignorant or weak, yet as ignorance 
 and weakness are undoubtedly adequate to the 
 production of any misconception, o\\ the sub- 
 ject of religion not fundamental, they will con- 
 sequently account for the error which has given 
 birth to infant baptism ; and just as far as it is 
 capable of being- ascribed to this source, its 
 abettors are^ by our Author's concession, ob- 
 jects of forbearance. And since there is no 
 medium^ but all Psedobaptists, however discern- 
 ing in other respects, must either be supposed 
 ignorant in this particular, or to prevaricate; 
 forbearance must be extended to as many of 
 them as are deemed sincere ; beyond which 
 we are as unwilling to extend it, as he is. 
 While they entertain their present views on 
 the subject of baptism, they must -either ad- 
 minister it to infants, or violate the dictates 
 of conscience ; and therefore, if they are 
 chargeable with any thing more tiuin a mis- 
 conception, the matter of that charge must be 
 deduced from their acting like upright men ; 
 an accusation, which we hope for the honour 
 of human nature^, will proceed from none but 
 strict Baptists. 
 
 The sum of what has been advanced on 
 this head, is that the privation of communion 
 is an evilj exactly proportioned to the value 
 
215 
 
 of that benefit; that as far as the tendency of 
 tlie exclusive system is concerned, and to the 
 utmost power of its abettors, the evil is ex- 
 tended to every denomination except one ; 
 tliat it is either inflicted on account of moral 
 delinquency , or is utterly unmerited ; since if 
 that ground be relinquished, their exclusion 
 must be asserted to be just, even supposing 
 them perfectly innocent ; that whatever blame 
 may be imputed, bears no proportion to that 
 which incurs the forfeiture of the same pri- 
 vilege, in other instances; nor to the faults and 
 imperfections which are daily tolerated without 
 scruple ; and finally, since the practice which 
 is treated with so much severity, is the neces- 
 sary result of a misconception of the nature of 
 a positive institute, which is only another name 
 for ignorance or weakness in that particular, 
 to make it the pretext of expulsion or excom- 
 munication, is repugnant to the maxims even 
 of our opponents. 
 
216 
 
 CHAP. X. 
 
 ON THE CONTRARIETY OF THE MAXIMS AND SENTIMENTS OF 
 THE ADVOCATES OF STRICT COMMUNION, TO THOSE WHICH 
 PREVAILED IN THE EARLY AGES; IN WHICH THE INNOVATION 
 IMPUTED TO THEM BY THE AUTHOR, IS VINDICATED FROM 
 THE CHARGE OF MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 In order to comprehend the true state of the 
 question^ as it respects the practice of christian 
 antiquity, it may be convenient to distribute 
 it into three periods; the first including- the 
 time during- which correct sentiments on the 
 subject of baptism universally prevailed; the 
 second, that in which a gradual transition 
 was made from the practice of adult, to that 
 of infant baptism ; the third, the period in which 
 the latter obtained a general and almost un- 
 disputed ascendancy. 
 
 On the first of these periods little need be 
 said. Where there are no dissimilar elements, 
 there can be no mixture ; and therefore to affirm 
 
217 
 
 that the practice we are contending for, was 
 unknown in the earliest ages of the christian 
 church, is little more than an identical pro- 
 position. While no demur,, or dispute sub- 
 sisted respectinj^ either the form, or the ap- 
 plication of the baptismal rite, a punctual 
 compliance with it was expected and enforced 
 by the |>residcnts of christian societies, for 
 precisely the same reason which suggested a 
 similar mode of proceeding to the Apostles. 
 It was a part of the will of Christ, in the 
 interpretation of which, no division of opinions 
 subsisted among the faithful. The next period 
 is that, during which an innovation was gra- 
 dually introduced, by extending the ceremony 
 in Cjuestion to infants — a period which from 
 the commencement of the third, unto the close 
 of the fourth, probably comprehended the space 
 of two centuries. Supposing the modern prac- 
 tice to have been first introduced towards the 
 end of the second, or the beginning of the 
 third century, which corresponds to the time 
 at which it is distinctly noticed by Tertullian, 
 the first writer who explicitly mentions it, we 
 cannot suppose a shorter space was requisite 
 to procure it that complete establishment and 
 ascendancy, which it possessed in the time of 
 St. Austin. During that long interval there 
 must have been some, who still adhered to the 
 
 2 F 
 
218 
 
 primitive practice^ and others^ \vho favoured 
 and adopted the more recent innovations; there 
 must, in other words, have been Baptists and 
 Paedobaptists cotemporary with each other. 
 What became of that portion of the ancient 
 church, which refused to adopt the baptism of 
 infants ? Did they separate from their Brethren, 
 in order to form distinct and exclusive societies? 
 Of this, not the faintest trace or vestige is to 
 be found in ecclesiastical history ; and the sup- 
 position is completely confuted, by the con- 
 current testimony of ancient Writers to the 
 universal incorporation of orthodox Christians 
 into one grand community. We chiallenge our 
 opponents to produce the shadow of evidence 
 in favour of the existence, during that long tract 
 of time, of a single society, of which adult 
 baptism was the distinguishing characteristic, 
 Tertullian, it is acknowledged, is the first who 
 distinctly and unequivocally adverts to the con- 
 trary practice : and as he expresses disap- 
 probation of it at the same time, without the 
 remotest intimation of the propriety of making 
 it the ground of separation, he must be allowed 
 to form one instance of the practice of mixed 
 communion ; and unless Ave are disposed to 
 assert that the modern innovation in the rite 
 of baptism, supplanted the original ordinance 
 at once, multitudes must have been in pre- 
 
219 
 
 cisely the same situation. We well know, that 
 in the latter period of his life, he did secede 
 from the orthodox catholic church ; but we 
 are equally certain, that he was moved to 
 this measure, not by his disapprobation of 
 infant baptisni, but solely by his attachment 
 to the Montanists. 
 
 We therefore ofifer our opponents the alter- 
 native, either of affirming-, that the transition 
 from the primitive, to the modern usage, was 
 sudden and instantaneous, in opposition to all 
 that observation suggests respecting the ope- 
 rations of mind ; or of acknowledging, that for 
 two centuries the predecessors of the present 
 Baptists unanimously approved and practised 
 a mixed communion — a communion in which 
 Baptists and Paedobapiists united in the same 
 societies. 
 
 Thus it appears that the system we are ad- 
 vocating, instead of being, as Booth and King- 
 horn assert, a '' modern invention," was in- 
 troduced as early as it was possible — as early 
 as the dissimilar materials existed, of which 
 the combination under discussion is formed. 
 It is evident that no sooner did a difference of 
 opinion on the subject of baptism arise, than 
 the system of forbearance recommended itself 
 
at oncC;, to all who adhered to the sentiments 
 of the modern Baptists throughout every part 
 of the world ; and that it is the opposite prin- 
 ciple which has to contend with all the odium 
 and suspicion attached to recent innovations. 
 
 When we descend to the third period^ we 
 are presented with a new scene. After the 
 commencement of the fourth century, down to 
 the era of the Reformation, the baptism of 
 infants was firmly established, and prevailed to 
 guch an extent, that few traces of the ordi- 
 nance in its primitive state, are to be discerned. 
 Many of the Waldenses, however, are judg-ed 
 with great appearance of evidence, to have 
 held opinions on that subject, coincident with 
 those by which we, as a denomination, are 
 distinguished. By their persecutors of the 
 Romish community they were usually stig- 
 matised and reproached for holding the Ana- 
 baptist heresy ; while it appears, on the con- 
 trary, that there were not wanting some amongst 
 them who practised the baptism of infants." 
 
 " See " The History of the Baptists," by Mr. Ivimcy, in which 
 ih'is subject is discussed with much care aud impariiality. To those 
 who Tvish for information respecting many curious and important 
 circumstances, connected with the progress of the Baptist opinions, 
 J would earnestly recommend the perusal of that valuable work ; 
 for which the public at large, and our own denomination in par- 
 Ijcular, are much indebted to the pious aud laborious Author. 
 
221 
 
 These opposile s(atenien(s, exhibited with equal 
 confidence, on tliis obscure branch ol" eccle- 
 siastical history^ are best reconciled and ac- 
 counted for, by supposing them divided in their 
 sentiments on that particular. No indication, 
 however, is discoverable of a rupture in ex- 
 ternal communion having' occurred on that 
 account : and from the acknowledged diffi- 
 culty of ascertaining" the separate existence of 
 Baptist societies, during the middle ages, and 
 until the period of the Reformation, the ne- 
 cessary inference is, either that there were none, 
 during that interval, who adhered to the pri- 
 mitive institute, or, as is far more probable, 
 that they were mingled and incorporated with 
 persons of another persuasion. 
 
 Hence, it is manifest that the concurrent tes- 
 timonies of the Fathers of the three or four first 
 centuries, in proof of the necessity of baptism, 
 to church fellowship, are urged to no purpose 
 whatever, unless it could be shewn that there 
 was no mixed communion, no association of 
 the advocates of adult, with the patrons of 
 paedobaptism, known in those ages : a suppo- 
 sition which is at direct variance with facts. 
 Nor is it at all difficult to assign a satisfactory 
 reason for that combination of testimonies, which 
 the writings of the Fathers supply in favour 
 
222 
 
 of the essential connection of the two ordi- 
 nances. The scanty writings which remain 
 of the Authors of the second century, afford no 
 decisive indication of the existence of infant 
 baptism, in the period in which they flourished; 
 and during' the third, the few Authors whose 
 works have descended to us, appear, with 
 the exception of Tertullian, to have imbibed 
 the Paedobaptist persuasion. It was natural 
 for the first class of these Fathers, who lived 
 at a time when no doubt or dispute had arisen 
 on the subject, to insist on a compliance with 
 that ordinance : nor was it possible for the 
 second, who extended baptism to infants, and 
 considered it as the indispensable means of re- 
 generation, to pursue another course. 
 
