precedent which includes it; it was the necessary result of the then state of things, and the Apostles, it is acknowledged, could not have extended their communion beyond the limits of that rite, without incorporating insincere professors. But if this reason is sufficient to account for it, it is unphilosophical and unreasonable to seek for another. The supposed inherent and inseparable connexion betwixt the two positive institutes, is another, and a totally different one, which is sufficiently excluded by the preceding reasoning.

We presume it will not be doubted that Scripture precedent is founded on wisdom, that it is not arbitrary and capricious. It would betray great irreverence to suppose that men acting under divine inspiration, were not in every branch of their official conduct, especially in whatever related to the regulation and government of the church, moved by the strongest reasons. Hence the inquiry why they acted as they did is essential to a rational investigation into the force and authority of Scripture precedent. Their proceedings were regulated by their judgement, or rather by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit which enlightened their minds, and directed their movements. If the reason for rejecting unbaptized persons in the primitive age applies to the case of Pædobaptists, the argument for strict communion derived from the practice of the Apostles, is unanswerable. But if the cases are totally dissimilar; if our opponents can assign no such reason for excluding their Christian brethren, as might justly have been urged against the admission of the unbaptized in the times of the Apostles, the argument is totally inconclusive.

It is decided by the express declaration of our Lord, that he who refuses obedience to any part of his will is not a Christian. "Then," saith he, "are ye my disciples if ye do whatsoever I have commanded you." But while there was no diversity of opinion on the subject, the voluntary omission of the baptismal ceremony could arise from nothing but a contumacious contempt. of a divine precept, of which no sincere Christian could be guilty. Here then we discover a sufficient reason for the matter of fact urged by our opponents, without supposing an intrinsic or invariable connexion betwixt the two ordinances. The principle of open communion would have compelled us to act precisely in the same manner as the Apostles did, had we been placed in their circumstances. How vain then the attempt to overthrow that principle, by appealing to a precedent which is its legitimate and necessary consequence; and how unreasonable the demand which urges us to treat two cases as exactly similar, of which our opponents, equally with ourselves, are compelled to form the most opposite judgement. Let the advocates of restricted communion express

the same opinion of the state and character of those whom they now regard as unbaptized, which we are certain they would feel no scruple in avowing with respect to such as had refused submission to that ordinance in primitive times, and we shall deplore their blindness and bigotry, but shall acknowledge they reason consistently from their own premises. But we will never submit to identify two cases which agree in nothing but the omission of an external rite, while that omission arises from causes the most dissimilar, and is combined with characters the most contrary. We will not conclude because the Apostles could not bear with those that were evil, they would have refused to tolerate the good; or that they would have comprehended under the same censure, the contumacious opposer of their doctrines, and the myriads of holy men, whose only crime consists in mistaking their meaning in one particular.

The remarks we have already made will be deemed, we trust, a sufficient answer to the triumphant question of Mr. Kinghorn. "How is it," he asks, "that with the same rule for the guidance of the church, the ancient Christians could not receive a person to communion without baptism, if the modern both can, and ought to receive him?" ("Baptism a Term of Communion." p. 29.) The answer is obvious. If the ancient Christians had received a person without baptism, they would have received a false professor; but when we at present receive one whom we judge to be in a similar predicament, we receive a sincere, though mistaken, brother; we receive him who is of that description of Christians whom we are commanded to receive.

If it still be contended that the two cases are so parallel that the proceedings of the Apostles in this particular are binding as a law, we would once more ask such as adopt this plea, whether they themselves form the same judgement of the present Pædobaptists as the Apostles would have entertained of such as continued unbaptized in their day. If they reply in the affirmative, they must consider them as insincere, hypocritical professors. If they answer in the negative, since by their own confession they look upon the persons whom they exclude in a different light from that in which the party excluded by the Apostles was considered, what becomes of the identity of the two cases; and what greater right have they to think differently of the state of the unbaptized from what the Apostles thought, than we have for treating them differently. They are clamorous in their charge against us of wilful deviation from apostolic precedents. But there are precedents of thinking as well as of acting, and it is as much our duty to conform to the sentiments of inspired men as to their actions. The chief use indeed which inspired precedents are of, is to assist

us to ascertain the dictates of inspiration. The conduct of enlightened, much more of inspired men, is founded on sound speculative principles. If the advocates of strict communion urge us with the inquiry-By what authority do you presume to receive a class of persons whom you acknowledge the Apostles would not have received? we reply-By what authority do you presume to deviate from the opinion of the Apostles respecting that same class? Many whom you exclude from your communion, as unbaptized, you acknowledge as Christians, and without hesitation express your confidence of meeting them in glory. Did the Apostles entertain the same judgement respecting such in their day? Were they prepared to recognize them as brethren, and to congratulate them on their eternal prospects, while they repelled them from communion? Would they not without hesitation, have applied to them the language which our Saviour uses, respecting such as refused to be baptized by John, whom he affirms to have "rejected the counsel of God against themselves?"

