Thus much for the duties; let us next hear what he says of the pri vileges of Christianity. Baptism, which he styles "the required acknowledgment of our faith in Christ," he tells us, "ought to precede the enjoyment of the privileges which arise from faith." They ought to precede, but do they in fact? Is it his opinion that all other sects, as a punishment for their disobedience in one particular, are left destitute of the spiritual immunities which flow from faith? If it is not, it behooves him to reflect on the presumption of such a mode of speaking, which is little less than arraigning the wisdom of the great Head of the church, who dispenses his favours in a manner so different from that which he ventures to prescribe. Should he reply, that Jesus Christ, as a sovereign, is at liberty to act as he pleases, but that we are under an obligation of adhering to the settled order of his house, it is easy to perceive that this evasion is neither consistent with truth nor sufficient to establish his consistency with himself. Are not his partisans in the daily habit of exhibiting towards the members of other societies tokens of their fraternal regard, of inviting them to every branch of Christian fellowship, short of admission to the sacrament? Will they deny that the communion of saints, even in the absence of that institution, is an important privilege?

In the next place, to represent the bestowment of spiritual blessings on the great body of the faithful, through the lapse of fifteen centuries, whose salvability, it is confessed, is capable of demonstration from Scripture, to speak of this as an extraordinary and extrajudicial procedure, is to confound the most obvious distinctions.

The terms of salvation, which are, radically, faith and repentance, are clearly propounded in the word of God; and surely it will not be doubted that multitudes out of the pale of our sect have exhibited such proofs of their possessing these qualifications, that their enjoyment of the Divine favour is not to be ascribed to a secret economy, similar to what has been conjectured by some to extend to virtuous pagans. Where revelation is silent, it becomes us to copy its reserve; but in the present instance, so far is this from being the case, that few propositions are more susceptible of proof from that quarter, than that an error with respect to a positive rite is not fatal; whence the necessary inference is, that the bestowment of his favours on such as labour under that imperfection is a known part of his conduct: that it is not only his intention so to act, but that he has taken effectual care to inform us of it; not, we presume, for the purpose of enabling us to contradict it, but as a pattern for our humble imitation.

When the Holy Ghost fell upon the gentiles assembled in the house of Cornelius, though Peter had, a short time before, doubted the lawfulness even of eating with them, he considered it as such a seal of the Divine approbation, that he felt no hesitation in immediately admitting them to all the privileges of the church. He did not presume (with reverence be it spoken) to be stricter or more orderly than God. "Forasmuch," said he, "as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who believed, who was I that I should withstand God?" a question which we presume to recommend to the serious consideration of Mr.

Kinghorn and his associates. The principle on which he justified his conduct is plainly this, that when it is once ascertained that an individual is the object of Divine acceptance, it would be impious to withhold from him any religious privilege. Until it be shown that this was not the principle on which he rested his defence, or that the practice of strict communion is consistent with it, we shall feel ourselves compelled to discard, with just detestation, a system of action which St. Peter contemplated with horror, as withstanding God: and when I consider it in this just and awful light, I feel no hesitation in avowing my conviction that it is replete with worse consequences, and is far more offensive to God, than that corruption of a Christian ordinance to which it is opposed. The latter affects the exterior only of our holy religion, the former its vitals; where it inflicts a wound on the very heart of charity, and puts the prospect of union among Christians to an interminable distance.

This new doctrine, that the tenure by which religious privileges are held is appropriated to the members of one inconsiderable sect, must strike the serious reader with astonishment. Are we in reality the only persons who possess an interest in the common salvation? If we are not, by what title do others possess it? Certainly not in consequence of their faith, for we are expressly taught by this writer, that baptism must precede the enjoyment of the privileges which arise from faith;* in which, however, he expressly contradicts himself, for he assures us that none are fit subjects of baptism who are not previously believers in Christ, and justified in the sight of God by their faith. He must either say, then, that they lose their justification unless they comply with that ordinance, or present us with the portentous doctrine of a justification which stands alone, a widowed and barren justification, productive of no advantage to its possessor.

Let it also be seriously considered, whether the positions we have been examining do not coincide with the doctrine of the opus operatum, the opprobrium of the Romish church. But as some of my readers may not be acquainted with the meaning of these terms, it is proper to remark, that the Church of Rome attributes the highest spiritual benefits to certain corporeal actions, or ceremonies, independent of the character and disposition of the performer. For example, she believes that the ceremony of baptism secures to the unconscious infant, by its intrinsic efficacy, the infusion of regenerating grace, without regard to the intention or disposition of the parties concerned; and that the element of bread in the sacrament operates in the same manner in procuring the pardon and augmenting the grace of the communicant. Hence the members of that church lay little stress on the exercise of faith, and the cultivation of holy dispositions, compared to the dependence they place on " bodily exercise," on masses, penances, auricular confessions, and a multitude of external observances, which form the substance of their religion. Consistent Protestants, on the contrary, while they conscientiously attend to every positive institute,

VOL. I.-E e

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 30.

according to the measure of their light, look upon the few and simple ceremonies of the gospel as incapable of affording the smallest benefit apart from the dispositions and intentions with which they are performed; agreeably to the doctrine of our Saviour, who tells us, that "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." To expatiate on the incalculable mischiefs which have arisen from this doctrine is foreign to our purpose; suffice it to remark that it is held in just detestation by all enlightened Christians.

