our pædobaptist brethren avow their inability to discern the justice of our conclusion: and are they on that account to be viewed in the same light as though they intentionally rejected the decision of inspired men? What is this but to set up a claim to inspiration, or, at least, to such an infallible guidance in the explanation of scripture, as is equally exempt from the danger of error or mistake? If we examine it accurately, it amounts to more than a claim to infallibility: it implies in the pædobaptists a knowledge of this extraordinary fact. The apostles were not only inspired, and consequently infallible teachers, but were known and acknowledged to be such by the primitive christians: and, before we presume to demand an implicit acquiescence in our conclusions, and to consider ourselves entitled to treat dissentients as we suppose the opponents of the apostles would have been treated, it behoves us to evince our possession of infallibility by similar evidence. As I have not heard of our opponents making such an attempt, I cannot sufficiently express my surprise at the loftiness of their pretensions, and the arrogance of their language. In their dialect, all christians besides themselves are "opposed to a divine command,"*"refuse subjection to Christ, and violate the laws of his house."t

The justice of their proceeding, founded on the pretension of apostolical precedent, is perfectly congenial with its modesty. Upon the supposition + Kinghorn.

*Booth.

that a professor of christianity, in the times of the apostles, had scrupled the admission of adult baptism, could he, we would ask, in the circumstances then existing, have been considered as a good man, or a genuine convert? The reply will unquestionably be, No. "He," said St. John, "who is of God, heareth us: he who heareth not us, is not of God: hereby ye know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

In this case, then, it is admitted that the simple fact of rejecting adult baptism would have been sufficient to set aside a pretension to the christian character. Is it sufficient now? Are the pædobaptists to be universally considered as bad men, or, at least, as persons whose christianity is doubtful? Nothing is more distant from the avowed sentiments of our opponents. Where, then, is the justice of classing together men of the most opposite descriptions; or of inferring, that because the apostles would have refused communion to an unbaptized person, at a time when it is acknowledged that none but false professors could remain in that state, it is our duty to refuse it to some of the most excellent of the earth, merely on account of the absence of that ceremony? As it is admitted, on all hands, that baptism was then so circumstanced, that the omission of it was inconsistent with a credible profession of piety, nothing more is necessary to account for the precedent which includes it; it was the necessary result of the then state of things, and the apostles,

it is acknowledged, could not have extended their communion beyond the limits of that rite, without incorporating insincere professors. But if this reason is sufficient to account for it, it is unphilosophical and unreasonable to seek for another. The supposed inherent and inseparable connexion betwixt the two positive institutes, is another, and a totally different one, which is sufficiently excluded by the preceding reasoning.

We presume it will not be doubted that scripture precedent is founded on wisdom, that it is not arbitrary and capricious. It would betray great irreverence to suppose that men, acting under divine inspiration, were not, in every branch of their official conduct, especially in whatever related to the regulation and government of the church, moved by the strongest reasons. Hence the inquiry why they acted as they did is essential to a rational investigation into the force and authority of scripture precedent. Their proceedings were regulated by their judgement, or, rather, by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, which enlightened their minds, and directed their movements. If the reason for rejecting unbaptized persons in the primitive age applies to the case of pædobaptists, the argument for strict communion, derived from the practice of the apostles, is unanswerable. But if the cases are totally dissimilar-if our opponents can assign no such reason for excluding their christian brethren, as might justly have been urged against the admission of the unbaptized in the

times of the apostles, the argument is totally inconclusive.

It is decided, by the express declaration of our Lord, that he who refuses obedience to any part of his will, is not a christian. "Then," saith he, are ye my disciples, if ye do whatsoever I have commanded you." But while there was no diversity of opinion on the subject, the voluntary omission of the baptismal ceremony could arise from nothing but a contumacious contempt of a divine precept, of which no sincere christian could be guilty. Here, then, we discover a sufficient reason for the matter of fact urged by our opponents, without supposing an intrinsic or invariable connexion betwixt the two ordinances. The principle of open communion would have compelled us to act precisely in the same manner as the apostles did, had we been placed in their circumstances. How vain, then, the attempt to overthrow that principle, by appealing to a precedent which is its legitimate and necessary consequence; and how unreasonable the demand which urges us to treat two cases as exactly similar, of which our opponents, equally with ourselves, are compelled to form the most opposite judgement. Let the advocates of restricted communion express the same opinion of the state and character of those whom they now regard as unbaptized, which we are certain they would feel no scruple in avowing with respect to such as had refused submission to that ordinance in primitive times, and we shall deplore

their blindness and bigotry, but shall acknowledge they reason consistently from their own premises. But we will never submit to identify two cases which agree in nothing but the omission of an external rite, while that omission arises from causes the most dissimilar, and is combined with characters the most contrary. We will not conclude, that because the apostles could not bear with those that were evil, they would have refused to tolerate the good; or that they would have comprehended, under the same censure, the contumacious opposer of their doctrines, and the myriads of holy men, whose only crime consists in mistaking their meaning in one particular.

The remarks we have already made will be deemed, we trust, a sufficient answer to the triumphant question of Mr. Kinghorn. "How is it," he asks, “that with the same rule for the guidance of the church, the ancient christians could not receive a person to communion without baptism, if the modern both can, and ought to receive him?"* The answer is obvious. If the ancient christians had received a person without baptism, they would have received a false professor; but, when we at present receive one whom we judge to be in a similar predicament, we receive a sincere, though mistaken, brother; we receive him who is of that description of christians whom we are commanded to receive.

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 29.