: such as were baptized, it is equally certain that it consisted only of such as abstained from blood. That it was "once a term of communion" none will deny "how then comes it to cease to be such?" In this case there is no room to allege a misapprehension of the meaning of the precept: it is susceptible but of one interpretation; and if the terms of communion are not "annulled by being misunderstood,"* much less when there is no such pretence. The only perceptible difference in the two cases is, that the precept respecting blood was not promulgated by the Saviour himself; but it resulted from the solemn and unanimous decision of his apostles, and is of more ancient origin than any other christian institute. If our opponents attempt to depreciate its importance by asserting that it is merely ritual and ceremonial, so is baptism; and as they were both enjoined by the same authority, both universally maintained in the primitive church, if the absence of one of these observances constitutes a church of different materials, so must the neglect of the other. Such as violate the abstinence in question will not pretend that they observe the prohibition: they satisfy themselves with asserting their conviction, (a conviction not sustained by a syllable of scripture,) that it is only of temporary obligation; and as pædobaptists profess their conscientious adherence to the baptismal precept, which they merely demand the right of interBaptism a Term of Communion, p. 20. preting for themselves, upon what principle is it that a mistake in the meaning of a positive injunction, is deemed more criminal than its avowed neglect or why should an error of judgement, which equally affects the practice in both cases, be tolerated in one, and made the ground of exclusion in the other? This reasoning, it is acknowledged, bears with the greatest weight on such as conceive the prohibition of blood to be still in force; who, if they adopt the principle of Mr. Kinghorn, ought, to be consistent, immediately to separate themselves from such as are of a contrary judgement. The same argument equally applies to laying on of hands after ordination and baptism. It is acknowledged that this rite was universally practised in the primitive times, that it claims the sanction of apostolic example, and it is enumerated by St. Paul amongst the first principles of christian doctrine. Wherever that practice is laid aside, it may with equal truth be affirmed, that the church consists of different materials from those admitted by the apostles; and it may be asked with an air of triumph, in the words of this writer, by what authority we presume to make a scriptural rite of less consequence in the church of Christ than it was once ?"* Thus much may suffice for the vindication of our pretended departure from ancient usage and apostolic precedent. But as this topic is supposed to include the very pith and marrow of my * Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 92. opponent's cause, the reader must excuse my replying to some other parts of his reasoning. Confident of the soundness of our principles, it is my anxious wish that nothing may pass unnoticed that wears the shadow of argument; and that no suspicion be afforded of a desire to shrink from any part of the contest. "If an obedience to a rite," says our author, "be not a term of salvation, (which no one supposes,) yet it was ordered by the highest authority, as an evidence of subjection to the Author of salvation."* He repeatedly asserts that it was prescribed as an evidence of faith in him. In another place he styles it," the appointed evidence of our putting on Jesus Christ," and affirms that "the church of Christ, acting upon the rule he has laid down, cannot recognise any person as his disciple who is not baptized in his name."† Let us first ascertain the precise meaning of these remarkable passages. He cannot be supposed to assert that baptism is of itself a sufficient evidence of saving faith: Simon Magus was baptized, who had "no part or lot in the matter." His meaning must be, that the ordinance in question forms a necessary part of the evidence of faith, insomuch that in the absence of it, our Lord intended no other should be deemed valid. That this was the case in the primitive age, we feel no hesitation in affirming; we have also shewn at * Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 18. + Ibid. p. 140. large the reason on which that conclusion is founded. But in no part of scripture is there the slightest intimation that it was more specifically intended as the test of faith, than compliance with any other part of the mind of Christ; or that it was in any other sense an evidence of the existence of that attainment, than as it was necessary to evince the possession of christian sincerity. Thus much we are most willing to concede, but are at a loss to know what is gained by it, unless our opponent could demonstrate that it occupies the same place at present, and that it is still necessary to constitute a valid evidence of faith in the Redeemer. If this is what he means to assert, (and nothing beside has the least relation to his argument,) how will he reconcile it with the confidence he so often expresses of the piety of the pædobaptists? His objection to their communion, he elsewhere informs us, "does not arise from suspicions attaching to their christian character,"* to which he trusts he is always willing to render ample justice. He has no suspicion of the piety of those who are destitute of that which Jesus Christ prescribed as the evidence of faith, and whom he affirms "it is impossible for the church, acting on the rule which he has laid down, to recognise as his disciples." I am at a loss to conceive of a more palpable contradiction. 1 If there be any meaning in terms, the word evidence means that by which the truth of a fact * Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 67. or a proposition is made manifest, and the absence of which induces either hesitation or denial. Its place in the intellectual world corresponds to light in the natural; and it is just as conceivable how an object can be beheld without light, as how a fact can be ascertained without evidence. Mr. Kinghorn, it seems, however, has contrived to solve the problem; for while he affirms that the patrons of infant baptism are destitute of that which Infinite Wisdom has prescribed as the evidence of faith, and by which we are to recognise his disciples, he expresses as firm a conviction of their piety as though they possessed it in the utmost perfection. Let me ask on what is his conviction founded:will he say upon evidence? But he assigns as a reason for refusing their fellowship, that they are destitute of that which Christ prescribed for that purpose. Will he distinguish betwixt that private evidence which satisfies his own mind, and the sort of evidence which Christ has demanded and enjoined? But what unheard-of presumption to oppose his private judgement to the dictates of Heaven; and, while the Head of the church has appointed the performance of a certain ceremony to be the invariable criterion of discipleship, to pretend, in its absence, to ascertain it by another medium! To attempt to prove that every thing really is what God has appointed it, and that Infinite Wisdom, where figurative language is excluded, calls things by their proper names, would be to insult the understanding of the reader. If |