 That there was a mixture of persons of 
 different persuasions in christian societies, during 
 the period to which we have adverted, appears 
 to be an unquestionable fact; but in what 
 manner those who adhered to the primitive 
 institution reasoned on the subject, as they 
 have left no writings behind them, or none 
 which touch on this subject, must be left to 
 conjecture. Whether they defended tiieir con- 
 duct on precisely the same principles with 
 ourselves, or whether they considered peedo- 
 baptism as not so properly nullifying, as cor- 
 
223 
 
 riipting' or enfeebling" a christian ordinance^ 
 il is Iv) lilllc purpose to enquire. It is sufficient 
 for us to knou'_, that the practice which is stig'- 
 matised as modern, existed as early as a dif- 
 ference of opinion on the subject arose. 
 
 In my former treatise^ I had remarked '^'^that 
 the decision of Christian Writers that baptism, 
 in some form or other^ must necessarily precede 
 the celebration of the eucharist^ supposing it 
 ever so unanimous, aifords but a feeble proof, 
 since it assumes for its basis the impossibility 
 of the universal prevalence of error." The 
 truth of this assertion is almost self-evident; 
 for if it be possible for error to prevail uni- 
 versally, what should prevent the possibility 
 of its doing so, in this particular instance ? 
 " No," says our Author, '' it assumes a very 
 different principle; that the human mind in 
 all its wanderings never took this direction 
 before." ° But what is the difference betwixt 
 affirming that the opinion which separates the 
 title to communion, from baptism, was un- 
 known until it was adopted by the advocates 
 of mixed communion^ and asserting " that the 
 human mind never took this direction before.' 
 Are they any thing more than two different 
 
 " " Baptism a Term of ComraiinioD," p. 143. 
 
224 
 
 modes of expressing' the same proposition ? 
 To say then that the argument in question 
 assumes for its basis " that the human mind 
 never took this direction before/' is to say 
 that it assumes itself, a method of reasoning 
 most repugnant to the rules of logic, however 
 familiar with this Writer. 
 
 He feels very indignant at my affirming 
 that the right of excluding persons of un- 
 questionable worth and piety was never 
 claimed by antiquity. In opposition to this, 
 he adduces the example of Cyprian, who 
 insisted on the rebaptization of Heretics and 
 Schismatics, previous to their reception into 
 the body of the faithful. If it be consi- 
 dered, however, in what light Heretics and 
 Schismatics were contemplated by that cele- 
 brated Father, the objection vanishes ; since no 
 doubt can be entertained, that their preceding 
 profession of Christianity was considered by 
 him as a mere nullity, their faith fundamentally 
 erroneous, the privileges they supposed them- 
 selves to possess, a vain illusion, and the entire 
 system of their religion, an abomination in the 
 sight of God. We find him every where ex- 
 erting his utmost powers of language, which 
 were by no means inconsiderable, in stig- 
 matising their character, and degrading their 
 
225 
 
 pretensions. Having little taste for quotation^ 
 the following passages may suffice to convince 
 the reader, under what opprobrious colours he 
 was accustomed to represent that description 
 of professors. It is proper just to premise;, 
 that on their manifesting a disposition to return 
 to the Catholic church, while Cyprian con- 
 tended for the necessity of their being re- 
 baptised before they were admitted, his op- 
 ponent Stephen insisted on the sufficiency of 
 recantation, accompanied with the imposition 
 of hands,'' without reiterating a rite, which 
 he concluded could not be repeated without 
 profanation. The latter opinion, in spite of 
 the high authority of the African Father, being 
 confirmed by the Council of Nice, became the 
 received doctrine of the church, and the oppo- 
 site tenet was finally denounced as heresy. 
 But to return to Cyprian — " We," said he, 
 " affirm," referring to the Novatians, who 
 were esteemed Schismatics, " that those who 
 come to us are not rebaptised, but baptised. 
 For neither do they receive any thing, where 
 there is nothing ; but they come to us, that 
 they may receive here, where all grace and 
 truth is." ** After stigmatising the baptism of 
 
 V Cypriani Epistolae, p. 210. Oxonii, anuo 1682. 
 
 " p. 194. 
 
 2g 
 
236 
 
 Schismatics, as '' a fiithy and profane dipping," 
 he complains, that certain of his colleagues "did 
 not consider that it was written, he who is 
 baptised by the dead^ what profit does he 
 derive from his washing? But it is manifest 
 that they who are not in the churchy are 
 numbered amongst the dead, and cannot pos- 
 sibly be quickened by him who is not alive ; 
 since there is one only church, which having 
 obtained the grace of eternal life, both lives 
 for ever^ and quickens the people of God.'"^ 
 
 Speaking of Heretics^ he makes a distinction 
 betwixt such as having been members of the 
 Catholic church, fell into heresy for a time, 
 but were afterwards recovered ; and such as 
 sprang originally from them. With respect 
 to the latter, he says, '' If he who comes from 
 the Heretics has not been before baptised in 
 the church, but comes entirely alien and 
 profane, he is to be baptised, that he may 
 become a sheep, because the only holy water 
 which can make sheep is in the church." In 
 another epistle, we find him reasoning in the 
 following manner : — " The very interrogation/' 
 he says, "^ which takes place in baptism^ bears 
 witness to the truth. Doest thou believe in 
 
 "■ Cypriani Epistolsp, p. 194. 
 
227 
 
 eternal life, and the remission of sins by the 
 holy church ? We mean by it that the re- 
 mission of sins is g-iven only in the church ; 
 but amongst Heretics^ where the church is not^ 
 sins cannot be remitted. Let them therefore 
 who plead for Heretics, (that is, for their ad- 
 mission into the church without rebaptising) 
 either alter the interrogation^ or vindicate the 
 truth ; unless they are disposed to give the 
 appellation of the church, to those whom they 
 assert to possess true baptism."' 
 
 His epistles are full of similar sentiments. 
 What resemblance, let me ask^ are they perceived 
 to bear to the principles on which strict com- 
 munion is founded ; or who will be so absurd 
 as to affirm that the example of Cyprian, in 
 rejecting the communion of persons whom he 
 esteemed spiritually dead, and incapacitated 
 for receiving the remission of sins^ affords the 
 least countenance for treating in a similar 
 manner^ such as are acknowledged to possess 
 the most eminent and exalted piety ? '' True," 
 Mr. Kinghorn replies, " but when they re- 
 quested admission into the Catholic orthodox 
 church, they had ceased to be Heretics or Schis- 
 matics, since they left the societies where heresy 
 
 ' Cypriuni Epistolae, p. 194- 
 
228 
 
 WfSiS professed, acknowledged their former error, 
 and requested to be numbered with the or- 
 thodox. Notw ithstanding this^ however, Cyprian 
 insisted on their being rebaptised." ' But why 
 did he insist upon it ? He tells us himself, it 
 was because '' they had received nothing, they 
 were baptised by the dead;" they wanted ''that 
 holy water peculiar to the church, which alone 
 can vivify ;" and their pretended baptism, or 
 to use his own words, " their profane dipping," 
 was necessarily unaccompanied with the re- 
 mission of sins. In short, however well they 
 might be disposed, and prepared on the 
 application of due means, for the reception 
 of the highest benefits, they were as yet, ia 
 his estimation, in a state of unregeneracy. 
 Hence the reader may judge of the pertinence 
 and correctness of the subsequent remark : — 
 '' Their interest in the blessings of the christian 
 covenant, " says Mr. Kinghorn, '' was not 
 doubted, yet their right to the Lord's supper 
 was doubted, because the validity of their bap- 
 tism was questioned."" " Their interest in 
 the blessings of the covenant was not doubted," 
 although Cyprian declares his conviction " that 
 they had received nothing, that their baptism 
 ^vas a nullity, that they wanted the only water 
 
 f " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 132. "' p. 15K 
 
229 
 
 which could quicken^ and that instead of it 
 they had received only a '^'^ sordid and profane 
 dipping', which could not possibly be accom- 
 panied with the remission of sins." 
 
 The reader will be at no loss to determine 
 which of us is justly chargeable with " taking* 
 the present state of opinion^ and of applying 
 it to former ages ;" when he perceives that my 
 opponent is so possessed with these ideas as 
 to be utterly incapable of contemplating* the 
 sentiments of Cyprian^ through the right me- 
 dium. He entirely forgets the importance 
 he attached to baptism as a regenerating* or- 
 dinance ; and his denial that the persons of 
 whom he was treating-, had received it ; which 
 combined together, must necessarily have placed 
 them, in his estimation^ at the utmost remove 
 from the situation in which pious Paedobaptists 
 are at present considered. 
 
 His opponent Stephen, contended for the 
 propriety of receiving* them without a repe- 
 tition of that rite, because he already con- 
 ceived it had been truly and solidly performed : 
 this Cyprian denied, and the only question 
 in debate, respected the validity of a cere- 
 mony, which both equally esteemed to be the 
 necessary means of regeneration. Upon the 
 
230 
 
 principles conitnon to both^ the African Fa- 
 ther reasoned with most consistency : for how 
 could Heretics and Schismatics who were ac- 
 knowledged to be spiritually dead^ commu- 
 nicate life by the performance of a ceremony ; 
 and how totally incongruous to suppose every 
 part of their religious service devoid of vitality 
 and force^ except their baptism, by whichj as 
 Cyprian continually urges, they were sup- 
 posed to confer that renovating spirit, which 
 in every other instance they were denied to 
 possess. But whatever judgment may be formed 
 of the merits of this controversy, nothing 
 can be more impertinent to the question at 
 issue betwixt my opponent and myself, which 
 is simply, whether the refusal to admit per- 
 sons of unquestioned piety into the church, 
 was the doctrine of the Ancient Fathers. 
 In proof of this, he alleges the example of 
 Cyprian, who contended for the necessity of 
 rebaptising such as had been already reclaimed 
 from heresy and schism. Now if Cyprian's ideas 
 on the subject of baptism had been the same, or 
 in any degree similar to those which are at 
 present entertained, the objection would have 
 been forcible; but when we learn from his 
 own mouth, that his demand was founded 
 on their not having been ''quickened," on their 
 wanting " the water of life," on their not having 
 
231 
 
 approached the fountain of renovation and 
 pardon ; in a word, on their still remaining 
 unref^enerate ; what can be conceived more 
 futile than to adduce his authority for refusing 
 a class of persons to whom^ it is acknowledged, 
 none of these objections apply ? Let us first 
 insist on the admission of those, whom we 
 believe to be destitute of regeneration and 
 pardon, and we must dispose of the authority 
 of Cyprian, as we can ; but till that is the 
 case, however we differ from him in its ap- 
 plication, we act on one and the same principle. 
 
