his incompetence to commune any where; we deprive him, as far as our influence extends, of all the advantages which result from the fellowship of the saints; and that he is not reduced to the situation of an outcast and an exile from the church, is in no degree to be imputed to the lenity of our decision, but to the limitation of our power. It is surely not necessary to multiply words, to prove that the equity of every judicial sentence must be ascertained, by considering it as it is in itself, by exploring its tendency, not by adverting to a fortuitous concurrence of circumstances, which may possibly mitigate or extinguish the evils with which it is fraught. In the present instance, we must, in order to form an accurate judgement, make the supposition, that the sentence of excommunication actually operates, in its full extent, so as to deprive the subject of it of all the consolation and benefit resulting from the union of christians; we must suppose that no asylum is left to which he can retreat, no community remaining where he can hide his humiliation and his shame. For that there is any, is solely to be ascribed to the prevalence of a system which our opponents are accustomed to stigmatize as erroneous, and for the existence of which it is not to be imagined, therefore, they will assume to themselves the smallest credit. Let us imagine, what Mr. Kinghorn will, probably, be among the first to anticipate, that the sentiments of the baptists

triumphed to such an extent, as to be embraced by dissenting churches in general, and that the opposite views were retained only by a few individuals; let us suppose one of the latter description to possess the zeal, the humility, the devotion of a Brainerd, and that, on account of his being unable to perceive the nullity of infant baptism, he were shut out from every religious society within his reach, though acknowledged to possess an elevation of character which threw the virtues of others into the shade; would there be no hardship, no injustice, in this case? Would it be. sufficient to silence the murmurs of indignation to remark, that it was not intended as a punishment, that he had nothing to complain of; for

as he was never in the church, he could not be expelled from it?" Would such cold and trivial subtleties, were they as correct as they are erroneous, quell the instinctive cry of justice, demanding a satisfactory reason for placing the friend and the enemy of God, the devoted servant of Christ and the avowed despiser of the great salvation, on the same level, and comprehending them in one and the same sweeping censure? If these characters are totally opposed, not merely by the contrast exhibited between the vices of the world and the virtues it is most prone to admire, but in consequence of the possession, by one of the parties, of supernatural and sanctifying grace, where is the equity of confounding them together

by the interdict of religious privileges? and if the door is opened, at the same time, for the admission into the church of persons of a character decidedly inferior, how can impartial justice be asserted to hold the scale, and determine the merits of the respective candidates;—justice, whose office it is to appreciate the rival claims of competitors, and to impart to every one his due? The iniquity of such a mode of procedure is so obvious and striking, that it is no wonder we find our opponents exert their ingenuity to the utmost in attempting to palliate and disguise it, though the issue of their attempts is only to plunge them deeper in perplexity and contradiction.........

The author of Terms of Communion had remarked, "that there was no difference with respect to the present inquiry, betwixt the refusal of a candidate, and the expulsion of a member, since nothing could justify the former of these measures, which might not be equally alleged in vindication of the latter. Both amount to a declaration of the parties being unworthy to communicate." To this Mr. Kinghorn replies, by observing that "in one case the party is declared unworthy from moral delinquency; in the other, he is not declared unworthy, but unqualified."

Here it is plainly con

ceded that pædobaptists are not refused on a moral ground; whence it necessarily follows, that even supposing they were acquitted from all blame in practising infant baptism, their exclusion would

still be justifiable. They are not repelled from the sacrament, it seems, on account of any breach of duty of which they are guilty; for to assert this, would be to contradict himself, by resting their exclusion on their moral delinquency. They incur the forfeiture of all the privileges of the church, for no fault whatever; and whether they be perfectly free from blame or not, in the adoption of an unauthorized rite, is a consideration totally foreign to the question, and it is not to be taken into the account, in assigning the reasons for their non-admission. Let the candid reader seriously ponder this extraordinary concession; let him ask himself, whether he is prepared to believe that, in consistence with the genius of the gospel, the most extensive forfeiture of religious immunities can be incurred without guilt, and the heaviest ecclesiastical censure inflicted on the innocent. He will doubtless reject such a supposition with unmingled disgust; he will feel no hesitation in deciding, that the error which prohibits a church from recognising the person to whom it is ascribed, as a christian, which Mr. Kinghorn expressly applies to infant baptism, must incur a high degree of culpability in the eyes of him "who judgeth righteous judgement."

The glaring inconsistency of this whole statement with the preceding assertions of the same writer, is palpable and obvious. He entirely concurs with Mr. Booth, in characterizing pædo

66

baptists as persons, "who do not revere Christ's authority, submit to his ordinances, nor obey the laws of his house." But will he attempt to distinguish this charge from that of moral delinquency? Again, quoting the declaration of St. Paul, that "the kingdom of God consists in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," he adds, now as far as the kingdom of God consists in righteousness, it must include obedience to practical precepts, both moral and positive.* We have an eminent instance of submission to John's baptism being called righteousness by our Lord." But if the pædobaptists are justly chargeable with want of righteousness, and on that account are not entitled to christian fellowship, they must certainly be excluded on the ground of moral delinquency. If, on the other hand, the deficiency of righteousness involved in the practice of infant baptism, is not sufficient to justify such a treatment, the reasoning in the above passage is utterly futile. By denying that they are excluded on the ground of moral delinquency, at the same time that he imputes to them conduct highly criminal, he has involved himself in inextricable difficulties; since, supposing it could be proved to a demonstration, that they did "not revere the authority of Christ," &c., he has deprived himself of the power of urging it in vindication of

Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 46.