already conceded so much to the members of other denominations, that if they would preserve the least show of consistency, they must either concede more, or withdraw what they have granted. They have most unreasonably and capriciously stopped, and fixed their encampment where no mortal before ever thought of staying for a moment. They have already made such near approaches to the great body of those whom we deem unbaptized, as places them at an unmeasurable distance from the letter of the apostolic precedent, though in perfect harmony with its spirit; while they preposterously cling to that letter, as the reason for refusing to go an inch farther. They remain immoveable (to change the figure) not because they rest on any solid basis, but because they are suspended betwixt the love of the brethren, and the remains of intolerance; just as Mahomet's tomb is said to hang betwixt two magnets of equal powers, placed in opposite directions.

The Scottish Baptists (as I have been informed) act consistently. Conceiving with Mr. Kinghorn that immersion on a profession of faith, is a necessary introduction to the Christian profession, they uniformly abstain from a participation in sacred offices with the members of other societies, and without pretending to judge of their final state, treat them on every occasion as men, whose religious pretensions are doubtful. Whoever considers the import of the following passage, will be surprised Mr. Kinghorn should feel any hesitation in adopting the same system. "It is granted," says our author, "that baptism is not expressly inculcated as a preparative to the Lord's supper; neither is it inculcated as a preparative to any thing else. But the first act of Christian obedience, is of course succeeded by the rest; and the required acknowledgement of our faith in Christ, in the nature of things, ought to precede the enjoyment of the privileges which arise from faith." (Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 30.)

By the first act of Christian obedience, he unquestionably intends the reception of baptism; and the meaning of the sentence turns entirely on the word first. He designs to assert, that such is the prescribed order of religious actions, that unless that ordinance is first attended to, every other performance is invalid; that whatever it may be in itself, not occupying its proper place, it cannot lay claim to the character of a duty. We should be extremely concerned at imposing a false construction on his words; but if this is not his meaning, we despair of discovering it. But if our interpretation is just, unless we can conceive of a religion availing for eternal life, in the total absence of duties, it is equivalent to asserting, that none besides our denomination possess true religion. He expressly tells us every other duty must succeed,

that is, must come after baptism, which with respect to Pædobaptists, is impossible on our principles; whence it necessarily follows, that while they retain their sentiments, they are disqualified for the performance of duty. The only conceivable method of evading this conclusion, is to make a distinction, and to affirm that though baptism ought, agreeably to the institution of Christ, to precede the other branches of religion, yet that when it is omitted from a misconception or mistake, the omission is not of such magnitude as to prevent their being accepted. But should our author explain himself in this manner, he will not only coincide with us, but his argument for strict communion is relinquished. Having acknowledged that "the connexion between baptism and the Lord's supper is not more distinctly marked in Scripture, than between that ordinance and any other duty," (Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 30.) were he now to make a distinction in favor of the sacrament, and confine their disqualification to that particular, he would be guilty of an express contradiction. Nor are his words susceptible of such an interpretation. The assertion he makes is in the form of a general proposition; which is that all the duties of Christianity must succeed baptism, in contradiction to going before it; and the disqualification for the Lord's supper, which he represents the Pædobaptists as lying under, is inferred solely from the consideration of its constituting a part of those duties.

Thus much for the duties; let us next hear what he says of the privileges of Christianity. Baptism, which he styles "the required acknowledgement of our faith in Christ," he tells us, "ought to precede the enjoyment of the privileges which arise from faith." They ought to precede, but do they in fact? Is it his opinion that all other sects, as a punishment for their disobedience in one particular, are left destitute of the spiritual immunities which flow from faith? If it is not, it behoves him to reflect on the presumption of such a mode of speaking, which is little less than arraigning the wisdom of the great Head of the Church, who dispenses his favors in a manner so different from that which he ventures to prescribe. Should he reply, that Jesus Christ, as a Sovereign, is at liberty to act as he pleases, but that we are under an obligation of adhering to the settled order of his house; it is easy to perceive that this evasion is neither consistent with truth, nor sufficient to establish his consistency with himself. Are not his partizans in the daily habit of exhibiting towards the members of other societies, tokens of their fraternal regard, of inviting them to every branch of Christian fellowship, short of admission to the sacrament? Will they deny that the communion of saints, even in the absence of that institution, is an important privilege?

In the next place, to represent the bestowment of spiritual blessings on the great body of the faithful, through the lapse of fifteen centuries, whose salvability, it is confessed, is capable of demonstration from Scripture; to speak of this, as an extraordinary and extra-judicial procedure, is to confound the most obvious distinctions.

The terms of salvation, which are radically faith and repentance, are clearly propounded in the word of God; and surely it will not be doubted that multitudes out of the pale of our sect, have exhibited such proofs of their possessing these qualifications, that their enjoyment of the divine favor is not to be ascribed to a secret economy, similar to what had been conjectured by some to extend to virtuous Pagans. Where Revelation is silent, it becomes us to copy its reserve; but in the present instance, so far is this from being the case, that few propositions are more susceptible of proof from that quarter, than that an error with respect to a positive rite is not fatal; whence the necessary inference is, that the bestowment of His favors on such as labor under that imperfection, is a known part of His conduct; that it is not only His intention so to act, but that he has taken effectual care to inform us of it; not, we presume, for the purpose of enabling us to contradict. it, but as a pattern for our humble imitation.