Our business is to show the coincidence of Mr. Kinghorn's principles with that most dangerous and exploded tenet. He contends that the mere absence of a ceremony, or, if you please, an incorrect manner of performing it, is, of itself, sufficient, exclusive of every other consideration, to incur the forfeiture of Christian privileges; of the privileges in general which arise from faith.* It is not, according to him, merely the forfeiture of a title to the Eucharist which it involves; that, he informs us, is not more affected by it than any other privilege: it is the universal privation of Christian immunities which is the immediate consequence of that omission; and, as he acknowledges that many to whom it attaches are regenerated, they must consequently be endowed with right dispositions. For what is that renovation of mind which can exist without them? But if such as are possessed of these in the most eminent degree, which he acknowledges is the case with some Pedobaptists, are yet debarred from spiritual privileges, wherein does this differ from ascribing that efficacy to an external rite which is supposed in the doctrine of the opus operatum? and if those who have faith are not entitled to the benefits which result from it, because a certain ceremony is wanting, how is it possible to ascribe more to that ceremony?

Whatever degree of prejudice or inattention we may be disposed to impute to some of the advocates of infant baptism, it would be the highest injustice to comprehend them all under the same censure. There are those, no doubt, who, without adopting our views, have exercised as much thought and exerted as much impartiality on the subject as our observation authorizes us to expect from the brightest specimens of human nature: nay, this author admits that "it is possible they may be some of the most exalted characters in point of piety." But it surely cannot be doubted that they who merit this encomium are as conscientious in their performance of infant, as we in the administration of adult baptism; and as they are, by the very supposition, actuated by dispositions exactly the same, the pure intention of pleasing and glorifying God, if we still conceive them deprived of the privileges which we possess, the difference must be ascribed merely to a ceremony, and the opus operatum returns in its full force. This, however, is too faint a statement. It returns in a form more aggravated; for the Papist only contends for a mysterious union between the outward rite and the inward grace, to which the regenerating influence is immediately ascribed, and from which it is considered as inseparable; whereas, on the present hypothesis, regeneration and faith are supposed to exist in the absence of the ceremony, but to be deprived of their prerogatives. The system * Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 30.

† Ibid

of the Papist exalts the ritual part of religion to an unwarrantable height, without depreciating the spiritual and internal; the system of my opponent does both.

Thus I have endeavoured to examine, with the utmost care and impartiality, whatever our author has advanced in order to prove the necessary connexion between the two positive ordinances under consideration. My apology for extending the discussion to a length tedious, it is feared, to the reader, is, that this is the point on which the whole controversy hinges. As far as its real merits are concerned, I might, therefore, be excused from pursuing the subject further. If the arguments of Mr. Kinghorn on this head are satisfactorily refuted, and the contradictions and absurdities into which he has fallen laid open to the reader, he is already sufficiently answered. That he has taken different ground from his venerable predecessor will not be disputed. He has argued from premises and adopted principles to which that excellent person made no approach. Mr. Booth, whatever was his success, remained on terra firma; our author has attempted a flight beyond "the diurnal orb," but, approaching too near the sun, his pinions are melted, and his fall will be conspicuous in exact proportion to the elevation to which he has aspired. He was determined to give the controversy a new and imposing aspect; and conscious that the practice which he undertook to defend had been hitherto rested on no very distinct basis, he determined to dig deep for a foundation, and, in so doing, has disturbed the most received opinions and endangered the most momentous truths. Were I permitted to prognosticate his fate, I should say that his paradoxical mode of defence, whatever applause it may meet with at present, will in the end be of infinite injury to the cause; and his treatise, like the little book in the Apocalypse, be "sweet in the mouth and bitter in the belly."

But though what has already been advanced may be considered as comprehending all that is essential in the controversy, as he has thought fit to introduce other topics, the reader is requested to exercise his patience while we reply to his most important observation on each of these; after which we shall endeavour to show the futility of the answer he has attempted to the principal arguments adduced in favour of our practice.

E e 2

PART II.

THE COLLATERAL TOPICS INTRODUCED BY MR. KINGHORN

CONSIDERED.

CHAPTER IV.

The Charge of dispensing with a Christian Ordinance considered.

AMONG the various objections to the system we wish to see universally adopted in our churches, there is none more frequently insisted upon than that of its implying a right to dispense with a command of Christ. Though the treatise on the Terms of Communion contains a clear answer to this accusation, yet, as it is again brought forward by our author with unabated confidence, a fuller reply may be deemed requisite.

This writer supposes that the expression "dispensing power," so often used in this controversy, was first suggested by the conduct of Charles the Second, in granting indulgence to the dissenters beyond the allowance of law, a measure which was afterward adopted for similar purposes by James, his successor. It is surprising a person of Mr. Kinghorn's acknowledged learning should fall into such an error; that he should not know that the doctrine of dispensation was familiar to preceding ages, and was the subject of much subtle disquisition and of many refined distinctions among legal writers. It is impossible but that he must have read in ecclesiastical history of the power of dispensation assumed by the pope, which formed a principal branch of the papal revenue, and the exertion of which was regulated by the dictates of the most artful policy. He cannot, surely, have forgotten that the refusal to exercise this prerogative, when it was demanded in order to gratify the capricious passions of Henry the Eighth, was the immediate occasion of the Reformation in England.

The power of dispensation is the power of setting aside the law in a particular instance. It may be exerted by the legislature or by the executive branch of government, under certain regulations, and to a certain extent, previously settled and provided for by the original constitution of the state. As the operation of law is general, and the actions to which it applies are susceptible of endless modifications and varieties, some such power may be occasionally requisite to adapt it more perfectly to unexpected emergencies, and, by a deviation from the letter, to secure its spirit and design. There is one circumstance, how

Here the following question deserves our serious regard, first, "Have we any right to dispense with a clear command of Christ ?"-Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 90.