If it still be contended that the two cases are so parallel, that the proceeding of the apostles in this particular, is binding as a law, we would once more ask such as adopt this plea, whether they themselves form the same judgement of the present pædobaptists as the apostles would have entertained of such as continued unbaptized in their day. If they reply in the affirmative, they must consider them as insincere hypocritical professors. If they answer in the negative, since, by their own confession, they look upon the persons whom they exclude in a different light from that in which the party excluded by the apostles was considered, what becomes of the identity of the two cases? and what greater right have they to think differently of the state of the unbaptized from what the apostles thought, than we have for treating them differently? They are clamorous in their charge against us of wilful deviation from apostolic precedents. But there are precedents of thinking as well as of acting, and it is as much our duty to conform to the sentiments of inspired men as to their actions. The chief use, indeed, which inspired precedents are of, is to assist us to ascertain the dictates of inspiration. The conduct of enlightened, much more of inspired men, is founded on sound speculative principles. If the advocates of strict communion urge us with the inquiry-By what authority do you presume to receive a class of persons whom you acknowledge the apostles would not have received? we reply

By what authority do you presume to deviate from the opinion of the apostles respecting that same class? Many, whom you exclude from your communion, as unbaptized, you acknowledge as christians, and, without hesitation, express your confidence of meeting them in glory. Did the apostles entertain the same judgement respecting such, in their day? Were they prepared to recognise them as brethren, and to congratulate them on their eternal prospects, while they repelled them from communion? Would they not, without hesitation, have applied to them the language which our Saviour uses, respecting such as refused to be baptized by John, whom he affirms to have "rejected the counsel of God against themselves?"

These questions admit but of one answer. Here, then, is a palpable disagreement between the sentiments of our opponents and those of the apostles, on the subject of the unbaptized; the apostles would have both rejected and condemned them: they reject them as members, and embrace them as brethren. Were they called upon to defend themselves from the charge of contradicting the apostles, they would begin to distinguish betwixt the two cases, and urge the different circumstances which accompany the omission of the same ceremony now, from what must be supposed to have accompanied it in the times of the apostles; in other words, they would attempt to shew that a new case has arisen, which necessitates them to form a correspondent judgement. They assume

+

the same liberty with ourselves of thinking dif ferently of the state of the many who continue unbaptized in the present day, from what they are persuaded the apostles would have thought of such as had remained in that situation in theirs; and yet, with strange inconsistency, accuse us of a deviation from a divine precedent in not treating them both in the same manner; forgetting that if the cases are parallel, they themselves are guilty of an avowed and palpable contradiction to the sentiments of the apostles.

When men differ in their views of one and the same object, it will not be denied that they contradict each other. We offer them the alternative, either to deny, or to affirm, that to be unbaptized, at present, is in a moral view a very distinct thing, and involves very different consequences, from being in that predicament in the times of the apostles. If they deny it, they stand self-convicted of contradicting the sentiments of inspiration, by speaking of that class of persons as genuine christians, whom they cannot but acknowledge the apostles would have condemned. If they adopt the affirmative, our practice, by their own confession, is not opposed to apostolic precedent, because that precedent respects a different thing.

They not only depart from the precedent of the apostles, in the judgement they form of the unbaptized, but in every other branch of their conduct, with the exception of the act of communion. On all other occasions they treat as brethren, and

frequently, and that much to their honour, cultivate an intimate friendship with persons whom they deem to be destitute of that rite, the omission of which, in the apostolic age, would have incurred the sentence of wilful impiety and disobedience. What, we ask, is more opposite to primitive precedent, than the practice of including the same persons within the obligations of christian love and friendship whom they prohibit from communion; of inviting them into the pulpit, and repelling them from the table; uniting with them in the most retired and elevated exercises of devotion, and excluding them from the church? It is scarcely in the power of imagination to feign a species of conduct more diametrically opposite to all the examples of scripture; and when they have reconciled these, and many similar usages, with the practice of the primitive age, they will have supplied us with a sufficient apology for our pretended deviation from the same standard.

It will probably be thought enough has been already said to demonstrate the futility of the argument founded on original precedent: but as this is considered by our opponents in general, as well as by Mr. Kinghorn in particular, as the main prop of their cause, we must be permitted to detain the reader a little longer, while we enter on a closer examination of his reasoning.

In order to shew that baptism is a necessary term of communion, he labours hard to prove that it is a term of profession. "It is obvious,"

he says, "that their baptism (that of believers) was the term of professing their faith by the special appointment of the Lord himself." To the same purpose he afterwards adds, "the fact still exists that it pleased the Lord to make a visible and ritual observance, the appointed evidence of our believing on him. If obedience to a rite be not a term of salvation, (which no one supposes,) yet it was ordered by the highest authority, as an evidence of our subjection to the Author of salvation and a christian profession is not made in Christ's own way without it." Recurring to the same topic, he observes, "Whatever may be the conditions of salvation, a plain question here occurs, which is-Ought the terms of christian communion to be different from those of christian profession? The only answer which one would think could be given to this question would be, no: christian communion must require whatever the Lord required as a mark of christian profession."

It is hoped the reader will excuse my accumulating quotations to the same purport, which would have been avoided, were it not evident that the writer considered this as his strong-hold, to which he repairs with a confidence which bespeaks his conviction of its being impregnable. We will venture, however, to come close to these frowning battlements; we will make trial of their strength, that it may be seen whether their power of resistance is equal to their formidable aspect. We * Page 20.

!