 ]Mr. Kinghorn is very anxious to prevent 
 his readers from being led to suppose, from 
 certain passages I had quoted, that he was a 
 friend to mixed communion. If he means by 
 this, that he was not disposed to admit into 
 the churchy such as were on all hands ac- 
 knowledged to be unbaptised, his opinion is 
 undoubtedly correct: nothing was more remote 
 from my intention, than to insinuate the con- 
 trary. But if it is his intention to affirm, 
 that Cyprian was averse to the mixture of 
 Baptists and Paedobaptists at the Lord's table, 
 he must be supposed to assert, that there 
 were none in his communion, who adhered to 
 what we conceive, the primitive institute ; and 
 considering the extensive influence which he 
 
232 
 
 derived from his station as Metropolitan of 
 Africa and the celebrity of his character, this 
 is equivalent to an admission, that it had 
 totally disappeared from that province as earlv 
 as the middle of the third century ; a dan- 
 gerous concession, as weW as a most impro- 
 bable supposition. It is to suppose that a 
 corruption (as we must necessarily deem it) 
 of a christian ordinance, the explicit mention 
 of which, first occurs but fifty years before, 
 had already spread with such rapidity throug-h 
 Africa, as to eiface every trace and relick of 
 the primitive practice. It is unnecessary to 
 observe, the important advantage which such 
 a concession would yield in the controversy with 
 Paedobaptists. The truth is, that unless we 
 are disposed to admit that the baptism of in- 
 fants, had already totally supplanted the ori- 
 ginal ordinance, throughout the Catholic church ; 
 Cvprian must be allowed to have patronised 
 mixed communion in precisely the same sense, 
 in which it is countenanced at present by 
 our Pffidobaptist brethren. 
 
 This may suffice to rescue me from the 
 charge of misrepresenting the sentiments of 
 Cyprian ; an accusation which excited so 
 much surprise that I determined to re-peruse 
 the epistles of that celebrated writer; but 
 
233 
 
 after carefully reading every line, I must so- 
 lemnly declare, that I feel at a loss to dis- 
 cover a shadow of ground for this imputation. 
 
 It is not however the sentiments of Cyprian 
 only that I am charged with misrepresenting; 
 the Donatists it is affirmed, proceeded on the 
 same views, when they insisted on the ne- 
 cessity of rebaptising the members of the 
 Catholic church. ''They acted," he says, ''ex- 
 actly on the same principles which Mr. Hall 
 reprobates." That principle, it is unnecessary 
 to repeat, is the propriety, not of baptising 
 such as have been induced through miscon- 
 ception to neglect the valid performance of 
 that right, which is our uniform practice ; but 
 the exclusion of those, against whom nothing 
 is alleged, besides the invalidity of their baptism. 
 But nothing can be more remote from the 
 ground on which the Donatists proceeded. 
 They conceived the whole Christian world con- 
 taminated by their communion with the African 
 traditors;"" that they had fallen into a state of 
 deep and deadly corruption, and so far were they 
 from founding the separation on the insuffi- 
 ciency of their baptism, that they inferred its 
 invalidity solely from the mortal contagion 
 
 ^ Those who delivered up the sacred Trritings. 
 2H 
 
234 
 
 they were deemed to have contracted, and from 
 the abominations they were supposed to to- 
 lerate/ They considered the church of Christ, 
 as far as the Cathohc societies were concerned, 
 as extinct; and on that account were vehe- 
 mently urged by St. Austin to reconcile their hy- 
 pothesis with the promise made to Abraham, 
 " that in his seed all nations of the earth should 
 be blessed." But will any Paedobaptist be 
 found so absurd, as to press the advocates of 
 strict communion Avith a similar argument.? 
 And will it after this be contended, that the 
 conduct of the Donatists, in refusing to admit 
 the baptism of men, whom they viewed as 
 plunged in a state of hopeless degeneracy, bears 
 any resemblance to the conduct of those, who 
 repel such as they affect to regard as the most 
 excellent of the earth } 
 
 This Writer is highly offended with my pre- 
 suming to express a conviction that the ad- 
 vocates of strict communion have violated more 
 maxims of antiquity, than any other sect upon 
 record. The extent to which they have car- 
 ried their deviation in one particular is already 
 
 ^ Dicit enim Parmenianiis, hinc probari coiisccleratum fuisse orbem 
 tenaiuni criminibus traditioiiis, et alioniin sacrilegiorum : quia cuia 
 iniilta alia fucrint tempore persecuiionis aclinissa, nulla propterea 
 facta est in ipsis provinciis separatio populoruin." — Contra Epistolam 
 Panneniani, Augustini, Lib. 1. 
 
235 
 
 sufficiently obvious. Mr. King'horn was chal- 
 lenged to produce an instance of an ancient 
 Father who contended for the right of repelling 
 a genuine Christian from the eucharist. He 
 adduced the example of Cyprian, and of the 
 Donatists ; and by this time we presume the 
 intelligent reader is at no loss to perceive, how 
 completely these instances have failed. 
 
 A Writer of his undisputed learning, would 
 doubtless select the strongest case ; we may 
 therefore, until he fortifies his positions better^ 
 venture without hesitation to enumerate among 
 other deviations, the pretended right of ex- 
 cluding such as are acknowledged to be genuine 
 Christians. In ancient times, the limits of 
 communion wore supposed to be co-extensive 
 with those of visible Christianity, and none ex- 
 cluded from the Catholic church, but those 
 whom that church deemed Heretics or Schis- 
 matics. Our opponents proceed on an opposite 
 principle : they exclude myriads whom they 
 would not dare to stigmatise with either ap- 
 pellation. In ancient times, the necessity of 
 baptism, as a qualification for communion, was 
 avowedly and uniformly founded on its sup- 
 posed essential connection with salvation ; our 
 opponents have totally relinquished that ground, 
 yet still assert with equal vehemence the same 
 
236 
 
 fiecessity, and absurdly urge tlie shadow^ or 
 rather the skeleton of ancient precedent, after 
 they had disembowelled it, and divested it of its 
 very soul and spirit. In ancient times^, the 
 whole mass of human population was distributed 
 into two classes, the church and the world : 
 all who were deemed incapable of admission 
 to the first, were considered as belonging to 
 the last of these. 
 
 The advocates of strict communion have in- 
 vented a new classification, a division of man- 
 kind into the world, the church, by which they 
 mean themselves, and an immense body of 
 pious Paedobaptists, who are comprised in nei- 
 ther of the preceding- classes, their charity for- 
 bidding them to place them with the former, 
 and their peculiar principles with the latter. 
 Were they to assign them to the world, they 
 would at once declare them out of the pale 
 of salvation ; were they to acknowledge them 
 a part of the church, they would convict them- 
 selves of the crime of schism, in repelling them 
 from communion. In attempting to designate 
 this class of Christians, compared to which their 
 numbers dwindle into impalpable insignificance, 
 they are reduced to the utmost perplexity. On 
 the one hand they contend that they are not 
 pntitled to be considered as disciples ; on the 
 
237 
 
 other, tliey lonilly proclaim the confidence they 
 entertain of their ready admission into Heaven. 
 They are acknowledged to possess faith in an 
 eminent degree, yet it is denied that they have 
 afforded any legitimate evidence of it ; and 
 though out of the church, it is confessed it would 
 be the height of bigotry to pretend to invalidate 
 their religious pretensions ; to recognise their 
 validity in it, would be an equal impropriety. 
 It is unnecessary to say how far these maxims 
 deviate from christian antiquity ; nor is it 
 easy to conceive the astonishment, their avowal 
 would have excited in the breast of the Cy- 
 prians, and the Austins — I might add, of the 
 Apostles and Evangelists of a former age. 
 Guided by the simple dictates of inspiration, 
 accustomed to contemplate the world under two 
 divisions only, that of believers and of unbe- 
 lievers, they would doubtless have felt them- 
 selves at an utter loss to comprehend the pos- 
 sibility of the existence of an equivocal race, 
 who are to be treated as heathens in the church, 
 and as Christians out of it ; and while they 
 possess whatever is necessary for an instant 
 translation to glory, are disqualified for the 
 possession of the most ordinary privileges of 
 the Christian church 
 
 As it is the province of poetry to give to '' airy 
 
238 
 nothings^ a local habitation and a name/' if we 
 cannot eulogise the reason of our opponents, we 
 willingly allow them all the praise of a creative 
 fancy;, due to the invention of so bold a fiction. 
 
 The unity of the church is not merely a 
 tenet of antiquity ;, but a doctrine of scripture, 
 to which great importance is attached by the 
 inspired Writers. Wherever the word occurs, 
 without being applied to a particular society, 
 the idea of unitij is strictly preserved, by the 
 invariable use of the singular number: the 
 great community denoted by it, is styled the 
 6o(/y of Christ, of which every believer is de- 
 clared to be a particular member : "^ and the 
 perfect oneness of the whole, is solemnly and 
 repeatedly attested. " The bread which we 
 break," says St. Paul, '"is it not the commu- 
 nion of the body of Christ } for we being many, 
 are ojie bread and one body, for we are all 
 partakers of that one bread." "^ " Now ye," says 
 he in the same Epistle, " are the body of Christ, 
 and members in particular." 
 
