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. S. 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 "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 pas

sage.

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

could not be admitted to communion, even though they were baptized. If, on the other hand, it is acknowledged that they are possessed of the same privileges, the question returns, by what dispensation are they held? If he denies it to be by the christian, I ask once more, how he acquired this persuasion of their possessing the privileges in question? He surely will not pretend to have obtained it in any other way than by an attentive perusal of the New Testament, by comparing the character of pious pædobaptists with that of the primitive christians, as well as with the marks and criterions by which it has directed us to judge of a state of salvation; so that the favourable opinion he professes to entertain, must rest on the evidence which the principles of the christian dispensation supply. But to say that the maxims of that dispensation oblige him to believe that a class of persons are interested in its promises, whom that very dispensation does not comprehend, although they live under it, is a contradiction in terms. is equivalent to asserting, that the gospel economy passes opposite sentences on the same persons, and affords evidence for their seclusion and admission, at one and the same moment. It seems evident to a demonstration, then, that agreeable to his own concessions, other denominations, as well as our own, are received into the christian dispensation; that by virtue of its essential principles, they are entitled to its immunities and privileges,

It

and have consequently a right to the external communion of saints, on a double account; first, because such communion is one of its distinguishing benefits, and next, because they are included amongst the persons whom the Head of the church has received, which our author interprets, by being admitted into the christian dispensation.

For the same reason, all that he has said elsewhere, of our not being authorized, by the New Testament, to recognise them as the disciples of Christ, necessarily falls to the ground; for, since he can have no pretence for believing them in a state of salvation, except on the information derived from the New Testament, which certainly promises salvation to none but Christ's disciples; we are not only allowed but impelled by that highest authority, to recognise them under that character. His attempt to nullify their profession is also rendered completely abortive; for, not to repeat what was before urged, since they profess neither more nor less than to adhere to the christian dispensation, it will not be denied, that, if they are actually received into it, that profession is valid.

Let it be remembered, that, in deducing these consequences, we have allowed him to interpret the disputed phrase in his own way, without contending for the sense which is most agreeable to the context, as well as most favourable to our