These questions admit but of one answer. Here then is a palpable disagreement between the sentiments of our opponents and those of the Apostles, on the subject of the unbaptized; the Apostles would have both rejected and condemned them; they reject them as members, and embrace them as brethren. Were they called upon to defend themselves from the charge of contradicting the Apostles, they would begin to distinguish betwixt the two cases, and urge the different circumstances which accompany the omission of the same ceremony now, from what must be supposed to have accompanied it in the times of the Apostles; in other words, they would attempt to shew that a new case has arisen, which necessitates them to form a correspondent judgement.They assume the same liberty with ourselves of thinking differently of the state of the many who continue unbaptized in the present day, from what they are persuaded the Apostles would have thought of such as had remained in that situation in theirs; and yet with strange inconsistency accuse us of a deviation from a divine precedent in not treating them both in the same manner, forgetting that if the cases are parallel, they themselves are guilty of an avowed and palpable contradiction to the sentiments of the Apostles.

When men differ in their views of one and the same object, it will not be denied that they contradict each other. We offer them the alternative, either to deny, or to affirm, that to be unbaptized at present is in a moral view a very distinct thing, and involves very different consequences, from being in that predicament in the time of the Apostles. If they deny it, they stand selfconvicted of contradicting the sentiments of inspiration, by speak

ing of that class of persons as genuine Christians, whom they cannot but acknowledge the Apostles would have condemned. If they adopt the affirmative, our practice by their own confession is not opposed to apostolic precedent, because that precedent respects a different thing.

They not only depart from the precedent of the Apostles, in the judgement they form of the unbaptized, but in every other branch of their conduct, with the exception of the act of communion. On all other occasions they treat as brethren, and frequently, and that much to their honor, cultivate an intimate friendship with persons whom they deem to be destitute of that rite, the omission of which in the apostolic age, would have incurred the sentence of wilful impiety and disobedience. What, we ask, is more opposite to primitive precedent, than the practice of including the same persons within the obligations of Christian love and friendship, whom they prohibit from communion; of inviting them into the pulpit, and repelling them from the table; uniting with them in the most retired and elevated exercises of devotion, and excluding them from the church? It is scarcely in the power of imagination to feign a species of conduct more diametrically opposite to all the examples of Scripture; and when they have reconciled these, and many similar usages, with the practice of the primitive age, they will have supplied us with a sufficient apology for our pretended deviation from the same standard.

It will probably be thought enough has been already said to demonstrate the futility of the argument founded on original precedent; but as this is considered by our opponents in general, as well as by Mr. Kinghorn in particular, as the main prop of their cause, we must be permitted to detain the reader a little longer, while we enter on a closer examination of his reasoning.

In order to shew that baptism is a necessary term of communion, he labors hard to prove that it is a term of profession. "It is obvious," he says, "that their baptism (that of believers) was the term of professing their faith, by the special appointment of the Lord himself." To the same purpose, he afterwards adds, "the fact still exists that it pleased the Lord to make a visible and ritual observance, the appointed evidence of our believing on him. If obedience to a rite 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." Recurring to the same topic, he observes, "Whatever may be the conditions of salvation, a plain question here occurs, which is, -Ought the terms of Christian communion to be different from those of Christian profession? The only answer which one

would think could be given to this question would be, no; Christian communion must require whatever the Lord required as a mark of Christian profession."

It is hoped the reader will excuse my accumulating quotations to the same purport, which would have been avoided, were it not evident that the writer considered this as his strong hold, to which he repairs with a confidence which bespeaks his conviction of its being impregnable. We will venture, however, to come close to these frowning battlements; we will make trial of their strength, that it may be seen whether their power of resistance is equal to their formidable aspect. We freely acknowledge that if the principle can be established that baptism is invariably essential to a Christian profession, the cause we are pleading must be abandoned, being confident that a true profession of the Christian religion is inseparable from church communion.

Previous to entering on this discussion, it will be necessary to premise that the words profession and confession, together with their correlates, are usually denoted by one and the same word in the original, and that they are evidently used by the authors of the received translation as synonymous.* Hence whatever is affirmed in the New Testament respecting the confession of Christ, or of his sayings, may without hesitation be considered as predicated of a profession; since whatever difference may subsist in the popular meaning of the words, whenever they occur in Scripture, they are merely different renderings of the same term.†

Now that the profession of Christ is an indispensable term of salvation, is so undeniably evident from the New Testament, that to attempt to prove it, seems like an insult on the understanding of the reader. I must crave his indulgence, however, for recalling to his recollection a very few passages, which will set the matter beyond dispute. "Whoever," said our Lord, "shall confess (or profess) my name before men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven: and whoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven."

* The word in the original is ouo2oyia, derived from ouooyew, a verb of the same import.

See Matthew 10: 32. Luke 12: 8. Matthew 7:23. John 9: 22. John 12:42. Acts 23:8. Acts 24: 14. Romans 10: 9, 10. 1 John 4: 15. 2 John 7. Rev. 3: 5. 1 Timothy 6: 13. Tyv zażyν quohoyiar, a good profession. English Translation.-Heb. 3: 1. The oμodovias ruen, of our profession, E. T.-Heb. 4: 14. της ομολογίας ημων, our profession, Ε. Τ.--Heb. 10: 23. την ομολογίαν της ελaidos azhurn, the profession of our faith without wavering.--Matthew 7: 23. TOTE Quohoyra autois, then will I profess unto them.-In each of the preceding passages the same word, under different inflections, is employed, and they contain all the passages which relate to the absolute necessity of a relig ious profession.