 This grand, and elevating conception of 
 the unity which characterises the christian 
 church, was ever present to the minds of the 
 
 '^ 1 Ei'.h. x\ii. 23. Col. i. 21. * 1 C.)r. x. 16, 17. 
 
239 
 
 Fatlicrs, and never do they rise to a higher 
 strain of manly and impressive eloquence than 
 wiien they are expatiating on this theme. 
 Thus we find Irena^us celebrating- that '^^ church 
 which was disseminated throughout the whole 
 world, to the very ends of the earth, which 
 carefully preserved the preaching and the 
 faith she had once received, as though she re- 
 sided in one house; and proclaimed, and taught^ 
 and delivered the same doctrine, as though 
 she possessed but one soul, one heart, and 
 one mouth/'^ "Every kind," says Tertullian, 
 ^'^ must be referred to its origin. So many 
 and so great churches as now subsist, are 
 that one church, founded by the Apostles, 
 from which they all derive. Thus all are 
 first, and apostolical, while they retain the 
 relation of peace, the appellation of fraternity, 
 and the symbol of hospitality ; which rights 
 are regulated by no other principle, than the 
 tradition of the sanie creed.'' ^ Cyprian com- 
 paring the church to the sun, affirms, that 
 while she extends her rays through the whole 
 world, it is yet one light, which is every 
 where diffused ; nor is the unity of the body 
 
 y Irenaeus, Lib. i. c. ?, 3. 
 
 * Tertullian De PraKcripJione Hercticoruin, p. "CO'J.— Lutetian Pa- 
 lisicruia, ieT-5 
 
240 
 
 separated : her exuberant fertility stretches 
 her branches to the whole earth, she expands 
 her streams most widely, yet the head and 
 origin is one, and it is one mother that is so 
 prolific. Who, says he, is so wicked and 
 perfidious, who so maddened by the fury of 
 discord, as to suppose it possible to divide, or 
 attempt to divide the unity of God, the vestment 
 of Christ, the church of God ? He elsewhere 
 expresses his conviction that he who does 
 not hold the unity of the church, does not 
 hold the faith." 
 
 During the first centuries, the unity of the 
 church was not a splendid visionary theory — it 
 was practically exemplified in the habits of 
 reciprocal communion, cultivated and maintained 
 among orthodox societies, through every part 
 of the globe.** 
 
 So repugnant, however, is the narrow ex- 
 clusive system which we are opposing, to that 
 
 ' De Unit. Ecc. p. 110, 111. 
 
 ^ See upon this branch of the subject, the admirable work of Dr. 
 !Mason, who by a copious inductiou of ancient authorities, has indis' 
 putably established the fact, that every portion of the orthodox church 
 formed one communion; and most ably illustrated the mode of 
 proceeding by which their union was maintained. The depth and 
 accuracy with which he has discussed the subject, must be my apo- 
 logy for not entering into it more fully. 
 
considered as characteristic of the church, that 
 its advocates profess themselves at a loss tcr 
 comprehend its meaning', except in the arro- 
 gant and offensive sense, in Avhich it is some- 
 times employed to vindicate the pretension of 
 Roman Catholics and High Churchmen. '' Is 
 the unity of the church/' ]Mr. Kinghorn asks, 
 '' destroyed by nothing- but strict communion."*' 
 And suppose it be, ■svhat then ? Will it follow 
 that strict communion does not destroy it ? 
 Whether it has this etfect or not, is the only 
 enquiry; not whether something- else may pro- 
 duce the same eflcct, in an equal degree. 
 He adds, "'is there any sense in which the 
 church of God is, or can be considered as 
 one, in this imperfect state, except in that 
 which will include all those good men, wha 
 from conscientious differences cannot unite to- 
 gether on earth." For the conduct of those 
 good men who refuse to unite with us, unless 
 we consent to the performance of rites which in 
 our estimation are unscriptural and superstitious, 
 they alone are responsible, but where nothing 
 of this nature is prepared, as is the case in the 
 present instance, to deem them personalh/ dis- 
 qualified for communion, and on that ground 
 to refuse it, is totally repugnant to every con- 
 ception of unity. 
 
 ' " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. 101. 
 2l 
 
242 
 In the above passage, the Author breaks his 
 mysterious silence, and for the first time ac- 
 knowledges that all good men are component 
 parts of the church of God, and are conse- 
 quently members of Christ's mystical body. 
 But he who concedes this, unless he suppose 
 the scriptures repealed, must confess his obli- 
 gation to regulate his treatment of those 
 members, by the rules and maxims the New 
 Testament enjoins ; which prohibit the least 
 degree of alienation, and assert the equal claim 
 to regard, which each individual, as a part of 
 the body possesses ; insomuch, that no language, 
 except that which the Holy Ghost has em- 
 ployed, is sufficient, adequately to represent that 
 oneness of spirit, that perfect co-operation, that 
 conjunction, or identity rather of interests and 
 affections, which ought to penetrate and per- 
 vade the whole. All other unions of a moral 
 nature, are in reality, lax, feeble, and eva- 
 nescent, compared with that which joins the 
 members of Christ to each other, and to their 
 Head. But will it be asserted that the prac- 
 tice of strict communion corresponds with these 
 ideas ? or that the treatment of the persons 
 whom it excludes, is a practical exemplification 
 of the conduct which the Christians at Corinth 
 were commanded reciprocally to maintain ? It 
 will not be pretended ; and since these passages^ 
 
243 
 
 Avhicli imperatively enjoin such a behaviour on 
 the members of Christ, and expressly and re- 
 peatedly assure us that his body is the churchy 
 are still in force, the above concession must 
 either be retracted, or a practice so directly 
 subversive of it, be relinquished. If a society, 
 of whatever description it may be, has by mu- 
 tual consent selected a ceremony as the symbol 
 of their union, those individuals, who for 
 the express purpose of marking their separa- 
 tion, refuse to perform the ceremony, have 
 most unequivocally renounced that society ; and 
 by parity of reason, since the joint celebration 
 of the Lord's supper is established in the church 
 as the discriminating- token by which its mem- 
 bers are to recognise each other, to refuse to 
 join in it, is equivalent to an express declaration 
 that the persons from whom we withdraw as 
 personally disqualified, are not considered as 
 parts of the church. It is acknowledged, how- 
 ever, in the foregoing passage, that all good 
 men belong to it. But if so, they are also 
 members of the body of Christ, and conse- 
 quently entitled to exactly the same treatment 
 as was enjoined on the Corinthians towards 
 each other. But supposing, in consequence of 
 minor differences of opinion, the latter had 
 proceeded to an open rupture of communion, 
 and refused to unite iu the celebration of the 
 
244 
 
 ^ucharistj will it be asserted that the pathetic 
 jand solemn injunctions of their inspired Teacher 
 would not have been violated by such a 
 measure ? The answer to this question is ob- 
 vious, and its application to the point under 
 discussion irresistible. The advocates of the 
 exclusive system, on whatever side they turn, are 
 surrounded and pressed with difficulties from 
 which it is utterly impossible for them to escape. 
 To affirm that pa^dobaptism is of so malig-nant 
 a tendency as to sever its patrons from the 
 mystical body of Christ, is at once to impugn 
 their hopes of salvation; since the supposition of 
 a vital efficacy imparted from Christ as the 
 Head, which fails to constitute the subject of 
 it a member, is equally unintelligible and un- 
 scriptural. The language adopted on this sub- 
 ject is confessedly figurative, but not on that 
 account obscure. Its foundation is evidently laid 
 in that derivation of spiritual life to the souls 
 of the faithful, for which they are indebted to 
 their union with the Saviour; for which reason, 
 it would be the height of absurdity to refuse 
 the application of the figure on an occasion 
 which comprehends its whole import and mean- 
 ing. We may therefore with confidence affirm, 
 that all genuine believers are alike members 
 pi Christ's body. But if this be admitted, they 
 ^re as much entitled to the benefit^ not merely 
 
245 
 
 of admission into the churchy but of all those 
 benevolent sympathies and attentions prescribed 
 in the preceding- passages, as though they had 
 been mentioned by name ; since the only 
 ground on which they are enforced, is the 
 relation the objects of them are supposed to 
 sustain to that body. 
 
 Thus we perceive in the principles and 
 practice of our opponents, another glaring 
 instance of gross violation, as well of the 
 dictates of inspiration, as of the maxims of 
 Christian antiquity; both which concur in in- 
 culcating the doctrine of the absolute unity 
 of the church, of its constituting Christ's 
 mystical body, and of the horrible incon- 
 gruity, I might almost say impiety, of at- 
 tempting to establish a system, which re- 
 presents a great majority of its members as 
 personally disqualified for communion. 
 
 Once more, what foundation will they 
 find in ancient precedents, for the peculiar 
 distinction allotted to one particular cere- 
 mony, above every other, in consequence 
 of which, they allow the cultivation of the most 
 intimate religious intercourse, of the most 
 perfect intercommunity in every branch of 
 
246 
 
 worship, with members of other denomina- 
 tions, providing they do not so far forget 
 themselves, as to lose sight of their dis- 
 putes at the Lord's table. The Holy Ghost 
 informs us, that the end of Christ's death 
 was to " gather into one the cliilaren of 
 God, who were scattered abroad." It seems 
 strange that one of the principal purposes 
 of its celebration, should be to scatter abroad 
 those children of God, who are gathered 
 together every where else. Be this as it 
 may, we challenge these zealous champions 
 of precedent, to produce the faintest vestige 
 of such a practice in the ages of antiquity ; 
 or to direct us to a single nation, or sect, 
 or individual, for an example of that ca- 
 pricious and arbitrary distinction attached to 
 the eucharist, by which it is refused to an 
 immense multitude, who are considered as 
 entitled to every other mark of Christian 
 fraternity. 
 
