taken care to shelter themselves from such animadversions, by a stern and consistent process 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, characteristic of a christian, but what is included in receiving the sacrament? How is it that they have presumed to break down the sacred fence, to throw all open, and make all things common, with the exception of one narrow inclosure? 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 Aquila 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 diversity of opinion or of practice, the consent of all the manuscripts and versions in the world would have been insufficient to overcome the incredulity, 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 anticipation of the practice of our oppo

nents.

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, they only copy the example which the pædobaptists set before them, and support by preeminent talents." They do nothing more than their opponents. What then? we hold no principle inconsistent with our practice; we have not confined the profession of christianity to ourselves; much less are we accustomed to make a practical distinction betwixt the participation 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 pædobaptists to cultivate a religious intercourse, we leave to be answered by himself, who has told us that "we meet on unequal terms.” "The latter (pædobaptists) surrender no principle, they do not unite with those whom they deem unbaptized."+

Their other 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 dispensation, and is not the requesting a pædobaptist to present it on our behalf, as clear an acknowledgement of his christianity, as admitting him to communion, and, consequently, as incompatible with our author's own maxim, that the "church of Christ, acting upon the rule he has laid down, cannot recognise any person as his disciple, who is not baptized in his name?"

Mr. Kinghorn is bound by his own declaration, in his treatment of other denominations, to abstain from every action which will imply an explicit acknowledgement of their being christians; so that, as far as he is concerned, it is of no consequence whatever, whether prayer and 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 acknowledgement, as much obliged to abandon it, as the practice of mixed communion, and exactly for the same reason; since he informs us that his objections to that practice are not founded on any peculiar connexion betwixt communion and baptism, but on the common relation which the latter bears to "all the duties of christianity."

The preceding remarks are more than sufficient to evince his inconsistency with himself; which, however glaring, is not more so than his deviation

T

from ancient precedent. That the first christians did not interchange religious services with those with whom they refused to communicate; that they did not countenance, 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 of 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 important object than the single observation of the eucharist?

Mr. Kinghorn himself deprecates the very suspicion of placing even baptism, in point of inportance, on a level with the least of the moral precepts of Christ. But with respect to the whole of these, he and they allow themselves to depart as far from scriptural precedent, in its literal interpretation, as ourselves. In the affair of communion, they boast of adhering to "that plain rule of conduct, (to adopt my opponent's words,) so did the apostles, and, therefore, so do we."*But here their conformity stops; in every other branch of social

Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 98.

religion, in whatever respects the interior of the kingdom, they claim the liberty of treating the unbaptized in precisely the same manner with members of their own denomination; wherein they pronounce their own condemnation for what should prevent us from retorting, "so did not the apostles, but so do ye?"

The distress and embarrassment which the consciousness of this glaring inconsistency occasioned the venerable Booth, are sufficiently depicted in his Apology. The sturdy saint perfectly reels and staggers under its insupportable 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 at variance with the apostles or with themselves. 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 his manly and majestic mind stooping to such miserable logomachies.

The advocates of the restrictive system must