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 for

The same reasoning applies to the introduction of ceremonies, and completely invalidates his conclusion, that because we tolerate infant baptism, which we consider as a human invention, we cannot consistently depart from the established church on account of the introduction of rites which we deem superstitious. He represents a churchman as addressing 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 seamless 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 pædobaptists, when they 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 imperfections we cannot remedy.

Mr. Kinghorn largely insists on the superiority of his system to ours, on account of its being at a

Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 125.

greater remove from the principles of the established church. "The strict baptist," he observes,

06

can set the churchman at defiance, while he tells him respectfully, but plainly, that his church is wrong in its very constitution, that it is formed of materials different from those used by the Saviour, and that these materials are united together in a way totally diverse from that of his institution."*

Had he succeeded in shewing that his practice is alone consistent with the principles of dissent, his argument would have been to the purpose. But to found a claim to preference, 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 doctrine, merely because its admission will remove us farther from the establishment, we may fall, ere we are aware, into the gulf of perdition. Upon this principle, we may embrace socinianism; for socinians are, unquestionably, farther removed from the church than orthodox

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 127.

dissenters.

We may embrace popery, since all

sound 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 disagreement with any human system, which formed 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 society embraces a whole nation, and recognises as her members, all who are born within certain geographical limits, many who are openly wicked must necessarily be included; and the materials of which it is composed, essentially different from those which formed the primitive church, which 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 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.

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 127.

But when we are accused of using different materials in the erection, from those which were originally admitted into the fabric, because we admit some, who, in our judgement, are not baptized, we deny the charge, and acknowledge 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 powerful principle of attraction and assimilation than an external circumstance, and that Simon Magus bore more resemblance to the primitive christians 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 the imagination? For the idea of a character which modifies and 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, especially as clogged with this condition,

66

as long as he can establish his propositions by sufficient proof." A wonderful prerogative 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