 These observations, we trust, will be amply 
 sufficient to justify the assertion, that our op- 
 ponents have violated, with respect to ec- 
 clesiastical economy, more maxims of antiquity, 
 than any other sect upon record ; nor will 
 the intelligent reader be at a loss to per- 
 
247 
 
 ceive, that the weight of this censure is little, 
 if at all impaired, by their conformity in 
 one particular, by their insisting- upon bap- 
 tism as a term of communion ; when it is re- 
 collected that the principles on which they 
 found it, have no relation whatever to those 
 on which it was maintained by the ancient Fa- 
 thers. For the length to which this part of 
 the discussion is extended, a natural and laud- 
 able anxiety to repel the charge of misrepre- 
 sentation, will probably be deemed a suffi- 
 cient apology. 
 
248 
 
 CHAP. XI. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Before I put a final period to my part in this 
 controversy^ the attention of the reader is re- 
 quested to a few miscellaneous remarks, which 
 naturally arise out of the contemplation of the 
 whole subject. 
 
 It is just matter of surprise, that the topic 
 in debate should be regarded by any serious 
 and intelligent Christian, as of small importance. 
 Such a conclusion can only be ascribed to ex- 
 treme inattention, or to the force of an inve- 
 terate, though perhaps latent prejudice, pro- 
 ducing an unmerited predilection in favour of 
 certain systems of ecclesiastical polity, which 
 are incapable of sustaining the ordeal of inquir3^ 
 That those should shrink from the investigation 
 of such topics, who by receiving their religion 
 from the hands of their superiors in a mass, 
 have already relinquished the liberty of thinkings 
 
249 
 
 for themselves is no more than might weJl be ex- 
 pectctl. But to minds free and unfettered, ac- 
 customed to spurn at the shackles of authority; 
 and above all, to Protestant Dissenters, whose 
 peculiar boast, is the ])rivileg'e of following in 
 the organization of their churches, no other guide 
 but the scriptures — that such subjects should 
 appear of little moment, is truly astonishing. 
 The inquiry first in importance undoubtedly isj 
 what is Christianity ? What, supposing the 
 truth of scripture, is to be believed, and to be 
 done, with a view to eternal life ? Happily for the 
 Christian world, there probably never was a time, 
 when, in the solution of this question, so much 
 unanimity was witnessed among the professors 
 of serious piety, as at the present. Systems of 
 religion, fundamentally erroneous, are falling fast 
 into decay ; while the subordinate points of 
 difference, which do not affect the primary verities 
 of Christianity, nor the ground of hope, are 
 either consigned to oblivion, or are the sub- 
 jects of temperate and amicable controversy ; 
 and in consequence of their subsiding to their 
 proper level, the former appear in their just 
 and natural magnitude. 
 
 Hence, in the present state of the church, 
 externally considered, the evil most to be de- 
 plored is, the unnatural distance at which 
 
 2K 
 
250 
 Christians stand from each other ; the spirit 
 of sects, the disposition to found their union 
 on the " wood, hay, and stubble" of human 
 inventions, or of disputable tenets, instead 
 of building- on the eternal rock, the " faith 
 once delivered to the saints." They all profess 
 to look forward to a period when these divi- 
 sions will cease, and there will be one fold 
 under one Shepherd. But while every deno- 
 mination flatters itself with the persuasion of 
 that fold being- its own, the principal use to 
 which tlic annunciations of prophecy are di- 
 rected, is to supply a motive for redoubled ex- 
 ertions in the defence and extension of their 
 respective peculiarities; and instead of hailing- 
 the dawn of a brighter day, as an event in which 
 all are equally interested^ it is too often con- 
 sidered, there is reason to fear, as destined to 
 complete the triumph of a party. 
 
 If we consult the scriptures, we shall be at 
 no loss to perceive, that the unity of the church 
 is not merely a doctrine most clearly revealed, 
 but that its practical exemplification is one of 
 the principal designs of the Christian dispen- 
 sation. We are expressly told that our Saviour 
 purposed by his death to ''gather together in 
 one, the children of God that were scattered 
 abroad ;" and for the accomplishment of this 
 
251 
 
 desig'iij he interceded dA^ning- hrs last moments^ 
 in language Avhich instructs us to consider it 
 as the grand means of the conversion of the 
 world. His prophetic anticipations were not 
 disappointed ; for while a visible unanimity 
 prevailed amongst his followers^, his cause every 
 where triumphed : the concentrated zeal^ the 
 ardent co-operation of a comparative few^ im- 
 pelled by one spirit, and directed to one object, 
 were more than a match for hostile myriads. 
 No sooner was the bond of unity broken, by 
 the prevalence of intestine cjuarrels and dis- 
 sentions, than the interests of truth languished ; 
 until iVIahometanism in the East, and Popery 
 in the West, completed the work of dete- 
 rioration, which the loss of primitive simplicity 
 and love, combined v»ith the spirit of intolerance, 
 first commenced. 
 
 If the religion of Christ ever resumes her 
 ancient lustre, and we are assured by the highest 
 authority she will, it must be by retracing our 
 steps, by reverting to the original principles 
 on which, considered as a social institution, it 
 was founded. We must go back to the sim- 
 plicity of the lirst ages — we must learn lo qnit 
 a subtle and disputatious theology, for a reli- 
 gion of love, emanating from a few divinely 
 energetic prir.ciples, which pervade almost 
 
252 
 
 every page of inspiration, and demand no- 
 thing- for their cordial reception and be- 
 lief, besides a humble and contrite heart. 
 Reserving to ourselves the utmost freedom of 
 thought, in the interpretation of the sacred 
 oracles, and pushing our inquiries, as far as 
 our opportunities admit, into every depart- 
 ment of revealed truth, we shall not dream 
 of obtruding precarious conclusions on others, 
 as articles of faith ; but shall receive with open 
 arms all who appear to '' love our Lord Jesus 
 Christ in sincerity," and find a sufficient bond 
 of union — a sufficient scope for all our sym- 
 pathies, in the doctrine of the cross. If the 
 Saviour appears to be loved, obeyed, and 
 adored — if his blood is sprinkled on the con- 
 science, and his spirit resides in the heart, 
 why should we be dissatisfied? iDe, who profess 
 to be actuated by no other motive, to live to 
 no other purpose, than the promotion of his 
 interest. 
 
 If the kingdom of Christ, like the kingdoms 
 of this world, admitted of local and discordant 
 interests, and the possession of exclusive pri- 
 vileges — if it were a system of compromise 
 between the selfish passions of individuals, and 
 the promotion of the general good, the policy 
 oi conferring on one class of its subjects, certain 
 
advantages and immunities withheld from 
 another, might be easily comprehended. But 
 in thiS;, as well as many other features,, it 
 essentially differs. Founded on the basis of 
 a divine equality, its privileges are as free as 
 air; and there is not a single blessing Avhich 
 it proposes to bestow, but is held by the same 
 tenure, and is capable of being- possessed to 
 the same extent, by every believer. The free- 
 dom which it confers, is of so high a character, 
 and the dignity to which it elevates its subjects, 
 as the sons of God, so transcendent, that 
 whether they are " Barbarians or Scythians, 
 bond or free, male or female, they are from 
 henceforth one in Christ Jesus." In asserting 
 the equal right which the Gentiles possessed, 
 in common with the Jews, to all the privileges 
 attached to the Christian profession, Peter founds 
 his argument on this very principle. And God, 
 which knoweth the hearts, • bare them witness, 
 giving them the Holy Ghost, even as unto us, 
 and put no difference beticeen ns and them, 
 purifying their hearts by faith. In his appre- 
 hension, it was God, the Searcher of Hearts, 
 who by the collation of his Spirit, in his mar- 
 vellous and sanctifying gifts, having made no 
 distinction betwixt the Gentiles and themselves, 
 decided the controversy. If that great Apostle 
 reasoned correctly on the subject, we have 
 
2o4 
 
 only to change the term Gentiles for Ptedo- 
 baptistSj or for any other denomination of sin- 
 cere Christians^ and the inference remains in 
 its full force. 
 
 Among the other attempts to deter us from 
 pursuing- a system established by such high 
 authority, it is extraordinary that we should 
 be reminded of the fearful responsibility we 
 incur. To this topic Mr. Kinghorn has de- 
 voted a whole chapter. When it is recollected 
 that we plead for the reception of none whom 
 Christ has not received^ for none whose hearts 
 are not purified by faith^ and who are not 
 possessed of the same spirit, the communication 
 of which was considered by St. Peter as a 
 decisive proof that no difference icas put be- 
 tween them and others by God himself, it is 
 easy to determine where the danger lies. 
 AVere we to suffer ourselves to lose sight of 
 these principles, and by discountenancing and 
 repelling those whom he accepts, to dispute 
 the validity of his seal, and subject to our 
 miserable scrutiny, pretensions which have passed 
 the ordeal, and received the sanction of him 
 " who understandeth the hearts," we should 
 have just reason to tremble for the conse- 
 quences ; and with all our esteem for the piety 
 of many of our opponents^ we conceive it no 
 
255 
 
 injury or insult, to put up the prayer of our 
 Lord for (hcnn — " Father^ forgive them;, for 
 tliey know not wliat they do." 
 
 He who alters the terms of communion^ chan- 
 ges the fundamental laws of Christ's kingdom. 
 He assumes a legislative povver^ and ought;, in 
 order to justify that conduct, to exhibit his 
 credentials, with a force and splendour of evi- 
 dence, equal at least to those which attested 
 the divine legation of Moses and the Prophets. 
 
 It has been frequently observed on this oc- 
 casion, that every voluntary society possesses 
 the power of determining on the qualifications 
 of its members ; and that for the same reason, 
 every church is authorised to enact such terms 
 of admission as it shall see fit. This conclusion, 
 however, is illogical and unfounded. There 
 is little or no analogy betwixt the two cases. 
 Human societies originate solely in the private 
 views and inclinations of those who compose 
 them ; and as they are not founded on divine 
 institution, so neither are they restricted with 
 respect to the objects they are destined to 
 pursue. The church is a society instituted by 
 Heaven ; it is the visible seat of that " king- 
 dom which God has set up ;" the laws by 
 which it is governed arc of his prescribing. 
 
