inconsistent with his own statement, as given in the following passage, where he paraphrases the words just quoted in the following manner :"There is nothing in the gospel, but what the Jews can believe and obey, though they retain their national partialities to the law; and, therefore, since God does not reject them, but receives them into the christian dispensation, you should receive them also. But then, he adds, he receives them on their believing and obeying the gospel; and it is neither stated nor supposed that he receives them, notwithstanding they disobey it. And unless this be proved, the cause of mixed communion is not promoted."* We have here an explicit avowal that he considers none besides the baptists as received of Christ, in the sense the apostle intends, accompanied with a concession, that to prove they were, would furnish an irrefragable argument for our practice.

It was certainly not without reason that he apologized for taking different ground from Mr. Booth; for here he is directly at issue with the venerable apologist. He frankly acknowledges the fact which Mr. Kinghorn challenges us to prove ; but attempts to evade the conclusion by remarking, "that it is not every one is received of Jesus Christ, who is entitled to communion at his table, but such, and such only, as revere his

*Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 45.

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 themselves 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 authorities, take? Where both propose to conduct him to the same place, but one directs him to the east, the other to the west, my humble advice is, to believe neither, but to exercise that liberty of thinking for himself to which he is strongly invited by the perplexity and confusion of his guides.

Our present concern, however, is with Mr. Kinghorn, who denies that pædobaptists 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 signifying received into the divine favour, Mr. Kinghorn contends for its meaning admitted into the church. But since many things must of necessity precede the act of external communion, and every believer must be

VOL. II.

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 62.

C C

supposed, in some important sense, to be previously received of Christ, he qualifies, or explains his former language, by adding, "he receives them into the christian dispensation.”*

Let me crave the indulgence of the reader, while we endeavour to sift this matter to the bottom.

1. Whatever disparity may be contended for between the ancient dissensions and the modern dispute with the pædobaptists, 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

*For the satisfaction of the reader, who may not possess Mr. Kinghorn'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 christians, not to reject those brethren who eat all things. And suppose it to be granted that the expression applies to both parties, (which appears intended in chap. xv. 7.) the sense, then, is evidently this, God receives not Gentiles only, but also Jews into the christian church, though they are encumbered with their Jewish prejudices. There is nothing in the gospel but what Jews can believe and obey, though they retain their national partialities to the law; and, therefore, since God does not reject them, but receives them into the christian dispensation, you should receive them also. But then he receives them on their believing and obeying the gospel, and it is neither stated or supposed that he receives them notwithstanding they disobey it. And unless this be proved, the cause of mixed communion is not promoted."-Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 45.

errors among the primitive professors which did not bar their admission into the church, but the error of the pædobaptist is of a very different kind, and therefore it must have that effect, would be to reason most inconclusively, since all that can be justly inferred is, that it possibly may have that effect, though the former had not. The utmost point to which 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 establish 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 denominations disobey it, and are therefore not entitled 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 vengeance on them that obey not the gospel;" and another, classes such as obey it not, among the

66

ungodly and sinners," whom he solemnly warns of their fearful end. Either, then, the apostles were wrong, in denouncing destruction on such as do not obey the gospel; or Mr. Kinghorn in loading the pædobaptists 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 charge, and affirming that had he done so, he would not have penned this passage.

3. As he must, on his system, distinguish betwixt being in a state of salvation, and " being received into the christian dispensation," there are a few questions, to which we should be glad to receive an explicit answer. He will acknowledge, we presume, that every believer is first united to Christ, and received by him, before he is entitled to the external communion 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 respecting the Jewish and Gentile converts, whose mutual toleration is enjoined in the passage under dispute. Now I ask, according to what dispensation were these primitive believers united to Christ, and accepted of him, previous to their external communion? Was it according to the christian dispensation, or some other? If the reply is, the christian; I ask again, are our pædobaptist brethren in possession of the same privileges as were enjoyed by the primitive converts, 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