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 practise a certain ceremony of human invention;

Therefore their conduct is sinful.

Who does not perceive that the second proposition, has no necessary connexion 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 pædobaptists 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.

We are bound by an express law to tolerate in the church those whom Christ has received; and he has, by the acknowledgement even of our opponents, received the pædobaptists. The first of these positions we feel ourselves 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 persuasion, we are not at liberty to act in a different 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 observation of rites for which no divine precept is urged, while we tolerate pædobaptists in obedience 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 to comply with an express prescription. If the members of the establishment inquire, On what ground do you receive a pædobaptist? 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 unknown 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 determination of which we must be guided by the precepts respecting mutual forbearance. To this the author replies in behalf of the churchman, Very well; and when the emperors and kings of former days were converted to the christian faith, and were desirous of sanctioning the gospel by their character, their property and their influence, another new case occurred, of which apostolic 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 * Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 124.

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 pædobaptists? Unless he will assert this, the author 'must acknowledge that here is a new case, and that the question how we should treat the wilful contemner of legitimate authority, and the erroneous interpreter of scripture, involves separate inquiries. From a multitude of passages it is manifest, that he himself forms a very different opinion of the present pædobaptists, 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 conduct towards two descriptions of persons, between which there is acknowledged to be a total diversity of character, we are perfectly consistent; unless it be asserted that judgement 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 church, 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 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 pædobaptist to communion, because we are commanded to receive such as Christ has received. Therefore it is lawful to acknowledge 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 twofold 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.