256 
 
 and the purposes which it is designed to ac- 
 complishj are limited and ascertained by infinite 
 wisdom. When^ therefore, from its analogy 
 to other societies, it is inferred that it has 
 an equal right to organise itself at its plea- 
 sure, nothing can be more fallacious ; un- 
 less it be meant merely to assert its exemption 
 from the operation of physical force, which 
 is a view of the subject, with which we are not 
 at present concerned. In every step of its 
 proceedings, it is amenable to a higher than 
 human tribunal ; and on account of its freedom 
 from external control, its obligation in foro con- 
 scientiiE, exactly to conform to the mandates 
 of revelation, is the more sacred and the more 
 indispensable ; being loosened from every earthly 
 tie, on purpose that it may be at liberty to 
 '' follow the Lord whithersoever he goeth." 
 
 • That these maxims, plain and obvious as they 
 must appear, have been too often totally lost 
 sight of, he who has the slightest acquaintance 
 with ecclesiastical history must be aware ; and 
 to their complete abandonment, we are indebted 
 for the introduction of strict communion. 
 
 " The Baptists," Mr, Kinghorn informs us, 
 " consider themselves as holding to notice one 
 
257 
 neglected truth.'"* Whether they have adopted 
 a mode of proceeding' the most likely to ac-" 
 complish their object, may be justly doubted. 
 Independently, however, of any such consi- 
 deration, it is the principle, thus distinctly 
 avowed, to which we object — the principle of 
 organizing- a church with a specific view to 
 the propagation of some particular truth ; which 
 is a perversion of the original end and design 
 of Christian societies. Nothing, it is certain, 
 was more remote from the views of their first 
 founders, who aimed at nothing less than to ren- 
 der them the general depositaries of the '^'^ faith 
 once delivered to the saints ; " and for this 
 purpose carefully inculcated the whole " truth 
 as it is in Jesus," along with the duty of pre- 
 serving it incorrupt and entire ; without the 
 most distant intimation that it was their pro- 
 vince to watch over one department, with more 
 vigilance than another : least of all was it 
 their design to recommend, as the object of 
 preference, an external ceremony, the nature 
 of which was destined to become a subject of 
 debate among Christians. 
 
 Let each denomination pursue this plan — let 
 each fix upon the promotion of some one 
 
 ** " Baptism a Term of Communion/' p. 69 
 
 2l 
 
258 
 truth, as the specific object of its exertions, 
 and the effect will soon appear, not only in 
 extending the spirit of disunion, but in the 
 injury which the interests of truth itself will 
 sustain. Every denomination will exhibit some 
 portion of it, in a distorted and mutilated 
 form ; none will be in possession of the whole, 
 and the result will be something like the con- 
 fusion of Babel, where every man spoke in a 
 separate dialect. As the beauty of truth con- 
 sists chiefly in the harmony and proportion of 
 its several parts, it is as impossible to display 
 it to advantage in fragments, as to give a just 
 idea of a noble and majestic structure, by ex- 
 hibiting a single brick. 
 
 What is the consequence which must be 
 expected from teaching an illiterate assembly 
 that the principal design of their union is to 
 extend the practice of a particular ceremony, 
 but to invest it with an undue importance 
 in their eyes, and by tempting them to look 
 upon themselves as Christians of a higher 
 order, to foster an overweening self con- 
 ceit, to generate selfish passions, and encourage 
 ambitious projects. Accustomed to give them- 
 selves a decided preference above others, ta 
 treat with practical contempt the religious 
 pretensions of the best and wisest of men. 
 
259 
 
 and to live in an element of separation and 
 exclusion, it would be astonishing indeed, 
 if their humility were not impaired, and the 
 more delicate sympathies of christian affection 
 almost extinguished. In the situation in which 
 they have placed themselves, they are re- 
 duced to a necessity of performing con- 
 tinually those operations, which other de- 
 nominations reserve for the last extremity : 
 they are familiarised to the infliction of the 
 most formidable sentence, that the church 
 is empowered to pass, and to that excision 
 of the members of Christ from the body, to 
 which others proceed wi)h fear and trembling- 
 It is freely admitted that there are seasons, 
 when it is the duty of a christian society, to 
 bend its particular attention to the exhibi- 
 tion and defence of a neglected branch of 
 truth, in order to supply an antidote to the 
 errors by which it may be attempted to be 
 corrupted. There is no fundamental doc- 
 trine, which we may not be called upon in 
 an especial manner to maintain, and fortify 
 in its turn. But to make this the specilic 
 object of the constitution of a church, is 
 totally different : it is to contract its views, 
 and limit its efforts, in a mannl^r utterly in- 
 consistent with the design of its institution, 
 
260 
 
 which is to exhibit both the theory and prac- 
 tice of Christianity, in all its plenitude and extent. 
 
 An exception however must be made, 
 where the truth which is said to be neg- 
 lected, is fundamental. Tiie assertion and 
 vindication of such a truth, is equivalent to 
 the maintenance of Christianity itself, which 
 in common with every other system, is in- 
 capable of surviving the destruction of its 
 vital parts. Hence the Reformers were jus- 
 tified in laying* the doctrine of justification 
 by faith, as the basis of the reformed reli- 
 gion, because the formal denial of that truth, 
 is incompatible with the etxistence of a 
 Church. But where religious communities 
 have been founded on refined speculations, 
 or on some particular mode of explaining 
 and interpreting disputable tenets, the most 
 mischievous consequences have resulted. The 
 people, usually denominated Quakers, set out 
 with the professed design of exhibiting the 
 doctrine of the Spirit, which they chose to 
 consider as a neglected truth, and the con- 
 sequence has been such a distortion of that 
 momentous doctrine, as has probably con- 
 tributed not a little to subject it to contempt. 
 The Sandemanians profess to constitute their 
 societies with an express view to the revival 
 
261 
 
 of certain neglected truths ; and the effect^, 
 as far as their cfii'orts have succeeded^ has 
 been the extinction of vital piety. The High 
 CalvinistS;, or to speak more properly, the 
 AntinomianSj are loud and clamorous in 
 professing" their solicitude to revive a cer- 
 tain class of neglected truths, and the re- 
 sult of their labor, has been to corrupt the 
 few truths they possess, and to consign 
 others of equal importance, to contempt and 
 oblivion. In each of these instances, by de- 
 taching particular portions from the system 
 to Avhich it belongs, the continuity of truth 
 has been broken, and that vital communi- 
 cation between its respective parts on which 
 its life and vigor depend, interrupted. 
 
 It was reserved for our opponents to pur- 
 sue the same system under a new form, by 
 selecting the ceremony of baptism as their 
 distinguishing symbol, and to degrade the 
 Christian profession, in our apprehension, by 
 placing it in the due administration of the 
 element of water. 
 
 Where, it is natural to ask, (though it is an 
 inferior consideration) where is the policy of 
 such a proceeding? What tendency has it to 
 recommend and to propagate the rite, about 
 
262 
 
 which such zeal is exerted^ and such solicitude 
 expressed. Will the insisting on it as a term 
 of communion, give it any additional evi- 
 dence, or invest it v»^ith supernumerary charms? 
 Will it be better relished and received, for 
 its approaching in the form of an exaction, 
 than if it was intrusted to the force of argu- 
 ment and persuasion ? Were it permitted to 
 have recourse to intimidation, in the concerns 
 of religion, where are our means and re- 
 sources : where shall we look for that splen- 
 dour of reputation, that command of emolument 
 and power, which shall render a state of sepa- 
 ration from Baptist societies, an intolerable 
 grievance ? Let us learn to think soberly of 
 ourselves, and not endeavour to enforce the 
 justest principles by means foreign to their 
 nature ; nor by substituting an impotent menace 
 instead of argument, subject them to repro- 
 bation and ridicule. 
 
 Mr. Kinghorn gives it as his decided 
 opinion that for a Pa^dobaptist statedly to at- 
 tend the ministry of a Baptist, is a dereliction 
 of principle. A great gulph, ought in his 
 apprehension, to be fixed between the two 
 denominations. But how is it possible, on 
 this system, to indulge the hope of effecting 
 a revolution in the public mind, when all the 
 
263 
 
 usual channels of communication are cut 
 off, and the means of rational conviction 
 laid under an interdict? If the hearers of 
 both denominations, are bound to confine 
 their attendance to teachers^ who will esteem 
 it their duty to confirm them in their re- 
 spective persuasions^ the transition to an op- 
 posite system^ may be deemed almost a miracle. 
 It were more natural to suppose, that in this 
 instance, as well as others of greater mo- 
 ment, faith Cometh by hearing, than that a 
 crop should spring' up, where no seed, or 
 none but what is of an opposite kind, has 
 been sown. 
 
 It is not a little curious to find it objected 
 to the principles we are attempting to defend, 
 that they are adapted to an imperfect, rather 
 than a perfect state of things; when the utility 
 of the entire system of Christianity, results 
 entirely from such an adaptation, and is nothing 
 more than a sublime and mysterious con- 
 descension to human weakness and imper- 
 fection. What is the gospel but a proposed 
 alliance, in which infinite purity, comes into 
 contact with pollution ; infinite justice, with 
 human demerits; and ineffable riches, with 
 hopeless penury ? " Mixed communion," Mr. 
 Kinghorn observes, "^ displays another genuine 
 
264 
 
 feature of error. It is only to be found 
 (even on the concession of its warmest sup- 
 porters) in that niin<;!c(l state of things^ which 
 takes place between the first purity of the 
 church, and the ultimate display ot" gospel 
 light. In the times of the Apostles it had no 
 place ; nor do we expect it will be founds, 
 when '^the earth shall be filled with the know- 
 ledge of God.' "" Specious as this proposition 
 may appear, it is in reality nothing but a 
 truism. We both suppose infant baptism to 
 be an innovation unknown in primitive times. 
 But mixed communion means nothing else, 
 than the union of Baptists and Pasdobaptists 
 in the same religious society. To say there- 
 fore that no such practice was known in the 
 times of the Apostles, is to say that the two 
 denominations were not united, while there 
 was only one: a profound discovery, the merit 
 of which we will not dispute with this author. 
 But when he proceeds to remark, that it will 
 be equally unknown in the period usually 
 styled the latter day glory, we must be 
 permitted to remind him of a state incom- 
 parably superior, and to ask him whether he 
 supposes his exclusive system will extend 
 there ; whether the Pa^dobaptist, dying in the 
 
 • " Baptism a Term of Communion," p. T7. 
 
