and repentance are at all times, and in all places, indispensable prerequisites to a justified state; in popular language there would be no impropriety in asserting that the conditions of salvation, under the gospel, remain the same from age to age.

But if this proposition is taken in its utmost rigour, and applied to every particular, connected with the faith and practice of christians, it is manifestly false. There are certain parts of christianity, which, as they exhibit the basis, and propound the conditions, of the new covenant, belong to its essence; certain doctrines which are revealed because they are necessary; and others, which are necessary, only because they are revealed: the absence of which impairs its beauty, without destroying its being. Of this nature are its few and simple ceremonies. But while this distinction is admitted, it will not be denied that the wilful perversion of the least of Christ's precepts, or the deliberate and voluntary rejection of his instructions in the smallest instance, would betray an insincerity utterly inconsistent with the christian character. "He who shall break the least of these my commandments, and teach men so, he shall be of no esteem in the kingdom of heaven." The truth or precept in question may be of such an order, that a simple ignorance of it may not be fatal, yet to resist it, knowing it to be of divine authority, would be pregnant with the highest danger. The great Head of the Church will not permit See Campbell's Translation, Matt. v. 19.

זי

us to set voluntary limits to our obedience: we must consent to receive all his sayings, or none. But it must be manifest, on reflection, that on its first publication, the visible appendages of christianity were exhibited with a lustre of evidence which no honest mind could withstand; and that no pretence for their neglect could subsist among such as professed religious integrity. Such was eminently the case with the two institutions which have occasioned the present controversy. The constant practice of the apostles appealing to the senses of men, and illustrating the import of their oral instruction, made the point of duty so plain, that its omission, in such circumstances, could be ascribed only to voluntary corruption.

Nor is this the only example which might be adduced. By orthodox, christians the explicit belief of the doctrine of the atonement is now considered as indispensably necessary to salvation; but that the immediate followers of Christ were, during his personal ministry, so far from embracing this truth, that they could not endure the mention of his death, without expressing the utmost impatience, and that they knew not what was intended by his resurrection, are undeniable facts. The full developement of the gospel scheme, made at a subsequent period, has in this instance rendered that essential to salvation which could previously subsist without it.

It may also be observed, that a diversity of sentiment has arisen among christians, from different modes of interpreting the word of God, which has

given birth to various sects and parties, unknown in primitive times. On many of these points, it is impossible to suppose but that the sentiments of the inspired writers were expressed with sufficient perspicuity to be perfectly understood by the parties to whom they were originally communicated; and who, having repeatedly attended their ministry, had heard those particulars more fully illustrated and confirmed, which are briefly touched upon in their writings. Who can doubt that the true idea of election, whether it intends, as the arminians assert, the distinction conferred on some, above others, in the collation of external benefits, or the preordination of individuals to eternal life, was clearly ascertained by the primitive christians, so as to exclude the possibility of controversy and debate? The arminian will contend that the first christians entertained his notion of election and grace: the calvinist, with equal confidence, will maintain that the true and primitive interpretation of scripture is in favour of his hypothesis; and neither of them can consistently admit that the members of the primitive church adopted a different system from that which they respectively embrace. One of the parties will contend that the apostolic church consisted entirely of arminians; the other that it included none but calvinists.

Were it allowed that some variety of opinion on this mysterious topic, might subsist even amongst the earliest converts, it is impossible to suppose there were none at that period who understood the

doctrine of St. Paul: it would be most injurious to the reputation of that great writer to suppose he expressed himself with an obscurity which uniformly baffled the power of comprehension. Let his meaning, for argument's sake, be supposed to agree with the arminian system; the adoption of that hypothesis was, on this supposition, essential to the salvation of him who was acquainted with that circumstance. For such a person to have embraced the calvinistic sentiments, would have been to pour contempt on the apostolic doctrine, and to oppose his private judgment to the dictates of inspiration. If we invert the supposition, the result is a similar conclusion in favour of the calvinist. Were these parties to exclude each other from communion, under pretence that the primitive christians were all calvinists, or all arminians; were the calvinist to assert that he dares not sanction so serious a departure from truth, as the denial of election, and that to receive such as were erroneous in this point, would be to admit a class of persons who had no existence in the primitive church, he would argue precisely in the same manner as Mr. Kinghorn. How would our author repel this reasoning, or justify a more liberal conduct? He certainly would not allege the original obscurity of the apostolic injunctions, and the possibility of primitive converts mistaking their meaning he would unquestionably insist on the different degrees of importance attached to revealed truths, and the palpable difference betwixt mistaking

the meaning, and avowedly opposing the inspired writers. But this is precisely our mode of defence. When a dispute arose on the obligation of extending the rite of circumcision to the Gentiles, a council, consisting of the apostles and elders, was assembled to determine the question. Their decision was, that the Gentiles should no longer be troubled on that head, but that they should be strictly enjoined, among other things, carefully to abstain from things strangled, and from blood. It is universally acknowledged that it was the design of this injunction to prohibit the use of blood in food. This precept was enjoined expressly on the Gentiles, without the slightest intimation of its being of temporary duration; nor did it commence with the Jewish dispensation, but was in force from the period of the deluge. I have not the smallest doubt that it is of perpetual force, however little it may be regarded in modern practice; and were the observation of it proposed as a term of communion, I am not aware of a single argument adduced by our opponents for their narrow exclusive system, which might not with superior advantage be alleged in favour of such a regulation. If it be urged that there never was a period when it was not the duty of believers in Christ to be baptized, it may be asserted with equal confidence that the precept of abstaining from blood was invariably observed by the faithful from the time of Noah. If it be urged that the primitive church consisted exclusively of