were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen, they went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the gospel to the Jews only." That highly favoured people, elated with the idea of its religious preeminence, looked down with contempt on other nations; while it appropriated the kingdom of God to itself, as its exclusive patrimony, without suspecting, for a moment, that it was the design of the Almighty, to admit a different race of men to an equal participation of the same privileges. Under the influence of these prejudices, the first heralds of the gospel slowly and reluctantly imbibed its liberal and comprehensive spirit.

Nor is this the only instance in which Mr. Kinghorn himself will be, found, to approve of the toleration of such as have habitually neglected a positive command. The great majority of our own denomination, influenced principally by the writings of Gill and Brine, admirers of Crisp, held, to a very recent period, that it was improper to urge sinners to repentance, or to enjoin upon them the duty of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.* Their practice, it is needless to add, corresponded with their theory, and they anxiously guarded

It is but justice to the memory of the great and excellent Fuller, to observe, that it is to his writings chiefly our denomination is indebted, for its emancipation from these miserable shackles and restraints.

The author might have added here, the name of his excellent and venerable father. ED.

against the inculcation of any spiritual duties whatever, on the unconverted. My respectable opponent is, I am aware, at a great remove from these sentiments; and the main reason he would assign for rejecting them, is that our Saviour commenced his ministry by calling men to repent, and that "he commanded his apostles to testify every where repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." But if such be his reasons, he must acknowledge that the eminent persons before mentioned, in, declining to perform, what our Lord commanded his apostles, neglected or broke a divine precept. But is he prepared to affirm that they were not members of the church? Will this sturdy champion of the strict baptists be ungracious enough to pass a sentence of excommunication on the majority of his precursors in this controversy? Unless he is prepared for this, he must acknowledge that the right of toleration extends to such as neglect, or violate, a revealed precept. It is unnecessary to remind the reader of the magnitude of the error, in question, which would at once have annihilated the apostolic commission, by rendering it impossible to preach the gospel to any creature, since there were in the Gentile world none to whom it could, on this principle, be addressed, The whole ceremony of baptism sinks into insignificance in the comparison.

.

In answer to his challenge we have produced two cases, in which toleration has been extended

to such as neglect, or violate a divine precept; the first taken from the holy apostles, the second from our fathers and predecessors in our own denomination.

The reader is requested to advert to the interminable discord and dissension with which this principle is replete. The principle is, that whenever one christian deems another to live in the neglect and violation of a positive command, however conscientious he may be, he must renounce the communion of the party which he supposes erroneous. Who does not perceive, that the application of such a principle will furnish a pretext for endless dispute and contention; that not only a different interpretation of the law of baptism will be a sufficient occasion of division, but that whoever supposes that any branch of the primitive discipline has fallen into disuse, will feel himself justified, nay, compelled, to kindle the torch of discord, and to separate chief friends? If no latitude is to be allowed in interpreting the will of Christ, no indulgence shewn to such of the faithful, as, from a deficiency of light, neglect and overlook some part of his precepts, how is it possible the practice of reciprocal exclusion should stop within the limits which this author has assigned it? Are there two thinking men to be found, who are fully agreed respecting all the minuter details of christian discipline and worship? Are they fully agreed on the question of what was the primitive DD 2

discipline, much less, how far a conformity to it is either proper or practicable? Who, that is competent to speak on such subjects, is not aware, that there are no questions involved in greater obscurity than these, none on which the evidence is less satisfactory, and which more elude the researches of the learned, or administer more aliment of dispute to the contentious? One class of christians believes that a plurality of elders is essential to the organization of a church, because the scripture always speaks of them in the plural number; and confident that such is the will of Christ, he dares not recognise as a church, one in which that circumstance is wanting. Another attaches importance to weekly communion, which he justly contends was the uniform practice of the apostles, and of the primitive age: a conformity to which, in this particular, is with him an indispensable condition to communion. A third turns his eyes towards lay exhortations, the disuse of which he considers as practically superseding some of the plainest passages of scripture, quenching the Spirit, and abridging the means of religious improvement; he consequently scruples the communion of those by whom this ordinance is neglected. A fourth adverts to the solemnity with which our Lord our Lord exemplified and enjoined the washing of feet, and the frequency with which the apostles inculcated the kiss of charity; and having no doubt that these injunctions are of perpetual

obligation, feels himself necessitated to withdraw from such as by neglecting them "walk disorderly." A fifth contends for the total independence of churches, conceiving that the cognizance of ecclesiastical causes is, by divine right, vested in the people, who are to determine every thing by a majority of votes; in opposition to those who contend for a church representative; and, believing such an arrangement to be an important branch of the will of Christ, he conscientiously refuses the communion of those societies which decline to adopt it.

These different systems are, no doubt, distinguished by different degrees of approximation to truth; but what is of importance to remark, however they may differ in other respects, they agree in this, that upon the principle we are attempting to expose, they furnish, to such as adopt them, just as reasonable a pretext for separate communion, as the disagreement respecting baptism; nor is it possible, if that principle be admitted, to reconcile the independent exercise of intellect, with christian unity. The instances already adduced are a mere scantling of the innumerable questions which would give occasion to a diversity of judgement respecting the mind of Christ, and consequently necessitate the withdrawment of christians from each other. The few societies that have attempted to carry this theory into practice, have already exhibited such a series of feuds and quarrels,