265 
 
 possession of his supposed error, is disqua- 
 lified to join " the spirits of just men made 
 perfect; to mingle with the general assembly 
 of the church of the first born." If this is 
 not affirmed, let him reflect on the enormous 
 impropriety of demanding a greater uniformity 
 amono'st the candidates for admission into the 
 church militant, than is requisite for a union 
 with the church triumphant, of claiming from 
 the faithful, while encompassed with darkness 
 and imperfection, more harmony and correctness 
 of sentiment, than is necessary to qualify them 
 to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
 in the kingdom of God — of pretending to 
 render a christian society, an enclosure more 
 sacred, and more difficult of access, than the 
 abode of the divine Majesty — and of investing 
 every little Baptist teacher with the prero- 
 gative of repelling from his communion, a 
 Howe, a Leighton, or a Brainerd, whom the 
 Lord of glory will welcome to his presence. 
 Transubstantiation presents nothing more re- 
 volting to the dictates of common sense. 
 
 The blessedness of a future world is ever 
 represented in scripture as the final end and 
 scope of the Christian profession : the doctrines 
 which it embraces, the duties which it enjoins. 
 
 •^ M 
 
266 
 
 are represented as terminating in that, as its 
 ultimate object. Religion itself, in its most 
 general nature, is necessary only in consequence 
 of the relation which the subjects of it bear 
 to a future state: "patient continuance in well 
 doing'" is requisite, because it is the only safe 
 and legitimate way of aspiring " to glory, 
 honour, and immortality;" and the utmost that 
 can be said to enforce any particular branch 
 of practice, is, that it tends to prepare us for 
 the eternal felicity. The Church of Christ is 
 unquestionably ordained merely as one of the 
 instruments of qualifying its members for the 
 possession of eternal life : but for this, it would 
 have had no existence ; and beyond this we can 
 conceive no end or purpose it was intended 
 to accomplish. In a system of means, many 
 things may be useful on account of their ten- 
 dency to facilitate the accomplishment of their 
 object, which are not absolutely necessary. 
 They may accelerate its attainment, or attain 
 it with greater certainty than it could be ef- 
 fected in their absence. But since the ne- 
 cessity of means arises solely from their relation 
 to the end, that, whatever it be, without which the 
 end may certainly be secured, can never be 
 affirmed to be necessari/, without an absolute 
 contradiction. Is the organization of the church 
 then a means of obtaining eternal life? Is it 
 
267 
 
 ordained solely with a view of preparing man 
 for a future state of felicity, or in order to 
 secure some temporary and secular object? If 
 it be allowed that it is the former alone which 
 it is designed to obtain, to assert that baptism 
 is necessary to quahfy for communion, when 
 communion itself is only necessary as a means 
 of preparing us for Heaven, which it is allowed 
 may with certainty be obtained without baptism, 
 is a flat contradiction. It is to affirm that 
 what is not essential to the attainment of a 
 certain end, is yet a necessary part of the 
 order of means, which is palpably absurd. 
 
 Let it be remembered that we are far from 
 intending" to insinuate that baptism is of little 
 moment ; or that a wanton inattention to this 
 part of the will of Christ is consistent with a 
 well-founded assurance of salvation : our sole 
 intention is to expose the inconsistency of sup- 
 posing an involuntary mistake on this subject 
 a sufficient bar to communion, while it is 
 acknowledged to be none to the participation 
 of future blessedness. 
 
 Our opponents will probably remind us of 
 the perfect unanimity which will prevail on 
 this subject (in our apprehension) in the heavenly 
 world. But when will this unanimity take 
 
268 
 
 place; will it be previous to an admission to 
 the society of the blessed;, or subsequent to 
 that event? If it be subsequent, in receiving 
 believers on the ground of their vital union 
 with Christ, we follow the order of Heaven, 
 which our opponents invert : while we indulge 
 the hope, that in consequence of coming into 
 a closer contact with persons whose views on 
 the subject of baptism are correct, they will 
 be gradually induced to embrace them ; firmly 
 persuaded that whether this is the result or 
 not, we incur no danger in following a celes- 
 tial precedent. We are not surprised at our 
 opponents making such high pretensions to 
 purity in the discipline and economy of their 
 churches ; we only admire their modesty in 
 not insisting on their loftiest and sublimest dis- 
 tinction, which consists in their societies being 
 more select than Heaven, and in its being more 
 difficult to become a member of a Baptist 
 church, than to be saved. 
 
 The reader is requested to remember the 
 extraordinary positions which Mr. Kinghorn 
 has been compelled to advance, in defence of 
 his restrictive system. He will recollect, we 
 hope, that he has found it necessary to affirm 
 that the most eminent saints, not excepting 
 the illustrious army of martyrs, made no true 
 
269 
 
 profession of that religion for which they 
 labored, and for which, with a divine prodi- 
 gality they shed their blood ; that though worthy 
 of " walking with Christ in white/' and of 
 joining in the cry, " How long, O Lord, wilt 
 thou avenge our blood on them that dwell on 
 the earth," they gave no scriptural evidence 
 of their faith, and were consequently not en- 
 titled to its privileges, and that their claim 
 to Christian communion was defeated, not in 
 consequence of any specific or peculiar con- 
 nection betwixt the two ordinances in question, 
 but solely on account of its being one of those 
 privileges. He has found it necessary to assert 
 that the terms of communion and of salvation 
 are both immutable ; that if baptism was ever 
 necessary to salvation, it is so still ; and con- 
 sequently that an involuntary mistake respect- 
 ing a branch of revelation, is equally criminal 
 and dangerous with its wilful rejection. He 
 has found it necessary to affirm that Pa^do- 
 baptists are not received into the Christian 
 dispensation, although he expresses his con- 
 fident expectation of their being interested in 
 its blessings, and justified by faith in its pro- 
 mises. These are but a scanty specimen of 
 the wild and eccentric paradoxes into which 
 this Writer has been betrayed, while, in quest 
 of new discoveries^ and resolved to project an 
 
270 
 
 original defence of strict communion, he has 
 quitted the sober path of his predecessors. 
 
 In some of the leading points of the ar- 
 g'umentj he has totally abandoned what 
 Mr. Booth considered as forming his strong 
 hold. Thus though he evinces an extreme 
 reluctance to appear to coincide with the 
 Writer of these sheets in any thing, he in fact 
 concedes all that he contended for, respecting 
 the essential difference betwixt the baptism of 
 John, and that of Christ, and entertains no 
 doubt that the twelve disciples at Ephesus 
 were rebaptised. Thus the palmarium argu- 
 mentum of his venerable predecessor is relin- 
 quished. Mr. Booth contended that though 
 the Paedobaptists are received in the sense the 
 Apostle intended in that expression, their right 
 to the Lord's supper cannot be inferred ; Mr. 
 Kinghorn denies that they are ; and thus the 
 two champions are at variance toto ccelo, on the 
 interpretation of the passages chiefly concerned 
 in this controversy. As these passages* form 
 a principal part of the gist of the debate, the 
 intelligent reader is requested carefully to exa- 
 mine Mr. Kinghorn's mode of interpretation, 
 and should it appear to be loaded with insu- 
 
 ' Romans xiv, 1. xv. 7. 
 
271 
 
 perable difficulties, it may with confidence be 
 inferred, that the cause of strict communion, 
 were it liable to no other objection, is untenable. 
 He had too much acumen to reject Mr. Booth's 
 solution of the difficulty, could it have been 
 plausibly supported. Conscious it could not^ 
 he has attempted to substitute another, which 
 is accompanied with still greater, though per- 
 haps not quite such obvious inconveniences. 
 
 Dextruni Sylla latus, laevum implacata Charjbdis 
 Obsidet 
 
 The Writer is far from anticipating a 
 speedy or sudden revolution in the sentiments of 
 his brethren, as the consequence of his efforts 
 in this controversy. He is contented to await 
 the slow operation of time, in extinguishing 
 the prejudices which time alone has produced; 
 conscious that bodies of men are peculiarly 
 tenacious of their habits of thinking, and that 
 it is wisely ordained that the conquest achieved 
 by just and enlightened principles, should be 
 firm and durable, in proportion to the tardiness 
 of their progress. Another generation must 
 probably rise up, before the rust of prejudice 
 is sufficiently worn off, to leave room for the 
 operation of reason, and the exercise of free 
 enquiry on this subject. Our opponents, aware 
 
272 
 
 that a current has already set in^ which threatens^ 
 at no very distant period^ to sweep away their 
 narrow and contracted system, are exerting 
 every effort to stop it, but in vain, 
 
 Labitur et labetur, in omne volubilis asvum. 
 
