problem admits, is to suppose, (what my knowledge of his character confirms,) that to the first part of these statements he was impelled by the current of his arguments; to the latter, by the dictates of his heart. But however that heart may rebel, he must learn either to subdue its contumacy, or consent to relinquish the principal points of his defence. He has stated that the limits of communion must be the same with those of profession; that the pædobaptists have none, or, at least, none that is valid; and that, on this account, and for this reason, they are precluded from a title to christian fellowship. But the word of God, as we have seen, repeatedly insists on men's professing Christ as an indispensable requisite to salvation. How is it possible, then, if Mr. Kinghorn's position is just, to evade the consequence, that those whom he would exclude from communion, are excluded from salvation?

"If obedience to a rite," he observes, "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."* If the open acknowledgement of Christ by the pædobaptists is not to be esteemed a real and valid profession, the inevitable consequence is, for reasons sufficiently explained, that they cannot be saved; but if it is valid, (however imperfect in one particular,) it is Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 18.

*

量

1

so far made in Christ's own way. The expression which he employs to depreciate it, has either no meaning, or none that is relative to the object of the writer. The scope of his argument obliged him to prove that adult baptism is essential to a christian profession; he now contents himself with saying, that, without that ordinance, it is not made in the right way, which may, with equal propriety, be affirmed of every deviation from the doctrine and precepts of the gospel. Just as far as we suppose a person to depart from these, we must judge his profession not to be made in Christ's own way; nor will any thing short of a perfect profession, or, in other words, a perfect comprehension and exhibition of the will of Christ, exempt him from such an imputation; so that in this sense, which is the only one applicable to the case before us, to make a profession of the christian religion in Christ's own way, is a mortal. But though this is the tation consistent with truth, we moment suppose that such was the meaning of the writer. He must have intended to assert that the parties, to whom they are applied, fail to make what Christ himself would deem a profession. This supposition is forced upon us by the scope of his reasoning, which went to prove that baptism is necessary to communion, because it is necessary to a profession. This supposed necessity must consequently relate, not to its completeness, or perfection, but to its essence: he must be understood

not, the lot of

only interprecannot for a

to affirm, that they have not exhibited what Christ will consider as a profession. But as he has solemnly affirmed his determination to reject such as are destitute of it, we ask again, how Mr. Kinghorn will reconcile this with the salvability of pædobaptists?

Whatever it seems good to infinite wisdom to prescribe as an indispensable condition of future happiness, we must suppose that it exactly corresponds to its name: it is true and genuine in its kind, and wants nothing which constitutes the

essence.

If an open acknowledgement of Christ

is the prerequisite demanded under the title of a profession, it would seem strange to assert that something less than what is correctly denoted by that expression, is, after all, sufficient to satisfy the condition. This, however, is what Mr. Kinghorn must assert, to be consistent with himself; for he will not deny that the advocates of infant sprinkling have exhibited something like a profession; but as they have not made it in Christ's own way, it is not, strictly speaking, entitled to that appellation, and, consequently, cannot claim the privileges it secures. But if the case is as he states it, he must either confine the hope of salvation to his own party, or admit that, in the solemn denunciations before recited, it is not really a profession of Christ which is required, but merely something which resembles it. Whether the use of language so replete with ambiguity, or collusion, is consistent with the character of the "true and

faithful witness," we leave to the decision of the reader. According to Mr. Kinghorn, while there are two modes of avowing our christianity, one so essentially defective as not to deserve the name of a profession, the other sound and valid; when the Supreme Legislator thought fit to enjoin the profession of his name, under the sanction of eternal death, he intended to insist on the first, in distinction from the last, of these methods. him who is able, digest these absurdities; from which, whoever would escape must either abandon the ground which Mr. Kinghorn has taken, or consign the pædobaptists to destruction.

Let

But it is time to recur to the questions with which he has urged his opponents, and which he supposes it impossible to solve on my principles. "If baptism," he observes, "was once necessary to communion, either it was then essential to salvation, or that which was not essential to salvation was necessary to communion. If it was then essential to salvation, how can it be proved not to be essential now? If it be argued that it was not essential to salvation then, it must either be proved that communion was held without it, or Mr. Hall's position must fall."*

Of the preceding dilemma, I embrace without hesitation the affirmative side, and assert that in the apostolic age, baptism was necessary to salvation. To the query which follows, how then can it be proved "that it is not essential now," I

Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 19.

reply that it is unnecessary to attempt it, because it is admitted by Mr. Kinghorn himself; and it is preposterous to attempt the proof of what is acknowledged by both parties. It is very astonishing, after he had so clearly avowed his conviction of the exalted character, and unquestionable piety of many pædobaptists, that he should ask the question: but he was probably so dazzled with the seeming subtlety and acumen of these pointed interrogatories, as not to perceive their total irrelevance. If he feels any hesitation in affirming that baptism was essential to salvation in primitive times, he entertains a lower idea of its importance than his opponents; but, on the contrary supposition, unless he totally retracts his liberal concessions, he must acknowledge that which was once necessary to salvation is not so now. The difficulty attending the supposition of a change in the terms of salvation, is urged with little propriety by one to whose hypothesis they apply in their full force; nor are they, when fairly examined, at all formidable. Owing to the incurable ambiguity of language, many truths founded on the clearest evidence, assume an appearance of paradox; and of this nature is the proposition which affirms that the terms, of salvation are not unalterable: which may, with equal propriety, be affirmed or denied, in different senses. Since the fundamental laws of the kingdom of God are of equal and invariable obligation, a cordial compliance with which is essential to eternal felicity-since faith