never took this direction before?" Are they any thing more than two different modes of expressing the same proposition? To say, then, that the argument in question assumes for its basis "that the human mind never took this direction before," is to say that it assumes to itself a method of reasoning most repugnant to the rules of logic, however familiar with this writer.

He feels very indignant at my affirming that the right of excluding persons of unquestionable worth and piety was never claimed by antiquity. In opposition to this, he adduces the example of Cyprian, who insisted on the rebaptization of hereties and schismatics, previous to their reception into the body of the faithful. If it be considered, however, in what light heretics and schismatics were contemplated by that celebrated father, the objection vanishes; since no doubt can be entertained, that their preceding profession of christianity was considered by him as a mere nullity, their faith fundamentally erroneous, the privileges they supposed themselves to possess, a vain illusion, and the entire system of their religion, an abomination in the sight of God. We find him every where exerting his utmost powers of language, which were by no means inconsiderable, in stigmatizing their character, and degrading their pretensions. Having little taste for quotation, the following passages may suffice to convince the reader, under what opprobrious colours he was

accustomed to represent that description of professors. It is proper just to premise, that, on their manifesting a disposition to return to the catholic church, while Cyprian contended for the necessity of their being rebaptized before they were admitted, his opponent Stephen insisted on the sufficiency of recantation, accompanied with the imposition of hands, without reiterating a rite, which he concluded could not be repeated without profanation. The latter opinion, in spite of the high authority of the African father, being confirmed by the council of Nice, became the received doctrine of the church, and the opposite tenet was finally denounced as heresy. But to return to Cyprian :-"We," said he, "affirm," referring to the Novatians, who were esteemed schismatics, "that those who come to us are not rebaptized, but baptized. For neither do they receive any thing, where there is nothing; but they come to us, that they may receive here, where all grace and truth is." After stigmatizing the baptism of schismatics, as "a filthy and profane dipping," he complains, that certain of his colleagues "did not consider that it was written, he who is baptized by the dead, what profit does he derive from his washing? But it is manifest, that they who are not in the church are numbered amongst the dead,

*Cypriani Epistolæ, p. 210. Oxonii, anno 1682.
+ Ibid. p. 194.

and cannot possibly be quickened by him who is not alive; since there is one only church, which having obtained the grace of eternal life, both lives for ever, and quickens the people of God."*

Speaking of heretics, he makes a distinction betwixt such as, having been members of the catholic church, fell into heresy for a time, but were afterwards recovered, and such as sprang originally from them. With respect to the latter, he says, "If he who comes from the heretics has not been before baptized in the church, but comes entirely alien and profane, he is to be baptized, that he may become a sheep, because the only holy water which can make sheep is in the church.” In another epistle, we find him reasoning in the following manner:-"The very interrogation," he says, "which takes place in baptism, bears witness to the truth. Dost thou believe in eternal life, and the remission of sins by the holy church? We mean by it, that the remission of sins is given only in the church; but, amongst heretics, where the church is not, sins cannot be remitted. Let them therefore who plead for heretics, (that is, for their admission into the church without rebaptizing,) either alter the interrogation, or vindicate the truth; unless they are disposed to give the appellation of the church to those whom they assert to possess true baptism."

*

Cypriani Epistolæ, p. 194.

+ Ibid.

His epistles are full of similar sentiments. What resemblance, let me ask, are they perceived to bear to the principles on which strict communion is founded; or who will be so absurd as to affirm that the example of Cyprian, in rejecting the communion of persons whom he esteemed spiritually dead, and incapacitated for receiving the remission of sins, affords the least countenance for treating in a similar manner, such as are acknowledged to possess the most eminent and exalted piety? "True," Mr. Kinghorn replies, "but when they requested admission into the catholic orthodox church, they had ceased to be heretics or schismatics, since they left the societies where heresy was professed, acknowledged their former error, and requested to be numbered with the orthodox. Notwithstanding this, however, Cyprian insisted on their being rebaptized."* But why did he insist upon it? He tells us himself, it was because they had received nothing, they were baptized by the dead;" they wanted "that holy water peculiar to the church, which alone can vivify;" and their pretended baptism, or, to use his own words, "their profane dipping," was necessarily unaccompanied with the remission of sins. short, however well they might be disposed, and prepared, on the application of due means, for thè reception of the highest benefits, they were, as

VOL. I.

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 152.

G G

In

yet, in his estimation, in a state of unregeneracy. Hence the reader may judge of the pertinence and correctness of the subsequent remark:-"Their interest in the blessings of the christian covenant," says Mr. Kinghorn, "was not doubted, yet their right to the Lord's supper was doubted, because the validity of their baptism was questioned."* "Their interest in the blessings of the covenant was not doubted," although Cyprian declares his conviction, that they had received nothing, that their baptism was a nullity, that they wanted the only water which could quicken, and that, instead of it, they had received only a "sordid and profane dipping, which could not possibly be accompanied with the remission of sins."

The reader will be at no loss to determine which of us is justly chargeable with " taking the present state of opinion, and of applying it to former ages;" when he perceives that my opponent is so possessed with these ideas, as to be utterly incapable of contemplating the sentiments of Cyprian through the right medium. He entirely forgets the importance he attached to baptism as a regenerating ordinance; and his denial, that the persons of whom he was treating had received it; which, combined together, must necessarily have placed them, in his estimation, at the utmost remove from the situation in which pious padobaptists are at present considered.

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 154.