 Mr. King-horn, while he acknowledges with 
 extreme regret that the younger part of our 
 Ministers are generally unfavorably disposed to 
 the cause he has attempted to advocate, ex- 
 presses his conviction that further reflection 
 and enquiry will correct the aberrations of their 
 youth, and recal them to the ancient path. 
 But when was it ever known that an extension 
 of knowledge produced a contraction of feeling, 
 or that the eifect of a more extended survey 
 of the vast sphere of philosophical and religious 
 speculation, was to magnify the importance of sec- 
 tarian peculiarities. He anticipates this eft'ect 
 chiefly from the perusal of ecclesiastical history ; 
 a profound acquaintance with which, is to put 
 them in possession of the marvellous secret, 
 that mixed communion was unknown in the 
 ages which succeeded the universal prevalence 
 of infant baptism. The general agreement to 
 consider that rite as an indispensible pre- 
 requisite to communion, during those ages, is 
 to be received, it seems, as an oracle ; while 
 
373 
 the baptism which they practised is discarded 
 as a nuHity, the sole ground on which it was 
 supposed to be necessary, deemed a most dan- 
 gerous error, and innumerable other opinions 
 and usages of equal notoriety and extent, con- 
 signed to the moles and to the bats. He must 
 have a wonderful faculty ot sanguine antici- 
 pation who supposes that an unfettered mind 
 will reject the authority of antiquity in every 
 particular, except that which suits his own 
 humour; and after considering whatever dis- 
 tinguishes the ecclesiastical economy of these 
 ages, from that of dissenting societies, as a 
 striking instance of human weakness, stop 
 short in the career of reprobation just at the 
 point he is pleased to prescribe. Such a pro- 
 cedure would be, (as Cicero observes on another 
 occasion) not to argue, but to divine ; and it 
 would be just as reasonable, after making a 
 collection of all the peculiar opinions and prac- 
 tices of Christian antiquity, to determine by lot 
 which of them should be received. 
 
 Far from indulging the apprehension of a 
 retrogade motion from enlarged and liberal, 
 to narrow and contracted principles, we have 
 every reason to conclude, that the polar ice 
 once broken, they will circulate to a much 
 wider extent; and the revolution which has al- 
 
 2 N 
 
274 
 
 ready commenced amongst those who are des- 
 tined to guide the pubhc mind, shortly pro- 
 duce a powerful effect on the people, who 
 never fail, sooner or later, to follow the impulse 
 of their public teachers. As it is this which 
 gave rise to the present practice, so it is still 
 by a sort of incantation, by mustering the 
 shades of the mighty dead, of a Booth and a 
 Fuller especially, who are supposed to cast 
 a dark and frowning aspect on the petulance 
 of modern innovation, that it is chiefly sup- 
 ported ; and v» ith all due respect to the talents 
 of Mr. Kinghorn, it may be confidently affirmed, 
 that but for the authority of these worthies, 
 his weapons would produce as little execution 
 as the dart of Priam. 
 
 Deference to great names is a sentiment 
 which it would be base to attempt to eradicate, 
 and impossible were it attempted. But like 
 other offsprings of the mind, it is at first rude 
 and ill-shapen. It makes no selection, no dis- 
 crimination — it retains the impress of its original 
 entire, just as it was made : it is a vague un- 
 distinguishing admiration, which consecrates in 
 a mass all the errors and deformities, along 
 with the real excellencies of its object. Time 
 only, the justest of all critics, gives it correct- 
 ness and proportion, and converts what is at 
 
275 
 
 first merely the action of a great upon an 
 inferior mind, into an enlightened and impartial 
 estimate of distinguished worth. The effect 
 produced by coming into an intimate contact 
 with a commanding intellect, is of a mixed 
 nature ; it subdues and enslaves the very per- 
 sons whom it enlightens, and almost invariably 
 leaves a portion of its sediment, where it 
 deposits its wealth. It must be placed at a 
 certain distance before we derive from it all 
 the pure defecated good it is capable of im- 
 parting : and with all my admiration of the 
 inestimable men already mentioned, and my 
 conviction of the value of their services, I am 
 persuaded many years must elapse, before we 
 entirely surmount the effects of a long-continued 
 dictatorship. 
 
 When the views of baptism, by which we 
 are distinguished as a denomination, are once 
 exonerated from the odium arising from the 
 practice we have been opposing, and the pre- 
 judices which it has necessarily occasioned, 
 have subsided, we may justly presume that the 
 former will be examined with more impartiality ; 
 nor is it possible to assign a reason for their 
 Having made so limited a progress, besides 
 the extreme disgust inspired by this most un- 
 christian and unnatural alliance. It is too 
 
276 
 much to expect an enlightened Public will be 
 eager to enroll themselves amongst the mem- 
 bers of a sect, which displays much of the in- 
 tolerance of Popery, without any portion of its 
 splendor, and prescribes as the pledge of con- 
 version, tlie renunciation of the whole Chris- 
 tian world. While the vestibule is planted 
 with the most repulsive forms, while, sedent 
 in limine Dircc, few will be intrepid enough 
 to enter. 
 
 On Mr. Kinghorn's system which reprobates 
 the attendance of the members of Baptists and 
 Paidobaptists on the ministry of each other, as 
 a dereliction of principle, to calculate the ages 
 which must in all probability elapse, ere our 
 principles obtain a general prevalence, would form 
 an amusing problem. The Hindoo chronology 
 which assigns to its fabulous dynasties millions 
 and miliions of years, might furnish a specimen 
 of tiie scale on which such a calculation should 
 proceed ; and unless some such passion is 
 expected to seize the members of other com- 
 munities, as impelled the Queen of Sheba to 
 come from the ends of the earth to hear the 
 wisdom of Solomon, the projected revolution 
 must be pronounced, in the absence of mi- 
 racles, impossible. What can be the motive 
 of the advocates of strict communion for stu- 
 
277 
 
 diously presenting every possible obstacle to 
 the exclusive diflusion of our principles ? We 
 niig-ht be almost tempted to conjecture that 
 they were afraid of losing' their title to the ap- 
 pellation of a little flock; or that they consider 
 the Baptist denomination^ as an order of no- 
 bility or of knighthood^ whose dignity is im- 
 paired, in proportion as it is diffused. Be this 
 as it may, the spirit of the age, distinguished 
 by the superior expansion of its views, and the 
 extensive co-operation of all sects and parties 
 in the promotion of objects of public utility, 
 the little success which has accompanied the 
 narrow and restrictive system, the dictates of 
 scripture, and the movements of that divine 
 charity which those dictates have impressed, 
 all invite us to " consider our ways," to re- 
 trace our steps, and endeavour to draw our 
 fellow Christians " by the cords of love, and 
 the bands of a man." When we have learned 
 to '' make no difference," where the searcher 
 of hearts makes none, v/hen Ave shew an alac- 
 rity in embracing all who love Jesus Christ, 
 as members of the same mystical body, when 
 in conformity to the genius of Christianity, 
 there is with us neither Jew nor Greek, 
 neither Baptist nor Pasdobaptist, but Christ 
 is all in all, the reasons on which our peculiar 
 practice is founded, will in all probability meet 
 
with a very different reception from what has 
 hitherto attended thern, accompanied as they 
 have been with a system of impotent oppression, 
 and unmerited contumely. But whether these 
 expectations to their full extent are reahsed or 
 not, we shall at least improve ourselves, wipe 
 off the reproach of bigotry and intolerance, and 
 rise in the esteem of a relig'ious and enlightened 
 public, by convincing them that our zeal for a 
 ceremonial institution has not betrayed us into 
 a forgetfulness that "^'love is the fulfilling of 
 the law." 
 
 Thus have I endeavoured to reply to the 
 reasoning of my opponent on this subject: 
 whether my answer will be deemed by a dis- 
 cerning public, conclusive, or otherwise, I trust 
 they will be convinced that no attempt has 
 been made to evade the force of his argu- 
 ments, nor any thing passed over in silence to 
 which he can be supposed to attach the least 
 degree of importance. My anxiety to leave 
 nothing untouched which bears any relation to 
 the merits of the controversy, has extended 
 this reply beyond my wishes and my expec- 
 tation ; conceiving it better to incur the charge 
 of tediousness, than that of discussing a po- 
 lemical point of high importance, in a slight and 
 
279 
 
 superficiiil manner. The mode of establishing 
 a doctrine, in opposition to prevaiHng- opinions 
 and prejudices^ is necessarily much more cir- 
 cuitous than the strict laws of reasoning* require, 
 in exhibiting its evidence to the nnderstanding 
 at a subsequent period. In the miUtant state 
 of a doctrine, it is generally found necessary 
 to incur frequent repetitions, to represent the 
 same idea in a variety of lights, and to encounter 
 a multitude of petty cavils and verbal sophisms, 
 which, in its farther progress, sink into oblivion. 
 When, in consequence of a series of discussions, 
 a doctrine is firmly rooted in the public mind, 
 the proof by which it is sustained may be pre- 
 sented, without impairing its force, in a more 
 compact and elegant form ; and the time, I am 
 persuaded, is not very remote, when it will be 
 matter of surprise that it should have been 
 thought necessary to employ so many words 
 in evincing a truth, so nearly self-evident as 
 that which it is the object of the Writer of 
 these pages to establish. The flimsy sophistry 
 by which it is attempted to be obscured, and 
 the tedious process of reasoning opposed to 
 these attempts, will be alike forgotten, and the 
 very existence of the controversy remembered 
 only among other melancholy monuments of 
 human imperfection. 
 
280 
 
 Some acceleration of that period^ the Author 
 certainly anticipates from his present and his 
 former productions ; though he is fully aware 
 that the chief obstacles which impede its ap- 
 proach are such as it is not in the power of 
 argument alone to subdue. Reasoning- supplies 
 an effectual antidote to mere speculative error ; 
 but opposes a feeble barrier to inveterate pre- 
 judice, and to that contraction of feeling, which 
 is the fruitful parent of innumerable mistakes 
 and misconceptions in religion. There is no 
 room, however, for despondency. For as the 
 dictates of Christian charity will always be 
 found to coincide with the justest principles 
 of reason, the first eflfect of enquiry will be to 
 enlighten the mind, the second to expand and 
 enlarge the heart ; and when the Spirit is 
 poured down from on high, he will effectually 
 teach us that God is Love, and that we never 
 please him more than when we embrace with 
 open arms, without distinction of sect or party, 
 all who bear his image. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 COMBE, PRINTER, LEICESTER. 
 
^ 
 
'"-^^■'^^m^.^m 
 
 '''m^:^'Wl^^mww!W'^^ ■ '^r^Sp-'^ 
 
 \