determining which, or whether either of them,

is true.

But it is not merely to acknowledged errors that the author appeals, with a view to discourage our pædobaptist 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 nor less than pride. He remarks, that, in joining with us, they must either "consider themselves as unbaptized, 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, because they permit themselves to be considered as persons who have not fulfilled the will of the Lord, in the very point in which they believe 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 considered 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

*

Baptism a Term of Communion, pp. 115, 116.

abhorrence; and who must be aware that just in proportion to the degree of their repugnance to the practice of mixed communion, is the presumptive evidence in its favour. To attempt the recommendation of his theory, by insisting on the impossibility of reconciling it with what is, in his opinion, a system of delusion, indicates something nearly resembling the unrestrained impetuosity of a mind so intent upon the end, as to be indifferent about the means, and savours more of the art and sophistry of a pleader, than of the simplicity which characterizes a sober inquirer after truth. My knowledge of the author forbids the slightest suspicion of any deliberate intention to mislead; but in my humble apprehension he has been betrayed by the warmth of debate, and the intemperate sallies of his zeal, into the use, to adopt the mildest expression, of unhallowed weapons; and, by courting 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 argumentum ad hominem. But he has greatly exceeded the limits assigned to that species of argument, which may be very properly employed to repel a particular objection 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

determining which, or whether either of them, is true.

But it is not merely to acknowledged errors that the author appeals, with a view to discourage our pædobaptist 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 nor less than pride. He remarks, that, in joining with us, they must either "consider themselves as unbaptized, 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, because they permit themselves to be considered as persons who have not fulfilled the will of the Lord, in the very point in which they believe 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 considered 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

Baptism a Term of Communion, pp. 115, 116.

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 two christians ought to continue in communion, between whom there subsists the smallest diversity of judgement, respecting any point of practical 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 established 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 consideration respects a point of practice, the conclusion will hold equally strong in relation to doctrinal subjects. For, not to remind the reader that dif ferent opinions, on practical points, are, in effect,

different doctrines, and that the whole disagreement with our pædobaptist brethren originates in these, it is undoubtedly true of points of simple belief, as well as of christian duties, that, whoever adopts a sentiment different 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 which, 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 reasoning was not designed to apply to the smaller differences which may arise, but only to grave 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 pædobaptist'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 union of pædobaptists with us as "undignified,"