are at

But it is time to return to Mr. Kinghorn, with whose management of the subject we present more immediately concerned. As bold a polemic as Mr. Fuller was generally considered, he was pusillanimity itself compared to my present antagonist; who, in the ardour of combat, has not scrupled to remove land-marks which he, I am well persuaded, would have considered as sacred. It cannot be denied that he has infused by these means some novelty into the discussion, and that many of his arguments bear an original stamp; but whether that novelty is combined with truth, or that originality is such as will ultimately secure many imitators, or admirers, is another question.

Having already shewn that no inherent connexion subsists betwixt the two rites under discussion, it remains to be considered, as we have already remarked, whether they are connected by positive law. Is there a single word in the New Testament, which, fairly interpreted, can be regarded as a prohibition of the admission of unbaptized persons to the Lord's supper?

Let Mr. Kinghorn answer this question for us: "The New Testament," he tells us, "does not prohibit the unbaptized from receiving the Lord's supper, because no circumstance arose which rendered such prohibition necessary." Whether a

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 32.

prohibition was necessary or not, involves a distinct inquiry; we request the reader's attention to the important concession, that it does not exist. The reason he assigns, however, for its not being necessary is, that "it is acknowledged the law of baptism was clearly understood, and that the unbaptized could not be received into the church." "There was therefore," he adds, "no reason why a prohibitory declaration should exist." We fully agree with him, that at the period of which he is speaking, the law of baptism was fully understood; and on that account, we say, such as refused to obey it, could not be received into the church. We also admit, that while there was this clear understanding, no such prohibition as we demand was requisite. But if it was rendered unnecessary because of this clear understanding, as this writer informs us, must it not by his own allowance become necessary, when that understanding ceases? If the presence of one thing makes another unnecessary, must not the absence of the same thing restore the necessity?

In the present instance, the only reason he assigns for an express prohibition not being then necessary, is, that the ordinance of baptism was perfectly understood; surely if this be the only reason, the necessity must return when that reason ceases; in other words, there will be a necessity for an express prohibition of the unbaptized, whenever the precept respecting baptism ceases to be

understood. Has it, or has it not, ceased (in our apprehension) to be understood by modern pædobaptists ? If it be admitted that it has, then, on his own principle, an express prohibition of the unbaptized to receive the Lord's supper has become necessary. But he acknowledges that none exists; whence the only conclusion to be deduced is, either that the word of God has omitted what is necessary in itself, or (which is rather more probable) what is necessary to support his hypothesis. The word of God, it should be remembered, makes adequate provision for the direction of the faithful in every age, being written under the guidance of that Spirit to whom the remotest futurity was present; and though it was by no means requisite to specify the errors which were foreseen to arise, it is not a sufficient rule, unless it enables us to discover which of these are, and which are not, to be tolerated in the church. The doctrine which asserts that baptism is an indispensable requisite to communion, this writer expressly informs us, was not promulgated among the primitive christians, because they did not need it: their clear understanding of the nature of the ceremony was sufficient of itself to secure an attention to it, in the absence of that doctrine. This is equivalent to an acknowledgement, if there be any meaning in terms, that if they had not had the clear comprehension of the ordinance which he ascribes to them, they would have needed that

truth to be propounded, which in their situation was safely suppressed. But if the primitive christians would have found such information necessary, how is it that the modern pædobaptists, who are, according to our principles, precisely in the situation here supposed, can dispense with it? What should prevent them from turning upon Mr. Kinghorn, and saying-We judge ourselves baptized; but supposing we are not, you assert that there is no scriptural prohibition of the unbaptized approaching the Lord's table, which you yet acknowledge would have been necessary to justify the repelling of primitive christians from that privilege, had it not been for their perfect knowledge of the nature of baptism. But as you will not assert that we possess that knowledge, how will you defend yourself in treating us in a manner which, by your own concession, the apostles would not have been justified in adopting towards their immediate converts ?

It was generally supposed, that the abettors of strict communion imagined some peculiar connexion betwixt baptism and the Lord's supper, beyond what subsists betwixt that ceremony and other parts of christianity. Our present opponent disclaims that notion. "If the above evidence," he says, "be justly stated, there is a real instituted connexion between baptism and the whole of the succeeding christian profession. So that there is no reason why the connexion between baptism

and the Lord's supper should be more distinctly marked, than between baptism and any other duty or privilege."* But if this be the case, why do they confine their restriction to the mere act of communion at the Lord's table? In every other respect they feel no scruple in acknowledging the members of other denominations as christians: they join with them in the most sacred duties; they interchange devotional services; they profess to value, and not unfrequently condescend to entreat, an interest in their prayers. In a word, no one who had not witnessed their commemoration of the Lord's supper, would suspect they made any distinction! There are a thousand acts which they perform towards such as practise infant sprinkling, which would be criminal and absurd on any other supposition than that of their being members of Christ, and co-heirs of eternal life. By the mouth of our author, whom they are proud of considering as their organ, they inform us that every other duty and privilege is as much dependent on baptism, as the celebration of the eucharist; yet it is this duty and this privilege alone, in which they refuse to participate with christians of other persuasions. How will they reconcile their practice and their theory: or rather, how escape the ridicule attached to such a glaring contradiction? The Sandemanian baptists have

1

Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 30.