When the Holy Ghost fell upon the Gentiles assembled in the house of Cornelius, though Peter had a short time before doubted the lawfulness even of eating with them, he considered it as such a seal of the divine approbation, that he felt no hesitation in immediately admitting them to all the privileges of the church. He did not presume (with reverence be it spoken) to be stricter or more orderly than God. "Forasmuch," said he, "as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who believed, who was I that I should withstand God?" a question which we presume to recommend to the serious consideration of Mr. Kinghorn and his associates. The principle on which he justified his conduct is plainly this, that when it is once ascertained that an individual is the object of divine acceptance, it would be impious to withhold from him any religious privilege. Until it be shewn that it was not the principle on which he rested his defence, or that the practice of strict communion is consistent with it, we shall feel ourselves compelled to discard with just detestation, a sytem of action which St. Peter contemplated with horror, as withstanding God; and when I consider it in this just and awful light, I feel no hesitation in avowing my conviction that it is replete with worse consequences, and is far more offensive to God, than that corruption of a Christian ordinance, to which it is opposed. The latter affects the exterior only of our holy religion, the former its vitals;

where it inflicts a wound on the very heart of charity, and puts the prospect of union among Christians to an interminable distance.

This new doctrine, that the tenure by which religious privileges are held, is appropriated to the members of one inconsiderable sect, must strike the serious reader with astonishment. Are we in reality the only persons who possess an interest in the common salvation? If we are not, by what title do others possess it? Certainly not in consequence of their faith, for we are expressly taught by this writer, that baptism must precede the enjoyment of the privileges which arise from faith; in which however he expressly contradicts himself, for he assures us that none are fit subjects of baptism, who are not previously believers in Christ, and justified in the sight of God by their faith. He must either say then, that they lose their justification, unless they comply with that ordinance; or present us with the portentous doctrine of a justification which stands alone, a widowed and barren justification, productive of no advantage to its possessor.

Let it also be seriously considered, whether the positions we have been examining, do not coincide with the doctrine of the opus operatum, the opprobrium of the Romish church. But as some of my readers may not be acquainted with the meaning of these terms, it is proper to remark, that the church of Rome attributes the highest spiritual benefits to certain corporeal actions, or ceremonies, independent of the character and disposition of the performer. For example, she believes that the ceremony of baptism secures to the unconscious infant by its intrinsic efficacy the infusion of regenerating grace, without regard to the intention, or disposition of the parties concerned; and that the element of bread in the sacrament, operates in the same manner in procuring the pardon, and augmenting the grace of the communicant. Hence the members of that church lay little stress on the exercise of faith, and the cultivation of holy dispositions, compared to the dependance they place on "bodily exercise," on masses, penances, auricular confessions, and a multitude of external observances, which form the substance of their religion. Consistent Protestants on the contrary, while they conscientiously attend to every positive institute, according to the measure of their light, look upon the few and simple ceremonies of the gospel, as incapable of affording the smallest benefit, apart from the dispositions and intentions with which they are performed; agreeably to the doctrine of our Saviour, who tells us, that "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in spirit and in truth." To expatiate on the incalculable mischiefs which have arisen from this doctrine, is foreign to our purpose; suffice it to remark, that it is held in just detestation by all enlightened Christians.

Our business is to show the coincidence of Mr. Kinghorn's principles, with that most dangerous and exploded tenet. He contends that the mere absence of a ceremony, or if you please, an incorrect manner of performing it, is of itself sufficient, exclusive of every other consideration, to incur the forfeiture of Christian privileges; of the privileges in general which arise from faith. It is not, according to him, merely the forfeiture of a title to the Eucharist which it involves; that he informs us is not more affected by it than any other privilege: it is the universal privation of Christian immunities which is the immediate consequence of that omission; and as he acknowledges that many to whom it attaches are regenerated, they must consequently be endowed with right dispositions. For what is that renovation of mind which can exist without them? But if such as are possessed of these in the most eminent degree, which he acknowledges is the case with some Pædobaptists, are yet debarred from spiritual privileges, wherein does this differ from ascribing that efficacy to an external rite, which is supposed in the doctrine of the opus operatum; and if those who have faith are not entitled to the benefits which result from it, because a certain ceremony is wanting, how is it possible to ascribe more to that ceremony ?

Whatever degree of prejudice or inattention we may be disposed to impute to some of the advocates of infant baptism, it would be the highest injustice to comprehend them all, under the same censure. There are those no doubt, who, without adopting our views, have exercised as much thought, and exerted as much impartiality on the subject, as our observation authorizes us to expect from the brighest specimens of human nature; nay, this author admits that "it is possible they may be some of the most exalted characters in point of piety." But it surely cannot be doubted that they who merit this encomium, are as conscientious in their performance of infant, as we in the administration of adult baptism; and as they are, by the very supposition, actuated by dispositions exactly the same, the pure intention of pleasing and glorifying God; if we still conceive them deprived of the privileges which we possess, the difference must be ascribed merely to a ceremony, and the opus operatum returns in its full force. This however is too faint a statement. It returns in a form more aggravated; for the Papist only contends for a mysterious union betwixt the outward rite and the inward grace, to which the regenerating influence is immediately ascribed, and from which it is considered as inseparable; whereas on the present hypothesis, regeneration and faith are supposed to exist in the absence of the ceremony, but to be deprived of their prerogatives. The system of the Papist exalts the ritual part of religion to an unwarrantable height, without