1

the Jew. "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. He that observeth a day, observeth it to the Lord: he that observeth not a day, observeth it not to the Lord. He that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not; he that eateth, eateth to the Lord." Now in the judgement of the Jew, still attached to the Mosaic rites, he who made no distinction of meats, or of days, must have been considered as violating or neglecting a precept still in force, or the injunction to refrain from judging him, would have been devoid of meaning. He must have, consequently, been regarded by him in precisely the same light in which our pædobaptist brethren are considered, that is, as violating, though not intentionally, a positive institute. Still St. Paul absolutely insists on the duty of forbearance; and arguing with him on his own principles, he tells him, he has no authority whatever to "judge," or deem him unworthy of his fellowship, since he was accepted of Christ, and acted with perfect good conscience in the particular which gave offence. I will leave the impartial reader to determine whether this is not a fair representation of Paul's reasoning, and whether, admitting this, it does not completely annihilate the distinction Mr. Kinghorn attempts to establish, and decide the present controversy as satisfactorily as if it

f

had been penned for the purpose. It is scarcely possible to suppose he will stoop to avail himself of his only remaining subterfuge, by reminding us that, in the instance before us, the ordinance supposed to be violated was not a christian one; since it is obvious that the commands of God, supposing them still in force, are equally binding, at whatever period they are promulgated, or to whatever economy they belong.

He

It is not, be it remembered, by a peremptory decision of the controversy, or by assigning the victory to one in preference to the other, that the apostle attempts to effect a reconciliation. endeavours to bring it about, while each retains his peculiar sentiments; from which it is manifest that there was nothing in the views of either party which, in his judgement, formed a legiti mate barrier to union. The attachment of the Jew to the observation of the legal ceremonies, was not, in his opinion, a sufficient reason for refusing to unite with him by whom they were disregarded. But in this case, the forbearance which he enjoins was exercised towards a class of persons exactly in the same situation, as far as its principle is concerned, with the modern pædobaptists, that is, towards persons who violated a precept which was still supposed to be in force; and this consequence equally results, whatever statement may be made of the precise object of Jewish toleration, whether it involved disputed practices

among the Jews themselves, or the neglect of the Mosaic ritual by the Gentiles. Hence, in whatever possible view the controversy may be considered, the apostle's treatment of it goes to the complete annihilation of the distinction betwixt the observation of what is not, and the neglect of what is, commanded; since the mutual toleration which was prescribed, embraced both.

There was a third description of Jews who attempted to impose the yoke of ceremonies on Gentiles," assuring them that unless they were circumcised and kept the law of Moses, they could not be saved." It was this which occasioned the convention of the apostles and elders with the church at Jerusalem, where it was solemnly decided that Gentile converts should enjoy a perfect immunity from legal observances. This formal determination, however, was far from putting an end to the controversy: the efforts of Jewish zealots were probably repressed for a time, but they soon recovered their resolution, and artfully propagated their doctrines with great success in various quarters, and especially among the churches planted in Galatia. On this occasion Paul expressed himself with great vehemence, telling the Galatians that he could wish that those who troubled them were cut off." By inculcating the law as an indispensable prerequisite to salvation, they annulled the grace of God, subverted the truth of the gospel, and impeached

the sufficiency and validity of the great propitiation. The attempt to place the rites of an economy, which, while it continued, was merely the shadow of good things to come, upon a footing with the living eternal verities of the gospel, was, in effect, to obscure its lustre, and debase its character. That no indulgence was shewn towards the inventors and propagators of this pernicious heresy, is admitted; but it is equally evident that he made a wide distinction between the deceivers and the deceived, between the authors, and the victims of delusion. With the last of these, he reasons, he expostulates; he warns them of the tendency of their errors, and expresses his apprehensions lest he had "bestowed upon them labour in vain." He indignantly asks, Who had bewitched them, that they should not obey the truth; that after beginning in the Spirit, they should end in the flesh; and when they had been replenished with the gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost, "return again to the weak and beggarly elements." But in the midst of these pointed reproofs, as they were not fully aware of the consequences of their defection, as they were not in a confirmed state of heresy, he continued to treat them with the tenderness of a father, without uttering a breath that might seem like a threat of excommunication.

5. We shall not content ourselves with this answer. We accept Mr. Kinghorn's challenge, and engage to produce an instance of men's being

tolerated in the primitive church, who neglected an express command of Christ, and that of the highest moment. We must only be allowed to assume it for granted, that the apostles were entitled, by the highest right, to be considered as members of the church which they planted, and of which they are affirmed to be the foundation. These very apostles, however, continued for a considerable time to neglect the express command of their Master, relating to a subject of the utmost importance. It will not be denied, that he expressly directed them to go forth immediately after the descent of the Spirit, and to preach the gospel to every creature. Did they immediately attempt to execute this commission? From the Acts of the Apostles we learn that they did not; that for a considerable period, they made no effort to publish the gospel except to the Jews, and that it required a new revelation to determine Peter to execute this order in its full extent, by opening the door of faith to the Gentiles. But for the vision presented at Joppa, from all that appears, the preaching of the word would have been limited in perpetuity to one nation; and when Peter, moved by an immediate voice from heaven, began to impart it to Cornelius and his family, he was vehemently opposed by the church. at Jerusalem. So far indeed were the primitive christians from entering into the views of their divine Master, that, when a "number of them